Does Wisconsin execute minors?

[Guest ant_7000]

I damn im so late on this subject but I'll and my 2 cents anyway. I had heard at Milwaukee radio station that the one of the kids threw an egg at the older guy and then the older guy socked the kid, thats how it all started. My opinon that everybody including the victim were wrong nuff said. This current incident kind of reminds me of the incident that happened in Chicago with the Drunk driver and his friend getting beat to death this summer. As for OJ (Off to Jail) Simpson at first I believed he was innocent but not now, but deep down I was rooting for Johnnie Cochran more than OJ because when the trial was over, I believe like if wasn't for Cochran and Ferman racist ass and all that evidence tampering he was involved OJ wouldn't got off.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Huh. Well, that was unexpected... no offense, Ant. It's just that, from our earlier exchanges about affirmative action, I'd pigeonholed your opinion differently.

Thanks for proving me wrong.

[Guest ant_7000]

Whats up with the "Black Rage" thing you were talking about?

[Guest papacita]

I just read up some on the Ring V. Arizona ruling...this my first time hearing of it, so I'll reserve comment on that until I'm more informed as to what it's all about (I've got mixed feelings on it now). As for the racial argument, there's no change in my stance. If you don't agree, that's your opinion. I'm going to sleep now, so I guess we'll finish this tomorrow.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

As for the racial argument, there's no change in my stance. If you don't agree, that's your opinion.

Now you sound like RobJohnStone. Drop the passive-aggressive shit already, as Eric said. It's not "(just) [my] opinion." It's my educated opinion backed up with facts which you have not addressed. If your "stance" can't change, that doesn't mean you're right. It just means you're blindly stubborn and emotionally invested in your arguments.

 

I guess we'll finish this tomorrow.

Optimist.

[Guest papacita]

As for the racial argument, there's no change in my stance. If you don't agree, that's your opinion.

Now you sound like RobJohnStone. Drop the passive-aggressive shit already, as Eric said. It's not "(just) [my] opinion." It's my educated opinion backed up with facts which you have not addressed. If your "stance" can't change, that doesn't mean you're right. It just means you're blindly stubborn and emotionally invested in your arguments.

 

I guess we'll finish this tomorrow.

Optimist.

Ok, let's finish it now. Excluding the ruling, give me a rundown of what it is about my beliefs that you fine wrong.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Whats up with the "Black Rage" thing you were talking about?

This site has a decent definition. Essentially, this piece of garbage shot and killed a bunch of people on a train, and his attorney tried to defend him by stating that his crime was understandable, even justifiable, because he himself had been a victim of racism. Even if it were true, that's a disgusting argument. You don't have the right to kill innocents because of injustices you've suffered in the past. This is the exact same reasoning used by the Palestinian terrorist filth, and no amount of rationalisation will ever make it right.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

give me a rundown of what it is about my beliefs that you fine wrong

 

Like I've said previously in this forum, I'm not here to give lessons, and I don't get paid for this. I won't write essays for your benefit, so either participate as an equal or not at all.

 

I've already refuted most of your assertions and granted the few cogent but elementary points you've made - I never denied them in the first place. Of course I believe that the colour of someone's skin should make absolutely no difference to how he's treated in a court of law. Of course. Why - how could anyone deny this? And you've stated approximately the same thing, correct? If so, we're fine on that score. Your long definition could be summed up like this: Racism is an attitude that predicates judgement of any kind on skin colour rather than fact.

 

OJ Simpson - he was guilty and it was blindingly obvious. He got off because he was famous and rich. I find far more racism in black people celebrating his acquittal than in white people being "outraged" by it.

 

Death penalty - the racial disparities on death row are caused not by racism but by these two facts: 1) the quality of your defense is directly related to how much money you can afford to spend on it, and 2) whites as a group are richer than minorities as a group, thus a) whites are more likely to get off given 1) above, and b) whites don't tend to commit crimes which could send them to the chair as often as minorities do.

