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 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 821-826 next last
To: Cultural Jihad
... calling me a 'ill-humored boozer',

If the shoe fits, wear it, but check first to make sure there's no libertarian-approved C4 plastic explosives inside.

Obviously, the silly shoe you attemped to place doesn't fit.
- In fact, if anyone reads YOUR late night postings, -- it is pretty evident that you are the substance abuser around here, not I.

Most are even more incoherant than your C4 bit above.

261 posted on 06/15/2002 10:11:23 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]

To: William Terrell
Do you imagine that should all cousciousness altering substances vanish from the face of the Earth, it would make any difference at all in how human beings treat one another?

I never said that. What I *did* suggest is that people who use mind-altering substances tend to negatively impact other human beings more so than those who don't.
262 posted on 06/15/2002 10:21:50 AM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 246 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79, drlevy88, William Terrell
Why is it so hard to believe that a drug, designed to totally screw up your perception of reality, would cause a normally responsible person to do unimaginable things?

It's not; in fact, I would argue that it makes it that much more likely that people will act on the counsel of their inner demons...
263 posted on 06/15/2002 10:23:43 AM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 259 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
You agree then, - that the feds are violating our constitutional rights with a WOD's

Let's hear your reasoning regarding the so-called "unconstitutionality" of the WOD.
264 posted on 06/15/2002 10:25:10 AM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 247 | View Replies]

To: LindaSOG
re: Statistics on Alcohol Arrests, etc..

My position on all recreational drugs (booze, pot, cocaine, etc) is simple: I wouldn't mind if the federal government banned 'em all. A drug is a drug. While banning alcohol would undoubtedly cause some people to break the law, the fact of the matter is that a smaller percentage of the population uses illicit drugs than would if they were available at Eckerd Drugstore.
265 posted on 06/15/2002 10:28:09 AM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
The US Constitution was amended (18th) before the FED could prohibit alcohol. However, for drugs, they just snuck it in under the commerce clause. Why would alcohol prohibition require an amendment, yet drugs do not?

To use the commerce clause, that would only effect the transport and sale of drugs. How is it that they can also put federal charges on you for mere ownership?

266 posted on 06/15/2002 10:38:23 AM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
The FED is violating our rights with drug prohibition because they are not Constitutionally authorized to do such a thing, whereas states are (see 9th & 10th amendments).

HOOT ALERT! -- Aggie claims that states are authorized to violate our constitution, by the bill of rights themselves! -- Wild & weird reasoning tex. - Thanks.

Why isn't a violation of our rights when a state prohibits a substance? Because you choose to live in that state. If the majority of that state sees a certain substance as too threatening, then it can outlaw it. Or it can pass the decision down to counties and let each one decide for itself. You bought your land, knowing that it is bound by the state and county laws. You have no right to violate those laws on your land, because you did not purchase that right with the land. If you don't like the laws, you are free to leave.

The U.S. Constitution is the 'Law of the Land', and it guarantees that all states shall have a republican form of government. - Art IV, Sec 4.

States were given NO powers to prohibit 'substances', or any other type of property. -- In fact, the 14th specifically says that states cannot deprive persons of life, liberty or property without due process.
-- Prohibitory type law is not due process, it is a taking, - a banning of property before it can be used for 'evil'.

Tex, -- we've went over these elementry constitutional principles many times before. -- When will you begin to realize their truth & wisdom? - You are arguing against your own liberty.

267 posted on 06/15/2002 10:49:11 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Aggie claims that states are authorized to violate our constitution

The USC does not prohibit prohibition. It simply does not authorize the FED to do it. This is quite elementary my old friend.

268 posted on 06/15/2002 10:52:38 AM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
The U.S. Constitution is the 'Law of the Land', and it guarantees that all states shall have a republican form of government. - Art IV, Sec 4.

States were given NO powers to prohibit 'substances', or any other type of property. -- In fact, the 14th specifically says that states cannot deprive persons of life, liberty or property without due process.
-- Prohibitory type law is not due process, it is a taking, - a banning of property before it can be used for 'evil'. - 267 by tpaine

The USC does not prohibit prohibition. It simply does not authorize the FED to do it. - tex

You are simply denying the constitutional facts as I posted them just above. -- Do you consider this an argument?

269 posted on 06/15/2002 11:07:09 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
People infected by engaging in sodomy and shooting up drugs donated blood.

If people knowingly donate AIDS infected blood then they should be prosecuted.

The blood bank that failed to detect the infected blood should be investigated and possibly prosecuted for negligence.

270 posted on 06/15/2002 11:14:44 AM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

"Due process" defined by the handy Insta-Ideologuese-to-English translation service: "No one asked for my permission to ban recreational poisons or private nuclear weapons, and therefore the law is null and void."

271 posted on 06/15/2002 11:20:26 AM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
The fact that ownership of hard drugs violates the rights of your neighbors is far beyond due process in order to arrest you for possesion.
272 posted on 06/15/2002 11:34:17 AM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: LindaSOG
I am not arguing with you.

I reject the premise that crack should be legalized because people drink beer.

273 posted on 06/15/2002 11:36:03 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 245 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
The U.S. Constitution is the 'Law of the Land', and it guarantees that all states shall have a republican form of government. - Art IV, Sec 4.

States were given NO powers to prohibit 'substances', or any other type of property. -- In fact, the 14th specifically says that states cannot deprive persons of life, liberty or property without due process.
-- Prohibitory type law is not due process, it is a taking, - a banning of property before it can be used for 'evil'.
- 267 by tpaine

"Due process" defined by the handy Insta-Ideologuese-to-English translation service: "No one asked for my permission to ban recreational poisons or private nuclear weapons, and therefore the law is null and void."

An idiotic, jihadic 'interpretation' of plain english words, quoting a very easy to understand U.S. Constitution.

274 posted on 06/15/2002 11:42:48 AM PDT by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: Alan Chapman
The blood bank that failed to detect the infected blood should be investigated and possibly prosecuted for negligence.

And the root causes should be ignored? How irrational.

People who engage in sodomy and shooting up drugs have sold disease contaminated blood and infected others.

275 posted on 06/15/2002 11:42:49 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

Comment #276 Removed by Moderator

To: tpaine
The U.S. Constitution is the 'Law of the Land', and it guarantees that all states shall have a republican form of government. - Art IV, Sec 4.

"The catholic principle of republicanism is that every people may establish what form of government they please and change it as they please, the will of the nation being the only thing essential." --Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1792.

"The mother principle [is] that 'governments are republican only in proportion as they embody the will of their people, and execute it.'" --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

"A government is republican in proportion as every member composing it has his equal voice in the direction of its concerns: not indeed in person, which would be impracticable beyond the limits of a city or small township, but by representatives chosen by himself and responsible to him at short periods." --Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval, 1816.

277 posted on 06/15/2002 11:47:33 AM PDT by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
What are rights and how does one go about defining them. Do rights come from society? From government? How many rights are there?

Do you support alcohol prohibition?

278 posted on 06/15/2002 11:50:43 AM PDT by Alan Chapman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

Comment #279 Removed by Moderator

To: LindaSOG
Seen that a hundred times on these threads. Doesn't change the fact that stories like the article in this thread happen as a DIRECT result of taking hard drugs.
280 posted on 06/15/2002 11:52:40 AM PDT by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 821-826 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