Shootings

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
stimpy
Posts: 6102
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:04 pm

Re: Shootings

Post by stimpy »

He wrote that it was the right decision to not impose the death penalty.
That implies that he thinks those that do or did are/were wrong for wanting it.

He cant possibly know what is right or wrong to the parents and relatives of the victims.
And no one should pass judgement on those that are in that horrible position.

I've seen cases that were clear cut cases for the death penalty, where the relatives of the victims spoke out against it.
In no way, shape or form would I ever think they were wrong for feeling that way, even if I didnt agree with them.
He/Him/His/Porcupine
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Shootings

Post by Unagi »

stimpy wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:45 pm He wrote that it was the right decision to not impose the death penalty.
That implies that he thinks those that do or did are/were wrong for wanting it.
And take a deep breath. That is how he feels about it.

stimpy wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:45 pm He cant possibly know what is right or wrong to the parents and relatives of the victims.
I don't think stessier was trying to speak about what he feels is right or wrong in regard to a judgment of how the victims' families feel or judging what they honestly feel would be justice. Yes, he feels the death penalty should be off the table and it's never the right choice.

Are they wrong in stessier view of justice - yeah.
Are they heartless and uncaring people to stessier because of their feelings in this context? I don't want to (keep) speak(ing) for stessier, but I bet he understands their focus.
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Shootings

Post by Unagi »

stimpy wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:45 pm And no one should pass judgement on those that are in that horrible position.
Did he pass judgement on them? He passed judgement on capital punishment.

stimpy wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:45 pm I've seen cases that were clear cut cases for the death penalty, where the relatives of the victims spoke out against it.
In no way, shape or form would I ever think they were wrong for feeling that way, even if I didnt agree with them.
But if you felt this way and the guilty got the death penalty, and you reacted with "This was the right outcome here" - could you imagine if people jumped on you for accusing those relatives of being "weak on crime", when that wasn't at all what you were saying?
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30126
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Shootings

Post by YellowKing »

I was going to comment earlier that I felt life in prison was the right call but I was afraid it would turn into a death penalty debate. Guess those fears were well-founded. Never change, OO. :lol:
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43501
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Shootings

Post by Blackhawk »

gbasden wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 10:34 pm
stessier wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 3:22 pm This was the correct result. The death penalty should not be a thing.
+1
I am also in this camp for a number of reasons. Our justice system is too fallible to be allowed to kill people on my behalf.

And having worked in a maximum security prison, I agree - life in prison is the harsher sentence.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51303
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Shootings

Post by hepcat »

stimpy wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:19 pm
Alefroth wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:14 pm Why do you have to always be hyperbolic and misrepresent what people say?
Misrepresent????
How can anyone read what he wrote as anything other than he doesnt believe in the death penalty under any circumstances.
You really did misrepresent the reason for his opposition to the death penalty, though. As everyone has already told you repeatedly, at no point was he passing judgement on grieving parents.

I’ve come to see things like Blackhawk, myself.
Covfefe!
User avatar
stessier
Posts: 29819
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Shootings

Post by stessier »

Unagi wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:56 pm
stimpy wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:45 pm He wrote that it was the right decision to not impose the death penalty.
That implies that he thinks those that do or did are/were wrong for wanting it.
And take a deep breath. That is how he feels about it.

stimpy wrote: Thu Oct 13, 2022 11:45 pm He cant possibly know what is right or wrong to the parents and relatives of the victims.
I don't think stessier was trying to speak about what he feels is right or wrong in regard to a judgment of how the victims' families feel or judging what they honestly feel would be justice. Yes, he feels the death penalty should be off the table and it's never the right choice.

Are they wrong in stessier view of justice - yeah.
Are they heartless and uncaring people to stessier because of their feelings in this context? I don't want to (keep) speak(ing) for stessier, but I bet he understands their focus.
Yeah, pretty much everything you said. :) But just so others can quote me instead of you - yes, I am against the death penalty in all cases. I do not put any blame or think any less of any victim or affected person from wanting the death penalty. I get it and hope they are eventually able to find peace. My opposition is strictly limited to the idea that the State should ever take the life of anyone because of the fallible nature of the legal system and finality of the result. I see legal punishments as either being restitution to the victims, deterrence for future offenders, or protection of the People from the perpetrator. The death penalty does not serve as restitution as there is nothing that could in these cases and I firmly believe the State should not be in the revenge business (which is all an "eye-for-an-eye" argument is). As Kraken mentioned, it's been shown that it's also not a deterrent. Finally, life without parole serves just as much protection of the populace without the finality (just in case). I also have complicated/not really well developed thoughts around people being able to change over time and still being able to contribute to the world from behind bars.

The only thing I'd change is this part.
Are they wrong in stessier view of justice - yeah.
I've come to understand/believe that the Justice System isn't about justice - it's about application of the law. I feel it is extremely rare that the application of the law results in justice (whatever that means) and that when it does, it's more a quirk than a feature.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Shootings

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 1:02 am

And having worked in a maximum security prison, I agree - life in prison is the harsher sentence.
At what cost to the survivors who know this guy will be around for the rest of his natural life, the families of the victims he killed, and the system.that has to keep him alive for the rest of his natural life?

And what does it say of our "justice" system that people we put in jail are better off dead and we're OK with that being their punishment? That we even support it because it absolves us of making the tough decision of the death penalty?



No, the death penalty isn't a deterrent but in a case like this with overwhelming, indisputable evidence, I have no problem with. resolving the problem of this individual's existence with an execution.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30126
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Shootings

Post by YellowKing »

Many studies have shown the cost of keeping and eventually executing condemned prisoners is higher than the cost of life imprisonment.

That aside, from a moral standpoint I don't believe in punishing someone for a crime by committing that same "crime" upon them. We live in a civilized society, not Biblical times. We should be better than eye for an eye.

But that's coming from someone who doesn't fish, doesn't hunt, and feels guilty for killing a housefly. I don't like being in the position of taking the life of something.
User avatar
gbasden
Posts: 7664
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:57 am
Location: Sacramento, CA

Re: Shootings

Post by gbasden »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Sat Oct 15, 2022 8:50 am
No, the death penalty isn't a deterrent but in a case like this with overwhelming, indisputable evidence, I have no problem with. resolving the problem of this individual's existence with an execution.
In this particular case, I wouldn't have a problem with it. In general, though, we have proved that our justice system is so flawed that we can't be trusted with it. Far too many innocent people have been exonerated from death row, or worse, posthumously. That the conditions and cruelty of life in prison is so inhumane is yet a completely separate horror that highlights the worst aspects of our culture.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43501
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Shootings

Post by Blackhawk »

gbasden wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 4:39 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Sat Oct 15, 2022 8:50 am
No, the death penalty isn't a deterrent but in a case like this with overwhelming, indisputable evidence, I have no problem with. resolving the problem of this individual's existence with an execution.
In this particular case, I wouldn't have a problem with it. In general, though, we have proved that our justice system is so flawed that we can't be trusted with it. Far too many innocent people have been exonerated from death row, or worse, posthumously. That the conditions and cruelty of life in prison is so inhumane is yet a completely separate horror that highlights the worst aspects of our culture.
That's my view. There are absolutely cases here and there where I might accept it, but in order to make it available in those cases, we have to make it available in all of the rest. And we just aren't wielding that particular weapon responsibly.

There is zero question in my mind that the system - which acts on my behalf - has killed innocent people. On my behalf. In my name. And as long as that is a possibility, that tool needs to go away.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43501
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Shootings

Post by Blackhawk »

To turn the question around (and not addressing anyone in particular), how many innocent people are you willing to have die in order to have this guy executed?

If that number isn't greater than zero, then how do you justify supporting the death penalty?
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Shootings

Post by Isgrimnur »

Enlarge Image
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Shootings

Post by Pyperkub »

LawBeefaroni wrote:
Blackhawk wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 1:02 am

And having worked in a maximum security prison, I agree - life in prison is the harsher sentence.
At what cost to the survivors who know this guy will be around for the rest of his natural life, the families of the victims he killed, and the system.that has to keep him alive for the rest of his natural life?

And what does it say of our "justice" system that people we put in jail are better off dead and we're OK with that being their punishment? That we even support it because it absolves us of making the tough decision of the death penalty?



No, the death penalty isn't a deterrent but in a case like this with overwhelming, indisputable evidence, I have no problem with. resolving the problem of this individual's existence with an execution.
Sorry, but the death penalty *is* a deterrent.

A deterrent to going to trial.

Not for the crime(s).
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Shootings

Post by Kurth »

There are many justifications for the death penalty, and I don't necessarily disagree with them.

But in the end, none of them really outweigh the fact that, setting aside any moral/ethical questions about whether we, as a society, should be killing anyone - even the worst among us, we've yet to find a way to implement a death penalty that that doesn't clearly and undeniably sweep in the innocent.

For me, especially as a lawyer, that makes the big-picture moral/ethical questions moot.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
stimpy
Posts: 6102
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 6:04 pm

Re: Shootings

Post by stimpy »

The jails have their fair share of people who are probably innocent.
Should we just stop arresting people?
He/Him/His/Porcupine
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30126
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Shootings

Post by YellowKing »

An innocent person in jail has a chance of someday being released. An innocent person dead has no chance of coming back to life. Not sure why I even have to spell that out, but there it is for what it's worth.

In fact, I'd argue that the fact that we have innocent people in prison is yet one more reason *against* the death penalty. It pretty much proves the point that our judicial system is wildly imperfect.
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Shootings

Post by Unagi »

Blackhawk wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 1:02 am I agree - life in prison is the harsher sentence.
So honest question here (not direct to you, but to all).

If life in prison is the harsher sentence, shouldn't we be just as vigilant about not ever once sending someone to life in prison, without parole, for fear that one of them is actually innocent?

I understand that 'life in prison' is still able to be undone, and the death penalty isn't. But if life in prison is truly even worse, then it seems like that's already been taken into account by the person that has measured the two and pronounced life-in-prison as even worse. And, I probably agree... Life in prison may very well be worse than a death sentence. I suppose that guy gets to always think about how his sentence may someday be annulled.


Personally, I harbor all of the concerns that many here have shared about our legal system's ability to fail. I do however also think there are some cases that are very clear and not even remotely contested. These are cases where there is no question about the guilt of the individual and the mitigating details are unable to overcome the magnitude of the crime. There are situations, I believe, that are indeed rock-solid. Truly unimpeachable verdicts. No room for doubt.

Now to be clear, there are people here with the opinion that the veracity of the conviction is beside the point. That no one should ever ever ever take another person's life. I think that's nice - but unrealistic. I'd like to imagine that world, but it doesn't exist. To be clear - the government is killing people with our tax dollars in so many other places and ways than 'the death penalty' that I don't know how you all agree to pay your taxes with such convictions.

I cannot say with any honesty that if my daughter and her peers were gunned down in school by some disturbed classmate I wouldn't want the death penalty. I cannot say that with any honesty.

So I can't speak with the amazingly angelic conviction that many of you seem to be able to show.

There are probably a crap ton of 'death penalty' cases where I would entirely agree with No Death Penalty - there is no certainty... but then there are certain specific cases where I think it's pretty clear.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43501
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Shootings

Post by Blackhawk »

Unagi wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:19 am
Blackhawk wrote: Fri Oct 14, 2022 1:02 am I agree - life in prison is the harsher sentence.
If life in prison is the harsher sentence, shouldn't we be just as vigilant about not ever once sending someone to life in prison, without parole, for fear that one of them is actually innocent?
I think that our entire justice system has gone sideways, so yes. We should be hyper-vigilant about not sentencing innocent people to suffer. Until (if) that happens, I prioritize, and death is a little hard to apologize (and compensate) for.

Gonna tap on these out of order.
Unagi wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:19 am Now to be clear, there are people here with the opinion that the veracity of the conviction is beside the point. That no one should ever ever ever take another person's life. I think that's nice - but unrealistic. I'd like to imagine that world, but it doesn't exist.
I don't disagree, and it's where some people who stand where I stand on the death penalty would argue with me.
I do however also think there are some cases that are very clear and not even remotely contested. These are cases where there is no question about the guilt of the individual and the mitigating details are unable to overcome the magnitude of the crime. There are situations, I believe, that are indeed rock-solid. Truly unimpeachable verdicts. No room for doubt.
Assuming that things can be so black-and-white (such cases have been overturned before), how do you propose to give that power to judges and juries without giving it to them in other cases? And remember, legally, "No room for doubt" is already the line for any criminal conviction. If they didn't believe that it is as iron-clad as you're suggesting, it would already be off of the table.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
stessier
Posts: 29819
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Shootings

Post by stessier »

Unagi wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:19 am Now to be clear, there are people here with the opinion that the veracity of the conviction is beside the point. That no one should ever ever ever take another person's life. I think that's nice - but unrealistic. I'd like to imagine that world, but it doesn't exist.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that you don't think it's possible for a government to not have a death penalty in today's world? If that's not it, could you try explaining again?
To be clear - the government is killing people with our tax dollars in so many other places and ways than 'the death penalty' that I don't know how you all agree to pay your taxes with such convictions.
The government does a lot of things I don't like in my name. Not paying taxes removes one from society and will ultimately land one in jail where it is much harder, if not impossible, to affect change.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Shootings

Post by Unagi »

Blackhawk wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:31 amhow do you propose to give that power to judges and juries without giving it to them in other cases?
Very valid.
Yeah, on that - I am not sure. But when I see a case that I feel fits the merits myself, I am compelled to think that there is a difference.

I was the foreperson of a jury in Chicago once (actually, twice) - and I feel the 'beyond a reasonable doubt" is a bar that has even more room above it. There can be obvious evidence that can lead you to be exceedingly confident that you have caught the right person. Witnesses saw them. It was their gun. They were found trying to flee the country. They bragged about it to someone. The victim's wallet was found at their house. That's 'beyond a reasonable doubt' type stuff. But then there is the case where the person videos themselves while they shoot 20 kids in a school, and days of online posts talking about their plan... Security cameras and the person was caught mid-massacre. I beleive that's the area that lies even above and beyond the whole "beyond a reasonable doubt" and lives in the world of 'Fact'.

Now - I understand that we currently live in a world in which 'fact' doesn't exist - and I don't have any ideas on how to address that. And yes - as you said, I think the justice system believes that 'beyond a reasonable doubt' is good enough of a gate for any of the justice it hands out, but I guess I would argue that maybe something like the death penalty should exist when this 'next level' of confidence exists. And yeah - I see how that's problematic for the level of confidence that would sit just below it.
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Shootings

Post by Unagi »

stessier wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 11:26 am
Unagi wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:19 am Now to be clear, there are people here with the opinion that the veracity of the conviction is beside the point. That no one should ever ever ever take another person's life. I think that's nice - but unrealistic. I'd like to imagine that world, but it doesn't exist.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Are you suggesting that you don't think it's possible for a government to not have a death penalty in today's world? If that's not it, could you try explaining again?
First, let me say that I'm not entirely sure what I'm saying. I'm kinda thinking out loud and trying to expose/explore my raw feelings to the forum so that I can figure out just how I feel about it all.

With the line you quoted above - I was trying to communicate that things like 'the atrocities of war' is likely a far worse moral transgression than the attempted fair application of a death penalty, and yet we live in a world where we have war - and even a peaceful country will be dragged into conflicts - and if they didn't the Putins of the world would rule. So, there is actually a reality of the need for the stomach to handle some level of "man kills man for reason X". Now, is this eye-for-an-eye? I don't know if I would really say that it is. The eye-for-an-eye problem is about the smaller transgressions in life, it's not about mass murderers being put to death. The death penalty, to me, is more about giving some peace to the survivors. They don't need to lay awake every night thinking about this monster sleeping under the same moon as them, forever.

Saying all of that, I like the idea of living in a culture that so valued life that it would never take a life. Never. Sure, there was the rare criminal that took people's lives, but they were all brought under control and handled without threat to their life. I just don't see how that's not a fairy tale. Sadly.

Now, I can see a world (easily) that does not have the death penalty, but that's not our world right now either. Right now, in the eyes of the survivors of a Florida school shooting, it's an option and one they would like invoked.

It's odd - I would support (vote for) the death penalty being done away with entirely at a federal and state level - but as long as it isn't, I feel it's horrible to tell people 'this didn't meet the requirements', when there is perhaps nothing that ever then would? I think justice is just as much about the victims/survivors as it is about the criminal, and it's a misjustice to present this path of justice to them when it's maybe actually really off the table.

Maybe that's what annoys me.
stessier wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 11:26 am
To be clear - the government is killing people with our tax dollars in so many other places and ways than 'the death penalty' that I don't know how you all agree to pay your taxes with such convictions.
The government does a lot of things I don't like in my name. Not paying taxes removes one from society and will ultimately land one in jail where it is much harder, if not impossible, to affect change.
Yeah, I'm not asking a fair question. But I guess I sit here seeing a lot of things that I don't like my government doing in my name. And - trust me - I'm not really in support of the Death Penalty as a rule. I've heard of enough horror stories. I feel like "I get it"... but I just find certain cases to actually indeed warrant it.

I'm sure I'm wrong here. I just can't get passed the fact that if this was my kid that was killed by this asshole - I couldn't live in a world that could nurse this monster through the rest of their life while my angel was dead. I'm just being honest about that.
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8489
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Shootings

Post by Alefroth »

Unagi wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 10:19 am Personally, I harbor all of the concerns that many here have shared about our legal system's ability to fail. I do however also think there are some cases that are very clear and not even remotely contested. These are cases where there is no question about the guilt of the individual and the mitigating details are unable to overcome the magnitude of the crime. There are situations, I believe, that are indeed rock-solid. Truly unimpeachable verdicts. No room for doubt.
How practical is it to maintain an elaborate system that only gets used in the rarest of cases? What's the point of killing that person as opposed to not killing them?
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30126
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Shootings

Post by YellowKing »

Unagi wrote:I'm sure I'm wrong here. I just can't get passed the fact that if this was my kid that was killed by this asshole - I couldn't live in a world that could nurse this monster through the rest of their life while my angel was dead. I'm just being honest about that.
We like to dehumanize criminals. But the reality is that killer is likely someone else's "angel."

When you support executing that killer, you're imposing the punishment of your loss on the killer's parents, their siblings, their children. All in the name of making yourself feel better. What does that really accomplish, other than spreading the pain to other innocents?

That's one of the big problems I have with it. It doesn't do anything positive for the world, it just generates more loss. It's like, "Hey, I know you already have to live with the crushing pain that your son killed someone, but now I'm going to make sure he is killed so that you can experience the loss of a child too." I never want to be in that position.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Shootings

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Blackhawk wrote: Sun Oct 16, 2022 1:47 pm To turn the question around (and not addressing anyone in particular), how many innocent people are you willing to have die in order to have this guy executed?

If that number isn't greater than zero, then how do you justify supporting the death penalty?
I'm not vehemently opposed to or in support of the the death penalty. I can see and agree with most of the arguments for and against. I just feel that if we're ever going to do it, this is such a case. If it's on the books but we can't justify it here, there's a problem with the books.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43501
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Shootings

Post by Blackhawk »

There are lots of problems with the books. And again, it comes down to the issue of having a mechanism to allow it here while disallowing it elsewhere. Where is the line drawn between 'absolutely zero question' and 'beyond a reasonable doubt'? And if such a line is possible, why isn't it used as a standard for everything else? Given that the line has moved over the years (and tends to be in different places based on what the person looks like), I don't believe that trying to define that line in an error-free manner is possible.

And that doesn't even touch on cases where the attorneys have manufactured 'zero question' cases (by quietly slipping exonerating evidence under the rug, for instance.)

An error in this case means that innocent people are killed on my behalf. I don't think we're evolved enough to decide life and death. We're not the grown-ups we like to think we are.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 16437
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Shootings

Post by Zarathud »

A jury listened to the evidence of this particular defendant. My inclination would have been towards a death penalty based on the number of killings, but punishment should always be tailored to the specific situation. Not based on the notions and biases of those who aren’t charged with the responsibility or who didn’t hear the evidence.

In the end, more than one juror decided against the death penalty. That’s plenty to be a good faith decision of the system. Parents are entitled to disagree — but it’s not their call for obvious reasons. Everyone else doesn’t know WTF they’re talking about.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 16437
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: Shootings

Post by Zarathud »

There isn’t a question of innocence here. It’s whether there are extenuating circumstances not to impose death.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Shootings

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Blackhawk wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 1:46 pm There are lots of problems with the books. And again, it comes down to the issue of having a mechanism to allow it here while disallowing it elsewhere. Where is the line drawn between 'absolutely zero question' and 'beyond a reasonable doubt'? And if such a line is possible, why isn't it used as a standard for everything else? Given that the line has moved over the years (and tends to be in different places based on what the person looks like), I don't believe that trying to define that line in an error-free manner is possible.

And that doesn't even touch on cases where the attorneys have manufactured 'zero question' cases (by quietly slipping exonerating evidence under the rug, for instance.)

An error in this case means that innocent people are killed on my behalf. I don't think we're evolved enough to decide life and death. We're not the grown-ups we like to think we are.
Right. If this doesn't rise to the level, nothing probably will. Might as well strike it as an option and quit wasting everyone's time


As far as the extenuating circumstances introduced here, not going to second guess the n jurors who decided against execution but when are there not extenuating circumstances in a mass murder? Again, if this is a standard we're going to use, scrap the death penalty. Otherwise it's just, "you're going to die because you failed to get sufficiently skilled counsel.'
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43501
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Shootings

Post by Blackhawk »

I'm not really commenting on this specific case, but on the nature of the death penalty itself. In this specific case whether they chose death or not, they acted within the system. I disagree with some aspects of the system (like the death penalty), but that issue wasn't their job to figure out.
LawBeefaroni wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 2:56 pm
Blackhawk wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 1:46 pm There are lots of problems with the books. And again, it comes down to the issue of having a mechanism to allow it here while disallowing it elsewhere. Where is the line drawn between 'absolutely zero question' and 'beyond a reasonable doubt'? And if such a line is possible, why isn't it used as a standard for everything else? Given that the line has moved over the years (and tends to be in different places based on what the person looks like), I don't believe that trying to define that line in an error-free manner is possible.

