Hee! The ads at the bottom of this page now all have the word “Criminal” in them. Thanks Google. 
I see them as detox and drug testing ads. This google thing is funny.
Any idea why no charges were filed? She ran a stop sign and killed a guy and nothing criminal occurred?
Nope. For public figures, the rule is different. It’s not enough to prove the allegation is false. To win a defamation claim (libel or slander) as a public figure, you must show that the statement was false, AND that the person making the statement knew it was false, or that the person published it with actual malice, not caring if it was false or true.
Bricker, any idea why Laura Welch was not charged with a criminal offense for running a stop sign and causing a wreck that killed someone? Was that normal in Texas back then? Surely a criminal charge is SOP everywhere now, is it not?
Then shut the fuck up.
Well, the purpose of a trial is to determine the facts.
Of course, a criminal trial is weighted heavily in favor of the accused: a jury can believe he probably committed the acts, and yet vote to acquit if the evidence doesn’t rise to the level of “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
But with absolutely no fact-finding process at all, I have no idea how you reach the level of confidence you display. Sure, he was accused, and there are witnesses that would have presumably offered some testimony inimical to his cause. But they never actually testified under oath; more importantly, their stories were never tested by cross-examination. I have no idea precisely what these witnesses would say. It’s possible, from what I know, that the ex-girfriend invented the stalking and got her friends together to accuse him. I simply don’t know. The fact that he was never even charged with the crime means that there was never any sort of official determination that the evidence reached a level of probable cause.
Of course, it could also be that he was guilty as sin.
My point is that no conclusion at all can be reached on the evidence presented. It’s simply not enough for any meaningful comment.
Neurotik corrected my understanding of the criteria earlier. But thank you.
So I am. The difference seems a little subtle to me, but I have no cause to doubt your clarifications. Thanks to you to.
And then we got thinking, reasoning, thoughtful conservatives such as yourself that make even the most wacko leftist seem like Mr. Rogers.
Absolutely not.
A traffic accident in which someone dies does not typically garner criminal charges unless there is some factor of gross recklessness involved. Such gross recklessness may include highly excessive speed, racing, or - most common - impairment as a result of drugs or alcohol. When it’s caused by nothing more than honest (although negligent) momentary inattention, a criminal charge would be unlikely today in any state.
Well, shut my mouth. Thanks for the response.
Don’t they also have to prove damages as well? I seem to remember that this is why most tabloids aren’t sued- it’s difficult to prove that you lost money or reputation over something. (Since Carol Burnett was the daughter of alcoholic parents and served on organizations to assist alcoholics and their families, the Enquirer claiming she was drunk and disorderly was reasonably provable as damaging to her, hence the verdict in her favor, but she was only able to fight it because she was rich enough to not have to worry about legal bills.)
I can’t believe you all are equating MIPs to a failure as a parent. I’ve had similar problems and I don’t think anyone considers me a mistake on my mother’s part.
We’re not. The Republicans constantly tout their party as having a “Family Values Platform*” Several of them have been known to state that our young people’s future is in jeopardy because the evil liberals are so lax in their morals, and are thus raising a nation of morally corrupt demon spawn. (I paraphrase. Still.)
*BTW, who the FUCK came up with this? Family fucking VALUES? Who is against family? It’s a concept based on nothing! It’s like saying “Support our troops!” Well, dammit, who doesn’t? Do they really think we want our guys over there dying? K. Sorry, rant over. It’s just a stupid, stupid catch phrase.
MIPs?
Translate, please. It’s been a long day, and I’m afraid I’m not understanding the acronym.
I wondered also and went to the acronym finder site.
Aha! it means minors in possession. Although there’s a whole slew of other possibilities I found intriguing, like “male iron pipe” or “Med-I-Pant.”
Minor In Possession (of alcohol).
MaureenI have to say that although that may be the case with vocal, mainstream righties, I know quite a few Catholic conservatives that don’t consider sex/drugs/rock&roll to be horrible things when done responsibly.
“Minor In Possession?”
Now you’re just shamelessly trying to influence the Google ads. 
I think we are just holding the Bushes to a higher standard. 