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 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380 ... 821-826 next last
To: Alan Chapman
No it isn't. It is totally relevant that the intended use of a hard drug is a threat to those around the user, therefore a violation of their rights.
To: FastCoyote
What is so hard about a yes/no question? Our systems of laws are more complex than the simplistic formulations of libertines.
Some alcoholic beverages are legal, some aren't. Some drugs are legal, some aren't.
342
posted on
06/15/2002 1:52:39 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: FastCoyote
...you [Roscoe]
are analgous to the idiot Mrs. Swan character on Mad TV.That's an insult to Ms. Swan.
To: Texaggie79
If the state, without consent of the majority suddenly banned bicycles just for the heck of it, that would be arbitrary and purposeless. -- tex You got 'it' on bikes, -- to bad you can't understand the same principle appies to booze, guns, -- and even drugs. - 324 by tpaine
That is because the majority of the state supports hard drug prohibition, therefore it is not arbitrary; and they support that position because they view it as too much of a threat, therefore it is not purposeless.
What can I say to that bit of nonsense? - I'll assume that you THINK you've made a point. -- In actuality I'd guess its a vaguely circular argument. -- Care to explain?
344
posted on
06/15/2002 1:54:55 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: Alan Chapman
So, do you believe rights come from government, society, or Ben Franklin? Different rights have different sources. The right to swim in a public pool comes from society.
Where do you contend that right comes from?
345
posted on
06/15/2002 1:55:27 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: John H K
So what about the tens of thousands of violent beatings administered by drunk people in this country, as well?
So what about them? They should get the same as this creep. As for me, I've never gotten so drunk that I didn't know what the hell I was doing!
It's called personal responsibility...you don't know what it is? You better ask somebody.
To: Alan Chapman
You're letting your frustration get to you.
347
posted on
06/15/2002 1:57:02 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: Alan Chapman
We need a bigger 2X4.
348
posted on
06/15/2002 1:57:19 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: LindaSOG
So you lemme see. You and a stranger are in the same room. You can choose whether that strange man will either have some shots of premium tequila, or he take some military grade PCP(made for the purpose of giving a man superhuman strength and aggression). Which would you choose?
To: tpaine
I have shown not only that hard drugs can be Constitutionally prohibited by states, but also that there is just cause to do so.
To: Texaggie79
I don't answer silly 'roscoe' type questions.
351
posted on
06/15/2002 2:00:17 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: Texaggie79
...the intended use of a hard drug is a threat to those around the user, therefore a violation of their rights.The intended use of a hard drug guns is a threat to those around the user, therefore a violation of their rights.
The intended use of a hard drug religion is a threat to those around the user, therefore a violation of their rights.
The intended use of a hard drug speech is a threat to those around the user, therefore a violation of their rights.
To: tpaine
Translation: I really don't have an argument, but I will try to keep the facade going that I do have one by refusing to answer.
To: tpaine
Sourceless is as sourceless does.
354
posted on
06/15/2002 2:01:58 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: Alan Chapman
All three are guaranteed rights bud.............
To: Alan Chapman
The intended use of a guns is a threat to those around the user, therefore a violation of their rights. All human activities have societal consequences. The implication that all activities are "essential liberties" is juvenile nonsense.
The "right" to use crack doesn't equal the right to keep and bear arms.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin
Franklin wasn't a simpleton.
356
posted on
06/15/2002 2:07:19 PM PDT
by
Roscoe
To: Texaggie79
Dementia, -- and no doubt there are thousands of freepers watching this debate that agree with you?
357
posted on
06/15/2002 2:09:23 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: tpaine
I guess we shall never know, unless they speak up.......
To: Texaggie79
Get over it, -- I've answered that same 'question' many times over in the past.
359
posted on
06/15/2002 2:12:45 PM PDT
by
tpaine
To: Texaggie79
All three are guaranteed rights bud............. Check out the 9th 'bud'. -- Enumeration is NOT required.
360
posted on
06/15/2002 2:16:43 PM PDT
by
tpaine
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 321-340, 341-360, 361-380 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson