Bias Against Victims' Families ...
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:slrnam5hcu.qp4.pasde...@lievre.voute.net...
> ... who oppose the death penalty ...
>
> url:http://www.mvfr.org/dignitydenied.html
>
And who support it.
http://www.pomc.com/memorialdonation.cfm
http://www.ncvc.org/law/SBOOK/ch1.HTM
PV
> --
> Des On The Road |EVEN SATAN KNOWS
|AND LIFTS HIS BROW IN WONDER AT
|THE EVIL DESI SHOWS
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Bias Against Victims' Families ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 22:41:36 +0000
>
>... who oppose the death penalty ...
>
>url:http://www.mvfr.org/dignitydenied.html
>
>--
>Des On The Road |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu
!news.stealth.net!news.stealth.net!newsfeed.arcor-online.net!fu-berlin.de!
uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Bias Against Victims' Families ...
>Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 22:41:36 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 9
>Message-ID: <slrnam5hcu.qp4.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1029883432 48993350 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: Yes
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
Desi is afraid of his own words! He can be reached at des...@noos.fr or
des...@zeouane.org.
As everyone knows, only COWARDS forge posts yet don't allow their own to be
archived!
Now Desi, Tell us about the Baltimore County police.
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Bias Against Victims' Families ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:12:01 +0000
>
>Le Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:03:44 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>>> ... who oppose the death penalty ...
>>>
>>> url:http://www.mvfr.org/dignitydenied.html
>
>> And who support it.
>>
>> http://www.pomc.com/memorialdonation.cfm
>> http://www.ncvc.org/law/SBOOK/ch1.HTM
>
>I normally don't visit the URLs ... sorry, URL's that you post
>to this group, as they're usually posted as 'proof' that your
>latest grammatical cataclysm, is in fact 'correct English', based
>on a couple of websites that use the same bastardised English as
>you, with a couple of 'quotes' (sic) thrown in for good measure.
>
>On this occasion, I made an exception.
>
>I read all of the first site, and a goodly proportion of the second,
>but not all. Bearing in mind that this thread is about the prejudice
>suffered by those victims' families, could you tell us in what way
>the two URLs ... damn, sorry, I keep forgetting ... URL's ... show
>prejudice suffered by 'pro-death penalty' victims' families ?
>
>--
>Des On The Road |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!newsfeeds.sol.net!129.240
.148.23.MISMATCH!uio.no!feed.news.nacamar.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e1
17.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Bias Against Victims' Families ...
>Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:12:01 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 30
>Message-ID: <slrnam7lvg.tvn.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnam5hcu.qp4.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
><ANA89.347965$XH.77...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1029953564 49325338 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
A Planet Visitor
> Le Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:03:44 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> >>
> >> url:http://www.mvfr.org/dignitydenied.html
>
> > And who support it.
> >
> > http://www.pomc.com/memorialdonation.cfm
> > http://www.ncvc.org/law/SBOOK/ch1.HTM
>
> to this group, as they're usually posted as 'proof' that your
> latest grammatical cataclysm, is in fact 'correct English', based
> on a couple of websites that use the same bastardised English as
> you, with a couple of 'quotes' (sic) thrown in for good measure.
>
> On this occasion, I made an exception.
>
> I read all of the first site, and a goodly proportion of the second,
> but not all.
Good for you, my boy. I'm glad to see you're still trying to keep
your hand in English. It's unfortunate that you still lack some
skills in noun identifications.
> Bearing in mind that this thread is about the prejudice
> suffered by those victims' families, could you tell us in what way
> the two URLs ... damn, sorry, I keep forgetting ... URL's ... show
> prejudice suffered by 'pro-death penalty' victims' families ?
>
And you were doing so well, up to this point. But now your
latest sentence construction makes no sense whatsoever.
My posting was to demonstrate that not all families of
victims are 'anti-DP.' While the second reference clearly
shows that the victims' rights laws do not show prejudice toward
those who would oppose or support the DP. They are simply
victims' rights laws.
Clearly, there is MORE prejudice demonstrated by abolitionists
against those families of victims who support the DP, than there is
by retentionists against those families of victims who oppose the
DP. This is rather obvious, in any logical examination, because
the retentionist is MORE concerned with the VICTIM and his/her
family, giving little value to the murderer. While the retentionist
is MORE concerned with the murderer, presuming HE/SHE
is the TRUE victim (I do believe you've even said that), and hold
more concern for the family of the MURDERER, than for the
true victim. Certainly that's true in your case, since you have
remarked that the TRUE victim is 'dead' and thus cannot be honored.
Not even by his/her family (in your 'opinion'). Presuming that
only the 'live' murderer could possibly deserve honor, since
he/she is NOT dead (and a more miserable concept has never
been seen here).
Further, this was clearly demonstrated a few months back, when
a lengthy thread developed from abolitionists regarding how we
should show PITY on the murderer, because of the FAMILY of
the murderer (presuming they are ALSO 'victims). And some
abolitionists also tried to argue in that thread that the family of
the true victim will somehow not find closure through execution,
or if the family claims they will find such closure, then it must
be based solely on 'vengeance,' and not 'real' closure.
incubus
> Le Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:03:44 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
écrit :
>
> >>
> >> url:http://www.mvfr.org/dignitydenied.html
>
> > And who support it.
> >
> > http://www.pomc.com/memorialdonation.cfm
> > http://www.ncvc.org/law/SBOOK/ch1.HTM
>
> to this group, as they're usually posted as 'proof' that your
> latest grammatical cataclysm, is in fact 'correct English', based
> on a couple of websites that use the same bastardised English as
> you, with a couple of 'quotes' (sic) thrown in for good measure.
Are you sure the word is URL's and not URLs. I am no expert but if my memory
serves then the apostrophie indicates ownership where the absense of one
indicates a plural with the exception of an abbreviation where the rules are
reversed.
For example.
Desmond's holiday is so boring he keeps posting on here..
is correct
whereas
Desmonds holiday is so boring he keeps posting on here..
is wrong unless there were several Desmonds in which case it would be
Desmonds' holidays are so boring they keep posting on here..
now supposing we use an abbreviation the rules are reversed
it is a nice day
becomes
it's a nice day.
this does not mean tha anything owns "a nice day "
but breaks up "it is"
now if we use an example of say a cat and we give it a collar which itches
then we say
its collar itches
and not
it's collar itches
If there are any more rules to this then i do not know them (yet)
I may be a babbling illiterate dyslexic but i do know a few of the rules
:-)
>
> On this occasion, I made an exception.
>
> I read all of the first site, and a goodly proportion of the second,
> but not all. Bearing in mind that this thread is about the prejudice
> suffered by those victims' families, could you tell us in what way
> the two URLs ... damn, sorry, I keep forgetting ... URL's ... show
> prejudice suffered by 'pro-death penalty' victims' families ?
