|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 4, 2017 11:22:18 GMT -6
Sorry if I placed put this article in the wrong area but I realize it can be moved to where it belongs if I did. I wasn't sure where to post it and I hope many will see it if it is moved. I realize that the article is a few years old but I think the sentiment is still the same as it was seven years ago. From the Rapid City Journal of Rapid City, South Dakota.
Galen Niederwerder Jul 3, 2010 In June 19th's forum, Hazel Bonner made a heartfelt plea to abolish the death penalty in South Dakota next year. Perhaps her compassion for Briley Piper, four Native Americans executed more than 115 years ago, and all the convicted murderers on death row today was misplaced. One wonders how much tenderheartedness was felt for Becky O'Connell. Donnivan Schaeffer. Chester Poage. Becky O'Connell was a nine-year old girl who was abducted on May 8, 1990 by Donald Moeller near a Sioux Falls convenience store. According to an archived article in the Rapid City Journal, Moeller" ... drove her to a secluded area near Lake Alvin in Lincoln County, and then raped and killed her. Her nude body was found the next day. Her throat had been slashed, and she had been stabbed several times." Twenty-two year old Donnivan Schaeffer was opening up the Rapid City doughnut shop where he worked in 1992, when he surprised fired former employee Charles Russell Rhines burglarizing the business. According to another Journal article, in his taped confession to police, Rhines "...chuckled at times when describing how he methodically went about executing Schaeffer so there would be no witness to the burglary. Rhines said he killed Schaeffer even though he pleaded for his life." Schaeffer was "...stabbed twice by Rhines and shoved into a storeroom. Rhines left him to die after tying him up and stabbing him a third time in the neck...." The " ... unemotional Rhines carefully described the fatal stab would where the skull meets the spine." Even today, almost twenty years later, I remember reading at the time how Rhines taunted Donnivan as he executed him. Nineteen year old Chester Poage was lured from his Spearfish home on March 13, 2000 by the afore-mentioned Piper and his accomplices, Elijah Page and Darrell Hoadley. The three, again according to Journal articles, tricked Chester into going with them over to Page's house, where Page pulled out a stolen .22 pistol and put it to Chester's head, forcing him to lie down on the floor. They kicked him in the head, knocking him out. They then drove up Higgins Gulch, where they forced their revived victim to strip, and drink beer laced with Drano. Over the course of two hours, the killers kicked both ears off his head, stabbed him repeatedly, and finally, when they were " ... tired of, like, all the blood," according to one of the killers, crushed his skull with rocks. During the torture, despite Chester's repeated pleas for mercy, the killers shared their plans of how they were going to kill him, then go back to his house and rape his sister. Well. Becky and Chester would be 29 today, Donnivan would be about 40. Wow; what can one say? One statement Ms. Bonner made is correct: "We just can't seem to get it right." These three young people were all viciously snuffed out at an incredibly young age, depriving them of any chance at life. Meanwhile, with the exception of Page, (who rejected the appeals process and was executed in 2007) their murderers have discovered late the value of life, and have taken advantage of an upside-down justice system to fight like the devil for theirs. That, not the death penalty, nor the people who have fought for justice for Becky, Chester, and Donnivan, is emblematic of the "incredible cowardice" Ms. Bonner spoke of. Why is it that proponents of abolishing the death penalty have sympathy only for the perps, and never the victims? rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/columnists/local/article_f94a2e7c-860e-11df-b074-001cc4c002e0.html#ixzz1mPR7UUx7
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 20, 2017 15:00:31 GMT -6
Why is it that proponents of abolishing the death penalty have sympathy only for the perps, and never the victims? What is your answer to that question, Stormy?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 21, 2017 10:01:05 GMT -6
Why is it that proponents of abolishing the death penalty have sympathy only for the perps, and never the victims? What is your answer to that question, Stormy? Well it wasn't my question, it was a part of the article. But it is interesting why some people go out of their way to defend murderers. So what is the answer Bernard? You're an anti and should be able to have the answer better than I would.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 21, 2017 23:24:17 GMT -6
What is your answer to that question, Stormy? Well it wasn't my question, it was a part of the article. But it is interesting why some people go out of their way to defend murderers. What do you mean "interesting". Do you mean it makes you wonder? Wonder what?
