Woman raped, strangled with her pantyhose?


PDA






Drjones
May 28, 2003, 01:59 PM
We often hear about this scenario.

Does anyone have links to actual cases that happened like this?

If you enjoyed reading about "Woman raped, strangled with her pantyhose?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Kaylee
May 28, 2003, 02:21 PM
you do realize, of course, that should a case like this have happened, you're talking about somebody's little girl? A daughter, sister, and maybe mother?

I tend to think we should leave the dancing in the blood to the ghouls on the other side.

-K

Battler
May 28, 2003, 02:29 PM
I always figured that this exact description was just a figure of speech. . . .

DRC
May 28, 2003, 02:53 PM
I'm posting this rather reluctantly simply because of the actual article surrounding the trial, but here it is anyway http://www.unc.edu/student/orgs/cedp/page27.html

Because I've read the article and it made me mad I'll get on my soapbox for a minute. The article is about the faults in the judicial system, the inhumanity of the death penalty and racial biase in cases such as these. Now I'm no brainiac by any stretch and correct me if I'm wrong, but if you commit a crime and you are caught and found guilty doesn't that make you a criminal and subject to the law no matter what color your skin is? And if you murder a person in a state that has the death penalty and are found to be subject to that ruling then is it any less humane to put a murderer to death? I'm all for "an eye for an eye" so perhaps my view is skewed because of that but putting someone to death in a legal capacity for putting someone else to death in a murderous act seems fine and necessary to me.

Just like the situation in New York regarding the shop where the would be robbers were foiled by being shot and killed. I'm sorry but if someone points a gun at me in this manner and I have a gun myself I'm gonna point one back at them and I'm going to pull the trigger. I'm also for get them before they get me. Is that wrong of me? Should I be less concerned for myself and more concerned for my assailant? Sorry I just can't find any sensibility in putting them before Me in a situation like that :)

Well, take care and I'll talk to you later.

DRC

Felonious Monk
May 28, 2003, 03:13 PM
DRC,
Just read the article.

Poor, poor Michael Sexton. His "nightmarish childhood" and the failure of our social services is to blame for this unfortunate circumstance.
There were really NO perpetrators, just two tragic victims in this instance.

All we are saying, is "Give Peace a Chance".

Tell it to Kimberly Crewe's family when they had to identify her body. While they clean out her apartment of her belongings, let's hold hands and sing a protest song, so we can save Michael Sexton's poor, unfortunate life.

While they go down to the bank, the post office, the Social Security office to declare their daughter deceased, maybe we should all go and tell them what a tragedy it was, while we seek to set that poor Michael Sexton free.

After all, they were both poor, unfortunate victims. :barf:
:fire: :barf:

Drjones
May 28, 2003, 03:14 PM
Kaylee:

You are totally right.

I guess I wouldn't use such cases in an argument as there are far too many other points I could beat them on, but my primary reason for asking this question in the first place was just to know if the whole "strangled by pantyhose" thing was just an urban legend of sorts.

Dunno...

Sorry if I've offended anyone. :o

BrokenPaw
May 28, 2003, 03:18 PM
Kaylee,

While I see your point, allow me to offer a different point of view:

The blood of the innocent girl who is somebody's daughter or sister or mother has already been spilled. The opposition is standing in the blood as it pools, wringing their hands and wagging their tongues.

Bringing cases like this to light is merely pointing out the blood staining the cuffs of their pants as they stand, and wring, and wag, and allow it all to go on.

Listing the deaths that could have been prevented, if the victims had been able to defend themselves, is not ghoulish, and it is not dancing in blood.

We do not revel in the deaths of innocents as the opposition does. But we must make sure that the facts of those victims' deaths are known. Because the opposition cannot stand on facts, so they stand on rhetoric. The soccer moms of the world will not hear about these deaths from the media, because it does not serve the media's agenda. So either the soccer moms must remain ignorant of the realities of the situation...or they must hear about it from us.

Not all people are stupid. Many are just ignorant of the facts, because the facts are not readily available to them.

