Drea Posted March 15, 2008 Report Share Posted March 15, 2008 I don't think it matters how long one has been chased or if one has been chased at all. But I think this 19 year old Moroccan may have run the risk of an inadverdent death when he opened her car door and stole her purse. Why of course! Death is suitable punishment for purse snatching. Poor purses never knowing if they will see their homes again! Poor person losing their purse -- having to cancel credit cards -- I cannot imagine the stress of losing a dear beloved purse... death to those who would kidnap and abuse my poor purse! I think it is strange that the court will not allow her to cover her face in order to protect herself. Hullo? Are you not one of those people who think that Muslim women should not be able to vote without uncovering their heads in front of male strangers? How could she possibly testify? No one would know whether it was her or not. The woman committed a crime -- manslaughter. And she needs to be punished for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted March 15, 2008 Report Share Posted March 15, 2008 Are you making this stuff up as you go along? Once again, show me where I said he deserves death for purse snatching. Argus-post 15: As far as I'm concerned when you kill scum, you should be praised, not charged. What I have been talking about is the "European" problem relating to Muslims, hence the reference to Rushdie. No where have I stated that she should be left alone either. You either are being inadvertantly disingenuous or you are displaying the exact same traits as our recently departed member did for your own purpose. Ok Europeans in hiding since driving over Moroccan thieves is a European problem that relates to Muslims. I understand. If we are going to discuss this it would go better if you would desist from your creative writing efforts and actually stick to what has really been said. Fine. the woman who inadvertently killed the thief should be praised. And that somehow has something to do with Muslims in Europe and Salman Rushdie...l. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted March 15, 2008 Report Share Posted March 15, 2008 Bingo...it's a peculiar trait amoung some that if a bomb went off across the street they'd want proof it was actually a bomb and not a truck backfiring before being bothered to look. The shattered windows and screams from the street aren't enough... Muslim death threats are a reality to some...but since it isn't happening to us directly...it is easily discounted as over-reaction...or my favorite...Islamophobia. Given that, though, I suspect Peter F knows exactly what he's saying and merely is looking for 'extreme reactions' so he can chorttle over his morning coffee... Laugh it up. If you have a point regarding the as-yet non-existant threat to the woman who may or may not have killed the moroccan, do please make it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted March 15, 2008 Report Share Posted March 15, 2008 (edited) Why of course! Death is suitable punishment for purse snatching. I think you fail to understand what I was saying. An inadvertent death would not be an act of punishment, would it? And I said he "may" have put himself in that position. Death is not a suitable punishment for purse snatching, but reacting to a purse snatching is not over-the-top. She may not have intended to kill the boy, and I might have more sympathy for someone who caused an "inadvertent" death when the deceased just finished robbing her. The reason I brought that up, is because Peter F seemed to think that I somehow was saying it was ok for Salman Rushdie to inadvertently kill people. He failed to include the term "perpetrators of a crime" in the comparison. Also I assumed that they meant covering her head to and from court. I realize now that was silly. But I dont know how you could even link covering ones head for the sake of safety with a Muslim head covering while voting. Edited March 15, 2008 by jefferiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 (edited) Laugh it up. If you have a point regarding the as-yet non-existant threat to the woman who may or may not have killed the moroccan, do please make it. Am I the only one here who's hearing the sound of frantic back pedaling right now. Cling to your beleifs brother! Cling! Edited March 16, 2008 by AngusThermopyle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Am I the only one here who's hearing the sound of frantic back pedaling right now. Cling to your beleifs brother! Cling! I beg you, relieve me of my misery. Please do point out who or wich group was threatening the woman? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 (edited) holy cripes, this is ridiculous!. let's read the article all together now. The woman who drove over and killed a Moroccan thief in Amsterdam three years ago has been living in secret locations since, for fear of retaliation. At the order of the judge, the woman has however been tracked down and taken to court. she drove over and killed a purse snatcher, and has been in hiding since then, she claims out of fear of retaliation. She was tracked down at the order of a judge, and has been taken to court. On 17 January 2005, this Moroccan youth opened her car door and snatched her handbag. The woman reversed against the boy, who was on a scooter. He was crushed against a tree, broke his neck and died. yah, she was so fearful , that she backed over the purse snatcher and crushed him against a tree, does that sound fearful? not to me. A fearful person , would have drove away, to safey , if she was so fearful. Called the police, yelled to someone to call the police. A fearful person would not have made the calculated decision to back the car up and crush a pursesnatcher. Korvinus wanted the case to be heard behind closed doors because the woman fears that a public hearing will increase the danger she claims she is in. The judge did permit the woman to hide her face yesterday with a scarf so that she could not be recognised. The woman says she is in fear, though again, no mention of any actual threat, she just says she is in fear. All this fear but no mention of an actual threat, just "she's afraid" . What does this mean? ,Well it doesn't mean much of anything, because anyone can say anything they want! I can say I am afraid of something also, but am I really ? Jefferiah, I am deathly afraid of you, deathly! ditto for PeterF. I must hide from you. so terrified am I of you . OMG! Do either of you believe me? Surely you must because I am saying it. Drea, you believe me, I am afraid of Jefferiah and Peter? back to the article: The police advised her to go into hiding after the incident, according to the newspaper. This sentence is pure filler, Angus, when we read a sentence like this we should asssume nothing about where this information came from. Why? There is no indication where the information came from, except it was 'according to the newspaper' Filler. Has she been threatened??, in this article there is ZERO indication that this woman was threatened at all, even once. Or surely it would have been included, and yet? nothing. She says she is afraid, and that's all, she says. I'd be afraid of going to jail, if I was in her position, and this to me is all she is afraid of. She , killed someone and is trying to avoid her day in court. What is pathetic, is the attempt to paint this woman as a victim, of a purse snatching, who then murders someone, with a deadly weapon. She backed her car up and crushed to death a purse snatcher and has spent 3 yrs hiding from her crime. good god, some critical thinking courses are sorely needed here! Edited March 16, 2008 by kuzadd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Regulus de Leo Posted March 16, 2008 Author Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 :This sentence is pure filler, Angus, when we read a sentence like this we should asssume nothing about where this information came from. Why? There is no indication where the information came from, except it was 'according to the newspaper' Filler. Do you believe the police routinely tell people to go into hiding when they are not threatened? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuzadd Posted March 16, 2008 Report Share Posted March 16, 2008 Do you believe the police routinely tell people to go into hiding when they are not threatened? there is no indication, the information came from the police. So how do we know the police told this woman that? "The police advised her to go into hiding after the incident, according to the newspaper." according to the newspaper. what newspaper? Did the newspaper interview the police officer? which officer? when? notice all that information is missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AngusThermopyle Posted March 17, 2008 Report Share Posted March 17, 2008 according to the newspaper.what newspaper? Did the newspaper interview the police officer? which officer? when? notice all that information is missing? Just a point of note. generally that information is missing as a rule when the story is spread by AP or some other news disemination agency. Not to say that you're off base, but it is also unreliable as an indicator of lack of veracity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.