O'Reilly lost it 9/17

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Just want the opinions of those who saw O'Reilly flip his wig at some lawyer in his opening segment. The dude's head was throbbing he was so mad. Every time that lawyer said the defense attorney in the Van Dam murder trial was protected under the Constitution to lie I was howling.

 

Just wondering if any other members of O'Reilly's army saw the segment...

[Guest The Czech Republic]

I missed O'Reilly at 7 but I'll catch 10 for damn sure now. Any time where Bill loses it makes the whole night fun.

[Ultimo Dugas]

I saw him last night before RAW. The expression on his face was priceless.

[Guest bob_barron]

I remember when Bill destroyed this lawyer who was saying he would defend a client who he knew was guilty.

 

You guys are making me miss Bill. :-(

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

"I remember when Bill destroyed this lawyer who was saying he would defend a client who he knew was guilty."

 

I think I saw that one -- funny stuff.

 

"You guys are making me miss Bill. :-("

 

Hey, you're the one who moved north of the border...

[Guest Vern Gagne]

I've never seen O'Reilly that mad. He's usually calm and doesn't let his temper get the best of him.

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

The last time I saw him pissed was with Michael Kinsley, and that was nothing compared to this...

[Guest El Satanico]

Too bad he didn't burst an artery.

[Guest bob_barron]

Does anyone know where I can find this on video or anything??

 

Pleaaaaaaaaaase

[Guest Olympic Slam]

Does anyone know where I can find this on video or anything??

 

Pleaaaaaaaaaase

They'll probably put the video interview on his web site. www.foxnews.com/oreilly

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

http://us.f1.yahoofs.com/users/7875bb28/bc...cOXQi9Ac74CmSsf

 

Video here. The other guy seemed to get tired of arguing at this point as Bill was too busy letting his emotions go out of control.

 

 

No-Sense Zone.

[Guest bob_barron]

Ahhh!! The link doesn't work.

 

kkktookbaby- I didn't know I didn't get O'Reilly until like a week before I moved. I was like: nooooooooooooo

 

I agree that sometimes Bill is very unfair to his guests but its very rare and I gotta see the evidence before I decide to whether to go out and defend Bill

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Doesn't work? It works for me. =/

 

I really need to get some serious hosting instead of Yahoo Briefcase.

[Guest bob_barron]

I get a cannont find server thing and then I tried to do it just with users and got-

 

You do not have permission to get URL '/users/' from this server.

[Guest Some Guy]

I agree that sometimes Bill is very unfair to his guests but its very rare and I gotta see the evidence before I decide to whether to go out and defend Bill

He isn't necessarilly unfair but he does tend to talk more than they are allowed to, which doen't help them get their point across.

I do like when he shouts down or cuts the mic of morons off though.

[Guest bob_barron]

Fuck fuck fuck fuck

 

I can't get the video from Fox News to play- fucking college internet connection.

 

Jobber- please try to get it to work- i wanna see Bill go crazy!

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

It worked for a friend of mine in Canada. =/

 

I checked to see if you were on AIM (with the name in your profile) but you aren't.

[Guest bob_barron]

There's something wrong with the link cause even yahoofs.com isn't working. But except for when i have class today- I'll try to be on AIM all day

[Guest bob_barron]

I saw it and O'Reilly did go a little crazy but it didn't seem like the guy knew what he was talking about

[Guest kkktookmybabyaway]

Yes he did -- scumbag lawyers are protected by the Constitution to lie...

[Guest Ozymandias]

I remember when Bill destroyed this lawyer who was saying he would defend a client who he knew was guilty.

Hey, SOMEBODY has to defend them. It's in the constitution, ya know....

[Guest Olympic Slam]

I remember when Bill destroyed this lawyer who was saying he would defend a client who he knew was guilty.

Hey, SOMEBODY has to defend them. It's in the constitution, ya know....

There's a HUGE difference between defending a man who may be innocent and completely fabricating another story to mis-lead a jury, especially when the man you're defending admitted guilt. The constitution doesn't give a lawyer the right to make up shit he KNOWS isn't true. This is especially wrong in the Van Dam case where the defense placed the blame on Danielle's parent's as part of their case. Truly sick stuff

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Unfortunately, the law gives lawyers not only the right to do just that but the duty to do so as well. Their job is to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, not to admit damning facts. Western law is based on game-playing theories of behaviour and unless Westerfield's lawyers lied, they did nothing legally wrong by implying that someone else could have been responsible: that doesn't mean someone else was responsible; it merely makes the point that the prosecution has not proved its case. (I didn't follow the trial so I don't know if this was true or not. These are hypotheticals, not specifics.)

Morally, however, of course it was wrong. And it makes me question the very basis of legal theory.

[Guest danielisthor]

Unfortunately, the law gives lawyers not only the right to do just that but the duty to do so as well. Their job is to create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jury, not to admit damning facts. Western law is based on game-playing theories of behaviour and unless Westerfield's lawyers lied, they did nothing legally wrong by implying that someone else could have been responsible: that doesn't mean someone else was responsible; it merely makes the point that the prosecution has not proved its case. (I didn't follow the trial so I don't know if this was true or not. These are hypotheticals, not specifics.)

Morally, however, of course it was wrong. And it makes me question the very basis of legal theory.

Its called Plan B on ABC's the Practice.

 

Honestly i believe its ethically and morally wrong, but there really isn't anything that can be done about it other than changing the entire system. Which i am totally for.

 

I also don't believe that it should be unanimous vote to convict someone. Everything else in this country is done on majority rule, why aren't convictions. This way there wouldn't be any hung juries. It would only take 6 to convict out of 11.