McMissile

[markalot]

The terrorists have won. I say we put all the sex offenders on the street to make room for these really dangerous people.

'McMissile' Moment Lands Mom in Jail
Driver Gets Felony Conviction For Tossing Cup of Ice Into Car

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/17/AR2007021701560.html

By Theresa Vargas
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, February 18, 2007; A01

To the locals, it's the "McMissile" case.

And like the name, the details of it spill forth like a bad joke: A woman is driving north on Interstate 95. Three kids squirm in the back seat, and her sister, six months pregnant and having early contractions, sits in the front. The stress starts to simmer. Traffic slows, then crawls, then creeps. More stress. A car cuts in front of her, then scoots away. A short time later, it darts in again. She can no longer take it. She veers onto the shoulder and speeds up. Wham! She tosses a large McDonald's cup filled with ice into the other car.

"From my side, I heard a whoomp," recalled the woman's sister, LaJeanna Porter, 27. "I was like, 'I know you didn't throw that cup.' She said, 'Yes I did.' "

Neither woman foresaw the seemingly supersize repercussions of that misguided moment July 2.

No one was injured, but the cup launcher, Jessica Hall, 25, of Jacksonville, N.C., was charged and convicted by a Stafford County jury of maliciously throwing a missile into an occupied vehicle, a felony in Virginia. The instructions given to the jury said that "any physical object can be considered a missile. A missile can be propelled by any force, including throwing."

Hall, a mother of three young children whose husband is serving his third tour in Iraq, has spent more than a month in jail.

The jury sentenced her to two years in prison, the minimum, and a judge will formally impose a sentence Wednesday. Under state law, the judge can only decrease the jury's sentence.

"We didn't think it would go this far," Hall said in an interview at the Rappahannock Regional Jail. "Two years! What did I do?"

There are two versions of what happened that day. The occupants of both cars agree on this: It was hot, the kind of hot in which legs stick to leather seats, and the traffic was barely moving, slowed by a fatal crash up the road in Prince William County.

In one car, driver Pete Ballin, 36, and girlfriend Eliza Fowle, 28, were heading home to the District after visiting her father in North Carolina. They said they were maneuvering through the stalled traffic, not even noticing Hall until the Mickey-D moment.

"I guess we inadvertently merged back in front of her," Fowle said. "She apparently took that as some sort of aggressive maneuver on our part."

The next thing they knew, Fowle said, Hall was pulling up in the emergency lane and "chucking a big, supersized McDonald's cup at us." It flew diagonally across Ballin and onto Fowle. "It was gross and sticky and got all over me and the front of our car, the dashboard and the windshield," Fowle said.

Hall, whose family was driving from North Carolina to New York for a family party, saw the situation differently. She said she had never driven that route and was trying to keep up with her father's truck when Ballin cut in front of her the second time, causing her to swerve onto the shoulder. She said she was worried because her sister's bulging belly almost slammed into the dashboard.

Hall's next move was wrong, she said, but she felt provoked.

"It was past me ignoring him. I'm not going to lie; I was cursing him," she said. "I took the McDonald's cup. I tossed it over my car."

She never fathomed that it would land her in jail for the first time in her life, wearing a standard-issue jumpsuit frayed up both legs and learning to curl her hair using toilet paper. Not even when she saw Ballin talking to the state trooper up the highway, or when she was arrested and released on her own recognizance, or even when a trial date was set for Jan. 3.

Even when Ballin testified, Hall said, "I'm thinking about what I'm going to cook when I get home."

"I passed out when they said guilty, two years," she added. "I became a convicted felon."

Fowle stands by the couple's decision to report the crime but concedes that even she and Ballin were surprised at the conviction.

"I think that this is way too much of a punishment for her actions. This is just to me absolutely ridiculous," Fowle said. Community service would have made more sense, she said. "It's something that's going to make someone realize I did screw up, and I'm going to remember this, and I'm not going to do something like this again."

Hall's attorney, public defender Terence Patton, did not return calls for comment. Nor did Commonwealth's Attorney Daniel M. Chichester or Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney George Elsasser, who handled the case.

Elsasser argued in court that had Ballin been hit by the drink, he might have gotten into a serious accident with injuries. Hall also was found guilty of reckless driving, assault against Ballin and assault and battery against Fowle. For her conviction on those charges, the jury recommended she be fined $1,000.

According to court documents, Hall is unemployed and, with her husband's salary, the couple takes in $30,384 a year. She receives $388 a month in food stamps.

"It doesn't seem right for her not to be around," said Porter, who is watching one of Hall's three children, ages 4, 6 and 8. The younger two are with their grandparents. "We just hope that whatever they do, don't let them keep her. Without her, I don't know what I'll do."

Hall said she has cried every day she has spent locked up and wakes most days to find clumps of hair on her pillow from the stress. She shares a cell with two other women and spends 19 hours a day in the cell, she said.

When Hall talks about the incident, she sometimes jokes about how she will only fly over Virginia from now on and says other inmates sometimes throw things in her direction and say, "Watch out McMissile."

But in other moments, when she talks about the reality of a felony conviction, her expression goes blank. She was supposed to start nursing school the day after she was sent to jail, and she wonders what job she will be able to get once potential employers do a background check.

"Now people are going to see me as an angry, road rage, convicted felon. And it really upsets me," she said. "I must have been wrong . . . but seriously, God. Lesson learned. Lesson learned is one hour in this place."

[Breeze]

The terrorists have won. I say we put all the sex offenders on the street to make room for these really dangerous people.


What, nary a mention of you liberals and bleeding hearts in this litte salvo? Someone must not be fully awake yet...

[dannyboy]

Our legal system is a complete farce.

[frizgolf]

Another case of prosecutors using a feel-good law to over-enforce a simple violation of the Golden Rule.
Any judge with half an ounce of sense would have determined a proper punishment without an overzealous higher-office publicity-seeking prosecutor pulling that law out of his ass.

[dannyboy]

Another case of prosecutors using a feel-good law to over-enforce a simple violation of the Golden Rule.
Any judge with half an ounce of sense would have determined a proper punishment without an overzealous higher-office publicity-seeking prosecutor pulling that law out of his ass.
I really wish I could have been on that jury. No way I would have convicted her. Afterwards, I would wave "jury nullification" right in the face of the prosecutor.

[Shlep]

Speaking as someone who spent over a decade driving up and down that same general stretch of I-95: I have come closer than I care to think of doing a hell of a lot worse than chucking a cup of ice at someone.

Once afternoon, a short ways north of Stafford somewhere between Alexandria and Lorton, I was already approaching a full boil due to the usual I-95 traffic headaches when some Yuppie fucktard took offense to my making a signalled lane-change into what apparently and unbeknownst to me was the "HOV-3 And Yuppie Fucktards Only" lane and into his path, which caused him to have to briefly apply his brakes and reduce his speed down from the 90 miles an hour or so he was progressing along the road in his Lexus Yuppie Fucktardmobile. He tried flipping me off from behind with one, then both, middle fingers (as I gamely ignored him, determined not to let him get to me) before he decided to swerve around and bring his Yuppie fucktarded self abreast of me to make sure I could see him flipping me off. As it happened, this also put him in a really good position to see me point to him as I mouthed the words "You're dead, motherfucker!" before chasing him down the road a few miles and cornering him in a bottleneck in traffic.

Fortunately for all involved parties, I spotted the Virginia State Police cruiser before he spotted me getting ready to pull Yuppie Fucktard from his car and beat him senseless and was not completely enraged enough to get a grip on myself.

[classicgrrl]

Our legal system is a complete farce.

yeppers.

sure is. everything in the world is pay to play.

[ICONOCLAST420]

I have no pity on the inconsiderate knobwads when they get their retribution.
There was a photo in the DDN of someone who hung their car up on a snow pile after being cut off by another driver.

[ahart2001]

I remember when my high school football team was playing in the state finals up in Canton, OH. There was literally a line on fans' cars several miles long as everyone was heading up (and yes, there were tailgate parties at every rest stop on the way there). Some dude was swerving in and out of traffic until he got next to me and he was behind a semi. I continued travelling at my current speed and apparently, this pissed him off. He then flipped me off and when I just smiled and waved at him, he proceeded to come over into my lane anyway causing me to almost hit the construction barrier on my left.

Needless to say, it was a bad move on his part. The SUV in front of me, a van behind me, and a truck two cars behind me (all fellow fans) saw the whole incident. They all sped up to catch up with the guy and blocked him in in the front, back and side for about 5 miles. I was laughing my ass off the whole time! I am laughing out loud right now thinking about it. Haha. Poor bastard ended up pulling off at an off ramp, yelling out his window and flipping them off.

Asshole.

[the happy prole]

When you throw a cup through someone's open window, you endanger their lives as well as everyone else on the road. I hardly think that MAYBE cutting someone off in traffic should be a death sentence, to say nothing of the innocent drivers who could have been injured.

If you have so little control of yourself that you'd do something stupid like that, I also have to question your version of events. It's entirely possible she wasn't cut off but just *thought* she was. Who gives a shit if her husband's serving in Iraq? She should be prosecuted and convicted, I see absolutely no problem with that. The judge can reduce her sentence if he or she sees fit.

If you aren't happy with that, then get rid of mandatory sentencing and the "tough on crime" attitude that pervades Virginia and leads to ridiculous crap like this. Just so you know, the judge can't give her parole.

[Dirk]

When you throw a cup through someone's open window, you endanger their lives as well as everyone else on the road. I hardly think that MAYBE cutting someone off in traffic should be a death sentence, to say nothing of the innocent drivers who could have been injured.

If you have so little control of yourself that you'd do something stupid like that, I also have to question your version of events. It's entirely possible she wasn't cut off but just *thought* she was. Who gives a shit if her husband's serving in Iraq? She should be prosecuted and convicted, I see absolutely no problem with that. The judge can reduce her sentence if he or she sees fit.

If you aren't happy with that, then get rid of mandatory sentencing and the "tough on crime" attitude that pervades Virginia and leads to ridiculous crap like this. Just so you know, the judge can't give her parole.
I don't think anyone is saying that nothing should happen. I think that she should have been convicted of reckless driving, and maybe assault. The issue is charging her with firing a missile at a car. A plastic cup filled with coke is not a missile, no matter how much they want to make it into one. Hell, by their definition a wad of tissue paper thrown at a car would by a missle which is just silly.

