my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » German cannibal convicted (Page 2)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Author Topic: German cannibal convicted Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 02-01-2004 06:54 AM                        If you took a gun which you knew to be loaded, took aim at someone's head and then pulled the trigger, I don't think any jury in the world would accept that you didn't intend to cause death. quote: so you would have had to have deliberately run me over (without intending to kill me) for it to be manslaughter? That wasn't the example I had in mind - I was trying to give an example of an action which is likely to cause death but is not intended to - i.e. manslaughter. If a very drunk person gets in a car because (s)he wants to travel from A to B, that is monumentally negligent because it involves an unacceptably high risk of causing a fatal accident. But the offender is not actually trying to kill someone, so the offence is manslaughter. If you did deliberately run someone over without intending to kill someone, then again it would be up to the jury to decide whether you intended to kill them or not. There was a case a year or so ago of a man who came home and discovered his wife in bed with someone else. He then went to the kitchen, boiled the kettle and threw its contents directly at her face. As you would imagine, she sustained horrific burns and died in hospital some time later. The husband was charged with murder but eventually convicted of manslaughter, because the jury accepted his claim that he intended to cause serious injury, but not death. But none of this applies to the Meiwes case, in which there has never been any suggestion that he did not intend to kill Brandes - only a claim that Brandes' consent is a mitigating factor. I can't see that it is, in any way.  |  IP: Logged Pravin Ratnam Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 844 From: Atlanta, GA,USA Registered: Sep 2002 posted 02-01-2004 12:21 PM                     Hmm, and I thought this thread was about Michael Schaffer.  |  IP: Logged Christian Appelt Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 505 From: Frankfurt, Germany Registered: Dec 2001 posted 02-02-2004 06:18 PM                     quote: If I understand this case correctly, the bottom line is that Germany quite simply has no law against cannibalism, becaue no-one thought there'd ever be any need for one. Which country has a law against cannibalism? I wonder why they did not sentence him to life for violating one of the many bizarre EU regulations on food trade... BTW, this seems to be a good time to rerelease CANNIBAL GIRLS or the notorious italian MAN EATER (ANTHROPOPHAGUS) at your local cinema.  |  IP: Logged William Hooper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1879 From: Mobile, AL USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-03-2004 01:07 AM                        I think I remember from some trivia question that Idaho is the only US state with a law against cannibalism. I have always pictured the Donner Party wearing paper hats. I don't know why.  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 03-04-2004 11:44 AM                     There was a documentary (The Man who Ate his Lover) about this on British television on Monday night this week. I was only able to see part of it, as I did not get in from work until it was half way through. It was even odder than I expected. He had advertised several times for people to be slaughtered and consummed, and had many replies, some of whom he had met, but all of whom, except the last one, quit before actually being killed. The last one travelled a considerable distance, by train, but the man was unable to kill him the first time. Unable in what way, I'm not sure. The 'meat' went away, but came back later, and they agreed to try again. They removed their clothes, and sat naked, drinking coffee. They then went upstairs to the killing room, where his penis was cut off, and cut in half, each man intending to eat one half. They found it too tough to eat, so the killer took it downstairs to fry it. His culinary skills seem to have been somewhat limited, as he ended up burning it to the point where it was inedible. At this point the 'meat' was still alive, laying in a bath, bleeding profusly, and presumeably in great pain. The slaughterer returned, and finished him off with a knife through the neck, before butchering the body, disposing of the shin and innards, packing the meat in plastic boxes, and putting them in his freezer. He claimed that the meat tasted like pork; we are supposed to be quite similar to pigs, I've seen human flesh, and with the blood washed away, it looks quite like raw pork, so I suppose the taste shouldn't be too surprising. Aparently, there are several cannibalism sites on the Internet where this sort of thing is discussed, and there have been cases where people have been hung up with meat hooks through their body, and that sort of thing. I try to read, and understand, people who think differently to myself. In most cases I can understand, even if I don't agree, but in this case, it is totally beyond me why anyone would want to have this done to them; I can't even begin to understand what is going through their mind. Apparently he was quite a normal, pleasant person, nobody who knew him thought there was anything odd about him. Something was said at the end of the programme about him gaining certain attributes of his victim by eatng his body, his health and fitness, good looks and ability to speak English were mentioned. Wheher he seriously thought he would gain these, or it was some sort of fantasy, I don't know. It's just weird; there have got to be easier ways of learing English! I'm trying to learn German, hope to visit Berlin this year; maybe I should eat Michael.  |  IP: Logged Richard Fowler Film God Posts: 2392 From: Ft. Lauderdale, FL, USA Registered: Jun 2001 posted 03-04-2004 12:54 PM                     Eat Micheal..... and risk a diabetic reaction from his belly full of marzipan  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 03-04-2004 04:33 PM                        I am not in Berlin anymore, so you can`t go there and eat me. Don`t bother trying to learn "German". It is too difficult for English people anyway. They don`t even get the name of the country right...  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 03-05-2004 05:34 AM                        maybe that's because it's totally different from language to language -- germany, allemania (sp?), tyskland, etc. derived, i believe, from names of different germanic tribes. but why would the germans name themselves after the dutch? carl  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 03-05-2004 06:24 AM                        'Allemand' is what the French call Germany. At a guess, the English word 'German[y]' comes from the Latin, as in Tacitus's Germania. And as for German being too complicated for the English, if they will use stupid, unnecessary and overcomplicating grammatical devices such as gendered nouns and the like, no wonder we can't be bothered to learn it! I don't think it's any coincidence that English is the most widely used (if measured by the criterion of geographical distribution) language in the world. Its grammar is comparatively straightforward, it is easily adaptable to a wide range of regional and international dialects which can almost always be cross-understood, and what's more you only need 26 characters to express its entire vocabulary in writing.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 03-05-2004 06:25 AM                        'Allemand' is what the French call Germany. At a guess, the English word 'German[y]' comes from the Latin, as in Tacitus's Germania. And as for German being too complicated for the English, if they will use stupid, unnecessary and overcomplicating grammatical devices such as gendered nouns and the like, no wonder most of us can't be bothered to learn it! I don't think it's any coincidence that English is the most widely used (if measured by the criterion of geographical distribution) language in the world. Its grammar is comparatively straightforward, it is easily adaptable to a wide range of regional and international variations which can almost always be cross-understood, and what's more you only need 26 characters to express its entire vocabulary in writing. Sorry about the double-post - my browser froze during the first attempt to send, so I pressed 'stop' and sent it again. It had obviously gone through the first time.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 03-05-2004 07:01 AM                        The word "German" was coined by Caesar as a collective term for all the barbaric tribes east of the Rhine which were not Celts. Though these people were conscious of their relationship amonst each other (based on similar languages and folklore), they had no collective term for themselves until the 11th century AD when the word "diutisc"("deutsch", "teutsch", "dietsc", "duutsc", and other local variations) became widely used as a term for all the "common people" (that`s what the word means) and their language as opposed to Latin, the language of the learned and cleric. The "Dutch" language is originally a northwestern "German" dialect which has become its own language due to the long time in which the Netherlands have been their own political entity. They call their language "Nederlands" or "Hollands". "German" and "Dutch" are still very similar, the pronunciation and spelling are very different, but the grammar and most words are basically the same. You can quickly learn to understand the other language if you try just a little. The "Pennsylvania Dutch" dialect is named after deutsch as in "German", not as in "Dutch". So, if our English friends had a clue what is going on in the rest of Europe, they would call me and my fellow countrymen "Dutch" and the "Dutch" Netherlanders or Hollanders or something like that. Leo: English is not so widespread because it is easy and practical, but because of the extensive English colonial activities, and more recently due to the far reaching influence of the US which also has English as language due to past colonial activities.  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 03-06-2004 02:38 AM                        quote: if they will use stupid, unnecessary and overcomplicating grammatical devices such as gendered nouns and the like, no wonder most of us can't be bothered to learn it! most languages i've encountered seem to have gendered nouns, english being the blessed exception. swedish has 2 entirely arbitrary genders which, i only recently discovered, are called (i love this) neuter and non-neuter! to their credit, though, the swedes have done away with subject-verb agreement. so i is, you is, he/she is, we is, and they is. simplify, simplify! carl  |  IP: Logged Gunnar Johansson Expert Film Handler Posts: 181 From: Gothenburg, Sweden Registered: Mar 2003 posted 03-06-2004 08:19 AM                        Interesting how this went from cannibals to linguistics, but who am I to argue with the natural flow of things... Mr Martin is quite correct. And those genders are apparently even more difficult than the German genders. I wouldn´t know having mastered naturally since childhood I never reflect on it, and when I do my ear tells me what´s right or wrong, not being as good with Swedish grammar as English or German grammar. I´ve heard somewhere that although we´ve simplyfied the verb-subject thing Swedish is one of the more difficult languages to learn, if not native. Go figure. What goes for Swedish in most cases goes for Norwegian and Danish as well, though not Finnish as they come from a totally different language family. BTW: How come mr Martin knows so much Swedish? Är det möjligtvis så att ni studerar/studerat svenska? My 2 öre (swedish cent) Gunnar  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 03-06-2004 07:24 PM                        I don`t speak Swedish, but as I am very interested in languages, I once looked at the grammatical structure of Swedish and it didn`t strike me as any more complex than English. There are only 2 genders and it seems to be relatively logical which word has which gender. Nouns have only the singular, possessive, and plural forms. Verb forms are very simple as Mr Martin has already said. The more difficult aspect of the language for foreigners seems to me to be the melodic intonation. Or am I missing something here?  |  IP: Logged Carl Martin Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1424 From: Oakland, CA, USA Registered: Feb 2002 posted 03-08-2004 03:01 AM                        quote: Är det möjligtvis så att ni studerar/studerat svenska? min mamma är svensk. det var mitt första språk, fast numera flyter det inte så bra som förut. there may be some rule for the gender breakdown, but i don't know what it is. there are probably many exceptions, and it's not a phonetic rule. the indefinite article is a separate word before the noun, but the definite article is affixed to the end of a noun. both articles reflect gender. so a noun can be modified as follows: noun + [plural] + [definite article (w/ gender)] + [possessive], and these additions may propagate phonetic effects back onto the root. example: en bok = a book böcker = books boken = the book en boks = a book's böckerna = the books böckers = books' bokens = the book's böckernas = the books' like the germans, scandinavians also love to make mad compound nouns which need to be correctly deconstructed to make sense. example: smörgåsbord --> smörgås + bord = sandwich + table = a buffet meal of sandwiches. unfortunately, smörgås --> smör + gås = butter + goose = nonsense. so there are some stumbling blocks, but all in all, i wouldn't say it's one of the more difficult languages. carl  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.