In article <EYPTO.249495$WXO8.74608@fx13.iad>, katt@gmail.com says...
>
> On 10/28/2024 10:01 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless
> chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:
>
> > "Klaus Schadenfreude" <katt@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:wzOTO.89026$7OO5.77312@fx43.iad...
> >> On 10/28/2024 8:26 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Klaus Schadenfreude" <katt@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> news:FtPSO.26517$9Rk4.10335@fx37.iad...
> >>>> On 10/25/2024 7:19 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, lied:
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "Dawn Flood" <Dawn.Belle.Flood@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>>> news:vfes9n$2s3np$4@dont-email.me...
> >>>>>> On 10/22/2024 2:35 PM, Skeeter wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article <rxSRO.54739$KDwf.3770@fx01.iad>, rudy@phil.hendrie.con
> >>>>>>> says...
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> This is a reply I made to Skeeter-Shit "Lamey" Jack-Off Shit-4-Braincell
> >>>>>>>> back
> >>>>>>>> when he was posting as "Lamey." Now he's denying having posted as
> >>>>>>>> "Lamey," but
> >>>>>>>> he's lying. He also used to post as "Jack Shit." What a fucking loser.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 6/16/2021 9:22 AM, Lamey wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, 16 Jun 2021 09:19:06 -0700, Rudy Canoza <js@phendrie.con>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 6/4/2021 9:35 AM, Rudy Canoza wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> This is absolutely true.  Research shows that the more new prisons
> >>>>>>>>>>> there are,
> >>>>>>>>>>> the more petty crimes are prosecuted and the harsher and longer the
> >>>>>>>>>>> sentences.
> >>>>>>>>>>> One of the big drivers of this is prison guard unions.  The more
> >>>>>>>>>>> prisons and
> >>>>>>>>>>> prisoners, the more jobs for prison guards.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> More support:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "Life Without Parole Isn't Making Us Any Safer"
> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/16/opinion/louisiana-criminal-justice-
> >>>>>>>>>> reform.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> That's a true statement. Life without parole is another gimmick to
> >>>>>>>>>> fill up the
> >>>>>>>>>> prisons.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> It's called doing time for the crime you dingbat.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Life without parole for robbing a bank of $5,000 is simply wrong.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Then dont do it.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A tiny number of people do, though, and will continue to do so.  Point is
> >>>>>> that people can and do change while in prison.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Somehow, I bet it wasn't just the $5,000 that was taken.. I'm pretty sure
> >>>>> one or more people died due to a direct result of that crime. It is those
> >>>>> deaths that put you in prison without parole.
> >>>>
> >>>> No one was killed in the bank robbery, scooter.
> >>>
> >>> Bank robbery?
> >>
> >> Yes, bank robbery, scooter. That's all that Richardson was charged with.
> >
> > And how did we go from the general cases above to this SPECIFIC case?
>
> See above, scooter: "Life Without Parole Isn't Making Us Any Safer" You took the
> bait, scooter.
>
> We were talking in general about grotesquely unjust sentences out of proportion
> to the crime committed, scooter. *Now*, scooter, we're talking about that
> specific case. You swallowed the bait, scooter.
>
> >>> When did that specific become part of the topic and which specific bank
> >>> robbery are you claiming was part of the discussion?
> >>
> >> It always was part of the topic, scooter.
> >
> > No, it's not.
>
> Yes, scooter, it was. It is a specific and on-point instance of what the general
> topic *formerly* was, scooter.
>
> >
> >> "Life Without Parole Isn't Making Us Any Safer" is about a bank robber who was
> >> given a 60 year no-parole no-probation sentence for robbing a bank of $5,000.
> >> Why don't you try paying attention, scooter?
> >
> > Well, has he committed another violent crime since he's been in jail?
>
> That's not the goal of incarceration, scooter.
>
> The sentence is manifestly unjust, scooter.
>
> >>>
> >>>> Shots were fired, but no one was hit.
> >>>
> >>> So?
> >>
> >> So, the conviction was only for bank robbery, scooter.
> >
> > You have proof of that? Somehow I doubt it.
>
> https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/la-court-of-appeal/1100023.html
>
> You shoot yourself in your crotch every time, scooter...not that there's much to
> hit there.
>
> >
> >>>
> >>> Illegal possession of a firearm
> >>> Illegal discharge of a Firearm
> >>> Reckless endangerment
> >>> Attempted homicide
> >>
> >> None of those were part of the charges, scooter.
