Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on October 24, 2002, 10:41:27 AM
-
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/marylandshootings021024.html
A .223-caliber rifle was found in the car that two men wanted for questioning in the sniper shooting case were sleeping in at a Maryland rest stop when they were arrested early this morning, ABCNEWS has learned.
-
Told you the guy had training...Hope it's him and this roadkill is over.
-
Originally posted by SirLoin
Told you the guy had training...Was he alone or had partner?
Sirloin, in that case I had training too for the shots he took. No mention of Sniper school.
-
It's a good step.
Now to test the ballistics and make sure it is indeed the murder weapon.
Did they give any indication of type other than caliber?
-
I might add, all the "Sniper Expert" talking heads agreed on television prior to the arrests that the shots they/he/she took were not hard to do.
-
Guys. He was a mechanic.
15 years in the army as a mechanic.
Anyone in the world almost could shoot a scoped ar15 that well or better.
-
Originally posted by Pongo
Guys. He was a mechanic.
15 years in the army as a mechanic.
Anyone in the world almost could shoot a scoped ar15 that well or better.
Thank you.
Sirloin actually said in another post that he thought the sniper was professionally trained for the job. He is not. Most of us that own rifles and have done some target shooting know that a 150 yard shot is not difficult, I think the snipers farthest shot was 100 yards.
Anyway, lets just pray that no copy cats become of this...
-
I have no experience with rifles...Just a gut feeling I guess.
-
Originally posted by Oedipus
Some will say it is circumstantial evidence and doesn't mean a thing. :rolleyes:
And how long till Louis Farakhan, Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton say the gun was planted on these poor destitute, persecuted and innocent homeless men.
Oed
oh course it was & once freed these two will spend every waking moment tracking down the REAL snipers :rolleyes:
-
Rip is right,
I'm no marksman, and I don't practice regularly, but I can hit a paper plate consistently at 300 yards. The only real trick is figuring the range.
Shuckins
-
Which is the easiest thing to do with openly standing human and no rush.
-
(DRip male mastery mode "ON')
True though... I went 10 seasons without killing a good buck, and when I finally got a chance a few years ago, I hit it running with all 6 shots, from a tree stand, from 65 yards elevated. I was shatting myself, elevated, with a hoopty 12 guage with a vent ribbed fowl barrel and bad heavy tumble prone slugs, and deer are really small. Running they are extra small. How fast would you have to be to pump 6 shells? Im no sniper or athelete.
To hit someone outside of a steak house, with a rifle, would be so easy, "sniper" is hardly a proper name.
Coward Murderer?
The media just lable it as such. Any referance to a actual 'sniper' is a joke.
-
I mentioned in another post how I believed that the sniper, would be someone sympathetic to the events of Sept. 11th a Muslim and a "homespun terrorist" looks like I hit the nail on the head
One FBI source called the men "closet extremists" who were sympathetic to the attackers of Sept. 11.
-
another whacko IMO.
and I agree about the 'sniper' comments.
It doesn't take that much to be accurate.
hell,, I'm even an expert marksman in 3 weapons (coast guard/air force)
not that difficult to do.
-
I was talking to friends yesterday explaining that I thought the killer was an ex mechanic who worked for the the police. The outcome was eery.
AKDejaVu
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Sirloin, in that case I had training too for the shots he took. No mention of Sniper school.
Turns out he was an expert marksman afterall...Earned his marksman badge with the forces.
-
Turns out he was just joe ex army guy with no sniper training at all.
Originally posted by SirLoin
Turns out he was an expert marksman afterall...Earned his marksman badge with the forces.
-
"Muhammad earned an "Expert Marksmanships' Badge" with the M16 during his service with the army,the highest level of expertise given by the military for shooting a gun....That means he had to hit 36 out of 40 targets at a range of 50-300 metres"
-
Sirloin, an expert badge is not too hard to get. It just means you got a high score on the weapons qualification test that every soldier takes. My dad was an "expert" on about a dozen weapons and his job was sitting in a track and shooting missiles.
PS Islam is a religion of peace.
-
Rgr that Funked...Don't know much about guns like I said..The press sure is playing this "Expert Marksman" thing up though.
-
PS Islam is a religion of peace. [/B]
Nah so far from everything I have seen of late, its a religion full of bellybutton sacks.
-
Hell, if that stupid cross, with the dangely things under it, means you are an expert. I guess I am one to :)
-
I earned mine as well SirLoin, but it doesn't make me a sniper. Consider how much time he spent in the army and how many times he could have gone to the range.
It doesn't take a whole lot to get 36 out of 40 in a period of time.
http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/South/10/24/sniper.bushmaster.rifle/
"[It's easy to use] for the type of shooting we saw in the Washington area," Haney said. "Almost an 8-year-old child can be taught to do that in an hour, and hour-and-a-half."
Originally posted by SirLoin
"Muhammad earned an "Expert Marksmanships' Badge" with the M16 during his service with the army,the highest level of expertise given by the military for shooting a gun....That means he had to hit 36 out of 40 targets at a range of 50-300 metres"
-
The press suck :(
Originally posted by SirLoin
Rgr that Funked...Don't know much about guns like I said..The press sure is playing this "Expert Marksman" thing up though.
-
Originally posted by funkedup
PS Islam is a religion of peace.
As has Christianity been over it's long history.
SOB
-
Originally posted by Pfunk
Nah so far from everything I have seen of late, its a religion full of bellybutton sacks.
Abortion clinic bombings.... all religions have their brain washed tardtacular crazies.
-SW
-
Originally posted by SOB
As has Christianity been over it's long history.
SOB
Next time a Christian fundamendalist nutjob flies airliners into skyscrapers or kills hundreds in a disco or terrorizes the US capital with a rifle, you can run that smack. Until then, you are just being a tard.
-
So I guess abortion clinic bombings are okay Funked?
or the Crusades? Yeah that was a long time ago, but at the time I bet people felt the same way about them "peaceful" Christians.
-SW
-
Blah blah blah stuff I didn't say blah blah blah stuff I didn't even infer blah blah blah.
-
I'm being a tard? You're condemming an entire religion based on what some individuals in that religion do, and you're calling ME a tard? Drop the emotion, put your brain back in, and start thinking. Until then, get me a corn dog and shut the diddly up. :p
SOB
-
I didn't condemn anyone. The nitrites are damaging your brain sonny.
-
Go lube up your Cougar or something. :)
-
Corndogs.....mmmmmmm...... get me one two:)
-
You infered that Islam is not a peaceful religion by posting the comment, "Islam is a peaceful religion" in a thread mentioning a killer that apparently converted to Islam and was apparently sympathetic to Al Qaeda's cause last Sept.
Am I wrong?
If I am, then I guess what I say is moot.
If I'm right, then I'll continue to remind you of Christianity's flaws in the past, and present.
If you wanna make assumptions about an entire religion based upon a few extreme radicals, fine by me.. but I'll just remind you of other religions f*ck ups. (and they all got atleast one)
-SW
-
According to MSNBC, the ballistics match those of the sniper deaths. Waa-hoo!
-
I've never understood the need by people to kill murderers, rapists, or whatever in certain horrible ways. We don't live in Biblical times. There is indeed a legal process here after which the murderous bastards will be put to death in the way deemed appropriate by the state in which they committed their dastardly deeds.
That they will die is enough for me. I've never understood the obsession with how people die. Who cares? Why care? Death is the punishment, not the manner of death. That's punishment enough for me. They won't be around to cause harm again.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
I hope they get a fair trial and if they're found guilty, to be put in a max security prison like Pelican Bay. They will suffer far worse being raped, beat up in prison (if they aren't killed first by fellow inmates), rather than by lethal injection. It will cost more of our tax dollars to put them to death rather than keeping them in custody for the rest of their lives. I will be satisfied that justice will be served and having them off the streets.
Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are religions of peace. It is the minority fringe extremists that use violence hiding behind the cloak of religion. I am not about to condemn the whole for the extremist violence of the few.
-
Every religion has it's share of tards.
If you need Christian nut-jobs, look at NI with priests leading terrorist cells or Bosnia, where clerics used the radio to incite people into ethnically cleansing their next door neighbour.
Religion is a disease of the mind, and it's symptoms vary.
-
Atheists: unite!
Kill the infid...no, wait a moment...
-
Originally posted by Dead Man Flying
I've never understood the need by people to kill murderers, rapists, or whatever in certain horrible ways.