[the happy prole]

Well, it's kind of hard to try and craft a legal rule for every situation. I mean, maybe a cup of coffee isn't a "missile" in the sense of like a Tomahawk, but it is a thrown projectile and technically, that's meets the broader definition.

Really, it's just a matter of semantics. I don't have a problem with prosecuting her for breaking the law as written. It's just that they treat all "missiles" the same.

So you know, I agree with you that the punishment is too harsh. But the real problem is that if she is found guilty, two years is the minimum sentence. So we can try to define missile type a as tissue, paper or other objects that are not likely to cause bruising at a distance of X feet when thrown by a person of average strength whereas missile types b and c are for increasingly dangerous objects. Or we can let the jury decide for themselves that a cup of coffee isn't the same as a giant rock.

If you eliminate parole and establish ridiculous mandatory minimum sentences, this is what will happen. Either people get stupid sentences or the legal code becomes a confused mess. If this had been a man instead of a woman and let's say the man had been caught with child pornography everyone would be saying "Two years sounds about right, I love mandatory sentencing" without thinking how next time it could backfire.

[classicgrrl]

I don't think anyone is saying that nothing should happen. I think that she should have been convicted of reckless driving, and maybe assault. The issue is charging her with firing a missile at a car. A plastic cup filled with coke is not a missile, no matter how much they want to make it into one. Hell, by their definition a wad of tissue paper thrown at a car would by a missle which is just silly.
I think this is even going to far. fine her and make her pay for the cleaning of the car and the clothing.

[the happy prole]

I would have probably charged her with some form of reckless driving, and possibly assault depending upon the jurisidiction, or whether or not her claim that she was cut-off and all that seemed likely.

But my punishment would probably have been three months probation, anger management or driver safety classes, and maybe some small amount of community service with the offense stricken from the record upon completion of those terms.

The clothing and car cleaning is a matter for the civil courts, to compensate the other driver for their loss. She'll lose that case almost without a doubt. So, the criminal court is concerned with punishment, public safety and deterrent aside from victim compensation. And she should have to pay some penalty for the offense to general welfare.

[Predot listener]

Well, it's kind of hard to try and craft a legal rule for every situation. I mean, maybe a cup of coffee isn't a "missile" in the sense of like a Tomahawk, but it is a thrown projectile and technically, that's meets the broader definition.

Really, it's just a matter of semantics. I don't have a problem with prosecuting her for breaking the law as written. It's just that they treat all "missiles" the same.

So you know, I agree with you that the punishment is too harsh. But the real problem is that if she is found guilty, two years is the minimum sentence. So we can try to define missile type a as tissue, paper or other objects that are not likely to cause bruising at a distance of X feet when thrown by a person of average strength whereas missile types b and c are for increasingly dangerous objects. Or we can let the jury decide for themselves that a cup of coffee isn't the same as a giant rock.

If you eliminate parole and establish ridiculous mandatory minimum sentences, this is what will happen. Either people get stupid sentences or the legal code becomes a confused mess. If this had been a man instead of a woman and let's say the man had been caught with child pornography everyone would be saying "Two years sounds about right, I love mandatory sentencing" without thinking how next time it could backfire.

I agree. I see the same thing happen with those silly zero-tolerance policies that school districts and other bodies adopt (almost universally to great fanfare). Then people get all outraged when a first-grader is suspended for bringing a cap gun to school. If you intentionally remove common sense from the adjudication process, you often end up with ridiculous, but ultimately unavoidable, penalties.

[Duemellon]

It's odd how so many people are justifyinig & sympathizing with her anger instead of realizing the bigger picture here regarding our social standards of competition, selfishness, lack of compassion, & acting w/o thinking.

It's a shame that no one has yet said:
WhyTF did she let it get to her?
Why is this a new phenom in our society (in last 7-10 years)?
Why does it happen to me?

This attitude of being #1 superpower is what got us a cowboy gunsligner for a president, but he was voted for by the majority who have the same philosophy. The majority is egocentric, selfish, prone to show/use force with a concept of consequence.

[purple_octopus]

If this had been a man instead of a woman and let's say the man had been caught with child pornography everyone would be saying "Two years sounds about right, I love mandatory sentencing" without thinking how next time it could backfire.
I would say two years was not nearly enough time in that scenario.

[ahart2001]

I think an issue overlooked is the difference between an action that "could have" caused injury or endanger vs. and action that "did" cause injury or endanger. Anything "could" cause injury, given the right circumstances. Hell, making someone take a bath could lead to drowning, however unlikely, there is still a chance. Would that make someone guilty of conspiring to murder?

True, a cup of ice could have caused a driver to swerve into another car or object. Did it in this case? Doesn't appear so. Could it have in this instance? You have to look at the circumstances . . . they both admitted that traffic was slowed to a crawl. If you are hit by a cup of ice and it causes you to suddenly hit the gas and swerve into another car, then you are just a moron.

Now she did hurl an object at another person . . . assault. She did admit to going into the median and tracking the car down . . . reckless driving. As for the missile . . . if I were to toss a can toward the garbage can at a park and it misses and errantly hits you while you are riding your bike, causing you to fall off . . . is that a missile? I think the definition of missile needs to be examined instead. Two years is a bit excessive imho. Community service maybe, have her picking up trash along the highway, since she threw trash on the highway in the first place.

The bit about her husband in Iraq . . . that's just the media trying to stir up some controversy (as if that never has happened before by news agencies, I am shocked :p ).

[ahart2001]

This attitude of being #1 superpower is what got us a cowboy gunsligner for a president, but he was voted for by the majority who have the same philosophy. The majority is egocentric, selfish, prone to show/use force with a concept of consequence.
Why does America have that attitude?

In my opinion, I think it stems from us having the "big kid on the block" syndrome. America has been top dog for so long, we have forgotten that we don't always know what is right and/or best. The US joining WWI, it can be argued, was the turning point that caused the Allies to win. Same thing in WWII. We beat the Soviets in the Cold War. Korea and Vietnam were stalemates. Although disasters politically, they were military stalemates. Hell, we kicked the crap out of Iraq the first time. Then we did a fairly decent job militarily in Afghanistan off the bat. Now we are facing struggles in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

Economically, we have an excellent economy. Our standard of living is tremendous. We were the leaders in innovation for many years. We have in the past been able to strong-arm other countries economically in order to make it to our advantage.

Given all that, you have to look at the American people. Since the days of the World Wars, we have had the Greatest Generation, the Baby Boomers who have been the most privileged generation, and now the Gen X and beyond who have been practically coddled (in general terms, not all, but many). We now have a society where its not "cool" to work. Teenagers have lost alot of sense of responsibility. People want paychecks without having to work. Citizens expect to be given certain things as right instead of seeing them as privileges.

We have become an "air condition" society. America does not want to go outside and break a sweat because we feel that we shouldn't have to. That is someone else's responsibility. Hence the influx of frivolous lawsuits and drug use/abuse.

America needs a change but its not from the top down. Rather, its from the bottom up. How can we expect our politicians to abide by the rules when we the people cant even do that?

[Chomp Samba]

What if the people in the car swerved and wrecked into a bus full of school kids as a result of being hit by a cup full of ice while driving down the highway? Would two years be enough of a sentence for this woman? I think bitch got what she deserved.

[ahart2001]

What if the people in the car swerved and wrecked into a bus full of school kids as a result of being hit by a cup full of ice while driving down the highway? Would two years be enough of a sentence for this woman? I think bitch got what she deserved.

"What if?"

[Chomp Samba]

"What if?"
Exactly. The potential is there. Personally, if using this woman as an example will make some other idiot think before they do something similar and cause some tragedy, I'm all for it.

[1979]

This attitude of being #1 superpower is what got us a cowboy gunsligner for a president, but he was voted for by the majority who have the same philosophy. The majority is egocentric, selfish, prone to show/use force with a concept of consequence.


What in the hell does Bush have to do with any of this?

[Duemellon]

What in the hell does Bush have to do with any of this?What does the word "Hell" have to do with any of this?

[frizgolf]

I think this is not so much a problem of the recent past, with its gunslinger attitudes, as it is a simple road rage issue. The prosecutor in this case pulled a law outta his ass, perhaps because he's tired of dealing with the traffic hassles and seeing increasing road rage himself. (And a little political grandstanding doesn't hurt his aspirations for higher office.) It's a hot-button issue, it gets the attention of a broad potential future voting base, and addresses a problem that's only getting worse: road rage. I can't believe the judge allowed this case to proceed under the letter of the way the law was written. There is absolutely no terroristic intent here, no threat to national security. The judge himself must be fed up with east coast gridlock and road rage. This woman was made to be an example for all the wrong reasons.
If she had been sentenced to two years for the same act under a more sensible charge, such as assault or reckless operation, I could better get behind the sentence. Don't pull a law out of nowhere to feed your anger, or the public's, at the increasing road rage problem.

[1979]

What does the word "Hell" have to do with any of this?


Just used it as a simple exclamation. My apologies if it offended you in some manner. Still doesn't really answer the question as to why you brought up the fact that Bush was re-elected into this thread.

[Duemellon]

Just used it as a simple exclamation. My apologies if it offended you in some manner. Still doesn't really answer the question as to why you brought up the fact that Bush was re-elected into this thread.I'm confused to why you're focusing on Bush when the intent of my post was something entirely different. Thus, I came back asking about your usage of the word "Hell", which had little to do with the intent of your post.

[1979]

I'm confused to why you're focusing on Bush when the intent of my post was something entirely different. Thus, I came back asking about your usage of the word "Hell", which had little to do with the intent of your post.


Well then, I would disagree with you - the majority of this country does not have a "gunslinger" mentality. There are those that do - such as our current president, as you have pointed out - but I highly doubt the reason he was elected and the re-elected had to do with the majority of the population holding the same personality traits. Instead, I would assume that he was elected due to the fact that people tend to vote on a partisan basis and the Democrats put up two candidates who lacked much charisma.

As to this incident - I don't think the lady who tossed the cup had a gunslinger mentality. Perhaps she was just pissed off and did something stupid. I would assume that all of us have done something stupid at some point or another - this just happened to be her time. I highly doubt it has anything to do with the attitude of the United States being the #1 superpower in the world.

[Duemellon]

I would assume that all of us have done something stupid at some point or another - this just happened to be her time. I highly doubt it has anything to do with the attitude of the United States being the #1 superpower in the world.I do believe if you could dissected the stressors in all the actor's minds at that time they involve competition, a sense of entitlement, & little focus on their actions' results/consequences on others.

All actors.

That's a symptom of being "untouchable" IMO.

[markalot]

I do believe if you could dissected the stressors in all the actor's minds at that time they involve competition, a sense of entitlement, & little focus on their actions' results/consequences on others.

All actors.

That's a symptom of being "untouchable" IMO.


Are you aware of her situation or anything about this woman? She snapped and hurled a cup. A crime, yes, a felony punishable by 2 years in prison (sans cups I assume), silly.

[frizgolf]

I do believe if you could dissected the stressors in all the actor's minds at that time they involve competition, a sense of entitlement, & little focus on their actions' results/consequences on others.

All actors.

That's a symptom of being "untouchable" IMO.
Untouchable as in being isolated in a metal cocoon in traffic, cut off from the facial expressions and body language we are more familiar with in face-to-face everyday human interaction.
I see it as more of a manifestation of our car oriented culture than as an extension of political attitudes. The psychology of being isolated and acting out aggression without social repercussions is evident in many internet discussions, as we have experienced here at times. The human reaction to anger is only tempered by the perception of immediate repercussion within the social group. This social interaction is cut off by a cocoon of steel and glass when driving, and habits form when a steering wheel (or keyboard) is within one's grip.
I'm for making an example of this woman, not the law she was prosecuted under.

[BigSugar]

What the article doesn't say is that several things likely happened:

1. An offer of a misdemeanor and/or probation.
2. An offer of diversion, whereby she would have completed a period of time doing anger managment and community service and likely paid restitution...at the end of the diversion, the case would have been dismissed and she would have not had a conviction record.
3. She probably turned all this down b/c "she didn't do anything wrong" and she was convinced a jury wouldn't convict her.
4. She probably went against the advice of her attorney.

No prosecutor in their right mind goes to trial on this type of matter without making a good deal to get it to go away and ensure that it doesn't happen again. No defense attorney lets this go to trial knowing the potential minimum mandatory jail times associated, esp. if your defense is "jury nullification". Sometimes, clients can be bullheaded.

So, the law may be goofy, but the legal system worked exactly as it was supposed to. She was charged, she was convicted, she was sentenced. She had adequate representation and she lost her bet. If you don't like a law, talk to the legislature, not the prosecutor.

[the happy prole]

No, it didn't. You shouldn't get two years for throwing a cup of coke at another driver no matter what course of legal defense (or lack thereof) you choose to pursue. Yeah, she could and should have plea bargained. But she should also be allowed to plead innocent if she wants and still have the punishment fit the crime.

If the sentences are stupid like this, pretty soon the plea bargain process will break down anyway. If you can get two years in court, why would you offer no time and anger management? You're taking the the power out of the hands of the jury and giving it to the DA. That's not the way it should be.

[berzerker]

Instead of putting her in jail for 2 years (at a cost of over $28,000 per year, according to this... (http://www.petitiononline.com/LERA/petition.html)) the judge should use that money to make the roads better, maybe decreasing the occurrances of road rage.

[BigSugar]

No, it didn't. You shouldn't get two years for throwing a cup of coke at another driver no matter what course of legal defense (or lack thereof) you choose to pursue. Yeah, she could and should have plea bargained. But she should also be allowed to plead innocent if she wants and still have the punishment fit the crime.

If the sentences are stupid like this, pretty soon the plea bargain process will break down anyway. If you can get two years in court, why would you offer no time and anger management? You're taking the the power out of the hands of the jury and giving it to the DA. That's not the way it should be.

agreed that the punishment doesn't fit the crime here. But it's still not the DA's fault that the law exists and that it carries a mandatory minimum (*unless he was in the legislature at the time and cast the deciding vote). The state legislature passed the law and the sentencing minimums. Sure, the DA gets to decide under which statutory section he'll proceed, and i'm sure he overcharged with the idea of getting a plea bargain (whoops!). But the system worked exactly as designed.

As for who has the "power", the jury has no power at all, except to decide the facts of the case as presented. It is specifically forbidden to discuss possible sentence in the "trial phase" of the case....it'll result in mistrial. Juries are only told about sentencing options at the close of the verdict, assuming it's guilty. I've had jurors come off of panels repeatedly and say "Jeez, if we'd known we had to give "X" sentence, we'd have voted differently. We really wanted to do "Y", but the judge said we couldn't."

Jurors are there to apply the facts to the law and determine guilt. it's the legislature's job to assign a range of penalties to a particular crime that the jury must consider, upon a finding of guilty....it's not the jury's job to say "I think a McMissle is only worth 6 months in jail, so we're going to vote differently on the case b/c of the nature of the punishment", instead of the jurors voting on the case and facts before them, regardless of the potential punishment.

Well, that's exactly why the two phases of trial (guilt/innocence and sentencing) are kept separate, to keep the jury from considering punishment in the guilt/innocence phase, and thereby making each individual juror a defacto legislator.

The DA is the person responsible for the charging and prosecuting of crimes....the power rests exactly where it should. The Judge's job is to act as an impartial arbitrator of disputes between the opposing sides and rule on issues of law. The jurors are the ultimate "finders of fact" (ie: guilty or not guilty). A DA has zero obligation to "plea bargain", but were a DA to take the stance that all cases go to trial or "plead to the maximum", then you'd quickly find out how a judicial system breaks down.

Disagree with the result all you want, I agree with your opinion on that. But stating that the system is broken or somehow didn't "work" b/c of the result is silly. We'll never know all the inside wranglings that took place with defense counsel and the DA, nor will we see all the discussions that took place b/w defense counsel and client....but i've been in this situation hundreds of times with clients and can pretty much guess exactly what went down. I had a lady i represented on a murder charge....before trial, she was offered 10 years to serve. She said no and went to trial. She was found guilty (after a 5 week trial) and sentenced to life in prison. If she'd taken the deal, she'd have been out last year. letting 12 people who'd rather be anywhere else than in court decide your fate is like rolling the dice in craps. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose, but it's always exciting. :)

[Shlep]

It's odd how so many people are justifyinig & sympathizing with her anger instead of realizing the bigger picture here regarding our social standards of competition, selfishness, lack of compassion, & acting w/o thinking.

Really? Mostly, I see a bunch of folks who while understanding how it is the woman could have gotten so irate, are not excusing or "justifying" her actions but rather taking exception to the lopsided sentence she received.

Saying "I can understand how someone can react in that way" doesn't even begin to equate to "I think how they reacted was perfectly acceptable."

It's a shame that no one has yet said:
WhyTF did she let it get to her?

Why does anyone let anything get to them? Why does anyone on this board, for instance, get aggravated and unleash a torrent of everything from biting sarcasm to profanities? Why would *you* let anyone here get to you?

Not that DC is in any way unique or extraordinary in this regard, but I can tell you that having driven as long as I have in that area, it sucks ass. Washington is a seriously self-important town, and DC drivers routinely seem to have something better to do while driving their car (reading something, assing around with the radio, talking on their cellphone, etc) that has nothing at all to do with paying attention to what they fuck they're doing with regards to not ramming you with their car.

If you commute to work (as most folks do) then you tend to spend just about every day that is not a federal holiday (government holidays in a government town is a big road-clearer) pissed off because you saw your life flash before your eyes 3-5 times between pulling out of your driveway and parking at work because some fuckwit wasn't paying attention or (just as often) decided that they were infinately more important that the other 10,000 people around them and would perform some stunningly and obnoxiously rude maneuver to jockey ahead two car lengths.

People taking offense to the rudeness of other drivers is only half of the equation, Due. The other half being the self-absorbed asshat who either inadvertently or (even worse) deliberately performs some driving maneuver that more or less says to one or more other motorists "You simply do not matter to me, peon" and/or "Fuck you!", often with a hand gesture intended to make sure the "Fuck you!" part is unambiguous, is the other. I can tell you that a huge part of the problem is people who suddenly get super-ballsy in their little self-contained automotive cocoon and think that the basic rules of civility cease to exist at 60 miles and hour.

I distinctly recall that dickhead who went completely out of his way, even possibly putting other motorists at risk (to the extent he hadn't already when I briefly slowed his reckless forward progress already) to make certain that I could see his middle finger thrust at me...I swear, he seemed shocked that I responded to this stimulus in the manner that most people would expect in any other situation (specifically: preparing to break my foot off in his obnoxious ass).

Why is this a new phenom in our society (in last 7-10 years)?

Is it new? I was unaware of this. More prevelant, perhaps, as we find ourselves spending more and more time in our cars, but hardly new.

Why does it happen to me?

Some people are assholes. We're all assholes to someone every once in awhile whether we mean to be or not.

This attitude of being #1 superpower is what got us a cowboy gunsligner for a president, but he was voted for by the majority who have the same philosophy. The majority is egocentric, selfish, prone to show/use force with a concept of consequence.

Our choice of President have zero to do with this; I can assure you, people were asshole drivers just as much when Clinton was in office as when Bush was. I, for the life of me, will probably never understand the process of logic by which people claim that the current occupant of the Oval Office got there because in two or four years, the entire country undergoes a massive ideological and philosophical shift from being being selfish, myopic, libertines with no moral compass to selfish, myopic, puritans whose moral compass got stuck in the 1940s or vice-versa.

The same American voting public that elected Jimmy Carter elected Ron Reagan...twice. They then elected Bush Sr., then Clinton twice, then yet another Bush twice again. And each time, selfishness, arrogance, and hubris has been stated as a reason why by someone: Reagan got elected because (according to liberals) selfish Americans only cared about getting theirs-- and to hell with progressive, compassionate, American values-- in the high-flying '80s, then Bush Sr. got elected because we all wanted more of the same.

Lo and behold, then Clinton got elected (twice) and could do no wrong because (according to conservatives) selfish Americans only cared about getting theirs-- with no concern for the character of the draft-dodging, hop-head hippie President or his moral turpitude, and to hell with the old-fashioned, basic, bedrock, middle-American values that made this country great-- during the Dot-Com boom and the high-flying '90s (the party affiliation of the President seems to have a curious effect on who says that it's great and who says that it sucks that everyone is rich during a bull market).

Then Bush Jr. got elected because...well, only the Democrats could field a candidate who could lose to Dubya, and do it twice in a row.

