Colibri gave an explanation for locking my thread. I wanted to get clarification on the board’s policy. It was my understand that when discussions on the other subforums bring up a specific question that it could be brought to GQ. Particularly legal questions that have a very specific yes/no type answer. Keeping the GQ query neutral and then later (if desired) further discussion on the subforum.
It’s an important point because it’s hard to get a clear cut, unbiased answer in an imho thread. Especially one where emotions are running high. I’ve seen quite a few discussions result in a brief GQ question and then the discussion continues in the original thread.
I was careful to pose the question in a neutral way. Wanting to know if a specific legal threshold had been met. Seems like a valid question that Professor Charles Kingsfield would ask James Hart and the other first year law students.
Whether this person should or should not be prosecuted is imho. Meeting a basic legal standard for prosecution doesn’t mean she will be prosecuted. That’s up to the DA after he weighs all the aspects of the case. I understand that type of discussion is speculation and not appropriate in GQ
I anticipated at most two or three replies from the board’s legal eagles and a thank you from me. Nothing more. I simply wanted to know if the person put themselves in possible legal jeopardy for a conspiracy to murder charge.
I did get one helpful reply while away from my computer. Can’t offer any thanks because the thread is locked.
I understand concerns of a debate from imho spreading into GQ. Asking GQ to say who is right and who is wrong would be grossly inappropriate. Much like running to a parent to say who is right or wrong.
That wasn’t the case in my thread. This was newly reported information and I sought clarification if she was in additional legal peril. There is no ongoing debate. The thread gets updated whenever authorities have new information on the prison escape and manhunt.
It seemed to me that you were soliciting opinions. Also, given the limited information available you were bound to get more speculation than solid answers.
I considered moving it to IMHO, but as I said because you already had one thread going on the topic where people could speculate I thought moving it would be redundant.
“What are the elements of that office in that jurisdiction?” is something that can be answered precisely (although there may be multiple and contradictory answers).
“How hard would it be to make this charge stick?” is something that cannot be answered precisely because it would require and analysis based on that law and the provable facts.
Seems like a valid question that Professor Charles Kingsfield would ask James Hart and the other first year law students.