QueenZone discussion #622187
bullies kill father of victim, 13'
| flash00. 14.09.2005 20:12 |
i read this today in the newspaper, its shocking! "a dad was stabbed through the heart after confronting two teenage thugs who bullied his 13-year-old son, the 35yr old man went looking for the yobs after they alledgedly turned up at his home to intimidate his son. he had phoned the police but been put on hold. minutes later he staggered back to the block of flats in brixton, south london, with a knife wound to his chest. the father died soon afterwards in hospital. His son told the court that a 14yr old boy had bullied him for days to steal £20.00 and to hand over a computer game. the court heard that the alleged bully threatened to kill the boys dad and later came to his home with a 16yr old". sorry about the long post, but i thought it was such a sad story. |
| Gunpowder Gelatine 14.09.2005 23:00 |
That's awful...I don't know what's wrong with some people... |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 15.09.2005 06:58 |
That's horrid... Britain needs to implement a death penalty for scum like this. |
| YourValentine 15.09.2005 07:49 |
Sure, FGT, something like that would never happen in the USA with all the death penalty preventing it... |
| The Mir@cle 15.09.2005 07:55 |
Don't you have something else to say FreddiesGhettoTrench, than telling us how good the American system is?? This is such a sad story... Unbelievable that such things happen. |
| Bob The Shrek 15.09.2005 07:56 |
It is against EU law to have the death penalty. |
| brENsKi 15.09.2005 08:38 |
YourValentine wrote: Sure, FGT, something like that would never happen in the USA with all the death penalty preventing it...absolutely right Barbara!! it's NO deterrent but look at the positive - you don't get repeat offenders |
| Mr.Jingles 15.09.2005 08:55 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: That's horrid... Britain needs to implement a death penalty for scum like this.Of course in the eyes of a right wing extremist, the American justice system under ultra-conservative rule is plain perfect. |
| FriedChicken 15.09.2005 10:08 |
I blame todays music |
| YourValentine 15.09.2005 10:18 |
Wednesday, March 2nd, 2005 In a landmark decision on the death penalty, the Supreme Court abolished the execution of juveniles. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a 5 to 4 ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for juveniles. The historic decision came in the Roper V. Simmons case out of Missouri which involved Christopher Simmons, who was 17 in 1993 when he tied up a woman and threw her from a bridge to her death. The Supreme Court decision overturned his death sentence declaring that the execution of juveniles violates the Eighth amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. This decision could affect more than 70 death-row inmates who face execution for murders done when they were 16 or 17 years old. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. In an unusual move, the Supreme Court ruling cited the "overwhelming weight of international opinion" in banning executions of those under 18. Justice Kennedy, noted that the U.S was the only country in the world that still officially permitted the execution of juveniles. He wrote that since 1990, only seven countries have executed persons under 18. They are Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo and China. However, all of these countries have since publicly disavowed the practice. Justice Kennedy also noted that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the juvenile death penalty, has been ratified by every country except Somalia and the United States. But fellow justice Antonin Scalia assailed Kennedy's argument. Scalia took the unusual step of reading his 24-page dissent from the bench. He accused the court of "proclaiming itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards." Scalia disputed the notion that a national consensus on the juvenile death penalty has emerged and warned about taking into account international opinion. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas signed onto Scalia's dissent. Justice Sandra O'Connor issued a separate dissenting argument. link |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 15.09.2005 10:20 |
Think about it. These people can ONLY get worse as they get older and stronger. Someone has already died because of these scumbags. |
| The Mir@cle 15.09.2005 10:24 |
You're serious, aren't ya?? Oh my.. You're even worse then I thought you were. Well, it's maybe better to lock you up too... You're already an extrimist and you ONLY get worse as you get older and stronger. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 15.09.2005 10:32 |
YourValentine wrote: Wednesday, March 2nd, 2005 In a landmark decision on the death penalty, the Supreme Court abolished the execution of juveniles. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In a 5 to 4 ruling yesterday, the Supreme Court abolished the death penalty for juveniles. The historic decision came in the Roper V. Simmons case out of Missouri which involved Christopher Simmons, who was 17 in 1993 when he tied up a woman and threw her from a bridge to her death. The Supreme Court decision overturned his death sentence declaring that the execution of juveniles violates the Eighth amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment. This decision could affect more than 70 death-row inmates who face execution for murders done when they were 16 or 17 years old. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the majority. Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented. In an unusual move, the Supreme Court ruling cited the "overwhelming weight of international opinion" in banning executions of those under 18. Justice Kennedy, noted that the U.S was the only country in the world that still officially permitted the execution of juveniles. He wrote that since 1990, only seven countries have executed persons under 18. They are Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of Congo and China. However, all of these countries have since publicly disavowed the practice. Justice Kennedy also noted that the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, which prohibits the juvenile death penalty, has been ratified by every country except Somalia and the United States. But fellow justice Antonin Scalia assailed Kennedy's argument. Scalia took the unusual step of reading his 24-page dissent from the bench. He accused the court of "proclaiming itself sole arbiter of our nation's moral standards." Scalia disputed the notion that a national consensus on the juvenile death penalty has emerged and warned about taking into account international opinion. Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence Thomas signed onto Scalia's dissent. Justice Sandra O'Connor issued a separate dissenting argument. linkA very stupid decision. What makes it so a person who is 18 is mature enough to understand that they killed someone, but not someone who is 17 11/12? |
| iGSM 15.09.2005 10:40 |
European Union doesn't allow it? Wow. Cool. |
| Mr.Jingles 15.09.2005 10:40 |
I am actually pro death penalty when it comes to very serious crimes, and I think that anyone above 13 has the ability to consciously commit a very serious crime. Only after a lot of deliberation and a fair trial the death penalty might be given to a juvenile. |
| The Mir@cle 15.09.2005 10:46 |
A guy of 13 years old is "cureable" and deserves a second chance... At that age, the parents are responsible and need to be punished in some way. |
| deleted user 15.09.2005 10:49 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: That's horrid... Britain needs to implement a death penalty for scum like this.Could you murder a 16 year old? |
| Bob The Shrek 15.09.2005 11:28 |
So is Mary Bell. |
| YourValentine 15.09.2005 12:14 |
"I am actually pro death penalty when it comes to very serious crimes, and I think that anyone above 13 has the ability to consciously commit a very serious crime. Only after a lot of deliberation and a fair trial the death penalty might be given to a juvenile." Looks like you have to move to Somalia if you want children executed because the rest of the world thinks that is really outrageous. But to be serious: Not executing criminals does not mean to let them go free. There are jails for juvenile criminals and there is therapy. Killing does not solve anything, it only brutalizes the society. The society has a right to be protected against convicted killers but killing them is not the answer. Just think about the 70 proven cases of wrongly executed alleged murderers in the Unites States - that alone is a reason to stop the killing. |
| Mr.Jingles 15.09.2005 12:57 |
I don't agree with killing any minor but rather putting them on death row. I think it's important to send these kids through rehab first. By the time they reach adulthood they could be given a trial in which their behavior through rehab will be analized. If they truly show conscience and regret of their actions, they could possibly be taken out of death row, and perhaps given a life sentence, or a lower the sentence for this matter. |
| Lisser 15.09.2005 13:11 |
You will find more times than not, children are a product of their environment. If a junvenille commits a crime, there should be a punishment but it should not be death. Take the child out of the environment they are currently in, attach a punishment to the crime (jail, detention center), but also provide rehabilitation and therapy. Juvenilles can be rehabilitated, especially if they can be released in to a healthy environment. This isn't the case in all situations, but the majority. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 15.09.2005 13:30 |
And then you "rehabilitate" them and they walk out of prison and kill more people. There should never be a second chance for murderers. Victims rights NEED to come before killers' rights. |
| pma 15.09.2005 13:47 |
We should universally in every nation... - cut off the hands of thieves - punish those filthy homosexuals with a public impalement (with a giant dildo naturally) - crucify those who act in an un-godly manner and those who dare not attend church on sundays - bring back lynching... it perks up any sunday - ban inter-racial marriages (naturally) (homo moronicus-dumbassicus may not marry homo sapiens anymore) - have a goverment ran "ethically sound" and "compassionate" program of eugenics to improve the "racial" qualities of citizens. And to prevent those poor bastards from breeding... - Remember that I'm right and you're wrong and on the internet that's all that matters! na na na naa naa There, now let's all act upon this list to truly "heal the world" and make it a better place, for you and for me and the entire human race... |
| Mr.Jingles 15.09.2005 13:53 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: And then you "rehabilitate" them and they walk out of prison and kill more people. There should never be a second chance for murderers. Victims rights NEED to come before killers' rights.Of course in your book Mark Fuhrman deserves a second chance after he commited perjury (a felony) based on his racist views. Why the murderer doesn't deserve a second chance but the racist felon does? This is something that simply doesn't make sense. |
| PieterMC 15.09.2005 15:07 |
Barry © wrote: If you think this is bad take a look at the James Bulger case, link These 2 killers are out now with secret identities living a life of riley.This was really one of the worst murder cases I can ever remember in the UK. What they did is beyond belief. |
| dragonzflame 15.09.2005 18:11 |
I remember that, it happened the year I lived in the UK. Even aged 7 I was still shocked. You could compare Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme over here, remember the film Heavenly Creatures? They had their identities changed and were allowed to go and make their own lives, and as far as I know neither of them committed any more crimes. One of them now lives in Scotland and is a crime writer. So maybe for juvenile offenders there is some hope of rehabilitation I still don't advocate the death penalty for anyone though. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 15.09.2005 18:38 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:Because Fuhrman never took anyone's life. Sure, people were offended by his remarks. As a Hispanic woman, I was offended myself. But the people who were offended by Fuhrman's mouth can get up and go home to their families. People that are murdered cannot.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: And then you "rehabilitate" them and they walk out of prison and kill more people. There should never be a second chance for murderers. Victims rights NEED to come before killers' rights.Of course in your book Mark Fuhrman deserves a second chance after he commited perjury (a felony) based on his racist views. Why the murderer doesn't deserve a second chance but the racist felon does? This is something that simply doesn't make sense. |
| doremi 15.09.2005 18:41 |
<font color=green>Bren<font color=orange>ski wrote:Agree but Martin more repeat murderers get off scott free anyhow here in the US because the ''system'' seems to always either have some legal technicality or some bleading heart.YourValentine wrote: Sure, FGT, something like that would never happen in the USA with all the death penalty preventing it...absolutely right Barbara!! it's NO deterrent but look at the positive - you don't get repeat offenders Here in Maryland 2 legal age Illegal Alien/Illegal Immigrant Hispanic men, slaughtered and DECAPITATED their OWN, 3 nieces and nephews (all small children)..to retaliate to their OWN family, because the 2 men had paid money to their family to hide them from US Immigration Authorities, but were found out... ... due to a stupid hung jury who could not reach a verdict, so the 2 murderers got off scott free. SUCKS as so does what happened to that poor man who died defending his son over there. |
| The Real Wizard 16.09.2005 00:37 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Think about it. These people can ONLY get worse as they get older and stronger. Someone has already died because of these scumbags. And then you "rehabilitate" them and they walk out of prison and kill more people. There should never be a second chance for murderers. Victims rights NEED to come before killers' rights.Wow, I'm glad we have someone here who has studied the psychological patterns of murderers for years and thus truly understands them in all cases. I think you should run for president next term. USA is the only country in the western world that has such a high percentage of ultra-conservatives. Shouldn't that tell the rest of us something about the way that country is run, and how it manipulates young people into believing there is no alternative to the death penalty, among so many other outrageous, irrational, and bigoted ideas? Gah, it's best not to think about it. YV, Jingles, and Lisser are talking sense here. I can only hope that more and more children will grow up to be like you. |
| Penis - Vagina 16.09.2005 03:34 |
Since it's a scientific fact that peoples brains aren't fully developed until sometime around age 16, I can't support a death penalty for minors regardless of circumstances. I do however object to the ridiculous habit of letting violent offenders out when they turn 18 and sealing their records. I think certain crimes should automatically keep the person, regardless of age, away from society permanently. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 16.09.2005 06:55 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Can I ask why liberals feel that bloodthirsty murderers should have more rights than Terri Schiavo did?FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Think about it. These people can ONLY get worse as they get older and stronger. Someone has already died because of these scumbags.And then you "rehabilitate" them and they walk out of prison and kill more people. There should never be a second chance for murderers. Victims rights NEED to come before killers' rights.Wow, I'm glad we have someone here who has studied the psychological patterns of murderers for years and thus truly understands them in all cases. I think you should run for president next term. USA is the only country in the western world that has such a high percentage of ultra-conservatives. Shouldn't that tell the rest of us something about the way that country is run, and how it manipulates young people into believing there is no alternative to the death penalty, among so many other outrageous, irrational, and bigoted ideas? Gah, it's best not to think about it. YV, Jingles, and Lisser are talking sense here. I can only hope that more and more children will grow up to be like you. |
| Bob The Shrek 16.09.2005 10:26 |
Because capial punishment is not, in fact, punishment at all - it is Government sponsored revenge. If you take away a person's basic right to live, you are no better than the murderers themselves. |
| iGSM 16.09.2005 10:34 |
<< bring back lynching... it perks up any sunday >> Hell yes! I'll be up for that anyday! Seriously I remember that little boy being killed and remember thinking (even though I was a young 'un) that it was horrible. I don't think any child can plan murder. The circumstances behind it would have to be extraordinary..even though it seemed with James Bulger that they wanted to get rid of the little kid. Eee. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 16.09.2005 13:18 |
<b><font color = "crimson">ThomasQuinn wrote:She was NOT dead. She was only dead after they STARVED her to death.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:Because Terri Schiavo was dead and murderers are mentally ill. So are you, by the way.Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Can I ask why liberals feel that bloodthirsty murderers should have more rights than Terri Schiavo did?FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Think about it. These people can ONLY get worse as they get older and stronger. Someone has already died because of these scumbags.And then you "rehabilitate" them and they walk out of prison and kill more people. There should never be a second chance for murderers. Victims rights NEED to come before killers' rights.Wow, I'm glad we have someone here who has studied the psychological patterns of murderers for years and thus truly understands them in all cases. I think you should run for president next term. USA is the only country in the western world that has such a high percentage of ultra-conservatives. Shouldn't that tell the rest of us something about the way that country is run, and how it manipulates young people into believing there is no alternative to the death penalty, among so many other outrageous, irrational, and bigoted ideas? Gah, it's best not to think about it. YV, Jingles, and Lisser are talking sense here. I can only hope that more and more children will grow up to be like you. |
| Lisser 16.09.2005 13:31 |
I finally had some time to read the 8 chapters on the killing of baby James. I had never heard this story until now. I made my comment about children being a product of their environments before I had had the time to read about Baby James. I still stand by my stance that children are, very much, a product of their environments and home lives. I wish all children could be brought up in a loving, nurturing home. It won't happen however. I also wish that Baby James mother did not take her eyes off her son that day. My children are physically not allowed to "wander off." Cameron is 7 and does know she is not allowed to leave my hand, she wouldn't even try to. I've warned her of people that might want to take her from me...the same thing that my parents said to me. Anthony is 2 and like I said, it is physically impossible for him to leave me and wander off. When I am out of the safety of my own four walls at home, my children are in the shopping cart that I am pushing or Anthony is in his stroller that I am pushing. If someone tries to physically remove them from me, they are going to have to kill me or chop my arms off to get them from me. I dare anyone to try to take my children from me. These two children that did this to this baby were being robbed of love, security, and basic needs at home. This would not have happened if their parents fullfilled their obligations to them. The children needed to be removed from their current environments, counseled, and taught proper coping skills to deal with what has happened to them in the past. They can be productive citizens and I would not give up on them. Nothing can bring Baby James back but maybe Robert and Jon can go on to lead positive lives and teach other abused children how ask for help. |
