Parents Convicted on Dead Son's Birthday

On 23 Feb 2007 08:04:57 -0800, "Firemonkey"
wrote:




Sorry Kane but can you provide proof that Doan ever attended school in
the first place?

No, I conceded that I cannot.

RRRRR RR R R R R RR



On Feb 23, 9:22 am, "0:-" wrote:
On Feb 22, 11:00 am, Doan wrote

Pretending there is a concrete and to The Question....

Doan tries to use the power of authority...when in fact authority has
NEVER had the answer to the question....

Go back to school, stupid Doan!!!!
Even the experts can't agree. What makes YOU think YOU know the
answer, eh?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...1070395.story?...

...California prosecutors have been trying to figure out "exactly
where abuse begins and appropriate corporal punishment ends," said
Thomas A. Nazario, a University of San Francisco law professor who has
advised Lieber.

The bill "will paint a fairly clear picture of where the line is drawn
- what's appropriate and what's not," Nazario said.

Other lawyers aren't so sure.

John E.B. Myers, a University of the Pacific law professor who
recently published a history of child protection laws, said Lieber's
bill would have little effect. If it were law, he said, juries in
child abuse cases could still conclude that parents were using
reasonable physical punishment even if they acted in ways presumed
unreasonable - and therefore illegal - by Lieber's bill.

At best, Lieber's measure "will send a message that if you use a
closed fist, you can get in serious trouble and you'll have a tougher
time defending yourself," said Myers, who supports a ban on spanking.
"It's a very small step, in my estimation."

Randy Thomasson, president of the nonprofit Campaign for Children and
Families, said Lieber's bill would rob parents of a disciplinary tool
- mothers in particular, because they often don't have a man's
strength.

"There's too many moms who know if they spank their young boys with a
hand," Thomasson said, "it doesn't cause the sting that they need to
reform their behavior.

"How dare we say that our grandparents - who had a switch or even a
shoe training them to respect authority and obey the rules - that they
were abused," Thomasson said. "You meet a lot of Americans who are
glad they were spanked because they needed it when they were little
rebels."

No other state has laws as explicit as Lieber's measure, though an
Ohio senator this week introduced a bill to bar the spanking of
children younger than 3 years old.

Nadine A. Block, executive director of the nonprofit Center for
Effective Discipline in Columbus, Ohio, congratulated Lieber on
"hanging in there" despite heavy, sometimes personal, criticism.

She called the legislation "very reasonable as a first go."

"We would all like a perfect world ... where we just stopped hitting
children," Block said. "In the imperfect world, you sometimes have to
do things incrementally."

Robert Larzelere, a family science professor at Oklahoma State
University who has studied corporal punishment, said he agreed with
much of Lieber's legislation, especially the prohibition against
striking small children on the head.

Research has found that children who were struck in the face or head
showed a greater likelihood of behavioral problems later in life, he
said.

But he quibbled with forbidding the use of a paddle, stick or other
instrument to spank.

"The issue is not what a child is spanked with," Larzelere said, "but
how hard they're spanked."

* Another STUPID post from KANE... as usual. ;-)

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:37:00 -0800, Doan wrote:

...a long avoidance of the questions actually posed to him...as
usual...a lying dodge....

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:12:53 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:53:09 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:18:36 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 20 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 20, 1:25 pm, Doan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:57:33 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 18 Feb 2007, Dan Sullivan wrote:

When Dixon was wrapping up her closing arguments on Wednesday, she
placed a child's birthday cake in front of the jury. The cake had
eight candles. Dixon lit them. She sang Happy Birthday to Josef, who
was eight years old when he died. And while the jurors watched, the
Smiths looked away, clung to each other, and sobbed. Dixon said that
Josef's birthday cake would always be missing something -- the candle
for his ninth birthday.

An uncalled for theatrical stunt by the prosecutor.

Nonetheless tha parents got what they deserved.

Yup! The jury had spoken!

And how carefully you avoid the issue of The Question...where the line
is between discipline...which they claimed they were doing.. and that
they claimed that's all they were doing, and abuse which too often is
deadly.

The jury had spoken, STUPID. They had determined where the line is

Where did they establish the line had been crossed? At Death?

