Don't EVER tell me drug uses is a victimless crime
Sergeant Rock
COURTS: Trent Fouts, on trial in the torture-murder of a toddler,
cites heroin use and several unfortunate accidents.
March 9, 2000
By ELIZABETH AGUILERA
The Orange County Register
For the first time since he was accused of torturing, sexually abusing
and killing a 20-month-old boy, Trent Fouts testified in his own
defense Wednesday, saying the child was left in his care while he was
high on heroin.
Fouts said Joshua Massengill's injuries were the result of a series of
unfortunate accidents including two tumbles from a countertop and
sitting in bath water that was too hot. He said he never intentionally
hurt the child, who was left in his care after Joshua's mother, Jenise
Massengill, went out all night with another man.
Medical records say the boy was dipped in scalding water, causing
second-degree burns to 20 percent of his body, sexually abused and
beaten over the head. Heroin was also found in his system, said Deputy
District Attorney Elizabeth Henderson.
The lifeless child was found outside a Santa Ana medical facility Jan.
10, 1997.
Fouts, 35, said he was trying to get the boy help when he dropped him
off at what he thought was a hospital. Fouts testified he immediately
hopped a bus to Las Vegas and didn't find out Joshua had died until he
called his father about three weeks later.
Fouts said he took the child to a baby sitter the morning of Jan. 9,
1997, and picked him up again in the evening. That night, Jenise
Massengill called Fouts to say she would be out all night, leaving him
alone with the baby. Fouts and the boy's mother shared a motel room
but were not romantically involved, according to court records.
Fouts, who said he never baby-sat before, was taking heroin at least
four times a day. He took at least two doses while Joshua was in his
care, he said, once in the evening while the child kept falling off
the countertop and again in the morning before figuring out what to do
with Joshua, who appeared very ill.
After giving the child a bath, Fouts said, he noticed his skin was
very hot and he was turning shades of red.
"He wouldn't sit up straight; he was wobbly," Fouts said.
As Joshua cried, Fouts said, he flicked his finger against the boy's
ear to quiet him — as he had seen Jenise Massengill do.
"I tried to shush him and I hit him on the ear a few times to get him
away from crying," he said.
It wasn't until the next morning, he said, that he noticed something
was seriously wrong.
"He was red; his face was puffy," Fouts barely whispered in the
courtroom. "I wasn't really thinking. I was just panicked. I couldn't
understand why he wasn't crying. I couldn't understand what had
happened."
Fouts drove around trying to figure out what to do, with the child
strapped into his car seat in the back seat. He bought milk and tried
to give it to the boy, and also tried water. The child threw up, he
said.
Fouts stopped at a park in Orange to see if Joshua would feel better,
but the boy wouldn't even walk with Fouts' help, he said. During that
time, he said, he also bought heroin and went back to the motel to
retrieve his red bicycle, leaving the child in the car each time.
"I never meant to hurt Joshua; I loved Joshua," Fouts said. "I never
intentionally hurt him."
While Fouts talked about Joshua's final hours, Jenise Massengill
stormed out of the courtroom.
Henderson declined to comment on Fouts' testimony.
Defense attorney Donald Rubright said the events leading up to
Joshua's death were a series of serious mistakes that could happen
when a baby is left in the care of a heroin addict.
"(Fouts) did admit he's responsible," Rubright said. "It's about the
level of responsibility. We believe our client, loaded on heroin, put
the kid in the tub not realizing how hot the water was."
Closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning, then the jury is
expected to deliberate.
Andy Katz
wrote:
>Suspect blames death on mistakes
>COURTS: Trent Fouts, on trial in the torture-murder of a toddler,
>cites heroin use and several unfortunate accidents.
Oh come on, Rock. Why is it that a person who kills while sober must
take full responsibility--no stories or abuse or poverty or racism
allowed--but kill while high and you're allowed to blame the dope?
Andy Katz
____________________________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Juvenal
a...@interport.net
Andre...@aol.com
Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org
Chas
> Oh come on, Rock. Why is it that a person who kills while sober must
> take full responsibility--no stories or abuse or poverty or racism
> allowed--but kill while high and you're allowed to blame the dope?
This would also raise a question about the State Trooper in Colorado who
beat his young son into severe irreparable brain damage- the apologia is
that his job was stressful, it's a forgivable mistake, he didn't really
*mean* to do it, sometimes cops just 'snap'.
He's on suicide watch, maybe they'll neglect to watch him too closely,
just like the other child molester.
Maybe he was coming off an adrenaline high- maybe his drug of choice
addled his brain enough to commit a heinous crime- maybe he should have
been an accountant.
Chas
- Prof. Jonez©
Sergeant Rock <Sgt...@NoPukes.com> wrote in message
news:38c7441d...@news-server.socal.rr.com...
> Suspect blames death on mistakes
> COURTS: Trent Fouts, on trial in the torture-murder of a toddler,
> cites heroin use and several unfortunate accidents.
>
>
> By ELIZABETH AGUILERA
> The Orange County Register
>
>
>
> For the first time since he was accused of torturing, sexually abusing
> and killing a 20-month-old boy, Trent Fouts testified in his own
> defense Wednesday, saying the child was left in his care while he was
> high on heroin.
Would it make a difference if he was high on Budweiser or on Jesus ....?
You are a true imbecile Rock .
Robin
"Chas" <gryp...@home.com> wrote in message
news:38C828C9...@home.com...
Anybody remember the "twinkie" defense?
Gary
Robin wrote in message <8a9e8...@enews4.newsguy.com>...
I remember it. If I remember correctly, it didn't work.
Gary
M.Simon
LA is gearing up for $100 million to over a billion in victimhood.
Simon - http://www.spacetimepro.com Control the World from a Parallel Port
Free Software Source Code - Free CNC Source Code
Phil Stovell
(Sergeant Rock) wrote:
>Medical records say the boy was dipped in scalding water, causing
>second-degree burns to 20 percent of his body, sexually abused and
>beaten over the head. Heroin was also found in his system, said Deputy
>District Attorney Elizabeth Henderson.
This sort of thing makes me re-assess my opinion of the death penalty. But,
after re-assessing it calmly, I'm still opposed to it.
How did prohibition help this child?
--
Phil Stovell | If the Primary Clear Light is not recognized,
Petersfield, Hants, UK | there remains the possibility of maintaining
ph...@shuv.demon.co.uk | the Secondary Clear Light
http://www.shuv.demon.co.uk/
Cpk197
>Oh come on, Rock. Why is it that a person who kills while sober must
>take full responsibility--no stories or abuse or poverty or racism
>allowed--but kill while high and you're allowed to blame the dope?
>
Hold on a second here Andy, Rock printed a copy of an article in the Orange
County Register. It's Trent Fouts and his defense team who is blaming the dope.
Here in New York Intoxication of any kind is not a justifiable defense, but it
is allowed to figured into the defenses case when it comes to state of mind.
Would you let your son Aaoron be put in the care of Trent Fouts while he was
shooting heroin Andy? Yes or No?
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Cpk197
>This would also raise a question about the State Trooper in Colorado who
>beat his young son into severe irreparable brain damage- the apologia is
>that his job was stressful, it's a forgivable mistake, he didn't really
>*mean* to do it, sometimes cops just 'snap'.
>He's on suicide watch, maybe they'll neglect to watch him too closely,
>just like the other child molester.
>Maybe he was coming off an adrenaline high- maybe his drug of choice
>addled his brain enough to commit a heinous crime- maybe he should have
>been an accountant.
>
In many states mental disease or defect are justifiable defenses even if
temporary, I'm not sure about Colorado Chas but here in New York the use of
intoxicants even the legal ones are not allowed as justifiable defenses (I'm
stating what the written law is) however they can be considered as a factor as
to ones state of mind during the comission of a crime. My personal feeling even
as a former cop is I don't feel that the State Trooper in Colorado should go
unpunished for what he did, he is responsible and accountable for his actions
for what he did to a child, and often I read alot of your postings and don't
agree, but in this case (and even Rock has touched on this point many times) if
he wasn't mentally fit to be a police officer and couldn't deal with the stress
than yes, maybe he should have become an accountant or entered into some other
profession. I believe as Rock has so often mentioned that many cops are not
mentally tough enough to deal with police work, and those that aren't shouldn't
enter inot the field, or once they do and realize they can't handle it should
get out.
Cpk197
>
>Would it make a difference if he was high on Budweiser or on Jesus ....?
>
>You are a true imbecile Rock .
If he was high on Budweiser (alcohol) the same scenario applies ( a drug that
impairs ones judgement) but please Professor tell me how one being high on
Jesus would impair ones judgement when it comes to the caring of a child?
Speaking of children why do you find it in you to use childish insults towards
another poster?
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Cpk197
wrote:
>How did prohibition help this child?
Hmm I see what you are trying to say here Phil, but since the end of
Prohibition with Alcohol, and as stated by posters in this forum who are
pro-legazitaion, decriminalizatrion or whatever you want to categorize it as,
there has been more family related crime (spousal abuse, child neglect etec
etc.) due to the ending of alcohol prohibition and the increased use of
alcohol, based on the article and the trend just pointed out, along with the
fact that even as Trent Fouts has similarly indicated that Heroin had impaired
his judgement in the care of a child, would we not have an increase of cases of
child neglect or even childhood death by people who would now have more access
to heroin and more people preoccupied with obtaining the Drug (that causes
judgement impairment) as trent Fouts was if we were to De-crim? I mean after
all look at what has happened with family violence and Alcohol here in the U.S.
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
WindsorFox <Max Wedge>
> On Thu, 09 Mar 2000 18:27:30 GMT in alt.law-enforcement, Sgt...@NoPukes.com
> (Sergeant Rock) wrote:
>
> >Medical records say the boy was dipped in scalding water, causing
> >second-degree burns to 20 percent of his body, sexually abused and
> >beaten over the head. Heroin was also found in his system, said Deputy
> >District Attorney Elizabeth Henderson.
>
> This sort of thing makes me re-assess my opinion of the death penalty. But,
> after re-assessing it calmly, I'm still opposed to it.
>
> How did prohibition help this child?
> --
> Phil Stovell | If the Primary Clear Light is not recognized,
> Petersfield, Hants, UK | there remains the possibility of maintaining
> ph...@shuv.demon.co.uk | the Secondary Clear Light
> http://www.shuv.demon.co.uk/
Why? If the $70K+ per year per inmate price tag for all lifers who should
recieve capitol punishment were divided up and billed to ONLY the tax payers who
oppose the death penalty, I bet more of you would see the light.
Andy Katz
>Hold on a second here Andy, Rock printed a copy of an article in the Orange
>County Register. It's Trent Fouts and his defense team who is blaming the dope.
>Here in New York Intoxication of any kind is not a justifiable defense, but it
>is allowed to figured into the defenses case when it comes to state of mind.
I was responding to the title Rock used for the thread. Obviously he
sees drug use as one, if not the contributing factor in the baby's
death. Had the father been sober, however, with say a history being
abused as a child, I don't think Rock would buy it. I might not
either. Because an issue can be raised in court, doesn't mean it truly
belongs there. Recall Dan White's "Twinkie defense"?
>Would you let your son Aaoron be put in the care of Trent Fouts while he was
>shooting heroin Andy? Yes or No?
I wouldn't let my son, as an infant, be put in the care of a stranger
at all.
Needless to say one does not care for an infant or child while high.
If my son did come to harm at the hands of a Trent Fouts, I would
blame Trent Fouts. Not a chemical.
Andy Katz
>fact that even as Trent Fouts has similarly indicated that Heroin had impaired
>his judgement in the care of a child, would we not have an increase of cases of
Just because he said it doesn't mean we have to believe him. OJ says
that Columbian narco-traffickers killed Ron and Nicole.
I'm skeptical.
Andy Katz
I'm skeptical.
Andy Katz
Juvenal
a...@interport.net
Andre...@aol.com
Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: ...!!arclight.uoregon.edu!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!oleane.net!oleane!newsfeed.icl.net!news-x.support.nl!pascal.a2000.nl!newsfeed.a2000.nl!233.208.213.121.MISMATCH
From: amk*@interport.net* (Andy Katz)
Newsgroups: at.test,uk.test,de.test,kiel.test,wales.test,gnu.gnusenet.test,alt.test
Subject: cmsg cancel <38c92cdf....@news.interport.net>
Control: cancel <38c92cdf....@news.interport.net>
Date: 10 Mar 2000 18:21:22 GMT
Organization: A2000 Kabeltelevisie en Telecommunicatie
Lines: 1
Approved: amk*@interport.net* (Andy Katz)
Message-ID: <31a24cbc....@news.interport.net>
Reply-To: amk*@interport.net* (Andy Katz)
NNTP-Posting-Host: node11d5b.a2000.nl
X-Trace: weber.a2000.nl 952712485 5675 24.132.29.91 (10 Mar 2000 18:21:25 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@a2000.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Mar 2000 18:21:25 GMT
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 139.203.95.214
Andy Katz
>Hold on a second here Andy, Rock printed a copy of an article in the Orange
>County Register. It's Trent Fouts and his defense team who is blaming the dope.
>Here in New York Intoxication of any kind is not a justifiable defense, but it
>is allowed to figured into the defenses case when it comes to state of mind.
I was responding to the title Rock used for the thread. Obviously he
sees drug use as one, if not the contributing factor in the baby's
death. Had the father been sober, however, with say a history being
abused as a child, I don't think Rock would buy it. I might not
either. Because an issue can be raised in court, doesn't mean it truly
belongs there. Recall Dan White's "Twinkie defense"?
>Would you let your son Aaoron be put in the care of Trent Fouts while he was
>shooting heroin Andy? Yes or No?
I wouldn't let my son, as an infant, be put in the care of a stranger
at all.
Needless to say one does not care for an infant or child while high.
If my son did come to harm at the hands of a Trent Fouts, I would
blame Trent Fouts. Not a chemical.
Andy Katz
____________________________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Juvenal
a...@interport.net
Andre...@aol.com
Bastard Nation
http://www.bastards.org
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: ...!!arclight.uoregon.edu!fr.usenet-edu.net!usenet-edu.net!oleane.net!oleane!newsfeed.icl.net!news-x.support.nl!pascal.a2000.nl!newsfeed.a2000.nl!205.146.2.217.MISMATCH
From: amk*@interport.net* (Andy Katz)
Newsgroups: at.test,uk.test,de.test,kiel.test,wales.test,gnu.gnusenet.test,alt.test
Subject: cmsg cancel <38c92bd6....@news.interport.net>
Control: cancel <38c92bd6....@news.interport.net>
Date: 10 Mar 2000 18:22:02 GMT
Organization: A2000 Kabeltelevisie en Telecommunicatie
Lines: 1
Approved: amk*@interport.net* (Andy Katz)
Message-ID: <76a06fe8....@news.interport.net>
Reply-To: amk*@interport.net* (Andy Katz)
NNTP-Posting-Host: node11d5b.a2000.nl
X-Trace: weber.a2000.nl 952712518 5675 24.132.29.91 (10 Mar 2000 18:21:58 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@a2000.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Mar 2000 18:21:58 GMT
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 202.115.169.246
WindsorFox <Max Wedge>
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: ...!!arclight.uoregon.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!newsfeed.tli.de!bignews.mediaways.net!news-x.support.nl!pascal.a2000.nl!newsfeed.a2000.nl!221.159.202.121.MISMATCH
From: "WindsorFox <Max Wedge>" <windsorf...@home.com>
Newsgroups: at.test,uk.test,de.test,kiel.test,wales.test,gnu.gnusenet.test,alt.test
Subject: cmsg cancel <38C93010...@home.com>
Control: cancel <38C93010...@home.com>
Date: 10 Mar 2000 18:23:34 GMT
Organization: A2000 Kabeltelevisie en Telecommunicatie
Lines: 1
Approved: "WindsorFox <Max Wedge>" <windsorf...@home.com>
Message-ID: <28D31835...@home.com>
Reply-To: "WindsorFox <Max Wedge>" <windsorf...@home.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: node11d5b.a2000.nl
X-Trace: weber.a2000.nl 952712624 5675 24.132.29.91 (10 Mar 2000 18:23:44 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@a2000.nl
NNTP-Posting-Date: 10 Mar 2000 18:23:44 GMT
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 80.217.55.177
Chas
> My personal feeling even
> as a former cop is I don't feel that the State Trooper in Colorado should go
> unpunished for what he did, he is responsible and accountable for his actions
> he wasn't mentally fit to be a police officer and couldn't deal with the stress
> than yes,
They are depending heavily on job related stress and his previous record
as a defense.
To me, it points up the privilege between two classes of citizen and
their relative equality before the Law.
I am not 'anti-cop', I am anti-'privilege by class'. I am anti-'having
two standards for behavior and attendant responsibility'. I am anti-'if
the Constitution don't meet with my approval, it don't matter' attitude
of many legislators, lawyers, judges and cops.
After all, you *are* the enforcement arm of the administration- it
doesn't really matter to you *what* the law is, only that it exists.
That's in the job description. You will enforce an unConstitutional law
as fast as any other- that's one of the things that makes you (pl.) a
focus for resentment and rancor. You're on both sides of abortion, both
sides of slavery, both sides of alcohol prohibition; no particular moral
integrity except loyalty to the powerful.
But, that's the job description- no one should be surprised when a
plumber's hands smell bad.
Chas
Cpk197
wrote:
>I wouldn't let my son, as an infant, be put in the care of a stranger
>at all.
>
>Needless to say one does not care for an infant or child while high.
>
>If my son did come to harm at the hands of a Trent Fouts, I would
>blame Trent Fouts. Not a chemical.
So than if someone you knew were a Heroin addict, yet you knew them, you would
entrust them with the care of Aaron than right?
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Cpk197
>They are depending heavily on job related stress and his previous record
>as a defense
Is that a Justifiable defense under the law in Colorado yes or no?
>To me, it points up the privilege between two classes of citizen and
>their relative equality before the Law.
>I am not 'anti-cop', I am anti-'privilege by class'.
So than you should have no problem being against the fact that the four cops in
the Diallo case are being crucified based upon a political witchhunt and
nothing else, since 1.) They were already found innocent by a jury and 2). How
many do you know who are freed after a criminal trial have had civil rights
violations brought against them?
I bet it didn't happen with O.J. right? I mean if your gonna use a class sytem
pal use it both ways or consider your point moot!
> I am anti-'having
>two standards for behavior and attendant responsibility'.
Yup and that's why the Cops in Dialo should be left alone right? or are you
gonna prove yourself a hypocrite?
>I am anti-'if
>the Constitution don't meet with my approval, it don't matter' attitude
>of many legislators, lawyers, judges and cops.
