Wife dies when forced to testify against husband
ANDRAS
doo...@nym.alias.net broadcasted a bitstream which decodes to...
> There used to be a law that said a person couldn't be forced to testify
> against their spouse. Wonder why they got rid of it.
Political expediency?
Andras
----
"Truth does not penetrate the preoccupied mind" - Ch. Darwin
Sky King
<MPG.12847db64...@news1.qc.sympatico.ca>,
a@b.c says...
--
Like the Brave said when asked, "Why is your Squaw walking?"
"She got no horse" the Brave responded.
Phil
news:1999103008564...@nym.alias.net...
| From the Mirror, 30 October 1999
|
|
| A WIFE collapsed and died on her way to court yesterday after being
| "pressured" into giving evidence against her estranged husband.
|
| Margaret Simpson, 54, was being forced against her will to tell how
| David, 55, pushed her in the chest during a minor row.
|
| But as police witness liaison officers accompanied her to court she
| collapsed with a suspected heart attack.
|
| Despite frantic efforts to revive her she was dead when she reached
| hospital.
|
| Mr Simpson, given the news by his solicitor Nick Ryles, broke down
| and rushed out in distress.
|
| He had denied common assault on Margaret. The court in Stafford
| dismissed the charge in his absence.
|
| Mr Ryles told magistrates: "She was reluctant to attend and had made
| it quite clear she did not wish to pursue the matter.
|
| "It appears force or pressure was being applied and that pressure
was
| too great for her.
|
| "This matter could have been dealt with by other means which would
| have allowed the parties to get on with their lives."
|
|
| There used to be a law that said a person couldn't be forced to testify
| against their spouse. Wonder why they got rid of it.
I didn't know they HAD!!!
I have a horrible feeling that this TRAGEDY has been brought about by the
UK's "new" DV provisions (ie. the UK version of VAWA!) - if this is so an
IMMEDIATE re-examination of these provisions should be instituted as well as
any implications on civil liberties not to mention the the likelyhood that
such measures probably contravene the sex discrimination act!!
Phil
tet...@my-deja.com
a@b.c (ANDRAS) wrote:
> In article <1999103008564...@nym.alias.net>,
> doo...@nym.alias.net broadcasted a bitstream which decodes to...
testify
> > against their spouse. Wonder why they got rid of it.
>
>
> Andras
No what happens is this: They tell her that they will press some sort
of charges on her and send her to jail for a year but if she will
testify against her husband and send him to prison for 10 to 20 years
then they will drop the charges on her. Of course seeing the man in
prison for 10 years is far better then one for a woman. (there has
been times they have used her testamony to but a husband on death row
but still a dead man is better then a woman being in jail for a couple
of years. Get this right paragaon?
> ----
> "Truth does not penetrate the preoccupied mind" - Ch. Darwin
>
--
ALL WE ARE ASKING IS FOR FAIR AND EQUAL TREATMENT
FOR ALL
WITHOUT DOUBLE STANDARDS THE FEMINST MOVEMENT WOULD NOT EXIST!
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Pargeon
>From: "Phil" phillew...@dial.pipex.com
>Date: Sat, 30 October 1999 01:31 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7vf829$dug$1...@lure.pipex.net>
>
>Ian Newman <doo...@nym.alias.net> wrote in message
>news:1999103008564...@nym.alias.net...
>| From the Mirror, 30 October 1999
>|
>|
>| A WIFE collapsed and died on her way to court yesterday after being
>| "pressured" into giving evidence against her estranged husband.
>|
>| Margaret Simpson, 54, was being forced against her will to tell how
>| David, 55, pushed her in the chest during a minor row.
>|
>| But as police witness liaison officers accompanied her to court she
>| collapsed with a suspected heart attack.
>|
>| Despite frantic efforts to revive her she was dead when she reached
>| hospital.
>|
>| Mr Simpson, given the news by his solicitor Nick Ryles, broke down
>| and rushed out in distress.
>|
>| He had denied common assault on Margaret. The court in Stafford
>| dismissed the charge in his absence.
>|
>| Mr Ryles told magistrates: "She was reluctant to attend and had made
>| it quite clear she did not wish to pursue the matter.
>|
>| "It appears force or pressure was being applied and that pressure
>was
>| too great for her.
>|
>| "This matter could have been dealt with by other means which would
>| have allowed the parties to get on with their lives."
>|
>|
>| against their spouse. Wonder why they got rid of it.
>
>I have a horrible feeling that this TRAGEDY has been brought about by the
>UK's "new" DV provisions (ie. the UK version of VAWA!) - if this is so an
>IMMEDIATE re-examination of these provisions should be instituted as well as
>any implications on civil liberties not to mention the the likelyhood that
>such measures probably contravene the sex discrimination act!!
