Father of Larry Nassar victims lunges at disgraced doctor in court

First topic message reminder :

The judge in the gymnastics sexual abuse case said on Friday there is “no way” she will punish the father of three girls who were his victims, after the man tried to attack the former US gymnastics team doctor in court on Friday. Randall Margrave, the father of three daughters sexually abused by disgraced team doctor Larry Nassar, was nevertheless told by the judge that his actions were wrong, and Margrave apologized at Nassar’s sentencing hearing in Michigan.

On Friday morning, after two of Margraves’ daughters had just given evidence, the father asked Judge Janice Cunningham for time alone with the former doctor. “I would ask you as part of the sentencing to grant me five minutes in a locked room with this demon,” said Margraves, who has a third daughter said also to have been abused while under Nassar’s care. When the judge declined, Margraves shook his head at Nassar and called him a “son of a bitch”. As some in the courtroom laughed, the judge warned Margraves about his language. He then lunged at the doctor.

Bailiffs quickly wrestled Margraves to the ground, knocking objects off a desk in the struggle. Nassar was subsequently led out the room, while crying was heard in the courtroom.

As officers removed Margraves, he repeatedly demanded “one minute!” and asked: “What if this happened to you guys?”

A few hours later, Margraves apologized for his behavior. Cunningham then responded that there was “no way” she would punish him for his rush on Nassar.

She added that a punishment isn’t appropriate based on the crimes committed by Nassar and the anguish felt by families. But she also told those attending it is wrong to “combat assault with assault”.








https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/feb/02/larry-nassar-attacked-courtroom-gymnastics-abuse

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


And mR arrogant, you has to insult when he loses an argument

Finally, murder is what we percieve it to be

In this case unsanctioned taking of life

Its an absolute law

What is arbitrary is on the taking of life

So dont act a bigt head, because i will make you look stupid as seen

Try debating like an adult

Maybe you should look in thethe mirror and stop being so condescendingly ignorant with your "dummy" and such...then perhaps I wouldnt reply in kind!!!!!!!...


As to thethe rest of that pointless rant of yours ...it makes bog all sense....

I and thousands of lawyers DONT GIVE a monkeys what YOU think.....there MAY be  a strict dictionary definition for murder.....BUT.....that is NOT translated into law....hence the law on murder IS NOT absolute

1) Grow up you child

2) I guess it would to an idiot like you

3) I simple stated Murder is an absolute law

It is dummy

Told you all a fortnight or more ago I wasnt inyou the mood for fuckeries


Eddie ...let him out in 3 days

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


1) Grow up you child

2) I guess it would to an idiot like you

3) I simple stated Murder is an absolute law

It is dummy

Told you all a fortnight or more ago I wasnt inyou the mood for fuckeries


Eddie ...let him out in 3 days

What supposed an imagi9nary crime have I comitted?

Let him out in three days

I dont use what shit I am going throught to get at people as you do

GO fuck yourself

Did you fuck up Victor and post your views on here and prove you are unable to be moderate
You have proven you are not fair

You pathetic child

No I didnt...but I dont know what you are still doing here..........

And I agree...you dont use shit you are going through as an excuse to be a twat....you use the "its cos I is passionate excuse to be rude,overbearing and insufferably arrogant 100% of the time

Didge wrote:What supposed an imagi9nary crime have I comitted?

Didge, you've been rude and abusive throughout this discussion, particularly with Vic.  There's no necessity for that.

I understand what Vic is saying.  Initially, let me say somehow we have come to argue an example.  This is an assault in a courtroom.  Let's forget about the homicide example.

Vic's point is that a single crime is fraught with complexities and conditions.  None of it is absolute.  I mentioned that violent crimes are worse than non-violent crimes...an example of a condition.  And motives (another condition) matter: is it self-defense; or is it gratuitous.

But all of those exceptions and conditions are already codified in written law.  Yes, even sentencing standards are written down in the West Digest under the title "Sentencing".  And the Criminal Code defines simple assault, assault with a deadly weapon, and the difference between these and actual murder.

My point is that in this case the judge is throwing all that out the window.  She's making up law as she goes along, without codified law, and without a hearing to determine facts.  As I said, she's not issuing Findings or Conclusions.

Next time, this guy is going to think (indeed, he's already learned) that he can assault people with impunity.  This judge has instilled that.  And, others watching, likewise can infer that it's OK to assault people whom you don't like.  What this judge is doing is encouraging lawlessness, only because she's sympathetic to the cause.  That's trouble in the making.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:What supposed an imagi9nary crime have I comitted?