| Mr.Jingles 16.09.2005 13:31 |
According to doctors Terri Schiavo was on a vegetate stage in which she brain dead, and therefore she couldn't feel any pain. Personally for a person who has no chances or recovering from a coma or a vegetate state, it might possibly be better to just pull the plug. I have no doubt in my mind that I'd much rather die than living like a vegetable, and having my loved us constantly suffering for watching me living in such a way. |
| The Real Wizard 16.09.2005 14:28 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Can I ask why liberals feel that bloodthirsty murderers should have more rights than Terri Schiavo did?Because there is a chance the murderer can be rehabilitated. There was no chance of Terri living a life of any kind. She was NOT dead. She was only dead after they STARVED her to death.She was a complete vegetable. If your cerebral cortex is not in operation, then you might as well be dead. Scientific fact. Deal with it. End of subject. Barry © wrote: Excellent post Lisser.Agreed! I'm sure you're a fantastic mother. |
| Mr.Jingles 16.09.2005 15:10 |
FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:So if you were offended, then you agree that his remarks were racist. Then why on the other thread you stated that Fuhrman wasn't racist?Mr.Jingles wrote:Because Fuhrman never took anyone's life. Sure, people were offended by his remarks. As a Hispanic woman, I was offended myself. But the people who were offended by Fuhrman's mouth can get up and go home to their families. People that are murdered cannot.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: And then you "rehabilitate" them and they walk out of prison and kill more people. There should never be a second chance for murderers. Victims rights NEED to come before killers' rights.Of course in your book Mark Fuhrman deserves a second chance after he commited perjury (a felony) based on his racist views. Why the murderer doesn't deserve a second chance but the racist felon does? This is something that simply doesn't make sense. Also Fuhrman was accused of perjury. Do yo even know what perjury is? It might not be a crime as bad as murder, but it's still a very serious crime, especially coming from a local official. Perjury in case you might not know is consciously giving a false state, or giving misleading information during a trial in which all people called to testify are under oath. Now, we all know that O.J. Simpson was most likely guilty, but chances are that Fuhrman has previously used his tactics to either arrest or frame people because they were black or hispanic. The difference here, is that this time he had to put up with someone who had enough money to pay a really fuckin' clever lawyer like Johhnie Cochran. |
| Lisser 16.09.2005 17:34 |
Sir GH<br><h6>ah yeah</h6> wrote:Thank you Barry and thank you Sir GH...I have my parents to thank for my parenting skills. I couldn't ask for anything more in my parents..I'm grateful every day for them.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Can I ask why liberals feel that bloodthirsty murderers should have more rights than Terri Schiavo did?Because there is a chance the murderer can be rehabilitated. There was no chance of Terri living a life of any kind.She was NOT dead. She was only dead after they STARVED her to death.She was a complete vegetable. If your cerebral cortex is not in operation, then you might as well be dead. Scientific fact. Deal with it. End of subject.Barry © wrote: Excellent post Lisser.Agreed! I'm sure you're a fantastic mother. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 16.09.2005 22:01 |
Mr.Jingles wrote:I agree that his REMARKS were racist, not that FUHRMAN is a racist. For one thing, I attend a school that is 1/3 black, and so I have witnessed some incredibly strange racial relations. I had a best friend back in grade school who used to listen to Dr. Dre and other rap artists 24/7, had a ton of black friends, but would make the most off-the-wall comments about African-Americans that would make my head spin. Was I offended? Yes, and I told him so. Was he racist? No, he was just 1) repeating something someone else said or 2) saying shit just to say shit. And of course, in the case of Fuhrman, we have the fact that he was speaking in the capacity of a FICTIONAL CHARACTER. Speaking as a writer myself, I know that a person doesn't always endorse what their characters do. Sometimes you try to make a character as out-of-control as possible just to prove a point.