bullies kill father of victim, 13'

Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:

[/QUOTENAME]

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Think about it. These people can ONLY get worse as they get older and stronger. Someone has already died because of these scumbags.

And then you "rehabilitate" them and they walk out of prison and kill more people. There should never be a second chance for murderers. Victims rights NEED to come before killers' rights.

Wow, I'm glad we have someone here who has studied the psychological patterns of murderers for years and thus truly understands them in all cases. I think you should run for president next term.

USA is the only country in the western world that has such a high percentage of ultra-conservatives. Shouldn't that tell the rest of us something about the way that country is run, and how it manipulates young people into believing there is no alternative to the death penalty, among so many other outrageous, irrational, and bigoted ideas? Gah, it's best not to think about it. YV, Jingles, and Lisser are talking sense here. I can only hope that more and more children will grow up to be like you.

Can I ask why liberals feel that bloodthirsty murderers should have more rights than Terri Schiavo did?

Because capial punishment is not, in fact, punishment at all - it is Government sponsored revenge. If you take away a person's basic right to live, you are no better than the murderers themselves.

<< bring back lynching... it perks up any sunday >> Hell yes! I'll be up for that anyday! Seriously I remember that little boy being killed and remember thinking (even though I was a young 'un) that it was horrible. I don't think any child can plan murder. The circumstances behind it would have to be extraordinary..even though it seemed with James Bulger that they wanted to get rid of the little kid. Eee.

&lt;b&gt;&lt;font color = &quot;crimson&quot;&gt;ThomasQuinn wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Sir GH&amp;lt;br&amp;gt;&amp;lt;h6&amp;gt;ah yeah&amp;lt;/h6&amp;gt; wrote:

[/QUOTENAME]

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Think about it. These people can ONLY get worse as they get older and stronger. Someone has already died because of these scumbags.

And then you &amp;quot;rehabilitate&amp;quot; them and they walk out of prison and kill more people. There should never be a second chance for murderers. Victims rights NEED to come before killers' rights.

Wow, I'm glad we have someone here who has studied the psychological patterns of murderers for years and thus truly understands them in all cases. I think you should run for president next term.

USA is the only country in the western world that has such a high percentage of ultra-conservatives. Shouldn't that tell the rest of us something about the way that country is run, and how it manipulates young people into believing there is no alternative to the death penalty, among so many other outrageous, irrational, and bigoted ideas? Gah, it's best not to think about it. YV, Jingles, and Lisser are talking sense here. I can only hope that more and more children will grow up to be like you.

Can I ask why liberals feel that bloodthirsty murderers should have more rights than Terri Schiavo did?

Because Terri Schiavo was dead and murderers are mentally ill. So are you, by the way.

She was NOT dead. She was only dead after they STARVED her to death.

I finally had some time to read the 8 chapters on the killing of baby James. I had never heard this story until now. I made my comment about children being a product of their environments before I had had the time to read about Baby James. I still stand by my stance that children are, very much, a product of their environments and home lives. I wish all children could be brought up in a loving, nurturing home. It won't happen however. I also wish that Baby James mother did not take her eyes off her son that day. My children are physically not allowed to &quot;wander off.&quot; Cameron is 7 and does know she is not allowed to leave my hand, she wouldn't even try to. I've warned her of people that might want to take her from me...the same thing that my parents said to me. Anthony is 2 and like I said, it is physically impossible for him to leave me and wander off. When I am out of the safety of my own four walls at home, my children are in the shopping cart that I am pushing or Anthony is in his stroller that I am pushing. If someone tries to physically remove them from me, they are going to have to kill me or chop my arms off to get them from me. I dare anyone to try to take my children from me.

These two children that did this to this baby were being robbed of love, security, and basic needs at home. This would not have happened if their parents fullfilled their obligations to them. The children needed to be removed from their current environments, counseled, and taught proper coping skills to deal with what has happened to them in the past. They can be productive citizens and I would not give up on them. Nothing can bring Baby James back but maybe Robert and Jon can go on to lead positive lives and teach other abused children how ask for help.

According to doctors Terri Schiavo was on a vegetate stage in which she brain dead, and therefore she couldn't feel any pain.

Personally for a person who has no chances or recovering from a coma or a vegetate state, it might possibly be better to just pull the plug. I have no doubt in my mind that I'd much rather die than living like a vegetable, and having my loved us constantly suffering for watching me living in such a way.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Can I ask why liberals feel that bloodthirsty murderers should have more rights than Terri Schiavo did?

Because there is a chance the murderer can be rehabilitated. There was no chance of Terri living a life of any kind.

She was NOT dead. She was only dead after they STARVED her to death.

She was a complete vegetable. If your cerebral cortex is not in operation, then you might as well be dead. Scientific fact. Deal with it. End of subject.

Barry &#169; wrote:

Excellent post Lisser.

Agreed! I'm sure you're a fantastic mother.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

And then you &quot;rehabilitate&quot; them and they walk out of prison and kill more people. There should never be a second chance for murderers. Victims rights NEED to come before killers' rights.

Of course in your book Mark Fuhrman deserves a second chance after he commited perjury (a felony) based on his racist views.

Why the murderer doesn't deserve a second chance but the racist felon does? This is something that simply doesn't make sense.

Because Fuhrman never took anyone's life. Sure, people were offended by his remarks. As a Hispanic woman, I was offended myself. But the people who were offended by Fuhrman's mouth can get up and go home to their families. People that are murdered cannot.

So if you were offended, then you agree that his remarks were racist. Then why on the other thread you stated that Fuhrman wasn't racist?

Also Fuhrman was accused of perjury. Do yo even know what perjury is? It might not be a crime as bad as murder, but it's still a very serious crime, especially coming from a local official. Perjury in case you might not know is consciously giving a false state, or giving misleading information during a trial in which all people called to testify are under oath. Now, we all know that O.J. Simpson was most likely guilty, but chances are that Fuhrman has previously used his tactics to either arrest or frame people because they were black or hispanic. The difference here, is that this time he had to put up with someone who had enough money to pay a really fuckin' clever lawyer like Johhnie Cochran.

Sir GH&lt;br&gt;&lt;h6&gt;ah yeah&lt;/h6&gt; wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Can I ask why liberals feel that bloodthirsty murderers should have more rights than Terri Schiavo did?

Because there is a chance the murderer can be rehabilitated. There was no chance of Terri living a life of any kind.

She was NOT dead. She was only dead after they STARVED her to death.

She was a complete vegetable. If your cerebral cortex is not in operation, then you might as well be dead. Scientific fact. Deal with it. End of subject.

Barry &#169; wrote:

Excellent post Lisser.

Agreed! I'm sure you're a fantastic mother.

Thank you Barry and thank you Sir GH...I have my parents to thank for my parenting skills. I couldn't ask for anything more in my parents..I'm grateful every day for them.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

And then you &quot;rehabilitate&quot; them and they walk out of prison and kill more people. There should never be a second chance for murderers. Victims rights NEED to come before killers' rights.

Of course in your book Mark Fuhrman deserves a second chance after he commited perjury (a felony) based on his racist views.

Why the murderer doesn't deserve a second chance but the racist felon does? This is something that simply doesn't make sense.

Because Fuhrman never took anyone's life. Sure, people were offended by his remarks. As a Hispanic woman, I was offended myself. But the people who were offended by Fuhrman's mouth can get up and go home to their families. People that are murdered cannot.

So if you were offended, then you agree that his remarks were racist. Then why on the other thread you stated that Fuhrman wasn't racist?

I agree that his REMARKS were racist, not that FUHRMAN is a racist.

For one thing, I attend a school that is 1/3 black, and so I have witnessed some incredibly strange racial relations. I had a best friend back in grade school who used to listen to Dr. Dre and other rap artists 24/7, had a ton of black friends, but would make the most off-the-wall comments about African-Americans that would make my head spin. Was I offended? Yes, and I told him so. Was he racist? No, he was just 1) repeating something someone else said or 2) saying shit just to say shit.

And of course, in the case of Fuhrman, we have the fact that he was speaking in the capacity of a FICTIONAL CHARACTER. Speaking as a writer myself, I know that a person doesn't always endorse what their characters do. Sometimes you try to make a character as out-of-control as possible just to prove a point.

Also Fuhrman was accused of perjury. Do yo even know what perjury is?

Actually, Fuhrman was not guilty of perjury. Perjury is lying about a fact CRUCIAL TO A CASE. Therefore, if someone asks you what shirt you were wearing about you say red, and it was blue, that's not perjury. Whether Fuhrman had used the N-word in the past ten years was only of revelence to Cochran and his team who wanted to play the race card by inflaming the black jury, because they knew all of the evidence pointed to Simpson. There is question as to whether Fuhrman would have been convicted of perjury. As it were, he pled &quot;no contest&quot; because he did not have the money or the resources available to defend himself in the trial that would ensue.

It might not be a crime as bad as murder, but it's still a very serious crime, especially coming from a local official. Perjury in case you might not know is consciously giving a false state, or giving misleading information during a trial in which all people called to testify are under oath. Now, we all know that O.J. Simpson was most likely guilty,

How about obviously 100% guilty?

but chances are that Fuhrman has previously used his tactics to either arrest or frame people because they were black or hispanic.

Then why did Fuhrman work to free a black man whom he felt was not guilty (Aarick Harris)?

The difference here, is that this time he had to put up with someone who had enough money to pay a really fuckin' clever lawyer like Johhnie Cochran.

Fuhrman was not &quot;out to get&quot; Simpson. He simply found the one glove, bloodstains, etc. He didn't know the evidence would point to Simpson, it wasn't his job to try the prosecutor's case.

Also, with no offense to Johnnie Cochran, I don't consider the defense's strategy to be extremely &quot;clever&quot;. I have ultimately more respect for Shapiro, who wished to play it clean, than for Bailey and Cochran, who took over t

For the 387th time... just about every single time that Fuhrman utter the word &quot;nigger&quot; on the McKinny tapes he was talking about his personal views and police procedures. Fuhrman was and not writing the actual screenplay because McKinny is the one who was planning on writing the screenplay and needed someone for the LAPD to give personal experiences as a reference. Did you even bother reading the script of the McKinny testimony when she was being interviewed by Johnnie Cochran?

Seriously, if a white person is saying the word &quot;nigger&quot; without using it to express his own personal views, why find it offensive?

Trying to prove by now that Fuhrman wasn't racist, is like trying to prove that Ashlee Simpson has talent. So blame it on acid-reflux.

I agree with you Linda.

I never have understood why the two who murdered James Bulger were allowed to lead normal lives again, albeit under new identities.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

For the 387th time... just about every single time that Fuhrman utter the word &quot;nigger&quot; on the McKinny tapes he was talking about his personal views and police procedures.

It was a SCREENPLAY tape, and Fuhrman was talking in the capacity of the views of a CHARACTER.

Fuhrman was and not writing the actual screenplay because McKinny is the one who was planning on writing the screenplay and needed someone for the LAPD to give personal experiences as a reference.

Fuhrman was helping her write the screenplay. After all, the screenplay was his idea. The idea: a group called Men Against Women is in work at a police department, and they harass and intimidate new women police officers. A strong female protaganist shows up and manages to thwart the group. There would also be several subplots, humor, cases, etc.

If Fuhrman had no involvement in the WRITING

Did you even bother reading the script of the McKinny testimony when she was being interviewed by Johnnie Cochran?

Yes, I did, and I feel that McKinny's testimony could have been fairly twisted. After all, she only brought the tapes to the attention of the defense after she failed to sell them to several tabloids. She had an ax to grind with Fuhrman over their past romantic/sexual relationship.

Seriously, if a white person is saying the word &quot;nigger&quot; without using it to express his own personal views, why find it offensive?

Because the word itself IS offensive. It was offensive when Bailey used it to question Fuhrman, for instance. Bailey had no reason he needed to use the word. He could have simply said &quot;Have you used any racially derogatory terms in the past ten years?&quot;, instead, he felt the need to harp on that particular word the way the news anchors harped on &quot;oral sex&quot; during the Lewinsky scandal. There was no reason for it.

The word is offensive, plain and simple, and it's a word I do not use and I strongly feel that no one else should, either.