[Guest ant_7000]

Well, I read the "Black Rage" thing I got it now. As for OJ, Well I can't for other black people, I do believe that we weren't rooting for OJ, but were rooting for Cochran for beating the system at its own game and we were just supporting OJ out of spite. Honestly, we could careless about OJ now that he didn't say anything a "thank you" about the people who supported him through the trial. As for minorities getting the death penalty more, because they can't afford good lawyers as what Marney said, but I do disagree with the fact that white don't tend commit crimes that do deserve the chair. Last time I checked serial killers tend to be white, Gacy, Dahmer (I suprised that he didn't get the death penalty with all those asses in his fridge).

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Serial killers do tend to be white males aged 20-40, sure. But that's compensated for by the fact that they tend to get good representation (vide financial disparities again). And thanks to the disgusting insanity "defense" they get to use when their crimes are even a little weird, they usually don't face the death penalty. Serial killers, no matter what their race, tend to be treated as "special." That isn't due to racism; that's due to the stupid double standard involved in the very concept of "mental illness." If you're an adult, you should get tried as an adult. No exceptions. Doesn't matter if you're blind, crippled, retarded, black, white, or just plain crazy. You commit murder, you should die. Full stop.

Minorities, on the other hand, tend to commit crimes for more sordid and less weird reasons. In our current system clear self-interest will get you the chair much faster than claiming Satan told you to kill two dozen people and eat their corpses. Again, that's disgusting and it's wrong, but it isn't racism. You see the same thing with women. Men make up the overwhelming majority of violent criminals and thus almost everyone on death row is male. Does that mean the courts have a prejudice against men? Of course not. It just means that more men commit crimes punishable by death than women. Same with minorities and whites.

 

As for OJ, I don't think rooting for a murderer is particularly honourable no matter what the motivation, but whatever.

[Guest papacita]

Racism is an attitude that predicates judgement of any kind on skin colour rather than fact.

No. Racism is a system that more or less promotes one race's superiority over another. What you're describing is racial prejudice, which, as I've been saying all along, is present in most everyone. Racial prejudice can be as simple as comments like "white men can't jump", "black people are always late", "Asians are always smart", etc. More often than not, people that are prejudiced don't realize that they're prejudiced. Which brings me to your next point...

 

OJ Simpson - he was guilty and it was blindingly obvious. He got off because he was famous and rich. I find far more racism in black people celebrating his acquittal than in white people being "outraged" by it.

YOU believe he was guilty. There are many black people who are just as adament about his innocence. Did he get off because he's rich? No doubt (though some will argue that African American presence on the jury had something to do with it). Whether O.J. is innocent or guilty is irrelevant. The only reason that I even brought up the case was because it's an extreme example of the prevalence of racial prejudice in this country. You complain of prejudice because blacks believe he's innocent, many blacks would call you racist for believing he's guilty. As I said before, it's a two-way street.

 

Death penalty - the racial disparities on death row are caused not by racism but by these two facts: 1) the quality of your defense is directly related to how much money you can afford to spend on it, and 2) whites as a group are richer than minorities as a group, thus a) whites are better off given 1) above, and b) whites don't tend to commit crimes which could send them to the chair as often as minorities do.

I agree that the financial state of the defendant has a significant impact on the verdict, and there's no argument around sentencing due to the Rain ruling. But prior to the ruling, I don't agree with you when you say that race wasn't a factor, because there are cases of blacks and whites facing the same charges under the same circumstances (public defender), that have ended with the whites receiving a lesser sentence, and when cases like these occur, I feel that it is perfectly reasonable to say that racial prejudice, if not outright racism, came into play.

[Guest papacita]

Honestly, we could careless about OJ now that he didn't say anything a "thank you" about the people who supported him through the trial.

Yeah, that is a common feeling about O.J. now. If he were to catch another case next week, I don't think he'd get anywhere near the kinda support he got during the last trial.

 

Men make up the overwhelming majority of violent criminals and thus almost everyone on death row is male.Does that mean the courts have a prejudice against men?

No, but as a man, I don't think I could kill a woman with a good conscience.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Racism is a system that more or less promotes one race's superiority over another.

