Carroll O'Connor's lawsuit
TZack4
My take:
Judgment for Plaintiff.....$1 in damages
What Carrol O'connor did was understandable, but wrong nonetheless.
Especially when he, ONE YEAR AFTER Hugh's death, went on Rivera Live and
gave out the guy's address and, in effect, called him a slimeball and a
murderer.
It's funny, although Hugh was a big-time addict, Carrol O'Connor treated
him with love and understanding, like he was a good guy who got caught up
in something he couldn't handle. And yet, the Plaintiff, who was also an
addict, is nothing but a scumbag and a killer. Kind of a double-standard.
By the way, i wonder if Hugh ever went in with somebody else, and split
the cost of a bag. If so, does that make HIM a drug-dealer and slimebag,
and one to be called a murderer if the other guy (maybe Howard Rollins for
instance) had killed himself.
Anyway, there's enough blame here to go around. The O'Connor family had
enough notice of Hugh's irrational behavior to try to get him committed
for at least a 72-hr stint in the booby hatch, if they really had tried.
This is especially the case since the family knew damn well that Hugh kept
a loaded pistol (and other guns) at his place (CLEARLY a danger to
himself, if not others).
One last thing, what's the deal w/Carrol O'Connor's cousin, the supposed
substance abuse expert who took the stand last week?! First of all, the
guy rambled on for like 5 minutes straight w/o any questions being asked.
Secondly, the guy definitely seemed a little off-kilter, like he was in
need of some serious therapy himself. Third. he said he used to watch
Hugh snort coke right in front of him, even try to snort cocaine remnants
off the friggin floor like a vacuum cleaner! Yeah, there's plenty of
blame...
O'Connor's initial statements?... heat-of the-moment, no problem.
One year later? sending the guy's address over the air?... wrong.
Like I said, Judgment for plaintiff, $1 in damages.
TZack4
Maggie8097
Tzack4 wrote:
My take:
Judgment for Plaintiff.....$1 in damages
What Carrol O'connor did was understandable, but wrong nonetheless.
Especially when he, ONE YEAR AFTER Hugh's death, went on Rivera Live and
gave out the guy's address and, in effect, called him a slimeball and a
murderer.
<snip>
Anyway, there's enough blame here to go around. The O'Connor family had
enough notice of Hugh's irrational behavior to try to get him committed
for at least a 72-hr stint in the booby hatch, if they really had tried.
<snip>
O'Connor's initial statements?... heat-of the-moment, no problem.
One year later? sending the guy's address over the air?... wrong.
Like I said, Judgment for plaintiff, $1 in damages.
***I couldn't agree more with your entire post. And the $1 in damages is
probably about 99 cents more than this guy's reputation is really worth.
PattyC4303
In article <33D2D6...@u.washington.edu>, "D. Stanley"
<ic...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
>Then why does the fat ass want to blame everyone but Hugh?
How come the fat thing is such a big deal to you, pal?
D. Stanley
Linda and Cliff Griffith wrote:
>
> ".edu"??? IMO, this is a sad commentary.
I always get a kick out of you, Cliffie and Linda. You seem to avoid
the issue and attack the messenger.
This pretty much invalidates your argument. But you never were very
good at it anyway.
What is a sad commentray is how people support racists like Carroll
O'Connor. I suppose you are one too. Yeah maybe you aren't actively
supporting the racist drug war, but you tacitly support it.
Carroll O'Connor is nothing more than a bigot. No he isn't Archie
Bunker. He is a person stuck inhis own self loathing.
Until he learns that people have the right to put anything into their
bodies they want, he will continue to behave in a irrational and stupid
manner. Sort of like you. Keep on making those logical fallacies
Cliffie and Linda.
--
I call Christianity the one great curse, the one enormous
And innermost perversion, the one great instinct of
Revenge, for which no means are too venomous, too
Underhand, too underground and too petty-I call it the
One immortal blemish of mankind.
