|
Post by whitediamonds on Aug 14, 2018 10:15:59 GMT -6
Whats the point? You have an issue with burgers & pepsi? "You guys", a northern state give away,being up north 1/2 of my life I love it. When I came here they found it funny back then, same with the term pop instead of soda. On the serious side, yes, the victims name is not there ,but the food was more important of what the pos ate I guess. Strange world we live in,in so many ways now days. I could think of one way to make the last meal justifiable and more interesting is to let them order a last meal and then let the inmate watch someone else eat it. The person eating the meal could be saying mmmm, delicious. Or have the same order sent for the media there. Paula Dryers last meal ( after getting out of school ) was a can of corn & peas, that should have been the menu for the pos & the media, that would would do both, make it justifiable.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Aug 11, 2018 17:59:11 GMT -6
The victim/victims ( the crime itself) that brought the case to court but, now it is about the murderer who committed the crime on guilt, etc. you guys are totally missing the point. I'm talking about the press, the reports. there is no room for the victim but plenty of room room for pepsi and burgers. THAT'S why this world is in the shape it's in. because we allow it. Whats the point? You have an issue with burgers & pepsi? "You guys", a northern state give away,being up north 1/2 of my life I love it. When I came here they found it funny back then, same with the term pop instead of soda. On the serious side, yes, the victims name is not there ,but the food was more important of what the pos ate I guess. Strange world we live in,in so many ways now days.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Aug 11, 2018 9:53:18 GMT -6
If the victim weren't sympathetic, would you still want him/her mentioned? Murder is a crime, not a tort. The identity of the victim is irrelevant. Why not? Without a victim you dont have a crime. If the victim is irrelevant then the perp needs no more mention than "Tennessee convict executed". There is NO place for Pepsi and burgers. The victim/victims ( the crime itself) that brought the case to court but, now it is about the murderer who committed the crime on guilt, etc.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Aug 9, 2018 19:59:44 GMT -6
Crazy anti's, well, not in my name will a man who rapes & murder's a 7 yr old NOT be executed, should have been carried out yrs ago.
It was about Paula Dyer ( all children) not his azz.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Aug 9, 2018 8:32:44 GMT -6
Only thing wrong with the DP is, almost thirty years later? Disgusting. Now that is an area that should have term limits, like two yrs at the most.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Aug 2, 2018 14:04:39 GMT -6
How would that make it easier on law enforcement? Now, sure what a great idea with conditions applied. Such as. If we went with this train of thought, what if they murder again inside? And they are honest they murdered again? DP state or not. What if they are guilty by evidence & still will not admit they are, Should they still get the DP ? What if they escape, due to being in general flow? Does that open the door to murder just means I will not face the possibility of being executed ever ( most fear), so maybe I should take out as many as I can. I mean prison has many benefits that many in society do not have access to. Free food, housing, medical, game rooms, etc etc? My life is worth something no one I murdered was. Now I read even the Pope is against the DP, while he is behind walls & security with lots of benefits to live well & high. Playing God himself with others lives.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 20, 2018 20:18:13 GMT -6
For all intents and purposes, that has already happened. Which, obviously, is a good thing. It needs to be stopped completely, but that doesn’t seem to be too far away. That's twisted fug, yes on abortion ( executed) not for murderers.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 20, 2018 20:10:03 GMT -6
Which, obviously, is a good thing. It needs to be stopped completely, but that doesn’t seem to be too far away. Fugly's motto in life: "kill babies, not murderers". 'Bama be proud. Abortions not so bad, just think if it had been Bama, Hilliarary or Billy blow. Seems many dead bodies were around the Clintoons.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 20, 2018 14:57:10 GMT -6
I may be wrong fug, I believe the point Joe makes is execute all who murder or none of them. Or explain to murder victims how some of their murderers deserve leniency, while others do not. Because it is not about the victims, it is about the killer themselves?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 17, 2018 18:22:27 GMT -6
Executed.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 17, 2018 18:16:25 GMT -6
I may be wrong fug, I believe the point Joe makes is execute all who murder or none of them.