[the happy prole]

I'm not saying the jury should control the sentencing. I'm saying that they never even get to determine guilt if cases get plea bargained.

Suppose in this case, no one knows where the missile came from. You've got one witness saying "Yeah, she threw it," two witnesses saying "No, it was someone else," and one witness saying "I don't know." I think it should be absolutely acceptable to go to trial in this case. And I think you should probably win.

But if you're her attorney, you'd be nuts to let that happen. Unless you're 95% sure (and maybe not even then) you win this case, you will advise her to take the plea bargain. I have trouble with people essentially being blackmailed into pleading "guilty," because the possiblity of a ridiculous and unfair sentence exists if they don't.

Having said that, I mostly agree with your first post. I don't think the legal system is broken. The jury was correct to return a guilty verdict under the law. If the defense wants to go to court, it's the DA's job to represent the people and prosecute. It's the law that's bad and people should take this up with legislature. To me, that's actually the entire problem. We've taken power out of the hands of a working legal system and put it in the hands of an extremeley messed up legislature.

[noonan]

This thread is making me thirsty.

As a former runner who's had all manner of crap thrown at me from passing vehicles, I have to say that while "missle" seems hyperbolic, on average it's really not. Big Sug hits it on the head (pun intended.) There's ample opportunity in the system to modulate the punsihment for these kinds of offenses. The woman said herself that throughout the proceeding she assumed it would all just go away. Now she's paying for her hubris.

[the happy prole]

Shouldn't she be entitled to believe she won't get two years for tossing a coke out the window? Shame on her for believing in justice!

I mean, I partially agree with what you're saying. The reality is she was looking at two years and it was really stupid for her to fight the case. But it's the kind of stupid that in some ways, we should be able to get behind.

Personally, I don't see why markalot is so worked up over this in the first place. She's got three kids and she takes food stamps. Think three kids and money issues might have contributed to her stress level and sense of entitlement? Really, aren't these the kind of people society would be better off without?

[noonan]

Shouldn't she be entitled to believe she won't get two years for tossing a coke out the window?

First of all, she didn't throw it out the window, she threw it at the other driver. Secondly, she should have believed it becuase that was the minimum punishment if she was found guilty. She certainly is entitled to feel like her punishment doesn't fit the crime.

[classicgrrl]

As a former runner who's had all manner of crap thrown at me

this is awful! why would people throw shit at you? I see runners all the time in hyde park and I think they are insane but I certainly don't want to throw stuff at them.

I've had two main incidents happen to me while I was the road that come to mind.

a. I was 17 and driving back from Dayton from seeing my boyfriend. A pickup truck with two white trash skeezy dumbasses were in the lane next to me. I needed to get over or else I was going to be forced to take an exit I didn't want to take. I purposely drove in the slow lane at this time because driving back and forth from Trenton to Dayton really scared me and I wanted to be able to drive at speed I was comfortable with...they wouldn't let me over. for nearly 2 miles I was crying and trying to speed up or slow down to get around them and all they did was laugh at me. I was forced off the exit and immediately into a part of town that I didn't know and that I obviously should not have been in. I was so frightened I literally turned around and went back up the exit ramp the wrong way and back onto the highway. Dangerous but thankfully there was little traffic as it was a Sunday.

Why did they do that? Why do human beings get their jollies from making a young girl cry and get lost? Why was seeing me cry and panic so damned funny to them? To this day, I don't understand it.

b. this happened about 1 month ago. I was going to Tri County mall to return some christmas gifts I didn't want and spend a gift card for macy's (I never shop there should've just gone on-line). I was in the left hand turn lane to turn on the on-ramp to get to the norwood lateral in order to get to 75 North. there were two young males around 16-20 in the hooptie in front of me. they decided it would be fun to stop in the turn lane during a green light and not move. I waited until the light turned yellow then tried to go around them. They suddenly slammed on their gas and swerved to prevent me from going around them causing me to stop in the intersection with on coming traffic heading toward me on what now is a green light for them (red light for me). I was forced to wait while they got into the on ramp laughing their asses off and then turn on a red to get out of the intersection and avoid getting hit - had to go in the grass. they just thought it absolutely halarious to see me almost get killed.

again, why did they do that? why is funny to see people near death? why is it funny to see someone panic? and again, i don't get it and I don't understand what they found so funny.

neither instance made me angry.
both made me frightened out of my mind and anxious.

I just flat out don't get road rage. Why do people get angry or stupid in cars?

[markalot]

Personally, I don't see why markalot is so worked up over this in the first place. She's got three kids and she takes food stamps. Think three kids and money issues might have contributed to her stress level and sense of entitlement? Really, aren't these the kind of people society would be better off without?

Regardless of what I think about entitlement programs I don't support what I consider unfair punishment. The severity of the punishment should match the severity of the crime plus the danger that the perpetrator represents to society.

Her husband is in Iraq and she's taking care of the kids. How is she a drag on society again?

[1979]

this is awful! why would people throw shit at you? I see runners all the time in hyde park and I think they are insane but I certainly don't want to throw stuff at them.

I've had two main incidents happen to me while I was the road that come to mind.

a. I was 17 and driving back from Dayton from seeing my boyfriend. A pickup truck with two white trash skeezy dumbasses were in the lane next to me. I needed to get over or else I was going to be forced to take an exit I didn't want to take. I purposely drove in the slow lane at this time because driving back and forth from Trenton to Dayton really scared me and I wanted to be able to drive at speed I was comfortable with...they wouldn't let me over. for nearly 2 miles I was crying and trying to speed up or slow down to get around them and all they did was laugh at me. I was forced off the exit and immediately into a part of town that I didn't know and that I obviously should not have been in. I was so frightened I literally turned around and went back up the exit ramp the wrong way and back onto the highway. Dangerous but thankfully there was little traffic as it was a Sunday.

Why did they do that? Why do human beings get their jollies from making a young girl cry and get lost? Why was seeing me cry and panic so damned funny to them? To this day, I don't understand it.

b. this happened about 1 month ago. I was going to Tri County mall to return some christmas gifts I didn't want and spend a gift card for macy's (I never shop there should've just gone on-line). I was in the left hand turn lane to turn on the on-ramp to get to the norwood lateral in order to get to 75 North. there were two young males around 16-20 in the hooptie in front of me. they decided it would be fun to stop in the turn lane during a green light and not move. I waited until the light turned yellow then tried to go around them. They suddenly slammed on their gas and swerved to prevent me from going around them causing me to stop in the intersection with on coming traffic heading toward me on what now is a green light for them (red light for me). I was forced to wait while they got into the on ramp laughing their asses off and then turn on a red to get out of the intersection and avoid getting hit - had to go in the grass. they just thought it absolutely halarious to see me almost get killed.

again, why did they do that? why is funny to see people near death? why is it funny to see someone panic? and again, i don't get it and I don't understand what they found so funny.

neither instance made me angry.
both made me frightened out of my mind and anxious.

I just flat out don't get road rage. Why do people get angry or stupid in cars?


I can understand road rage, because in each of those instances I would have been pretty bitter at the occupants of the other vehicles.

[noonan]

why would people throw shit at you? I see runners all the time in hyde park and I think they are insane but I certainly don't want to throw stuff at them.

The probability of such behavior is proportional to the socio-economic level of the neghborhood as well as the distance from population centers. It's not a constant thing, but I've put in a fair number of miles in the middle of nowhere in Michgan, Illinois, and Georgia. In that time I'd say miscellaneous projectiles are the number three item hurled by troglodytes from their cars behind "Run Forrest!" and "Hey Faggot!"

[jcarwash31]

I can understand road rage, because in each of those instances I would have been pretty bitter at the occupants of the other vehicles.
I can understand getting angry when someone does something stupid and put you in danger. I can't understand how it manifests into rage. I have gotten pissed off a number of times, but never enough to do more than just honk. Driving angry because traffic is slow makes no sense to me either. I've ridden with people like that. You being angry isn't going to move traffic any faster. Classics run-ins were with jerks who think that shit is funny and had nothing to do with rage on their part. I'd have gotten a little pissed off.

[1979]

I can understand getting angry when someone does something stupid and put you in danger. I can't understand how it manifests into rage. I have gotten pissed off a number of times, but never enough to do more than just honk. Driving angry because traffic is slow makes no sense to me either. I've ridden with people like that. You being angry isn't going to move traffic any faster. Classics run-ins were with jerks who think that shit is funny and had nothing to do with rage on their part. I'd have gotten a little pissed off.


Agreed. I don't think it should get to the point of rage either. But I can see why it does. I don't understand a lot of things that people do - not just on the road. I don't understand most crimes for example.

I guess I shouldn't have said I can understand road rage - I am just not suprised by it.

[the happy prole]

Regardless of what I think about entitlement programs I don't support what I consider unfair punishment. The severity of the punishment should match the severity of the crime plus the danger that the perpetrator represents to society.

Her husband is in Iraq and she's taking care of the kids. How is she a drag on society again?

She's sucking dollars from hard working people because she's too stupid not to have kids. Why should we be subsidizing her? People who can't take care of themselves should die.

I contribute to society. She takes money away from society. Therefore, she's a scumbag, and I'm not. Seems pretty simple to me.

[DaHood]

yikes.......

[markalot]

She's sucking dollars from hard working people because she's too stupid not to have kids. Why should we be subsidizing her? People who can't take care of themselves should die.

I contribute to society. She takes money away from society. Therefore, she's a scumbag, and I'm not. Seems pretty simple to me.

So that makes this punishment just? We all see what you're trying to do.

[classicgrrl]

So that makes this punishment just? We all see what you're trying to do.

he's not trying dear, he's doing it.

:p :rolleyes:

[DaHood]

Might have to bring in the ferrets.

[the happy prole]

So that makes this punishment just? We all see what you're trying to do.

She has anger management issues, and she has too many kids. She's going to mistreat them and probably beat them and then those kids are going to grow up and become drains on society themselves. People who need welfare should die.

You don't understand. See, I know these people. I've lived near poor people, I've had jobs where I had to interact with poor people. I know how these welfare types work. I see everyday how they go out and buy and fancy Nike shoes and big screen TV's with their money. They're selfish so of course they think everyone is cutting them off. Instead of having a car, shouldn't she have spent the money on food for her kids? Get these welfare freaks off the highways and then there's less traffic and less road rage.

