|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
S o r n i wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote: Maggie wrote: ... That was a cruel thing to say in a public forum. To suggest I have a criminal past. That is hurtful. I never knew until this moment, how Newsgroups can possibly hurt a person. This is what someone one rec.bicycles.tech had to say about me: ...You have demonstrated to me that you are a piece of **** at this point... Damn right, and choosing the way you did, you demonstrated what a scumbag you are... Let me tell you dirtbag... Ponder this, you ****head... You are a miserable creature. I was having a rough morning. Amazing display of literacy, eh? Bill Baka |
Ads |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Michael Warner wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 19:07:43 -0800, bbaka wrote: Rewind. We need to go way back an change the inscription on the tablet of the Statue of Liberty to read "Keep your damned useless in your countries, because we don't want them either.". Are you old enough to have seen what has happened here since the mid 1960s? I am Caucasian/Native American and now a minority in the country of my ancestors, thousands of years back. We are no longer the great melting pot but just a kettle of crud. Harsh wording on my part, but quite literally true. Are you some sort of nut? Your society, like most in the West, was built on waves of cheap immigrant labour who'd do dirty, dangerous, back-breaking jobs for next to nothing. Nut? By some people's standards, yes. My society? No! My father's parents were Polish immigrants who came here about 1910 to get away from the Russian revolution. They were very proud to learn to speak English and to become proper naturalized citizens. My mother's mother was the daughter of an Irish immigrant who came here because of the great potato famine. My mother's father was the result of a marriage between a French freedom fighter (for the Indians) and the daughter of the chief he had been fighting the oppressive English colonials with. My ancestors were more freedom fighters and seekers than oppressors. Labour? Colour? Can't you English spell? Bill Baka |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
S o r n i wrote:
Bob wrote: Does anyone with even a passing knowledge of the undisputed facts in each case and an above room temperature IQ really believe O.J. Simpson and (just this week) Robert Blake were not guilty? Yet they are both free men right now not for any lack of evidence of guilt or any presence of evidence that they were NOT guilty but because juries set them free. The two cases are hardly comparable, IMO. Orenthal was practically drenched in the victims' DNA; Blake had (from what I heard, at least) absolutely no forensic evidence on or about him. (A very small amount of gun powder residue was from his own gun, and not the murder weapon -- apparently they can test that?) Bad apple and /really/ bad Juice? No, you're mistaken. Blake's defense attorney *claimed* that the gunshot residue found on his hand was from handling the weapon he supposedly accidentally left in the restaurant. Gunshot residue results from *firing* a gun and not merely handling a weapon that has not been recently fired. This is just another example of "reasonable doubt" being interpreted as "something that couldn't occur even in a parallel universe". BTW, forensic scientists can't distinguish GSR resulting from firing Weapon A from that resulting from firing Weapon B unless the propellants used in the cartridges in A and B are of totally different chemical composition, like for instance black powder versus smokeless powder. The gun Blake said was his wasn't a musket, was it? ;-) Furthermore, forensic evidence- while extremely useful and desirable- isn't always present no matter what the TV shows may lead one to believe. More telling to me than the lack of forensic evidence was the absolutely incredible chain of events that the jury apparently bought. A hypothetical question- If I try to hire not one but two people to kill my wife and they turn me down, ask a third person to help me find someone to kill my wife, tell anyone that will listen how much I hate that no good lying bitch, and if she tells several friends that "if I'm found murdered, Bob did it", then two weeks later I take the no good lying bitch I hate with every fiber of my being out for a nice dinner at the conclusion of which she just *happens* to be shot to death when- according to me- I'm not present.... would you think maybe I had something to do with her death? Oh yeah, in this hypothetical the murder weapon is found near the scene. It's an untraceable war relic, it's covered with oil, and any fingerprints have been wiped away. The police find traces of a similiar oil on my hands (several hours and trips to the washroom later) but it- like the GSR- is so minute and so generic that it can't be positively identified as the exact same oil found on the murder weapon. In this hypothetical situation I won't even bring up how I chose to park around the corner on a nearly-deserted street instead of in front of the restaurant, how- although I was carrying a gun because I had received death threats- I managed to "lose" it in the restaurant only to suddenly realize that I didn't have it after escorting her back to that lonely parking spot just at the exact moment my stalker happened by, or even my actions after the murder. g Regards, Bob Hunt |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
S o r n i wrote:
Bob wrote: Does anyone with even a passing knowledge of the undisputed facts in each case and an above room temperature IQ really believe O.J. Simpson and (just this week) Robert Blake were not guilty? Yet they are both free men right now not for any lack of evidence of guilt or any presence of evidence that they were NOT guilty but because juries set them free. The two cases are hardly comparable, IMO. Orenthal was practically drenched in the victims' DNA; Blake had (from what I heard, at least) absolutely no forensic evidence on or about him. (A very small amount of gun powder residue was from his own gun, and not the murder weapon -- apparently they can test that?) Bad apple and /really/ bad Juice? I think O.J. got off because he was still a visible semi-star at the time and the jury was not too bright. As far as Blake, I don't think he did do it and the police let the real killer go. Once a suspect is in custody, the investigation seems to stop, as has been proven lately by all the death row cases being dropped due to DNA evidence, meaning there are a lot of killers out there that got away with it. Not a pretty thought. Sorry, but it is true. Bill Baka |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Bob wrote:
S o r n i wrote: Bob wrote: Does anyone with even a passing knowledge of the undisputed facts in each case and an above room temperature IQ really believe O.J. Simpson and (just this week) Robert Blake were not guilty? Yet they are both free men right now not for any lack of evidence of guilt or any presence of evidence that they were NOT guilty but because juries set them free. The two cases are hardly comparable, IMO. Orenthal was practically drenched in the victims' DNA; Blake had (from what I heard, at least) absolutely no forensic evidence on or about him. (A very small amount of gun powder residue was from his own gun, and not the murder weapon -- apparently they can test that?) Bad apple and /really/ bad Juice? No, you're mistaken. Blake's defense attorney *claimed* that the gunshot residue found on his hand was from handling the weapon he supposedly accidentally left in the restaurant. Gunshot residue results from *firing* a gun and not merely handling a weapon that has not been recently fired. This is just another example of "reasonable doubt" being interpreted as "something that couldn't occur even in a parallel universe". BTW, forensic scientists can't distinguish GSR resulting from firing Weapon A from that resulting from firing Weapon B unless the propellants used in the cartridges in A and B are of totally different chemical composition, like for instance black powder versus smokeless powder. The gun Blake said was his wasn't a musket, was it? There are slight differences in the residue, even if only at the PPB level. Different casing, powder, lead, barrel. I have been involved with chemical analysis and it is getting closer to parts per trillion if you have the money for the equipment. Also in a gun firing some of the lead and casing material does get caught up in the blowback, and the last time I read anything about it lead has different isotopes, and there may be more than one casing manufacturer, maybe. ;-) Furthermore, forensic evidence- while extremely useful and desirable- isn't always present no matter what the TV shows may lead one to believe. More telling to me than the lack of forensic evidence was the absolutely incredible chain of events that the jury apparently bought. A hypothetical question- If I try to hire not one but two people to kill my wife and they turn me down, ask a third person to help me find someone to kill my wife, tell anyone that will listen how much I hate that no good lying bitch, and if she tells several friends that "if I'm found murdered, Bob did it", then two weeks later I take the no good lying bitch I hate with every fiber of my being out for a nice dinner at the conclusion of which she just *happens* to be shot to death when- according to me- I'm not present.... would you think maybe I had something to do with her death? Oh yeah, in this hypothetical the murder weapon is found near the scene. It's an untraceable war relic, it's covered with oil, and any fingerprints have been wiped away. The police find traces of a similiar oil on my hands (several hours and trips to the washroom later) but it- like the GSR- is so minute and so generic that it can't be positively identified as the exact same oil found on the murder weapon. In this hypothetical situation I won't even bring up how I chose to park around the corner on a nearly-deserted street instead of in front of the restaurant, how- although I was carrying a gun because I had received death threats- I managed to "lose" it in the restaurant only to suddenly realize that I didn't have it after escorting her back to that lonely parking spot just at the exact moment my stalker happened by, or even my actions after the murder. g Regards, Bob Hunt Spidey (cop) sense tingling, Bob? Bill Baka Just trolling you this time. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
bbaka wrote:
S o r n i wrote: Tom Sherman wrote: Maggie wrote: ... That was a cruel thing to say in a public forum. To suggest I have a criminal past. That is hurtful. I never knew until this moment, how Newsgroups can possibly hurt a person. This is what someone one rec.bicycles.tech had to say about me: ...You have demonstrated to me that you are a piece of **** at this point... Damn right, and choosing the way you did, you demonstrated what a scumbag you are... Let me tell you dirtbag... Ponder this, you ****head... You are a miserable creature. I was having a rough morning. Amazing display of literacy, eh? Umm, Bill? It was a JOKE. (Hint: I would never write something like that...unless /provoked/, of course! 8-) ) |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Thu, 17 Mar 2005 21:23:39 -0800, ,
bbaka wrote: Once a suspect is in custody, the investigation seems to stop, as has been proven lately by all the death row cases being dropped due to DNA evidence, meaning there are a lot of killers out there that got away with it. Especially when the weapon is a four door scud. It's downright disgusting that our society accepts "accident" as an excuse for these all too predictable fukups. This little **** has a record of being a ****. Flush it and be done. Don't waste money on "rehabilitation". Go for the "revenge" aspect and teach all these asswipe scud jockeys that driving isn't a joke. That won't happen because we're crippled by our dependence on cars. Scud makers buy the most advertising using fantasy to sell their crap so we'll never see responsible driving promoted as a worthwhile social value. Dangerous driving is promoted as entertainment. CARS SUCK! and so does car culture (sic) And anybody who can't see that is stupid! stupid! stupid! -- zk |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Mar 2005 05:25:46 -0800 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Maggie"
wrote: Throwing an 18 year old in jail for 10 years will create a hardened criminal when he gets out. dammit, he IS a hardened criminal! he's a multiple offender, with a previous record of speeding and road racing. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
On 17 Mar 2005 08:01:10 -0800 in rec.bicycles.misc, "Maggie"
wrote: I think I am being misunderstood, so I might as well give up. I did not start out or continue on my rant concerning that particular kid in the post. I am very involved in a program to help first time offenders. well, the kid who is the topic of this thread IS NOT a first time offender, so all of your yammering about the program with which you are involved is OFF TOPIC for this newsgroup. please try alt.support.first-time-offenders, not here. now to get back on topic, 3 years is far too short for a multiple offender like this. he should get a lifetime license revocation and serve 5 years of his 10 to 20 before he can apply for parole. of course the first time he had been caught racing he should have had a 5 year suspension and at least 90 days. |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
The number of years - too short? Sometimes! | Maggie | General | 2 | January 30th 05 12:37 AM |
New Years Day century | David Kerber | Rides | 6 | January 8th 05 01:35 PM |
Dmitri Neliubin killed on New Year's Day | Carl Sundquist | Racing | 7 | January 5th 05 06:24 PM |
New Year's Day 2005 Ride | Carol McLean | Unicycling | 13 | January 4th 05 04:21 AM |
"Actually you are the first person to bring up this issue" | James Annan | Techniques | 848 | April 6th 04 08:49 PM |