Nietzsche, Ibid. 62
Tanya Noreen
I think that D. Stanley has a good point. People in the U.S. are
so hasty to decry "drug dealers"- by that I mean traffickers in illegal
drugs such as cocaine and marijuana. However, drug dealers like RJR
Nabisco and Philip Morriss get off with a wrist slap, and their products
kill 400,000 people a year. Not only do they substantively escape public
persecution, Americans continue to stuff their kitchen cabinets with Kraft
Mayonnaise and Wheat Thins. I guess if you wear a suit to your job in a
nice building on Madison Avenue, you are automatically entitled to more
respect than some brother who peddles crack 40 floors below.
Tanya
On 21 Jul 1997, Linda and Cliff Griffith wrote:
]".edu"??? IMO, this is a sad commentary.
]
]In <33D2D6...@u.washington.edu> "D. Stanley"
]<ic...@u.washington.edu> writes:
]>But Carroll O'Connor jsut kept on opening his fat mouth didn
]>'t he. He went on television to promote his racist agenda didn't he.
]>You are right, O'Connor should have kept his shut up and gone away.
]
]>IMO it isn't. So are we even now? Blame didn't help O'Connor, in
]fact
]>it made things worse by having to drag his fat ass into court.
]>
]>Forgiveness is in order, not blame.
]>Then why does the fat ass want to blame everyone but Hugh?
]>
]>Tell THAT to the fat ass O'Connor.
]>
]>So alcohol dealers are slime eh? Do you drink alcohol or coffee?
]
]>I hope O'Connor pays, and pays big.
]>
]>
]>--
]
]
]
Freeman
For those of you following along at home;
D. Stanley wrote:
<pre-snipped>
> Linda and Cliff Griffith wrote:
> >
> > ".edu"??? IMO, this is a sad commentary.
> THEN D. Stanley wrote:
> I always get a kick out of you, Cliffie and Linda. You seem to avoid
> the issue and attack the messenger.
> This pretty much invalidates your argument. But you never were very > good at it anyway.
Freeman adds:
UM, this sounds like a personal attack, to me...
does it invalidate *your* argument?
> What is a sad commentray is how people support racists like Carroll O'Connor. I suppose you are one too.
>
> Carroll O'Connor is nothing more than a bigot. No he isn't Archie
> Bunker. He is a person stuck inhis own self loathing.
>
cyli
Is it possible to defend someone from unjust accustaions even though
they are slime? Or at least assumed by most to be slime? Just on
principle? Such as defending a druggie (possibly a dealer) from
public accusations of being a murderer? I think so. I think that's
why we do the legal thing. And while I don't think the guy should get
a big judgement from O'Conner, I do think he should be upheld in court
and get at least a token amount. And that O'Conner should be ordered,
on contempt of court if he fails, to shut up.
I won't go into the whole matter of drugs and what I think of the US
laws about them. I'd spew too much.
On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 14:20:43 -0700, Tanya Noreen <tan...@seattleu.edu>
wrote:
>
> I think that D. Stanley has a good point. People in the U.S. are
>so hasty to decry "drug dealers"- by that I mean traffickers in illegal
>drugs such as cocaine and marijuana. However, drug dealers like RJR
>Nabisco and Philip Morriss get off with a wrist slap, and their products
>kill 400,000 people a year. Not only do they substantively escape public
>persecution, Americans continue to stuff their kitchen cabinets with Kraft
>Mayonnaise and Wheat Thins. I guess if you wear a suit to your job in a
>nice building on Madison Avenue, you are automatically entitled to more
>respect than some brother who peddles crack 40 floors below.
>
>
>Tanya
>
>
>On 21 Jul 1997, Linda and Cliff Griffith wrote:
>
>]".edu"??? IMO, this is a sad commentary.
>]
>]In <33D2D6...@u.washington.edu> "D. Stanley"
>]<ic...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>]>But Carroll O'Connor jsut kept on opening his fat mouth didn
>]>'t he. He went on television to promote his racist agenda didn't he.
>]>You are right, O'Connor should have kept his shut up and gone away.
>]
>]>IMO it isn't. So are we even now? Blame didn't help O'Connor, in
>]fact
>]>it made things worse by having to drag his fat ass into court.
>]>
>]>Forgiveness is in order, not blame.
>]>Then why does the fat ass want to blame everyone but Hugh?
>]>
>]>Tell THAT to the fat ass O'Connor.
>]>
>]>So alcohol dealers are slime eh? Do you drink alcohol or coffee?
>]
>]>I hope O'Connor pays, and pays big.
>]>
>]>
>]>--
>]>
>]>I call Christianity the one great curse, the one enormous
>]>And innermost perversion, the one great instinct of
>]>Revenge, for which no means are too venomous, too
>]>Underhand, too underground and too petty-I call it the
>]>One immortal blemish of mankind.
>]> Nietzsche, Ibid. 62
>]
>]
>]
>
"If I die of curiosity, who will entertain you with naive questions?"
I only answer my mail on an average of once every two months. Be patient.
Tanya Noreen
On Mon, 21 Jul 1997 jand...@csulb.edu wrote:
]good point, if it was booze instead of coke, this would be a different
]ballgame.
Exactly. And althought D. Stanley is maybe going a bit overboard
with the "the War on (some) Drugs- although I really like that phrase- has
a hidden racist agenda", his/her arguments, I think, do show that alcohol
and tobacco companies (which are mostly headed by white men) are not only
treated differently by our government, but by the public as a whole
(judging from the public reaction to Parseghian's suit). And this in a
country where alcoholism and nicotine addiction are rampant. Interesting.
Tanya
D. Stanley
Linda and Cliff Griffith wrote:
>
> <ic...@u.washington.edu> writes:
> >Until he learns that people have the right to put anything into their
> >bodies they want, he will continue to behave in a irrational and
> stupid
> >Cliffie and Linda.
>
> Goodness, no. You have a corner on that market.
Sorry Cliffie and Linda, I tried to purchase some logical fallacies just
the other day, but the distributor claimed you bought them all and you
were hoarding them like a survivalist.
Tanya Noreen
On Tue, 22 Jul 1997, cyli wrote:
]Is it possible to defend someone from unjust accustaions even though
]they are slime? Or at least assumed by most to be slime? Just on
]principle? Such as defending a druggie (possibly a dealer) from
]public accusations of being a murderer? I think so. I think that's
]why we do the legal thing. And while I don't think the guy should get
]a big judgement from O'Conner, I do think he should be upheld in court
]and get at least a token amount. And that O'Conner should be ordered,
]on contempt of court if he fails, to shut up.
I agree with you. The people who claim that because Parseghian
(sp?) is a convicted drug trafficker he should automatically forfeit his
rights are short-sighted and narrow-minded.
]I won't go into the whole matter of drugs and what I think of the US
]laws about them. I'd spew too much.
I'm right there with you.
Tanya
PattyC4303
In article <33D55B...@u.washington.edu>, "D. Stanley"
<ic...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
>Carroll O'Connor doesn't understand this. He could be ordered to shut
>up. But Carroll O'Connor needs a big lesson. A million dollar lesson.
>Then he may shut his fat trap.
>
>
MY thoughts.. I watched some of the testimony ... and I know this is
only about emotion... Caroll O'Conner is incredibly sympathetic as a
witness. The plaintiff is oily and appears flighty. Yeah, the law may
say O'Conner is wrong. Nonetheless, I hope that.. .IF the jury thinks
that.. they do the one dollar thing.. and tell Perzigian...how much they
think his "reputation" is worth. That creep did not need to bring that
family any more pain. Think he is sort of one of the ilk like Kato
Kaelin.. (one who does not have much himself to offer and has been hanging
around others for fun and money) and saw an opportunity with O'Conner's
unwise public statements....
PattyC
D. Stanley
Miniya wrote:
>
> From: "D. Stanley" <ic...@u.washington.edu>
> > >But Carroll O'Connor jsut kept on opening his fat mouth didn
> > >'t he. He went on television to promote his racist agenda didn't he.
