EBSB52

What are ya gonna say next: we didn't really land on the moon No, I agree that Russia did the most to kick Germany's ass. I was just saying that we dedicated the most to the entire effort. Could we have won alone, in both theatres? Maybe, possibly not. Could the rest of the world defeated both of them w/o us? No way. Hey, you know I'm not a big fan of US policy and politics, I'm just calling it the way I see it. In any case, allies are always good to have. Denigrating the role of your allies is stupid. Absolutley, and in no way was I doing that or even undermining their importance.

I agree with the spirit of this, but the differences are that there had been an order of protection issued and an alert was made. Truth is he did have access to the kids and could have done it next weekend. I wonder why mommy is thinking lawsuit instead of mourning???

That's the rub, we (LEO's) make a bad decision and people can die, how many of you can say that? LOt's people. I'm an aircraft mech/Inspector; FAA licensed. I'm going into nursing, need I say more? Many people are in jobs where bad decisions = dead people, but some are exonerated for these 'bad decisions' even if more than just good ole poor judgment is obvious. This is a tough one, if it was a restraining/protective order then yes, it was the cops job to protect these people. BUT, if this was some kind of custodial agreement, then no, (at least here) it's not the cop's job to protect individuals in these situations. Depends on the wording. I agree, tricking wording. The cops aren't responsible for people's safety, butthey do have a duty to report crimes, for which they selectively do. A decision was made and three little girls are dead. The cops are the last ones who wanted that to happen. OMG, so you're saying the cops did want it to happen, just that they were the last ones on the list to have it happen? I know what you're saying and of course teh cops would have died killing this SOB before he did what he did, had they been there. I think that can be said of any of us. I can understand some motives of some criminals, but to kill your 3 darling little girls to spite your wife; there's a special hell for that mother fucker. Hard to argue against CP with cases like this, had the perp been alive, but the emphasis is still on the wrongly convicted innocent. Another shit sandwich, with the local cops as the meat. Hold the mayo.....

Here's the deal, I sued a former employer and it finally went to trial yesterday. I sued for lost wages via having to quit under duress. The 3 reasons that led me to quitting under duress are: 1) Employer had an employee that threatened to kill another employee, I brought this up in a meeting, the offending employee admitted this and then wanted to "take me to the parking lot." The employer wanted to retain offending employee but was required to fire him for his acts; employer rehired him after I quit. I asserted that there was extreme bias against me, harrassment due to me objecting to his return, which was justified by his rehiring after I quit. 2) Employer paid me with 4 out of 10 NSF checks. Only 1 went through my bank account that bounced, the rest went through their bank and I was required to return to the bank several times to see if the money was ever deposited until I could cash it. According the Arizona Administrative Codes, I can quit under good cause for the above actions. 3) This prompted me to immediately quit: I'm an aircraft mechanic IA, which means I can return to service aircraft after major repair or alteration, as well as perform an annual inspection. My boss, who let his IA expire, severly leaned on me to sign off that annual when I did not actually inspect it. I proved he did so by him saying, "Fine, I won't sign off anything of yours either." This is a violation that could render an airman's license revoked. I immediately quit after this. I was suing for 5 weeks wages, the time it took me to secure employment elsewhere. I won't tell you the outcome until after a few responses. If you vote, give rationale as to how you came to that conclusion. Thx

What is policy, procedure an the like are just fluff. The reality is that they protect their own agenda, as in "taking care of their own." So what is writtena nd what is realized are worlds apart in most cases. We studied special realionship contracts in college, I think there were 3. 1. Parent to a child. I can watch a child getting killed and have no legal duty to do anything in most jurisdictions. Some jurisdictions might require I at least make a phone call. (Of course I would fight to the death to save a child, I'm just illustrating my legal duty as it relates to special relationships) But a parent must go to great lengths to save their child if they are in peril. They are violating that special relationship if they do nothing. 2. Cops. They can't sit there and do nothing, they are in a special relationship contract to render aid to a citizen within their jurisdiction. 3. I forget maybe some lawyers fill in the blank. Anyway, what is written and what is realized can be worlds apart, and ofet are. Should they just do the paperwork with no duty to protect? I dunno. I would just like the rules clarified and some accountability realized. U.S. cities are immune from most lawsuits, and the Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether the mother, Jessica Gonzales, can sue in this case. It's a decision, reports Correspondent Mike Wallace, that could affect police departments across the country. Sisters Rebecca, Kathryn and Leslie Gonzales were known to their friends as "three peas in a pod." I disagree with this part of the article. They are immune from lawsuits that state a claim for failing to protect maybe, but they get successfully sued all the time, which is why they are required to carry insurance. "Their first reaction was, 'Well, he's their father. It's OK for them to be with him,'" says Gonzales. "And I said, 'No, it's not OK. There was no arranged visit for him to have them.'" This is police discretion and we allow people who are cops, often of low education, generally very conservative, to make these calls that should be made by higher authorities. The kids being killed could have happened at any time since thefather had custody of them. He could have just waited until one of his custodial times to do it. I'm a process server and tried to enforce a restraining order for a client to the effect that the guy I served 2 weeks prior was feet away from my client, I told a cop about it,he shrugged and said that the peace wasn't being breached,. If you guys wanna understand what motivates police, look no further than.... ONE OF THEIR OWN I can't totally blame the street cop for that though, the agnda of various levels of government is to keep cops in their corner; they do this by creating divide between cops and citizens. Racial divide, class divide, and authority divide ensure enough dissention to thwart any revolt from citizen to government.

As an scottish citizen, I wouldn´t have thought that you were affected by a severe case of selective memory as some american people seems to be. The U.S was not alone in that war (France, UK, and Russia was there as well. As well as Germany was not alone (Italy and Spain were a very friendly neutral country toward the germans) It was in the best interests of the U.S to stop the germans, and better to do it in Europe than in the U.S. You know less american civilians killed. Make no mistake, every single country looks for their own interests, to do otherwise would be a treason of the government. But only the U.S tries to tell the rest of the world that they do things out of kindness of heart. Few foreign people believes it. I generally agree, but the US had the greatest number of people anvolved in either or both theatres to my understanding, and the most amount of capital invested. If that's incorrect, please illustrate. The question is, would the rest of the world have been able to organize an effort against Japan and Germany... oh ya, Italy (smirk) too? Interesting factoid, Italy wa sthe first country to declare war against the US in, I think 42. I think we did them by lunch . Actually I think the 442nd, comprised entirely of Japanese-Americans who were interned in the US, 110,000 of them, took care of most of Italy. But we won't talk about the US imprisoning their own and then those prisoners paying back the US by helping to save our ass. American policy and politics sucked back then too. I think not, I think the rest of the world would have sucombed to Germany and Japan w/o the US, so I do believe the US did save the world, but since then our record has tarnished greatly. The U.S was not alone in that war (France, UK, and Russia was there as well. As well as Germany was not alone (Italy and Spain were a very friendly neutral country toward the germans) Italy was an ally to Germany in that war. I'm not sure of Spain's involvement, but Italy was an enemy of the US allied forces. Make no mistake, every single country looks for their own interests, to do otherwise would be a treason of the government. But only the U.S tries to tell the rest of the world that they do things out of kindness of heart. Few foreign people believes it. Totally agree. How did the US fuck up such great status we earned after WWII? The greatest generation...... yes. Now, the oppressive government....yes.

- ...knowing that SH had WMD for quite some time in the past, OK, and they were never found and the Whote House has admited there were none. So that's wrong. - ...never proving he got rid of them, Again, the White House just established they were gone. Maybe they were used, maybe they were sold, but they are and were gone. - ...and even if he had, making quite clear he wanted them again, What small country doesn't want them to protect themselves from large potential invaders like China, Russia or the US? All 3 points are moot, and furthermore, the WMD thing was just a reason to go in and take out an inactive enemy and make an example of a leader for the reat of the Arabic nation, a sort of deterent. Bottom line, he actually did nothing but express dislike for the US. War is always a bad solution, but it's the right choice when you're convinced doing nothing will eventually be worse. And there's only 2 options? There are several, but the untelligent thing to ask is why Arabs/Muslims don't like us. Could ir be our involvement with Israel? Could it be our proactive involvement with them to the point we protect their hell-raising in the region? I think so. 3rd option: Quit defending Israel.

Is that an example of American humour? Oh yeah forgot, after that huge success in Iraq, the US has any reason in the world to make jokes about next invasion. The world is a funny play yard, isn't it? Hardly, I'm Scottish but congratulations on showing your own bigotry towards a nation of people that have done more for freedom around the world than any other. As a German resident you should be intimately familiar with the benefits of a good American invasion/liberation. Some things are funny yea. I don't see how she's shown bigotry. She merely illustrated what most of the world has for the last few decades, very strongly since the Iraqi matter. As for WWII, the US was aces. Anyone to denounce the actions of the US's involvement in WWII is either a devote Nazi, Hiro Hito Japanese, or pro-Mousilini Fascist. The US did save the world in the 1940's, since then we have abused our earned position and taken it too far. WWII - Iraqi War = apples/oranges

Is that an example of American humour? Oh yeah forgot, after that huge success in Iraq, the US has any reason in the world to make jokes about next invasion. The world is a funny play yard, isn't it? The Iranian War is the sequel . Ya, it's funny to kill people in other countries, apparently. I was against then, still am. We will eventually pull out and then all those that sided with the US will be doomed by the Muslim extremists. The right thing to do would be to offer all the siders with the US assylum.

#1. You lose when you start ranting and calling folks names. Makes you look bad. #2. There is a BIG difference between a CRIMINAL and someone in a PVS. One made a choice to comit a crime bad enough that it carried a death penalty. One is just unlucky as hell (BTW I am all for pulling the plug on Terri.) It is very funny you guys keep cryinga bout 2000. It was legal, recount after recount said so...Also he kicked Kerry's ass in the next election. One would think that if so many hated Bush he would have lost. Get over it. In your favorite groups words "Moveon" #1. You lose when you start ranting and calling folks names. Makes you look bad. So you mean my point is invalid when I insert the word, "maggot" in there? Would the point be valid without that word? Come on, don't get distracted by semantics. That word has zero to do with the validity of the point. #2. There is a BIG difference between a CRIMINAL and someone in a PVS. One made a choice to comit a crime bad enough that it carried a death penalty. One is just unlucky as hell (BTW I am all for pulling the plug on Terri.) You make the assumption that ALL convicted people are guilty. You make the assumption that we have never and will never execute innocent people. WHat I wrote was that Bush investigated 1 or 2 of the death warrants he signed, while never having rejected even one of them. So my point was and still is: Exactly, and on a related note, Bush rejected not 1 death warrant while governor of Texas, investigated maybe 1 or 2 at most, what's with this, "err onthe side of life" bullshit? I even cleaned it up for you so you could read it without the distraction. The question is purely rhetotical; point is, Bush frys em w/o caring about erring on the side of life. Convictions from coiunty courthouses are often flawed, so to rely solely on these as always valid and sign off is asking for dead innocent people, zero attention to error and the side of life. Furthermore, with the 'err on the side of life' crap, that means Terri and other vegetables like her would never be allowed to die. So how does that work with Bush's tightening of the social welfare belt? See, Bush and the current admin are full of contradictions.

What drunk Driver? Although the source of her injury is absolutely irrelevant with this issue, I though it was as a result of a car accident caused by a drunk driver. Anywho, insert cardiac anomoly where drunk driver is and then answer that; same point.

I see nothing horriable about giving someone a chance to redeem themself. I would add one more condition; repay the victim. They do, it's called restitution and virtually all plea deals have these. In fact, violate the terms of the plea deal, it's go back to jail time.

It's worked so far Wendy W. (I know you're kidding) Ya, just like prohibition did - do we not learn a thing?

Gee, I had a real estate broker do that with the help of a cop. His police department refused to even take a police report.... ya know, help out ONE OF THEIR OWN. 8 days later he smoked a mother of 3 at a Walgreen's drive thru, was fired, tried for murder, acquitted and is now suing everyone for his job back. Ya, the first line of protection is corrupt all the way to the top - let's see if he gets his job back to complete the story of criminals within the system, supposedly protecting us from so-called criminals.

In case you guys didn't know, we have that. The US gov, in all its Fascist fury, has made most/all US prisons corporate-run. SO prisons are essentially for profit, however the taxpayers still pay SOMEONE, even though prisoners do work. I have major problems with prisons being run by corporations and not the gov.

As deterrence, or????? Do you think these people will actually perform the hard labor since they will never see the light of day???? Retribution sucks and makes all of society that much more jaded and synical. JUst remove murderers from society and be glad they're gome.

What a sad cynical thing to say. I can't imagine any amount of money would be worth the torment and agony he's gone though for the last 15 years. Almost as if the other side of the argument is shifting blame from the drunk driver to the hubby here. Truth is, the drunk driver got off easy with whatever he/she got. The law provides for the, "year and a day" rule in cases like this. WHat it says is that of a person dies from an injury like this 1 year and 1 day or less from the date of the injury, the death is chargeable to that defendant. Since her body was clinically alive at that point he probably was charged with aggr assault.

I agree that it seems different. She looks different than most people who have no brain activity, and thus we want to believe she's really OK. But in reality it is no different. She is in a coma with her eyes open and her brainstem working; all the things that made her a person are still gone. To take it to the next level we could cite people with frontal lobotomies. They are fully functional, buttheir frontal lobes have been 'scrambled' so their personality is dead. There are many different levels of vegetablism, but any are just as devastating as the others in regard to the person being dead. I think one of the tragedies of this is that there are people out there who are telling whatever lies they can to "win". There are people saying she's fine, that she can talk and laugh and eat. They know it's not true, but if they can get enough people to believe, they can win - Teri and her husband be damned. And that means that well-meaning people, people who would not question the decision to terminate life support on a brain-dead relative, support the opposite position because of what they've been told. Ya, and one of rhe tragedies that I see is that the same schoool of folks that want to keep Terri alive are often the same ones wanting to fry people on circumstantial evidence withpout hearing the possibilities that a few of the people might be innocent. >On the news earlier today, I heard a rather wise suggestion: sit > the "husband" or Micheal Shiavo and Terri's parents in a room and >have them figure it out... Mediation works with entities that can find a middle, but there is no middle here - life vs death. They could agree to 2 more years, but then the family would be wanting for more at that time. And her parents may be deranged enough to want the body of their daughter kept alive so they don't have to deal with her death, so it's easier on them emotionally. But neither of us really know what's going on there, do we? That's basically it in a nutshell, nothing malicious, just the natural instinct of not wanting to watch your kids die b4 you.

It is especially mindblowing when GWB sais that the "executive and legistative brach have to err on the side of life". These are exactly the two branches of government that no frigging buisness intervening in an individual legal case. We are governed by people who don't appear to have the first clue about the most basic principes of government - separation of powers, what each branch is stands for, due process, etc. It's probably no accident that the guy occasionally invents the "administrative branch" and other curiosities. In his words - that's "Extra sad". With this amount of overstepping of competence the judges circled the wagons and protected their branch - there was no way any of them - no matter what of political couleur - could have given in to this BS. Next to the violation of sepration of power and due process I'd find the violation of state rights the lesser evil (evil nonetheless). It'd be interesting to see though if this will create a split between the "process conservatives" and the "social conservatives" Cheers, T It is especially mindblowing when GWB sais that the "executive and legistative brach have to err on the side of life". These are exactly the two branches of government that no frigging buisness intervening in an individual legal case. Exactly, and on a related note, a maggot like Bush that rejected not 1 death warrant while governor of Texas, investigated maybe 1 or 2 at most, what's with this, "err onthe side of life" total maggot bullshit? His argumentational skills are as cogent as his English skills. Does he think Americans are as stupid as he is with as much hard drive space? It's probably no accident that the guy occasionally invents the "administrative branch" and other curiosities. In his words - that's "Extra sad". On the Bushisms calemdar - very sad and funny. Next to the violation of sepration of power and due process I'd find the violation of state rights the lesser evil (evil nonetheless). It'd be interesting to see though if this will create a split between the "process conservatives" and the "social conservatives" Why? Florida is part of the US gov - remeber 2000? ...if this will create a split between the "process conservatives" and the "social conservatives" IS that fiscal and moral consservatives, or another way to dichotomize the party? Just curious how you're splitting them.

Maybe not...but it's definitely a deterrent against a possible repeat offender. That's one of the first falacies that gets debunked in Justice Stiudies; deterrence must be accompanied with choice - those on death row are virtually w/o choice. It sounds cute to say that the DP has a specific (as opposed to general) deterent value, but with no choice the element of deterrence is moot. Some crimes deserve nothing less...kill a cop or a kid you die... Which are 2 of the 10 aggravating factors Arizona employs when determining which cases to bring forward for death qualification. Circumstantial? Don't ever get yourself in circumstances that you can so readily be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. So for Ray Crone of Arizona that was playing darts inthe local bar. So I guess we are relegated to living alone and knowing no one so we can't be accused. Oh wait, then we have no legitimate alibi if wrongly accused. Ray Crone was heavily for CP until he spent 2 years on death row and 8 more in GP for a murder he didn't commit. 300k later of his families money he was finally exonerated by a judge, not a wonderful sampling of our peers that love to fry em now, ask questions later. What about vindication/revenge for the surviving family is bad?! An EYE for an EYE... Old Testament retribution..... a wonderful thing to teach our kids.... hmmmm, where oh where do they get these wild ideas of killing people? Must be that rock-n-roll music that brainwashes them, not the evening news that details how the establishment kills em all the time. Degradation of society; where dothey get those ideas? It called thining the heard...and it's not done enough. So you want to kill peole to dissuade others to kill? Now, add the element of killing some innocent people to attempt to thwart the killing of innocent people..... hmmmm. Aweful, rotten, horrible counties like Russia have abandoned the practice as they know they were killing innocents. Fortunatley we are more humane than them, right? It DOES work...criminals nationwide have gotten the message that if you kill someone here in Texas... We'll kill you back! The murder rate was on the rise as of last I checked, and Bush killed all kinds of folks. How is the murder rate there? I bet it's at least leveled off if not onthe rise, which debunks your theory. So if your framed then do they murder you w/o it being called, "murdering you back?" So do murderers kidnap people from there and go to Wisconsin to kill so they won't be executed? You act as if there is some kind of rational thought process involved in 1st degree murderers.

In this case I wish Gov Bush would STFU. How about prez Bush - he has a hand in this too.

Let me begin by saying this - The death penalty as it is used today is not a deterant for future criminals. You are correct, although I don't think the deterrence argument was ever valid; capital punishment has always been about vindication/revenge. The deterent argument was only used when we realized we were killing some innocent people, it was used to stir the pot, you know, waive around a picture of some 6 year old girl that was savagely murdered - keeps the fires hot for whom ever the system deems worthy. (It's not used often enough). How do you feel when it's used to kill innocent people? Oftne enough then? Here's why I think he should die (I do think he's guilty). I am sick of dirt bag criminals getting to spend their lives in prison for murdering people. Getting to? Like it's a priveledge.... The issue here is not to protect the guilty, but to protect the innocent that are wrongly accused/convicted. I am sick of dirt bag criminals getting to spend their lives in prison for murdering people. Why should this low life get to spend the rest of his life in a heated/air conditioned building, getting 3 meals a day, and healthcare? With that reasoning wouldn't we be executing for all felonies? I don't think it's a field trip for people living in 6 x9 cells.... let's be real. Why not give that privelage to the true homeless, who can't afford it. I would much rather see this waste of flesh dead. You don't really mean that. See, if the system executed all "bad" people as you wish and then gave the savings to the homeless, you would be angry that lazy people get handouts. I realize you were just being semantic with that statement. Was hoping they still had Ol' Sparky to use. Dead is dead - does it make you feel better to see him in more pain? Hmmmm, I wonder if Gacey, Bundy and the likes had the ame philosophy about people and pain?

I for one am glad to see that this piece of shit is going to die. I do believe he is guilty as sin and the verdict was correct. What does bother me is that another death sentence is assigned on purely circumstantioal evidence, but I do believe he committed the crime as advertised. With that, what makes you happy that he will/might die one day at the hand of the state? Do you think it will dissuade other would-be killers? Do you think we will all feel better? WHat impact does this activity have on the kids of our country? Don't you think they will understand that killing people is ok? Please don't tell me that they can all differentiate from the "bad guy" killing from the "good guys." All they see is killing in the paper and they take notice. It's obvious that you feel vindication here. Do you think Peterson cares? Don't you think that CP is based upon vindication/retribution? Is this healthy for strangers to feel this? If it was my daughter, sure, but for strangers to feel this really reflects upon our country's culture. Anyone know what form of execution it's going to be? Are you serious? Doesn't everyone know that Cali only has lethal injection? A couple other states still have other forms like hanging and firing squad last I checked.

I, for one, will feel so much better when he's finally executed. Birds will chirp and all those would-be killers will think twice. (for clarification, this is sarcasm)

For one thing, Bush is the current president, as much as that pains me to write. Mostly though, I have a hard time hearing/reading anyone state that Bush is more persecuted in the media; remember that little impeachment thing? The same could be done to Bush with the entrance of the Iraq war and the alleged WOMD, but with no Ken Star looming in the shadows I don't see that happening. Just like we can all be cited for a traffic violation at any given time, I think most/all presidents could be impeached or at least highly scrutinized for corrputioon and/or mishandling of public affairs. Reagan/ Bush 1 with Iran Contra, Ford with his pardoning of Nixon, Nixon with Watergate (not being prosecuted, just being allowed to bow out), LBJ for his war atrocities of Viet Nam, possibly even a lame duck pres like Carter for mishandlingthe Iranian hostage crisis. I think we can go to any presidency and find a reason to severly investigate or even impeach most presidents. The decision to go forward with these investigations/impeachments is, let's say, political.... Bush persecuted? Nah