Idiot teens put DEER DECOY in road - crash cripples two kids

Old Wolf wrote:

> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> >
> > 3rd teen pleads no contest in crash after boys put deer decoy on road
>
> What's this "no contest" bullcrap that has been coming up lately,
> anyway? Either you did it or you didn't. If you are guilty, then
> saying "no contest" is just trying to weasel out of having to
> take responsibility for your actions.

Plea bargaining it seems. It's a fair cop - give me less time.

Graham

"Steven J. Sobol" wrote:

> In article .com>, Old Wolf wrote:
> > Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
> >>
> >> 3rd teen pleads no contest in crash after boys put deer decoy on road
> >
> > What's this "no contest" bullcrap that has been coming up lately,
> > anyway? Either you did it or you didn't. If you are guilty, then
> > saying "no contest" is just trying to weasel out of having to
> > take responsibility for your actions.
>
> Hm. Perhaps you should read up on the definition of a no contest plea before
> spouting off?
>
> "No contest", in most US courts, is a guilty plea. The only thing it
> protects you from is subsequent civil action relating to the same incident.

Quite useful then !

Graham

wrote:
> -----
> Kill ratio of Palestinian children to Israeli children 5.7-to-1,
> Israel's favor.
> Kill ratio of all Palestinians to Israelis: over 3-to-1.
> ---------

Kill ratio of Iraqis to Americans: 50,000-to-1

What's your point?

Steven J. Sobol wrote:
> "No contest", in most US courts, is a guilty plea. The only thing it
> protects you from is subsequent civil action relating to the same incident.

If that's true then why would anybody ever plead "guilty" ?

Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Bill Funk said in
rec.autos.driving:
> He is. Well, not a cage, but a very comfortabel facility, with people
> assigned to help him get through the day.

That's too bad. They should lock Saddam up in an open cage and put it
ina public place where we can throw peanuts at it.

--
N exus of
S tupid
A ssholes

On Mon, 28 Aug 2006 15:32:09 -0400, necromancer
> wrote:

>Ladies and Gentlemen (and I use those words loosely), Speeders & Drunk
>Drivers are MURDERERS escaped from its prison is eye-rak and spewed this
>bull**** in rec.autos.driving:
>
>> They're teens and thus they weren't thinking. All kids should be kept
>> in cages from the ages 12 to 18.
>
>And you should have been locked up in a cage from age zero through
>infinity.
>
>Happy to have ruined your day, El Faggio.

How does making me laugh ruin my day? HAHAHA

On 28 Aug 2006 16:26:42 -0700, "Chuck Whealton"
> wrote:


>
>This happened to an old friend of mine more than 20 years ago. He was
>coming back from a nightclub, and somebody had put some of those
>workhorses out in the middle of the road for a joke. He swerved to
>miss 'em, went into a tree, and died in the hospital a couple of days
>later.
>
>People that do this stuff just don't get it that people can die from
>it.

Of course they know people can die from it. They think it's cool.
Just like most people speed and drive drunk even though there's a good
chance that will kill someone. America is a nation of psychopaths.

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 01:09:28 +0000 (UTC), "Steven J. Sobol"
> wrote:

>In article .com>, Old Wolf wrote:
>> Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>>
>>> 3rd teen pleads no contest in crash after boys put deer decoy on road
>>
>> What's this "no contest" bullcrap that has been coming up lately,
>> anyway? Either you did it or you didn't. If you are guilty, then
>> saying "no contest" is just trying to weasel out of having to
>> take responsibility for your actions.
>
>Hm. Perhaps you should read up on the definition of a no contest plea before
>spouting off?
>
>"No contest", in most US courts, is a guilty plea. The only thing it
>protects you from is subsequent civil action relating to the same incident.

BS. You can still be sued civilly. All it means is the plaintiffs
can't say you pled guilty only that you pled no contest. That's not
gonna save you from the jury.

In article .com>, Old Wolf wrote:
> Steven J. Sobol wrote:
>> "No contest", in most US courts, is a guilty plea. The only thing it
>> protects you from is subsequent civil action relating to the same incident.
>
> If that's true then why would anybody ever plead "guilty" ?

I don't know. Well, not true, exactly. It IS more expeditious in some cases;
for example, if you get a traffic citation and you don't have to go to court
for it - which is normally the case in most US states if you've not had
another traffic violation in the past twelve months - it's generally easier
just to pay it and waive your right to court trial. In every state I know of,
when you do this, a guilty plea is automatically entered for that violation,
but it's worth it to not have to bother with court.


--
Steve Sobol, Professional Geek ** Java/VB/VC/PHP/Perl ** Linux/*BSD/Windows
Apple Valley, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED

It's all fun and games until someone starts a bonfire in the living room.

In article .com>,
Old Wolf > wrote:
>Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS wrote:
>>
>> 3rd teen pleads no contest in crash after boys put deer decoy on road
>
>What's this "no contest" bullcrap that has been coming up lately,
>anyway? Either you did it or you didn't. If you are guilty, then
>saying "no contest" is just trying to weasel out of having to
>take responsibility for your actions.

If you're not guilty, it's (among other things) a means of accepting a
small punishment to avoid a criminal trial while still retaining the
ability to fight a civil suit.

It's not new. Google "nolo contendre".
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.