>
> --
incubus
> Le Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:03:44 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
écrit :
>
> >>
> >> url:http://www.mvfr.org/dignitydenied.html
>
> > And who support it.
> >
> > http://www.pomc.com/memorialdonation.cfm
> > http://www.ncvc.org/law/SBOOK/ch1.HTM
>
> to this group, as they're usually posted as 'proof' that your
> latest grammatical cataclysm, is in fact 'correct English', based
> on a couple of websites that use the same bastardised English as
> you, with a couple of 'quotes' (sic) thrown in for good measure.
again I am no expert but i am sure it is URLS and not URL'S as the latter
states ownership if my memory serves
>
> On this occasion, I made an exception.
>
> I read all of the first site, and a goodly proportion of the second,
> but not all. Bearing in mind that this thread is about the prejudice
> suffered by those victims' families, could you tell us in what way
> the two URLs ... damn, sorry, I keep forgetting ... URL's ... show
> prejudice suffered by 'pro-death penalty' victims' families ?
>
> --
A Planet Visitor
"incubus" <inc...@hellfire.com> wrote in message news:AFV89.4049$nJ.3...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> "Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnam7lvg.tvn.pasde...@lievre.voute.net...
> > Le Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:03:44 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
> écrit :
> >
> > >> ... who oppose the death penalty ...
> > >>
> > >> url:http://www.mvfr.org/dignitydenied.html
> >
> > > And who support it.
> > >
> > > http://www.pomc.com/memorialdonation.cfm
> > > http://www.ncvc.org/law/SBOOK/ch1.HTM
> >
> > I normally don't visit the URLs ... sorry, URL's that you post
> > to this group, as they're usually posted as 'proof' that your
> > latest grammatical cataclysm, is in fact 'correct English', based
> > on a couple of websites that use the same bastardised English as
> > you, with a couple of 'quotes' (sic) thrown in for good measure.
>
> again I am no expert but i am sure it is URLS and not URL'S as the latter
> states ownership if my memory serves
>
He continues to throw them around with abandon, in some random
sequence. He also has trouble with identifying nouns, and is still
unaware that 'bastardised' (sic) is not a word that can be found in the
OED. It is of course, 'bastardized.'
PV
A Planet Visitor
"incubus" <inc...@hellfire.com> wrote in message news:UrX89.3121$bj2.1...@newsfep1-gui.server.ntli.net...
>
> "Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
> news:slrnam7lvg.tvn.pasde...@lievre.voute.net...
> > Le Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:03:44 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
> écrit :
> >
> > >> ... who oppose the death penalty ...
> > >>
> > >> url:http://www.mvfr.org/dignitydenied.html
> >
> > > And who support it.
> > >
> > > http://www.pomc.com/memorialdonation.cfm
> > > http://www.ncvc.org/law/SBOOK/ch1.HTM
> >
> > I normally don't visit the URLs ... sorry, URL's that you post
> > to this group, as they're usually posted as 'proof' that your
> > latest grammatical cataclysm, is in fact 'correct English', based
> > on a couple of websites that use the same bastardised English as
> > you, with a couple of 'quotes' (sic) thrown in for good measure.
>
> Are you sure the word is URL's and not URLs. I am no expert but if my memory
> serves then the apostrophie indicates ownership where the absense of one
> indicates a plural with the exception of an abbreviation where the rules are
> reversed.
>
http://www.abc.lv/thinkquest/tutorials/grammar_style/docs/1/a.html
Unfortunately, this is something that FDP will never seem to understand.
<clip colorful demonstration of FDP's stupidity. See the correct usage
here?>
PV
incubus
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
news:vR899.247569$s8.47...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
when somebody is unsure then it is more sensible to ask than it is to go on
ignorantly and make him/herself look stupid. There is no shame in not
knowing something as knowledge can always be aquired.
My copy of the OED does pronounce "bastardized" as "bastardized" but states
that "bastardised " is also acceptable
>
>
> PV
>
incubus
"A Planet Visitor" <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote in message
wow. I like that URL. I wish I had that doc when I was at school, though it
does appear that I know more about my tongue than I give myself credit for
dirtdog
wrote:
>
>"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
>news:slrnam7lvg.tvn.pasde...@lievre.voute.net...
>> Le Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:03:44 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>>
>> >> ... who oppose the death penalty ...
>> >>
>> >> url:http://www.mvfr.org/dignitydenied.html
>>
>> > And who support it.
>> >
>> > http://www.pomc.com/memorialdonation.cfm
>> > http://www.ncvc.org/law/SBOOK/ch1.HTM
>>
>> I normally don't visit the URLs ... sorry, URL's that you post
>> to this group, as they're usually posted as 'proof' that your
>> latest grammatical cataclysm, is in fact 'correct English', based
>> on a couple of websites that use the same bastardised English as
>> you, with a couple of 'quotes' (sic) thrown in for good measure.
>
>again I am no expert but i am sure it is URLS and not URL'S as the latter
>states ownership if my memory serves
You fuckwit.
<learn to snip you twat>
w00f
dirtdog
<pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>Le Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:03:44 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
>>> ... who oppose the death penalty ...
>>>
>>> url:http://www.mvfr.org/dignitydenied.html
>
>> And who support it.
>>
>> http://www.pomc.com/memorialdonation.cfm
>> http://www.ncvc.org/law/SBOOK/ch1.HTM
>
>I normally don't visit the URLs ... sorry, URL's that you post
>to this group, as they're usually posted as 'proof' that your
>latest grammatical cataclysm, is in fact 'correct English', based
>on a couple of websites that use the same bastardised English as
>you, with a couple of 'quotes' (sic) thrown in for good measure.
>
>On this occasion, I made an exception.
>
>I read all of the first site, and a goodly proportion of the second,
>but not all. Bearing in mind that this thread is about the prejudice
>suffered by those victims' families, could you tell us in what way
>the two URLs ... damn, sorry, I keep forgetting ... URL's ... show
>prejudice suffered by 'pro-death penalty' victims' families ?
You will note, Desmond, that PV has not answered your question.
This is because he cannot, since the URL's [sic] have absolutey
nothing to do with what he claims they provide proof of.
YOu should try to read his URL's [sic] more in future, Desmond,
because they rarely, if _ever_ provide proof of anything, other, of
course, than the fact that PV has typed a few words into a search
engine and randomly posted some hits he was given.
A particularly hilarious example of this came when he attempted
(rather foolishly) to claim that the defence of 'Diminished
Responsibility' was not a defence, but a mitigating circumstance. In
'proving' this, he posted a link to an Australian article on the
subject.
Had I simply ignored his URL's [sic] it would have passed me by, but
as it was, and as I was in disbelief that _any_ source could make such
a fundamental mistake, I had a look.
