| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yang, AthD h.c, Kicking AWOLs Cocaine Snorting Ass" |
| Date: |
08 Nov 2006 02:27:28 AM |
| Object: |
South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
Yep, that vaunted Christian moral superiority
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2006/SD/2006-11-08-abortion-ban_x.htm
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. (AP) — A ballot measure that would ban nearly all
abortions in South Dakota was rejected on Tuesday.
With 59 percent of the precincts reporting, opponents of the ban had
55 percent, or 98,182 votes, to the supporters' 45 percent, or 79,444
votes.
-----
Yang
a.a. #28
AthD (h.c.) conferred by the regents of the LCL
a.a. pastor #-273.15, the most frigid church of Celcius nee Kelvin
EAC Econometric Forecast and Sorcery Division
The Bush 'balanced' budget: -2 trillion and worsening
The Bush 'economic' policy: 12.5 million FEWER jobs than Clinton and counting
The Bush Iraq lie: -2836 GIs, one friend's co-worker's son and mounting
Having Bush ***** up my country: Worthless
newsgroups Yang promises not to revenge post
in response to Sound-of-Trumpet's *****:
rec.art.scifi.written
sci.archaeology
soc.history.what-if
.
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
08 Nov 2006 07:32:00 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hvv4l2ttvsmh4bh2i4cm8kd6l07df9h16n@4ax.com...
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:30:55 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tdi4l21cpdl5ahj4tmvn0svsr1m4a9ij4v@4ax.com...
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:01:45 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
I must assume that any gay person has a high probability of carrying the
lethal virus that causes AIDS;and, as such usinng lethal force to ward
off
such an attacker is deemed just by the code that exists.
An affirmative defense requires that you can PROVE the defense. So
you'd have to prove that a) the person was gay (his attempt to rape
you has very little to do with his sexual orientation and his
orientation is completely irrelevant to your defense) and b) that he
was capable of transmitting HIV sexually at the time you killed him.
Such a killing may be done to protect one's self and others.
you can't kill to prevent a crime that you have no active knowledge
of.
There is no cure for AIDS, idiot.
Which is irrelevant to your active defense - look it up in the SC
criminal statutes. You have to PROVE that the rapist was HIV positive
- assuming that a) because he was trying to rape you he's gay and b)
that all gays can give you AIDS will just end in your defense being
thrown out and your pitiful self being convicted of killing someone.
Why would I need to prove that he was gay?
If you use that as part of your affirmative defense, you have to prove
it.
The burden of proof is upon those who bring charges.
HIV is enough of a threat to me to ward off an attacker.
Proving HIV status is very simple.
You'd have to prove that you knew that status BEFORE you killed him.
Irrelevant.
If you're just assuming that any male who tries to rape you MUST be
HIV positive, you'd better not say one word of it once you've killed
him, or your words will PROVE you guilty.
Why?
Why would assuming that any male who attempts to rape another male is HIV
positive be such an unreasonable assumption?
Also, rape is a violent act against another person.
Use of force to ward off force of an attacker is fully legitimate in
self-defense.
The real problem would be that if the attacker were killed, that people like
you would act as if they didn;t have it coming to them.
And, just how is someone supposed to know if an attacker has no killing in
their mind?
Maybe you should read up on rapist murders, and stop bitching about people
who would kill anyone who attacks them in self-defense.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Does it ever amaze anyone else how little faith some heterosexuals have
in heterosexuality? It's supposed to be this god-given human instinct
that only the warped and perverted ever stray from; but, it seems, if we
once tell our straight children a message even as mild as "some people
are gay, and that's all right," that'll be enough to send lil' Suzy into
the arms of women forever. It's a wonder the race has survived this
long, really..."
- Charles M Seaton (21 Dec 1994)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Juanjo" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
09 Nov 2006 01:18:05 AM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in message
news:6uv4h.5591$Cv6.3687@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hvv4l2ttvsmh4bh2i4cm8kd6l07df9h16n@4ax.com...
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:30:55 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tdi4l21cpdl5ahj4tmvn0svsr1m4a9ij4v@4ax.com...
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:01:45 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
I must assume that any gay person has a high probability of carrying
the
lethal virus that causes AIDS;and, as such usinng lethal force to ward
off
such an attacker is deemed just by the code that exists.
An affirmative defense requires that you can PROVE the defense. So
you'd have to prove that a) the person was gay (his attempt to rape
you has very little to do with his sexual orientation and his
orientation is completely irrelevant to your defense) and b) that he
was capable of transmitting HIV sexually at the time you killed him.
Such a killing may be done to protect one's self and others.
you can't kill to prevent a crime that you have no active knowledge
of.
There is no cure for AIDS, idiot.
Which is irrelevant to your active defense - look it up in the SC
criminal statutes. You have to PROVE that the rapist was HIV positive
- assuming that a) because he was trying to rape you he's gay and b)
that all gays can give you AIDS will just end in your defense being
thrown out and your pitiful self being convicted of killing someone.
Why would I need to prove that he was gay?
If you use that as part of your affirmative defense, you have to prove
it.
The burden of proof is upon those who bring charges.
ROFMLMAO
As a former employee of a district attorney's office, that is the funniest
thing I have ever heard. Let me assure you John boy that should you ever
face a situation in which you are threatened with rape and you kill the
rapist, you will have to assert the affirmative defense that your life was
in danger and that you only used reasonable force in preventing the attack.
Since you have announced your intent to kill anyone who were to attempt such
an act publicly, you would have hard time proving your defense.
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
09 Nov 2006 06:56:11 AM |
|
|
"Juanjo" <jonpetry@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:NCA4h.4391$L6.3766@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in message
news:6uv4h.5591$Cv6.3687@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hvv4l2ttvsmh4bh2i4cm8kd6l07df9h16n@4ax.com...
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:30:55 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tdi4l21cpdl5ahj4tmvn0svsr1m4a9ij4v@4ax.com...
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:01:45 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
I must assume that any gay person has a high probability of carrying
the
lethal virus that causes AIDS;and, as such usinng lethal force to ward
off
such an attacker is deemed just by the code that exists.
An affirmative defense requires that you can PROVE the defense. So
you'd have to prove that a) the person was gay (his attempt to rape
you has very little to do with his sexual orientation and his
orientation is completely irrelevant to your defense) and b) that he
was capable of transmitting HIV sexually at the time you killed him.
Such a killing may be done to protect one's self and others.
you can't kill to prevent a crime that you have no active knowledge
of.
There is no cure for AIDS, idiot.
Which is irrelevant to your active defense - look it up in the SC
criminal statutes. You have to PROVE that the rapist was HIV positive
- assuming that a) because he was trying to rape you he's gay and b)
that all gays can give you AIDS will just end in your defense being
thrown out and your pitiful self being convicted of killing someone.
Why would I need to prove that he was gay?
If you use that as part of your affirmative defense, you have to prove
it.
The burden of proof is upon those who bring charges.
ROFMLMAO
As a former employee of a district attorney's office, that is the funniest
thing I have ever heard. Let me assure you John boy that should you ever
face a situation in which you are threatened with rape and you kill the
rapist, you will have to assert the affirmative defense that your life was
in danger and that you only used reasonable force in preventing the
attack. Since you have announced your intent to kill anyone who were to
attempt such an act publicly, you would have hard time proving your
defense.
