New NASA Ad

[sparks19]

Sorry folks.....not agreeing here.
The punishment is way overboard to fit such a small deal crime.
Wom

Well than we will just have to agree to disagree

[critter crazy]

Well than we will just have to agree to disagree

Exactly!!

[sparks19]

Exactly!!

Although I don't see how this is just a small deal crime. BUT then again ... I am of the frame of mind that intention is enough proof for me. sorry but people don't just drive around 900 miles with potentially deadly weapons in their cars for fun and just HAPPEN to run into a person they have a grudge against and spray them in the face. That to me shows there was some sort of ill intent there. Luckily the other woman was able to flee.... I might be willing to concede that attempted murder might not fly (although they feel strongly enough to believe it will) but DEFINATELY attempted kidnapping at the least. There is no excuse for that kind of thing.... driving over 900 miles shows a frightening amount of commitment to what she wanted to do.

mentally ill or not... she has shown potential to be quite dangerous... and persistent. I feel bad for her husband and her children. Luckily she didn't turn her delusions on them.

[wombat2u2004]

Oh piffle !!!! ""I am of the frame of mind that intention is enough proof for me. sorry but people don't just drive around 900 miles with potentially deadly weapons in their cars"".
Intention is proof ???? Since when ??? Mens rea has to be proven by a court of law, it cannot EVER be assumed. and as there was no use of those so called weapons, the court would find that very difficult indeed.

And potentially deadly weapons......oh come on.......I carry a tyre lever in my car, that's a potentially dangerous weapon.

Wombat

[sparks19]

Oh piffle !!!! ""I am of the frame of mind that intention is enough proof for me. sorry but people don't just drive around 900 miles with potentially deadly weapons in their cars"".
Intention is proof ???? Since when ??? Mens rea has to be proven by a court of law, it cannot EVER be assumed. and as there was no use of those so called weapons, the court would find that very difficult indeed.

And potentially deadly weapons......oh come on.......I carry a tyre lever in my car, that's a potentially dangerous weapon.

Wombat

Actually she did use one weapon.

Also there were other things in the vehicle. Again all of those things coupled with PERSONAL emails between the girl she was going after and the guy she "didn't have a romantic relationship with" then later found emails from her saying she "loved him". So she not only hacked into their email... which is unlawful.... she assaulted the woman with pepper spray... which if I recall correctly is also illegal to possess (although I do not think it should be personally but should only be used in self defense.) She had many items that suggested kidnapping or worse. She followed this woman until she was alone at her vehicle... wore a disguise.... assaulted her.... luckily the woman was able to flee. There is nothing rational about that... nothing there that tells me her intentions were anything but irrational and potentially dangerous. No just having something in your vehicle may not be intention enough... but put those things together with all the other facts.... and you have a criminal... IMO.

So... no ... while just the mere possession is not enough to suggest foul intent.... those possessions put together with everything else she did.... is plenty for me to put her on trial.

[wombat2u2004]

Well than we will just have to agree to disagree

Well yes....I agree that you disagree...LOL
Wom