Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge sentences man to 25 years for beating trick-or-treater
AP ^ | June 12, 2002

Posted on 06/12/2002 11:57:24 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad

Edited on 04/12/2004 5:38:44 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

VICTORVILLE, Calif. (AP) - A man described by a judge as "an evil monster" was sentenced to 25 years in prison for using a baseball bat, metal pipe and golf club to attack a 12-year-old Halloween trick-or-treater on his doorstep.


(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820821-826 next last
To: tpaine
"BS. -- Your first post here was a direct attack on my lack of 'conservatism'."

Incorrect. My first post questioned your knowledge of conservatism based on your replies in this thread.

"Yet you've never argued specifically as to my supposed 'intent'."

I haven't mentioned your intent. I have mentioned what appear to be your conclusions regarding other peoples' intent.

"As I've said, your first few posts here convinced me that your opinion is not one I can value."

That's too bad. Your outlook would greatly benefit by instruction and perspective in the smallest of doses.

"It's unfortunate indeed that you have irrational ideas about libertarians."

I don't have irrational ideas about libertarians. Every opinion I've expressed to you regarding libertarians and libertarian ideas in this thread is expressed here daily by libertarians themselves.

801 posted on 06/17/2002 2:32:42 PM PDT by Chunga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 798 | View Replies]

To: Chunga
Unsupported denials.

Get that therapy, and we'll talk again.

802 posted on 06/17/2002 2:58:05 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 801 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
In the example I cited, the President doesn't know the intentions of the hijackers.

Thus, he would be committing murder upon innocent civilians were he to sign their death order. It's not that complicated. And regardless of what the FAA considers "reasonable", it has no authority to abridge our rights.

803 posted on 06/17/2002 3:04:13 PM PDT by Demidog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 799 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
--- it is the earnest belief of the FAA that allowing passengers and crew to be armed is a recipe for disaster. Pilots and crew are not law enforcement officers nor should we pretend they are. Thus, it does not seem that authorities are failing to do anything which would prevent the situation from occurring to begin with.

----------------------------

Ahhh yes, we must put our faith & trust in the 'earnest beliefs' of the bureaucratic agencys of government. -- They know best. They're here to help.

Frankly dearie, I'll put my trust in the judgement of a well armed pilot & copilot in a secured cockpit. - But of course, -- our fine 'authorities' won't even 'allow us' such a choice.

-- So it goes in a free *bushbot* republic.

804 posted on 06/17/2002 3:13:40 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 799 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"Unsupported denials..."

"'It's unfortunate indeed that you have irrational ideas about libertarians...'"

I'm noticing that you're finding it increasingly difficult to argue your points; in fact, you haven't made one in quite a while.

Anyway, for your benefit, edification and enlightenment, here's support for my "irrational ideas" from Robert Bork:

"Libertarians join forces with modern liberals in opposing censorship, though libertarians are far from being modern liberals in other respects. For one thing, libertarians do no like the coercion that necessarily accompanies radical egalitarianism. But because both libertarians and modern liberals are oblivious to social reality, both demand radical personal autonomy in expression. That is one reason libertarians are not to be confused, as they often are, with conservatives. They are quasi- or semiconservatives. Nor are they to be confused with classical liberals, who considered restraints on individual autonomy to be essential.

"The nature of the liberal and libertarian errors is easily seen in discussions of pornography. The leader of the explosion of pornographic videos, described admiringly by a competitor as the Ted Turner of the business, offers the usual defenses of decadence: 'Adults have the right to see [pornography] if they want to. If it offends you, don't buy it.' Those statements neatly sum up both the errors and the (unintended) perniciousness of the alliance between libertarians and modern liberals with respect to popular culture.

"Modern liberals employ the rhetoric of 'rights' incessantly, not only to delegitimate the idea of restraints on individuals by communities but to prevent discussion of the topic. Once something is announced, usually flatly or stridently, to be a right --whether pornography or abortion or what have you-- discussion becomes difficult to impossible. Rights inhere in the person, are claimed to be absolute, and cannot be deminished or taken away by reason; in fact, reason that suggests the non-existence of an asserted right is viewed as a moral evil by the claimant. If there is to be anything that can be called a community, rather than an agglomeration of hedonists, the case for previously unrecognized individual freedoms (as well as some that have been previously recognized) must be thought through and argued, and "rights" cannot win every time. Why there is a right for adults to enjoy pornography remains unexplained and unexplainable.