This is incorporated in my definition, as is the "racial prejudice" which you falsely distinguish from it. Racism does not necessarily promote superiority; racism postulates a difference on the basis of skin colour and considers facts second if at all. The two are not identical. Prejudice and racism are identical. Your narrow definition incorporates only the first definition of racism, whereas mine incorporates both the first and the second.

 

YOU believe he was guilty.

Absolutely. And I am correct.

Whether O.J. is innocent or guilty is irrelevant.

False.

many blacks would call you racist for believing he's guilty

And they would be false. RobJohnStone can say that many Christians would call me a heretic for saying that evolution is real, and he would be right. But that is what is irrelevant: people's beliefs. OJ Simpson's guilt, like evolution, is a matter of fact and not opinion.

it's a two-way street.

No, the truth is a one-way street. And those who drive on the wrong side of it are arrested, condemned, and convicted as liars.

 

prior to the [Ring v Arizona] ruling, I don't agree with you when you say that race wasn't a factor, because there are cases of blacks and whites facing the same charges under the same circumstances (public defender), that have ended with the whites receiving a lesser sentence

Individual cases are irrelevant precisely because they are individual. In order to prove your charge of institutional racism endemic in the legal system you must prove not one case of racism, not two, not ten, and not twenty, but a plurality of cases in which minorities have been treated unjustly solely because of the colour of their skin. You cannot do that because it has never occurred. Minorities as a group are punished more harshly than whites as a group because of the average nature of their crimes and the average quality of their defense, both of which stem directly from their economic status and NOT from any racist attitudes you impute to lawyers, judges, and juries as a whole. Frankly, your accusations are not only risible but scurrilous. The legal system provides vastly more protections and privileges to the defendant in a trial because of the vastly greater power and resources of the state. To imagine that racism is the cause of racial disparities in capital cases implies not only that prosecutors, judges, and juries, but also defense attorneys are actuated by racial prejudice. Why the hell would any attorney actively want to see his client lose a case? Some few public defenders just don't put in any effort, but all would pick winning over losing. Your evidence is inconclusive and your objection is overruled.

 

If [OJ] were to catch another case next week, I don't think he'd get anywhere near the kinda support he got during the last trial.

How nice to see that the "black community" is finally basing its support for an individual on the facts.

Wait, no, you're not. You're basing it on a petty fit of pique because you didn't get any gratitude or glad-handing or scriptedly weepy television tributes from a murderer. How lovely.

If Simpson "caught another case" next week, I'd base my support or lack thereof on the FACTS of that case and on his history.

 

Again, who's the racist here? Me, for ignoring his skin colour, or the black people who predicated their support for him on his skin colour? Who think that, as long as it gets back at "the system" for previous injustices, real or imagined, they should cheer the acquittal of someone who TOOK INNOCENT LIFE?

Do you understand yet that that was the real issue for white people? He is a CRIMINAL. It DOESN'T MATTER that he's black. No one who wasn't black CARED. NO ONE.

 

Christ.

 

as a man, I don't think I could kill a woman with a good conscience

You aren't a man. You're a condescending egotistical little worm.

And your idiotic statement of pompous, patriarchal, self-important "principle" (oh, just sweep me away on your white horse now!) had absolutely nothing to do with my original point: which was, clearly and simply, that gender disparities on death row are an EXACT parallel to racial disparities on death row. They have nothing to do with prejudice and everything to do with the nature of the crimes committed by particular groups - and, in the case of racial disparities, with the quality of the defense.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Eh. I think most Christians are inured to that sort of thing after decade upon decade of seeing our holy symbols desecrated in the name of "art."

<----- Like this?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I'm not exactly sure what that is, but knowing you, I'd guess so.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

It's jesus' head on a silver platter.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Oh. <g> Well, there are worse ways to go than a tribute to John the Baptist.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Definitely. Could bite it like jesus.

[Guest Maven's Eyebrows]

Fry the fuckers. End of story.

[Guest papacita]

This is incorporated in my definition, as is the "racial prejudice" which you falsely distinguish from it. Racism does not necessarily promote superiority; racism postulates a difference on the basis of skin colour and considers facts second if at all. The two are not identical. Prejudice and racism are identical. Your narrow definition incorporates only the first definition of racism, whereas mine incorporates both the first and the second.

That's not true. There are two definitions of racism, the first being the previously mentioned definition, and the second being deliberate oppression or discrimination on the basis of race. Yes, being a racist requires one to have racial prejudice, but it is not the same thing, for as I said before, a prejudice can be either conscious or unconscious. A racist is one who acts on conscious prejudices.

 

But that is what is irrelevant: people's beliefs. OJ Simpson's guilt, like evolution, is a matter of fact and not opinion.

You're absolutely right: it's a matter of fact, not opinion. However, the US legal system presents itself on the basis that all men are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, the end result of this particular trial being that Simpson was found "Not Guilty" because there weren't enough *facts* to prove him otherwise. Therefore, you're belief that he is guilty is just that, *A BELIEF*, and is therefore irrelevant.

In order to prove your charge of institutional racism endemic in the legal system you must prove not one case of racism, not two, not ten, and not twenty, but a plurality of cases in which minorities have been treated unjustly solely because of the colour of their skin. You cannot do that because it has never occurred. Minorities as a group are punished more harshly than whites as a group because of the average nature of their crimes and the average quality of their defense, both of which stem directly from their economic status and NOT from any racist attitudes you impute to lawyers, judges, and juries as a whole.

You're basing your argument on a half-truth. I never said that blacks are more likely to be prosecuted based solely on skin color. I said that race is a factor, not the factor. Based on cases I have seen (for example, minorities being incarcerated for up to 2 or 3 years on a simple drug charge while two white boys who are convicted of raping a black girl are released shortly after and allowed to spend Christmas with their families), the American Criminal Justice System is biased (conscious or not) against minorities. That juror compotence studies reveal that physical appearance is often the deciding factor in the jury's verdict supports this argument, and this is without even delving into DA training to exclude minority jurors from the jury (for those that don't know, there was a videotape released here in Philly a few years back that depicted an assistant DA instructing prosecutors how to choose a good jury...it basically suggested that lawyers should exclude jurors based on race, religion, sex and geographical location).

 

Why the hell would any attorney actively want to see his client lose a case?

Due to the influx of cases into the court system, public defenders often work with the prosecution in order to insure a speedy process. In cases where plea bargaining isn't an issue, the defense and prosecution attorneys often cut deals to make sure that the case goes in and out of the system as quickly as possible.

 

Again, who's the racist here? Me, for ignoring his skin colour, or the black people who predicated their support for him on his skin colour? Who think that, as long as it gets back at "the system" for previous injustices, real or imagined, they should cheer the acquittal of someone who TOOK INNOCENT LIFE?

Do you understand yet that that was the real issue for white people? He is a CRIMINAL. It DOESN'T MATTER that he's black. No one who wasn't black CARED. NO ONE.

STOP THE BULLSHIT!

 

First off, as I acknowledged before, many blacks who support O.J. can give you about a dozen reasons why they feel he's innocent with race not coming up once. And with that being said, you're a liar if you can sit there and try to tell me that there would've been half the backlash from white people if O.J. was white and Nicole had been black. If you missed my point before, let me make it clear again...that O.J. "TOOK AN INNOCENT LIFE" is merely YOUR BELIEF! YOUR OPINION, and YOUR OPINION is no more relevant than anyone elses.

 

You aren't a man. You're a condescending egotistical little worm.

And your idiotic statement of pompous, patriarchal, self-important "principle" (oh, just sweep me away on your white horse now!) had absolutely nothing to do with my original point: which was, clearly and simply, that gender disparities on death row are an EXACT parallel to racial disparities on death row. They have nothing to do with prejudice and everything to do with the nature of the crimes committed by particular groups - and, in the case of racial disparities, with the quality of the defense.

.

You've got the fucking nerve!

 

No, the point about women had nothing to do with the argument...just as your constant prostitution of your opinion on O.J. had nothing to do with the argument, but since we've touched on this, my point was that while it is a fact that men are prosecuted more often for capital crimes, I would think that the male-dominated system would be a little hesitant to send a woman to her death under similar circumstances.

 

And you have the nerve to call me egotistical and condescending. Look in the mirror. Your posts are condescending. You constantly come off as if you're the authority of all issues, which, as intelligent as you are, is not the case. You're wrapped up in yourself and your bigoted beliefs as if you're the be-all, end-all, and you can rarely address opposing beliefs without resorting to childish name-calling and personal attacks. You often come across with an air of superiority, and yet you have the nerve to call someone else egotistical and condescending. Woman, don't even talk.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

If you missed my point before, let me make it clear again...that O.J. "TOOK AN INNOCENT LIFE" is merely YOUR BELIEF! YOUR OPINION, and YOUR OPINION is no more relevant than anyone elses.

I'm not getting into this argument too deeply, because I don't really care about it that much, but I figured I'd add a point here. The evidence all pointed a big bloody-gloved finger at OJ, AND he lost the wrongful death suit brought against him after the murder trial, right?

 

How can he be guilty one time but not the other?

 

With everything that's been said and done, he's a free man, and nothing is going to change that.

[Guest DrTom]

Wrongful death is a civil lawsuit, with a necessarily lower burden of proof than first-degree murder.

 

I think OJ was guilty, simply because the DNA evidence basically eliminated everyone else on the planet from committing the crimes. Racist cop or no racist cop, that DNA evidence is severely incriminating.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Still.. He wasn't guilty of murder, but wrongful death, sure, he did that.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

being a racist requires one to have racial prejudice, but it is not the same thing, for as I said before, a prejudice can be either conscious or unconscious. A racist is one who acts on conscious prejudices.

What complete inane bullshit. So someone who acts on unconscious racial prejudice ISN'T a racist? You're talking nonsense.

 

Simpson was found "Not Guilty" because there weren't enough *facts* to prove him otherwise

Wrong. He was found not guilty on a technicality. The legal system was foiled by his team of highly-paid attorneys. Simpson was guilty and everyone who followed the case knows it.

 

I'm willing to grant some of your points on the criminal justice system. Jurors certainly do examine a defendant's appearance and jury selection is based on race. No question. However, the defense attorney has more powers than the prosecution, not less - that is supposed to and does safeguard the rights of the defendant. Obviously if you're black your attorney won't allow the jury to be composed of a bunch of inbred hicks from Alabama who think your proper place is on a plantation somewhere. Again, your anecdotes are irrelevant (if you want to call them "examples," kindly cite dates and case names) because in order to prove that racism is endemic in the system you have to prove that it determines the outcome in a plurality of cases. Not one, not two. A plurality.

 

you're a liar if you can sit there and try to tell me that there would've been half the backlash from white people if O.J. was white and Nicole had been black

What the hell are you talking about here? A "backlash" against what? If Simpson had been white and Nicole black, and he had murdered her and been acquitted, I certainly do think white people would have been just as disgusted as they were on 10/3/95.

 

your opinion on O.J. had nothing to do with the argument

Wrong. It had everything to do with the argument. It illustrates the fact that white people simply do not see the world in terms of racial fault lines. Racism now comes primarily from the other side: from the so-called victims. In the early 1800s, a white could kill a black without fear of repercussions simply because of the colour of his skin. Now, a black kills whites and claims he was justified because of his "black rage." Tell me that a white man would ever get away with that: saying that he was justified in killing a bunch of black people because of his "white rage."

Go on.

 

You're wrapped up in yourself and your  bigoted beliefs

Name one "bigoted belief" that you think I have. Just one.

 

You often come across with an air of superiority, and yet you have the nerve to call someone else egotistical and condescending.

Your condescension was based on your gender. You are not superior to me due to the fact that you are male and I am female. My own "air of superiority" is founded on contempt for stupidity.

 

Woman, don't even talk.

Some hope.

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

THREE PROOFS THAT JESUS WAS A WOMAN .....

 

1. He had to feed a crowd at a moment's notice when there was no food.

2. He kept trying to get the message across to a bunch of men who JUST DIDN'T GET IT.

3. Even when He was dead, He had to get up because there was more work for him to do.

 

Heh, sorry, didn't know where to throw that in, so I tossed it in here.