The article, which PV had _patently_ not read was actually entitled
'Diminished Responsibility - A Partial Defence. His Search engine had
not extracted the second part in providing his 'hit'.
How I laughed.
w00f
incubus
> Le Thu, 22 Aug 2002 18:23:31 +0100, incubus <inc...@hellfire.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > when somebody is unsure then it is more sensible to ask than it is to go
on
> > ignorantly and make him/herself look stupid. There is no shame in not
> > knowing something as knowledge can always be aquired.
>
good. What does he ride :-)
incubus
> Le Thu, 22 Aug 2002 02:50:21 +0100, incubus <inc...@hellfire.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> I normally don't visit the URLs ... sorry, URL's that you post
> >> to this group, as they're usually posted as 'proof' that your
> >> latest grammatical cataclysm, is in fact 'correct English', based
> >> on a couple of websites that use the same bastardised English as
> >> you, with a couple of 'quotes' (sic) thrown in for good measure.
>
> > Are you sure the word is URL's and not URLs. I am no expert but if my
memory
> > serves then the apostrophie indicates ownership where the absense of one
> > indicates a plural with the exception of an abbreviation where the rules
are
> > reversed.
>
> 'URL ... sorry, URL's', with LDB. It's called taking the piss ... this
> is because he was spanked good and proper by my and dirt, concerning his
> retarded American use of this most basic of English punctuation.
>
bollox. You fucked it up, admit it :-)
incubus
> Le Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:50:28 +0100, incubus <inc...@hellfire.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Ha ... ha ... incubus ? He's taking you for a ride, mate ...
>
> > good. What does he ride :-)
>
> a motorcycle.
<desi completely missed the joke>
>
> Then again, he's also convinced that abstract verbs don't exist, that
> 'pedantic' is a noun, that 'Newfound' is the capital of the country
> called 'New South Wales, that O.J. Simpson was found guilty of murder,
> and that 'le Syndrome de Down', is 'conclusive proof' that apostrophes
> are not used in English ... perhaps with such a 'pick [sic] shit'
portfolio,
> he deserves our pity, rather than our derision.
This isn't an English class Desi and besides, let us remember that O.J.
Simpson could get Stevie Wonder a driving license
incubus
> Le Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:36:12 +0100, incubus <inc...@hellfire.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Well he doesn't 'ride' a bike, as he is convinced that one 'drives'
(sic)
> >> a motorcycle.
>
> ><desi completely missed the joke>
>
>
> 'good. What does he ride :-)'
>
> Fuck me, there go all my ribs at once ...
i would lend you some of mine but they cracked at your humour..
>
> { snip my spanking LDB's rosy red botty ... }
>
> > This isn't an English class Desi
>
> Context, old boy ... context.
<vision: Desi dons a dear talker and lights an oversized white pipe>
>LDB has made a veritable career in
> this newsgroup, of pendantry (or 'pedanticness', as he calls it)
> in English. This was before your appearance on here. His biggest
> mistake was to take on two native British English speakers (even when
> one of them is steadily losing his English).
>
> The result is that his gaping cakehole has taken the harshest pounding
> that it's had, since his torture at the hands of the 'Cong'.
>
> > and besides, let us remember that O.J.
> > Simpson could get Stevie Wonder a driving license
>
> What ??
incubus
> Le Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:20:12 +0100, incubus <inc...@hellfire.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> Context, old boy ... context.
>
> ><vision: Desi dons a dear talker and lights an oversized white pipe>
>
> stuff was readily available down here. Bollox it is ...
it is here too. I wouldn't mind but when the police stop you, search you,
find you haven't got any so offer to sell you some then you wonder when they
legalised it :-)
incubus
> Le Thu, 22 Aug 2002 22:29:43 +0100, incubus <inc...@hellfire.com> a
écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> I fucking wish ... I left my stash in Paris, as I was told that the
> >> stuff was readily available down here. Bollox it is ...
>
> > it is here too. I wouldn't mind but when the police stop you, search
you,
> > find you haven't got any so offer to sell you some then you wonder when
they
> > legalised it :-)
>
> France. One wonders why they don't just legalise it ...
I think its a tax thing Desi. It's impossible to charge an import tax on
something you can grow in your own garden
>
> A colleague of mine was stopped recently, with a small packet of
> grass in his pocket. The police just said, 'Fais ça chez toi ...'
> ('Do that at home'), and let him go.
I bet they saw the amount, imagined the amount of paperwork and realised it
just wasn't worth it
A Planet Visitor
> Le Thu, 22 Aug 2002 19:12:59 +0100, dirtdog <dir...@fruffrant.com> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >>again I am no expert but i am sure it is URLS and not URL'S as the latter
> >>states ownership if my memory serves
>
>
> Heh ... and he swallowed LDB's little act, hook line and sinker ...
<belly laugh on>
SLURP... SLURP... SLURP... But at least you placed the apostrophe
correctly this time. Apparently getting spanked as hard as you've
been here, has caused you to investigate your usage of 'greengrocer'
apostrophes. ROTFLMAO.
"With our own feathers, by our own kind, are we now smitten."
Aeschylus
How true... how very true. You simply decided to fall on your own
sword.
<belly laugh off>
PV
> --
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:acaamu4v8cnd3tl6t...@4ax.com...
>
Lapdog, dirtbag, returns to snarl at anyone who would remark on his
master's stupidity. Or as FDP would say -- 'His masters stupidity' (sic).
> <learn to snip you twat>
>
Learn to think.. you scumbag.
PV
> w00f
>
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> > ignorantly and make him/herself look stupid. There is no shame in not
> > knowing something as knowledge can always be aquired.
>
It would appear that you're the one being 'taken for a ride, mate.'
You really SHOULD learn how the apostrophe is used. It just
demonstrates your confusion about other things... things more
important. If you ONLY had an 'education' (sic). So much could
be learned by you. An empty vessel for a brain, just thirsting for
a drop of knowledge, while functioning in your desert of ignorance.
PV
>
>
> --
dirtdog
wrote:
<snipped>
>
>This isn't an English class Desi
You're damn fuckin' right it's not.
Were it a 'class', one would presume people would pay attention.
Repetitive errors would be punished. One does, after all, have to be
cruel to be kind.
Hence, as a 'classroom' atmosphere would doubtlessly benefit certain
posters, who, if chastised hard enough might actually _learn_
something.
In the interests of academia, and an appreciation that increased
accuracy can only be viewed as a _good thing_, may I suggest that TP
is ordered to do two hundred lines.
'I must not place punctuation not belonging to my quotes within those
quotes'
However, such punishment must be imposed in full view of the teacher -
we do, after all, know how adept FWTP is with the ol' cut'n'paste.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<snipped>
>>
>Learn to think.. you scumbag.
Of course.
Just as soon as the quality of your posting improves to a point where
_thinking _ becomes necessary once more in administering you with a
regular hiding
w00f
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:fdaamuolhvnvhn7jv...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 21 Aug 2002 18:12:01 +0000, Desmond Coughlan
> <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> wrote:
>
> >Le Wed, 21 Aug 2002 00:03:44 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
> >
> >>> ... who oppose the death penalty ...
> >>>
> >>> url:http://www.mvfr.org/dignitydenied.html
> >
> >> And who support it.
> >>
> >> http://www.pomc.com/memorialdonation.cfm
> >> http://www.ncvc.org/law/SBOOK/ch1.HTM
> >
> >I normally don't visit the URLs ... sorry, URL's that you post
> >to this group, as they're usually posted as 'proof' that your
> >latest grammatical cataclysm, is in fact 'correct English', based
> >on a couple of websites that use the same bastardised English as
> >you, with a couple of 'quotes' (sic) thrown in for good measure.
> >
> >On this occasion, I made an exception.
> >
> >I read all of the first site, and a goodly proportion of the second,
> >but not all. Bearing in mind that this thread is about the prejudice
> >suffered by those victims' families, could you tell us in what way
> >the two URLs ... damn, sorry, I keep forgetting ... URL's ... show
> >prejudice suffered by 'pro-death penalty' victims' families ?
>
>
> You will note, Desmond, that PV has not answered your question.
>
> This is because he cannot, since the URL's [sic] have absolutey
> nothing to do with what he claims they provide proof of.
You just can't stop stepping on your dick, can you? They have
absolutey (sic) everything to do with desi's argument.
There is very clear evidence, simply by the reading of the posts
of some abolitionists here, that there exists a great deal of
prejudice suffered by 'pro-death penalty' victims' families.
Certainly 'Uncle Tom' desmond's own postings, always show a
positively palpable hate for the TRUE victim. And it certainly extends
in prejudice toward the families of victims who support the DP. Need
an example? Consider desi's destructive comment provided to the
rather fragile emotional state of just such a family. The mother
of a son recently murdered, posting here to try and make some
sense to that murder. And desi remarking in the most brutal,
insensitive and destructive terms possible that she was perverse,
and that her son's murderer was the TRUE victim of 'state-sponsored
murder.' His EXACT words to this grieving mother??? Well... they
were -- "please find another lie to support your rather perverse taste
for state-sponsored murder. "
> You should try to read his URL's [sic] more in future, Desmond,
> because they rarely, if _ever_ provide proof of anything, other, of
> course, than the fact that PV has typed a few words into a search
> engine and randomly posted some hits he was given.
>
A remark which simply proves my point. I link to a URL
provided by pro-DP families of victims, and it is met with a prejudicial
wave of garbage right here by both you and FDP. This prejudice
is now shown here by the curt dismissal abolitionists such as you
and desi now display toward the URLs I've provided. The proof
lies within that very disdain you have shown in your replies here.
Thank you for providing proof of what I say.
> A particularly hilarious example of this came when he attempted
> (rather foolishly) to claim that the defence of 'Diminished
> Responsibility' was not a defence, but a mitigating circumstance. In
> 'proving' this, he posted a link to an Australian article on the
> subject.
>
<belly laugh on>
Once again, you have been so TOTALLY demolished in your
simplistic view regarding 'mitigating circumstances,' that it's a
wonder you don't hang your head in shame. Sixteen PROOFS I've
provided, while you have relied on your 'opinion' offered without ANY
proof.
> Had I simply ignored his URL's [sic] it would have passed me by, but
> as it was, and as I was in disbelief that _any_ source could make such
> a fundamental mistake, I had a look.
>
> The article, which PV had _patently_ not read was actually entitled
> 'Diminished Responsibility - A Partial Defence. His Search engine had
> not extracted the second part in providing his 'hit'.
>
ROTFLMAO --- I also provided a Supreme Court cite, a 6th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals cite, a State of New York Appellate Court ruling, a
State of Vermont Supreme Court ruling, a Commonwealth of Massachusetts
court ruling, a State of Montana criminal statute, a State of Maine
criminal statute, a State of Vermont Criminal Statute, a State of
Tennessee Criminal Statute, a State of New York Criminal Statute,
a State of Illinois Criminal Statute, and five different definitions from
legal sources, all citing 'mitigating circumstances' as having the weight
to change the degree of the offense. And this was just a cursory
examination since I have no law library to refer to. While I believe your
'argument' (sic) was 'cites, statutes and definitions are all for
wannabees.' Silly boy.
<belly laugh off>
> How I laughed.
That's because you don't have the capacity to weep, dirtbag. It isn't
in your emotional grab-bag. There is no doubt that your emotional
gamut ranges from 'maniacal laugh' to 'obscene grin,' to 'hysterical
anger,' to 'raging flush,' to 'beating head against desk.' You have no
emotional room for weeping, nor for shame, nor for embarrassment.
It's always been 'all about you,' and there is no room for any feeling
for the families of victims, which just proves my point. Plus the
fact you are rather easy to chew up and spit out in any logical
argument, Louise.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> >>but not all. Bearing in mind that this thread is about the prejudice
> >>suffered by those victims' families, could you tell us in what way
> >>the two URLs ... damn, sorry, I keep forgetting ... URL's ... show
> >>prejudice suffered by 'pro-death penalty' victims' families ?
>
> > You will note, Desmond, that PV has not answered your question.
>
>
Indeed you answered it yourself. Some time ago...in a post to
bobbyc, where your hate and prejudice for the pro-DP families
of victims was very direct, to the point, and emotionally devastating
to the mother of a son murdered, who had come to this group
searching for some meaning to that murder. You certainly showed
her that some abolitionists do not even know what COMPASSION
is. You have it ONLY for murderers, and none for victims or the
families of victims. Especially if those families might find the
DP to be justice. In that case, the victim suddenly becomes a
'deathie' in your view. I can't express my disgust for you adequately.
Certainly your distaste for certain segments of our species speaks
volumes of your bigotry, 'Uncle Tom.'
> I just went back and checked out the second of the two URLs ... sorry,
> URL's that he provided. Keep in mind that my original post to this
> thread, was concerning the prejudice and abuse suffered by the families
> of murder victims, who subsequently choose to oppose the death penalty.
> Bear in mind also that LDB posted two URLs ... sorry, URL's, which he
> claimed demonstrated that the same is true in reverse.
>
> In fact, neither of the two sites ... sorry, site's ... details
> anything other than a flourishing victims' rights culture, which allows
> victims and their families, redress.
>
Well, I do believe that YOU'VE now demonstrated exactly what I speak
of. The hate you have for the families of TRUE victims who support the
DP, comes through loud and clear here, 'Uncle Tom.' And what exactly
WAS the 'point' of your first comment, if such a 'culture' is flourishing?
<pathetic whine from the lapdog of FDP clipped>
A Planet Visitor
>
> ><vision: Desi dons a dear talker and lights an oversized white pipe>
>
> stuff was readily available down here. Bollox it is ...
There's no red wine there??? Are you on the hard stuff??
Please don't harm your wife....again.
PV
>
> --
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:981bmu4m3c9hftn5r...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 22 Aug 2002 21:36:12 +0100, "incubus" <inc...@hellfire.com>
> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> >
> >This isn't an English class Desi
>
>
> Were it a 'class', one would presume people would pay attention.
> Repetitive errors would be punished. One does, after all, have to be
> cruel to be kind.
> Hence, as a 'classroom' atmosphere would doubtlessly benefit certain
> posters, who, if chastised hard enough might actually _learn_
> something.
>
> In the interests of academia, and an appreciation that increased
> accuracy can only be viewed as a _good thing_, may I suggest that TP
> is ordered to do two hundred lines.
>
> 'I must not place punctuation not belonging to my quotes within those
> quotes'
>
> However, such punishment must be imposed in full view of the teacher -
> we do, after all, know how adept FWTP is with the ol' cut'n'paste.
>
Holy shit!!! This from Louise... pardon me while I hurl, and provide
just a smidgen of what are still his/her mistakes here. If I were
obsessive I could easily provide 10 times this number. But this
will have to do, since it is enough to show that Louise has made
a 'stupid' cunt of him/her self on a number of occasions ---
'Suprise' [sic], your many 'indescretions' [sic] only exist for 'watever' [sic].
You should never give up your 'sovreignty' [sic], because that would be
'absolutey' (sic) 'unenforcable' [sic]. Unless it were 'incorperated' [sic]
'accross' (sic) law. Of course, you could always 'hve' (sic). 'reneiged' [sic].
But we can be 'absolutly' [sic] sure of your 'abiity' [sic] to become 'detatched' [sic]
and 'siingle' [sic]. But 'your' (sic) <16, and can't have an 'independant' [sic]
'emothion' (sic). An 'exampe' (sic) which is 'essentailly' [sic] not
always a true 'cocept' [sic]. You would be 'self-indulgant' [sic] to think
so. Such an 'assetion' [sic]; although 'humourous' [sic] is 'teririble' [sic]
and 'unsuprising' [sic], 'obsecene' (sic) and 'bullsitting' (sic) 'istances' (sic)
of 'impostion' (sic). 'Nontheless' (sic) 'hould' (sic) 'ditingushed' (sic),
'undesireable' (sic), 'entenched' (sic), 'contitutional' (sic), 'targetted' (sic),
'descision' (sic) 'casue' (sic), 'apprension' (sic) or be 'prosceuted' (sic),
it 'contitutes' (sic) 'desruction' (sic), of 'insufficent' (sic) 'cluelessly '(sic)
'tryanny' (sic), and is 'incedibly' (sic) 'indicatve' (sic) of an 'outclased' (sic)
moron.
Translation -- dirtbag is a moron.
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:947bmucnf7thrad69...@4ax.com...
Would that you could make it that easy, Louise. Your track record
isn't impressive against anyone here. And all you have is your
master throwing the stick and hollering 'fetch.' At which point, you
dutifully drop everything and go scampering after that stick, with a
drooling tongue. You might start by familiarizing yourself with
Boswell.
PV
>
> w00f
>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Thu, 22 Aug 2002 23:18:58 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> >> >>again I am no expert but i am sure it is URLS and not URL'S as the latter
> >> >>states ownership if my memory serves
>
> >> > You ****kwit.
>
> >> Heh ... and he swallowed LDB's little act, hook line and sinker ...
>
> > correctly this time. Apparently getting spanked as hard as you've
> > been here, has caused you to investigate your usage of 'greengrocer'
> > apostrophes. ROTFLMAO.
>
As usual... by the time desi scratches his ass, clears his throat,
belches, farts and begins to tells us how smart he is, we've already
lost interest.
It must hurt so badly to have everyone recognize how your posts
have become so illiterate, 'Uncle Tom.'
dirtdog
Which still begs the question, PV, of what the fuck have those URL's
[sic] which you linked to got to do with prejudice towards victims'
families?
Nothing. That's what.
You were wrong, you got caught out, learn to live with it.
<subsequent nonsense snipped>
w00f
dirtdog
It is with a degree of sadness that I note you have lost the fucking
plot, FW.
Your argument (and please, correct me if I'm wrong), appears to be
this:
- You post links to two web site, claiming these show instances of
prejudice against victims' families who support the DP
- Both myself and Desmond view these websites and notice they are
simply sites very much in the mould of Sharp's JFA
- We both enquire as to how you have reached the conclusion that these
sites show prejudice against victims
- You claim that the fact we have asked the question above proves,
sorry, PROVE'S that these websites, sorry, website's show evidence of
prejudice against victims' families
Which, of course, is a great deal of shite.
The truth is simple. You have again either:
1- Purposefully posted a 'cite' in the hope that it would add credence
to your argument as viewed by people foolish enough to just _believe_
what you said or,
2- Shown how very little you understand the concept of evidence, or
how prone you are to quoting without having read the source from
which you quote.
Face facts, PV. These websites do not show any form of prejudice
against families of victims, and your stating that they do was simply
off the mark. Kindly cease your inevitable and humiliating damage
control exercises, admit your error and move along.
<PV brainlessly referring to his 'positive proofs' [sic], most of
which have been destroyed by myself snipped>
Again, PV, you attempt to disguise your shaky position by boring the
reader to death with a high volume of inapplicable, irrelevant and
self-contradictory cites.
If you are still convinced that a true mitigating circumstance serves
to reduce the level of an offence to a lesser one through the
operation of the law, produce your 'cites' one at a time.
w00f
dirtdog
<abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
<snipped>
>
>'Suprise' [sic], your many 'indescretions' [sic] only exist for 'watever' [sic].
>You should never give up your 'sovreignty' [sic], because that would be
>'absolutey' (sic) 'unenforcable' [sic]. Unless it were 'incorperated' [sic]
>'accross' (sic) law. Of course, you could always 'hve' (sic). 'reneiged' [sic].
>But we can be 'absolutly' [sic] sure of your 'abiity' [sic] to become 'detatched' [sic]
>and 'siingle' [sic]. But 'your' (sic) <16, and can't have an 'independant' [sic]
>'emothion' (sic). An 'exampe' (sic) which is 'essentailly' [sic] not
>always a true 'cocept' [sic]. You would be 'self-indulgant' [sic] to think
>so. Such an 'assetion' [sic]; although 'humourous' [sic] is 'teririble' [sic]
>and 'unsuprising' [sic], 'obsecene' (sic) and 'bullsitting' (sic) 'istances' (sic)
>of 'impostion' (sic). 'Nontheless' (sic) 'hould' (sic) 'ditingushed' (sic),
>'undesireable' (sic), 'entenched' (sic), 'contitutional' (sic), 'targetted' (sic),
>'descision' (sic) 'casue' (sic), 'apprension' (sic) or be 'prosceuted' (sic),
>it 'contitutes' (sic) 'desruction' (sic), of 'insufficent' (sic) 'cluelessly '(sic)
>'tryanny' (sic), and is 'incedibly' (sic) 'indicatve' (sic) of an 'outclased' (sic)
>moron.
>Translation -- dirtbag is a moron.
>
L - O - L
You are, without a shadow of a doubt, the _saddest_ bastard on Earth.
_Every_ single spelling mistake or typo I have made in over a year of
posting to this group is listed above, of course proving, sorry,
PROVING, that you note _each and every_ one down in a text file!
Without even knowing it, you have underlined in one paragraph of
fuckwittedness, not only how _angry_ I make you, but how _obsessed_
and desperate to 'get one over' you are.
Of course, in assessing just what makes us different, PV, you should
ask yourself the question of how many of the above spellings I claim
are correct or legitimate.
w00f
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Bias Against Victims' Families ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:46:32 +0000
>
>Le Fri, 23 Aug 2002 07:08:22 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>> As usual... by the time desi scratches his ass, clears his throat,
>> belches, farts and begins to tells us how smart he is, we've already
>> lost interest.
>
>... which is why you responded. Bwwwaaaaaahahahahaaa !!!!!!
>
>Oh, and get those apostrophes ... sorry, apostrophe's sorted, LDB. And
>get off your knees ... and close your mouth, you oaf ... it's not a
>'silver bird', it's an 'airplane' (sic).
>
>
>--
>Des On The Road |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!nntp1.roc.gblx.net!nntp.g
blx.net!nntp.gblx.net!news-out.visi.com!hermes.visi.com!eusc.inter.net!fu-
berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Bias Against Victims' Families ...
>Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 19:46:32 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 20
>Message-ID: <slrnamd48o.1959.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnam5hcu.qp4.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
><ANA89.347965$XH.77...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnam7lvg.tvn.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
><AFV89.4049$nJ.3...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>
><acaamu4v8cnd3tl6t...@4ax.com>
><slrnamaa1e.13qh.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><Cje99.254980$s8.48...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnamb158.15ng.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><Gbl99.262380$s8.49...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespam_de...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1030134330 48075704 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])
>X-Orig-Path: lievre.voute.net!nobody
>X-No-Archive: true
>X-OS: BSD UNIX
>X-PGP: http://www.zeouane.org/pgp/pubring.pkr
>User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (FreeBSD)
>
Desi is afraid of his own words! He can be reached at des...@noos.fr or
des...@zeouane.org.
As everyone knows, only COWARDS forge posts yet don't allow their own to be
archived!
Now Desi, Tell us about the Baltimore County police.
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:p16dmu091j0ppa3n2...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Aug 2002 07:08:23 GMT, "A Planet Visitor"
> <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> wrote:
>
> <snipped>
>
> >
> >'Suprise' [sic], your many 'indescretions' [sic] only exist for 'watever' [sic].
> >You should never give up your 'sovreignty' [sic], because that would be
> >'absolutey' (sic) 'unenforcable' [sic]. Unless it were 'incorperated' [sic]
> >'accross' (sic) law. Of course, you could always 'hve' (sic). 'reneiged' [sic].
> >But we can be 'absolutly' [sic] sure of your 'abiity' [sic] to become 'detatched' [sic]
> >and 'siingle' [sic]. But 'your' (sic) <16, and can't have an 'independant' [sic]
> >'emothion' (sic). An 'exampe' (sic) which is 'essentailly' [sic] not
> >always a true 'cocept' [sic]. You would be 'self-indulgant' [sic] to think
> >so. Such an 'assetion' [sic]; although 'humourous' [sic] is 'teririble' [sic]
> >and 'unsuprising' [sic], 'obsecene' (sic) and 'bullsitting' (sic) 'istances' (sic)
> >of 'impostion' (sic). 'Nontheless' (sic) 'hould' (sic) 'ditingushed' (sic),
> >'undesireable' (sic), 'entenched' (sic), 'contitutional' (sic), 'targetted' (sic),
> >'descision' (sic) 'casue' (sic), 'apprension' (sic) or be 'prosceuted' (sic),
> >it 'contitutes' (sic) 'desruction' (sic), of 'insufficent' (sic) 'cluelessly '(sic)
> >'tryanny' (sic), and is 'incedibly' (sic) 'indicatve' (sic) of an 'outclased' (sic)
> >moron.
> >Translation -- dirtbag is a moron.
> >
>
> L - O - L
>
> You are, without a shadow of a doubt, the _saddest_ bastard on Earth.
No, I believe that 'title' falls to you, Louise. Lord knows you've
worked hard enough to earn it. Or is that worked hard enogfh (sic) to
earn it?
<pathetic whine clipped>
PV
>
> w00f
>
A Planet Visitor
"dirtdog" <dir...@fruffrant.com> wrote in message news:2f3dmuc2v6v6d4jhu...@4ax.com...
> plot, FW.
>
It is with a degree of pleasure that I note you've never been able
to locate 'any plot,' from anyone, anywhere, any time, any place.
That can hardly be attributed to anything other than YOUR
inability to 'digest' the plot.
> Your argument (and please, correct me if I'm wrong), appears to be
> this:
>
Of my... 'irony' at work.
> - You post links to two web site, claiming these show instances of
> prejudice against victims' families who support the DP
>
> - Both myself and Desmond view these websites and notice they are
> simply sites very much in the mould of Sharp's JFA
>
> - We both enquire as to how you have reached the conclusion that these
> sites show prejudice against victims
>
> - You claim that the fact we have asked the question above proves,
> sorry, PROVE'S that these websites, sorry, website's show evidence of
> prejudice against victims' families
>
> Which, of course, is a great deal of shite.
>
Actually, as I suspected you never had the 'plot' to begin with.
> The truth is simple. You have again either:
>
> 1- Purposefully posted a 'cite' in the hope that it would add credence
> to your argument as viewed by people foolish enough to just _believe_
> what you said or,
>
Which it does. Only the foolish would presume it does not.
> 2- Shown how very little you understand the concept of evidence, or
> how prone you are to quoting without having read the source from
> which you quote.
>
ROTFLMAO. 'evidence.' Now I KNOW you've never had the
'plot.' Shit, Louise.. you can't even define 'evidence,' and when
someone does it for you, you claim they are 'wannabees.'
> Face facts, PV. These websites do not show any form of prejudice
> against families of victims, and your stating that they do was simply
> off the mark. Kindly cease your inevitable and humiliating damage
> control exercises, admit your error and move along.
>
The point is that 'Uncle Tom's' claim was that 'prejudice' exists
against those who oppose the DP. And that's just so much
whining by 'Uncle Tom' himself. They are of course victims,
but CANNOT presume they are being prejudiced against because
they oppose the DP. Clearly, the counter-argument is that
those victims who support the DP feel just as much prejudice
by abolitionists. And that prejudice shows up in many places.
Clearly both you and 'Uncle Tom' have proven my point, your
personal outrage in respect to the families of victims who
support the DP. And I thank you kindly for doing so. You might
also look at
http://www.deathpenaltyreligious.org/
Just about every anti-DP organization provides the implication
of prejudice against anyone holding a view toward the DP.
Religious organizations almost imply that ANYONE who
supports the DP has a 'corroded soul.' The implication of
prejudice PERMEATES the entire anti-DP movement. It
is simple to show this fact, simply through examination of
any anti-DP site, including Amnesty International itself.
>
> <PV brainlessly referring to his 'positive proofs' [sic], most of
> which have been destroyed by myself snipped>
I'm rather sure that when you 'clip' what someone claims are
'positive proofs' without responding to them, the implication
is that they quite possibly WERE 'positive proofs.'
>
> Again, PV, you attempt to disguise your shaky position by boring the
> reader to death with a high volume of inapplicable, irrelevant and
> self-contradictory cites.
>
Ummm... pot...kettle...black...
> If you are still convinced that a true mitigating circumstance serves
> to reduce the level of an offence to a lesser one through the
> operation of the law, produce your 'cites' one at a time.
No need to, sport. Each one of them prove that a mitigating
circumstance can reduce the degree of the offense.
Any one of them disprove your assertion that it cannot.
Thus you must argue each and every one of them.
Of course, no one cares... because you have been
so thoroughly spanked. While I have another 16
waiting in the wings when you process these.
1) United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals -
Rhodes c. Brigano
http://www.law.emory.edu/6circuit/aug96/96a0246p.06.html
"Being under the influence of sudden passion or in a sudden fit
of rage, either of which is brought on by serious provocation
ccasioned by the victim that is reasonably sufficient to incite
the defendant into using deadly force[,] is a mitigating
circumstance, which reduces what would otherwise be
murder to voluntary manslaughter."
2) State of Montana Criminal Code 45-5-103
http://data.opi.state.mt.us/bills/mca/45/5/45-5-103.htm
It is an affirmative defense that the defendant acted
under the influence of extreme mental or emotional
stress as provided in subsection (1). This defense
constitutes a mitigating circumstance reducing
deliberate homicide to mitigated deliberate homicide
and must be proved by the defendant by a preponderance
of the evidence.
Thought you said 'affirmative defense'' cannot be a
'mitigating circumstance'? State of Montana Criminal
Code disputes that view.
3) Criminal statute of the State of Oregon
http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/163.html
"163.118 Manslaughter in the first degree. (1)
Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter in the
first degree when:
(b) It is committed intentionally by a defendant
under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance
as provided in ORS 163.135, which constitutes a
mitigating circumstance reducing the homicide that
would otherwise be murder to manslaughter in the
first degree and need not be proved in any prosecution"
4) Criminal statute of the State of Illinois
http://www.legis.state.il.us/ilcs/ch720/ch720act5articles/ch720act5Sub9.htm
720 ILCS 5/9-2)
Sec. 9-2. Second Degree Murder. (a) A person commits
the offense of second degree murder when he commits the
offense of first degree murder as defined in paragraphs (1)
or (2) of subsection (a) of Section 9-1 of this Code and either
of the following mitigating factors are present:
(1) At the time of the killing he is acting under a sudden
and intense passion resulting from serious provocation by
the individual killed or another whom the offender endeavors
to kill, but he negligently or accidentally causes the death
of the individual killed; or
(2) At the time of the killing he believes the circumstances
to be such that, if they existed, would justify or exonerate the
killing under the principles stated in Article 7 of this Code,
but his belief is unreasonable.
'Mitigating factors' reduce the degree of the crime.
5) Commonwealth of Massachuttes v. Meshach Little
http://www.socialaw.com/sjcslip/7949.html
"'If any view of the evidence . . . would permit a verdict
of manslaughter rather than murder, a manslaughter
charge should be given.' Commonwealth v. Brooks,
422 Mass. 574, 578 (1996). One of the mitigating
circumstances that would render the crime a voluntary
'manslaughter . . . [is] a killing from a sudden transport
of passion or heat of blood, upon a reasonable
provocation and without malice, or upon sudden combat"
Mitigating circumstances of 'passion or heat of blood,'
reducing murder to manslaughter.
6) -- A State of New York Appellate ruling
http://www.courts.state.ny.us/ctapps/decisions/127opn.pdf
From page 2 --
"Thus, the fact "that [a] homicide was committed under
the influence of extreme emotional disturbance constitutes
a mitigating circumstance reducing murder to manslaughter
in the first degree" (Penal Law § 125.20[2])."
Note that not only does a 'mitigating circumstance' have
the possibility of 'reducing murder to manslaughter in the
first degree,' that 'extreme emotional disturbance' constitutes
a 'mitigating circumstance.'
7) -- A U.S. Supreme Court Ruling # 99-478 See
http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/supreme_court/briefs/99-478/99-478fo3/brief.pdf
Quoting from the middle of that ruling --
"Alternatively, a State might elect to set the greatest
maximum penalty for all persons who commit a
particular offense, while providing for affirmative
defenses (or mitigating factors) to be proved by
the defendant in order to obtain a lesser penalty.
Cf. Patterson v. New York, supra (State may
provide for an affirmative defense of extreme emotional
disturbance that mitigates murder to manslaughter to
be proved by the preponderance of the evidence)."
See again that 'extreme emotional disturbance' which
the New York appellate court found to be a 'mitigating
circumstance' can again mitigate the crime of murder
to the lesser crime of manslaughter.
8) - the State of Tennessee, for one, also considers
EXACTLY that .. See
http://chattanooga.net/~bjpetty/deathlaw.html
Quoting from THAT statute -- "In arriving at
the punishment the jury shall consider, as heretofore
indicated, any mitigating circumstances which shall
include, but are not limited to, the following:
....
(2) The murder was committed which the defendant
was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional
disturbance."
9) A Court opinion of the State of Vermont Supreme
Court. See --
http://www.state.vt.us/atg/april2001%20law%20month.htm
Quoting an excerpt from that opinion --
"The critical factor distinguishing second degree murder
from voluntary manslaughter is not the mental state of
the actor, but the existence of mitigating circumstances."
10) -- The Criminal Statute of the State of Maine, U.S.-
http://janus.state.me.us/legis/statutes/17-A/title17-Asec203.html
QUOTING from the Criminal Statute --
"The fact that the person causes the death while under
the influence of extreme anger or extreme fear brought
about by adequate provocation constitutes a mitigating
circumstance reducing murder to manslaughter and
need not be proved in any prosecution initiated under
this subsection; or [1989, c. 505, §1(amd).]"
11) The Penal Code of the State of New York
http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?cl=82&a=28
"S 125.20 Manslaughter in the first degree.
A person is guilty of manslaughter in the first degree when:
....With intent to cause the death of another person, he
causes the death of such person or of a third person
under circumstances which do not constitute murder
because he acts under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance, as defined in paragraph (a) of subdivision
one of section 125.25. The fact that homicide was
committed under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance constitutes a mitigating circumstance
reducing murder to manslaughter in the first degree
and need not be proved in any prosecution initiated under
this subdivision"
Ummm... 'extreme emotional disturbance' = 'mitigating
circumstance' = reduce murder to manslaughter in the
1st Degree.
12) -- From Black's Law Dictionary --
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES --
"Mitigating circumstances which will reduce degree of
homicide to manslaughter are the commission of the
killing in a sudden heat of passion caused by adequate
legal provocation. (People v. Morris 31 Michigan Appeals
Report 301, 187 North Western Reporter 2d 434, 438.)"
13) A definition from Lawyers.com
http://www.lawyers.com/lawyers-com/executable/glossary/defpage.asp?SEQNO=5592
"MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE -
"a circumstance in the commission of an act that lessens
the degree of criminal culpability <was convicted of manslaughter
rather than murder because of mitigating circumstances>"
14) A definition from Findlaw.com
http://dictionary.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/results.pl?co=laws.lp.findlaw.com&topic
=b8/b85f6c1475ce965def1144cca45b5807
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE
": a circumstance in the commission of an act that lessens
the degree of criminal culpability Example: was convicted
of manslaughter rather than murder because of mitigating
circumstances"
15) A definition from Law.com
http://dictionary.law.com/definition2.asp?selected=1267&bold=||||
"Mitigating Circumstances --
n. in criminal law, conditions or happenings which do not
excuse or justify criminal conduct, but are considered out of
mercy or fairness in deciding the degree of the offense the
prosecutor charges or influencing reduction of the penalty
upon conviction. Example: a young man shoots his father
after years of being beaten, belittled, sworn at and treated
without love. "Heat of passion" or "diminished capacity" are
forms of such mitigating circumstances."
16) A definition from Lectlaw.com
http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/m036.htm
"MITIGATING FACTORS - Information about a defendant or
the circumstances of a crime that might tend to lessen
the sentence or the crime with which the person is charged.
MITIGATION - To make less rigorous or penal."
PV
> w00f
>
>
A Planet Visitor
> Le Fri, 23 Aug 2002 07:08:22 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> > As usual... by the time desi scratches his ass, clears his throat,
> > belches, farts and begins to tells us how smart he is, we've already
> > lost interest.
>
>
> Oh, and get those apostrophes ... sorry, apostrophe's sorted, LDB. And
> get off your knees ... and close your mouth, you oaf ... it's not a
> 'silver bird', it's an 'airplane' (sic).
>
his widdle butt not so widdle? Seems like it.
A Planet Visitor
"Desmond Coughlan" <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> wrote in message
news:slrnamf28i.1efb....@lievre.voute.net...
> Le Sat, 24 Aug 2002 06:11:36 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a écrit :
>
> { snip }
>
> >> get off your knees ... and close your mouth, you oaf ... it's not a
> >> 'silver bird', it's an 'airplane' (sic).
>
> > his widdle butt not so widdle? Seem's like it.
>
> *BANG!!*
>
> Still 'hopping around', I see, LDB ... ROTFLMAO !!!!
>
<belly laugh on>
Exactly what is desi's 'argument' here? Is it a sausage? There is
certainly a resemblance. Is it a Walt Disney cartoon character?
We seem to be getting closer. Is it a corpse? Well, it DOES
hang there just limp and soggy. Is there a 'thought' contained
in his comment? Nah!! Just an occasional word with can be made
out, which calls out 'Look at me... I'm stupid.'
<belly laugh off>
PV
> --
> Desmond Coughlan |EVEN SATAN KNOWS
Dr. Dolly Coughlan
Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org> writes:
>Subject: Re: Bias Against Victims' Families ...
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:24:34 +0000
>
>Le Sat, 24 Aug 2002 06:11:36 GMT, A Planet Visitor <abc...@zbqytr.ykq> a
>écrit :
>
>{ snip }
>
>>> Oh, and get those apostrophes ... sorry, apostrophe's sorted, LDB. And
>>> get off your knees ... and close your mouth, you oaf ... it's not a
>>> 'silver bird', it's an 'airplane' (sic).
>
>> Ewww... is widdle 'Uncle Tom' up'set, because big bad PV spank'ed
>> his widdle butt not so widdle? Seem's like it.
>
>*BANG!!*
>
>Still 'hopping around', I see, LDB ... ROTFLMAO !!!!
>
>--
>Desmond Coughlan |CUNT#1 YGL#4 YFC#1 YFB#1 UKRMMA#14 two#38
>Yamaha FJR1300 |BONY#48 ANORAK#11
>desmond @ zeouane.org
>http: // www . zeouane . org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------- Headers --------------------
>
>Path:
>lobby!ngtf-m01.news.aol.com!ngpeer.news.aol.com!news.cis.ohio-state.edu!n
ews.maxwell.syr.edu!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.FR
!not-for-mail
>From: Desmond Coughlan <pasdespa...@zeouane.org>
>Newsgroups: alt.activism.death-penalty
>Subject: Re: Bias Against Victims' Families ...
>Date: Sat, 24 Aug 2002 13:24:34 +0000
>Organization: None
>Lines: 20
>Message-ID: <slrnamf28i.1efb....@lievre.voute.net>
>References: <slrnam5hcu.qp4.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
><ANA89.347965$XH.77...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnam7lvg.tvn.pasde...@lievre.voute.net>
><AFV89.4049$nJ.3...@newsfep3-gui.server.ntli.net>
><acaamu4v8cnd3tl6t...@4ax.com>
><slrnamaa1e.13qh.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><Cje99.254980$s8.48...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnamb158.15ng.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><Gbl99.262380$s8.49...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
><slrnamd48o.1959.pasd...@lievre.voute.net>
><ssF99.276616$s8.50...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
>Reply-To: pasdespa...@zeouane.org
>NNTP-Posting-Host: e117.dhcp212-198-68.noos.fr (212.198.68.117)
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
>X-Trace: fu-berlin.de 1030195501 50473544 212.198.68.117 (16 [91468])