And that doesn't even touch on cases where the attorneys have manufactured 'zero question' cases (by quietly slipping exonerating evidence under the rug, for instance.)

An error in this case means that innocent people are killed on my behalf. I don't think we're evolved enough to decide life and death. We're not the grown-ups we like to think we are.
Right. If this doesn't rise to the level, nothing probably will.
I agree - but said level/line does not currently exist, and actually defining the line is probably impossible. That leaves it at what, "I know it when I see it?" That's not something that I want as the basis of criminal law, not as fallible as we are.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Shootings

Post by Pyperkub »

St Louis on Monday.
When family members of 19-year-old Orlando Harris grew concerned about his mental health, they seemed to do everything right, the St. Louis police commissioner said.

“They contacted us, said that he had a firearm,” Commissioner Michael Sack said Wednesday.

“The mother at the time wanted it out of the house,” he said. “The officers, in their response, handed it over to somebody else, an adult who was lawfully able to possess it.”

At times, the teen’s family also committed him to a mental institution, Sack said.

Yet somehow, Harris managed to get access to an AR-15-style rifle and 600 rounds of ammo. And on Monday, he took his deadly arsenal to Central Visual and Performing Arts High School and wreaked terror on his alma mater.
More:
The gunman was wearing a chest rig with seven magazines of ammunition, the police commissioner said. He also carried more ammunition in a bag and dumped additional magazines on the stairway and in the corridors along the way.
The mass shooting raised questions about whether it would have made a difference if the first person to confront the gunman was also armed.

Matt Davis, the president of the St. Louis public school board, had a blunt answer: “The assailant had a high-powered rifle – so much so that he could force himself into a secured building. The building is riddled with bullets.”

“I don’t know how much firepower it would take to stop that person. You saw the police response, it was massive. It was overwhelming,” Davis said.

“I know what would have been different is if this high-powered rifle was not available to this individual. That would have made the difference.”
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Shootings

Post by LawBeefaroni »

I've said it several times on here but I'll say it again. The firearms instructor I've had that I respect the most gave me this advice if faced with someone with an AR-15/pattern, when you don't have the same. "If they don't see you, shoot them in the head. If they see you, run."

That's not an argument for anyone having an AR-15. It's an argument against just anyone being able.to have one.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Shootings

Post by Unagi »

‘Just anyone’.

How about just ‘anyone’ ??
User avatar
UsulofDoom
Posts: 1580
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 9:55 am

Re: Shootings

Post by UsulofDoom »

Pyperkub wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 8:48 pm St Louis on Monday.


At times, the teen’s family also committed him to a mental institution, Sack said.
Why was he let out? We need state institutions back to hold them secure from the public and where they can get mental help.
If I make a grammar or spelling mistake, PM me. I will correct it. It’s better than you being an asshole!

No one knows the truth, only hypothesis, assumptions, conjectures, speculations, presumptions, guesses and theories.

We are not Gods, but nature. No more than one of many dominate species that will inhabit this planet for a short period of time, on its ever so long journey through the universe.
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8489
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Shootings

Post by Alefroth »

Could be lots of reasons. They aren't prisons.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Shootings

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Unagi wrote: Thu Oct 27, 2022 6:26 am ‘Just anyone’.

How about just ‘anyone’ ??
Well, I would think we still want LEO to have patrol rifles.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Shootings

Post by LawBeefaroni »

A boy at my son's school got shot and killed last night at his home. He was washing this hands in the bathroom when a stay bullet fired by someone in an alley hit him in the stomach. He died in the ER. 7 years old. He was one grade up but they played together at morning drop off.

Blind firing in a residential neighborhood. Who does that? People who don't give a fuck.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70101
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: Shootings

Post by LordMortis »

:cry:
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8489
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: Shootings

Post by Alefroth »

Jesus, that's awful.
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Shootings

Post by Unagi »

OMG that sucks.
Post Reply