|
Post by snidery on Mar 14, 2012 22:10:01 GMT -6
Yes, Mark Byers, that's his name. Yet, I suppose there's no crime in being a mental case creepy weird looking dude, otherwise half the senate would be gone.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 14, 2012 22:07:23 GMT -6
I would never accuse you, Mr Broker, I was referring to whoever wrote the piece (unless, of course, that's you....)
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 14, 2012 3:07:44 GMT -6
I think this must be wishful thinking on somebody's part as the link doesn't work.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 13, 2012 17:53:25 GMT -6
I dont think I'd like to push the envelope, sir, all the same! All respect. (Also, I have a very lot of work to avoid,
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 13, 2012 17:38:25 GMT -6
Wouldn't dream of spoiling your evening, sir. Cheers!
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 13, 2012 16:07:47 GMT -6
One question, please? How accurate or detailed has the word "arms" been defined? Are you allowed to carry automatic weapons? Bazookas, thermo-nuclear devices? Just asking.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 12, 2012 19:31:30 GMT -6
Yes, I see where you are coming from, thanks. It's the "right" to bear the arms that's important rather than bearing the "arms" themselves. All respect.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 12, 2012 17:52:54 GMT -6
(I forgot about snakes)
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 12, 2012 16:23:58 GMT -6
You have certainly spoilt my day.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 11, 2012 23:29:57 GMT -6
Ah, yes, the French, the nasally, height-challenged French - inventor of the fries, Toulouse Lautrec and the leaning tower of Eiffel. The French - who have only ever won one war - because of the competition - yes, their civil war - off with his head, Jacques, me lad, he's too tall to be French! The French, reduced to feed upon garden pests - the snails, frogs and most probably those little antennae thingies that slugs have. Only of any worth due to the invention of kisses (French kiss), egg on toast (French toast) and condoms (French letters - or was that lettuce?) They seem to all be obsessed with gardening and talking in outrageous accents. Vivants grenouilles! Burn some sense into them, I say. What I wonder is, if a Frenchman gets punched in the stomach, do they go, "EGG!"?
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 11, 2012 23:20:22 GMT -6
Or stabbed in the eyeball..... twice!
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 11, 2012 23:03:21 GMT -6
Agreed - WhiteDiamondLady 1: Snide 1, we'll call it a draw, huh? [As a personal aside, your avatar photo, surely you coulda picked a better background, like the ocean or a green field, etc. Sitting in the gutter is unbecoming and may lead to hemerrh, haemerrhhh, piles!]
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 11, 2012 22:45:43 GMT -6
Yes, we Australians will attack you with our moral majority! Beware, Mr Life, for the rain of a thousand insults shall beset your land from afar! There shall be taunting and insults a-plenty, the amount of people in this country that weild the Bic biro would astound you. Be afraid, be very afraid - the pen is mightier than the sword and a whole lot more prevalent these days, however, pales into insignificance compared to a turret mounted anti-tank gun, for example!
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 11, 2012 21:33:05 GMT -6
I dont disagree with you Mr Half, your conviction in protecting your family is the same as mine. I only think that if you didnt have guns in the US (barring the army and police) there would be far less homicides and far less spur of the moment deaths. A gun is very unforgiving.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 11, 2012 21:24:40 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 11, 2012 21:18:35 GMT -6
No, diamond lady, that would be too nice. Should paint him black, put a turban on him and put him in with Troy Kell - he'll stab him in the eye, don't you worry about that! Boiled alive would be permissable, or death by a 1,000 cuts (including the eyeball), being forced to eat lizard gizzards whilst having their eyeballs removed with a blunt Phillips-head screwdriver attachment on a battery powered drill with very little charge left. How about getting him to play leap-frog with a rhino? Or, the ant one! Yeah, the ant one... y'know, where Clint Eastwood stakes 'em out on the ground (could be in a shopping mall for viewing pleasure) and pours marmalade over their... Anyway. I note you've taken exception to a turn of phrase of mine, "Stabbing in the eyeball"? I agree it does conjure up a nasty thought. Colourful language, eh? I have a huge grasp of the English language and include amongst my weaponry the words snot, phlegm, rissole, pus, and menstruation. Can't get much nastier than that? [Sorry, I'm having a bad no-hair day today - but Briley Piper should still cop a nasty in my book.]
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 11, 2012 20:29:24 GMT -6
I hope it's extremely painful. This bloke is a very nasty piece of work. Him, Page and Hoadley spent hours torturing Chester in the snow. They deserve worse.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 11, 2012 20:13:30 GMT -6
Although I'm listening, I dont agree. Guns are only designed, created and produced for one purpose - to kill. When you buy a gun in reality you increase the chance that you will kill someone (based on your own word "tool", you cant dig a hole without a shovel). In reality, the actual purchase of a gun reflects the premeditated act of killing someone. Guns only kill - you buy a gun - you have the tool with which to kill, whether you use it or not. A knife, however, can make a pretty nifty sammich, yes? I have no qualms or reservations regarding the army or police having guns - as their playing field includes such things as death, loonies, fanatics, assassins, Lyndsay Lohan, etc. Can't see a rogue Taliban knocking on my door in downtown Port Stephens in the near future, at least not without prior warning. All I'm saying is you shouldn't need a gun to ward off Mr Burglar, a nice 2 iron or the threat of waking my missus up would scare any poor burglar. If Tommy Jefferson were alive today, he'd probably say, look, I was wrong, you dont need a gun no more, the Indians are all on their reservations (although I have my reservations on that issue) and all the grizzly bears are rugs on Mr Monty Burns lobby floor. If you guys came to Australia, you'd need a gun for the mossies, a gun for the spiders, a gun for the sharks, a gun for the box jellyfish, a gun for the blue-ringed octopod, a gun for Bob Katter, etc, ad nauseum. Please read the following out loud: You dont need a gun! If you're worried about an invasion, I think the threat of dropping a nuke on the offending party would suffice - despite it taking two to wake the Japanese into submission (remember that one - WWII?). The only reason you need guns is paranoia. Guns make you no safer in your own home than a size 12 pair of boots at your front door, especially when you have such nifty gadgets as tasers - eh? Don't taze me, bro! Zap! How's them apples, Mr lefty uni student? Bwahaha.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 11, 2012 16:06:40 GMT -6
I dont believe in guns - if you cannot be safe in your home, then it is the system that is flawed rather than the issue that guns have given a sense of security. You shouldn't have to kill to protect your family. All guns should be licenced and NO-ONE should have autmoatic guns - an AK-47 to kill a rogue bear? This is not Daniel Boone, this is not Scarface, this is not Predator - this is just warfare in the burbs. Guns give power to those who shouln't have power. Look what you did to JFK - that's not a very democratic way to get rid of the head of state - if it were, Julia Gillard would be sh1tting bricks!
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 5, 2012 17:29:42 GMT -6
It would be more fun if they had a "lucky dip" - have a bag containing five or six methods of execution and get the POS to pick one blindly out of the bag - you could make it like a game show (oh, Arnie's already done that). How about a phone-in, like Big Brother - eg., The latest phone poll results show that Mr Archuletta will die by the following methods: Electrocution: 5,000 votes Hanging: 3,212 votes Lethal Injection: 2 votes Gas Chamber: 7,112 votes Firing Squad: 4,346 votes Torcher: 17 votes Drawn & Quartered: 10,168 votes At this point it looks like Mr Archie will become the tenth person this week to be pulled apart! Stay tuned where he has the opportunity to play on to have his head placed on a stick on the outskirts of Gunnison.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Mar 4, 2012 16:47:54 GMT -6
That is why I would advocate a reintroduction of corporal punishment as a possible alternative to execution. Match their brutality. Especially if carried out on a regular basis throughout their term of imprisonment. Given that, they might just prefer a sentence of capital punishment to be passed..and thankfull for it! The only way to match the brutality of the likes of Milat, Travers, Bryant, the Snowtown mob, etc. is to humanely dispatch them - ASAP. They are not worthy of our forgiveness nor our dollars by which they eke out their putrid existence. Oh, I'm sorry, I seem to have let a tinge of emotion into the debate - I hope it went unrecognised...
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 29, 2012 19:47:21 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 29, 2012 15:21:50 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 28, 2012 17:14:02 GMT -6
Pretty sure that weird bloke - the step-father - is guilty... He always looks like he's been caught with his hand in the cookie jar... After watching this case on telly a few times (different productions) - I dont think these 3 are guilty excepting of naivete.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 28, 2012 17:04:45 GMT -6
Moorman has been on death row for 20 years, and with his date 11 days away has been hospitalised. Interestingly he was given a quadruple bypass and an appendectomy last year. How much would that have cost the state? Fair dinkum? They gave him a quadruple by-pass? What's the point? They should have just dispatched him then and there! That's ridiculous... Hope he's gone by this time in the US! He'd still get to see a little of the extra day of Winter - I hope he's an organ donor.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 28, 2012 16:56:05 GMT -6
At what point do we have the right to kill. Whenever we feel like it or rationalize it, or in the name of assisting to die, to cease interrupt life, when feel threatened, when dangerous to our health or life or mental state. Or for society as a whole. All of the above are premeditated. "Whenever we feel like it."? If that were the case I would have killed that clown who cut me off this morning! [I'm not surprised your parents moved around a lot, diamond lady] ;D
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 27, 2012 20:34:10 GMT -6
No individual has the right to kill. Governments should never kill people, excepting where it is sanctioned by law. Wars, I consider different - a scene from a war movie, "If I kill someone at home they fry me, if I do it here, they give me a medal." Everyone has the inalienable right to life. No-one should take that right away from others - not even in war. I disagree with the comments about morality - wars are due to greed and greed alone - either the invading country wants something the other country has or the invaded country has something the invading country doesnt want them to have. There's no morality in greed. Ask George W? Where are Iraq's WMD's? He didnt go in there to NOT kill people as collateral damage. Wars dont start with, "Would you like to sit down and talk about this over a cuppa." Murder is different again, humans kill other humans not due to immorality as it is clear that muderers dont hold the same set of values as non-murderers. Suicide, I condone in certain circumstances (terminally ill) and only then does it become a moral issue. People shouldn't kill people and if they do, they apt to die by the sword. Euthanising murderers, I do not consider moral or immoral, and would defer to the fact that its not the government nor the people who execute murderers in the US, its the legal system - a course of pre-determined action created by historical precedent, religious tenets and moral norms - and carried out by those empowered with its administration and not an individual or government.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 27, 2012 15:41:43 GMT -6
... and money can get them off, too. Although more prevalent in places like Thailand, Malaysia, etc., rich people can buy their way out. I realise it shouldnt be a matter of money - but money is usually what it's all about unfortunately. To overcome the cost - there should be a review panel established of legal professors from Unis around the country that assess the case in an hypothetical case (no names, etc.) to remove the hystrionics or emotions found in the trial. Life is the most precious gift on the planet - however, courtesies shown to murderers makes mockery of the life of the victim. In most cases (sorry to generalise) the murderer has afforded the victim(s) no courtesy. At least the murderer is adjudged before death - which would be the only courtesy they should be extended. The problem of jurisdiction can also play a part - if every state in the US had the death penalty, you wouldnt have to worry about extradition, getting the Feds involved, etc., just put the accused to trial whereever s/he ran to, and process them there. The anti's dont proffer any solutions, so the ball will remain with pros. It's us who must do something about it to silence the arguments from the anti's - not the other way around. If money's the issue, I'm sure the family of the victim will pull the lever on the guillotine for free. There are ways and means to lessen the cost whilst not interefering with due process - it's just we have to find the way and means.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 27, 2012 15:29:34 GMT -6
Sounds a little wrong to me. If the main thrust of the accused's defense relates to the accused's state of mind, then that should be dealt with in the first instance - then you would save all that time and effort of a trial. In a perfect world, I would like to see a streamlined path - arrest, assessment, trial, verdict, punishment. Appeals this and appeals that - rubbish - if the accused has been found guilty of murder without reasonable doubt - pack their bags and get 'em to fill out their last meal request. None of this 28 years on death row rubbish. In only the most exceptional cases would there be a digression from this process - and it better be a good reason. I dont subscribe to the argument that lethal injection is "cruel and unusual punishment" - we've been doing it to rabid dogs for years - 99% of the time lethal injection is more humane than the victim's fate. 100% of the time the murderer has not complained after being put to death - so how can it be "cruel and unusual punishment"? If the murderer is of diminished responsibility, that should have been decided at first, not because they fudge a Rorshach test 4 years down the track. It'd be like that Benny Hill sketch (pardon my droll) - A bloke sees naked women in every Rorscach ink blot and then blames the tester for drawing dirty pictures. No, for the sake of victim's justice and the heartache of the victim's family - streamline and standardise the process.
|
|
|
Post by snidery on Feb 23, 2012 15:33:20 GMT -6
Drugs shouldnt be a factor, I believe. Can you make a claim against the crack dealer if the assailant was using crackwhen they committed the crime? Can you sue the doctor who prescribed the drugs to the perp? For clarity, I think the order of events at trial are important - so that issues such as mental capacity or responsibility for actions should be addressed at first instance. None of this appealling after the fact when the issue has already been considered. For example, Mr X, on psychotic medication, kills someone. At the trial it should be established at that time, whether the person was responsible for their actions. If doubt exists, it should be at that time a decision is made as to the accused's culpability. If the effects of the medication or the accused's mental capacity is found to affect the person's mens rea, then they would not be found guilty of murder. If they are found guilty of murder, they cannot then appeal on the grounds of mental incapacity or diminished responsibility. No two bites of the cherry - if double jeopardy applies in favour of the accused, so too should factors already considered and decided upon in relation to mitigating circumstances. Surely, any litigations in regards to victim's compensation against drug manufacturers would be a civil matter and not related to the murder trial?
|
|