Sorry to inform you but that borders not on anti but on Anarchy
>After all, you *are* the enforcement arm of the administration- it
>doesn't really matter to you *what* the law is, only that it exists.
Well good since I studied Constitutional law I suggest you read Article 1
section 8 that grants the legislature the right under the constitution to enact
laws, sheez even my 14 year old daughter knows that!
>That's in the job description.
Which job are you referring to?
>You will enforce an unConstitutional law
>as fast as any other- that's one of the things that makes you (pl.) a
>focus for resentment and rancor.
A law in not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court has interpreted it is, go
take a college class my friend!
>You're on both sides of abortion,
Am I? You are really sounding emotionally foolish here.
>both
>sides of slavery,
Hey guess what? Slavery ended years ago, now you can wake up K!
> both sides of alcohol prohibition
Wow you really are out of the loop, now I know what I am dealing with, that
ended too! LOL
>no particular moral
>integrity except loyalty to the powerful.
Who God? That's where my moral integrity lays toward.
>But, that's the job description- no one should be surprised when a
>plumber's hands smell bad.
Exactly which Job? and I want you define it's description. Man you really are
one bitter apple! Try puching a bag or something!
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Chas
> >Chas gryp...@home.com wrote:
> >They are depending heavily on job related stress and his previous record
> >as a defense
> Is that a Justifiable defense under the law in Colorado yes or no?
When it is a cop that's under indictment it is. That's a major defense
for bad shootings, unnecessary brutality, even the theft of falsifying
work logs- the stress got to them.
> >I am not 'anti-cop', I am anti-'privilege by class'.
> So than you should have no problem being against the fact that the four cops in
> the Diallo case are being crucified based upon a political witchhunt and
> nothing else, since 1.) They were already found innocent by a jury and 2). How
> many do you know who are freed after a criminal trial have had civil rights
> violations brought against them?
I've no brief against the Diallo shooters; I think it was unprofessional
as hell, but the jury has spoken.
The civil rights actions about 'under color of authority' don't apply to
most citizens; they have no 'authority'- hence no actions in that
regard. A cops' using of his authority and armed compulsion is different
from anyone else- he is committing a more heinous crime than the average
thug.
> > I am anti-'having
> >two standards for behavior and attendant responsibility'.
> Yup and that's why the Cops in Dialo should be left alone right? or are you
> gonna prove yourself a hypocrite?
Did they violate his civil rights under color of authority? We don't
know yet, but it's a reasonable question to take before a court.
> >I am anti-'if
> >the Constitution don't meet with my approval, it don't matter' attitude
> >of many legislators, lawyers, judges and cops.
> Sorry to inform you but that borders not on anti but on Anarchy
Re-read the sentence; the Constitution doesn't regulate the rights of
citizens, only of government. When our covenant says that we are equal
before the law, and some of us are more 'equal' than others, that's a
reason to make comment- and it isn't about anarchy.
> >After all, you *are* the enforcement arm of the administration- it
> >doesn't really matter to you *what* the law is, only that it exists.
> Well good since I studied Constitutional law I suggest you read Article 1
> section 8 that grants the legislature the right under the constitution to enact
> laws, sheez even my 14 year old daughter knows that!
and no unConstitutional law is worth a shit and the breaking of it is no
crime. The fact that armed men can come enforce it is no more than the
King did- it doesn't make it right.
> >That's in the job description.
> Which job are you referring to?
Is this all going too fast for you?
You need to read with a bit more attention to content and less to your
emotional reactions to what you think someone might have said.
> >You will enforce an unConstitutional law
> >as fast as any other- that's one of the things that makes you (pl.) a
> >focus for resentment and rancor.
> A law in not unconstitutional until the Supreme Court has interpreted it is, go
> take a college class my friend!
I daresay I'm better educated than you, and maybe in your own specialty.
An unConstitutional law has no weight whatsoever; we are not bound to
abide by it from integrity, only fear. Actually, a jury can declare a
law unConstitutional- the supreme Court also.
> >You're on both sides of abortion,
> Am I? You are really sounding emotionally foolish here.
Cops used to arrest abortionists, now they protect them.
> >both
> >sides of slavery,
> Hey guess what? Slavery ended years ago, now you can wake up K!
Cops used to apprehend runaway slaves and return them to their masters,
even across state line- now, they protect enslaved peoples (except
slavery for convicted criminals).
> > both sides of alcohol prohibition
> Wow you really are out of the loop, now I know what I am dealing with, that
> ended too! LOL
Cops have protected alcohol makers and distributors, arrested same, back
again to protecting them- no moral stand there.
> >no particular moral
> >integrity except loyalty to the powerful.
> Who God? That's where my moral integrity lays toward.
Really? You'll do anything they tell you to- no qualms, no questions, no
moral stand- only enforcement of anything they tell you to.
> >But, that's the job description- no one should be surprised when a
> >plumber's hands smell bad.
> Exactly which Job? and I want you define it's description. Man you really are
> one bitter apple! Try puching a bag or something!
No rebuttal, no substance, just ad hominem bullshit-
such an education he got!
You need to return to reading the Documents and comparing your behavior
to the whole reason for them. You've taken the King's Shilling and
you'll do the King's work- no morality there, no integrity there- just
doing the 'job'.
Chas
Andy Katz
>So than if someone you knew were a Heroin addict, yet you knew them, you would
>entrust them with the care of Aaron than right?
No more than I would trust him with an alcoholic, or a religious
fanatic, or a cannibal, or a registered Republican, or a certified NRA
gun nut, or a homeless guy whose pee tests clean, but who keeps
mumbling about UFOs following him around like a moonshadow, Dennis;)
Cpk197
>On 10 Mar 2000 20:17:35 GMT, cpk...@aol.com (Cpk197) wrote:
>
>>So than if someone you knew were a Heroin addict, yet you knew them, you
>would
>>entrust them with the care of Aaron than right?
Andy Responded:
>No more than I would trust him with an alcoholic, or a religious
>fanatic, or a cannibal, or a registered Republican, or a certified NRA
>gun nut, or a homeless guy whose pee tests clean, but who keeps
>mumbling about UFOs following him around like a moonshadow, Dennis;)
But why not Andy? The claim in here has been that Heroin addicts are
responsible, productive human beings etc.and you yourself said that it wouldn't
be the "Heroin" or the substance that causes the behavior of someone or we
couldn't blame that behavior on someone, but now all of a sudden you don't
trust a heroin addict because it's "your" flesh and blood? When it comes to
your own child, my how fast your mind has changed. If the person uses heroin
because they choose to do so, and it's their right and their choice, and you
knew the person to be responsible (as many in here, claim drug users and/or
addicts are) why would you be more predjudiced against entrusting him with
Aaron than with any other human being? I mean c'mon Andy after all you said we
can't blame a substance for someones behavior and you criticized Rock for doing
so in what he implied in the title to the thread and now you wouldn't let a
substance user/abuser you know, be entrusted with the care of Aaron , Andy?
When you yourself said we can't blame substance for ones behavior? What's wrong
with this picture? Double Standards comes to mind HEHE! Give the Heroin addict
the benefit of the doubt Andy, especially if you know him , WHY not? :)!
Peace
Dennis
CPK197
Antigen
<20000310113305...@ng-fd1.aol.com> to say:
>Hold on a second here Andy, Rock printed a copy of an article in the
>Orange County Register. It's Trent Fouts and his defense team who is
>blaming the dope. Here in New York Intoxication of any kind is not a
>justifiable defense, but it is allowed to figured into the defenses case
>the care of Trent Fouts while he was shooting heroin Andy? Yes or No?
>
Would you put your son in the care of Trent Fouts if he wasn't shooting
heroin?
--
Ginger Warbis (remove the obvious) <WebMistress...@fornits.com>
<a href="http://fornits.com/books">Something to read</a>?
<a href="http://fornits.com/cgibin/quote.cgi">Random aphorism</a>
Boycot the Census - send a congressman home!
Cpk197
wrote:
>Would you put your son in the care of Trent Fouts if he wasn't shooting
>heroin?
Do you want me to make you look foolish now or tommorow Ginger? O.K. I'll do it
now. Yes I would put my son in the care of Trent Fouts if he wasn't shooting
heroin . Yes. But Hey my son is 17 and college bound and 6 foot tall and
doesn't have to be put in the care of anybody. I bet you feel pretty stupid
right about now!
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Cpk197
>When it is a cop that's under indictment it is. That's a major defense
>for bad shootings, unnecessary brutality, even the theft of falsifying
>work logs- the stress got to them
I asked you about Justifiable and affirmative defenses under Colorado Statute
and you insert your own personal opinion with no source to back it up! Great!
>The civil rights actions about 'under color of authority' don't apply to
>most citizens; they have no 'authority'- hence no actions in that
>regard. A cops' using of his authority and armed compulsion is different
>from anyone else- he is committing a more heinous crime than the average
>thug.
Are you so blind you don't even see the contradiction in your own statement?
The cops in the Diallo shooting commited no crime, you already said the jury
was out, now your talking about the color of authority, where do you come up
with this shit?
>Did they violate his civil rights under color of authority? We don't
>know yet, but it's a reasonable question to take before a court.
Here ya go again, jumping the gun one more time, it may not even get to a
court, first a federal investigation has to be done and than it has to be
determined if it even fits under the guidelines of civil rights violations and
than and only than will a court decide, not before as you have personally
injected once again your own opinion as to what will happen, maybe you have a
crystal ball eh?
>Re-read the sentence; the Constitution doesn't regulate the rights of
>citizens, only of government. When our covenant says that we are equal
>before the law, and some of us are more 'equal' than others, that's a
>reason to make comment- and it isn't about anarchy.
The Constitution does however give the government (The Legislative Branch
see:Article l of the Constitution)the power to enact laws that are enforceable
or aren't you familiar with the "Elastic Clause"? Nor are the rights given to
the people in the Constitution without limitations. Why do you think you can't
shout fire in a movie theatre although the constitution gives you the right to
free speech? So in essence your argument is lame since the Constituion does
give the legislature the authority to regulate the rights of the citizens. You
state you are anti if the Constitution doesn't meet with your approval and
expecting absoloute freedom and non recognition of government when you make
such a statement but i'm sorry my friend your comment borders on anarchy by
definition and not reason to make comment.
>and no unConstitutional law is worth a shit and the breaking of it is no
>crime
I will tell you again, no law can be deemed unconstituional until done so
through a Supreme Court interpretation either through one who has a personal
stake or claim and the S.C. is willing to listen or through a writ of Centorai
where the S.C. decides on which cases they choose to examine. Since John
Marshall in 1807 I believe there have only been about 100 cases or so up until
the mid 1980's that have been heard where a law has been ruled or deemed
unconstitutional.
> The fact that armed men can come enforce it is no more than the
>King did- it doesn't make it right.
Why are you beeing such a boob? You're discussing an entirely different form of
government. When we declared independence from Britain we got away from all of
that shit!
>> >That's in the job description.
>> Which job are you referring to?
>Is this all going too fast for you?
>You need to read with a bit more attention to content and less to your
>emotional reactions to what you think someone might have said.
No see your beeing a complete boob now. What I'll do is go slower for you, When
you said "That's in the Job Description" in a previous post you first said
prior to that statement "You're on both sides of abortion, both sides of
slavery, both sides of alcohol prohibition; no particular moral
integrity except loyalty to the powerful."
And I asked you which Job are you referring to? But of course you are a boob
and assume things. So I'll spell it out for you O.K. and I'll even go slow. I
am no (slowing down for you to understand) a police officer any longer (Going
even slower so you can comprehend it now) I am R-E-T-I-R-E-D. I am now engaged
in other gaiful employment which has nothing to do with law enforcement. Now
Einstein since I am no longer in law enforcement Please do tell everyone here
1. How I am on both sides of slavery and abortion etc and 2. Which Job are you
referring to? Just keep making your assumptions Chas. I've already seen in
other posts how you have failed to put up sources when people have requested
them to support your views. LOL. Maybe you need to find a less challenging
newsgroup! LOL
>I daresay I'm better educated than you, and maybe in your own specialty.
Do you think you are? Better educated than me? I sincerely doubt it.
>An unConstitutional law has no weight whatsoever; we are not bound to
>abide by it from integrity, only fear.
Again laws are only declared unconstitutional once the Supreme Court has
interpreted them as such, until than they are, and you are obligated to abide
by them or suffer the consequences, but hey don't let me stop ya, you want to
violate a law and see if it reaches the Supreme Court be my guest :)!
>Actually, a jury can declare a
>law unConstitutional- the supreme Court also.
No The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, The job of a jury is to rule
on a case of law as it stands, Juries are charged by the judge based upon the
wording of the law as it applies. Juries are very limited as to what they can
do and decide matters of guilt or innocence based upon the law as presented and
the actions of the defendandt. If the defendandt was found guilty of a law and
there was a violation of the Constitution in the case, than it can be appealed
to the higher court for interpretation. Juries are involved with even
sentencing in some instances. There was a Califorinia case that had to do with
death penalty where it went back and forth on whether or not the jury could
decide the sentence, and the Constitutionality of it, but the Constitutional
interpretation was not decided by the jury it was decided by the judicial
branch. I'll have to try to remember the case but that didn't give the jury the
right to interpret the constitution, unless of course you know of a
Constititutional case that was decided by a jury, than feel free to post it.
>Cops used to arrest abortionists, now they protect them.
No your wrong certain states depending on the term of the preganancy like here
in New York State Abortion would be illegal.
>Cops used to apprehend runaway slaves and return them to their masters,
>even across state line- now
Slavery isn't against the law, I already told you to wake up, slavery is
history.
>they protect enslaved peoples (except
>slavery for convicted criminals).
If a criminal is convicted he is placed in a jail where he belongs, that's not
slavery, that's the consequenses of ones actions.
>Cops have protected alcohol makers and distributors,
Switch the word cops witbh the word legislators. You'll see a difference. Opps
with you maybe not!
>arrested same,
When alcohol was illegal and there was an enacted "Consitutional Amendment" The
Volstead Act, Yes and your point is?
> back
>again to protecting them- no moral stand there.
Than why don't you write to your congressmen about your moral concerns?
>> Who God? That's where my moral integrity lays toward.
>
>Really? You'll do anything they tell you to- no qualms, no questions, no
>moral stand- only enforcement of anything they tell you to.
Will I? You know me that well eh? We used to have it written in our Patrol
Guide that we didn't have to obey any unlawful order given to us by any
superior. Mine wasn't a matter of questions but one of articulation. I was able
to articulate my actions and I was able to have a clear moral conscious and
live with myself. I still sleep good at night:)
>No rebuttal, no substance, just ad hominem bullshit-
>such an education he got!
Why? Are you angry because I didn't give you a rebuttal? (OMG Poor thing) LOL.
I do counselling, if you need a rebuttal that bad and it frustrates you that
much maybe you do need to strike an object to release some of that tension
either that or take slow deep breaths OK?
>You need to return to reading the Documents and comparing your behavior
>to the whole reason for them.
Why? Because Chas says so? NAH I am quite familiar with them. My college
degrees tell me so :)
>You've taken the King's Shilling
The King didn't pay me, we don't have one here in America, I was paid through
the taxpayers money and as I'm retired they continue to pay me :) GOD BLESS
AMERICA!
>and
>you'll do the King's work-
Nope never worked for a King, never even met one Chas, but my wife treats me
like one :)
>no morality there, no integrity there- just
>doing the 'job'.
I do mine quite well thank you!
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Chas
> >Chas wrote:
> >When it is a cop that's under indictment it is. That's a major defense
> >for bad shootings, unnecessary brutality, even the theft of falsifying
> >work logs- the stress got to them
> I asked you about Justifiable and affirmative defenses under Colorado Statute
> and you insert your own personal opinion with no source to back it up! Great!
What, are you simple minded?
So far, doofus, the only information is what is in the newspapers. He
was a State Trooper from a small town on the eastern plains of Colorado.
He went nuts and badly beat a small child into brain damage- a fairly
short time ago; maybe two months by now. He's been charged but little
else.
The apologia for his conduct has been from his lawyer, his confrere and
his neighbors.
Perhaps if you had framed your question more intelligibly-
> >The civil rights actions about 'under color of authority' don't apply to
> >most citizens; they have no 'authority'- hence no actions in that
> >regard. A cops' using of his authority and armed compulsion is different
> >from anyone else- he is committing a more heinous crime than the average
> >thug.
> Are you so blind you don't even see the contradiction in your own statement?
> The cops in the Diallo shooting commited no crime, you already said the jury
> was out, now your talking about the color of authority, where do you come up
> with this shit?
You are thoroughly thick- there are two crimes there, Sparky; 1)the
homicide (for which they've been tried, 2) a possible civil rights
violation under Title 42 and Title 18 (do you need the relevant cites,
Slick?)
> >Did they violate his civil rights under color of authority? We don't
> >know yet, but it's a reasonable question to take before a court.
> Here ya go again, jumping the gun one more time, it may not even get to a
> court, first a federal investigation has to be done and than it has to be
> determined if it even fits under the guidelines of civil rights violations and
> than and only than will a court decide, not before as you have personally
> injected once again your own opinion as to what will happen, maybe you have a
> crystal ball eh?
Thicky thick thick-
That was two question, Dimmoid- not two conclusions.
Reading comprehension is not your forte, is it Spanky?
> >Re-read the sentence; the Constitution doesn't regulate the rights of
> >citizens, only of government. When our covenant says that we are equal
> >before the law, and some of us are more 'equal' than others, that's a
> >reason to make comment- and it isn't about anarchy.
> You
> state you are anti if the Constitution doesn't meet with your approval
No, Stretch, that was a comment on cops that ignore the Constitution-
Don't you get anything right?
> and
> expecting absoloute freedom and non recognition of government when you make
> such a statement but i'm sorry my friend your comment borders on anarchy by
> definition and not reason to make comment.
You're a fool-
You've not gotten anything right tonight-
re-read for substance and content- have someone read it to you with
inflection; you're not getting it and it should embarrass you.
> > The fact that armed men can come enforce it is no more than the
> >King did- it doesn't make it right.
> Why are you beeing such a boob? You're discussing an entirely different form of
> government. When we declared independence from Britain we got away from all of
> that shit!
Bet me- if you act like you're working for a monarchy, there is little
difference.
Haven't read the Magna Carta either, eh? No surprise there.
> >> >That's in the job description.
> >> Which job are you referring to?
> >Is this all going too fast for you?
> >You need to read with a bit more attention to content and less to your
> >emotional reactions to what you think someone might have said.
