Going green may cost you your life.

excerpt:

quote:

---

Melissa Arrington, 27, was convicted two months ago of negligent homicide and two counts of aggravated DUI in connection with the December 2006 death of Paul L'Ecuyer.

She could have gotten as few as four years behind bars, but Superior Court Judge Michael Cruikshank sentenced her Tuesday to 10 1/2 years - one year shy of the maximum.

Cruikshank said he found a telephone conversation between Arrington and an unknown male friend, a week after L'Ecuyer was killed, to be "breathtaking in its inhumanity."

During the conversation, the man told Arrington that an acquaintance believed she should get a medal and a parade because she had "taken out" a "tree hugger, a bicyclist, a Frenchman and a gay guy all in one shot."

Arrington laughed. When the man said he knew it was a terrible thing to say, she responded, "No, it's not."

---

[ 24 January 2008: Message edited by: bliter ]

quote:

---

How is this related to culture? To point out that women shouldn't laugh at men's dumb jokes over a tapped phone? martin dufresne

---

Your first sentence would have sufficed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
How is this related to culture? To point out that women shouldn't laugh at men's dumb jokes over a tapped phone?

---

Does that make me a judgmental a**hole? Perhaps so.

A six-years difference in sentence was applied, it seems, because of how the woman sentenced responded to an ugly and inhuman suggestion that "taking out" a cyclist was a good thing.

Instead of, "Get lost!" she responded, "No it's not."

I don't know what groups this woman moved among but wonder whether she felt pressured to exhibit a macho facade.

As to where this tidbit should have been posted, I can recommend a number of thriving woman-hating "men's rights" websites that are rife with such 'sorceress' anecdotes lovingly collected from around the world (and interspersed with porn images).
I am surprised it is seen as fit for Babble.

[ 27 January 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

I'm not looking for anybody to fry. I too questioned the sentence.

quote:

---

Please spare us the medieval terminology...

---

quote:

---

I too questioned the sentence.

---

I'm revisiting this since there appeared, for some reason, a desire to bury the topic and also because of remind's concern:

quote:

---

Not a culture topic, it is international news. Unless bliter is trying to say it is culture because he got the story from 3565gay.

---

Perhaps the following is a more acceptable source.
It is even more damaging since there is mention of the driver swerving off the road and killing the cyclist.

Swerved off road

Correction:

This also appeared in the first link:

quote:

---

L'Ecuyer, 45, was riding his bike the night of Dec. 1, 2006 when Arrington swerved off the road, hit him and then continued for 800 feet before stopping, according to Deputy Pima County Attorney Jonathan Mosher.

---

[ 31 January 2008: Message edited by: bliter ]

Yes, her words show little remorse, but that does not mean pre-meditation that you are trying to infer, nor does her swerving actually. Nor does it mean she is evil.

You know what is really breathtakingly inhumane, and truly evil?

Here's the part of the story I found important:

quote:

---

L'Ecuyer, 45, was riding his bike the night of Dec. 1, 2006 when Arrington swerved off the road, hit him and then continued for 800 feet before stopping, according to Deputy Pima County Attorney Jonathan Mosher.

Arrington's blood-alcohol content was .156 percent, nearly double Arizona's .08 legal limit. She had been driving on a suspended license for a prior DUI.

---

Yet, she still got less than the maximum sentence.

I have returned to this, also, because for some it appears to have become a gender issue.
Consider the stark contrast in martin dufrense's bending over backwards to make excuses for this convicted driver, and lack of compassion, while giving vociferous support to the judge, jury and Parole Board, in the matter of Robert Latimer seeking release. Since that thread is closed, I paraphrase:

"Why would you question the Court decision and the Parole Board?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Okay, I will take your bait bliter. Your use of inflammatory words in the title followed by the first words in you OP, labelling the woman as "truly evil", to your decision to place it in the culture forum, and now to revisit it, has caused me to question your motives.

Yes, her words show little remorse, but that does not mean pre-meditation that you are trying to infer, nor does her swerving actually. Nor does it mean she is evil.

You know what is really breathtakingly inhumane, and truly evil?

The fact that 500 Canadian women have been killed by a man in their life between 2001 -2007, and people, mainly men, are still refusing to acknowlege and address the hate against women that is being spread, and condoned, that allows these acts to happen, and will continue to allow them to happen. And that, they want to name a fucking hwy after the 44 Canadian military personal who have been killed, in the same period, fighting in a war of occuptation of another country for the interests of oil and opium.

---

derail.

That particular woman is truly evil. Many are.

Calling you on this remind. Women are not all innocent, even those killed by their partners, imo. Try living with a woman with Borderline Personality Disorder, for example. They can ruin the lives and health of everyone around them. I know. I almost lost my brother that way, and I did lose a friend: Both of them trapped unable to leave, until their health broke. Yes it is sad that some women have such a terrible disorder, but ... they do damage ... they kill ... slowly and painfully, and they create mini-versions of themselves in their daughters. And they are virtually untreatable.

Maybe this hate-filled woman is one. I don't know. But she certainly is NOT an innocent "victim".

[ 31 January 2008: Message edited by: saga ]

quote:

---

His attempt to pass off an accident as a hate crime/premeditated murder is preposterous - but apparently true to form.

---

Typical over-statement, but true to form. A reading of this whole thread will expose the hypocrisy.

It would have been bloody irresponsible of the investigators NOT to have looked fully at the circumstances of the accident - particularly in view of the vehicle having swerved off the road prior to striking the cyclist and the response to the phone call - planted or not.

You introduce straw men and prefer to engage in insult as you ignore comment on your posts.

On remind's characterization of the title as inflammatory, the title used the judge's assessment, as I'm sure remind knew.

[ 31 January 2008: Message edited by: bliter ]

[ 31 January 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

A witness to the crash testified Arrington swerved off the road twice before the collision. ...

During Tuesday's hearing, Mosher played two jail phone conversations — the one that offended Cruikshank and a second one in which Arrington mentions the witness to the crash.

When Arrington is told she was charged with manslaughter based, in part, on the woman's statement to police about the swerving Arrington responds, "If she had so much of an issue, maybe she should have called (911) sooner, huh?"

Mosher said that indicates Arrington blames the witness for the crash.

He said Arrington's testimony showed she has yet to take responsibility for her actions. Arrington testified that she had only three drinks, Mosher said, when her blood-alcohol level clearly shows she had more, and she claimed she hit L'Ecuyer while reaching for hand sanitizer but the evidence shows that's not true. [...]

L'Ecuyer was an exceptional person "who lived his beliefs," Mosher said.

Mosher told the judge that minutes before he died L'Ecuyer ate a meal to celebrate a new job and made his final journal entry.

L'Ecuyer jotted down "new month, new job, new life," Mosher said, his voice choking with emotion.

L'Ecuyer's mother, Barbara Nordlund and siblings, Jeanine, Larry and Anne, described him as a man with "enormous ideals" who gave out Thanksgiving Day baskets to the needy, rode in charity events and passed out fliers every Martin Luther King Jr. Day urging people to write down their dreams and goals.

---

You can listen to the infamous phone call if you like. It is at -1:14 here:

If the admittedly-judgmental, URL-shortening "truly evil" was over the top, it was off-the-cuff and in immediate gut reaction to the callousness expressed in the story.

quote:

---

Yes it is sad that some women have such a terrible disorder, but ... they do damage ... they kill ... slowly and painfully, and they create mini-versions of themselves in their daughters. And they are virtually untreatable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by saga:
That particular woman is truly evil. Many are.

---

Now do not take that as my believing women can do no wrong, as that is not the case.

quote:

---

But she certainly is NOT an innocent "victim".

---

Here are my words again in respect to her:

quote:

---

Yes, her words show little remorse, but that does not mean pre-meditation that you are trying to infer, nor does her swerving actually. Nor does it mean she is evil.

---

Please point to where I said anything about her being an innocent victim.
----------------------------

Not meaning this below to be addressed to Saga.

Gender came into it only by way of my giving an example of what was fingerpointly evil, IMV, in order to juxtaposition a threshhold level of action(s) needed before making such a claim. Just a couple of weeks back I had inappropriately used the word evil, when indeed it could no be used, and I agree with the point made then that it should be used carefully. And I agree with it in respect to this case.

[ 31 January 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:

First, I feel very badly for your brother, but could you please tone down the generalizations here? Not all women (it is mainly women) with BPD are killers, nor do they ruin other people's lives. Someone very close to me has been diagnosed with this BS label, and this generalization does her, and others live her, a very bad disservice. Thanks in advance.

---

It is not bs, stargazer, though it may be misdiagnosed, which would not be relevant to my situation at all because in both situations it was entirely accurate.

It is a huge issue for the men who live with them ... or try to stay living. I think it is time we did talk about it.