"Discipline's always appropriate," Dixon said after the verdict, "but
there is... a line that you cannot cross. And when you're leaving
marks and scarring all over the body of your child, that is highly
inappropriate and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent."

Learn to read, STUPID!

I have. Remember the case last year where a city councilman was found
innocent though he used a belt and left marks on his son?

What does that have to do with this case, STUPID!

The line, stupid.

They have already determined that the line had been crossed in this case,
STUPID!

That's not the question I had. Nor any claim I made. I didn't say the
person hadn't crossed the line. YOU said they established where it
was.

Yup! And it has been crossed!

Cough up, stupid. Where did they way it was, not IF it was crossed,
but WHERE?

Ask the jury, STUPID. You said they don't know where the line is. If
they don't know where the line is, how do they know it has been crossed.
It's simple logic, Kane!

In other words, Doan, like always, you lie or are stupid, or both.

The proven STUPID LIAR is yOU, like always, Kane.

Doan, you are far too obvious a liar.

Kane, You exposed your STUPIDITY again.

Doan you are still far too obvious a liar.

The proven liar here is YOU!

And you have read on aps different views on "spanking" and whether
leaving marks is okay..some saying yes, some no.

Hihihi! "reasonable person" standard, remember?

Sure I remember, and the "reasonable person" is unable to determine
where the line is consistently. So that doesn't work. And shows how
stupid you are, and what a liar you are, since I defeated that
argument long ago, dummy.

Hihihi! "reasonable" is the standard used in court cases, STUPID!

Yep. So what, Doan?

It's what counted, STUPID!

That's not my question. I am not saying the court was WRONG, stupid.
That's your argument...that the court has the final say.

Where did I say the court was WRONG? Stop your STUPID LIES, Kane!

The argument is how does the court establish WHERE the line is.

How did they established it has been crossed?

You haven't shown it because you can't.

Neither did they.

If I cross a border and you ask me to take you back to it and show you
and I cannot then my claim it was crossed is questionable.

Exactly! So how did they determined the line has been crossed without
knowing where the line is as you claimed?

The problem with the courts is they are all over the map about where
that line is, Doan. Just as you are.

Reasonable standard, Kane!

I can show you daily where the reasonable person agrees that 65 miles
an hour on the sign says 65 miles and hour.

So you onnly going 15 MPH on the freeway right, STUPID?

What are you trying to say, stupid?

That you are STUPID to go 15mph on the freeway and claimed that it is
SAFE!

YOU cannot show ME where the reasonable person consistently agrees as
to what is and isn't abuse in the use of corporal punishment. Go
ahead, do it.

They did in this case, STUPID!

The question does not have to do with THIS case but that this case is
different than other cases. No one can agree on this issue of where
that line is, Doan.

The jury did. They determined that the line has been crossed, did they
not?

That's why it has to be stopped.

Hahaha! Like the 65MPH stopped people from speeding??? ARE YOU THIS
STUPID?

In other words, stupid, no one, not even a jury, really can say.

The jury had spoken in this case, STUPID!

It once turned runaway slaves back to their masters. Juries aren't
infallible.

Non sequitor!

I beg your pardon? YOU are using the decision of a jury, but you wish
to now throw out law as sequitur?

Laws said that juries have to be INFALLIBLE???

R R R R just like the little lying monkeyboy you really are.

Hihihi! Like the STUPID LIAR that you really are.

I'm not asking what the jury agreed upon, but what they said...as to
where the line actually IS. Did they?

They said the line had been crossed! Did they not?

Sure did. Now I'm asking YOU to show where they said the line IS,
Doan. You claimed they did, did you not?

How did they know the line has been crossed without knowing where the
line is? It's simple logic, STUPID!

Of course not.

If the juries don't know where the line is, how did they know that
it has been crossed, STUPID?

The jury is STUPID Doan, if it claims it KNOWS where the line is
before it is crossed.

Hahaha! How did the jury determine it has been crossed?

Each case is different, each draws the line differently.

Reasonable standard!

Both the slave and the speed limit analogies are precise and to the
point.

Only to a STUPID person like you.

You have NOT answered my question.

You are TOO STUPID!

Where did the jury say the line IS, Doan?

How did they know it has been crossed without knowing where the line is?