***** YOU!, YOU PEON UNDERLING IDIOT!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Juanjo" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
09 Nov 2006 01:38:17 PM |
|
|
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in message
news:IzF4h.12790$U76.30@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
"Juanjo" <jonpetry@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:NCA4h.4391$L6.3766@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"John D.Wentzky" <johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote in message
news:6uv4h.5591$Cv6.3687@bignews4.bellsouth.net...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hvv4l2ttvsmh4bh2i4cm8kd6l07df9h16n@4ax.com...
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 18:30:55 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:tdi4l21cpdl5ahj4tmvn0svsr1m4a9ij4v@4ax.com...
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 12:01:45 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
I must assume that any gay person has a high probability of carrying
the
lethal virus that causes AIDS;and, as such usinng lethal force to
ward off
such an attacker is deemed just by the code that exists.
An affirmative defense requires that you can PROVE the defense. So
you'd have to prove that a) the person was gay (his attempt to rape
you has very little to do with his sexual orientation and his
orientation is completely irrelevant to your defense) and b) that he
was capable of transmitting HIV sexually at the time you killed him.
Such a killing may be done to protect one's self and others.
you can't kill to prevent a crime that you have no active knowledge
of.
There is no cure for AIDS, idiot.
Which is irrelevant to your active defense - look it up in the SC
criminal statutes. You have to PROVE that the rapist was HIV
positive
- assuming that a) because he was trying to rape you he's gay and b)
that all gays can give you AIDS will just end in your defense being
thrown out and your pitiful self being convicted of killing someone.
Why would I need to prove that he was gay?
If you use that as part of your affirmative defense, you have to prove
it.
The burden of proof is upon those who bring charges.
ROFMLMAO
As a former employee of a district attorney's office, that is the
funniest thing I have ever heard. Let me assure you John boy that should
you ever face a situation in which you are threatened with rape and you
kill the rapist, you will have to assert the affirmative defense that
your life was in danger and that you only used reasonable force in
preventing the attack. Since you have announced your intent to kill
anyone who were to attempt such an act publicly, you would have hard
time proving your defense.
***** YOU!, YOU PEON UNDERLING IDIOT!
You say the sweetest things but flattery will get you no where.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
09 Nov 2006 10:38:00 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 07:56:11 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
***** YOU!, YOU PEON UNDERLING IDIOT!
You'll have to wait a while - God is too busy laughing his ***** off at
you right now.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities"
- Voltaire (1694 - 1778)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
09 Nov 2006 10:37:16 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 07:18:05 GMT, "Juanjo" <jonpetry@mindspring.com>
wrote:
ROFMLMAO
As a former employee of a district attorney's office, that is the funniest
thing I have ever heard. Let me assure you John boy that should you ever
face a situation in which you are threatened with rape and you kill the
rapist, you will have to assert the affirmative defense that your life was
in danger and that you only used reasonable force in preventing the attack.
Since you have announced your intent to kill anyone who were to attempt such
an act publicly, you would have hard time proving your defense.
Your former boss would love a case like that, wouldn't he?
People's exhibit #1 - the signed confession.
People's exhibit #2 - the videotape of the confession.
The people rest.
Yawn - I'm going home.
From there on, it's like the surgeon (the DA) letting the nurse (the
judge) close (finish the trial).
You don't even have to be a first year law student to win the case,
common sense (which John seems to be in terribly short supply of) is
almost all you need.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
08 Nov 2006 10:47:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:32:00 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hvv4l2ttvsmh4bh2i4cm8kd6l07df9h16n@4ax.com...
If you use that as part of your affirmative defense, you have to prove
it.
The burden of proof is upon those who bring charges.
Not if you present an affirmative defense. Look it up.
HIV is enough of a threat to me to ward off an attacker.
Proving HIV status is very simple.
You'd have to prove that you knew that status BEFORE you killed him.
Irrelevant.
To what? If you couldn't prove it you'd be found guilty because your
defense would be moot.
If you're just assuming that any male who tries to rape you MUST be
HIV positive, you'd better not say one word of it once you've killed
him, or your words will PROVE you guilty.
Why?
Because you're admitting that you killed him on an assumption, which
is manslaughter at best.
Why would assuming that any male who attempts to rape another male is HIV
positive be such an unreasonable assumption?
It doesn't have to be reasonable. For it to be an affirmative defense
you have to prove that you knew it beforehand. That's the law.
Also, rape is a violent act against another person.
Allowing the same amount of force. Since rape, per se, isn't deadly,
deadly force isn't legal.
Use of force to ward off force of an attacker is fully legitimate in
self-defense.
Force is, deadly force isn't unless you're warding off an attack that
you KNOW is deadly, which you don't in this case - you only assume
that it might be - throwing that defense out the window.
The real problem would be that if the attacker were killed, that people like
you would act as if they didn;t have it coming to them.
He didn't. And you'd be found guilty by any sane jury.
And, just how is someone supposed to know if an attacker has no killing in
their mind?
Rape isn't killing. If you can't tell the difference you shouldn't be
allowed out alone. Little kids, no matter how many decades they've
lived, shouldn't be out in the streets alone.
Maybe you should read up on rapist murders, and stop bitching about people
who would kill anyone who attacks them in self-defense.
Once he starts trying to kill you, you can use any means at hand to
defend yourself. Stick an umbrella up his ribs into his heart. Shove
your pen into his eye. Ram the bridge of his nose into his brain. Hit
him in the chin with a rolled up newspaper. (All of the above are
means of causing instant death, if you know how to apply them.)
The verdict will be (or should be) death by misadventure. No charges
filed.
But attempted rape isn't attempted murder..
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them.
- Adlai E. Stevenson
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
08 Nov 2006 10:52:48 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:38c5l2lfcm8nvvd68gpban0ja7n7u5f3if@4ax.com...
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 20:32:00 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:hvv4l2ttvsmh4bh2i4cm8kd6l07df9h16n@4ax.com...
If you use that as part of your affirmative defense, you have to prove
it.
The burden of proof is upon those who bring charges.
Not if you present an affirmative defense. Look it up.
When did the standards change?
HIV is enough of a threat to me to ward off an attacker.
Proving HIV status is very simple.
You'd have to prove that you knew that status BEFORE you killed him.
Irrelevant.
To what? If you couldn't prove it you'd be found guilty because your
defense would be moot.
Prove what?
The burden of proof is upon the accuser.
And, you are only citing your opinion there.
If you're just assuming that any male who tries to rape you MUST be
HIV positive, you'd better not say one word of it once you've killed
him, or your words will PROVE you guilty.
Why?
Because you're admitting that you killed him on an assumption, which
is manslaughter at best.
What do you think a gay male attempting to rape someone who the person knows
not whether the gay male is HIV positive or not for certain is?
Why do you think that such a person deserves to be defended?
Why would assuming that any male who attempts to rape another male is HIV
positive be such an unreasonable assumption?
It doesn't have to be reasonable. For it to be an affirmative defense
you have to prove that you knew it beforehand. That's the law.
No problem.
Also, rape is a violent act against another person.