My friend died, trapped in his house with a crazy lady, afraid to leave because of what she might do to their son, afraid to talk about it because people would think he was a wuss. He just got sicker and sicker from the stress, and died in his 50's. My brother had a heart attack and once he recovered he decided he had to leave. She wouldn't let him ... I won't go on. It just makes me sick to talk about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Deciding on who is evil - and no, it's not an "anomaly" that it is always women who are treated as moral monsters

---

Now do not take that as my believing women can do no wrong, as that is not the case.

..................................................

I never said there are MORE evil women than men, nor did I say women are MORE evil. Do not put words in my mouth please.

However, I do believe we often fail to acknowledge evil women. How you define evil is, I guess, a personal thing. For me, it is people who lack humanity. I avoid them because they are dangerous.

Maybe the woman was drunk when she killed the man, but she was not drunk when she laughed about it.

[ 31 January 2008: Message edited by: saga ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by saga:
quote originally posted by saga:
I never said there are MORE evil women than men, nor did I say women are MORE evil. Do not put words in my mouth please.

---

quote:

---

However, I do believe we often fail to acknowledge evil women.

---

quote:

---

Maybe the woman was drunk when she killed the man, but she was not drunk when she laughed about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
But I do not believe showing no remorse necessarily makes one evil.

---

I agree, and the "evil" stuff is way over the line.

Lack of remorse, however, always gets you a stiffer sentence.

quote:

---

Nor is it indicative of pre-meditation.

---

I agree again. All this talk of "swerving" to somehow insinuate she meant to kill the cyclist is totally without foundation.

In any event, she was charged and convicted of "negligent homicide" - not murder.

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
Not wanting to nitpick but you actually did put words in my mouth. In my case, I wasn't saying you thought women were more evil than men, I was trying to say, apparently poorly, that I believed that most likely the amounts of evilness are similar between genders, and that it may be slightly higher with men, considering more men are serial killers than women, not meaning ALL men, or many men even, that is if one could actually determine what evil actually is, which I was trying to do by delineating that my notion of truly being able to fingerpoint at evil is in the case of serial killers, and those who act outside the bounds of humanity. And that notion was contained in my example of those warmongering for reasons of greed and power, and attempting to further their inhumane actions by wanting to name a hwy for the 44 "fallen soldiers", when over 10 times as many women have been killed in the same time frame, just for the 'crime' of being a woman, and that it is inhumane that this tragic reality gets ignored.

---

Personally, I think evil is persecuting and verbally and emotionally abusing a man until he has a heart attack and dies. Try finding stats on that: There aren't any, and yet I know two men to whom this has happened, though only one died from the heart attack. The other one left and lost everything and she is now trying to get his grown son's house. There are subtle ways to kill someone or destroy their life, and those are the methods of these women.

Some women are evil, and way too often we fail to identify that fact. These are the predatory women who give the rest of us a bad name. I believe this woman who thinks it is funny to take out a "tree hugger, Frenchman and gay man" is evil.

There is no agreed upon definition of evil, but you know it when you are in its presence ... and then you wish you had never been there.

I do not agree that men are more evil. Women's evil is just less detectable because the evil ones are very good at playing "victim" and that is all society and the courts seem to see these days.

[ 31 January 2008: Message edited by: saga ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by saga:
I believe this woman who thinks it is funny to take out a "tree hugger, Frenchman and gay man" is evil.

---

I understand your feelings, and I might even share them, but why do you want to have a debate on whether this person is "evil" or not?

She is reckless; she is remorseless (obviously - she even tried to blame a witness for not calling 9-1-1 earlier); she is disrespectful of human beings (but lots of USians talk and laugh the way she and her buddy did on the phone); and she is an extreme danger to society. She is being locked up for a long time (I hope) to pay for those crimes and her cavalier and egocentric and (perhaps) sociopathic refusal to take ownership and make amends for what she has done.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I understand your feelings, and I might even share them, but why do you want to have a debate on whether this person is "evil" or not?

She is reckless; she is remorseless (obviously - she even tried to blame a witness for not calling 9-1-1 earlier); she is disrespectful of human beings (but lots of USians talk and laugh the way she and her buddy did on the phone); and she is an extreme danger to society. She is being locked up for a long time (I hope) to pay for those crimes and her cavalier and egocentric and (perhaps) sociopathic refusal to take ownership and make amends for what she has done.

But this is not a gender issue, nor is it an issue of good vs. evil. Can't we just all agree on the other stuff and move on?

---

I am not debating evil. I, in fact, indicated above that I think evil is personally experience, not commonly defined. I am, however, responding to remind's points on the gender issue.