 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Driving / July 2005KKK leader convicted of 40 y.o. manslaughter. Why not Laura Bush?
Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget it, that's ancient history." You can't say that now. > Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura > bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget > it, that's ancient history." You can't say that now. Because the brain dead right beleives that god is on their side and they can do no wrong. Their day is coming, they will be exposed for the liars, cheats and thiefs they are. And they will invoke the name of god to make it ok. Just watch. Laura Bush should have been thrown in jail, but money talks. > Laura Bush should have been thrown in jail, but money talks. That's right. She was from a wealthy family and was a white christian in the Loon Star State of TX so it was criminal-coddling-time. > > Laura Bush should have been thrown in jail, but money talks. > > That's right. She was from a wealthy family and was a white christian > in the Loon Star State of TX so it was criminal-coddling-time. As opposed to Teddy Kennedy, who was a sitting senator. > Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura > bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget > it, that's ancient history." You can't say that now. Moron you are comparing an accident to intentional murder by the KKK guy. > > Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura > > bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget > > it, that's ancient history." You can't say that now. > > Moron you are comparing an accident to intentional murder by the KKK guy. Not what the jury said. They said what killen did was manslaughter. And besides - i don't know that laura killing that guy was unintentional. He was a FORMER bf. And besides again, even if it was unintentional, it was still due to her reckless driving and that's manslaughter. > > > Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura > > > bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Not what the jury said. They said what killen did was manslaughter. And > besides - i don't know that laura killing that guy was unintentional. You don't know a lot of things, but you keep posting anyway. > He was a FORMER bf. And besides again, even if it was unintentional, > it was still due to her reckless driving and that's manslaughter. Only trash resources like prisonplanet, infowars, and the national enquirer claim he was a former BF, but if you don't require valid information, those are all wonderful resources. >>>>Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura >>>>bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > enquirer claim he was a former BF, but if you don't require valid > information, those are all wonderful resources. As well as trash resources like freerepublic.com and wikipedia.org: www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38bf3b5e5aac.htm en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dutton_Douglas >>>>>Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura >>>>>bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38bf3b5e5aac.htm >en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dutton_Douglas Melikes your pseudonym... > > Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura > > bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget > > it, that's ancient history." You can't say that now. > > Moron you are comparing an accident to intentional murder by the KKK guy. --- This person has a major thing for vehicular accidents. I don't know why. Anyway, here is a description of Laura Bush's 1963 car accident from an unbiased source: http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp ---->Hunter > > > Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura > > > bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > why. Anyway, here is a description of Laura Bush's 1963 car accident > from an unbiased source: I'm not a criminal coddler like you. When you KILL someone on the highways by your reckless driving, there has to be some accountability. But nothing was done to laura. > > > > Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura > > > > bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > highways by your reckless driving, there has to be some accountability. > But nothing was done to laura. There's a difference between an accident, which is what Laura endured, and a premeditated act, like the champion of the dimocraps Teddy Kennedy committed. Sorry your "dictionary for retards and dimocraps" doesn't include those two words. From one of your prior posts: Fork the dictionary. You've got your definitions and we've got ours. You prolly also think that when laura bush blew a stop sign and crashed into and killed her former BF, that it was just an "accident". HAHA http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/a74373e47d63 8020?hl=en > > > > Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura > > > > bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > highways by your reckless driving, there has to be some accountability. > But nothing was done to laura. ---- See my other replies to you in this thread. ---->Hunter > > > > > Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura > > > > > bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > ---- > See my other replies to you in this thread. Good luck; Judy trolls, and won't reply to intelligent rebuttals, other than to say "LAURA BUSH LAURA BUSH LAURA BUSH (ad infinitum)" or "URACRIMINALCODDLER." Judy's a loser who can't find a date, so it spends all of it's available time trolling the groups or speeding through school zones. > > > Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura > > > bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp HAHAHA. You call snopes unbiased???? Here's an unbiased article on the fatal crash. http://www.oaoa.com/news/nw050400b.htm > > > > Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura > > > > bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > http://www.oaoa.com/news/nw050400b.htm --- Thanks for the link, but it doesn't reveal anything new about the case, nothing contradict's the first lady's side of the story. Yes, it was a clear, moon filled night, but it also says she was doing the speed limit and it since it was 8pm just two weeks before the winter solstice, so it was pitch black night on a country road with no street lamps. Nothing in this article suggest deliberate malice aforethought. ---->Hunter > > > > > Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura > > > > > bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > solstice, so it was pitch black night on a country road with no street > lamps. Nothing in this article suggest deliberate malice aforethought. She blew the stop sign!!!! Everybody agrees on that and that makes it manslaughter. Remember a couple years ago when republican congressman Bill Janklow blew a stop sign and a killed a guy. He was convicted of MS. Happens all the time so why not with laura? > > > > > > Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura > > > > > > bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Bill Janklow blew a stop sign and a killed a guy. He was convicted of > MS. Happens all the time so why not with laura? ---- Read my other responses to you in this thread. Laura blowing the stop sign was an accident with no prior history of trafic violations. Janklow did it on purpose and was an admitted speeder with citations in the past. ---->Hunter > > > > > > > Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura > > > > > > > bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Janklow did it on purpose and was an admitted speeder with citations in > the past. Careful! Facts confuse "Judy". Of course, oxygen without the tint of THC also confuses Judy, but that's not important. > Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura > bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget > it, that's ancient history." You can't say that now. Amazing how you liberals minimize the atrocities of KKK to that of an accident. >>Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura >>bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget >>it, that's ancient history." You can't say that now. > > Amazing how you liberals minimize the atrocities of KKK to that of an > accident. Amazing how you conservatives participated in the atrocities of the KKK. >>>Every time somebody mentions the vehicular manslaughter that laura >>>bush unquestionably committed in 1963, the bush lovers scream "forget [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Amazing how you conservatives participated in the atrocities of the KKK. This has to be the dumbest Usenet thread I have ever read through. Sure tops anything Judy has ever written! > This has to be the dumbest Usenet thread I have ever read through. Sure > tops anything Judy has ever written! Translation - you have no reply as to why laura bush got away with an open-and-shut case of manslaughter and so you call people stupid when they talk about it. > > This has to be the dumbest Usenet thread I have ever read through. Sure > > tops anything Judy has ever written! > > Translation - you have no reply as to why laura bush got away with an > open-and-shut case of manslaughter and so you call people stupid when > they talk about it. Actually, your translation is "Xeton is too stupid to understand what has been plainly and clearly explained multiple times." Since no one could demonstrate, much less prove malice aforethought, it was labeled an accident. You know, the same thing your mother calls you. >> > This has to be the dumbest Usenet thread I have ever read through. >> > Sure [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > You know, the same thing your mother calls you. Actually, Judy was likely a half dried up wet dream his mother happened to roll over on. > >> > This has to be the dumbest Usenet thread I have ever read through. > >> > Sure [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Actually, Judy was likely a half dried up wet dream his mother happened to > roll over on. That makes sense; thanks much for the clarification! >> >> > This has to be the dumbest Usenet thread I have ever read through. >> >> > Sure [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > That makes sense; thanks much for the clarification! Explains a lot, doesn't it? <snip> > Explains a lot, doesn't it? Very much so. By the way, is it my imagination, or are Judy's posts becoming more entertaining? > Since no one could demonstrate, much less prove malice aforethought, it > was labeled an accident. Are you really that stupid? Is anyone that stupid? Manslaughter does not require the state prove malice. It's an unintentional killing due to reckless behavior. A couple years back when that republican congressman from North Dakota (i forget his name) ran a stop sign and killed a guy - he was convicted of MS even though no one claimed he wanted to kill the guy. Reckless drivers that kill get convicted of MS all the time, you ignoramus. > > Since no one could demonstrate, much less prove malice aforethought, it > > was labeled an accident. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > wanted to kill the guy. Reckless drivers that kill get convicted of MS > all the time, you ignoramus. ROTFLMAO! With nyms like "Laura Bush Murdered Her Boyfriend" and "Laura Bush - VEHICULAR HOMICIDE," you're doing the dimocrapic flip-flop again and trying to pawn this off as manslaughter? Er, excuse me, "manslaugher." Can't you figure out where you stand on ANY issue? > > Since no one could demonstrate, much less prove malice aforethought, it > > was labeled an accident. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > wanted to kill the guy. Reckless drivers that kill get convicted of MS > all the time, you ignoramus. Janklow ran a stop sign while speeding and apparently knew the sign was there and ran it anyway. That's what made it reckless. The mere act of running the sign without those circumstances probably would have yeilded a misdemeanor only. That is completely different and wholly distinguishable from the LB case where, according to the accounts I read, she was in compliance with the speed limit and simply ran a sign. Of course others have been convicted of manslaughter for running stop signs, but they ususally involve some other conduct with it such as speeding, drinking, hotdogging, etc. Can you show us a case where running a stop sign, without other circumstances present, resulted in a manslaughter conviction? > > Since no one could demonstrate, much less prove malice aforethought, it > > was labeled an accident. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > wanted to kill the guy. Reckless drivers that kill get convicted of MS > all the time, you ignoramus. ---- He was William Janklow from South Dakota. At anyrate the two cases are completely different in the circumstances of the two accidents. vis: Laura Bush, nee Welch, was a new 17 year old driver with a passenger she was distracted by. Congressman William Janklow, was a 63 year old, experienced decades long driver who had a history of reckless driving, and was driving alone. Laura Bush was doing the 55 mph speed limit and slower when she missed a stop sign at in near pitch black darkness when she was talking to a friend as teens are apt to do. The congressman ran an intersection in broad, stark daylight while driving alone and was speeding at 71 mph on a 55mph country road when he collided with a motorcyclist at the intersection. As far as I know he has never claimed to have not seen the stop sign. Indeed, before the fatal incident, he braged about the many speeding tickets he had, mad a joke about it despite being a public offical that helped write the laws we are governed by. The max for his crime could had been 11 years in prison, with the average being 5 years in prison & an additional 5 years probation. Here is the sentence for Second Degree Felony Manslaughter he drew: 100 Days and a $5700.00 Fine & $5000.00 (for a $50.00/day Jail Fee) No driving for 3 Years, 30 Days in Sioux Falls County Jail As a comparision here was Martha Stewart's sentence for lying to federal investigators and sentenced to five months-about 141 days-in a federal minimum security prison and a further six months of house arrest. Martha Stewart served more time behind bars than William Janklow. If 100 days is is all that Congressman Janklow got then it was just that Laura walked, since she was far less culpable under far more understandable circumstances than Janklow ever was. Janklow did not mean to kill the motorcyclist, just like Laura did not mean to kill her ex-boyfriend, but if you compare the two back grounds of Janklow and Bush, the Bush incident is far more understandable. The law is not so unbending as to not see the difference between a new inexperienced teenaged driver who was obeying the traffic laws and missed a stop sign at night and a public official who should had known better by both his age and his position in society who regularly broke the traffic laws in broad daylight. Anyone can compare the two cases: http://www.ama-cycle.org/news/2003/janklow.asp http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp http://www.oaoa.com/news/nw050400b.htm ---->Hunter > Janklow did not mean to kill the motorcyclist, just like Laura did not > mean to kill her ex-boyfriend, but if you compare the two back grounds [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > better by both his age and his position in society who regularly broke > the traffic laws in broad daylight. Fine - but not a single thing was done to laura bush over this. So you're saying it should be completely legal for teenagers to run stop signs and kill innocent people. > > Janklow did not mean to kill the motorcyclist, just like Laura did not > > mean to kill her ex-boyfriend, but if you compare the two back grounds [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you're saying it should be completely legal for teenagers to run stop > signs and kill innocent people. --- Legal? of course not. That is a loaded question and you knew it to be so. But under the circumstances of it being an accident and missing the stop sign? Yes. Compared to someone like Janklow who deliberately ran a stop sign in broad daylight while alone and while breaking the speed limit, then yes, I would catagorize what happened to 17 year old Laura as a tradgic accident, which at most was a momentary lapse in attentiveness as opposed to a 63 year old's ongoing willful negligence. ---->Hunter > > > Janklow did not mean to kill the motorcyclist, just like Laura did not > > > mean to kill her ex-boyfriend, but if you compare the two back grounds [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > as a tradgic accident, which at most was a momentary lapse in > attentiveness as opposed to a 63 year old's ongoing willful negligence. Well - that's the same as saying "make it legal for teens to do this". You're a criminal coddler. Suppose laura had killed your son. Would you still feel absolutely NOTHING should be done to her. > > > > Janklow did not mean to kill the motorcyclist, just like Laura did not > > > > mean to kill her ex-boyfriend, but if you compare the two back grounds [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > You're a criminal coddler. Suppose laura had killed your son. Would > you still feel absolutely NOTHING should be done to her. --- No, I am saying under the circumstances in which the accident happened, then yes, she should not be punished because it was an accident and not willful negligence. She wasn't drunk or driving at excessive speed and it was night. Concidering the fact that the victim's father in the Laura Bush accident did not pursue the case in either criminal or civil court, I guess that makes him a "Criminal Coddler" as well. All that anyone has to do is read my responses to you which includes details of both the Laura Bush and William Janklow incidents in this thread. If that makes me "criminal coddler", then fine, sloganeer all you want. --->Hunter > > > > > Janklow did not mean to kill the motorcyclist, just like Laura did not > > > > > mean to kill her ex-boyfriend, but if you compare the two back grounds [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > --->Hunter You'll have to remember that Judy is retarded. In the event you've missed some of the other gems the retard has posted, here's a case study: STFU YOU HATEFILLED TROLL. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.golf/msg/4bafc59af1481a15?hl=en Fork you, beyatch. I'm the greatest troll that ever lived!!!! I'm the world's champ at infuriating all these pschopathic car loonies. HAHAHA http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.misc/msg/8316b755126bd447 Screw driver training and courtesy. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/d4aaae4439d8c383 Hey dood. I've been a US senator since 98! You mean you didn't know that??? http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/2f1dd067aa0af690 Fork the dictionary. You've got your definitions and we've got ours. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/a74373e47d63 8020?hl=en I never voted in my life, you lying whore. All elections are rigged. The globalists rigged this one by paying kerry not to attack bush. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/87a31e73cec1db38 It's all about money. Most organ transplants are unnecessary but doctors make a fortune off them so we have them. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/19e5ff027e51 bd5a?hl=en That "microphone" could have been filled with battery acid. Cruise should have pulled a knife and slit the guy's guts out. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.true-crime/msg/84af48b0cba14e15?hl=en Put AEOS on the list too. It came out with great earnings and guidance today and yet went down 7% on very heavy volume. When a stock sells off on good news, it's going much lower. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.invest.stocks/msg/1a9e462f5ff431de?hl=en Of course he does. With a name like roger, you know he's a pervert. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/38c4ddd6a5640c4a?hl=en What is the P&G logo?. I just went to their WS and didn't see any. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.abortion/msg/9acb6a6cd49d23aa?hl=en Hey stupid. I told you the other day to stop using the phrase "conspiracy theorist". We're gover-media skeptics. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/402c7cb69523 57e9?hl=en There's not a shred of evidence that the jerries murdered anything close to 7 million jooz. Another monstrous lie just like the 9-11 official story. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/3650866dc7ecbadc All his amnesty talk puzzled me because most conservatives are hatefilled racists and don't want the greaseballs in this country. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/172c99cba6ba cc3c?hl=en You're crazy. There will be a draft. Bush is gonna stage another 9-11 type event and then say we have no choice but to go to war against every muslim nation. And democrats will say nothing. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/b4a8ea8427fdf968 You are an ignoramus. 9-11 was an inside job. That's for sure. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/d4b6e83b246dae5 e?hl=en The issue is the psychopath doing 60 mph OVER THE LIMIT!!!!!!!!. This guy is a murderer and i want him locked up anyway they can do it. Three cheers for the cops. http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=780ea958.0411162236.1a4d23a5%40posting.goog le.com Market economy???? HAHAHAHA. Prices are whatever the monopolists want to charge. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/23c9a9e267ecc08 f?hl=en If you speed loons would just slow down we wouldn't have a problem. drive them until the holes get too big for that tire-in-a-can stuff to work. Then do what I do and go to pep boys and get a set of used retreads for $50 and repeat. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/dbe7ec33863c0fc4?hl=en The Federal Reserve is not a branch of the govt; it's a group of private banks and borrowing from them means the taxpayers have to pay the interest to the banks. This has been going on for nearly a hundred years and it's just stealing from the public and giving to the bankers. JUST PRINT THE DAMN MONEY. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/f15b1f7d7ea0dfe2 I'm not talking about increasing the money supply; just replacing borrowed money with printed money. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/760bbaea47e5f5f9 I know what you mean, dood. I did 5 years in the can myself for beating the crap out of a half-dozen faggot gun loonies i caught raping a collie and I couldn't handle the food either. Goddam beets with every meal. Ended up eating nothing but cans of tuna i bought at the commy. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&edition=us&selm=780e a958.0411242021.7b529c17%40posting.google.com I don't think knife bans will ever happen, since knives are so damn easy to make. I remember when i was in prison for beating up a dozen gun loonies and we used to melt down a thousand or so aspirin tablets into a thick goo and then let it harden into a knife shape which we sharpened against the concrete floor. Anybody can make a knife anywhere out of anything. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.rush-limbaugh/msg/018c5bbd64dd19ac GODDAMMIT - STOP SENDING MESSAGES TO MORE THAN FIVE GROUPS Google won't allow more than five. It's not my job to delete excessive group listings but i seem to spend half my life doing that. OBEY THE RULES, YOU BUTTHOLES!!!! http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/c3d2661d3c6734ed I am not paid to delete the excessive newsgroups you clowns are posting to. Obey the rules or GTF out of here!!!! http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.fan.rush-limbaugh/msg/f5c7a53c81f28cdf Tires don't blow out anymore. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/9a619fee7f463fc2 LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH LAURABUSH http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/b9727d351b4be64a Bush is dictator and that means he has to take the blame for everything. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.democrats.d/msg/a2d35f67fd7b6003 Has he killed as many people as Laura Bush? http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.flame.niggers/msg/c2ff1fca08982a38 You don't know what you're talking about, dood. AIDS is an american bioweapon developed by americans so that blacks would be esp susceptible to it. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.sport.baseball/msg/cd9d112311697712 She knows it won't matter. Blake is white so the media will insist on a not guilty verdict. :http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.true-crime/msg/59c74805c56a5747 YOu stupid lying shithead. All bush has accomplished in AFG is to make it the world's leading heroin supplier. And BTW it wasn't a war. It was a massacre against a defenseless nation that never did anything to us. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.bush/msg/29a86842abe0d9d6 She's just damn lucky the press is owned by the GOP and doesn't crucify her for vehicular manslaughter like they've done to ted kennedy for 35 years. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.republicans/msg/cac630fd8aec9a63 I'm saying that bush obviously doesn't want to catch OBL. Not now that the election is over, anyway. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/46a00a246987524f You're crazy, dood. Google is a super rw org and they censor liberals. RW posters here get away with everything while libs have to be choir boys. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.prophecies.nostradamus/msg/ca35950242741f13 That's why so many legal scholars think republicans should be banned from juries. Anyone who'd vote for a man who lied us into war is too dumb to sit on a jury. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.true-crime/msg/4dc8560247663014 Wouldn't have mattered if hitty had one. He took his orders from the same organization that roosevelt did and bush does today. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/cd58ee450b438b19 You can't even lie any good. No where in the country are cops issued crown victorias. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&edition=us&selm=780e a958.0410112125.4b572994%40posting.google.com i'm sure jeffrey dahmer also objects to big daddy govt telling him he can't kill people anymore. http://groups.google.com/groups?q=g:thl1665104637d&dq=&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=o ff&edition=us&selm=780ea958.0410311919.5f4893f4%40posting.google.com At first i thought the tars had been slashed but no, the tars were fine http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&edition=us&selm=780e a958.0410311926.d89b941%40posting.google.com I hate cell phone drivers but at least this gal had the sense to drive slowly while yakking. http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&safe=off&edition=us&selm=780e a958.0411231910.47c6ceb7%40posting.google.com Yes, but never deliberately. In fact i got a speeding ticket about 5 years ago for doing 41 in a 25. I just about kicked the cops teeth in cause i was sure he was lying. No way the SL on this wide open stretch could be 25, i thought. Turns out the cop was right. No complaints from me then. I should have known the law. : http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.autos/msg/b140009050c624a9 http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/hornsey/515/Xeton2001IsAMoron.html --- ( the following contains part of one of Judy's posts, which would not otherwise be available due to Judy's use of the X-No-Archive bit) >>>Of course, they're anti-safety devices!!! Why would anyone think >>>otherwise, loonball???. I wish you'd get off this board - you make us [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's my real name and i'm proud of it. It's pronounced diarrhrea. > Got it? So many loons in school made fun of me!!! http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/36b69ad3f5e8013a?hl=en ( the following contains part of one of Judy's posts, which would not otherwise be available due to Judy's use of the X-No-Archive bit) > That's the way it should be. In fact even having a RD in your car >should result in mandatory and permanent loss of DL. Why do you need a >device whose only function is to help you commit a crime that murders >thousands of americans a year. URAPSYCHOPATH http://groups-beta.google.com/group/rec.autos.driving/msg/56c432d3f6f9a6fe?dmode =source&hl=en Straw man???? If you saw some black guy on crack with a gun, you'd go ballistic. But alkies with guns is ok with you cause alcohol is YOUR drug. URA STUPID ILLOGICAL HYPOCRITE. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.politics.guns/msg/c59a4f089df6ecfa?hl=en We don't need safer cars and roads. The incredible highway carnage is entirely due to reckless drivers like you. URAMURDERER. http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/3352db7c732fd7f1?hl=en HUH??? The cops plant the gun on him and you still say he deserved 55 years. URAPSYCHO http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.politics.usa.republican/msg/ac09b1777ac5 a5ce?hl=en > --- > No, I am saying under the circumstances in which the accident happened, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Laura Bush accident did not pursue the case in either criminal or civil > court, I guess that makes him a "Criminal Coddler" as well. Where did you get that idea?? There most definitely was a civil lawsuit filed against laura and an out-of-court settlement was made. Did the father also ask for criminal charges too and was rebuffed by the DA? I don't know about that and neither do you. Private citizens cannot bring criminal charges against someone. If the state refuses to do so, that's it. > > --- > > No, I am saying under the circumstances in which the accident happened, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > cannot bring criminal charges against someone. If the state refuses to > do so, that's it. --- I believe we have had this discussion before. I have not seen any mention of a civil suit or settlement on the net anywhere. Show me a document, or at least give me a date of the legal action. --->Hunter In our last episode, <1119696805.421840.167420@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented buffhunter@my-deja.com broadcast on alt.true-crime: >> > --- >> > No, I am saying under the circumstances in which the accident happened, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > mention of a civil suit or settlement on the net anywhere. Show me a > document, or at least give me a date of the legal action. Since Laura ran a stop sign and was speeding, I'm sure her insurance company would have paid off without going to court.  SignatureLars Eighner eighner@io.com http://www.larseighner.com/ "There's an old...saying in Tennessee...I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says Fool me once...Shame on...Shame on you....Fool me...Can't get fooled again." --George W. Bush > In our last episode, > <1119696805.421840.167420@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Since Laura ran a stop sign and was speeding, I'm sure her > insurance company would have paid off without going to court. > In our last episode, > <1119696805.421840.167420@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > Since Laura ran a stop sign and was speeding, I'm sure her > insurance company would have paid off without going to court. ---- She did ran a stop sign, but availible evidence says she wasn't speeding (The police report is illegiable but nothing has come up to contradict Laura's assertion that she was traveling the limit. Michael Douglas's family hasn't said anything to counter it either to my knowledge). However, it is possible that here insurance company, or more accurately her parents, probably did reach a settlement, but that is not the same as a civil action. And according the link below, it was seen by all sides, including the dead boy's father who witnessed the accident in a car following his son's, as a tradgic accident and no direct penalties would be inflicted on Laura Welch. If there is a link to show otherwise, I would like to see it. http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/laura.asp ---->Hunter In our last episode, <1119702957.250860.210370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented Hunter broadcast on alt.true-crime: >> Since Laura ran a stop sign and was speeding, I'm sure her >> insurance company would have paid off without going to court. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Douglas's family hasn't said anything to counter it either to my > knowledge). The police reports two infraction by Laura Welch. One is running the stop sign. The other is supposedly illegible as is the speed she was traveling. Two things on the report are myseriously illegible: the nature of Laura's second infraction and the speed she was going. Hmm. The police report says the weather was dry. She has told friends it was raining. Michael was thrown from his vehicle. The police report says it was a sedan, Laura has told friends it was a Jeep. Hmm. She didn't even get a ticket for running the stop sign - a crime we know she committed. Why this wouldn't be manslaughter has never been explain, or for that matter, why this matter was never put to a grand jury. Now anyone who has had dealings with Laura Bush, as I have, knows she is a user and liar. She's gotten away with things all of her life, so the lesson of this "accident" was not lost on her. She considers herself above the law. > However, it is possible that here insurance company, or > more accurately her parents, probably did reach a settlement, but that > is not the same as a civil action. Oh yeah. Insurance companies pay off all the time without requiring a waiver of further civil action. > And according the link below, it was > seen by all sides, including the dead boy's father who witnessed the > accident in a car following his son's, as a tradgic accident and no > direct penalties would be inflicted on Laura Welch. What part of "manslaughter" do you not understand? SignatureLars Eighner eighner@io.com http://www.larseighner.com/ "Shhh! Be vewwy, vewwy quiet! I'm hunting Muswims!" -- Eunice Fudd > In our last episode, > <1119702957.250860.210370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > myseriously illegible: the nature of Laura's second infraction > and the speed she was going. Hmm. --- Well there were only two infractions total, if that many. The running of the stop sign for sure, but the speed she was traveling is unknown due to illegibility. So there are only two infractions in question. The article below is from Wikipedia online encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dutton_Douglas It, like the snopes link I posted to the post before yours, only mentions two possible infractions, the blowing of the stop sign and the unknown speed of her car. At anyrate two biographies place her as going about 50-55 mph, the speed limit. Again, the family of Michael D. Douglas never persued the matter. > The police report says the weather was dry. She has told > friends it was raining. Michael was thrown from his vehicle. > The police report says it was a sedan, Laura has told friends it > was a Jeep. Hmm. ---- first that I have heard that Laura claimed it was raining. But I doubt she would lie about that, too easy to disprove, especially with the father at the scene and the police arriving soon after. Saying it was a jeep would even make less sense. If the victim was thrown from the car, he was thrown from the car, what difference the model of the car would it make? I doubt she said such a thing. > She didn't even get a ticket for running the stop sign - a crime > we know she committed. Why this wouldn't be manslaughter has > never been explain, or for that matter, why this matter was > never put to a grand jury. ---- Well, if it was an accident, it would be concidered bad for to ticket a person that got into a life threatening accident, especially if she was a teenager as she was at the time. Also, every once in awhile you hear about a tradgic automotive accident like someone mistaking the accelerator for the brake but no one being charged, so it is not unheard off. Next, the family of the deceased never pushed for it because apparently, like the police saw it as a tragic accident. The police would have followed their lead if they wanted to pursue it. > Now anyone who has had dealings with Laura Bush, as I have, > knows she is a user and liar. She's gotten away with things all > of her life, so the lesson of this "accident" was not lost on > her. She considers herself above the law. ---- first, I do not know that you have had dealings with her, or what "she's gotten away with" in her life. All we have is your words, which maybe true, but unvarifiable. > > However, it is possible that here insurance company, or > > more accurately her parents, probably did reach a settlement, but that > > is not the same as a civil action. > > Oh yeah. Insurance companies pay off all the time without > requiring a waiver of further civil action. ---- I would doubt the insurence payment, especially the levels in which insurance companies payed in 1963 would be enough to by the silence of the father and the rest of the family, even taking into account inflation. > > And according the link below, it was > > seen by all sides, including the dead boy's father who witnessed the > > accident in a car following his son's, as a tradgic accident and no > > direct penalties would be inflicted on Laura Welch. > > What part of "manslaughter" do you not understand? ---- I understand manslaughter perfectly. I just pointed out that the victim's father saw the accident and declined to persue civil and/or criminal remedies. Manslaughter charges do not follow automatically. It is at the discretion of the DA if he or she believe there is cause. Also, she seems to have come from a middle class home with comparitively little political influencea Laura's father Harold Bruce Welch was just a credit officer at loan company, so I would doubt that the police would favor her and alter any reports in her favor out of political expediency. Any mystery of why charges were not filed, if they were applicable, you will have to ask the family of the victim. Have you heard anything from the victim's family decrying the lack of charges against Laura Bush nee Welch? ---->Hunter In our last episode, <1119733175.764364.295150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented Hunter broadcast on alt.true-crime: > Saying it was a jeep would even make less sense. If the victim > was thrown from the car, he was thrown from the car, what > difference the model of the car would it make? I doubt she > said such a thing. Because, since it doesn't have a full door and it has an all canvas top (if any) it would imply much less force was involved in the collision for him to been thrown out of a Jeep®. Also, to say she wouldn't have lied about things that were so easily check overlooks that she thought the records were sealed - as they were until the Dallas Morning News lawsuit which resulted in the public records being opened to the public in early 2000, and the fact that when he was governor, her husband got the DPS to issue new DL numbers (which ordinary citizens have for life even if they let their licenses lapse for a while) to both him and his wife, making it harder for any other records of Laura's "incident" that might exist and his drunk driving conviction to come to light. >> What part of "manslaughter" do you not understand? > ---- > I understand manslaughter perfectly. I just pointed out that the > victim's father saw the accident and declined to persue civil and/or > criminal remedies. The victim in a criminal offense is the people. That is why a manslauter case would not have been "Michael Douglas's Father v. Laura Welch" but "The People v. Laura Welch." The father did not have the right to waive the people's right to have justice done. > Any mystery of why charges were not filed, if they were applicable, you > will have to ask the family of the victim. Have you heard anything from > the victim's family decrying the lack of charges against Laura Bush nee > Welch? See above. Yes, it is very difficult to prosecute a crime when a living victim doesn't not want to cooperate - as often happens in domestic abuse cases and occasionally in rape cases. But the family doesn't have the right to waive prosecution of a homicide. SignatureLars Eighner eighner@io.com http://www.larseighner.com/ Quoting me will give your meaningless drivel a little color, no pun intended. -- "Fineous" > In our last episode, > <1119733175.764364.295150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > canvas top (if any) it would imply much less force was involved > in the collision for him to been thrown out of a Jeep®. ---- Again it is too uneccessary a lie. And once again, there was the father at the scene and the victim's family to worry about even if the father had died by the time of the so-called lies where told. They would object. And she would have to get her friend who was in the accident to go along with the lie. Plus, there are the still living friends of Michael Douglas who would know if their friend had a jeep or not, and if he did probably would know if he drove it that night or not. They would blow the whistle. Again, I strongly doubt Mrs. Bush ever said it was a jeep. > Also, to say she wouldn't have lied about things that were so > easily check overlooks that she thought the records were sealed [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of Laura's "incident" that might exist and his drunk driving > conviction to come to light. --- You keep forgetting that two other people were there, her friend that was in her car at the time of the crash and as I keep coming back to, the father who was in the trailing car following his son. Any lies coming from the mough of Laura Bush would be detcted by him and if not him his family and could ruin any good will between Laura and the family of the victim. And again the lies are too uneccessary. Rain when there was no rain, a jeep when it didn't make a difference? With witness there? Not only the father, but police, ambulances and probably the coroner's wagon, fire trucks and firemen? Tow truck and/or wreckers? Civilians rubbernecking? Not all of those people are dead even now. Those lies would be too quickly detected. I am assuming "DL" means Driver's Licence" number and I have to know whether or not it is common for public officials, especially the Chief Executive and the First Lady of a state, to get new driver's licences for government vehicles. Did Gov. George Bush's immediate predecessor, Ann Richards, receive a change of license plates? Has his immediate successor, James Richard Perry, as well? Also, driver's license number was most likey on the police report released to the public, unless someone ordered all references to the driver's license in all public records redacted it wouldn't make much of a difference how many times the Bushes got new DL numbers. It would still be a matter of public record her old driver's license number, and I am sure their are many clerks who looked up celebrity driver's license numbers just like there was a scandal a decade or so ago in which IRS clerks where looking up the finacial records of celebrities. Also, the reason Laura Welch's driving record was sealed was because she was a juvenille at the time and unless Texas Penal law has been changed, records of such nature are sealed due to the age of the driver at the time. Lastly, George W. Bush acknowleges the drunk driving conviction, it was a Class D misdemeanor under Maine law at the time: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/ > >> What part of "manslaughter" do you not understand? > > ---- [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > not have the right to waive the people's right to have justice > done. --- No but it is his son, and not only he has to weigh avialible evidence, he has to gauge whether he has a winnable case and if a jury would be inclined to indict/convict. A grand jury would be reluctant to indict a defendant never mind a trial jury convicting a defendant if the family of the victim gets up on the stand and says they believe it was a tragic accident, and nothing more. Couple that with the fact that there is very little if any evidence of a crime. Yes, someone is dead, but it does not follow automatically that a crime was commited. > > Any mystery of why charges were not filed, if they were applicable, you > > will have to ask the family of the victim. Have you heard anything from [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > family doesn't have the right to waive prosecution of a > homicide. ---- By "homocide" you mean the legal/coroner's definition of a person's death being caused by another human being by any cause, and not the layman's belief of homicide equal murder/manslaugter don't you? In otherwords A soldier in battle takes aim and shoots and kills an enemy combatant, that is a homicide, but it isn't murder. That said, the family doesn't have the right to waive prosecution of a homicide, but, as I indicated above, the family can have input, and if there is no overt or even subtle evidence of deliberate, willful negligence, or manslaughter resulting in the death of a human being, then it is his discretion not to press charges. So you have the cops not pushing the issue, the prosecutors not pushing the issue along with the family of the victim not pushing the issue with the instigator of the accident, while firmly middle class does not have a disordinate amount of political power through financial and/or with the position held in the community says that the authorities believed there was nothing to prosecute. ---->Hunter In our last episode, <1119793229.004432.321040@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented Hunter broadcast on alt.true-crime: >> In our last episode, >> <1119733175.764364.295150@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, the [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > wreckers? Civilians rubbernecking? Not all of those people are dead > even now. Those lies would be too quickly detected. > I am assuming "DL" means Driver's Licence" number and I have to know > whether or not it is common for public officials, especially the Chief > Executive and the First Lady of a state, to get new driver's licences > for government vehicles. Did Gov. George Bush's immediate predecessor, > Ann Richards, receive a change of license plates? Has his immediate > successor, James Richard Perry, as well? What do driver's licenses have to do with license plates? Are you an American? Over here, the number on a car's plates have nothing to do with the driver's license. The numbers on the car's plates are the car's license, not the driver's. I don't know what the practice may be in other states, but in Texas a person's driver license number is supposed to be a unique, lifelong identifier. I suppose their have been exceptions when a person recieves a new identity altogether, as in a witness protection program. But the Bush's seem to be the only Texans who have received new numbers while retaining their identities. > Also, driver's license number was most likey on the police report > released to the public, But that is the point. The police report, although supposed to be a public record, was not released to the public until a lawsuit was brought by the Dallas Morning News, some 36 years after the fact. > unless someone ordered all references to the > driver's license in all public records redacted it wouldn't make much [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > at the time. Lastly, George W. Bush acknowleges the drunk driving > conviction, it was a Class D misdemeanor under Maine law at the time: Yes, now he acknowledges. He denied it on a sworn information when he was called for jury duty. > http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/11/02/bush.dui/ >> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > otherwords A soldier in battle takes aim and shoots and kills an enemy > combatant, that is a homicide, but it isn't murder. > That said, the family doesn't have the right to waive prosecution of a > homicide, but, as I indicated above, the family can have input, and if [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > held in the community says that the authorities believed there was > nothing to prosecute. SignatureLars Eighner eighner@io.com http://www.larseighner.com/ Quoting me will give your meaningless drivel a little color, no pun intended. -- "Fineous" > In our last episode, > <1119793229.004432.321040@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > person's driver license number is supposed to be a unique, > lifelong identifier. ---- I am an American. A New Yorker all my life in fact, so that is why I never learned how to drive and consequently, never had a driver's licencse since I live in the public transportation capital of the US, New York City. So the nuiances of having a driver's licence is lost on me. So yes, I did confuse driver's license number with the number plate of the vehicle. > I suppose their have been exceptions when > a person recieves a new identity altogether, as in a witness > protection program. But the Bush's seem to be the > only Texans who have received new numbers while retaining their > identities. ---- Like I said before, it depends on if his predeccessors or successors have had their numbers changed. At anyrate, for the perpose of hiding, my previous statement stands. Even if his DL number was changed, unless he somehow have changed all the forms both governmental and private-like insurance forms-it would be a futile effort. Some nosey government clerk would dig them