A bit of confusion ...
nunya
for and against the death penalty. Was I mistaken?! It seems to be a
playground sandbox fight and a bunch of "White is right" / "No, get a life"
bickering. Is there an actual topic here......?!
Desmond Coughlan
Yes, there is: the death penalty (surprisingly enough ...). I think you
were just unlucky in arriving at the same time as some idiots decided to
post some racist drivel.
Whilst the death penalty as presently administered in the United States is
unquestionably racist, most of the persons posting here in support of it,
aren't.
--
Desmond Coughlan |Restez Zen ... UNIX peut le faire
des...@coughlan.net
http://www.coughlan.net/desmond
Rev. Don Kool
nunya wrote:
>
> When I came to this NG I thought it was an "open arena" for arguments
> for and against the death penalty. Was I mistaken?! It seems to be a
> playground sandbox fight and a bunch of "White is right" / "No, get a life"
> bickering. Is there an actual topic here......?!
The topic of this newsgroup is the just Death Penalty in the United
States (the greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW).
Hope this helps,
Don
--
********************** You a bounty hunter?
* Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
* Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
http://members.home.net/oldno7
St.George
Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8agiq4....@lievre.voute.net...
> On Mon, 14 Feb 2000 08:40:48 -0000, nunya <nu...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> > When I came to this NG I thought it was an "open arena" for
arguments
> > for and against the death penalty. Was I mistaken?! It seems to be a
> > playground sandbox fight and a bunch of "White is right" / "No, get a
life"
> > bickering. Is there an actual topic here......?!
>
> were just unlucky in arriving at the same time as some idiots decided to
> post some racist drivel.
>
> Whilst the death penalty as presently administered in the United States is
> unquestionably racist, most of the persons posting here in support of it,
> aren't.
Desmond, you often allude to the racism inherent in the application of the
death penalty in the U.S., but rarely, if ever, refer to the sexism inherent
in the process.
Don't you agree that the d.p. is *ridden* with sexism, and to a considerably
greater degree than racism?
Desmond Coughlan
[snip]
> > Whilst the death penalty as presently administered in the United States is
> > unquestionably racist, most of the persons posting here in support of it,
> > aren't.
> Desmond, you often allude to the racism inherent in the application of the
> death penalty in the U.S., but rarely, if ever, refer to the sexism inherent
> in the process.
>
> Don't you agree that the d.p. is *ridden* with sexism, and to a considerably
> greater degree than racism?
I do, yes.
Africa
sexism? You mean the administration of the death sentence, those sentenced
to death (women?) - the process? Sorry for ignorance but would like to know
more. We are well aware of the anti-Black element and the disadvantage of
the poor.
--
WWW.MATHABA.NET Your Antedote to the New World Order!
Desmond Coughlan <des...@lievre.voute.net> wrote in message
news:slrn8ai79j....@lievre.voute.net...
Africa
I don't wish to argue with you on your opinion that USAmerica is the
'greatest country on the face of the earth' for you may well feel so or know
so. God of course is the final judge on the Day of Judgment. Personally I
have not visited USAmerica (except for occupied Panama at the time) so have
no judgment.
However I have visited 34 countries so far in my short life and find it hard
when questioned to say which is the best - for it obviously depends on ones
situation, status, experience, personality etc - I find some major pluses in
some and major minuses in other. Out of interest though I would like to
know how many countries you have visited, and if not so many, why in your
opinion USAmerica is the 'greatest'?
Thanks and God Bless you.
Adam
--
WWW.MATHABA.NET Your Antedote to the New World Order!
Rev. Don Kool <old...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38A89CFC...@home.com...
>
>
> nunya wrote:
> >
> > When I came to this NG I thought it was an "open arena" for
arguments
> > for and against the death penalty. Was I mistaken?! It seems to be a
> > playground sandbox fight and a bunch of "White is right" / "No, get a
life"
> > bickering. Is there an actual topic here......?!
>
Åndrew R
> Dear Reverend,
>
> I don't wish to argue with you on your opinion that USAmerica is the
> 'greatest country on the face of the earth' for you may well feel so or know
> so. God of course is the final judge on the Day of Judgment. Personally I
> have not visited USAmerica (except for occupied Panama at the time) so have
> no judgment.
> However I have visited 34 countries so far in my short life and find it hard
> when questioned to say which is the best - for it obviously depends on ones
> situation, status, experience, personality etc - I find some major pluses in
> some and major minuses in other. Out of interest though I would like to
> know how many countries you have visited, and if not so many, why in your
> opinion USAmerica is the 'greatest'?
>
> Thanks and God Bless you.
>
> Adam
>
Apparently, he has only been out of the USA once, to Canada, for a short while.
He bases his assertions that the USA is the best on xenophobia and the fact
that, amazingly, he can smell us "smelly europeans [sic]" (his words) in
Baltimore, despite there being a ocean in the way..
Andrew
--
"It is better to risk saving a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one." -
Voltaire
http://qbandvb.cjb.net Andrew's QBASIC and Visual BASIC page.
http://qbandvb.cjb.net/ace/ ACE - The Active Clipboard Editor for Windows.
ICQ 53186881
St.George
Africa <ne...@mathaba.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:88bsn4$fbt$1...@nclient3-gui.server.dtn.ntl.com...
> Please can you clear us up outside USAmerica - why is it riddled with
> sexism? You mean the administration of the death sentence, those sentenced
> to death (women?) - the process? Sorry for ignorance but would like to
know
> more. We are well aware of the anti-Black element and the disadvantage of
> the poor.
Simply that women are under-represented on death row by a far greater degree
than whites are.
A white male murderer has a far greater chance of being sent to death row
than a black female murderer.
Hence, sexism should be a greater issue than racism.
Rev. Don Kool
Africa wrote:
> Dear Reverend,
>
> I don't wish to argue with you on your opinion that USAmerica is the
> 'greatest country on the face of the earth' for you may well feel so or know
> so. God of course is the final judge on the Day of Judgment. Personally I
> have not visited USAmerica (except for occupied Panama at the time) so have
> no judgment.
> However I have visited 34 countries so far in my short life and find it hard
> when questioned to say which is the best - for it obviously depends on ones
> situation, status, experience, personality etc - I find some major pluses in
> some and major minuses in other. Out of interest though I would like to
> know how many countries you have visited,
As far as leisure travel, I have been all over southeast asia,
Japan and the carribean. I choose not to visit the cesspool that is
europe due to their renewed embrace of NAZI ideals and their
oppressive lack of fundamental human rights such as freedom of
speech, freedom to keep and bear arms and freedom of religion.
Also, as seen in the case of the murder of Juilet Rowe in the UK,
europeans regularly put innocent people in jail for murders they
didn't commit. Add to that the high level of street crime, the lack
of personal hygiene and the regular instances of bombs going off in
city streets and europe becomes an even less desireable
destination. Canada and Australia remain of course irrelevant to
most every discussion.
> and if not so many, why in your
> opinion USAmerica is the 'greatest'?
It not "opinion" Adam, it is a fact. The United States is the
greatest country on the face of the Earth. We are the greatest
primarily because we are the most free. No one anywhere in the
world enjoys the kind of guaranteed freedoms that Americans do. To
bring this back on-topic, America also shows that it has the will to
do what is right by justly executing proven murderers. Countries
that do not have the backbone to carry out Justice, are really not
high on my list of places to visit. America and Americans realize
that the just Death Penalty is the only appropriate and morally
right punishment for those that choose to murder.
> Thanks and God Bless you.
No problem, my son. May God Bless you as well.
Yours in Christ,
Åndrew R
> Africa wrote:
>
> > Dear Reverend,
> >
> > I don't wish to argue with you on your opinion that USAmerica is the
> > 'greatest country on the face of the earth' for you may well feel so or know
> > so. God of course is the final judge on the Day of Judgment. Personally I
> > have not visited USAmerica (except for occupied Panama at the time) so have
> > no judgment.
> > However I have visited 34 countries so far in my short life and find it hard
> > when questioned to say which is the best - for it obviously depends on ones
> > situation, status, experience, personality etc - I find some major pluses in
> > some and major minuses in other. Out of interest though I would like to
> > know how many countries you have visited,
>
> As far as leisure travel, I have been all over southeast asia,
> Japan and the carribean. I choose not to visit the cesspool that is
> europe due to their renewed embrace of NAZI ideals
Don, how is it that you manage to interpret opposition and threats of sanction s
against Austria as a "renewed embrace" of the ideals and policies expressed by the
Freedom Party?
> and their
> oppressive lack of fundamental human rights such as freedom of
> speech,
Where?
> freedom to keep and bear arms
I like not having that right unconditionally. Why? Because I have never seen a
real gun, nor heard a gunshot. How many Americans could say that?
> and freedom of religion.
Where
>
> Also, as seen in the case of the murder of Juilet Rowe in the UK,
> europeans regularly put innocent people in jail for murders they
> didn't commit.
One case = regularly, does it? On that basis, there are very regular school
shootings in the USA.
> Add to that the high level of street crime,
Please could you post some stats. For example, a comparison of US crime figures
with those of a European country.
> the lack
> of personal hygiene
ROTFLOL
> and the regular instances of bombs going off in
> city streets
Very small levels of terrorist activity, yes. Regular bombings, no.
> and europe becomes an even less desireable
> destination.
Fine. Maybe we don't want you :-)
> Canada and Australia remain of course irrelevant to
> most every discussion.
>
Why?
>
> > and if not so many, why in your
> > opinion USAmerica is the 'greatest'?
>
> It not "opinion" Adam, it is a fact.
It is an opinion. A fact can be proved, your regular, xenophobic, statement that
the USA is the greatest is not fact, but opinion. You are entitled to that
opinion, despite it being stupid.
> The United States is the
> greatest country on the face of the Earth. We are the greatest
> primarily because we are the most free. No one anywhere in the
> world enjoys the kind of guaranteed freedoms that Americans do. To
> bring this back on-topic, America also shows that it has the will to
> do what is right by justly executing proven murderers. Countries
> that do not have the backbone to carry out Justice, are really not
> high on my list of places to visit. America and Americans realize
> that the just Death Penalty is the only appropriate and morally
> right punishment for those that choose to murder.
>
Fair enough. Europeans recognize the barbarity inherent in the dp, which is why,
over the years, the number of capital offences was reduced, and finally, capital
punishment was removed. Might the fact that the number of capital offences was
reduced to zero over time suggest that capital punishment is an antiquated and
barbaric punishment that belongs in the past,.
Rev. Don Kool
Andy R wrote:
> "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > Africa wrote:
> > > Dear Reverend,
> > >
> > > I don't wish to argue with you on your opinion that USAmerica is the
> > > 'greatest country on the face of the earth' for you may well feel so or know
> > > so. God of course is the final judge on the Day of Judgment. Personally I
> > > have not visited USAmerica (except for occupied Panama at the time) so have
> > > no judgment.
> > > However I have visited 34 countries so far in my short life and find it hard
> > > when questioned to say which is the best - for it obviously depends on ones
> > > situation, status, experience, personality etc - I find some major pluses in
> > > some and major minuses in other. Out of interest though I would like to
> > > know how many countries you have visited,
> >
> > As far as leisure travel, I have been all over southeast asia,
> > Japan and the carribean. I choose not to visit the cesspool that is
> > europe due to their renewed embrace of NAZI ideals
> Don, how is it that you manage to interpret opposition and threats of sanction s
> against Austria as a "renewed embrace" of the ideals and policies expressed by the
> Freedom Party?
You europeans elected these new NAZIs. You europeans have to live
with the derision of the civilized world.
> > and their oppressive lack of fundamental human rights such as freedom of
> > speech,
> Where?
In the cesspool that is europe.
> > freedom to keep and bear arms
> I like not having that right unconditionally. Why? Because I have never seen a
> real gun, nor heard a gunshot. How many Americans could say that?
Many slaves had a fondness for their masters as well, my child.
> > and freedom of religion.
> Where
In the cesspool that is europe.
> > Also, as seen in the case of the murder of Juilet Rowe in the UK,
> > europeans regularly put innocent people in jail for murders they
> > didn't commit.
> One case = regularly, does it? On that basis, there are very regular school
> shootings in the USA.
Sad but true. True freedom often comes at a high price.
> > Add to that the high level of street crime,
> Please could you post some stats. For example, a comparison of US crime figures
> with those of a European country.
In the United States (the greatest country on the face of the
Earth, BTW) justly executed murderers never commit another crime.
> > the lack of personal hygiene
> ROTFLOL
Perhaps you should spend less time "LOL" and more time showering,
my unwashed european friend.
> > and the regular instances of bombs going off in
> > city streets
> Very small levels of terrorist activity, yes. Regular bombings, no.
Yes, regular bombings.
> > and europe becomes an even less desireable destination.
> Fine. Maybe we don't want you :-)
And maybe the United States (the greatest country on the face of
the Earth, BTW) does not want to suffer proven murderers such as
Kenny Richey to live. That, of course, is our right and our
decision. Proven child murderer Kenny Richey will pay for his
crimes with his life and Justice will be served.
> > Canada and Australia remain of course irrelevant to
> > most every discussion.
> Why?
Do you even have to ask? ROTFLOLASTD!!
> > > and if not so many, why in your opinion USAmerica is the 'greatest'?
> > It not "opinion" Adam, it is a fact.
> It is an opinion.
> A fact can be proved, your regular, xenophobic, statement that
> the USA is the greatest is not fact, but opinion. You are entitled to that
> opinion, despite it being stupid.
No my son, it is a fact.
> > The United States is the
> > greatest country on the face of the Earth. We are the greatest
> > primarily because we are the most free. No one anywhere in the
> > world enjoys the kind of guaranteed freedoms that Americans do. To
> > bring this back on-topic, America also shows that it has the will to
> > do what is right by justly executing proven murderers. Countries
> > that do not have the backbone to carry out Justice, are really not
> > high on my list of places to visit. America and Americans realize
> > that the just Death Penalty is the only appropriate and morally
> > right punishment for those that choose to murder.
> Fair enough. Europeans recognize the barbarity inherent in the dp, which is why,
> over the years, the number of capital offences was reduced, and finally, capital
> punishment was removed. Might the fact that the number of capital offences was
> reduced to zero over time suggest that capital punishment is an antiquated and
> barbaric punishment that belongs in the past,.