I notice there is NO confusion about crossing the line on speeding
while driving. Go over 65 in a 65 zone and we all agree, with our
without a trial, with or without a jury, that the line has been
crossed.

So going 15mph in a 65 zone is ok? YOU ARE STUPID!!!

Sure it's okay. If I put a red bordered triangle on the back of my
little tractor I can go on ANY freeway in the United States, at 15
mph.

Hahaha! You are funny!

You are stupid.

I DO IT, stupid.

YOU ARE STUPID!

R R R R R .... nope. I live in rural America.

But you are STUPID no matter where you live. ;-)

and
it has been crossed.

Well now that's brilliant, monkeyboy. We'd have never known that
without you. R R R R

That is because YOU ARE STUPID! Hihihi!

So, have you determined just where, before death, the line was
crossed, Doan?

"Reasonable person" standard!

So, show us where the reasonable person agrees consistently on what is
and isn't the line, Doan.

Hihhi! What standard do they use in courts, Kane?

Depends on the kind of case, Doan.

In this case?

Are you going to claim "marks?" How many marks, Doan?

"reasonable person" standard! Are you going to stop talking to your
kids because you don't know where the line is, Kane? Hihihi!

Stop being a parrot. We've had this conversation before with the same
result...you RAN away.

Hihihi! Another STUPID lie, kane!

Nope. We had it, you tried the same thing, I shot it down the same
way. The line is unclear. And

Very childish! ;-)

Doan

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On 23 Feb 2007 08:04:57 -0800, "Firemonkey"
wrote:




Sorry Kane but can you provide proof that Doan ever attended school in
the first place?

No, I conceded that I cannot.

RRRRR RR R R R R RR



On Feb 23, 9:22 am, "0:-" wrote:
On Feb 22, 11:00 am, Doan wrote

Pretending there is a concrete and to The Question....

Doan tries to use the power of authority...when in fact authority has
NEVER had the answer to the question....

Go back to school, stupid Doan!!!!
Even the experts can't agree. What makes YOU think YOU know the
answer, eh?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...1070395.story?...

...California prosecutors have been trying to figure out "exactly
where abuse begins and appropriate corporal punishment ends," said
Thomas A. Nazario, a University of San Francisco law professor who has
advised Lieber.

The bill "will paint a fairly clear picture of where the line is drawn
- what's appropriate and what's not," Nazario said.

Other lawyers aren't so sure.

John E.B. Myers, a University of the Pacific law professor who
recently published a history of child protection laws, said Lieber's
bill would have little effect. If it were law, he said, juries in
child abuse cases could still conclude that parents were using
reasonable physical punishment even if they acted in ways presumed
unreasonable - and therefore illegal - by Lieber's bill.

At best, Lieber's measure "will send a message that if you use a
closed fist, you can get in serious trouble and you'll have a tougher
time defending yourself," said Myers, who supports a ban on spanking.
"It's a very small step, in my estimation."

Randy Thomasson, president of the nonprofit Campaign for Children and
Families, said Lieber's bill would rob parents of a disciplinary tool
- mothers in particular, because they often don't have a man's
strength.

"There's too many moms who know if they spank their young boys with a
hand," Thomasson said, "it doesn't cause the sting that they need to
reform their behavior.

"How dare we say that our grandparents - who had a switch or even a
shoe training them to respect authority and obey the rules - that they
were abused," Thomasson said. "You meet a lot of Americans who are
glad they were spanked because they needed it when they were little
rebels."

No other state has laws as explicit as Lieber's measure, though an
Ohio senator this week introduced a bill to bar the spanking of
children younger than 3 years old.

Nadine A. Block, executive director of the nonprofit Center for
Effective Discipline in Columbus, Ohio, congratulated Lieber on
"hanging in there" despite heavy, sometimes personal, criticism.

She called the legislation "very reasonable as a first go."

"We would all like a perfect world ... where we just stopped hitting
children," Block said. "In the imperfect world, you sometimes have to
do things incrementally."

Robert Larzelere, a family science professor at Oklahoma State
University who has studied corporal punishment, said he agreed with
much of Lieber's legislation, especially the prohibition against
striking small children on the head.

Research has found that children who were struck in the face or head
showed a greater likelihood of behavioral problems later in life, he
said.

But he quibbled with forbidding the use of a paddle, stick or other
instrument to spank.

