Absolutely the charges should be dropped, and apparently the DA agrees. The officers involved in the arrest made a mistake, or were trying to make sure the situation wouldn't escalate after they left. Either way they arrested the wrong man.
The judge should dismiss the charges in the interest of justice.
Why did it take a year to charge him?..Why did these government officials wait so long?.......From what i have read i would say stop this madness and and drop the charges....Its the DA who dropped the ball..Maybe some reeducation on this needs to be done.
the deputy and his supervisor should both be reprimanded and a letter put into their employment files......................by the way how come we haven't seen the name of the arresting officer? probably some kind of law protecting him like the Batavia cop and the accidental firearm discharge.............damn it, I should have been a cop, then I could laugh at all the losers who have to obey the law.......oh well
I am guessing the Deputy and Sheriff's Department may have been effected by Governor Cuomo's SAFE ACT Law. Thought MR. Robinson displayed the shotgun it was in the privacy of his residency and he was threaten by MR. Crooks. He has the right to defend his home and self but, with the new SAFE ACT Law, the law probably has kinks in it. Maybe the GCSD thought MR. Robinson was in violation of the SAFE ACT? Let's face facts it is all how you interpret a law. New York State Law allows you to defend your property and self but, you can still be charge with wrongful death. MR. Crooks did not display a weapon that I heard about so, does that make it wrong or right for Robinson to display a firearm. Remember Zimmerman case in Florida with it issues.
BTW Raymond, NYS Penal Law § 35.20 does allow you to defend yourself and your property but, if MR. Robinson had shot MR. Crooks whom was not armed at the time of the incident. Robinson could have been charged with wrongful death and possible manslaughter. Remember New York State also, expects you to withdraw from danger if, you can safely do so. I personally know someone who used deadly force to protect his property and they were still charged and sued. It is not as clear cut for this Liberal State as you believe. Especially when lawyers do twist and turn things. Hench why we have heard lawmakers used the phrase, "It is all on how you interpret it!"
Apparently, you forgot that in the State of New York you cannot shoot an unarmed person. Yes there are exceptions however, I am pretty sure MR. Robinson doesn't qualify for them. I DO AGREE MR. Robinson's charges should be dismissed due to the circumstances. MR. Crooks should have not confronted MR. Robinson at all. If, his wife is screwing around, then the wife is to blame. I was told in Italy back in the day, if you found your wife with another man that, if you killed the man it was murder but, if you killed the wife it was justified. There was two reasons first, the wife is committing adultery (Biblical Sin) and second, women can restraint themselves better than a man when it comes to having sexual intercourse. You see that proven fact every day.
John Woodworth Jr. writes: " I was told in Italy back in the day, if you found your wife with another man that, if you killed the man it was murder but, if you killed the wife it was justified. There was two reasons first, the wife is committing adultery (Biblical Sin) and second, women can restraint themselves better than a man when it comes to having sexual intercourse."
------------------------------
This has got to be the most ignorant, misogynistic and VILE comment that I have read on these pages -- and that is really saying something. Utterly disgusting.
Mr. Woodworth, I hope to heaven that you don't have a wife or a girlfriend, let alone (god forbid!) a daughter or a granddaughter. If you're trying to be funny, you're not.
Howard, I am generally not one to call for censorship, but is it really acceptable for posters to advocate for the abuse and murder of women on these pages? If so, count me out.
" There was two reasons first, the wife is committing adultery (Biblical Sin) and second, women can restraint themselves better than a man when it comes to having sexual intercourse."
There is no reason here. Just low comedy echoing out of Iron Age darkness.
Scott how many men do you know turn down sex if, a women offer I do not see any saying no? Yes, you are going to find those women who open their legs and mouths easily but, most respectful women can control themselves better then men. Consider the man was 80 that told me that story, I guess it would be pre-women's right. BTW, Italy is a very Catholic Country so as far as the Adultery goes I am pretty such that has a lot of truth and merit behind it.
I could not imagine how Emma would deal with the Middle East Countries that, do kill their wife if they commit adultery and are caught. Not a myth but, the truth. Why everyone thinks that all the world is on the same page as American is beyond me.
How does one get sexual weakling or tell a man how to think, out of an old man's explanation of his country's law on Adultery. I guess a woman with no MORALS is a just a whore? Until this day even the Middle Eastern Countries still have violent laws on adultery and their concept is religious in nature. People are clueless and without morals. No wonder our society is falling apart.
"Consider the man was 80 that told me that story,"
So what? Onset dementia, perhaps. John, I find your comments to be so breathtakingly out of touch with reality, I seriously wonder if you're responsible for the things you say. Other than saying I wish someone would editorially clean up your embarrassing mess, I have nothing more to say to you.
Emma, also, there's no comment I can see the "advocates" for abuse and murder of women. I see somebody stating something they believe to be historical fact. Whether it is or not, I don't know, but stating something happened in the past is hardly advocating.
Howard, he prefaced his misogynist tale by indicating that the man's wife is to blame. It seems that he is connecting the story with that notion. Here is the quote:
"If, his wife is screwing around, then the wife is to blame. I was told in Italy back in the day, if you found your wife with another man that, if you killed the man it was murder but, if you killed the wife it was justified."
That sure as heck looks as though he's advocating such punishment, to me. That's certainly the implication.
In any case, I'm finished with this crap. It ventures way too far "off the deep end" for my tastes. His outrageously sexist remarks are indefensible. I stand by my comment.
"I was told in Italy back in the day, if you found your wife with another man that, if you killed the man it was murder but, if you killed the wife it was justified. There was two reasons first, the wife is committing adultery (Biblical Sin) and second, women can restraint themselves better than a man when it comes to having sexual intercourse. You see that proven fact every day."
Howard, he offers an historic justification, and opines it's a proven fact, everyday. Taliban thinking at its finest.
Basically, all I was stating is that, MR. Crooks was wrong for threatening MR. Robinson for his wife indiscretion. He should have focus on his wife since, she is the issue.
BTW, the 80 years old gentleman is right that, today's society bases their relationships more on sex than compatibility. Divorce rates are higher, teenage pregnancies are higher (Which during his generation the only teenagers that were pregnant were the ones that were married), sex is promoted on TV, movies, news (Which during his generation a woman was respected and not view as a piece of meat). Yet, you three have no scruples about the breakdown of families and society due to today's society. GOOD FOR YOU, I guess you love broken families, sexual diseases, and female girls getting pregnant as early as 12! You Liberals through and through, congradulations!
So that we are clear I am not saying I am innocent. I have gone to strip clubs, I have had many one night stands. However, unlike Emma, I am not going to call someone VILE because, of an older man’s recollection of his country’s law in which many countries have similar laws even today.
First Emma I am not advocating any such punishment. Yes, in this case the wife is to blame. If she is not happy then she could ask for a divorce, go to counseling, etc...
Just because, other countries have such laws does not mean I am advocating such, it is just fact that some places view Adultery as very wrong!
I guess all of those women you had one night stands with could not "restraint themselves better than a man." You must have been simply irresistible John.
"Basically, all I was stating is that, MR. Crooks was wrong for threatening MR. Robinson for his wife indiscretion. He should have focus on his wife since, she is the issue."
Scott did you live in Italy in the 1940s, I know I did not. Just because, the man is 80 does not mean he is not speaking the truth. So, because, you do not live in the Middle East does that mean men don't execute their wives if found with another man?
Historical the world is a very different place. Churches had a greater influences in the past. During his day I am sure divorce was abundant as it is today.
“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”
― Salman Rushdie
“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
― Winston Churchill
“The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.”
― Hubert H. Humphrey
We have only a few rules around here.
-- No name calling. I don't always spot this, but when I do, the post gets deleted without hesitation.
-- No personal attacks. Sometimes this is easy, "Mr. Smith, you're an idiot," is clearly a personal attack; however, "Mr. Smith, I find your statement ignorant," is not. Stupid statements can come from intelligent people, and person should be free to say another person's statements don't hold water. There are times, however, where the line between personal attack and not are kind of gray and it's always a judgement call on my part as whether to allow it. There are some questionable posts in this thread, but I hesitate to overly moderate.
-- No racism, homophobia or misogyny. It's got to be clear to me and perhaps the closest racist can find ways to be oblique that I miss (and the case above, we might read things differently).
-- I do try to watch out for outright meanspiritedness.
We have an increasingly partisan society. I bet many of our readers spend a lot of time in their own online political circles. Those on the left hang out a lot at Daily Kos, or similar, and those on the right Free Republic (is that still around)? A general community news site should be a place where all these different stripes of politics should be able to come together and discuss issues and get an insight to how the other side thinks. Perhaps escaping the bounds of pure partisanship might lead to a little more understanding and tolerance of other views.
But you all should just really cut out all the personal stuff. Making things personal is no way to intelligently discuss any issue.
It's possible to call out somebody's statements you don't like without stating or implying it's a personal defect to hold views you disagree with.
John Woodworth JR: “By the way to Emma, Scott and Julie…..you three have no scruples about the breakdown of families and society due to today's society.”