> > >You are right, O'Connor should have kept his shut up and gone away.
>
> think I am sick? Anyone is fair game as long as they aren't a
> participant in the group.
>
> O'Connor actively supports the drug war. If you would read your history
> carefully you will note the War on (some) Drugs is racially motivated.
> From Herion and the Chinese, to blacks and latinos for marijuana.
>
> ***What racist agenda does O'Connor have? Just because he doesn't like
> drugs or drug dealers? Many drug dealers are white too you know; as are
> many users.
History has shown us the WoD is a racist one. O'Connor supports the war
and he knows the racist background of the war. Therefore his is a
racist agenda. And he does like drug dealers. He supported that fellow
actor from "In The Heat of the Night" who was a drug abuser.
And racism isn't about the color of your skin.
> > >IMO it isn't. So are we even now? Blame didn't help O'Connor, in
> > fact
> > >it made things worse by having to drag his fat ass into court.
>
> ***You sure do have aproblem with an old man being heavy. Good thing he
> isn't skinny; then you'd have nothing to say personally about his
> appearance, huh?
>
> You seem very tolerant of O'Connor's murderous threats thoug. Which is
> more ethical? Tolerating his threats, or being angry at person's like
> him?
>
> ***Gee, then Fred Goldman's murderous words about OJ must not mean
> anything to you either, huh?
Why bring Greedy Goldman into this?
> > >> choice for taking drugs lies with the one taking the drugs.
> > >
> > >Tell THAT to the fat ass O'Connor.
> Yes, I consider a personal affront to my liberty when assholes like
> O'Connor act like he does.
>
> ***Everyone is different. Who are you to tell anyone how to act? Why do
> the actions of someone who means nothing to you, that don't affect you in
> the least, piss you off so much? Unless you're a dealer, I can't see why
> this bothers you so.
Carroll O'Connor advocated violence. I think this is abhorrent? Why do
you like it?
>
> > >> If you
> > >> supply or sell drugs, you are slime in my opinion and deserve what
> > >> comes your way because of your choices.
> > >
> > >So alcohol dealers are slime eh? Do you drink alcohol or coffee?
>
> ***They said drugs - not alcohol. while it *is* a drug, you're surely
> smart enough to know what they were referring to.
Funny more people die from alcohol than from illegal drugs. But you
don't seem to care about them.
>
> > Don't consider them illegal drugs and no I do not drink alcohol or
> > coffee and coke or any thing containing those chemicals.
>
> You didn't say "illegal" drugs. Merely drugs. So now your dishonesty
> rears its ugly head.
>
> ***No justification for jumping down their throats like this; you knew
> what they meant by *drugs*.
The point is made that they seem to accept more dangerous drugs, like
alcohol, tobacco, but less dangerous ones like heroin and pot are
ostracized.
What is wrong with your world view?
> So now you end it with a non sequitur. Does it make you feel self
> righteous?
>
> ***No, I'm sure it didn't make them feel that way. Does your ranting make
> you?
Yes. Hatred of racists like O'Connor is appropriate. He needs to be
exposed for the racists and violent scum bag that he is and how his
wallowing in self pity causes him to be a danger to society.
Perky25731
In article <33DAAF...@u.washington.edu>, "D. Stanley"
<ic...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>History has shown us the WoD is a racist one. O'Connor supports the war
>and he knows the racist background of the war. Therefore his is a
>racist agenda. And he does like drug dealers. He supported that fellow
>actor from "In The Heat of the Night" who was a drug abuser.
>
>And racism isn't about the color of your skin.
Unless there was another drug abusing actor on the set of "In The Heat of
the Night" that I am unaware of, that "fellow actor" was Carol O'Connor's
son Hugh. Why would supporting his own son be construed as liking drug
dealers?
Lisa F. Wilson
Fianna
Tanya Noreen <tan...@seattleu.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.GSO.3.95.970722173236.29743C-100000@mozart-2>...
: On 21 Jul 1997, PattyC4303 wrote:
:
: ]She's baaaaack......
: ]Tanya, can't wait to see where you fall in with the JBR stuff lately.
:
: To be quite truthful, I haven't been paying too much
: attention...although the new evidence with the clothes seems to implicate
: bedwetting and Patsy. My question, though, is why change the *shirt* if
: she'd been wetting the bed---how would *it* have gotten wet? Having
never
: raised a child, I don't have any way of knowing if that normally happens.
<snip>
Just thought I'd jump in and say that when a child wets the bed, ALL of
their clothes get wet. :)
(crisisgal)
In <19970727161...@ladder01.news.aol.com> perky...@aol.com
You are unaware Lisa - the black detective Tibbs (sp?) was played by I
want to say Harold Rollings but don't know if that is right, was a
notarious cocaine addict. If I remember correctly O"Connor was
instrumental in getting him into rehab, but it didn't work and then he
was instrumental in see that he was terminated because his drug use was
interfering with filming, it was afterall a TV show that they were
producing and not a nursery for active drug users.
I am constantly amazed when people like the original poster become so
involved and judgmental and insert themselves in celebs lives. Like
making O'Connor a pivotal part of racial issues. Sheeze, he's an
actor. Get a life.
Crisis
Kathieb1
In article <19970727161...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
perky...@aol.com (Perky25731) writes:
>Unless there was another drug abusing actor on the set of "In The Heat of
>the Night" that I am unaware of, that "fellow actor" was Carol O'Connor's
>son Hugh. Why would supporting his own son be construed as liking drug
>dealers?
>
>Lisa F. Wilson
Harold Rollins Jr. is who he's likely referring to, though Rollins was NOT
a dealer. He was busted for cocaine about 10 yrs ago and it pretty much
ended his aspiring career. It is also speculated that this is how Rollins
contracted the AIDS virus which killed him last year, thru needles used to
shoot speedballs.
Kathie
"Though this may be play to you, 'Tis death to us" Robert L'Estrange
Perky25731
In article <19970727202...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
kath...@aol.com (Kathieb1) writes:
>Harold Rollins Jr. is who he's likely referring to, though Rollins was
NOT
>a dealer. He was busted for cocaine about 10 yrs ago and it pretty much
>ended his aspiring career. It is also speculated that this is how
Rollins
>contracted the AIDS virus which killed him last year, thru needles used
to
>shoot speedballs.
>
>Kathie
Thanks Kathie, the only fellow actor with a drug problem I was aware of
was O'Conner's son Hugh. I'm not sure which character Rollins Jr. played
but now that you mention the name I do vaguely remember hearing something
about it.
Lisa
Martha Sprowles
Perky25731 wrote:
>
> In article <33DAAF...@u.washington.edu>, "D. Stanley"
> <ic...@u.washington.edu> writes:
>
> >History has shown us the WoD is a racist one. O'Connor supports the war
> >and he knows the racist background of the war. Therefore his is a
> >racist agenda. And he does like drug dealers. He supported that fellow
> >actor from "In The Heat of the Night" who was a drug abuser.
> >
> >And racism isn't about the color of your skin.
>
> Unless there was another drug abusing actor on the set of "In The Heat of
> the Night" that I am unaware of, that "fellow actor" was Carol O'Connor's
> son Hugh. Why would supporting his own son be construed as liking drug
> dealers?
>
> Lisa F. Wilson
I think D. Stanley was referring to Howard Rollins, the black actor who
died ?last year? But I don't understand how CO'C's support of a
colleague, and for all I know, a friend, means he "likes" drug dealers.
And I don't know that Rollins *was* a drug dealer.
Martha Sprowles
Edward Eck
kath...@aol.com (Kathieb1) wrote:
>
>Somebody help me out with the character's name please....Harold Rollins
>Jr. played the black cop, the part played by Sidney Poitier in the
>excellent movie of the same name. Wasn't it Tibbs?
>
>Kathie
>
Tibbs. Virgil Tibbs. But...
"THEY CALL ME _MISTER_ TIBBS!"
E