No. You might as well say that europeans recognize the barbarity
inherent in the daily shower, which is why, over the years, the
number of showers they take has been reduced, and finally, showering
in europe has ceased. The fact that europeans fear soap and water
makes soap and water no more "antiquated and barbaric" than european
fear of Justice makes the just Death Penalty.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
www.mathaba.net
Not much can be added to that Andrew!Åndrew R <andy...@geocities.com> wrote in message
news:38AAED26...@geocities.com...
> > oppressive lack of fundamental human rights such as freedom of
> > speech,
>
> Where?
>
>
> I like not having that right unconditionally. Why? Because I have never
seen a
> real gun, nor heard a gunshot. How many Americans could say that?
>
>
> Where
>
> >
> > europeans regularly put innocent people in jail for murders they
> > didn't commit.
>
> One case = regularly, does it? On that basis, there are very regular
school
> shootings in the USA.
>
>
> Please could you post some stats. For example, a comparison of US crime
figures
> with those of a European country.
>
> > of personal hygiene
>
> ROTFLOL
>
> > city streets
>
> Very small levels of terrorist activity, yes. Regular bombings, no.
>
> > destination.
>
> Fine. Maybe we don't want you :-)
>
> > most every discussion.
> >
>
> Why?
>
> >
> > > opinion USAmerica is the 'greatest'?
> >
> > It not "opinion" Adam, it is a fact.
>
> It is an opinion. A fact can be proved, your regular, xenophobic,
statement that
> the USA is the greatest is not fact, but opinion. You are entitled to
that
> opinion, despite it being stupid.
>
> > greatest country on the face of the Earth. We are the greatest
> > primarily because we are the most free. No one anywhere in the
> > world enjoys the kind of guaranteed freedoms that Americans do. To
> > bring this back on-topic, America also shows that it has the will to
> > do what is right by justly executing proven murderers. Countries
> > that do not have the backbone to carry out Justice, are really not
> > high on my list of places to visit. America and Americans realize
> > that the just Death Penalty is the only appropriate and morally
> > right punishment for those that choose to murder.
> >
>
> Fair enough. Europeans recognize the barbarity inherent in the dp, which
is why,
> over the years, the number of capital offences was reduced, and finally,
capital
> punishment was removed. Might the fact that the number of capital
offences was
> reduced to zero over time suggest that capital punishment is an antiquated
and
> barbaric punishment that belongs in the past,.
>
www.mathaba.net
the Day of Judgment!
--
WWW.MATHABA.NET Your Antedote to the New World Order!
Rev. Don Kool <old...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38ABF45F...@home.com...
and...@my-deja.com
"Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
>
The United States is the
> greatest country on the face of the Earth. We are the greatest
> primarily because we are the most free. No one anywhere in the
> world enjoys the kind of guaranteed freedoms that Americans do.
The freedoms enjoyed by Americans is garunteed under the US
Constitution. The same applys to Australians with regard to the
Australian Constitution. The difference is Pollies can alter the US
constitution into extintion, but to alter the Australian Constitution
you need the approval of a majority of the people across this great
nation and a majority of the people from at least 4 of the 6 states. So
now which is the GCOTFOTE?
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Rev. Don Kool
and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
> > The United States is the
> > greatest country on the face of the Earth. We are the greatest
> > primarily because we are the most free. No one anywhere in the
> > world enjoys the kind of guaranteed freedoms that Americans do.
> The freedoms enjoyed by Americans is garunteed under the US
> Constitution. The same applys to Australians with regard to the
> Australian Constitution.
Except of course that Aussies have considerably fewer freedoms.
> The difference is Pollies can alter the US
> constitution into extintion, but to alter the Australian Constitution
> you need the approval of a majority of the people across this great
> nation and a majority of the people from at least 4 of the 6 states. So
> now which is the GCOTFOTE?
The rules for amending the Constitution of the United States (the
greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW) are even more
daunting.
Hope this helps,
Rev. Don Kool
Dave Proctor wrote:
> Rev. Don Kool wrote...
> >and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > The United States is the
> >> > greatest country on the face of the Earth. We are the greatest
> >> > primarily because we are the most free. No one anywhere in the
> >> > world enjoys the kind of guaranteed freedoms that Americans do.
> >
> >> The freedoms enjoyed by Americans is garunteed under the US
> >> Constitution. The same applys to Australians with regard to the
> >> Australian Constitution.
> >
> > Except of course that Aussies have considerably fewer freedoms.
> True -
Indeed.
[...off-topic discussion of the American
right to keep and bear arms snipped...]
> > The rules for amending the Constitution of the United States (the
> >greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW) are even more
> >daunting.
>
> Really? All it tkes is an Act of Congress with approval from a certain
> number of state legislatures, if I am correct. Hence, politicians approve
> it.
>
> Our constitution requires approval from the people.
As the "politicians" in America are the elected representatives of
the people rather than landed gentry picked from the peerage, all
amendments to the Constitution of the United States (the greatest
country on the face of the Earth, BTW) require the approval of the
people. Witness the failure to get the ERA passed.
yours_mo...@my-deja.com
(Relunctantly snipped to save bandwidth, please see his previous
post on this thread.)
>A couple observations:
>1. I've confessed bewilderment in general at Louisiana law and
>procedure. With that predicate, I've NEVER heard of a capital jury
>being declared "hung" after LESS THAN 3 HOURS deliberation.
Strikes me as remarkable too, although I too am not a member of the
Louisiana criminal bar. But in the run of rape trials (which have no DP
phase), it's unusual (but not unheard of) for a jury to hang in even a
fraction of that time on guilt issues.
>My guess is that somebody wanted to make sure LeBlanc didn't
eventually get loose on appeal,
>took the first opportunity to give him life without parole. And it
will, almost certainly, BE life
>without parole. In Louisiana parole/pardon decisions end up with the
Governor, who either (a)
>has his brother selling them for him (Edwin Edwards brother Marion
got shot and killed by a guy
>who didn't think he got value for monies paid) b) has promised as
part of their campaign that he'll
>never set inmate XX free, see Wilbert Rideau.
Sounds like any number of other places in the US which has lapsed
into corruption or never climbed out of it. Does Mardi Gras make the
present $125M liability-- still rising with no end in sight as conceded
by Los Angeles's mayor-- for false convictions and imprisonments secured
by LAPD perjury, evidence doctoring, and witness intimidation less
significant? Forgive the rhetorical question, meant only to demonstrate
that attempts to legally kill people or ruin their lives only come in
different regional flavors on this planet. Let's call this flavor the
"Good Old Boy Boogie Woogie."
Whatever, even a pardon after an inmate has finished his prison and
parole obligations and lived an outstandingly exemplary life for years
has been damned hard to get most places ever since Bush the Elder did
his infamous "Willie Horton" smear on Dukakis in the 1988 US
presidential race, charging that a parole board decision-- of the state
Dukakis was governor of at the time-- to release a rapist (who then
murdered) was in some inexplicable fashion made by Dukakis with
"foreseeable results" How ironic then that the Texas Bush the Younger
recently aped Pontius Pilate in declining to go against a
corrections board refusal to commute a DP prisoner's sentence to LWOP.
Perhaps the Texas Bush the Younger now will wear a silly hat and ride an
army tank around for the news media like Dukakis did. But then I do
digress, even if he did save Texas from Viet Cong D-Day.
It would seem that if one or more jurors thought as you suggest,
they misapprehended basic criminal appellate procedure. A reversal
because of sentencing errors does not effect the determination of guilt,
it only returns the case to the trial court for a new sentencing
proceeding. Unless of course Louisiana law is stranger than either of us
suppose. My hunch is that one or more of the jurors took his/her
obligation seriously as the "conscience of the community" (Duncan v
Louisiana 391 U.S. 145 (1968) ), even if it ambushed the cynical state
politicos who support the DP for rape. The latter probably had their
scripted posturings all memorized for when "them thar pointy-headed
bleeding-heart librul judges" declared-- as any appellate court must--
the DP to be cruel and unusual for rape, for such the usual motive
behind such bizarre legislative shenanigans. I would have loved to have
seen the look on their faces when they learned that some everyday folks
read them like a book and pulled the rug out from under their scam.
>Despite its weird laws, Louisiana is part of the 5th Circuit Court of
>Appeals, 5th Circuit specifically approves "the Allen Charge",
sometime
>known as "Dynamite Charge", "some jury, some time, is going to have
to
>hear this case again. They won't be any better qualified or equipped
>than you are. I urge you to go back into the jury room, give more
>serious consideration to your differences, realize that reasonable
>people ought to be able to agree, and try again for a verdict."
>Apparently this wasn't given, which in itself is unusual.
I disagree, given the description you provide of this unusual
aspect of Louisiana criminal procedure. A hopelessly deadlocked jury in
the penalty phase of a capital case constitutionally requires-- in the
absence of applicable statute-- only that the jury be discharged and a
new one be selected to hear evidence and deliberate upon just the
penalty issue. But apparently by Louisiana statute a deadlocked jury on
the issue of LWOP or death IS a final verdict of LWOP. Giving the
jurors the aptly-named "dynamite charge" with that statutory backdrop
would be the same as a judge throwing a unanimous verdict of LWOP back
in the jury foreperson's face and yelling that just won't do, go back
and deliberate until you have the "proper" verdict. Of course, that
would have been a blatant violation of the "double jeopardy"
prohibition even before the US became independent!
The "dynamite charge" was tossed out decades ago in my own state.
Although its high court put it more delicately in doing so, the reason
was that it forced judges tell a bunch of damnable lies to juries to
cajole them into convicting defendants. The only question I have about
it is why it's still around at all, anywhere. SCOTUS has since issued a
number of decisions condemning judicial and prosecutorial attempts to
"catechise" convictions in directly comparable and less ham fisted
ways. Are you sure you are current on the 5th federal circuit's
position?
>2. There's 'at least two other dp rape cases' pending in the New
>Orleans area. Which tells us that these cases aren't all that
extreme,
>unusual, etc. In the South in the first 60 years of the late
Century,
>black men were executed (or lynched) by the thousands, yes,
children,
>THOUSANDS, for ravishing white women. There were a couple around
>Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana, when I was growing up. One of 'em in
>particular ... decades later ... seems the white land owner adjoining
>the black landowner coveted his plot of land, nobody's really sure
>exactly what happened, whether white wife was a member of the plot
>knowingly or just lusted after said black gentleman ... didn't much
>matter, result would have been the same in any event.
>As is usually the situation when dealing with Louisiana criminal
>trials, there's much more going on than is readily apparent.
I don't know how these last observations directly relate unless the
defendant was the traditional African-American pawn in some honky
prosecutor's gambit for higher office. But the deep South today is very
different from the way it was when George Wallace rode high in the
saddle. And today's Louisiana is not Huey Long's, as the verdict you
report itself serves to demonstrate. I suggest you check out your
childhood locale, the way it is now might pleasantly surprise you.
But if you really miss that good old mindless racist hate and Jim Crow
heyday "justice," forget La.. Instead go to to L.A., call the cops, and
get set for a REAL blast from the past! You do have medical insurance,
don't you?
Dave Proctor
>Dave Proctor wrote:
>> Don Kook wrote...
>> >and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >> "Don Kook" <old...@home.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> > The United States is the
>> >> > greatest country on the face of the Earth. We are the greatest
>> >> > primarily because we are the most free. No one anywhere in the
>> >> > world enjoys the kind of guaranteed freedoms that Americans do.
>> >
>> >> The freedoms enjoyed by Americans is garunteed under the US
>> >> Constitution. The same applys to Australians with regard to the
>> >> Australian Constitution.
>> >
>> > Except of course that Aussies have considerably fewer freedoms.
>
>> True -
>
> Indeed.
>
> [...off-topic discussion of the American
> right to keep and bear arms snipped...]
... and restored
>True - we do not have the freedom to be subject to gun related crime.
>We do not have the freedom to have our children killed by guns at school.
>
>> > The rules for amending the Constitution of the United States (the
>> >greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW) are even more
>> >daunting.
>>
>> Really? All it tkes is an Act of Congress with approval from a certain
>> number of state legislatures, if I am correct. Hence, politicians approve
>> it.
>>
>> Our constitution requires approval from the people.
>
> As the "politicians" in America are the elected representatives of
>the people rather than landed gentry picked from the peerage, all
>amendments to the Constitution of the United States (the greatest
>country on the face of the Earth, BTW) require the approval of the
>people. Witness the failure to get the ERA passed.
It is still not more daunting than requiring a referendum to be held, with a
majority of the population having to approve it AS WELL AS a majority in a
majority of sates.
Dave
St.George
Dan Cutrer <dcu...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote in message
news:38AD39D1...@postoffice.swbell.net...
> From the New Orleans Times-Picayune:
There are a couple of interesting points in this report that I wish to
comment on. Both illustrate examples of appallingly manipulative comments
made by officers of the court in express attempts to subvert the jury
process.
I have written much here before regarding the inability of humans in general
to accurately weigh information and come to correct conclusions. This
situation can only be exacerbated by the sort of idiotic and hopelessly
illogical remarks described below...
> Rowan, prosecutor Vince Paciera and defense attorney Cesar Vazquez
> addressed the question of whether death is an appropriate penalty for
> rape in their closing arguments to
> jurors Thursday morning.
>
> "You might say the rape of a child is a more heinous crime
> than the murder of a junkie," Paciera said. "A murder victim
> suffers for a moment, but that little girl will probably suffer the
> indignities caused by (LeBlanc) for the rest of her life.
This is ridiculous beyond belief. By Paciera's logic, the crime would have
been less heinous if LeBlanc had immediately strangled the girl upon meeting
her, and then repeatedly sexually defiled her dead body.
This is a blatant example of prosecutors attempting to con the jury. While
cynics may say that all lawyers lie, such is totally unacceptable for
prosecution lawyers, whose *primary* responsibility should be to truth and
justice, not to convictions.
> Despite its weird laws, Louisiana is part of the 5th Circuit Court of
> Appeals, 5th Circuit specifically approves "the Allen Charge", sometime
> known as "Dynamite Charge", "some jury, some time, is going to have to
> hear this case again. They won't be any better qualified or equipped
> than you are. I urge you to go back into the jury room, give more
> serious consideration to your differences, realize that reasonable
> people ought to be able to agree, and try again for a verdict."
This instruction is disgraceful, and manifestly false.
When writing previously on this subject, I brought up a film called 'The
Langoliers', which was to be shown on TV one night. In an effort to decide
whether it was worth watching, I visited the Internet Movie Database at
http://uk.imdb.com
This site allows people to record their comments on a particular film.
Looking at the first page of comments (representing the 'jury') these were
some of the more extreme, from six separate reviewers of the twenty or so on
the page:
"...I hated this laughable drivel...so poor it reduced me to swearing
blindly at the screen..."
"...This is one of my all-time favourite movies...everyone should see it..."
"...This may well be the worst movie ever made...it wasn't just bad, it was
jaw-dropping awful..."
"...A Great Story -- And Film...I was fascinated..."
"...never in my life have three hours been spent in more boredom...the film
progressively sucked our will to live...it drags so slowly that it
physically hurts..."
"...Very, very, very, very good...The Langoliers is so magnificent it is
impossible do describe how good it actually is...An easy 10..."
The point is fairly obvious. Each of these individuals, no doubt whom the
judge would describe as "reasonable people", have considered exactly the
same evidence, yet are totally, totally polarised. Yet the ridiculous
instruction has it that these reasonable people "ought to be able to
agree"!!
How on earth could the film reviewers *ever* in a million years come to an
agreed verdict?!?
Of course, they could not. Fortunately, in the rape case the jury refused
to manufacture a verdict as the instruction would have suggested, but this
'Allen Charge', like the false prosecutorial logic described previously, is
expressly intended to prevent juries from fairly exercising their position
as the sole judges of fact, unencumbered by deception from those ostensibly
aiding them in the search for truth.
Dave Proctor
>Again, my points were:
>
>1. 2 hours and change is barely enough time for the jury to retire,
>elect a fore-person (we are politically correct hereabouts), that
>foreperson reads the entire court's 'charge' to the jury (it often runs
>to dozens of pages in a capital case), get everyone to understand what
>they're voting on, and go round the table once asking a dozen people
>what they think. Picking this jury and trying the case took at a
>minimum a couple weeks (or should have, to survive ineffective
>assistance allegations later) ... to declare a 'hung' jury in such a
>short period of time is, based on my experience, unthinkable.
Am I missing something here? The two times I have served on a jury (I know,
different legal systems, but I cannot see how things would be too different)
we elected the foreperson at our first break on the first day of the trial,
the case was constantly discussed by us during our morning tea, lunch and
other breaks - this gave us a fairly good idea where each of us stood on the
guilt or innocence of the accused on each of the charges.
When the prosecution and defence summed up, and we then received our
instructions from the judge, we entered the jury room and the first thing we
did was make coffee (those who smoked lit up).
We then did a whip around the room, the foreperson taking notes, as to what
each person thought.
On the most recent trial, we immediately threw out 3 of the 5 charges within
10 minutes of walking into that jury room. The remaining 2 charges we
discussed for the next 12 hours.
I do not regard it is inconceivable that one or more jurors put their foot
down and adamantly stated they would not and never would vote for a death
sentence in that case, and that future discussion would be pointless.
Likewise, that one or more jurors put their foot down and said that a death
sentence was the ONLY sentence they would vote for, and nothing would make
them change their mind.
All you need is one person for each alternative determined not to change and
you have a hung jury. Those jurors would have got to know each other fairly
well during the course of the trial, particularly if they were sequestered.
They would have known where they stood. 3 hours, whilst unusual, should not
be seen as a travesty of justice.
Dave
Dan Cutrer
Dave Proctor wrote:
>
> Dan Cutrer wrote in message <38AE081A...@postoffice.swbell.net>...
>
> >Again, my points were:
> >
> >1. 2 hours and change is barely enough time for the jury to retire,
> >elect a fore-person (we are politically correct hereabouts), that
> >foreperson reads the entire court's 'charge' to the jury (it often runs
> >to dozens of pages in a capital case), get everyone to understand what
> >they're voting on, and go round the table once asking a dozen people
> >what they think. Picking this jury and trying the case took at a
> >minimum a couple weeks (or should have, to survive ineffective
> >assistance allegations later) ... to declare a 'hung' jury in such a
> >short period of time is, based on my experience, unthinkable.
>
> Am I missing something here? The two times I have served on a jury (I know,
> different legal systems, but I cannot see how things would be too different)
> we elected the foreperson at our first break on the first day of the trial,
> the case was constantly discussed by us during our morning tea, lunch and
> other breaks - this gave us a fairly good idea where each of us stood on the
> guilt or innocence of the accused on each of the charges.
Totally different under US procedure. It's an automatic mistrial or
reversal if a US juror expresses a decision on the verdict prior to
beginning deliberations. Jurors are specifically instructed several
times a day not to discuss the facts of the case among themselves or
others, not to form an opinion until all the evidence is in.
Those jurors would have got to know each other fairly
> well during the course of the trial, particularly if they were sequestered.
Story didn't say they were. Trial judges don't like to sequester a jury
... costs too much, court personnel have to do round-the-clock duty,
staying with the jury. In Texas a jury that's actually deliberating is
more likely to be sequestered than one that's hearing evidence.
> They would have known where they stood. 3 hours, whilst unusual, should not
> be seen as a travesty of justice.
Just a semi-educated guess from my vantage point ... I used to hold a
Dallas County record for civil trial, one of my 12 person juries was out
8 minutes, read the charge, considered the evidence thoroughly,
discussed it, signed verdict sheets, etc., came back with a verdict for
my client. Client then decided it was such a clear-cut case any idiot
could have won it (sure didn't look that way a week earlier, when the
trial started) she shouldn't finish paying me. Winning the battle but
losing the War. <g>
Rev. Don Kool
Dave Proctor wrote:
> Don Kool wrote...
> >Dave Proctor wrote:
> >> Don Kool wrote...
> >> >and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >> >> "Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
[...snip...]
> > As the "politicians" in America are the elected representatives of
> >the people rather than landed gentry picked from the peerage, all
> >amendments to the Constitution of the United States (the greatest
> >country on the face of the Earth, BTW) require the approval of the
> >people. Witness the failure to get the ERA passed.
> It is still not more daunting than requiring a referendum to be held, with a
> majority of the population having to approve it AS WELL AS a majority in a
> majority of sates.
Actually Dave, it is.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
Rev. Don Kool
"St.George" wrote:
> Rev. Don Kool <old...@home.com> wrote...
> > and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > > "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
> > > > The United States is the
> > > > greatest country on the face of the Earth. We are the greatest
> > > > primarily because we are the most free. No one anywhere in the
> > > > world enjoys the kind of guaranteed freedoms that Americans do.
> > > The freedoms enjoyed by Americans is garunteed under the US
> > > Constitution. The same applys to Australians with regard to the
> > > Australian Constitution.
> > Except of course that Aussies have considerably fewer freedoms.
> This is simply not true, McDonald.
Actually Mark, it is very much true.
> I like both countries, and have no axe to grind with either of them, but the
> FACT is that Australians enjoy greater social freedoms than Americans.
No Mark, they do not. For starters they do not even enjoy the
cherished freedom to keep and bear arms.
Hope this helps,
Åndrew R
> Andy R wrote:
> > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > Africa wrote:
>
> > > > Dear Reverend,
> > > >
> > > > I don't wish to argue with you on your opinion that USAmerica is the
> > > > 'greatest country on the face of the earth' for you may well feel so or know
> > > > so. God of course is the final judge on the Day of Judgment. Personally I
> > > > have not visited USAmerica (except for occupied Panama at the time) so have
> > > > no judgment.
> > > > However I have visited 34 countries so far in my short life and find it hard
> > > > when questioned to say which is the best - for it obviously depends on ones
> > > > situation, status, experience, personality etc - I find some major pluses in
> > > > some and major minuses in other. Out of interest though I would like to
> > > > know how many countries you have visited,
> > >
> > > As far as leisure travel, I have been all over southeast asia,
> > > Japan and the carribean. I choose not to visit the cesspool that is
> > > europe due to their renewed embrace of NAZI ideals
>
> > Don, how is it that you manage to interpret opposition and threats of sanction s
> > against Austria as a "renewed embrace" of the ideals and policies expressed by the
> > Freedom Party?
>
> You europeans elected these new NAZIs. You europeans have to live
> with the derision of the civilized world.
>
Don, the Freedom Party were elected by Austrians, the rest of Europe had no say in what
happened in those elections, is is opposed to the neo-nazi Freedom Party. Let me give
you an example. You imply in your post that ALL Europeans are responsible for the
actions of the electorate in Austria.
>
> > > and their oppressive lack of fundamental human rights such as freedom of
> > > speech,
>
> > Where?
>
> In the cesspool that is europe.
>
Where in the "cesspool that is europe [sic]" is there not freedom of speech?
>
> > > freedom to keep and bear arms
>
> > I like not having that right unconditionally. Why? Because I have never seen a
> > real gun, nor heard a gunshot. How many Americans could say that?
>
> Many slaves had a fondness for their masters as well, my child.
>
Could you please answer the question, daddy Don.
>
> > > and freedom of religion.
>
> > Where
>
> In the cesspool that is europe.
>
Where in "the cesspool that is europe [sic]" is there not freedom of religion?
>
> > > Also, as seen in the case of the murder of Juilet Rowe in the UK,
> > > europeans regularly put innocent people in jail for murders they
> > > didn't commit.
>
> > One case = regularly, does it? On that basis, there are very regular school
> > shootings in the USA.
>
> Sad but true. True freedom often comes at a high price.
>
A price which is, in my view, too high. I prefer the safety provided by the low levels
of guns ownership and strict control of firearms to the freedom to be shot by anyone.
>
> > > Add to that the high level of street crime,
>
> > Please could you post some stats. For example, a comparison of US crime figures
> > with those of a European country.
>
> In the United States (the greatest country on the face of the
> Earth, BTW) justly executed murderers never commit another crime.
>
street crime is mugging and the like. Stats on that, please.
>
> > > the lack of personal hygiene
>
> > ROTFLOL
>
> Perhaps you should spend less time "LOL" and more time showering,
> my unwashed european friend.
>
still ROTFLOL at your utter stupidity.
>
> > > and the regular instances of bombs going off in
> > > city streets
>
> > Very small levels of terrorist activity, yes. Regular bombings, no.
>
> Yes, regular bombings.
>
> > > and europe becomes an even less desireable destination.
>
> > Fine. Maybe we don't want you :-)
>
> And maybe the United States (the greatest country on the face of
> the Earth, BTW) does not want to suffer proven murderers such as
> Kenny Richey to live. That, of course, is our right and our
> decision. Proven child murderer Kenny Richey will pay for his
> crimes with his life and Justice will be served.
>
Which restaurant will that be in?
>
> > > Canada and Australia remain of course irrelevant to
> > > most every discussion.
>
> > Why?
>
> Do you even have to ask? ROTFLOLASTD!!
>
Yes. Answer the question, you bloody fool.
>
> > > > and if not so many, why in your opinion USAmerica is the 'greatest'?
>
> > > It not "opinion" Adam, it is a fact.
>
> > It is an opinion.
> > A fact can be proved, your regular, xenophobic, statement that
> > the USA is the greatest is not fact, but opinion. You are entitled to that
> > opinion, despite it being stupid.
>
> No my son, it is a fact.
>
Ok then, daddy, prove it. with fact, not opinion.
>
> > > The United States is the
> > > greatest country on the face of the Earth. We are the greatest
> > > primarily because we are the most free. No one anywhere in the
> > > world enjoys the kind of guaranteed freedoms that Americans do. To
> > > bring this back on-topic, America also shows that it has the will to
> > > do what is right by justly executing proven murderers. Countries
> > > that do not have the backbone to carry out Justice, are really not
> > > high on my list of places to visit. America and Americans realize
> > > that the just Death Penalty is the only appropriate and morally
> > > right punishment for those that choose to murder.
>
> > Fair enough. Europeans recognize the barbarity inherent in the dp, which is why,
> > over the years, the number of capital offences was reduced, and finally, capital
> > punishment was removed. Might the fact that the number of capital offences was
> > reduced to zero over time suggest that capital punishment is an antiquated and
> > barbaric punishment that belongs in the past,.
>
> No.
Why do I bother with you? (rhetorical question)
> You might as well say that europeans recognize the barbarity
> inherent in the daily shower, which is why, over the years, the
> number of showers they take has been reduced, and finally, showering
> in europe has ceased. The fact that europeans fear soap and water
> makes soap and water no more "antiquated and barbaric" than european
> fear of Justice makes the just Death Penalty.
Don, why don't you go for an audition as a comedian. Then more people would be able to
hear your excellent jokes :-)
Lucas Stults
<dcu...@postoffice.swbell.net> wrote:
>In the South in the first 60 years of the late Century,
>black men were executed (or lynched) by the thousands, yes, children,
>THOUSANDS, for ravishing white women.
Thanks Dad. Proof? Any sort of proof will do. Or is this more of
the Jigsaw-esque "it's true because I say it's true" school of debate?
Desmond Coughlan
> Not to fear, this rapist will meet his doom in prison. If there is one thing the
> other prisoners get like is the rape of a child.
>
> It would have been much better if he was sentenced to death. His death by the
> other prisoners will not be pretty or as humanistic as you anti death penalty
> people would like. There will be no pardon by the cons. There may be a injection
> but not lethal, that comes last.
I detect some satisfaction on your part as to this person's fate. I find it
quite ironic that retentionists chant their mantra that murder is illegal and
to be punished, yet when it suits them, they rejoice over the possible illegal
killing of someone who, when all is said and done, has killed no one.
Funny that, innit ..?
Pa...@sgi.net
other prisoners get like is the rape of a child.
It would have been much better if he was sentenced to death. His death by the
other prisoners will not be pretty or as humanistic as you anti death penalty
people would like. There will be no pardon by the cons. There may be a injection
but not lethal, that comes last.
G EddieA95 wrote:
> >Paciera said. "A murder victim
> >suffers for a moment, but that little girl will probably suffer the
> >indignities caused by (LeBlanc) for the rest of her life.
> >
>
> That's the misconception promoted by those who value sexuality over life
> itself: they forget that death is the ULTIMATE indignity, the ULTIMATE
> violation of a human being. That, indeed, is why a death penalty even exists.
>
> >Vazquez disagreed that rape is
> >worse than murder. "At least (the victim's) here, with a full life ahead
> >of her. She's doing better and she's on the road to recovery,"
>
> Amen. If death verdicts for rape become the norm, rape victims will be killed.
> That's been true since the Roman Empire. If execution is EVER justified, it
> should only be for murder.
>
> GEA
Pa...@sgi.net
Dave Proctor
>Dave Proctor wrote:
>> Don Kook wrote...
>> >Dave Proctor wrote:
>> >> Don Kook wrote...
>> >> >and...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> >> >> "Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
>
> [...snip...]
>
>> > As the "politicians" in America are the elected representatives of
>> >the people rather than landed gentry picked from the peerage, all
>> >amendments to the Constitution of the United States (the greatest
>> >country on the face of the Earth, BTW) require the approval of the
>> >people. Witness the failure to get the ERA passed.
>
>> It is still not more daunting than requiring a referendum to be held,
with a
>> majority of the population having to approve it AS WELL AS a majority in
a
>> majority of sates.
>
> Actually Dave, it is
the Contitution of Australia.
Glad you finally agreed wih me Kooky.
Dave
Dave Proctor
>Totally different under US procedure. It's an automatic mistrial or
>reversal if a US juror expresses a decision on the verdict prior to
>beginning deliberations. Jurors are specifically instructed several
>times a day not to discuss the facts of the case among themselves or
>others, not to form an opinion until all the evidence is in.
Not sure I agree with this. Discussions in the jury room of evidence that
has just been heard can help to clarify that evidence in the minds of the
jurors. I agree with not discussing it outside the jury room. In my state
(and most jurisdictions in Australia) all of the jury room proceedings are
protected - even the jurors cannot discuss it after the trial, and
attempting to obtain information from a juror is a criminal offence.
As for forming an opinion, it would be ludicrous in the extreme to suggest
that jurors do not form opinions during the trial. You hear the evidence,
you form an opinion as to the veracity of the witness and whether or not you
believe him or her. You then move onto the next witness, all the time
building up an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. That
opinion will waver at all times, and will often swing like a pendulum from
guilty to not guilty and back again. As long as jurors keep an open mind,
then there is nothing wrong with this process.
The only reason we were able to dispose of three of our charges as quickly
as we did was that they were alleged to have occurred in the accused's
caravan, yet records indictaed that one caravan was destroyed by fire 12
months before the dates of the alleged offences and a new caravan was not
purchased until 15 months after the alleged offences were said to have
occurred. This evidence was sprung on the prosecution during the trial, and
even the prosecutor admitted in his summing up that he was on shaky ground
with those three charges.
But discussing what we had just heard was, in our opinion, an excellent way
of being absolutely clear in our minds about what we had just seen and
heard, and the fact that it took us so long (12 hours) to determine the
remaining two charges indicates that we, as a group, had not prejudged the
outcome.
> Those jurors would have got to know each other fairly
>> well during the course of the trial, particularly if they were
sequestered.
>
>Story didn't say they were. Trial judges don't like to sequester a jury
>... costs too much, court personnel have to do round-the-clock duty,
>staying with the jury. In Texas a jury that's actually deliberating is
>more likely to be sequestered than one that's hearing evidence.
Agreed - we were not even sequestered during deliberations - the judge just
sent us home and told us to be back by 0930 next morning.
Dave
and...@my-deja.com
"Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > > greatest country on the face of the Earth. We are the greatest
> > > primarily because we are the most free. No one anywhere in the
> > > world enjoys the kind of guaranteed freedoms that Americans do.
>
> > Constitution. The same applys to Australians with regard to the
> > Australian Constitution.
>
> Except of course that Aussies have considerably fewer freedoms.
The right to vote for or againts our elected representatives and the
right to vote on the right to vote... is the only right that is
nessessary to garantee all the freedoms in the world. If you don't have
those rights you are at the mercy of a bunch of greedy pigs.
>
> > The difference is Pollies can alter the US
> > constitution into extintion, but to alter the Australian
Constitution
> > you need the approval of a majority of the people across this great
> > nation and a majority of the people from at least 4 of the 6
states. So
> > now which is the GCOTFOTE?
>
> The rules for amending the Constitution of the United States(the
> greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW) are even more
> daunting.
Depends what you mean. Complicated? Yes.
OK. Two thirds of both houses of Congress (politicians), or two thirds
of All the state legislatures (politicians) call a convention
(politicians). When they have finished wasting tax payers money on
caviar etc and the convention is satisfied with a job well done the
amendment is ratified by three quarters of the state legislatures
(politicians)....Lots of politicians but not even the right to vote is
safeguarded by the need of a popular vote. Let me guess, If the pollies
try to take over I suppose you'll use the second amendment to get the
guns to shoot them with. Thats if they don't repeal it.
>
> Hope this helps,
> Don
>
> --
> ********************** You a bounty hunter?
> * Rev. Don McDonald * Man's gotta earn a living.
> * Baltimore, MD * Dying ain't much of a living, boy.
> ********************** "Outlaw Josey Wales"
> http://members.home.net/oldno7
>
and...@my-deja.com
"Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
> and...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > "Rev. Don Kool" <old...@home.com> wrote:
>
> > > The United States is the
> > > greatest country on the face of the Earth. We are the greatest
> > > primarily because we are the most free. No one anywhere in the
> > > world enjoys the kind of guaranteed freedoms that Americans do.
>
> > The freedoms enjoyed by Americans is garunteed under the US
> > Constitution. The same applys to Australians with regard to the
> > Australian Constitution.
>
> Except of course that Aussies have considerably fewer freedoms.
The right to vote for or againts our elected representatives and the
right to keep that right unless the people say otherwise, are the only
rights that is nessessary to garantee all the freedoms in the world. If
you don't have those rights you are at the mercy of a bunch of greedy
pigs. Lucky for You those pigs aren't all that greedy.
Rev. Don Kool
Andy R wrote:
> "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > Andy R wrote:
> > > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > > Africa wrote:
[...snip...]
> > You europeans elected these new NAZIs. You europeans have to live
> > with the derision of the civilized world.
> Don, the Freedom Party were elected by Austrians, the rest of Europe had no say in what
> happened in those elections, is is opposed to the neo-nazi Freedom Party. Let me give
> you an example. You imply in your post that ALL Europeans are responsible for the
> actions of the electorate in Austria.
Europe is europe, my son. I don't blame you for being ashamed of
it but you are part of it nonetheless.
> > > > and their oppressive lack of fundamental human rights such as freedom of
> > > > speech,
> > > Where?
> > In the cesspool that is europe.
> Where in the "cesspool that is europe [sic]" is there not freedom of speech?
In europe.
> > > > freedom to keep and bear arms
> > > I like not having that right unconditionally. Why? Because I have never seen a
> > > real gun, nor heard a gunshot. How many Americans could say that?
> > Many slaves had a fondness for their masters as well, my child.
> Could you please answer the question, daddy Don.
I already did, my son.
> > > > and freedom of religion.
> > > Where
> > In the cesspool that is europe.
> Where in "the cesspool that is europe [sic]" is there not freedom of religion?
In europe.
> > > > Also, as seen in the case of the murder of Juilet Rowe in the UK,
> > > > europeans regularly put innocent people in jail for murders they
> > > > didn't commit.
> > > One case = regularly, does it? On that basis, there are very regular school
> > > shootings in the USA.
> > Sad but true. True freedom often comes at a high price.
> A price which is, in my view, too high. I prefer the safety provided by the low levels
> of guns ownership and strict control of firearms to the freedom to be shot by anyone.
The lack of freedom in the cesspool that is europe would be
intolerable for Americans. We will not have our freedom of speech,
gun ownership and religion infringed for a temporary and wholly
unwarranted sense of "safety". In the words of the great Ben
Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a
little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
[...remainder of young Andy's childish nonsense snipped...]
Yours in Christ,
Rev. Don Kool
Dave Proctor wrote:
> Dan Cutrer wrote...
> >Totally different under US procedure. It's an automatic mistrial or
> >reversal if a US juror expresses a decision on the verdict prior to
> >beginning deliberations. Jurors are specifically instructed several
> >times a day not to discuss the facts of the case among themselves or
> >others, not to form an opinion until all the evidence is in.
>
> Not sure I agree with this. Discussions in the jury room of evidence that
> has just been heard can help to clarify that evidence in the minds of the
> jurors.
Here in the United States (the greatest country on the face of the
Earth, BTW) the law recognizes that premature discussions "of
evidence that has justbeen heard" can fix opinions in the jurors'
minds before all the facts have been heard. Here we value due
process.
> I agree with not discussing it outside the jury room. In my state
> (and most jurisdictions in Australia) all of the jury room proceedings are
> protected - even the jurors cannot discuss it after the trial, and
> attempting to obtain information from a juror is a criminal offence.
More foreign restrictions on freedom of speech. How sad. :-(
> As for forming an opinion, it would be ludicrous in the extreme to suggest
> that jurors do not form opinions during the trial.
No my son, it would not.
> You hear the evidence,
> you form an opinion as to the veracity of the witness and whether or not you
> believe him or her. You then move onto the next witness, all the time
> building up an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of the accused. That
> opinion will waver at all times, and will often swing like a pendulum from
> guilty to not guilty and back again. As long as jurors keep an open mind,
> then there is nothing wrong with this process.
Yes, there is. Jurors cannot "keep an open mind" once the
discussions start. At that point they begin either preaching their
opinion or defending it.
[...off-topic foreign anecdotes snipped...]
Hope this helps,
Rev. Don Kool
Little Danny Cutrer wrote:
> "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > Dave Proctor wrote:
> > > Little Danny Cutrer wrote...
[...snip...]
> > Sorry Dave but unlike in your kangaroo courts it doesn't work that
> > way in the United States (the greatest country on the face of the
> > Earth, BTW). Here the jury is not allowed to discuss the trial
> > until it is over. This keeps them from forming opinions until all
> > the evidence is heard.
> McDonald, haven't you gotten tired of trying to disrupt and destroy this
> Newsgroup? You've been at it for well over a decade now ...
Not a decade yet, my son, but I have been contributing to this
newsgroup far longer than all but a select few. Note to Desi;
you're not part of the select few. Happily, during the time I have
been contributing several hundred proven murderers have been justly
executed and thus permenantly prevented from ever again being a
danger to innocent people. America holds its head high in that
regard.
> have never
> contributed one single iota of intelligent advancement of the
> discussion, exist only as a cockroach, to track all over everybody
> else's comments, muck 'em up so decent people are disgusted with your
> crap.
Actually Danny, I post only the truth. Here in America people
realize that the just Death Penalty is the only appropriate and
morally right punishment for those that choose to murder. Our
unwashed foreign friends are simply taking a while to catch on.
> I can't imagine wasting the time and energy??? you do keeping your level
> of BS going ... but, I guess it's the only life you have.
Unlike for you my son, this newsgroup is a very, very small part of
my life. As you grow older you'll realize that life is far too
short to spend a significant amount of it posting to USENET; just
look at what's happened to Desi and Mark. :-(
> By the way, your Identical Twin Brother Doug, has he never reappeared
> since I shared with you that about 90% of Identical Twin Brothers are
> homosexual???
My identical twin has posted here occasionally. He isn't really
interested in this issue as it is quite uncontroversial for the vast
majority of thinking Americans. He does of course lift a glass in
support when news of the latest just execution comes out.
Osmo Ronkanen
>suffers for a moment, but that little girl will probably suffer the
>indignities caused by (LeBlanc) for the rest of her life.
>
Then why not put the victim out of her misery by a lethal injection.
Gee, does not sound attractive. Maybe there is something wrong with the
argument that rape is worse than murder.
Osmo
Osmo Ronkanen
Desmond Coughlan <des...@coughlan.net> wrote:
>I detect some satisfaction on your part as to this person's fate. I find it
>quite ironic that retentionists chant their mantra that murder is illegal and
>to be punished, yet when it suits them, they rejoice over the possible illegal
>killing of someone who, when all is said and done, has killed no one.
>
>Funny that, innit ..?
Especially when murder in prison is cited as a reason for death
penalty. Well it is double victory for them. The rapists gets killed and
then they can demand that the murderer is executed.
Osmo
MultiMeow
Coughlan) wrote:
>On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 14:44:29 -0100, Pa...@sgi.net <Pa...@sgi.net> wrote:
>
>> Facts are facts, and prison life for this type of scum deserves what they reap.
>
>Oh dear ... is your post writer on his day off ..?
Still he does have a point, does he?
A reminder for AOLers: I am on the *pro* side of DP debate.
fr...@my-deja.com
protection under the law than those in the outside world? Should we
say, if you murder someone in the outside world, you'll receive the
poison needle, but if you kill a prison inmate that's OK and you'll
receive no further sanctions beyond those that put you in the joint
in the first place. Or do we say, if you whack a sex offender or
murderer in the joint, fine and dandy, you need not worry about any
further sanctions against you, up to and including the death penalty.
Inmate fratricide is not that uncommon, but very few cases of it
are vigorously investigated or prosecuted.
........Fred
Åndrew R
> Andy R wrote:
> > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > Andy R wrote:
> > > > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > > > Africa wrote:
>
> [...snip...]
>
> > > You europeans elected these new NAZIs. You europeans have to live
> > > with the derision of the civilized world.
>
> > Don, the Freedom Party were elected by Austrians, the rest of Europe had no say in what
> > happened in those elections, is is opposed to the neo-nazi Freedom Party. Let me give
> > you an example. You imply in your post that ALL Europeans are responsible for the
> > actions of the electorate in Austria.
>
> Europe is europe, my son. I don't blame you for being ashamed of
> it but you are part of it nonetheless.
>
The neo-nazi Freedom Party were elected by Austrians (~30% of the vote). Somehow, you think
that the rest of Europe voted for them, when this political party does not even EXIST outside
of Austria.
>
> > > > > and their oppressive lack of fundamental human rights such as freedom of
> > > > > speech,
>
> > > > Where?
>
> > > In the cesspool that is europe.
>
> > Where in the "cesspool that is europe [sic]" is there not freedom of speech?
>
> In europe.
>
Be more specific. Where within Europe?
>
> > > > > freedom to keep and bear arms
>
> > > > I like not having that right unconditionally. Why? Because I have never seen a
> > > > real gun, nor heard a gunshot. How many Americans could say that?
>
> > > Many slaves had a fondness for their masters as well, my child.
>
> > Could you please answer the question, daddy Don.
>
> I already did, my son.
>
No, Don you did not answer my question, "how many Americans could say that?" referring to the
fact that I have never seen a gun nor heard a gunshot.
>
> > > > > and freedom of religion.
>
> > > > Where
>
> > > In the cesspool that is europe.
>
> > Where in "the cesspool that is europe [sic]" is there not freedom of religion?
>
> In europe.
>
Be more specific. Where in Europe?
>
> > > > > Also, as seen in the case of the murder of Juilet Rowe in the UK,
> > > > > europeans regularly put innocent people in jail for murders they
> > > > > didn't commit.
>
> > > > One case = regularly, does it? On that basis, there are very regular school
> > > > shootings in the USA.
>
> > > Sad but true. True freedom often comes at a high price.
>
> > A price which is, in my view, too high. I prefer the safety provided by the low levels
> > of guns ownership and strict control of firearms to the freedom to be shot by anyone.
>
> The lack of freedom in the cesspool that is europe would be
> intolerable for Americans. We will not have our freedom of speech,
You have not yet shown anything that backs up your suggestion that there is not freedom of
speech in Europe. Same for freedom of religion.
>
> gun ownership and religion infringed for a temporary and wholly
> unwarranted sense of "safety". In the words of the great Ben
> Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a
> little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Of the freedoms that you have claimed Europeans do not have, the only one for which there is
any evidence to support your claims is gun ownership. Now, could you explain WHY gun
ownership is an "essential Liberty," in terms that apply now, rather than 209 years and 40
days ago (the second amendment was ratified on 15 Dec 1791)
Dan Cutrer
You obviously don't know much about Gothic politics, the history of the
South, or, I'd venture, much else, either.
I doubt any source I cite will be of sufficient proof to you, although
the fact of such happenings is so widely known as to be admitted into
Court as 'general knowledge.' No, I don't know of any case in which
that has happened, I merely cite the rule of evidence that allows for
such as '12 inches in a foot' to be admitted without expert testimony.
Start with Dr. Ralph Bunche's The Political Status of the Negro in the
Age of FDR, p. 116, "It is estimated that between 1889 and 1937 a
total of 4,681 reported lynchings occurred, and unquestionably MANY
MORE have gone unrecorded. In the case of most lynchings, nothing is
ever done to punish the murderers, though the identity of the
ringleaders of the mob is generally well known to local officials."
Drimmer's excellent book, "Until You Are Dead", p. 253, "Illegal
executions, by lynching, accounted for at least another 3,498 deaths"
from August 6, 1890 to today.
See RD Abernathy's "Parting the Waters", p. 63, for details of lynching
of "six Negro war veterans (WWII) in a single three week period that
summer" (1946. Included in this is Georgia's first MULTIPLE lynching
since 1918.
See the Bedeau-edited "Death Penalty in America", p. 167, "Executions
consisted mainly of lynchings of blacks convicted of crimes against
whites" "Statistics support the sentiment that the death penalty has
been imposed in a discriminatory manner, especially on rape cases. The
definitive work on racial discrimination and the imposition of capital
punishment for rape prior to 1972 was conducted by Wolfgang and Riedel.
That study reported the following: of the 3,859 persons executed for
all crimes since 1930, 54.6% have been black or members of other
minority groups. Of the 455 executed for rape alone, 89.5% HAVE BEEN
NON-WHITE. OF THE EIGHTY RAPISTS ON DEATH ROW AT THE TIME OF THE FURMAN
DECISION (1972), ALL WERE INCARCERATED IN SOUTHERN PRISON SYSTEMS, 85%
WERE NON-WHITE. 91% of the victims WERE white.
Look up the name Emmett Till, Mississippi, 1950's.
And, in my news reporting days I did a story on 10-years after the
lynching from the Poplarville, Mississippi, County Jail of one Mack
Charles Parker, who, depending on the teller, either 'looked at',
'molested', 'raped', 'accosted' a white woman. Parker was beaten (some
say castrated, too) chained, tossed in Pearl River. Joke around town
was 'dumb (n-word), steal more chain than he can get away with, then try
to swim the river.' Other Joke around Town was: Do you think they'll
ever catch the men who lynched Mack Charles Parker?" "No, I don't.
'Sides, two of 'em are dead already!" Charles Kuralt, then new with
CBS News, recalls in his autobiography being sent to Poplarville in
1959, notes that FBI and entire town knew who'd done it ...
As I noted earlier, I do recognize the game you're playing, you'll find
fault with something in all this ... but on this topic the proof is
both legendary and all too abundant.
I'd welcome your apology.
Desmond Coughlan
<Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>
> ">
> >
> >
> > > I like both countries, and have no axe to grind with either of them, but
> the
> > > FACT is that Australians enjoy greater social freedoms than Americans.
> >
> > No Mark, they do not. For starters they do not even enjoy the
> > cherished freedom to keep and bear arms.
> >
> > Hope this helps,
> > Don
> >
> >
No John, Don is right again. There can be no true freedom without the
right to keep and bear arms. Full stop.
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms is the only sure way
to stave of government tyranny. The first action of a tyrant is to
disarm the people. Lord knows we have seen enough of that in Europe
over the years.
Desmond Coughlan |System Administrator
des...@coughlan.net |NT
http://212.198.64.228/
--
Free audio & video emails, greeting cards and forums
Talkway - http://www.talkway.com - Talk more ways (sm)
Mitchell Holman
Wow.
Game, set and match.
Glad to see someone post here who knows what
they are talking about and has the facts to back it
up. Lucas will have a long way to go to counter the
above, I'd venture..........
Rev. Don Kool
There are still a few of us around, Mitchie.
Randy
"Desmond Coughlan " <des...@coughlan.net> wrote in message
news:%7gs4.44229$Mg.7...@c01read03-admin.service.talkway.com...
In article <slrn89gfk1...@lievre.voute.net>,
des...@coughlan.net wrote:
Hmmm...knowing Dez a little bit and what has been going on...I do believe we
have some playing games here...or should I say trolling under Desmond's
id...
--Randy
Rev. Don Kool
Andy R wrote:
> "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > Andy R wrote:
> > > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > > Andy R wrote:
> > > > > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > > > > Africa wrote:
> >
> > [...snip...]
> >
> > > > You europeans elected these new NAZIs. You europeans have to live
> > > > with the derision of the civilized world.
> > > Don, the Freedom Party were elected by Austrians, the rest of Europe had no say in what
> > > happened in those elections, is is opposed to the neo-nazi Freedom Party. Let me give
> > > you an example. You imply in your post that ALL Europeans are responsible for the
> > > actions of the electorate in Austria.
> > Europe is europe, my son. I don't blame you for being ashamed of
> > it but you are part of it nonetheless.
> The neo-nazi Freedom Party were elected by Austrians (~30% of the vote). Somehow, you think
> that the rest of Europe voted for them, when this political party does not even EXIST outside
> of Austria.
Andy, you murderer lovers are always crowing about how "great"
things are with no just Death Penalty in europe. If you want to
make irrelevant comparisons between murder rates in europe and the
United States (the greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW)
then you have to be prepared to take heat over what happens in
europe. Austria is a part of this "united states of europe" that
you guys dream about.
> > > > > > and their oppressive lack of fundamental human rights such as freedom of
> > > > > > speech,
> > > > > Where?
> > > > In the cesspool that is europe.
> > > Where in the "cesspool that is europe [sic]" is there not freedom of speech?
> > In europe.
> Be more specific. Where within Europe?
Between the Atlantic Ocean and the Ural Mountains. You know,
europe.
> > > > > > freedom to keep and bear arms
> > > > > I like not having that right unconditionally. Why? Because I have never seen a
> > > > > real gun, nor heard a gunshot. How many Americans could say that?
> > > > Many slaves had a fondness for their masters as well, my child.
> > > Could you please answer the question, daddy Don.
> > I already did, my son.
> No, Don you did not answer my question, "how many Americans could say that?" referring to the
> fact that I have never seen a gun nor heard a gunshot.
If they don't watch TV or go to the movies, tens of millions.
> > > > > > and freedom of religion.
> > > > > Where
> > > > In the cesspool that is europe.
> > > Where in "the cesspool that is europe [sic]" is there not freedom of religion?
> > In europe.
> Be more specific. Where in Europe?
Between the Atlantic Ocean and the Ural Mountains. You know,
europe.
> > > > > > Also, as seen in the case of the murder of Juilet Rowe in the UK,
> > > > > > europeans regularly put innocent people in jail for murders they
> > > > > > didn't commit.
> > > > > One case = regularly, does it? On that basis, there are very regular school
> > > > > shootings in the USA.
> > > > Sad but true. True freedom often comes at a high price.
> > > A price which is, in my view, too high. I prefer the safety provided by the low levels
> > > of guns ownership and strict control of firearms to the freedom to be shot by anyone.
> > The lack of freedom in the cesspool that is europe would be
> > intolerable for Americans. We will not have our freedom of speech,
> You have not yet shown anything that backs up your suggestion that there is not freedom of
> speech in Europe. Same for freedom of religion.
Yes my child, I have.
> > gun ownership and religion infringed for a temporary and wholly
> > unwarranted sense of "safety". In the words of the great Ben
> > Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a
> > little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
> Of the freedoms that you have claimed Europeans do not have, the only one for which there is
> any evidence to support your claims is gun ownership.
There is "evidence" to support them all, Andy. One has but to
examine the cesspool that is europe. I'll give you a particularly
onerous one to get you started. Germany has just banned the movie
"Teaching Mrs. Tingle". Free speech is incompatable with european
censorship.
> Now, could you explain WHY gun
> ownership is an "essential Liberty," in terms that apply now, rather than 209 years and 40
> days ago (the second amendment was ratified on 15 Dec 1791)
Fundamental human rights do not change over time, my son.
Yours in Christ,
Shane
des...@coughlan.net says...
> On Sat, 19 Feb 2000 20:38:40 -0000 "John Rennie"
> <Jo...@rennie2000.greatxscape.net> wrote:
> >
> > ">
> > >
> > >
> > > > I like both countries, and have no axe to grind with either of them, but
> > the
> > > > FACT is that Australians enjoy greater social freedoms than Americans.
> > >
> > > No Mark, they do not. For starters they do not even enjoy the
> > > cherished freedom to keep and bear arms.
> > >
> > > Hope this helps,
> > > Don
> > >
> > >
> > > --What one might call an unsocial freedom!
>
>
> No John, Don is right again. There can be no true freedom without the
> right to keep and bear arms. Full stop.
> The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms is the only sure way
> to stave of government tyranny. The first action of a tyrant is to
> disarm the people. Lord knows we have seen enough of that in Europe
> over the years.
Damn, Koolio's trolling again folks...
Cretin
--
Shane in Boston
Åndrew R
> Andy R wrote:
> > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > Andy R wrote:
> > > > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > > > Andy R wrote:
> > > > > > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > > > > > Africa wrote:
> > >
> > > [...snip...]
> > >
> > > > > You europeans elected these new NAZIs. You europeans have to live
> > > > > with the derision of the civilized world.
>
> > > > Don, the Freedom Party were elected by Austrians, the rest of Europe had no say in what
> > > > happened in those elections, is is opposed to the neo-nazi Freedom Party. Let me give
> > > > you an example. You imply in your post that ALL Europeans are responsible for the
> > > > actions of the electorate in Austria.
>
> > > Europe is europe, my son. I don't blame you for being ashamed of
> > > it but you are part of it nonetheless.
>
> > The neo-nazi Freedom Party were elected by Austrians (~30% of the vote). Somehow, you think
> > that the rest of Europe voted for them, when this political party does not even EXIST outside
> > of Austria.
>
> Andy, you murderer lovers are always crowing about how "great"
> things are with no just Death Penalty in europe. If you want to
> make irrelevant comparisons between murder rates in europe and the
> United States (the greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW)
> then you have to be prepared to take heat over what happens in
> europe. Austria is a part of this "united states of europe" that
> you guys dream about.
>
Europe is still a collection of different countries. Those in one country cannot be held
accountable for the actions st the ballot box of those in another.
>
> > > > > > > and their oppressive lack of fundamental human rights such as freedom of
> > > > > > > speech,
>
> > > > > > Where?
>
> > > > > In the cesspool that is europe.
>
> > > > Where in the "cesspool that is europe [sic]" is there not freedom of speech?
>
> > > In europe.
>
> > Be more specific. Where within Europe?
>
> Between the Atlantic Ocean and the Ural Mountains. You know,
> europe.
>
Name a country between the Atlantic and the Urals (preferably an EU member state) where there is
not freedom of speech.
>
> > > > > > > freedom to keep and bear arms
>
> > > > > > I like not having that right unconditionally. Why? Because I have never seen a
> > > > > > real gun, nor heard a gunshot. How many Americans could say that?
>
> > > > > Many slaves had a fondness for their masters as well, my child.
>
> > > > Could you please answer the question, daddy Don.
>
> > > I already did, my son.
>
> > No, Don you did not answer my question, "how many Americans could say that?" referring to the
> > fact that I have never seen a gun nor heard a gunshot.
>
> If they don't watch TV or go to the movies, tens of millions.
>
Ok. How many Americans do not fear gun related crime?
>
> > > > > > > and freedom of religion.
>
> > > > > > Where
>
> > > > > In the cesspool that is europe.
>
> > > > Where in "the cesspool that is europe [sic]" is there not freedom of religion?
>
> > > In europe.
>
> > Be more specific. Where in Europe?
