Skip to comments.Judge sentences man to 25 years for beating trick-or-treater
Posted on 06/12/2002 11:57:24 PM PDT by Cultural JihadEdited 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 ...
Nice strawman. That isn't what I said and wether something has a "responsible use" is irrelevant.
The use of something is not, and cannot, be a crime. It is the misuse of something that is a crime. This applies to guns, drugs, cars, knives, baseball bats, and liquor.
If somebody intoxicates himself with liquor and then drives his car over somebody then hold the individual accountable for his actions. But, don't institute prohibition of alcohol or cars.
Because some have chosen to abuse their freedom is no justfication to restrict the freedom of all.
Sure amused at your duplicity though:
by Texaggie79 to tpaine:
On General Interest Jun 12 3:29 PM #643 of 794
---- I oppose the Federal WOD. -----
-- Yet here you are, two days later, playing drug warrior again. --- Have you no shame? - No honor? - No memory?
SO if I USE a nuke on my property, it can't be a crime? That's idiotic. The point here is other's rights. When you put crack or meth, ect in your body, you no longer can control yourself, not even as much as a person that had a few beers can. You are incapable of acting responsible and you are a threat to me, as your neighbor. You are violating my rights, and the gov has the moral authority to step in.
BTW, there's some guy with my name over here who is against the WOD. Whoever could he be?
"Your supposed right to destroy yourself infringes on my right to pursue happiness, being sad at having to sit by and watch people needlessly suffer and die. When you abrogate the unalienable right to life, doing so abrogates my unalienble right to pursue happiness, being sad at watching people needlessly suffer and die." - The Forecastle
Do you agree with the above?
If you can't see there IS no essential difference, -- YOU need the meds, not I.
If you use a nuke on your property and it harms others then it's a crime. The government has used nukes on its property many times. That isn't the crime. However, some US soliders were deliberately exposed to the fallout and others were told to look into the flash without protective eyewear for research. Those are crimes. The misuse is the crime.
You could have a nuke on your property but if somebody lives within the blast radius then they would be morally justified in defending themselves.
When you put crack or meth, ect in your body, you no longer can control yourself, not even as much as a person that had a few beers can.
Then it would be in a person's best interest to use those drugs under supervision. It's called being responsible.
You are incapable of acting responsible and you are a threat to me, as your neighbor. You are violating my rights, and the gov has the moral authority to step in.
Gun-control advocates make the same argument about guns. They're just as wrong as you. Everyone is capable of acting responsibly.
Remind me never to accept their invitation to go to a ... shooting range.
So crystal meth is the same as a baseball bat? Remind me never to allow my son to join your little league.
All the stats have shown that the really hard stuff never got popular until the softer stuff was made illegal and harder to get. The WOD created thousands upon thousands of salesmen out to make a buck off of illegal substances. It didn't take them long to expand their product line. And it wasn't hard to convince the dopes to try them. A fact that is constantly ignored by the warrior crowd.
The law of unintended consequences cannot be repealed.
Laws are never established with the goal of thwarting free will, just that the exercise of that free will is no longer done with impunity.
That is truly sad that you have a son. The world doesn't need another potential Ayatolla.
Good points. If there were a designer drug which robbed people's ability to offer consent, to earn a living, to sit on juries, and to vote, in other words, robbed them of their ability to be responsible citizens and effectively turns them into inhuman slaves and zombies of the drug, would the ideologues laud its use as a 'human right'? The answer is 'yes' they would. That is why the vast majority of Americans have rejected their ideology.
Liberals always try to blame society for the bad actions of others. There are meth users who are clubbing trick-or-treaters only because marijuana is illegal (and more plentiful and cheaper) than meth? "It's all society's fault that there are criminals!" whines the liberals in their cop-out.
And this is supposed to be in some way sillier than blaming inanimate objects?