Seriously…are you drunk? Is that supposed to mean something?
You advocate a man should “focus (his threats) on his wife since she is the issue,” and WE have no scruples blah blah blah…?!
John Woodworth JR: “Yes, in this case the wife is to blame. If she is not happy then she could ask for a divorce, go to counseling, etc... ”
If he doesn’t trust his wife, HE should have asked for a divorce or gone to counseling. Why is SHE responsible for HIS behavior? Is that what you consider the “breakdown of families”….when men are expected to take responsibility for their own behavior?
There is nothing in any of the articles I read on here about anybody committing “adultery.”
Why do you glorify weak men? It’s like you’re a misogynist and a misandrist simultaneously.
Emma, I heard that in some ancient Amazon communities, stupid men who made no sense were castrated by the women and became their eunuch slaves. Historical fact….? Not sure, but that’s what I heard. ;]
Howard, let me tell you -- man to man -- you're tone deaf. And as a self-described journalist, appallingly so. Never mind tone deaf, what's worse, you seem to lack the ability or willingness to listen.
"Howard, let me tell you -- man to man" That's not man to man, that's man to every reader of TheBatavian. That's what private correspondence (email) is for.
Or perhaps I don't wear partisan blinders and I read stuff for what it is rather than reading stuff into it.
And your retreat into personal attack is typical of somebody who can't handle disagreement.
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm tone deaf or don't understand or am not listening. That might just be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, after all. That's an appallingly arrogant comment, Scott.
Howard, I don't understand how you can call anyone "appallingly arrogant" when you, yourself, felt the need to school me on the definition of "misogyny." Do you seriously think that I don't know the definition of the word?
Talk about arrogant (and/or patronizing). That, I think, was Scott's point.
Scott, name calling isn't personal attack? Really? If you directed that at any other user, the comment would have been deleted as soon as I saw it.
Emma, you and Scott persist in making assertions that have no logical basis or factual backing. You make these assertions unsupported by any rational argumentation. Just blank assertions. Since you persist in making these assertions without a scintilla or reason, logic or facts, one can only assume you don't understand the meaning of the word or grasp the scope of the argument. All I can do is try to help.
Let's be clear -- I laid out the ground rules as a reminder. I state clearly that in order for a comment to be deleted, the statement must clearly break the rule. You and Scott insist that a statement by another poster breaks that rule. I say it's not that clear. You two persist in vague terms but offer no rational or logical explanation for your position, just repeating the same rather vapid assertion over and over with such empty words as "astonished" and "amazing" (hardly a rational, factual argument).
To be clear, I'm in no way defending anything the poster in question nor the post in question. I'm simply saying as a matter of forum moderation, there's nothing clear cut here. No matter how much you two try to turn this into something personal, I'm not taking the bait. You're welcome to be offended by the comment, but to turn your personal sense of offensive into a reason to shut up somebody you disagree with just isn't a game I'll get into. I don't like the comment any more than you do, but it doesn't rise to the level of a clear violation. I'm sorry you can't accept that, but you're ongoing vapid debate on this point is rather tiresome.
Jeff, "man to man" is internet code for "i'm about to attack you personally, but I want to show first, in a seemingly nice way, that I'm the better man than you ..."
Also, it's an incredibly sexist phrase. It assumes only men or capable of speaking frankly to each other.
"If he doesn’t trust his wife, HE should have asked for a divorce or gone to counseling. Why is SHE responsible for HIS behavior?"
I cant speak to what they may or may not have been working on. However how is SHE not responsible for what happened? Mr. Robinson did not invite this man to his house. Mr. Robinson told him to leave. Obviously wether platonic or not Mrs. Robinson and Mr. Crooks had some sort of relations or conversation that led him to believe he had a right to demand entrance and audience. Even the 911 dispatcher told Mr. Robinson to tell the guy pounding on the door that he had a firearm. It's Mr. Crooks and Mrs. Robinson who share the blame equally.
As for the Amazon comment, you do realize that most of Amazonian tales are myths. There has been no concrete evidence of an Amazonian Race or Culture except in myths and poetry and art.
Kyle: “However how is SHE not responsible for what happened?”
Thread progression. I commented in response to this: “Yes, in this case the wife is to blame. If she is not happy then she could ask for a divorce, go to counseling, etc... ”
His wife is not responsible for his actions. That is why the police arrested HIM and not HER. People can’t commit crimes and then say, “S/he made me do it!” and the police say, “Oh, well then it’s not your fault. Grab a cookie and go on home.”
Small children and cowards blame others for bad things they do; reasonable adults should know better.
I’m not too concerned about any misogynistic comments on here, really. It’s the internet….too many other shiny distractions going on. This thread speaks for itself, rather bluntly, I think, should anyone inadvertently stumble upon it.
It’s a real shame what’s happened to this place. I remember interesting, intelligent, lively debate and humor here years ago, not just one or two voices drowned out by one or two louder voices. Too bad.
This site has too many Liberals. Over Sensitive, Over-reactive, Over Controlling and Deceivers. Plus, tend to worry about everyone's rights but, our own.
Here is some humor for you.
President Obama goes on a State visit to Israel. While visiting the City of Jerusalem he suffered a major heart attack.
The Israeli Undertaker informed the U.S. Ambassador, they could have Obama flown home for $1,000,000 U.S. dollars or buried there in Israel for just $100 U.S. dollars.
Well the Ambassador holds council with the other U.S. diplomats and after several minutes of deliberation he comes back to the Israeli Undertaker and requested that Obama be flown home.
Well this greatly puzzled the Israeli Undertaker who inquired, why would you pay a million dollars to fly Obama back when you could bury him in such a beautiful and Holy Land?
The Ambassador replies, Let me remind you that, 2000 years ago, you had a man died here, then buried here and three days later, rise from the died. We just can’t take that risk!
John, your attempt at political humor fell flat. It is an old joke (I remember hearing it when George W. Was in office). If it was meant to get a rise out of the pesky left it didn't work.
"It’s a real shame what’s happened to this place. I remember interesting, intelligent, lively debate and humor here years ago, not just one or two voices drowned out by one or two louder voices. Too bad."
We still have intelligent, lively debate. That isn't to say every comment is a gem, but in this supposed idyllic age of The Batavian past, there was a lot of stupidity aired then as well.
It's the Internet. People say stupid stuff. Deal with it.
And there's still plenty of humor, too.
There's hardly just one or two voices drowning everybody else out. Just look at this thread. Lots of voices. A mix of long-time members on the left and the right and newcomers on both sides as well.
"This site has too many Liberals."
If my wife would let me get away with some profanity here, this utterly nonsense comment would unleash it.
If a person can't handle intelligently discussing topics with people who hold opposing views, perhaps they should find a forum more suited to a myopic vision of the world. All political persuasions and views are welcome here. I'm offended that a reader would suggest otherwise.
A comment containing a personal attack has been deleted. I'd not fully read the comment last night. A follow up comment quoting it back has been deleted.
Rather than post complaints about other posts or posters, the appropriate way to handle such issues is to contact me directly by e-mail.
He NEVER should've been
He NEVER should've been arrested in the first place!
Absolutely the charges should
Absolutely the charges should be dropped, and apparently the DA agrees. The officers involved in the arrest made a mistake, or were trying to make sure the situation wouldn't escalate after they left. Either way they arrested the wrong man.
The judge should dismiss the charges in the interest of justice.
Well said, Bob!
Well said, Bob!
Why did it take a year to
Why did it take a year to charge him?..Why did these government officials wait so long?.......From what i have read i would say stop this madness and and drop the charges....Its the DA who dropped the ball..Maybe some reeducation on this needs to be done.
the deputy and his supervisor
the deputy and his supervisor should both be reprimanded and a letter put into their employment files......................by the way how come we haven't seen the name of the arresting officer? probably some kind of law protecting him like the Batavia cop and the accidental firearm discharge.............damn it, I should have been a cop, then I could laugh at all the losers who have to obey the law.......oh well
The deputy's name has
The deputy's name has appeared in previous coverage of this story.
I am guessing the Deputy and
I am guessing the Deputy and Sheriff's Department may have been effected by Governor Cuomo's SAFE ACT Law. Thought MR. Robinson displayed the shotgun it was in the privacy of his residency and he was threaten by MR. Crooks. He has the right to defend his home and self but, with the new SAFE ACT Law, the law probably has kinks in it. Maybe the GCSD thought MR. Robinson was in violation of the SAFE ACT? Let's face facts it is all how you interpret a law. New York State Law allows you to defend your property and self but, you can still be charge with wrongful death. MR. Crooks did not display a weapon that I heard about so, does that make it wrong or right for Robinson to display a firearm. Remember Zimmerman case in Florida with it issues.
This whole thing is a
This whole thing is a joke.
NYS law clearly allows a person to defend themselves, and their property, § 35.20 of the penal law.
This should be dismissed not just as a matter of justice, but also as a matter of law.
Yeah, pretty much what
Yeah, pretty much what Elizabeth said....
BTW Raymond, NYS Penal Law §
BTW Raymond, NYS Penal Law § 35.20 does allow you to defend yourself and your property but, if MR. Robinson had shot MR. Crooks whom was not armed at the time of the incident. Robinson could have been charged with wrongful death and possible manslaughter. Remember New York State also, expects you to withdraw from danger if, you can safely do so. I personally know someone who used deadly force to protect his property and they were still charged and sued. It is not as clear cut for this Liberal State as you believe. Especially when lawyers do twist and turn things. Hench why we have heard lawmakers used the phrase, "It is all on how you interpret it!"
Apparently, you forgot that in the State of New York you cannot shoot an unarmed person. Yes there are exceptions however, I am pretty sure MR. Robinson doesn't qualify for them. I DO AGREE MR. Robinson's charges should be dismissed due to the circumstances. MR. Crooks should have not confronted MR. Robinson at all. If, his wife is screwing around, then the wife is to blame. I was told in Italy back in the day, if you found your wife with another man that, if you killed the man it was murder but, if you killed the wife it was justified. There was two reasons first, the wife is committing adultery (Biblical Sin) and second, women can restraint themselves better than a man when it comes to having sexual intercourse. You see that proven fact every day.
"...and second, women can
"...and second, women can restraint themselves better than a man when it comes to having sexual intercourse. You see that proven fact every day."
I'd like to see some data on this. LOL.
John Woodworth Jr. writes: "
John Woodworth Jr. writes: " I was told in Italy back in the day, if you found your wife with another man that, if you killed the man it was murder but, if you killed the wife it was justified. There was two reasons first, the wife is committing adultery (Biblical Sin) and second, women can restraint themselves better than a man when it comes to having sexual intercourse."
------------------------------
This has got to be the most ignorant, misogynistic and VILE comment that I have read on these pages -- and that is really saying something. Utterly disgusting.
Mr. Woodworth, I hope to heaven that you don't have a wife or a girlfriend, let alone (god forbid!) a daughter or a granddaughter. If you're trying to be funny, you're not.
Howard, I am generally not one to call for censorship, but is it really acceptable for posters to advocate for the abuse and murder of women on these pages? If so, count me out.
" There was two reasons
" There was two reasons first, the wife is committing adultery (Biblical Sin) and second, women can restraint themselves better than a man when it comes to having sexual intercourse."
There is no reason here. Just low comedy echoing out of Iron Age darkness.
If I was a man I wouldn’t
If I was a man I wouldn’t brag about being a sexual weakling, or having to rely on other men to tell me how to think.
Gee…..a man blaming women for those males who are morally corrupt and sexually incontinent. That’s new and different.
Scott how many men do you
Scott how many men do you know turn down sex if, a women offer I do not see any saying no? Yes, you are going to find those women who open their legs and mouths easily but, most respectful women can control themselves better then men. Consider the man was 80 that told me that story, I guess it would be pre-women's right. BTW, Italy is a very Catholic Country so as far as the Adultery goes I am pretty such that has a lot of truth and merit behind it.
I could not imagine how Emma would deal with the Middle East Countries that, do kill their wife if they commit adultery and are caught. Not a myth but, the truth. Why everyone thinks that all the world is on the same page as American is beyond me.
How does one get sexual
How does one get sexual weakling or tell a man how to think, out of an old man's explanation of his country's law on Adultery. I guess a woman with no MORALS is a just a whore? Until this day even the Middle Eastern Countries still have violent laws on adultery and their concept is religious in nature. People are clueless and without morals. No wonder our society is falling apart.
Name calling is not allowed,
Name calling is not allowed, even if you substitute the letters with symbols.
"Consider the man was 80 that
"Consider the man was 80 that told me that story,"
So what? Onset dementia, perhaps. John, I find your comments to be so breathtakingly out of touch with reality, I seriously wonder if you're responsible for the things you say. Other than saying I wish someone would editorially clean up your embarrassing mess, I have nothing more to say to you.
Emma, also, there's no
Emma, also, there's no comment I can see the "advocates" for abuse and murder of women. I see somebody stating something they believe to be historical fact. Whether it is or not, I don't know, but stating something happened in the past is hardly advocating.
Howard, he prefaced his
Howard, he prefaced his misogynist tale by indicating that the man's wife is to blame. It seems that he is connecting the story with that notion. Here is the quote:
"If, his wife is screwing around, then the wife is to blame. I was told in Italy back in the day, if you found your wife with another man that, if you killed the man it was murder but, if you killed the wife it was justified."
That sure as heck looks as though he's advocating such punishment, to me. That's certainly the implication.
In any case, I'm finished with this crap. It ventures way too far "off the deep end" for my tastes. His outrageously sexist remarks are indefensible. I stand by my comment.
"I was told in Italy back in
"I was told in Italy back in the day, if you found your wife with another man that, if you killed the man it was murder but, if you killed the wife it was justified. There was two reasons first, the wife is committing adultery (Biblical Sin) and second, women can restraint themselves better than a man when it comes to having sexual intercourse. You see that proven fact every day."
Howard, he offers an historic justification, and opines it's a proven fact, everyday. Taliban thinking at its finest.
By the way to Emma, Scott and
By the way to Emma, Scott and Julie.
Basically, all I was stating is that, MR. Crooks was wrong for threatening MR. Robinson for his wife indiscretion. He should have focus on his wife since, she is the issue.
BTW, the 80 years old gentleman is right that, today's society bases their relationships more on sex than compatibility. Divorce rates are higher, teenage pregnancies are higher (Which during his generation the only teenagers that were pregnant were the ones that were married), sex is promoted on TV, movies, news (Which during his generation a woman was respected and not view as a piece of meat). Yet, you three have no scruples about the breakdown of families and society due to today's society. GOOD FOR YOU, I guess you love broken families, sexual diseases, and female girls getting pregnant as early as 12! You Liberals through and through, congradulations!
So that we are clear I am not saying I am innocent. I have gone to strip clubs, I have had many one night stands. However, unlike Emma, I am not going to call someone VILE because, of an older man’s recollection of his country’s law in which many countries have similar laws even today.
My apologizes Howard.
My apologizes Howard.
First Emma I am not
First Emma I am not advocating any such punishment. Yes, in this case the wife is to blame. If she is not happy then she could ask for a divorce, go to counseling, etc...
Just because, other countries have such laws does not mean I am advocating such, it is just fact that some places view Adultery as very wrong!
I guess all of those women
I guess all of those women you had one night stands with could not "restraint themselves better than a man." You must have been simply irresistible John.
As a follow up to my prior
As a follow up to my prior post - John, I assumed your numerous one night stands were with women but if not, please disregard.
"Basically, all I was stating
"Basically, all I was stating is that, MR. Crooks was wrong for threatening MR. Robinson for his wife indiscretion. He should have focus on his wife since, she is the issue."
Howard, advocacy in a nutshell. (Pun intended.)
Scott did you live in Italy
Scott did you live in Italy in the 1940s, I know I did not. Just because, the man is 80 does not mean he is not speaking the truth. So, because, you do not live in the Middle East does that mean men don't execute their wives if found with another man?
Historical the world is a very different place. Churches had a greater influences in the past. During his day I am sure divorce was abundant as it is today.
Why do not you finish Scott,
Why do not you finish Scott, I mention she could have Divorce or seek counselling?
Hmm Beth, since I have three
Hmm Beth, since I have three children with a woman and have a female finacee. Yes they were women.
“What is freedom of
“What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist.”
― Salman Rushdie
“Everyone is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people's idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone else says anything back, that is an outrage.”
― Winston Churchill
“The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.”
― Hubert H. Humphrey
We have only a few rules around here.
-- No name calling. I don't always spot this, but when I do, the post gets deleted without hesitation.
-- No personal attacks. Sometimes this is easy, "Mr. Smith, you're an idiot," is clearly a personal attack; however, "Mr. Smith, I find your statement ignorant," is not. Stupid statements can come from intelligent people, and person should be free to say another person's statements don't hold water. There are times, however, where the line between personal attack and not are kind of gray and it's always a judgement call on my part as whether to allow it. There are some questionable posts in this thread, but I hesitate to overly moderate.
-- No racism, homophobia or misogyny. It's got to be clear to me and perhaps the closest racist can find ways to be oblique that I miss (and the case above, we might read things differently).
-- I do try to watch out for outright meanspiritedness.
We have an increasingly partisan society. I bet many of our readers spend a lot of time in their own online political circles. Those on the left hang out a lot at Daily Kos, or similar, and those on the right Free Republic (is that still around)? A general community news site should be a place where all these different stripes of politics should be able to come together and discuss issues and get an insight to how the other side thinks. Perhaps escaping the bounds of pure partisanship might lead to a little more understanding and tolerance of other views.
But you all should just really cut out all the personal stuff. Making things personal is no way to intelligently discuss any issue.
It's possible to call out somebody's statements you don't like without stating or implying it's a personal defect to hold views you disagree with.
"No racism, homophobia or
"No racism, homophobia or misogyny."
Howard, with all due respect, the misogyny here was as clear and ripe as a plum on its way to rot.
I disagree. Your comment
I disagree.
Your comment #28. You see advocacy. I see none. I'm frankly mystified as to how you can read advocacy into that statement. It's baffling.
". . .was wrong for
". . .was wrong for threatening MR. Robinson for his wife indiscretion. He should have focus on his wife since, she is the issue."
You may be baffled, I'm astonished.
Nope. No misogyny here at
Nope. No misogyny here at all. Amazing. SMDH.
Let me help you
Let me help you out.
mi·sog·y·ny
[mi-soj-uh-nee, mahy-]
noun
hatred, dislike, or mistrust of women.
John Woodworth JR: “By the
John Woodworth JR: “By the way to Emma, Scott and Julie…..you three have no scruples about the breakdown of families and society due to today's society.”
Seriously…are you drunk? Is that supposed to mean something?
You advocate a man should “focus (his threats) on his wife since she is the issue,” and WE have no scruples blah blah blah…?!
John Woodworth JR: “Yes, in this case the wife is to blame. If she is not happy then she could ask for a divorce, go to counseling, etc... ”
If he doesn’t trust his wife, HE should have asked for a divorce or gone to counseling. Why is SHE responsible for HIS behavior? Is that what you consider the “breakdown of families”….when men are expected to take responsibility for their own behavior?
There is nothing in any of the articles I read on here about anybody committing “adultery.”
Why do you glorify weak men? It’s like you’re a misogynist and a misandrist simultaneously.
Emma, I heard that in some ancient Amazon communities, stupid men who made no sense were castrated by the women and became their eunuch slaves. Historical fact….? Not sure, but that’s what I heard. ;]
This thread is like the Twilight Zone.
"I'm finished with this
"I'm finished with this crap"....unless I'm not
"Let me help you
"Let me help you out.
mi·sog·y·ny"
Howard, let me tell you -- man to man -- you're tone deaf. And as a self-described journalist, appallingly so. Never mind tone deaf, what's worse, you seem to lack the ability or willingness to listen.
"Howard, let me tell you --
"Howard, let me tell you -- man to man" That's not man to man, that's man to every reader of TheBatavian. That's what private correspondence (email) is for.
Or perhaps I don't wear
Or perhaps I don't wear partisan blinders and I read stuff for what it is rather than reading stuff into it.
And your retreat into personal attack is typical of somebody who can't handle disagreement.
Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm tone deaf or don't understand or am not listening. That might just be a case of the pot calling the kettle black, after all. That's an appallingly arrogant comment, Scott.
"That's what private
"That's what private correspondence (email) is for."
Not at all, Jeff, that's speaking directly -- one man to another -- in a public forum, on an issue pertaining to gender.
"And your retreat into
"And your retreat into personal attack is typical of somebody who can't handle disagreement."
Personal attack? Oh dear.
Howard, I don't understand
Howard, I don't understand how you can call anyone "appallingly arrogant" when you, yourself, felt the need to school me on the definition of "misogyny." Do you seriously think that I don't know the definition of the word?
Talk about arrogant (and/or patronizing). That, I think, was Scott's point.
Scott, name calling isn't
Scott, name calling isn't personal attack? Really? If you directed that at any other user, the comment would have been deleted as soon as I saw it.
Emma, you and Scott persist in making assertions that have no logical basis or factual backing. You make these assertions unsupported by any rational argumentation. Just blank assertions. Since you persist in making these assertions without a scintilla or reason, logic or facts, one can only assume you don't understand the meaning of the word or grasp the scope of the argument. All I can do is try to help.
Let's be clear -- I laid out the ground rules as a reminder. I state clearly that in order for a comment to be deleted, the statement must clearly break the rule. You and Scott insist that a statement by another poster breaks that rule. I say it's not that clear. You two persist in vague terms but offer no rational or logical explanation for your position, just repeating the same rather vapid assertion over and over with such empty words as "astonished" and "amazing" (hardly a rational, factual argument).
To be clear, I'm in no way defending anything the poster in question nor the post in question. I'm simply saying as a matter of forum moderation, there's nothing clear cut here. No matter how much you two try to turn this into something personal, I'm not taking the bait. You're welcome to be offended by the comment, but to turn your personal sense of offensive into a reason to shut up somebody you disagree with just isn't a game I'll get into. I don't like the comment any more than you do, but it doesn't rise to the level of a clear violation. I'm sorry you can't accept that, but you're ongoing vapid debate on this point is rather tiresome.
Jeff, "man to man" is
Jeff, "man to man" is internet code for "i'm about to attack you personally, but I want to show first, in a seemingly nice way, that I'm the better man than you ..."
Also, it's an incredibly sexist phrase. It assumes only men or capable of speaking frankly to each other.
Juile said... "If he doesn’t
Juile said...
"If he doesn’t trust his wife, HE should have asked for a divorce or gone to counseling. Why is SHE responsible for HIS behavior?"
I cant speak to what they may or may not have been working on. However how is SHE not responsible for what happened? Mr. Robinson did not invite this man to his house. Mr. Robinson told him to leave. Obviously wether platonic or not Mrs. Robinson and Mr. Crooks had some sort of relations or conversation that led him to believe he had a right to demand entrance and audience. Even the 911 dispatcher told Mr. Robinson to tell the guy pounding on the door that he had a firearm. It's Mr. Crooks and Mrs. Robinson who share the blame equally.
As for the Amazon comment, you do realize that most of Amazonian tales are myths. There has been no concrete evidence of an Amazonian Race or Culture except in myths and poetry and art.
Kyle: “However how is SHE not
Kyle: “However how is SHE not responsible for what happened?”
Thread progression. I commented in response to this: “Yes, in this case the wife is to blame. If she is not happy then she could ask for a divorce, go to counseling, etc... ”
His wife is not responsible for his actions. That is why the police arrested HIM and not HER. People can’t commit crimes and then say, “S/he made me do it!” and the police say, “Oh, well then it’s not your fault. Grab a cookie and go on home.”
Small children and cowards blame others for bad things they do; reasonable adults should know better.
I’m not too concerned about any misogynistic comments on here, really. It’s the internet….too many other shiny distractions going on. This thread speaks for itself, rather bluntly, I think, should anyone inadvertently stumble upon it.
It’s a real shame what’s happened to this place. I remember interesting, intelligent, lively debate and humor here years ago, not just one or two voices drowned out by one or two louder voices. Too bad.
"It’s a real shame what’s
"It’s a real shame what’s happened to this place. I remember interesting, intelligent, lively debate and humor here years ago. . ."
I don't have those memories. I came too late to the fair.
"Too bad."
It is.
This site has too many
This site has too many Liberals. Over Sensitive, Over-reactive, Over Controlling and Deceivers. Plus, tend to worry about everyone's rights but, our own.
Here is some humor for you.
President Obama goes on a State visit to Israel. While visiting the City of Jerusalem he suffered a major heart attack.
The Israeli Undertaker informed the U.S. Ambassador, they could have Obama flown home for $1,000,000 U.S. dollars or buried there in Israel for just $100 U.S. dollars.
Well the Ambassador holds council with the other U.S. diplomats and after several minutes of deliberation he comes back to the Israeli Undertaker and requested that Obama be flown home.
Well this greatly puzzled the Israeli Undertaker who inquired, why would you pay a million dollars to fly Obama back when you could bury him in such a beautiful and Holy Land?
The Ambassador replies, Let me remind you that, 2000 years ago, you had a man died here, then buried here and three days later, rise from the died. We just can’t take that risk!
John, your attempt at
John, your attempt at political humor fell flat. It is an old joke (I remember hearing it when George W. Was in office). If it was meant to get a rise out of the pesky left it didn't work.
Two statements I totally
Two statements I totally reject:
"It’s a real shame what’s happened to this place. I remember interesting, intelligent, lively debate and humor here years ago, not just one or two voices drowned out by one or two louder voices. Too bad."
We still have intelligent, lively debate. That isn't to say every comment is a gem, but in this supposed idyllic age of The Batavian past, there was a lot of stupidity aired then as well.
It's the Internet. People say stupid stuff. Deal with it.
And there's still plenty of humor, too.
There's hardly just one or two voices drowning everybody else out. Just look at this thread. Lots of voices. A mix of long-time members on the left and the right and newcomers on both sides as well.
"This site has too many Liberals."
If my wife would let me get away with some profanity here, this utterly nonsense comment would unleash it.
If a person can't handle intelligently discussing topics with people who hold opposing views, perhaps they should find a forum more suited to a myopic vision of the world. All political persuasions and views are welcome here. I'm offended that a reader would suggest otherwise.
A comment containing a
A comment containing a personal attack has been deleted. I'd not fully read the comment last night. A follow up comment quoting it back has been deleted.
Rather than post complaints about other posts or posters, the appropriate way to handle such issues is to contact me directly by e-mail.
I miss the freedom of
I miss the freedom of expressing profanely.