19
   

Mom kills her two teens for being mouthy.

 
 
CalamityJane
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 09:48 am
@Fido,
I sure hope you don't have children.
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 09:53 am
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:
I sure hope you don't have children.
Me too; its worked out OK so far.





David
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 10:00 am
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:

What? Are you serious. What child is going to stab, club or shoot their mother? Be serious. what child would consider that possibility even at the moment their being attacked that their parent would want to kill them.
There are a lot of parents who fear their children, and I have known some, and even been there at times... They only have to shake a phone at you once after they have once called the law... People cannot afford to deal with the law... They count the moments until they can toss the burden of unruled children onto the public street and bear the situation with gritted teeth...

What business has law in any family unless there is hard evidence of abuse??? With a word a child can threaten his parents with arrest, time in court and bankruptcy... Who does this serve??? And it does not end there... I changed the lock on an eighty year old woman's house the other day who fears her forty five year old son and though his health is so poor he seems always at death's door, he was the baby and so insists always to sit at his mother's table eating all she has and demanding more...The best situation is with every family making common cause against the world... Law puts us all at odds, even within the family; but it cannot handle the damage it does, and we cannot afford the corrective measures it takes... Law, and the expense of law, and the side effects of law are killing this country... Where is the natural limit... There is none... Once you have law there is no limit to it... Except cost which has already reached its limit... We need ever more law and cannot afford the law we have...
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 10:02 am
@Ragman,
Ragman wrote:
What? Are you serious. What child is going to stab, club or shoot their mother?
Every child who chooses survival; it HAS happened;
(as to fathers, anyway, that I 've heard about; maybe mothers).

I had a superb relationship with my mother
and my father never bothered me significantly,
but in such circumstances as the victims Yates,
I certainly WOUD have killed in self defense; no question.



Ragman wrote:
Be serious. what child would consider that possibility
even at the moment their being attacked
that their parent would want to kill them.
The YATES victims did; thay SAW the dead corpses in front of them,
floating in the bath tub.

One boy fled, ran thru the house,
(apparently did not find a weapon)
and was dragged back and drowned with the rest.





David
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 10:07 am
@CalamityJane,
CalamityJane wrote:

I sure hope you don't have children.
I do have children and one has mental and educational issues, and her frustrations are such that she has attacked both her mother and myself... But I have heard of far worse than I have suffered at her hands... Some parents go to sleep behind locked doors with knives stuffed under the mattress... They know it they have to have the cops called that they will be considered at fault and will have to pay support regardless... They struggle every day against the force of law to see their children raised with some kind of sense of family and social responsibility...

I am not saying the parent in question was not insane; but I will tell you that often the problems we suffer as parents can push us close to the edge because we really are offered no alternatives but to endure without social support... And most of us simply cannot afford it... We have insurance and still the cost is out of sight... Some people pay for sports... We pay for medicine and mental health...
0 Replies
 
Fido
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 10:19 am
@snood,
snood wrote:

Fido, do you have children of your own? The reason I ask is that in my experience it seems like the folks who are the most heatedly vocal about being for corporal punishment of kids are the ones who have the least regular personal contact with kids.
I do not hit my own kids, but the kid I have who got the best education and is probably considered from the point of view of law to be the greatest success I did scare the **** out of once when he was young because honestly, I lost it when he did something stupid, which was also stupid... We do not have power over our own as commuities once did, not the power of life or death, and hardly the power to correct... We do have influence and must use that to the utmost in raising children... The problem is that there are many children who do not learn well or fast, and parents cannot correct them and see them with each step toward majority getting closer to a prison cell... Law does not correct children either... The law slaps their paws until finally it loses patience and throws the book at kids... In the process the teach that there are not really any consequences to bad behavior, which is not the lesson any of us wants to teach... Parents should only use corporal punishment because once law gets a hold of a kid there is no mercy, and they are thrown in with a bunch of animals having no sense of mercy where they will be taught to abandon humanity altogether... The law brutalizes brutes, but in the process it teaches children that they have rights at the very worst time in their lives, when they have no sense of obligation or responsibility...
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 11:36 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Possibly, a knife or a hatchet
woud have worked with a little luck.





David
Andrea's children were (If I remember correctly) between the ages of six months and 8 years old. I doubt even with the 8 year old weilding a knife it would have made a difference. Sometimes, sad as it is, there is no protection.
ehBeth
 
  3  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 11:46 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Ceili wrote:
Only an idiot would give a 3 year old a gun.
OK, u got me. I guess that 3 is too young to be competent in gunnery,
but that did not stop me from lusting for police's revolvers, tho I got nothing for another 5 years.

Lemme ask u Ceili, (or anyone)
suppose that a toddler were about to be murdered.(Refer to those who actually WERE murdered.)
Woud u prefer that he have no access to a gun,
or that he have one within reach ?


given the dexterity of a toddler, there really is no benefit to them having a gun

they have enough difficulty getting Cheerios into their mouths
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 11:48 am
@Arella Mae,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Possibly, a knife or a hatchet
woud have worked with a little luck.





David
Arella Mae wrote:
Andrea's children were (If I remember correctly) between the ages of six months and 8 years old. I doubt even with the 8 year old weilding a knife it would have made a difference. Sometimes, sad as it is, there is no protection.
Possibly, a knife or a hatchet
woud have worked with a little luck.
That 's better than getting drowned to death.





