Kathryn Knott Case

It is the case until she is convicted by a jury of her peers, period.

To the bold: that's not how it works guy.

To the rest: suspension with or without pay is more than enough while they're pending a decision.

I agree she isn't guilty of the crimes until found guilty. She is being crucified, now that I think about it. The two men also being charged aren't receiving anything close to the level of public scrutiny.

The court of public opinion definitely doesn't play fair.

What I see?

I see a dumb broad, average young white girl with daddy issues who craves attention, and was talking about her work day in the way she talks about everything: social media.

I don't take her comments as being so much anti-gay or bashing anyone as just being a dumb *** who opened her *** mouth (figure of speech) before she tried to use her brain.


As for the event in question: we weren't there, and it will be up for the prosecuting attorneys to prove that she did the things they charged her with, or there will be a plea deal (I'm sure somebody will sell out somebody, the get drunk until you're HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE crowd usually has poor long term loyalties).

The media and the public opinion will twist everything they find into propaganda at this point to mudsling and regardless of what the court finds they'll label her as an anti-gay *** and she'll probably have to change her face/name to continue living if she's not in jail, and even if she is a stupid *** who says ***without thinking about what others think about it, and has a drinking problem, should she have to be in hiding for the rest of her life just for being accused/charged with a crime? I mean I'm pretty sure I've used the word "***" a few times before, and definitely online, it doesn't mean I'm anti-gay. I've also made some cracks in poor taste about race, I'm still not a racist. Hell I pick on whitey most of all, and I'm really *** white.

I skimmed over the content of the twatter account, and aside from bitching about her work, not being PC and having an alcohol problem, and being a social media skank it's nothing spectacular. No laws were broken (sorry, it's not illegal yet to be non-PC, also sorry HIPAA wasn't violated), morally questionable: sure, but questionable, not condemning.

I will attest to the misunderstanding of even professionals on HIPAA though, so many people are so afraid to break it they think everything is a violation. Like when my friend's mom saw me grabbing lunch in the cafeteria (guy I've known since I was 3, yes 3) and told me he was in a room upstairs and asked me to swing by and talk to him. I waited until I was off, and removed my badge, and went up their as a visitor. I'm sure a few people would have had a cow. That reminds me, that guy owes me money.

I see a girl in a slutsuit!

Yeah based on her attorney's response it seems like Kathryn Knott will be selling out her buddies to get a plea bargain.

EDIT: She's definitely getting a huge amount of media spotlight for homophobia and patient privacy. It'll be interesting to see how the case goes- I'm sure the case will be followed if her media crucifixion continues at this rate.

A not that great looking one at that, 5/10, I'm not saying I wouldn't, but I'm not saying I would go out of my way to.

I get that people want to label her as being anti-gay, but I just don't agree with that based solely on what I see on the twitter feed, maybe a bit of a homophobe, and definitely non-PC but I don't see it as anti-gay or gay-bashing. Now that requires one not to think she's automatically guilty of the crimes she's been accused and charged of.

As for the "patient privacy" bit, unless those particular patients come forward and want to prosecute, people should really let it go (frozen.jpg) and even if they do, there's no real identifying marks to show it was them, or hell for all we know she got the patient's permission to take the photo of the xrays. But I digress and this has gotten really boring.

On another note: I watched an episode of criminal minds today where they shut down a gay aversion camp, talk about pushing an agenda in media (don't get me wrong, the places should probably all be shut down on principle, if not for encouraging cult culture), but it was at least a strange episode, and no home invasion.

Not true at all.

A trial by jury in not applicable in this case, period.

The sentences do not warrant it.

There are conditions that have to be met in order for a trial by jury to take place. I can't recall them offhand, but for starters they have to be looking at more than 6 months prison time.

I'd agree these two statements pretty much sum it up as far as her case goes.

Disagrees, but that would require one to consider all judges bias.

edit: I realize the lower courts don't adhere to this or other constitutionally protected rights, speaking more of written than practicality.

They're all going to plea bargain.

In her case, no prior offenses, she's looking at probation.

The other two, no clue without knowing their history, but most likely 30-90 days max if even that.

I have a feeling this is going to trial by jury. They are all pleading not guilty. Knott's attorney is saying she has absolutely no involvement whatsoever. The attorneys for the other two are arguing that this was a mutual altercation.

They are being charged with aggravated assault, criminal conspiracy, simple assault and recklessly endangering another person.

Chaos: I know one thing, I wish I had whatever horseshoe you keep in your *** in regards to the court system.

When you've sat through so many other people's case, you start to pick up on things.

So you would like the 4th amendment to only apply when you deem it appropriate? Everyone has the right to a trial by jury in any criminal proceedings, they have the right to face their accuser, and the right to see the evidence presented against them. Those are core concepts that almost every modern justice system is founded on.

4th amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." and is no longer applicable.

Most of the amendments have been bypassed. People are really struggling to hold on to the first two.

I think he was thinking the 6th amendment.

It's sad yet true, and should be punished with treason for those who are guilty.

Yes, I meant 6th, had just finished a report on internet security. Most of the amendments haven't been bypassed, they're being violated. And just because we have apparently lost some of our rights, why should we surrender others just so some people can feel they have the moral highground?

FTFY - treason isn't a person or group of individuals or a punishment. Its a charge.

I was out of it when I typed that, well half, I knew I typed it wrong, but was too lazy to fix it.

You seem to have grown in the past 72 hours since our last exchange, the old you would have defended it.

well done Jet.

Good point, and yes I knew which one you meant, but I'm glad you accidentally picked the 4th, as that one is easier to show how it is been violated.

As to your question why, terrorism or security, your pick.

I know you're being facetious, but it's absolutely ridiculous.

How about dealing with the root causes of terrorism thus eliminating any need to reduce civil rights?

The root causes? I assume you're saying that US foreign relations cause terrorism and that we're in some kind of danger because of it? You have no idea what you're talking about.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with that imposed position or its implications, but what would you say were the root causes of terrorism? (and do you agree that tackling the root causes would be more productive with far less negative consequences than what is currently described as the war against terror?)

The only people that connect constitutional infringement by "tackling the root causes of terrorism" are completely misinformed.

OK - so in other words, there is no correlation between increased terrorism and increased infringement of rights?