Allowing the same amount of force. Since rape, per se, isn't deadly,
deadly force isn't legal.
HIV has no cure, lamebrain.
The threat is there.
Use of force to ward off force of an attacker is fully legitimate in
self-defense.
Force is, deadly force isn't unless you're warding off an attack that
you KNOW is deadly, which you don't in this case - you only assume
that it might be - throwing that defense out the window.
HIV is deadly enough for me to use lethal force to ward off the threat upon
my life.
The real problem would be that if the attacker were killed, that people
like
you would act as if they didn;t have it coming to them.
He didn't. And you'd be found guilty by any sane jury.
That jury would be damned if they did that.
And, just how is someone supposed to know if an attacker has no killing in
their mind?
Rape isn't killing. If you can't tell the difference you shouldn't be
allowed out alone. Little kids, no matter how many decades they've
lived, shouldn't be out in the streets alone.
So, why are you talking to me, an adult, as if I am a little kid?
Maybe you should read up on rapist murders, and stop bitching about people
who would kill anyone who attacks them in self-defense.
Once he starts trying to kill you,
Attempted rape is enough reason for me to kill him.
you can use any means at hand to
defend yourself. Stick an umbrella up his ribs into his heart. Shove
your pen into his eye. Ram the bridge of his nose into his brain. Hit
him in the chin with a rolled up newspaper. (All of the above are
means of causing instant death, if you know how to apply them.)
I am not some wmpy gay allied idiot such as you, you pervert.
The verdict will be (or should be) death by misadventure. No charges
filed.
I wouldn't file charges against anyone who killed any gay who raped them or
attempted to rape them.
But attempted rape isn't attempted murder..
Your idiocy is irreleveant.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
I have been thinking that I would make a proposition to my Republican
friends... that if they will stop telling lies about the Democrats, we
will stop telling the truth about them.
- Adlai E. Stevenson
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
This signature was made by SigChanger.
You can find SigChanger at: http://www.phranc.nl/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
09 Nov 2006 08:05:54 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 23:52:48 -0500 "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> said the following in alt.atheism and
I was immediately reminded of 1,000 Chinchillas singing Handel's
"Messiah" for some reason...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:38c5l2lfcm8nvvd68gpban0ja7n7u5f3if@4ax.com...
Not if you present an affirmative defense. Look it up.
When did the standards change?
They didn't. An affirmitave defense means you admit doing what you
are charged with, but you had a good reason. This is the defense used
by battered wives when they kill their husbands.
To what? If you couldn't prove it you'd be found guilty because your
defense would be moot.
Prove what?
That you knew for certain that your attacker was HIV+
The burden of proof is upon the accuser.
Not when you mount an affirmative defense.
And, you are only citing your opinion there.
Actually, we are citing law.
Because you're admitting that you killed him on an assumption, which
is manslaughter at best.
What do you think a gay male attempting to rape someone who the person knows
not whether the gay male is HIV positive or not for certain is?
Could you try that again in English, please?
Why do you think that such a person deserves to be defended?
Because everyone gets equal protection under the law.
It doesn't have to be reasonable. For it to be an affirmative defense
you have to prove that you knew it beforehand. That's the law.
No problem.
OK, how do you know someone has AIDS?
Allowing the same amount of force. Since rape, per se, isn't deadly,
deadly force isn't legal.
HIV has no cure, lamebrain.
The threat is there.
AIDS is currently long-term surviable. People are living for decades
with HIV and no symptoms.
And you still need to prove that you knew for a fact that your
attacker was HIV+ before you killed him.
Force is, deadly force isn't unless you're warding off an attack that
you KNOW is deadly, which you don't in this case - you only assume
that it might be - throwing that defense out the window.
HIV is deadly enough for me to use lethal force to ward off the threat upon
my life.
OK, how can you tell HIV status from looking at someone?
He didn't. And you'd be found guilty by any sane jury.
That jury would be damned if they did that.
Matthew 7:1
Rape isn't killing. If you can't tell the difference you shouldn't be
allowed out alone. Little kids, no matter how many decades they've
lived, shouldn't be out in the streets alone.
So, why are you talking to me, an adult, as if I am a little kid?
Because you've earned it. Your complete ignorance of even the most
basic aspects of our legal system and your entire attitude makes most
of us think of you as a particulary annoying 12 year old.
Once he starts trying to kill you,
Attempted rape is enough reason for me to kill him.
Wrong.
you can use any means at hand to
defend yourself. Stick an umbrella up his ribs into his heart. Shove
your pen into his eye. Ram the bridge of his nose into his brain. Hit
him in the chin with a rolled up newspaper. (All of the above are
means of causing instant death, if you know how to apply them.)
I am not some wmpy gay allied idiot such as you, you pervert.
No, you are someone who is so afriad of "the gay" that he'd commit
murder in a heartbeat.
The verdict will be (or should be) death by misadventure. No charges
filed.
I wouldn't file charges against anyone who killed any gay who raped them or
attempted to rape them.
Good thing you'll never be in that position.
But attempted rape isn't attempted murder..
Your idiocy is irreleveant.
The law, John, is what says that.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
09 Nov 2006 09:34:48 AM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:9vc6l215gkkoq4ij06vvse9289pisdf7ak@4ax.com...
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 23:52:48 -0500 "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> said the following in alt.atheism and
I was immediately reminded of 1,000 Chinchillas singing Handel's
"Messiah" for some reason...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:38c5l2lfcm8nvvd68gpban0ja7n7u5f3if@4ax.com...
Not if you present an affirmative defense. Look it up.
When did the standards change?
They didn't. An affirmitave defense means you admit doing what you
are charged with, but you had a good reason. This is the defense used
by battered wives when they kill their husbands.
To what? If you couldn't prove it you'd be found guilty because your
defense would be moot.
Prove what?
That you knew for certain that your attacker was HIV+
The burden of proof is upon the accuser.
Not when you mount an affirmative defense.
The burden of proof is always upon the accuser in this nation.
The defense has no obligation to prove anything.
And, you are only citing your opinion there.
Actually, we are citing law.
You are a 'we'?
Because you're admitting that you killed him on an assumption, which
is manslaughter at best.
What do you think a gay male attempting to rape someone who the person
knows
not whether the gay male is HIV positive or not for certain is?
Could you try that again in English, please?
What do you think an HIV postive rapist who knows they are HIV positive is?
Self-defense is making a big comeback.
Why do you think that such a person deserves to be defended?
Because everyone gets equal protection under the law.
Self-defense is making a big comeback.
If you do not agree with it, then you are going to be labelled a criminal.
It doesn't have to be reasonable. For it to be an affirmative defense
you have to prove that you knew it beforehand. That's the law.
No problem.
OK, how do you know someone has AIDS?
I don't need to know their medical status if they are attempting to rape
someone.
It is very simple to do things as I prescribe them.
Allowing the same amount of force. Since rape, per se, isn't deadly,
deadly force isn't legal.
HIV has no cure, lamebrain.
The threat is there.
AIDS is currently long-term surviable. People are living for decades
with HIV and no symptoms.
Rape is still an offense that can get you killed and no one cries a tear
about it.
Self-defense is making a big comeback.
Seems to me you are for the Islamic rape and execute the victim practice.
And you still need to prove that you knew for a fact that your
attacker was HIV+ before you killed him.
No, I don't, you idiot.
I can legally kill anyone who is attempting to rape me or another person
without retribution.
Too bad you are not against rape.
Force is, deadly force isn't unless you're warding off an attack that
you KNOW is deadly, which you don't in this case - you only assume
that it might be - throwing that defense out the window.
HIV is deadly enough for me to use lethal force to ward off the threat
upon
my life.
OK, how can you tell HIV status from looking at someone?
Unnecessary, you defender of rapists.
He didn't. And you'd be found guilty by any sane jury.
That jury would be damned if they did that.
Matthew 7:1
They would be damned.
Thank you for confirming it with the Bible.
Rape isn't killing. If you can't tell the difference you shouldn't be
allowed out alone. Little kids, no matter how many decades they've
lived, shouldn't be out in the streets alone.
So, why are you talking to me, an adult, as if I am a little kid?
Because you've earned it. Your complete ignorance of even the most
basic aspects of our legal system and your entire attitude makes most
of us think of you as a particulary annoying 12 year old.
Self-defense is making a big comeback.
When wll you grow into at least a 12 year old mentality and out of your
goddamned crybaby bully ***** mode?
Once he starts trying to kill you,
Attempted rape is enough reason for me to kill him.
Wrong.
***** YOUR OPINION, YOU IDIOT!
I already told you I CAN KILL ANYONE WHO ATTEMPTS TO ME RAPE ME OR ANYONE
ELSE WITHOUT FEAR OF PROSECUTION.
THAT MUCH IS A CERTAINTY.
you can use any means at hand to
defend yourself. Stick an umbrella up his ribs into his heart. Shove
your pen into his eye. Ram the bridge of his nose into his brain. Hit
him in the chin with a rolled up newspaper. (All of the above are
means of causing instant death, if you know how to apply them.)
I am not some wmpy gay allied idiot such as you, you pervert.
No, you are someone who is so afriad of "the gay" that he'd commit
murder in a heartbeat.
I am NOT afraid of you or gays or anyone else, you idiot.
I have no reason to be afraid.
The verdict will be (or should be) death by misadventure. No charges
filed.
I wouldn't file charges against anyone who killed any gay who raped them
or
attempted to rape them.
Good thing you'll never be in that position.
How do you know?
People would love me allowing them to protect themselves and their families
against you criminally-minded idiots.
But attempted rape isn't attempted murder..
Your idiocy is irrelevant.
The law, John, is what says that.
The criminal code, you idiot.
My law and the law as it is written in the USA allows the use of lethal
force against persons who are a threat upon the lives of their intended
victims.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
09 Nov 2006 09:54:31 AM |
|
|
In article <eQH4h.5848$Cv6.1306@bignews4.bellsouth.net>, John D.Wentzky
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
Not when you mount an affirmative defense.
The burden of proof is always upon the accuser in this nation.
The defense has no obligation to prove anything.
WRONG! You are a dilettante. You are like Osprey. You have a little
knowledge and think you know everything. Douglas Berry is correct.
The burden of proof "shifts."
Don't quit your day job.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
09 Nov 2006 02:09:29 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 10:34:48 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:9vc6l215gkkoq4ij06vvse9289pisdf7ak@4ax.com...
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 23:52:48 -0500 "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> said the following in alt.atheism and
I was immediately reminded of 1,000 Chinchillas singing Handel's
"Messiah" for some reason...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:38c5l2lfcm8nvvd68gpban0ja7n7u5f3if@4ax.com...
Not if you present an affirmative defense. Look it up.
When did the standards change?
They didn't. An affirmitave defense means you admit doing what you
are charged with, but you had a good reason. This is the defense used
by battered wives when they kill their husbands.
To what? If you couldn't prove it you'd be found guilty because your
defense would be moot.
Prove what?
That you knew for certain that your attacker was HIV+
The burden of proof is upon the accuser.
Not when you mount an affirmative defense.
The burden of proof is always upon the accuser in this nation.
ONLY when you deny that you did what you're accused of. When you
assert something in court, you have to produce evidence to back up
your assertion.
If you don't like that law - and it's the law in just about every
civilized nation - move to Iran or North Korea.
In Iran, if you kill someone - regardless of what you claim - the
family has the right to kill you. But you won't have to prove
anything in court.
In North Korea the cops (soldiers, really) will just shoot you. The
law is that what they do is legal - because they did it.
The defense has no obligation to prove anything.
Unless it makes an assertion that goes past "I'm not guilty". Once
you pass that point the burden of proof turns around.
And, you are only citing your opinion there.
Actually, we are citing law.
You are a 'we'?
Me, Douglas and a couple of others.
What do you think an HIV postive rapist who knows they are HIV positive is?
Totally and completely irrelevant to your defense that the SOLE reason
your killing him isn't against the law is that you KNEW that he was
HIV positive BEFORE you killed him. That's the ONLY claim that would
be allowed. Your claim that you had the right to ASSUME that he was
HIV positive would be inadmissible, because the law says that you
DON'T have the right to make that assumption.
Having unprotected sex with someone if you know (or even have good
reason to suspect) that you're HIV positive is a crime. Rape is
another crime. The fact that someone else committed a crime is not
admissible as an affirmative defense for a murder charge, unless the
crime he was committing was murder. And you have to prove that claim
- an assertion isn't admissible as evidence.
Self-defense is making a big comeback.
You can't legally defend against an assumed attack. If you could, I
could kill you and claim that you were thinking of killing me. I
could assume that I KNEW what you were thinking. I don't think you
want to live in a world like that.
Why do you think that such a person deserves to be defended?
Because everyone gets equal protection under the law.
Self-defense is making a big comeback.
Again - you can't legally defend against an assumed attack - you have
to have proof that the attack was real BEFORE you kill your attacker.
If you do not agree with it, then you are going to be labelled a criminal.
YOU'LL be labeled a criminal for killing someone when you had no proof
that he was attempting to kill you. Assuming that he was HIV
positive, AND that you'd die of an AIDS-related cause, isn't proof,
it's just unevidenced assertion, and not admissible. any ADA who let
that assertion go unchallenged would be at risk of losing his job for
not knowing how to prosecute a case.
It doesn't have to be reasonable. For it to be an affirmative defense
you have to prove that you knew it beforehand. That's the law.
No problem.
OK, how do you know someone has AIDS?
I don't need to know their medical status if they are attempting to rape
someone.
You do if you claim HIV as the excuse for killing him. You're using
their medical status as your defense. You can't use something you
don't know as a defense. If you could, I could assume anything I
wanted as legal justification for killing you.
It is very simple to do things as I prescribe them.
The law doesn't give a damn what you prescribe. If you break it you
pay the penalty. In this case you either get a needle in your arm,
you get flexible rooms for the rest of your life or, most likely, you
get to play ***** for the rest of your life, which won't be very long
if you keep being a smart-*****. It's very easy to break your neck when
you fall down a flight of stairs in a prison cell block.
Allowing the same amount of force. Since rape, per se, isn't deadly,
deadly force isn't legal.
HIV has no cure, lamebrain.
The threat is there.
AIDS is currently long-term surviable. People are living for decades
with HIV and no symptoms.