>
> Between the Atlantic Ocean and the Ural Mountains. You know,
> europe.
>
Again, name a country between the Atlantic and the Urals (preferably an EU member) where there is
not freedom of religion.
>
> > > > > > > Also, as seen in the case of the murder of Juilet Rowe in the UK,
> > > > > > > europeans regularly put innocent people in jail for murders they
> > > > > > > didn't commit.
>
> > > > > > One case = regularly, does it? On that basis, there are very regular school
> > > > > > shootings in the USA.
>
> > > > > Sad but true. True freedom often comes at a high price.
>
> > > > A price which is, in my view, too high. I prefer the safety provided by the low levels
> > > > of guns ownership and strict control of firearms to the freedom to be shot by anyone.
>
> > > The lack of freedom in the cesspool that is europe would be
> > > intolerable for Americans. We will not have our freedom of speech,
>
> > You have not yet shown anything that backs up your suggestion that there is not freedom of
> > speech in Europe. Same for freedom of religion.
>
> Yes my child, I have.
>
Is this a reference to your suggestion that, because HM Queen Elizabeth II is head of the Church of
England, there is no freedom of religion in the UK?
>
> > > gun ownership and religion infringed for a temporary and wholly
> > > unwarranted sense of "safety". In the words of the great Ben
> > > Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a
> > > little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
>
> > Of the freedoms that you have claimed Europeans do not have, the only one for which there is
> > any evidence to support your claims is gun ownership.
>
> There is "evidence" to support them all, Andy. One has but to
> examine the cesspool that is europe. I'll give you a particularly
> onerous one to get you started. Germany has just banned the movie
> "Teaching Mrs. Tingle".
Could you provide some evidence to back that up.
> Free speech is incompatable with european
> censorship.
>
> > Now, could you explain WHY gun
> > ownership is an "essential Liberty," in terms that apply now, rather than 209 years and 40
> > days ago (the second amendment was ratified on 15 Dec 1791)
>
> Fundamental human rights do not change over time, my son.
Ok then. Why is it an "essential Liberty"? The purpose of the "209 years and 40 days" (now 41)
was so that you wouldn't just say "because it's in the constitution." Why is it there?
Desmond Coughlan
Not trolling, Randy. I'm just using a few of my different accounts to
post. With my superiour education I need more than one account to keep
me busy.
Rev. Don Kool
If you wish to present europe as some crimeless oasis of morality
due solely to lack of the just Death Penalty then you should be
prepared to be painted with the same brush for everything else that
happens in the cesspool that is europe.
> > > > > > > > and their oppressive lack of fundamental human rights such as freedom of
> > > > > > > > speech,
> >
> > > > > > > Where?
> >
> > > > > > In the cesspool that is europe.
> >
> > > > > Where in the "cesspool that is europe [sic]" is there not freedom of speech?
> >
> > > > In europe.
> >
> > > Be more specific. Where within Europe?
> >
> > Between the Atlantic Ocean and the Ural Mountains. You know,
> > europe.
> Name a country between the Atlantic and the Urals (preferably an EU member state)
> where there is not freedom of speech.
Germany comes to mind.
> > > > > > > > freedom to keep and bear arms
> > > > > > > I like not having that right unconditionally. Why? Because I have never seen a
> > > > > > > real gun, nor heard a gunshot. How many Americans could say that?
> > > > > > Many slaves had a fondness for their masters as well, my child.
> > > > > Could you please answer the question, daddy Don.
> > > > I already did, my son.
> > > No, Don you did not answer my question, "how many Americans could say that?"
> > > referring to the fact that I have never seen a gun nor heard a gunshot.
> > If they don't watch TV or go to the movies, tens of millions.
> Ok. How many Americans do not fear gun related crime?
How many europans do not fear the latest car bombing?
> > > > > > > > and freedom of religion.
> > > > > > > Where
> >
> > > > > > In the cesspool that is europe.
> > > > > Where in "the cesspool that is europe [sic]" is there not freedom of religion?
> > > > In europe.
> > > Be more specific. Where in Europe?
> > Between the Atlantic Ocean and the Ural Mountains. You know,
> > europe.
> Again, name a country between the Atlantic and the Urals (preferably an EU member)
> where there is not freedom of religion.
France comes to mind.
> > > > > > > > Also, as seen in the case of the murder of Juilet Rowe in the UK,
> > > > > > > > europeans regularly put innocent people in jail for murders they
> > > > > > > > didn't commit.
> >
> > > > > > > One case = regularly, does it? On that basis, there are very regular school
> > > > > > > shootings in the USA.
> >
> > > > > > Sad but true. True freedom often comes at a high price.
> >
> > > > > A price which is, in my view, too high. I prefer the safety provided by the low levels
> > > > > of guns ownership and strict control of firearms to the freedom to be shot by anyone.
> >
> > > > The lack of freedom in the cesspool that is europe would be
> > > > intolerable for Americans. We will not have our freedom of speech,
> >
> > > You have not yet shown anything that backs up your suggestion that there is not freedom of
> > > speech in Europe. Same for freedom of religion.
> > Yes my child, I have.
> Is this a reference to your suggestion that, because HM Queen Elizabeth II
> is head of the Church of England, there is no freedom of religion in the UK?
State sponsored religion is just but one sad example, my child.
:-(
> > > > gun ownership and religion infringed for a temporary and wholly
> > > > unwarranted sense of "safety". In the words of the great Ben
> > > > Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a
> > > > little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
> > > Of the freedoms that you have claimed Europeans do not have, the only one
> > > for which there is any evidence to support your claims is gun ownership.
> > There is "evidence" to support them all, Andy. One has but to
> > examine the cesspool that is europe. I'll give you a particularly
> > onerous one to get you started. Germany has just banned the movie
> > "Teaching Mrs. Tingle".
> Could you provide some evidence to back that up.
As always, of course. See last Thursday's edition of the USA
Today. On page 12A (two pages before Dudley Sharp's letter to the
editor) it states unambiguously, "The case (concerning German
students planning to murder their teachers) prompted Germany to ban
the Hollywood movie 'Teaching Mrs. Tingle', in which students take
revenge on a teacher who gave low grades." The article goes on to
regale us with stories of 17 year-olds in the Netherlands shooting
up schools and various other examples of the murderous violence that
wracks the cesspool that is europe. One day the barbaric europeans
will figure out that clamping down even harder on the basic human
rights of their citizens is not the way to handle the waves of
violence that constantly sweep over the continent. First they will
have to learn that taking the easy way out isn't the answer. When
they learn that perhaps then they will remove their jackboots from
the necks of their innocent citizens and restore the just Death
Penalty for their guilty murderers. Punishing the guilty instead of
the innocent will be a necessary first step for them to learn.
> > Free speech is incompatable with european
> > censorship.
> > > Now, could you explain WHY gun ownership is an "essential Liberty,"
> > > in terms that apply now, rather than 209 years and 40
> > > days ago (the second amendment was ratified on 15 Dec 1791)
> > Fundamental human rights do not change over time, my son.
> Ok then. Why is it an "essential Liberty"? The purpose of the
> "209 years and 40 days" (now 41) was so that you wouldn't just say
> "because it's in the constitution." Why is it there?
Perhaps you should read the Constitution of the United States (the
greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW), my son, rather than
asking me these quesitons. As the Constitution states, it is
"necessary to the security of a free state".
Hope this helps,
Dave Proctor
>On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 23:21:38 GMT "Randy" <no...@none.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Desmond Coughlan " <des...@coughlan.net> wrote in message
>> news:%7gs4.44229$Mg.7...@c01read03-admin.service.talkway.com...
>>
>> In article <slrn89gfk1...@lievre.voute.net>,
>> des...@coughlan.net wrote:
>>
>> Hmmm...knowing Dez a little bit and what has been going on...I do believe
we
>> have some playing games here...or should I say trolling under Desmond's
>> id...
>
>Not trolling, Randy. I'm just using a few of my different accounts to
>post.
Glad you finally admitted it Don.
Dave
Åndrew R
I never presented that image of Europe.
>
> due solely to lack of the just Death Penalty then you should be
> prepared to be painted with the same brush for everything else that
> happens in the cesspool that is europe.
>
So you are saying that, because of some common policy areas, everything is shared between European
countries.
>
> > > > > > > > > and their oppressive lack of fundamental human rights such as freedom of
> > > > > > > > > speech,
> > >
> > > > > > > > Where?
> > >
> > > > > > > In the cesspool that is europe.
> > >
> > > > > > Where in the "cesspool that is europe [sic]" is there not freedom of speech?
> > >
> > > > > In europe.
> > >
> > > > Be more specific. Where within Europe?
> > >
> > > Between the Atlantic Ocean and the Ural Mountains. You know,
> > > europe.
>
> > Name a country between the Atlantic and the Urals (preferably an EU member state)
> > where there is not freedom of speech.
>
> Germany comes to mind.
>
Ok. In what way is there not freedom of speech in Germany?
>
> > > > > > > > > freedom to keep and bear arms
>
> > > > > > > > I like not having that right unconditionally. Why? Because I have never seen a
> > > > > > > > real gun, nor heard a gunshot. How many Americans could say that?
>
> > > > > > > Many slaves had a fondness for their masters as well, my child.
>
> > > > > > Could you please answer the question, daddy Don.
>
> > > > > I already did, my son.
>
> > > > No, Don you did not answer my question, "how many Americans could say that?"
> > > > referring to the fact that I have never seen a gun nor heard a gunshot.
>
> > > If they don't watch TV or go to the movies, tens of millions.
>
> > Ok. How many Americans do not fear gun related crime?
>
> How many europans do not fear the latest car bombing?
>
Please answer my question. In relation to your question, as there are not many car bombings, I would
guess that most "europans [sic]" do not fear car bombings.
>
> > > > > > > > > and freedom of religion.
>
> > > > > > > > Where
> > >
> > > > > > > In the cesspool that is europe.
>
> > > > > > Where in "the cesspool that is europe [sic]" is there not freedom of religion?
>
> > > > > In europe.
>
> > > > Be more specific. Where in Europe?
>
> > > Between the Atlantic Ocean and the Ural Mountains. You know,
> > > europe.
>
> > Again, name a country between the Atlantic and the Urals (preferably an EU member)
> > where there is not freedom of religion.
>
> France comes to mind.
>
How is there not freedom of religion in France?
>
> > > > > > > > > Also, as seen in the case of the murder of Juilet Rowe in the UK,
> > > > > > > > > europeans regularly put innocent people in jail for murders they
> > > > > > > > > didn't commit.
> > >
> > > > > > > > One case = regularly, does it? On that basis, there are very regular school
> > > > > > > > shootings in the USA.
> > >
> > > > > > > Sad but true. True freedom often comes at a high price.
> > >
> > > > > > A price which is, in my view, too high. I prefer the safety provided by the low levels
> > > > > > of guns ownership and strict control of firearms to the freedom to be shot by anyone.
> > >
> > > > > The lack of freedom in the cesspool that is europe would be
> > > > > intolerable for Americans. We will not have our freedom of speech,
> > >
> > > > You have not yet shown anything that backs up your suggestion that there is not freedom of
> > > > speech in Europe. Same for freedom of religion.
>
> > > Yes my child, I have.
>
> > Is this a reference to your suggestion that, because HM Queen Elizabeth II
> > is head of the Church of England, there is no freedom of religion in the UK?
>
> State sponsored religion is just but one sad example, my child.
> :-(
>
Another example of "Don-logic" would be that there is not freedom of religion in the USA, as to become
a US citizen, one must take the Oath of Allegiance. This oath ends with the words "so help me God."
Any person who does not believe in God could not, logically, ask for the help of God, so in the USA you
do not have the freedom to be an atheist, so there is no freedom of religion ion the USA.
>
> > > > > gun ownership and religion infringed for a temporary and wholly
> > > > > unwarranted sense of "safety". In the words of the great Ben
> > > > > Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a
> > > > > little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
>
> > > > Of the freedoms that you have claimed Europeans do not have, the only one
> > > > for which there is any evidence to support your claims is gun ownership.
>
> > > There is "evidence" to support them all, Andy. One has but to
> > > examine the cesspool that is europe. I'll give you a particularly
> > > onerous one to get you started. Germany has just banned the movie
> > > "Teaching Mrs. Tingle".
>
> > Could you provide some evidence to back that up.
>
> As always, of course. See last Thursday's edition of the USA
> Today.
Might be a bit tricky. Is there an online version, so that I know you're not just making it up.
> On page 12A (two pages before Dudley Sharp's letter to the
> editor) it states unambiguously, "The case (concerning German
> students planning to murder their teachers) prompted Germany to ban
> the Hollywood movie 'Teaching Mrs. Tingle', in which students take
> revenge on a teacher who gave low grades." The article goes on to
> regale us with stories of 17 year-olds in the Netherlands shooting
> up schools and various other examples of the murderous violence that
> wracks the cesspool that is europe.
The only reference to the film 'Teaching Mrs. Tingle' that the online archives of USA Today (from the
link on their web site) is headed "NEW ON VIDEO."
> One day the barbaric europeans
> will figure out that clamping down even harder on the basic human
> rights of their citizens is not the way to handle the waves of
> violence that constantly sweep over the continent.
Which "waves of violence" would those be? I must have missed the last one. Or do you have to go back
55 years to find one?
> First they will
> have to learn that taking the easy way out isn't the answer. When
> they learn that perhaps then they will remove their jackboots from
> the necks of their innocent citizens and restore the just Death
> Penalty for their guilty murderers. Punishing the guilty instead of
> the innocent will be a necessary first step for them to learn.
>
How does locking up murderers for the rest of their lives constitute punishing the innocent? The USA
needs to take the first step to modernity of recognising that everyone has a right to life, no matter
what.
>
> > > Free speech is incompatable with european
> > > censorship.
>
> > > > Now, could you explain WHY gun ownership is an "essential Liberty,"
> > > > in terms that apply now, rather than 209 years and 40
> > > > days ago (the second amendment was ratified on 15 Dec 1791)
>
> > > Fundamental human rights do not change over time, my son.
>
> > Ok then. Why is it an "essential Liberty"? The purpose of the
> > "209 years and 40 days" (now 41) was so that you wouldn't just say
> > "because it's in the constitution." Why is it there?