"The second bit of advice --'If it offends you, don't buy it' -- is both lulling and destructive. Whether you buy it or not, you will be greatly affected by those who do. The aesthetic and moral environment in which you and your family live will be coarsened and degraded. Economists call the effects an activity has on others 'externalities'; why so many of them do not understand the externalities here is a mystery. They understand quite well that a person who decides not to run a smelter will nevertheless be seriously affected if someone else runs one nearby.

"Free market economists are particularly vulnerable to the libertarian virus. They know that free economic exchanges usually benefit both parties to them. But they mistake that general rule for a universal rule. Benefits do not invariably result from free market exchanges. When it comes to pornography or addictive drugs, libertarians all too often confuse the idea that markets should be free with the idea that everything should be available on the market. The first of those ideas rests on the efficacy of the free market in satisfying wants. The second ignores the question of which wants it is moral to satisfy. That is a question of an entirely different nature. I have heard economists say that, as economists, they do no deal with questions of morality. Quite right. But nobody is just an economist. Economists are also fathers and mothers, husbands or wives, voters citizens, members of communities. In these latter roles, they cannot avoid questions of morality.

"The externalities of depictions of violence and pornography are clear. To complaints about those products being on the market, libertarians respond with something like 'Just hit the remote control and change channels on your TV set.' But, like the person who chooses not to run a smelter while others do, you, your family, and your neighbors will be affected by the people who do not change the channel, who do rent the pornographic videos, who do read alt.sex.stories. As film critic Michael Medved put it: ' To say that if you don't like the popular culture, then turn it off, is like saying if you don't like the smog, stop breathing. . . .There are Amish kids in Pennsylvania who know about Madonna.' And their parents can do nothing about it.

"Can there be any doubt that as pornography and depictions of violence become increasingly popular and increasingly accessible, attitudes about marriage, fidelity, divorce, obligations to children, the use of force, and permissible public behavior and language will change? Or that with the changes in attitudes will come changes in conduct, both public and private? We have seen those changes already and they are continuing. Advocates of liberal arts education assure us that those studies improve character. Can it be that only uplifting reading affects character and the most degrading reading has no effects whatever? 'Don't buy it' and 'change the channel,' however intended, are effectively advice to accept a degenerating culture and its consequences.

"The obstacles to censorship of pornographic and viloence-filled materials are, of course, enormous. Radical individualism in such matters is now pervasive even among sedate, upper middle-class people. At a dinner I sat next to a retired Army general who was no a senior corporate executive. The subject of Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs came up. This most conventional of dinner companions said casually that people ought to be allowed to see whatever they wanted to see. It would seem to follow that others ought to be allowed to do whatever some want to see.... Any serious attempt to root out the worst in our popular culture may be doomed unless the judiciary comes to understand that the First Amendment was adopted for good reasons, and those reasons did not include the furtherance of radical personal autonomy."

Robert Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, pp. 150-152.

805 posted on 06/17/2002 3:21:46 PM PDT by Chunga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 802 | View Replies]

To: Chunga
"Unsupported denials..."
"'It's unfortunate indeed that you have irrational ideas about libertarians...'"

I'm noticing that you're finding it increasingly difficult to argue your points; in fact, you haven't made one in quite a while

What part of, -- 'I don't CARE what you 'notice', -- is hard for you to understand? -- I've heard your type of bull from many more talented slingers than you, ad nauseum.
---- Butt out. -- And shove your *bork* where the sun don't shine, on the way.

806 posted on 06/17/2002 3:47:29 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"What part of, -- 'I don't CARE what you 'notice', -- is hard for you to understand?"

"I've heard your type of bull from many more talented slingers than you, ad nauseum.

---- Butt out. -- And shove your *bork* where the sun don't shine, on the way.

I'm not surprised that you'd like me to "butt out." I've shown you that my points, which you have referred to as "irrational," are in line with a constitutional scholar and conservative jurist nonpareil who is the scourge of the left, and your reply is to euphemize whatever it is you'd like me to "shove where the sun don't shine" with the man's name.

Your replies are more pointless than your opinions (which would be better informed were you to read Bork's words, provided above by yours truly for your edification and enlightenment).

Help me help you, tpaine. You need it desperately.

807 posted on 06/17/2002 4:03:35 PM PDT by Chunga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

Comment #808 Removed by Moderator

To: Chunga
Thank you for posting an exert of Robert Bork's book. I know why the liberals hated him now. He makes perfect sence.
809 posted on 06/17/2002 4:46:11 PM PDT by LowOiL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 805 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
You said in earlier posts,

"I advocate the stablity of our constitutional principles" and

"Original constitutional principles suit us just fine."