Rape is still an offense that can get you killed and no one cries a tear
about it.
Walking across the street *can* get you killed. But you can't get
away with killing someone unless there's an IMMEDIATE (and known)
threat to your life. The law says that rape isn't such a threat. It's
a threat, it's illegal, but it's not an immediately lethal threat.
Self-defense is making a big comeback.
See if we care who you get traded to once you're inside. I'll cry for
the rapist's widow and orphans.
Seems to me you are for the Islamic rape and execute the victim practice.
No, we're for the "execute the murderer" (you) practice, but I'd
settle for 25 to life in the general population. ("Life:" wouldn't be
anywhere near as long as 25 years. Maybe 10 if you kept your mouth
shut. Maybe a week if you didn't.)
And you still need to prove that you knew for a fact that your
attacker was HIV+ before you killed him.
No, I don't, you idiot.
I can legally kill anyone who is attempting to rape me or another person
without retribution.
Nope - you can use ONLY that force necessary to prevent the rape. If
you had the option of running away, hitting him is assault.
Too bad you are not against rape.
I'm against your murdering someone without legal (according to the
real law, not your law) cause.
Force is, deadly force isn't unless you're warding off an attack that
you KNOW is deadly, which you don't in this case - you only assume
that it might be - throwing that defense out the window.
HIV is deadly enough for me to use lethal force to ward off the threat
upon
my life.
OK, how can you tell HIV status from looking at someone?
Unnecessary, you defender of rapists.
Necessary, murderer, according to the law, which really doesn't give a
rap what you think.
He didn't. And you'd be found guilty by any sane jury.
That jury would be damned if they did that.
Matthew 7:1
They would be damned.
By you. Why would anyone care?
Thank you for confirming it with the Bible.
Since (thank your god) this isn't a theocracy, Biblical law is totally
irrelevant. Insisting that it be followed as your defense just moves
you from Tiny's cell to a Laughing Palace.
Self-defense is making a big comeback.
Killing someone who's not a PROVABLE immediate threat to your life
isn't self defense, it's murder. Which the bible prohibits.
***** YOUR OPINION, YOU IDIOT!
I already told you I CAN KILL ANYONE WHO ATTEMPTS TO ME RAPE ME OR ANYONE
ELSE WITHOUT FEAR OF PROSECUTION.
THAT MUCH IS A CERTAINTY.
To you. To the law, unless you can PROVE that you KNEW that he was
HIV positive, it's plain old murder. And you get a nice (but horny)
roommate for doing it.
No, you are someone who is so afriad of "the gay" that he'd commit
murder in a heartbeat.
I am NOT afraid of you or gays or anyone else, you idiot.
I have no reason to be afraid.
Then you don't kill for fear, you kill for pleasure? That gets you
the needle. If you're NOT afraid, the law doesn't allow you to kill.
The verdict will be (or should be) death by misadventure. No charges
filed.
I wouldn't file charges against anyone who killed any gay who raped them
or attempted to rape them.
Good thing you'll never be in that position.
How do you know?
Because only the District Attorney brings charges, and you couldn't
qualify for coffee girl in the DA's office.
People would love me allowing them to protect themselves and their families
against you criminally-minded idiots.
The relatives of the person you murdered would get such a large
judgment against you that giving you the keys to Fort Knox wouldn't be
much help. And Tiny would be having so much fun with his new *****.
But attempted rape isn't attempted murder..
Your idiocy is irrelevant.
The law, John, is what says that.
The criminal code, you idiot.
My law and the law as it is written in the USA allows the use of lethal
force against persons who are a threat upon the lives of their intended
victims.
But your law is moot in a criminal court - only the criminal code as
it is written in your state is relevant. And it says that if you
can't prove your affirmative defense you rot in prison until you've
been raped to death. Or do you really think that someone serving a
life sentence will be worried about the extra time they'll tack on to
his sentence for raping you - over and over 2 or 3 times a day? If
you don't resemble a deflated football by the end of your first year
in prison it'll only be because you died before the year was up.
--
rukbat at optonline dot net
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is human
concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind cannot
begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an old
religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and never has
been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its
simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
09 Nov 2006 06:32:32 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:euv6l2lvrr47gq1ri48eoalcso65b60nv2@4ax.com...
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 10:34:48 -0500, "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> wrote:
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:9vc6l215gkkoq4ij06vvse9289pisdf7ak@4ax.com...
On Wed, 8 Nov 2006 23:52:48 -0500 "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> said the following in alt.atheism and
I was immediately reminded of 1,000 Chinchillas singing Handel's
"Messiah" for some reason...
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:38c5l2lfcm8nvvd68gpban0ja7n7u5f3if@4ax.com...
Not if you present an affirmative defense. Look it up.
When did the standards change?
They didn't. An affirmitave defense means you admit doing what you
are charged with, but you had a good reason. This is the defense used
by battered wives when they kill their husbands.
To what? If you couldn't prove it you'd be found guilty because your
defense would be moot.
Prove what?
That you knew for certain that your attacker was HIV+
The burden of proof is upon the accuser.
Not when you mount an affirmative defense.
The burden of proof is always upon the accuser in this nation.
ONLY when you deny that you did what you're accused of.
How about that fifth amendment now?
When you
assert something in court, you have to produce evidence to back up
your assertion.
Such burden is upon the plaintiff.
The defendant doesn't bring a case to court.
There is no burden of proof upon the defendant.
If you don't like that law - and it's the law in just about every
civilized nation - move to Iran or North Korea.
Why?
Plaintiff's are saddled with proving their claims.
In Iran, if you kill someone - regardless of what you claim - the
family has the right to kill you. But you won't have to prove
anything in court.
Yeah, because you would be the defendant, huh?
In North Korea the cops (soldiers, really) will just shoot you. The
law is that what they do is legal - because they did it.
Why will they 'just shoot' someone there?
The defense has no obligation to prove anything.
Unless it makes an assertion that goes past "I'm not guilty". Once
you pass that point the burden of proof turns around.
And, you are only citing your opinion there.
Actually, we are citing law.
You are a 'we'?
Me, Douglas and a couple of others.
What do you think an HIV postive rapist who knows they are HIV positive
is?
Totally and completely irrelevant to your defense that the SOLE reason
your killing him isn't against the law is that you KNEW that he was
HIV positive BEFORE you killed him. That's the ONLY claim that would
be allowed. Your claim that you had the right to ASSUME that he was
HIV positive would be inadmissible, because the law says that you
DON'T have the right to make that assumption.
Having unprotected sex with someone if you know (or even have good
reason to suspect) that you're HIV positive is a crime. Rape is
another crime. The fact that someone else committed a crime is not
admissible as an affirmative defense for a murder charge, unless the
crime he was committing was murder. And you have to prove that claim
- an assertion isn't admissible as evidence.
Self-defense is making a big comeback.
You can't legally defend against an assumed attack.
Assumed attack?
I am addressing actual attacks.
If you could, I
could kill you and claim that you were thinking of killing me. I
could assume that I KNEW what you were thinking. I don't think you
want to live in a world like that.
Why do you think that such a person deserves to be defended?
Because everyone gets equal protection under the law.
Self-defense is making a big comeback.
