|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Was it not just a couple of years ago when supporters of a convicted murderer in Texas who had been sentenced to death asked that she be relieved of that sentence because she was a converted Christian? When that didn't work, they began saying that she shouldn't be put to death "because she is a woman."
In the end, she was executed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It would seem like legislating this would be wholly unconstitutional, in defiance of the Fourteenth Amendment. Not that it will stop anyone from trying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The contents of the report are hardly surprising to me when I read the list of contributors and noticed that over 80% of them are professional women. (The fact that the honorary chair is a token man is, in my opinion, more a piece of clever politicking than an indication of a balanced viewpoint.)
This appears to be yet another example of women looking after "their own". Every time I hear feminists going on about high-minded principles of "equality" and "fairness" I remember things like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it just my skewed perception, or do half of the crackpot, male-bashing laws I read about here come from Massachusetts? I can think of only three explanations:
1. Massachusetts has better reporting of this stuff.
2. I have a faulty memory (won't be the first time)
3. The folks in Boston have been doing too many bad drugs.
I'm not from the States, so I'm not plugged into the politics. Is Massachusetts a mess?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Mass. was the witch trial capital of the 1600s... ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've noticed that too, I'm from outside the states as well. What is it about Massachusetts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see a common thread between this and the issue of paternity fraud, and there are undoubtedly other issues as well. Both use parenthood, or more specifically motherhood, to excuse criminals of responsibility for their crimes. How anyone can argue that this represents equality under the law is beyond me. How can courts enable criminals to use their own children to protect themselves from responsibility? Talk about misusing children!!!!! And the courts may initiate this?!?!?!
I can’t believe this one. Please tell me it’s just a sick joke.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This incident happened in NY, but I can't help but wonder if the gender was reversed in this incident that the DA would still drop the charges.
_________________________________________________
Woman pleads guilty to allowing a dog attack on a defenseless man in Central Park
By Associated Press, 7/6/2001 07:44
NEW YORK (AP) A woman pleaded guilty Thursday to letting her three dogs attack a defenseless man in Central Park.
Debbie Gamiel pleaded guilty to one count of assault just before she was to stand trial for unleashing her attack dogs on author Shaun Considine during a 1998 altercation in Central Park.
At the time, Gamiel had finished running in the park when her three Belgian Malinois, which look like German Shepards, attacked Considine on the Great Lawn, according to the Daily News.
Considine said he needed 24 stitches, two blood transfusions and has spent more than $4,000 in medical bills. He also said he was traumatized by the attack.
Gamiel and her lawyer declined comment.
The Manhattan district attorney's office dropped the original charge of second-degree assault and said there would be no jail time if Gamiel stays out of trouble and pays Considine's medical bills.
The dogs were spared and sent to live outside the city.
A lawsuit still stands against Gamiel's husband, Norman Schacter, who is charged with conspiring to beat up the author and plant illegal paraphernalia in his apartment so Considine would drop the case against his wife.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOL. I love the last line. "A lawsuit still stands against Gamiel's husband... who is charged with conspiring to beat up the author...."
Whenever a woman and a man enter into a conspiracy, guess who is always charged for it, and guess who always gets off scot free? Her husband dreamed up some plan to intimidate this guy so he wouldn't proceed with his lawsuit, all without any prompting from his wife? Awww... c'mon!
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