Punishment is supposed to serve as a deterrent - including the death penalty. People have good reasons to believe that cruelty of punishment affects it's efficiency as a deterrent. If it does so, not using it would be immoral.
After all, why humanely kill two murderers if you could only torture one and deter another? Plusm you may get a few innocent lifes saved as a bonus.
miko
-
Agree with DMF... not into torture. simply put em to sleep... outta their misery. I simply don't want them sharing the same earth as me.
lazs
-
It seems that everytime the subject of fanatical Muslim violence is mentioned in one of these posts, an argument breaks out, during which someone brings up the topic of the Crusades. They tend to infer that Christian violence against Muslims came first, and that fanatical Muslim violence is somehow an aberration.
Au contraire. All of Arabia had become Islamic by the time of Muhammad's death. Within a century thereafter the new religion conquered a vast empire extending from the Pyrenees in Spain to India. It threatened Christianity in Europe and holy wars, instituted by both Muslim caliphs and Christian popes, followed. After conquering most of Spain, the Muslim armies of northern Africa invaded southern France, a preliminary to the conquest of western Europe. This incursion failed when they were defeated by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours in the year 732 A.D. During this same period, Muslim armies were threatening the Byzantine empire with destruction and conquest. The First Crusade would not begin until the year 1097 a.d., almost 365 years AFTER the Battle of Tours. Pope Urban called for the first Crusade AFTER the Seljuk Turks cut the pilgrimage routes to Jerusalem.
So, Please! Let's divest ourselves of the notion that the Christians were the first to initiate violence against the Muslim world.
Regards, Shuckins
-
These two were idiots who obviously either wanted to get caught, or they wanted to be famous.
How, if you are firing out of a small hole from the trunk of a car, can you leave a shell casing behind at the scene? They had to have left it on purpose.
It was reported that one of the two called a tip line some time ago and bragged about a recent robbery and killing in Alabama. Authorities were able to take evidence from that crime scene, link it to the sniper killings, and were able to ID the suspects and alert everyone about the Caprice they were in.
If these two had not made any phone calls to authorties, had not left any casings, notes or tarot cards, and didn't sleep in their car in a public place, how much longer do you think the killings could have continued? I think they could have kept going for an extended period of time. Hell, the authorites were looking for two white guys in a white van.
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Punishment is supposed to serve as a deterrent - including the death penalty. People have good reasons to believe that cruelty of punishment affects it's efficiency as a deterrent. If it does so, not using it would be immoral.
I don't get the impression at all that people are suggesting horrific ways of executing the sniper in order to deter possible future snipers. The impression I get is that they want creative and horrible ways to execute him because of what he did and how he did it. It's punitive, personal, and has nothing to do with protecting future generations.
Dead is dead. Put a bullet in the back of his head once he's found guilty for all I care. I just want that waste of space gone and forgotten as soon as legally possible. Good riddance.
-- Todd/Leviathn
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Punishment is supposed to serve as a deterrent - including the death penalty. People have good reasons to believe that cruelty of punishment affects it's efficiency as a deterrent. If it does so, not using it would be immoral.
After all, why humanely kill two murderers if you could only torture one and deter another? Plusm you may get a few innocent lifes saved as a bonus.
miko
The threat of punishment does not deter the criminal mind no matter the penalty. Despite our having a death penalty, it did not deter these two allegedly 'sniping' all these innocent people. At that level of crime, be it life in prison (without the possibility of parole), or death, there will always be those that feel they will not get caught and punished. The world's jails are full of criminals that thought they wouldn't get caught. LOL, I'd like to know any criminal that knew they'd get caught before they commited their crime. Death penalty as a deterent? Naw, I don't buy it.
I can just imagine the inner workings of the criminal mind:
"If I murder all those people, I'll get the death penalty. Oops, I better not do it."
"If I murder all those people, I'll get life in prison without the possibilty of parole. Is that all? Gee, I guess I'll go murder them then."
The jails are full of those that thought they wouldn't get caught no matter the penalty.
I can bet that if all those criminals KNEW that they'd get caught regardless of the punishment, the jails would be empty.
Financially it will cost us taxpayers more money to put them to death (if found guilty), rather than let them rot in jail for the rest of their lives.
-
Thats cause they are sneaky crazed lunatics underneath it all or have these tendancies at least. Normal sane people dont have the desire to attack strangers or random people. I agree with what you said.