Again - you can't legally defend against an assumed attack - you have
to have proof that the attack was real BEFORE you kill your attacker.
I wasn't addressing any assumed attack.
Your brain wandering off into rapist paranoia land again?
If you do not agree with it, then you are going to be labelled a criminal.
YOU'LL be labeled a criminal for killing someone when you had no proof
that he was attempting to kill you.
You just don't understand what people will accept and what they won't
accept, do you?
Why are you against people killing those who attack them if they feel it
necessary?
Assuming that he was HIV
positive, AND that you'd die of an AIDS-related cause, isn't proof,
it's just unevidenced assertion, and not admissible. any ADA who let
that assertion go unchallenged would be at risk of losing his job for
not knowing how to prosecute a case.
Still wandering off into that dementia, huh?
It doesn't have to be reasonable. For it to be an affirmative defense
you have to prove that you knew it beforehand. That's the law.
No problem.
OK, how do you know someone has AIDS?
I don't need to know their medical status if they are attempting to rape
someone.
You do if you claim HIV as the excuse for killing him. You're using
their medical status as your defense. You can't use something you
don't know as a defense. If you could, I could assume anything I
wanted as legal justification for killing you.
Nah, idiot.
Rape is a crime against the body.
Self-defense is perfectly legitimate to ward off an attacker.
Why are you so afraid that people will start offing rapists?
LOL!
Can you be less obvious in your rapist protection practice?
It is very simple to do things as I prescribe them.
The law doesn't give a damn what you prescribe. If you break it you
pay the penalty. In this case you either get a needle in your arm,
you get flexible rooms for the rest of your life or, most likely, you
get to play ***** for the rest of your life, which won't be very long
if you keep being a smart-*****. It's very easy to break your neck when
you fall down a flight of stairs in a prison cell block.
Sorry, rapist lover.
You can't win this one.
No law you can cite will thwart me in this.
Allowing the same amount of force. Since rape, per se, isn't deadly,
deadly force isn't legal.
HIV has no cure, lamebrain.
The threat is there.
AIDS is currently long-term surviable. People are living for decades
with HIV and no symptoms.
Rape is still an offense that can get you killed and no one cries a tear
about it.
Walking across the street *can* get you killed.
Wlaking across the street is no crime.
Rape is a crime.
Self-defense is legal.
Put the pieces together.
But you can't get
away with killing someone unless there's an IMMEDIATE (and known)
threat to your life.
Easily done.
The law says that rape isn't such a threat.
Huh? Your rape support law?
What a wimp.
Bye, rapist advocate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
09 Nov 2006 08:29:04 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 19:32:32 -0500 "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> said the following in alt.atheism and
I was immediately reminded of 1,000 Chinchillas singing Handel's
"Messiah" for some reason...
ONLY when you deny that you did what you're accused of.
How about that fifth amendment now?
How about it? The affirmative defense boils down to "I admit I did
it, but I had a good reason." You have to prove your reason.
When you try to claim justification, the burden of proof shifts. In
our mythical rape case, you and your attorney would admit from opening
arguments that you killed the would-be rapist, but that you felt that
your life was in imminent danger, and were justified.
When you
assert something in court, you have to produce evidence to back up
your assertion.
Such burden is upon the plaintiff.
The defendant doesn't bring a case to court.
There is no burden of proof upon the defendant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_%28theory%29
Wrong again.
In North Korea the cops (soldiers, really) will just shoot you. The
law is that what they do is legal - because they did it.
Why will they 'just shoot' someone there?
It's a police state, moron.
You can't legally defend against an assumed attack.
Assumed attack?
I am addressing actual attacks.
You could not know in advance the HIV status of the attacker.
Therefore your defense fails.
You do if you claim HIV as the excuse for killing him. You're using
their medical status as your defense. You can't use something you
don't know as a defense. If you could, I could assume anything I
wanted as legal justification for killing you.
Nah, idiot.
Rape is a crime against the body.
Self-defense is perfectly legitimate to ward off an attacker.
With reasonable force. Kick him in the nuts. Thumb in the eye.
The law doesn't give a damn what you prescribe. If you break it you
pay the penalty. In this case you either get a needle in your arm,
you get flexible rooms for the rest of your life or, most likely, you
get to play ***** for the rest of your life, which won't be very long
if you keep being a smart-*****. It's very easy to break your neck when
you fall down a flight of stairs in a prison cell block.
Sorry, rapist lover.
You can't win this one.
No law you can cite will thwart me in this.
In other words the facts don't matter?
Walking across the street *can* get you killed.
Wlaking across the street is no crime.
Rape is a crime.
Self-defense is legal.
Put the pieces together.
Never heard of jaywalking? Had a case here in the Bay Area. Person
jay walked, and got hit by a bus. Sued the city for millions, and the
case got tossed. Why? She wasn't crossing the street legally.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
09 Nov 2006 09:25:02 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:bfo7l25i5mdb5cfqpabbf1pagtqm9nnaar@4ax.com...
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 19:32:32 -0500 "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> said the following in alt.atheism and
I was immediately reminded of 1,000 Chinchillas singing Handel's
"Messiah" for some reason...
ONLY when you deny that you did what you're accused of.
How about that fifth amendment now?
How about it? The affirmative defense boils down to "I admit I did
it, but I had a good reason." You have to prove your reason.
The Fifth amendment says nothing about 'affirmative defense' you idiot.
When you try to claim justification, the burden of proof shifts. In
our mythical rape case, you and your attorney would admit from opening
arguments that you killed the would-be rapist, but that you felt that
your life was in imminent danger, and were justified.
Wrong.
The BURDEN OF PROOF is upon the plaintifff.
When you
assert something in court, you have to produce evidence to back up
your assertion.
Such burden is upon the plaintiff.
The defendant doesn't bring a case to court.
There is no burden of proof upon the defendant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_%28theory%29
Wrong again.
Show me any case where a defendant brought a case to court.
In North Korea the cops (soldiers, really) will just shoot you. The
law is that what they do is legal - because they did it.
Why will they 'just shoot' someone there?
It's a police state, moron.
You mean they indiscriminately shoot persons in North Korea for no reason
whatsoever?
You can't legally defend against an assumed attack.
Assumed attack?
I am addressing actual attacks.
You could not know in advance the HIV status of the attacker.
Are you that stupid to assume that a person could not know the HIV status of
anyone?
Therefore your defense fails.
Your lie fails.
You do if you claim HIV as the excuse for killing him. You're using
their medical status as your defense. You can't use something you
don't know as a defense. If you could, I could assume anything I
wanted as legal justification for killing you.
Nah, idiot.
Rape is a crime against the body.
Self-defense is perfectly legitimate to ward off an attacker.
With reasonable force.
How long you gonna reason how to defend yourself?
Kick him in the nuts. Thumb in the eye.
Why?
Why not just kill the evil ***** and be done with it?
Or, are you still advocating coddling rapists?
The law doesn't give a damn what you prescribe. If you break it you
pay the penalty. In this case you either get a needle in your arm,
you get flexible rooms for the rest of your life or, most likely, you
get to play ***** for the rest of your life, which won't be very long
if you keep being a smart-*****. It's very easy to break your neck when
you fall down a flight of stairs in a prison cell block.
