The Mississippi Supreme Court, in a decision criticized by one of its members as an assault on Roe v. Wade (search), held Thursday that a fetus is a "person" under state law and wrongful death claims can be filed on its behalf. The justices upheld Tracy Tucker's right to pursue a wrongful death claim (search) after she alleged emotional distress and a mistake by her doctors caused her to have a miscarriage (search) in 1997. The fetus was 19 weeks old at the time, according to doctors. Attorneys for the defendants couldn't be reached or declined comment. Presiding Justice Chuck McRae, in a written dissent, described the decision as an assault on Roe v. Wade, the landmark ruling that legalized abortion in America. The 6-2 ruling expands the definition of a "person" in wrongful death statutes to include an "unborn child." Current law allows people to sue for the wrongful death of a newly born, or prematurely born, fetus that would have been expected to live. Presiding Justice Jim Smith, writing for the court, said Thursday's ruling in the lawsuit brought by Tucker had nothing to do with abortion. He said doctors performing abortions are still protected by Mississippi law. "Tucker's interest is to protect and preserve the life of her unborn child, not in the exercise of her right to terminate that life which has been declared constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court," Smith wrote. Pat Cartrette, executive director of Right to Life of Jackson, said while the decision may not directly affect Roe vs. Wade, it gives a fetus some legal protection when it develops reflexes, at some cases as early as 8 weeks. Sondra Goldschein, state strategies attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union said she was troubled by the court's definition of a fetus as a "person." "Anytime the fetus is recognizable as a person it chips away at the foundation of Roe," she said. It appears that these rednecks have more brains than most grexers.116 responses total.
This response has been erased.
Yeah, right. I don't see how this is that much different from criminal law where a perp can be charged with murder of an unborn child (e.g. shooting pregnant woman in abdomen).
This response has been erased.
That must have been reproduced without permission from "Analogies from Hell".
This response has been erased.
If a fetus is "an unfinished human being," what do you call those who are born well before the end of the normal gestation period? Cannot "all sorts of things go wrong" AFTER birth? Is it, therefore, permissible to kill an sickly newborn after he has emerged from the birth canal?
It seems to me that the woman had grounds to sue for malpractice. She just had bad legal advice to make it an issue of the fetus' rights.
Re #2: I don't agree with either. If a perp shoots a pregnant woman in the
abdomen, it's attempted murder on the woman. That ought to be enough.
This response has been erased.
What an image.
This response has been erased.
*yawn* could you see the strings on the bush puppet being tugged by cheney?
A child is an "unfinished" human being also klg. Well tod maybe those rednecks don't know thier bible....I do.A "fetus" is alive. Show me a scripture where it is stated that life begins when the first breath is taken. The only verse that even deals with this issue is. Ex 21:22 22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine". KJV This verse in no way justifies calling a "fetus" a piece of tissue. Can you point to another one?
Genesis 2:7 says, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul" (KJV).
This response has been erased.
What do any of your refrences have to do with the price of tea in China? Your analogies are weak and your refrences are inaccurate. Post me a verse SALIENT with the issue. I have read the entire bible many times. I have found one verse that deals with an unborn baby. I have posted it. You have said in prior posts that a baby doesn't have life until it was BORN. gelinas posted gen 2:7 and you agreed that is pretty much what you were talking about. That verse fortifies my position and not yours. Adam was never BORN. This makes him a non-person by your definition. He was created. The verse merely descibes the finishing touch. Adam was never in the womb.You cannot compare his creation to an unborn baby.As for the tree of life...well Adam never tasted it. He and Eve chose the tree of knowledge and were cast out of the garden BEFORE they had a chance to taste the tree of life.
I don't understand why this is here?
re16: pRoVE iT.
Re #16: "Adam", "eve", the "tree of life" are all myths and have no more to do with anything than Mickey Mouse does. Why do people insist on talking myths when we are trying to deal with reality? This is entirely a matter of current law, where reason should rule.
Rane, your conclusion is incorrect: myths have a great deal to do with every day life. We _know_ you wish it were otherwise, but it isn't. *LISTEN* to what people say, and you will realise that these things are quite important and very relevant to understanding their views and intentions. Bluntly, perhaps Reason SHOULD rule, but it does NOT. (And yes, 'tis often a pity that it does not.)
