Plan B Forum

We kill people over politics, Democrat kills Republican; I am going out on a limb, but it is a good guess.


http://news.yahoo.com/woman-faces-sente ... 37379.html


DETROIT (AP) — A Detroit woman who was drunk when she killed a friend with a slow cooker during an argument over presidential politics was sentenced Monday to at least 23 years in prison.
A judge followed the recommended sentence in a plea deal between prosecutors and Tewana Sullivan, who has a history of bipolar disorder but was declared competent to go to trial.
Sullivan, 51, beat Cheryl Livy, 66, with a slow cooker at the victim's Livonia apartment in October. At the time, Sullivan's blood-alcohol level was 0.41 — five times the level for drunken driving in Michigan, defense attorney John McWilliams said.
"I didn't take my medication like I was supposed to, so I did mess up," Sullivan told Wayne County Judge Michael Hathaway. "Without me taking my medication, that was the worst thing I could ever have done."
McWilliams said the two were arguing about the 2016 race for president.
"One was for one major political party and the other was for the other major political party," he said.


In a Feb. 5, 2015 photo, defendant Tewana Sullivan sobs towards the end of her preliminary examinati …
In May, facing a first-degree murder charge, Sullivan pleaded guilty but mentally ill to second-degree murder. She will be eligible for parole after 23 years and will get mental health care in prison. Her maximum sentence is 50 years.
She said she fears she's "not going to make it" in prison and suggested the plea deal was a mistake.
"It's a little late for that now," the judge said.
McWilliams agreed, saying her second thoughts were "not well-placed."
"The likelihood of conviction of first-degree murder was great. And the state wouldn't have to give her mental health care," he told The Associated Press.

.41 BAC???????????

She's a serious chronic alcoholic to survive a BAC of that level.





It's a good thing marijuana is outlawed instead of alcohol . . . not! If they'd gotten high they'd probably have skipped the politics altogether.



By the way, you're an asshole for designating her as a Democrat - there is nothing in the article to indicate which individual was defending which political party. That's just you being a dick.

bigskygal wrote:.41 BAC???????????

She's a serious chronic alcoholic to survive a BAC of that level.





It's a good thing marijuana is outlawed instead of alcohol . . . not! If they'd gotten high they'd probably have skipped the politics altogether.



By the way, you're an asshole for designating her as a Democrat - there is nothing in the article to indicate which individual was defending which political party. That's just you being a dick.

True, that is why I said I was going out on a limp. And , I had a fifty percent chance of being right. I was trying to make it interesting.

liberty wrote:I was going out on a limp.

Must...not...howl...with...laughter...at...such...a...textbook...Freudian...slip..

Defense attorney John McWilliams said the two women had argued over "presidential politics."

"Whatever the controversy is between Democrats and Republicans," he said.

Scooter is of course correct. There is nothing in the article to indicate which individual was defending which political party.

The assailant is black. The victim is white. I'd say lib's odds are much, much better than 50/50. Perhaps 99:1.

Of more interest is the slow-cooker. Was this the heavy ceramic insert or the flimsy aluminium casing here? Since the electrical cord was close to the victim's neck, it seems the one-handed lightweight option was chosen.

@ Meade - you're a dick too, IMHO.

FYI, the lawyer for the drunk lady indicates that the dispute was 'over presidential politics,' but declined to elaborate. The Daily Mail apparently made up the Democrat v. Republican angle. There is just as much likelihood that they were arguing over the many terrible Republican candidates, or arguing over Democrat candidates, or arguing about Obama, etc.

But I think anybody with a brain can figure out that the root of the murder was alcohol and mental illness, not politics of any stripe.

See you zeroed in on why liberty didn't catch that.

