Re: Phyllis Schlafly: Quite a woman!

"PolishKnight" <marek1@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:marek1-943931.22031308012008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <_RDgj.34458$JD.20058@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"PolishKnight" <marek1@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:marek1-D441A3.21515807012008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <FT_fj.28337$4V6.16516@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"PolishKnight" <marek1@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:marek1-69B4A0.19152705012008@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <rvRfj.33863$lD6.28088@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Grizzlie Antagonist" <lloydsofhanford@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Jill" <perspicacious@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message

Almost al the way through the thread but I'll save time and stick
with
your last reply to me. The last comment I made in my post from
last
night was rhetorical and was intended to make you take a closer
look
at your own behavior in this thread. You misinterpreted my
rhetorical
question to mean you needed to supply me with an answer.

You completely missed my comment that the behaviors you found
wanting
in me are *equally* true of you. In that comment I passively
admitted
I hadn't always handled things especially well. You completely
missed
the admission. Of course, you also missed that you are often
guilty
of doing the same.

I've decided to be the bigger "man" in this discussion and "let
it
go"
as you yourself suggested I should do. Apparently you are one of
those people who freely gives advice but is unable to follow your
own
advice. Some people might call that hypocrisy.

Just so there is no future misinterpretation of my remarks in
this
particular post, I will sum it up neatly for you now. I'm done
with
this discussion. Of course, you can continue arguing it alone or
with
Andre...but I'm done.



Why she
Had to go; I don't know
She wouldn't say.

I said
Something wrong
Now I long
For yesterday...

Lennon/McCartney

You can almost hear the heavy footsteps as she stomps out and yells
"You're just as wrong as me! I don't care what YOU think!
Goodbye!!!"
and slams the door.



Yes, I guess that she showed me.


This reminds me of an incident I don't know if I mentioned on
soc.men
previously but is worth telling.

I had a 43 y/o girlfriend and her 25 y/o daughter was staying with
us
and she was having a big spat with her mother. I stayed out of it
mostly until the end where she stomps off to the door and yells
something on that order "I'm leaving and GOODBYE!!!" and I
applauded.

She lost her temper and came back to punch at me. I didn't want to
run
away like a sissy but at the same time didn't know if I could defend
myself without hurting her (which would be legally problematic in
our
"equal" society as you know.)



Yes. And you think that I'm being silly for remaining on the
sidelines.


So I picked up a chair and held it
between us just to give us some space.

She grabbed at the chair with surprising strength and jerked it so
hard
that I felt a pain in my right shoulder. After she gave me a few
small
punches, I lied down on the couch thinking I had sprained it. As it
turned out later, I had actually dislocated it.

The police arrived due to neighbors possibly calling them from all
the
noise and they saw me on the couch and I said my shoulder hurt and
they
expressed some sympathy, but didn't investigate things further.
They
just checked to make sure that the women weren't hurt and left. My
girlfriend told me later that if I had pressed charges, it's likely
I
would have also been charged.



Likely so. I'm surprised that you even got sympathy.

I once had a DV case involving a petite woman who had backed her
husband
into a corner and stabbed him with a fork repeatedly.

This guy was a brawny truckdriver who could have casually swatted her
away,
but he undoubtedly had the same concerns so he allowed himself to be
stabbed
with the fork.

Yikes! Was she on defense or was this poor guy being charged with
injuring her fork?



No, she was the defendant.



The daughter felt very bad at that point and volunteered to come
along
but I said I didn't care at that point but just wanted to go to the
hospital (I had healthcare insurance and it was $50 for the
emergency
room). She never did give me $50.00...



I wonder if it would have been covered under Clinton Care.



When I was later called in for jury duty where they were trying to
railroad a hispanic man for DV for fighting back against his inlaws
(and
some of the women said outright a man shouldn't fight back), I
brought
this up during questioning and the judge immediately gave me the
boot.
(I was an alternate anyway and didn't want to hang around.)


Really? Are you sure that there isn't more to the story than that?

Of course not. As I said, this is what I got the gist from jury
selection.

I assume that the defense theory of the case was self-defense. Surely
the
prosecutor wasn't conceding that the defendant had acted in
self-defense.

If that was the defense theory of the case, the people who should have
been
booted were those who said that a man shouldn't fight back. Even
someone
on
felony probation has the right to use force in "lawful self defense".

I don't know if he was using a self-defense case, but apparently the
mother decided to renig at the last second on visitation for the
ex-boyfriend even as he brought balloons and had tickets to some park.

He lost his temper and grabbed the children to take them across the
street to his car. The women (mother and daughter) apparently attacked
him to get him to drop the children and in the process of going at him
resulted in him not looking at traffic and a car having to stop to
avoid
hitting him and the children (they were going after him for child
endangerment.) They were also going after him for kidnapping and
assault.

I can't imagine from what I heard that he hit both the mother AND
daughter just for the fun of it to get the children. After all, if he
was THAT serious, they wouldn't look so good. :-)

Of course, anything is possible but the way the case started out and
the
man-as-whipping-boy positions of some of the jurors, it didn't look so
good for the guy.


I cannot believe that they were allowed to remain on the jury.

Quick question for you: She gave us this lecture (before I got booted)
about how "she decides matters of law and you [the jury] decide matters
of fact."


That's my understanding of the respective functions of judge and jury.


It sounds like bull*** but basically it was for us to just
be robots and just decide if the "evidence" presented to us was factual
and then to decide to convict or not.


I think that the world would be a better place to live in without female
judges but that does sound like an equitable division of labor between judge
and jury.


I would have liked to ask her if maybe the California legislature
decided "matters of law".



Obviously, it does, just as the national legislature does. It is, however,
left up to judges on the trial and appellate court levels to interpret what
the legislatures enacted.



And if "facts" are presented but irrelevent to
the matter of guilt, are we still supposed to convict?




Of course not. It does sound as though her dividing line between "law" and
"fact" was improperly drawn.



What's the exact full legal rights of a juror in deciding the case
anyway?



I dealt with this in another post. You take an oath to enforce the law.
But when the twelve of you go back to deliberate, you are pretty much
monarchs of your own realm. You have no obligation other than -- maybe -- a
moral one to enforce the law, as the judge presented it to you.

If you vote to convict a criminal defendant, that criminal defendant will
have appeal rights and once in a while, the guilty verdict will be
overturned.

If you vote to acquit a criminal defendant -- even if that means
disregarding the evidence and/or enacting your own law and nullifying the
law as the judge presented it to you -- not all the king's horses and all
the king's men can overturn your verdict.


.