Posted on 03/09/2002 2:34:29 AM PST by MeekOneGOP
I thought of another angle.
"This poor woman was first victimized by this white guy who jumped through her windshield.
"She would have taken the guy to the hospital, but she knew the racists there would claim she intentionally ran the guy over. Of course, she didn't do it intentionally, but they would have called the police who would have charged her with murder--when in reality *she* was the victim of his diving into her windshield.
"Therefore, she had no choice but to bring the guy home and wait for him to die.
"She showed her good faith by not shooting him in the head---she just let nature take its course.
"This case just proves the need for laws allowing people to drop injured people off at hospital emergency room with "no questions asked"---just like we have for newborns."
We are talking of 'disregard of Human Life' here.
After decades of dead babies, what do you expect???
~ 3,000 = terrorists
~98,000 = abortion 'doctors'
I read about that. The council wanted to stop using the term minority as it was demeaning to non-whites.
However, I am sure that is still OK to use the terms honkey, cracker, redneck, and gringo, wherever and whenever you would like.
Yeah, see, it's not hard to understand.
A comparison of the Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts would make your hair stand on end.
The GSA was taken over in the early 80s by gender feminists. Why was GSA not included in the controversy over homosexuals like the BSA? Because back in the mid 80s they already put a rule in that said they wanted to be "inclusive of the gay, lesbian and transgendered communities."
Used to be the girls were prepared for a life of community service, homemaking and rearing a family.
You will NEVER hear any such thing uttered in the GS programs. Everything is about careers.
Also, unlike the Boy Scout troops, the GS troop is "short-lived," lasting only as long as the girls who started in the troop leave GS. Why? Because once the troop is started, they seldom allow any new girls in the troop.
Again, why, do you ask? Because they cater to the pre-teen and adolescent girls' tendency to be cliquish and exclusive. When I first heard a proud parent-leader of her daughter's troop mention how "these seven girls have been in this since they were Brownies," I asked "Why has the troop not grown beyond that number?"
"Oh!" she said with a hint of condescension, "of course the girls have really bonded and it wouldn't do to have an outsider come in and mess everything up!"
Now, this was obvious to her, since she was undoubtedly a petty little girl who grew up to be a petty woman. But I contrast that with my Church's "Young Women" program, where the organization is static but the girls come in at 12 and leave at 18, the older girls helping and "mentoring" the younger, and the rule is that new members must be made to feel welcome.
After their first priority, spiritual development and a relationship with Jesus Christ, they don't talk about careers. They DO talk about the importance of education because one must be prepared for life's challenges.
But the expectation is that they will desire to be wives and mothers, and so they also learn homemaking skills, first aid, and above all, service to others.
The difference is like night and day. And that's why I say: This Millard "woman"'s credentials as a former Girl Scout don't impress me positively; in fact, if anything, it just lends creedence to the evidence that the woman was so self-absorbed that she had no real problem allowing a man to slowly bleed to death rather than face up to her responsibilities to her fellow creatures.
I get furious every time I think about it.
This is guaranteed by our Constitution, something we consider rather important on this forum. Leave the attorney alone. Someone has to do it.
You are correct. But when I hear the angle this criminal defense attorney takes and the language regarding his client is the VICTIM, I can't help but feel disgust for her and the lawyer. Making this murderer out to be victim makes a mockery out of what's left of our justice system. . .
You are totally out of line Jerk!!!!!!!
The informant is a hero. Someone should take care of her. She did the right thing.
The fact that nobody is buying this line of victimology BS is a good sign, and maybe it's even a good thing for the defense attorney to raise. That type of thinking needs a good public whacking.
In a weird sense, the defense attorney may be doing us a favor.
Thanks Doug. I hope it doesn't happen that way, too.
In Texas, abominations are typically recognized by all folks, unlike those selected for duty in the O.J. trial.
Of course there was "intent." She "intended" to let the guy die while he was lodged in her windshield. She apparently had numerous opportunities to get help for him, but chose the "easy" route: Let the guy die, and then she'll get friends to dispose of his body.
Not only was there "intent," my friend, but there was PREMEDITATION. You can't tell me she thought he'd just heal up and walk off under his own power. No, she knew the guy would die, and her problem would be solved.
She deserves a capital murder conviction and a trip to the gurney.
Oh, and BTW: Courts have already ruled that a drunk driver who kills someone, was "premeditative," in that he chose to drink and drive. That he didn't INTEND to hurt anyone is irrelevant. He didn't care and someone died.
Same as this b**ch.
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.