BF2S Forums Sickening...

Christ, I remember the Jessica Lunsford story. Sad. Very sad.

What the fuck is wrong with that guy? Honestly, what drives him to want to make them suffer so bad?

Disgusting.

chittydog wrote:

You know what they call 20,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start.

That fucker is vermin.

MA is a messed up state.  Say what you want about Alabama, but had he said that here he would have been run out of town.  Both Democrats and Repubs would unite to disbar him and toss him out of the legislature. 

I used to live in MA, and I remember they had a case where a burglar fell got hurt while robbing someone's house - and sued and won. 

Then there was the guy breaking out of prison that got hurt while climbing the fence.  He sued and won. 

When my mother died, they viewed my father as "inheriting" their joint assets.  He had to pay like 18% on stuff he already bought and paid taxes for. 

It's just an all around messed up state.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Fagan is typical dem scum.

Way to make this a political argument when it's not.  Typical dem scum?  Get a damn grip on yourself man.  You are why people laugh at conservatives.

Man really reading things and understanding them is hard stuff on BF2s huh?  "Typical Dem Scum", lmfao get a clue.

Do I think he needed to say all that?  No.  Do I think he's made a valid point in how defense attorneys will turn up the heat due to the new law?  Yes.
Do I think he's foreshadowing what will happen if the law is passed?  Yes. 

If they make it a mandatory 20 year sentence, then yes of course defenders are going to get lower and dirtier.  It's their job.  Imagine if you were innocent, and on trial for it.  You'd want your attorney to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to make sure the truth comes to light.  You can make a law as tough as you want, but there has to be a way of defending the innocent.  The dirtier and harsher the case, the dirtier and harsher the tactics become....

Last edited by oChaos.Haze (2008-06-25 09:08:16)

So let's see, someone completely violates the rights of another human being, a fucking CHILD at that, and this asshole thinks they SHOULDN'T get long sentences?

Fucking ridiculous. If a guy is 100% guilty of murder or rape or child rape... keep them locked in. Unless they can be verified by many various unbiased doctors that they've "changed", keep them in there for a long, long, long time.

HurricaИe wrote:

So let's see, someone completely violates the rights of another human being, a fucking CHILD at that, and this asshole thinks they SHOULDN'T get long sentences?

Fucking ridiculous. If a guy is 100% guilty of murder or rape or child rape... keep them locked in. Unless they can be verified by many various unbiased doctors that they've "changed", keep them in there for a long, long, long time.

I still think you kinda soft there Hurri. Good things im not making the law because those kind of guys would die right after being proved Guilty of such crimes. In no way should you be allowed to hurt the youth without having a HUGE price to pay, may it be death.

chittydog wrote:

Roger Lesboules wrote:

HurricaИe wrote:

So let's see, someone completely violates the rights of another human being, a fucking CHILD at that, and this asshole thinks they SHOULDN'T get long sentences?

Fucking ridiculous. If a guy is 100% guilty of murder or rape or child rape... keep them locked in. Unless they can be verified by many various unbiased doctors that they've "changed", keep them in there for a long, long, long time.

I still think you kinda soft there Hurri. Good things im not making the law because those kind of guys would die right after being proved Guilty of such crimes. In no way should you be allowed to hurt the youth without having a HUGE price to pay, may it be death.

Unless you're sentencing them to be raped to death by the Hulk, you're letting them off easily. The pain child molesters cause stays with people their entire lives, and often filters down to the lives of their children. The quick pinprick of a lethal injection is not justice. Weekly/daily beatings in prison for 40 years might help drive the point home.

I never said that a letal injection was used. It would be more like getting a beating each day for a month until the SOB die of it. Sure killing the offender is not enough. Im really with you on the 40yrs beating. But fact is that with overcrowded prison we cant really afford to keep them for that long. This is why the death sentence is brought in.

Braddock wrote:

Interesting story on the BBC website that is somewhat relevant here...

The US Supreme Court has struck down a law that would have allowed the execution of someone convicted of raping a child.

I was just about to post that. Too bad, it only lost by one vote.

stratozyck wrote:

oChaos.Haze wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

Fagan is typical dem scum.

Way to make this a political argument when it's not.  Typical dem scum?  Get a damn grip on yourself man.  You are why people laugh at conservatives.

Man really reading things and understanding them is hard stuff on BF2s huh?  "Typical Dem Scum", lmfao get a clue.

Do I think he needed to say all that?  No.  Do I think he's made a valid point in how defense attorneys will turn up the heat due to the new law?  Yes.
Do I think he's foreshadowing what will happen if the law is passed?  Yes. 

If they make it a mandatory 20 year sentence, then yes of course defenders are going to get lower and dirtier.  It's their job.  Imagine if you were innocent, and on trial for it.  You'd want your attorney to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to make sure the truth comes to light.  You can make a law as tough as you want, but there has to be a way of defending the innocent.  The dirtier and harsher the case, the dirtier and harsher the tactics become....