>
> Perhaps you should read the Constitution of the United States (the
> greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW), my son, rather than
> asking me these quesitons. As the Constitution states, it is
> "necessary to the security of a free state".
The second amendment, which reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." seems to me to be saying
that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Although, as a whole, it
is ambiguous as to it's authors intentions, the first section ("A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State") is fairly unambiguous in what it is saying. What I am
interested in is WHY it was felt necessary for this to be included, and also why it is still relevant.
Could you explain why, in your opinion, the freedom to bear arms is "necessary to the security of a
free State."
Warnock
>cynics may say that all lawyers lie, such is totally unacceptable for
>prosecution lawyers, whose *primary* responsibility should be to truth and
>justice, not to convictions.
Well said, but you are living in a dream world - somewhere far away.
Prosecutors run on EGO, their anual salary increases are defined by the
number of ' guilty ' verdicts they return, promotion everything, depends on
successful prosecutions and if a few inocent people get the death sentence
along the way - so what!!
>> Despite its weird laws, Louisiana is part of the 5th Circuit Court of
>> Appeals, 5th Circuit specifically approves "the Allen Charge", sometime
>> known as "Dynamite Charge", "some jury, some time, is going to have to
>> hear this case again. They won't be any better qualified or equipped
>> than you are. I urge you to go back into the jury room, give more
>> serious consideration to your differences, realize that reasonable
>> people ought to be able to agree, and try again for a verdict."
>
>This instruction is disgraceful, and manifestly false.
Reasonable people have every right to disagree, that's why they choose 12
jurers.
Warnock
>different legal systems, but I cannot see how things would be too
different)
>we elected the foreperson at our first break on the first day of the trial,
>the case was constantly discussed by us during our morning tea, lunch and
>other breaks - this gave us a fairly good idea where each of us stood on
the
>guilt or innocence of the accused on each of the charges.
So you ( and the jury ) discussed the trial before all the evidence was in,
formed an opinion and possibly short changed the accused?
george shewbart
will inevitably lead to the murder of those rape victims.
Absolutely logical. Why should the rapist allow the victim to live if
he almost certainly faces the death penalty already? At the very least
this eliminates the possibility of later eyewitness identity by the
person he raped and he has little to lose anyway.
After Charles Lindbergh's son was abducted and murdered Congress in its
infinite wisdom passed a law stating that when there was credible
evidence that a kidnapped person had been taken across a state line the
kidnapping itself, regardless of whether the victim had been physically
harmed or killed, was subject to the death penalty. The results were
predictable. During the mid fifties there was a series of
kidnap/murders in the United States which could have been only
kidnappings had the death penalty not been in place for that crime
alone.
I am against the death penalty but we are needlessly putting citizens
lives in danger if someone has already committed another dp crime and
has nothing more to risk by killing to protect himself from capture or
identification.
Dave Proctor
No - we discussed the evidence as we heard it and clarified with each other
anything that we were not sure of. This also helped us to identify areas we
were not clear on, as we had the ability (and used it) to question witnesses
(via written questions submitted through the judge).
As for short changing the accused, we threw out three of the five charges
almost immediately, and then spent the next 12 hours throwing out the
remaining two charges. I don't think the accused was short changed, and as
for the prosecution, even the prosecutor conceded in his summing up that he
was on shaky ground (due to new evidence that came forth because of our
questions).
Dave
Dave Proctor
>You're having trouble with your attributions again.
>It was I who posted that earlier message.
LOL>
Dave
Rev. Don Kool
Andy R wrote:
> "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > Andy R wrote:
> > > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > > Andy R wrote:
> > > > > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > > > > Andy R wrote:
> > > > > > > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > > > > > > Andy R wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Africa wrote:
[...snip...]
> > > > Andy, you murderer lovers are always crowing about how "great"
> > > > things are with no just Death Penalty in europe. If you want to
> > > > make irrelevant comparisons between murder rates in europe and the
> > > > United States (the greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW)
> > > > then you have to be prepared to take heat over what happens in
> > > > europe. Austria is a part of this "united states of europe" that
> > > > you guys dream about.
> > > Europe is still a collection of different countries. Those in one country cannot be held
> > > accountable for the actions st the ballot box of those in another.
> > If you wish to present europe as some crimeless oasis of morality
> I never presented that image of Europe.
It is the image generally presented by you murderer lovers.
> > due solely to lack of the just Death Penalty then you should be
> > prepared to be painted with the same brush for everything else that
> > happens in the cesspool that is europe.
> So you are saying that, because of some common policy areas, everything is shared between European
> countries.
Everything (except soap) is "shared between European [sic]
countries", Andy.
> > > > > > > > > > and their oppressive lack of fundamental human rights such as freedom of
> > > > > > > > > > speech,
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > Where?
> > > >
> > > > > > > > In the cesspool that is europe.
> > > >
> > > > > > > Where in the "cesspool that is europe [sic]" is there not freedom of speech?
> > > >
> > > > > > In europe.
> > > >
> > > > > Be more specific. Where within Europe?
> > > > Between the Atlantic Ocean and the Ural Mountains. You know,
> > > > europe.
> > > Name a country between the Atlantic and the Urals (preferably an EU member state)
> > > where there is not freedom of speech.
> > Germany comes to mind.
> Ok. In what way is there not freedom of speech in Germany?
<sigh> You really need to do your own research, my son. A good
research project for you would be to walk down the streets of Berlin
in an SS uniform waving a Nazi flag. Shout to everyone that "Hitler
was right" and be sure to hand out pamphlets decrying the Shoah as a
"hoax". Remind everyone that you're simply exercising your european
free speech. When you get out of jail, repeat the same research on
the dog shit strewn streets of Paris.
> > > > > > > > > > freedom to keep and bear arms
> >
> > > > > > > > > I like not having that right unconditionally. Why? Because I have never seen a
> > > > > > > > > real gun, nor heard a gunshot. How many Americans could say that?
> >
> > > > > > > > Many slaves had a fondness for their masters as well, my child.
> >
> > > > > > > Could you please answer the question, daddy Don.
> >
> > > > > > I already did, my son.
> >
> > > > > No, Don you did not answer my question, "how many Americans could say that?"
> > > > > referring to the fact that I have never seen a gun nor heard a gunshot.
> >
> > > > If they don't watch TV or go to the movies, tens of millions.
> >
> > > Ok. How many Americans do not fear gun related crime?
> >
> > How many europans do not fear the latest car bombing?
> Please answer my question. In relation to your question, as there are not many car bombings, I would
> guess that most "europans [sic]" do not fear car bombings.
You just answered your own question, my son.
> > > > > > > > > > and freedom of religion.
> > > > > > > > > Where
> > > > > > > > In the cesspool that is europe.
> > > > > > > Where in "the cesspool that is europe [sic]" is there not freedom of religion?
> > > > > > In europe.
> > > > > Be more specific. Where in Europe?
> > > > Between the Atlantic Ocean and the Ural Mountains. You know,
> > > > europe.
> > > Again, name a country between the Atlantic and the Urals (preferably an EU member)
> > > where there is not freedom of religion.
> > France comes to mind.
> How is there not freedom of religion in France?
Another murderer lover unable to do his own research. :-(
When you finish your experiments demonstrating the lack of free
speech in the cesspool that is europe, I'll give you your assignment
demonstrating the lack of freedom of religion.
> > > > > > > > > > Also, as seen in the case of the murder of Juilet Rowe in the UK,
> > > > > > > > > > europeans regularly put innocent people in jail for murders they
> > > > > > > > > > didn't commit.
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > One case = regularly, does it? On that basis, there are very regular school
> > > > > > > > > shootings in the USA.
> > > >
> > > > > > > > Sad but true. True freedom often comes at a high price.
> > > >
> > > > > > > A price which is, in my view, too high. I prefer the safety provided by the low levels
> > > > > > > of guns ownership and strict control of firearms to the freedom to be shot by anyone.
> > > >
> > > > > > The lack of freedom in the cesspool that is europe would be
> > > > > > intolerable for Americans. We will not have our freedom of speech,
> > > >
> > > > > You have not yet shown anything that backs up your suggestion that there is not freedom of
> > > > > speech in Europe. Same for freedom of religion.
> >
> > > > Yes my child, I have.
> >
> > > Is this a reference to your suggestion that, because HM Queen Elizabeth II
> > > is head of the Church of England, there is no freedom of religion in the UK?
> >
> > State sponsored religion is just but one sad example, my child.
> > :-(
> >
>
> Another example of "Don-logic" would be that there is not freedom of religion in the USA, as to become
> a US citizen, one must take the Oath of Allegiance. This oath ends with the words "so help me God."
> Any person who does not believe in God could not, logically, ask for the help of God, so in the USA you
> do not have the freedom to be an atheist, so there is no freedom of religion ion the USA.
One does not have to take an "Oath of Allegiance" to become a
citizen of the United States (the greatest country on the face of
the Earth, BTW), my son. I can see that you were "educated" in
europe. My condolences.
> > > > > > gun ownership and religion infringed for a temporary and wholly
> > > > > > unwarranted sense of "safety". In the words of the great Ben
> > > > > > Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a
> > > > > > little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
> >
> > > > > Of the freedoms that you have claimed Europeans do not have, the only one
> > > > > for which there is any evidence to support your claims is gun ownership.
> >
> > > > There is "evidence" to support them all, Andy. One has but to
> > > > examine the cesspool that is europe. I'll give you a particularly
> > > > onerous one to get you started. Germany has just banned the movie
> > > > "Teaching Mrs. Tingle".
> >
> > > Could you provide some evidence to back that up.
> >
> > As always, of course. See last Thursday's edition of the USA
> > Today.
> Might be a bit tricky. Is there an online version, so that I know you're not just making it up.
Can you do nothing for yourself, my child? I'm holding the paper
in my hand and looking right at the article. It's real, it exists.
Take my word for it. If you are silly enough not to do that, I'm
sure there is a place on the USA Today web site where you can
purchase back copies.
[...example of murderer lovers' inability to do basic research
snipped...]
> > One day the barbaric europeans
> > will figure out that clamping down even harder on the basic human
> > rights of their citizens is not the way to handle the waves of
> > violence that constantly sweep over the continent.
> Which "waves of violence" would those be? I must have missed the last one. Or do you have to go back
> 55 years to find one?
Not even 55 months, my clueless young friend. :-(
Perhaps you should research the goings on in a little corner of
europe called Kosovo.
> > First they will
> > have to learn that taking the easy way out isn't the answer. When
> > they learn that perhaps then they will remove their jackboots from
> > the necks of their innocent citizens and restore the just Death
> > Penalty for their guilty murderers. Punishing the guilty instead of
> > the innocent will be a necessary first step for them to learn.
> How does locking up murderers for the rest of their lives constitute punishing the innocent? The USA
> needs to take the first step to modernity of recognising that everyone has a right to life, no matter
> what.
That basic right is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence
and the Constitution of the United States (the greatest country on
the face of the Earth, BTW), my son. Amendment V of the Constition
clearly states that no one can "be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law".
> > > > Free speech is incompatable with european
> > > > censorship.
> >
> > > > > Now, could you explain WHY gun ownership is an "essential Liberty,"
> > > > > in terms that apply now, rather than 209 years and 40
> > > > > days ago (the second amendment was ratified on 15 Dec 1791)
> >
> > > > Fundamental human rights do not change over time, my son.
> >
> > > Ok then. Why is it an "essential Liberty"? The purpose of the
> > > "209 years and 40 days" (now 41) was so that you wouldn't just say
> > > "because it's in the constitution." Why is it there?
> >
> > Perhaps you should read the Constitution of the United States (the
> > greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW), my son, rather than
> > asking me these quesitons. As the Constitution states, it is
> > "necessary to the security of a free state".
>
> The second amendment, which reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." seems to me to be saying
> that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Although, as a whole, it
> is ambiguous as to it's authors intentions, the first section ("A well regulated Militia, being
> necessary to the security of a free State") is fairly unambiguous in what it is saying. What I am
> interested in is WHY it was felt necessary for this to be included, and also why it is still relevant.
> Could you explain why, in your opinion, the freedom to bear arms is "necessary to the security of a
> free State."
How else are we to protect ourselves from government tyranny?
Jamie McLoughlin
of gun massacres in first world countries take place, the USA!
Remember Collumbine high, it didn't sound to me like those kids shot by
Harris and Clebould actually felt free and glad to be americas as they
were killed did they?
And what good will the bearing of arms do, preserve democracy, well, a
buch of savages with weapons will only deliver unfreedom, i'm glad my
country had the sense to restric weapons supplys among its citizens,
after all, with the way many of you guys think, given a weapon, i'm sure
you'd shoot people like me who have the audasity to disagree with your
pro murder, pro death penalty views, IS THAT A DEMOCRACY, THANK GOD FOR
CIVILISED BRITAINIA!
Åndrew R
The point of such legislation would be, I assume, to attempt to deal with racist attitudes. In this
situation, it is impossible to both protect individuals right to be protected from hatred based on their
descent, and protect freedom of speech. We, in Europe, consider freedom from racial hatred to be the more
important of the two.
Don, from http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/services/natz/general.htm :
"To become a citizen, one must take the oath of allegiance. By doing so, an applicant swears to:
support the Constitution and obey the laws of the U.S.; renounce any foreign allegiance and/or foreign title;
and bear arms for the Armed Forces of the U.S. or perform services for the government of the U.S. when
required
In certain instances, where the applicant establishes that he or she is opposed to any type of service in
armed forces based on religious teaching or belief, INS will permit these applicants to take a modified
oath."
The oath ends with the words "so help me God" and the modification referred to above is the removal of the
clauses ". . .that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform
noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by law. . ." (both from
http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/services/natz/oath.htm the second referring to a section of the oath which
I have not posted.)
>
> > > > > > > gun ownership and religion infringed for a temporary and wholly
> > > > > > > unwarranted sense of "safety". In the words of the great Ben
> > > > > > > Franklin, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a
> > > > > > > little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
> > >
> > > > > > Of the freedoms that you have claimed Europeans do not have, the only one
> > > > > > for which there is any evidence to support your claims is gun ownership.
> > >
> > > > > There is "evidence" to support them all, Andy. One has but to
> > > > > examine the cesspool that is europe. I'll give you a particularly
> > > > > onerous one to get you started. Germany has just banned the movie
> > > > > "Teaching Mrs. Tingle".
> > >
> > > > Could you provide some evidence to back that up.
> > >
> > > As always, of course. See last Thursday's edition of the USA
> > > Today.
>
> > Might be a bit tricky. Is there an online version, so that I know you're not just making it up.
>
> Can you do nothing for yourself, my child? I'm holding the paper
> in my hand and looking right at the article. It's real, it exists.
> Take my word for it. If you are silly enough not to do that, I'm
> sure there is a place on the USA Today web site where you can
> purchase back copies.
>
I looked on the archives link to from http://www.usatoday.com and did a search for "Teaching Mrs. Tingle."
However, the archives search must have been broken as all I got was a message saying "the requested page
could not be found." In the search box at the top of the front page of their website, I put 'Germany
"Teaching Mrs. Tingle"' which returned no results. To get back issues, you have to phone them (an
international call) and they only accept American Express, Visa, or Master Card for payment, and I have none
of those.
> > > One day the barbaric europeans
> > > will figure out that clamping down even harder on the basic human
> > > rights of their citizens is not the way to handle the waves of
> > > violence that constantly sweep over the continent.
>
> > Which "waves of violence" would those be? I must have missed the last one. Or do you have to go back
> > 55 years to find one?
>
> Not even 55 months, my clueless young friend. :-(
>
> Perhaps you should research the goings on in a little corner of
> europe called Kosovo.
>
That one didn't "sweep over the continent."
>
> > > First they will
> > > have to learn that taking the easy way out isn't the answer. When
> > > they learn that perhaps then they will remove their jackboots from
> > > the necks of their innocent citizens and restore the just Death
> > > Penalty for their guilty murderers. Punishing the guilty instead of
> > > the innocent will be a necessary first step for them to learn.
>
> > How does locking up murderers for the rest of their lives constitute punishing the innocent? The USA
> > needs to take the first step to modernity of recognising that everyone has a right to life, no matter
> > what.
>
> That basic right is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence
> and the Constitution of the United States (the greatest country on
> the face of the Earth, BTW), my son. Amendment V of the Constition
> clearly states that no one can "be deprived of life, liberty, or
> property, without due process of law".
>
So the USA does not reconginse that everyone has a right to life, no matter what they have done, as by
implication, amendment 5 allows life to be taken away.
>
> > > > > Free speech is incompatable with european
> > > > > censorship.
> > >
> > > > > > Now, could you explain WHY gun ownership is an "essential Liberty,"
> > > > > > in terms that apply now, rather than 209 years and 40
> > > > > > days ago (the second amendment was ratified on 15 Dec 1791)
> > >
> > > > > Fundamental human rights do not change over time, my son.
> > >
> > > > Ok then. Why is it an "essential Liberty"? The purpose of the
> > > > "209 years and 40 days" (now 41) was so that you wouldn't just say
> > > > "because it's in the constitution." Why is it there?
> > >
> > > Perhaps you should read the Constitution of the United States (the
> > > greatest country on the face of the Earth, BTW), my son, rather than
> > > asking me these quesitons. As the Constitution states, it is
> > > "necessary to the security of a free state".
> >
> > The second amendment, which reads "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> > State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." seems to me to be saying
> > that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Although, as a whole, it
> > is ambiguous as to it's authors intentions, the first section ("A well regulated Militia, being
> > necessary to the security of a free State") is fairly unambiguous in what it is saying. What I am
> > interested in is WHY it was felt necessary for this to be included, and also why it is still relevant.
> > Could you explain why, in your opinion, the freedom to bear arms is "necessary to the security of a
> > free State."
>
> How else are we to protect ourselves from government tyranny?
And when people do protect themselves from government tyranny with their guns, I'm sure that you would be the
first one shouting "execute that cop/soldier [delete as appropriate] killer."
JIGSAW1695
From: Jamie McLoughlin Jamie.Mc...@durham.ac.uk
Date: 2/25/00 2:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <38B65E39...@durham.ac.uk>
==============================
Ah Jamie...it is because of Britian that we Americans were forced to bear arms.
But I guess your history books fial to mention that.
Yours in Liberal Solidarity
Jigsaw
Desmond Coughlan
> >> Facts are facts, and prison life for this type of scum deserves what they reap.
> >Oh dear ... is your post writer on his day off ..?
> Still he does have a point, does he?
Could you point it out to me, then ..?
--
Desmond Coughlan |Restez Zen ... UNIX peut le faire
des...@coughlan.net
http://www.coughlan.net/desmond
Barry Smith
Jamie McLoughlin <Jamie.Mc...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:38B65E39...@durham.ac.uk...
> Surely the bearing of arms is not a freedom, where do a large proportion
> of gun massacres in first world countries take place, the USA!
> Remember Collumbine high, it didn't sound to me like those kids shot by
> Harris and Clebould actually felt free and glad to be americas as they
> were killed did they?
It often appears that freedom to bear arms is a bit like the freedom to
stick your fingers in the electrical socket: it might be a right but it's
still
a stupid idea. In the last survey I saw the rate of death from handguns
per million/year was 0.5 in the UK and 35 (70 times higher) in the US
(figures include accidental and suicide shootings). Shootings accounted
for 52% of murders in the US and 7% in the UK.
Still, to bring this back on topic is there anyone on the pro-DP side
who'd like to claim that the right to bear arms is a good thing but that
the death penalty should be kept because it might save a couple of
lives a year, without worrying about the contradiction?
Barry Smith
JIGSAW1695 <jigsa...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000225091547...@ng-cn1.aol.com...
> Subject: Re: A bit of confusion ...
> From: Jamie McLoughlin Jamie.Mc...@durham.ac.uk
> Date: 2/25/00 2:49 AM Pacific Standard Time
> Message-id: <38B65E39...@durham.ac.uk>
>
> of gun massacres in first world countries take place, the USA!
> Remember Collumbine high, it didn't sound to me like those kids shot by
> Harris and Clebould actually felt free and glad to be americas as they
> were killed did they?
> buch of savages with weapons will only deliver unfreedom, i'm glad my
> country had the sense to restric weapons supplys among its citizens,
> after all, with the way many of you guys think, given a weapon, i'm sure
> you'd shoot people like me who have the audasity to disagree with your
> pro murder, pro death penalty views, IS THAT A DEMOCRACY, THANK GOD FOR
> CIVILISED BRITAINIA!
>
>
>
> Ah Jamie...it is because of Britian that we Americans were forced to bear
arms.
> But I guess your history books fial to mention that.
>
Pity Wes hasn't spotted this one... he thinks the British Empire was run in
an
excellent way, and presumably feels America was stupid to break away from
such a wonderful regieme (see his opinions on Thuggees in his website).
Rev. Don Kool
Andy R wrote:
> "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > Andy R wrote:
> > > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > > Andy R wrote:
> > > > > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > > > > Andy R wrote:
> > > > > > > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > > > > > > Andy R wrote:
> > > > > > > > > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Andy R wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > "Rev. Don Kool" wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Africa wrote:
[...snip...]
> > > Ok. In what way is there not freedom of speech in Germany?
> > <sigh> You really need to do your own research, my son. A good
> > research project for you would be to walk down the streets of Berlin
> > in an SS uniform waving a Nazi flag. Shout to everyone that "Hitler
> > was right" and be sure to hand out pamphlets decrying the Shoah as a
> > "hoax". Remind everyone that you're simply exercising your european
> > free speech. When you get out of jail, repeat the same research on
> > the dog shit strewn streets of Paris.
> The point of such legislation would be, I assume, to
restrict citizens' fundamental right of free speech.
> attempt to deal with racist attitudes. In this
> situation, it is impossible to both protect individuals right to be protected
> from hatred based on their descent, and protect freedom of speech. We, in
> Europe, consider freedom from racial hatred to be the more important of the two.
Fine. Now just stop pretending that there is free speech in
europe, you hypocrite. You smelly europeans would do well to learn
from Voltaire who said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to say it." (Yes, to be pedantic
about it, that line was never found in Voltaire's papers but it is
generally attributed to him).
The next time I point out that there is no such thing as free
speech in the cesspool that is europe, your proper response will be,
"Yes Sir, you are correct, Sir". You can't rationalize away
restrictions on freedoms, my child. Here in America we reject the
idea of a 'thought police'.
[...snip...]
> > One does not have to take an "Oath of Allegiance" to become a
> > citizen of the United States (the greatest country on the face of
> > the Earth, BTW), my son. I can see that you were "educated" in
> > europe. My condolences.
> Don, from http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/services/natz/general.htm :
> "To become a citizen, one must take the oath of allegiance.
> By doing so, an applicant swears to: support the Constitution
> and obey the laws of the U.S.; renounce any foreign allegiance
> and/or foreign title; and bear arms for the Armed Forces of the
> U.S. or perform services for the government of the U.S. when required
> In certain instances, where the applicant establishes that he or she
> is opposed to any type of service in armed forces based on religious
> teaching or belief, INS will permit these applicants to take a modified
> oath."
>
> The oath ends with the words "so help me God" and the modification
> referred to above is the removal of the clauses ". . .that I will
> bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that
> I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United
> States when required by law. . ." (both from
> http://www.ins.usdoj.gov/graphics/services/natz/oath.htm the second
> referring to a section of the oath which I have not posted.)
Funny... I'm a proud citizen of the United States (the greatest
country on the face of the Earth, BTW) and I've never had to take
that oath. Looks like you need to re-check your sources, my child.
[...snip...]
> I looked on the archives link to from http://www.usatoday.com
> and did a search for "Teaching Mrs. Tingle." However, the archives
> search must have been broken as all I got was a message saying "the
> requested page could not be found." In the search box at the top
> of the front page of their website, I put 'Germany "Teaching Mrs.
> Tingle"' which returned no results. To get back issues, you have
> to phone them (an international call) and they only accept American
> Express, Visa, or Master Card for payment, and I have none of those.
Just mail me $20 and your address and I'll send you my copy.
> > > > One day the barbaric europeans
> > > > will figure out that clamping down even harder on the basic human
> > > > rights of their citizens is not the way to handle the waves of
> > > > violence that constantly sweep over the continent.
> > > Which "waves of violence" would those be? I must have missed the
> > > last one. Or do you have to go back 55 years to find one?
> > Not even 55 months, my clueless young friend. :-(
> > Perhaps you should research the goings on in a little corner of
> > europe called Kosovo.
> That one didn't "sweep over the continent."
Sure it did. Sadly, they all do. :-(
[...snip...]
> > That basic right is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence
> > and the Constitution of the United States (the greatest country on
> > the face of the Earth, BTW), my son. Amendment V of the Constition
> > clearly states that no one can "be deprived of life, liberty, or
> > property, without due process of law".
> So the USA does not reconginse that everyone has a right to life,
> no matter what they have done, as by implication, amendment 5 allows
> life to be taken away.
So europe thinks that everyone has a right to life no matter what
they do? The facts put lie to that, my son. Even in the cesspool
that is europe citizens still have the right to defend themselves.
Even in the cesspool that is europe cops still shoot people (sadly
many times simply for being the "wrong" religion). :-(
[...snip...]
> > How else are we to protect ourselves from government tyranny?
> And when people do protect themselves from government tyranny with
> their guns, I'm sure that you would be the first one shouting "execute
> that cop/soldier [delete as appropriate] killer."
The last time we protected ourselves from government tyranny
involved despot King George III shouting that. History has made
it's determination and you europeans are justly seen as the tyrants.
Happy to have cleared things up for you,
JIGSAW1695
Date: 2/27/00 8:17 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <89bs9c$3tv$2...@ctb-nnrp1.saix.net>
JIGSAW1695 wrote in message <20000225091547.17855.00001811@ng->Surely the
bearing of arms is not a freedom, where do a large proportion
>of gun massacres in first world countries take place, the USA!
>Remember Collumbine high, it didn't sound to me like those kids shot by
>Harris and Clebould actually felt free and glad to be americas as they
>were killed did they?
>And what good will the bearing of arms do, preserve democracy, well, a
>buch of savages with weapons will only deliver unfreedom, i'm glad my
>country had the sense to restric weapons supplys among its citizens,
>after all, with the way many of you guys think, given a weapon, i'm sure
>you'd shoot people like me who have the audasity to disagree with your
>pro murder, pro death penalty views, IS THAT A DEMOCRACY, THANK GOD FOR
>CIVILISED BRITAINIA!
>==============================
>
>Ah Jamie...it is because of Britian that we Americans were forced to bear
arms.
>But I guess your history books fial to mention that.
>Yours in Liberal Solidarity
>Jigsaw
Or was it to wipe out the indigenous population that Americans learned to
carry arms?
============================
Sorry Kid..check your history books. The Brits and the French used Indians to
wipe out each others colonies as well as each others army troops.
Jigsaw
Åndrew R
> Jamie McLoughlin wrote in message <38B65E39...@durham.ac.uk>...
> >Surely the bearing of arms is not a freedom, where do a large proportion
> >of gun massacres in first world countries take place, the USA!
> >Remember Collumbine high, it didn't sound to me like those kids shot by
> >Harris and Clebould actually felt free and glad to be americas as they
> >were killed did they?
> >And what good will the bearing of arms do, preserve democracy, well, a
> >buch of savages with weapons will only deliver unfreedom, i'm glad my
> >country had the sense to restric weapons supplys among its citizens,
> >after all, with the way many of you guys think, given a weapon, i'm sure
> >you'd shoot people like me who have the audasity to disagree with your
> >pro murder, pro death penalty views, IS THAT A DEMOCRACY, THANK GOD FOR
> >CIVILISED BRITAINIA!
>
> Yes, I've heard of this civilised Britannia - in the abortion newsgroup they
> tell me that it is acceptable to kill your new born baby up to 4 months
> after a full term birth!!!
> This is truly barbaric!!
> Hopefully it's the only country in the world that allows such inhumane
> treatment.
Whoever told you that is wrong. Plain and simple.