> No see your beeing a complete boob now. What I'll do is go slower for you, When
> you said "That's in the Job Description" in a previous post you first said
> prior to that statement "You're on both sides of abortion, both sides of
> slavery, both sides of alcohol prohibition; no particular moral
> integrity except loyalty to the powerful."
And gave examples which seem to have escaped you completely.
> And I asked you which Job are you referring to? But of course you are a boob
> and assume things. So I'll spell it out for you O.K. and I'll even go slow. I
> am no (slowing down for you to understand) a police officer any longer (Going
> even slower so you can comprehend it now) I am R-E-T-I-R-E-D. I am now engaged
> in other gaiful employment which has nothing to do with law enforcement. Now
> Einstein since I am no longer in law enforcement
Who gives a fat fiddlers foreskin what you do, Slappy-
I'm talking about the law enforcement job in general, not your own
pastimes in particular- geez, who gives a shit what you do?
> Please do tell everyone here
> 1. How I am on both sides of slavery and abortion etc and 2. Which Job are you
> referring to? Just keep making your assumptions Chas. I've already seen in
> other posts how you have failed to put up sources when people have requested
> them to support your views. LOL. Maybe you need to find a less challenging
> newsgroup! LOL
Name the subject with a lack of sources, Scooter.
You (singular) seem to mix up the general plural 'you' with some sort of
comments on the personal 'you'- that's just stupid.
> >I daresay I'm better educated than you, and maybe in your own specialty.
> Do you think you are? Better educated than me? I sincerely doubt it.
Judging from the content and quality of your posting, it is moot; your
doubts notwithstanding.
> >Actually, a jury can declare a
> >law unConstitutional- the supreme Court also.
>
> No The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, The job of a jury is to rule
> on a case of law as it stands, Juries are charged by the judge based upon the
> wording of the law as it applies.
Horseshit- read a little about the fully informed jury, Smart. Just a
little will disabuse you of your misinformation.
> Juries are very limited as to what they can
> do and decide matters of guilt or innocence based upon the law as presented and
> the actions of the defendandt. If the defendandt was found guilty of a law and
> there was a violation of the Constitution in the case, than it can be appealed
> to the higher court for interpretation.
US v. Dougherty, 473 F2nd 1113, 11349 (1972)
Marbury v. Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491
Norton v. Shelby County 118 US 425 p.442
16 AM Jur 2d Sec 177 late 2d. Sec 256
State of Georgia v. Brailsford, et al, 3 Dall 1)
get back to me-
> >Cops used to arrest abortionists, now they protect them.
> No your wrong certain states depending on the term of the preganancy like here
> in New York State Abortion would be illegal.
Prior to 1972 cops used to arrest abortionists; a moral thing. Now they
protect them, another moral thing.
> >Cops used to apprehend runaway slaves and return them to their masters,
> >even across state line- now
> Slavery isn't against the law, I already told you to wake up, slavery is
> history.
> >they protect enslaved peoples (except
> >slavery for convicted criminals).
> If a criminal is convicted he is placed in a jail where he belongs, that's not
> slavery, that's the consequenses of ones actions.
You really haven't read the 13th Amendment, have you Sport?
> >Cops have protected alcohol makers and distributors,
> Switch the word cops witbh the word legislators. You'll see a difference. Opps
> with you maybe not!
> >arrested same,
> When alcohol was illegal and there was an enacted "Consitutional Amendment" The
> Volstead Act, Yes and your point is?
That cops will enforce the law even when the laws are mutually
exclusive.
This is all too abstract for you isn't it? You don't follow complicated
thoughts very well, do you?
> > back
> >again to protecting them- no moral stand there.
> Than why don't you write to your congressmen about your moral concerns?
Because he's more of a problem that people like you.
> >> Who God? That's where my moral integrity lays toward.
> >Really? You'll do anything they tell you to- no qualms, no questions, no
> >moral stand- only enforcement of anything they tell you to.
> Will I? You know me that well eh? We used to have it written in our Patrol
> Guide that we didn't have to obey any unlawful order given to us by any
> superior. Mine wasn't a matter of questions but one of articulation. I was able
> to articulate my actions and I was able to have a clear moral conscious and
> live with myself. I still sleep good at night:)
Again, who gives a tinkers' toot what you did- this was a comment on
cops in general on a cop newsgroup. You're of no interest to anyone but
your wife- as mentioned below.
> >No rebuttal, no substance, just ad hominem bullshit-
> >such an education he got!
> Why? Are you angry because I didn't give you a rebuttal? (OMG Poor thing) LOL.
> I do counselling, if you need a rebuttal that bad and it frustrates you that
> much maybe you do need to strike an object to release some of that tension
> either that or take slow deep breaths OK?
Nah- it's just that you're so lame.
> >You need to return to reading the Documents and comparing your behavior
> >to the whole reason for them.
> Why? Because Chas says so? NAH I am quite familiar with them. My college
> degrees tell me so :)
Well, you didn't know shit about the Thirteenth; or jury nullification-
leads me to believe that you're kind of dim on the rest of it too.
> >You've taken the King's Shilling
> The King didn't pay me, we don't have one here in America, I was paid through
> the taxpayers money and as I'm retired they continue to pay me :) GOD BLESS
> AMERICA!
Illiterate too, eh?
"If you'll take the Kings' Shilling, you'll do the Kings's work." is an
old proverb, Slowwit.
> >and
> >you'll do the King's work-
> Nope never worked for a King, never even met one Chas, but my wife treats me
> like one :)
The woman is a Saint.
> >no morality there, no integrity there- just
> >doing the 'job'.
> I do mine quite well thank you!
In a vacuum surrounded by a wasteland- your intellectual acuity is a
paucity at best.
Bon Chance-
Chas
Michael Zarlenga
: But why not Andy? The claim in here has been that Heroin addicts are
: responsible, productive human beings etc.and you yourself said that it wouldn't
Not that they are but that some are.
If you've ever been under general anesthesia, chances are
somewhat good that you had a drug addict in your OR, possibly
even at the controls of your anesthesia, while you were one
click away from death.
Drug use among anesthesiologists is remarkably high. But it's
usually RESPONSIBLE drug use. Shit, one study found that almost
10% of all anesthesiolohgists in one big city were using fentanyl
(a syntehtic opioid 80-100 times more potent that heroin)
recreationally.
Would I trust an addict with my flesh and blood? Well, since
I've been under GA and had surgery, chances are I have. And so
have others.
Some people user drugs responsibly. That's the plain truth.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Michael Zarlenga
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: ...!news.utdallas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!enews.sgi.com!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!columbine.singnet.com.sg!NNTP.UDP.ME.NOW!79.70.10.71.POSTED
From: Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net>
Newsgroups: de.test,biz.test,alt.test,gnu.gnusenet.test,mn.test,schule.test,wales.test,uk.test,at.test,
Subject: cmsg cancel <mhly4.15060$DF2.2...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com>
Control: cancel <mhly4.15060$DF2.2...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com>
Date: 10 Mar 2000 05:16:22 GMT
Organization: UDP Avoider's Group
Lines: 1
Approved: Michael Zarlenga <zarl...@conan.ids.net>
Message-ID: <ccbg1.60668$BA0.6...@tw12.nn.bcandid.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ad202.166.34.39.magix.com.sg
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 159.137.163.118
X-Question: if port 119 is blocked, and NEWS is shut down, then how is this possible?
Chas
> >Chas wrote:
> >When it is a cop that's under indictment it is. That's a major defense
> >for bad shootings, unnecessary brutality, even the theft of falsifying
> >work logs- the stress got to them
> I asked you about Justifiable and affirmative defenses under Colorado Statute
> and you insert your own personal opinion with no source to back it up! Great!
What, are you simple minded?
So far, doofus, the only information is what is in the newspapers. He
was a State Trooper from a small town on the eastern plains of Colorado.
He went nuts and badly beat a small child into brain damage- a fairly
short time ago; maybe two months by now. He's been charged but little
else.
The apologia for his conduct has been from his lawyer, his confrere and
his neighbors.
Perhaps if you had framed your question more intelligibly-
> >The civil rights actions about 'under color of authority' don't apply to
> >most citizens; they have no 'authority'- hence no actions in that
> >regard. A cops' using of his authority and armed compulsion is different
> >from anyone else- he is committing a more heinous crime than the average
> >thug.
> Are you so blind you don't even see the contradiction in your own statement?
> The cops in the Diallo shooting commited no crime, you already said the jury
> was out, now your talking about the color of authority, where do you come up
> with this shit?
You are thoroughly thick- there are two crimes there, Sparky; 1)the
homicide (for which they've been tried, 2) a possible civil rights
violation under Title 42 and Title 18 (do you need the relevant cites,
Slick?)
> >Did they violate his civil rights under color of authority? We don't
> >know yet, but it's a reasonable question to take before a court.
> Here ya go again, jumping the gun one more time, it may not even get to a
> court, first a federal investigation has to be done and than it has to be
> determined if it even fits under the guidelines of civil rights violations and
> than and only than will a court decide, not before as you have personally
> injected once again your own opinion as to what will happen, maybe you have a
> crystal ball eh?
Thicky thick thick-
That was two question, Dimmoid- not two conclusions.
Reading comprehension is not your forte, is it Spanky?
> >Re-read the sentence; the Constitution doesn't regulate the rights of
> >citizens, only of government. When our covenant says that we are equal
> >before the law, and some of us are more 'equal' than others, that's a
> >reason to make comment- and it isn't about anarchy.
> You
> state you are anti if the Constitution doesn't meet with your approval
No, Stretch, that was a comment on cops that ignore the Constitution-
Don't you get anything right?
> and
> expecting absoloute freedom and non recognition of government when you make
> such a statement but i'm sorry my friend your comment borders on anarchy by
> definition and not reason to make comment.
You're a fool-
You've not gotten anything right tonight-
re-read for substance and content- have someone read it to you with
inflection; you're not getting it and it should embarrass you.
> > The fact that armed men can come enforce it is no more than the
> >King did- it doesn't make it right.
> Why are you beeing such a boob? You're discussing an entirely different form of
> government. When we declared independence from Britain we got away from all of
> that shit!
Bet me- if you act like you're working for a monarchy, there is little
difference.
Haven't read the Magna Carta either, eh? No surprise there.
> >> >That's in the job description.
> >> Which job are you referring to?
> >Is this all going too fast for you?
> >You need to read with a bit more attention to content and less to your
> >emotional reactions to what you think someone might have said.
> No see your beeing a complete boob now. What I'll do is go slower for you, When
> you said "That's in the Job Description" in a previous post you first said
> prior to that statement "You're on both sides of abortion, both sides of
> slavery, both sides of alcohol prohibition; no particular moral
> integrity except loyalty to the powerful."
And gave examples which seem to have escaped you completely.
> And I asked you which Job are you referring to? But of course you are a boob
> and assume things. So I'll spell it out for you O.K. and I'll even go slow. I
> am no (slowing down for you to understand) a police officer any longer (Going
> even slower so you can comprehend it now) I am R-E-T-I-R-E-D. I am now engaged
> in other gaiful employment which has nothing to do with law enforcement. Now
> Einstein since I am no longer in law enforcement
Who gives a fat fiddlers foreskin what you do, Slappy-
I'm talking about the law enforcement job in general, not your own
pastimes in particular- geez, who gives a shit what you do?
> Please do tell everyone here
> 1. How I am on both sides of slavery and abortion etc and 2. Which Job are you
> referring to? Just keep making your assumptions Chas. I've already seen in
> other posts how you have failed to put up sources when people have requested
> them to support your views. LOL. Maybe you need to find a less challenging
> newsgroup! LOL
Name the subject with a lack of sources, Scooter.
You (singular) seem to mix up the general plural 'you' with some sort of
comments on the personal 'you'- that's just stupid.
> >I daresay I'm better educated than you, and maybe in your own specialty.
> Do you think you are? Better educated than me? I sincerely doubt it.
Judging from the content and quality of your posting, it is moot; your
doubts notwithstanding.
> >Actually, a jury can declare a
> >law unConstitutional- the supreme Court also.
>
> No The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, The job of a jury is to rule
> on a case of law as it stands, Juries are charged by the judge based upon the
> wording of the law as it applies.
Horseshit- read a little about the fully informed jury, Smart. Just a
little will disabuse you of your misinformation.
> Juries are very limited as to what they can
> do and decide matters of guilt or innocence based upon the law as presented and
> the actions of the defendandt. If the defendandt was found guilty of a law and
> there was a violation of the Constitution in the case, than it can be appealed
> to the higher court for interpretation.
US v. Dougherty, 473 F2nd 1113, 11349 (1972)
Marbury v. Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491
Norton v. Shelby County 118 US 425 p.442
16 AM Jur 2d Sec 177 late 2d. Sec 256
State of Georgia v. Brailsford, et al, 3 Dall 1)
get back to me-
> >Cops used to arrest abortionists, now they protect them.
> No your wrong certain states depending on the term of the preganancy like here
> in New York State Abortion would be illegal.
Prior to 1972 cops used to arrest abortionists; a moral thing. Now they
protect them, another moral thing.
> >Cops used to apprehend runaway slaves and return them to their masters,
> >even across state line- now
> Slavery isn't against the law, I already told you to wake up, slavery is
> history.
> >they protect enslaved peoples (except
> >slavery for convicted criminals).
> If a criminal is convicted he is placed in a jail where he belongs, that's not
> slavery, that's the consequenses of ones actions.
You really haven't read the 13th Amendment, have you Sport?
> >Cops have protected alcohol makers and distributors,
> Switch the word cops witbh the word legislators. You'll see a difference. Opps
> with you maybe not!
> >arrested same,
> When alcohol was illegal and there was an enacted "Consitutional Amendment" The
> Volstead Act, Yes and your point is?
That cops will enforce the law even when the laws are mutually
exclusive.
This is all too abstract for you isn't it? You don't follow complicated
thoughts very well, do you?
> > back
> >again to protecting them- no moral stand there.
> Than why don't you write to your congressmen about your moral concerns?
Because he's more of a problem that people like you.
> >> Who God? That's where my moral integrity lays toward.
> >Really? You'll do anything they tell you to- no qualms, no questions, no
> >moral stand- only enforcement of anything they tell you to.
> Will I? You know me that well eh? We used to have it written in our Patrol
> Guide that we didn't have to obey any unlawful order given to us by any
> superior. Mine wasn't a matter of questions but one of articulation. I was able
> to articulate my actions and I was able to have a clear moral conscious and
> live with myself. I still sleep good at night:)
Again, who gives a tinkers' toot what you did- this was a comment on
cops in general on a cop newsgroup. You're of no interest to anyone but
your wife- as mentioned below.
> >No rebuttal, no substance, just ad hominem bullshit-
> >such an education he got!
> Why? Are you angry because I didn't give you a rebuttal? (OMG Poor thing) LOL.
> I do counselling, if you need a rebuttal that bad and it frustrates you that
> much maybe you do need to strike an object to release some of that tension
> either that or take slow deep breaths OK?
Nah- it's just that you're so lame.
> >You need to return to reading the Documents and comparing your behavior
> >to the whole reason for them.
> Why? Because Chas says so? NAH I am quite familiar with them. My college
> degrees tell me so :)
Well, you didn't know shit about the Thirteenth; or jury nullification-
leads me to believe that you're kind of dim on the rest of it too.
> >You've taken the King's Shilling
> The King didn't pay me, we don't have one here in America, I was paid through
> the taxpayers money and as I'm retired they continue to pay me :) GOD BLESS
> AMERICA!
Illiterate too, eh?
"If you'll take the Kings' Shilling, you'll do the Kings's work." is an
old proverb, Slowwit.
> >and
> >you'll do the King's work-
> Nope never worked for a King, never even met one Chas, but my wife treats me
> like one :)
The woman is a Saint.
> >no morality there, no integrity there- just
> >doing the 'job'.
> I do mine quite well thank you!
In a vacuum surrounded by a wasteland- your intellectual acuity is a
paucity at best.
Bon Chance-
Chas
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: ...!news.utdallas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!enews.sgi.com!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!columbine.singnet.com.sg!NNTP.UDP.ME.NOW!161.251.40.6.POSTED
From: Chas <gryp...@home.com>
Newsgroups: de.test,biz.test,alt.test,gnu.gnusenet.test,mn.test,schule.test,wales.test,uk.test,at.test,
Subject: cmsg cancel <38C9D420...@home.com>
Control: cancel <38C9D420...@home.com>
Date: 10 Mar 2000 05:19:03 GMT
Organization: UDP Avoider's Group
Lines: 1
Approved: Chas <gryp...@home.com>
Message-ID: <66A0B850...@home.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ad202.166.34.39.magix.com.sg
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 10.241.133.57
Cpk197
>When it is a cop that's under indictment it is. That's a major defense
>for bad shootings, unnecessary brutality, even the theft of falsifying
>work logs- the stress got to them
I asked you about Justifiable and affirmative defenses under Colorado Statute
and you insert your own personal opinion with no source to back it up! Great!
>The civil rights actions about 'under color of authority' don't apply to
>most citizens; they have no 'authority'- hence no actions in that
>regard. A cops' using of his authority and armed compulsion is different
>from anyone else- he is committing a more heinous crime than the average
>thug.
Are you so blind you don't even see the contradiction in your own statement?
The cops in the Diallo shooting commited no crime, you already said the jury
was out, now your talking about the color of authority, where do you come up
with this shit?
>Did they violate his civil rights under color of authority? We don't
>know yet, but it's a reasonable question to take before a court.
Here ya go again, jumping the gun one more time, it may not even get to a
court, first a federal investigation has to be done and than it has to be
determined if it even fits under the guidelines of civil rights violations and
than and only than will a court decide, not before as you have personally
injected once again your own opinion as to what will happen, maybe you have a
crystal ball eh?
>Re-read the sentence; the Constitution doesn't regulate the rights of
>citizens, only of government. When our covenant says that we are equal
>before the law, and some of us are more 'equal' than others, that's a
>reason to make comment- and it isn't about anarchy.
The Constitution does however give the government (The Legislative Branch
see:Article l of the Constitution)the power to enact laws that are enforceable
or aren't you familiar with the "Elastic Clause"? Nor are the rights given to
the people in the Constitution without limitations. Why do you think you can't
shout fire in a movie theatre although the constitution gives you the right to
free speech? So in essence your argument is lame since the Constituion does
give the legislature the authority to regulate the rights of the citizens. You
state you are anti if the Constitution doesn't meet with your approval and
expecting absoloute freedom and non recognition of government when you make
such a statement but i'm sorry my friend your comment borders on anarchy by
definition and not reason to make comment.
