QueenZone discussion #645817

Mr.Jingles wrote: Believe it or not Mark Chapman was a Beatles fan who has been extremely upset over the break up of the band in 1970, and bowed revenge against whoever put an end to the Fab 4. Mark Chapman also suffered from myopia, and that tragic night of December 8th 1980 he happened to leave his glasses at his hotel room. Chapman approached a couple about the enter the Dakota building right next to NY's Central Park. After firing those shots, Chapman's first reaction was... "Shit, that wasn't Yoko!"

Mr.Jingles wrote: Believe it or not Mark Chapman was a Beatles fan who has been extremely upset over the break up of the band in 1970, and bowed revenge against whoever put an end to the Fab 4.

Serry... wrote:

Mr.Jingles wrote: Believe it or not Mark Chapman was a Beatles fan who has been extremely upset over the break up of the band in 1970, and bowed revenge against whoever put an end to the Fab 4.

Someone knows where's BPP? He has a gun, he's a cop... I'm afraid for Roger and Brian...

its_a_hard_life wrote: "Did you know that Chapman got an autograph from Lennon only few hours before he shot him?" Really? How do you know this?

Mercuryworks wrote: link Here is the picture of the autograph

jeroen wrote: Well... err... it has always been kind-of a known fact that he approached Lennon for an autograph earlier on the day.

Serry... wrote: link link

dragonzflame wrote: What is funny is that another reason for his doing it was apparently to become famous himself as The Guy Who Shot John Lennon. I did a (purely unscientific) survey of people I know asking "Who is Mark David Chapman?" and a stunning 1 in 10 (or so) actually knew. Try this at home, kids. So I think it's safe to suggest that MDC failed.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: MDC is not even worth talking about. He should have been at the end of a rope 24 years ago.

dragonzflame wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: MDC is not even worth talking about. He should have been at the end of a rope 24 years ago.

Fuck capital punishment.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

dragonzflame wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: MDC is not even worth talking about. He should have been at the end of a rope 24 years ago.

Fuck capital punishment.

Oh, yes, because MDC's life is SOOO valuable. It would be a real loss to the world if he died.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

dragonzflame wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: MDC is not even worth talking about. He should have been at the end of a rope 24 years ago.

Fuck capital punishment.

Oh, yes, because MDC's life is SOOO valuable. It would be a real loss to the world if he died.

Hey, I thought you just said that Mark David Chapman is not even worth talking about.

Bob The Shrek wrote: What's the difference between a butterfly and a beetle? You can't shoot a butterfly six times.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Bob The Shrek wrote: What's the difference between a butterfly and a beetle? You can't shoot a butterfly six times.

Okay, first of all, really evil joke. Second of all, he was shot FIVE times.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

dragonzflame wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: MDC is not even worth talking about. He should have been at the end of a rope 24 years ago.

Fuck capital punishment.

Oh, yes, because MDC's life is SOOO valuable. It would be a real loss to the world if he died.

Hey, I thought you just said that Mark David Chapman is not even worth talking about.

iGSM wrote: I think him sitting there in his cell pondering over what he did 25 years ago is just punishment. Knowing if he's released he wouldn't last long and that he'll probably die old, stupid and gray in a prison for shooting a Beatle is good enough for me.

<font color=silver>Dennis Daja<h6>A Lord wrote: Chapman's obviously a schizo

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

<font color=silver>Dennis Daja<h6>A Lord wrote: Chapman's obviously a schizo

Nope, not actually. None of Chapman's actions are consistent with schizophrenia. He's just a bona fide asshole.

iGSM wrote: Revolution 9 is not a song. Neither is (probably) Carnival of Light/Etcetera.

Mr.Jingles wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

<font color=silver>Dennis Daja<h6>A Lord wrote: Chapman's obviously a schizo

Nope, not actually. None of Chapman's actions are consistent with schizophrenia. He's just a bona fide asshole.

I wouldn't say an asshole. Just a Beatles fan who thought 'Revolution 9' was a far worse song than it actually was.

dixie wrote: i always thought that chapman was going to kill yoko but he missed her and got john

dragonzflame wrote:

iGSM wrote: I think him sitting there in his cell pondering over what he did 25 years ago is just punishment. Knowing if he's released he wouldn't last long and that he'll probably die old, stupid and gray in a prison for shooting a Beatle is good enough for me.

