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.

[LowOiL]

Welcome to FR Chunga (*handshake*). Great job Sir...

[Chunga]

"You're delusional as to your own importance."

I'm not important. Attempting to ensure that the lines between libertarianism and conservatism aren't blurred is my only reason for engaging you on this thread.

I think it's admirable that you wish to preserve constitutional liberty; so do I. I disagree with the conclusions you seem to have drawn regarding the intent of the authors of the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.

And...I am in full agreement with many of the libertarian posters on this thread who call for an end to the Federal War On Drugs; in my opinion it's an issue for the individual states and their respective citizenries via their state legislatures. I don't think it wise to call for the end of drug prohibition at the Federal level, however. If the Federal courts were to rule all drug laws unconstitutional, the states (and their citizenries) would have no say in the issue (and there's a parallel to be drawn here with Roe v. Wade). I think that a Texas outlawing crystal meth and crack and an Oregon fully decriminalizing marijuana and hashish usage can coexist.

There is no constitutionally protected right to smoke crack. Therefore, the issue is within the purview of the states in my opinion.

It's unfortunate that libertarians so often fixate on morals issues such as drugs and pornography. It alienates conservatives, who are interested in preserving traditions and social structures that have coexisted with the Bill Of Rights for years (in fact, the Bill Of Rights makes no sense outside of American traditions and social structures, and the Founding Fathers knew it).

[William Terrell]

Sure, I don't have a problem with it.

Then you have to be very, very careful that it doesn't have a problem with you, including problems with future personal use and intake laws, if you can.

[Demidog]

How about Social Security for one? The FDA, FBI, DEA, ATF, IRS, Education just to name a few others.

[Demidog]

There is no simple answer for that question

Yes. There is a simple answer. Unless you want to argue that it is perfectly OK to murder in which case you'd have to explain why every state has murder laws. Your scenario is one of self-defense. I wouldn't agree that it would be OK to shoot down that airplane unless it was a known fact that the plane was to be used as a weapon. In which case, if the passengers were unarmed due to the fact that the government had demanded they be disarmed, thus taking away their right to defend themselves, the government would be guilty of murder.

[Bush2000]

I wouldn't agree that it would be OK to shoot down that airplane unless it was a known fact that the plane was to be used as a weapon.

But there would be no way for the President to know their true intent unless they stated it as such. As we know from the 9/11 hijackings, no such intent was every overtly mentioned; therefore, the only thing at the President's disposal now is the knowledge of what hijackers did previously. So you see: It's not a clear cut case of self-defense. The President would have to use his best judgement over whether any hijacking posed a greater threat.

[Zack Nguyen]

I believe you are using a poor comparison to prove your point. By comparing the drug culture of the 1920's and the drug culture of 2002 in the midst of the WOD and saying "See what prohibition has done?" you are ignoring a host of cultural factors that are the reasons for the stark rise in drug use.

For one thing, a generation emerged in the 1960's that was determinded to destroy itself. The legality/illegality of drugs had little to do with it.

I hope you are not trying to suggest that, if we made drugs legal today, we would return to the cultural state of the turn of the 20th century.

[Chunga]

Hey...if libertarians can rid the country of social security, I say get to work. (Good luck. The Democrats control the committees and are reluctant to allow Americans to invest even 5% of their Social Security in the market.)

The agencies and departments you mention are bureaucracies. I assure you, every conservative you've ever met wants to shrink bureaucracy, not conserve it.

[Demidog]

But there would be no way for the President to know their true intent unless they stated it as such.

Right. Which would make it wrong for him to take the lives of innocents. Furthermore, his insistence that they be unarmed and defensless puts their blood on his hands no matter what occurs.

[Demidog]

The agencies and departments you mention are bureaucracies. I assure you, every conservative you've ever met wants to shrink bureaucracy, not conserve it.

Then how do you explain Bush ("the conservative") who has expanded every one of those with the help of a majority in the house?

[headsonpikes]

RE: Conservatism vs. expansion of bureaucracy

This is what's known as 'cognitive dissonance'.

But that's child's play for those truly dedicated to preserving established monopolies, perquisites, and privileges.

Cognitive dissonance is the price of success in all modern and progressive small 's' socialist nations, of which the U.S.A. is one!

[Chunga]

George Bush, whom you rightly call "the conservative," has

1. Cut federal spending on libraries by $39 million.
2. Cut $35 million in federal funding for doctors to get advanced pediatric training.
3. Cut federal funding for research into renewable energy sources by 50%.
4. Cut federal funding for research into cleaner, more efficient cars and trucks by 28%.
5. Approved the sending of letters by Interior Department appointee Gale Norton to state officials soliciting suggestions for opening up national monuments for oil and gas drilling, coal mining, and foresting by private companies.
6. Reduced by 86% the federal Community Access Program for public hospitals, clinics and providers of care for people without insurance.
7. Cut $60 million from a Boy's and Girl's Clubs of America federal program for public housing.
8. Proposed to eliminate a federal program to help communities prepare for natural disasters.
9. Pulled out of the 1997 Kyoto Treaty global warming agreement.
10. Cut $200 million of federal work force training for dislocated workers.
11. Eliminated federal funding for the Wetlands Reserve Program, which encourages farmers to maintain wetlands habitat on their property.
12. Cut a federal program to provide childcare to low-income families as they move from welfare to work.
13. Cut a federal program that provided prescription contraceptive coverage to federal employees.
14. Cut $700 million in capital funds for repairs in public housing.
15. Cut the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency by $500 million.
16. Rescinded the rule that mandated increased energy-saving efficiency regulations for central air conditioners and heat pumps.
17. Repealed workplace ergonomic rules designed to improve worker health and safety.
18. Banned federal aid to international family planning programs that offer abortion counseling with other independent funds.
19. Closed the White House Office for Women's Health Initiatives and Outreach.
20. Announced intention to open up Montana's Lewis and Clark National Forest to oil and drilling.
21. Proposes to re-draw boundaries of nation's monuments, which would technically allow oil and gas drilling "outside" of national monuments.
22. Gutted the White House AIDS Office.
23. Cut the federal Community Oriented Policing Services program.
24. Refused to fund continued cleanup of uranium-slag heap in Utah.
25. Refused to fund continued litigation of the government's tobacco company lawsuit.
26. Proposed a $2 trillion tax cut.
27. Cut $15.7 million earmarked for states to investigate cases of child abuse and neglect.
28. Proposed elimination of the "Reading is Fundamental" program that gives free books to poor children.
29. Proposes to reverse regulation protecting 60 million acres of national forest from logging and road building.
30. Eliminated federal funding for the "We the People" education program.
31. Reduced the Low Income Home Assistance Program by 40%.

[Bush2000]

Right. Which would make it wrong for him to take the lives of innocents. Furthermore, his insistence that they be unarmed and defensless puts their blood on his hands no matter what occurs.

Don't sidestep the original issue: That taking the lives of innocents was a clear-cut case of murder. I've showed you a situation in which that clearly is not true.

[Bush2000]

And your point is ... ?

[Chunga]

Demidog sarcastically referred to President Bush as a "conservative," to imply that he was not; I made my post to show that he is.

[Demidog]

In spite of that, he has increased funding to farmers by 80%, Increased federal education dollars by 46% (IIRC).

He's running a huge deficit and claims it is necessary.

Those piddly little reductions have been completely negated by his other increases.

[Demidog]

I've showed you a situation in which that clearly is not true.

No you haven't. You've attempted to rationalize the taking of innocent life. I've simply shown you that when you think you have complicated the issue, you have merely ignored the other mitigating circumstances.

It should be fairly easy to admit that murder is wrong. The whole reason for the attempt to corner those who refuse to answer a simple and direct question is to then establish what powers we can actually cede to government since all government power flows from us.

I cannot give anyone the power to murder because I do not posess that power myself.

[tpaine]

"You're delusional as to your own importance."

I'm not important. Attempting to ensure that the lines between libertarianism and conservatism aren't blurred is my only reason for engaging you on this thread.

BS. -- Your first post here was a direct attack on my lack of 'conservatism'.

I think it's admirable that you wish to preserve constitutional liberty; so do I. I disagree with the conclusions you seem to have drawn regarding the intent of the authors of the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.

Yet you've never argued specifically as to my supposed 'intent'.

And...I am in full agreement with many of the libertarian posters on this thread who call for an end to the Federal War On Drugs; in my opinion it's an issue for the individual states and their respective citizenries via their state legislatures. I don't think it wise to call for the end of drug prohibition at the Federal level, however. If the Federal courts were to rule all drug laws unconstitutional, the states (and their citizenries) would have no say in the issue (and there's a parallel to be drawn here with Roe v. Wade). I think that a Texas outlawing crystal meth and crack and an Oregon fully decriminalizing marijuana and hashish usage can coexist. There is no constitutionally protected right to smoke crack. Therefore, the issue is within the purview of the states in my opinion.

As I've said, your first few posts here convinced me that your opinion is not one I can value.

It's unfortunate that libertarians so often fixate on morals issues such as drugs and pornography. It alienates conservatives, who are interested in preserving traditions and social structures that have coexisted with the Bill Of Rights for years (in fact, the Bill Of Rights makes no sense outside of American traditions and social structures, and the Founding Fathers knew it).

It's unfortunate indeed that you have irrational ideas about libertarians. -- Get some help. - Then call me next year.

[Bush2000]

I've simply shown you that when you think you have complicated the issue, you have merely ignored the other mitigating circumstances.

What mitigating circumstances? In the example I cited, the President doesn't know the intentions of the hijackers. Likewise, it is the earnest belief of the FAA that allowing passengers and crew to be armed is a recipe for disaster. Pilots and crew are not law enforcement officers nor should we pretend they are. Thus, it does not seem that authorities are failing to do anything which would prevent the situation from occurring to begin with.

[Bush2000]

Thank God. I thought you were serious for a moment ... ;-)