{Parg} At law, there is, as you know, the "attorney/client privelege as well
as the laywer owing a duty of loyalty to the client.
In many cases, this prevents the lawyer from being forced to testify about her
own client. Of course, in matters of law where the lawyer is being sued BY the
client or in matters where the court lawyer has a duty to the court, this
privelege is sometimes waived. I don't know about UK law, but I suspect that
if a man has beaten his wife that might well change the marital privileges
regarding testimony with or without a VAWA kind of law.
>Phil
>
>
>
>
Pargeon: "No Biblical Hell could be worse than the state of perpetual
indifference."
from "The Honest Courtesan" by Margaret Rosenthal.
T. R. Ellis
>
>{Parg} At law, there is, as you know, the "attorney/client privelege as well
>as the laywer owing a duty of loyalty to the client.
Wow! You learned all that from how many episodes of "LA LAW"?
>In many cases, this prevents the lawyer from being forced to testify about her
>own client. Of course, in matters of law where the lawyer is being sued BY the
>client or in matters where the court lawyer has a duty to the court, this
>privelege is sometimes waived. I don't know about UK law,
You don't know even know about California law, your own "neck of the
woods".
>but I suspect that
>if a man has beaten his wife that might well change the marital privileges
>regarding testimony with or without a VAWA kind of law.
Pargelefty, your pseudolegal blustering gets more pitiable with each
post.
>
>
>>Phil
>>
>
>
> Pargeon
T. R. Ellis
Pargeon
>Date: Sat, 30 October 1999 08:06 PM EDT
>Message-id: <7vg16d$a29$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>
>In article <MPG.12847db64...@news1.qc.sympatico.ca>,
> a@b.c (ANDRAS) wrote:
>> In article <1999103008564...@nym.alias.net>,
>> doo...@nym.alias.net broadcasted a bitstream which decodes to...
>testify
>> > against their spouse. Wonder why they got rid of it.
>>
>>
>> Andras
>
>No what happens is this: They tell her that they will press some sort>of
charges on her and send her to jail for a year but if she will testify against
her husband and send him to prison for 10 to 20 years
>then they will drop the charges on her.
{Parg} I don't have a problem with the idea of the plea bargain; is that
something that disturbs you? You see a criminal can either be primal in the
criminal action or they can be accomplices or involved to a lessor degree. The
cops always prefer to get Mr. Big, do they not?
<Of course seeing the man in
>prison for 10 years is far better then one for a woman. (there has>been times
they have used her testamony to but a husband on death row but still a dead man
is better then a woman being in jail for a couple
>of years. Get this right paragaon?>
{Parg} Actually, the way the cops decide who to go after in these cases has
nothing to do with gender and everything to do with the primacy of the action.
Getting a drug supplier, for example, is more important than getting a mere
drug user.
Phil
Pargeon <par...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991102084425...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
| >Subject: Re: Wife dies when forced to testify against husband
| >| against their spouse. Wonder why they got rid of it.
| >
| >I have a horrible feeling that this TRAGEDY has been brought about by the
| >UK's "new" DV provisions (ie. the UK version of VAWA!) - if this is so an
| >IMMEDIATE re-examination of these provisions should be instituted as well
as
| >any implications on civil liberties not to mention the the likelyhood
that
| >such measures probably contravene the sex discrimination act!!
|
well
| as the laywer owing a duty of loyalty to the client.
Then WHY wasn't the "client" listened to (She did NOT want to testify about
about the TRIVIAL "push in the chest" alleged incident remember!!)???
| In many cases, this prevents the lawyer from being forced to testify about
her
| own client.
What is the BIG DEAL about an ALLEGED "push in the chest" anyway??
| Of course, in matters of law where the lawyer is being sued BY the
| client
..and there is absolutley NO REASON to suppose that this is a factor in this
case - so I can only conclude that you are "blowing smoke" once again!
|or in matters where the court lawyer has a duty to the court, this
| privelege is sometimes waived.
If there was even a CHARGE attached to this alleged "push in the chest"
incident then the charge could have been DROPPED if she didn't want to
testify - however if VAWA was in "operation" there may well be similar sex
bias within it as there is the US (i.e. if there is an allegation of abuse
it must be pursued regardless - of course this invariable means in practice
"arrest the guy" FIRST and ask questions later - questions like just who was
hitting who for example!!).
|I don't know about UK law, but I suspect that
| if a man has beaten his wife
Well according to this case the ONLY "beating" that was mentioned was an
ALLEGED "push in the chest during a minor row" - hardly anything to waste
TAXPAYERS MONEY ABOUT!!
|that might well change the marital privileges
| regarding testimony with or without a VAWA kind of law.
Well you can specuIate all you want for you clearly don't know what you are
rambling on about, in any case to try and get your focus back to the REALITY
of the case to hand I ask again - WHAT BEATING? Or were you trying to read
MORE into this case than was actually revealed??
|
|
Phil
| >
Pargeon
>Date: Tue, 02 November 1999 08:58 AM EST
>Message-id: <381eecd3...@news.cistron.nl>
>
>Pargeon wrote:
>
>
>>
>>{Parg} At law, there is, as you know, the "attorney/client privelege as
>well
>>as the laywer owing a duty of loyalty to the client.
>
>
your comfort level.
<>>In many cases, this prevents the lawyer from being forced to testify about
>her>>own client. Of course, in matters of law where the lawyer is being sued
BY
>the>>client or in matters where the court lawyer has a duty to the court, this
>>privelege is sometimes waived. I don't know about UK law,
>
>You don't know even know about California law, your own "neck of the
>woods".
>
{Parg} So you say, and yet, in my state not one single woman has EVER been
convicted for shooting a person not justified to be there, in her castle.
<>>but I suspect that>>if a man has beaten his wife that might well change the
marital privileges>>regarding testimony with or without a VAWA kind of law.>
>Pargelefty, your pseudolegal blustering gets more pitiable with each
>post.
>>
{Parg} Well, so you say, and yet, nothing to substantiate. Oh well.
>>
>>>Phil
>>>
>>
>>
>> Pargeon
>
>T. R. Ellis
>
>
>
>
>
Phil
| >Subject: Re: Wife dies when forced to testify against husband
| >Date: Sat, 30 October 1999 08:06 PM EDT
| >Message-id: <7vg16d$a29$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
| >
| >In article <MPG.12847db64...@news1.qc.sympatico.ca>,
| > a@b.c (ANDRAS) wrote:
| >> In article <1999103008564...@nym.alias.net>,
| >> doo...@nym.alias.net broadcasted a bitstream which decodes to...
| >testify
| >> > against their spouse. Wonder why they got rid of it.
| >>
| >>
| >> Andras
| >
| >No what happens is this: They tell her that they will press some sort>of
| charges on her and send her to jail for a year but if she will testify
against
| her husband and send him to prison for 10 to 20 years
| >then they will drop the charges on her.
|
| {Parg} I don't have a problem with the idea of the plea bargain; is that
| something that disturbs you? You see a criminal can either be primal in
the
| criminal action or they can be accomplices or involved to a lessor degree.
The
| cops always prefer to get Mr. Big, do they not?
Whereas they tend to let the Mrs "Big"s off the hook - especially if it was
"only" a man they had offended against!
Phil
Pargeon
>Well you can specuIate all you want for you clearly don't know what you are
>rambling on about,>
{Parg} Don't be absurd! Everyone not sitting on the jury, listening to the
facts presented is "speculating", including yourself.
< in any case to try and get your focus back to the REALITY>of the case to hand
I ask again - WHAT BEATING?>
{Parg} I never mentioned a "beating". Are you hallucinating again?
< Or were you trying to read>MORE into this case than was actually revealed??
>
{Parg} Actually, what is "reavealed" is never all there is about a case. <G>
In any event, the court may well be justified to call her as a witness.
>|
>|
>Phil
Laura M. Hagan
> {Parg} So you say, and yet, in my state not one single woman has EVER
been
> convicted for shooting a person not justified to be there, in her castle.
In _People v. Hubbard_ (1923) 64 Cal.App. 27, a homeowner told a visitor
to get out, and the visitor refused. A fight ensued, and the visitor was
shot. The homeowner was convicted of _murder_.
In _People v. Garrett_ (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 134, a homeowner stabbed a
drunken intruder to death and relied principally on "self-defense" and
"defense of habitation." Convicted of manslaughter, conviction upheld on
appeal.
In _People v. Smith_ (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 395, a homeowner was attacked
by his houseguest after he demanded that the guest leave. The homeowner was
beaten with fists and a pipe, and finally shot his attacker. The homeowner
was convicted of manslaughter, conviction upheld on appeal.
In _People v. Caballos_ (1974) 12 Cal.3d 470, the California Supreme
Court (the Supremes, ha ha) upheld the conviction of a homeowner of assault
with a deadly weapon for shooting a burglar.
In _People v. Superior Court (Day)_ (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1008, a woman
shot her abusive ex-husband to death after he invaded her home and began
screaming at her. She was charged with murder; the magistrate dismissed the
murder charge, and the People appealed the dismissal. Held: the murder
charge was improperly dismissed, and was reinstated.
In _People v. Owen_ (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 996, a homeowner shot a man
who had forced his way into the house, kicking and punching at the
homeowner. The homeowner was convicted of manslaughter, conviction upheld
on appeal.
Tom Campbell
Laura, Laura, Laura, what are you doing in this discussion? (he asks,
shaking his head).
You seek to clarify the issue with actual cases? What are you,
intelligent or something?
Tom Campbell, a fan
Sky King
doesn'tlik...@goaway.com says...
all this up. chuckle.
Laura M. Hagan
Tom Campbell <camp...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7vt59j$itj$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
[snip]
> Laura, Laura, Laura, what are you doing in this discussion? (he asks,
> shaking his head).
>
> You seek to clarify the issue with actual cases? What are you,
> intelligent or something?
>
> Tom Campbell, a fan
Oh, LOL, ROFLMAO, hoist on my own petard!
Thanks, Tom. I enjoyed that.
scot...@my-deja.com
par...@aol.com (Pargeon) wrote:
[snip]
> In any event, the court may well be justified to call her as a
witness.
The court should not have heard the case in the first place. The
person whose interests the court was supposed to be protecting felt
strongly enough that taking the matter to court was not in her interest
that the stress ended up killing her.
Why your lack of compassion for the victim here? she's even a woman, so
you don't need to start making excuses for your lack of compassion for
men.
This is a clear case of the law as a runaway truck, destroying everyone
and everything in its path and ultimately killing the person it was
supposed to protect. Congratulations feminism, I hope you are pleased
with what you have wrought.
Scott A.Renner
>>>>> At 23:36 11/04, Tom Campbell <camp...@my-deja.com> said:
>
> Laura, Laura, Laura, what are you doing in this discussion? (he asks,
> shaking his head).
>
> You seek to clarify the issue with actual cases? What are you,
> intelligent or something?
Grin. Facts have their place, but not in a discussion with Lefty.
Inconvient facts bounce harmlessly off her impermeable habits of thought.
- --
Scott A. Renner <s...@nym.alias.net> | If you cannot answer a man's
My organization doesn't want their name | argument, do not panic.
on my articles, disclaimer or no. The | You can always call him names.
mail alias is to hide them, not me. | -- Oscar Wilde
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2
iQBVAwUBOCMhS4VBFApc9BZNAQFLnwH/U3HNMKup396JLQWsLLlxt71gQJB72IR+
YWCfWI+/ZK3TVFhsx0Vn0XyibreGilgjVJavXRlEzf+KtR/APdM0KQ==
=p48T
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Phil
| <cut>
|
| >Well you can specuIate all you want for you clearly don't know what you
are
| >rambling on about,>
|
| {Parg} Don't be absurd! Everyone not sitting on the jury, listening to
the
| facts presented is "speculating", including yourself.
But myself and all the other posters (except YOU of course!!) are NOT
"speculating" that the guy did ANYTHING more than give his wife a "push in
the chest" as was revealed in the article - YOU OTH spring off on a wild
blatantly antimale(should we be surprised knowing you for the misandrist
bigot that you are!!) ramble!! Let me again refresh your "memory" (since you
CUT the following in your response!!):-
Parg Ranted:
I don't know about UK law, but I suspect that
| if a man has beaten his wife
Phil Responded :
Well according to this case the ONLY "beating" that was mentioned was an
ALLEGED "push in the chest during a minor row" - hardly anything to waste
TAXPAYERS MONEY ABOUT!!
Parg Ranted Further:
|that might well change the marital privileges
| regarding testimony with or without a VAWA kind of law.
|
| < in any case to try and get your focus back to the REALITY>of the case to
hand
| I ask again - WHAT BEATING?>
|
| {Parg} I never mentioned a "beating". Are you hallucinating again?
I wish I WAS - it would be more fun than having to read yet another of your
disingenuous posts. Anyway by now you have had your "memory" refreshed as I
have just quoted (see above) the "evidence" that you SNIPPED and then
PRETENDED you had not made any such mention! (In case you were thinking of
trying PEDANTRY in order to wriggle out of your failed attempt to deceive
the readers - the word you actually used was "beaten" - I merely changed the
tense to fit the tense of my question!)
| < Or were you trying to read>MORE into this case than was actually
revealed??
| >
Parg SQUIRMS as follows:
| {Parg} Actually, what is "reavealed" is never all there is about a case.
<G>
| In any event, the court may well be justified to call her as a witness.
This was not "any event" - try sticking to what was revealed - you'll be on
safer ground for your flights of Bigoted Fancy are truly ugly(if not
unbelievable!!) to behold.
Phil
Pargeon
>Date: Thu, 04 November 1999 01:58 AM EST
>Message-id: <7vr8qq$cik$1...@lure.pipex.net>
crime as they get a more equal opportunity to do so. Men in the drug trade are
just as macho as men everywhere else. When you see women running drugs using
women, you will then see more female primary perpatrators (principles in
crime). Until then you'll have to be satisfied with accomplish action and plea
bargains. <G>
Pargeon
>Date: Thu, 04 November 1999 01:04 PM EST
>Message-id: <3821c...@news.qnet.com>
>> {Parg} So you say, and yet, in my state not one single woman has EVER
>been
>> convicted for shooting a person not justified to be there, in her castle.
>
> In _People v. Hubbard_ (1923) 64 Cal.App. 27, a homeowner told a visitor
>to get out, and the visitor refused. A fight ensued, and the visitor was
>shot. The homeowner was convicted of _murder_.
A visitor is justified
>
> In _People v. Garrett_ (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 134, a homeowner stabbed a
>drunken intruder to death and relied principally on "self-defense" and
>"defense of habitation." Convicted of manslaughter, conviction upheld on
>appeal.
>
Was the drunken intruder justified?
> In _People v. Smith_ (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 395, a homeowner was attacked
>by his houseguest after he demanded that the guest leave. The homeowner was
>beaten with fists and a pipe, and finally shot his attacker. The homeowner
>was convicted of manslaughter, conviction upheld on appeal.
A houseguest is justified
.>
> In _People v. Caballos_ (1974) 12 Cal.3d 470, the California Supreme
>Court (the Supremes, ha ha) upheld the conviction of a homeowner of assault
>with a deadly weapon for shooting a burglar.
What was the intent of the homowner?
Was the person justified to be there?
>
> In _People v. Superior Court (Day)_ (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1008, a woman
>shot her abusive ex-husband to death after he invaded her home and began
>screaming at her. She was charged with murder; the magistrate dismissed the
>murder charge, and the People appealed the dismissal. Held: the murder
>charge was improperly dismissed, and was reinstated.
Civil matter; ex was probably justified to be there. Mind you, being
justified may not mean what you think it does.
>
> In _People v. Owen_ (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 996, a homeowner shot a man
>who had forced his way into the house, kicking and punching at the
>homeowner. The homeowner was convicted of manslaughter, conviction upheld
>on appeal.
Those who kick there way into your house may or may not be doing so
unjustifiably.
<G> If a person breaks into your home for the purpose of doing you harm
(reasonable or not) you may defend yourself, up to and including reasonable but
deadly force unless that person is justified in being there. That's just the
way it is here in CA.
Pargeon
>Date: Fri, 05 November 1999 01:00 AM EST
>Message-id: <7vtrpg$289$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
>witness.
>
>person whose interests the court was supposed to be protecting felt
>strongly enough that taking the matter to court was not in her interest
>that the stress ended up killing her.
{Parg} Did she, then, AGREE to testify? If she did, are you trying to blame
prosecutors?
>
>Why your lack of compassion for the victim here? she's even a woman, so
>you don't need to start making excuses for your lack of compassion for
>men.
{Parg} ????? I have tons of compassion for those who are harmed either by DV
or by abuse of process. What exactly are you claiming here?
>
>This is a clear case of the law as a runaway truck, destroying everyone
>and everything in its path and ultimately killing the person it was>supposed
to protect.
{Parg} Bullshit. Either she agreed to testify or she was legally called as a
witness. Whichever it is, trying to protect the abuser by silencing the abused
is hardly the answer.
Congratulations feminism, I hope you are pleased>with what you have wrought.
>
{Parg} I am more pleased with each passing day that equal rights is winning.
Laura M. Hagan
Pargeon <par...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19991109203608...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
> >> {Parg} So you say, and yet, in my state not one single woman has EVER
> >been
> >> convicted for shooting a person not justified to be there, in her
castle.
> >
> > In _People v. Hubbard_ (1923) 64 Cal.App. 27, a homeowner told a
visitor
> >to get out, and the visitor refused. A fight ensued, and the visitor was
> >shot. The homeowner was convicted of _murder_.
>
> A visitor is justified
What is the justification in remaining in another's home after being
ordered out?
> > In _People v. Garrett_ (1965) 235 Cal.App.2d 134, a homeowner stabbed
a
> >drunken intruder to death and relied principally on "self-defense" and
> >"defense of habitation." Convicted of manslaughter, conviction upheld on
> >appeal.
> >
> Was the drunken intruder justified?
You're the one who made the claim that _nobody_ has _ever_ been
convicted of a crime for killing an "unjustified" intruder. I have
presented evidence which, taken at face value, debunks your thesis. The
burden of proof is on you, not me -- you made the claim, I didn't. In order
for your original claim to pass scrutiny, _you_ have to demonstrate that in
the foregoing case, the drunken intruder _was_ justified. Can you?