Finally a dissenting opinion.

I agree about your point of view.  But what about the slam dunk cases?  Like, you find DNA evidence literally inside the girl. 

I wholeheartedly agree that there are lots of false accusations.  This is why our system demands near 100% certainty to convict. 

What gets me though is lawyers that know they clients did it, and still destroy the victim.  It may be their job, but that is morally inexcusable.  You shouldn't be able to hide behind the, "just doing my job" bit because thats what Nazis claimed too.  There are ways of casting doubt without permanently damaging young girls. 

Jessica's Law is needed because there are lots of child rapists that get slaps on the wrist.  Also, studies have shown that sex offenders are very likely to repeat.  I think 20 years is too lenient.  All of this is assuming that you have slam dunk evidence. 

But still, I like hearing other sides of it.

Yeah man, I agree with pretty much all you say.  I just merely meant to show that every action has a reaction, and that was my example.  Of course when it's 100% true I think the punishment should be severe.  I mean anyone with a decent head on their shoulders is constantly examining what they think the line of punishment should be.  It's a hard road.  I think they should be treated as dangerous lunatics, and not allowed on the streets again.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

chittydog wrote:

oChaos.Haze wrote:

Way to make this a political argument when it's not.  Typical dem scum?  Get a damn grip on yourself man.  You are why people laugh at conservatives.

Man really reading things and understanding them is hard stuff on BF2s huh?  "Typical Dem Scum", lmfao get a clue.

Do I think he needed to say all that?  No.  Do I think he's made a valid point in how defense attorneys will turn up the heat due to the new law?  Yes.
Do I think he's foreshadowing what will happen if the law is passed?  Yes. 

If they make it a mandatory 20 year sentence, then yes of course defenders are going to get lower and dirtier.  It's their job.  Imagine if you were innocent, and on trial for it.  You'd want your attorney to do ANYTHING and EVERYTHING to make sure the truth comes to light.  You can make a law as tough as you want, but there has to be a way of defending the innocent.  The dirtier and harsher the case, the dirtier and harsher the tactics become....

+1, sir. Brinson needs to wipe the hatred from his eyes and actually pay attention to what's going. He's usually too busy searching for fodder for his anti-liberal propaganda. Fagan is a piece of shit and doesn't represent any political group. Aside from maybe Kim Jong Il or Robert Mugabe, I don't think anyone alive would support what he said.

If I'm the reason why people laugh at conservatives then Fagan is the reason why we retch when dems speak. 

Sorry man, I'm not taking up for anyone who says, "when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody."  But heck apparently you will.. 

Thanks for the law 101, sad you think that any judge would allow and child to be abused further on the stand.  lmao -get a clue.  And isn't Fagan a Democrat?  Haven't heard a Republican ever talk about a child that way.

Glad to see that you are for harsh penalties, just so long as it isn't a 20 year mandatory though... /eye roll

Thanks for proving my point, señor. All you heard out of all of this was "Democrat", then you ignored how everyone thinks this fucker is pond scum and doesn't deserve to live and somehow came to the conclusion that we are all Democrats who support Fagan and child abuse.

The only thing you got right was that I've never heard a Republican talk about a child that way. I've never heard ANYONE talk about a child that way. It has nothing to do with party affiliation, it's this particular asshole. Now go run to Ann Coulter and ask for a retort.

DBBrinson1 wrote:

chittydog wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

If I'm the reason why people laugh at conservatives then Fagan is the reason why we retch when dems speak. 

Sorry man, I'm not taking up for anyone who says, "when they’re 8 years old they throw up; when they’re 12 years old, they won’t sleep; when they’re 19 years old, they’ll have nightmares and they’ll never have a relationship with anybody."  But heck apparently you will.. 

Thanks for the law 101, sad you think that any judge would allow and child to be abused further on the stand.  lmao -get a clue.  And isn't Fagan a Democrat?  Haven't heard a Republican ever talk about a child that way.

Glad to see that you are for harsh penalties, just so long as it isn't a 20 year mandatory though... /eye roll

Thanks for proving my point, señor. All you heard out of all of this was "Democrat", then you ignored how everyone thinks this fucker is pond scum and doesn't deserve to live and somehow came to the conclusion that we are all Democrats who support Fagan and child abuse.

The only thing you got right was that I've never heard a Republican talk about a child that way. I've never heard ANYONE talk about a child that way. It has nothing to do with party affiliation, it's this particular asshole. Now go run to Ann Coulter and ask for a retort.

So you do think a judge would allow a prosocuter to harass/further abuse a child on the stand?  You are for harsher penalties, but don't support a 20 year minimum?  Jeeze, you claim I'm the one stuck on Dem/Repub? Way to look past it.

When did I say I was against a minimum sentence? Child abusers should get the death penalty. I'm all for harsher punishment and have no problems with a 20 year minimum. You just assumed I did because I said I was a Democrat.