Years ago a scare-message went around the Internet, warning of the dangers of the chemical Dihydrogen Monoxide. It contained a lot of scary-sounding pseudofacts ("DHMO is found in over 95% of cancerous tumours", etc.). A lot of people got upset about it. They didn't know enough chemistry to know that dihydrogen monoxide is just water.

We have to make certain that the people know the facts, so that the scary-sounding pseudofacts from HCI and MMM aren't the only thing people are hearing. If that means exposing the circumstances of how someone's little girl died, so be it. Because maybe by doing so someone else's little girl will have the tools to defend herself. Then we'll only have to mourn one tragedy, not two.

We should never revel in the deaths of innocents. But neither should we allow them to be forgotten. The opposition wants the public to forget. We mustn't let them.

-BP

STW
May 28, 2003, 05:29 PM
What I rind interesting/maddening is that those who cry about the unfairness of the death penalty never use see their own logic about unfairness to say we could be fairer just by executing more whites, females, etc. They don't see their logic leads to two possible conclusions not just the one they've chosen. :neener:

Or could it be that fairness is not the issue at all?:D

Drjones
May 28, 2003, 05:51 PM
we could be fairer just by executing more whites, females, etc. :confused:

benewton
May 28, 2003, 07:05 PM
Not to bring up old elections, but Willie Horton springs to mind....

Don't really know if the panyhose was, in actuallity, used, and I don't think it really matters.

We all have dependents, and those we are, in response, dependent upon, and that comment is as good a tag line as any to illustrate the point.


I'll always prefer my wife standing over some attacker's dead body, gun in hand, than watching his trial, no matter what the result of that horror show.

That said, and leaving my nice guy frame, were I sure he was the one who did it, I've an M1A around here somewhere...

Double Naught Spy
May 28, 2003, 07:58 PM
Why would being strangled with her own pantyhose be any better for debates than anything else? What is the significance of the pantyhose to arguments versus other items such as her belt, her purse strap, her shirt, her underwear, her own long hair, or anything the bad guy brought along for the crime? So if pantyhose are used, will it matter if they are control top or not for the argument? Is there going to be a distinction between pantyhose and stockings?

Double Naught Spy
May 28, 2003, 08:02 PM
OR, how about this ...

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2003/05/22/3ecc3d7156388

"...Ann McGowan never looked up from the table in front of her as the photos were projected in the courtroom. McGowan is accused of strangling her newborn with a pair of pantyhose and leaving the baby in a garbage bag in her backyard after giving birth in her Ames home in 2001."

------

So what does the woman using her own pantyhose to commit murder do for the argument, Drjones?

Drjones
May 28, 2003, 08:13 PM
Relax, Double Naught.

We've all heard the saying, and I simply wanted to know if it has ever actually happened or not.

Sheesh.

Standing Wolf
May 28, 2003, 09:36 PM
We do not revel in the deaths of innocents as the opposition does. But we must make sure that the facts of those victims' deaths are known.

I concur, and find it telling that we're very protective of crime victims, whereas the anti-Second Amendment bigots positively feast on their bodies.

jmbg29
May 29, 2003, 01:07 AM
So what does the woman using her own pantyhose to commit murder do for the argument, Drjones?I should think that it would do the obvious; that is to say that anything, anything at all, can and has been used as a deadly weapon. Therefore negating all of the leftist pig-:cuss:er bleating about eliminating this, that, or the other weapon.

Inanimate objects don't kill people, PEOPLE DO!!!!!!!!!

CZ-75
May 29, 2003, 01:34 AM
Why would being strangled with her own pantyhose be any better for debates than anything else?

The lurid and salacious offer a more grotesque, stimulating example with which to drive the point home with regard to self-defense. Also, a purse-strap doesn't denote rape AND murder, which add up to TWO crimes commited against the victim. Sex crimes fascinate and repulse at the same time, for whatever that says about public interest.

If you enjoyed reading about "Woman raped, strangled with her pantyhose?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!