So ex21:22 provides bibilical backing for Mississippi law. Thats nice, but not necessary. Mississippi law should have covered it in the first place as clearly there is a social wrong in the killing of a child even unborn that the law ought to have covered. Note: I don't mean this as an attack on R-v-W as that is clearly a different issue entirely - those who would combine the two are in my opinion....well, you can guess my opinion.
Re #20: as I said, if taken in reverse, Mickey Mouse has as much to do with "anything" as do biblical myths. That is far from asserting that myths don't have "a great deal to do with every day life". They do, because some people think there myths should be adopted as reality by others. But I do insist that we *shouldn't* be talking myths when dealing with reality. Re #21: "clearly" my foot: there is no social wrong in killing a fetus, as permitted by national law. Therefore Mississippi *shouldn't* have a law that is more restrictive since, as stated by the Mississippi Attorney General, Mississippi will not try to act "above the law".
It's easy to set things up so it's illegal to kill a fetus by assaulting the mother, but still perfectly legal to get an abortion. There are a lot of things that are legal if one person does them (or orders them done) but illegal if anyone else does.
Rcurl seems to be the type of right-winger that I really detest - a parasite hiding in benign clothing. (Bet he never actually worked for a living...) Rcurl, I bet you didn't know that the US Constitution was specifically structured so the state of Mississippi might have a more provicial view of things than a federal government. It may not be "above" federal law, but in the original intent of the Constitution it sure might be different than any other state which is its right.
Re #7: She was probably encouraged to make it this kind of issue by activists. Re #23: That may be true, but many groups have openly admitted they're seeking laws like this as a way to eventually overturn Roe v. Wade. Re #24: Funny how conservatives love to argue for states rights in cases like this, but they ignore that argument when a state wants to legalize a controlled substance, or legalize assisted suicide.
Funny how liberals call for states rights except when it comes to carry laws or owning "assault weapons".
Yes, but at least they aren't part of a party that claims to stand up for states' rights.
re#27: Its hard to tell if you are accusing or lauding.
Rane's rule that "there is no social wrong in killing a fetus, as permitted by national law." is a bit frightening. By a similar rule, slavery was not socially wrong. Hey, it was legal!
Yeah. I shudder to think voting citizens hold such views. One hopes rcurl finds better things to do than vote...
You know, this debate is such a dead horse beat much too often. Or perhaps the debate vultures have yet a bone to pick? Egads, to twist such trite phrases to make a point here...
I never fail to vote. Slavery was legal and became illegal as we matured socially. Abortion was illegal and became legal as we matured socially. Things change.
re resp:32: Do all of the changes which have occurred in the nation's history come from societal maturity? I'm more inclined to think of such things as centralization of wealth, or higher taxation accompanied by more laws and government actions, as being from national maturity. The legalization of abortion is more in line with the trend toward greater insistence on personal rights, and less observation of personal responsibility. In any regard, causing the death of a fetus against the wishes of it's parents is causing the parents a loss. I don't see it ever being regarded as murder in our current society, but surely it wouldn't be too far out of line to regard it like causing the death of a pet.
This response has been erased.
In a fit of self-righteousness, sabre wrote: >Well tod maybe those rednecks don't know thier bible....I do.A "fetus" >is alive. So's an ant. >Show me a scripture where it is stated that life begins when the >first breath is taken. It's in the very language. For instance, the Greek word for "soul" is pneuma. This is also the word for "breath"; if there was a difference you would have expected all the apostles and later translators to have and use a different word. As long as you're arguing scripture rather than evidence, what more do you need? > The only verse that even deals with this issue > is. > Ex 21:22 > 22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit > depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely > punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he > shall pay as the judges determine". > KJV Right. Cause a miscarriage (kill a fetus), pay a fine. (Serious premies died in those days.) > This verse in no way justifies calling a "fetus" a piece of tissue. Quite the opposite, it demands it. If you kill a person (even a child), the law you cite has a very different punishment. Anyone reading this has to conclude that a fetus is not a person. Note also that the penalty is paid *to the husband*. In other words the fetus is HIS property, presumably to be disposed of as he sees fit. According to this interpretation of the Old Testament a man ought to be able to demand a fine of a woman who aborts his fetus, or perhaps even require her to abort (if it's HIS property, he can tell her what to do with it). > Can you point to another one? If that's the only one you can find, your position is in deep trouble.
Re #33: those changes that lead to greater individual freedoms and control over one's own body are, in my opinion, advances in social maturity, unless they limit like freedoms and controls of others.
I thought the issue is supposed to be the woman's right to choose, ja? If she doesn't say, "I want this pregnancy aborted" and someone goes and aborts it anyway, then she has an action against them. Obviously, if you believe a nine-week fetus is a human being in some sense, you won't agree.
"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact." - Mark Twain
re resp:36: Death is a limitation of freedom, is it not? The *sole* justification you've given for the morality of abortion is that it is legal. Using that reasoning, before it was legal, it must have been immoral because it was illegal. It was illegal because the fetus was regarded as alive up to that point. The Supreme Court took away the right to life of a fetus. Up until the point where they did, the fetus was legally a person. Your reasoning states you would have to regard the fetus as a person until then, doesn't it? If so, you're approving the removal of the right to life from a large group of people as "greater individual freedom", and dismissing it's significance in those terms because it doesn't "limit *like* freedoms and controls of others". I'm sure I'm missing something here, but I don't think I'm the only one.
resp:35 some Eastern philosophies would carefully regard even the life of an ant... Shinto, is it? Of course, most Westerners don't really care what happens to an ant. This is so much splitting hairs here. Picking at bones, I say.
Re #39: I never claimed "The *sole* justification you've given for the morality of abortion is that it is legal." The moral justification for abortion is, in fact, the right of the woman to control the function of her own body, just as you have a right to control the functions of your body.
[Everybody please tactfully refrain from asking him where that right comes from.]
No problem. We assume rights based on subjective wishes for "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness", which also embody concepts of fairness and equality, and embody them in law. This is also true of "rights" claimed on the bases of religion, old books, oracular pronouncements, etc.
This response has been erased.
You find a fetus that can say or write that, and you might have a case.
This response has been erased.
re resp:41: In this item (resp:22), and others on the subject in the past, you've stated that abortion is okay because the law says it's legal. I would think there are implications to that kind of statement. For example, it wouldn't be okay if it weren't legal. Is that an incorrect view of your position?
This response has been erased.
I assume nothing about rights. There is a big difference between creating "rights" based in logic and reason applied to the human condition, and creating "rights" based on mythology and doctrines from the distant past. At least one can find "rights" that might be applicable to human society today.
This response has been erased.
Theology gets huge amounts of conjecture without any facts at all. It even finds certainties (oddly, lots of contradictory ones).
I said Well tod maybe those rednecks don't know thier bible....I do.A "fetus" is alive. russ said "So's an ant." excellent..you admit the "fetus" is alive..therefore to abort it means MURDER, You also stated that the greek word for breath is "pneuma". True While a baby doesn't "breath" in the classic sense it does require oxygen for survival. It comes from the mother. Let me quote some greek. There are two main words for life in greek. One is bio. That applies to the physical being(hence biology). The greek work zoa however is in a diffrent context in the biblical sense. It means spiritual life and that is something every "fetus" so called has. It is also what Adam lost when he ate of the tree of life..not his "bio" life. In fact the greek word for death is thanatos. It means "separation". An FYI for the bonehead that thinks the bible is a myth. Was Plato a myth? Was Socrates? Aristotle? How about Alexander the Great? There is more historical documentation for the existance of Jesus Christ than any of those figures. PROVE THAT WRONG. I would love a debate on that subject. I think that deep in the heart of every person lies(or once existed) the knowledge that God exists. Some poeple harden there heart to the point that they are reprobate. I hope you aren't at this point.
Re #39: The *sole* justification you've given for the morality of abortion is that it is legal. Using that reasoning, before it was legal, it must have been immoral because it was illegal. It was illegal because the fetus was regarded as alive up to that point. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Not so. Before then, abortion was the exclusive province of doctors, who decided if a hospital abortion under sterile conditions with good followup was justified by a woman's condition or not. Marilyn Monroe had a number of abortions. (While abortions were approved by a panel of doctors based on the woman's physical and mental health, it should not surprise anyone to learn that a woman's emotional state was more significant if she or her family was important, whereas the poor folk knew better than to bother asking; they went to back allies.) The fetus didn't matter then either; it was merely a question of who exercised control. I give legalities as the reason why abortion cannot possibly be murder. I give science as justification for asserting that any definition of fetuses as a group as human beings flies in the face of reason. (Which is not to say that government has not flouted reason for all kinds of purposes, and continues to do so; just that it is wrong when doing so.)
Re 52: Thanks for the half-assed lesson in Greek. Now could you please actually connect it to your argument, or is it just meant to show you've graduated from junior high school?
I'm not sure if I'm saying this right, but shouldn't we take into consideration whether or not the fetus can survive, independently of the mother?
Screw religion and screw Roe v. Wade The decision on whether or not it is legal to kill a fetus stems from the founding law of this country. We are garaunteed the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happines." Abortion is an attempt to facilitate the pursuit of happiness of one person by denying all three to another. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it... "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" Whoever or whatever the "CREATOR" is, the creator has given these rights to the individual. " Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." Abortion denies these rights to an individual. " it is the Right of the People to alter..." which is what we are seeking to do by overturning Roe v. Wade.
Many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves. Should slavery therefore still be legal, simply because it was part of the founding laws?
Re #56: first, your quote is from the Declaration of Independemce, a radical advocacy document, of the type in which exaggeration and fervor would be expected. When the dust settled, they wrote the Constitution, which sets down our governmental principles and practices. There is NO blanket and without exception "founding law" of a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" in the Constitution. What the Constitution created were governmental bases for those aspirations, but there are limitations. Many adult citizens of this country are deliberately denied life, or liberty, or the pursuit of happisness, and I know bru supports that. The Constitution is written for "We the people...": that is, the sentient, thinking and acting adult citizens. Particular provisions and subsequent laws and regulations concern all others. An example was slaves, that were not considered members of "We the people....". They have since been included, but I doubt that fetuses ever will be, as they are incapable of assuming the roles of full citizenship, nor would we want them to. Bru promotes a narrow and simplistic interpretation of a generalized notion that was used as an argument against tyranny. It was after that that a nation was founded.
This response has been erased.
The stage blade (blunt as can be) wrote: >excellent..you admit the "fetus" is alive..therefore to abort it means >MURDER, Really, but no. Put that mind to the grindstone for a while, and maybe (just maybe) you'll get it sharp enough to cut butter. If it's warm. Since you're so dense, an explanation is in order. "Life" means nothing. A brain-dead body is also alive, has circulation and metabolism and all the same signs and types of life as a fetus. Is it murder to shut off the air keeping it alive? Hardly. Is it murder to cut one up into component organs? No, it can be praiseworthy. Virtuous people volunteer for the honor of donating their pieces. Why's it not a problem then? It's because *nobody's there anymore* once the brain is gone; you can't murder someone who's already dead. By the same token, you can't kill a person who has yet to exist. Vital signs are a prerequisite for personhood, not a synonym. >You also stated that the greek word for breath is "pneuma". True >While a baby doesn't "breath" in the classic sense it does require >oxygen for survival. It comes from the mother. Precisely. As long as it doesn't have breath of its own, it has no soul of its own. No soul means it cannot be murdered. Ergo, per the Bible you're so happy to quote, you're wrong. (If the Bible is just myth you might have a chance to rescue your argument.)
And Bruce said: >We are garaunteed [sic] the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit >of happines. [sic]" Abortion is an attempt to facilitate the >pursuit of happiness of one person by denying all three to another. The flaw in your argument is that a person's life must first exist before it can be denied. Note, the LIFE must BELONG TO A PERSON, not to a senseless, mindless something. Bruce, you and Twila only had two children. Why? You probably could have half a dozen, maybe more. You denied all those lives you could have made! But when you refused to turn as many gametes as you could into babies, did you *murder* them? Is every condom user a baby-killer? No. Refusing to exercise a potential is not destruction. There is no equivalence between them morally, logically or any other way. >We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal... You're quoting a polemic. Here's the fundamental document of our nation: "No Person except a natural BORN Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution..." (Article II, section 1, Constitution of the United States. Emphasis added.) "All persons BORN or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States..." (Section 1, Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Emphasis added.) Those are the only two places where the word "born" appears. Looks like you don't have a Constitutional leg to stand on; it's truly a pity that you didn't bother to read the thing first. >" it is the Right of the People to alter..." which is what we are seeking to >do by overturning Roe v. Wade. Quite the reverse. You've already done enough damage to the legitimacy of our government with your anti-abortion meddling. If you arrogate any more power over people's intimate lives, we'll have to throw the whole mess out (and you with it). Maybe we can keep "Congress shall make no law".
RE# 54 Here's another "half assed lesson". russ assumed that the gen. verse meant that you don't have life until you breath(pneuma). The verse actually means that he was given a "spirit". In 90% of the places pneuma is used in scripture you can substitute the word "spirit" I think that shatters the use of this verse for using breathing as the starting point for the begining of life. as for #59 I like jep's point. The right of the "fetus" (as you call it)was taken away by roe v wade. #re 61 Quite the opposite...it is your baby killing legislature that has done this country damage.
This response has been erased.
The stage blade wrote: >The verse actually means that he was given a "spirit". In 90% of the >places pneuma is used in scripture you can substitute the word "spirit" And in most of the places you write liquor you can substitute the word "spirits". You keep avoiding the issue: if the two were not synonymous to the apostles, why'd they use the same word? (Heck, in the KJV "knowledge" means screwing. I think I "know" your mind...) >Quite the opposite...it is your baby killing legislature that has done >this country damage. The change was wrought by the judiciary; the federal legislature is reactionary, trying to return to the status quo ante. And thanks for proving my point about your intellect or lack thereof.
Heh. I like that. It's illegal to kill a fetus as soon as it's intoxicated. :)
russ...I will end this absurd notion of yours with one statement The Holy Spirit is called the "pneumas" Do you think that means Holy "breath"? The action that God took in creating Adam was imparting the "spirit of life" You are mislead by the english translation. THAT IS THE POINT. You cannot use that verse to justify your position on when life begins. THAT IS THE POINT "And thanks for proving my point about your intellect or lack thereof." WHAT...can't you even READ? You are in dire need of knowledge.
This response has been erased.
Back in the 50's, my mom had a pregnancy that ending with
a stillborn. Never took a breath. Never named, No funeral, no
burial, no Catholic ceremony. Just one that did not make it.
I think the attitude of the church has changed.
RE#67 wayipach baapaayw nishmat chayiym wayhiy haa'aadaam inepesh chayaah (Hebrew characters are transliterated in english) I'm sure one of the great minds here will verify this.
Stop speaking that language.
My rum is holy and is referred to as such.
Yeah.
This response has been erased.
"We the People" would have been understood to be in the context of "Endowed by Creator" in the first place and not at all separate from it. How do those who oppose tacking extra penalty on crimes that result in the death of a fetus feel about "hate crimes" which tack on extra penalty for crimes involving those victims deemed worthy of such?
This response has been erased.
It always seemed like shooting oneself in the foot to me: murder for so-called murder, if that was the rationale.
This response has been erased.
And yet such an ironic comparison: these are the nuts that pretty much think that those 'towel-heads' should convert to Jeez-us or die. (Sorry, I couldn't hold back the disdain there.)
I'm not big on hate-crime laws, either.
re77: by giving them something to live for. like a bigmac 'n fries!
I believe I'm on record as opposing hate-crime laws; if there is no separate crime of conspiracy, a given crime ought to be punished the same.
I agree. I even think it is wrong to offer more severe sentences to those who kill police. In my opinion, police are no more important than anyone else. Our job isn't even more dangerous than some others out there. And you generally have to hate someone to murder them.
This response has been erased.
most officers never have to drawa gun and shoot in the line of duty. Most psychological damage to officers comes from having to deal with the after effects of a crime on the survivors. alcoholism only exacerbates the problem. Stress is not what we are dealing with here. WE are dealiing with the value of a human life. No life is more omportant than any other life, adn the punishment should be the same under the same circumstances.
This response has been erased.