[Guest papacita]

What complete inane bullshit. So someone who acts on unconscious racial prejudice ISN'T a racist? You're talking nonsense.

Not necessarily. In school cafeterias, black children tend to sit with black children, and white children tend to sit with white children. According to your narrow definition, these children are racist.

Wrong. He was found not guilty on a technicality. The legal system was foiled by his team of highly-paid attorneys. Simpson was guilty and everyone who followed the case knows it.

Again, a jury ruled that Mr. Simpson was Not Guilty because there weren't enough facts to prove him otherwise. Now unless you were there the night Nicole and Ron Goldman were killed, anything you say on the matter is nothing more than an opinion, and is no more relevant than anyone elses.

 

However, the defense attorney has more powers than the prosecution, not less - that is supposed to and does safeguard the rights of the defendant. Obviously if you're black your attorney won't allow the jury to be composed of a bunch of inbred hicks from Alabama who think your proper place is on a plantation somewhere.

You're assuming that the prosecutor and the public defender aren't working together. While obviously, you won't find a jury made up entirely of "inbred hicks from Alabama" (at least I *hope* that's the case), because in case of a conviction, that's grounds for appeal. But in cases where defense and prosecution are working together, what keeps the defense attorney from excluding potential jurors that would be beneficial to his client?

What the hell are you talking about here? A "backlash" against what? If Simpson had been white and Nicole black, and he had murdered her and been acquitted, I certainly do think white people would have been just as disgusted as they were on 10/3/95.

"Backlash" meaning the outrage resulting from the verdict. My cousin's death being an obvious extreme, there was a great deal of complaining from a lot whites following the trial, be it the racial make-up of the jury...complaints about Cochran playing the imfamous "Race Card", amongst other things. And I find that very hard to believe that had the racial roles in the trial been reversed (including the lawyers, jurors, judge and etc), whites would've been as upset with the verdict.

 

Now, a black kills whites and claims he was justified because of his "black rage." Tell me that a white man would ever get away with that: saying that he was justified in killing a bunch of black people because of his "white rage."

Go on.

Now, you're using the "black rage" example as if this belief is widespread throughout the community. That's not the case, because one, there's not a lot of black on white crime victimization today, with most crimes being intra-racial. Secondly, I personally don't know anyone who would use that as a justification or even accept that as a valid justification. and I seriously doubt that such a justification would be accepted in a court of law.

 

Name one "bigoted belief" that you think I have. Just one.

Excuse me, weren't you the one spitting that "Islam is evil" garbage a while back?

 

Your condescension was based on your gender. You are not superior to me due to the fact that you are male and I am female.

When did I say that I was? I merely said that as a man, I'd feel uncomfortable killing a woman, which has more to do with identifying woman as the giver of life than anything else. If my mother was killed tomorrow, I would be deeply upset, and that's a pain I wouldn't wish on anyone else, which is why I don't think I could harm a woman with a clear conscience (in *most* cases). I don't see what's condescending about that.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

In school cafeterias, black children tend to sit with black children, and white children tend to sit with white children. According to your narrow definition, these children are racist.

I don't think the word you're looking for there is "narrow," slugger. Try "broad." But yes, that is racism. In an ideal world friendships would be formed on the basis of shared interests and/or compatible personalities, not race. Race can sometimes determine interests, but that shouldn't influence where people sit.

I suppose you'd like separate drinking fountains again?

 

anything you say on the matter is nothing more than an opinion, and is no more relevant than anyone elses

It's worth more than yours for a start. As Tom already stated, the DNA evidence proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that OJ Simpson murdered Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman. And in the 1997 civil case a jury found that Simpson was responsible for their deaths. Your own "opinion" is founded not on facts but on petty, small-minded racism.

 

in cases where defense and prosecution are working together, what keeps the defense attorney from excluding potential jurors that would be beneficial to his client?

I simply don't see this happening often enough to sway the system as a whole in one direction or another. The scenario presumes a grave lack of professionalism not only on the part of the public defender and state prosecutor but the judge as well. Any judge who turned his court into a sentencing mill would have his ass hauled before Congress and would be impeached in short order.

 

I find that very hard to believe that had the racial roles in the trial been reversed (including the lawyers, jurors, judge and etc), whites would've been as upset with the verdict.

Once again, you are wrong. The fact is that Simpson was guilty. Black people turned it into a racial war in order to prove that one of their own could "beat the system." Personally, I'd think twice about identifying with a murderer, but whatever.

 

most crimes are intra-racial

This is true.

I seriously doubt that such a justification ["black rage"] would be accepted in a court of law

This is a false belief resulting from your naivete and your ignorance.

In 1971, in two separate cases, James Johnson and Stephen Robinson were both acquitted of murder as a result of this defense. There was no question that they had committed the crimes.

 

Name one "bigoted belief" that you think I have. Just one.

that "Islam is evil" garbage a while back

big·ot·ed

adj

: blindly and obstinately attached to some creed or opinion and intolerant toward others

 

Islam's evil is a matter of fact; it is not an opinion. (Vide all my previous posts on this subject. Countless concrete examples have been given and causality has been proven.) Furthermore, I am not blindly attached to it and I am not intolerant of those who practice Islam. If I were a bigot I would refuse to have Moslem friends, and I would discriminate against Moslems at work. I do neither. Two of my friends are Moslem (one Arab, one black) and I've interviewed and appointed three Moslems to official positions in the last year (one translator and two analysts).

 

as a man, I'd feel uncomfortable killing a woman, which has more to do with identifying woman as the giver of life than anything else

This is precisely where the condescension comes in. Women are no more "givers of life" than men. Reproduction requires both. Your quaintly provincial patronisation merely places women on an uncomfortable and dehumanising pedestal. We're not saints and we're not "givers of life." (God, that's such a mawkishly saccharine term. Excuse me while I vomit.) Much though it galls me to quote someone who can be such a whiny un-American liberal prig, women are human beings and reasonable creatures. I, for one, would like to be treated as such.

[Guest Mr. Slim Citrus]

Yeah, I really didn't want this to breakdown into an O.J. debate, and a lot of this stuff is just a matter of opinion. For what it's worth though, since 1994, I've only met 2 blacks that believe that O.J. is guilty, one being my friend Jordan, the other being my mom, who changed her opinion about half-way through the trial. Everyone else has said that he was innocent...

And now you've "met" three (or four, unless I misinterpreted ant_7000).

 

Well, I read the "Black Rage" thing I got it now. As for OJ, Well I can't for other black people, I do believe that we weren't rooting for OJ, but were rooting for Cochran for beating the system at its own game and we were just supporting OJ out of spite. Honestly, we could careless about OJ now that he didn't say anything a "thank you" about the people who supported him through the trial. As for minorities getting the death penalty more, because they can't afford good lawyers as what Marney said, but I do disagree with the fact that white don't tend commit crimes that do deserve the chair. Last time I checked serial killers tend to be white, Gacy, Dahmer (I suprised that he didn't get the death penalty with all those asses in his fridge).

I can't speak for other blacks either, but I wasn't rooting for OJ, or Johnnie Cochran. I think that Cochran is a pretentious gasbag, and I was really hoping that he would lose that case and be publically humiliated in the process. I was 20 when this went to trial, and I didn't believe for even a second that he might have been innocent. I still don't. In fact, I remember being pissed when I saw the front page headline declaring him acquitted (yeah, headline; I went out of my way to avoid watching a minute of that trial on television.).

 

Come to think of it, I must be hanging around the wrong black people, because I don't believe I know anybody who thinks, or thought, that OJ was innocent...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I don't personally know any black people who think Simpson was innocent either. Nor anyone who rejoiced in his disgusting acquittal. Just the racist nutjobs on TV.

And this one on the Internet.

[Guest DARRYLXWF]

I truly believe that it's the fault of the parents if the child does something like that. And its this fact that annoys me when I watch Harry Potter. I mean c'mon, 11 years with his 'evil' step parents would make the bastard as angry and mean as anyone.