"The issue is not what a child is spanked with," Larzelere said, "but
how hard they're spanked."

* Another STUPID post from KANE... as usual. ;-)

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:37:00 -0800, Doan wrote:

...a long avoidance of the questions actually posed to him...as
usual...a lying dodge....

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:12:53 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:53:09 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:18:36 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 20 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 20, 1:25 pm, Doan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:57:33 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 18 Feb 2007, Dan Sullivan wrote:

When Dixon was wrapping up her closing arguments on Wednesday, she
placed a child's birthday cake in front of the jury. The cake had
eight candles. Dixon lit them. She sang Happy Birthday to Josef, who
was eight years old when he died. And while the jurors watched, the
Smiths looked away, clung to each other, and sobbed. Dixon said that
Josef's birthday cake would always be missing something -- the candle
for his ninth birthday.

An uncalled for theatrical stunt by the prosecutor.

Nonetheless tha parents got what they deserved.

Yup! The jury had spoken!

And how carefully you avoid the issue of The Question...where the line
is between discipline...which they claimed they were doing.. and that
they claimed that's all they were doing, and abuse which too often is
deadly.

The jury had spoken, STUPID. They had determined where the line is

Where did they establish the line had been crossed? At Death?

"Discipline's always appropriate," Dixon said after the verdict, "but
there is... a line that you cannot cross. And when you're leaving
marks and scarring all over the body of your child, that is highly
inappropriate and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent."

Learn to read, STUPID!

I have. Remember the case last year where a city councilman was found
innocent though he used a belt and left marks on his son?

What does that have to do with this case, STUPID!

The line, stupid.

They have already determined that the line had been crossed in this case,
STUPID!

That's not the question I had. Nor any claim I made. I didn't say the
person hadn't crossed the line. YOU said they established where it
was.

Yup! And it has been crossed!

Cough up, stupid. Where did they way it was, not IF it was crossed,
but WHERE?

Ask the jury, STUPID. You said they don't know where the line is. If
they don't know where the line is, how do they know it has been crossed.
It's simple logic, Kane!

In other words, Doan, like always, you lie or are stupid, or both.

The proven STUPID LIAR is yOU, like always, Kane.

Doan, you are far too obvious a liar.

Kane, You exposed your STUPIDITY again.

Doan you are still far too obvious a liar.

The proven liar here is YOU!

And you have read on aps different views on "spanking" and whether
leaving marks is okay..some saying yes, some no.

Hihihi! "reasonable person" standard, remember?

Sure I remember, and the "reasonable person" is unable to determine
where the line is consistently. So that doesn't work. And shows how
stupid you are, and what a liar you are, since I defeated that
argument long ago, dummy.

Hihihi! "reasonable" is the standard used in court cases, STUPID!

Yep. So what, Doan?

It's what counted, STUPID!

That's not my question. I am not saying the court was WRONG, stupid.
That's your argument...that the court has the final say.

Where did I say the court was WRONG? Stop your STUPID LIES, Kane!

The argument is how does the court establish WHERE the line is.

How did they established it has been crossed?

You haven't shown it because you can't.

Neither did they.

If I cross a border and you ask me to take you back to it and show you
and I cannot then my claim it was crossed is questionable.

Exactly! So how did they determined the line has been crossed without
knowing where the line is as you claimed?

The problem with the courts is they are all over the map about where
that line is, Doan. Just as you are.

Reasonable standard, Kane!

I can show you daily where the reasonable person agrees that 65 miles
an hour on the sign says 65 miles and hour.

So you onnly going 15 MPH on the freeway right, STUPID?

What are you trying to say, stupid?

That you are STUPID to go 15mph on the freeway and claimed that it is
SAFE!

YOU cannot show ME where the reasonable person consistently agrees as
to what is and isn't abuse in the use of corporal punishment. Go
ahead, do it.

They did in this case, STUPID!

The question does not have to do with THIS case but that this case is
different than other cases. No one can agree on this issue of where
that line is, Doan.

The jury did. They determined that the line has been crossed, did they
not?

That's why it has to be stopped.

Hahaha! Like the 65MPH stopped people from speeding??? ARE YOU THIS
STUPID?

In other words, stupid, no one, not even a jury, really can say.