up. > > Also, driver's license number was most likey on the police report > > released to the public, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > lawsuit was brought by the Dallas Morning News, some 36 years > after the fact. ---- As I mentioned in the previous post, Laura Bush was a juvenile at the time of her accident, so her records where sealed as a matter of course. Anyway, here is a high resolution *.jpg graphic of the report: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Laura_Bush_police_report.jpg > > unless someone ordered all references to the > > driver's license in all public records redacted it wouldn't make much [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Quoting me will give your meaningless drivel a little color, no pun intended. > -- "Fineous" --- Actually he did not flat out deny it on the form but left it blank, but the point is taken. In all of the jury forms I had to fill out, something like six of them, I filled out everyone truthfully. "In 1996, Bush was summoned to jury duty in a Travis County, Texas drunk driving case. His counsel, Alberto R. Gonzales, successfully argued that, as governor, Bush might one day be called to pardon the defendant, and that this should excuse him from sitting on the jury. When Bush's 1976 drunk driving conviction was made public during the 2000 presidential campaign, Ken Oden, a Democrat, the prosecutor of the 1996 case, re-examined the case and revealed that Bush's juror questionnaire left blank the question whether he had ever been accused in a criminal case. The prosecutor said, "With all the new information that has come forward, it's logical to see that there may have been motives at work that none of us knew about." He concluded that Bush "used his position as governor" to avoid disclosing the information, because the conviction was neither included on the written form nor mentioned by Gonzales. The prosecutor added, "I feel I was directly deceived." A Bush campaign spokesman responded that the form had been "filled out by a staff member who left a variety of questions blank, including the Social Security number, because he didn't know the answers to them". [14] http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/05/jury_duty/index.html " http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/George_W._Bush ********** And also this which includes a link to the smoking gun website: "As counsel to Governor Bush, Gonzales helped Bush be excused from jury duty when he was called in a 1996 Travis County drunk driving case. The case led to a minor controversy during Bush's 2000 presidential campaign because Bush's answers to the potential juror questionnaire did not disclose Bush's own 1976 misdemeanor drunk driving conviction.[1] (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushdui1.html) Gonzales' formal request for Bush to be excused from jury duty hinged upon the fact that, as Governor of Texas, he might be called upon to pardon the accused in the case. Upon learning of the 1976 conviction, the prosecutor in the 1996 case (a Democrat) felt he had been "directly deceived". The defense attorney in the case called Gonzales' arguments "laughable".[2] (http://dir.salon.com/politics/feature/2000/11/05/jury_duty/index.html). http://www.answers.com/topic/alberto-r-gonzales ******* Now this is evidence of wrong doing and not mere rumor and distortion. And at anyrate, has nothing to do with Laura Bush's accident in 1963 whatever sins real or imagined that her husband commited . ---->Hunter >See above. Yes, it is very difficult to prosecute a crime when >a living victim doesn't not want to cooperate - as often happens >in domestic abuse cases and occasionally in rape cases. But the >family doesn't have the right to waive prosecution of a >homicide. *all* the more reason to believe it wasn't a homicide, or manslaughter, but an accident as reported and filed. SignatureThe last song I started on my PC was: Better Than Ezra - Summer House - Deluxe K:\Audio\Better Than Ezra\Deluxe\09 - Summer House.mp3 This is track 9 of 13 in the current playlist. In our last episode, <j8itb1lp2vaqq8mifu1vmtapvm4n7u4r3g@4ax.com>, the lovely and talented David W. Poole, Jr. broadcast on alt.true-crime: >>See above. Yes, it is very difficult to prosecute a crime when >>a living victim doesn't not want to cooperate - as often happens >>in domestic abuse cases and occasionally in rape cases. But the >>family doesn't have the right to waive prosecution of a >>homicide. > *all* the more reason to believe it wasn't a homicide, It certainly was homicide - unless you think Michael Douglas is alive. > or manslaughter, but an accident as reported and filed. Manslaughter is homicide. It certainly wasn't an accident. Laura ran a stop sign - one that she knew was there because she negotiaged that intersection everytime she went to or returned from school. An accident is when your brakes fail in spite of being regularly inspected and not having given a previous indication of trouble. The road was dry. The night was clear. Cross traffic could be seen from miles away - this was after all, West Texas. Whether she meant to kill Michael Douglas or not, she obviously did not mean to control her vehicle. And that makes it no accident. SignatureLars Eighner eighner@io.com http://www.larseighner.com/ Quoting me will give your meaningless drivel a little color, no pun intended. -- "Fineous" >In our last episode, ><j8itb1lp2vaqq8mifu1vmtapvm4n7u4r3g@4ax.com>, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >It certainly was homicide - unless you think Michael Douglas is >alive. So far, only a small number of deluded twits perceive the incident to be anything more than an accident. Thanks for making your position and mental state known. >> or manslaughter, but an accident as reported and filed. > >Manslaughter is homicide. It certainly wasn't an accident. It wasn't? All of the parties involved, official and otherwise, disagree with you. >Laura ran a stop sign - one that she knew was there because she >negotiaged that intersection everytime she went to or returned [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >she meant to kill Michael Douglas or not, she obviously did not >mean to control her vehicle. And that makes it no accident. Wow, and you didn't have the consideration to cross post this into alt.conspiracy, where all the other whack-jobs live? SignatureThe last song I started on my PC was: Better Than Ezra - Summer House - Deluxe K:\Audio\Better Than Ezra\Deluxe\09 - Summer House.mp3 This is track 9 of 13 in the current playlist. > Manslaughter is homicide. It certainly wasn't an accident. > Laura ran a stop sign - one that she knew was there because she > negotiaged that intersection everytime she went to or returned > from school. So? Back in the 1970's, my mother ran a stop sign on a road she had driven hundreds of times before. Because of the accident it caused, she never was able to remember how she could have possibly missed stopping at the stop sign that time. It was her only accident over her entire life (now deceased). The fact is that ALL human beings are fallible. They can become distracted, become tired, etc. etc. So, your conclusion that it wasn't a accident is a false one if that is your only basis for reaching it. In our last episode, <BPWdnXjJ-92vqyLfRVn-qA@comcast.com>, the lovely and talented James C. Reeves broadcast on alt.true-crime: >> Manslaughter is homicide. It certainly wasn't an accident. >> Laura ran a stop sign - one that she knew was there because she >> negotiaged that intersection everytime she went to or returned >> from school. > So? Back in the 1970's, my mother ran a stop sign on a road she had driven > hundreds of times before. Because of the accident it caused, she never was > able to remember how she could have possibly missed stopping at the stop > sign that time. It was her only accident over her entire life (now > deceased). > The fact is that ALL human beings are fallible. They can become distracted, > become tired, etc. etc. So, your conclusion that it wasn't a accident is a > false one if that is your only basis for reaching it. If the steering wheel comes off in your hands when you have had no reason to suspect a mechanical defect, that is an accident. If a meteorite takes out your brake lines, that is an accident. If you have a stroke while you are driving and you hit