> > In _People v. Smith_ (1967) 249 Cal.App.2d 395, a homeowner was
attacked
> >by his houseguest after he demanded that the guest leave. The homeowner
was
> >beaten with fists and a pipe, and finally shot his attacker. The
homeowner
> >was convicted of manslaughter, conviction upheld on appeal.
>
> A houseguest is justified
Justified in attacking the homeowner with fists and a pipe? What is the
justification?
> > In _People v. Caballos_ (1974) 12 Cal.3d 470, the California Supreme
> >Court (the Supremes, ha ha) upheld the conviction of a homeowner of
assault
> >with a deadly weapon for shooting a burglar.
> What was the intent of the homowner?
> Was the person justified to be there?
The person was breaking in to steal stuff. He was a _burglar_. Not
justified. Here, again, the burden is on you to demonstrate the burglar's
"justification."
> > In _People v. Superior Court (Day)_ (1985) 174 Cal.App.3d 1008, a
woman
> >shot her abusive ex-husband to death after he invaded her home and began
> >screaming at her. She was charged with murder; the magistrate dismissed
the
> >murder charge, and the People appealed the dismissal. Held: the murder
> >charge was improperly dismissed, and was reinstated.
> Civil matter; ex was probably justified to be there. Mind you, being
> justified may not mean what you think it does.
Ah, yes, I forgot completely about a "woman's way of knowing." However,
if your definition of "justified" is materially different from that found in
the dictionary, then all you're doing is redefining "justification" so that
it's sufficiently broad to cover all conceivable situations, thereby
validating your thesis by your "new and improved" definition. For example,
you may be claiming that any human being is "justified" in being anywhere he
chooses to be, therefore each of the above examples involved a "justified"
intruder. Ha. "2 + 2 = 5 for sufficiently large values of 2."
For that matter, you could protect your original thesis by simply
redefining "killed." "No, these people weren't actually 'killed,', they
were simply reduced to room temperature. 'Killed' may not mean what you
think it does."
To borrow a phrase, Parg, "Adults are not fooled."
> > In _People v. Owen_ (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 996, a homeowner shot a man
> >who had forced his way into the house, kicking and punching at the
> >homeowner. The homeowner was convicted of manslaughter, conviction
upheld
> >on appeal.
>
> Those who kick there way into your house may or may not be doing so
> unjustifiably.
> <G> If a person breaks into your home for the purpose of doing you harm
> (reasonable or not) you may defend yourself, up to and including
reasonable but
> deadly force unless that person is justified in being there. That's just
the
> way it is here in CA.
Oh, of course. Because you say so, with your "new and improved"
definitions.
I knew when I started this that I was wasting my time, but little did I
know that you would be so desperate to protect your thesis that you would
redefine common English words in order to do so. I know, I know. Nothing
really means what I think it does.
War is peace. Freedom is slavery.
And Parg, you're the strongest person I ever met.
--lmh
Laura M. Hagan
UnrepentantŽ Snackin' Souls ! <Unrepentant?@mindXspring.com> wrote in
message news:38435994...@news.mindspring.com...
> On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 09:59:34 -0800, "Laura M. Hagan"
<doesn'tlik...@goaway.com> expounded:
>
> < War is peace. Freedom is slavery.
> < And Parg, you're the strongest person I ever met.
>
>
> Ya think Pargy realizes what your're referring to?
I suspect she'll take it as a compliment, whether she understands the
reference or not. Even "strength" may not mean what I think it does, after
all...
Sky King
doesn'tlik...@goaway.com says...
> She will never admit she is wrong even when faced with all this evidence.
Phil
| >Subject: Re: Wife dies when forced to testify against husband
| >From: scot...@my-deja.com
| >Date: Fri, 05 November 1999 01:00 AM EST
| >Message-id: <7vtrpg$289$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
| >
| >In article <19991104103024...@ng-cp1.aol.com>,
| > par...@aol.com (Pargeon) wrote:
| >
| >[snip]
| >
| >> In any event, the court may well be justified to call her as a
| >witness.
| >
| >The court should not have heard the case in the first place. The
| >person whose interests the court was supposed to be protecting felt
| >strongly enough that taking the matter to court was not in her interest
| >that the stress ended up killing her.
|
| {Parg} Did she, then, AGREE to testify? If she did, are you trying to
blame
| prosecutors?
She was coerced against her wishes - it said so in the article - remember??
| >
| >Why your lack of compassion for the victim here? she's even a woman, so
| >you don't need to start making excuses for your lack of compassion for
| >men.
|
| {Parg} ????? I have tons of compassion for those who are harmed either
by DV
*LOL* We have seen "evidence" of your "compassion for those who are harmed
by DV" - that is as long as it is a FEMALE that was abused!!
| or by abuse of process. What exactly are you claiming here?
He just TOLD YOU idiot!
|
|
|
V
"Why your lack of compassion for the victim here? she's even a woman, so
| >you don't need to start making excuses for your lack of compassion for
| >men."
Phil
Phil
| >ubject: Re: Wife dies when forced to testify against husband
| >| >Subject: Re: Wife dies when forced to testify against husband
"Equal opportunity" to commit crime???
*LOL* Perhaps you should get N.O.W. to lobby the all the male organised
crime bosses - it would be "interesting" to see how these man-hating
lesbians got on.!!
*Chuckle*
Phil
Pargeon
>
<> I knew when I started this that I was wasting my time, but little did
I>know that you would be so desperate to protect your thesis that you would
redefine common English words in order to do so.>
{Parg} Didn't you say you practiced law?
<G>
< I know, I know. Nothing>really means what I think it does.>
{Parg} If you're Doctor Laura, everything is so simple. In the real world,
nothing is that simple. Tsk...tsk.
<> War is peace. Freedom is slavery.
> And Parg, you're the strongest person I ever met.>
{Parg} I've had to be. What doesn't kill you, makes you strong. Be strong,
Laura.
ANDRAS
par...@aol.com broadcasted a bitstream which decodes to...
> <cut>
> >
>
> <> I knew when I started this that I was wasting my time, but little did
> I>know that you would be so desperate to protect your thesis that you would
> redefine common English words in order to do so.>
>
> <G>
She might, but you don't, however desperately you try to puff up your
pseudo-legalistic feathers. Sour grapes? You're no Bill, Pargeon, neither
Clinton or Gates; for you to equivocate on the meaning of 'is' is just
megalomaniac dreams in a pizza shack between hits of liquid courage.
> < I know, I know. Nothing>really means what I think it does.>
>
> {Parg} If you're Doctor Laura, everything is so simple. In the real world,
> nothing is that simple. Tsk...tsk.
Time to rub Pargeon's hairy nose into her posts! :-)
####
[someone else]
Our society teaches its members that it is more important for women to go
to the doctor for check ups than for men.
{Parg} More bullfeathers! Society can only offer what it offers....to
both women and men, equally. Those who choose to partake, do so. Those
who don't, don't. It's just that simple. [...]
####
[someone else]
Will they ever get it?
{Parg} Get what? Equality is in the air.
Don't like it? Don't marry. It's just that simple.
####
[someone else]
SAHW do not work 24 hrs a day. While I was staying home I saw these
housewifes at the park, sunning in the back yard, running around with
their girlfriends etc. Men have always worked harder.
{Parg} Bulldroppings! Men have simply demanded more value be placed
upon what they traditionally do. Today's woman knows that and
smiles....and simply gets a job where she is more valued. Today's man
has more domestic work, like it or not. A woman who serves the soup for
money makes money; a woman who serves the soup to hubby gets told that
his work has more value. It's just that simple.
####
[myself :-)]
I've read about the other three, and I could pick out their names from a
list, but as I don't 'sound out' words in my head when I read, I couldn't
name them, either (OK, now I know that it is Mr. Vaypayee or whatever is
in India; still, I can't care about the others).
{Parg} Most voters do tho. The voters don't want a good old boy who
looks totally uneducated to run the country; it's just that simple. [...]
####
Accordingly, Pargeon, you were found to be multiply full of shit; it's
just that simple! :-)
> <> War is peace. Freedom is slavery.
> > And Parg, you're the strongest person I ever met.>
>
> {Parg} I've had to be. What doesn't kill you, makes you strong. Be strong,
> Laura.
I see; let's abuse everyone within an inch of their lives, especially
children. It would be a failure of fiduciary duty not to steel 'em to our
best abilities.
Stupid as Parg says.
Andras
Laura M. Hagan
> <cut>
> >
Oh, my! Ladies and gentlemen, we proudly present the Most Disingenuous Cut
of the Year Award!
What Parg doesn't say in this post is that the foregoing "cut" was a snip of
her attempting to redefine the word "justified," and my asking her "please
explain how the intruder was justified." Rather than take up the challenge,
she simply <cut> my questions!
Bravo, Parg! Bravo!
With apologies for bandwidth, I think I'll re-insert what Parg <cut> from my
post:
__________________/begin part dishonestly cut:
With apologies for length:
______________________________/end of part dishonestly cut
>
> <> I knew when I started this that I was wasting my time, but little
did
> I>know that you would be so desperate to protect your thesis that you
would
> redefine common English words in order to do so.>
>
> {Parg} Didn't you say you practiced law?