They should have never allowed her on the road in the first place.

I'm still tickled how some of you think I should have a bleeding heart.

[markalot]

I think you're confusing this lady with the 80 year old who raped that kid.
:p

[Shlep]

The probability of such behavior is proportional to the socio-economic level of the neghborhood as well as the distance from population centers. It's not a constant thing, but I've put in a fair number of miles in the middle of nowhere in Michgan, Illinois, and Georgia. In that time I'd say miscellaneous projectiles are the number three item hurled by troglodytes from their cars behind "Run Forrest!" and "Hey Faggot!"

And I thought that only happened to TV weather reporters...

http://www.6bears.com/wheaterman2.jpg
http://www.viewlondon.co.uk/upload/2717a.gif
http://www.ecranlarge.com/images/dvd/tests/weatherman-z2-test-film01.jpg

[classicgrrl]

Might have to bring in the ferrets.

http://home.att.net/~trferretcouncil/tfs00701.gif



http://www.parrotsoftheworld.com/ferret-angora.jpg

[shivui]

i'm sure between everyone who's posted in this thread we could fill plenty of books with our terrible driving stories. i've averaged about 100 miles a day driving in the last five and a half years so i've experienced more than enough. it's true her sentence is rough, but it's her fault. maybe she shouldn't be in jail, but she definitely shouldn't be on the road. this is just a case of two wrongs to me. if she could've gotten lesser with a plea bargain, she should have. she was guilty. it is apples and limes, but i think the lady is more stupid than the law.

it's my opinion that road rage is only going to get worse as populations increase. more people on the road pretty much guarantees more assholes, just by percentages. the best anyone can do is shrug it off because another asshole is right around the corner.

[DaHood]

http://home.att.net/~trferretcouncil/tfs00701.gif



http://www.parrotsoftheworld.com/ferret-angora.jpg
Lovely! :D The jester is my fav.

[Shlep]

There is nothing that can't be put right in a trice by the proper deployment of ferrets. The UN should be disbanded, or at least relocated to someplace where it would make sense to exist (like Brussels, or Geneva, or something) and the office space converted to the headquarters of the Emergency Ferret Crisis Response Team, which would provide the necessary command and control assets to ensure that within 24 hours, a business of ferrets ("business" being the proper nomenclature for a herd or pack or whatever of ferrets...that's a fact!) could be deployed anywhere where tensions between two or more groups (or among one) are threatening to spill over into open hostility to immediately avert a crisis.

[purple_octopus]

Lovely! :D The jester is my fav.
Me too. I love how he sticks his tongue out just so.

[pearl5001]

Late to the party, as usual....

I read the article without clicking on the link and consequently didn't see a picture of the jailed woman until after getting the details. However, I'd already formed the opinion that the sentence was probably harsher than needed, when it dawned on me: I just knew that the woman was black. I wonder if the couple in the other car were white or not. What race was the judge? What do we think the outcome would have been if the woman was white?

[purple_octopus]

Late to the party, as usual....

I read the article without clicking on the link and consequently didn't see a picture of the jailed woman until after getting the details. However, I'd already formed the opinion that the sentence was probably harsher than needed, when it dawned on me: I just knew that the woman was black. I wonder if the couple in the other car were white or not. What race was the judge? What do we think the outcome would have been if the woman was white?
That's interesting. I didn't see a pic of her at all, and I assumed she was white. Probably because throwing a cup into somebody else's car sounds like something a spoiled-ass suburbanite soccer mommy would do.

[DaHood]

Late to the party, as usual....

I read the article without clicking on the link and consequently didn't see a picture of the jailed woman until after getting the details. However, I'd already formed the opinion that the sentence was probably harsher than needed, when it dawned on me: I just knew that the woman was black. I wonder if the couple in the other car were white or not. What race was the judge? What do we think the outcome would have been if the woman was white?LaJenna Porter is the victim. That screams black woman.

[frizgolf]

That's interesting. I didn't see a pic of her at all, and I assumed she was white. Probably because throwing a cup into somebody else's car sounds like something a spoiled-ass suburbanite soccer mommy would do.
S'what I was thinkin'.

[DaHood]

Anyone who's unhappy about this needs to look in the mirror and ask themselves when the last time they said something like 'there ought to be a law'. This is what you get.


Yes, I'm guilty too.

[pearl5001]

That's part of my point (in relation to P_O) ...to me, it sounds like something anyone might do at a breaking point. However, if I had thrown a "missile" and been brought to trial, I seriously wonder what my sentence would have been. FYI - I'm white, no trouble with the law, no kids, can pay my own bills.

Granted, I'm not going to test this theory or anything like that. :o

[Predot listener]

LaJenna Porter is the victim. That screams black woman.


It's not absolutely clear, but I'm pretty sure LaJenna Porter is the missile launcher's sister. The quote sounds like it comes from the victim, but on second read I don't think it is.

A dumb thing to do, and an act that warrants some kind of penalty. But I think its foolish to play the what-if game (as was done earlier) if you don't also apply it to the reckless driving from the victims that prompted it.

[the happy prole]

That's interesting. I didn't see a pic of her at all, and I assumed she was white. Probably because throwing a cup into somebody else's car sounds like something a spoiled-ass suburbanite soccer mommy would do.

I knew she was black from the beginning, because I clicked on the story and saw her picture.

And I certainly don't want to overplay this, but it's been in my mind since I saw it. You steretyped her based on the story that was reported. And yeah, it seems like the kind of thing an over-stressed soccer mom would do... but to some extent, it's the kind of thing the media would generally only report if a soccer mom did it. And here's the other thing-- why couldn't she be a black spoiled-ass suburban soccer mom?

I'm not accusing you or anyone else of anything here-- let me make that clear. Because I instinctively thought the same thing. In fact, the only reason I clicked on the story and looked at her picture was because I thought "Hey, they'd have to be nuts to convict a white suburban soccer mom with a patriot husband and get this bad press." So I had my own stereotypes going in. And rightly or wrongly, when I found out she was black and took foodstamps I thought "Oh, okay. That explains it." Maybe I'm too cynical. That's why I didn't bring it up.

So without calling anyone a racist, I do think this illustrates the insidious ways race effects our thinking. It's not that anyone intentionally tries to think it race terms, it's that you sometimes really have to go out of your way not to do it.

[the happy prole]

But I think its foolish to play the what-if game (as was done earlier) if you don't also apply it to the reckless driving from the victims that prompted it.

I don't think it's a dumb thing to do. In fact, I think in some ways it's vital. Five people drive drunk and only one of them is unfortunate enough to kill someone. Would you say that one person should get the death penalty while the others get off scot-free because nothing happened?

The civil courts are the ones that set things right between you and the other party and they make sure you don't get a windfall if in fact nothing happened. The criminal court weighs the nature of the offense against society.

That's not to say I think we treat everyone like a murderer just because death had a remote chance of occurring. In this case I'd take into account the traffic was at a crawl so it was unlikely to harm anyone-- and given her clean record, I would feel comfortable in deciding the safety factor was at some level in the defendant's mind. If I thought she would have done the same thing regardless of whether traffic was at a standstill or going 65, then I wouldn't cut her any slack at all.

But again, that's been taken out of people's hands. It's a two year minimum for the offense. She admits she threw it, so the jury has to convict.

[shivui]

A dumb thing to do, and an act that warrants some kind of penalty. But I think its foolish to play the what-if game (as was done earlier) if you don't also apply it to the reckless driving from the victims that prompted it.
i could be misreading your post and i might be completely off base, but i think the launcher is a bit more at fault in this circumstance. who will really know the whole story, but if she really drove on the shoulder and threw something out, that's quite irregular driving. cutting someone off can be pretty subjective and it doesn't sound like the person was driving that unreasonably to jockey for position. look at it this way, speaking of ifs... if 10 people drive dangerously around others and no one retaliates, that's still only 10 baddies. if every victim reacts like she did you've created one more bad driver each and doubled the number. very simplistic but still. you want to get these people off the road there are other ways.

storytime:

i was driving on 27 and a person in front of me was being shitty, wouldn't let me by, wouldn't drive a proper speed. so i called the cops. they got pulled over and i continued on my way. my passengers probably enjoyed that more than i did, but it's a sweet revenge and no one gets hurt.


race didn't even pop into my mind. i experience so many bad drivers regardless of ethnicity, i know it's got nothing to do with it. press on the other hand...

[DaHood]

i could be misreading your post and i might be completely off base, but i think the launcher is a bit more at fault in this circumstance.I don't know how we can know who can be 'more at fault' since we weren't there but once that woman launched the cup she is obviously at fault for her actions. There is no question that she should not have done it. You just do not throw things out of a moving vehicle. That no doubt violates several laws.

[Duemellon]

Our choice of President have zero to do with this; I can assure you, people were asshole drivers just as much when Clinton was in office as when Bush was.I always find it strange when staunch conservatives hold up Clinton as the best counterargument to any knocks against Bush.

Frankly I felt Clinton was a manifestation of the personality of our society as well. Yes, there are widespread rapid ideological & behavioral changes throughout society spurred on through world & national events as well as media or moralistic focal points.

This was proven true how, within 2 generations Blacks went from having the possibility of being free members of society who owned property, could vote, & such to being subhuman property declared mentally incompetent & enslaved "for their own good". The time span between the Korean war & Vietnam is less than a generation yet the attitude of society had changed. Typically speaking we vote for presidents based on their personality & how it fits the majority of people's personality.

Bush & Clinton were manifestations of such.

Now, what does the pres have to do with road rage? He's just an example of the prevailent attitudes we have at the time. Also, you can stop holding up Clinton as the great equalizer when disparaging remarks are made about Bush. At least Clinton owend up to his lies when he got busted for them.Classicgrrl
I just flat out don't get road rage. Why do people get angry or stupid in cars?

jcarwash31
I can understand getting angry when someone does something stupid and put you in danger. I can't understand how it manifests into rage.

v.

Shlep
Saying "I can understand how someone can react in that way" doesn't even begin to equate to "I think how they reacted was perfectly acceptable."

1979
I can understand road rage, because in each of those instances I would have been pretty bitter at the occupants of the other vehicles.I am not the only one here who believes that "road rage" is not an acceptable state. I will go one step further & say that, even though I can understand how someone could go into a rage I definitely don't think it's acceptable or should be the expected result. I strongly believe the recent increase of road-rage is a change in social attitudes. I was never really prone to it until the last few years & find myself feeling guilty, stupid, & out of control when it happens. In no way do I feel empowered or proud of it.

I wish it didn't happen to me.

[Duemellon]

Would you say that one person should get the death penalty while the others get off scot-free because nothing happened?B/c we have laws to take care of the "what may happen" v. the "what did happen" kind've stuff.

Attempted murder or conspiracy to murder are different crimes than an actual murder. It's supposed to be that way. There are laws in place to handle the punishments she would have received if something bigger had happened as a result of her actions.

[Duemellon]

So without calling anyone a racist, I do think this illustrates the insidious ways race effects our thinking. It's not that anyone intentionally tries to think it race terms, it's that you sometimes really have to go out of your way not to do it.Well, I'd call them racist simply becuse there were assumptions made about race. However, if you/they want to take that as some huge condemnation of your/their character(s) or that you/they should be drawn & quartered, than you/they are being too defensive to deal with the actual problem instead of the symptoms.

Racism affects everyone because almost everyone is a racist. The denial of the ugliness we individually own greatly contributes to it's persistance.

[markalot]

Well, I'd call them racist simply becuse

you call everyone a racist?

[Duemellon]

you call everyone a racist?I'd call very few people non-racist.

This has always been my stance & view about the US public. It really hasn't changed, ever. If you perpetuate the machine, knowingly or unwittingly, you are part of the machine's function.

Consider very few people fit the category of not being part of the machine & this include many who are actively fighting against it.

[purple_octopus]

I knew she was black from the beginning, because I clicked on the story and saw her picture.

And I certainly don't want to overplay this, but it's been in my mind since I saw it. You steretyped her based on the story that was reported. And yeah, it seems like the kind of thing an over-stressed soccer mom would do... but to some extent, it's the kind of thing the media would generally only report if a soccer mom did it. And here's the other thing-- why couldn't she be a black spoiled-ass suburban soccer mom?
I'm pretty sure the general stereotype of spoiled suburbanite soccor mom is a wretched white bitch with an SUV. That's not to say that there *aren't* black spoiled ass suburbanite soccer moms. But there are certainly not as many. Besides, I think that because it's highly unlikely that any successful black person in this country had everything handed to them, they are probably less inclined to have the spoiled brat entitlement attitude of many of their white counterparts (who probably acheived their success with greater ease).

[Shlep]

I always find it strange when staunch conservatives hold up Clinton as the best counterargument to any knocks against Bush.

Yet you didn't find it strange when I held up every other man to hold the office or President for the past 30 years?

As is so often the case, Due: you, and the point I was getting at, are on two entirely different planes of existence.

I was not engaging in some knee-jerk, protective response to a "knock against Bush" because I am a staunch political conservative. Actually, as you may of noticed, I've done quite a bit of knocking against Bush myself in this very forum. You might also have wondered why a staunch conservative of the sort who feels compelled to respond quickly to criticisms of the man by employing the standard pro-Bush-staunch-conservative gambit of invoking Clinton might be a strident critic of a number of staunch, pro-Bush conservative issues like Iraq and gay marriage. And you may be utterly perplexed at the revelation that my knocks against Bush have indeed been preciptated *BY* my staunch conservatism, not opposed by it (and I am hardly alone in this regard). But that's all fodder for an entirely different discussion.

I was not responding to the "knock against Bush." Rather, I was taking issue with the notion that the same pro-American, rah-rah, gunslinging, yippie-kieee-yay, Rambo-John Wayne-Chuck Norris, hooray-for-me-and-go-fuck-yourself attitude that got Dubya elected was what also led to road rage incidents of the sort that inspired the subject of this story to hurl a "McMissile" at another car.

The idea that people became asshole, obnoxious, aggressive drivers apt to lash at each other in traffic about the same time they decided to elect Bush is asinine. Road rage was a problem prior to Bush even being a candidate for high office, and indeed was first identified and (by my recollection) labelled a such during the '90s, when everyone was all sane and kind and wonderful and voted for Clinton. That was my point.

Frankly I felt Clinton was a manifestation of the personality of our society as well. Yes, there are widespread rapid ideological & behavioral changes throughout society spurred on through world & national events as well as media or moralistic focal points.

Wow...we went from Reagan/Reagan/Bush to Clinton/Clinton then Bush/Bush during a period of "widespread rapid ideological & behavioral changes throughout society spurred on through world & national events as well as media or moralistic focal points." Hell, "rapid" doesn't even begin to cover it; "on a dime" would seem more apt. Come to think of it, I'm surprised the g-forces from all that shifting didn't kill us.

Typically speaking we vote for presidents based on their personality & how it fits the majority of people's personality.

Bush & Clinton were manifestations of such.

I must wonder what would cause the voting public to go from being the sort of happy-go-lucky folks who would vote for Clinton twice and then suddenly, in a seeming repudiation of his legacy, vote for his Veep and for Dubya in near-equal numbers.

Now, what does the pres have to do with road rage? He's just an example of the prevailent attitudes we have at the time.

A search on "road rage" at the NHTSA website produces THIS (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/research/AggDrivingEnf/pages/References.html) list of references, articles, and scholarly works on the growing phenomenon of road rage. Note the years in which they were published. Attempt to reconcile this with your assertions thus far.

Also, you can stop holding up Clinton as the great equalizer when disparaging remarks are made about Bush.

Also, you can stop characterizing the post you're referring to as some furious, ardent defense of Bush and his presidency, since I had not a single kind word to say about either and your attempt to portray it as such stretches credulity.

At least Clinton owend up to his lies when he got busted for them.

Ah, yes...a moment in history that would do any man proud.

"As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information.

Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible.

But I told the grand jury today and I say to you now that at no time did I ask anyone to lie, to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action.

I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a false impression. I misled people, including even my wife. I deeply regret that.

I can only tell you I was motivated by many factors. First, by a desire to protect myself from the embarrassment of my own conduct.

I was also very concerned about protecting my family. The fact that these questions were being asked in a politically inspired lawsuit, which has since been dismissed, was a consideration, too.

In addition, I had real and serious concerns about an independent counsel investigation that began with private business dealings 20 years ago, dealings I might add about which an independent federal agency found no evidence of any wrongdoing by me or my wife over two years ago.

The independent counsel investigation moved on to my staff and friends, then into my private life. And now the investigation itself is under investigation.

This has gone on too long, cost too much and hurt too many innocent people.

Even presidents have private lives. It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and the prying into private lives and get on with our national life.

Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long, and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this. That is all I can do.

Now it is time -- in fact, it is past time to move on.

We have important work to do -- real opportunities to seize, real problems to solve, real security matters to face.

And so tonight, I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months, to repair the fabric of our national discourse, and to return our attention to all the challenges and all the promise of the next American century.

Thank you for watching. And good night.''

To sum up: "Here I am, owning up to the fact that I lied, even though I didn't exactly lie from a pure legal standpoint, and even if I did, which I did not, it was the fault of my evil political opponents. Now then: mind your own damned business. Good night."

I am not the only one here who believes that "road rage" is not an acceptable state. I will go one step further & say that, even though I can understand how someone could go into a rage I definitely don't think it's acceptable or should be the expected result. I strongly believe the recent increase of road-rage is a change in social attitudes. I was never really prone to it until the last few years & find myself feeling guilty, stupid, & out of control when it happens. In no way do I feel empowered or proud of it.

I wish it didn't happen to me.

Well, over the past several years, I have become *less* prone to road rage, the result of a mostly conscious decision on my part to strive to be less prone to getting angry about stuff in my life, particularly stuff I have little or no control over, and just chill the hell out. This is not to say that I never get pissed off in traffic and become irate over the actions of other drivers, even as I piously lecture my wife on her propensity to not only do the same thing but moreover practically invite other drivers to engage in physical combat (she finds my concerns stemming from this tendency of hers to be silly and perplexing).

I just fail to see how the choice of President has anything to do with it.

[Duemellon]

I just fail to see how the choice of President has anything to do with it.... this is one of those examples where your focus on one aspect of what I'm saying is mischaracterizing the statement.

The choice of president by the majority is not an indictment of the pres but the people. However, the point of including that correalation was minute, to the degree of a sidebar, which I am stunned has expanded to a 4 page response from you.

It was not & was not intended to be the strength of my argument & was, in fact, a minor detail. If you really want to continue to focus on this aspect of my opinion, you're free to, but it's totally uneccesarry & not-so-relevent to my point.

[berzerker]

...it's true her sentence is rough, but it's her fault. maybe she shouldn't be in jail, but she definitely shouldn't be on the road. this is just a case of two wrongs to me. if she could've gotten lesser with a plea bargain, she should have. she was guilty. it is apples and limes, but i think the lady is more stupid than the law...

I'm not saying she shouldn't be allowed on the road, it's that she shouldn't have been allowed in a courtroom. Any lawyer she got (even a public defender) should have asked her "Did you throw something?" and when she said that she did, he/she should have said "take the plea bargain, end of story." Because the lawyer should have known that the mandatory minimum was 2 years, pending a judge's whim on whether it should be lower than that. I know she was trying to avoid any conviction, but lesser of 2 evils time folks. You're guilty of the crime, no matter of the severity. The judge can decrease the sentence, but that doesn't matter.

[markalot]

We have horrendous jail over crowding issues. We do not need ice cup hurlers taking up space in the pen.

1. Fine the minor criminals
2. Lock up the serious criminals
3. Kill the dangerous criminals

[Shlep]

... this is one of those examples where your focus on one aspect of what I'm saying is mischaracterizing the statement.

The choice of president by the majority is not an indictment of the pres but the people. However, the point of including that correalation was minute, to the degree of a sidebar, which I am stunned has expanded to a 4 page response from you.

It was not & was not intended to be the strength of my argument & was, in fact, a minor detail. If you really want to continue to focus on this aspect of my opinion, you're free to, but it's totally uneccesarry & not-so-relevent to my point.

I understand the idea that praising or criticising voting patterns involves praising or criticizing voters, not the person being voted upon, Due. What I must say I do not understand is how a response from me to a post from you in which I responded in different sections to pretty much every word of your post suddenly becomes a case of me focusing on one wee portion of it and going nutso miscaracterizing it.

Though this may be partially the result of some some lingering confusion over how my mentioning Bill Clinton in pointing out that people had the capacity to be assholes when Clinton (and his predecessor, and that mans' predecessor, and his to boot) was President, and since road rage was identified as a problem and classified with the term "road rage" during the Clinton adminsitration because people were engaging in that behavior in increasing numbers when he held office, and thus the idea that the attitude that predisposes people to freak out in traffic and vote for Bush is not only connected but arrived together is ridiculous somehow becomes a reflexive, perhaps even predictable, defense of Bushs' Presidency in spite of my neither praising nor slamming anything about either mans' time in office.

[the happy prole]

We have horrendous jail over crowding issues. We do not need ice cup hurlers taking up space in the pen.

1. Fine the minor criminals
2. Lock up the serious criminals
3. Kill the dangerous criminals

Yeah, but how would we know which ones are minor, serious, or dangerous. We'd have to look at recidivism rates, and maybe even do math. Math is hard.

Why don't you just hand me a list of 500 crimes, and I'll just make two columns for "Scumbag" and "Worthwhile Human" and check off one for each crime. It's much simpler. I mean, it's not like I'd actually do any research, but this still saves me the trouble of having to make up bogus facts.

[Duemellon]

...people had the capacity to be assholes when Clinton (and his predecessor, and that mans' predecessor, and his to boot) was President,...OMG! They were?!?!??!

I mean, what I remember, when the Dems controlled the White House, were fluffy hypoallergetic pommeranian having a weekly parade through Happy Town & little Prozac'd elves making candy from street waste that tasted like tangerine clouds and marmelade skies! It was a happy time where everyone was singing that one commercial's song.. yah... that's right... the one where all the hippies gather in a field with a red can of cola in their hand & sang how they'd like to buy the world a Coke while holding hands. God, I miss those days.

Wonderful days.

Of Clinton.

Sigh.

I'm regretting to find I'm stuck in the 90's again. I'll ride my bike to my foreign car. I'll burn my min in my VCR. I'm reluctant to find I'm stuck in the 90's again!

...but really man, you really are making a mountain out of a molehill while switching around the cause-effect to take an opportunity to attempt implicate Clinton as if I cared or was making a distinction.

[markalot]

Yeah, but how would we know which ones are minor, serious, or dangerous. We'd have to look at recidivism rates, and maybe even do math. Math is hard.

Why don't you just hand me a list of 500 crimes, and I'll just make two columns for "Scumbag" and "Worthwhile Human" and check off one for each crime. It's much simpler. I mean, it's not like I'd actually do any research, but this still saves me the trouble of having to make up bogus facts.

No, I would not use rates. A sexual predator is not worth releasing back to society, the danger is too great. A jewel thief, on the other hand, is not usually the dangerous type but might tend to repeat the crime. So what, big deal. A murderer or an attempted murderer is usually a pretty dangerous person. So on and so forth.

The actual recidivism rates don't really matter. Maybe a druggy will relapse a lot, but keeping him in the slammer isn't addressing the issue. The sexual predator has a lower rate of recidivism but when they repeat they tend to repeat the same crime or worse. To me it's not worth ever letting these scum go.

I doubt we have good data for road rage recidivism rates, but I hear recidivism rates for suicide bombers is near 0!

[Shlep]

...but really man, you really are making a mountain out of a molehill while switching around the cause-effect to take an opportunity to attempt implicate Clinton as if I cared or was making a distinction.

What in the name of all that makes a freakin' lick of sense are you gadding on about *NOW*, Due?!

I'm not trying to establish a cause/effect relationship between anyone being President and social phenomenon like road rage or any of the other asshole behaviors that are being tagged as some form of "rage" ("air rage," "Internet rage," "ATM rage," etc) previously recognized as what they are: a sudden, often violent and demonstrative loss of self-control stemming from a culimnation of real or perceived affronts and slights gradually building until brought to a head by some precipitating event; in the case of most folks, that is. There is also a propensity for a relative minority of people to behave this way from the moment they leave the house with little or no prompting, usually referred to as "fucking jerks" by the rest of us.

I am not saying that there is some corrolation or inference to be made regarding this behavior; that would be your thing, not mine. Furthermore, I'm not trying to implicate Clinton in anything, or defend Bush, or say anything good/bad/indifferent about anyones' tenure in office as these things are wholly irrelevant; again, this is an issue you injected into the thread and have decided to make a big hairy deal out of while ironically and quite confoundingly claiming that I am the one doing this.

I AM SAYING THAT THE PROPENSITY FOR PEOPLE GETTING PISSED OFF AND REACTING IN UNCIVIL WAYS TOWARDS EACH OTHER-- SUCH AS IN TRAFFIC-- REGARDLESS OF HOW THEY CHOOSE TO EXPLAIN OR JUSTIFY IT IS SOMETHING THAT HAS NOTHING WHAT-SO-BLEEDIN'-EVER TO DO WITH WHO THE PRESIDENT IS!!!

HENCE, I BELIEVE THAT DRAWING SOME DIRECT CONNECTION TO THIS SORT OF BEHAVIOR AND A WIDESPREAD SET OF SOCIAL ATTITUDES THAT SUDDENLY TOOK HOLD OVER THE MAJORITY OF THE VOTING AND DRIVING PUBLIC ALL OF THE SUDDEN SIX OR SEVEN YEARS AGO, LEADING TO THE TANDEM NATIONAL CRISES OF ROAD RAGE AND TWO CONSECUTIVE TERMS OF PRESIDENT DUBYA, ESPECIALLY SINCE THIS THEORY IS DIRECTLY CONTRADICTED BY DATA ON ROAD RAGE INCIDENTS PRIOR TO ANYONE EVEN CONSIDERING THE IDEA OF PRESIDENT BUSH JR., IS PATENTLY ABSURD.

IN CASE I DID NOT MAKE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR ENOUGH: I AM NOT BLAMING ANY PRESIDENT FOR ANYTHING, OR ATTEMPTING TO LAUD OR CRITICIZE THE PERFORMANCE OF BUSH, CLINTON, OR ANYONE ELSE.

PEOPLE HAVE BEEN OBNOXIOUS PRICKS TO EACH OTHER IN THEIR CARS WHILST DRIVING FOR MANY YEARS, BEFORE BUSH WAS IN OFFICE, OR CLINTON, OR THE OTHER BUSH, OR REAGAN. I recall when I was about 9 years old, which would have been 1978 or 1979, when Jimmy Carter was the Chief Executive. This being the decade where the big yellow smiley face was a ubiquitous pop culture symbol, when "Up With People" was popular, when the Starland Vocal Band was a presence on the charts and had their own TV show, and everyone was all about doing their own thing and whatever felt good and blah blah blah. Whether this, plus the decision to elect Carter, was the result of widespread drug use or something else, opinions vary. BUt Jimmy was apparently a real peach of a guy; even his detractors will admit he means well.


Anyway, it was during this time while in a car driven by my mother motoring down the L.A. Freeway, some woman in another car went to some effort to inform my mother that she was a "stupid bitch." That this nasty, vituperative harpy was quite old (at least 60 years old, perhaps in her 70s) not only challenges the notion that people born and raised "in her day" were more civil and certainly less vulgar, but also raises the distinct possibility that she was probably obnoxious to people when Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy (whose brief time in office is supposedly remembered for its sunny, boundless optimism) were in office. Not to mention raising the possibility that I'm a bad person for being miffed about it almost 30 years later and happy that the vulgar old hag is probably dead by now.

Anyway: I am not saying that rude behavior while in a car has anything to do with the President-- YOU are. I also do not believe that the country undergoes a massive, cataclysmic shift in attitude and presiposition to various behaviors every few years, and thus I do not think it is logical to suggest that such shifts can explain who the President is. I can't make it much simpler then that.

[the happy prole]

No, I would not use rates. A sexual predator is not worth releasing back to society, the danger is too great. A jewel thief, on the other hand, is not usually the dangerous type but might tend to repeat the crime. So what, big deal. A murderer or an attempted murderer is usually a pretty dangerous person. So on and so forth.

The actual recidivism rates don't really matter. Maybe a druggy will relapse a lot, but keeping him in the slammer isn't addressing the issue. The sexual predator has a lower rate of recidivism but when they repeat they tend to repeat the same crime or worse. To me it's not worth ever letting these scum go.

I doubt we have good data for road rage recidivism rates, but I hear recidivism rates for suicide bombers is near 0!

Right. So we go with the 'scumbag' vs 'human' checklist then?

[markalot]

Right. So we go with the 'scumbag' vs 'human' checklist then?

you bet. I'll start.

sexual predators -- rape, pedophiles, etc. --- scumbag

[the happy prole]

blacks and gays-- scumbags

[the happy prole]

the poor-- scumbags

[markalot]

Have they committed a crime?

[the happy prole]

Yeah. They committed the crime of being scumbags. Are you going liberal on me again?

How much more obvious can it be that certain people are just scumbags and certain people aren't? Who cares what they actually DO or might do? Sooner or later, it'll be something bad because they're scumbags. Simple as that.

For me, it's quite obvious that blacks, gays, and the poor are scumbags. Just like sexual predators are scumbags.

[Duemellon]

For me, it's quite obvious that blacks, gays, and the poor are scumbags. Just like sexual predators are scumbags.And how do "you" feel about Muslims?

[the happy prole]

If they're not from the US? scumbags.

I'll let markalot pick whether US Muslims are scumbags or not. I don't want to like, be a turn hog.

[markalot]

For me, it's quite obvious that blacks, gays, and the poor are scumbags. Just like sexual predators are scumbags.

First off I know you don't think like this. Second, whatever crazy point you're trying to make, it's too damn thin. Poor or blacks or gays did not rape anyone or, let me be more precise, stretch the asshole of some 8 year old boy for kicks.

There's a big difference between leeching off the system, if that's what you're getting at, and sexual assault.

[DaHood]

Yikes.

I think the original question about race as it pertains to the subject of the thread was: Was the reason for the harsh sentancing because of the race of the defendant?

Also: Was it because the race of the defendant was black and the race of the victim was white?

I believe they were both black. Am I wrong?

[markalot]

If they're not from the US? scumbags.

I'll let markalot pick whether US Muslims are scumbags or not. I don't want to like, be a turn hog.

I'm only concerned with criminals.

grocery store robbers - human

[the happy prole]

whoa-- let's not get precise. Precise is hard.

Precisely what percent of so-called sexual predators have "stretched the asshole of 8 year old boy?" I don't know. But I heard one guy did it, so that's enough.

Come to think of it, I read one time about a black guy who committed murder...

[markalot]

whoa-- let's not get precise. Precise is hard.

Precisely what percent of so-called sexual predators have "stretched the asshole of 8 year old boy?" I don't know. But I heard one guy did it, so that's enough.

Come to think of it, I read one time about a black guy who committed murder...

Oh, so we should say well, you just raped some sluts so it's all cool.

You're trying to tie race into this again Prole, I'm about to hit the report button. You've already accused me of being racist once, without merit, are you doing it again?

[the happy prole]

I'm only concerned with criminals.

grocery store robbers - human

whoa.... hold up, hoss.

'Fraid I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one. I read this story one time about a grocery store that was held up at gun point, and they ended up shooting the cashier.

Although come to think of it, I think they were drug-users and poor-- thus scumbags. So they're already covered.

[the happy prole]

Oh, so we should say well, you just raped some sluts so it's all cool.

Wait a minute, who said anyone raped sluts? A pedophile is actually not likely to be a rapist. A rapist is not very likely to be a pedophile. About the only thing they have in common is they're just you know, scumbags.

Are you getting it, yet?

[markalot]

whoa.... hold up, hoss.

'Fraid I'm gonna have to disagree with you on that one. I read this story one time about a grocery store that was held up at gun point, and they ended up shooting the cashier.

Although come to think of it, I think they were drug-users and poor-- thus scumbags. So they're already covered.

They wouldn't be store robbers then, they would be murderers or attempted murderers. The highest crime labels the person. If a jewel thief kills someone he's a murderer, not a jewel thief. Shall we go on?

[markalot]

Wait a minute, who said anyone raped sluts? A pedophile is actually not likely to be a rapist. A rapist is not very likely to be a pedophile. About the only thing they have in common is they're just you know, scumbags.

Are you getting it, yet?

I'm getting the fact you're being a fucking moron. I made a distinction between rapists and pedophiles. Both scumbags. Are you having a Daschle moment? Let's give everyone a second chance and see what happens, eh?

[DaHood]

Congratulations. This thread has earned a ferret.

http://www.r6.fws.gov/species/mammals/blackfootedferret/images/bessken_ferret1.jpg

[frizgolf]

Yikes.

I think the original question about race as it pertains to the subject of the thread was: Was the reason for the harsh sentancing because of the race of the defendant?

Also: Was it because the race of the defendant was black and the race of the victim was white?

I believe they were both black. Am I wrong?
Give it up, Dale. This thread's in the toilet.

[markalot]

Special prize to anyone who can produce a picture of a ferret on a toilet.

[teribl sob stry]

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0NgC6GkUTcQvIMcA00BCugWWEhnNeDfv9fjaG!Om7uZJAOyp8G 7n8Hx9ORSMNm68d!8eNzX60fzAj6OZnqKNBAg/potty-ferret.jpg

[joebob]

Has anyone suggested this woman should sue McDonalds for their cups not having a warning "Caution: Container may be used as missile."

[DaHood]

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0NgC6GkUTcQvIMcA00BCugWWEhnNeDfv9fjaG!Om7uZJAOyp8G 7n8Hx9ORSMNm68d!8eNzX60fzAj6OZnqKNBAg/potty-ferret.jpgLovely! :D

[DaHood]

Has anyone suggested this woman should sue McDonalds for their cups not having a warning "Caution: Container may be used as missile."What woman? This is a ferret thread.

[joebob]

Oops, my bad.

[the happy prole]

They wouldn't be store robbers then, they would be murderers or attempted murderers. The highest crime labels the person. If a jewel thief kills someone he's a murderer, not a jewel thief. Shall we go on?

Yes, let's. Someone plays hockey for the Washington Capitals. He exposes himself to a little kid. Someone is 18 and they have consensual sex with a 16 year old. Someone goes to the library and jerks off looking at porno. Hey, I'm not saying these guys are heroes, but are the same class as a serial rapist? Sure-- because they're all scumbags, right? Immediate death penalty.

Here's one for you. Someone's gay. They engage in sodomy. Sodomy is a sexual offense. Shall we treat them the same as other sexual offenders? I can tell you it's very likely that they'll engage in sodomy again, not that you're much bothered by recidivism.

Still not following? How about I lay it out for you: if you want to tie something to the "highest offense" then you need a way to account their actual actions instead of simply labelling them "scumbags." If you claim that sexual offenders "tend to repeat the same crime or worse, you actually need some data to back that up. Notice how the need for research and facts keeps creeping in. It's not so easy to say just who is a scumbag and who isn't, is it? Especially when there's a huge portion of the US who think it's just as plainly obvious that gays, or blacks, or muslims are scumbags that they don't need to be bothered with pesky facts.

So maybe you ought to take a look at some of those recidivism rates, since those basically measure behavior and danger to society. It won't make you liberal, it'll just make you informed.

[gwar469]

Yes, let's. Someone plays hockey for the Washington Capitals. He exposes himself to a little kid.

see, there's an immediate flaw in your argument right there. nobody plays hockey for the Caps, they just put on skates and mintz around on the ice for 60 minutes. ;)

[the happy prole]

True, but dude in question put in some pretty good years with the North Stars and Red Wings.

Come to think of it, not only did he suck for the Caps but he also got convicted of (non-sexual) assault while he was there. Maybe we should just toss all the Caps in the slammer.

[Shlep]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y245/Shlep/DSC00074.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y245/Shlep/avatar2.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y245/Shlep/May1445.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y245/Shlep/FerretFeet.jpg

[DaHood]

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y245/Shlep/DSC00074.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y245/Shlep/avatar2.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y245/Shlep/May1445.jpg

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y245/Shlep/FerretFeet.jpgThank you Shlep, for bringing us back to the subject at hand.

[teribl sob stry]

i'm glad that you prevent your ferret from tapping into your brain waves. smart move.

[Shlep]

i'm glad that you prevent your ferret from tapping into your brain waves. smart move.

I look at it as being kinda like stealing cable: fairly insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and I won't really miss what he takes...it's just the principle of the thing.

[Buzzstein]

I'm enjoying the exchanges between markalot and tHP. Hehehe

[yoshomon]

Fuck people who press charges instead of dealing with shit themselves.

[DaHood]

http://www.e-vents.co.uk/photogallery/ferret_full.jpg

http://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thumbview_approve/346419/2/istockphoto_346419_adorable_mr_ferret.jpg

[shivui]

see, there's an immediate flaw in your argument right there. nobody plays hockey for the Caps, they just put on skates and mintz around on the ice for 60 minutes. ;)
excuse me?
http://www.tsn.ca/images/stories/20060413/ovechkin_74008.jpg

[the happy prole]

Fair play. Although as much as Ovechkin's a stud, the Caps are still horrible.

[1979]

Fuck people who press charges instead of dealing with shit themselves.


Do you mean like having a duel or something?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/M%C3%BChlberg_-_S%C3%A4belmensur.jpg/300px-M%C3%BChlberg_-_S%C3%A4belmensur.jpg

[Shlep]

http://www.mishaspets.com/images/ferrets/ferretcl.jpg
http://www.legalizeferrets.org/photo-gallery/ferrets-asleep.jpg
http://sk8rseth.tripod.com/my_ferrets/thumbnails/400x300/ferrets.ferrets_ferrets_002.jpg
http://www.theferretstore.com/images/pink-knit-hat.jpg
http://www.theferretstore.com/images/tfs-00702.jpg

[DaHood]

http://www.mishaspets.com/images/ferrets/ferretcl.jpg
Now THAT is cute.

[Shlep]

Now THAT is cute.

You could take a picture of a little Nazi Brownshirt ferret chasing a ferret with little riglets and a yarmulke and caption it Ferretnacht and it'd be cute. Tasteless and wholly inappropriate...but cute as hell.

[markalot]

Yes, let's. Someone plays hockey for the Washington Capitals. He exposes himself to a little kid. Someone is 18 and they have consensual sex with a 16 year old. Someone goes to the library and jerks off looking at porno. Hey, I'm not saying these guys are heroes, but are the same class as a serial rapist? Sure-- because they're all scumbags, right? Immediate death penalty.

Except for the 18 vs 16 year old, yes. death.

Is that so hard to handle?

How was I able to get through life without jerking off in a library, exposing my self to a little kid, or having sex with a 16 year old? Don't answer that last one.

Do Ferrets taste like chicken?

[purple_octopus]

Do Ferrets taste like chicken?
I don't know, but I can get one to you really cheap. You can let us know. :D

[DaHood]

I don't think it looks very appetizing.

http://www.baa.duke.edu/companat/Digestive%20system/ferret/ferret_GI_photo_revised.jpg

[purple_octopus]

I think ferrets might have the biggest livers (proportionally speaking) that I've ever seen.

[the happy prole]

How was I able to get through life without jerking off in a library, exposing my self to a little kid, or having sex with a 16 year old? Don't answer that last one.

Because you got a good deal on broadband? Notice, I didn't answer the last one. ;)

Seriously, you think some teenager who gets caught jacking to porno at a library deserves the death sentence. No one died or suffered any physical injury, other than maybe having to see something kind of gross. If he comes back and jacks off to some more porno a hundred times, he's still not going to be much of a danger to society.

You don't need any evidence that jacking off to porno in a library leads to rape (which is good because there isn't any). Just that alone. That action alone is so grevious to humankind he should just die.

umm, yeah. That's pretty hard for me to handle. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that the vast majority of conservatives probably find that pretty hard to handle as well.

[the happy prole]

I don't think it looks very appetizing.

OMG!!! Kawaii!!!!! Someone put a beanie on that thing!

[Shlep]

Wow...major downer!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Buzzstein]

Do you mean like having a duel or something?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/61/M%C3%BChlberg_-_S%C3%A4belmensur.jpg/300px-M%C3%BChlberg_-_S%C3%A4belmensur.jpg

I think he means round up an angry mob with pitchforks and torches and beat up or execute anyone you feel has done you wrong. It worked so well in the old days.

[noonan]

Judge grants probation. (http://www.wfmynews2.com/printfullstory.aspx?storyid=80107)

[gwar469]

Judge grants probation. (http://www.wfmynews2.com/printfullstory.aspx?storyid=80107)

awesome...some good news to end the story.