|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 17, 2011 12:51:03 GMT -5
Well, sayne, I think I can sense whose side you're on in the Lennon/Lennon's Killer thing. What's even more pathetic, if possible, is that you value animal's lives over people's. And you probably have more disrespect for the ones who slaughter animals for our food than the ones who murder actual human beings to acquire fame. I've always questioned whether fame was a primary motive for "that guy." For an alleged fame-seeker he's kept a fairly low profile over the years. Obviously he was mentally insane -- hearing voices in his head commanding him to do stuff and all that stuff. On top of that he was a self-righteous asshole (a very bad set of traits). His own stated motive had to do with his obsession with "The Catcher in the Rye." In the book the catcher is this guy who's job is to guard over these little children that are running around playing in a field of rye on top of a mountain. Its the catcher's job to act as shephard of the flock and catch the children before they run off the edge of the cliff. Chapman felt Lennon was a false catcher. A wolf in sheep's clothing. He had assumed the role of catcher as influential youth leader. But instead of protecting the children he led them over the cliff by steering them towards drugs and away from Jesus, etc. Chapman himself felt personally betrayed and victimized by Lennon, having gotten obsessed with the "Magical Mystery Tour" album when he was 14 which led to heavy experimenting with LSD. Which no doubt helped to scramble what little mind he had. His stated reason for killing Lennon was that he wanted to stop this menace from ruining another generation of kids. I don't think he suffered from fame-seeking but from a kind of delusion of grandeur. Protector of youth and savior of humanity, etc.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 17, 2011 13:04:49 GMT -5
There was another element to the killing that probably touched a weird nerve with some of us. At one point the guy was an obsessive Beatles fan. Just like a lot of us on this board. And you know what they say: "There's a fine line between love and hate." Or between fan and fanatic. Ask anybody who's been in a love relationship gone bad. Hell hath no fury like a lover scorned. So I'm sure there were elements of that stewing around in that guy's screwed up brain.
Lennon himself lived in mortal fear of "nutter Beatles fans" as he called them. I'm sure he had many disturbing encounters with mentally disturbed fans over the years.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Aug 17, 2011 13:29:50 GMT -5
San Rafael Shootout The Facts Behind the Angela Davis Case By LAWRENCE V. COTJ This is a newspaper article written in 1972. I just read the article. Nowhere does the writer say anything about the jury being conservative or liberal. He mentions the fact that the defense used psychologists and other consultants to investigate the backgrounds of prospective jurors and based on their responses to questions, determined personality traits (not political biases) that would make them more inclined to vote for acquittal. An example mentioned of such a trait was someone who leaned pro-prosecution, but was a "follower" instead of a "leader." There is still no "fact" presented by the writer that the jury was left-leaning, or even liberal. Thanks RTP for posting the info so I could Google the article. It refreshed my memory about the incident. The writer, "Mr. Colt, a former Editor of the newsletter Combat, a subsidiary of National Review, has been news editor of radio and TV stations in California and Hawaii," has his own conservative bias but I still found the article informative. He does write about the incident regarding the power salute and the juror saying he wanted everyone to know we weren't the typical white jury and we understood their cause. He doesn't come out and say it was a liberal or conservative jury. Its just that incident is telling.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 17, 2011 13:55:20 GMT -5
I mean, come on. Angela Davis buys all these firearms. And then within two days they end up in the hands of a Jackson cohort who uses them to murder people. Connect the dots, fellas. My understanding is that she purchased ONE firearm. As I mentioned, she described this herself in her autobiography and explains the reasons for it. . I haven't come across anything that disputes that all three weapons used in the attack were registered to Angela Davis. Nor have I ever heard a credible explanation from Ms Davis how HER weapons got in the hands of Jackson junior. Let me ask you, Panther. Do you really consider it highly unlikely that Davis specifically bought those weapons for that end, and specifically gave them to Jackson junior for that purpose? P.S. The weapons that -- according to Angela Davis -- were bought to protect herself, were actually at the time sitting in a closet at the Black Panthers' office. According to testimony, Jonathon Jackson merely walked in and asked if he could "use the equipment" and they handed them over to him.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 17, 2011 14:41:38 GMT -5
P.S. If you want to know just how closely in contact Angela Davis was with Jonathon Jackson (the shooter) on the day of the shooting:
While all this was going down, Angela Davis just happened to be waiting around in the lobby of the San Francisco International Airport -- most likely poised to flee after the shit hit the fan. Which is exactly what she did.
And guess what they happened to find in the pocket of Jonathon Jackson? A piece of paper with a phone number that just happened to be a payphone at the San Francisco International Airport. Most likely as a way to contact Angela Davis in case they needed to hook up for the getaway.
I realize this is circumstantial evidence. But when you put all the pieces together it seems beyond credulity (at least to me) that Angela Davis not only knew exactly what was going to happen that day, but that she was also deeply involved in the plot from start to finish.
Just my opinion. And the jury failed to agree with it.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Aug 17, 2011 18:48:38 GMT -5
I think he (Chapman) suffered from a kind of delusion of grandeur. Protector of youth and savior of humanity, etc. Like his hero/nemesis.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 17, 2011 19:55:10 GMT -5
Let me ask you, Panther. Do you really consider it highly unlikely that Davis specifically bought those weapons for that end, and specifically gave them to Jackson junior for that purpose? I think it's highly unlikely, yes. I just cannot see how an exceptionally intelligent academic would actually support such an obviously suicidal, absurd, scheme. She was very close to Mrs. Jackson and Jonathan Jackson at the time, yes. And I wouldn't be surprised that all of them had open-door policies for one another's homes, etc. So, I don't think it would have been unusual for Jonathan Jackson to get ahold of a firearm that Angela Davis purchased. I think that's quite probable. What I dispute is that she would have planned the scheme, encouraged him in it, or supported it at all. I just cannot see that happening.
|
|
|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 17, 2011 21:13:10 GMT -5
"He does write about the incident regarding the power salute and the juror saying he wanted everyone to know we weren't the typical white jury and we understood their cause. He doesn't come out and say it was a liberal or conservative jury. Its just that incident is telling."
So just because the jury sympathized with the left, they could not be trusted to decide if Angela abeted in the prison break that led to the death of the judge and the others. It was more likely that those on the right were less likely to be trusted in those times. This was in the times when even law enforcement was persecuting, arresting, harrassing people because they were black, might sympathize with communism or a more socialistic way of governing, dressed "radically", had long hair, ...etc, because they were "conservative" and did not like the direction the country was going.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Aug 18, 2011 0:32:18 GMT -5
I think he (Chapman) suffered from a kind of delusion of grandeur. Protector of youth and savior of humanity, etc. Like his hero/nemesis. I think there's quite a difference between the two in more ways than one, RTP. How exactly do you mean that?
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 18, 2011 7:14:43 GMT -5
I've always questioned whether fame was a primary motive for "that guy." For an alleged fame-seeker he's kept a fairly low profile over the years. His stated reason for killing Lennon was that he wanted to stop this menace from ruining another generation of kids. I don't think he suffered from fame-seeking but from a kind of delusion of grandeur. Protector of youth and savior of humanity, etc. That too. But he was all over television - on 20/20 with a Barbara Walters Interview... and on the Live with Larry King Show. There was a big article on him in PEOPLE magazine in 1985. He's always made it clear that he felt that by killing Lennon "I would acquire his fame". He's also said in interviews that "This big Nobody wanted to strike down that Somebody". There are many, many audio interviews with the guy. He loved to talk, and he loved to explain in precise detail why he did what he did. None of it makes sense, of course -- but the bottom line is that he felt like he was a big ZERO in life, and he felt that killing Lennon would somehow make things clearer for him, and he would be SOMEBODY. All the stuff with the Catcher In The Rye was the Delusions Of Granduer talk, and he did, in fact, love Lennon as a fan at times but then come to feel betrayed by him as a what he perceived to be a "phony" at the time. So there was a lot of warped stuff going on in his mind.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 18, 2011 12:38:48 GMT -5
Let me ask you, Panther. Do you really consider it highly unlikely that Davis specifically bought those weapons for that end, and specifically gave them to Jackson junior for that purpose? I think it's highly unlikely, yes. I just cannot see how an exceptionally intelligent academic would actually support such an obviously suicidal, absurd, scheme. . I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Panther. But I will add: countless books have been written on the subject of exceptionally intelligent people doing incredibly stupid things when they're in love. P.S. I didn't think of it 'til now but is your Panther moniker in any way inspired by the Black Panthers?
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 18, 2011 12:44:07 GMT -5
I will add a weird postscript to this discussion. I have an oddly personal connection to Angela Davis and John Lennon and this whole period.
One of the main reasons Angela Davis got fired from UCLA was because of her comments in 1969 that the UC regents killed, brutalized and murdered the People's Park demonstraters and her repeated characterization of the police as pigs.
Lennon also weighed in on the People's Park riots. This was during his Bed-In period and he was reaching out to just about every media outlet. And he did a live interview with Scoop Nisker (a guy I still see around town) on KPFA where he basically advised to "man the barricades with flowers."
Forty years later Peoples Park is still very much here. And I hang out there just about every day with all the other homeless bums.
Life is ironic, ain't it?
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Aug 18, 2011 12:56:49 GMT -5
I will add a weird postscript to this discussion. I have an oddly personal connection to Angela Davis and John Lennon and this whole period. One of the main reasons Angela Davis got fired from UCLA was because of her comments in 1969 that the UC regents killed, brutalized and murdered the People's Park demonstraters and her repeated characterization of the police as pigs. Lennon also weighed in on the People's Park riots. This was during his Bed-In period and he was reaching out to just about every media outlet. And he did a live interview with Scoop Nisker (a guy I still see around town) on KPFA where he basically advised to "man the barricades with flowers." Forty years later Peoples Park is still very much here. And I hang out there just about every day with all the other homeless bums. Life is ironic, ain't it? Yeah, I've been there. People's Park is not a nice place to see nowadays.
|
|
|
Post by scousette on Aug 18, 2011 13:56:29 GMT -5
I will add a weird postscript to this discussion. I have an oddly personal connection to Angela Davis and John Lennon and this whole period. One of the main reasons Angela Davis got fired from UCLA was because of her comments in 1969 that the UC regents killed, brutalized and murdered the People's Park demonstraters and her repeated characterization of the police as pigs. Lennon also weighed in on the People's Park riots. This was during his Bed-In period and he was reaching out to just about every media outlet. And he did a live interview with Scoop Nisker (a guy I still see around town) on KPFA where he basically advised to "man the barricades with flowers." Forty years later Peoples Park is still very much here. And I hang out there just about every day with all the other homeless bums. Life is ironic, ain't it? Scoop Nisker! That's a name I haven't heard recently. Ah, the glory days of "underground" radio.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 18, 2011 15:07:10 GMT -5
Yeah, I've been there. People's Park is not a nice place to see nowadays. To give you an idea of what a happenin' focal point Peoples Park was back then: I came across an old flier for a Peoples Park Benefit Concert back in 1970 at Winterland in San Francisco. And the line-up included, among others, the Grateful Dead, the Jefferson Airplane, Santana, Steve Miller, Elvin Bishop and Creedence Clearwater Revival (is that all??). And tickets were a whopping 5 bucks. Man those were the days!! Eight years later I saw the Sex Pistols last concert there. And if I remember right I paid 15 bucks for my ticket. I guess we're all part of history in our own weird ways.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 18, 2011 18:52:40 GMT -5
P.S. I didn't think of it 'til now but is your Panther moniker in any way inspired by the Black Panthers? I think it was, yes. Can't remember for sure. "Panther" is my usual internet handle. But there are other panthers...
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 18, 2011 18:54:48 GMT -5
I came across an old flier for a Peoples Park Benefit Concert back in 1970 at Winterland in San Francisco. And the line-up included, among others, the Grateful Dead, the Jefferson Airplane, Santana, Steve Miller, Elvin Bishop and Creedence Clearwater Revival (is that all??). And tickets were a whopping 5 bucks. Please don't tell stories like this to those of us who grew up in the 80s and 90s. The first concert I ever went to was 20 years ago this week -- Sting, at the Calgary Saddledome. I think the tickets were about 25th row, center, and cost $27 each. I remember thinking that this seemed really expensive... Don't have to worry about it now as concert tickets are far out of my price range (for artists who suck)!
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 18, 2011 21:30:44 GMT -5
I came across an old flier for a Peoples Park Benefit Concert back in 1970 at Winterland in San Francisco. And the line-up included, among others, the Grateful Dead, the Jefferson Airplane, Santana, Steve Miller, Elvin Bishop and Creedence Clearwater Revival (is that all??). And tickets were a whopping 5 bucks. Please don't tell stories like this to those of us who grew up in the 80s and 90s. The first concert I ever went to was 20 years ago this week -- Sting, at the Calgary Saddledome. I think the tickets were about 25th row, center, and cost $27 each. I remember thinking that this seemed really expensive... Don't have to worry about it now as concert tickets are far out of my price range (for artists who suck)! Yeah, read it and weep you youngsters. I've got Pink Floyd - $3.50; The Who - $3.75; Led Zeppelin - $4.25; Rolling Stones - $6.25; and I think Wings Over America was in the $6-7 range, too.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 18, 2011 22:15:56 GMT -5
Please don't tell stories like this to those of us who grew up in the 80s and 90s. The first concert I ever went to was 20 years ago this week -- Sting, at the Calgary Saddledome. I think the tickets were about 25th row, center, and cost $27 each. I remember thinking that this seemed really expensive... Don't have to worry about it now as concert tickets are far out of my price range (for artists who suck)! Yeah, read it and weep you youngsters. I've got Pink Floyd - $3.50; The Who - $3.75; Led Zeppelin - $4.25; Rolling Stones - $6.25; and I think Wings Over America was in the $6-7 range, too. Hey fellows, The Avett Brothers are still at $35.00 a ticket for two hours of great, heartfelt, joyous, moving, fun, sad and always inspirational music! I see them again Sept. 28th indoors then October 1 outdoors, weather permitting of course(and I will never take that for granted again).
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Aug 19, 2011 11:13:16 GMT -5
I think there's quite a difference between the two in more ways than one, RTP. How exactly do you mean that? You're right, John wasn't mentally ill for one thing. I was just re-reading The Beatles by (Edward/Eddie) Hunter Davies and it goes into how John's childhood affected him. Davies or someone in the book said John was so affected by his upbringing that it gave him this unsatiable desire for love and that he was seeking that love as he set out to save humanity from itself during his political period.
|
|
|
Post by ReturnToPepperland on Aug 19, 2011 11:18:33 GMT -5
Yeah, free the prisoners, jail the judges, that is what the song says . . . I will not address, for now, the argument that there are some people in prison due to inequities in the law enforcement and legal system which would cause some people to say "free the prisoners." But, I will say this. For others, I don't think they literally mean free prisoners because they did no wrong. I think what the bigger picture is is that if one sees prisons as "correctional" institutions where one pays their debt to society and learns skills required to function in society and the prison either can't or won't serve that function, then release the prisoners for the prisons are failing their duty. Or, if one sees prisons as places solely as places of punishment, but cannot do so in a humane manner, then release the prisoners, for the prisons are immoral institutions themselves and do not deserve to be in existence. And, I don't think Yoko thinks John David Chapman should go free, but I bet she does think he should be housed humanely for his entire stay and she would get no pleasure to know that he was being tortured every day. If she did, then, yes, that would be hypocritical. Prisons don't exist just to rehabilitate. And I don't think for the most part the prisons in the US are inhumane. The prisons exist mainly to protect the public. So to release them would be wrong and dangerous even if the prisons are not rehabilitating prisoners.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 20, 2011 19:52:53 GMT -5
The prisons exist to protect the public. So to release them would be wrong and dangerous even if they are not rehabilitating. The goal of rehabilitation must never be far from prisons' agendas, or else our entire humanity is lost. If, for example, we give up on rehabilitation and focus on incarceration... er, why would we do that? It's going to cost taxpayers millions of dollars, and all so we can put the same hardened criminals back on the streets to commit further crimes. If no rehabilitation, it would make more sense to just execute every criminal -- saves money, and achieves exactly the same end goal, with less crime as a bonus. The purpose of prisons is really no different from the purpose of schools. They need to exist as social justice organizations, with every attempt being made towards equality of opportunity and fairness of access. If a kid makes a big mistake as an 8-year-old, should we give up on him and cut him off from all further avenues to higher learning? Or, if he's gay, or gender-queer, or doesn't speak English? Well, we shouldn't give up on citizens who are in prisons either.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 21, 2011 0:31:10 GMT -5
. . . I think what the bigger picture is that if one sees prisons as "correctional" institutions where one pays their debt to society and learns skills required to function in society and the prison either can't or won't serve that function, then release the prisoners for the prisons are failing their duty. Or, if one sees prisons as places solely as places of punishment, but cannot do so in a humane manner, then release the prisoners, for the prisons are immoral institutions themselves and do not deserve to be in existence . . . Prisons don't exist just to rehabilitate. And I don't think for the most part the prisons in the US are inhumane. The prisons exist to protect the public. So to release them would be wrong and dangerous even if they are not rehabilitating.[/quote] As you frequently do when you try to argue against people, you leave out parts of people's statements in order to make your argument. Show me where I said that prisons exist just to rehabilitate. Don't try. You can't. My statement's thesis is that according to the "free the prisoners" people, prisoners should be freed because they are not doing what they are supposed to be doing - whatever that may mean. So, your statement proves my point. You do flatly believe that prisons are in existence to punish. Then, my argument would be that the "free the prisoners" people would say that prisoners should be free because the punishments are inhumane. I'm not saying they are right. I'm just trying to make sense of why they are saying what they are saying.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 21, 2011 4:49:41 GMT -5
Rehabilitation is a noble goal. But there are those - and you can count me among them - who regard punishment as an appropriate element of attempted rehabilitation. And protecting the public from the further depredations of those found guilty of crimes is, in my view, perhaps the most important reason for imprisonment. Taking someone's car, joyriding in it and then ruining it is, perhaps, too petty a crime to execute someone for, and my experience is that attempted rehabilitation simply doesn't work with many such petty criminals. Prison at least has the virtue that while they are banged up, the little sods aren't doing things to spoil other peoples' lives.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 21, 2011 14:30:28 GMT -5
Prison at least has the virtue that while they are banged up, the little sods aren't doing things to spoil other peoples' lives. Until they get out. Then, if they weren't rehabilitated, you can bet they'll either commit another crime or be a burden on society -- except now with the extra knowledge gained from other cons in prison. Incarcerating people is pointless unless rehabilitation of some sort is attempted. No one has ever been made a better person simply because they were dehumanized by being locked in a cell for ten years. There are some exceptional people who drastically changed in prison (Malcolm X comes to mind), but these are people who changed despite being prison, not because of it. In short, either rehabilitate 'em or else execute 'em on site, like the systems of Burma or North Korea. Which way does the US want to go?
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 21, 2011 16:07:56 GMT -5
Prison at least has the virtue that while they are banged up, the little sods aren't doing things to spoil other peoples' lives. Until they get out. Precisely. At the same time you're trying to rehabilitate them, you need to let them know in no uncertain terms that if the rehabilitation doesn't work, we won't bother trying again, and the next episode of prison will be aimed solely at protecting the public from them. And they won't get out other than in a box.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Karlosi on Aug 22, 2011 7:35:20 GMT -5
The goal of rehabilitation must never be far from prisons' agendas, or else our entire humanity is lost. Awwww, how sthweet.... yer breakin' my heart. Screw the prisoners, especially if they're murderers. Once you murder someone, you have forfeited your own life in the bargain, PERIOD. You then deserve to spend the rest of your miserable days locked up... and if I had my way, it would be in solitary confinement with no windows... with a crust of bread and water shoved under a door slot. No TV, no basketball, no weight-lifting, no TV or book deals. A U.S. person caged for murder in 1972, for instance, should be rotting and thinking Nixon is still president, and should not even know there was a thing called The Internet, or cell phones, or Obama. Time should completely stand still for them from the moment they're jailed. In cases of murder, it is not about "trying to fix the person", it's about the person being suitably punished -- as well as being kept OFF the streets forever, with no possibility of parole and no chance of EVER harming anyone else again. But if they can be killed themselves and drained of their lives by authority that is sanctioned to do so -- in a very slow, agonizing, painful manner designed to match or exceed what they did to their victims -- even BETTER! Now, everyone have a Nice Day - and don't go murdering anyone!
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 23, 2011 0:15:43 GMT -5
The goal of rehabilitation must never be far from prisons' agendas, or else our entire humanity is lost. Awwww, how sthweet.... yer breakin' my heart. Screw the prisoners, especially if they're murderers. Once you murder someone, you have forfeited your own life in the bargain, PERIOD. You then deserve to spend the rest of your miserable days locked up... and if I had my way, it would be in solitary confinement with no windows... with a crust of bread and water shoved under a door slot. No TV, no basketball, no weight-lifting, no TV or book deals. A U.S. person caged for murder in 1972, for instance, should be rotting and thinking Nixon is still president, and should not even know there was a thing called The Internet, or cell phones, or Obama. Time should completely stand still for them from the moment they're jailed. In cases of murder, it is not about "trying to fix the person", it's about the person being suitably punished -- as well as being kept OFF the streets forever, with no possibility of parole and no chance of EVER harming anyone else again. But if they can be killed themselves and drained of their lives by authority that is sanctioned to do so -- in a very slow, agonizing, painful manner designed to match or exceed what they did to their victims -- even BETTER! Now, everyone have a Nice Day - and don't go murdering anyone! You do realize that the theory you're espousing is exactly the same as regimes like those running Burma or or other '3rd-world' countries? It saddens me that you would want your own nation state to stay stuck in the 18th century in its judicial system. Furthermore, every bit of evidence from every bit of research ever done on this topic -- including that done in the USA -- completely counters everything you've argued for. But, hey -- in the spirit of the Republican Party, why let some actual facts get in the way when we can use emotional responses to buy votes?
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 23, 2011 3:11:30 GMT -5
Violent crime in the UK has spiralled since we did away with the death penalty. That is an actual fact. And I'm not after votes.
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 23, 2011 13:15:59 GMT -5
Violent crime in the UK has spiralled since we did away with the death penalty. That is an actual fact. And I'm not after votes. I'd be interested to know more about this. Do you have any links or evidence? If you're right, it'd be the first time in history that abolition of the death penalty resulted in an increase in crime. (Of course, the two things could also be co-incidental for other, unrelated reasons.)
|
|