Someone's been reading the Daily Mail? And the Daily Mail made up that quote?

bigskygal wrote:FYI, the lawyer for the drunk lady indicates that the dispute was 'over presidential politics,' but declined to elaborate

Defense attorney John McWilliams said the two women had argued over "presidential politics." . . . "Whatever the controversy is between Democrats and Republicans," he said

Source: The Detroit News
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/l ... /22925379/

Source: CBS News
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/slow-cooker ... wyer-says/

McWilliams said the two were arguing about the 2016 race for president. "One was for one major political party and the other was for the other major political party," he said.

Source: ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/woma ... g-31771047

I thought you were chomping on the crockpot questions. Anyway, turns out this unfortunate lady (which she is) is getting a reality show called "Top the Chef" - contestants vie to see who can use the most unusual kitchen implements to settle disputes in various categories. wesw told me

I think that you are all missing the point here. we need to ban crockpots, now.

Oh goodness me, I apologize so sincerely Meade - I just don't have the time to research the internet for articles that you have, and I quite clearly didn't read the OP quoted article closely enough. The article I googled said only that he refused to elaborate.

There is still nothing to suggest that the killer was a D and the victim a R; that's just your bias - whether real or joking (which always has an element of truth to it).

maybe it was Dem on Dem violence.

meade, I believe that you confused bigsky with scooter earlier in the thread...

Besides if she was a republican she would have just shot her.

Thank you, BSG - de nada. It is a bias of sorts, I suppose, but surely one based on statistical likelihood? In any given group of black citizens of the USA, there are likely to be a vast majority of Democrat supporters. In a group of the same size and societal status but composed of so-called "white" people, a person picked at random is almost as likely to be a Republican as a Democrat.

It's not unreasonable to suppose that the black lady argues positively for a Democrat in 2016. It is not definitive of course and I acknowledged that - she may be utterly opposed to the Clintones and a fan of Ben Carson. But I think lib's chances are better than the 50/50 he laid modest claim to.

Switch gears: your post about Bernie Sanders in another thread does make him sound worth looking into. Especially given the Republican daisy-chain thus far. If Clintone - I vote Republican. But if not... it'll be crockpot time!

Oh dear - wesw is right about me thinking Scooter had written that line (sorry BSG). But he's also happily unable to read (or comprehend) the defense attorneys statement that it was Dem/Rep and two opposing parties.

and CP

I actually didn t really read much of liberty s post. he posted it to get you guys going, and that was the only part that I found interesting.

once you ve seen one drunken rage you ve pretty much seen them all. there was this one chick who had some kinda chemical imbalance and got drunk , for hours,off of a couple sips....

....now that was something completely different.

Slow cookers don't kill people; people kill people. Please do not outlaw slow cookers.

It is not "bias" to note the manifestly one-sided voting patterns of Americans of black African descent, and to draw logical conclusions therefrom. May I assume that an unidentified NBA power forward is not a dwarf?

May I assume that an unidentified NBA power forward is not a dwarf?

Not if he identifies himself as one.

Was that crockpot wielded by a scientist or a non-scientist?


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/1 ... 29382.html

Only Six Percent Of Scientists Are Republicans: Pew Poll
Posted: 08/10/2009 5:12 am EDT Updated: 02/12/2013 11:43 am EST

A new study by the Pew Research Center finds that the GOP is alienating scientists to a startling degree.

Only six percent of America's scientists identify themselves as Republicans; fifty-five percent call themselves Democrats. By comparison, 23 percent of the overall public considers itself Republican, while 35 percent say they're Democrats.

The ideological discrepancies were similar. Nine percent of scientists said they were "conservative" while 52 percent described themselves as "liberal," and 14 percent "very liberal." The corresponding figures for the general public were 37, 20 and 5 percent.

Among the general public, moderates and independents ranked higher than any party or ideology. But among scientists, there were considerably more Democrats (55%) than independents (32%) and Republicans (6%) put together. There were also more liberals (52%) than moderates (35%) and conservatives (9%) combined.

"These results were not a complete surprise," said Scott Keeter, Director of Survey Research at Pew, in an interview with the Huffington Post. He said they can be mostly attributed to "the difference between Democratic and Republican parties with respect to issues."

yrs,
rubato