Judge sentences man to 25 years for beating trick-or-treater

AP ^ | June 12, 2002

[Cultural Jihad]

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.

[Texaggie79]

and leave otherwise peaceful people the hell alone

Fine by me. There are no responsible peaceful meth users. The drug makes that impossible.

Do you want to leave the people who threaten others alone?

[headsonpikes]

LOL!

[Texaggie79]

If an inanimate object can, indeed, result in the violation of others rights, then yes, states can prohibit drugs.....

[OWK]

Perhaps you need to reread this article and think over your statement a bit more...

I read the article.

I understand it quite well.

The individual was responsible for the crime.

Not the inanimate object.

Punish the inidividual.

Don't give in to the temptation to blame the inanimate object, and empower a tyranny in an attempt to control it.

Think.

[headsonpikes]

Got mullet?

I'm bald. :^(

[Zack Nguyen]

My example stands. I was pointing out that the idea that to be effective the WOD must "make it impossible to obtain methamphetamine." It does not. Whether murder violates rights as compared to drug use is really irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

Of course murder violates someone's rights to a greater extent than drug use does. It is a valid point and worth discussing. But again, that is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

[OWK]

If an inanimate object can, indeed, result in the violation of others rights, then yes, states can prohibit...

Sarah....? Sarah Brady...??

Izzzat you?

[Texaggie79]

Hey look, I'm a pro druggie too :P

[Lazamataz]

Don't give in to the temptation to blame the inanimate object, and empower a tyranny in an attempt to control it.

Too late. I would have agreed with you back about 10, maybe 20 years ago. But now they are holding people indefinitely without even charging them with a crime, seizing property without needing to prove any crime, and are immune from punishment if they gun down the wrong people.

Just like the former Soviet Union.

[OWK]

Of course murder violates someone's rights to a greater extent than drug use does.

Individual drug use (in and of itself) does not and CANNOT violate anyone's rights.

That was the point.

[Roscoe]

Libertarian standard argument: Drugs equal guns.

[Texaggie79]

A gun requires a conscious decision to use it. A nuke or hard drug are a danger in and of themselves. Now if you can figure out a way to make owning hard drugs legal, but taking them (similar to shooting a gun because of the violation of other's rights) illegal, then let us hear it.

[Texaggie79]

Do you wear a mullet at heart?

[headsonpikes]

Nope. I was never that kind of hick!

Just a bushman, to whom any sizable city was known simply as 'The Big Smoke'. ;^)

[MEGoody]

The issue isn't whether it is impossible to get an illegal substance - we know know it IS possible. The issue is whether we should even THINK of legalizing something that would 'cause' someone to do this.

[Zack Nguyen]

Name one drug that the Drug War has made scarcer, more expensive or harder to obtain.

Uhhh, all of them? If drugs were legal, then they would be much easier to obtain. In particular, no one would risk arrest and/or death from attempting to obtain them.

Give me one good reason why beating someone's head in while stoned on Methamphetamine is more heinous a crime than beating their head in while "in a pissy mood".

You'll have to point out to me where I claimed this. This person should be sternly punished regardless of whether they were on speed or not.

[MEGoody]

You're right - and I'd make booze illegal too if it were up to me. LOL

[MEGoody]

Liberty for the dope head, not much liberty for this little kid any more.

[Zack Nguyen]

Individual drug use (in and of itself) does not and CANNOT violate anyone's rights. That was the point.

Yes, but it had nothing to do my original point. But, to discuss your thoughts...

Individual drug use does not take place in a vacuum. A junkie never just affects himself. Sorry, in a perfect world that may be the case. But the reality is drug use affects entire communities whether they use or not.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"I thought the subject was whether or not the state should prohibit drugs or whether they should prohibit the violation of rights."

Actually, I think the argument is should the state have the right to prevent risk. If someone is not of their right mind using drugs and is at risk for such violent behavior, does the state have the right to prohibit the substance that causes the behavior?

Drug users cannot say that they have the right to the drugs, but no responsibility for the behavior resulting from them. The old, "I was on drugs and didn't know what I was doing.", is no defense from prosecution.