-
Originally posted by SaburoS
The threat of punishment does not deter the criminal mind no matter the penalty. Despite our having a death penalty, it did not deter these two allegedly 'sniping' all these innocent people. At that level of crime, be it life in prison (without the possibility of parole), or death, there will always be those that feel they will not get caught and punished. The world's jails are full of criminals that thought they wouldn't get caught. LOL, I'd like to know any criminal that knew they'd get caught before they commited their crime. Death penalty as a deterent? Naw, I don't buy it.
I can just imagine the inner workings of the criminal mind:
"If I murder all those people, I'll get the death penalty. Oops, I better not do it."
"If I murder all those people, I'll get life in prison without the possibilty of parole. Is that all? Gee, I guess I'll go murder them then."
The jails are full of those that thought they wouldn't get caught no matter the penalty.
I can bet that if all those criminals KNEW that they'd get caught regardless of the punishment, the jails would be empty.
Financially it will cost us taxpayers more money to put them to death (if found guilty), rather than let them rot in jail for the rest of their lives.
That's the most oft quoted and rediculous argument against the death penalty I've heard. You might as well phrase it to reflect the sampling pool, which is:
100% of people that were not deterred by the threat of punishment were not deterred by the threat of punishment.
Now, if you really believed what you said you would take the stance that if there were no law enforcement crime rates would not rise (discounting repeat offenders).
-
they will not be 'killed in prison" they will be protected by the muslim prison gangs , they will be heros to the muslims
-
Originally posted by Fatty
Now, if you really believed what you said you would take the stance that if there were no law enforcement crime rates would not rise (discounting repeat offenders).
Maybe you should re-read what I really said. Take your time.
-
I read it... and he got it right.
The threat of punishment does not deter the criminal mind no matter the penalty.
The threat of punishment deters most criminal minds. Without the threat, they would run rampant.
I believe what you meant to say (but didn't) was that the threat of punishment does not deter SOME criminal minds.
One implies that punishment serves no role in deterance... the other implies that punishment is not a deterent for only the worst case examples.
AKDejaVu
-
What I meant to say was exactly what I said. At no point did I say that we should do away with law enforcement or the prosecution of criminals. The criminals that now face the death penalty for a capital crime were not detered because of the threat of a death penalty. Had they known that they would have gotten caught, they wouldn't have committed the crime even if it meant only that they would spend the rest of their natural life behind bars. I seriously doubt that having a death penalty deters capital crime. Seems some think that if there is no death penalty that somehow spending the rest of one's life behind bars (without the possibility of parole) is actually ok and that they will commit the capital crime only because the death penalty isn't practiced. Again, the jails are full of criminals that thought they wouldn't get caught.
-
You are simply talking in circles and totally missing the point.
No use even bothering with you.
AKDejaVu
-
I don't know about deterent but I've seen only a very few that didn't fight a death sentance to the end. Still ... It is a deterent. It deters that criminal from ever causing me or anyone else grief ever again. They are insane. I don't torture insane people... or anyone else for that matter. I have no problem with executing vicious and violently insane people tho... It is a mercy to everyone including them.
Better luck in the next life I say.
lazs
-
Originally posted by AKDejaVu
You are simply talking in circles and totally missing the point.
No use even bothering with you.
AKDejaVu
...and you're missing mine. We'll leave it at that I guess.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I don't know about deterent but I've seen only a very few that didn't fight a death sentance to the end. Still ... It is a deterent. It deters that criminal from ever causing me or anyone else grief ever again. They are insane. I don't torture insane people... or anyone else for that matter. I have no problem with executing vicious and violently insane people tho... It is a mercy to everyone including them.
Better luck in the next life I say.
lazs
Sure...AFTER they're caught. BTW a prisoner serving a life sentence without the possibility of parole can't cause anyone harm either. I just think it is better to keep em alive in case we got the wrong guy convicted as one can't undo death. Again, it is the threat of getting caught that is the deterent. If they think they will get caught doing the crime, they won't do it. If they think they will get away with their crime they will do it. These 'snipers' that are in custody knew full well what they were doing would give them a death sentence if caught. Know what? they murdered anyway. Why? CAUSE THEY DIDN'T THINK THEY'D GET CAUGHT! The threat of a death penalty makes no difference to these types of criminals. The punishment of a death penalty just makes us 'feel' more secure thinking it is a deterent. The normal mind and the criminal mind do not think the same.
I'll ask you pro-death penalty people a simple question:
Would you kill someone if the maximum penalty would be life behind bars without the possibilty of parole?
How about under the threat of lethal injection?
Do you honestly believe it makes a difference?
If so, how does it?
-
How much per check are you willing to contribute to keep them alive?
$10...$100...$500.
You tell me the diffrence instead.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
How much per check are you willing to contribute to keep them alive?
$10...$100...$500.
You tell me the diffrence instead.
Right now it costs us taxpayers more to execute them. How dare you libs try to spend more of my tax dollars. ;)
-
That's actually true, damn trial costs.
Can't I just volunteer to shoot them anyway for free (minus the free lunch and union break?) and offset the final incidentals a little bit?
-
Actually, even if the trial is expensive for capitol cases, it's a set expense.
Would not housing them for the next 40 years not be more expensive then giving them the black needle? Unless you just don't go for the death penalty at all I guess.
In that case, making them chain gang and make big rocks into gravel without the expensive capitol case would certainly suffice.
See, you made me not want to have them shot at a shooting range for Army round testing, nor chased by lions at the Super Bowl halftime.
-
The punishment of a death penalty just makes us 'feel' more secure thinking it is a deterent.
That is not the purpose of a death penalty, which is to remove from society someone that society can no longer allow to tolerate.
I'm against the death penalty - it's impossible to apologise to a dead man - and anyway, life in solitary confinement seems much harsher.
But what I really feel is missing in the criminal justice system is the old-fashioned concept of humiliation at the 'petty' end. Put them in the stocks in the mall at the weekend and let everyone ridicule them.
-
Originally posted by Creamo
Actually, even if the trial is expensive for capitol cases, it's a set expense.
Would not housing them for the next 40 years not be more expensive then giving them the black needle? Unless you just don't go for the death penalty at all I guess.
In that case, making them chain gang and make big rocks into gravel without the expensive capitol case would certainly suffice.
See, you made me not want to have them shot at a shooting range for Army round testing, nor chased by lions at the Super Bowl halftime.
Naw, it's not just the trial fees but the enormous attorney fees from the appeals, investigations, etc.
Honestly, I wouldn't lose sleep if these two do get the death penalty as it seems open and shut. I wouldn't lose sleep if they spent the rest of their lives behind bars either. In either case they'll be punished good enough. Killing them doesn't bring back the victims. BTW whether by execution or by natural causes, they'll die in either case. They are no longer a threat to society as they are in custody. Don't confuse revenge and justice as being one and the same.
-
I hope they put those two lunatics in the bin for a long time. Glad to have seen them caught and will be brought to justice.
-
saburo... not sure I understand you.. Are you saying "would I rateher have a vicious murderer executed than be given a life sentence?" If so... yes, I would. I don't trust those in charge enough to keep their word for 40 or 50 years. I think parole boards are a joke. I know that if the person is dead then he will never be a threat again. People doing "life in prison" have killed other inmates and even guards. The possibility allways exists. I can see a grass roots program of well meaning idiots campainging to free these two 30 years from now when they become the next "birdmen of alcatr4az" or something.
also... it appears that you feel that executing them is cruel but... if you kept them seperated from all human contact for the rest of their life (the only way to 'guarentee' that they would not harm another human being) then.... you are torturing that person. I am not into torture. I am saying that the persons life is a hell and putting him out of his misery is a blessing to both him and us.
lazs
-
OI guess what I am saying is that punishment.... punishment has a point if it has an endgame.... life in prison is not punishment it is torture. It is reckless torture with no endgame.. no point. The only point is for those who don't think beyond the emotional to "feel" better about themselves.
lazs
-
Life in prison w/o parole is not torture. But I'm glad I was able to clear that up for you.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
saburo... not sure I understand you.. Are you saying "would I rateher have a vicious murderer executed than be given a life sentence?" If so... yes, I would. I don't trust those in charge enough to keep their word for 40 or 50 years. I think parole boards are a joke. I know that if the person is dead then he will never be a threat again. People doing "life in prison" have killed other inmates and even guards. The possibility allways exists. I can see a grass roots program of well meaning idiots campainging to free these two 30 years from now when they become the next "birdmen of alcatr4az" or something.
also... it appears that you feel that executing them is cruel but... if you kept them seperated from all human contact for the rest of their life (the only way to 'guarentee' that they would not harm another human being) then.... you are torturing that person. I am not into torture. I am saying that the persons life is a hell and putting him out of his misery is a blessing to both him and us.
lazs
Didn't say that executing those two would be cruel. Like I said above I wouldn't lose sleep over it. However there are enough cases of those wrongly condemed to death for a crime they didn't commit do to an over-zealous prosecuting attorney(hiding/ignoring evidence) to further his/her political career and/or a poor legal team defending the accused. Sorry, but my position is it's better to have the guilty spend the rest of their lives in prison so those that were commited wrongly actually have a chance to be set free. They can not harm the public from behind bars.
You would agree that executing someone for a crime that they did not commit would be the cruelest punishment a civilized society can do to one of its own, no?
-
Laz. You left out the possibility of them escaping, and going on a killing spree. People escape, with depressing regularity, here in Texas.
-
Originally posted by easymo
Laz. You left out the possibility of them escaping, and going on a killing spree. People escape, with depressing regularity, here in Texas.
Perhaps the answer is fixing the prisons that are prone to prisoner escapes. Seems that if there are that many escapes condemed prisoners going on killing sprees as you say, them someone in charge is kinda stupid for not fixing the problem, no?
BTW, just how many escapes are you talking about of prisoners that were lifers and how many killing sprees were there?
-
yep... I believe that the only guarentee is the death penalty. I would rather execute a couple of criminals that may be not guilty of the particular crime they were convicted of than take the chance that the guilty ones get loose or are able to commit more murders. they do get loose and they do commit other murders... they do commit murders while they are in prison.. not to mention how bad they make it for the other prisoners.
life in prison is indeed torture for the majority of prisonesrs that are kept from the general population. glad to be able to clear that up for you erlkoing.
lazs
-
The argument that the death penalty is not a deterant is specious. There hasd been no documented case of a killer put to death ever killing again. Pretty damn effective deterant as far as I can see. There are many cases of killers NOT put to death that did kill again. Once they are facing life in prison, what else can be done to these animals? Taking their TV away?
Maintaining these individuals in prison, whether on death row or in any other high security area is the same. It is a lost cost and will not be recovered. If the killer is using the appeals process to delay the execution they STILL have to be incarcerated. The only additional cost is the price of the attorney's on both sides. In the case of the prosecution they ared already budgeted. The defenders are an additional cost but price guidelines can be enacted. Once the death sentence is carried out there is no further cost for incarceration. Life in prison is and will continue to be a cost for as long as the convict is alive and breathing. That includes all medical costs as well. This can last for many decades given the health of the convict. In the case of the 17 year old we could be paying for his upkeep for 70 years or so.
-
Hmm Lazs2...
Originally posted by lazs2
{snippety snip}. I would rather execute a couple of criminals that may be not guilty of the particular crime they were convicted of than take the chance that the guilty ones get loose or are able to commit more murders. {snippety snip}
It's a bit of a woolly statement, but I get the gist - a few innocents executed is an acceptable price to pay for an effective deterrent and final solution to criminals who kill people.
I take it you would still support this statement if you were the falsely accused.
Judge: Lazs2, you have been found guilty of murder in the first degree, for which the mandatory sentence is Death. Do you have anything to say.
Lazs2: Your Honour I am innocent, but this court has found me guilty. I submit that my death will serve the best interests of justice and society at large. Please take me to my place of execution immediately so that I can discharge my duty as a good and upright citizen.
-
I must be one of the few people that like things just the way they are. It takes on average, 14 years for a convict to be executed. This give the rare innocent convict ample chance to prove his innocence. More to the point. It allows the murderers to experience the joys of being locked up on death row for 14 years. Then they are executed. The best of both worlds, IMO.
-
http://archive.nandotimes.com/noframes/story/0,2107,500294797-500468830-503163849-0,00.html
Of interest. Note the guy that was serving 99 years. And the cop that had to give his life for this stupidity.
I also advocate the execution of three time losers. The phrase "career criminal" would disappear IMO.
-
Unless you're an innocent man who ends up dead. Can't see that being the best of anyworlds.
-
So let me get this straight: we should be content with killing off the innocent and letting the guilty run loose, otherwise the guilty will run loose?