Correct me if wrong Joe.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 17, 2018 15:23:20 GMT -6
Good the full truth has been updated on this guy. Off topic of this guy. They just caught a serial killer here. A future DP for this guy. A citizen saw him, called 911, police reacted fast.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 15, 2018 17:52:42 GMT -6
We celebrate your passing finally" from this earth.In lieu of flowers send some Dr Pepper along with the remains to the one up next. Keep the chain going.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 15, 2018 8:22:21 GMT -6
This is laughable. It's not a solemn event, and the whole point is to deprive the condemned of respect and dignity. This article isn't factual. The inmates haven't requested anything. Their lawyers did. Since Gary Mark Gilmore's execution, capital appeals do not require the consent, or even the foreknowledge, of the appellants. Executions should be solemn events, and inmates should be treated with the same respect, care and dignity you'd give any other dying person. It's the least you could do, after all. It is a solemn event, never saw anyone cheering, drinking or calling them names thru the execution. Personally I feel we should vacuum them out of existence & rip them to shreds. That's what we do to the unwanted. We should not use prison as an incubator.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 10, 2018 17:50:07 GMT -6
Under the California murder statute, sections 187 et seq, all it takes is implied malice to convict a defendant of murder. Part of that definition is a depraved indifference to human life, and I'm sure the father can be shown to have exhibited that indifference in willfully handing a semi-automatic or automatic rifle over to another. Californians have convicted drunk drivers of murder, so I don't see why this case would be any different. I'm asking whether the law as it stands is a good law. You're asking how to apply it. Those are different questions and we are not disagreeing. You are, however, disagreeing with whitediamonds, who thinks that given the guidelines in place, people like Junior and the Uber driver have nothing to worry about. They would never be convicted under the law as it stands. "On the contrary," you are saying to her, "Californians have convicted drunk drivers of murder, so I don't see why this case would be any different." Maybe I should butt out and let you two rumble. I have no clue what the gun laws are in California to begin with. That I would imagine it would have an affect on the results of charges. Except of course for the killer.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 10, 2018 17:13:16 GMT -6
Well, guidelines are built around every law.
Unless thru proof of a legit link, I still want to see a case where fugs statement can be verified. All laws could be seen as abused. Does the law as it stands require all that? Well, that is why I am asking for a link. I believe they require that, if they follow the guidelines, prove they do not.
No not intended to trick you into going off topic, just the conversation brought that to mind. Professional crooks having legal jobs etc...
I said don't pat yourself on the back by using your famous "I win " meaning you in discussions" debates' arguments' . lol in the past
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 10, 2018 16:15:01 GMT -6
Sounds like the guidelines already there to that law, Bernard.
No need to pat yourself on the back.
I still want a link ( I asked fug for ) & never got, where someone was actually charged with murder under the circumstances fug posted to begin this thread.
The friends knew murder in the drug culture could happen in their illegal activity. The get away driver never reported the crime, shared in the benefits( drugs/money. Knew what they were doing & what they were up against.
Unless after an investigation the Uber driver is found to be connected ( anything is possilbe) but needs to be proven.
The law as is,is a GOOD LAW.
To score a blow, could have mean't just a house of ill repute. Which Clinton with his legal job hung around a lot, & one house someone was murdered. In Arkansas.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 10, 2018 15:23:56 GMT -6
Yeah of course trumpet practice. Where did your mind go? I know professionals crooks are doing jobs all time . Normally the job is a legal job though.
Lets get real, the Uber driver was not going to be charged with murder. Poor judgement, or maybe afraid if he asked him to get out? You said he did not notice the blood on the killer, so nothing to report. Just another crazy customer maybe? I do not know what was going thru his head. Dealing with the public is a dangerous job.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 10, 2018 15:01:52 GMT -6
That is why there are guidelines to that law. SO? Big difference from your other scenario. Oh wait that must be the one fugug mention to begin this thread. It was the Uber driver who had no intention of killing anyone, not responsible for killing anyone, was not involved in the killing. So if the customer asks a friend, instead of an Uber driver, to give him a ride to the dealer's house, and the friend doesn't anticipate that the transaction will end in bloodshed, but it does, the friend is guilty of murder. But if the customer asks an Uber driver, instead of a friend, to give him a ride to the dealer's house, and the Uber driver doesn't anticipate that the transaction will end in bloodshed, but it does, the Uber driver is not guilty of murder. I am not seeing any logic or common sense here. The friend to a degree yes, drug deals go bad eventually & death. Illegal activity to begin with. The Uber driver does not know what blow is to begin with( he did not say he was going to a dealers house. The Uber does not know any of them, & people BS all the time. Uber is doing a job, not a crime. Going for blow could be taken in anther way too. lol See that is where the guidelines come into play the Uber driver may face a fine or community service, maybe a short time in jail? Fired? So, there is logic after all Bernard. Unlike fug 's post.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 10, 2018 13:52:38 GMT -6
I certainly do. Without the driver's participation, the crime victim would not have been murdered. By the same logic, without the participation of firearms manufacturers, firearm murders would be an impossibility. Though some liberals will say that's reason enough to haul them into court, I find that argument to be ludicrous. Providing the means for the murder ≠murder. That is ludicrous, yet still has nothing to do with that law or the scenarios you placed.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 10, 2018 13:49:05 GMT -6
What about this one? A guy looking to score some drugs calls an Uber. In the conversation on the way over, the customer says he's going to go score some blow. The Uber driver isn't totally sure which drug blow is, but figures it's illegal and says, "I don't wanna know". At the destination, the customer tells the Uber driver to keep the meter running and wait. He comes out a a few minutes later. The Uber driver doesn't notice the blood and drives him home. What the Uber driver didn't realize was that, inside the dealer's house, there was a falling out and the customer stabbed the dealer to death. Is the Uber driver guilty of murder? If the answer is no, tell me what the difference is. That is why there are guidelines to that law. SO? Big difference from your other scenario. Oh wait that must be the one fugug mention to begin this thread. It was the Uber driver who had no intention of killing anyone, not responsible for killing anyone, was not involved in the killing. It was that law that got the Uber driver found guilty of murder too.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 10, 2018 8:35:36 GMT -6
I don't see the slightest difference between this and two guys attacking a women. One holds her down while the other deposits his DNA in her. Only one guy did that. But they should both be convicted of rape. If you participate in any way, in any crime, the consequences of such, intended or not "Intended or not" makes a big difference to me. In the case you gave where the accomplice holds a person while the primary offendant assaults her, the assault is intended by both. But when someone drives his buddy to go buy some drugs, and the buyer has an unexpected fight with the dealer and kills him, do you really think the guy who drove him there should be charged with murder? Bernard, society has gotten to the point when everyone has a Right, but nobody has a Responsibility. According to your statement. I agree with Joe.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 9, 2018 10:05:56 GMT -6
A gun. Makes it a felony. Best outcome would be if the intended victim has a gun and shoots the criminal dead The one in the get away car is assisting whatever the outcome, knowing it involves a gun, & a death. Then he leaves the scene of the crime, flees with his buddy. If they get the money they both share it. You cannot say the one who went in with the loaded gun, had no intentions of shooting anyone, nor can the one who brought then there to commit the crime then flee with them. No that law has guidelines & should remain. What if you had no idea the robber was carrying a gun? Are you still responsible if he chooses to use the gun you were unaware of? If you flee & run , not turn yourself in, even days after the fact if not caught. Share the money, type vehicle driven( stolen) . No remorse for victim only your own azz. How many other robberies connected to. Guidelines to that law.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 9, 2018 10:01:49 GMT -6
If you have no intention of killing anyone, are not responsible for killing anyone and was not at all involved in the killing - you can, in several states, be just as guilty of murder as if you pulled the trigger. How the hell is this justice, and how the *f---* are these laws constitutional? How about an example fug? One who had no intention, not responsible for killing anyone & not involved in the killing at all? Found guilty? Do you have a link to that case?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 9, 2018 9:27:37 GMT -6
No that law has guidelines & should remain. Repeat. That law has "guidelines" & should remain.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 8, 2018 15:46:58 GMT -6
A gun. Makes it a felony. Best outcome would be if the intended victim has a gun and shoots the criminal dead
The one in the get away car is assisting whatever the outcome, knowing it involves a gun, & a death.
Then he leaves the scene of the crime, flees with his buddy. If they get the money they both share it.
You cannot say the one who went in with the loaded gun, had no intentions of shooting anyone, nor can the one who brought then there to commit the crime then flee with them.
No that law has guidelines & should remain.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jul 6, 2018 7:06:23 GMT -6
What they did to these two young girls was surreal, behavior in court as well as absolutely no remorse. Certainly proves there is such a thing as " the worse of the worse ".
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 27, 2018 18:02:37 GMT -6
He has been executed in Huntsville TX by LI. No complications during execution.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 27, 2018 8:54:40 GMT -6
I have a feeling this execution will follow thru.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Jun 27, 2018 8:38:59 GMT -6
2nd reason in appeal, he is not a danger anymore.
|
|