thelastpsychiatrist.com - After You Shoot Three Women, Who Should You Call?. Adnotated.

Sunday, 21 July, Year 11 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

dressing the part

dressing the part

The rule in media is that if they mention your middle name you killed someone, so Thomas Franklin May is nominally guilty.

His ex-wife put out a restraining order against him, so he drove out to where she was and shot her in her car. She was 36. He also shot a nearby 63 year old woman and a 94 year old woman, I assume so they wouldn't turn into Agents.i

It's hard not to judge a book by its cover when the book is wearing a big America # 1 t-shirt and a Harley Davidson cap even if that is the mandatory uniform of Alabama and he drives a Jeep. Why is this idiot in sneakers?ii

Police did not release a motive. "We really don't know what's in a person's mind when they do something like this."iii

Yes we do, same thing every time: "It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks."iv

About three hours later, when city officers already had left campus, a man driving a white Jeep Liberty with the same tag number police had released as the suspect's pulled into the parking lot where the shootings occurred. Photographer Todd van Emst, who was taking photos of the scene for The Associated Press, said the man asked to use his cell phone. Van Emst said the man gestured and said he "did all this."

Uh oh, someone broke the fourth wall. It's hard to believe that a man with a white Jeep Liberty needs to drive back to the scene of the crime to make a call; and anytime anyone asks to borrow your cell phone you should assume they're running a short con, duck. No, Thomas Franklin May chose to go to the media. Did he think they'd be sympathetic? Doubtful. They'd let him go? No. He loves the liberal media? It's Alabama. He went because he figured they'd do what he needed them to do: soft ball the bad guy and publish his side of the story.

The media will drop a blonde in a war zone without a moment's hesitation, but what they don't like is a gunman out of context, and this guy was way the hell out of context. So rather than sitting him down to figure how this can be Bush's fault, they called the cops.

And then this happened:

After members of the media called 911, police arrived within minutes, knocked the man to the ground and handcuffed him, van Emst said.

If it takes you minutes to drive to somewhere to knock someone down, you probably didn't need to knock him down. Not that May didn't deserve it, but in truth knocking him down was van Emst's right, not the police's. Read that again. The police have a partial monopoly on power because they promise us to use it judiciously, when necessary -- but we often forget that we humans retain a special right for scenarios, like the scenario of a homicidal maniac in a white car (protip: if not female or Asian = INSANE) coming up to ask to borrow your cell phone. That guy you're allowed to hit, if you can.v

The point here is not that the photographer should have tackled him. The point is the more police get to use our right of force, the more we become afraid, or even forget, to use it ourselves. The result is that the tenuous duopoly of force becomes a monopoly. Rates will go up.vi

II.

But as much as May's outfit reveals a lot about his thinking, it also affects his thinking, or do women not feel any change in personality when they wear Louboutinsvii? Well, while you ponder that link exchange take a look at the Navy Seal arresting May -- that's standard police attire. What the hell kind of town is Opelika that the cops wear sneakers because they expect to be doing a lot of running? That guy came dressed for Two Men Enter One Man Leaves, and goddam if he's not going to get a front incisor as a souvenir for his kid.

This is the full, uncut banner picture at the top of the website of the Alabama Department of Public Safety Highway Patrol Divisionviii:

alabamapublicsafety

Where's the highway? Is this steganography?

Note that this banner is for the state police's website, i.e. this is their idea of public relations. I don't fault them for preparing for Red Dawn, but why tell us this is who they are? If this is who they want us to think they are, how will their actions mirror this desire? Not to mention recruit the kind of people who think 24 is a training video which it was, until season 4, then it kind of got weak.

Listen, I've been to Mobile about a thousand times, and every time I've wanted air support. Parts of it are tough, I get it, and off topic I will mention that if you're married in Mobile it is 100% certain one of you is cheating. But all that paramilitary gear is after the crime stuff -- it helps them catch the bad guys but does not Protect & Serve you from the bad guys. (Note that this guy already had a protection order against him.) Where your head is at, how you carry yourself, who you think you are all affect your behaviors, and vice versa (vee-kah ver-sah.) Get dressed.

I get the police's position. There's such a huge anti-police, anti-government philosophy that cops don't know if a guy is going to squirt them with a bottle of HIV just on principle, so if there's a homicide suspect who is still standing you make him not be standing, and then you can explain he has the right to a totally ineffectual public defender.

Thomas Stupid May is going to get what's coming to himix, because this is, after all, Alabama. But May was in uniform. What would they have done if he was wearing an America Is #965868 t-shirt?x

———
  1. Maybe he just didn't like old women. []
  2. Rather than all this fashionista nonsense, the important point here is that "the court system" just lost a huge stack of chips in the Casino called life. Who the fuck cares about some redneck's shoes, when the whole SOPS just took a big fat thick arrow to the asshole ?

    "Get a restraining order" is a procedure that now comes with few extra milimorts' worth of "get shot in the face for your trouble", as per the available actuarial tables. Are the fees and the hassle involved still worth it ? You be the judge, though in any objective sense the answer's a resounding no -- especially if the reason you're contemplating the maneuver sounds anything like "being an annoyingly uppity bitch beclouded by a screen of old women".

    Not what you wanted to hear ? Why, what is it that you wanted to be true ? []

  3. Typically, small children as well as beginner slavegirls similarily pretend to "have no idea" and "not understand" etcetera. Once the firm, experience-derived conviction emerges that the beatings will continue, however, they universally if uniformly change their tune. So, I'm guessing, sooner or later teh self-imaginary "we" will start knowing, seeing how there's no way in fuck the shootings are ever gonna stop. []
  4. Oh, you mean, the very fuel powering the entire pantsuit thing ? Shocking. []
  5. Yeah, because some AP photographer (=faggot) pencilneck is totally knocking down a dude in a white whatever. That's why he drives a Toyota to work, every time he can start it in the morning. What is this, some alt-reality where journalists are not-barristas or something ?! []
  6. Dude get the fuck out, van Angst over there is overwhelmed if he has to get a lizard off the microwave, what the fuck "knocking down" bullshit is this! Even knocking up seems squarely outside his league ; down ain't ever happening, not in this life. []
  7. Dude's linking partialobjects.com/2011/04/the-red-soul-of-christian-louboutin/, a site that was abandoned cca 2011, which also offers an interesting crumbtrail to one Brittany Workland, some dancing chick from Boise. Who was just about 18, or thereabouts anyways. Naughty naughty ?

    Anyways, here's the article (I'm not gonna pictures, they're just a bunch of pretentious crap anyways) :

    The Red Soul of Christian Louboutin
    Posted on April 3, 2011 by TheLastPsychiatrist and tagged christisan louboutin, sex, shoes.

    The New Yorker profiles Christian Louboutin but not the shoe.

    So what's the story with the red sole? In 1993 he had designed a pink shoe with a black sole, thought something was missing. He took the nail polish away from his assistant and painted the sole.

    Does the red sole change our relationship to the shoe? What does the same shoe with a black sole lack?

    The red serves several purposes. It is, of course, a distinctive marker, a brand, "that renders an otherwise indistinguishable product instantly recognizable."

    It is an explicit gift to men, a peek, a signal. A woman who wears the show [sic] is telling people she's taking auditions, and though it's unlikely she'll pick you, you're a fool if you don't do a cold read. Louboutin said, "this red sole was a bit of a green light."

    It is a gift to the women. "The red soles offer the pleasure of secret knowledge to their wearer," i.e. lingerie.

    They also scuff easily, which serves Louboutin just fine but is itself a code: either you save them for special occasions -- hence signaling to others that it is a special occasion -- or you replace them often, which signals that you can replace them often, which means you can replace the men as well.

    That Louboutin shoes are stiff and uncomfortable is part of the appeal. Louboutin hates the word "comfy." "You're abandoning a lot of ideas when you are too into comfort." But the discomfort is a small price for your body being forced erect, elongated, calves and butt up. And just as importantly the woman knows that, feels the artificiality of it. It is making me sexier. Louboutin, in fact, is uninterested in the shoe as a walking device:

    There is a certain height where you just can't walk with them. But, you know, you can do other things," he says, not elaborating. "Some shoes are very, very, very high, so they might not be dedicated to walk[ing], but so what."

    So what, indeed, she's not supposed to walk in them, she's supposed to be seen in them. She has no interest in going anywhere there's no chance someone might not want to carry her in his arms.

    Interestingly, Louboutin hasn't ever run an ad campaign until 2009, when he ran a series of campaigns showing the shoe as art:

    Spring/Summer 2009

    Fall/Winter 2010/2011

    which is the only way to advertise it. But whose shoes are these? Do they belong to a real person? Does the painting reveal their use? No, and it couldn't. High heels are already sexualized, fetishized, and Louboutins doubly so. In order for them to remain a code for female sexuality they must remain abstract and unattainable. It's fine to know that Jennifer Lopez was wearing them, it's not fine to think of them as the shoe Jennifer Lopez wears. They're not her shoes; she's their model. Once a fetish becomes linked to an actual identity, it is no longer a fetish.

    Just as the sexy nurse fetish survived a whole lot of less-than-sexy nurses, it was killed 0in the 90s by the abrupt appearance of male nurses. Now, nurses are an S&M fetish. The Louboutin can be worn by anyone but can't be thought of as being worn by anyone; if it's seen on a commoner (or a man), it has to be seen as incongruous -- "what's she doing in those?"

    And so, always abstract. Louboutin even teamed up with Professor of Insanity David Lynch for this NSFW photoshoot aptly titled, "Fetish." Or Louboutin's directorial debut "Psycho-logic," a Psycho remake has the woman killed(?) in the shower by a cloaked man wielding a spiked heel. She crawls across the carpet and dies,(?) waking up to heaven -- the Hollywood Louboutin boutique.

    Does a woman who wears clogs (which Louboutin hates) feel different when she wears the stilettos? Does she feel under the power of something else? The shoes are drive, they want what they want.

    Freud though the fetish calmed castration anxiety by substituting for the missing penis, but Lacan thought it was more subtle: a substitution for the absence of something. There is no penis here, announces Kim Kardsahian, but I'm interested.

    Boooo-oooring. []

  8. The site, amusingly, no longer serves the image in question. []
  9. Accountant-looking guy got life without possibility of parole on May 21, 2014. Amusingly, this is actually a worse outcome than death.

    The reality is that people sentenced to LWOP have been condemned to die in prison and that's what happens: They die in prison of natural causes, just like the majority of people sentenced to death.

    [...]

    No one sentenced to life without parole has ever been released on parole, in California or in any other state. Prisoners sentenced to LWOP actually remain in prison for the rest of their lives and die in prison. All sentences, including the death penalty, are equally subject to clemency from the governor. However, no Democratic or Republican governor has ever granted clemency to a prisoner serving an LWOP sentence in California, and no such prisoner has ever been released on parole. The last time a governor used his power of executive clemency in a murder case was more than 30 years ago, when Ronald Reagan commuted the death sentence of a mentally ill inmate to a life sentence.

    Death in prison is a swift sentence: Victims' families prefer LWOP

    Because death is different and mistakes cannot be corrected, a death sentence results in years of mandatory appeals that often result in reversal. In a sample of 350 death sentences, 118, or nearly one-third, were reversed in part or in whole. Further, nearly 60 percent of the cases in this sample were still in various stages of appeals as of 2002. For each of the last three executions in California, more than 25 years had been spent in appeals before the executions finally occurred. The current average for appeals is 17 years -- and getting longer every day.

    Unlike death penalty cases, however, LWOP sentences receive no special consideration on appeal, which limits the possibility they will be reduced or reversed. A person sentenced to die in prison receives only one automatic appeal, not several, and is not provided any court-appointed attorneys after this appeal is complete, usually within two years of the initial sentence.

    California has the largest death row in the country with more than 660 prisoners. But more than four times as many prisoners have died of other causes while awaiting execution than have actually been executed. In contrast, when prisoners are sentenced to prison until death, they begin serving their sentence immediately. LWOP allows victims' survivors to move on, rather than keeping them trapped in decades of court hearings and waiting for an execution to occur.

    For these reasons, the survivors of murder victims often feel that the death penalty system only prolongs their pain and does not provide the resolution they need, while the finality of LWOP sentences allows them to move on, knowing justice is being served.

    [...]

    Prisoners condemned to die in prison are not given any special treatment and, in fact, have less access to programs than other prisoners. They are housed in high security facilities with few privileges, far away from any relatives, and in crowded group cells. Ironically, people on death row are provided much more comfortable single cells and sometimes gain celebrity and attention just by being there.

    The death penalty is significantly more expensive than condemning a person to die in prison. Simply housing prisoners on death row costs California tax payers an additional $90,000 per prisoner per year, above what it would cost to house them with the general prison population, which adds up to $59 million a year. The price tag for California's new death row is $336 million. All of those costs would be avoided if the people on death row were sentenced to die in prison and moved to the general population.

    Viewed another way, we spent $250 million to carry out the sentences of the 11 prisoners executed between 1977 and 2002, money that could have been spent on other public safety programs, if those prisoners had been sentenced to die in prison instead of executed.

    Lulzy, huh. Go for the death penalty, irrespective of what your "counsel" says -- he's too dumb to know his ass from his face, which is why he's paying law school college debt from a public defender's income. Here :

    May's attorney, William Whatley, said he and May's co-attorney, Todd Crutchfield, were satisfied with May's sentence.

    "We're happy that the judge upheld the jury sentencing in this case to have life in prison without parole," Whatley said.

    Morons. []

  10. Nothing. []
Category: Adnotations
Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

3 Responses

  1. [...] After You Shoot Three Women, Who Should You Call? [...]

  2. [...] The only anyone to blame is the cunt coven at Virgina tech. [↩]Actually, these things aren't what you think them to be. [↩]Well, they sure as fuck ain't fat old women with delusions of [...]

  3. [...] actually doing : not giving some offensive asshole the benefit of the thing they call worse but is actually better, under the pretext of humanism-driven consensus etcetera. This is yet another case of socialism [...]

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.