The jury had spoken in this case, STUPID!

It once turned runaway slaves back to their masters. Juries aren't
infallible.

Non sequitor!

I beg your pardon? YOU are using the decision of a jury, but you wish
to now throw out law as sequitur?

Laws said that juries have to be INFALLIBLE???

R R R R just like the little lying monkeyboy you really are.

Hihihi! Like the STUPID LIAR that you really are.

I'm not asking what the jury agreed upon, but what they said...as to
where the line actually IS. Did they?

They said the line had been crossed! Did they not?

Sure did. Now I'm asking YOU to show where they said the line IS,
Doan. You claimed they did, did you not?

How did they know the line has been crossed without knowing where the
line is? It's simple logic, STUPID!

Of course not.

If the juries don't know where the line is, how did they know that
it has been crossed, STUPID?

The jury is STUPID Doan, if it claims it KNOWS where the line is
before it is crossed.

Hahaha! How did the jury determine it has been crossed?

Each case is different, each draws the line differently.

Reasonable standard!

Both the slave and the speed limit analogies are precise and to the
point.

Only to a STUPID person like you.

You have NOT answered my question.

You are TOO STUPID!

Where did the jury say the line IS, Doan?

How did they know it has been crossed without knowing where the line is?

I notice there is NO confusion about crossing the line on speeding
while driving. Go over 65 in a 65 zone and we all agree, with our
without a trial, with or without a jury, that the line has been
crossed.

So going 15mph in a 65 zone is ok? YOU ARE STUPID!!!

Sure it's okay. If I put a red bordered triangle on the back of my
little tractor I can go on ANY freeway in the United States, at 15
mph.

Hahaha! You are funny!

You are stupid.

I DO IT, stupid.

YOU ARE STUPID!

R R R R R .... nope. I live in rural America.

But you are STUPID no matter where you live. ;-)

and
it has been crossed.

Well now that's brilliant, monkeyboy. We'd have never known that
without you. R R R R

That is because YOU ARE STUPID! Hihihi!

So, have you determined just where, before death, the line was
crossed, Doan?

"Reasonable person" standard!

So, show us where the reasonable person agrees consistently on what is
and isn't the line, Doan.

Hihhi! What standard do they use in courts, Kane?

Depends on the kind of case, Doan.

In this case?

Are you going to claim "marks?" How many marks, Doan?

"reasonable person" standard! Are you going to stop talking to your
kids because you don't know where the line is, Kane? Hihihi!

Stop being a parrot. We've had this conversation before with the same
result...you RAN away.

Hihihi! Another STUPID lie, kane!

Nope. We had it, you tried the same thing, I shot it down the same
way. The line is unclear. And

Doan wrote:
Very childish! ;-)

Of course. My intent.

Think, "mirror," Doan. ;-)


Doan

On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On 23 Feb 2007 08:04:57 -0800, "Firemonkey"
wrote:




Sorry Kane but can you provide proof that Doan ever attended school in
the first place?

No, I conceded that I cannot.

RRRRR RR R R R R RR



On Feb 23, 9:22 am, "0:-" wrote:
On Feb 22, 11:00 am, Doan wrote

Pretending there is a concrete and to The Question....

Doan tries to use the power of authority...when in fact authority has
NEVER had the answer to the question....

Go back to school, stupid Doan!!!!
Even the experts can't agree. What makes YOU think YOU know the
answer, eh?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...1070395.story?...

...California prosecutors have been trying to figure out "exactly
where abuse begins and appropriate corporal punishment ends," said
Thomas A. Nazario, a University of San Francisco law professor who has
advised Lieber.

The bill "will paint a fairly clear picture of where the line is drawn
- what's appropriate and what's not," Nazario said.

Other lawyers aren't so sure.

John E.B. Myers, a University of the Pacific law professor who
recently published a history of child protection laws, said Lieber's
bill would have little effect. If it were law, he said, juries in
child abuse cases could still conclude that parents were using
reasonable physical punishment even if they acted in ways presumed
unreasonable - and therefore illegal - by Lieber's bill.

At best, Lieber's measure "will send a message that if you use a
closed fist, you can get in serious trouble and you'll have a tougher
time defending yourself," said Myers, who supports a ban on spanking.
"It's a very small step, in my estimation."