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Sept 22, 2017 10:16:44 GMT -6
Well it wasn't my question, it was a part of the article. But it is interesting why some people go out of their way to defend murderers. What do you mean "interesting". Do you mean it makes you wonder? Wonder what? Stormy, he never answers a question, he only comes back with more questions, as far as I am concerned, I personally find him to be a troll.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 22, 2017 10:26:05 GMT -6
Well it wasn't my question, it was a part of the article. But it is interesting why some people go out of their way to defend murderers. What do you mean "interesting". Do you mean it makes you wonder? Wonder what? Why some people go out of their way to defend murderers? The question seems pretty simple to me. And I said some not all. Just because someone doesn't support the death penalty doesn't mean they would go out of their way to defend a murderer. If you don't know simply say so. Hey I'll understand.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 22, 2017 10:27:02 GMT -6
What do you mean "interesting". Do you mean it makes you wonder? Wonder what? Stormy, he never answers a question, he only comes back with more questions, as far as I am concerned, I personally find him to be a troll. I've dealt with him many times, I'm not sure if he even understands himself! lol
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 22, 2017 12:13:25 GMT -6
What do you mean "interesting". Do you mean it makes you wonder? Wonder what? Why some people go out of their way to defend murderers? The question seems pretty simple to me. And I said some not all. Just because someone doesn't support the death penalty doesn't mean they would go out of their way to defend a murderer. If you don't know simply say so. Hey I'll understand. lol, ok. I'm forgetting that the point of innuendo is to say something without saying it. You sure haven't changed, Stormy. In answer to your question, I would guess that a lot of people from relatively affluent circumstances feel guilty about their privileged backgrounds, and that guilt is stoked further by college professors who might also tie it to their race and gender, and so they come to feel they haven't the right to judge people who grew up in a tougher environment, or who had to deal with racism, etc. Meanwhile, their profs are showing them statistics that show that poverty is positively associated with criminality, which makes them think that, if they had been raised in a poor environment, they might have been murderers too. Plus the fact that, for a lot of people, adopting liberal views is part of what it takes to be accepted at college. Anyway, something like that. Then there's the fact that, because they were raised in a protective bubble, they don't know criminals. They haven't met any. They don't know what they are like. So they are suckers for the romanticized idea that criminals are just people who made bad choices in reaction to difficult circumstances. If you buy into this view hard enough, you end up feeling concern for the murderers themselves. These poor kids, raised in the wrong neighborhood, who were never given any guidance... It's a tragedy for everyone etc etc. Secretly, these affluent liberals feel that it's kinda their own fault because their parents hogged all the cheddar. But addressing that imbalance might require them to donate away some of their dough. So instead they retreat to imagining that their privilege is based on their race, gender, sexual preferences, etc. That way, there's nothing to give away and all they have to do is confess to their privilege while browbeating others to do the same. I'm speculating a lot here.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 22, 2017 12:32:35 GMT -6
Here's one for the pros: Why do some pros use the victims as props for their virtue signaling, and stir up trouble while using the MVSs as human shields? Stormy, I think you should have the answer for that one.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 22, 2017 15:38:49 GMT -6
Why some people go out of their way to defend murderers? The question seems pretty simple to me. And I said some not all. Just because someone doesn't support the death penalty doesn't mean they would go out of their way to defend a murderer. If you don't know simply say so. Hey I'll understand. lol, ok. I'm forgetting that the point of innuendo is to say something without saying it. You sure haven't changed, Stormy. In answer to your question, I would guess that a lot of people from relatively affluent circumstances feel guilty about their privileged backgrounds, and that guilt is stoked further by college professors who might also tie it to their race and gender, and so they come to feel they haven't the right to judge people who grew up in a tougher environment, or who had to deal with racism, etc. Meanwhile, their profs are showing them statistics that show that poverty is positively associated with criminality, which makes them think that, if they had been raised in a poor environment, they might have been murderers too. Plus the fact that, for a lot of people, adopting liberal views is part of what it takes to be accepted at college. Anyway, something like that. Then there's the fact that, because they were raised in a protective bubble, they don't know criminals. They haven't met any. They don't know what they are like. So they are suckers for the romanticized idea that criminals are just people who made bad choices in reaction to difficult circumstances. If you buy into this view hard enough, you end up feeling concern for the murderers themselves. These poor kids, raised in the wrong neighborhood, who were never given any guidance... It's a tragedy for everyone etc etc. Secretly, these affluent liberals feel that it's kinda their own fault because their parents hogged all the cheddar. But addressing that imbalance might require them to donate away some of their dough. So instead they retreat to imagining that their privilege is based on their race, gender, sexual preferences, etc. That way, there's nothing to give away and all they have to do is confess to their privilege while browbeating others to do the same. I'm speculating a lot here. Not every murderer grew up poor, ever hear of Lyle and Erik Menendez? I would say that a lack of a value system is the reason. There was a time when many in this country weren't even middle class and murder wasn't at a high rate either. Though I think your answer is very speculative I give you kudos for trying.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 22, 2017 15:40:18 GMT -6
Here's one for the pros: Why do some pros use the victims as props for their virtue signaling, and stir up trouble while using the MVSs as human shields? Stormy, I think you should have the answer for that one. Trying to remind people why we "need" the death penalty and why we should use it more often. At least that is how I feel. I can't speak for everyone.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 22, 2017 15:51:38 GMT -6
lol, ok. I'm forgetting that the point of innuendo is to say something without saying it. You sure haven't changed, Stormy. In answer to your question, I would guess that a lot of people from relatively affluent circumstances feel guilty about their privileged backgrounds, and that guilt is stoked further by college professors who might also tie it to their race and gender, and so they come to feel they haven't the right to judge people who grew up in a tougher environment, or who had to deal with racism, etc. Meanwhile, their profs are showing them statistics that show that poverty is positively associated with criminality, which makes them think that, if they had been raised in a poor environment, they might have been murderers too. Plus the fact that, for a lot of people, adopting liberal views is part of what it takes to be accepted at college. Anyway, something like that. Then there's the fact that, because they were raised in a protective bubble, they don't know criminals. They haven't met any. They don't know what they are like. So they are suckers for the romanticized idea that criminals are just people who made bad choices in reaction to difficult circumstances. If you buy into this view hard enough, you end up feeling concern for the murderers themselves. These poor kids, raised in the wrong neighborhood, who were never given any guidance... It's a tragedy for everyone etc etc. Secretly, these affluent liberals feel that it's kinda their own fault because their parents hogged all the cheddar. But addressing that imbalance might require them to donate away some of their dough. So instead they retreat to imagining that their privilege is based on their race, gender, sexual preferences, etc. That way, there's nothing to give away and all they have to do is confess to their privilege while browbeating others to do the same. I'm speculating a lot here. Not every murderer grew up poor, ever hear of Lyle and Erik Menendez? No, but that wasn't the point I was making. Right, but I wasn't speculating about why people murder. I was speculating about why some antis defend murderers, which is what you asked me to do. The answer (I suggest) is that those antis *think* of murderers as having grown up poor (which, at least with death row, is usually the case) and the more affluent antis are worried about casting judgement when the antis themselves grew up with plenty of scratch, and they have usually benefited from the privileges of tertiary education. Do you think I am wrong about that?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 22, 2017 17:42:25 GMT -6
Not every murderer grew up poor, ever hear of Lyle and Erik Menendez? No, but that wasn't the point I was making. Right, but I wasn't speculating about why people murder. I was speculating about why some antis defend murderers, which is what you asked me to do. The answer (I suggest) is that those antis *think* of murderers as having grown up poor (which, at least with death row, is usually the case) and the more affluent antis are worried about casting judgement when the antis themselves grew up with plenty of scratch, and they have usually benefited from the privileges of tertiary education. Do you think I am wrong about that? Yes some could, but do you think their right?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 23, 2017 4:23:14 GMT -6
No, but that wasn't the point I was making. Right, but I wasn't speculating about why people murder. I was speculating about why some antis defend murderers, which is what you asked me to do. The answer (I suggest) is that those antis *think* of murderers as having grown up poor (which, at least with death row, is usually the case) and the more affluent antis are worried about casting judgement when the antis themselves grew up with plenty of scratch, and they have usually benefited from the privileges of tertiary education. Do you think I am wrong about that? Yes some could, but do you think their right? I think I've made my opinion obvious.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 23, 2017 8:59:49 GMT -6
No, but that wasn't the point I was making. Right, but I wasn't speculating about why people murder. I was speculating about why some antis defend murderers, which is what you asked me to do. The answer (I suggest) is that those antis *think* of murderers as having grown up poor (which, at least with death row, is usually the case) and the more affluent antis are worried about casting judgement when the antis themselves grew up with plenty of scratch, and they have usually benefited from the privileges of tertiary education. Do you think I am wrong about that? Yes some could, but do you think their right? I thought you just telling me why some antis feel this way, I didn't realize it included your feelings too.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 23, 2017 12:44:41 GMT -6
I thought you just telling me why some antis feel this way, I didn't realize it included your feelings too. I didn't have to spell my own viewpoint out. Words like "suckers" and "romanticized" did it for me.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 25, 2017 10:16:14 GMT -6
I thought you just telling me why some antis feel this way, I didn't realize it included your feelings too. I didn't have to spell my own viewpoint out. Words like "suckers" and "romanticized" did it for me. Each of the three victims in that article died horrible deaths. Nothing that any of these murderers went through "whatever" may have happened in his life justifies that. Long before a college education came along many chose not to murder or commit any other crime. So poverty or lack of education really is a moot point. But each person is entitled to his or her opinion. If that is what you believe then that is what you believe.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 25, 2017 14:06:20 GMT -6
I didn't have to spell my own viewpoint out. Words like "suckers" and "romanticized" did it for me. Each of the three victims in that article died horrible deaths. Nothing that any of these murderers went through "whatever" may have happened in his life justifies that. Long before a college education came along many chose not to murder or commit any other crime. So poverty or lack of education really is a moot point. But each person is entitled to his or her opinion. If that is what you believe then that is what you believe. It seems you are not understanding. I remember that this was a problem before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2017 17:35:52 GMT -6
Why is it that proponents of abolishing the death penalty have sympathy only for the perps, and never the victims?
Why is it that all 'proponents of abolishing the death penalty' are considered to have sympathy for perps, only the perps, and NEVER the victims? Having hung out here, Stormy, for years, and spoken with many antis, do you agree with this article?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2017 17:46:44 GMT -6
Here's one for the pros: Why do some pros use the victims as props for their virtue signaling, and stir up trouble while using the MVSs as human shields? Stormy, I think you should have the answer for that one. Trying to remind people why we "need" the death penalty and why we should use it more often. At least that is how I feel. I can't speak for everyone. Sorry, Stormy, but I guess it'd *deleted* me off if you used me ~ or particularly my son ~ to 'remind people' why we "need" the death penalty and why we should use it more often. I'd far rather that if you did choose to use either of us, it would be in such a way that might actually do someone some good ~ like better crime prevention.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 25, 2017 17:54:03 GMT -6
Each of the three victims in that article died horrible deaths. So, do you oppose the death penalty for the murderers whose victims didn't die horrible deaths, Stormy?
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 25, 2017 22:48:15 GMT -6
Each of the three victims in that article died horrible deaths. So, do you oppose the death penalty for the murderers whose victims didn't die horrible deaths, Stormy? No I don't.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 25, 2017 22:57:32 GMT -6
Trying to remind people why we "need" the death penalty and why we should use it more often. At least that is how I feel. I can't speak for everyone. Sorry, Stormy, but I guess it'd *deleted* me off if you used me ~ or particularly my son ~ to 'remind people' why we "need" the death penalty and why we should use it more often. I'd far rather that if you did choose to use either of us, it would be in such a way that might actually do someone some good ~ like better crime prevention. Personally I don't run around trying to use any victim or their families to promote the death penalty. I guess, however, victims names are going to come up when it is discussed. It's just going to. I only posted this article because I admired this person reminding people that these people had lives that they were living before they were cruelly taken out. To me it's refreshing to remember those who were murdered instead of being constantly reminded how bad it is on death row or how bad it is in prison for lifers. I'm tired of the sympathy for them. They really don't deserve it.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 25, 2017 22:58:31 GMT -6
Each of the three victims in that article died horrible deaths. Nothing that any of these murderers went through "whatever" may have happened in his life justifies that. Long before a college education came along many chose not to murder or commit any other crime. So poverty or lack of education really is a moot point. But each person is entitled to his or her opinion. If that is what you believe then that is what you believe. It seems you are not understanding. I remember that this was a problem before. I guess I don't understand you sorry.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 26, 2017 0:31:15 GMT -6
It seems you are not understanding. I remember that this was a problem before. I guess I don't understand you sorry. I called the people who fall for murderers' sob stories "suckers". I would not have called them suckers if I agreed with them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 26, 2017 16:33:51 GMT -6
Personally I don't run around trying to use any victim or their families to promote the death penalty. I guess, however, victims names are going to come up when it is discussed. It's just going to. I only posted this article because I admired this person reminding people that these people had lives that they were living before they were cruelly taken out. To me it's refreshing to remember those who were murdered instead of being constantly reminded how bad it is on death row or how bad it is in prison for lifers. I'm tired of the sympathy for them. They really don't deserve it. Stormy, I should think that here, in this space, it's a bit like preaching to the choir. Indeed, even though I oppose the death penalty, you should know me well enough by now to realize I haven't sympathy for murderers. I don't feel they deserve it any more than you do. Since you posted the article, it just seems to me (maybe I misunderstood) that you do agree with using victims and their families. If, as you say, you support the death penalty for all murderers, then use of the more horrifying is not for your sake but to persuade those who might disagree with you. (Again, sorry if I misunderstood your motives.)
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Sept 26, 2017 16:52:41 GMT -6
Personally I don't run around trying to use any victim or their families to promote the death penalty. I gotta be honest, though, you sometimes create that impression. E.g. above, when I asked: ...I admit I was making a snide joke about the image you've created over the years. I wasn't expecting you to own to it, but imagine my surprise when: !! I was very happy with such an honest response, but now I think that maybe you misunderstood the question.
|
|
|
Post by Stormyweather on Sept 26, 2017 18:28:31 GMT -6
Personally I don't run around trying to use any victim or their families to promote the death penalty. I guess, however, victims names are going to come up when it is discussed. It's just going to. I only posted this article because I admired this person reminding people that these people had lives that they were living before they were cruelly taken out. To me it's refreshing to remember those who were murdered instead of being constantly reminded how bad it is on death row or how bad it is in prison for lifers. I'm tired of the sympathy for them. They really don't deserve it. Stormy, I should think that here, in this space, it's a bit like preaching to the choir. Indeed, even though I oppose the death penalty, you should know me well enough by now to realize I haven't sympathy for murderers. I don't feel they deserve it any more than you do. Since you posted the article, it just seems to me (maybe I misunderstood) that you do agree with using victims and their families. If, as you say, you support the death penalty for all murderers, then use of the more horrifying is not for your sake but to persuade those who might disagree with you. (Again, sorry if I misunderstood your motives.) Sorry if you thought I meant we should use victims and family members to make our case because I only meant in regard when discussing a specific execution at the time and of course victims and family members are going to come up and I guess that is what I meant. I do support the death penalty for all murderers but I also do realize it is not going to happen. And I knew you and many antis do not defend murderers but there are those who do. You and I both know some pen pals have gone as far to tell us what a "nice" person they really are. I guess when I posted this that is the people whom I was thinking of. Now I want you to realize when I mentions the horrendous deaths of these three victims it was only in answer to when Bernard said some antis feel like lack of education and poverty cause murder (he of course doesn't feel this way himself) and I was responding that what ever they went through would be no excuse or comparison to what these people went through or anyway that is what I meant. Sorry myself for the confusion.
|
|