McNair

[Four]

so relevant legally, but since she killed herself, it's pretty much moot, yes?

pot stays in your system for a while, so it is entirely possible she wasn't high at the time anyways.

 

[Big Dakota]

She bought the gun right after the DUI. She knew Steve was unhappy. She thought he was doing another woman. Her life wasn't going the way she wanted it too. She felt like she was gonna get the boot after causing Steve trouble with her DUI. She told friens she was gonna end it. This might be called insanity, but to me it was 100% premeditated. I don't see how here smoking pot or him drinking has much do do with squat after the fact. But i guess the facts have to be made public and news agencies have the obligation to report those facts. I just don't think it means a thing at this point.

 

[peplaw06]

so relevant legally, but since she killed herself, it's pretty much moot, yes?

pot stays in your system for a while, so it is entirely possible she wasn't high at the time anyways.

I don't see why it's moot...

Two people are dead. People always want to know circumstances behind someone's death, especially celebrities. They're going to release this kind of stuff on Michael Jackson too.

It's not like we say, oh so and so is dead, it doesn't really matter how they died since we can't bring em back or can't hold them criminally liable.

 

[Four]

I don't see why it's moot...

Two people are dead. People always want to know circumstances behind someone's death, especially celebrities. They're going to release this kind of stuff on Michael Jackson too.

It's not like we say, oh so and so is dead, it doesn't really matter how they died since we can't bring em back or can't hold them criminally liable.

while I appreciate where you are coming from as a lawyer, people don't smoke pot then kill people as a result.

if anything they do it to chill out. So I would say she killed him in spite of being on pot, not the other way around.

but this isn't a debate I am inclined to have, and certainly not with a lawyer.

 

[peplaw06]

while I appreciate where you are coming from as a lawyer, people don't smoke pot then kill people as a result.

if anything they do it to chill out. So I would say she killed him in spite of being on pot, not the other way around.

but this isn't a debate I am inclined to have, and certainly not with a lawyer.

Do you deny that pot is a mind-altering substance? Yes or no.... That is all that matters in determining whether it's relevant.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I don't see why it's moot...

Two people are dead. People always want to know circumstances behind someone's death, especially celebrities. They're going to release this kind of stuff on Michael Jackson too.

It's not like we say, oh so and so is dead, it doesn't really matter how they died since we can't bring em back or can't hold them criminally liable.

if this chick didn't foresee any problems in the relationship, then McNair would probably still be alive

high or not

 

[Biggems]

well call me an ***, but i am sick of all this hero worship and putting the guy on a pedestal.....he was cheating on his wife with the woman who eventually killed him. now his 4 sons have no dad, all cause he couldnt be faithful.

 

[Biggems]

She bought the gun right after the DUI. She knew Steve was unhappy. She thought he was doing another woman. Her life wasn't going the way she wanted it too. She felt like she was gonna get the boot after causing Steve trouble with her DUI. She told friens she was gonna end it. This might be called insanity, but to me it was 100% premeditated. I don't see how here smoking pot or him drinking has much do do with squat after the fact. But i guess the facts have to be made public and news agencies have the obligation to report those facts. I just don't think it means a thing at this point.

well he was doing another woman, HIS WIFE

 

[Biggems]

It's definitely relevant that she had marijuana in her system.... It's really only relevant that McNair was drunk if there was some speculation that they got into it or something, but I haven't heard anything like that reported. Until then, I agree it is irrelevant that he was drunk. Last I heard it was still legal to be drunk at home.

Vinnie Jones RULES

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Not that I think that smoking pot is what made her kill him, I doubt that very much actually as it all seems quite predetermined, but it's possible that she could have needed to calm her nerves in order to go through with it.

I mean pot, from what I understand, helps chill you out, calm you and such, and maybe she just needed something to chill her out so she could go through with what she had planned all along.

I could see how that would be some what relevant to her but I don't think the pot had any bearing on rather it was premediated or not. It seems, from all the information provided, that it was pretty clear she was planning something like this before it actually happened.

 

[SkinsFan28]

2 minor reasons that it is relevant, 1 real - the other hypothetical

1 it means his reactions were dulled and he might not have been able to react even awake.

2. hypothetical - if she got him drunk, too pass out, it may have been pre-meditated.

but since they are both dead, it really is just for sensationalism. Now if they had found so stronger drugs, or true evidence that she doped him up, then maybe it is a little different.

 

[Vtwin]

Do you deny that pot is a mind-altering substance? Yes or no.... That is all that matters in determining whether it's relevant.

LOL

Would the fact that a person had an expresso right before they killed someone be relevant?

I suppose the fact that someone tested positive for pot would be relevant at trial but ONLY because your typical prosecutor will make it relevant because the end game for him/her is getting a conviction rather then participating in a fair trial and discovering the truth.

So it may be relevant but it should not be in most circumstances.

 

[peplaw06]

LOL

Would the fact that a person had an expresso right before they killed someone be relevant?

Depends.

Regardless, pot /= espresso. Sorry.

I suppose the fact that someone tested positive for pot would be relevant at trial but ONLY because your typical prosecutor will make it relevant because the end game for him/her is getting a conviction rather then participating in a fair trial and discovering the truth.

So you agree it's relevant. K thx.

So it may be relevant but it should not be in most circumstances.

Huh?

 

[Vtwin]

Depends.

Regardless, pot /= espresso. Sorry.

Does expresso (caffeine) alter your "mind" in any way? Of course it does. Why do you put pot on a higher scale then caffeine? Just because man made one of them illegal?

So you agree it's relevant. K thx.

LOL. You sure ARE a lawyer. Yes it is relevant but only because someone more interested in getting a conviction then in being fair and getting to the truth makes it relevant.

Do you think that is a good thing?

Huh?

See above.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Does expresso (caffeine) alter your "mind" in any way? Of course it does. Why do you put pot on a higher scale then caffeine? Just because man made one of them illegal?



LOL. You sure ARE a lawyer. Yes it is relevant but only because someone more interested in getting a conviction then in being fair and getting to the truth makes it relevant.

Do you think that is a good thing?



See above.

actually, I think the defendent would be more likely to try to make it relevant

but back to the main issue of relevancy, pot doesn't make you shoot people, but if it's already in your head, you're gonna do it anyways

but then again, alot of people wish harm on others, smoke pot, and don't carry out their wishes

 

[peplaw06]

Does expresso (caffeine) alter your "mind" in any way? Of course it does. Why do you put pot on a higher scale then caffeine? Just because man made one of them illegal?

Everyone puts pot on a higher scale than caffeine. Don't be daft.

LOL. You sure ARE a lawyer. Yes it is relevant but only because someone more interested in getting a conviction then in being fair and getting to the truth makes it relevant.

Do you think that is a good thing?

Who is looking for a conviction here?

The relevancy of things doesn't change depending on whether you're in court or not. If it's relevant to an investigation, then it's going to be relevant to anyone wanting information.

 

[peplaw06]

actually, I think the defendent would be more likely to try to make it relevant

but back to the main issue of relevancy, pot doesn't make you shoot people, but if it's already in your head, you're gonna do it anyways

but then again, alot of people wish harm on others, smoke pot, and don't carry out their wishes

Good call.

 

[Vtwin]

Everyone puts pot on a higher scale than caffeine. Don't be daft.

Who is looking for a conviction here?

The relevancy of things doesn't change depending on whether you're in court or not. If it's relevant to an investigation, then it's going to be relevant to anyone wanting information.

Mind altering is mind altering. Nothing daft about the comparison. And no, not everyone puts it on a higher scale. I'm positive pot smokers are, as a rule, far more mellow then speed freaks. I know, I know, caffeine is not meth but speed is speed. Caffeine is also more addicting then pot and one suffers more withdrawl sypmtoms from caffeine then pot.

I can't believe you are trying to tell me that attorneys don't determine the "relevancy" of what they choose to bring to court based on the affect it will have on the outcome they desire.

Now THAT is daft.

 

[peplaw06]

Mind altering is mind altering. Nothing daft about the comparison. And no, not everyone puts it on a higher scale. I'm positive pot smokers are, as a rule, far more mellow then speed freaks. I know, I know, caffeine is not meth but speed is speed. Caffeine is also more addicting then pot and one suffers more withdrawl sypmtoms from caffeine then pot.

So you think you get the same mind altering affects from a shot of espresso than smoking a joint? Of course not. That's why it's put on a higher scale... by yes, EVERYONE. I mean you said it yourself, man made its use illegal.

I can't believe you are trying to tell me that attorneys don't determine the "relevancy" of what they choose to bring to court based on the affect it will have on the outcome they desire.

Now THAT is daft.

If it's relevant, it's relevant. Some things may be more important than others, but it doesn't mean the less important pieces or information are irrelevant.

 

[Vtwin]

So you think you get the same mind altering affects from a shot of espresso than smoking a joint? Of course not. That's why it's put on a higher scale... by yes, EVERYONE. I mean you said it yourself, man made its use illegal.

If it's relevant, it's relevant. Some things may be more important than others, but it doesn't mean the less important pieces or information are irrelevant.

No, I don't think that. Just like you don't get the same mind altering affects from pot and alcohol. Or pot and cocaine. Or Alcohol and cocaine. Or Meth and heroin. etc etc etc.

And again, you are wrong. Nowhere near "everybody" puts in on a higher scale. I'll agree that many, mostly ill informed by by a century of scary propaganda may put in on a higher scale but I bet in some circles "everybody" would disagree completely.

You are either choosing to ignore or are missing my point on relevancy. I don't know what type of law you practice but if you go to trial you surely have argued to supress or defending against the argument to supress what is, to an impartial observer, a relevant piece of evidence because of some technical issue. Point being, relevancy is in the eye of the attorney and can be based less on the truth then on the desired outcome.

As far as man making illegal so it must be on a higher scale goes...

LOL

Don't make me list the dozens if not hundreds of examples of how that doesn't add up in the end.