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:So if you were offended, then you agree that his remarks were racist. Then why on the other thread you stated that Fuhrman wasn't racist?Mr.Jingles wrote:Because Fuhrman never took anyone's life. Sure, people were offended by his remarks. As a Hispanic woman, I was offended myself. But the people who were offended by Fuhrman's mouth can get up and go home to their families. People that are murdered cannot.FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: And then you "rehabilitate" them and they walk out of prison and kill more people. There should never be a second chance for murderers. Victims rights NEED to come before killers' rights.Of course in your book Mark Fuhrman deserves a second chance after he commited perjury (a felony) based on his racist views. Why the murderer doesn't deserve a second chance but the racist felon does? This is something that simply doesn't make sense. Also Fuhrman was accused of perjury. Do yo even know what perjury is?Actually, Fuhrman was not guilty of perjury. Perjury is lying about a fact CRUCIAL TO A CASE. Therefore, if someone asks you what shirt you were wearing about you say red, and it was blue, that's not perjury. Whether Fuhrman had used the N-word in the past ten years was only of revelence to Cochran and his team who wanted to play the race card by inflaming the black jury, because they knew all of the evidence pointed to Simpson. There is question as to whether Fuhrman would have been convicted of perjury. As it were, he pled "no contest" because he did not have the money or the resources available to defend himself in the trial that would ensue. It might not be a crime as bad as murder, but it's still a very serious crime, especially coming from a local official. Perjury in case you might not know is consciously giving a false state, or giving misleading information during a trial in which all people called to testify are under oath. Now, we all know that O.J. Simpson was most likely guilty,How about obviously 100% guilty? but chances are that Fuhrman has previously used his tactics to either arrest or frame people because they were black or hispanic.Then why did Fuhrman work to free a black man whom he felt was not guilty (Aarick Harris)? The difference here, is that this time he had to put up with someone who had enough money to pay a really fuckin' clever lawyer like Johhnie Cochran.Fuhrman was not "out to get" Simpson. He simply found the one glove, bloodstains, etc. He didn't know the evidence would point to Simpson, it wasn't his job to try the prosecutor's case. Also, with no offense to Johnnie Cochran, I don't consider the defense's strategy to be extremely "clever". I have ultimately more respect for Shapiro, who wished to play it clean, than for Bailey and Cochran, who took over t |
| Mr.Jingles 17.09.2005 00:22 |
For the 387th time... just about every single time that Fuhrman utter the word "nigger" on the McKinny tapes he was talking about his personal views and police procedures. Fuhrman was and not writing the actual screenplay because McKinny is the one who was planning on writing the screenplay and needed someone for the LAPD to give personal experiences as a reference. Did you even bother reading the script of the McKinny testimony when she was being interviewed by Johnnie Cochran? Seriously, if a white person is saying the word "nigger" without using it to express his own personal views, why find it offensive? Trying to prove by now that Fuhrman wasn't racist, is like trying to prove that Ashlee Simpson has talent. So blame it on acid-reflux. |
| bitesthedust 17.09.2005 06:12 |
I agree with you Linda. I never have understood why the two who murdered James Bulger were allowed to lead normal lives again, albeit under new identities. |
| FreddiesGhettoTrench 17.09.2005 10:41 |
Mr.Jingles wrote: For the 387th time... just about every single time that Fuhrman utter the word "nigger" on the McKinny tapes he was talking about his personal views and police procedures.It was a SCREENPLAY tape, and Fuhrman was talking in the capacity of the views of a CHARACTER. Fuhrman was and not writing the actual screenplay because McKinny is the one who was planning on writing the screenplay and needed someone for the LAPD to give personal experiences as a reference.Fuhrman was helping her write the screenplay. After all, the screenplay was his idea. The idea: a group called Men Against Women is in work at a police department, and they harass and intimidate new women police officers. A strong female protaganist shows up and manages to thwart the group. There would also be several subplots, humor, cases, etc. If Fuhrman had no involvement in the WRITING Did you even bother reading the script of the McKinny testimony when she was being interviewed by Johnnie Cochran?Yes, I did, and I feel that McKinny's testimony could have been fairly twisted. After all, she only brought the tapes to the attention of the defense after she failed to sell them to several tabloids. She had an ax to grind with Fuhrman over their past romantic/sexual relationship. Seriously, if a white person is saying the word "nigger" without using it to express his own personal views, why find it offensive?Because the word itself IS offensive. It was offensive when Bailey used it to question Fuhrman, for instance. Bailey had no reason he needed to use the word. He could have simply said "Have you used any racially derogatory terms in the past ten years?", instead, he felt the need to harp on that particular word the way the news anchors harped on "oral sex" during the Lewinsky scandal. There was no reason for it. The word is offensive, plain and simple, and it's a word I do not use and I strongly feel that no one else should, either. |