• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Police on the trail of the Blue Bell ice cream licker

marke said:
Banning the teaching of Biblical principles in schools has helped turn impressionable kids away from God and towards savage barbarianism, and that is a very bad thing.
Click to expand...

nailed it once more, marke
certainly no student ever engaged in stupid acts while school prayer was actively used in our public schools

having been a student of that era, i cannot remember a time when any student was anything but absolutely diligent and obedient to Biblical law
the pulling of fire alarms before major tests. my imagination
ditto for telephoned bomb scares
fist fights that evolved into knife fights. must have been Biblical re-enactments
out of wedlock births, often followed by the pregnant student being sent away to live somewhere distant with extended family ... must have dreamed it
nevermind the every day petty thefts and upperclassman bullying tolerated by the school administrators

that school prayer sure kept us in line
 
WillyPete said:
Well, set me straight. How would the prosecution overcome this argument?
Click to expand...
The issue isn’t your argument, it’s your belief that as a defence lawyer, you wouldn’t need to provide any evidence to support a positive defence. You’d be claiming one sequence of events and the prosecution would be claiming another so you’d both need to provide evidence to support your claim sufficient to convince the judge and/or jury (or at least raise reasonable doubt). You could make a claim without backing it up but it isn’t going to do your case any good and in practice would be counterproductive.

The most obvious positive defence would be an alibi, saying that you were elsewhere at the time of the crime. Do you really think an alibi would be blindly accepted by a court if there was absolutely nothing offered in evidence to support it?
 
nota bene said:
I'm not sure I know what Biblical principles were taught back in the day; I don't recall any. We said the Lord's Prayer and the Pledge at the beginning of the day, but after that, it was academics in the classroom. I don't see how not saying prayers in school turns anybody away from God or toward barbarism or how it's the fault of a school if one of its students behaves poorly as an adult, but I do know that it's parents' responsibility to teach their values and beliefs to their children. If you want your child's school to reinforce your particular religious beliefs, you send that child to a private Baptist or Lutheran or whatever school or homeschool.

But this is a thread about food-tampering, and what this immature ice cream-licking dummy did is threaten public safety. She tried to start a competition (to make herself famous), and she hoped to create an epidemic. Pretty sociopathic. I doubt that she will be, but I hope she's convicted of a felony and sits her fine self in prison for a couple of years and also that she becomes super-duper famous as a dumb screwup who shouldn't emulated.
Click to expand...

Public schools have not just put serious restrictions on how the Bible is allowed to influence children, even more damaging is the leftist atheistic philosophies like evolutionary theories that have effectually driven gullible children not only to disbelieve God but to also disrespect God and Bible believing Christians.
 
WillyPete said:
Well, set me straight. How would the prosecution overcome this argument?

I described how I think it could go a bit later in this thread.
Click to expand...

Defense: "It was an act, and they purchased the ice cream after they made their video."

Prosecutor: "Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence."
 
marke said:
Dummasses kicked God out of public schools years ago and look at what kinds of dirty lip-smacking amoral morons those schools are turning out today.
Click to expand...

LOL! God is supposedly an omnipotent, omniscient being. What kind of candy-assed, sniveling god like that can get 'kicked out' of public schools?
 
marke said:
Public schools have not just put serious restrictions on how the Bible is allowed to influence children, even more damaging is the leftist atheistic philosophies like evolutionary theories that have effectually driven gullible children not only to disbelieve God but to also disrespect God and Bible believing Christians.
Click to expand...

Learning about evolution never harmed me or challenged my faith.
 
nota bene said:
Learning about evolution never harmed me or challenged my faith.
Click to expand...

If evolution did not challenge your faith in God did it also fail to challenge your belief in the Biblical records of the Flood and Creation?
 
marke said:
If evolution did not challenge your faith in God did it also fail to challenge your belief in the Biblical records of the Flood and Creation?
Click to expand...

Science, which is taught in public schools, definitively shows that the Great Flood of the Bible never happened.
 
marke said:
Public schools have not just put serious restrictions on how the Bible is allowed to influence children, even more damaging is the leftist atheistic philosophies like evolutionary theories that have effectually driven gullible children not only to disbelieve God but to also disrespect God and Bible believing Christians.
Click to expand...

so, if we still had prayer in school and taught fiction instead of fact about evolution, then this ice cream licking incident would not have happened
glad you explained that for us
 
HonestJoe said:
The issue isn’t your argument, it’s your belief that as a defence lawyer, you wouldn’t need to provide any evidence to support a positive defence. You’d be claiming one sequence of events and the prosecution would be claiming another so you’d both need to provide evidence to support your claim sufficient to convince the judge and/or jury (or at least raise reasonable doubt). You could make a claim without backing it up but it isn’t going to do your case any good and in practice would be counterproductive.

The most obvious positive defence would be an alibi, saying that you were elsewhere at the time of the crime. Do you really think an alibi would be blindly accepted by a court if there was absolutely nothing offered in evidence to support it?
Click to expand...

In this case, the evidence is the defendant's sworn testimony that she purchased the ice cream and lost the receipt. She wouldn't even be arguing with the prosecution's version of events.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Defense: "It was an act, and they purchased the ice cream after they made their video."

Prosecutor: "Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence."
Click to expand...

In my scenario, the girl would testify under oath that this was the case, if indeed the state felt the need to press charges over this.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Since they didn't buy it, she'd perjure herself.
Click to expand...

Shame on her.