Randy Thomasson, president of the nonprofit Campaign for Children and
Families, said Lieber's bill would rob parents of a disciplinary tool
- mothers in particular, because they often don't have a man's
strength.

"There's too many moms who know if they spank their young boys with a
hand," Thomasson said, "it doesn't cause the sting that they need to
reform their behavior.

"How dare we say that our grandparents - who had a switch or even a
shoe training them to respect authority and obey the rules - that they
were abused," Thomasson said. "You meet a lot of Americans who are
glad they were spanked because they needed it when they were little
rebels."

No other state has laws as explicit as Lieber's measure, though an
Ohio senator this week introduced a bill to bar the spanking of
children younger than 3 years old.

Nadine A. Block, executive director of the nonprofit Center for
Effective Discipline in Columbus, Ohio, congratulated Lieber on
"hanging in there" despite heavy, sometimes personal, criticism.

She called the legislation "very reasonable as a first go."

"We would all like a perfect world ... where we just stopped hitting
children," Block said. "In the imperfect world, you sometimes have to
do things incrementally."

Robert Larzelere, a family science professor at Oklahoma State
University who has studied corporal punishment, said he agreed with
much of Lieber's legislation, especially the prohibition against
striking small children on the head.

Research has found that children who were struck in the face or head
showed a greater likelihood of behavioral problems later in life, he
said.

But he quibbled with forbidding the use of a paddle, stick or other
instrument to spank.

"The issue is not what a child is spanked with," Larzelere said, "but
how hard they're spanked."

* Another STUPID post from KANE... as usual. ;-)

On Thu, 22 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:37:00 -0800, Doan wrote:

...a long avoidance of the questions actually posed to him...as
usual...a lying dodge....

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:12:53 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:53:09 -0800, Doan wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 16:18:36 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 20 Feb 2007, 0:- wrote:

On Feb 20, 1:25 pm, Doan wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007, 0:-] wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 09:57:33 -0800, Doan wrote:

On 18 Feb 2007, Dan Sullivan wrote:

When Dixon was wrapping up her closing arguments on Wednesday, she
placed a child's birthday cake in front of the jury. The cake had
eight candles. Dixon lit them. She sang Happy Birthday to Josef, who
was eight years old when he died. And while the jurors watched, the
Smiths looked away, clung to each other, and sobbed. Dixon said that
Josef's birthday cake would always be missing something -- the candle
for his ninth birthday.

An uncalled for theatrical stunt by the prosecutor.

Nonetheless tha parents got what they deserved.

Yup! The jury had spoken!

And how carefully you avoid the issue of The Question...where the line
is between discipline...which they claimed they were doing.. and that
they claimed that's all they were doing, and abuse which too often is
deadly.

The jury had spoken, STUPID. They had determined where the line is

Where did they establish the line had been crossed? At Death?

"Discipline's always appropriate," Dixon said after the verdict, "but
there is... a line that you cannot cross. And when you're leaving
marks and scarring all over the body of your child, that is highly
inappropriate and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent."

Learn to read, STUPID!

I have. Remember the case last year where a city councilman was found
innocent though he used a belt and left marks on his son?

What does that have to do with this case, STUPID!

The line, stupid.

They have already determined that the line had been crossed in this case,
STUPID!

That's not the question I had. Nor any claim I made. I didn't say the
person hadn't crossed the line. YOU said they established where it
was.

Yup! And it has been crossed!

Cough up, stupid. Where did they way it was, not IF it was crossed,
but WHERE?

Ask the jury, STUPID. You said they don't know where the line is. If
they don't know where the line is, how do they know it has been crossed.
It's simple logic, Kane!

In other words, Doan, like always, you lie or are stupid, or both.

The proven STUPID LIAR is yOU, like always, Kane.

Doan, you are far too obvious a liar.

Kane, You exposed your STUPIDITY again.

Doan you are still far too obvious a liar.

The proven liar here is YOU!

And you have read on aps different views on "spanking" and whether
leaving marks is okay..some saying yes, some no.

Hihihi! "reasonable person" standard, remember?

Sure I remember, and the "reasonable person" is unable to determine
where the line is consistently. So that doesn't work. And shows how
stupid you are, and what a liar you are, since I defeated that
argument long ago, dummy.

