|
Post by bernard on Feb 14, 2018 15:55:00 GMT -6
you're confusing innocence with exhonoration. Criminal trials are as good as they likely ever will be. I suppose the guy holding a person down while his buddy stabs him to death is "innocent"? Why would you suppose that? Are you having cognitive trouble? You're not making any sense.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Feb 14, 2018 18:38:25 GMT -6
you're confusing innocence with exhonoration. Criminal trials are as good as they likely ever will be. I suppose the guy holding a person down while his buddy stabs him to death is "innocent"? Why would you suppose that? Are you having cognitive trouble? You're not making any sense. by your definition of innocence ron lafferty is innocent. What are you doing to secure his "exhonoration "?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 15, 2018 13:53:38 GMT -6
Why would you suppose that? Are you having cognitive trouble? You're not making any sense. by your definition of innocence ron lafferty is innocent. No he isn't. He is a murderer. Nothing, because he is guilty. You still aren't making any sense.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Feb 15, 2018 20:33:57 GMT -6
Well Bernard, maybe if you tried to keep up with your own responses it wouldn't be so confusing to you.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 16, 2018 15:01:49 GMT -6
Well Bernard, maybe if you tried to keep up with your own responses it wouldn't be so confusing to you. Okay, let's go through my responses, and your responses to my responses, and see if we can both keep up. You said: "By the way, define innocence". To which I responded: "It's when you didn't do it". Then you said: "by your definition of innocence ron lafferty is innocent." By implication, you are arguing that Ron Lafferty didn't do it!
Please clarify. Is this what you meant? Or would you like to take it back and say something more sensible?
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Feb 16, 2018 16:32:04 GMT -6
Well Bernard, maybe if you tried to keep up with your own responses it wouldn't be so confusing to you. Okay, let's go through my responses, and your responses to my responses, and see if we can both keep up. You said: "By the way, define innocence". To which I responded: "It's when you didn't do it". Then you said: "by your definition of innocence ron lafferty is innocent." By implication, you are arguing that Ron Lafferty didn't do it!
Please clarify. Is this what you meant? Or would you like to take it back and say something more sensible? Dan "did" it, Ron waited in the car. So do you want to clarify your meaning of innocence or work on Ron's exoneration?
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Feb 16, 2018 17:28:31 GMT -6
The entire point bernard that you can't seem to grasp is that "innocence" is one big ocean of gray. That's why i don't get the same "boner" about exhonoration that you do.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 16, 2018 18:27:34 GMT -6
Okay, let's go through my responses, and your responses to my responses, and see if we can both keep up. You said: "By the way, define innocence". To which I responded: "It's when you didn't do it". Then you said: "by your definition of innocence ron lafferty is innocent." By implication, you are arguing that Ron Lafferty didn't do it!
Please clarify. Is this what you meant? Or would you like to take it back and say something more sensible? Dan "did" it, Ron waited in the car. Really? I must have bad information. This is what I read: - "Ron Lafferty believed that Brenda Lafferty, the wife of his brother Allen, had encouraged and assisted Ron's ex-wife in obtaining a divorce from him. After his divorce, Ron, who had previously been excommunicated from the Mormon church, began claiming that he had received a divine revelation that four individuals, including Brenda and her infant daughter, Erica, were to be "removed." On July 24, 1984, Ron and his brother, Dan Lafferty, made numerous comments to two companions that "the Lord" wanted Brenda and her child to die. On the same day, Ron and Dan forced their way into Brenda's house while Allen was away. Ron beat Brenda, strangled her with a vacuum cord, and slit her throat with a knife. Dan killed fifteen-month-old Erica by slitting her throat. Ron, Dan, and their companions subsequently broke into Chloe Low's house, intending to murder her, but Low was not at home. "
www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1309988/state-v-lafferty/
Why is the court unaware that Ron Lafferty was in fact waiting in the car, as you say? They mention waiting in the car here, from a different appeal: - "According to the trial testimony of Carnes and Knapp, on the day of the murders Ron and Dan Lafferty, Carnes, and Knapp drove to Brenda's home. Ron and Dan went into the house and killed Brenda and Erica by slitting their throats while Carnes and Knapp waited outside in the car."
But it's Carnes and Knapp who wait in the car, not either of the Laffertys.
Obviously there are two versions of the story going around and we need to decide which one is correct. Could you link me to your source that Ron Lafferty waited in the car while his brother committed the murders? I couldn't find it, and I'd like to get to the bottom of this.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Feb 16, 2018 19:45:23 GMT -6
that's very interesting. i'm going off memory from a class I attended many years ago about the investigation so I don't really have a source for you. if your source is correct then there are indeed a couple of versions out there. so do you consider carnes and knapp innocent? at any rate how do you feel about ron getting the death penalty and dan not? or do i have that "memory" incorrect also?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 16, 2018 23:13:03 GMT -6
that's very interesting. i'm going off memory from a class I attended many years ago about the investigation so I don't really have a source for you. if your source is correct then there are indeed a couple of versions out there. so do you consider carnes and knapp innocent? at any rate how do you feel about ron getting the death penalty and dan not? or do i have that "memory" incorrect also? Comparable crimes ought to get comparable sentences. That's basic. Yet what I read today is that Dan got 5 to life. Could have been released after five years. Let me put your question back to you. How do you feel about the difference in sentencing? If a system finds a guy who cut a little girl's throat through to the spine is eligible for release after five, is that a competent system in your view? Should it be trusted with big decisions, when it screws up something that easy?
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Feb 17, 2018 11:56:46 GMT -6
that's very interesting. i'm going off memory from a class I attended many years ago about the investigation so I don't really have a source for you. if your source is correct then there are indeed a couple of versions out there. so do you consider carnes and knapp innocent? at any rate how do you feel about ron getting the death penalty and dan not? or do i have that "memory" incorrect also? Comparable crimes ought to get comparable sentences. That's basic. Yet what I read today is that Dan got 5 to life. Could have been released after five years. Let me put your question back to you. How do you feel about the difference in sentencing? If a system finds a guy who cut a little girl's throat through to the spine is eligible for release after five, is that a competent system in your view? Should it be trusted with big decisions, when it screws up something that easy? this is why i support the death penalty, it's the closest thing to actual life in prison that there is. people are fooling themselves when they think there is such a thing as LWOP. and although a jury of our peers is the cornerstone of our system, it is a real crapshoot as to what they will come back with. as this case clearly shows. do you support the jury system?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 18, 2018 1:31:13 GMT -6
Comparable crimes ought to get comparable sentences. That's basic. Yet what I read today is that Dan got 5 to life. Could have been released after five years. Let me put your question back to you. How do you feel about the difference in sentencing? If a system finds a guy who cut a little girl's throat through to the spine is eligible for release after five, is that a competent system in your view? Should it be trusted with big decisions, when it screws up something that easy? this is why i support the death penalty, it's the closest thing to actual life in prison that there is. people are fooling themselves when they think there is such a thing as LWOP. and although a jury of our peers is the cornerstone of our system, it is a real crapshoot as to what they will come back with. as this case clearly shows. do you support the jury system? I doubt that twelve schmos can master the details of forensics, ballistics, law and whatever else in a short enough time and still find the patience to get the right answer. I agree that it's a crap shoot. But this is why I can't support an execution on the basis of it.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Feb 18, 2018 11:32:34 GMT -6
this is why i support the death penalty, it's the closest thing to actual life in prison that there is. people are fooling themselves when they think there is such a thing as LWOP. and although a jury of our peers is the cornerstone of our system, it is a real crapshoot as to what they will come back with. as this case clearly shows. do you support the jury system? I doubt that twelve schmos can master the details of forensics, ballistics, law and whatever else in a short enough time and still find the patience to get the right answer. I agree that it's a crap shoot. But this is why I can't support an execution on the basis of it. funny you should say that. that's why I say DNA doesn't prove or disprove anything in a court of law. a laboratory perhaps amongst other scientists, but not a court of law. yet everyone thinks it's the end all / be all.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Feb 18, 2018 11:35:14 GMT -6
this is why i support the death penalty, it's the closest thing to actual life in prison that there is. people are fooling themselves when they think there is such a thing as LWOP. and although a jury of our peers is the cornerstone of our system, it is a real crapshoot as to what they will come back with. as this case clearly shows. do you support the jury system? I doubt that twelve schmos can master the details of forensics, ballistics, law and whatever else in a short enough time and still find the patience to get the right answer. I agree that it's a crap shoot. But this is why I can't support an execution on the basis of it. but then the question becomes why support any kind of punishment based on a jury?
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 18, 2018 20:15:14 GMT -6
I doubt that twelve schmos can master the details of forensics, ballistics, law and whatever else in a short enough time and still find the patience to get the right answer. I agree that it's a crap shoot. But this is why I can't support an execution on the basis of it. but then the question becomes why support any kind of punishment based on a jury? Good question. I guess my feeling is that the more rigorous the punishment will be, the more rigorous the proof should be. And the jury system as it stands is not nearly rigorous enough to support a punishment as final and irreversible as the death penalty. This is especially so when you consider such things as pleas deals for accomplices and jailhouse snitches which are designed to get *a* result rather than *the right* result. It's not a justice system per se. As the punishment gets less rigorous and less final, I am less worried (though still worried) by the fault lines in the system. But you are persuading me, nevertheless, of the claim you made earlier. That the real root of the problem is the process we use to determine guilt. Maybe by focusing on the penalty, I am misdirecting my concern.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Feb 18, 2018 21:07:27 GMT -6
a death penalty conviction should never be an easy thing to acquire. but then upon conviction punishment should not be drug out for 30 years either. one appeal, two years max. absolute perfection is unattainable and to expect it only clogs up the whole deal. beyond a reasonable doubt is well, reasonable.
|
|
|
Post by fuglyville on Feb 19, 2018 2:01:01 GMT -6
a death penalty conviction should never be an easy thing to acquire. but then upon conviction punishment should not be drug out for 30 years either. one appeal, two years max. absolute perfection is unattainable and to expect it only clogs up the whole deal. beyond a reasonable doubt is well, reasonable. Absolute perfection is unattainable, which is why it's always better to let 10 guilty murderers go free than to execute one innocent man.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 19, 2018 11:54:32 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Feb 19, 2018 12:11:23 GMT -6
a death penalty conviction should never be an easy thing to acquire. but then upon conviction punishment should not be drug out for 30 years either. one appeal, two years max. absolute perfection is unattainable and to expect it only clogs up the whole deal. beyond a reasonable doubt is well, reasonable. Absolute perfection is unattainable, which is why it's always better to let 10 guilty murderers go free than to execute one innocent man. so let's let the florida school shooter go free just to be sure. or do you support his execution because he WON'T be innocent?
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Feb 19, 2018 19:12:14 GMT -6
Reread the comment and see if you are still seeing the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by oslooskar on Feb 19, 2018 19:18:08 GMT -6
Absolute perfection is unattainable, which is why it's always better to let 10 guilty murderers go free than to execute one innocent man. so let's let the florida school shooter go free just to be sure. or do you support his execution because he WON'T be innocent? He might actually not be responsible if not innocent. After all, we don’t really know if his actions were in some way affected by all those psychiatric drugs that he was taking.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Feb 19, 2018 20:00:26 GMT -6
so let's let the florida school shooter go free just to be sure. or do you support his execution because he WON'T be innocent? He might actually not be responsible if not innocent. After all, we don’t really know if his actions were in some way affected by all those psychiatric drugs that he was taking. legal semantics. that's why courts don't determine "innocence". they either hold responsible or not responsible. that's where his state of mind ect. come into play. but there is no question who pulled the trigger but only will we hold him responsible for it or not. basically my point about "innocence", it can be pretty gray.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 19, 2018 20:03:39 GMT -6
Reread the comment and see if you are still seeing the same thing. Yep, nothing is perfect, letting 10 " guilty" murderers go free is perfect for the murderers. Fug said they were guilty" .
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 20, 2018 9:14:59 GMT -6
so let's let the florida school shooter go free just to be sure. or do you support his execution because he WON'T be innocent? He might actually not be responsible if not innocent. After all, we don’t really know if his actions were in some way affected by all those psychiatric drugs that he was taking. Or not taking his meds. Most people with mental illness are not violent. When I compare school shootings like workplace shootings going on, a common denominator is they felt rejected & angry. A young person is the most vulnerable to dealing with these emotions. I believe a lot of factors play into this. We should start thinking about all the balls that were dropped & why.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Feb 20, 2018 11:34:50 GMT -6
Because of various privacy laws and hippa rules I do not believe law enforcement and nics can even access mental health issues and I don't believe doctors are allowed to volunteer said info. So what does America want, medical privacy or government access? That's the first dropped ball to be addressed.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 20, 2018 14:53:26 GMT -6
Because of various privacy laws and hippa rules I do not believe law enforcement and nics can even access mental health issues and I don't believe doctors are allowed to volunteer said info. So what does America want, medical privacy or government access? That's the first dropped ball to be addressed. Yes, that is the first dropped ball, a good start. Instead of ( excuse the expression) than shooting from the hip. That first ball has no easy answer & will need serious thoughts. Medical privacy is a double edge sword. Privacy up to what point? Same with Gov access.
|
|
|
Post by hawg on Feb 20, 2018 15:06:43 GMT -6
Because of various privacy laws and hippa rules I do not believe law enforcement and nics can even access mental health issues and I don't believe doctors are allowed to volunteer said info. So what does America want, medical privacy or government access? That's the first dropped ball to be addressed. Yes, that is the first dropped ball, a good start. Instead of ( excuse the expression) than shooting from the hip. That first ball has no easy answer & will need serious thoughts. Medical privacy is a double edge sword. Privacy up to what point? Same with Gov access. yup. That's why the people who "claim" they don't want the cruz's to get an AR type gun really don't want anyone to get one. It's easier than giving up "their" rights, privacy and conveniences. It's also why 15000 or so people die by drunk drivers each year, an nobody says a word. Less than a few hundred are killed each year by AT type guns an we come apart at the seams. Depending quite often on the level of inconvenience an answer might be to us personally. Nobody ever wants to ban something that affects them.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 20, 2018 18:29:34 GMT -6
You don't need to give law enforcement access to mental health records. Once the psycho has either started shooting or is acting dangerously, the cops don't need to access his medical records. And if he hasn't started shooting or acting dangerously, it's none of the cops business. A person who is merely at risk of shooting up a school hasn't broken the law, so he cannot be arrested.
What you need to do is get doctors to order that such people be hospitalized. Doctors already have access to mental health records, so there is no need for a change in the privacy laws. The problem is that the psychos don't do doctor visits. And even if they did, they'd stop once the doctors started locking them up.
So if you want to solve this as a mental health issue, you are going to have to force everyone to go for evaluations to see whether they are psychotic. I can't see another way. But as much as the libertarian right wants to protect their right to bear arms, I am not sure whether they would be willing to sign on to that.
|
|
|
Post by whitediamonds on Feb 20, 2018 19:05:25 GMT -6
You don't need to give law enforcement access to mental health records. Once the psycho has either started shooting or is acting dangerously, the cops don't need to access his medical records. And if he hasn't started shooting or acting dangerously, it's none of the cops business. A person who is merely at risk of shooting up a school hasn't broken the law, so he cannot be arrested. What you need to do is get doctors to order that such people be hospitalized. Doctors already have access to mental health records, so there is no need for a change in the privacy laws. The problem is that the psychos don't do doctor visits. And even if they did, they'd stop once the doctors started locking them up. So if you want to solve this as a mental health issue, you are going to have to force everyone to go for evaluations to see whether they are psychotic. I can't see another way. But as much as the libertarian right wants to protect their right to bear arms, I am not sure whether they would be willing to sign on to that. Alert the FBI, of the possibility. To his wanting to be a professional school shooter. As that one kid did, only to be ignored . FBI can make it hard for them to get a gun, as Cruz did legally. Florida law ( all states are different) let's this age buy an AR? Shootings in schools are done by the young, against the young. Mental issues are none of the cops business? Well, odd how if a officer has to shoot an armed mental , not knowing he has a mental issue . The public screams foul. Maybe police should know who is high risk? So, guess your solution is do not notify anyone to be aware, because they have not committed any crime yet.
|
|
|
Post by bernard on Feb 20, 2018 20:56:08 GMT -6
Mental issues are none of the cops business? I am afraid not. There is no constitutional way for the cops to arrest someone simply for being mentally ill. You can hoot and holler and scream to the moon that it just isn't fair, but that doesn't mean it isn't true. If you can give me a workable way to spot a rampage killer in advance, then we can talk about notifying people.
|
|