Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on September 12, 2009, 12:11:48 PM
-
Hang em high. Can't believe it has been seven years already.
Virginia prosecutors want November execution for convicted sniper
By Mike M. Ahlers
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Virginia prosecutors are asking a state court to set a November 9 execution date for John Allen Muhammad, convicted in a series of sniper-style shootings that terrorized the Washington area in 2002.
In a letter dated Wednesday, Senior Assistant Attorney General Katherine B. Burnett said the November date "has been carefully coordinated with the governor's office to insure his availability for any clemency petition Muhammad may wish to pursue." Burnett enclosed a copy of a proposed execution order "for the court's convenience."
Muhammad's attorney said he will file an appeal with the U.S. Supreme Court, and will ask the governor for clemency.
During a three-week period in October 2002, police say, Muhammad and his young protege, Lee Boyd Malvo, shot 13 people, killing 10. The two also are suspected in other shootings and murders in Tacoma, Washington, Montgomery, Alabama, and the Washington, D.C., area.
Muhammad, now 48, was convicted of murder in the death of Dean Harold Meyers at a Manassas, Virginia, filling station. Meyers was killed by a single bullet, which became the signature of the two-person sniper team.
Ultimately, Muhammad was convicted of the Meyers' killing and of one Maryland murder, which prosecutors there said was "insurance" in case the Virginia conviction was overturned.
Malvo was convicted of one Virginia shooting and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Muhammad's attorney, Jon Sheldon, released the prosecutor's letter Friday.
The letter, addressed to the chief judge of the Prince William County Circuit Court, says the court must hold a hearing within 10 days of receiving the letter, and must set an execution date no later than 60 days after the hearing.
Since Muhammad is not required to be at the hearing, Burnett asks that the court conduct the hearing by means of a conference call.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/09/12/virginia.sniper.execution/index.html
-
According to Van Jones, black people never do these type of killings.
-
According to Van Jones, black people never do these type of killings.
link to quote?
Or just a racist joke?
-
link to quote?
Or just a racist joke?
No its not 240 - if you spent a ittle more time paying attention to stuff than knee-padding all day you would know that Van Jones said that only white people are serial killers and mass murderers.
-
No its not 240 - if you spent a ittle more time paying attention to stuff than knee-padding all day you would know that Van Jones said that only white people are serial killers and mass murderers.
link?
-
http://www.breitbart.tv/van-jones-only-suburbal-white-kids-shoot-up-schools/
-
Yeah and only darkies do drive by's and commit armed robberies ::)
The scumbag who killed those ppl in VA should die. I have family in Northern VA and two of the people he picked off were no more than a quarter mile away from where they live.
However, after reading this months new yorker, I have to say I am a lot more liberal on applying the death penalty than I used to be. Well, to be exact, the story of Todd Willingham wasn't the first case to loosen my pro death penalty stance. Anyone who is capable of reading something not posted on getbig should purchase or take "The Innocent Man" by John Grisham out of the library. Its a true story and extremely disturbing. There is no doubt in my mind that innocent people have been put to death in this country.
However, in certain situations, such as the DC Sniper, where there is zero doubt he killed those people, the death penalty should be applied with extreme predjudice. It's a tight rope to walk because its a slipery slope in terms of deciding who deserves death and who doesn't and what safeguards are in place to adaquately protect the innocent from being executed.
States like Texas have an absolute farce of safegaurds in place for defendants put to death. No big shock there.
-
http://www.breitbart.tv/van-jones-only-suburbal-white-kids-shoot-up-schools/
I don't get how people aren't seeing the connections between our President and those if the mindset like a Van Jones. C'mon, people!!!
-
I don't get how people aren't seeing the connections between our President and those if the mindset like a Van Jones. C'mon, people!!!
Because they cant bring themselves to admit the truth. The truth is that Obama is a slick cat and knew enough, and knows enough, not to leave a trail like Van Jones or Rev. wright.
However, there is no doubt in my mind that he shares kindred feelings with these radicals.
-
It amazes me that with so many 'christians' in the United States there are still people who cannot forgive and wish to kill people for their sins. I am by no means thumping a bible just making an observation. If you support the death penalty then you can not speak out against stoneings or other barbaric acts committed on those who break islamic laws.
-
Kcb you cannot be serious. In this country, we dont enact the death penalty for refusing to marry someone or for cheating on a spouse. We also dont enact the death penalty for being a non-muslim, for stealing, or for drug use. The only crime in this whole country that you may be eligable for the death penalty is murder.
Not to mention the fact that a lethal injection is quick and as a humane a way to kill someone as possible. Being buried up to your neck in sand while the towns people hit you with rocks until you bleed to death is hardly comparable.
You are either a total fucking idiot or being sarcastic. Im leaning toward the former.
-
I don't get how people aren't seeing the connections between our President and those if the mindset like a Van Jones. C'mon, people!!!
we just need some deep thinkers like you and 333 to connect the dots for us.
I say shame on Obama for throwing Van Jones under the bus.
Put that in the column of stuff that Obama has done that I'm not happy about
-
we just need some deep thinkers like you and 333 to connect the dots for us.
I say shame on Obama for throwing Van Jones under the bus.
Put that in the column of stuff that Obama has done that I'm not happy about
Yes because we should have self confessed communist and "it's all the crackers fault" makeing policy decisions. I don't know what country you live in, but in the USA the POTUS has no constitutional power to appoint "czars" or whatever the hell you want to call them.
And as far as John Allen Muhammad goes, that piece of shit lost his human being status when he started shooting people for no apparent reason. He is defective and needs to be tossed on the scrap heap.
-
Yes because we should have self confessed communist and "it's all the crackers fault" makeing policy decisions. I don't know what country you live in, but in the USA the POTUS has no constitutional power to appoint "czars" or whatever the hell you want to call them.
And as far as John Allen Muhammad goes, that piece of shit lost his human being status when he started shooting people for no apparent reason. He is defective and needs to be tossed on the scrap heap.
I've never liked the czar moniker either but I'm sure you're aware that there are no actual job titles in the US Govt with the word czar
Regarding Van Jones, I never heard of the guy before a few weeks ago but I don't like seeing Obama abandon his picks just because of some stupid comments the guy might have made or 911 petition he might have signed. Shit, the guy calls himself an eco-capitalist too.
-
I've never liked the czar moniker either but I'm sure you're aware that there are no actual job titles in the US Govt with the word czar
Regarding Van Jones, I never heard of the guy before a few weeks ago but I don't like seeing Obama abandon his picks just because of some stupid comments the guy might have made or 911 petition he might have signed. Shit, the guy calls himself an eco-capitalist too.
So you support Van Jones and you say that Obama have a weak character?
-
According to Van Jones, black people never do these type of killings.
It's not that they never, it 's very rare. It has to be some Off the wall messed up dude, which of of course they were. African Americans tend not to do the suicide thing either, but since more AA are becoming "upwardly mobile" in term of class and money (and assimulation) those suicide numbers have increased. Think of the black kid who killed himself on bb.com (he was a strange dude). There is aold saying in the south. "A Black person might kill someone else, but he damn sure won't kill himself", there tends t be more cultural and religious overtones with this.
Because of Slavery and the Bible, blacks were taught to hold on to hope, no matter how slim, and to not give up. So they endear thru hardships. Yo didn't hear of too many black folk killing themslfs during the Great Depression, hell, many of them were old enoguh to remember Slavery---now that was a Depression.
-
It's not that they never, it 's very rare. It has to be some Off the wall messed up dude, which of of course they were. African Americans tend not to do the suicide thing either, but since more AA are becoming "upwardly mobile" in term of class and money (and assimulation) those suicide numbers have increased. Think of the black kid who killed himself on bb.com (he was a strange dude). There is aold saying in the south. "A Black person might kill someone else, but he damn sure won't kill himself", there tends t be more cultural and religious overtones with this.
Because of Slavery and the Bible, blacks were taught to hold on to hope, no matter how slim, and to not give up. So they endear thru hardships. Yo didn't hear of too many black folk killing themslfs during the Great Depression, hell, many of them were old enoguh to remember Slavery---now that was a Depression.
It's scary!!
We're getting just as crazy as white people. :)
-
It's scary!!
We're getting just as crazy as white people. :)
It has nothing to do with race. Van Jones is just an idiot, a liar, a fraud, a communist, and a clown.
I wonder if Van Jones remembers Colin Ferguson?
-
I've never liked the czar moniker either but I'm sure you're aware that there are no actual job titles in the US Govt with the word czar
Regarding Van Jones, I never heard of the guy before a few weeks ago but I don't like seeing Obama abandon his picks just because of some stupid comments the guy might have made or 911 petition he might have signed. Shit, the guy calls himself an eco-capitalist too.
What I am aware of is the POTUS appointing people to positions that only answer to him with no congressional over site, who are making policy decisions. I don't care if you are left, right, or center. That should piss you off as an American.
So now he doesn't know what he is? A commie, a neo-capitalist? The guy is fucking looney, but hey I guess he would fit right in with the rest in the asylum know as Washington DC.
-
It amazes me that with so many 'christians' in the United States there are still people who cannot forgive and wish to kill people for their sins. I am by no means thumping a bible just making an observation. If you support the death penalty then you can not speak out against stoneings or other barbaric acts committed on those who break islamic laws.
You can forgive someone and still hold them accountable.
-
You can forgive someone and still hold them accountable.
Killing is not forgiveness.
-
Killing is not forgiveness.
The "killing" is part of accountability. The forgiveness precedes the punishment. Not inconsistent at all.
-
Killing is not forgiveness.
Cry me a river.
-
The "killing" is part of accountability. The forgiveness precedes the punishment. Not inconsistent at all.
You seriously believe that? wow. Just wow. talk about spitting in the face of the good book. You're a disgrace.
-
You seriously believe that? wow. Just wow. talk about spitting in the face of the good book. You're a disgrace.
Go see my Acorn thread where that disgusting vermin admits to pre-meditated murder.
-
Right, wrong, forgive, forget... It's all bullshit.
Either killing a human being is wrong or it's not.
Two wrongs still do not make a right.
-
You seriously believe that? wow. Just wow. talk about spitting in the face of the good book. You're a disgrace.
Hey you brought up religion. The execution of this criminal has nothing to do with the "good book." It's about punishing someone for a crime. It sounds like you don't understand the distinction between forgiveness and punishment. Forgiving someone doesn't mean you don't hold the person accountable for a misdeed.
Under your analysis, we should just open up the prisons and let people walk, or not even send them to prison in the first place. Silly.
-
Right, wrong, forgive, forget... It's all bullshit.
Either killing a human being is wrong or it's not.
Two wrongs still do not make a right.
It's not that simple. Murder is wrong. Killing in self defense isn't "wrong." Neither is an execution after a trial, conviction, appeal, etc.
-
Hey you brought up religion. The execution of this criminal has nothing to do with the "good book." It's about punishing someone for a crime. It sounds like you don't understand the distinction between forgiveness and punishment. Forgiving someone doesn't mean you don't hold the person accountable for a misdeed.
Under your analysis, we should just open up the prisons and let people walk, or not even send them to prison in the first place. Silly.
Actually, for certain crimes we should let them go... or not put them in there in the first place.
Drug possessions for instance.
It's not that simple. Murder is wrong. Killing in self defense isn't "wrong." Neither is an execution after a trial, conviction, appeal, etc.
It is that simple. The end result is the same... Dead human being.
You are simply rationalizing the killing portion.
-
Actually, for certain crimes we should let them go... or not put them in there in the first place.
Drug possessions for instance.
It is that simple. The end result is the same... Dead human being.
You are simply rationalizing the killing portion.
No I'm not. I'm disagreeing with your view that all killing is wrong. It isn't, for the reasons I just pointed out.
-
No I'm not. I'm disagreeing with your view that all killing is wrong. It isn't, for the reasons I just pointed out.
I'm saying you're rationalizing your warped sense of the value of human life.
Please do go on.
-
I'm saying you're rationalizing your warped sense of the value of human life.
Please do go on.
That's your opinion. Doesn't make any sense. But we're entitled to our opinions.
-
Actually, for certain crimes we should let them go... or not put them in there in the first place.
Drug possessions for instance.
It is that simple. The end result is the same... Dead human being.
You are simply rationalizing the killing portion.
No- what you're doing is making a black/white argument out of a complicated topic. There are many grey areas when it comes to criminal justice. Is stealing wrong? What if its to feed you or your family that is starving to death-- then is it ok?
Killing is not wrong. Murder is wrong. By your moral equivalence, living to be 100 or committing suicide at 20 is the same thing, because the result is the same= a dead human being.
If I'm understanding your argument, giving a serial killer who raped and murdered children the death penalty is just as heinous as the rape and murder of the children perpatrated by the serial killer. This asinine moral equivalence is precisely why there is a difference between killing and murder. Putting the serial killer to death is killing. The serial killers victims were murdered.
-
No- what you're doing is making a black/white argument out of a complicated topic. There are many grey areas when it comes to criminal justice. Is stealing wrong? What if its to feed you or your family that is starving to death-- then is it ok?
Killing is not wrong. Murder is wrong. By your moral equivalence, living to be 100 or committing suicide at 20 is the same thing, because the result is the same= a dead human being.
If I'm understanding your argument, giving a serial killer who raped and murdered children the death penalty is just as heinous as the rape and murder of the children perpatrated by the serial killer. This asinine moral equivalence is precisely why there is a difference between killing and murder. Putting the serial killer to death is killing. The serial killers victims were murdered.
No because death by natural causes is called living life.
Suicide is actually a crime. So no... They aren't the same. One is "taking a life", the other is not.
I don't see it as complex at all.
Yes, the death penalty is very much a heinous act. How do you put a value on the killing on another person?
Are you saying that human beings should without a doubt be allowed to judge the value of another human being?
Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding something.
-
No- what you're doing is making a black/white argument out of a complicated topic. There are many grey areas when it comes to criminal justice. Is stealing wrong? What if its to feed you or your family that is starving to death-- then is it ok?
Killing is not wrong. Murder is wrong. By your moral equivalence, living to be 100 or committing suicide at 20 is the same thing, because the result is the same= a dead human being.
If I'm understanding your argument, giving a serial killer who raped and murdered children the death penalty is just as heinous as the rape and murder of the children perpatrated by the serial killer. This asinine moral equivalence is precisely why there is a difference between killing and murder. Putting the serial killer to death is killing. The serial killers victims were murdered.
What he said.
-
What he said.
Okee dokee.
So answer my following questions then.
-
No because death by natural causes is called living life.
Suicide is actually a crime. So no... They aren't the same. One is "taking a life", the other is not.
I don't see it as complex at all.
Yes, the death penalty is very much a heinous act. How do you put a value on the killing on another person?
Are you saying that human beings should without a doubt be allowed to judge the value of another human being?
Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding something.
Every human life has value. We all have a "right" to life. That right can be taken away.
Yes humans should be allowed to determine whether the right to life can be taken away. There's no other way to do it. Plus it's in our Constitution: the government cannot "deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law . . . ." That's part of the 14th Amendment. In other words, a person can be deprived of life with "due process of law."
-
Every human life has value. We all have a "right" to life. That right can be taken away.
Yes humans should be allowed to determine whether the right to life can be taken away. There's not other way to do it. Plus it's in our Constitution: the government cannot "deprive any person of life . . . without due process of law . . . ." That's part of the 14th Amendment. In other words, a person can be deprived of life with "due process of law."
That makes no sense.
They are not mutually exclusive.
An implicit omission is NOT an implicit inclusion.
-
That makes no sense.
They are not mutually exclusive.
An implicit omission is NOT an implicit inclusion.
O Rly? Then why is capital punishment legal in this country?
-
O Rly? Then why is capital punishment legal in this country?
Because it always has been and there are many people who don't hold human life as valuable as I do.
Pretty simple.
-
Because it always has been and there are many people who don't hold human life as valuable as I do.
Pretty simple.
If it makes no sense that the 14th Amendment permits capital punishment, then it should be illegal in this country. Right?
And it hasn't always been legal in this country BTW.
-
If it makes no sense that the 14th Amendment permits capital punishment, then it should be illegal in this country. Right?
And it hasn't always been legal in this country BTW.
It is legal because of what I said before... Many people do not hold human life as valuable as I do.
How long was it illegal?
-
It is legal because of what I said before... Many people do not hold human life as valuable as I do.
How long was it illegal?
Now that makes no sense. It's legal because the courts say it's legal.
I'm not sure precisely how long, but I know for certain there was a period of time when the supremes said it was unconstitutional and there were none.
-
Now that makes no sense. It's legal because the courts say it's legal.
I'm not sure precisely how long, but I know for certain there was a period of time when the supremes said it was unconstitutional and there were none.
Beach... if people held human life as valuable as I do, there would be no death penalty... That's just simply a fact.
I obviously hold it more valuable than you because you think the death penalty is ok... I do not.
-
Beach... if people held human life as valuable as I do, there would be no death penalty... That's just simply a fact.
I obviously hold it more valuable than you because you think the death penalty is ok... I do not.
I think you've got a point. I'm against the death penalty (cause it gives me the quivers everytime I hear blah, blah, just got released after spending 30 yrs in jail for a crime he didn't commit).
But, it doesn't bother me a bit that somebody beat Dahmer to death with a broom stick. I could care less.
-
Beach... if people held human life as valuable as I do, there would be no death penalty... That's just simply a fact.
I obviously hold it more valuable than you because you think the death penalty is ok... I do not.
I agree that if everyone viewed killing the way you do, there would be no death penalty.
I don't think you view life as any more valuable than me. We just have different opinions on whether the right to life is conditional. I think it is. You don't. In some states, a majority of the people agree with me. In others (including Hawaii), they agree with you.
-
I agree that if everyone viewed killing the way you do, there would be no death penalty.
I don't think you view life as any more valuable than me. We just have different opinions on whether the right to life is conditional. I think it is. You don't. In some states, a majority of the people agree with me. In others (including Hawaii), they agree with you.
Your own statement is a contradiction.
-
Your own statement is a contradiction.
How so?
-
How so?
I'm not going to explain it any more plainly than I already have.
ME believes:
TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE = TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE
YOU believes:
SOME TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE > OTHER TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE
If you ask me again, then you're just being obstinate.
-
I'm not going to explain it any more plainly than I already have.
ME believes:
TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE = TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE
YOU believes:
SOME TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE > OTHER TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE
If you ask me again, then you're just being obstinate.
So I'm being obstinate? (I'll need to look that up.) Doesn't matter. So long as you don't want to beat me up, like Hugo. :)
You are all over the place. I made the following statement:
"I don't think you view life as any more valuable than me. We just have different opinions on whether the right to life is conditional. I think it is. You don't. In some states, a majority of the people agree with me. In others (including Hawaii), they agree with you."
You responded by saying:
"Your own statement is a contradiction."
What statement is a contradiction? Saying there is an absolute right to life, but that people can forfeit that right, would be a contradiction. Saying there is a conditional right to life is not a contradiction. Not sure what you're talking about.
-
So I'm being obstinate? (I'll need to look that up.) Doesn't matter. So long as you don't want to beat me up, like Hugo. :)
You are all over the place. I made the following statement:
"I don't think you view life as any more valuable than me. We just have different opinions on whether the right to life is conditional. I think it is. You don't. In some states, a majority of the people agree with me. In others (including Hawaii), they agree with you."
You responded by saying:
"Your own statement is a contradiction."
What statement is a contradiction? Saying there is an absolute right to life, but that people can forfeit that right, would be a contradiction. Saying there is a conditional right to life is not a contradiction. Not sure what you're talking about.
You're saying I don't value life more than you, but then you're saying that people can forfeit life... Where I say that people can not because all life is equal.
That is a contradiction.
-
You're saying I don't value life more than you, but then you're saying that people can forfeit life... Where I say that people can not because all life is equal.
That is a contradiction.
It's a contradiction only to the extent that we have different opinions. I thought you were saying my position is a contradiction.
I never said all life isn't equal. I think it is. All life is sacred.
-
It's a contradiction only to the extent that we have different opinions. I thought you were saying my position is a contradiction.
I never said all life isn't equal. I think it is. All life is sacred.
Seems like if it's sacred then you wouldn't be for eliminating it... That too is a contradiction.
-
Seems like if it's sacred then you wouldn't be for eliminating it... That too is a contradiction.
No it isn't. A conditional right can be sacred. Just like the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment (speech, association, religion). All sacred, but conditional. Gun ownership is a sacred, but conditional right too. There are plenty.
-
No it isn't. A conditional right can be sacred. Just like the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment (speech, association, religion). All sacred, but conditional. Gun ownership is a sacred, but conditional right too. There are plenty.
I don't consider any of those conditional rights in this country.
-
I don't consider any of those conditional rights in this country.
That's fine, but your opinion doesn't change the facts. I cannot yell an epithet in someone's face and hide behind the First Amendment. A person cannot kill another person as part of a religious sacrifice and hide behind the First Amendment. A person forfeits the right to vote and own a gun if he's a convicted felon.
-
That's fine, but your opinion doesn't change the facts. I cannot yell an epithet in someone's face and hide behind the First Amendment. A person cannot kill another person as part of a religious sacrifice and hide behind the First Amendment. A person forfeits the right to vote and own a gun if he's a convicted felon.
You're using extremes to make a point about human life having forfeiture of human life.
None of those things even remotely compares... There's really no causality to them at all.
-
Tu your argument is moronic. Plus, you didnt answer my question. Is putting a convicted child rapist/ killer to death for raping and murdering innocent children as heinous as the multiple rapes and murders perpatrated by the convicted child rapist/ killer?
If your answer is yes, then your sense of reality is warped and I thank my lucky stars someone like you isn't a policy maker or someone of importance in the legal system.
I am not a rabid fan of the death penalty. However, in certain situations it is not only proper, but necessary. The terminally ill scumbag muslim terrorist that blew up Pan Am Flight 103 and killed innocent men, women and children in a firey death trap several thousand feet off the ground deserves to be beaten to death- forget about a lethal injection. Same goes people like Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, the DC sniper, and on and on and on. The rationale is not crime prevention but retribution. When you murder multiple people, children, or commit murder in furtherance of a sexual assault, commit a terrorist act which results in death and etc.-- The state should have the option to decide whether or not to deprive you of the right to live-- just as you deprived your victims of their right to live.
As long as there are proper and adaquate safeguards in place to ensure that the wrong person is not being put to death, I do not find the death penalty immoral for certain crimes of a particularly heinous nature.
And to be specific, YES (emphasis added) their lives are worth much less than yours, mine, or a cockroaches as far as im concerned. A civilzed soceity can discern when an individual based on their conduct has forefeited their right to live. The right to life, like any fundamental right is not absolute. Someone has the right to act like a monster-- And the people have the right to hold them accountable.
-
Tu your argument is moronic. Plus, you didnt answer my question. Is putting a convicted child rapist/ killer to death for raping and murdering innocent children as heinous as the multiple rapes and murders perpatrated by the convicted child rapist/ killer?
Apparently your comprehension is missing something.
No because death by natural causes is called living life.
Suicide is actually a crime. So no... They aren't the same. One is "taking a life", the other is not.
I don't see it as complex at all.
Yes, the death penalty is very much a heinous act. How do you put a value on the killing on another person?
Are you saying that human beings should without a doubt be allowed to judge the value of another human being?
Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding something.
Please notice the bold. If you're asking me if it's "MORE" heinous, then you're the one who's warped... Of course it's not as "Violent", but it is traumatizing and definitely heinous in it's own right. You're nitpicking about the severity.
If your answer is yes, then your sense of reality is warped and I thank my lucky stars someone like you isn't a policy maker or someone of importance in the legal system.
I am not a rabid fan of the death penalty. However, in certain situations it is not only proper, but necessary. The terminally ill scumbag muslim terrorist that blew up Pan Am Flight 103 and killed innocent men, women and children in a firey death trap several thousand feet off the ground deserves to be beaten to death- forget about a lethal injection. Same goes people like Ted Bundy, Charles Manson, the DC sniper, and on and on and on. The rationale is not crime prevention but retribution. When you murder multiple people, children, or commit murder in furtherance of a sexual assault, commit a terrorist act which results in death and etc.-- The state should have the option to decide whether or not to deprive you of the right to live-- just as you deprived your victims of their right to live.
As long as there are proper and adaquate safeguards in place to ensure that the wrong person is not being put to death, I do not find the death penalty immoral for certain crimes of a particularly heinous nature.
And to be specific, YES (emphasis added) their lives are worth much less than yours, mine, or a cockroaches as far as im concerned. A civilzed soceity can discern when an individual based on their conduct has forefeited their right to live. The right to life, like any fundamental right is not absolute. Someone has the right to act like a monster-- And the people have the right to hold them accountable.
Call me warped if you want, however... My argument is quite sound. You just don't like the answers.
No ones life is worth more or less than anyone else's.
-
You're using extremes to make a point about human life having forfeiture of human life.
None of those things even remotely compares... There's really no causality to them at all.
I was responding to your belief that none of the rights I mentioned are conditional. I admit the human sacrifice example is extreme. But what's extreme about someone using an epithet? What's extreme about convicted felons losing conditional sacred rights?
Your beef isn't with me. It's with the legislators and the courts. The fact is the sacred rights we enjoy are conditional, whether you agree with that proposition or not.
-
Right, wrong, forgive, forget... It's all bullshit.
Either killing a human being is wrong or it's not.
Two wrongs still do not make a right.
Three lefts do.
-
I was responding to your belief that none of the rights I mentioned are conditional. I admit the human sacrifice example is extreme. But what's extreme about someone using an epithet? What's extreme about convicted felons losing conditional sacred rights?
Your beef isn't with me. It's with the legislators and the courts. The fact is the sacred rights we enjoy are conditional, whether you agree with that proposition or not.
I never said I had a beef with you... I said you're contradicting yourself.
Either human life is sacred or it's not... If it is, you don't eliminate it.
-
Apparently your comprehension is missing something.
Please notice the bold. If you're asking me if it's "MORE" heinous, then you're the one who's warped... Of course it's not as "Violent", but it is traumatizing and definitely heinous in it's own right. You're nitpicking about the severity.
Call me warped if you want, however... My argument is quite sound. You just don't like the answers.
No ones life is worth more or less than anyone else's.
LOL raping and killing multiple children is as heinous as putting the person who committed those acts to death by lethal injection? What's the weather like on your planet?
Not only is your argument unsound, its downright stupid. Being an out of touch pacifist is hardly what I would characterize as commensurate with the adjective "sound", or in sync with reality.
Whats even funnier is the fact that your avatar is of Bruce Willis from what i believe is the movie "The Jackal" which was based upon freeing a convicted IRA terrorist (Richard Gere) to help stop one of the worlds most sought after assasins (Bruce Willis). ::)
Is killing during a war ok? Or has every war since the dawn of mankind been immoral also?
-
I never said I had a beef with you... I said you're contradicting yourself.
Either human life is sacred or it's not... If it is, you don't eliminate it.
Unless that sacred right is conditional. But I give up. We're going in circles.
-
LOL raping and killing multiple children is as heinous as putting the person who committed those acts to death by lethal injection? What's the weather like on your planet?
Not only is your argument unsound, its downright stupid. Being an out of touch pacifist is hardly what I would characterize as commensurate with the adjective "sound", or in sync with reality.
Whats even funnier is the fact that your avatar is of Bruce Willis from what i believe is the movie "The Jackal" which was based upon freeing a convicted IRA terrorist (Richard Gere) to help stop one of the worlds most sought after assasins (Bruce Willis). ::)
Is killing during a war ok? Or has every war since the dawn of mankind been immoral also?
LOL who gives a shit about an avatar... It's just one of the avatars available on the site natively...
Wow... Sad.
Again... It is heinous. It's not as violent, it's not with the same evil intent, but it's still killing... Whatever dude. Sit there and believe that you are capable of judging another human and taking away their lives. I certainly will not.
-
Ok- So, I can make the assumption that killing during a war is also on par with murder in your universe?
Terrorists blowing up a civilian airplane is also on par with murder as well, but then again so is killing during a war?
How about if you were inside your home and a burglar entered with the intent to rape any females in the home and murder all occupants, after stealing all of their possessions-- Would you kill them if you had to... or would you nicely ask the perpatrators to leave? If they raped all the female occupants and killed your entire family, would they be justified in getting the death penalty?
Hey, lets take this a step further. Michael Vick electrocuted, drowned, and smashed in the brains of dogs until they were dead. Every day in this country thousands of dogs are put to sleep in pounds and shelters. Do you think there is a moral difference between what Vick did, and what these various pounds and animal shelters do?
I mean, your warped, but so far your remarkably consistent ( in having a warped viewpoint). Lets see how deep the psychosis goes. Your answers please-->
-
Ok- So, I can make the assumption that killing during a war is also on par with murder in your universe?
Terrorists blowing up a civilian airplane is also on par with murder as well, but then again so is killing during a war?
How about if you were inside your home and a burglar entered with the intent to rape any females in the home and murder all occupants, after stealing all of their possessions-- Would you kill them if you had to... or would you nicely ask the perpatrators to leave? If they raped all the female occupants and killed your entire family, would they be justified in getting the death penalty?
Hey, lets take this a step further. Michael Vick electrocuted, drowned, and smashed in the brains of dogs until they were dead. Every day in this country thousands of dogs are put to sleep in pounds and shelters. Do you think there is a moral difference between what Vick did, and what these various pounds and animal shelters do?
I mean, your warped, but so far your remarkably consistent ( in having a warped viewpoint). Lets see how deep the psychosis goes. Your answers please-->
Yes... Killing during war is.
Yes terrorists killing is.
Yes... I would kill them and be a hypocrite, but since it's an either or situation. (Him or Me... I will choose him. It doesn't make me right... Just alive. Letting him kill me would simply be me allowing myself to be killed which is also wrong.) I will be a bit of a hypocrite, but that's what happens in that scenario.
No... no difference in the Vick vs a shelter issue. It's not a human life, so it's not at all the same thing.
I'm talking about human lives. Human life is sacred, a dog life truly isn't.
You call me warped, but to me, you are the warped one.
-
To many insane individuals, normal people appear insane.
Somehow, I would be willing to bet the overwhelming majority of getbig and the planet would agree with me and not you.
There are no absolute rights and wrongs. Try being a pragmatist. You'll enjoy life ( and your ever expanding absolute & fundamental right to live indefinetly) a lot more.
-
To many insane individuals, normal people appear insane.
Somehow, I would be willing to bet the overwhelming majority of getbig and the planet would agree with me and not you.
There are no absolute rights and wrongs. Try being a pragmatist. You'll enjoy life ( and your ever expanding absolute & fundamental right to live indefinetly) a lot more.
A lot of people agree with things that are not necessarily right. If I want to stay on politics, then a certain war in Iraq comes to mind that "most" people agreed with at one time... Not so much now.
-
Holmes murder and killing are not the same even though they bring about the same end they are not the same.
Murder is causing death on purpose to an innocent individual
killing is causing death with a jusitiable reason
notice how the terms cannot be used interchangeable in all situations thats b/c they dont mean the same thing...
yes its that simple
-
too much due process for sniper, kill his terrorist ass already
-
A lot of people agree with things that are not necessarily right. If I want to stay on politics, then a certain war in Iraq comes to mind that "most" people agreed with at one time... Not so much now.
LOL typical braindead liberal moral relativism at work sprinkled in with an idiotic comparison to the Iraq war. A war which we won by the way.
Why don't you use a more comparable example to illustrate what most people believe in doing or support others doing-- Like bathing, working, breathing, etc. Why you are comparing this discussion to the Iraq war is beyond all comprehension.
-
LOL typical braindead liberal moral relativism at work sprinkled in with an idiotic comparison to the Iraq war. A war which we won by the way.
Why don't you use a more comparable example to illustrate what most people believe in doing or support others doing-- Like bathing, working, breathing, etc. Why you are comparing this discussion to the Iraq war is beyond all comprehension.
The comparison was appropriate as a description of an act that people were supportive of, then changed. It is not reflective of any liberal bias against the war.
It's a simple comparison that you are trying to twist into some agenda and allude that I'm trying to compare as right or wrong. It is not.
The beginning of the war there was major support for it, 3 years later, there was very little.
Do you comprehend that?
-
Your example is totally incongruous. Comparing a war which will exist over a finite period to a practice ( killing or murder) which has been taking place since the beginning of time is comparing apples and bowling balls. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
I don't think that one day, out of the blue, the overwhelming majority of the population will wake up on the other side of their pillow and decide that killing during war, raping and murdering children, terrorism and accidentally killing someone are on equal moral footing.
Hope this helps.
-
Your example is totally incongruous. Comparing a war which will exist over a finite period to a practice ( killing or murder) which has been taking place since the beginning of time is comparing apples and bowling balls. One has absolutely nothing to do with the other.
I don't think that one day, out of the blue, the overwhelming majority of the population will wake up on the other side of their pillow and decide that killing during war, raping and murdering children, terrorism and accidentally killing someone are on equal moral footing.
Hope this helps.
Not really.
Hope this helps YOU.
-
Yes... Killing during war is.
Yes terrorists killing is.
Yes... I would kill them and be a hypocrite, but since it's an either or situation. (Him or Me... I will choose him. It doesn't make me right... Just alive. Letting him kill me would simply be me allowing myself to be killed which is also wrong.) I will be a bit of a hypocrite, but that's what happens in that scenario.
No... no difference in the Vick vs a shelter issue. It's not a human life, so it's not at all the same thing.
I'm talking about human lives. Human life is sacred, a dog life truly isn't.
You call me warped, but to me, you are the warped one.
OMG, you will defend you brotha' to end won't you?
By your logic criminals can say that the Police killing any of them is wrong too...never mind them trying to kill others and other negligible details ::)
-
OMG, you will defend you brotha' to end won't you?
By your logic criminals can say that the Police killing any of them is wrong too...never mind them trying to kill others and other negligible details ::)
The fact you even go to this level of extreme shows how sad your arguments are.
-
Not really.
Hope this helps YOU.
::)
Brilliant comeback-- Its on par with the rest of your mindless arguments.
IFBB articulated your argument perfectly. He's not going to that level of extreme, you are. One page back, you said that you would be a hypocrite for killing intruders during a home invasion where their intention was to rape, pillage and murder all of the occupants inside your home. Seems like a pretty extreme position to me.
-
::)
Brilliant comeback-- Its on par with the rest of your mindless arguments.
IFBB articulated your argument perfectly. He's not going to that level of extreme, you are. One page back, you said that you would be a hypocrite for killing intruders during a home invasion where their intention was to rape, pillage and murder all of the occupants inside your home. Seems like a pretty extreme position to me.
I did say I would be... However I would do it none the less.
That's just a factual statement... You guys just don't like it.
-
I did say I would be... However I would do it none the less.
That's just a factual statement... You guys just don't like it.
Do you even understand what the hell you're saying?
You truly pitiful, you will whore yourself down morally just to feel enlightened ::)
-
Do you even understand what the hell you're saying?
You truly pitiful, you will whore yourself down morally just to feel enlightened ::)
You are a sad man. Don't hold me to your shitty standard.
-
cant believe that sniper douche is still alive... :-\
exactly how many people does one have to kill to be fried ASAP?
-
You are a sad man. Don't hold me to your shitty standard.
I'll the world tallest crane to raise you to my standard , you keep groveling just to stay in line with you left wing buddies.
Hold the line like it's fucking D-Day.
-
I'll the world tallest crane to raise you to my standard , you keep groveling just to stay in line with you left wing buddies.
Hold the line like it's fucking D-Day.
Putting people in your own idea of their "category" shows your simple mind.
-
Beach... if people held human life as valuable as I do, there would be no death penalty...
If people held human life as valuable as you, there would be no murder either. ::)
-
If people held human life as valuable as you, there would be no murder either. ::)
Nothing really mind blowing to add to the conversation huh?
-
Putting people in your own idea of their "category" shows your simple mind.
Yawn...my simple mind have plenty of empirical facts to support the ideas that come out of it and plenty of empirical undisputed evidence of my simple mind abilities.
I actually find it delightful that you disagree with me since you have already showed you inability to produce coherent thoughts, if we were on the same page I would be double checking myself.
Ohh wait...you take care of your children and you brag about it, so you're a good guy....you know what Chris Rock said about it don't you?
-
Yawn...my simple mind have plenty of empirical facts to support the ideas that come out of it and plenty of empirical undisputed evidence of my simple mind abilities.
I actually find it delightful that you disagree with me since you have already showed you inability to produce coherent thoughts, if we were on the same page I would be double checking myself.
Ohh wait...you take care of your children and you brag about it, so you're a good guy....you know what Chris Rock said about it don't you?
The fact you and I do not agree speaks volumes, I agree. If I agreed with you I may have to question my own self worth.
Yeah, Chris Rock said there's no sex in the champagne room too... Too bad he has no idea.
-
The fact you and I do not agree speaks volumes, I agree. If I agreed with you I may have to question my own self worth.
Yeah, Chris Rock said there's no sex in the champagne room too... Too bad he has no idea.
Yawn...
I do wonder...did Obama bought his dozens of teleprompter devices and his Obamabots in the same deal or did he got them in exchange for a lame slogan and for having convicted felons as his best friends?
-
Federal Judge Tosses Out Life Sentences for DC Sniper Malvo
(http://cdn.newsmax.com/CMSPages/GetFile.aspx?guid=2192bbeb-8029-457b-b222-5309f7767af9&SiteName=Newsmax&maxsidesize=600)
Image: Federal Judge Tosses Out Life Sentences for DC Sniper Malvo
Sniper suspect Lee Boyd Malvo enters a courtroom in the Spotsylvania, Va., Circuit Court in this Oct. 26, 2004 file photo. (AP)
Friday, 26 May 2017
A federal judge on Friday tossed out two life sentences for one of Virginia's most notorious criminals, sniper Lee Boyd Malvo, and ordered Virginia courts to hold new sentencing hearings.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Raymond Jackson in Norfolk said Malvo is entitled to new sentencing hearings after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mandatory life sentences for juveniles are unconstitutional.
Malvo was 17 when he was arrested in 2002 for a series of shootings that killed 10 people and wounded three in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia, causing widespread fear throughout the region.
His accomplice, John Allen Muhammad, was executed in 2009.
Malvo also was sentenced to life in prison in Maryland for the murders that occurred there. But his lawyers have made an appeal on similar grounds in that state. A hearing is scheduled in June.
Fairfax County Commonwealth's Attorney Ray Morrogh, who helped prosecute Malvo in 2003, said the Virginia attorney general can appeal Jackson's ruling. If not, Morrogh said he would pursue another life sentence, saying he believes Malvo meets the criteria for a harsh sentence.
SPECIAL: Doctors: No Viagra Needed When You Do THIS
Learn More
A spokesman for Virginia Attorney General Mark Herring did not return a phone call and email seeking comment Friday.
Malvo's first trial took place in Chesapeake after a judge agreed to move it from Fairfax because of pretrial publicity. A jury convicted Malvo of capital murder, which under Virginia law requires either a death sentence or life without parole. Prosecutors sought a death sentence, but a jury opted for life in prison.
He then negotiated a plea bargain in Spotsylvania County and agreed to a life sentence.
Jackson, in his ruling, wrote that Malvo was entitled to a new sentencing hearing because the Supreme Court's ruling grants new rights to juveniles that Malvo didn't know he had when he agreed to the plea bargain.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/US-Sniper-Shootings-Malvo/2017/05/26/id/792667/
-
Man, I can't believe it's been that long.
I was in the area during the time and to think the kid is still alive is probably burning more than a few people up.
I really don't understand having to re-sentence him. He was a minor, but he wasn't some super young kid. He was fully aware of what he was doing. I guess following the "letter of the law" at this point?