Hihihi! "reasonable" is the standard used in court cases, STUPID!

Yep. So what, Doan?

It's what counted, STUPID!

That's not my question. I am not saying the court was WRONG, stupid.
That's your argument...that the court has the final say.

Where did I say the court was WRONG? Stop your STUPID LIES, Kane!

The argument is how does the court establish WHERE the line is.

How did they established it has been crossed?

You haven't shown it because you can't.

Neither did they.

If I cross a border and you ask me to take you back to it and show you
and I cannot then my claim it was crossed is questionable.

Exactly! So how did they determined the line has been crossed without
knowing where the line is as you claimed?

The problem with the courts is they are all over the map about where
that line is, Doan. Just as you are.

Reasonable standard, Kane!

I can show you daily where the reasonable person agrees that 65 miles
an hour on the sign says 65 miles and hour.

So you onnly going 15 MPH on the freeway right, STUPID?

What are you trying to say, stupid?

That you are STUPID to go 15mph on the freeway and claimed that it is
SAFE!

YOU cannot show ME where the reasonable person consistently agrees as
to what is and isn't abuse in the use of corporal punishment. Go
ahead, do it.

They did in this case, STUPID!

The question does not have to do with THIS case but that this case is
different than other cases. No one can agree on this issue of where
that line is, Doan.

The jury did. They determined that the line has been crossed, did they
not?

That's why it has to be stopped.

Hahaha! Like the 65MPH stopped people from speeding??? ARE YOU THIS
STUPID?

In other words, stupid, no one, not even a jury, really can say.

The jury had spoken in this case, STUPID!

It once turned runaway slaves back to their masters. Juries aren't
infallible.

Non sequitor!

I beg your pardon? YOU are using the decision of a jury, but you wish
to now throw out law as sequitur?

Laws said that juries have to be INFALLIBLE???

R R R R just like the little lying monkeyboy you really are.

Hihihi! Like the STUPID LIAR that you really are.

I'm not asking what the jury agreed upon, but what they said...as to
where the line actually IS. Did they?

They said the line had been crossed! Did they not?

Sure did. Now I'm asking YOU to show where they said the line IS,
Doan. You claimed they did, did you not?

How did they know the line has been crossed without knowing where the
line is? It's simple logic, STUPID!

Of course not.

If the juries don't know where the line is, how did they know that
it has been crossed, STUPID?

The jury is STUPID Doan, if it claims it KNOWS where the line is
before it is crossed.

Hahaha! How did the jury determine it has been crossed?

Each case is different, each draws the line differently.

Reasonable standard!

Both the slave and the speed limit analogies are precise and to the
point.

Only to a STUPID person like you.

You have NOT answered my question.

You are TOO STUPID!

Where did the jury say the line IS, Doan?

How did they know it has been crossed without knowing where the line is?

I notice there is NO confusion about crossing the line on speeding
while driving. Go over 65 in a 65 zone and we all agree, with our
without a trial, with or without a jury, that the line has been
crossed.

So going 15mph in a 65 zone is ok? YOU ARE STUPID!!!

Sure it's okay. If I put a red bordered triangle on the back of my
little tractor I can go on ANY freeway in the United States, at 15
mph.

Hahaha! You are funny!

You are stupid.

I DO IT, stupid.

YOU ARE STUPID!

R R R R R .... nope. I live in rural America.

But you are STUPID no matter where you live. ;-)

and
it has been crossed.

Well now that's brilliant, monkeyboy. We'd have never known that
without you. R R R R

That is because YOU ARE STUPID! Hihihi!

So, have you determined just where, before death, the line was
crossed, Doan?

"Reasonable person" standard!

So, show us where the reasonable person agrees consistently on what is
and isn't the line, Doan.

Hihhi! What standard do they use in courts, Kane?

Depends on the kind of case, Doan.

In this case?

Are you going to claim "marks?" How many marks, Doan?

"reasonable person" standard! Are you going to stop talking to your
kids because you don't know where the line is, Kane? Hihihi!

Stop being a parrot. We've had this conversation before with the same
result...you RAN away.

Hihihi! Another STUPID lie, kane!

Nope. We had it, you tried the same thing, I shot it down the same
way. The line is unclear. And