Rantings of a STUPID jew
The best description of Carl Worden's claim that people who kill their neighbors simply because they keep dangerous killer animals in a city shouldn't be punished would be "cognitive dissonance", except that it's mostly a jewish syndrome. The vast majority of Americans disagree with Carl because they're Christians who place a higher value on human life than on dogs' rights.
This jew could not care less about the woman who was murdered by a dog because she was not a jew. This same jew is still pining over Anne Frank who died more than half a century ago for only one reason: she was a jew. This is the jewish "one million dead Muslims aren't worth one jewish fingernail" syndrome. Now he's going to pine over Noel and Knoller for the next half a century for only one reason: they're both jews. In the "mind" of a jew, race triumphs "justice" every time a jew's involved.
Conversely, the trial testimony shows:
Now, who are we to believe? This stupid jew who wasn't there, or the vetinarian who had to put the dogs in a cage just to innoculate them, who took the time to warn the stupid jewish "lawyer" about how dangerous they were, who recieved confirmation that he read his warning?
From: Carl F. Worden
Sent: Friday, March 22, 2002 11:52 PM
Subject: CRIMINALIZING HUMAN ERROR
Ladies & gentlemen:
Yesterday, Marjorie Knoller was convicted of second degree murder because her dog attacked and killed a woman in her apartment hallway. She herself was injured trying to stop the attack. Her husband, who was out of town when the attack occurred, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. There had never been a previous attack by the dog who killed Diane Whipple. World Net Daily held a poll, and at last check, 62% of all respondents voted that the sentence was fair and just. The woman who owned the dog faces a minimum 15 years to life imprisonment when she is sentenced in May. Her husband faces up to 4 years behind bars.
So roughly 62+% of the people in this country think that sentence was a pretty good idea -- as long as the same rules don't apply to them, I suppose. Fifty bucks says 9 of the 12 jurors who convicted Marjorie Knoller of second degree murder have driven home (il)legally drunk, and only by the grace of God did they not wipe out that nice family of five on their way home from church. The same fifty bucks says that every one of those 62+% with their thumbs down in the World Net Daily poll have inadvertently run a red light, and only by the grace of God did they not kill someone themselves.
I am appalled at how vicious and vindictive Americans have become. My father always to referred to these people as "mean as a snake". Jurors vote to convict when there is no preponderance of evidence, even in death penalty cases, and my point is proven by all these findings of innocence through DNA testing of death row inmates. Imagine if you will, just how many innocent people must surely be serving long prison sentences right now for non-capital offenses. The number must be staggering, and it's all because juries seem to be inclined nowadays to convict on the flimsiest of evidence.
Just to demonstrate how ugly, inhumane, cruel and vicious Americans have become, let me tell you a little story, and show you the difference between Americans yesterday and today. The names have been changed, but this story is absolutely true.
Isabel and Jose were Mexican-American sharecropper's children, growing up in South Texas. They dreamed of a better life together, married and set about to achieve the American Dream. Jose enlisted in the Marines, served his country in Korea, and used the GI Bill to earn an education in microbiology. Isabel conceived baby Connie early in their marriage, and three years later gave birth to little Lisa. In the mean time, Isabel studied to become a registered nurse while Jose worked up to three menial jobs to make ends meet while he earned his degree.
Money was very tight, and the family owned only one car. One evening when Jose was to get off work, Isabel left 6 year-old Connie and 3 year-old Lisa in their apartment to pick Jose up. It was a twenty-minute round-trip drive, and Jose was waiting on the curb when Isabel drove up.
Back at the apartment, little Connie and Lisa were playing. Connie was wearing a pretty dress with petticoats. As they played, Connie came close to an electric floor heater, and her dress caught fire. The fire grew rapidly all around Connie, and Lisa pulled her into the bathroom and turned on the water. Unknown to 3 year-old Lisa, she had turned on the hot water. When Connie felt the scalding hot water, she jumped back out of the bathroom and continued burning. By the time Isabel and Jose came back, Connie was unconscious on the floor, and Lisa was helpless to do anything. Isabel and Jose rushed Connie to the hospital, where she languished for several days before dying from infection.
Grief stricken, and emotionally crippled by personal recriminations for their failure, Isabel and Jose moved on with their lives and had another child, a boy. Years later, Jose would retire from a major university as a top microbiologist, and Isabel would still be working as a highly paid Nurse Practitioner in a government health agency. Little Lisa and her brother earned educations themselves. Lisa married and now lives comfortably in Oregon.
To this day, even the mention of Connie's name brings tears to the eyes of Isabel. After all these years, Isabel has never been able to forgive herself for the loss of her favorite little daughter. She knows she "should have and could have", and she will feel that pain until the day she dies.
Cut to today.
If the same event happened today, both Isabel and Jose would be arrested and prosecuted for felony child endangerment. Lisa would have been removed from the home and placed in foster care by the so-called Child "Protective" Services. After serving their sentences, Isabel and Jose would be barred from holding many professional licenses due to their felony convictions. Who knows what would have become of Lisa. In the final analysis, that family unit would have been fragmented and ultimately destroyed. We've come a long way, baby.
My son Carl met Tina in High School. They were boyfriend-girlfriend immediately, and they married at age twenty. They had three children in a period of about six years. In early December 2000, Tina was driving the family van, stopped in traffic. A young man aged 17 had been given a 400 horse power 1965 GTO by his father, and he was having fun driving it. He miscalculated on wet pavement while turning a corner, lost control, shot over a divider berm and struck Tina through the driver side door. Tina was killed instantly, but my grandson, Carl, was safely strapped in his child car safety seat behind her, and he was unhurt. My son was left with children ages 6, 3 and 3 months to raise by himself. Merry Christmas.
The boy who killed Tina was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. His youthful exuberance had gotten away from him, and he now stood in shock at the side of the van, looking at the torn, beautiful young woman and mother he had just killed. I cannot fathom what must have been going through his young mind. Perhaps it was the same mix of horror and disbelief that Marjorie Knoller felt when her dog attacked and killed Diane Whipple.
The community my son lives in is very affluent and tight, and an outpouring of sympathy, contributions and shared grief overwhelmed the entire population overnight. Amid all the news reports, there was also public anger being fomented toward the 17 year-old boy and his family, but through his tears, my son went on television, pleading that the young man who had killed his wife and mother of his children, not be criminally prosecuted for what my son knew was a terribly unfortunate accident. By his plea, the community stood down, and although the boy did receive some punishment for his actions, he was never incarcerated, nor has he been branded as a criminal for the rest of his life. He was a good kid who did what so many of us do when we're young, and God knows my son did it too. My son just didn't manage to kill anyone when he was racing around with his own hair on fire.
The response from the community was of humbling and deep respect for my son, and I am so very, very proud of him as well.
You know, when somebody goes out and takes actions to deliberately hurt others, or they knowingly drive drunk, they need a good hanging, and I'll be the first to pull the lever. But when human error results in tragedy, what is the point of criminally prosecuting the individual responsible? What exactly are we hoping to accomplish? What, that nobody else will make the same stupid mistake? Where is the deterrent value? There is none. We prosecute ourselves when we criminalize human error.
Already, there are criminal cases being prosecuted against dog owners in Wisconsin and Kansas because their dogs attacked and killed humans. Yet not one of those cases involves an agressor who commanded the dogs to attack. Soon, we'll be imprisoning parents who raise children that kill. If we keep going like this, we'll be mimicking Merry Old England and hang people who merely steal a loaf of bread to feed their children. It feels so much better to admit that there, but for the grace of God, go I.
Carl F. Worden