> >
> > Prove it.
>
> See above, scooter, you dumb fascist KKK fat fuck.
>
> >
> >>>> The sentence imposed was *solely* for the robbery, scooter.
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, but
> >>
> >> No "but," scooter.
> >
> > Then prove your claim that it was *solely* for the robbery.
>
> See above, scooter, you dumb fascist KKK fat fuck.
>
> >>>
> >>>> If you think there was some other element to the sentencing, scooter, trot
> >>>> out your evidence. But you don't have any and you never will.
> >>>
> >>> How about the law?
> >>
> >> Nothing about the law, scooter.
> >
> > Somehow I don't see your suggestion that we ignore the law
>
> Straw man, scooter. I never suggested we ignore the law, scooter.
>
> >> The man was duly and justly convicted, but the sentence is manifestly unjust.
> >
> > I don't see it.
>
> Of course you don't, scooter, you dumb fascist KKK fat fuck. Fascists KKK fat
> fucks never do.
>
> >
> >>>>>>  Does it make sense to imprison someone for having robbed a bank for 5K
> >>>>>> some 5 years ago?  10? 50?  A year ago?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well.. we could always just execute them.
> >>>>
> >>>> That's not going to happen, scooter.
> >>>
> >>> Then count your blessings he's only getting life.
> >>
> >> We don't execute people for the theft of $5,000, scooter, and we never will.
> >> You are not going to get the North Korean "justice" that you wish to see.
> >
> > Rudy.. when will you learn not to make such stupid claims because you know I
> > will prove you wrong.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Ketchum
>
> No, scooter. That was in 1901. We don't do things today as we did in 1901,
> scooter. And we're not going back to that, scooter. Move to North Korea if
> that's the kind of "justice" system you wish to live under, scooter.
>
> >>>> You are not going to get the despotic state that you want.
> >>>
> >>> An [sic] I know you want the despotic state you want.
> >>
> >> I don't want a despotic state, scooter. You do.
>
> <crickets>
>
> >>>
> >>>> You can move to North Korea if you want to live in a state that summarily
> >>>> executes people for jaywalking, scooter.
> >>>
> >>> I should I move?
> >>
> >> Because you're the one who wishes to live in a despotic state, scooter.
>
> <crickets>
>
> >>>
> >>>>> However, show me a case were someone was given like [life] just for robbing
> >>>>> a bank of 5K... can't be for any other crime just the robbery of the money.
> >>>
> >>> Except when you rob a bank... it's not just about the robbery of the money.
> >>
> >> If that's all that happened, scooter, then it *is* only about the robbery of
> >> the money.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> *This* case, scooter ? the case of Robert Richardson detailed in the New
> >>>> York Times (Gold Standard) story above.
> >>>
> >>> and yet,
> >>
> >> No, scooter. Fuck off with your scooterisms.
> >>
> >> "Actually..." [empty padding]
> >> "Further..." [empty padding]
> >> "Naturally, ..." [empty padding]
> >> "And just like that..." [scooter going "nyah-nyah" at an opponent immediately
> >> before fleeing]
> >> "On the contrary..." [scooter childishly disputing, *never* refuting]
> >> "And yet..." [empty padding; scooter adding something irrelevant and pointless]
> >> "Heck..." [empty padding]
> >> "Well..." [empty padding]
> >> "After all..." [empty padding]
> >> "In fact..." [empty padding]
> >> "Indeed..." [empty padding]
> >> "I acknowledge that..." [something that hasn't happened, so not subject to
> >> acknowledgment]
> >> "So what you're saying..." [what follows is *always* something the opponent
> >> *never* said, i.e. a straw man]
> >> "TRANSLATION:..." [the same as "so what you're saying..." ? a straw man]
> >> "Rudy/Baxter/Lee admits..." same as "so what you're saying" and
> >> "TRANSLATION:.." ? a straw man]
> >> "Where in the Constitution does it say..." [about shit that wouldn't *be* in
> >> the Constitution anyway]
> >> "it's" [he means the possessive "its"]
> >> "its" [he means the contraction "it's"]
> >> "where" [he means "were"]
> >> "were" [he means "where"]
> >> "creditability" [he means "credibility"; "creditability" is not a word]
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Also according to police reports he fired said gun at a police officer.
> >>
> >> That's a lie, scooter. You didn't *read* any police reports.
> <crickets>

Your desperation is showing Jon.