This hurts me to say but...I agree ;-) Death is an easy way out, which is one of the reasons I don't like capital punishment. FGT, you seem very inconsistent. You're pro-life, but yet you support the death penalty? Abortion and Terri Schaivo is one thing, but you seem to be forgetting the vast numbers of innocent people who are executed due to being convicted on inaccurate evidence. And making people spend decades on death row is nothing short of barbaric.

Rip Van Winkle wrote: Beside the ethical dillema of executing innocents, housing a prisoner for life costs much less than trying to impose the death penalty.

Rip Van Winkle wrote: FGT - Get real. Death Penalty for a superstar ... brilliant ... like that will ever happen. How can you convict a superstar with the death penalty if he can not be convicted without a death penalty?

Superstars normally have done something positive with their live, so that pinning the monster label on a superstar (even if they murdered someone) is extremely difficult.

The death penalty is normally reserved for the poor who can not afford high profile lawyers ... and who pays the entire cost of these death penalty cases ... the tax payers ... and our illustrious justice system still often wrongly sentences someone to death.

PS. Terry was dead 15 years before the feeding tube was removed, and it took that long because her parents are idiotic brainwashed Catholics with deep pockets. Terry's ex-husband is a saint having to put with his lunatic in-laws.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Yeah, well, MDC was convicted on a multitude of evidence, there was nothing inaccurate about it. And Terri Schiavo...never...committed...a...crime. Evil disgusting murderers who OBVIOUSLY killed people (*cough*OJ*cough*) deserve to be nowhere else but at the end of a rope/in the electric chair/etc. As for it being "barbaric", I think barbaric better describes the people who committed these crimes. There was a girl who went to the next high school over around here, and she was raped and murdered by some disgusting thug, and her body was found in a gas tank in West Philly. That's not barbaric?

Yes, that is. It's disgusting and wrong and I hope they catch whoever did it and he pays.
I retract what I said about Terri Schaivo - I didn't mean to start that argument again!
As for your "evil disgusting murderers", I hope you become a lawyer and get it right 100% of the time, that only people who have been rightfully convicted spend 20 years on death row waiting for what will inevitably be a hideous death. You think it's right that they hand out death sentences to people on the basis of circumstantial evidence, to people who steadfastly proclaim their innocence all the way to the chair? You think it's right that when the person's strapped into the chair, innocent or not, they wait for seven minutes to begin? Yep, that's justice all right.

Mr.Jingles wrote: People, why do we even bother arguing with Sarajane? She's the same person who thinks that putting a woman on a vegetate state out of her misery is a MURDER, but yet she has no problem with someone who starts a war based on lies and wrong information, orders the invasion of a country and causes the death to thousands of innocent civilians, while leaving lots more injured or mutilated. Does that make sense to any of you?

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Show any jury with more than three braincells the pictures of Ron and Nicole lying on the ground with blood gushing out of them and that asshole would have been at the chair before anyone could blink, whether the fucking glove fit or not.

Music Man wrote: I don't want to read this thread. Why has it been going on so long? I'm assuming we are off the topic of 'who killed John Lennon?' What is it now, if anyone can give me a quick synopsis?

Lester Burnham wrote:

Music Man wrote: I don't want to read this thread. Why has it been going on so long? I'm assuming we are off the topic of 'who killed John Lennon?' What is it now, if anyone can give me a quick synopsis?

You already said you read it, but any thread that involves FGT always degenerates into some stupid argument about OJ. It's inevitable. Best to just roll your eyes and carry on.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: O.J. did something positive? He caught a fucking ball.

Music Man wrote:

Lester Burnham wrote:

Music Man wrote: I don't want to read this thread. Why has it been going on so long? I'm assuming we are off the topic of 'who killed John Lennon?' What is it now, if anyone can give me a quick synopsis?

You already said you read it, but any thread that involves FGT always degenerates into some stupid argument about OJ. It's inevitable. Best to just roll your eyes and carry on.

Did I already read it? Then I must have stopped reading it and let it keep going. Or forgot immediately after reading. Hold on, I feel another witty comment coming on...

Lester Burnham wrote:

Music Man wrote:

Lester Burnham wrote:

Music Man wrote: I don't want to read this thread. Why has it been going on so long? I'm assuming we are off the topic of 'who killed John Lennon?' What is it now, if anyone can give me a quick synopsis?

You already said you read it, but any thread that involves FGT always degenerates into some stupid argument about OJ. It's inevitable. Best to just roll your eyes and carry on.

Did I already read it? Then I must have stopped reading it and let it keep going. Or forgot immediately after reading. Hold on, I feel another witty comment coming on...

I didn't mean that in a sarcastic way, I just meant that you'd already posted that you skimmed the thread, but I thought I would throw in my two cents anyway.

Mr.Jingles wrote: Threads started by Sarajane (regardless of the subject) eventually turn into an arguments about: - The Bush administration - Iraq/Saddam Hussein - War On Terror/9-11 - Terri Schiavo/Euthanasia - OJ Simpson / Mark Fuhrman - Abortion - Crime - Racism ...and that just to mention a few.

Music Man wrote: I think I posted that afterwards. I'm kind of confused at what you mean.

Lester Burnham wrote:

Music Man wrote: I think I posted that afterwards. I'm kind of confused at what you mean.

I think I've gone cross-eyed. Forget I said anything.

Music Man wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Show any jury with more than three braincells the pictures of Ron and Nicole lying on the ground with blood gushing out of them and that asshole would have been at the chair before anyone could blink, whether the fucking glove fit or not.

Okay, I read the thread. More like I gave it a cursory glance. Either way, don't you think this is what we call "biasing the jury?" You know, having the jury base their decision not upon evidence, but manipulative tricks of prosecuting attorneys?

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Music Man wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Show any jury with more than three braincells the pictures of Ron and Nicole lying on the ground with blood gushing out of them and that asshole would have been at the chair before anyone could blink, whether the fucking glove fit or not.

Okay, I read the thread. More like I gave it a cursory glance. Either way, don't you think this is what we call "biasing the jury?" You know, having the jury base their decision not upon evidence, but manipulative tricks of prosecuting attorneys?

Hmm, let's see what the defense did. The defense had 0 evidence and so spent the entire time prejudicing the jury by making the LAPD out to be racists.

Music Man wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Music Man wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Show any jury with more than three braincells the pictures of Ron and Nicole lying on the ground with blood gushing out of them and that asshole would have been at the chair before anyone could blink, whether the fucking glove fit or not.

Okay, I read the thread. More like I gave it a cursory glance. Either way, don't you think this is what we call "biasing the jury?" You know, having the jury base their decision not upon evidence, but manipulative tricks of prosecuting attorneys?

Hmm, let's see what the defense did. The defense had 0 evidence and so spent the entire time prejudicing the jury by making the LAPD out to be racists.

Then you should blame the prosecution for not calling the right objections.

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Music Man wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Music Man wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Show any jury with more than three braincells the pictures of Ron and Nicole lying on the ground with blood gushing out of them and that asshole would have been at the chair before anyone could blink, whether the fucking glove fit or not.

Okay, I read the thread. More like I gave it a cursory glance. Either way, don't you think this is what we call "biasing the jury?" You know, having the jury base their decision not upon evidence, but manipulative tricks of prosecuting attorneys?

Hmm, let's see what the defense did. The defense had 0 evidence and so spent the entire time prejudicing the jury by making the LAPD out to be racists.

Then you should blame the prosecution for not calling the right objections.

It's more the judge's fault for letting all of the defense's BS in. In the civil trial, they had a no-B.S. judge and he didn't let any of the defense's B.S. go through. A 12-zip vote for liability.

Music Man wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Music Man wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote:

Music Man wrote:

FreddiesGhettoTrench wrote: Show any jury with more than three braincells the pictures of Ron and Nicole lying on the ground with blood gushing out of them and that asshole would have been at the chair before anyone could blink, whether the fucking glove fit or not.

Okay, I read the thread. More like I gave it a cursory glance. Either way, don't you think this is what we call "biasing the jury?" You know, having the jury base their decision not upon evidence, but manipulative tricks of prosecuting attorneys?

Hmm, let's see what the defense did. The defense had 0 evidence and so spent the entire time prejudicing the jury by making the LAPD out to be racists.

Then you should blame the prosecution for not calling the right objections.

It's more the judge's fault for letting all of the defense's BS in. In the civil trial, they had a no-B.S. judge and he didn't let any of the defense's B.S. go through. A 12-zip vote for liability.

Or perhaps the first judge was the better one. How could we ever know?