Sorry, rapist lover.
You can't win this one.
No law you can cite will thwart me in this.
In other words the facts don't matter?
The fact that you are an idiot who coddles rapists is what is irrelevant to
me.
Walking across the street *can* get you killed.
Walking across the street is no crime.
Rape is a crime.
Self-defense is legal.
Put the pieces together.
Never heard of jaywalking?
Do you mean forcible jaywalking ala rape?
Just what are you trying to say, rapist defender?
Had a case here in the Bay Area. Person
jay walked, and got hit by a bus. Sued the city for millions, and the
case got tossed. Why? She wasn't crossing the street legally.
But, if it involves someone who was dui/dwi who accidentally ran over
someone who wasn't obeying the rules of the road you think they are guilty?
Hypocrisy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
10 Nov 2006 04:52:11 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 22:25:02 -0500 "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> said the following in alt.atheism and
I was immediately reminded of 1,000 Chinchillas singing Handel's
"Messiah" for some reason...
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:bfo7l25i5mdb5cfqpabbf1pagtqm9nnaar@4ax.com...
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 19:32:32 -0500 "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> said the following in alt.atheism and
I was immediately reminded of 1,000 Chinchillas singing Handel's
"Messiah" for some reason...
ONLY when you deny that you did what you're accused of.
How about that fifth amendment now?
How about it? The affirmative defense boils down to "I admit I did
it, but I had a good reason." You have to prove your reason.
The Fifth amendment says nothing about 'affirmative defense' you idiot.
Nor does it mention self-defense as an excuse for crime. Here it is
in its entirety
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation."
When you try to claim justification, the burden of proof shifts. In
our mythical rape case, you and your attorney would admit from opening
arguments that you killed the would-be rapist, but that you felt that
your life was in imminent danger, and were justified.
Wrong.
The BURDEN OF PROOF is upon the plaintifff.
There is no "plaintiff" in a criminal proceeding, moron. The word you
are searching for is "prosecution." Your ignorance of the most basic
concepts of our legal system is both telling and amusing.
Now, let's examine your "case."
All the police know is that they found you standing over a lifeless
body. You are arrested and charged with murder.
They can probably prove their case. Odds are there is enough physical
and circumstancial evidence to make the case a slam dunk, plus you
seem to be determined to confess.
Your lawyer will argue justification - thast you were in imminent fear
of your life. In order for this defense to work, *your* side has to
convince the jury that what you claim is true, and you have to prove
that lethal force was your only option.
In short, you admit to the base crime, and then prove that it wasn't
done with criminal intent. You shift the burden of proof to yourself.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_%28theory%29
Wrong again.
Show me any case where a defendant brought a case to court.
I don't have to. But I can show you cases where defendants claimed an
affirmative defense and then had to prove that to a jury.
It's a police state, moron.
You mean they indiscriminately shoot persons in North Korea for no reason
whatsoever?
Yup. Not a nice place.
You could not know in advance the HIV status of the attacker.
Are you that stupid to assume that a person could not know the HIV status of
anyone?
OK, Am I HIV+? Here's a good, recent picture.
http://www.livejournal.com/userpic/2235651/74760
I'm 6' tall, 155lbs.
Do I have AIDS?
The question will be if you could tell *at the moment of the attack*
that your attacker was carrying HIV.
A good lawyer could also shoot multiple holes in the "imminent threat"
portion of the self-defense claim. Bring in a few witnesses to
testify how hard it is to get HIV, and a few people who've been living
with the disease for 2 decades now, and that claim goes down the
tubes.
Better yet, were I the ADA, I'd test the blood of your victim. If he
wasn't HIV+, you don't even get to make the claim in court.
Therefore your defense fails.
Your lie fails.
Show, wityh citations, where I've lied.
With reasonable force.
How long you gonna reason how to defend yourself?
Me? Last person who tried to mug me is probably still in physical
therapy for what I did to his arm.
Kick him in the nuts. Thumb in the eye.
Why?
Why not just kill the evil ***** and be done with it?
Or, are you still advocating coddling rapists?
I'd prefer they rot in prison. You don't get to kill them because you
are not judge, jury and executioner.
You can't win this one.
No law you can cite will thwart me in this.
In other words the facts don't matter?
The fact that you are an idiot who coddles rapists is what is irrelevant to
me.
You just stated that quoting the actual law doesn't matter to you. Are
you actually arguing from reality, or your own personal fantasy world.
Had a case here in the Bay Area. Person
jay walked, and got hit by a bus. Sued the city for millions, and the
case got tossed. Why? She wasn't crossing the street legally.
But, if it involves someone who was dui/dwi who accidentally ran over
someone who wasn't obeying the rules of the road you think they are guilty?
Hypocrisy.
Both would be liable in that case.
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "John D.Wentzky" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
10 Nov 2006 10:32:14 PM |
|
|
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:oiv9l25a21citeagj5en5nmi3jtpjvh8pl@4ax.com...
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 22:25:02 -0500 "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> said the following in alt.atheism and
I was immediately reminded of 1,000 Chinchillas singing Handel's
"Messiah" for some reason...
"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message
news:bfo7l25i5mdb5cfqpabbf1pagtqm9nnaar@4ax.com...
On Thu, 9 Nov 2006 19:32:32 -0500 "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> said the following in alt.atheism and
I was immediately reminded of 1,000 Chinchillas singing Handel's
"Messiah" for some reason...
ONLY when you deny that you did what you're accused of.
How about that fifth amendment now?
How about it? The affirmative defense boils down to "I admit I did
it, but I had a good reason." You have to prove your reason.
The Fifth amendment says nothing about 'affirmative defense' you idiot.
Nor does it mention self-defense as an excuse for crime. Here it is
in its entirety
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise
infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury,
except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the
Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor
shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in
jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case
to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be
taken for public use, without just compensation."
When you try to claim justification, the burden of proof shifts. In
our mythical rape case, you and your attorney would admit from opening
arguments that you killed the would-be rapist, but that you felt that
your life was in imminent danger, and were justified.
Wrong.
The BURDEN OF PROOF is upon the plaintifff.
There is no "plaintiff" in a criminal proceeding, moron.
You mean the State is not in existence now?
The word you
are searching for is "prosecution." Your ignorance of the most basic
concepts of our legal system is both telling and amusing.
The state is a plaintiff in cases it brings against persons.
They are burdened with the task of proof of their accusations.
Is that why they are so prone to lying at times?
Now, let's examine your "case."
All the police know is that they found you standing over a lifeless
body.
When was that?
You are arrested and charged with murder.
Without any proof? Without any witnesses?
Hmm.
Some cop squad you are imagining, huh?
They can probably prove their case.
How?
Odds are there is enough physical
and circumstancial evidence to make the case a slam dunk, plus you
seem to be determined to confess.
To what?
Your lawyer will argue justification - thast you were in imminent fear
of your life. In order for this defense to work, *your* side has to
convince the jury that what you claim is true, and you have to prove
that lethal force was your only option.
And, many persons would not convict upon accidental death via self-defense.
In short, you admit to the base crime,
How does a person admit to a crime when they plead not guilty?
and then prove that it wasn't
done with criminal intent. You shift the burden of proof to yourself.
