Sunday, March 24, 2013

Well, Colorado, YOU elected Hudak;

and here's more of what you voted for:
When the roll was called, Hill again stated that he couldn’t vote on something that the legislature hadn’t read and discussed more thoroughly.

“Here’s a coin you can flip,” Hudak said.

“I didn’t knock on 20,000 doors to flip a coin,” Hill added.

“You’ll pass for now, here’s a coin if you want to flip it,” she said condescendingly.
Women can't be trusted with arms, and who cares about a bunch of OPM?  Just flip a coin before voting...  Dirtbag politician through-and-through.

The news story that really sets me off is that 17-yoa waste of oxygen murdering a baby, because mom didn't have any money to steal and he was so upset he had to hurt somebody.
I'm sure the blood-dancers of the CSGV & Co. are splashing about and screaming about the gun; I doubt they're talking about a couple of teenagers who think robbery is a fine way to get some money, and at least one of them having no problem murdering A FREAKING BABY because he's all upset the mom didn't have any cash.  Oh no, can't get all concerned about that!
There will, however, be lots of whining and moaning about whatever sentence is handed down on the two.  For the younger one it'll be "He's only fourteen, he (fill in the effing blank)!"  For the older, well, you know the drill.  "He never had a chance, it's 'X' fault he didn't know better!" and so forth.  Which doesn't change you've got what would've been, a few generations ago, a young man expected to pull his weight in a job and fit into a civil society, who now is a piece of shit who has no problem with killing a baby.  The 'reformers' will wail and demand he get another chance.  And if he does what usually happens and murders someone else, another one after that.

Nasty question a lot of people don't want to think about, let alone actually answer: How many other peoples' lives are a sufficient number of 'chances' for someone like this?

I've yet to hear any of the usual excusers/pleaders give an answer.  Yeah, he's 'only' 17, he might change(usually that's "Maybe we can reform him!"), but what do you tell the family of the next one he kills when he gets out?
And he will get out; they demand the end of the death penalty, and keeping someone in prison for life is 'cruel and unusual', etc.

And soon as someone with some visibility starts talking about the rotted culture that produced these walking diseases, the cries of racism will start.  Because we OBVIOUSLY wouldn't be this upset about this if the diseases were white, right...

1 comment:

Windy Wilson said...

This is another instance that proves my theory that Juvenile Court was mis-named, mis-formed and virtually uniformly mis-applied. It was originally conceived to deal with malicious mischief; pranks and stuff that hurt others a bit more than mere jokes. Stealing of hubcaps, soaping windows, doing something to the flowers in someone's front yard. Crimes, but with the emphasis on "petty."
When the "Yoots" moved on to armed robbery that should have taken them out of the jurisdiction of Juvenile Court. They know at age 13 and earlier that stealing is wrong; they hide the fact of the deed from the authorities. Juvenile Court is not equipped to deal with real crime by real criminals, and as a consequence, the teens who go through the system have an image of the law as a toothless restraint on their behavior.
This 17 year old murderer should be tried as an adult. Unfortunately the last two offenses he was actually caught for (probably 10 total), he should have been so tried also.