Phil Spector Found Guilty Of 2nd Degree Murder
Music producer Phil Spector has been convicted of second-degree murder in the shooting death of actress Lana Clarkson at his mansion six years ago.
A Los Angeles Superior Court jury returned the verdict Monday after an estimated 29 to 30 hours of deliberations.
The 40-year-old Clarkson, star of the 1985 cult film “Barbarian Queen,” died of a gunshot fired in her mouth as she sat in the foyer of Spector’s mansion in 2003. She had met Spector hours earlier at her job as a nightclub hostess.
Prosecutors argued Spector had a history of threatening women with guns when they tried to leave.
The defense claimed she killed herself.
It was Spector’s second trial. His first jury deadlocked 10-2, favoring conviction in 2007.
From CBS 2 LA
Its about time he got what he deserves, damn juries in LA are so stupid. Like the Menendez brothers jury, some of those idiots were quoted as saying “but they lost their parents, didn’t they suffer enough.” Stupid liberals never cease to amaze me with new stupidity.
This entry was posted
on Monday, April 13th, 2009 at 2:56 pm and is filed under Crime.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.
Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.
Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.
We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.
Play nice!
In other entertainment news:
Mel Gibson and his wife are getting a divorce.
An actor who played a “Power Ranger” on the kid’s show of the same name was found guilty of murder and has been sentenced to death.
Former Power Rangers Star Sentenced to Death
Although at least one source is saying that the actor did not actually play a ‘Power Ranger’ on the show but only had a small guest spot. But I’ve read other sources that have said he played the “Red” Ranger.
Cloudy
I am much happy about his death sentence, that asshole and his wife took their kid with them when they perpetrated that murder. I hope she gets death also, its best for their child.
I also hate the standard excuse or lie that he was abused as a child, even if he was it doesn’t excuse his actions.
This somewhat reminded my of the Sea Wind murders. The girl friend that Vincent Bugliosi defended lived in my town.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_the_Sea_Will_Tell
I live 3 miles from that scumbag.
How long has this case been going for? Wasn’t this like 6 years ago? Man this took forever!
Gee, I wonder why the news industry is struggling.
Honest, man — here you are, just publishing their work, and they get nothing for it. Not even a LINK.
Somebody else’s money went to pay for that writer, and his time, and his gear, and the editors, and the lawyers, and the accountants, and the whole deal … yet you treat the resulting product as if it’s just some public good, yours for the taking.
Beyond arguments about fair use, and what you technically are “allowed” to do and not: Seriously, on a practical level, how is newsgathering going to continue to take place? How is it going to get paid for? What’s going to happen when it goes away? Because there’s no way in hell it’s going to continue under this scenario…
# 5. Plebe
You are right, I forgot the link.
And just let me add, that CBS 2 gets a lot more viewers than we do, so its not the end of the world or main stream media like you try to make it sound.
I wasn’t trying to steal a story, I just forgot to link it. You can see that all my other posts have a link.
The last execution in Cali took place over three years ago. Clarence Ray Allen.
There are currently 680 on death row in Cali, the highest number in the U.S., and soon to add one more.
According to this source, of all that have died on death row there, 18% were due to execution, and 82% died from natural and other causes. Old age being the most common.
So, welcome to your retirement home, Phil. There will be little justice served on you.
But even with a link, nobody really has any need to click to the story. Because all the important words have already been published here.
Don’t get me wrong — I’m not trying to pick on you in particular. In fact, that’s kind of my whole point. You say “CBS 2 gets a lot more viewers than we do,” but what happens with thousands of “you” all over the web? Right is right, and wrong is wrong. I’d figure a site like this would know that better than anybody.
This specific piece was an Associated Press story. CBS2 compensates AP for the right to publish it. You don’t. Why do you feel like you don’t have to? What makes you different? Your size? How would that make you different? CBS2 is a website; you’re a website. You are the equal of CBS2. On the Internet, everybody is the same. If I do a web search on “phil spector convicted” and wind up clicking your site, then I’m getting all the information I want, without giving the story’s providers what THEY want: my eyeballs.
I just don’t think people grasp the seriousness of what’s going on right in front of us: The Internet is killing the news business. People have come to regard news content as “free.” They think it just exists, magically, and that it’s there for anybody’s taking. They figure somebody else is paying for it, somehow, so they don’t need to. The problem is that when EVERYBODY figures “somebody else is paying for it,” then everybody ultimately loses.
Your blog is filled with news story after news story. You’re using others’ work but not paying them for it. By definition, you find value in this work. Yet you don’t feel compelled to compensate its producer. I’m not saying you’re an evil person. Because the reality is, it probably never even dawned on you to pay for it.
So I’m not demeaning you. I’m merely trying to help you understand. You probably just have the same mistaken impression as most people: You don’t think of these stories as someone’s product, as someone’s work, as someone’s investment. You think they’ll always “just be there,” that they’ll always exist, almost like they’ve been ordained from above, in a sense.
But they haven’t. They exist only because someone else invested money, time, resources and manpower to craft and present the information.
These people need every set of eyeballs they can get. That’s how they sell ads. And ads are what pay for the production of news. I don’t want the news to go away. I like the news. Judging from this blog, you do too. So I suspect you don’t want the news to go away either.
News = Fair Use
I just looked at Spectors mug shot. I think that was the look Michael Jackson was going for.
# 9. Plebe
If this was a commercial enterprise, then you would have a valid point.
But all this content is only here to comment upon and criticize.
So we are not violating any copyrights whatsoever.
The news is not going away, some newspapers are but there will always be news in some form or another.
——————————–
From http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
————————————
Now I could read the story and then re-write it here in my own words, but I don’t see that as all that different. I am still getting the news from some other source, because I am not doing it myself.
Plebe
What if I read the news at CBS2 and then orally told the story to a friend? Should my friend be ‘paying CBS2′ for some copyright laws?
These copyright laws are ridiculous! They only serve the greedy. Fuck these laws! This is why I support piracy. I get immense satisfaction when i watch a pirated movie….aaaaahhhhhhh yeaaahhhh….LOL!
Tell me, did anybody compensate pythograss for using his laws today? What about singers using old bible songs and converting them to pop hits? Did they pay the church? Where do we draw the line?
The news business is dying because they choose to report propaganda instead of actual news. I HOPE CBS goes under.
As Bar stated above, 2.0 is weblog, not a money making website. A weblog is like a diary. Bar printing this story here is equalent to me borroing his news paper to read the story or told orally about it. Should we now pay for that too? Talk about greed.
What I didn’t get was that they had a confession, the body, the weapon, motive and a witness.
And it still took 2 trials.
5 Plebe
Uh… they’re reporting news. As long as you don’t claim it is your work…. you’re allowed to link to it and quote it.
That is copywright law.
The reason why the news industry is doing poorly is that they are 85% radical liberal and it turns out that radical liberals today don’t read much.
CONSERVATIVE news sources are doing quite well, thanks.
#9 Plebe.
I take it you’ve heard of Fair Use? One can legally and ethically publish excerpts from news stories to one’s heart’s content.