Maura Murray

Judged:

2

2

2

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree with your conclusion. I hate to catch someone like frmLE in an error, his facts are usually spot on but what he was saying did not match what I was reading.

Judged:

2

2

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
I'm thinking there is more to the law. Every Tom Dick and Harry would leave their car at the side of the road if they crashed drunk. They would sober up and come back after the fact.

Judged:

1

1

Jenkins wrote:

It's a common known fact most cops actually DON'T know the laws they're sworn to enforce, ask any lawyer & they will confirm this, both defense attorneys and state's attorneys alike. It's actually a problem many prosecutors have with prosecuting cases, the charging officer just doesn't know the law.

Judged:

1

1

BillNH wrote:

What I lack in knowledge of the law I make up for in being able to get through legal-speak fairly well.

Judged:

1

1

1

Snowy wrote:

i wouldn't rush to bag FrmLE. it is, after all, the interpretation and application of the law that matters.
as some have suggested, it is an oversimplification to apply only one standard in the form of a general statement to Maura's suspected actions.
had she not gone missing, the presence of alcohol in combination with yet another vehicular accident would, at the very least, raise the bar for her having to take responsibility for her father's property.

Judged:

1

1

1

BillNH wrote:

<quoted text>
I, for one, was not trying to 'bag' frmLE. I respect his knowledge in matters concerning the law and law enforcement. The law referenced did not support his argument, that was my only point. I thought seeing the post from someone other than Jenkins would at least give him pause to reevaluate his position. The desire to oppose your antagonizer sometimes outweighs all else. If anyone took my agreement that Jenkins was correct on this one tiny matter as "bagging" frmLE, then their interpretation and application of my post was incorrect.

Judged:

1

1

1

BillNH wrote:

The desire to oppose your antagonizer sometimes outweighs all else.

Judged:

1

1

Snowy wrote:

i wouldn't rush to bag FrmLE. it is, after all, the interpretation and application of the law that matters.
as some have suggested, it is an oversimplification to apply only one standard in the form of a general statement to Maura's suspected actions.
had she not gone missing, the presence of alcohol in combination with yet another vehicular accident would, at the very least, raise the bar for her having to take responsibility for her father's property.

Judged:

1

1

1

Pointless Endeavor wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for reminding me with that last sentence, Snowy. FrmLE is correct after all. The damaged Saturn was property of FM at the time of the accident, NOT MM, whom was just the registree.

Judged:

3

3

2

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Bill - its not about opposing your antagonizer it is understanding who he is. Look at your family tree chances are there is a branch with a knot on it. It is your cousin's, cousin's,couin's cousin. Thats Jenkins the tree limb with the knot on it. He's (k)Not right -(k)not now (k)not then (k)not ever. In cases like this I'm understanding of tree prunning and deforrestation.
Like Eddie Mush from a Bronx Tale - any bet he makes Mush always loses, and in this case any argument Jenkins makes its never accurate.
Its what FRMLE said its the "forum jenkins" that is perceived this way. In real life Jenkins could be different, but on this forum Jenkins posts nonsense. Post after post filling in points based off of no real logic. Its not even worth investigating what jenkins says because he is always wrong. Thats what happens when you want to post contrary just to be contrary.

Judged:

3

3

1

Pointless Endeavor wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for reminding me with that last sentence, Snowy. FrmLE is correct after all. The damaged Saturn was property of FM at the time of the accident, NOT MM, whom was just the registree.

Judged:

1

Pointless Endeavor wrote:

<quoted text>
Thanks for reminding me with that last sentence, Snowy. FrmLE is correct after all. The damaged Saturn was property of FM at the time of the accident, NOT MM, whom was just the registree.

Judged:

3

3

3

Zip Tie wrote:

<quoted text>
The car was owned by Fred and registered in His name. Maura's name was not anywhere on the paperwork for the car
Zippy