something, that might be an accident - if you had no reason to think you were particularly likely to have a stroke. But if you have control of automobile and do not pay attention to what you are doing, the unpleasant result is not an accident. I don't believe there are no accidents, but accidents are very rare, and people calling the results of their failures accidents is just self-serving crap. If you are too tired to drive, but do so anyway, the result is not an accident. If you have been drinking and decide to drive, the result is not an accident. If drive and become absorbed talking to your friends, the result is not an accident. SignatureLars Eighner eighner@io.com http://www.larseighner.com/ "I believe in God and I believe in free markets," -Kenneth Lay, CEO for the now defunct Enron, whose loss of some $50 billion represented the largest corporate bankruptcy in US history at that time. > In our last episode, > <BPWdnXjJ-92vqyLfRVn-qA@comcast.com>, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > If the steering wheel comes off in your hands when you have had > no reason to suspect a mechanical defect, that is an accident. What about if you're driving around a beater that is so neglected you have no idea of it's mechanical state? What about driving around knowingly with a non-functioning emergency brake? In our last episode, <1119912567.788740.79270@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented Xeton2001IsAFlamingIdiot.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com broadcast on alt.true-crime: >> In our last episode, >> <BPWdnXjJ-92vqyLfRVn-qA@comcast.com>, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> If the steering wheel comes off in your hands when you have had >> no reason to suspect a mechanical defect, that is an accident. > What about if you're driving around a beater that is so neglected you > have no idea of it's mechanical state? What about driving around > knowingly with a non-functioning emergency brake? Here's any easy thought experiment to determine whether it is and accident or not: If it had been a poor black man who killed Laura Welch in similar circumstances, would he have walked away with no charges and no further investigation? SignatureLars Eighner eighner@io.com http://www.larseighner.com/ Quoting me will give your meaningless drivel a little color, no pun intended. -- "Fineous" > In our last episode, > <1119912567.788740.79270@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > similar circumstances, would he have walked away with no charges > and no further investigation? What about a wealthy white senator? In our last episode, <1119913969.451947.196380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented Xeton2001IsAFlamingIdiot.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com broadcast on alt.true-crime: >> In our last episode, >> <1119912567.788740.79270@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> similar circumstances, would he have walked away with no charges >> and no further investigation? > What about a wealthy white senator? Gee, I don't know of anything similar involving a wealthy white senator. In Laura Welch's case, there was no coroner's jury. No evidence was presented in open court. No testimony was taken from Laura or anyone else. There was no finding of fact in a court of record. SignatureLars Eighner eighner@io.com http://www.larseighner.com/ Quoting me will give your meaningless drivel a little color, no pun intended. -- "Fineous" > In our last episode, > <1119913969.451947.196380@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > from Laura or anyone else. There was no finding of fact in a > court of record. Simple case, simple solution. Is that simple enough for you, simpleton? > In our last episode, > <1119912567.788740.79270@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > similar circumstances, would he have walked away with no charges > and no further investigation? What about a rich black pop-star accused of molesting young boys? How about a rich black ex-football star accused of murdering his ex-wife and her "friend?" In our last episode, <1119914185.519326.301080@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented Xeton is a loser broadcast on alt.true-crime: >> In our last episode, >> <1119912567.788740.79270@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] >> similar circumstances, would he have walked away with no charges >> and no further investigation? > What about a rich black pop-star accused of molesting young boys? > How about a rich black ex-football star accused of murdering his > ex-wife and her "friend?" Laura never appeared in court. Laura was never indicted. Laura's case was never presented to a jury or a grand jury. SignatureLars Eighner eighner@io.com http://www.larseighner.com/ Quoting me will give your meaningless drivel a little color, no pun intended. -- "Fineous" > In our last episode, > <1119914185.519326.301080@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > Laura never appeared in court. Laura was never indicted. > Laura's case was never presented to a jury or a grand jury. Typically they don't do that in situations that are deemed (holding hands to face) <GASP> an accident! You know, when you read about them in the paper and the articles state "no charges will be filed?" >Here's any easy thought experiment to determine whether it is >and accident or not: > >If it had been a poor black man who killed Laura Welch in >similar circumstances, would he have walked away with no charges >and no further investigation? Non sequitur. > The fact is that ALL human beings are fallible. They can become distracted, > become tired, etc. etc. So, your conclusion that it wasn't a accident is a > false one if that is your only basis for reaching it. Well then, you're the biggest criminal coddler in history. Some monster blows a stop sign and kills an innocent person and you say "forget it - human beings are fallible." > > The fact is that ALL human beings are fallible. They can become distracted, > > become tired, etc. etc. So, your conclusion that it wasn't a accident is a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Some monster blows a stop sign and kills an innocent person and you say > "forget it - human beings are fallible." What about letting someone who was drunk at the time use his car to drown his pregnant mistress, and then use their senatorial seat to "sweep it under the rug?" I guess Mary Jo wasn't innocent enough for you, or is it because the person who committed the act is the hero of the political party you worship? In our last episode, <1120095204.644637.167760@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>, the lovely and talented Xeton2001IsAFlamingIdiot.dwpj65@spamgourmet.com broadcast on alt.true-crime: >> > The fact is that ALL human beings are fallible. They can become distracted, >> > become tired, etc. etc. So, your conclusion that it wasn't a accident is a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> Some monster blows a stop sign and kills an innocent person and you say >> "forget it - human beings are fallible." > What about letting someone who was drunk at the time use his car to > drown his pregnant mistress, and then use their senatorial seat to > "sweep it under the rug?" I guess Mary Jo wasn't innocent enough for > you, or is it because the person who committed the act is the hero of > the political party you worship? Well, let's see. If such a case were presented to a coroner's jury, where evidence was offered and testimony taken, and disposed of according to the jury's verdict, I'd say you have no grounds for complaint - and a public proceeding of that kind is hardly sweeping anything under the rug. Nothing of the sort happened in Laura Welch's case. SignatureLars Eighner eighner@io.com http://www.larseighner.com/ "There's an old...saying in Tennessee...I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee that says Fool me once...Shame on...Shame on you....Fool me...Can't get fooled again." --George W. Bush >Well, let's see. If such a case were presented to a coroner's >jury, where evidence was offered and testimony taken, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Nothing of the sort happened in Laura Welch's case. Strange, Laura didn't leave the scene; Tubby did. Whenever I've encounter |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message