>and no unConstitutional law is worth a shit and the breaking of it is no
>crime
I will tell you again, no law can be deemed unconstituional until done so
through a Supreme Court interpretation either through one who has a personal
stake or claim and the S.C. is willing to listen or through a writ of Centorai
where the S.C. decides on which cases they choose to examine. Since John
Marshall in 1807 I believe there have only been about 100 cases or so up until
the mid 1980's that have been heard where a law has been ruled or deemed
unconstitutional.
> The fact that armed men can come enforce it is no more than the
>King did- it doesn't make it right.
Why are you beeing such a boob? You're discussing an entirely different form of
government. When we declared independence from Britain we got away from all of
that shit!
>> >That's in the job description.
>> Which job are you referring to?
>Is this all going too fast for you?
>You need to read with a bit more attention to content and less to your
>emotional reactions to what you think someone might have said.
No see your beeing a complete boob now. What I'll do is go slower for you, When
you said "That's in the Job Description" in a previous post you first said
prior to that statement "You're on both sides of abortion, both sides of
slavery, both sides of alcohol prohibition; no particular moral
integrity except loyalty to the powerful."
And I asked you which Job are you referring to? But of course you are a boob
and assume things. So I'll spell it out for you O.K. and I'll even go slow. I
am no (slowing down for you to understand) a police officer any longer (Going
even slower so you can comprehend it now) I am R-E-T-I-R-E-D. I am now engaged
in other gaiful employment which has nothing to do with law enforcement. Now
Einstein since I am no longer in law enforcement Please do tell everyone here
1. How I am on both sides of slavery and abortion etc and 2. Which Job are you
referring to? Just keep making your assumptions Chas. I've already seen in
other posts how you have failed to put up sources when people have requested
them to support your views. LOL. Maybe you need to find a less challenging
newsgroup! LOL
>I daresay I'm better educated than you, and maybe in your own specialty.
Do you think you are? Better educated than me? I sincerely doubt it.
>An unConstitutional law has no weight whatsoever; we are not bound to
>abide by it from integrity, only fear.
Again laws are only declared unconstitutional once the Supreme Court has
interpreted them as such, until than they are, and you are obligated to abide
by them or suffer the consequences, but hey don't let me stop ya, you want to
violate a law and see if it reaches the Supreme Court be my guest :)!
>Actually, a jury can declare a
>law unConstitutional- the supreme Court also.
No The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution, The job of a jury is to rule
on a case of law as it stands, Juries are charged by the judge based upon the
wording of the law as it applies. Juries are very limited as to what they can
do and decide matters of guilt or innocence based upon the law as presented and
the actions of the defendandt. If the defendandt was found guilty of a law and
there was a violation of the Constitution in the case, than it can be appealed
to the higher court for interpretation. Juries are involved with even
sentencing in some instances. There was a Califorinia case that had to do with
death penalty where it went back and forth on whether or not the jury could
decide the sentence, and the Constitutionality of it, but the Constitutional
interpretation was not decided by the jury it was decided by the judicial
branch. I'll have to try to remember the case but that didn't give the jury the
right to interpret the constitution, unless of course you know of a
Constititutional case that was decided by a jury, than feel free to post it.
>Cops used to arrest abortionists, now they protect them.
No your wrong certain states depending on the term of the preganancy like here
in New York State Abortion would be illegal.
>Cops used to apprehend runaway slaves and return them to their masters,
>even across state line- now
Slavery isn't against the law, I already told you to wake up, slavery is
history.
>they protect enslaved peoples (except
>slavery for convicted criminals).
If a criminal is convicted he is placed in a jail where he belongs, that's not
slavery, that's the consequenses of ones actions.
>Cops have protected alcohol makers and distributors,
Switch the word cops witbh the word legislators. You'll see a difference. Opps
with you maybe not!
>arrested same,
When alcohol was illegal and there was an enacted "Consitutional Amendment" The
Volstead Act, Yes and your point is?
> back
>again to protecting them- no moral stand there.
Than why don't you write to your congressmen about your moral concerns?
>> Who God? That's where my moral integrity lays toward.
>
>Really? You'll do anything they tell you to- no qualms, no questions, no
>moral stand- only enforcement of anything they tell you to.
Will I? You know me that well eh? We used to have it written in our Patrol
Guide that we didn't have to obey any unlawful order given to us by any
superior. Mine wasn't a matter of questions but one of articulation. I was able
to articulate my actions and I was able to have a clear moral conscious and
live with myself. I still sleep good at night:)
>No rebuttal, no substance, just ad hominem bullshit-
>such an education he got!
Why? Are you angry because I didn't give you a rebuttal? (OMG Poor thing) LOL.
I do counselling, if you need a rebuttal that bad and it frustrates you that
much maybe you do need to strike an object to release some of that tension
either that or take slow deep breaths OK?
>You need to return to reading the Documents and comparing your behavior
>to the whole reason for them.
Why? Because Chas says so? NAH I am quite familiar with them. My college
degrees tell me so :)
>You've taken the King's Shilling
The King didn't pay me, we don't have one here in America, I was paid through
the taxpayers money and as I'm retired they continue to pay me :) GOD BLESS
AMERICA!
>and
>you'll do the King's work-
Nope never worked for a King, never even met one Chas, but my wife treats me
like one :)
>no morality there, no integrity there- just
>doing the 'job'.
I do mine quite well thank you!
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
========= WAS CANCELLED BY =======:
Path: ...!news.utdallas.edu!news.tamu.edu!news.sgi.com!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.stanford.edu!paloalto-snf1.gtei.net!news.gtei.net!columbine.singnet.com.sg!NNTP.UDP.ME.NOW!225.64.14.176.POSTED
From: cpk...@aol.com (Cpk197)
Newsgroups: de.test,biz.test,alt.test,gnu.gnusenet.test,mn.test,schule.test,wales.test,uk.test,at.test,
Subject: cmsg cancel <20000310224359...@ng-fq1.aol.com>
Control: cancel <20000310224359...@ng-fq1.aol.com>
Date: 10 Mar 2000 05:23:56 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lines: 1
Approved: cpk...@aol.com (Cpk197)
Message-ID: <07247856150645...@ng-fq1.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ad202.166.34.39.magix.com.sg
X-Admin: ne...@aol.com
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 212.166.141.91
Antigen
Waco springs to mind.
Antigen
Really? How much? My point is that the fact that this guy was shooting
heroin is no more relavent to whether or not he's fit to look after
children than in the case of my ex-boyfriend's use of crack. There are
people who are addicted to various types of narcotics who might be
perfectly capable of looking after children. The medical profession has a
high rate of narcotic addiction, for example. But they are, for the most
part, responsible, capable people in spite of that handicap. And there are
those, like Fouts and my ex who, I don't care whether they're using or not
I _still_ wouldn't trust them with my daughter.
Andy Katz
>But why not Andy? The claim in here has been that Heroin addicts are
>responsible, productive human beings etc.and you yourself said that it wouldn't
>be the "Heroin" or the substance that causes the behavior of someone or we
>couldn't blame that behavior on someone, but now all of a sudden you don't
>trust a heroin addict because it's "your" flesh and blood?
I've made the claim that they *can* be, not that they necessarily are.
I base this claim on working in methadone maintenence. I'm not arguing
that childcare workers should be junkies (then again, I must admit
that I'm not that comfortable with the idea of cops who are
fundamentalist Christians either ... still, it's not my right to
insist they believe otherwise).
>When it comes to
>your own child, my how fast your mind has changed. If the person uses heroin
>because they choose to do so, and it's their right and their choice, and you
>knew the person to be responsible (as many in here, claim drug users and/or
>addicts are) why would you be more predjudiced against entrusting him with
>Aaron than with any other human being?
Now you're adding a new factor, someone I know. That might be
different. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that you were referring to a
stranger. Knowing someone and knowing him or her to be responsible is
an important factor, Dennis. We've all seen clandestine videos of
supposedly professional child care workers smacking the daylights out
of kids. Were they on junk, or were they just goons?
>I mean c'mon Andy after all you said we
>can't blame a substance for someones behavior and you criticized Rock for doing
>so in what he implied in the title to the thread and now you wouldn't let a
>substance user/abuser you know, be entrusted with the care of Aaron , Andy?
Now you're seguing from heroin to substance. Let me turn this around,
Dennis. Have you ever availed yourself of professional childcare? If
so, are you certain that one or more caregivers wasn't using
medication, say codeine or hycodan or valium or any of a number of
drugs that can have the side effects of altering judgment, or causing
drowsiness or coordination problems? To the best of my knowledge there
is no law prohibiting childcare workers from using medications while
on the job.
>When you yourself said we can't blame substance for ones behavior? What's wrong
>with this picture?
What's wrong is that it's every bit as much of a cop out as blaming
racism or poverty or abuse for criminal behavior. It is not I but Rock
who is applying double standards here.
>Double Standards comes to mind HEHE! Give the Heroin addict
>the benefit of the doubt Andy, especially if you know him , WHY not? :)!
No double standard at all, Dennis. When I entrust my child to a third
part that is a very different thing from someone caring for his or her
own child.
Permit me to offer another analogy. It's not illegal to be a Christian
Scientist. Not yet. Suppose you had to leave your child with someone
for a couple of weeks, and the available caregivers were Christian
Scientists who insisted up front that should the child become ill,
they would rely on their own methods of prayer and meditation and not
avail themselves of modern medicine regardless of how sick he or she
may become. Do you leave the child? My guess is no. Nevertheless
people have the right to profess and practice Christian Science if
they so chose.
While I also defend other parents' right to use limited corporal
punishment if that is their belief, I do not do so and I would never
leave my son with people who did.
No double standard.
Andy Katz
>Do you want me to make you look foolish now or tommorow Ginger? O.K. I'll do it
>now. Yes I would put my son in the care of Trent Fouts if he wasn't shooting
>heroin . Yes. But Hey my son is 17 and college bound and 6 foot tall and
>doesn't have to be put in the care of anybody. I bet you feel pretty stupid
>right about now!
No fair, Dennis. We began this by discussing our children as
hypothetically still infants (at least that was my interpretation,
otherwise why discuss childcare at all?). Plus Ginger had no way of
knowing your son is a strapping teen.
I would not leave my son as a baby with ol Trent, straight or high,
because I don't know the guy.
Sergeant Rock
illegal drug use.
Sgt. Rock
Cpk197
>What, are you simple minded?
No, but you are. Can't you even tell the difference between a broomstick and a
toilet plunger? When you post something make sure you know what the hell you
are posting K tough guy! Don't know what i'm talking about? OK let's show
everyone what you posted on 3-7-2000.
"Look at the cops convicted in NY for aiding the Broomstick King-"
You want to start attacks I'll continue to make you look silly.
>So far, doofus
I bet you twiddled your thumbs for hours coming up with a name huh?
> the only information is what is in the newspapers. He
>was a State Trooper from a small town on the eastern plains of Colorado.
>He went nuts and badly beat a small child into brain damage- a fairly
>short time ago; maybe two months by now
Really Sherlock Holmes? As if I didn't know that.
>He's been charged but little
>else.
And what else are you expecting? The case has to go to a Grand jury and a True
bill has to be handed down, before the process goes forth.
>The apologia for his conduct has been from his lawyer, his confrere and
>his neighbors.
Gee now I bet it never occured to you that under that advice of counsel he was
told to keep his mouth shut huh? Now there's a thought eh? I'm not sticking up
for him but
I did find out that his culpable mental state can be used but is not an
affirmative defense under Colorado law!
>Perhaps if you had framed your question more intelligibly-
What, c'mon now, you're telling me you didn't understand a simple question like
is mental disease or defect or an emotional state etc. a justifiable or
affirmative defense under Colorado law? How simple do you need it for you to
comprehend and grasp the question?
>You are thoroughly thick- there are two crimes there, Sparky;
Oh are there? Well now let's see if your right or ignorant!
>1)the
>homicide (for which they've been tried,
Looks like ignorant, since they were innocent, there was no homicide, under the
New York State Penal Code Section 125.
Homicide defined, a crime needs to be attached such as Manslaughter, Criminally
negligent homicide, murder when the death of another is caused and guess what
clueless? Not one of the four cops in the Diallo shooting were convicted of any
such charge therefore the death is ruled as a Justifiable Defense under the law
(which was the defenses contention all along) and not a Homicide. If you're
gonna come into a law enforcement newsgroup and spew things out about law
enforcement issues make sure you come in next time knowing what you are talking
about. LOL!
>2) a possible civil rights
>violation under Title 42 and Title 18 (do you need the relevant cites,
>Slick?)
No slick I was being sarcastic but if you're going to sit there as a keyboard
commando typing about the law make sure you get your cites correct "slick".
Title 42 of the USC deals with Public Health and Welfare LOL Unless you wanna
apply Chapter 112 section 10606 which deals with Vicitms Compensation and
Assistance, which unfortunately can't be afforded to Mr. Diallo. What I believe
you are referring to is Title 18, Chapter 13 (Civil Rights) section 242 (Not
title 42) which defines color of Authority. Here's the link Slick
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/242.html
Key word in the law is "Wilfully" but as you said a "possible" civil rights
violations, just likle I didn't see the criteria for 2nd degree murder and the
elements and posted such here a year ago when Diallo first occured, I don't
really see the criteria fitting into the Civil rights statutes either.
>Thicky thick thick-
>That was two question, Dimmoid- not two conclusions.
>Reading comprehension is not your forte, is it Spanky?
Umm excuse me but when you make the following statement "but it's a reasonable
question to take before a court." that seems to me like you have already
concluded it's going before a court prior to any federal investigation. Won't
you feel foolish if it doesn't? My reading comprehension is fine, your
presentation of information is what's distorted. And what's with the Spanky?
You into S&M or something? I guess I'll tell ya about Freuds theories some
other time LOL!
>No, Stretch, that was a comment on cops that ignore the Constitution-
>Don't you get anything right?
Nope your implication was of absoloute freedom, and I guess you didn't realize
how your implication was that goverment authority doesn't apply, and that my
friend is Anarchy.
>You're a fool-
>You've not gotten anything right tonight-
>re-read for substance and content- have someone read it to you with
>inflection; you're not getting it and it should embarrass you.
I've read it only to see that i'm right. Maybe you should proofread before
writing a post!
Kinnda like mixing up a broomstick and a toilet plunger huh? It doesn't
embarass me I abide by the law!
>Bet me- if you act like you're working for a monarchy, there is little
>difference.
You're a corker that's for sure, in a "Democracy" we have what is known as an
election and branches of government, in a Monarchy the King rules. Who is a so
called King in America? Whereby we don't have checks and balances?
>Haven't read the Magna Carta either, eh? No surprise there.
Oh geez and your gonna integrate it with FIJA too I bet eh? The Great Charter
too bad King Henrys son John was such a bumbling idiot and ended up having to
pay that papal fief, let me guess your next comparison might be that we are
unfairly taxing our american citizens for our WoD's and than later on down you
talk about morality. The Magna Carta has similarities and differences to our
Constitution in that the Constitution gives us rights but they are once again
not without limitations. What does it take to get it through your head? Or do
you think it's OK for you to go scream "fire" in a crowded movie theatre?
No surprise where now?
>
>And gave examples which seem to have escaped you completely.
and you never stated which job description of mine you were referring to, you
atuomatically assumed I was still in law enforcement. But I guess that is
because of your contempt for LEO's. BTW you ever been in prison Chas?
>Who gives a fat fiddlers foreskin what you do, Slappy-
My clients, My boss, My family :)
>I'm talking about the law enforcement job in general
So in essence your showing us you prejudice and bias against all law
enforcement eh?
> not your own
>pastimes in particular- geez, who gives a shit what you do?
I'll only answer you once. If you can't comprehend it the first time don't ask
twice. Redundandt grammar sheez!
>
>Name the subject with a lack of sources, Scooter.
>You (singular) seem to mix up the general plural 'you' with some sort of
>comments on the personal 'you'- that's just stupid.
Oh yeah that's right it was singular, Steve Furbish challenged you on the use
of drug testing in Police departments and you merely mentioned it was posted
in some article in Denver how the F.O.P. and D.P.D. were questioning other
departments about it's use. But it seems ya never posted your link, or was
there one?
>> Do you think you are? Better educated than me? I sincerely doubt it.
>
>Judging from the content and quality of your posting, it is moot; your
>doubts notwithstanding.
Well judging from your misconceptions, predjudices and bias without support of
fact and as I will point out further down your lack of knowledge, it's quite
obvious you have no idea what the hell you are talking about and just babble.
>Horseshit- read a little about the fully informed jury, Smart. Just a
>little will disabuse you of your misinformation.
Oh geez you must be reading all that propaganda from Don Doig huh? No Jury Has
ever ruled a law to be Uncionstitutional. But if you wanna by the books and
waste your money go ahead. He even found out in California that they (juries)
essentially have no power, by his own admissions. That power to interprert
whether or not a law is Constitutional lies with the Supreme Court since the
beginning of the United States Government even though there was debate over it.
>US v. Dougherty, 473 F2nd 1113, 11349 (1972)
First if your gonna print a source spell it right it's Daugherty with an A not
O it had to do with the Harrison narcotics Act. James Daugherty was convicted
to 3 consecutive five year sentences. The opinion was delivered byy Justice
McReynolds . No decision by a jury to overturn anything eh? Next.
>Marbury v. Madison 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176 (1803)
Marbury sued than Secretary of State Madison , since Adams was a federalist and
Jefferson and Adams had no love lost for each other, Adams tried to push for
Judgeships for many of the federalists, Marburys papers weren't delivered, and
wanted a writ of mandamus, yet Justice Marshal (whom I've already referred to)
decided that would be unconstituional yet he decided Madison was in violation
of law for refusing to deliver the papers. Again decided by the Judicial system
not a Jury
Next!
>Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436 p. 491
Arizona took the case on a writ of Certiorari and decided by Justices
>State of Georgia v. Brailsford, et al, 3 Dall 1)
The case originated in 1782 acted on in the August term of 1792 and had to do
with property. Your buddy Don Doig tried to imply that the first Justice John
Jay stated
"The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in
controversy." Georgia v. Brailsford, 1794. Doig BTW got the year wrong , don't
ya love propaganda? The case was decided in 1792 and here is what John Jay said
in that case when rendering his decision.
U.S. Supreme Court
STATE OF GA. v. BRAILSFORD, 2 U.S. 402 (1792)
2 U.S. 402 (Dall.)
The State of Georgia
v.
Brailsford, et al.
August Term, 1792
Jay, Chief Justice.
My first ideas were unfavorable to the motion; but many reasons have been
urged, which operate forcibly to produce a change of opinion.
The great question turns on the property of a certain bond; whether it belongs
to Brailsford, or to Georgia? It is put in suit by Brailsford; but if Georgia,
by virtue of the confiscation act, is really entitled to the debt, she is
entitled to the money, though the evidence of the debt happened to be in the
possession of Brailsford, and though Brailsford has, by that means, obtained a
judgment for the amount.
Then the only point to be considered is whether, under these circumstances, it
is not equitable to stay the money in the [2 U.S. 402, 409] hands of the
marshall, 'till the right to it is fairly decided; and so avoid the risque of
putting the true owner to a suit, for the purpose of recovering it back?
For my part, I think that the money should remain in the custody of the law,
till the law has adjudged to whom it belongs; and, therefore, I am content,
that the injunction issue.
>get back to me-
Yup I did, and nothing has shown me that your theory on Jury nullification is
legitimate. Like I said show me one case where a "JURY" has decided on the
constitutionality of the law. All the aforementioned cases were decided by
justices of the court.
>Prior to 1972 cops used to arrest abortionists;
Like I said here in New York under certain provisions of the NYSPC code they
still can. Which part did you not understand?
> a moral thing.
Moral can be an individuals standards of what is right or wrong. Your worried
about abortion and morality and from what I have seen in this thread you talk
about morality when it comes to drug use and harm to oneself or an unborn baby?
Make sense man!
>Now they
>protect them, another moral thing.
They protect them against criminal action Yes. What do you think we should do
let people walk into abortion clinics and blow them up? That's been tried.
You're getting into an issue of abortion that is a political one.
>You really haven't read the 13th Amendment, have you Sport?
Here I'll print it out for ya
Article XIII.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment
for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within
the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
Like I said "Punishmentfor a crime" someones actions, someones consequences.
That's what's attached to laws ya know, consequences. It's right above don't
believe me read your own reference. That is not slavery or involuntary
servitude. You really need to learn how to distinguish the difference.
>That cops will enforce the law even when the laws are mutually
>exclusive.
>This is all too abstract for you isn't it? You don't follow complicated
>thoughts very well, do you?
Nope I follow it clearer than most of the cop bashers and understand it a hell
whole hell of a lot better having studied law. I think it's your bias that
blinds you!
>> Than why don't you write to your congressmen about your moral concerns?
>Because he's more of a problem that people like you.
I know that people like me:). Oh you must mean "than" people like me. Oh I see
so you come in here and bitch in a newsgroup, and like expect us to care what
you think, or give a shit. Well guess what? I don't
>Again, who gives a tinkers' toot what you did- this was a comment on
>cops in general on a cop newsgroup. You're of no interest to anyone but
>your wife- as mentioned below.
I'm of interest to alot of people fool, but when you can get the difference
between a toilet plunger and brromstick straight come back and we'll talk.
Other than that I don't like copbashers and don't really care what copbashers
like yourself think or say. I abide by the law, have no problems and live a
happy life. You on the other hand seem to be pent up with anger and
frustration. Don't wanna write your congressman or talk to your polititcal
leaders than quit whinning and go find a wall to punch. You'll feel better!
>Nah- it's just that you're so lame.
So punching walls and slow breaths don't work for you huh? Only your own lame
cop bashing remarks. When is your next therapy appointment? Maybe he/she can
help you with some anger management and help you put a perspective on things.
What I find funny in doing counselling is that people with major anger and
frustration issues always find a particular group to pick it out on for some
reason. I guess your group is the cops huh? I wonder if you had some bad
experiences, that's why I asked if you were ever arrested before. Were you? And
if so what charges?
>Well, you didn't know shit about the Thirteenth; or jury nullification-
Really than how did I know about Don Doig? Even posted the 13th for ya, it
seems you were the one who didn't know shit. Let me guess you were opressed by
the government right? Gime a break, comparing slavery and criminal behavior is
like comparing the Rain to the Sun!
>leads me to believe that you're kind of dim on the rest of it too.
I wasn't the one who was dim about the difference between a broomstick and a
toilet plunger, or the USC in reference to Civil Rights, that would be you!
>Illiterate too, eh?
>"If you'll take the Kings' Shilling, you'll do the Kings's work." is an
>old proverb, Slowwit.
Nope I know what a Kings Shilling is, it was formerly given to a recruit as
payment when enlisting in a kings army better known as a "twelve pence". I told
you I never worked for any Kings, there are none in America or are you still
that slow and haven't realized we have a democracy in this country?
>Nope never worked for a King, never even met one Chas, but my wife treats me
>> like one :)
>
>The woman is a Saint.
No actually she's higly intelligent, and is very good at decision making and
selection :)
>In a vacuum surrounded by a wasteland- your intellectual acuity is a
>paucity at best.
>Bon Chance-
I wouldn't be talking about small things when you couldn't even tell the
difference between a broomstick and a toilet plunger.
Tell me Chas can you tell the difference between a circle and a square? LOL
Dammn this is so much fun it's like shooting fish in a barrel. Too bad I won't
be conversing with a complete cop-bashing simpleton such as yourself as I
really have no use to be conversing with someone who
doesn't have the intellectual prowess to be debating or making comments in
regards to law enforcement. CYA around, NOT! By the way Chas a Broomstick is
something used to hold the broom so one can sweep the floors and and toilet
plunger is something you use everytime your bowl begins to overflow with shit!
L8tr
CPK197
Cpk197
wrote:
>My point is that the fact that this guy was shooting
>heroin is no more relavent to whether or not he's fit to look after
>children than in the case of my ex-boyfriend's use of crack. There are
>people who are addicted to various types of narcotics who might be
>perfectly capable of looking after
>children. The medical profession has a
>high rate of narcotic addiction, for example. But they are, for the most
>part, responsible, capable people in spite of that handicap. And there are
>those, like Fouts and my ex who, I don't care whether they're using or not
So you would have no problem entrusting a surgeon with operating on your
daughter in an operation that could affect her soccer career for the rest of
her life if he is a well noted surgeon (say a foot surgery that is a one time
shot, hit or miss, on her kicking foot) after you watch him shoot heroin into
his veins right before he operates than right?
Peace
Dennis
CPK197
Cpk197
>No fair, Dennis. We began this by discussing our children as
>hypothetically still infants (at least that was my interpretation,
>otherwise why discuss childcare at all?). Plus Ginger had no way of
>knowing your son is a strapping teen.
So your saying it is fair to make assumptions than Andy? Good than if that's
your take remember that when you talk of Deputy Sheriff Spencer when he assumed
that Don Scott knew what he was doing when pointing a gun at him. You can't sit
on both sides of the fence.
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Cpk197
>Professor tell me how one being
>>high on Jesus would impair ones judgement when it comes to the caring of
>>a child?
>Waco springs to mind.
Is your implication that David Koresch was high on Jesus here in the whole
incident Ginger? (More like along the lines of false prophecy to me, and cults
like your heros horn your always tooting the Reverend Moon, did you sell
flowers too on the street for him at one time? LOL. BTW unlike others I was
familiar with Moons cult) Kinnda of a distorted P.O.V. don't ya think?
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Cpk197
>>fact that even as Trent Fouts has similarly indicated that Heroin had
>impaired
>>his judgement in the care of a child, would we not have an increase of cases
>of
>
>Just because he said it doesn't mean we have to believe him. OJ says
>that Columbian narco-traffickers killed Ron and Nicole.
>
>I'm skeptical.
>
>Andy Katz
O,K. Andy read the following excerpt from the article Rock printed and tell me
what major difference you see between that of what OJ says ans when and where
and that of what Trent Fouts says and when and where:
For the first time since he was accused of torturing, sexually abusing
and killing a 20-month-old boy, Trent Fouts testified in his own
defense Wednesday, saying the child was left in his care while he was
high on heroin.
Hint: Trent Fouts was testifying under oath and if found to be lying could be
additionaly charged with perjury, O.J. was not under oath. You can be skeptical
all ya want about what Trent Fouts testifies about, but ultimately he is gonna
be the one held accountable if he is found to have perjured himself. Right or
wrong?
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Andy Katz
>So your saying it is fair to make assumptions than Andy? Good than if that's
>your take remember that when you talk of Deputy Sheriff Spencer when he assumed
>that Don Scott knew what he was doing when pointing a gun at him. You can't sit
>on both sides of the fence.
Or, for that matter, when Don Scott apparently assumed that crooks and
not police were invading his home that morning based on Frances's cry
of "don't kill me!";)
Cpk197
>I've made the claim that they *can* be, not that they necessarily are.
>I base this claim on working in methadone maintenence.
That's a fair assesment but your talking a 50/50 possibilty I would imagine at
best. you take that chance. Me personally I have better judgement than that.
Look I'm all for addicts trying to get their lives back on track and even had a
functional one living in my home for a period of time so I know they can be
productive, but while high we're talking about judement impairment. The one
(heroin addict, trying to get clean) that lived in my house was given a set of
ground rules and was able to abide by them until she got her life back on
track.
>I'm not arguing
>that childcare workers should be junkies (then again, I must admit
>that I'm not that comfortable with the idea of cops who are
>fundamentalist Christians either ... still, it's not my right to
>insist they believe otherwise).
Except for the fact of judgement impairment and addiction or craving to want
more, thereby causing further judgement impairment. The same way people don't
realize when they haven't had enough to drink and don't stop.
>Now you're adding a new factor, someone I know. That might be
>different. I assumed, perhaps wrongly, that you were referring to a
>stranger. Knowing someone and knowing him or her to be responsible is
>an important factor, Dennis
So than you have no prblem with a Heroin or Coke Addict you "know" shooting up
before you go out for the night and leaving them in Aarons care than right? I
mean hell even if he's responsible and nods out while Aaron is running around
by himself what the hell eh?
>We've all seen clandestine videos of
>supposedly professional child care workers smacking the daylights out
>of kids. Were they on junk, or were they just goons?
>
I don' trust childcare workers any more than I trust Nurse Aides or home health
aides with the elderly, but the issue is the judgement impairment of a drug as
this thread started based on an article Rock posted and What Trent Fouts is
claiming in his own testimony, in his own defense right?
>Now you're seguing from heroin to substance. Let me turn this around,
>Dennis. Have you ever availed yourself of professional childcare?
No other than school, and if teachers are caught they are in all likelihood
suspended, assigned to administrative duties or terminated in some cases.
>If
>so, are you certain that one or more caregivers wasn't using
>medication, say codeine or hycodan or valium or any of a number of
>drugs that can have the side effects of altering judgment, or causing
>drowsiness or coordination problems?
Right and they have warnings on those bottles, if they are professional
educators they should read them. People have been locked up for Driving While
Impaired using prescription narcotics. why do you think those labels say don't
operate dangerous machinery or drive if you are using this medication? If they
go out and injure or kill someone they become libel. What warnings do you see
marked on heroin packets? The only thing I ever saw marked on them were words
like "Homicide" etc. to distinguish who is selling the product. Of course we
never know who is on what but than it becomes a question of liability of say
the school.
> To the best of my knowledge there
>is no law prohibiting childcare workers from using medications while
>on the job.
If I recall there may be here in New York Under the Public health laws but I'm
not certain since most of those laws are so trivial if i get a chance will try
to look it up
(once again).
>What's wrong is that it's every bit as much of a cop out as blaming
>racism or poverty or abuse for criminal behavior.
Whoa! Andy criminologists study the effect of crime and it's cause and effect
and cite these factors. That is what they get paid up in Albany and at the
D.O.J to sit around and do all day and to try to scientifically correlate it
all.
>It is not
Poverty doesn't lead to an increase in crime? Let me see the neighborhoods I
worked in were poverty stricken. You live in Brooklyn right?(I'm assuming the
south part and a nicer area, albeit I could be wrong) Ever drive up through
Bedford Stuy or Bushwick or Williamsburgh? Ever travel through East New York?
Just look around for a while and see all the dilapidated buildings, and young
kids (who are fatherless) hanging out on the street corners late at night.
These are some of the highest crime areas in New York and are very poverty
stricken. Than take a drive into Queens and visit Forest Hills, and Kew Gardens
where the crime rate is low and tell me you can't see the difference OK!
>I but Rock
>who is applying double standards here.
Rock simply posted an article pointing out ( the same way people like OFR, and
Prof Jonez do when they attempt copbashing) what Trent Fouts was claiming as
part of his defense in regards to the use of illicit and illegal narcotics.
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Cpk197
That's because many of them do not become aware of the consequences of their
actions until it is too late. Case in point Darryl Strawberry. How come now
after he has been suspended from baseball for a year and violated the
conditions of his probation of his arrest that he has decided to check into
ReHab? When he had that oppurtunity earlier. I wish him the best, since I
followed his career when he was with the Mets but I look at all the surveys in
regards to him and most people feel he has had more than enough chances to
right himself and don or put on no sympathy for him. He now has to face the
consequences of his actions. The interesting thing here too is that with all
his money I never once saw him challenge our drug laws and say they were
unconstitutional Rock, only that he was responible and accountable for his own
actions in the interviews I saw.
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Antigen
>> anti-s...@fornits.com (Antigen) wrote:
>>Professor tell me how one being
>>>high on Jesus would impair ones judgement when it comes to the caring
>>>of a child?
>
>>Waco springs to mind.
>
>Is your implication that David Koresch was high on Jesus here in the
>whole incident Ginger?
Ok, there's some doubt as to whether or not the child abuse charges against
the Davidians were founded. But the tragedy at Waco was not caused by him
anyway, it was caused by our very own Federal DOJ. I remember another nifty
little "Get High on Jesus" organization called The Way International that
was notorious for sexual involvement with children.
>(More like along the lines of false prophecy to
>me, and cults like your heros horn your always tooting the Reverend
>Moon, did you sell flowers too on the street for him at one time? LOL.
>BTW unlike others I was familiar with Moons cult) Kinnda of a distorted
>P.O.V. don't ya think?
>
> Peace,
> Dennis
> CPK197
>
ROFLMAO.... hang on.... still laughing..... are you suggesting that I'm
paying you a COMPLIMENT when I refer to you as a Moonie? Yet ANOTHER great
argument against gubmint mandated rehab. Hey folks, how'dya like to get
busted with a jib and find yourself locked up in close proximity to THIS
counselor?
Yes, distorted. Just like every other religion. Jesus has been dead for
2000 years. The Christian religion is like the love affair that some folks
have with the Medieval stuff. Since there are no surviving witnesses and
much info has been lost or altered in the mean time, it can be anything you
want it to be and justify anything you want it to justify. This includes
defining proper care and treatment of a child.
So I agree with the former poster. I would no more leave my infant in the
care of someone who was having a hard time handling a religious addiction
than with someone who was doing a poor job of handling a drug addiction. I
would not, however, discount an individual solely on the fact that they
practice religion or use a particular drug. Very astute comparison, imo.
--
"Antigen" <anti-s...@fornits.com>
Cpk197
>Or, for that matter, when Don Scott apparently assumed that crooks and
>not police were invading his home that morning based on Frances's cry
>of "don't kill me!";)
Except you forgot one little detail Andy, as you have already read in the
report several withnesses heard Spencer shout "Sheriffs Dept and Drop the Gun"
so don't obfuscate OK. I guess Scott didn't understand what that meant, you
know what James Fyfe has established "It is the right of expectation of the
police that a subject obeys their command when confronted" Can't argue with the
experts now can we?
Otherwise you have to say Ginger was wrong than for making her assumptions eh
Andy? Or be considered to be playing both sides of the coin to validate your
arguments or theories. If the coin is flipped it only lands on one side. Which
side is it Andy?
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Chas
> So you would have no problem entrusting a surgeon with operating on your
> daughter in an operation that could affect her soccer career for the rest of
> her life if he is a well noted surgeon (say a foot surgery that is a one time
> shot, hit or miss, on her kicking foot) after you watch him shoot heroin into
> his veins right before he operates than right?
There have been enough operations performed by surgeons on drugs to
indicate that it's not a major problem. One would want to look at
pre-1965 UK when it was thought that as many as 80% of health care
professionals were drug users. The incidence of drug use amongst health
care professionals in the US is supposed to be quite high (from what I
read in the popular press).
'Drug usage' does not equal 'impairment'.
And I make no apologia for drug usage at all- it's not my thing.
Chas
Michael Zarlenga
: That's because many of them do not become aware of the consequences of their
: actions until it is too late. Case in point Darryl Strawberry. How come now
: after he has been suspended from baseball for a year and violated the
: conditions of his probation of his arrest that he has decided to check into
: ReHab? When he had that oppurtunity earlier. I wish him the best, since I
Besides himself, whom did Darryl Strawberry hurt by using cocaine
in the off-season, on his own time?
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
brand...@my-deja.com
Sgt...@NoPukes.com (Sergeant Rock) wrote:
> Suspect blames death on mistakes
> COURTS: Trent Fouts, on trial in the torture-murder of a toddler,
> cites heroin use and several unfortunate accidents.
>
> March 9, 2000
>
> By ELIZABETH AGUILERA
> The Orange County Register
>
> For the first time since he was accused of torturing, sexually abusing
> and killing a 20-month-old boy, Trent Fouts testified in his own
> defense Wednesday, saying the child was left in his care while he was
> high on heroin.
>
> unfortunate accidents including two tumbles from a countertop and
> sitting in bath water that was too hot. He said he never intentionally
> hurt the child, who was left in his care after Joshua's mother, Jenise
> Massengill, went out all night with another man.
>
> Medical records say the boy was dipped in scalding water, causing
> second-degree burns to 20 percent of his body, sexually abused and
> beaten over the head. Heroin was also found in his system, said Deputy
> District Attorney Elizabeth Henderson.
>
> The lifeless child was found outside a Santa Ana medical facility Jan.
> 10, 1997.
>
> Fouts, 35, said he was trying to get the boy help when he dropped him
> off at what he thought was a hospital. Fouts testified he immediately
> hopped a bus to Las Vegas and didn't find out Joshua had died until he
> called his father about three weeks later.
>
> Fouts said he took the child to a baby sitter the morning of Jan. 9,
> 1997, and picked him up again in the evening. That night, Jenise
> Massengill called Fouts to say she would be out all night, leaving him
> alone with the baby. Fouts and the boy's mother shared a motel room
> but were not romantically involved, according to court records.
>
> Fouts, who said he never baby-sat before, was taking heroin at least
> four times a day. He took at least two doses while Joshua was in his
> care, he said, once in the evening while the child kept falling off
> the countertop and again in the morning before figuring out what to do
> with Joshua, who appeared very ill.
>
> After giving the child a bath, Fouts said, he noticed his skin was
> very hot and he was turning shades of red.
>
> "He wouldn't sit up straight; he was wobbly," Fouts said.
>
> As Joshua cried, Fouts said, he flicked his finger against the boy's
> ear to quiet him — as he had seen Jenise Massengill do.
>
> "I tried to shush him and I hit him on the ear a few times to get him
> away from crying," he said.
>
> It wasn't until the next morning, he said, that he noticed something
> was seriously wrong.
>
> "He was red; his face was puffy," Fouts barely whispered in the
> courtroom. "I wasn't really thinking. I was just panicked. I couldn't
> understand why he wasn't crying. I couldn't understand what had
> happened."
>
> Fouts drove around trying to figure out what to do, with the child
> strapped into his car seat in the back seat. He bought milk and tried
> to give it to the boy, and also tried water. The child threw up, he
> said.
>
> Fouts stopped at a park in Orange to see if Joshua would feel better,
> but the boy wouldn't even walk with Fouts' help, he said. During that
> time, he said, he also bought heroin and went back to the motel to
> retrieve his red bicycle, leaving the child in the car each time.
>
> "I never meant to hurt Joshua; I loved Joshua," Fouts said. "I never
> intentionally hurt him."
>
> While Fouts talked about Joshua's final hours, Jenise Massengill
> stormed out of the courtroom.
>
> Henderson declined to comment on Fouts' testimony.
>
> Defense attorney Donald Rubright said the events leading up to
> Joshua's death were a series of serious mistakes that could happen
> when a baby is left in the care of a heroin addict.
>
> "(Fouts) did admit he's responsible," Rubright said. "It's about the
> level of responsibility. We believe our client, loaded on heroin, put
> the kid in the tub not realizing how hot the water was."
>
> Closing arguments are scheduled for Monday morning, then the jury is
> expected to deliberate.
I have no idea why this was crossposted to tpg, but I'll ask a
question anyway. What part of this post shows anyone being a victim of
drug use?
Kevin
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Szasz
cpk...@aol.com (Cpk197) wrote:
> >Phil Stovell ph...@shuv.demon.co.uk
> wrote:
>
> >How did prohibition help this child?
>
> Hmm I see what you are trying to say here Phil, but
*But* how did it help this child?
> since the end of
> Prohibition with Alcohol, and as stated by posters in this forum who
are
> pro-legazitaion, decriminalizatrion or whatever you want to categorize
it as,
> there has been more family related crime (spousal abuse, child neglect
etec
> etc.) due to the ending of alcohol prohibition and the increased use
of
> alcohol, based on the article and the trend just pointed out,
I think you are saying two things here. One, there has been an
increase in reports of child abuse, spousal abuse, etc since the end of
alcohol prohibition. Second, you are saying this increase in reports
indicates that the end of Prohibition I is causally related to an actual
increase in these types of abuse.
Problem- the USA is more sensitive to these kinds of abuse, more
people are trained to recognize it, the law looks far less kindly on it
than they used to, there is more resources and more protections
available to victims of such abuse. Don't you think it's possible the
reported increase in abuse of such kinds at least has *something* to do
with the fact that, owing to the above, society is more aware of abuse
than they were in the past?
I just don't think you can blithely relate an increase in abuse
statistics to the end of prohibition. Reported abuse during prohibition
might have been much lower also because police resources were diverted
to busting people for buying and selling liquor.
> along
with the
> fact that even as Trent Fouts has similarly indicated that Heroin had
impaired
> his judgement in the care of a child,
Of course he would say that. He would say 'the devil made him do it'
if he thought the court would go lighter on him.
> would we not have an increase of
cases of
> child neglect or even childhood death by people who would now have
more access
> to heroin and more people preoccupied with obtaining the Drug (that
causes
> judgement impairment) as trent Fouts was if we were to De-crim? I mean
after
> all look at what has happened with family violence and Alcohol here in
the U.S.
I dealt with that above. I think you're jumping to an enormous causal
conclusion here, and one that is not warranted. And lastly, this whole
rigamorole here you're doing seems to be a big effort to dodge Phil's
initial (and very good) question: How did prohibition help this child?
>
> Peace,
> Dennis
> CPK197
Ken (NY)
<zarl...@conan.ids.net> ejaculated:
He was arrested in Florida for assaulting a police officer and
resisting arrest, and admitted to the crimes. Any other stupid
questions?
--
Ken (NY)
Chairman,
Department of Redundancy Department
___________________________________
42.7 percent of all statistics
are made up on the spot.
Andy Katz
>Except you forgot one little detail Andy, as you have already read in the
>report several withnesses heard Spencer shout "Sheriffs Dept and Drop the Gun"
>so don't obfuscate OK. I guess Scott didn't understand what that meant, you
>know what James Fyfe has established "It is the right of expectation of the
>police that a subject obeys their command when confronted" Can't argue with the
>experts now can we?
Sure we can. When we do argue with them the result is called
"progress."
Time was when the Earth was only 6,000 years old, women's uteri would
shrink if they voted, syphillis was treated with mercury salts and
everyone knew that autism was caused by emotionally distant mothers.
Fyfe can say what he wants, but clearly people are not always
understanding what police say in high pressure confrontations. If an
experienced supervisor, a sergeant, can fail to heed commands to drop
his weapon while in plainclothes and be killed, so can a Don Scott or
Mario Paz. Clearly there is a need to reevaluate this "reasonable"
expectation.
>Otherwise you have to say Ginger was wrong than for making her assumptions eh
>Andy? Or be considered to be playing both sides of the coin to validate your
>arguments or theories. If the coin is flipped it only lands on one side. Which
>side is it Andy?
I don't think it's any big deal. But discussion was prompted by a case
involving an infant, and delved into the general area of impaired
childcare workers. So her assumption was reasonable. I mean, you asked
me about people caring for Aaron, and I tried to answer. But the
actual truth is that no stranger cared for him when he was a baby, and
only my closest and dearest friend cared for him with neither his
mother nor I present.
But how could you know that?
Andy Katz
>Hint: Trent Fouts was testifying under oath and if found to be lying could be
>additionaly charged with perjury, O.J. was not under oath. You can be skeptical
>all ya want about what Trent Fouts testifies about, but ultimately he is gonna
>be the one held accountable if he is found to have perjured himself. Right or
>wrong?
I think a perjury rap is the least of his worries right now.
Andy Katz
>Except for the fact of judgement impairment and addiction or craving to want
>more, thereby causing further judgement impairment. The same way people don't
>realize when they haven't had enough to drink and don't stop.
Well, don't get me started on how religious fundamentalism can impair
judgment;). But, yes, someone who's high can suffer impaired judgment.
Of course that also applies to the side-effects of prescribed meds.
>So than you have no prblem with a Heroin or Coke Addict you "know" shooting up
>before you go out for the night and leaving them in Aarons care than right? I
>mean hell even if he's responsible and nods out while Aaron is running around
>by himself what the hell eh?
Ha ha ... any parent who's endured a night of colic understands the
danger of nodding out at inopportune times.
Also it depends on the person. A junkie may handle his or her dose
better than someone who never uses drugs but just had root-canal
surgery and is spaced out on codeine or hycodan.
Still, this is a bit like discussing whether it's better to be high on
pot or booze while driving. The real answer, of course, is neither.
And I'd be very worried about a child-care professional who permitted
an employee to work while impaired for any reason, be it fatigue,
sickness, prescription or black market meds.
>I don' trust childcare workers any more than I trust Nurse Aides or home health
>aides with the elderly, but the issue is the judgement impairment of a drug as
>this thread started based on an article Rock posted and What Trent Fouts is
>claiming in his own testimony, in his own defense right?
I compare Fouts to some Black kid whose just waxed a cop in a
conservative state .... he's got nothing to lose at that point, so he
might as well claim that it was some rap song or PTSD thing that made
him do it. He's burnt meat anyway.
Fouts fucked up and killed his kid. I'm not interested in seeing him
sent to an 18 month residential rehab program, get cookies and milk at
night before being tucked in, then a pat on the back as he graduates
and goes to be a poster boy for the drug war. Let him have his cookies
and milk in prison like every other killer.
>Right and they have warnings on those bottles, if they are professional
>educators they should read them. People have been locked up for Driving While
>Impaired using prescription narcotics. why do you think those labels say don't
>operate dangerous machinery or drive if you are using this medication? If they
>go out and injure or kill someone they become libel. What warnings do you see
>marked on heroin packets? The only thing I ever saw marked on them were words
>like "Homicide" etc. to distinguish who is selling the product. Of course we
>never know who is on what but than it becomes a question of liability of say
>the school.
Well, like I said, a junkie may have more experience and be
susceptible to the effects of his or her drug than a teatotaler. My
wife sees hyperboreal visions from one Tylenol #2. Then she starts
puking.
>Poverty doesn't lead to an increase in crime? Let me see the neighborhoods I
>worked in were poverty stricken. You live in Brooklyn right?(I'm assuming the
>south part and a nicer area, albeit I could be wrong) Ever drive up through
>Bedford Stuy or Bushwick or Williamsburgh? Ever travel through East New York?
>Just look around for a while and see all the dilapidated buildings, and young
>kids (who are fatherless) hanging out on the street corners late at night.
>These are some of the highest crime areas in New York and are very poverty
>stricken. Than take a drive into Queens and visit Forest Hills, and Kew Gardens
>where the crime rate is low and tell me you can't see the difference OK!
I think joblessness relates closely to crime rates. But that's a
general principle. We don't excuse crooks just because their misdeeds
took place during a period of high unemployment. If we did, then we'd
have to admit that Melvin Purvis and the folks who ambused Bonnie &
Clyde were wrong.
>Rock simply posted an article pointing out ( the same way people like OFR, and
>Prof Jonez do when they attempt copbashing) what Trent Fouts was claiming as
>part of his defense in regards to the use of illicit and illegal narcotics.
Well, Rock chose the title of the thread as well;)
Antigen
say:
>Cpk197 wrote:
>> So you would have no problem entrusting a surgeon with operating on
>> your daughter in an operation that could affect her soccer career for
>> the rest of her life if he is a well noted surgeon (say a foot surgery
>> that is a one time shot, hit or miss, on her kicking foot) after you
>> watch him shoot heroin into his veins right before he operates than
>> right?
>
>There have been enough operations performed by surgeons on drugs to
>indicate that it's not a major problem. One would want to look at
>pre-1965 UK when it was thought that as many as 80% of health care
>professionals were drug users. The incidence of drug use amongst health
>care professionals in the US is supposed to be quite high (from what I
>read in the popular press).
>'Drug usage' does not equal 'impairment'.
>And I make no apologia for drug usage at all- it's not my thing.
>
>Chas
Sorry Dennis, I missed this one. But Chas has given pretty much the same
answer I would. I would only add this anectdote to support it. I do NOT
like the effects of Perkocet. They do little for the pain and make me feel
sick and dopey. So, after each of my 3 kids were born I specifically asked
not to be prescribed any pain killers. Never-the-less, several times a day
the meds nurse would come around and offer me a couple of pills. When I
declined, those pills went into her pocket. Where do you suppose they went
from there?
Chas
> When I
> declined, those pills went into her pocket. Where do you suppose they went
> from there?
Health care professionals *know* the dangers of various drugs- they
*know* that the information emanating from the gubmint is, generally, so
much horseshit. They feel, as professionals, that they can make an
informed decision and do.
If you want to look at real drug abuse, look at the mental health
profession's use of psychomimetic drugs for warehousing emotional
problems- hell, they've got one on tv that is supposed to help with
'social anxiety disorder'- the side effects are everything from
nosebleeds to impotence, but I guess it's better than smoking a little
marijuana.
When are our legislators going to realize that if they really *have* to
legislate anything, it is best to regulate behavior rather than an
object- prohibition has never worked; not for a thousand years has it
worked even once; anywhere, anytime or against any object.
The only conclusion that one may draw, in the light of history, is that
prohibitions are a simple exercise in power, not effective governance of
willing citizens.
It's easy, then, to resent the actions of everybody that won't learn
from commonly available information- and it's worse on those who enforce
that stultified view- mostly because they'll kill you, and thus engender
a bit more active resentment.
Chas
Arclight
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 19:28:08 GMT, Michael Zarlenga
><zarl...@conan.ids.net> ejaculated:
>
>>Cpk197 <cpk...@aol.com> wrote:
>>: That's because many of them do not become aware of the consequences of their
>>: actions until it is too late. Case in point Darryl Strawberry. How come now
>>: after he has been suspended from baseball for a year and violated the
>>: conditions of his probation of his arrest that he has decided to check into
>>: ReHab? When he had that oppurtunity earlier. I wish him the best, since I
>>
>>Besides himself, whom did Darryl Strawberry hurt by using cocaine
>>in the off-season, on his own time?
>
> He was arrested in Florida for assaulting a police officer and
>resisting arrest, and admitted to the crimes.
He didn't hurt them by using the cocaine though did he?
>Any other stupid questions?
That wasn't a stupid question, your answer was stupid though.
TTFN
Arclight
Szasz
ken4bik...@usa.net wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 19:28:08 GMT, Michael Zarlenga
> <zarl...@conan.ids.net> ejaculated:
>
> >Cpk197 <cpk...@aol.com> wrote:
> >: That's because many of them do not become aware of the consequences
of their
> >: actions until it is too late. Case in point Darryl Strawberry. How
come now
> >: after he has been suspended from baseball for a year and violated
the
> >: conditions of his probation of his arrest that he has decided to
check into
> >: ReHab? When he had that oppurtunity earlier. I wish him the best,
since I
> >
> >Besides himself, whom did Darryl Strawberry hurt by using cocaine
> >in the off-season, on his own time?
>
> He was arrested in Florida for assaulting a police officer and
> questions?
Uhhh.... what did this have to do with his cocaine use?
Regard this as a "stupid question" if it pleases you.
> --
>
> Ken (NY)
> Chairman,
> Department of Redundancy Department
> ___________________________________
> 42.7 percent of all statistics
> are made up on the spot.
>
Andy Katz
wrote:
>Sorry Dennis, I missed this one. But Chas has given pretty much the same
>answer I would. I would only add this anectdote to support it. I do NOT
>like the effects of Perkocet. They do little for the pain and make me feel
>sick and dopey. So, after each of my 3 kids were born I specifically asked
>not to be prescribed any pain killers. Never-the-less, several times a day
>the meds nurse would come around and offer me a couple of pills. When I
>declined, those pills went into her pocket. Where do you suppose they went
>from there?
One of the most organized, most efficient nurses I ever worked with
took regular samples of meds. The facility was in the West Valley, a
horror, badly run by a corporation, Summit, full of callow aggressive
yuppies, unable to keep staff, aides, or administrators (the last
always being fired). I myself lasted about six months on Station
One--it was pure madness, four admits with IVs and post-op rolling in
the door at 2:30pm (change of shift is three); the DON rectified med
errors by forging the medical record. But the nurse in question,
Glenda, could handle it. She was the only one.
Of course the drug use only delayed her breakdown (everyone broke down
there, stoned or sober), and probably made things worse for her.
Ironically, with so many companies testing now, it was probably Summit
that benefited the most from her drug use.
brand...@my-deja.com
Sgt...@NoPukes.com (Sergeant Rock) wrote:
> It never ceases to amaze me the way that people will rationalize
> illegal drug use.
>
> Sgt. Rock
Such as telling you it's none of your business? It never ceases to
amaze me the way some people believe that the government should be
allowed to interfere with individual citizens' private lives.
Kevin
brand...@my-deja.com
ken4bik...@usa.net wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Mar 2000 19:28:08 GMT, Michael Zarlenga
> <zarl...@conan.ids.net> ejaculated:
>
> >Cpk197 <cpk...@aol.com> wrote:
> >: That's because many of them do not become aware of the consequences
of their
> >: actions until it is too late. Case in point Darryl Strawberry. How
come now
> >: after he has been suspended from baseball for a year and violated
the
> >: conditions of his probation of his arrest that he has decided to
check into
> >: ReHab? When he had that oppurtunity earlier. I wish him the best,
since I
> >
> >Besides himself, whom did Darryl Strawberry hurt by using cocaine
> >in the off-season, on his own time?
>
> He was arrested in Florida for assaulting a police officer and
> resisting arrest, and admitted to the crimes. Any other stupid
> questions?
OK, so he should be tried for assaulting a police officer and
resisting arrest. Any other stupid, pointless comments?
Kevin
> --
pro...@my-deja.com
>
> It never ceases to amaze me the way that people will rationalize
> illegal drug use.
It never ceases to disgust me the way that people suppose one must
rationalize their consensual behavior to others.
Cpk197
> I dealt with that above. I think you're jumping to an enormous causal
>conclusion here, and one that is not warranted.
Wrong the increase in Alcohol abuse by Americas youth since the end of
prohibition is statistical "fact" not my own conclusion. It's even been pointed
out in here by the anti-prohibitonists that Alcohol use is the most abused to
show the comparison of the illegal and legal drugs. It's ruining kids lives yes
or no? I deal with these kids in counsellling on a daily basis.
>And lastly, this whole
>rigamorole here you're doing seems to be a big effort to dodge Phil's
>initial (and very good) question: How did prohibition help this child?
No not dodging, the whole crux of my argument is that we did away with the
prohibition of alcohol and what happened? Teenage/ Child or whatever you want
to call it alcohol abuse increased since the end of prohibition. What makes you
think the same will not happen with the now illegal narcotics? People say but
teens can't get booze or beer and to that i say bullshit how come it is the
number one abused drugs by teens and it's legal for adults to get it but not
kids yet hundreds and thousands of kids stil get it, and yetr it's legal for
adults to buy but not kid,however alcohol is the youths #1 DRUG ABUSE PROBLEM.
Why do you think that won'tr happen if we legalized drugs? think about it!
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Cpk197
>I think joblessness relates closely to crime rates. But that's a
>general principle
LOL Andy I remember you have stated the poverty factor for crime rates in other
discussions we've had before. But hey than go Ask Hillary in her bid for the
New York Senate seat. Her claim was that New York City has one of the highest
unemployment rates in the country. Actually when I saw here state it on Good
Morning America I was thinking of you LOL. What's Ironic is that how come we
have one of the highest unemployment rates yet our crime rate has dramatically
decreased in I think just about every category over the past several years?
Lot's of Unemployment according to hillary yet lot's of strict enforcement
including narcotics according to Rudy and hence our crime rates here have
lowered? Your explanation for such Andy?
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Andy Katz
>LOL Andy I remember you have stated the poverty factor for crime rates in other
>discussions we've had before. But hey than go Ask Hillary in her bid for the
>New York Senate seat. Her claim was that New York City has one of the highest
>unemployment rates in the country. Actually when I saw here state it on Good
>Morning America I was thinking of you LOL. What's Ironic is that how come we
>have one of the highest unemployment rates yet our crime rate has dramatically
>decreased in I think just about every category over the past several years?
I don't know what standard Hillary was using, but I see Help Wanted
signs all over the place. The census people are desperate for help.
They have people out on the street passing out appointment cards to
take the test. When I contrast this with LA in the early 90s, I have a
hard time believing that unemployment is high in NYC, unless that's in
comparison to some area where employment is 100%;)
>Lot's of Unemployment according to hillary yet lot's of strict enforcement
>including narcotics according to Rudy and hence our crime rates here have
>lowered? Your explanation for such Andy?
I think the availability of jobs reduces crime more than strict law
enforcement ... were it otherwise, what's the reason for NYC having
had such high crime in the 70s and 80s? Surely NYPD was doing its job
then as now.
Cpk197
>
>Besides himself, whom did Darryl Strawberry hurt by using cocaine
>in the off-season, on his own time?
His teammates Mike, He received a year suspension and now they (The Yankees)
are left scurrying to find a viable
Designated hitter to replace him. Oh well better for me I'm more of a Met fan
anyways :) LOL!
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Cpk197
wrote:
>
>ROFLMAO.... hang on.... still laughing..... are you suggesting that I'm
>paying you a COMPLIMENT when I refer to you as a Moonie?
I'm the one ROFLMA Ginger. geez did that fly right over your head or what? I
was suggesting that since you are so enticed with Reverend Moon that maye you
were one of those brainwashed kids he recruited and are part of the Unification
Church. Like I asked you initially did you sell flowers on the street for his
church at one time too?
The fool got convicted of income tax evasion, and I'm far from any sort of
moonie since I don't belong to any religious cults!
>Yet ANOTHER great
>argument against gubmint mandated rehab. Hey folks, how'dya like to get
>busted with a jib and find yourself locked up in close proximity to THIS
>counselor?
Guess again my clients come to our agency on a voluntary basis. Nobody has to
lock them up!
>. The Christian religion is like the love affair that some folks
>have with the Medieval stuff. Since there are no surviving witnesses and
>much info has been lost or altered in the mean time, it can be anything you
Let's not forget history and the dead sea scrolls though O.k. But I really
don't want to debate religion, that freedom is granted in the Constitution,
using drugs is not :)!
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Al Montestruc
Drug use is a victimless crime.
What you do, or fail to do while on on drugs may not be, but that's
your problem.
Only crybabys who are just too immature to take responsibility for
their own acts whine that the "pusher" "MADE" them do, or fail to do
something.
Only YOU are responsible for your acts.
Cpk197
> I dealt with that above. I think you're jumping to an enormous causal
>conclusion here, and one that is not warranted.
Wrong the increase in Alcohol abuse by Americas youth since the end of
prohibition is statistical "fact" not my own conclusion. It's even been pointed
out in here by the anti-prohibitonists that Alcohol use is the most abused to
show the comparison of the illegal and legal drugs. It's ruining kids lives yes
or no? I deal with these kids in counsellling on a daily basis.
>And lastly, this whole
>rigamorole here you're doing seems to be a big effort to dodge Phil's
>initial (and very good) question: How did prohibition help this child?
No not dodging, the whole crux of my argument is that we did away with the
prohibition of alcohol and what happened? Teenage/ Child or whatever you want
to call it, alcohol abuse increased since the end of prohibition. What makes
you
think the same will not happen with the now illegal narcotics? This child is
already dead, what we want to do is prevent tragedies like this from recurring,
if we allow drugs to be legalized cause and effect takes place the same way it
did with alcohol and DWI's etc. Alcohol legalized = More Deaths. Let's look at
the testimony in this case of Trent Fouts. Fist he stated,
"Fouts, who said he never baby-sat before, was taking heroin at least four
times a day. He took at least two doses while Joshua was in his care, he said,
once in the evening while the child kept falling off
the countertop" So let's see we legalize drugs and heroin addicts have not less
but more access to them than we will have more dead Joshuas in the world just
like we will have more dead Jessica Corteses in the world (are you familiar
with that case? I am I was personally involved with it as a cop). Fact: Fouts
was shooting up as Joshua kept falling off the countertop. Great let's have
more of this when we legalize drugs.
Next in his testimony Fouts stated "It wasn't until the next morning, he said,
that he noticed something was seriously wrong." Well golly gee now, I bet his
judgment was impaired by the heroin don't you or do you believe it doesn't
impair your judgement? So let's have more of the stuff around so more kids
aren't brought to the hospital on time because the Junkie was impaired, yeah
great argument for legalization= Increase the risks of eath and fatalities to
kids. Brilliant! The next part of Fouts testimony "Fouts stopped at a park in
Orange to see if Joshua would feel better,but the boy wouldn't even walk with
Fouts' help, he said. During that
time, he said, he also bought heroin and went back to the motel to retrieve his
red bicycle, leaving the child in the car each time." O.K. even if we legalized
heroin, the asshole left the kid in the car not worrying about the kid but
instead he was worrying about his "fix", wonderful, yup let's ee more of that
happening, more heroin availability, more kids being left alone because the
Junkie doesn't give a shit about anything except his habit/addiction and leaves
the kid in the car, not to mention the fact that he didn't even realize the kid
needed medical attention. Why? Because his habit/addiction took precedence over
that of a child. Go ahead legalize heroin let's have more kids like Joshua eh?
We can't save this one but we certainly can save others. Now for the final
statement from Fouts defense attorneys.
"Defense attorney Donald Rubright said the events leading up to Joshua's death
were a series of serious mistakes that could happen when a baby is left in the
care of a heroin addict." Yup that about sums it up, when I asked people in
here if they would entrust there kids to heroin addicts even if they knew them
I didn't get a yes or no I got evasive answers, I asked Ginger if she would let
her daughter who plays soccer have her feet or legs operated on under the care
of a doctor who just shot up heroin and guess what ? I didn't even get a reply.
No we can't save this child but keeping drugs illegal can save lots of others.
Unless you don't believe the stats on Alcohol (The legal drug).
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Cpk197
Than answer my original question I posted to you the other day Ginger. Your
daughter is a soccer player. I myself have been in the soccer circles for many
years having both coached and played. Based on what you say, that you feel
people in the medical profession who simply use or whatever and are as you and
Chas say or imply are still "competent", than if your daughter was facing a
major surgery on her feet,knees or legs that could affect her soccer career and
future in regards to scholarships etc. and everything was put on the line for
her in this regards than yould have no problem whatsoever with a doctor
shooting up Heroin or smoking Crack and say yourself witnessing it somehow just
before your daughter going into that major surgery in the care of that doctor
right? You would or wouldn't have a problem with it?
BTW off topic: How many times can your daughter juggle a soccer ball in a row,
and who is her favorite player?
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Cpk197
>Would I trust an addict with my flesh and blood? Well, since
>I've been under GA and had surgery, chances are I have. And so
>have others.
Would you trust him knowingly though Mike? If you knew he was going to shoot
heroing before an operation would you still want to go through with that
operation?
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Cpk197
>Ha ha ... any parent who's endured a night of colic understands the
>danger of nodding out at inopportune times.
>
>Also it depends on the person. A junkie may handle his or her dose
>better than someone who never uses drugs but just had root-canal
Stop being evasive Andy, I asked you a simple question. Would you entrust
someone you know and who is a heroin addict with your son Aaron? Simply answer
yes or no! Would you put Aaron in their care? Yes or No? And theres no need
for a discussion on this I just want to know if you would or you wouldn't, and
would your wife? Just answer yes or No to both questions. Simple questions and
all I am looking for are simple answers.
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Cpk197
>I think the availability of jobs reduces crime more than strict law
>enforcement ... were it otherwise, what's the reason for NYC having
>had such high crime in the 70s and 80s? Surely NYPD was doing its job
>then as now.
Ahh here's something I can speak from based on my personal expericne having
worked in the 80's and Ken from N.Y. can probably relate to this too as I
believe he was part of that era also. Back in the 80's we had one of the worst
Centeral Booking Systems going. I remember sitting up in the 84 precinct for
hours waiting to lodge a prisoner and being taken off the street for the
remainder of my tour when I made an arrest, than I would go next door to ECAB
(Early Case Assement bureau. They have since moved to Schermerhorn Street) and
spending from Night til morning there. While hundreds of cops were sitting
around
(making plenty of overtime :) at that time). There were hundreds of us in each
boro who were now off the street waiting to meet with ADA's and have accusatory
affadavidts written up. Not only did the ADA's have to interview us as to the
sequence leading up to the arrest and validating the charges etc. they also had
to interview the victims. Since Giulliani took office and began micro-managing
everything, and Brattom implemeteng Comstat etc. an expeditied arrest system
was set up and cops can now go into the precincts and communicate with A.D.A's
via closed circuit televisions and have the affadavidts faxed and signed and
faxed back and back out into the street you go
for the most part. Also there has been a dramatic increas in numbers in the
NYPD when I came on the numbers were at 27,000 and Ken can probably tell you
better than I can now, but I believe the latest numbers I saw were around
40,000 cops. That's alot more cops out on patrol, which certainly helps, not to
mention all the specialized units which have been created.
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Antigen
<20000313174409...@ng-co1.aol.com> to say:
>>anti-s...@fornits.com (Antigen)
>wrote:
>>
>>ROFLMAO.... hang on.... still laughing..... are you suggesting that I'm
>>paying you a COMPLIMENT when I refer to you as a Moonie?
>
>I'm the one ROFLMA Ginger. geez did that fly right over your head or
>what? I was suggesting that since you are so enticed with Reverend Moon
Huh? When did I ever give the impression that I viewed Moonieism as a good
thing?
>that maye you were one of those brainwashed kids he recruited and are
>part of the Unification Church. Like I asked you initially did you sell
>flowers on the street for his church at one time too?
>The fool got convicted of income tax evasion, and I'm far from any sort
>of moonie since I don't belong to any religious cults!
>
No, but close. I used to be one of those Moonies that So. Floridians
referred to as Seedlings. More info: http://fornits.com/anonanon/ Now, I've
mentioned this to you several times. Either you're not reading my posts
very carefully before you dicount them out of hand or you're intentionally
ignoring certain pertinent facts.
>>Yet ANOTHER great
>>argument against gubmint mandated rehab. Hey folks, how'dya like to get
>>busted with a jib and find yourself locked up in close proximity to
>>THIS counselor?
>
>Guess again my clients come to our agency on a voluntary basis. Nobody
>has to lock them up!
Maybe in your case, maybe for now. But judges have been ordering people
into rehab in leu of jail at least as far back as the early `70's. And,
very often, the very same judicial system winds up awarding multi-million
dollar settlements to clients who suffer unspeakable abuse at the hand of
these "treatment" providers. Further, a lot of your rhetoric mimics the
stuff I learned from that Master of Disaster, Art Barker.
>>. The Christian religion is like the love affair that some folks
>>have with the Medieval stuff. Since there are no surviving witnesses
>>and much info has been lost or altered in the mean time, it can be
>>anything you
Right. The question was one regarding whether or not it would be more
prudent to entrust someone strung out on heroin or someone strung out on
God with the care and protection of an infant. I hold that it's a very
valid comparison. In either case, use does not necessarily equal abuse but
either one can be most dangerous to the user and those around them. So,
neither one should be prohibited and neither one should be accepted as a
valid excuse for any criminal act.
Clear now?
Sergeant Rock
>Sgt...@NoPukes.com (Sergeant Rock) wrote:
>>
>> It never ceases to amaze me the way that people will rationalize
>> illegal drug use.
>
> It never ceases to disgust me the way that people suppose one must
>rationalize their consensual behavior to others.
Your day will come law breaker....
Sgt. Rock
Michael Zarlenga
:>Besides himself, whom did Darryl Strawberry hurt by using cocaine
:>in the off-season, on his own time?
: His teammates Mike, He received a year suspension and now they (The Yankees)
: are left scurrying to find a viable
: Designated hitter to replace him. Oh well better for me I'm more of a Met fan
: anyways :) LOL!
The suspension from MLB is distinct from his drug use and a direct
result OF the War on Drugs, not of his use of cocaine.
--
-- Mike Zarlenga
Cpk197
wrote:
>Huh? When did I ever give the impression that I viewed Moonieism as a good
>thing?
You didn't but you seem to have a fixation with Rev Moon and the Moonies. The
man picked on vunerable young kids basically ages 13 to 16 who were primarily
runaways and actually used them making them thinking they were loved and all
that crap. Do you know how many lives he destroyed? how many families? The last
figures on his following were estimated at around 40,000 I believe. Please
don't insult law enforcement officers and put them in the same class as moonies
there is a difference between a culture and a cult.
> I used to be one of those Moonies that So. Floridians
>referred to as Seedlings.
Is that where you did your rehab, At the Seed? You are exposing yourself more
and more. I don't get it. Like I told Andy I had a recovering heoin addict
living with us, fortunately for her she somewhat got her life back together.
Not everyone is going to be sucessfully rehabbed and some people just grow out
of their addictions others won't and may never get rehabbed and that can become
a problem. There's still much to be said, studied and learned scientifically.
There is a good book out (which I don't entirely agree with by the way)
entitled "addiction is a choice" by Jeffrey Shaeler. P.H.D. which explains
addictions and how it is not really a disease. Read it if you get the chance
you may enjoy it.
>More info: http://fornits.com/anonanon/ Now, I've
>mentioned this to you several times.
Actually this is the first time you mentioned it to me I believe. I don't read
every single post so you may have mentioned it somewhere else. Did you happen
to attend or be forced to attend one of these rehab centers?
>Either you're not reading my posts
>very carefully before you dicount them out of hand or you're intentionally
>ignoring certain pertinent facts.
Like I said I don't read every single post, if you want to answer the question
about rehab in private feel free to e-mail me, if you don't feel like exposing
your life in this forum.
>Maybe in your case, maybe for now. But judges have been ordering people
>into rehab in leu of jail at least as far back as the early `70's.
The Narcotics Rehabilitation Act :). I always wondered what happened to it!
>And,
>very often, the very same judicial system winds up awarding multi-million
>dollar settlements to clients who suffer unspeakable abuse at the hand of
>these "treatment" providers.
Oh sheez Ginger I can assure you we don't abuse our clients, we would loose our
federal, state and private funding in a heartbeat if we did so. Many of my
peers and colleagues that I work with are highly motivated, sensitive and
caring people. Who I am in here is not the way I practice where I work. Law
enforcement and counselling have similarities yet differences. I certainly
couldn't help someone by being judgemental in counselling. We're more passive
and empathetic and everything a client myself discusses is strictly
confidential, unless of course I refer to a case in a general sense.
>Further, a lot of your rhetoric mimics the
>stuff I learned from that Master of Disaster, Art Barker.
It sounds like you feel you had a bad experience while perhaps attending the
seed. I don't know or I don't know why you were involved with him and the Seed
since its a drug and alcohol rehab center. Like I said not everyone responds to
rehab the same way and not every rehab center practices the same in theory. I
deal more with clinical depression, manics people with PTSD etc etc and many
who use the drugs or alcohol as a crutch or coping mechanism. Our agencies
success rate has been pretty high for the most part and most of the private
psychologists have heard of our reputation and rave about us and often refer
their clients to us for additional help!
>>>. The Christian religion is like the love affair that some folks
>>>have with the Medieval stuff. Since there are no surviving witnesses
>>>and much info has been lost or altered in the mean time, it can be
>>>anything you
>Right. The question was one regarding whether or not it would be more
>prudent to entrust someone strung out on heroin or someone strung out on
>God with the care and protection of an infant.
Ginger what were you smoking you posted the above statement as if I had.
>So,
>neither one should be prohibited and neither one should be accepted as a
>valid excuse for any criminal act.
>
>Clear now?
I'm well aware of what the affirative defenses are for criminal acts such as
infancy, mental disease or defect etc. I agree that drug use doesn't excuse
ones behavior but even as I pointed out along time ago to another poster in
another thread intoxication of any kind here in New York under law any
intoxication may not be offered as an affirmative defense but under article
15.25 evidence of intoxication may be offered by the defenandt whenever it is
relevant to negative an element of the crime charged. So in essence at times it
is excepted as an excuse and will often factor in at trial and/or sentencing.
Am I clear now?
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Cpk197
>The suspension from MLB is distinct from his drug use and a direct
>result OF the War on Drugs, not of his use of cocaine.
I guess you didn't read the Sports section. His suspension was for that of none
other than cocaine use Mikey! What the hell do you think he was suspended for?
I guess it really is true in baseball "three strikes and you're out"
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Andy Katz
>Stop being evasive Andy, I asked you a simple question. Would you entrust
>someone you know and who is a heroin addict with your son Aaron? Simply answer
>yes or no! Would you put Aaron in their care? Yes or No? And theres no need
>for a discussion on this I just want to know if you would or you wouldn't, and
>would your wife? Just answer yes or No to both questions. Simple questions and
>all I am looking for are simple answers.
Demanding simple answers to complex questions is like slathering
catsup on pate, Dennis.
But I'll try. The answer is no, I would not. Nor would I place him in
the care of an alcoholic or a religious fanatic or an NRA freak or a
person who is actively hallucinating ... all behaviors which are not,
at present, illegal.
This has nothing whatever to do with the war on drugs, since your
belief that repeal would create more Joshua's has no more foundation
in fact than mine, which is that fewer Joshua's would result.
Now, permit me to return the favor and ask you, yes or no, whether or
not Joshua's dad deserves nothing more than a tap on the wrist for
torturing and killing his son. Yes or no, Dennis? Trent didn't kill
young Joshua; it was the heroin he injected into his body that killed
the boy. Right? Trent is just another poor lost soul struggling under
the demon of addiction, and bears minimal responsibility for Joshua's
demise.
Is that about the size of it?
pro...@my-deja.com
> Szasz sz...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > I dealt with that above. I think you're jumping to an enormous
> > causal conclusion here, and one that is not warranted.
>
> Wrong the increase in Alcohol abuse by Americas youth since the end
> of prohibition is statistical "fact" not my own conclusion. It's even
> been pointed out in here by the anti-prohibitonists that Alcohol use
> is the most abused to show the comparison of the illegal and legal
> drugs. It's ruining kids lives yes or no?
But, thanks to the regulated sale of alcohol, parents are more
assured their children aren't purchasing alcohol from liscensed dealers,
much less that their getting poisonous hooch from blackmarket dealers.
Under the regulated sale of alcohol, parents need mostly worry about who
their children associate with. But that, of course, generally, is a
personal matter between the parent and their child, isn't it?
> > And lastly, this whole rigamorole here you're doing seems to be a
> > big effort to dodge Phil's initial (and very good) question: How
> > did prohibition help this child?
>
> No not dodging, the whole crux of my argument is that we did away
> with the prohibition of alcohol and what happened? Teenage/Child or
> whatever you want to call it alcohol abuse increased since the end of
> prohibition. What makes you think the same will not happen with the
> now illegal narcotics?
If you've got a gripe with how certain parents raise certain
children, point them out and make your gripes and your case with them.
But many more adults enjoy good clean alcohol from time to time, who are
also parents of minors who aren't having an alcohol abuse problem. I'm
quite sure they would resent loosing access to good clean alcohol while
providing their children with access to poisonous hooch from blackmarket
dealers.
> People say but teens can't get booze or beer and to that i say
> bullshit
Under the regulated sale of alcohol, that of course mostly depends on
who a parent allows their child to associate with. There will always be
delinquent parents. Then again, you have parents who are having to work
three jobs just to make ends meet after taxes and other costs of the War
on Drugs and don't have the time they need to raise their children. Or,
maybe just parents that don't share Your same concerns for Their
children! That is no excuse to deny adults access to good clean alcohol
while making the jobs of other parents more difficult by giving their
children access to poisonous hooch from blackmarket dealers.
> how come it is the number one abused drugs by teens and it's legal
> for adults to get it but not kids yet hundreds and thousands of kids
> stil get it, and yetr it's legal for adults to buy but not kid,
The answer is quite obvious. Because of who certain parents allow
their children to associate with. They sure aren't purchasing alcohol
from liscensed dealers in any considerable numbers, much less poisonous
hooch from blackmarket pushers.
> however alcohol is the youths #1 DRUG ABUSE PROBLEM. Why do you think
> that won'tr happen if we legalized drugs? think about it!
I think parents should control who their children are allowed to
associate with, and not be taxed to the point where they must work two
or three jobs to make ends meet under the huge expenses of the War on
Drugs and massive government, all while providing many then unsupervised
children with access to poisonous drugs from blackmarket dealers.
I think if you've got a gripe with how a certain parent is raising
their child, you should take your gripe and your case to them
spicifically, and quit trying to prohibit (unsuccessfully) adult access
to alcohol, or drugs, while actually giving their children access to
poisonous hooch, or drugs, from blackmarket dealers.
I think prohibition is an awful flop.
Phil Stovell
wrote:
>Wrong the increase in Alcohol abuse by Americas youth since the end of
>prohibition is statistical "fact" not my own conclusion.
This is interesting. Where can I verify this?
Why have I got a picture of a "Mothers against prohibition" car on my website
at http://www.shuv.demon.co.uk/protest.jpg , implying that prohibition was
causing kids to consume alcohol?
--
Phil Stovell | If the Primary Clear Light is not recognized,
Petersfield, Hants, UK | there remains the possibility of maintaining
ph...@shuv.demon.co.uk | the Secondary Clear Light
http://www.shuv.demon.co.uk/
Phil Stovell
wrote:
>> Michael Zarlenga zarl...@conan.ids.net wrote:
>
>>
>>Besides himself, whom did Darryl Strawberry hurt by using cocaine
>>in the off-season, on his own time?
>
>His teammates Mike, He received a year suspension and now they (The Yankees)
>are left scurrying to find a viable
>Designated hitter to replace him. Oh well better for me I'm more of a Met fan
>anyways :) LOL!
The cocaine suspended him? Bloody clever for a white powder that's very similar
to caffeine!
pro...@my-deja.com
> pro...@my-deja.com wrote:
> > Sgt...@NoPukes.com (Sergeant Rock) wrote:
> > >
> > > It never ceases to amaze me the way that people will rationalize
> > > illegal drug use.
> >
> > It never ceases to disgust me the way that people suppose one must
> > rationalize their consensual behavior to others.
>
> Your day will come law breaker....
This coming from the one who said he'd stomp my ass if I ever tried
to protect the Rights of another from his violations.
A threat from a violent criminal!
Go Fuck Yourself SgtCrock.
Sergeant Rock
>Sgt...@NoPukes.com (Sergeant Rock) wrote:
>> pro...@my-deja.com wrote:
>> > Sgt...@NoPukes.com (Sergeant Rock) wrote:
>> > >
>> > > It never ceases to amaze me the way that people will rationalize
>> > > illegal drug use.
>> >
>> > It never ceases to disgust me the way that people suppose one must
>> > rationalize their consensual behavior to others.
>>
>> Your day will come law breaker....
>
> This coming from the one who said he'd stomp my ass if I ever tried
>to protect the Rights of another from his violations.
I call it more like interfearing with the lawful duties of a police
officer.
> A threat from a violent criminal!
No, a statement of the consequences of an unlawful act on your part.
> Go Fuck Yourself SgtCrock.
You're pretty brave hiding behind thet keyboard, sport.
Sgt. Rock
Brian N. Miller
>
> You're pretty brave hiding behind thet keyboard, sport.
What's your point? That in the flesh he should fear you?
Ken (NY)
(Arclight) ejaculated:
>>>Besides himself, whom did Darryl Strawberry hurt by using cocaine
>>>in the off-season, on his own time?
>>
>> He was arrested in Florida for assaulting a police officer and
>>resisting arrest, and admitted to the crimes.
>
>He didn't hurt them by using the cocaine though did he?
As a matter of fact, he blamed the drugs for his actions.
>>Any other stupid questions?
>
>That wasn't a stupid question, your answer was stupid though.
Your reply is even more idiotic.
"Why do you think they call it dope?"
Love,
--
Ken (NY)
Chairman,
Department of Redundancy Department
___________________________________
42.7 percent of all statistics
are made up on the spot.
Ken (NY)
ejaculated:
>> He was arrested in Florida for assaulting a police officer and
>> resisting arrest, and admitted to the crimes. Any other stupid
>> questions?
>
> Uhhh.... what did this have to do with his cocaine use?
>
> Regard this as a "stupid question" if it pleases you.
See reply to the other guy.
Ken (NY)
>> >Besides himself, whom did Darryl Strawberry hurt by using cocaine
>> >in the off-season, on his own time?
>>
>> He was arrested in Florida for assaulting a police officer and
>> resisting arrest, and admitted to the crimes. Any other stupid
>> questions?
>
> OK, so he should be tried for assaulting a police officer and
>resisting arrest. Any other stupid, pointless comments?
>Kevin
No, yours will suffice.
Cpk197
>But I'll try. The answer is no <snip>
Than your responses about being responible while using, have just been toilet
flushed. Otherwise you would have no problem with entrusting a heroin user you
know with the care of Aaron. I mean why not you said they can be responsible
and the drugs don't affect or "impair" their judgement. I guess the only
impairment is when it comes to your own chid. I see. Thought so!
>This has nothing whatever to do with the war on drugs, since your
>belief that repeal would create more Joshua's has no more foundation
>in fact than mine, which is that fewer Joshua's would result.
Except for one small difference Andy, usually before I respond to many of the
posts in these newsgroups I do some research first. I was reading this morning
I forget where exactly that one country is now not returning abused children
to their parents who are drug users/abusers. They showed a correlation between
drug use/abuse and child abuse, and basically told the parents . No kids until
you get your act together and can show you have maintained you are clean and
sober. BTW I believe this wasn't even in America. So it's not just here that
people see the patterns and correlations and contributing factors. I wish I
could remember where I read the source so I could post ya the link. If I can
think of it I will.
>
>Now, permit me to return the favor and ask you, yes or no, whether or
>not Joshua's dad deserves nothing more than a tap on the wrist for
>torturing and killing his son. Yes or no, Dennis?
No absoloutely not Andy, even if he was high it is not an "affirmative defense"
and the fact that he got high by shooting heroin to me makes him more of a
criminal since as I always say and always point out when doing counselling
"there are consequenses to your actions" if you knowingly take an action that
can have negative consequences you are accountable. I had this discussion with
Sasha in regard to the NYSPC Article 15.25 Effect of intoxication Upon
Liability. She couldn't believe we even had it in our law books when I
mentioned it. But it is notan affirmative defense. Trent Fouts is not suffering
from any sort of mental disease or defect that is not of his own doing, or
infancy or entrapment etc. Trent Fouts was responsible the death of Joshua the
same way Angela Cortes was responible for the death of Jessica. Let me move on
to the next part of your question. Trent should be punished no doubt about it!
> Trent didn't kill
>young Joshua; it was the heroin he injected into his body that killed
>the boy. Right?
The Heroin was the primary contributing factor that lead to Joshuas death, I've
already cited the testimony. E.g. Fouts shot heroin twice while the boy was
falling off the counter, Fouts stopped at a park to cop his shit while Joshua
was left unattended in the car and should have been brought to the hospital to
recieve medical attention except Fouts was more primarily focused on getting
his next fix than the care of the child Yadadayada.
>Trent is just another poor lost soul struggling under
>the demon of addiction, and bears minimal responsibility for Joshua's
>demise.
Hell no, if trent was more concerned about Joshua than he was about his
addiction he should have tried to get help. I have no sympathy for him!
>Is that about the size of it?
The size of it is that due to Fouts Heroin use and preoccupation with his own
selfish needs due to his addiction a young child is once again dead as was
Jessica Cortes.
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
Cpk197
> But, thanks to the regulated sale of alcohol, parents are more
>assured their children aren't purchasing alcohol from liscensed dealers,
>much less that their getting poisonous hooch from blackmarket dealers.
Not only do you miss my point but in essence you validate it. The legal drug
has become more accesible to American Youth than the Black Market drugs as
statistics have shown. Legalize the now illegal drugs and you will see
increased use in other drugs by teens also.
>Under the regulated sale of alcohol, parents need mostly worry about who
>their children associate with.
That's gonna also happen if we make the currently illegal drugs legal, and as
statistics bare out the use and accessibility has increased not decreased.
>But that, of course, generally, is a
>personal matter between the parent and their child, isn't it?
What are you gonna do hire a private investigator and have your kid followed
around all day including school? Do you know how much liquor is brought into
schools? How many illegal narcotics are brought it? Unless you plan on doing
strip searches in schools now you can't hold parents accountable for who they
are involved with inside school now can you?
Are you even a parent?
>Then again, you have parents who are having to work
>three jobs just to make ends meet after taxes and other costs of the War
>on Drugs and don't have the time they need to raise their children. Or,
<snip>
Proffs that cost you are referring to is under $5 or less per taxpayer, hardly
anyone needs to work three jobs to put $5 towards taxes, now reverse that, what
would be the taxpayers cost in medical costs and treatment? Do you know?
>The answer is quite obvious. Because of who certain parents allow
>their children to associate with. They sure aren't purchasing alcohol
>from liscensed dealers in any considerable numbers, much less poisonous
>hooch from blackmarket pushers.
As my 17 year old son once said, and not that he has done this, but some of his
peers he knows have, "If I wanted say beer I could drive up to the back of any
Pathmark store I wanted and purchase all I want, because the employees who work
there will sell it to you for their own profit right out the back door." Who
said there isn't any black markets with legal drugs?
Peace,
Dennis
CPK197
- Prof. Jonez©
--
Cpk197 <cpk...@aol.com> wrote in article
: >anti-s...@fornits.com (Antigen)
: wrote:
: >
: >ROFLMAO.... hang on.... still laughing..... are you suggesting that I'm
: >paying you a COMPLIMENT when I refer to you as a Moonie?
:
: I'm the one ROFLMA Ginger. geez did that fly right over your head or what? I
: was suggesting that since you are so enticed with Reverend Moon that maye you
: were one of those brainwashed kids he recruited and are part of the Unification
: Church. Like I asked you initially did you sell flowers on the street for his
: church at one time too?
: The fool got convicted of income tax evasion, and I'm far from any sort of
: moonie since I don't belong to any religious cults!
:
: >Yet ANOTHER great
: >argument against gubmint mandated rehab. Hey folks, how'dya like to get
: >busted with a jib and find yourself locked up in close proximity to THIS
: >counselor?
:
: Guess again my clients come to our agency on a voluntary basis. Nobody has to
: lock them up!
:
: >. The Christian religion is like the love affair that some folks
: >have with the Medieval stuff. Since there are no surviving witnesses and
: >much info has been lost or altered in the mean time, it can be anything you
:
: Let's not forget history and the dead sea scrolls though O.k. But I really
: don't want to debate religion, that freedom is granted in the Constitution,
: using drugs is not :)!
Great ... so all we need to do is have "religion" declared a drug ...
- Prof. Jonez©
Cpk197 <cpk...@aol.com> wrote in article
: >anti-s...@fornits.com (Antigen)
: wrote:
: >Huh? When did I ever give the impression that I viewed Moonieism as a good
: >thing?
:
: You didn't but you seem to have a fixation with Rev Moon and the Moonies. The
: man picked on vunerable young kids basically ages 13 to 16 who were primarily
: runaways and actually used them making them thinking they were loved and all
: that crap. Do you know how many lives he destroyed?
By taking in what our society had tossed aside as refuse ...?
: how many families?
The dysfunctional families that caused the runaways in the first place ?
: The last
: figures on his following were estimated at around 40,000 I believe.
And how does that compare to the millions of lives ruined by "christianity" ?
: Please
: don't insult law enforcement officers and put them in the same class as moonies
: there is a difference between a culture and a cult.
Actually the word cult is born and rooted in the word culture ... but you knew that.
:
: > I used to be one of those Moonies that So. Floridians
:
Szasz
>
> >>>Besides himself, whom did Darryl Strawberry hurt by using cocaine
> >>>in the off-season, on his own time?
> >>
> >> He was arrested in Florida for assaulting a police officer and
> >>resisting arrest, and admitted to the crimes.
> >
>
> As a matter of fact, he blamed the drugs for his actions.
So you would believe an assaultive, arrest-resisting philanderer?
What if he said he got possessed by the devil?
>
> >>Any other stupid questions?
> >
> >That wasn't a stupid question, your answer was stupid though.
>
> Your reply is even more idiotic.
> "Why do you think they call it dope?"
Well, look, I think that Darryl is giving an answer a lot of people
give when they don't want to take responsibility for their actions. If
he thought society was ready to believe that his actions were the
result of demon possession, I'm sure he'd say that too. I'm just a bit
disappointed that people are so willing to take the word of, like I
said, an assaultive serial philanderer.
>
> Love,
> --
>
> Ken (NY)
> Chairman,
> Department of Redundancy Department
> ___________________________________
> 42.7 percent of all statistics
> are made up on the spot.
>
Sergeant Rock
<brian_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Sgt...@NoPukes.com (Sergeant Rock) wrote:
>>
>> You're pretty brave hiding behind thet keyboard, sport.
>
>What's your point? That in the flesh he should fear you?
Not should, he WOULD!!
Sgt. Rock
Arclight
wrote:
Why would he fear a pussy like you?
TTFN
Arclight
Arclight
In article <38cf1b01...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
ken4bik...@usa.net wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Mar 2000 19:15:11 GMT, daniel...@cableinet.co.uk
> (Arclight) ejaculated:
>
> >>>Besides himself, whom did Darryl Strawberry hurt by using cocaine
> >>>in the off-season, on his own time?
> >>
> >> He was arrested in Florida for assaulting a police officer and
> >>resisting arrest, and admitted to the crimes.
> >
> >He didn't hurt them by using the cocaine though did he?
>
> As a matter of fact, he blamed the drugs for his actions.
What if he had blamed the devil for his actions? it's the same thing,
blaming something which isn't to blame for ones actions.
> >>Any other stupid questions?
> >
> >That wasn't a stupid question, your answer was stupid though.
>
> Your reply is even more idiotic.
In what way?
> "Why do you think they call it dope?"
They don't call cocaine dope, that's Ganja.
And what's that got to do with anything?
Sergeant Rock
wrote:
>On 13 Mar 2000 23:44:40 GMT, cpk...@aol.com (Cpk197) wrote:
>
>>Stop being evasive Andy, I asked you a simple question. Would you entrust
>>someone you know and who is a heroin addict with your son Aaron? Simply answer
>>yes or no! Would you put Aaron in their care? Yes or No? And theres no need
>>for a discussion on this I just want to know if you would or you wouldn't, and
>>would your wife? Just answer yes or No to both questions. Simple questions and
>>all I am looking for are simple answers.
>
>Demanding simple answers to complex questions is like slathering
>catsup on pate, Dennis.
>
>But I'll try. The answer is no, I would not. Nor would I place him in
>the care of an alcoholic or a religious fanatic or an NRA freak or a
>person who is actively hallucinating ... all behaviors which are not,
>at present, illegal.
>
>This has nothing whatever to do with the war on drugs, since your
>belief that repeal would create more Joshua's has no more foundation
>in fact than mine, which is that fewer Joshua's would result.
>
>Now, permit me to return the favor and ask you, yes or no, whether or
>not Joshua's dad deserves nothing more than a tap on the wrist for
>torturing and killing his son. Yes or no, Dennis? Trent didn't kill
>young Joshua; it was the heroin he injected into his body that killed
>the boy. Right? Trent is just another poor lost soul struggling under
>the demon of addiction, and bears minimal responsibility for Joshua's
>demise.
>
>Is that about the size of it?
>
>Andy Katz
Andy:
You are trash for rationalizing this mans criminal behavior. What he
did is inexcusable & unconscionable. For making excuses for his
criminal behavior, you are no better. There is no excuse for pukes
like you making excuses for such criminal actions. As a civilized
human being, I will not tolerate such actions as this. Strap the
bastard on the gurney & give him the big shot. Stupid people like you
should be strapped down next to him.
Sgt. Rock
Sergeant Rock
(Arclight) wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:17:12 GMT, Sgt...@NoPukes.com (Sergeant Rock)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:00:30 GMT, Brian N. Miller
>><brian_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Sgt...@NoPukes.com (Sergeant Rock) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You're pretty brave hiding behind thet keyboard, sport.
>>>
>>>What's your point? That in the flesh he should fear you?
>>
>>Not should, he WOULD!!
>
>Why would he fear a pussy like you?
>
>
>TTFN
>Arclight
I work out every morning at Peninsula Park at the Balboa Pier in
Newport Beach. You want to find out why? Stop by.
Sgt. Rock
Arclight
wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:28:00 GMT, daniel...@cableinet.co.uk
>(Arclight) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 17:17:12 GMT, Sgt...@NoPukes.com (Sergeant Rock)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 15:00:30 GMT, Brian N. Miller
>>><brian_n...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sgt...@NoPukes.com (Sergeant Rock) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You're pretty brave hiding behind thet keyboard, sport.
>>>>
>>>>What's your point? That in the flesh he should fear you?
>>>
>>>Not should, he WOULD!!
>>
>>Why would he fear a pussy like you?
>
>I work out every morning at Peninsula Park at the Balboa Pier in
>Newport Beach. You want to find out why? Stop by.
Because your an idiot with a small penis, who wants to make himself
look big, by having big muscles, which aren't actually any good at
anything because you are such a deformed freak.