And it would fall upon the prosecution to demonstrate that, if they could.

I'm sure this is the biggest case their office has on their plate, so resources to investigate this won't be a problem.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Science, which is taught in public schools, definitively shows that the Great Flood of the Bible never happened.
Click to expand...

That's not true at all. Archeologists have repeatedly evidenced a great flood in the Mesopotamia region that likely led to the story of Noah. It wasn't a flood that encompassed the entire world, but certainly of epochal proportions at the time. Considering how much science has learned about climate change and weather results thereof, the concept of a great flood is certainly not out of the question. But you know more.
 
WillyPete said:
Shame on her.

And it would fall upon the prosecution to demonstrate that, if they could.

I'm sure this is the biggest case their office has on their plate, so resources to investigate this won't be a problem.
Click to expand...

They really wouldn't need to. The container in question is in possession of the aggrieved party, she has no receipt or other excuplatory evidence, she fails.
 
From hereon, I pledge to lick every ice cream sold at the local Trader Joe's, even the fake soy ice cream they can't label as ice cream. It will be a tough job, but I will do my best, frozen tongue or not. I'm old, but I can still lick.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
They really wouldn't need to. The container in question is in possession of the aggrieved party, she has no receipt or other excuplatory evidence, she fails.
Click to expand...

The presumed container, at least for now.

My original claim of an easy defense was out there before that came out, and I later said with effort they could prevail, if they felt it worthwhile.

Shame on me.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Science, which is taught in public schools, definitively shows that the Great Flood of the Bible never happened.
Click to expand...
Science speculation which contradicts the Bible is forced on gullible kids in secular public schools in a wicked attempt by leftist elitist barbarians to turn the innocent children against God.
 
nota bene said:
So this dummy in Lufkin, Texas, encouraged by her boyfriend, opened a half-gallon of Blue Bell's tin roof ice cream and licked it. And then posted the vid clip and bragged about it on social media because she wants to be famous. Noted that now Blue Bell could be called "Flu Bell" because she'd recently been a "lil sick."

From the Dallas Morning News:

Tampering with consumer products, including food and drugs, is a felony offense in Texas, but the state's penal code specifies that tampering means altering or adding something to the product "to make it probable that the consumer product will cause serious bodily injury."

Threatening to tamper with a consumer product to affect its sale or to cause fear is a third-degree felony. Police plan to file charges over video showing woman licking Blue Bell ice cream at Texas Walmart | Texas | Dallas News

‘Asia’ the Blue Bell Ice Cream Licker: 5 Fast Facts You Need to Know | Heavy.com

LUFKIN LICKER: Lufkin PD investigating viral video of woman who licked Blue Bell in Walmart | KETK | FOX51 | EastTexasMatters.com
Click to expand...

It’s a shame there are people like this out there.
I remember back in the 80’s when people died because someone had tampered with Tylenol bottles.
I hope this persons stupidity lands them in prison for a long time.
 
Outlook said:
It’s a shame there are people like this out there.
I remember back in the 80’s when people died because someone had tampered with Tylenol bottles.
I hope this persons stupidity lands them in prison for a long time.
Click to expand...

quite different scenarios
this immature woman was talked into performing a stupid act in an effort to make a video of her 'performance' go viral
her actions were not malicious despite being stupid

in stark contrast, the tylenol tamperer was ****ing malicious
 
justabubba said:
quite different scenarios
this immature woman was talked into performing a stupid act in an effort to make a video of her 'performance' go viral
her actions were not malicious despite being stupid

in stark contrast, the tylenol tamperer was ****ing malicious
Click to expand...

People do what normal people think is stupid but happens to be criminal.
This was a criminal act and she should be punished.
 
Outlook said:
People do what normal people think is stupid but happens to be criminal.
This was a criminal act and she should be punished.
Click to expand...

i do not recall anyone posting that she should not be punished
nor do i recall anyone saying what she did should not be considered criminal

my earlier post was to distinguish between a stupid criminal act involving licking a container of ice cream that remained for sale and another which was a preplanned malicious manipulation of over the counter medications laced with the highly poisonous potassium cyanide; the latter criminal act killed - by intent
 
justabubba said:
i do not recall anyone posting that she should not be punished
nor do i recall anyone saying what she did should not be considered criminal

my earlier post was to distinguish between a stupid criminal act involving licking a container of ice cream that remained for sale and another which was a preplanned malicious manipulation of over the counter medications laced with the highly poisonous potassium cyanide; the latter criminal act killed - by intent
Click to expand...

Your playing with words.
Her intent was to open a container of ice cream and lick the contents. That was her intent. The legal question is whether she knew the consequences of her actions.
Her lack of knowledge of the consequences will not eliminate the criminality of her actions but may reduce her punishment.
 
marke said:
Science speculation which contradicts the Bible is forced on gullible kids in secular public schools in a wicked attempt by leftist elitist barbarians to turn the innocent children against God.
Click to expand...

As you openly admit, science confirms that the tall tales of the bible could not have happened without magic, and the bible makes kids go shoot up schools in anticipation of the conservative republican attempt to take over the UN and control Ghana.

Why do you hate god?
 
marke said:
If evolution did not challenge your faith in God did it also fail to challenge your belief in the Biblical records of the Flood and Creation?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to go down a Biblical inerrancy rabbit hole here, but as I've posted many times, I see science as in service to God, a testimony to what little we can know yet of His infinite imagination. Nothing I have ever learned from science has done other than strengthen my faith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom