View Full Version : How many of you heard about this...
...during the latest go-round about hate-crimes legislation?
As horrific a crime as can be committed, yet the national media was utterly silent...what other reason could the mainstream media have for ignoring the story apart from it's liberal bias?
The Knoxville Horror
By Bob Weir
The dictionary defines the word "savage" as beast-like, primitive and lacking the restraints normal to civilized human beings. Usually, in these days of multicultural political correctness, the term is applied to the 4-legged beasts that prowl the jungles of the world in search of a fur-covered dinner. After the animal kills its prey and has a meal, it will find a place to quietly rest and digest.
But there's another type of animal. It walks on 2 legs, is generally well-fed, but spends its time hunting for human prey. This type of savage derives pleasure from dehumanizing, torturing, mutilating and ultimately murdering its victims. They walk among us as though they belong to the same species, but, make no mistake about it, they belong to a sub-human category that is totally bereft of anything resembling homo-sapiens. If any human is unfortunate enough to become cornered by one of these creatures, he or she will be destined for a hell on earth, and death will become the only release from a monstrous ordeal.
A few months ago, Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian, a young couple in Knoxville, Tennessee, were out on a date when 5 of the aforementioned human savages carjacked them, bound and blindfolded them and drove them to a rented house where two of the savages lived. Once inside, the rape and torture began. The details of this gruesome crime are so sick and ghastly that I refuse to describe it. Suffice to say that the beasts did things to those innocent kids that the civilized mind could not possibly imagine.
After a few days in the clutches of these malevolent monsters, the victims were butchered, and one was set afire while the other was placed in several plastic bags. Now, you can ask yourself what kind of human beings could be so devoid of feelings that they would get pleasure out of such an atrocity. However, you would be falling into the trap of allowing yourself to think of them as humans. Such thinking is a weakness that these animals will be quick to exploit.
I suppose we'll never know how these creatures were able to abduct their victims. Perhaps one of them strolled over to the car with a cigarette dangling from its rapacious jaws and asked for a match. The unsuspecting driver, not wanting to appear rude, may have rolled down the window just before having a gun stuck in his face.
This should be a cautionary tale for the rest of us. If a stranger approaches in a deserted area, don't be afraid to be rude; it's better than being dead. Keep in mind, it only takes a second to get the drop on you, but it may take days of torment before your agony ends.
Due to the paucity of publicity being given this horrendous crime, most people didn't know about it until bloggers began disseminating the details. Many are saying it was a hate crime because the animals are black and the victims are white. The police don't appear to have any evidence of race being a factor. Maybe that's because the only ones who would know are deceased, their silence made certain by their abductors.
Nevertheless, it is more than a bit suspicious that the mainstream media didn't see fit to run scathing headlines and televised bulletins about a crime so heinous that it must rank near the top in terms of sheer brutality. Yes, the bloggers are, quite appropriately, suggesting that if this had been 5 white savages and 2 innocent blacks there would be a firestorm of racial invective from coast to coast. Undoubtedly, race-baiters Sharpton and Jackson would be in Knoxville protesting against the discrimination by white police authorities that allow such atrocities to occur. There would be no need for evidence of color as a motive; the mere fact that blacks had been hurt by whites would be enough to impute race hatred as the cause.
We'll never fully comprehend the unspeakable horror the victims endured, but, thanks to excellent police work, we do have the animals responsible.
Newsome and Christian, 23 and 21 respectively, had every right to believe that they would have a future. The laws that were made to protect them from bloodthirsty jackals have failed them miserably. All that's left is the hope that justice will inevitably prevail and that their killers will be put to death. Execution is too good for them, but it's the best we can do with the current system. We may need another system; one in which the killers would be begging for the relief of death, instead of fighting for their lives.
In such a system, even sub-humans might fear the wrath of the law.
bigboab
05-31-2007, 09:50 PM
Are you suggesting that Governments are controlling the media?
Naughty, naughty.:ph34r:
Are you suggesting that Governments are controlling the media?
Naughty, naughty.:ph34r:
Certainly not.
If it were, the coverage would be there.
Busyman™
05-31-2007, 10:59 PM
So was this a hate crime?:idunno:
I used to find all sorta shit in the Final Call newspaper about blacks being fucked up by whites and it never made big headlines....except in Final Call.
I think this should have been headlined due to the heinous nature of the crime.
I must say that I feel pretty good that white people are so willing to cover-up shit for me cuz I'm black. I'm quite flattered. Hell now I can go fuck up white people with the full knowledge that I have the liberal white media in my corner.
The fook?:blink:
I did not hear about this so I looked it up. The article says the details are too gruesome to detail (and they almost are), but I will:
The "animals" car-jacked, then raped the man, cut off his penis, then set him on fire and fatally shot him several times while they forced his girlfriend to watch. She was beaten and gang-raped in many ways for four days by all of them, while they took turns urinating on her. Then they cut off her breast and put chemicals in her mouth, all before murdering her.
Here is a quote from this editorial:
The District Attorney General of Knox
County announced the list of charges facing now five suspects in the double murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.
The District Attorney General Randy Nichols is not saying whether or not he will seek the death penalty, but he does say the State will seek conviction for all charges filed in a 24-page indictment from the Knox County Grand Jury.
Lemaricus Davidson, 25, faces a total of 46 charges. Davidson was indicted on 16 counts of Felony Murder growing out of rape, robbery kidnapping and theft of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, 2 counts premeditated murder of Christian and Newsom, 2 counts especially aggravated robberies from Christian and Newsom, 4 counts especially aggravated kidnapping of Christian and Newsom, 20 counts aggravated rape of Christian and Newsom, and 2 counts of theft from Christian and Newsom.
Letalvis Cobbins, 24, faces a total of 46 charges. Cobbins was indicted on 16 counts of Felony Murder growing out of rape,
robbery kidnapping and theft of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, 2 counts premeditated murder of Christian and Newsom, 2 counts especially aggravated robberies from Christian and Newsom, 4 counts especially aggravated k! idnappi ng of Christian and Newsom, 20 counts aggravated rape of Christian and Newsom, and 2 counts of theft from Christian and Newsom.
George Thomas, 24, faces a total of 46 charges. Thomas was indicted on 16 counts of Felony Murder growing out of rape, robbery kidnapping and theft of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, 2 counts premeditated murder of Christian and Newsom, 2 counts especially aggravated robberies from Christian and Newsom, 4 counts especially aggravated kidnapping of Christian and Newsom, 20 counts aggravated rape of Christian and Newsom, and 2 counts of theft from Christian and Newsom.
Just last night, police in Lebanon, Kentucky, arrested 18-year-old Vanessa Coleman. She faces 40 Tennessee state charges. Coleman was indicted on 12 counts Felony Murder growing out of rape, robbery kidnapping and theft of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, 1 count Premeditated Murder of Christian only, 1 count Especially Aggravated Robbery of Newsom only, 4 counts especially aggravated kidnapping of Christia n and Newsom, 20 counts of aggravated rape of Christian and Newsom and 2 Counts of theft from Christian and Newsom.
Eric Boyd, 24, also arrested in connection with the fatal carjacking, only faces federal charges as an accessory after the fact. He was not indicted by Knox county grand jury.
Felony Murder carries a possibility of death, life without the possibility of parole and life with parole. Especially Aggravated Robbery is a Class A felony that carries a possibility of 15 to 60 years in prison. Aggravated Rape is a Class A felony that carries a possibility of 15 to 60 years of prison.
At a news conference Thursday, Nichols commended the
cooperative efforts between several departments and credits that cooperation for the fast pace this case is moving through the court system.
Nichols says he hopes to move the case to trial on thefirst day it's set.
The four are expected to make their first court appearance within ten to fifteen days.
This is certainly a case garnering a lot of public interest, Nichols recognizes that and says he expects all kinds of requests filed in this case, including a change of venue in order to receive a fair trial. But he says he does hope 12 Knox County jurors will be able to determine the guilt or innocence of these suspects.
Where be the Revs Al and Jesse? Are they providing counsel and help to the families of the victims?
Of course not - the victims were white
Why hasn't this received National coverage by the news media like the Duke "rape" case?
Oh, that's right - the victims were white
Why hasn't the NAACP, ACLU, New York Times etc., called for an investigation?
Must be cause the victims were white
Why hasn't the FBI been called in to investigate this as a hate crime?
Oh, t hat's right - the victims were white"
victims
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/8216/victimsku2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
perps
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/6194/suspectsca5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
So, if a white news radio jock uses the phrase "Nappy headed", it gets 2 weeks of constant news coverage.
If two white people are tortured, raped, and murdered by a group of black people, it barely gets a blip in the news.
bigboab
06-01-2007, 06:32 AM
I did not hear about this so I looked it up. The article says the details are too gruesome to detail (and they almost are), but I will:
The "animals" car-jacked, then raped the man, cut off his penis, then set him on fire and fatally shot him several times while they forced his girlfriend to watch. She was beaten and gang-raped in many ways for four days by all of them, while they took turns urinating on her. Then they cut off her breast and put chemicals in her mouth, all before murdering her.
Here is a quote from this editorial:
The District Attorney General of Knox
County announced the list of charges facing now five suspects in the double murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.
The District Attorney General Randy Nichols is not saying whether or not he will seek the death penalty, but he does say the State will seek conviction for all charges filed in a 24-page indictment from the Knox County Grand Jury.
Lemaricus Davidson, 25, faces a total of 46 charges. Davidson was indicted on 16 counts of Felony Murder growing out of rape, robbery kidnapping and theft of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, 2 counts premeditated murder of Christian and Newsom, 2 counts especially aggravated robberies from Christian and Newsom, 4 counts especially aggravated kidnapping of Christian and Newsom, 20 counts aggravated rape of Christian and Newsom, and 2 counts of theft from Christian and Newsom.
Letalvis Cobbins, 24, faces a total of 46 charges. Cobbins was indicted on 16 counts of Felony Murder growing out of rape,
robbery kidnapping and theft of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, 2 counts premeditated murder of Christian and Newsom, 2 counts especially aggravated robberies from Christian and Newsom, 4 counts especially aggravated k! idnappi ng of Christian and Newsom, 20 counts aggravated rape of Christian and Newsom, and 2 counts of theft from Christian and Newsom.
George Thomas, 24, faces a total of 46 charges. Thomas was indicted on 16 counts of Felony Murder growing out of rape, robbery kidnapping and theft of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, 2 counts premeditated murder of Christian and Newsom, 2 counts especially aggravated robberies from Christian and Newsom, 4 counts especially aggravated kidnapping of Christian and Newsom, 20 counts aggravated rape of Christian and Newsom, and 2 counts of theft from Christian and Newsom.
Just last night, police in Lebanon, Kentucky, arrested 18-year-old Vanessa Coleman. She faces 40 Tennessee state charges. Coleman was indicted on 12 counts Felony Murder growing out of rape, robbery kidnapping and theft of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, 1 count Premeditated Murder of Christian only, 1 count Especially Aggravated Robbery of Newsom only, 4 counts especially aggravated kidnapping of Christia n and Newsom, 20 counts of aggravated rape of Christian and Newsom and 2 Counts of theft from Christian and Newsom.
Eric Boyd, 24, also arrested in connection with the fatal carjacking, only faces federal charges as an accessory after the fact. He was not indicted by Knox county grand jury.
Felony Murder carries a possibility of death, life without the possibility of parole and life with parole. Especially Aggravated Robbery is a Class A felony that carries a possibility of 15 to 60 years in prison. Aggravated Rape is a Class A felony that carries a possibility of 15 to 60 years of prison.
At a news conference Thursday, Nichols commended the
cooperative efforts between several departments and credits that cooperation for the fast pace this case is moving through the court system.
Nichols says he hopes to move the case to trial on thefirst day it's set.
The four are expected to make their first court appearance within ten to fifteen days.
This is certainly a case garnering a lot of public interest, Nichols recognizes that and says he expects all kinds of requests filed in this case, including a change of venue in order to receive a fair trial. But he says he does hope 12 Knox County jurors will be able to determine the guilt or innocence of these suspects.
Where be the Revs Al and Jesse? Are they providing counsel and help to the families of the victims?
Of course not - the victims were white
Why hasn't this received National coverage by the news media like the Duke "rape" case?
Oh, that's right - the victims were white
Why hasn't the NAACP, ACLU, New York Times etc., called for an investigation?
Must be cause the victims were white
Why hasn't the FBI been called in to investigate this as a hate crime?
Oh, t hat's right - the victims were white"
victims
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/8216/victimsku2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
perps
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/6194/suspectsca5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
So, if a white news radio jock uses the phrase "Nappy headed", it gets 2 weeks of constant news coverage.
If two white people are tortured, raped, and murdered by a group of black people, it barely gets a blip in the news.
It is not P C to bring this type of crime to the public notice. Whatever the colour of the people involved.
As long as the perpetrators are brought to justice there is no need to incite retaliatory racial reaction.
backlash
06-01-2007, 11:38 AM
they had a video on this on cnn.com just the other day. It's awful what was done to these people. Savage seems to be an understatement. I cannot understand the mind of the mentally ill, which they'd have to be in order to commit such an act. It makes me sick.
MaxOverlord
06-01-2007, 01:21 PM
This is an act that makes me sickened to be human.
To think that this could be done to a living being is unconscionable.
Busyman™
06-01-2007, 04:20 PM
I did not hear about this so I looked it up. The article says the details are too gruesome to detail (and they almost are), but I will:
The "animals" car-jacked, then raped the man, cut off his penis, then set him on fire and fatally shot him several times while they forced his girlfriend to watch. She was beaten and gang-raped in many ways for four days by all of them, while they took turns urinating on her. Then they cut off her breast and put chemicals in her mouth, all before murdering her.
Here is a quote from this editorial:
The District Attorney General of Knox
County announced the list of charges facing now five suspects in the double murder of Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom.
The District Attorney General Randy Nichols is not saying whether or not he will seek the death penalty, but he does say the State will seek conviction for all charges filed in a 24-page indictment from the Knox County Grand Jury.
Lemaricus Davidson, 25, faces a total of 46 charges. Davidson was indicted on 16 counts of Felony Murder growing out of rape, robbery kidnapping and theft of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, 2 counts premeditated murder of Christian and Newsom, 2 counts especially aggravated robberies from Christian and Newsom, 4 counts especially aggravated kidnapping of Christian and Newsom, 20 counts aggravated rape of Christian and Newsom, and 2 counts of theft from Christian and Newsom.
Letalvis Cobbins, 24, faces a total of 46 charges. Cobbins was indicted on 16 counts of Felony Murder growing out of rape,
robbery kidnapping and theft of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, 2 counts premeditated murder of Christian and Newsom, 2 counts especially aggravated robberies from Christian and Newsom, 4 counts especially aggravated k! idnappi ng of Christian and Newsom, 20 counts aggravated rape of Christian and Newsom, and 2 counts of theft from Christian and Newsom.
George Thomas, 24, faces a total of 46 charges. Thomas was indicted on 16 counts of Felony Murder growing out of rape, robbery kidnapping and theft of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, 2 counts premeditated murder of Christian and Newsom, 2 counts especially aggravated robberies from Christian and Newsom, 4 counts especially aggravated kidnapping of Christian and Newsom, 20 counts aggravated rape of Christian and Newsom, and 2 counts of theft from Christian and Newsom.
Just last night, police in Lebanon, Kentucky, arrested 18-year-old Vanessa Coleman. She faces 40 Tennessee state charges. Coleman was indicted on 12 counts Felony Murder growing out of rape, robbery kidnapping and theft of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, 1 count Premeditated Murder of Christian only, 1 count Especially Aggravated Robbery of Newsom only, 4 counts especially aggravated kidnapping of Christia n and Newsom, 20 counts of aggravated rape of Christian and Newsom and 2 Counts of theft from Christian and Newsom.
Eric Boyd, 24, also arrested in connection with the fatal carjacking, only faces federal charges as an accessory after the fact. He was not indicted by Knox county grand jury.
Felony Murder carries a possibility of death, life without the possibility of parole and life with parole. Especially Aggravated Robbery is a Class A felony that carries a possibility of 15 to 60 years in prison. Aggravated Rape is a Class A felony that carries a possibility of 15 to 60 years of prison.
At a news conference Thursday, Nichols commended the
cooperative efforts between several departments and credits that cooperation for the fast pace this case is moving through the court system.
Nichols says he hopes to move the case to trial on thefirst day it's set.
The four are expected to make their first court appearance within ten to fifteen days.
This is certainly a case garnering a lot of public interest, Nichols recognizes that and says he expects all kinds of requests filed in this case, including a change of venue in order to receive a fair trial. But he says he does hope 12 Knox County jurors will be able to determine the guilt or innocence of these suspects.
Where be the Revs Al and Jesse? Are they providing counsel and help to the families of the victims?
Of course not - the victims were white
Why hasn't this received National coverage by the news media like the Duke "rape" case?
Oh, that's right - the victims were white
Why hasn't the NAACP, ACLU, New York Times etc., called for an investigation?
Must be cause the victims were white
Why hasn't the FBI been called in to investigate this as a hate crime?
Oh, t hat's right - the victims were white"
victims
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/8216/victimsku2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
perps
http://img300.imageshack.us/img300/6194/suspectsca5.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
So, if a white news radio jock uses the phrase "Nappy headed", it gets 2 weeks of constant news coverage.
If two white people are tortured, raped, and murdered by a group of black people, it barely gets a blip in the news.
The last little bit was moronic. One has shit to do with the other.:dry:
Busyman™
06-01-2007, 04:28 PM
I did not hear about this so I looked it up. The article says the details are too gruesome to detail (and they almost are), but I will:
The "animals" car-jacked, then raped the man, cut off his penis, then set him on fire and fatally shot him several times while they forced his girlfriend to watch. She was beaten and gang-raped in many ways for four days by all of them, while they took turns urinating on her. Then they cut off her breast and put chemicals in her mouth, all before murdering her.
Here is a quote from this editorial:
It is not P C to bring this type of crime to the public notice. Whatever the colour of the people involved.
As long as the perpetrators are brought to justice there is no need to incite retaliatory racial reaction.
True I have seen stories like this before (with white on black crime) but wondered why it wasn't on the news.
I am sooooo lovin' how this brings out what white folks really have to say about it. There are folks that talked about on many websites like Amercan Renaissance.
I think some people need a little less talking and a little more STFU.
Perhaps I should have posted that my feeling on that editorial are not the same, though I'd be lying if I said I didn't agree with some of it.
Some of what was written was just stupidity -
This is a horrific crime that should call for the death of those involved. Here's the thing, the suspects have been caught and have been charged for every terrible thing they have done to those two people. I don't care for the bullshit, passive racism antics of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, but don't public advocate groups usually make a ton of noise when people are not charged or indicted for crimes committed in spite of evidence as well?
The Duke case was a debacle that Sharpton's /Jackson's dumb ass tried to use as a forum for their own gain...... again. It is very true that when a crime is committed against a black man or women these guys and other groups jump up to make it a bug deal in the media to try to "insure justice". Half the time they fuck up the case or attack the wrong people. This situation has nothing to do with them or the Liberal media. These criminals are charged and will be put to trial. There are no loop holes or aversion of justice here to be brought to the media's attention. Furthermore what benefit would the liberal media have for ignoring a case like this? What sort of gain would it bring? This is not a case that has any political value to it at all that I see. Has this case been broadcast on all other channels besides those known to be liberal? Sure.
Crimes like this do happen in our country and it is disgusting, but watch where you lay blame on a lack of coverage. Lack of FBI?! -It is an open shut case. No need for federal intervention. Imus ?!- He made it a national media event by saying what he did over the public airways (although I don't think he should have been fired). The Duke case - 1 women says she's raped, 4 dudes call bullshit from one of the most prestigious colleges in America. That's why it got media attention even before the Revs. went there. Cases like this murder/rape where there is no denial of crime or fight or belief that the system is failing will not get lots of attention because it is an open/shut case. I don't think a media blitz would do any good for the grieving families either.
I find the whole "hate crimes" debate odd...the idea that anyone victimized on the basis of religious belief, sexual orientation, or race (unless they are white :dry:) is cause for the offender's being treated more harshly than otherwise?
One might assume this compulsion is predicated on a belief that the existence of such "enhanced" sentencing guidelines is a deterrent to crime.
How is it that the idea of deterrent effect works when coupled with the idiotic theory of "hate crime", but has not even the slightest relevance when the discussion is about the death penalty, which is inarguably an escalation of the murder guidelines arising from heinous/aggravating circumstances?
I mention this only to prompt the silly and often hilarious hair-splitting, logic-stretching, and mental gymnastics of certain libs in attendence.
I am sure someone will be along shortly...;)
MaxOverlord
06-01-2007, 11:16 PM
I find the whole "hate crimes" debate odd...the idea that anyone victimized on the basis of religious belief, sexual orientation, or race (unless they are white :dry:) is cause for the offender's being treated more harshly than otherwise?
One might assume this compulsion is predicated on a belief that the existence of such "enhanced" sentencing guidelines is a deterrent to crime.
How is it that the idea of deterrent effect works when coupled with the idiotic theory of "hate crime", but has not even the slightest relevance when the discussion is about the death penalty, which is inarguably an escalation of the murder guidelines arising from heinous/aggravating circumstances?
I mention this only to prompt the silly and often hilarious hair-splitting, logic-stretching, and mental gymnastics of certain libs in attendence.
I am sure someone will be along shortly...;)
I think the Death Penalty is as an effective deterrent as possible.
More legislation means more work/money/votes for the Libs. who come up with these absurd bills.
Just a way to grease the minorities and gay&lesbian vote.
We in "White America" must carry the burden for all past wrongs.
What is to be said of all the organized journalism groups?
Did these have anything to do with burying a black on white crime?
And quite frankly the point is missed if it is reduced to black on white.
This is beyond the pale of crime.
I would personally like to have a chair in the viewing room at execution time.
Someone look into that for me.
Busyman™
06-02-2007, 03:40 AM
Perhaps I should have posted that my feeling on that editorial are not the same, though I'd be lying if I said I didn't agree with some of it.
Some of what was written was just stupidity -
This is a horrific crime that should call for the death of those involved. Here's the thing, the suspects have been caught and have been charged for every terrible thing they have done to those two people. I don't care for the bullshit, passive racism antics of Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, but don't public advocate groups usually make a ton of noise when people are not charged or indicted for crimes committed in spite of evidence as well?
The Duke case was a debacle that Sharpton's /Jackson's dumb ass tried to use as a forum for their own gain...... again. It is very true that when a crime is committed against a black man or women these guys and other groups jump up to make it a bug deal in the media to try to "insure justice". Half the time they fuck up the case or attack the wrong people. This situation has nothing to do with them or the Liberal media. These criminals are charged and will be put to trial. There are no loop holes or aversion of justice here to be brought to the media's attention. Furthermore what benefit would the liberal media have for ignoring a case like this? What sort of gain would it bring? This is not a case that has any political value to it at all that I see. Has this case been broadcast on all other channels besides those known to be liberal? Sure.
Crimes like this do happen in our country and it is disgusting, but watch where you lay blame on a lack of coverage. Lack of FBI?! -It is an open shut case. No need for federal intervention. Imus ?!- He made it a national media event by saying what he did over the public airways (although I don't think he should have been fired). The Duke case - 1 women says she's raped, 4 dudes call bullshit from one of the most prestigious colleges in America. That's why it got media attention even before the Revs. went there. Cases like this murder/rape where there is no denial of crime or fight or belief that the system is failing will not get lots of attention because it is an open/shut case. I don't think a media blitz would do any good for the grieving families either.
Excellent post, Skiz.;)
These dudes should get the death penalty. I don't fucking care if they are black. DeM moTherFuckAS iS CRaZy!!!11!!
Skerven
06-02-2007, 08:22 PM
Those blacks were not born savages. I hope they found out what made them so ...mean and incorporated it into our social systems.
Am I being idealistic?
I mention this only to prompt the silly and often hilarious hair-splitting, logic-stretching, and mental gymnastics of certain libs in attendence.
Who are the "libs in attendance", then?
The only one that springs to mind right away is vid.
I mention this only to prompt the silly and often hilarious hair-splitting, logic-stretching, and mental gymnastics of certain libs in attendence.
Who are the "libs in attendance", then?
The only one that springs to mind right away is vid.
Hmmm.
Possibly not; as I recall, he is not foursquare against capital punishment...though that admission usually occurs after blood is shed.
Thinking in terms of those who doubt the deterrent effect of the death penalty has always made me wonder if they believe that laws are or can be intended to deter anything at all.
The debate possibilities are rich and rife. :yup:
Addenda to this thread; other incidents-
Reverse Hate Crime in South Carolina – One Year After
by Steven Yates
On a November night a little over a year ago, Columbia, S.C. resident Bill Calliham was driving home from a local Sons of Confederate Veterans meeting when he noticed the very bright headlights of a car following him. The car continued following him through the twists and turns of his neighborhood all the way to his house, blocking his driveway. When he inquired politely if the person, who happened to be black, was lost and needed directions, the man set upon him and sent him to the nearest emergency room.
Bill Calliham had a South Carolina Sons of Confederate Veterans license plate on his vehicle along with two square Confederate flag emblems on either side. Local media as well as the leftist NAACP had been waging war against Confederate symbols for years; this war culminated in the removal of the Confederate flag from atop South Carolina’s State House (a square version now stands on a 30-foot pole behind the Confederate Soldier Monument). Calliham attributes the attack to these symbols having been clearly visible to whoever got behind him in traffic. Nothing else seemed to explain why a total stranger of another race would follow him home and beat him up on his own property.
Not a single local media outlet covered the story: not Columbia’s daily newspaper, not any television station, not any radio broadcast. This was familiar to those of us who had been following reverse hate crimes – blacks attacking whites, whether because the latter display Confederate symbols or for no discernable reason whatsoever. When it became evident that no one else would cover the story, I did. To my knowledge, my article was the only public coverage the incident received. The reason: because it was black-on-white, the police refused to treat it as a hate crime. Therefore it was not news. Bill Calliham told me how he had confronted a reporter shortly after he learned that local media had withdrawn their initial decision to cover the event. “I’m the wrong color,” he had told her. “If I was black, every radio station, TV station and Rainbow Coalition member would be in my front yard.” The reporter, of course, was not to blame. She was no doubt ordered by her superiors not to publicize the story.
Media blackouts on black-on-white hate crimes are the norm. A white person has to be incapacitated or killed before such cases even become local news. This was the pattern when Troy Knapp was beaten unconscious by a mob of black teenagers wielding metal trash cans while bicycling through a North Charleston, S.C. neighborhood the previous year. Knapp sustained severe head injuries, and languishes in a Charleston-area nursing home with permanent brain damage.
The incident was not reported by major media outside the Charleston area.
And then there was the incident some have called the Wichita horror that happened in Kansas a year ago yesterday. In that case, five close friends, all young professionals in their 20s (three men and two women), were robbed at gunpoint by two black men, then taken to a deserted soccer field. The two women were stripped naked, raped, then forced to perform lewd sex acts on their attackers and on each other while the three men had to watch. Finally all five had to kneel, and were then shot, execution style. Miraculously, one of the women survived. She staggered naked and bloody through ice and snow in sub-freezing temperatures for more than a mile and was finally able to obtain help.
Again, the story was local news only. Were it not for the Internet, most of us would not even know about it. Yet anyone with functioning brain cells knows that if the races had been reversed, the national coverage would have been relentless. It would no doubt accompanied by appearances by Jesse Jackson (or Al Sharpton) and possibly even a new (and very well funded) study of “hate crimes” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
The dominant media refuse to report such incidents because they go against one of the central dogmas of our politically correct time: blacks as a group are victims first of the legacy of slavery and then of discrimination and hate. Whites as a group are their victimizers. So if blacks display anger, they have reason; when they get violent, their violence can be excused. The term black rage has been used. In truth, the federal government’s own crime statistics reveal that 90 percent of all violent interracial crimes are committed by blacks on whites, not the reverse. Given that blacks only constitute about 13 percent of the population, a black person is 50 times more likely than a white person to commit a violent interracial crime. Many such crimes do not appear to have an economic motive, such as robbery. In cases such as the Wichita horror, the utter viciousness of the perpetrators rules out economics as the sole motive even though there was a robbery.
During the events last April in Cincinnati, it was the same story. The scale of events was too large for the media to muzzle altogether, however, so the Cincinnati riot became national news. The media, however, could not bring themselves to call it a “riot,” even when marauding blacks were heaving bricks through windows of cars driven by whites and setting fires to their businesses. The media (with the leftist New York Times leading the way) chose to use sanitized phrases like sporadic protests and vandalism.
The Cincinnati riot was an attack on white people. This was clear, because an assault on an albino black woman driver stopped at once when one of the aggressors shouted, “She’s black!”
Again, you read about it on the Internet if you read about it at all. Apparently not all the news is fit to print if it goes against the grain of political correctness, with the Internet being the largest medium not subject to political control.
With the utter lack of media coverage, there were no means of following ensuing events in the Calliham case here – especially since Bill Calliham’s injuries were much less severe than in the above cases. So I never learned whether police caught and arrested someone for the crime. I knew I wouldn’t hear anything from local media, so I recently decided to touch base and do the follow-up myself – for the same reason I wrote the original article: if I didn’t, then who would?
In fact, the Callihams had been able to identify the perpetrator – through his car, a black Lexus with four large headlights, which almost by chance they spotted in a garage not far from where the Callihams lived. Having done the detective work themselves, they were able to inform the police where to find Bill Calliham’s attacker. One day they actually sighted the person outside in his driveway washing the car, utterly unconcerned that he might be recognized. They turned the license plate number over to the police. Finally, with four months now having gone by, the person was questioned.
He admitted that there had been a violent altercation, but blamed Calliham for it. In fact, the person presented a scenario that was almost the reverse of Bill Calliham’s original story. He contended that Calliham had followed him. He claimed that his “fight” with Calliham had been in self-defense, that Calliham had made “racial slurs” and then “sucker-punched” him.
Why, then, hadn’t he been the one to call the police, and not Bill Calliham?
Because, the answer goes, he “was too embarrassed.”
Calliham may not have been injured as severely as was Troy Knapp, but his health problems have increased since the incident. He suffers occasional attacks of dizziness and confusion. He has experienced being out driving and suddenly losing track of where he was or where he had been going. He has been to the hospital to have this looked into, but so far no one has been able to explain it. Both he and his wife have reported sleeplessness and extreme apprehension.
This was a man who served this country for 27 years in the Army. He was far from a stranger to potentially dangerous situations, therefore, also having worked for both the Columbia Housing Authority and the South Carolina Department of Social Services. He was able to state the philosophy that had guided his actions back then in a single sentence: “If you treat everybody nicely, you’ll get the same respect back.”
That philosophy might have worked before the political correctness era. Then began a period of leftist professors, media pundits and unscrupulous lawyers of the Johnnie Cochran persuasion “playing the race card” at every opportunity, shouting from the rooftops about how blacks were still suffering from this country’s legacy of slavery, how whites owe “reparations,” etc.
The Richland County Sheriff’s Department declined to prosecute the Calliham case, claiming to have two different versions of events neither of which could be corroborated. The police closed the case without even issuing a warrant for simple battery (a misdemeanor). Bill Calliham, having had no luck with either the police or criminal prosecutors, has been forced to hire his own attorney and pursue that matter in civil court. Just finding an attorney was not an easy matter, despite a substantial file folder of evidence: the original police report, pictures of his face following the attack, hospital bills, results of cat-scans, his wife’s testimony and the testimony of a neighbor, as well as that of other character witnesses. “We’re going to court to see if justice will be done,” he told me. “So far we haven’t seen justice. The RCSD wouldn’t do anything. The solicitors wouldn’t do anything. The magistrates wouldn’t do anything. Two lawyers wouldn’t take the case. But I’m still trying to get this solved through the courts.”
It has now been over a year. We’re waiting.
Black Racism: The Hate Crime That Dare Not Speak It's Name
By David Horowitz
FrontPageMagazine.com | July 16, 2002
We reported the story of the Wichita Massacre in these pages two years ago at the time it happened. Outside the local Wichita press, however, virtually the only media to report this hate crime were Frontpagemagazine.com and the American Renaissance newsletter. While the federal government rushes to Los Angeles to investigate an incident in which a handcuffed youth was slammed into the hood of a car and punched by an officer, a pall of silence still blankets the horrendous racial murder of four young people whose murderers are now on trial. The difference in the responses to these two stories can hardly be attributed to anything other than the skin color of the perpetrators and the victims involved. Apparently the sexual torture and brutal executions of four promising youngsters is of no interest to the nation's moral guardians, because the victims happen to be white.
Stephen Webster's account of these events provides a revealing window on the disturbing - not to say disgusting -- state of the civil rights delusion in America. The U.S. Justice Department has reported that 85% of all inter-racial violence in America is committed by blacks against whites. But there are apparently no black hate crimes; and there is certainly no white civil rights movement to create sympathy for the victims.
Nor can there be one in the present atmosphere of racial hypocrisy, where the mere expression of concern over attacks on white people would itself make an individual a ripe target for racial witch-hunters.
Because they are black, the Wichita killers have been protected from national scrutiny and have not even been charged with a hate crime. The entire apparatus of local government in Wichita - abetted by the national press -- has worked overtime to keep the public ignorant of what happened. If the truth came out, it would threaten a national melodrama in which only blacks are victims, only blacks are persecuted and only whites are racists. Within the framework of this melodrama, the only acceptable meaning of civil rights is retribution for blacks -- retribution for any and every crime, real or imagined, ever suffered by black people however remote in the past. "Reparations" is just the nom de jour of the new civil rights package.
What would happen if, instead, we returned to the idea of individual accountability, and gave up the totalitarian fantasies of reparations and "social justice," in which oppressed classes exact retribution from their age-old oppressors? What if we returned to the real world in which individuals commit indefensible misdemeanors (Los Angeles) and monstrous crimes (Wichita)? What if we revived the idea of making the punishment fit the actual deed? Think of all the people who wouldn't know what to do with themselves if that were to happen.
The fact is that the Wichita horror is but one of many spectacular lynchings of white people by black racists, which the nation's moral watchdogs choose to ignore.
Everybody in America, for example, knows who James Byrd is, and that he was brutally murdered by three whites in Jasper Texas four years ago. Byrd's lynchers offered him a lift in their pickup truck, beat him and chained him and dragged him to his death. An entire nation was outraged and guilty. The President issued a statement, legislators wrung their hands and the media keened over the inhumanity of the act and what it portended for the country's future.
Four years later - this year in fact - a white man named Ken Tillery, hitched a ride in Jasper, Texas. He was given a lift by four black men who then murdered him to a deafening national silence. Like Byrd, Tillery was held hostage and beaten. Then he was run over and crushed to death. The copycat nature of the crime made it a natural news story. But there was none, save a modest account in the Houston Chronicle, to which nobody paid any attention. This savagery was apparently nothing. The pigments were politically incorrect. It was only some white guy, whose ancestors probably owned slaves.
We make no apologies for expressing outrage over these facts or printing the story of the Wichita slayings. We would like to see the trial of these killers reported on Peter Jennings' World News Tonight. We would like to see the story of the murders retold on 60 Minutes or 48 Hours. We would like to see Spike Lee direct a Hollywood feature or Jesse Jackson conduct a pilgrimage to Kansas to plea for racial peace.
But we know these things won't happen. To begin with, Jesse Jackson and Spike Lee don't have the moral intelligence to take these steps. Nor does Peter Jennings. We're regretful that this is the case. But we are certain there will not be any bright future for race relations in this country until silences like these are broken.
MaxOverlord
06-03-2007, 12:20 AM
Those blacks were not born savages. I hope they found out what made them so ...mean and incorporated it into our social systems.
Am I being idealistic?
Are you so sure they weren't born that way?
Why the need to blame "society" for the way these people are?
If your gonna punt the ball into the hands of society you allow these sub-humans a sense of moral bearing as in comprehension to ones situation.
This and the obvious question of who's to pay for your study to find out "what made them so?"
Let's just say they are not worthy of the human race and move on to the trial.
Busyman™
06-03-2007, 05:55 AM
Who are the "libs in attendance", then?
The only one that springs to mind right away is vid.
Hmmm.
Possibly not; as I recall, he is not foursquare against capital punishment...though that admission usually occurs after blood is shed.
Thinking in terms of those who doubt the deterrent effect of the death penalty has always made me wonder if they believe that laws are or can be intended to deter anything at all.
The debate possibilities are rich and rife. :yup:
It is rather silly that people say the death penalty isn't a deterrent.
It's as if folks think going to jail is a deterrent and everyone thinks losing your life isn't.:1eye:
Do people actually think no one goes, "I'm not doing any shit like that. They fry you for that shit."
:dry:
bigboab
06-03-2007, 08:25 AM
Those blacks were not born savages. I hope they found out what made them so ...mean and incorporated it into our social systems.
Am I being idealistic?
Are you so sure they weren't born that way?
Why the need to blame "society" for the way these people are?
If your gonna punt the ball into the hands of society you allow these sub-humans a sense of moral bearing as in comprehension to ones situation.
This and the obvious question of who's to pay for your study to find out "what made them so?"
Let's just say they are not worthy of the human race and move on to the trial.
It is a debatable point. I don't think you can change them if they have the 'gene'.:( I have seen people born into unsociable families who turned out to be respectable people.:)
If you are born with the 'gene' or whatever makes you unsociable, IMO you stay that way. There was a scheme in this country about 40 years ago that integrated unsociable families into sociable areas. It did not work. All that happened was that the sociable areas went downhill.:(
I suppose it is a case of once a Twat always a Twat, whatever the environment.
Busyman™
06-03-2007, 03:13 PM
Are you so sure they weren't born that way?
Why the need to blame "society" for the way these people are?
If your gonna punt the ball into the hands of society you allow these sub-humans a sense of moral bearing as in comprehension to ones situation.
This and the obvious question of who's to pay for your study to find out "what made them so?"
Let's just say they are not worthy of the human race and move on to the trial.
It is a debatable point. I don't think you can change them if they have the 'gene'.:( I have seen people born into unsociable families who turned out to be respectable people.:)
If you are born with the 'gene' or whatever makes you unsociable, IMO you stay that way. There was a scheme in this country about 40 years ago that integrated unsociable families into sociable areas. It did not work. All that happened was that the sociable areas went downhill.:(
I suppose it is a case of once a Twat always a Twat, whatever the environment.
There's an unsociable gene?
MaxOverlord
06-04-2007, 01:14 PM
It is a debatable point. I don't think you can change them if they have the 'gene'.:( I have seen people born into unsociable families who turned out to be respectable people.:)
If you are born with the 'gene' or whatever makes you unsociable, IMO you stay that way. There was a scheme in this country about 40 years ago that integrated unsociable families into sociable areas. It did not work. All that happened was that the sociable areas went downhill.:(
I suppose it is a case of once a Twat always a Twat, whatever the environment.
There's an unsociable gene?
I'm always reminded of one of Chris Rock's routines where he goes into a bit about pills for this and pills for that.....we should figure out why they act that way and so on and then he makes the point..."whatever happen to they're just fucking nuts?"
:yup:
Who are the "libs in attendance", then?
The only one that springs to mind right away is vid.
Hmmm.
Possibly not; as I recall, he is not foursquare against capital punishment...though that admission usually occurs after blood is shed.
Thinking in terms of those who doubt the deterrent effect of the death penalty has always made me wonder if they believe that laws are or can be intended to deter anything at all.
The debate possibilities are rich and rife. :yup:
I reckon it's a deterrent.
I even reckon it's so good at deterring people, it makes killers kill more people to avoid getting caught, like :unsure:
As a concept I can't say I'm against it, apart from that. Not so much because it's a deterrent, although it probably works as that, but because some people are so sick they'll pose a risk to society as long as they are around.
Its application, on the other hand, is a problem. Your legal system, being what it is, isn't something I consider infallible, meaning that among the thousands of death sentences in your country, some people subjected to it will be innocent of the crime they are convicted to, and others won't be the same people they were when they did the crime.
And on top of that, money or just plain luck in getting the right jury or lawyer will ensure that others won't be sentenced to it, making who gets it and who doesn't, unfair.
EDit: We've all been through this before, but I reckon you were after something like this. Not that I'm actually a liberal, but even so.
EDit: We've all been through this before, but I reckon you were after something like this. Not that I'm actually a liberal, but even so.
You've always been my favorite un-liberal, Snee. ;)
vidcc
06-06-2007, 12:53 AM
It is not the severity of the crime that makes it a hate crime, it's the intent behind it. Yes I heard about this and it's terrible. If it is proven that they did it because of the race/religion etc. of the victims then IMO it should be a hate crime and federalized to give tougher powers of prosecution and hopefully a better chance of the death penalty being applied.
It seems here that some think white victims + black perpetrators or black victims + white perpetrators must = hate crime. Well it may have been a random act and the race of the victims had nothing to do with it.
Kev doesn't like the idea of a special hate crime law, however if such crimes come under federal law then the chances of a fair trial (both ways) and fitting punishment increase.
He also seems to want everyone to think that there is a left wing conspiracy that makes it only a hate crime if the perpetrators are white :rolleyes:
I would be for the death penalty for these people in this case ONLY IF it could be proven they are the ones that did it without a doubt.
It is not the severity of the crime that makes it a hate crime, it's the intent behind it. Yes I heard about this and it's terrible. If it is proven that they did it because of the race/religion etc. of the victims then IMO it should be a hate crime and federalized to give tougher powers of prosecution and hopefully a better chance of the death penalty being applied.
It seems here that some think white victims + black perpetrators or black victims + white perpetrators must = hate crime. Well it may have been a random act and the race of the victims had nothing to do with it.
Kev doesn't like the idea of a special hate crime law, however if such crimes come under federal law then the chances of a fair trial (both ways) and fitting punishment increase.
He also seems to want everyone to think that there is a left wing conspiracy that makes it only a hate crime if the perpetrators are white :rolleyes:
I would be for the death penalty for these people in this case ONLY IF it could be proven they are the ones that did it without a doubt.
Given that polygraphy has no standing in a court of law, how do you propose to divine another's truest "intent" by patently non-scientific means?
You do believe in the scientific approach, don't you, Nigel?
Busyman™
06-06-2007, 02:26 AM
It is not the severity of the crime that makes it a hate crime, it's the intent behind it. Yes I heard about this and it's terrible. If it is proven that they did it because of the race/religion etc. of the victims then IMO it should be a hate crime and federalized to give tougher powers of prosecution and hopefully a better chance of the death penalty being applied.
It seems here that some think white victims + black perpetrators or black victims + white perpetrators must = hate crime. Well it may have been a random act and the race of the victims had nothing to do with it.
Kev doesn't like the idea of a special hate crime law, however if such crimes come under federal law then the chances of a fair trial (both ways) and fitting punishment increase.
He also seems to want everyone to think that there is a left wing conspiracy that makes it only a hate crime if the perpetrators are white :rolleyes:
I would be for the death penalty for these people in this case ONLY IF it could be proven they are the ones that did it without a doubt.
Given that polygraphy has no standing in a court of law, how do you propose to divine another's truest "intent" by patently non-scientific means?
You do believe in the scientific approach, don't you, Nigel?
You know, with normal investigation stuff, like interviews with the accused, witness statements, etc.
I find it interesting that this affects you so much. Tbh, if those black folk get tagged with hate crime status, I couldn't give a shit*.
Also, to my knowledge, hate crimes are paltry when compared with overall murders and rapes.
* Whether this is the correct version or whether I should or shouldn't give 2 or even 3 shits, I could or couldn't give a shit. If one struggles with this wording then simply get some pussy to get your mind off grammar. However, If you think that there is something, possibly, in the world that you do give 9 shits about, feel free to use whatever the fuck comes to mind since, if you could or couldn't give a shit, it doesn't fucking matter....now does it? ANSWER ME MOTHERFUCKER!!!. Thanks, and fuck yo mama.
vidcc
06-06-2007, 05:17 AM
Given that polygraphy has no standing in a court of law, how do you propose to divine another's truest "intent" by patently non-scientific means?
You do believe in the scientific approach, don't you, Nigel?
Probably the same way as "attempted" murder is dealt with.
MaxOverlord
06-06-2007, 06:04 AM
It is not the severity of the crime that makes it a hate crime, it's the intent behind it. Yes I heard about this and it's terrible. If it is proven that they did it because of the race/religion etc. of the victims then IMO it should be a hate crime and federalized to give tougher powers of prosecution and hopefully a better chance of the death penalty being applied.
It seems here that some think white victims + black perpetrators or black victims + white perpetrators must = hate crime. Well it may have been a random act and the race of the victims had nothing to do with it.
Kev doesn't like the idea of a special hate crime law, however if such crimes come under federal law then the chances of a fair trial (both ways) and fitting punishment increase.
He also seems to want everyone to think that there is a left wing conspiracy that makes it only a hate crime if the perpetrators are white :rolleyes:
I would be for the death penalty for these people in this case ONLY IF it could be proven they are the ones that did it without a doubt.
I believe traditionally that's how convictions are handed down.
I don't even know if there is a death penalty in Tenn.
I can't imagine any scenario in which they would be found not-guilty(given the current evidence.)
Unless Johnny Cochran gets involved...a not-guilty from beyond the grave might be able to trump the O.J verdict. Imagine the possibilities.
Also, to my knowledge, hate crimes are paltry when compared with overall murders and rapes.
Oh, so, by all means, then...
No, wait - I take that back; I have absolutely no idea what you are attempting to convey, here.
* Whether this is the correct version or whether I should or shouldn't give 2 or even 3 shits, I could or couldn't give a shit. If one struggles with this wording then simply get some pussy to get your mind off grammar. However, If you think that there is something, possibly, in the world that you do give 9 shits about, feel free to use whatever the fuck comes to mind since, if you could or couldn't give a shit, it doesn't fucking matter....now does it? ANSWER ME MOTHERFUCKER!!!. Thanks, and fuck yo mama.
This is what I meant when I said you "wear it on your sleeve".
Think in terms of, say, "don't ask, don't tell"...I don't really think we need to ask, do we? ;)
vidcc
06-06-2007, 01:41 PM
I believe traditionally that's how convictions are handed down.
I don't even know if there is a death penalty in Tenn.
I can't imagine any scenario in which they would be found not-guilty(given the current evidence.)
Unless Johnny Cochran gets involved...a not-guilty from beyond the grave might be able to trump the O.J verdict. Imagine the possibilities.
I think you were answering my last. Convictions are based on "beyond reasonable doubt" and recent event have highlighted the fallibility of this standard.
I'm repeating here but I support death as a punishment in principle, I just don't think our present system is tight enough to ensure only the guilty fry.
Busyman™
06-06-2007, 02:16 PM
Given that polygraphy has no standing in a court of law, how do you propose to divine another's truest "intent" by patently non-scientific means?
You do believe in the scientific approach, don't you, Nigel?
Probably the same way as "attempted" murder is dealt with.
I had that in my post earlier but erased it.
Busyman™
06-06-2007, 02:28 PM
Oh, so, by all means, then...
No, wait - I take that back; I have absolutely no idea what you are attempting to convey, here.
Oh I was wondering why this meant so much to you when it's actually so rare.
* Whether this is the correct version or whether I should or shouldn't give 2 or even 3 shits, I could or couldn't give a shit. If one struggles with this wording then simply get some pussy to get your mind off grammar. However, If you think that there is something, possibly, in the world that you do give 9 shits about, feel free to use whatever the fuck comes to mind since, if you could or couldn't give a shit, it doesn't fucking matter....now does it? ANSWER ME MOTHERFUCKER!!!. Thanks, and fuck yo mama.
This is what I meant when I said you "wear it on your sleeve".
Think in terms of, say, "don't ask, don't tell"...I don't really think we need to ask, do we? ;)
Don't ask what?
MaxOverlord
06-06-2007, 02:40 PM
I believe traditionally that's how convictions are handed down.
I don't even know if there is a death penalty in Tenn.
I can't imagine any scenario in which they would be found not-guilty(given the current evidence.)
Unless Johnny Cochran gets involved...a not-guilty from beyond the grave might be able to trump the O.J verdict. Imagine the possibilities.
I think you were answering my last. Convictions are based on "beyond reasonable doubt" and recent event have highlighted the fallibility of this standard.
I'm repeating here but I support death as a punishment in principle, I just don't think our present system is tight enough to ensure only the guilty fry.
Unless you can remove all instances of humans being fallible than our system will never be tight(as you say) enough to ensure 100% certainty.
All(most)Americans accept and understand the Jury by Peers concept.
This is the most Democratic...is it not?
If your looking for an infallible court system than you've lost before you've started.
I think if your gonna go down the road of "what if" as it pertains to the death penalty your probably better off being against it. Unless of course your convinced...but you see that doesn't matter unless your on the jury.
And even then it might not matter.
It's a tricky situation indeed.
Busyman™
06-06-2007, 02:44 PM
I think you were answering my last. Convictions are based on "beyond reasonable doubt" and recent event have highlighted the fallibility of this standard.
I'm repeating here but I support death as a punishment in principle, I just don't think our present system is tight enough to ensure only the guilty fry.
Unless you can remove all instances of humans being fallible than our system will never be tight(as you say) enough to ensure 100% certainty.
All(most)Americans accept and understand the Jury by Peers concept.
This is the most Democratic...is it not?
If your looking for an infallible court system than you've lost before you've started.
I think if your gonna go down the road of "what if" as it pertains to the death penalty your probably better off being against it. Unless of course your convinced...but you see that doesn't matter unless your on the jury.
And even then it might not matter.
It's a tricky situation indeed.
They are many things that make it 95% infallible like video plus witnesses of the incident.
Being covered in the blood of the victim with the murderers DNA on and in the victim is pretty tight too.
There are other instances.
vidcc
06-06-2007, 03:05 PM
I think you were answering my last. Convictions are based on "beyond reasonable doubt" and recent event have highlighted the fallibility of this standard.
I'm repeating here but I support death as a punishment in principle, I just don't think our present system is tight enough to ensure only the guilty fry.
Unless you can remove all instances of humans being fallible than our system will never be tight(as you say) enough to ensure 100% certainty.
All(most)Americans accept and understand the Jury by Peers concept.
This is the most Democratic...is it not?
If your looking for an infallible court system than you've lost before you've started.
I think if your gonna go down the road of "what if" as it pertains to the death penalty your probably better off being against it. Unless of course your convinced...but you see that doesn't matter unless your on the jury.
And even then it might not matter.
It's a tricky situation indeed.
I'm very well aware of how the system works and its shortcomings which is why I lack confidence in justice being served reliably enough in capital cases.
Here's the point then. (in answer to the boldened)
If we can't prove without a doubt then we shouldn't be applying the death penalty. The innocent should not be wrongly executed because we can't achieve the standard. You may be fine with the chance being taken but I'm guessing that's as long as you or one of your loved ones are not the wrongly convicted person.
I support the death penalty, there are people that deserve to die. What I feel even stronger about is making sure only those people die and it's better to have them rot in prison for life than kill an innocent person.
All(most)Americans accept and understand the Jury by Peers concept.
This is the most Democratic...is it not?
Accepting, understanding and being "the most democratic" do not equal correct or just.
despite your posts I do take it you want things to improve.......right ?
MaxOverlord
06-06-2007, 03:19 PM
Unless you can remove all instances of humans being fallible than our system will never be tight(as you say) enough to ensure 100% certainty.
All(most)Americans accept and understand the Jury by Peers concept.
This is the most Democratic...is it not?
If your looking for an infallible court system than you've lost before you've started.
I think if your gonna go down the road of "what if" as it pertains to the death penalty your probably better off being against it. Unless of course your convinced...but you see that doesn't matter unless your on the jury.
And even then it might not matter.
It's a tricky situation indeed.
I'm very well aware of how the system works and its shortcomings which is why I lack confidence in justice being served reliably enough in capital cases.
Here's the point then. (in answer to the boldened)
If we can't prove without a doubt then we shouldn't be applying the death penalty. The innocent should not be wrongly executed because we can't achieve the standard. You may be fine with the chance being taken but I'm guessing that's as long as you or one of your loved ones are not the wrongly convicted person.
I support the death penalty, there are people that deserve to die. What I feel even stronger about is making sure only those people die and it's better to have them rot in prison for life than kill an innocent person.
All(most)Americans accept and understand the Jury by Peers concept.
This is the most Democratic...is it not?
Accepting, understanding and being "the most democratic" do not equal correct or just.
despite your posts I do take it you want things to improve.......right ?
What in you definition would be right and just?
You can't remove the human element here...that's my main point.
I would be against the death penalty for convicted Islamic Terrorists....because they want to die for Allah.
We're kind of cornered into accepting the trial by your peers set-up.
This system isn't going to be overturned in a Democratic Republic.
Maybe if you could give me some changes you would like to make we could carry this into a deeper discussion. I'm all for that.
vidcc
06-06-2007, 05:02 PM
Conviction is different from sentencing. Beyond reasonable doubt is good enough to convict but not good enough to justify death. No doubt whatsoever is needed before death can be applied.
There are cases where this is achieved, but IMO far too many where it is not.
My definition of right and just is where the margin of error is removed when it comes to sentencing. This is different from convicting.
MaxOverlord
06-07-2007, 05:15 AM
Conviction is different from sentencing. Beyond reasonable doubt is good enough to convict but not good enough to justify death. No doubt whatsoever is needed before death can be applied.
There are cases where this is achieved, but IMO far too many where it is not.
My definition of right and just is where the margin of error is removed when it comes to sentencing. This is different from convicting.
Conviction is different from sentencing,of course.
What sentence is handed down is purely up to the judges discretion(as the law allows) as well as whatever precedence there is for such a sentence.
As far as a sentence for death the precedence would be a moot point having no practical need for discussion..as in...there have been countless death sentences handed down.
Certain situations may warrant certain factorial discussion,but the end is still someone was killed.
If you believe, beyond the reasonable doubt,that someone killed someone what would be the argument for not handing down a death sentence other than the insanity plea..which is almost impossible to prove in our modern court system,and as I've said earlier, when they want to die for Allah.
As you've said before some have been executed who were indeed innocent..I don't refute that.
But it is an accepted rule in our society that you go before a jury of your peers and they have the power of conviction.
I'm not quite sure how there could be a better way. As j2k4 stated... polygraphs are inadmissible in court.
Again, the human element is at play always.
You can either accept that or find some Utopian scenario which in the end will leave far more unsatisfied and angry than the current system.
That and in such a system the Gov. would undoubtedly have complete control and that is tantamount to a very,very,dangerous situation.
You can either accept that or find some Utopian scenario which in the end will leave far more unsatisfied and angry than the current system.
Excellent point.
All liberals subscribe to the Utopian ideal of human perfectibility and the infallibility of their ideological compass.
They hold no faith with the historical record, obviously.
All liberals subscribe to the Utopian ideal of human perfectibility and the infallibility of their ideological compass.
O rly.
I thought it was about freedom of choice, individualism, the right to disagree, the right to own your own stuff, and Keynesian economics or something like that.
Maybe it's just the ones you've met that are inflexible, like :unsure:
TBH, I don't see what's wrong with saying that the current system is flawed, tho'. "It's the best one we could come up with" really doesn't fly as an argument to keep it if it means that the wrong people have to die now and then.
vidcc
06-07-2007, 12:33 PM
Conviction is different from sentencing,of course.
What sentence is handed down is purely up to the judges discretion(as the law allows) as well as whatever precedence there is for such a sentence.
As far as a sentence for death the precedence would be a moot point having no practical need for discussion..as in...there have been countless death sentences handed down.
Certain situations may warrant certain factorial discussion,but the end is still someone was killed.
If you believe, beyond the reasonable doubt,that someone killed someone what would be the argument for not handing down a death sentence other than the insanity plea..which is almost impossible to prove in our modern court system,and as I've said earlier, when they want to die for Allah.
As you've said before some have been executed who were indeed innocent..I don't refute that.
But it is an accepted rule in our society that you go before a jury of your peers and they have the power of conviction.
I'm not quite sure how there could be a better way. As j2k4 stated... polygraphs are inadmissible in court.
Again, the human element is at play always.
You can either accept that or find some Utopian scenario which in the end will leave far more unsatisfied and angry than the current system.
That and in such a system the Gov. would undoubtedly have complete control and that is tantamount to a very,very,dangerous situation.
You seem to be missing the point. (and rambling off )
Precedent is not the point.
The point is the standard of proof is not good enough in many cases to justify applying the death penalty. That the death penalty has been applied in such cases before is irrelevant.
Death should only be handed out where there is no doubt at all, and even then there should be an exhaustive safety net. It's that simple. Where there can be any doubt whatsoever (no matter how small or insignificant) then life without parole should be the option.
If you feel this cannot be achieved then the best we can do is to remove the death penalty as an option.
All liberals subscribe to the Utopian ideal of human perfectibility and the infallibility of their ideological compass.
O rly.
I thought it was about freedom of choice, individualism, the right to disagree, the right to own your own stuff, and Keynesian economics or something like that.
Maybe it's just the ones you've met that are inflexible, like :unsure:
TBH, I don't see what's wrong with saying that the current system is flawed, tho'. "It's the best one we could come up with" really doesn't fly as an argument to keep it if it means that the wrong people have to die now and then.
This part-
"the current system is flawed, tho'. "It's the best one we could come up with" really doesn't fly as an argument to keep"
-should go without saying, and, in our past arguments here, it has.
Point is, the liberals would have you believe that merely sentencing someone to death goes automatically into the potentially "wrongfully convicted" column, and therefore qualify for statistical inclusion as "at risk".
The fact is that, every once in a while, someone comes off death row because they've been exonerated.
These people do not count as wrongs of the system; rather, they are successes, as the system's (admittedly) cumbersome appeals process has worked.
There is no cause for counting "close calls", which are, to reinforce my point, more properly attributable to the imperfect humans who failed to exercise the system in the first place.
I will, at this point, ask that anyone so compelled furnish the history of wrongful executions they purport to amend.
I took a pretty comprehensive look at this question several years ago and found no basis for the argument, but hey...feel free. :whistling
Busyman™
06-08-2007, 12:38 AM
O rly.
I thought it was about freedom of choice, individualism, the right to disagree, the right to own your own stuff, and Keynesian economics or something like that.
Maybe it's just the ones you've met that are inflexible, like :unsure:
TBH, I don't see what's wrong with saying that the current system is flawed, tho'. "It's the best one we could come up with" really doesn't fly as an argument to keep it if it means that the wrong people have to die now and then.
This part-
"the current system is flawed, tho'. "It's the best one we could come up with" really doesn't fly as an argument to keep"
-should go without saying, and, in our past arguments here, it has.
Point is, the liberals would have you believe that merely sentencing someone to death goes automatically into the potentially "wrongfully convicted" column, and therefore qualify for statistical inclusion as "at risk".
The fact is that, every once in a while, someone comes off death row because they've been exonerated.
These people do not count as wrongs of the system; rather, they are successes, as the system's (admittedly) cumbersome appeals process has worked.
There is no cause for counting "close calls", which are, to reinforce my point, more properly attributable to the imperfect humans who failed to exercise the system in the first place.
I will, at this point, ask that anyone so compelled furnish the history of wrongful executions they purport to amend.
I took a pretty comprehensive look at this question several years ago and found no basis for the argument, but hey...feel free. :whistling
Not much argument from me there. However, what do you mean by "imperfect humans who failed to exercise the system in the first place"?
I think close calls should be counted. Hell a system that exonerates a man that spent 15 years of a life sentence in prison still failed but rectified the situation with freedom for the man. Keep in mind, the system rectified the rest of prison term and not time served....not even with money (which happens sometimes).
vidcc
06-08-2007, 01:01 AM
I'm wondering, this being the USA and all where the best representation comes at a cost very few can afford (not to belittle the efforts of defense attorneys) how many investigations continue or reviews allowed after the execution has taken place.
The DNA testing is a helpful tool but sometimes DNA is not the path to proof of innocence.
I guess one has to be an aide to the VP for innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence to be believed.
http://www.justicedenied.org/executed.htm
Sometimes it's a case of:
"he slept with a sheep"
"no he didn't"
"they said he did, I believe them, so until you prove he didn't he goes on death row"
what do you mean by "imperfect humans who failed to exercise the system in the first place"?
The system is administered by humans, is it not?
Have you, in your personal experience, found any humans you would describe as "perfect"?
It should go without saying that a "perfect" system would reach the correct conclusion every time, would it not?
Do you really need me to ask you any more questions about this?
I think close calls should be counted. Hell a system that exonerates a man that spent 15 years of a life sentence in prison still failed but rectified the situation with freedom for the man. Keep in mind, the system rectified the rest of prison term and not time served....not even with money (which happens sometimes).
I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?
If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.
The point remains:
People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.
I guess one has to be an aide to the VP for innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence to be believed.
Now, that doesn't even make any sense, Nigel.
Please back up your silly sentence with logic and resubmit.
Start with the crime Pat Fitzgerald set about investigating, then tell us how the million-pound shit hammer falls on Libby when it should have fallen on Richard Armitage, please, there's a good lad. :)
"they said he did, I believe them, so until you prove he didn't he goes on death row"
So it's not the "death" part of the formulation you object to, it's where the detention occurs? :huh:
Wow.
You really are incredibly liberal, aren't you.
Busyman™
06-08-2007, 01:26 PM
The system is administered by humans, is it not?
Have you, in your personal experience, found any humans you would describe as "perfect"?
It should go without saying that a "perfect" system would reach the correct conclusion every time, would it not?
Do you really need me to ask you any more questions about this?
First off don't talk down to me when your wording is all fucked. The imperfect humans don't necessariy "fail" to exercise the system. That makes it sound like the system already in place is perfect but the imperfect humans failed to utilize it properly.
What if there's is something wrong with the system?
What if our system was "guilty until proven innocent"? Would your statement make sense? Your statement leaves no room for improvement of the system itself. People are simply fucking up left and right trying to follow it.
I think close calls should be counted. Hell a system that exonerates a man that spent 15 years of a life sentence in prison still failed but rectified the situation with freedom for the man. Keep in mind, the system rectified the rest of prison term and not time served....not even with money (which happens sometimes).
I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?
If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.
The point remains:
People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.
DNA evidence has made it better. The argument is that is not perfect therefore is should be eliminated. The fact that there have been close calls would lead to the question that if it got that far, aren't there are some that make it to death undeservedly.
The situation of a person being put to death leaves no room for that situation to be rectified where a person serving a life sentence can at least have the rest of his life.
Either way, you are talking down to the wrong person since I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty but I at least see the other side point as making sense.
Not one innocent person should be put to death. The clock cannot be turned back
The system is administered by humans, is it not?
Have you, in your personal experience, found any humans you would describe as "perfect"?
It should go without saying that a "perfect" system would reach the correct conclusion every time, would it not?
Do you really need me to ask you any more questions about this?
First off don't talk down to me when your wording is all fucked. The imperfect humans don't necessariy "fail" to exercise the system. That makes it sound like the system already in place is perfect but the imperfect humans failed to utilize it properly.
Don't talk down to you?
Put a bit more effort into your reading, then - my post was perfectly clear.
Now-
As to your last, it is you who inserted the tidbit about the system's being perfect, not me.
If you draw that conclusion based on my post, again: read more carefully.
My point was that imperfect humans failed to exercise the system (however imperfect it may be) to the fullest extent.
What if there's is something wrong with the system?
What if there is?
Wouldn't it be prudent to clearly define what is wrong?
What if our system was "guilty until proven innocent"?
But it isn't, you see.
Your statement leaves no room for improvement of the system itself. People are simply fucking up left and right trying to follow it.[/COLOR]
The system might be improved; agreed.
The question is how to go about it.
I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?
If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.
The point remains:
People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.
DNA evidence has made it better. The argument is that is not perfect therefore is should be eliminated. The fact that there have been close calls would lead to the question that if it got that far, aren't there are some that make it to death undeservedly.
Prepare yourself - I am about to speak down to you again:
CLOSE CALLS DO NOT RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE WRONGLY INCARCERATED PERSON AND ARE THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN YOUR ARGUMENT.
WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED CIVILLY, AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PROPER COMPENSATION, THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER.
[The situation of a person being put to death leaves no room for that situation to be rectified where a person serving a life sentence can at least have the rest of his life.
Have you been paying any attention at all (at all).
[Either way, you are talking down to the wrong person since I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty but I at least see the other side point as making sense.
If you say so, but please learn a bit more about the issue before you attempt to argue either side.
[Not one innocent person should be put to death. The clock cannot be turned back
I refer you to my previous post.
Give us a comprehensive accounting of lives wrongly taken in service of the death penalty, and quit playing "What if...".
vidcc
06-08-2007, 07:08 PM
I guess one has to be an aide to the VP for innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence to be believed.
Now, that doesn't even make any sense, Nigel.
Please back up your silly sentence with logic and resubmit.
Start with the crime Pat Fitzgerald set about investigating, then tell us how the million-pound shit hammer falls on Libby when it should have fallen on Richard Armitage, please, there's a good lad. :)
LIbby was convicted of perjury which obstructed the investigation. (wasn't that what you wanted Clinton impeached for? ) Not the outing of a covert agent. Even a wingnut like yourself should understand that. (BTW like it or not it has been officially confirmed she was covert)
Please explain what the F@#k his conviction has to do with crimes others may or may not have committed.
Is that a good enough start?
secondly he was convicted yet you wingnuts think him innocent based on what you call "no underlying crime". He lied, he obstructed the investigation. The fact that the investigation couldn't bring a prosecution because it couldn't be proven it was a deliberate act is irrelevant to the charges against libby.
"they said he did, I believe them, so until you prove he didn't he goes on death row"
So it's not the "death" part of the formulation you object to, it's where the detention occurs? :huh:
Wow.
You really are incredibly liberal, aren't you.
would it make you happier if I had put "they said he did, I believe them, so unless you prove he didn't before we execute him he is going to be executed" :rolleyes:
Busyman™
06-08-2007, 07:14 PM
First off don't talk down to me when your wording is all fucked. The imperfect humans don't necessariy "fail" to exercise the system. That makes it sound like the system already in place is perfect but the imperfect humans failed to utilize it properly.
Don't talk down to you?
Put a bit more effort into your reading, then - my post was perfectly clear.
Now-
As to your last, it is you who inserted the tidbit about the system's being perfect, not me.
If you draw that conclusion based on my post, again: read more carefully.
My point was that imperfect humans failed to exercise the system (however imperfect it may be) to the fullest extent.
That's an assinine statement. It always means the people fucked up and it's never the fault of the system itself. Adding the "however imperfect" part is talking in circles. If the system has great flaws then it can utilized in all it's fullness but it's still....fucked up.
What if there's is something wrong with the system?
What if there is?
Wouldn't it be prudent to clearly define what is wrong?
What if our system was "guilty until proven innocent"?
But it isn't, you see.
Your statement leaves no room for improvement of the system itself. People are simply fucking up left and right trying to follow it.[/COLOR]
The system might be improved; agreed.
The question is how to go about it.
Might be improved? Is this necessary? If so why not scrap the death penalty in the meantime?
I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?
If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.
The point remains:
People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.
DNA evidence has made it better. The argument is that is not perfect therefore is should be eliminated. The fact that there have been close calls would lead to the question that if it got that far, aren't there are some that make it to death undeservedly.
Prepare yourself - I am about to speak down to you again:
CLOSE CALLS DO NOT RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE WRONGLY INCARCERATED PERSON AND ARE THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN YOUR ARGUMENT.
WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED CIVILLY, AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PROPER COMPENSATION, THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER.
So the system works then. In wrongful death, they are dead so fuck it. Oh, and that's not talking down
[The situation of a person being put to death leaves no room for that situation to be rectified where a person serving a life sentence can at least have the rest of his life.
Have you been paying any attention at all (at all).
That's talking down.
[Either way, you are talking down to the wrong person since I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty but I at least see the other side point as making sense.
If you say so, but please learn a bit more about the issue before you attempt to argue either side.
...and again.
[Not one innocent person should be put to death. The clock cannot be turned back
I refer you to my previous post.
Give us a comprehensive accounting of lives wrongly taken in service of the death penalty, and quit playing "What if...".
Oh I know where you are going (or went with this).
Since no one has a proper of accounting of lives wrongly taken then leave the system be. It works.:crazy:
One must always deal with what ifs, j2. It's the legal system ffs.
Don't talk down to you?
Put a bit more effort into your reading, then - my post was perfectly clear.
Now-
As to your last, it is you who inserted the tidbit about the system's being perfect, not me.
If you draw that conclusion based on my post, again: read more carefully.
My point was that imperfect humans failed to exercise the system (however imperfect it may be) to the fullest extent.
That's an assinine statement. It always means the people fucked up and it's never the fault of the system itself. Adding the "however imperfect" part is talking in circles. If the system has great flaws then it can utilized in all it's fullness but it's still....fucked up.
What if there's is something wrong with the system?
What if there is?
Wouldn't it be prudent to clearly define what is wrong?
What if our system was "guilty until proven innocent"?
But it isn't, you see.
Your statement leaves no room for improvement of the system itself. People are simply fucking up left and right trying to follow it.[/COLOR]
The system might be improved; agreed.
The question is how to go about it.
Might be improved? Is this necessary? If so why not scrap the death penalty in the meantime?
I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?
If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.
The point remains:
People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.
DNA evidence has made it better. The argument is that is not perfect therefore is should be eliminated. The fact that there have been close calls would lead to the question that if it got that far, aren't there are some that make it to death undeservedly.
Prepare yourself - I am about to speak down to you again:
CLOSE CALLS DO NOT RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE WRONGLY INCARCERATED PERSON AND ARE THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN YOUR ARGUMENT.
WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED CIVILLY, AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PROPER COMPENSATION, THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER.
So the system works then. In wrongful death, they are dead so fuck it. Oh, and that's not talking down
[The situation of a person being put to death leaves no room for that situation to be rectified where a person serving a life sentence can at least have the rest of his life.
Have you been paying any attention at all (at all).
That's talking down.
[Either way, you are talking down to the wrong person since I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty but I at least see the other side point as making sense.
If you say so, but please learn a bit more about the issue before you attempt to argue either side.
...and again.
[Not one innocent person should be put to death. The clock cannot be turned back
I refer you to my previous post.
Give us a comprehensive accounting of lives wrongly taken in service of the death penalty, and quit playing "What if...".
Oh I know where you are going (or went with this).
Since no one has a proper of accounting of lives wrongly taken then leave the system be. It works.:crazy:
One must always deal with what ifs, j2. It's the legal system ffs.
Question:
Given your unwillingness to countenance the death penalty in theory, how can you ( in any situation) say that "I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty"?
Do you believe in your argument or not?
LIbby was convicted of perjury which obstructed the investigation. (wasn't that what you wanted Clinton impeached for? ) Not the outing of a covert agent. Even a wingnut like yourself should understand that. (BTW like it or not it has been officially confirmed she was covert)
Please explain what the F@#k his conviction has to do with crimes others may or may not have committed.
Is that a good enough start?
secondly he was convicted yet you wingnuts think him innocent based on what you call "no underlying crime". He lied, he obstructed the investigation. The fact that the investigation couldn't bring a prosecution because it couldn't be proven it was a deliberate act is irrelevant to the charges against libby.
Okay, try to follow me here:
Pat Fitzgerald instituted an investigation to determine who leaked Ms. Plame's identity, causing her CIA "cover" to be blown (more about that later).
After much hoopla and hullabaloo, Scooter Libby is charged as a perjurer over testimony he provided to the Grand Jury.
Meantime, Richard Armitage (no friend to the administration, and certainly no fan of the Iraq war) publicly admits he was the primary offender in the affair, yet Fitzgerald (strangely) has no problem with the fact...it further develops Fitzgerald had that information in hand at the outset of the investigation, well before Libby was even called to provide his peripheral testimony.
Let me reiterate that for you: Fitzgerald had information in hand before he started the investigation that negated the need to investigate anything.
End result:
Armitage=the guilty party=no penalty; not even a slap on the wrist - reputation intact.
Libby=caught in an investigation that need not have even taken place=30 months in prison, reputation ruined.
Plame=CIA says she was an agent at the time of Armitage's "slip", yet her husband, Joe Wilson, says she had not been covert since approximately 1996, during the Clinton administration.
The rest of the Bush administration - Cheney, Rove, et. al.= conspiracy-free, by Fitgerald's reckoning.
You're right, by the way; Libby's conviction has naught to do with the crimes of others...why, then, did you bring it up?
Would you like to have a hand at defending Sandy Burglar, while we're at it?
vidcc
06-08-2007, 09:50 PM
Okay, try to follow me here:
Pat Fitzgerald instituted an investigation to determine who leaked Ms. Plame's identity, causing her CIA "cover" to be blown (more about that later).
After much hoopla and hullabaloo, Scooter Libby is charged as a perjurer over testimony he provided to the Grand Jury.
Meantime, Richard Armitage (no friend to the administration, and certainly no fan of the Iraq war) publicly admits he was the primary offender in the affair, yet Fitzgerald (strangely) has no problem with the fact...it further develops Fitzgerald had that information in hand at the outset of the investigation, well before Libby was even called to provide his peripheral testimony.
Let me reiterate that for you: Fitzgerald had information in hand before he started the investigation that negated the need to investigate anything.
End result:
Armitage=the guilty party=no penalty; not even a slap on the wrist - reputation intact.
Libby=caught in an investigation that need not have even taken place=30 months in prison, reputation ruined.
Plame=CIA says she was an agent at the time of Armitage's "slip", yet her husband, Joe Wilson, says she had not been covert since approximately 1996, during the Clinton administration.
The rest of the Bush administration - Cheney, Rove, et. al.= conspiracy-free, by Fitgerald's reckoning.
So what? None of it has to do with what libby is convicted of. All you have done is put in more words the daily talking point memo you got in your republican email "no underlying crime."
It doesn't matter that you don't want republicans investigated don't think the investigation should have continued. Fact is it did. And like it or not Libby still lied and no matter what you think of the investigation continuing this does not excuse him. It doesn't matter if you think an investigation should have continued or should even have started, one still has to tell the truth.
Why is this so hard for you wingnuts to understand?
BTW Armitage, Rove and Libby all did leak the name, this is on record. It doesn't matter who did it first. You pointed out that Armitage has not been indicted for this. Well think about this...................neither have Rove or Libby.
We were debating prosecutions, surely you expect any investigation to exhaust itself to make sure all that can be known is....right....Fitzgerald was doing just that. Apparently you are for sloppy half hearted investigations that don't confirm the findings but instead rely on first thoughts.
Would you like to have a hand at defending Sandy Burglar, while we're at it?
Why? he did what he did. If you feel he got off lightly take it up with the judge.
So what? None of it has to do with what libby is convicted of. All you have done is put in more words the daily talking point memo you got in your republican email "no underlying crime."
It doesn't matter that you don't want republicans investigated don't think the investigation should have continued. Fact is it did. And like it or not Libby still lied and no matter what you think of the investigation continuing this does not excuse him. It doesn't matter if you think an investigation should have continued or should even have started, one still has to tell the truth.
Why is this so hard for you wingnuts to understand?
Wrong.
If "one" (Armitage) is never questioned by the Grand Jury, he doesn't even have to lie.
Do you realize that you are advocating the commission of crimes by democrats (Armitage) for the specific purpose of ensnaring republicans while ignoring the offense committed by the democrat (Armitage is acknowledged to have been the original leaker and responsible party, ergo he should have been at the front of the line)?
BTW Armitage, Rove and Libby all did leak the name, this is on record. It doesn't matter who did it first. You pointed out that Armitage has not been indicted for this. Well think about this...................neither have Rove or Libby.
The guy who leaks it first is "THE" leaker, and that was Armitage.
Sorry.
We were debating prosecutions, surely you expect any investigation to exhaust itself to make sure all that can be known is....right....Fitzgerald was doing just that. Apparently you are for sloppy half hearted investigations that don't confirm the findings but instead rely on first thoughts.
And you are willing to so describe an investigation that didn't nail the perpetrator, settling instead for a mere bystander?
Would you like to have a hand at defending Sandy Burglar, while we're at it?
Why? he did what he did. If you feel he got off lightly take it up with the judge.
Hmmm.
Now who's making excuses?
BTW-
Why are you calling me a "wingnut"?
Golly gee - compared to you, Busyman is William-fucking-Shakespeare.
You still haven't told why you brought up Libby to begin with, Nigel. :frusty:
Busyman™
06-08-2007, 10:49 PM
Don't talk down to you?
Put a bit more effort into your reading, then - my post was perfectly clear.
Now-
As to your last, it is you who inserted the tidbit about the system's being perfect, not me.
If you draw that conclusion based on my post, again: read more carefully.
My point was that imperfect humans failed to exercise the system (however imperfect it may be) to the fullest extent.
That's an assinine statement. It always means the people fucked up and it's never the fault of the system itself. Adding the "however imperfect" part is talking in circles. If the system has great flaws then it can utilized in all it's fullness but it's still....fucked up.
What if there is?
Wouldn't it be prudent to clearly define what is wrong?
What if our system was "guilty until proven innocent"?
But it isn't, you see.
Your statement leaves no room for improvement of the system itself. People are simply fucking up left and right trying to follow it.[/COLOR]
The system might be improved; agreed.
The question is how to go about it.
Might be improved? Is this necessary? If so why not scrap the death penalty in the meantime?
I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?
If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.
The point remains:
People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.
DNA evidence has made it better. The argument is that is not perfect therefore is should be eliminated. The fact that there have been close calls would lead to the question that if it got that far, aren't there are some that make it to death undeservedly.
Prepare yourself - I am about to speak down to you again:
CLOSE CALLS DO NOT RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE WRONGLY INCARCERATED PERSON AND ARE THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN YOUR ARGUMENT.
WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED CIVILLY, AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PROPER COMPENSATION, THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER.
So the system works then. In wrongful death, they are dead so fuck it. Oh, and that's not talking down
[The situation of a person being put to death leaves no room for that situation to be rectified where a person serving a life sentence can at least have the rest of his life.
Have you been paying any attention at all (at all).
That's talking down.
[Either way, you are talking down to the wrong person since I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty but I at least see the other side point as making sense.
If you say so, but please learn a bit more about the issue before you attempt to argue either side.
...and again.
[Not one innocent person should be put to death. The clock cannot be turned back
I refer you to my previous post.
Give us a comprehensive accounting of lives wrongly taken in service of the death penalty, and quit playing "What if...".
Oh I know where you are going (or went with this).
Since no one has a proper of accounting of lives wrongly taken then leave the system be. It works.:crazy:
One must always deal with what ifs, j2. It's the legal system ffs.
Question:
Given your unwillingness to countenance the death penalty in theory, how can you ( in any situation) say that "I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty"?
Do you believe in your argument or not?
It means I have my reservations.
But it isn't, you see.
Your statement leaves no room for improvement of the system itself. People are simply fucking up left and right trying to follow it.[/COLOR]
The system might be improved; agreed.
The question is how to go about it.
Might be improved? Is this necessary? If so why not scrap the death penalty in the meantime?
I'm truly sorry to burst your bubble, but how do you go about making a case that wrongful imprisonment (it happens) equates to an endictment of the death penalty?
If you've been paying attention at all (at all) you should have noticed that all sorts of sentences have been commuted over DNA or other evidence.
The point remains:
People who've been exonerated do not die, and that is what we are talking about; wishing it were otherwise will not make it so.
DNA evidence has made it better. The argument is that is not perfect therefore is should be eliminated. The fact that there have been close calls would lead to the question that if it got that far, aren't there are some that make it to death undeservedly.
Prepare yourself - I am about to speak down to you again:
CLOSE CALLS DO NOT RESULT IN THE DEATH OF THE WRONGLY INCARCERATED PERSON AND ARE THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR INCLUSION IN YOUR ARGUMENT.
WRONGFUL IMPRISONMENT CAN BE ADDRESSED CIVILLY, AND IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PROPER COMPENSATION, THAT IS ANOTHER MATTER.
So the system works then. In wrongful death, they are dead so fuck it. Oh, and that's not talking down
[The situation of a person being put to death leaves no room for that situation to be rectified where a person serving a life sentence can at least have the rest of his life.
Have you been paying any attention at all (at all).
That's talking down.
[Either way, you are talking down to the wrong person since I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty but I at least see the other side point as making sense.
If you say so, but please learn a bit more about the issue before you attempt to argue either side.
...and again.
[Not one innocent person should be put to death. The clock cannot be turned back
I refer you to my previous post.
Give us a comprehensive accounting of lives wrongly taken in service of the death penalty, and quit playing "What if...".
Oh I know where you are going (or went with this).
Since no one has a proper of accounting of lives wrongly taken then leave the system be. It works.:crazy:
One must always deal with what ifs, j2. It's the legal system ffs.
Question:
Given your unwillingness to countenance the death penalty in theory, how can you ( in any situation) say that "I'm pretty much ok with the death penalty"?
Do you believe in your argument or not?
It means I have my reservations.
Listen-
I have reservations of my own, but not about the efficacy of putting someone who is positively guilty out of our mutual misery.
I am not sanguine about sloppy judicial proceedings that result in wrongful incarceration, but-
The problem is not with a procedure that says innocent-until-proven-guilty, it is with the flaws of the humans charged with it's administration.
Competence, in other words; rich man's lawyer/poor man's lawyer - you know what I mean.
There is, however, the occasional supremely, clearly, and/or self-admittedly guilty person.
No problem there.
Your mistake is proffering time spent on death row is worse than time spent doing "life" to an extent that the fact alone is worth tossing the death penalty...at least until you solidly document the wrongful deaths, which you correctly indicate are irretrievable; in such cases, however, you can bet some enterprising lawyer in search of a stray dollar will volunteer to test the DNA for free, and if he/she ever gets the desired result, you'll hear about it.
In the meantime, however...
vidcc
06-08-2007, 11:55 PM
Wrong.
If "one" (Armitage) is never questioned by the Grand Jury, he doesn't even have to lie.
Do you realize that you are advocating the commission of crimes by democrats (Armitage) for the specific purpose of ensnaring republicans while ignoring the offense committed by the democrat (Armitage is acknowledged to have been the original leaker and responsible party, ergo he should have been at the front of the line)?
BTW Armitage, Rove and Libby all did leak the name, this is on record. It doesn't matter who did it first. You pointed out that Armitage has not been indicted for this. Well think about this...................neither have Rove or Libby.
The guy who leaks it first is "THE" leaker, and that was Armitage.
Sorry.
Firstly, don't complain again if I quote your words, I have not altered what you have said.
Secondly, I don't care that Armatage is a democrat or Libby is a republican, that's something you care about.
Thirdly, you make the argument a 5 year old makes. "He did it first" doesn't cut it.....sorry..... they all still leaked the name....the phrase is "multiple leakers"
We were debating prosecutions, surely you expect any investigation to exhaust itself to make sure all that can be known is....right....Fitzgerald was doing just that. Apparently you are for sloppy half hearted investigations that don't confirm the findings but instead rely on first thoughts.
And you are willing to so describe an investigation that didn't nail the perpetrator, settling instead for a mere bystander?
No.
The investigation closed early IMO.
IMO they all should have been charged, but the law is that it has to be intentional, which is almost impossible to prove. Fitz can prove they outed her, he couldn't prove they knowingly outed her. (have you considered that it may have been impossible to prove because of the lies?)
But the case not having been completed has no relevance to the bystander "being nailed". He wasn't nailed for the case being investigated, he was nailed for committing a crime while the case was being investigated.
Would you like to have a hand at defending Sandy Burglar, while we're at it?
Why? he did what he did. If you feel he got off lightly take it up with the judge.
Hmmm.
Now who's making excuses?
Excuses????? for what????? I said he did what he did, What am I excusing?
BTW-
Why are you calling me a "wingnut"?
Golly gee - compared to you, Busyman is William-fucking-Shakespeare.
Probably for the same reason you feel you need to keep calling me a liberal. Your opinions don't point to you being a conservative from where I am standing (sitting actually), even if you think they do. The do however point to you being a right wing partisan
You still haven't told why you brought up Libby to begin with, Nigel. :frusty:
I brought libby up because contrary to the evidence of his guilt the wingnuts are claiming him innocent, without being able to prove it (other than unconnected conspiracy theories). We were talking about standard of proof required to be sentenced to death and the view given that the system is sound enough already to give the sentence. Sometimes the innocent can't prove it. would you accept the word of those people?
vidcc
06-09-2007, 08:29 PM
The judge in the libby trial had an interesting footnote in the court order he issued allowing 12 top lawyers, including Robert Bork to issue briefs on Libby’s behalf.
It is an impressive show of public service when twelve prominent and distinguished current and former law professors of well-respected schools are able to amass their collective wisdom in the course of only several days to provide their legal expertise to the Court on behalf of a criminal defendant.
The Court trusts that this is a reflection of these eminent academics’ willingness in the future to step to the plate and provide like assistance in cases involving any of the numerous litigants, both in this Court and throughout the courts of our nation, who lack the financial means to fully and properly articulate the merits of their legal positions even in instances where failure to do so could result in monetary penalties, incarceration, or worse. The Court will certainly not hesitate to call for such assistance from these luminaries, as necessary in the interests of justice and equity, whenever similar questions arise in the cases that come before it.
source (copy of the order) (http://thenexthurrah.typepad.com/the_next_hurrah/files/070608_reggie_on_amicus.pdf)
assuming this is genuine it's a nice comment.:shifty:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.