David
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 11:51 am
@OmSigDAVID,
I read the book "Are You There Alone" about Andrea and her children. There were so many factors in this. Of course, when we all heard what she had done, we were shocked. Unfortunately, I think this is one tragedy that could have been avoided. A lot of things happened and a lot of red flags were missed.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 11:56 am
Sometimes that happens.

How 's JJ?
How's his mom ?
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 12:05 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
JJ is darling as ever. Getting so big. He doesn't take a thing off the other horses, especially Mac. If we would get some decent weather I could get some good pics.

Little Miss Joy is doing wonderfully. Dave had a bridle on her for the first time the other day. He said she did great!
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 12:14 pm
@Arella Mae,
Please tell him that I sent a hearty cyber-hoofshake!





David
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 12:55 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Hurling personal invective,
hitting the messenger below the belt,
turning attention away from the substance
of the message, reveals more about the hurler
than about his target.

An adjective modifies the noun and not the person being spoken to. Your argument is idiotic David.

Quote:
Your argument, Parados,
is in the same principle as saying:
"victims of fatalities in vehicular collisions sometimes
have been found wearing seatbelts.
Therefore, passengers in cars
shoud NOT wear seatbelts because thay r useless." NO sale.

Except there is clear and undeniable evidence that seat belts do save lives. There is no clear evidence that guns do. Quite the opposite. The country with one of the highest gun ownerships is the US. The country with one of the highest death by guns per 100,000 is the US.

But this leaves an even bigger hole in your argument David.
Are you arguing that a person with a gun has a better chance to kill their attacker?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 12:58 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
Possibly, a knife or a hatchet
woud have worked with a little luck.
That 's better than getting drowned to death.

And since a knife or a hatchet will do the job, why do they need a gun?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 02:31 pm
@parados,
David wrote:
Possibly, a knife or a hatchet
woud have worked with a little luck.
That 's better than getting drowned to death.
parados wrote:
And since a knife or a hatchet will do the job, why do they need a gun?
What is your reasoning in doing that, Parados?? I don 't object,
but u know that I 'll see your twist
in what I said. I am fully confident
that your intelligence is far more than enuf
that u did not twist it acccidentally.

OK, the answer is
that there is a better probability of success
when one uses the most ideal tools for the job.
In personal combat, at close quarters,
a chaotic & unpredictable situation arises.
U do the best job that u can with best equipment that is available.
Its all a question of getting the best odds of survival.

Tell me that u did not know that before u asked me.

(Still, its nice to see u again.)

If someone (like Jim Bowie) believes
that he can best secure his well being with a bladed weapon:
@ to his own taste.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 02:50 pm
@parados,
David wrote:
Your argument, Parados,
is in the same principle as saying:
"victims of fatalities in vehicular collisions sometimes
have been found wearing seatbelts.
Therefore, passengers in cars
shoud NOT wear seatbelts because thay r useless." NO sale.
parados wrote:
Except there is clear and undeniable evidence that seat belts do save lives.
There is no clear evidence that guns do.
People who have no confidence in guns
shoud not use guns.

Let them throw rocks,
or do whatever thay prefer.


parados wrote:
Quite the opposite. The country with one of the highest gun ownerships is the US. The country with one of the highest death by guns per 100,000 is the US.

But this leaves an even bigger hole in your argument David.
In deciding one 's personal security,
one needs to judge from an Individualistic perspective,
not a collectivist perspective.
Those who prefer to apply collectivist principles
instead of selfish ones are perfectly free to go around completely unarmed.





parados wrote:
Are you arguing that a person with a gun has a better chance to kill their attacker?
Of course. Yes.
The gun and its ammunition shoud be selected
after meticulously careful analysis
of achieving the greatest probability
of swiftly accomplishing that result
(in the same dispassionate spirit
of calculation that a military sniper
prepares his plans, insofar as is practicable).







David
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 06:29 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
OK, the answer is
that there is a better probability of success
when one uses the most ideal tools for the job.

So, a person intent on murder is more likely to succeed then if they have a gun, correct?
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 06:30 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Please tell him that I sent a hearty cyber-hoofshake!





David

Will do!
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 31 Jan, 2011 06:51 pm
@parados,
Quote:
OK, the answer is
that there is a better probability of success
when one uses the most ideal tools for the job.
parados wrote:
So, a person intent on murder is more likely to succeed then if they have a gun, correct?
Maybe, but not necessarily,
in that one who plans a malicious murder
is in control of those plans and he need not
proceed until he is satisfied that circumstances
r exactly to his liking, or as close thereto
as he, in his sole discretion, decides.

Sometimes, he might be able to contrive
and manipulate circumstances such as to
perpetrate the perfect crime
and (if he is patient) simply wait
until everything is perfect for that,
whereupon, the victim might simply
never re-appear in public (nor private) vu.
Whether his plans include guns, OR
like Brutus, Lizzie Borden, Bruno Hauptmann, O.J. Simpson, Mohamed Atta or Tim McV. thay don't,
is just a matter of his taste, or of his mood
during the planning process.

Anyway, it shoud be borne in mind
that he can MAKE his own guns,
or if he is too lazy for it,
resort to a blackmarket gunsmith.
People made their own guns
before Columbus sailed the Ocean Blue, but its faster n easier now
with electric tools and freely available engineering plans.





David
 

Related Topics

Florida grand jury to probe Trayvon Martin killing - Discussion by BumbleBeeBoogie
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/25/2021 at 03:33:01