Robert Bork is one of the pre-eminent Constitutional scholars of our time. He is a conservative jurist and a strict constructionist regarding the law and the Constitution. Surely, anyone advocating "the stability of our constitutional principles" will be interested in Bork's opinion...unless, of course, the person is utterly ignorant of what he thinks he's advocating (and it should be apparent to anyone reading your replies that your ignorance of Constitutional principles is worthy of a public-school dropout).

810 posted on 06/17/2002 4:47:18 PM PDT by Chunga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 806 | View Replies]

To: Lowelljr
What the Democrats did to Bork might be the biggest travesty in the history of the Senate Judiciary Committee (at least Clarence Thomas made it through the fire).
811 posted on 06/17/2002 4:52:32 PM PDT by Chunga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 809 | View Replies]

To: Chunga; cultural jihad
You ARE an amusing twit, chungy, -- I'll grant you that, but please, -- find someone else to bother.
- More your own speed. -- Maybe you could attack the jihadic cultist. He's weird, doesn't have a clue about 'conservatism' and he likes abusive attention.
812 posted on 06/17/2002 4:53:06 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 807 | View Replies]

To: Chunga
Sorry. I just don't like Bork. It's a *nixon* type thing.
- No way would I buy a used car from the man.
813 posted on 06/17/2002 5:00:11 PM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 810 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
"No way would I buy a used car from the man."

What did he do? Give an honest opinion on Roe v Wade before the Judiciary Committee? Is it the goatee or the voice which would serve him well in broadcasting?

What? What?

814 posted on 06/17/2002 5:06:43 PM PDT by Chunga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 813 | View Replies]

To: Chunga
What the Democrats did to Bork might be the biggest travesty in the history of the Senate Judiciary Committee (at least Clarence Thomas made it through the fire).

I have to admit, I was not the best versed (young and not mature enough politically) when the Bork thing hit the fan. I was given tid bits and could find nothing wrong with the man. I have had the pleasure to read several of Clarence Thomas's opinions on cases (where he cared to write an opinion). I have great respect for the man and having read an exert of Bork's book (thank you for posting it) I feel I must agree with you. His book looks to be a wonder read, and a futherment of my education in the right direction.

Thanks

Low OiL

815 posted on 06/17/2002 5:34:07 PM PDT by LowOiL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 811 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Ahhh yes, we must put our faith & trust in the 'earnest beliefs' of the bureaucratic agencys of government. -- They know best. They're here to help. Frankly dearie, I'll put my trust in the judgement of a well armed pilot & copilot in a secured cockpit. - But of course, -- our fine 'authorities' won't even 'allow us' such a choice. -- So it goes in a free *bushbot* republic.

I wouldn't. The average age of pilots nowadays is near 50. I trust 'em to fly the airplane. I don't trust 'em to shoot straight with little or no training; and worse, damage the avionics equipment with stray bullets. In this case, the FAA made the right call. Guns in the cockpit would create more harm than good.
816 posted on 06/17/2002 11:43:50 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 804 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Incredibile. -- You can, and are, rationalizing away your own freedom & safety to selfstyled 'authorities' .
-- The FAA are a bunch of bureaucratic clowns who have absolutely no expertise OR any constitutuional power to tell airline captains - or their companies, how to best protect the lives of passengers.
817 posted on 06/18/2002 12:16:39 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 816 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Incredibile. -- You can, and are, rationalizing away your own freedom & safety to selfstyled 'authorities' . -- The FAA are a bunch of bureaucratic clowns who have absolutely no expertise OR any constitutuional power to tell airline captains - or their companies, how to best protect the lives of passengers.

No, wrong. It's common sense. I've been in a cockpit before: You put a bullet through the avionics equipment and you're cooked. In my opinion, the best way to handle hijackers is specially trained air marshals and better security at airports. Handing weapons to cowboy pilots is not a good idea. They aren't trained sufficiently.
818 posted on 06/18/2002 6:24:47 AM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 817 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Ahem, -- the pilot would be shooting AWAY from the avionics at an attacker attempting to bust through a secured door. -- But don't let reality intrude upon your dreams that big brother at FAA can make the world safe.

Defending the unconstitutional Bush decision to violate a pilots RKBA's is sheer political jingoism.

819 posted on 06/18/2002 8:35:03 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 818 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Ahem, -- the pilot would be shooting AWAY from the avionics at an attacker attempting to bust through a secured door. -- But don't let reality intrude upon your dreams that big brother at FAA can make the world safe. Defending the unconstitutional Bush decision to violate a pilots RKBA's is sheer political jingoism.

Rrrrrrrright. I can't imagine that you'd ever considered the possibility of a struggle between a hijacker and a pilot and the consequences what might happen...
820 posted on 06/18/2002 1:14:46 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 819 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 761-780781-800801-820821-826 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson