|
Post by rayozz on Mar 19, 2016 18:47:54 GMT -6
Adam Ward received the death penalty following his conviction on a charge of capital murder in connection with Michael Walker's shooting death on June 13, 2005. Walker was taking photos of code violations at the home where the Wards lived on Caddo Street when he and Adam Ward had an altercation which ended with Walker being shot multiple times.
The lawsuit alleged City of Commerce officials knew Adam Ward possessed a gun and had used it to threaten neighbors on previous occasions.
|
|
|
Post by rayozz on Mar 22, 2016 18:11:26 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 22, 2016 19:54:45 GMT -6
Sad Walker was not even armed, shot nine times for just doing his job.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 24, 2016 15:53:30 GMT -6
TX kills another mental patient YEE HAW.
|
|
|
Post by Moonbeam on Mar 27, 2016 17:26:30 GMT -6
Well he won't be mentally ill to kill someone else
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 27, 2016 21:45:54 GMT -6
Well he won't be mentally ill to kill someone else We should execute drunk drivers. Same rationale. And negligent electricians.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 28, 2016 17:09:34 GMT -6
He was aware he shot Walker nine times, he was aware he was going to be executed. Not delusional just angry. Smart enough to know how to use the gun & aim at an unarmed man. If mentally ill, how did he get a gun?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 29, 2016 12:06:45 GMT -6
He was aware he shot Walker nine times, he was aware he was going to be executed. Not delusional just angry. Smart enough to know how to use the gun & aim at an unarmed man. If mentally ill people cannot use guns, why are there laws to stop them? Why not go read about it on the internet?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 29, 2016 16:20:02 GMT -6
|
|
nate
Old Hand
momento mori.
Posts: 544
|
Post by nate on Mar 30, 2016 14:51:04 GMT -6
TX kills another mental patient YEE HAW. Are you joking?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 30, 2016 17:59:49 GMT -6
TX kills another mental patient YEE HAW. Are you joking? I am mocking the state of Texas.
|
|
|
Post by Moonbeam on Mar 31, 2016 0:33:06 GMT -6
Of course it is not the same rationale as drunk drivers, they should be jailed for a long time though. I don't believe this guy was mentally ill, he knew exactly what he was doing, he simply didn't want Michael Walker to photograph the code violations (hoarding) because they were not prepared to comply with them. Ward was found mentally competent to stand trial, but as always there are those who want to beat the mentally ill drum and make excuses for murder.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 31, 2016 11:25:51 GMT -6
I don't believe this guy was mentally ill, he knew exactly what he was doing, Could you tell me about the evidence that convinced you of this? It does not seem rational to me to murder someone because they were taking pictures of his trash. How does a rational person choose to take a murder rap rather than a code violation? Which suggests the court was not mentally competent to proceed. You think mental illness is just an "excuse"?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 31, 2016 12:15:21 GMT -6
There are many people who really qualify as mentally ill or challenged, then there are others with emotional issues.
The truly mentally ill cannot stand trial, and the actual people who are in the mentally ill classification, do not commit murder, unless unintentional. This man shot him nine times, he went into the house to get the weapon. He knew he murdered the man. Facts.
Not being rational does not qualify for being mentally ill, if that were true no one would go to prison.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Mar 31, 2016 15:27:41 GMT -6
There are many people who really qualify as mentally ill or challenged, then there are others with emotional issues. The truly mentally ill cannot stand trial, That's almost right. If someone is so impaired that, at the time of the trial, they cannot understand the charges against them, then the proceedings must halt. However, proceedings may continue if they are mentally ill but coherent enough to understand the charges. For example, if you understand that you are on charge for murder then, even if you think that it is the Soviets who are trying you and the judge is reading your mind, you are mentally competent to stand trial. (!) Moreover, competence to stand trial has nothing to do with whether you were mentally ill at the time of the crime. If you were off your meds and having a psychotic episode when you committed the crime, the trial against you can go ahead once they put you back on your meds. Firstly, there is no such thing as "unintentional murder". Secondly, mentally ill people can intentionally kill. They may not understand the situation they are in, who they are killing, or why, but they can intend to kill just the same.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Mar 31, 2016 16:35:21 GMT -6
A defendant must be "competent" to stand trial under the U.S. constitution. Which he did.
The defendant must have a rational factual understanding of the procedure. Which he did.
The defendant was aware he murdered the man & shot him nine times.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 1, 2016 20:27:15 GMT -6
A defendant must be "competent" to stand trial under the U.S. constitution. Which he did. The defendant must have a rational factual understanding of the procedure. Which he did. The defendant was aware he murdered the man & shot him nine times. None of which means he was sane at the time of the trial, let alone sane when he committed the act.
|
|
|
Post by Moonbeam on Apr 2, 2016 2:15:09 GMT -6
So what do you suggest should have happened "get him "well" and let him go, or just keep him locked up in an institution? The insanity defence seems to be frequently abused by those seeking to avoid responsibility for their actions. If he was deemed of sound mind are you saying that the professional who made that determination is wrong?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 2, 2016 5:40:38 GMT -6
So what do you suggest should have happened "get him "well" and let him go, or just keep him locked up in an institution? The insanity defence seems to be frequently abused by those seeking to avoid responsibility for their actions. If he was deemed of sound mind are you saying that the professional who made that determination is wrong? As I explained above, being deemed fit to stand trial is NOT the same as being found sane. It just means you understand the charges against you, not that you know who is bringing them, what country you are in or what year it is.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 2, 2016 8:12:29 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 2, 2016 11:27:28 GMT -6
The article says that being mentally ill does not mean being violent. True enough. But nor does it mean being in control. If you are mentally ill and non-violent, that's good luck. If you are mentally ill and violent, that's bad luck. You don't get to control it yourself. Or at least, self control is significantly compromised.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 2, 2016 15:08:55 GMT -6
Can bipolar disorder drive someone to murder?
I am sure it can...I know when you are on the down swing it can lead you to suicide. I haven't attempted murder in the manic state or hypomanic state, I will admit, I have threatened, and I have most definitely thought about it. I am bi-polar with an extreme psychotic behaviors, and I have a severe problem with anger management which they haven't found a way to control yet, as classes and meds don't seem to work for me. I sometimes will strike out violently without thinking, but more often than not, I actually have to be provoked, it's just that when I am provoked, it doesn't have to be something big, it can just be that someone flipped me off. So, I'm sure that it can eventually lead someone to murder, but I am perfectly aware of right and wrong, so if one day in the future I actually were to hurt someone seriously (I won't actually ever commit murder) I wouuld stand up and take my consequences instead of blaming my disorder.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 2, 2016 15:48:27 GMT -6
Can bipolar disorder drive someone to murder? I am sure it can...I know when you are on the down swing it can lead you to suicide. I haven't attempted murder in the manic state or hypomanic state, I will admit, I have threatened, and I have most definitely thought about it. I am bi-polar with an extreme psychotic behaviors, and I have a severe problem with anger management which they haven't found a way to control yet, as classes and meds don't seem to work for me. I sometimes will strike out violently without thinking, but more often than not, I actually have to be provoked, it's just that when I am provoked, it doesn't have to be something big, it can just be that someone flipped me off. So, I'm sure that it can eventually lead someone to murder, but I am perfectly aware of right and wrong, so if one day in the future I actually were to hurt someone seriously (I won't actually ever commit murder) I wouuld stand up and take my consequences instead of blaming my disorder. Should a person who murders when in the manic state be sentenced the same as a person who murdered when psychologically healthy? Or do you think that judges and juries should be allowed to take mental illness into account when determining sentencing?
|
|
|
Post by Moonbeam on Apr 2, 2016 17:20:04 GMT -6
So what do you suggest should have happened "get him "well" and let him go, or just keep him locked up in an institution? The insanity defence seems to be frequently abused by those seeking to avoid responsibility for their actions. If he was deemed of sound mind are you saying that the professional who made that determination is wrong? As I explained above, being deemed fit to stand trial is NOT the same as being found sane. It just means you understand the charges against you, not that you know who is bringing them, what country you are in or what year it is. I understand what you are saying, however, how do you know that all of those factors aren't in the "fit to stand trial" determination. For example, in my previous work as part of providing a part aspect of evidential assessment regarding a client the report would cover a holistic view of the subject. I don't believe you can make any kind of decision without all of the facts.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 3, 2016 1:14:33 GMT -6
I don't believe you can make any kind of decision without all of the facts. On the contrary, that's the only kind of decision you can make. Wait for all the facts & you'll be waiting til doomsday. The plain fact is that this man murdered someone in public view rather than pay a ticket. Anyone with a brain could tell there was something wrong with him. But they don't execute geniuses down in Texas. Its easier to go after the simpletons.
|
|
|
Post by Moonbeam on Apr 15, 2016 21:54:41 GMT -6
At the end of the day, he knew it was wrong. No one would ever have to take responsibility for their actions if allowances were made for irrational behaviour. Irrational does not mean mental incompetence.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Apr 16, 2016 16:55:40 GMT -6
At the end of the day, he knew it was wrong. No one would ever have to take responsibility for their actions if allowances were made for irrational behaviour. Irrational does not mean mental incompetence. If you're irrational enough, then yes it does.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Apr 16, 2016 18:11:36 GMT -6
Well he won't be mentally ill to kill someone else We should execute drunk drivers. Same rationale. And negligent electricians. Irrational answer.
|
|