Are you still confused as to pleadings?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_defense
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_%28theory%29
Wrong again.
Show me any case where a defendant brought a case to court.
I don't have to. But I can show you cases where defendants claimed an
affirmative defense and then had to prove that to a jury.
It's a police state, moron.
You mean they indiscriminately shoot persons in North Korea for no reason
whatsoever?
Yup. Not a nice place.
Yuck.
I had no idea.
But, without proof of that assertion I am quite unable to take it as truth.
You could not know in advance the HIV status of the attacker.
Are you that stupid to assume that a person could not know the HIV status
of
anyone?
OK, Am I HIV+? Here's a good, recent picture.
http://www.livejournal.com/userpic/2235651/74760
I'm 6' tall, 155lbs.
Do I have AIDS?
The question will be if you could tell *at the moment of the attack*
that your attacker was carrying HIV.
And, if the defendant says, "Yes", what does that mke you run around to do?
Empirical evidence, if said attacker were in fact HIV+, would provide you
with no way of overturning the affirmative answer.
A good lawyer could also shoot multiple holes in the "imminent threat"
portion of the self-defense claim. Bring in a few witnesses to
testify how hard it is to get HIV, and a few people who've been living
with the disease for 2 decades now, and that claim goes down the
tubes.
Then the defense brings in the emprical evidence of the number of deaths due
to HIV infection and shoots the prosecution's criminal rapist/gay
prosecutorial tactics down.
Better yet, were I the ADA, I'd test the blood of your victim. If he
wasn't HIV+, you don't even get to make the claim in court.
But, you are stll in error.
Assuming a rapist is HIV+ is not unreasonable.
In matters of self-defense it is perfectly justifiable to assume the worst
in order to protect people sufficiently.
If such is not done then you are subjectng persons to chance and leaving
them without a certain defense of themselves.
Therefore your defense fails.
Your lie fails.
Show, wityh citations, where I've lied.
With reasonable force.
How long you gonna reason how to defend yourself?
Me? Last person who tried to mug me is probably still in physical
therapy for what I did to his arm.
Ok.
Were you prosecuted for that harm?
LOL!
Maybe you should stop acting as if anyone who causes death to an attacker is
somehow guilty, or your standard of punishment could be used upon yourself.
Do you expect our military to go to war and only injure the enemy?
Kick him in the nuts. Thumb in the eye.
Why?
Why not just kill the evil ***** and be done with it?
Or, are you still advocating coddling rapists?
I'd prefer they rot in prison.
At taxpayer expense?
Weird.
You don't get to kill them because you
are not judge, jury and executioner.
You should take that statement upon yourself and heed it.
You can't win this one.
No law you can cite will thwart me in this.
In other words the facts don't matter?
The fact that you are an idiot who coddles rapists is what is irrelevant
to
me.
You just stated that quoting the actual law doesn't matter to you. Are
you actually arguing from reality, or your own personal fantasy world.
So, how much punishment did you receive for your brutal assault and battery
upon the person who mugged or tried to mug you?
Had a case here in the Bay Area. Person
jay walked, and got hit by a bus. Sued the city for millions, and the
case got tossed. Why? She wasn't crossing the street legally.
But, if it involves someone who was dui/dwi who accidentally ran over
someone who wasn't obeying the rules of the road you think they are
guilty?
Hypocrisy.
Both would be liable in that case.
How so?
What if the person who was dui/dwi was not in violation of any traffic code?
--
Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the
source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a
stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as
good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: South Dakota Voters Reject Pro-Rapist Abortion Ban |
11 Nov 2006 04:01:24 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 23:32:14 -0500 "John D.Wentzky"
<johndwentzky@alumni.furman.edu> said the following in alt.atheism and
I was immediately reminded of 1,000 Chinchillas singing Handel's
"Messiah" for some reason...
There is no "plaintiff" in a criminal proceeding, moron.
You mean the State is not in existence now?
The word you
are searching for is "prosecution." Your ignorance of the most basic
concepts of our legal system is both telling and amusing.
The state is a plaintiff in cases it brings against persons.
They are burdened with the task of proof of their accusations.
Is that why they are so prone to lying at times?
Wrong. Plaintiff is the term used in civil court when an enetity
brings a suit against another entity. In criminal courts, the two
sides are the prosection (usually refered to as the State) and the
defense.
Now, let's examine your "case."
All the police know is that they found you standing over a lifeless
body.
When was that?
After you killed this would-be rapist.
You are arrested and charged with murder.
Without any proof? Without any witnesses?
Hmm.
Some cop squad you are imagining, huh?
They found you standing over the body, knife in hand, and when
questioned by the police, you stated your usual "I killed him because
I was afraid for my life" line. Or are you going to lie to the cops?
They can probably prove their case.
How?
Physical evidence, and the fact that you're an idiot.
Odds are there is enough physical
and circumstancial evidence to make the case a slam dunk, plus you
seem to be determined to confess.
To what?
That you killed the would be racist.
Your lawyer will argue justification - thast you were in imminent fear
of your life. In order for this defense to work, *your* side has to
convince the jury that what you claim is true, and you have to prove
that lethal force was your only option.
And, many persons would not convict upon accidental death via self-defense.
Don't bet on that. Self-defense is extremely hard to prove, and you
have to get the court to allow an affirmative defense.
In short, you admit to the base crime,
How does a person admit to a crime when they plead not guilty?
*sigh* When pleading self-defense you admit that you did it.
"I killed that man."
But you say it wasn't a criminal act as defined by law because you
felt there was an immediate threat to life, either your own or someone
else.
"But I had a good reason too."
Doing this changes the focus of the trial. you admit the act, but
deny the crime. You then have the burden of proof to show that you
were justified.
How can you claim justifi9cation if you deny that you committed the
act? Those are two different defences!
and then prove that it wasn't
done with criminal intent. You shift the burden of proof to yourself.
Are you still confused as to pleadings?
You are.
You mean they indiscriminately shoot persons in North Korea for no reason
whatsoever?
Yup. Not a nice place.
Yuck.
I had no idea.
But, without proof of that assertion I am quite unable to take it as truth.
do some research into the Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
OK, Am I HIV+? Here's a good, recent picture.
http://www.livejournal.com/userpic/2235651/74760
I'm 6' tall, 155lbs.
Do I have AIDS?
You didn't answer. Do I have AIDS?
The question will be if you could tell *at the moment of the attack*
that your attacker was carrying HIV.
And, if the defendant says, "Yes", what does that mke you run around to do?
Empirical evidence, if said attacker were in fact HIV+, would provide you
with no way of overturning the affirmative answer.
You are the defendant, having killed the attacker! and what you find
out later does not enter into what you knew at the moment of the
attack.
A good lawyer could also shoot multiple holes in the "imminent threat"
portion of the self-defense claim. Bring in a few witnesses to
testify how hard it is to get HIV, and a few people who've been living
with the disease for 2 decades now, and that claim goes down the
tubes.
Then the defense brings in the emprical evidence of the number of deaths due
to HIV infection and shoots the prosecution's criminal rapist/gay
prosecutorial tactics down.
Nope. All that matter is two things: what you could have known at the
moment of the attack about your atta | | | | | | | | | | | | |