> <G>
Yes indeed, Parg, and the first thing you learn in any advocacy class is
to _respond_ to your opponent's points, and not simply to _ignore_ them in
the hopes they'll go away. They never do, you know.
>
> < I know, I know. Nothing>really means what I think it does.>
>
> {Parg} If you're Doctor Laura, everything is so simple. In the real
world,
> nothing is that simple. Tsk...tsk.
Once again, WHO is this "Doctor Laura" person? I've clearly identified
myself; I have no need to pretend to be somebody I'm not.
And in the "real world," if we cannot rely upon commonly accepted
definitions of words, how are we supposed to communicate? After all, green
piano galloping tree wizard does not altercation river. Right?
> <> War is peace. Freedom is slavery.
> > And Parg, you're the strongest person I ever met.>
>
> {Parg} I've had to be. What doesn't kill you, makes you strong. Be
strong,
> Laura.
Oh, I don't think I'll EVER be as strong as you are, Parg. <snort>
<chuckle> <guffaw>
--lmh
Phil
check back on her previous posts when she contradicts herself - how WRONG
she is!
Phil
ANDRAS <a@b.c> wrote in message
news:MPG.12a517637...@news1.qc.sympatico.ca...
| In article <19991123204841...@ng-fe1.aol.com>,
| par...@aol.com broadcasted a bitstream which decodes to...
| > <cut>
| > >
| >
| > <> I knew when I started this that I was wasting my time, but little
did
| > I>know that you would be so desperate to protect your thesis that you
would
| > redefine common English words in order to do so.>
| >
| > {Parg} Didn't you say you practiced law?
| > <G>
|
| She might, but you don't, however desperately you try to puff up your
| pseudo-legalistic feathers. Sour grapes? You're no Bill, Pargeon, neither
| Clinton or Gates; for you to equivocate on the meaning of 'is' is just
| megalomaniac dreams in a pizza shack between hits of liquid courage.
|
| > < I know, I know. Nothing>really means what I think it does.>
| >
| > {Parg} If you're Doctor Laura, everything is so simple. In the real
world,
| > nothing is that simple. Tsk...tsk.
|
| > <> War is peace. Freedom is slavery.
| > > And Parg, you're the strongest person I ever met.>
| >
| > {Parg} I've had to be. What doesn't kill you, makes you strong. Be
strong,
| > Laura.
|
Jill Munro
<FlavoredBitz®@mindXspring.com> sent the following thru the ether:
>On Wed, 24 Nov 1999 09:49:14 -0800, "Laura M. Hagan" <doesn'tlik...@goaway.com> expounded:
>
><
><Oh, my! Ladies and gentlemen, we proudly present the Most Disingenuous Cut
><of the Year Award!
><What Parg doesn't say in this post is that the foregoing "cut" was a snip of
><her attempting to redefine the word "justified," and my asking her "please
><explain how the intruder was justified." Rather than take up the challenge,
><she simply <cut> my questions!
><Bravo, Parg! Bravo!
>
>Isn't it strange how sleazy and dishonest most feminists are?
Strange? As in unusual? No. In my experience its very usual and
ordinary for most feminists to behave this way.
Sky King
doesn'tlik...@goaway.com says...
Chuckle
Anna
>
> Pargeon <par...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:19991123204841...@ng-fe1.aol.com...
> > <cut>
> > < I know, I know. Nothing>really means what I think it does.>
> >
> > {Parg} If you're Doctor Laura, everything is so simple. In the real
> world,
> > nothing is that simple. Tsk...tsk.
>
> Once again, WHO is this "Doctor Laura" person? I've clearly identified
> myself; I have no need to pretend to be somebody I'm not.
> And in the "real world," if we cannot rely upon commonly accepted
> definitions of words, how are we supposed to communicate? After all, green
> piano galloping tree wizard does not altercation river. Right?
ROTFLMAO
Thanks Laura, I laughed so much I cried :-)
Anna
--
'The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeking new
landscapes but in having new eyes.'
Marcel Proust, Remembrance of Things Past, 1913-1925
MHC Towboat
I remember not terribly long ago, a case in the newspapers about a man
(husband, father) who heard the sounds of an intruder and came into his
daughters room and saw man climbing in through the window. He promptly
shot him and the force of shot blew the man (and window sills for that
matter) out into the yard. Due to the fact that the "intruder was not
in the house" when the police arrived the man(homeowner) was facing a
sentence. Even though he(intruder) was obviously entering the home due
to the window frame being pulled out and still surrounding him on the
ground. Sorry I can't cite the actual case and names but I remember
how much this story pissed me off.
How completely screwed up is our justice system anyway??
Mary
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!