Maybe this belongs in the "fat AND dumb" thread?
Casey Anthony
- Thread starter MMike
- Start date
let's start by not murdering the queen's english first, mkay?petition said:
it's florida
if you were the heavens, would you be happy?
Don't put words in my mouth stink. As far as the police are concerned as I understand they don't decide whether a person will be tried for capital murder, they don't sentence people to death and they don't carry out the death sentence. My focus is very narrow here, I'm talking about the death penalty. I have my own opinions on the conduct and morality of police and soldiers but it's immaterial to this discussion.
The default position of people who oppose the death penalty is not that murderers should go free. By definition any convicted murderer is morally deficient.
However when it all kicks off down the murky end of the pool I tend to avoid assigning levels of moral culpability.
Ahhh...I see. Must agree to disagree slightly with you here. I support capital punishment...as punishment alone. Some crimes are so heinous that the only conceivable punishment (imho) is to end the mortal life of the committer(s). Genocides, mass murders, crimes against humanity and the helpless en masse etc. It should not ever be used lightly. In this case (Spoiled brat party chick doesnt want her baby anymoer and decides she has worn out her uselfullness...) the fact that she must live every day with the memory of her child and how she callously ended her young life is punishment enough. She wont be able to find work as a pole dancer...my bet is she offs herself within the year.
Stink just hates the PoPo and anyone in a uniform. I hear he walked in on his girlfriend shagging the ice cream man one day...
Dammit. If I hadn't clicked on this thread I'd probably NEVER have known about this whack-job. 
Poor old Stink, I bet the ice cream man had triple chocolate too and Stink's only got a single vanilla cone
Dammit. If I hadn't clicked on this thread I'd probably NEVER have known about this whack-job.
it's immaterial until it becomes material
and it is.
for you cannot have a legal system that tacitly endorses capital punishment by either the dept of corrections or the police dept, but only the one which prefers due process over extra-judicial action deserving of your derision. i am unaware of any society or culture that requires training in the use of deadly force only to judge them as morally vacant when used.
look, i don't drip hot wax on my gooch at the specter of capital punishment. nor do i shrug when a mom-to-be gets cored b/c having a healthy kid would be terribly inconvenient (or in this case, has an 11th trimester postpartum abortion). but if we're going to have any sense of purpose here, i think calling things what they are is a good place to start.
I think in your attempt to spin a finely woven web you've become tangled yourself. I most certainly draw a moral distinction between the use of capital punishment as practiced in the US, Japan and few, very few, other places not of ill-repute and the use of deadly force by the police in defence of their own or other's lives.
Splitting hairs here Stinko, but police chiefs and police do not execute capitol punishment, as prescribed by a jury of course.
what's to weave? a perp cannot -- CANNOT -- get into the judicial/corrections phase w/o first being in the police phase.
and if johne is worth his salt, he'll give his fully relevant professional point of view that deadly force is authorized even if no one is in immediate peril. i.e., there does not need to be a hostage w/ a gun to his head, and a gun does not have to first be fired -- or even seen.
so in sum, you've demonstrated you have no issue w/ a cop unsuccessfully using deadly force for a murderer on the run (as an example), then put the perp on trial for a capital crime, find him guilty & sentenced to death, and then find those in the post arrest phase as being morally bankrupt. i'm not asking you confirm this; your posts have done that for you.
wouldn't a more consistent position be to "arm" cops w/ less-than-lethal weapons exclusively? then no one gets intentionally killed by the state. about this i'm not trolling.
You continue to subscribe me to positions I have not taken. I find certain actions by the police to be morally objectionable as regard to the use of deadly force, others morally acceptable. I never, under any circumstances, find the use of capital punishment to be acceptable. You err in assuming that I find any use of deadly force by police to be morally acceptable. I have not said that.
In your above example, the use of deadly without immediate peril I find morally objectionable.
ok, i'm almost there.
i, too, could find [and have found] examples of police misconduct resulting in death. but what i'm unclear on is how you could find examples of the use of deadly force which are morally acceptable, yet cannot be convinced there can be a situation where capital punishment also is. is it b/c when incarcerated & awaiting death, the recipient is defenseless, but on the streets he was armed? [i refuse to say 'could defend himself' for what i hope are obvious reasons.]
i don't demand you "explain yourself", but so far i see your position as inconsistent at best, and morally untenable at worst. oddly, i find no joy/relief/sense of justice when saddam was hanged, but would if some random dude murdered just one kid. that's likely rooted in "one death is a tragedy; one million a statistic"
Due to the nature of their job, police will at times find themselves in positions where their only possible course of action will be the use of deadly force. While I find the use of deadly force always regrettable I also accept that it is in many cases inevitable and indeed necessary. Capital punishment is never inevitable or necessary. Its use is capricious, inconsistent, subject to the whims of politicians and by definition final. Texas' most recent execution conviniently encapsulated all that is wrong with capital punishment.
http://www.canada.com/World+News/5069988/story.html
It beggars belief that more people don't find this outrageous.
i would hope if some bad guy had a gun to the head of your wife/kid & street justice was dispensed that you'd have no regrets, and would openly express gratitude that the lives of your loved ones weren't sacrificed on the altar of hand-wringing moral equivalency.
i realize you're not saying that; but i'm feeling it.
- it is indeed necessary to fulfill the law
- its use is hardly capricious, given the avg time on death row is over a decade
- however, just like w/ aids, if you have enough money & you can almost die of old age
i'm not pro-capital punishment, but i am pro-justice. if capital punishment is legally accessible, then not to use it is inconsistent at best. to use it as a tool of revenge is improper, imho
I have been out of the "normal" LE gig for awhile now...dangit Stink...you're making me think!
Use of force rules vary from agency to agency (Due to legal variances from jurisdiciton to jurisdiction...), but most that I am aware of , require a responding officer to recognize several facts before engaging with deadly force. The most common in my experience are that the bad guy have the opportunity, intent and capability to commit a crime in which the acceptable police response is the use of deadly force. This is most often a forceable felony...rape, murder, agg batt etc. Also included in this is the officers inherent right to self defense. I would wager that most UoF circumstances are directly related to self defense. I know there are stats out there, but I am too lazy to dig for them now...
How this relates to the use of capital punishment I dont know. Death penalties are thought out far in advance, wrangled over legally and socially and often take years to carry out. A Cop on the street using deadly force has a millisecond to make a life or death decision. Another thing we havent touched on is that most death row inmates are not there because of their first or only crime.
The Garcia case is regrettable; an out and out refusal by Texas authorities to recognize an international treaty. Texas should be ashamed, Mexico justifiably outraged. But it begs the question, how would the Mexican governments assistance or simple notification have changed the outcome? They have bigger issues south of the border then dealing with someone who fled their country, entered another and commited a heinous crime. Also for your consideration, how many other crimes had he commited that we dont know about?
Last edited:
you probably aren't hearing outrage because of what the scumbag did that got him locked up.
It's alright, I already had you in the "morally vacant" camp. No need to continually present your credentials.
try it nao?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/missing_year_old_klyn_boy_found_SsxgaRkRSOXDdtevuPT2XP
[plus marks for ironic foreshadowing of 'suitable']
someecards.com
Attachments
Don't be too quick to judge Marshall Earp, after all who here doesn't have at least one body part in the freezer? Westy even has a baby fridge!
Been sifting through your posts and am having trouble finding what I am looking for. Have you stated what you think should be done with capital offenders? My curiosity is peaked now and would like to know what the alternative presented by the other camp is. Considering that most of the time it is life in prison--(and discounting the fact you are not currently living in the US--I don't know how Japan's capital justice system works) are you okay with taxpayers paying to keep someone locked up who has committed horrible crimes and has been determined by psychologists to be a psychopath (feeling no remorse) and so therefore cannot be rehabilitated or ever released?
Oh I see, it's all about the money then. Obviously then you agree that building more and more prisons is not the way forward and that, for example, non-violent drug offenders should be diverted away from the prison system towards the health system?
Psychopaths belong in mental hospitals. I think you don't understand what psychopath means but it's an easy label to stick and allows you to not have to think about why murders occur, how they can be prevented and what is the best way to deal with murderers.
I actually accept that some people can never be released from incarceration, at least while they remain physically capable of harm but generally oppose sentences of life without the possibility of parole. As a general rule though, in the worst category of murders, release should come after 30 years or after the offender turns 70, whichever is longer but dealt with on a case by case basis. Release should only come after the offender has shown significant redemption both in a practical and a moral sense.
Psychopaths belong in mental hospitals. I think you don't understand what psychopath means but it's an easy label to stick and allows you to not have to think about why murders occur, how they can be prevented and what is the best way to deal with murderers.
I actually accept that some people can never be released from incarceration, at least while they remain physically capable of harm but generally oppose sentences of life without the possibility of parole. As a general rule though, in the worst category of murders, release should come after 30 years or after the offender turns 70, whichever is longer but dealt with on a case by case basis. Release should only come after the offender has shown significant redemption both in a practical and a moral sense.
Last edited:
No, not that one. This one, the giant 43 year old black guy from philly:
^^^ I picture that guy sounding like patrice o'neal
in that case, his name must be casey anfoney
It may be the beer, but at first look, it looked like that guy up top had blonde dreads. Upon more beer and further review, just a tree.
Carry on.
Carry on.
Ok, so I hate myself for posting this and caring, but WTF?
http://news.yahoo.com/casey-anthony-plans-appeal-convictions-lying-164116184.html
So she is not satisfied with just getting off scott-free on the murder of her kid, but now she is appealing the conviction on the lying charge? She is getting out on Sunday regardless for time served... Why even bother? To clear her name? She has no "name" any more.
The only thing I can think of is that a suit has been brought against her in Civil court by someone who claims that she slandered her name when she said that this person (or someone "made up" with the same name) had taken her child. Thus, if she can get the lying charge overturned she will have a better chance of beating the civil suit.
http://news.yahoo.com/casey-anthony-plans-appeal-convictions-lying-164116184.html
So she is not satisfied with just getting off scott-free on the murder of her kid, but now she is appealing the conviction on the lying charge? She is getting out on Sunday regardless for time served... Why even bother? To clear her name? She has no "name" any more.
The only thing I can think of is that a suit has been brought against her in Civil court by someone who claims that she slandered her name when she said that this person (or someone "made up" with the same name) had taken her child. Thus, if she can get the lying charge overturned she will have a better chance of beating the civil suit.
Larry Flynt is offering Crazy Bitch $500K for a good ol nasty Hustler spread. Can't we get something even more degrading? Are Swank or Cherry still around?
