On 13 Mar 2005 12:35:05 -0800, "speed loader" 
wrote:

>Grizzlie Antagonist wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 17:40:55 -0600, USA  wrote:
>>
>> >What is more disgusting than having women serving on police forces
>is
>> >the fact that no one in the media will admit the obvious -- that
>this
>> >female (like all females) was unable to control her gun or to
>control
>> >the prisoner and as a result other people she was supposedly
>> >"protecting" were killed.
>>
>>
>>
>> I had a feeling all along that it was a female deputy - by the
>> sparseness of details that the news media was providing.  I said that
>> to someone else today.
>>
>> If the authorities are going to hire women for law enforcement, why
>do
>> they have to hire them from a real life applicant pool?
>>
>> Why don't they hire those ass-kicking chicks that they're always
>> showing on TV and in the movies?
>>
>>
>
>
>Griz,
>
>I'm very surprised you and the hardcore vets of this group completely
>missed the flip side of this issue - the prisoner in question.
>
>His first trial ended in a hung jury.  Clearly, there were jurors who
>were not convinced of his guilt - it wasn't a slam-dunk case.
>
>The prosecution was getting ready to RR him the next time around.  He
>knew he would be convicted, and locked away for good, and made the only
>decision a man in his position would.
>
>Although I understand the necessity for men to be in charge of the
>muscle, you and the others are only making the case for even more
>repressive police measures against the accused without considering that
>this guy very likely was driven to commit violence against his
>girlfriend, who may or may not share blame for the crime against her.
>I do not condone or recommend what he did to the GF, but to ignore his
>side and focus only on how to better shackle prisoners ignores the
>glaring issue of (false) rape accusations and the excessive punishment
>that falls exclusively on men's heads because of it.



Well, if you want to specifically focus the discussion of the
prevalence of 1) false rape accusations, 2) the excessive punishment
that falls exclusively on men's heads because of it...

.... and even expand that discussion to 3) the fact that rape is only
regarded as a serious crime when it's male-on-female and that
male-on-male rape (primarily in prisons) doesn't draw much outrage and
4) the things that women often do to provoke rape (a sacrilegious
concept, to be sure)...

....if you want to focus discussion exclusively on those things, you
have some good points, of course.

But I don't think that any of them necessarily apply to this
defendant.

I don't know the facts of his rape case, and apparently, you don't
either, since you are guardedly couching your discussion of them.

But if he was an innocent man or a guilty-with-an-explanation man, the
system was doing tolerably well for him if the first jury hung, wasn't
it?

He would have done better then to continue to trust in it.  What makes
you think that the DA was getting to RR him the second time around?
If they were of that mind and had that ability, why not RR him the
first time?

How do you KNOW that he would have been convicted the second time?

By taking matters into his own hands, even killing in order to make
good his escape (that was the ONLY decision a man in his position
could make?), I think that he pretty much refuted your argument on his
behalf.

An accused rapist with a weak case against him really has no business
committing murder in open court as a means of escape.  He'll never be
tried again for that rape now, however, so I suppose in a back-handed
sort of way, he accomplished his objective.


------------------------------------

grizzlieantagonist{at}yahoo.com

"Ladies and gentlemen - let's have a round of applause for tonight's
player of the game - FRAN-CIS-CO SAN-N-N-N-TOS!
    - Brian Anthony (P.A. announcer at Grizzlie Stadium), June 11, 2004


"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as
their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as their
soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and
presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the
counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. 
Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be
placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must
be without.  It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things that men
of intemperate minds cannot be free.  Their passions forge their
fetters."
     
     - Edmund Burke, Letter to a Member of the National Assembly (1791)


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 3/14/05 12:57:05 AM ---