But all of those exceptions and conditions are already codified in written law.  Yes, even sentencing standards are written down in the West Digest under the title "Sentencing".  And the Criminal Code defines simple assault, assault with a deadly weapon, and the difference between these and actual murder.

My point is that in this case the judge is throwing all that out the window.  She's making up law as she goes along, without codified law, and without a hearing to determine facts.  As I said, she's not issuing Findings or Conclusions.

Next time, this guy is going to think (indeed, he's already learned) that he can assault people with impunity.  This judge has instilled that.  And, others watching, likewise can infer that it's OK to assault people whom you don't like.  What this judge is doing is encouraging lawlessness, only because she's sympathetic to the cause.  That's trouble in the making.

Gobbledygook

As again and why you failed to answer my points

Men are not a minority group

PC is about protecting minority groups through lanaguge.

Hence your point was at best dumb and stupid?

The light treatment has been answsered.

He never actually harmed anyone and just found out his 3 daughters. Not one, but 3 had been sexually abused

He was rightly angered and lost control.

I am not saying what he did was right. It was not and neither did the judge. She condemned him for it. She rightly took into account how someone might feel knowing this.

She has empathic intelligence.

Hence the sound decision she made.

So again, what PC here?

At the end of the day, you are not the judge on any of this. The judge acted within the law.
Just because you think you would do differently, does not even make you right here

Itas that simple

Didge wrote:

Original Quill wrote:


But all of those exceptions and conditions are already codified in written law.  Yes, even sentencing standards are written down in the West Digest under the title "Sentencing".  And the Criminal Code defines simple assault, assault with a deadly weapon, and the difference between these and actual murder.

My point is that in this case the judge is throwing all that out the window.  She's making up law as she goes along, without codified law, and without a hearing to determine facts.  As I said, she's not issuing Findings or Conclusions.

Next time, this guy is going to think (indeed, he's already learned) that he can assault people with impunity.  This judge has instilled that.  And, others watching, likewise can infer that it's OK to assault people whom you don't like.  What this judge is doing is encouraging lawlessness, only because she's sympathetic to the cause.  That's trouble in the making.

Gobbledygook

As again and why you failed to answer my points

Men are not a minority group

PC is about protecting minority groups through lanaguge.

Hence your point was at best dumb and stupid?

The light treatment has been answsered.

He never actually harmed anyone and just found out his 3 daughters. Not one, but 3 had been sexually abused

And this vigilante activity is encouraged by the Court. Forget about what the cause is, everyone will feel that his cause is equally justified. This lawlessness is acceptable to this Judge...that's all that will be remembered.

Didge wrote:He was rightly angered and lost control.

I recall many Muslims saying that about the 19 men who caused 9/11. They were "rightly angered and lost control". Just a matter of whose side you are on, once a judge sanctions such activity.

Didge wrote:I am not saying what he did was right. It was not and neither did the judge. She condemned him for it.

She rightly took into account how someone might feel knowing this.

She has empathic intelligence.

Hence the sound decision she made.

Actions speak louder than words. What the world saw is that lawlessness gets rewarded in her courtroom. All one has to do is get the sympathies of the Judge.

There's no difference between this and what Trump did after Charlottesville. He sanctioned the violence, thus encouraging it the next time. And it matters little whether this time it favors the left or right. Once you set a precedent, it's available for all sides to use.

Didge wrote:So again, what PC here?

What does it matter? Every delusional person with a purpose will think his cause is more important, and is one for which this Judge will allow violence. All the kook needs to know is that this kind of behavior is permitted in her courtroom.

Didge wrote:At the end of the day, you are not the judge on any of this. The judge acted within the law.
Just because you think you would do differently, does not even make you right here

It's hardly me, Didge. It's the next fanatic who comes into this Judge's courtroom, thinking his is the cause for which this Judge will permit assaults...or worse. Suppose someone enters her courtroom with a gun or explosives? You witnessed Las Vegas and San Bernardino, do you not realize that there are nuts out there that have gotten the message that this is acceptable? Everyone thinks they are right; all people need to remember is that this is the courtroom where violence is favored over rational law.

Chrissake...you're all the way over in the UK, and you've gotten the message that this is permissible in a Michigan courtroom.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:

Gobbledygook

As again and why you failed to answer my points

Men are not a minority group

PC is about protecting minority groups through lanaguge.

Hence your point was at best dumb and stupid?

The light treatment has been answsered.

He never actually harmed anyone and just found out his 3 daughters. Not one, but 3 had been sexually abused

And this vigilante activity is encouraged by the Court.  Forget about what the cause is, everyone will feel that his cause is equally justified.  This lawlessness is acceptable to this Judge...that's all that will be remembered.

