There are only two shows I watch on Fox any more - "The Five" and "Tucker Carlson". I stopped watching anything else on it the instant, the very minute, that I saw Neil Cavuto cut Kaley McEnerny off mid-word when she was still White House Press secretary but evidently saying something he apparently disagreed with. I expect that sort of behavior from Marxists, who routinely make arguments that cannot stand up to scrutiny and so have to squelch dissent, but I DO NOT expect that from anyone who is actually confident of their position. Neil Cavuto showed his true colors that day, and Fox lost a viewer for most of their shows, especially his.
I almost turned "The Five" off yesterday, and definitely cringed, when Jeanine Pirro was discussing the Rittenhouse case, and mentioned "the first murder" and "the second murder". Ms. Pirro is allegedly a former lawyer and judge, and should be VERY well aware of the prejudicial nature of such statements. All killings of humans by humans are "homicides", legally speaking. "Homicide" is the killing of one human being by another, but without prejudice as to cause. Homicide is further broken down into "manslaughter", "murder", and "justifiable homicide" depending on the cause of it.
"Murder is specifically legally defined as "unjustifiable homicide" - a killing without a justifiable cause. For Ms. Pirro to declare the killings as "murder" is prejudicial as to cause, and presupposes that there was no justification for it, when all the evidence indicates that there was justification. It presumes before the fact that the case has already been determined, when it has not.
As a former judge and lawyer, she should be well aware of that. I'm not a lawyer, but even I know that from my Criminal Justice and Police training.
.
I almost turned "The Five" off yesterday, and definitely cringed, when Jeanine Pirro was discussing the Rittenhouse case, and mentioned "the first murder" and "the second murder". Ms. Pirro is allegedly a former lawyer and judge, and should be VERY well aware of the prejudicial nature of such statements. All killings of humans by humans are "homicides", legally speaking. "Homicide" is the killing of one human being by another, but without prejudice as to cause. Homicide is further broken down into "manslaughter", "murder", and "justifiable homicide" depending on the cause of it.
"Murder is specifically legally defined as "unjustifiable homicide" - a killing without a justifiable cause. For Ms. Pirro to declare the killings as "murder" is prejudicial as to cause, and presupposes that there was no justification for it, when all the evidence indicates that there was justification. It presumes before the fact that the case has already been determined, when it has not.
As a former judge and lawyer, she should be well aware of that. I'm not a lawyer, but even I know that from my Criminal Justice and Police training.
.
Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king.
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’
Said Aristippus, ‘If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.’ Said Diogenes, ‘Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.’