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 ...
You moron, IT HAPPENED WHILE THEY ARE ILLEGAL! So what are you jabbering about?
Because the Constitution does not specifically prohibit Congress from doing something is not a grant of power to do it.
So it is your belief that drugs are responsible and not the people that commit the acts? Shouldn't you be calling for his release and rehabilitation since it is obvious that he wasn't in control of his faculties at the time? It was, after all, the evil drug(tm) that made him do it.
A beautiful young girl was recently killed at a hockey game by violent players who didn't know what they were doing. They'd even laughed at the dangers to bystanders in the past. They weren't laughing after they'd beaned the poor girl in the temple with a hockey puck.
And damn if Skakel didn't bean his girlfriend with a golf club after being drunk, implicating both golf and alcohol.
So combining with the above article in which the victim was beaned with a baseball bat, it is clear the only thing illegal in all these cases was the amphetamine. If we'd banned alcohol, hockey pucks, golf clubs and baseball bats, this could all have been avoided (since drugs in general are already banned, unfortunately we can't blame them)
Possessing a weapon is not a threat. Pointing it at someone is. The threat is not the device itself but the act of pointing it at somebody.
The same rule applies to explosives. The device itself is not the threat. The threat stems from the act of pointing it at someone (bringing it to within range of another). Because explosives are indiscriminate, anyone in the blast radius is essentially having a weapon pointed at them. Unless they have consented to this condition, they could make a legitimate argument that a weapon is being pointed at them and would thus be morally justified in the application of force to defend themselves.
The right to keep and bear arms is an unalienable right. Smoking dope and shooting methamphetamine are not.
The right to keep and bear arms is essential to personal and national security and self-defense. Smoking dope and shooting methampetamine are utterly devoid of any virtue outside of getting a user stoned so he can act like an ass (or, as in this case, beat a 12 year-old boy nearly to death).
In short, there is essential and transcendent virtue in the Second Amendment that justifies denying power to government to prohibit personal ownership of guns despite the fact that some citizens will misuse guns.
There is no essential virtue in dope and meth use. They are useful only to advance George Soros's "doper-victim" nanny government socialist agenda.
Whooo boy, did you just let a stinker. So Congress can do anything not in the Constitution? So they could take everything you own? The states are meaningless and federalism has come to naught? In other words, you believe yourself a slave?
I think you misunderstood what I said.
Apparently, life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not unalienable rights to you. Therefore, let's just all pack it in boys, where are the manacles? Sign me up first to be a puddinhead who can't even control my bladder without help from the government.
Actually, I don't know anyone who does meth, plenty who do MJ. But since meth is so easy to make (in a bath tub) I suspect it's harder TO FIND for most people because it just isn't as popular cause of the side effects. But the cops find a lab once a week in the hotels, so it is about as easy to find as can be in out already utopian drug-illegal world.
Do you have any alcohol in your house? Any mind-altering drugs in your medicine cabinet? Pain-relievers? Sleeping pills? Anti-depressants? Stimulants? Muscle-relaxants? Cold-medicine? Would your neighbors be morally justified in dragging you out of your house and kicking your ass because you consumed an intoxicant?
Just as leftist liberals like to blame guns for crime you like to blame drugs. It isn't the use of something that is a crime. It is the misuse.
You have a habit of changing the subject when you get your butt kicked in an argument. Stick to the subject. - 56 by OWK
The subject is: can an inanimate object be so much of a threat, that by owning it, you violate your neighbors rights? - 58 by Texaggie79
amen to that one, bro. this shlub will do everything except admit that he/she is a pure statist.
even after confronted with the question: if it is not YOUR life based on what you can do with it, barring anarchy, WHOSE life is it? i still have to get an answer on that one. since i never have, not even once, i no longer correspond with them. they are like babies who plug their ears and say "nanana cant hear you", when faced with their own identity.
the children will not admit that their beliefs imply the life of the individual belongs to the state.
Yep, once again tex-baby has demonstrated his sophomoronic inability to present a coherent logical point on 'inanimate objects'. - His infantile stance is a wonder to behold.
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?
And it would be in the best interest to those around him also. So, if you make some facility where it would be legal to do hard drugs if the users were locked in rooms where they could not get out and harm anyone while high, I would be fine with that.
Excellent point. The pro-legalization ideologues are not arguing about Constitutional issues, but rather they are advocating moral-liberal arguments for legalization, period.
Ah, I get it. No more meth, no more unleashing murderous rage on a little boy again. Correlation/causation fallacy. First indication one is evaluating based on external conditioning rather than thought and logic.
I'd be fine with it too so long as it's voluntary and so long as the facility is funded with private money.
So the relative convenience to you and to others personally should be the sole criteria whether something should be tolerated or not tolerated? You would allow consensual gladiator fights to the consensual death for that consensual million dollar prize on consensual pay-per-view? There are enough poor people in the world who would consent to such a risk for such a reward. Clearly, the moral-liberal vision for the world is one of a dark age where only the strong and the rich will survive, while the poor, the artless, the powerless, the infirm, the innocent, and the elderly will not fare very well indeed.
No, not the convenience. Work is less convenient than theft but theft should not be tolerated because it violates rights. Work does not. So, the criteria by which to determine what is, and isn't, allowed is wether or not it violates rights.
You would allow consensual gladiator fights to the consensual death for that consensual million dollar prize on consensual pay-per-view?
If two people are foolish enough to consent to such a match then the consequences would be theirs alone to bear. You would be free to protest on the sidewalk and pass out if you wished.
...the moral-liberal vision for the world is one of a dark age where only the strong and the rich will survive, while the poor, the artless, the powerless, the infirm, the innocent, and the elderly will not fare very well indeed.
What you've described is what we have now.
The world I envision is one where rights are respected, both of people and property, where no one can use government to plunder his neighbor, and where people are free to enjoy the rewards that come with making responsible decisions in life, while the people who make irresponsible decisions can no longer force others to share in the consequences.