Didge wrote:Rubbish. How is it encouraging? The judge took into consideration the reality of emotions a father would feel knowing his 3 daughters had been sexually abused.
You simple refuse to factor this

I recall many Muslims saying that about the 19 men who caused 9/11.  They were "rightly angered and lost control".  Just a matter of whose side you are on, once a judge sanctions such activity.

Didge wrote:They were Saudi'sWhat crime had the US committed against Saudi Arabia?
None.The supposed crime, was Bin Laden claiming it an offense that US troops be allowed on Saudi soil in order to liberate Kuwait from Saddam and you think that is comparable to a father knowing his daughters have been sexually abused?

Come again?

Actions speak louder than words.  What the world saw is that lawlessness gets rewarded in her courtroom.  All one has to do is get the sympathies of the Judge.

There's no difference between this and what Trump did after Charlottesville.  He sanctioned the violence, thus encouraging it the next time.  And it matters little whether this time it favors the left or right.  Once you set a precedent, it's available for all sides to use.

Didge wrote:What the world saw was compassion by the judge. Compassion to the realityt, even she admitted, she had no idea what he must being going through and can only imagine.
This father is no criminal and acted out of anger and again no harm was done.
9/11 was formed out of hating Non-Muslims through and backed by religious doctrine. That means they had an active choice. They were calculating in their crime. The father reacted spontaneous. Hence again why your example is both dumb and stupid

What does it matter?  Every delusional person with a purpose will think his cause is more important, and is one for which this Judge will allow violence.  All the kook needs to know is that this kind of behavior is permitted in her courtroom.

Didge wrote:Will they?Then since the trial, why has that not happened?
All you need to know is that the judge saw sense in not convicting an innocent and yet angry father

It's hardly me, Didge.  It's the next fanatic who comes into this Judge's courtroom, thinking his is the cause for which this Judge will permit assaults...or worse.  Suppose someone enters her courtroom with a gun or explosives?  You witnessed Las Vegas and San Bernardino, do you not realize that there are nuts out there that have gotten the message that this is acceptable?  Everyone thinks they are right; all people need to remember is that this is the courtroom where violence is favored over rational law.

Chrissake...you're all the way over in the UK, and you've gotten the message that this is permissible in a Michigan courtroom.

I think you just talk a load of bollocks.
Like has been said, if the father was black, your whole argument would be supportive of mine. Yet if a black man had been convicted, you would be shouting racism.
Which would be odd, dont you think? Based on then you believing no matter their ethnicity that father should be convicted?

Like I say, its basically irrelavant what you think
Your argumnent is feared based and seeks to further cause divide

Didge wrote:I think you just talk a load of bollocks.
Like has been said, if the father was black, your whole argument would be supportive of mine. Yet if a black man had been convicted, you would be shouting racism.
Which would be odd, dont you think? Based on then you believing no matter their ethnicity that father should be convicted?

Like I say, its basically irrelavant what you think
Your argumnent is feared based and seeks to further cause divide

I just think you are advocating violence as a solution to problems. Look at what your position is: you are trying to justify an assault. Gd. luck.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:I think you just talk a load of bollocks.
Like has been said, if the father was black, your whole argument would be supportive of mine. Yet if a black man had been convicted, you would be shouting racism.
Which would be odd, dont you think? Based on then you believing no matter their ethnicity that father should be convicted?

Like I say, its basically irrelavant what you think
Your argumnent is feared based and seeks to further cause divide

I just think you are advocating violence as a solution to problems.  Look at what your position is: you are trying to justify an assault.  Gd. luck.

At no point did I justify any assualt.
I even stated what he did was wrong.
No harm came to anyone, thankfully.
The judge understood, this was not normally the actions of this father, but the actions of a father. Who has come to learn his 3 daughters and countless of young women had been sexually abused.
No doubt that father felt like he had failed his daughters and wanted to make up for this in some way.
Hence his angry reaction on the spur of the moment.
Yet sadly this does not compute in your dogmatic insensitive brain

You are as bad as Cathy Newman, trying to make claims I have never said

You must have gone to her school

Didge wrote:At no point did I justify any assualt.

Yes you did. Your condemnation by faint exprobation is, in effect, applause.

Original Quill wrote:

Didge wrote:At no point did I justify any assualt.

Yes you did.  Your condemnation by faint exprobation is, in effect, applause.

Again no I did not and again this proves the inept ability of the left to debate.

The father did wrong, what was taken into account is whether this was a normal reaction off every day life.

I mean lets put this to the test. If your own daughter hypothetically been sexually abused by a previous teacher. You knew and then met him face to face.

What would you do?

What would any loving father do confronting the person that sexually assualted their daughters?

Take as long as you like to think on that