-
Originally posted by easymo
http://archive.nandotimes.com/noframes/story/0,2107,500294797-500468830-503163849-0,00.html
Of interest. Note the guy that was serving 99 years. And the cop that had to give his life for this stupidity.
I also advocate the execution of three time losers. The phrase "career criminal" would disappear IMO.
Thanks for the link. However how does this prove your point? Only one of the several escapees was actually serving a life sentence. He is not the one suspected of killing the cop. Name one prisoner serving a life term in Pelican Bay prison breaking out and killing innocent civillians? Perhaps Texas needs a lesson on how do design prisons and running them if what you say about You left out the possibility of them escaping, and going on a killing spree. People escape, with depressing regularity, here in Texas.
is true.
-
innocent people get run over or get cancer all the time. Worse... inocennt people get killed by guys that should have been executed.
Not every murderer is executed.. in fact, the death sentance is not asked for except in particularly heinous or cold blooded crimes in most cases. Very few inocent men are executed. less each year as forensic science gets better... Many more inocent men are killed in prison by killers.
The death penalty should be used sparingly and with caution. In the case of these snipers I don't think that anyone will be executing innocent men.
as for me... well, like in the movie Judge Roy Bean.... I was innocent but I just figured that they were executing me for some of them other guys I killed.
lazs
-
My brother works as chaplin in a small correctional facility in southeast Arkansas. In addition, several members of my family have held positions at Cummins prison just outside the town of Gould. I have heard similar stories from all of them about the incorrigibility of some of these prisoners. Lifers almost routinely kill other prisoners, sometimes for the most trivial of disagreements. Not only do they remain dangerous, even if only to other prisoners, but they also dream of nothing but getting out and punishing society for their incarceration. Society would be safer if they were put down. I have two stories to present in support of that statement.
The first took place in the correctional facility outside of my home town of Dermott, Ar. There was a convict in this facility who had been sentenced to 20 years for violent assault with the intent to commit murder. He had killed one prisoner at Cummins and was subsequently transferred to my brother's unit. After his arrival he picked himself up a boyfriend. Evidently he was quite fond of him.
A few months later a group of younger prisoners, about twenty-ish, gangbangers, were transferred in. The leader of this group of street punks proceeded to take the older con's boyfriend away from him. Knowing it made him angry, he and his buds then made it their business to goad him about it at every opportunity. One particularly bad incident took place in the cafeteria line one day, when he fronted the older con and dared him to do something about it. When nothing happened he walked laughing back to his gang. A friend of the older con asked him "How can you take all that?"
He replied, "Hey man, every wolf has patience."
A few weeks later, he walked into the cafeteria, where the gang was sitting at the table eating their lunch. My brother had just finished eating and had left the room. The con walked up behind the ring-leader of the gang, pulled his head back, and cut his throat from ear to ear with a shank. Then, he jumped across the table and stabbed another in the chest. He then pursued his former boyfriend into the kitchen, tackled him, and began stabbing him from behind repeatedly. Witnesses said you could hear the knife hitting the concrete floor underneath the victim. The con then pursued two other members of the gang, who fled into a men's room and barred the door against him until he was subdued by the guards.
Two men dead, and another turned into a mental vegetable in less than a minute.
In the second story, a man kidnapped a young black couple out on a date. Good kids. He drove them to a deserted area, where he repeatedly raped the girl. Then he shot them both. The young girl died, but her date lived. He later testified against the attacker at his trial. The prosecutor wanted the death penalty, but the family of the girl begged for mercy. They were good Christian people and believed in forgiveness. So the judge gave him life in prison with no possibility of parole. The state of Arkansas breathed a sigh of relief. He couldn't harm us any longer because he was safely imprisoned.
Two weeks after his arrival at Cummins he escaped. A local farmer arrived home for dinner to be confronted by this felon, who broken into his house and armed himself with a pistol. He forced the man to kneel down on his front sidewalk and then shot him in the head. This con was eventually apprehended near the Arkansas/Missouri border, but only after shooting another woman and a high-speed chase in which he rammed civilian and patrol cars. He is now "safely" back in prison.
These are repeat offenders who couldn't care less about your rights as a human being. For this type of felon, there is only one punishment that guarantees the public's safety.
Regards, Shuckins