All crime attacks the basic infrasturcture of society. Why is the clerk at the Holiday Inn with three kids and a husband worth less than the 50 year old divorced alcoholic cop? She isn't. Both deserve justice. Now, who should decide what justice is? Should it not be the same as what they committed? If they killed someone, then death. OR, at the behest of the family that lost the loved one, life in prison.
If you're a believer in deterrence, the argument for stronger penalties for crimes against certain people is that there's more temptation to attack those people, so more deterrence is required to dissuade potential attackers. That applies pretty well to cops, since their job requires them to interfere with violent people.
Re #86: no, it should not be "the same as what they committed". There is an enormous range of culpability for any crime, which must be taken into consideration in a civilized society. If someone runs down a person wandering on the highway on a dark and stormy night, should they be run down in turn? If you shoot a mugger, should you be shot? Once you admit that an absolute "eye for an eye" is not right, then you are having to draw distinctions and make judgements and discover your own morality and not necessarily adopt the morality of a criminal.
the problem with an eye for an eye is that it is a limit, not a goal.
This response has been erased.
Lol
I thought it was klg that had the multiple personalities.
Granted things are usually/always more complicated than the sort of orguments we use here... My beef with extra effort to catch cop-killers is that it implies that the police normally don't try that hard to catch non-cop-killers.
This response has been erased.
Oh, OK. I was skimming to catch up after being on vacation. However, that gets me wondering about whether there's any special sentencing for rogue/corrupt cops, and whether that would be a good idea or not.
This response has been erased.
My beef with treatment of cops as exalted beings is that too many of them are brutes and even murderers, and people should not be threatened with capital punishment for defending themselves against a criminal who happens to be wearing a badge. http://denvercopwatch.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=3/
The brother of a friend of mine successfully defended himself in court from a charge that he'd thrown a rock at a Denver cop. The cop apparently saw the rock, but not who had thrown it, and just grabbed the nearest guy.
This response has been erased.
I think it more likely that brutal cops never really think of their victims as people. They just want to have their way - and take it because they have the power.
This response has been erased.
That's generalising a tad too much., The run-ins I've had with the cops showed me that most of them are pretty reasonable. Including the cop who was convinced I was trying to run him over.
Tod slipped. My comment was in response to rcurl's generic "all cops are brutes" type comment.
If you reread #100, I think you can figure out that I said nothing at all like "all cops are brutes". Do you assert that NO cops are brutes?
My mistake. Sorry.
the only cops who have ever hassled me were a2 cops.
I think part of the reason cops are held in contempt by so many people is that being pulled over causes almost everyone to mentally regress to memories of being 12 years old and being scolded by a teacher or parent. It's almost impossible not to feel resentment towards them.
/makes a pouty boo-boo face
Re #107: especially because you are probably in the wrong, and know it.
while it is true that a police officer has power to ause you trouble, most will not do it unless you are suspected of criminal activity or decide you want to be an ass. If you want to treat him as something less than an honest person, he can probably make your life less than enjoyable for a period of time.
This response has been erased.
Re #99: >You went from calling cops brutes to murderers to criminals. I said some of them are (the generalization to "all" is yours). I specifically said "too many", which in this context is any number greater than zero. You can't argue that these bad apples don't give them all a bad name, because they do. >Do you have reason to believe that cops go to work on a daily >basis with the intent of brutalizing civilians for fun? Fun, profit, other motives probably figure in some cases. Published reports give me reason to believe this, and that some police departments find it either impolitic or inconvenient to remove or reassign officers who are clearly not acting within the law. Then there's the "blue code of silence". Aren't there a couple of Detroit officers who have shot multiple unarmed persons (some fatally) and are still on the payroll?
Aren't there a couple Catholic priests with YBS still saying mass?
Probably. Odd that a deity who was against unauthorized sex and same-gender sex wouldn't zap 'em with lightning bolts or something. However, priests do have more physical limitations on what they're capable of doing to people, as well as a bit less legal clout.
how old was the car? Maybe he wanted a good look prior to making you an offer on it.
On occasion, the priest get by with a serious amount of COmmunity
standing and social clout. you can't stick that in your wallet, but it DOES
in fact travel well.
From stories I've heard that doesn't only apply to Catholic priests,
or even just christians. Yah pays your money, and yah takes your choice.
You have several choices: