The W
Views: 100695174
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
21.11.07 1445
The 7 - Random - One down, one to go Register and log in to post!
(1725 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (20 total)
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2466/4700
EXP: 21653985
For next: 182677

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1298 days
Last activity: 1095 days
#1 Posted on 17.11.03 1120.35
Reposted on: 17.11.10 1123.15
Fry his ass....

* * * * *

Muhammad found guilty
Sniper suspect convicted of capital murder; Jurors to decide if Army veteran should be sentenced to death or life in prison
The Associated Press
Originally published November 17, 2003, 12:08 PM EST

VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. -- A jury convicted John Allen Muhammad of capital murder today, concluding he used a rifle, a beat-up car and a teenager who idolized him to kill randomly and terrorize the Washington area during last year's sniper spree.

Jurors will now decide whether the Army veteran should be sentenced to death or life in prison. The panel deliberated for about 6 1/2 hours.

Muhammad was convicted of two counts of capital murder. One accused him of taking part in multiple murders, the other -- the result of a post-Sept. 11 terrorism law -- alleged the killings were designed to terrorize the population. Muhammad is the first person tried under the law.

Muhammad, 42, was found guilty of killing Dean Harold Meyers, a Vietnam veteran who was cut down by a single bullet that hit him in the head as he filled his tank at a Manassas gas station.

Fellow suspect Lee Boyd Malvo, 18, is on trial separately in nearby Chesapeake for the killing of Linda Franklin at a Home Depot in Falls Church. He also could get the death penalty.

In all, the two men were accused of shooting 19 people -- killing 13 and wounding six -- in Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia in what prosecutors said was an attempt to extort $10 million from the government.
Promote this thread!
Barbwire Mike
Boudin rouge
Level: 47

Posts: 18/502
EXP: 714257
For next: 51952

Since: 6.11.03
From: Dudleyville

Since last post: 3329 days
Last activity: 3321 days
#2 Posted on 17.11.03 1300.24
Reposted on: 17.11.10 1300.24
Forget frying, bring back the firing squad. After all, is there any justice better than the poetic variety?
ThreepMe
Morcilla
Level: 53

Posts: 343/641
EXP: 1108079
For next: 49047

Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3730 days
Last activity: 3389 days
#3 Posted on 17.11.03 1528.15
Reposted on: 17.11.10 1529.01
Let's use one of the ideas that George Carlin had...

"Coat him in brown gray and lock him in a small room with a Wolverine who's high on Angel Dust."

Or shoot him from a catapult...Right into a brick wall!
Freeway
Scrapple
Level: 110

Posts: 1435/3504
EXP: 14226995
For next: 181937

Since: 3.1.02
From: Calgary

Since last post: 334 days
Last activity: 22 days
#4 Posted on 17.11.03 1552.19
Reposted on: 17.11.10 1557.11
Odds are if these two get released into the general prison population...they're probably dead anyways. So, which way should they be put to death? Violent beating or simple execution?
Ender
Blutwurst
Level: 36

Posts: 243/256
EXP: 280991
For next: 27122

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 3994 days
Last activity: 1923 days
#5 Posted on 17.11.03 1832.54
Reposted on: 17.11.10 1833.46
The death penalty is in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US government signed many years ago.

There are to be no exceptions to that rule.

Instead, 10,000 years in prison will suffice.

(edit) And with the "one to go" business, there's another article in the UDHR... 'presumption of innocence'.

(edited by Ender on 17.11.03 1738)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 214

Posts: 3260/16359
EXP: 143899923
For next: 1825497

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 12 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on 17.11.03 1929.46
Reposted on: 17.11.10 1929.53
    Originally posted by Ender
    The death penalty is in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US government signed many years ago.
You sure about that? Because if you're talking about this one (un.org), I didn't see any references to the death penalty in there. True, many have INTERPRETED passages, but that ain't the same thing.

    And with the "one to go" business, there's another article in the UDHR... 'presumption of innocence'.
"...until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence." Do you doubt that's currently happening?
Ender
Blutwurst
Level: 36

Posts: 244/256
EXP: 280991
For next: 27122

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 3994 days
Last activity: 1923 days
#7 Posted on 17.11.03 2028.15
Reposted on: 17.11.10 2028.29
Presumption of innocence does NOT apply only to trails.

It applies to the views that ALL humans should have of a person until proven otherwise. If you believe that the presumption of innocence does not apply to you, for example, then what you're doing is denouncing your humanity, according the the UDHR that is.

Also, where does it say in the UDHR that when one commits a crime so serious, as the one being spoken of here, that that person loses his/her humanity? The ONLY way to argue that the death penalty is valid under the ruled layed out in the UDHR is to say when someone commits murder, he is no longer a human being.

"Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life..."

"Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

Are you saying that capital punishment is NOT torture? I'd think that not only the actual killing of a person is torture, but telling a person "So, hey, you're going to die tomorrow" is torture in its own right.

Speaking of which, what on earth IS the US government even THINKING about torturing their arbitrarily arrested people? That's breaking another few articles right there.

(Edit) Cut out some useless arguments.

(edited by Ender on 17.11.03 1929)
senor sangre
Bauerwurst
Level: 25

Posts: 94/113
EXP: 82147
For next: 7474

Since: 31.1.02
From: Fred'burg, VA

Since last post: 3570 days
Last activity: 3170 days
AIM:  
#8 Posted on 17.11.03 2232.52
Reposted on: 17.11.10 2233.06
    Originally posted by Ender
    The ONLY way to argue that the death penalty is valid under the ruled layed out in the UDHR is to say when someone commits murder, he is no longer a human being.


That's fine with me. Especially if it's 13 (plus 6 more attempted) murders, with no less than three of them at places I had just been or was going to.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.


In addition to the whole killing people part, I would assert that forcing the entire DC area to live in fear is an equal violation of these hallowed articles you're giving so much importance.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 214

Posts: 3262/16359
EXP: 143899923
For next: 1825497

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 12 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on 17.11.03 2326.54
Reposted on: 17.11.10 2328.08
    Originally posted by Ender
    Presumption of innocence does NOT apply only to trails.
YOU brought up the UDHR. All I did was quote the darn thing. You can't just say "presumption of innocence" and leave it at that because that's just not what it says! Click Here (un.org)

    It applies to the views that ALL humans should have of a person until proven otherwise. If you believe that the presumption of innocence does not apply to you, for example, then what you're doing is denouncing your humanity, according the the UDHR that is.
Forgive me, but you don't appear to have a clue about what you're talking about when it comes to the UDHR.

    Also, where does it say in the UDHR that when one commits a crime so serious, as the one being spoken of here, that that person loses his/her humanity?
Again, this is irrelevant based on (my opinion) your faulty premise.

    The ONLY way to argue that the death penalty is valid under the ruled layed out in the UDHR is to say when someone commits murder, he is no longer a human being.

    "Article 3.
    Everyone has the right to life..."

    "Article 5.
    No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
I must sound like a broken record - I don't agree with your premise, therefore your conclusion is moot (to me). It matters not (to me).

    Are you saying that capital punishment is NOT torture?
Well, when it actually happens, it's quick and painless. Both of these adjectives appear contrary to the first definition I happened to look up online. See: torture (m-w.com)

    I'd think that not only the actual killing of a person is torture, but telling a person "So, hey, you're going to die tomorrow" is torture in its own right.
Well, shoot, what about the actual KILLING the KILLER did first? Where's that fit in with you? I'm starting to get the impression that you care more about the perp than the victims...I sure hope that isn't the case.

    Speaking of which, what on earth IS the US government even THINKING about torturing their arbitrarily arrested people? That's breaking another few articles right there.
Another red herring. One sign of a weak argument is when the one making it starts throwing in everything but the kitchen sink so as to obscure their original argument. Please start a thread in "Politics" if you actually wish to explore this area (and please bring some actual facts this time).

    (Edit) Cut out some useless arguments.
Not nearly enough... I'd say "no offense" but I think I meant a LITTLE offense this time.

(edited by CRZ on 17.11.03 2128)
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 1795/3031
EXP: 11305671
For next: 165774

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 25 days
Last activity: 4 days
AIM:  
#10 Posted on 17.11.03 2338.20
Reposted on: 17.11.10 2338.30
Look, I'm against the death penalty myself - and I think life in solitary confinement is a much worse punishment than lethal injection if you really want these bastards to suffer - but I'm sure as hell not going to try to use these two to make that point. I'd save that for someone who didn't kill over a dozen innocent people with no motive, with a confession and a mountain of forensic evidence backing the case up.

There are times capital punishment is a flagrant miscarriage of justice and a disgrace to the American way of life. And if one innocent person is put to death by the state, we are all accomplices in their murder.

This, however, isn't one of those cases. Fuck these guys.
Lexus
Bierwurst
Level: 84

Posts: 448/1845
EXP: 5436710
For next: 225266

Since: 2.1.02
From: Stafford, VA

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
#11 Posted on 18.11.03 0019.15
Reposted on: 18.11.10 0019.42
Seeing as I live in the DC Metro area, I have this to say. I know the places where he and his accomplice fired upon, and visit a few of them frequently. While it was a news story to most of you, it was real fear, panic, and chaos to me, my friends, my co-workers, and my family. The sound of a siren made everyone stand on ear, at least those who weren't frightened to leave their houses. Those who did go into public were constantly looking over their shoulders. What's worse, we were supposed to look out for a white work truck, which if you've ever noticed, are about a dime a dozen (I'm not sure if this misinformation has made it as far as everybody else, seeing as how they were caught in a blue sedan).

However, I believe that neither man should get the death penalty. I also disagree that they should be put in prison for life, at least in the American prison system. I feel they should be forced to march through a trailer park 5 miles from my neighborhood, at 10:30 on a Friday night, with an announcement that they're the snipers, and give all the rednecks there, already itchin' to kill a muslim terrorist, all the liquor they want.

If you think that's too barbaric, send them to prison anywhere but the United States. Maybe to one of the many prison systems in countries in the UN who still utilize work farms.

(edited by Lexus on 18.11.03 0122)
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 9/2159
EXP: 6362248
For next: 30551

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2321 days
Last activity: 2319 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#12 Posted on 18.11.03 1001.42
Reposted on: 18.11.10 1006.32
Aritcle 11, Section 2 of said document...

"No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed."

TRANSLATION: a) You can't be found guilty of something that wasn't illegal at the time and b) If the death penalty does not exist at the time the of the offence, it can't be implemented in your case. That's all it says.

HOWEVER, last I checked murder was illegal and Virginia had a death penalty.



(edited by Blanket Jackson on 18.11.03 1103)
spf
Scrapple
Level: 133

Posts: 2506/5404
EXP: 27251404
For next: 601336

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
#13 Posted on 18.11.03 1009.53
Reposted on: 18.11.10 1010.11
    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    Look, I'm against the death penalty myself - and I think life in solitary confinement is a much worse punishment than lethal injection if you really want these bastards to suffer - but I'm sure as hell not going to try to use these two to make that point. I'd save that for someone who didn't kill over a dozen innocent people with no motive, with a confession and a mountain of forensic evidence backing the case up.

As someone who is wholly against the death penalty, I think this is exactly the case to use as the example. Because these two pieces of shit are the worst examples of what humans can sink to. But I still would not want to see them executed by our government. I do not want a government in the business of murder, regardless of how transparently guilty the person in question is. They should never see the light of day again. They should sit in a small room with nothing but the reminders of the lives they ended around them. But I will not be glad when the needle goes in either of their arms. I understand why people will be and do not begrudge them that, but I cannot celebrate another death, no matter how awful the person involved is.
Grimis
Scrapple
Level: 124

Posts: 2475/4700
EXP: 21653985
For next: 182677

Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1298 days
Last activity: 1095 days
#14 Posted on 18.11.03 1028.49
Reposted on: 18.11.10 1029.01
    Originally posted by spf2119
    But I still would not want to see them executed by our government. I do not want a government in the business of murder, regardless of how transparently guilty the person in question is.
(blink)

Murder. The Government is murdering people here?

I don't think so. These two pieces of shit deserve to get executed. In public.

    Originally posted by Ender
    The death penalty is in violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which the US government signed many years ago.
The last thing we really need to is to be worried about document sanctioned by a non-governmental bureaucratic gorilla that has less respect for human rights than most countries. Quoting the UN UDHR for the purpose of saving these two wastes would be like grabbing the Security Council resolution and saying Saddam Hussein is innocent.
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 12/2159
EXP: 6362248
For next: 30551

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2321 days
Last activity: 2319 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#15 Posted on 18.11.03 1044.30
Reposted on: 18.11.10 1044.35
murder [ mrdər ]

noun (plural murders)

law crime of killing somebody: the crime of killing another person deliberately and not in self-defense or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law

Now take that versus...

execution [ ksə kyshn ] (plural executions)

noun

1. law killing: the killing of somebody as part of a legal or extralegal process
===

All those who think B applies more than A, raise your hands.
spf
Scrapple
Level: 133

Posts: 2507/5404
EXP: 27251404
For next: 601336

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 2 hours
AIM:  
#16 Posted on 18.11.03 1119.28
Reposted on: 18.11.10 1121.11
Okay, I'll rephrase this. I wish this were one case where all the folks who want more of the Bible in government would get their sway, because as Judge Moore tried to make everyone aware with his big monument, one of the commandments is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and it's really the only one I tend to agree with.

I will however say that considering the recent record of who is on the UN Human Rights Commission that I'm not predisposed to want to be on the side of them on such issues these days.
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 152

Posts: 3075/7534
EXP: 43883416
For next: 418346

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 508 days
Last activity: 508 days
#17 Posted on 18.11.03 1126.56
Reposted on: 18.11.10 1127.36
I say go the cheap route and have someone shank the scumbags. Saves money on the numerous appeals that are to come and gets the scumbags out of the system a few years earlier.
ShotGunShep
Frankfurter
Level: 59

Posts: 291/836
EXP: 1583547
For next: 89591

Since: 20.2.03

Since last post: 2566 days
Last activity: 2453 days
#18 Posted on 18.11.03 1223.15
Reposted on: 18.11.10 1224.29
    Originally posted by Ender

    No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."

    Are you saying that capital punishment is NOT torture? I'd think that not only the actual killing of a person is torture, but telling a person "So, hey, you're going to die tomorrow" is torture in its own right.



    (edited by Ender on 17.11.03 1929)

Hmm, I really like your line of thinking. So we can't torture someone. "You killed X amount of people, you are going to spend your life in prison." Couldn't that be considered torture(using YOUR idea)? Maybe we just shouldn't have prisons, and just ship our convicts to Canada, that'd be fine with YOU wouldn't it?
JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 13/2159
EXP: 6362248
For next: 30551

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2321 days
Last activity: 2319 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#19 Posted on 18.11.03 1307.08
Reposted on: 18.11.10 1308.45
    Originally posted by ShotGunShep
    Maybe we just shouldn't have prisons, and just ship our convicts to Canada, that'd be fine with YOU wouldn't it?


Hey, it worked out GREAT for Cuba in 1980 :D

(edited by Blanket Jackson on 18.11.03 1407)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 155/2704
EXP: 8961767
For next: 27052

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 29 days
Last activity: 3 hours
#20 Posted on 18.11.03 1352.15
Reposted on: 18.11.10 1352.27
    Originally posted by spf2119
    Okay, I'll rephrase this. I wish this were one case where all the folks who want more of the Bible in government would get their sway, because as Judge Moore tried to make everyone aware with his big monument, one of the commandments is "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and it's really the only one I tend to agree with.

    I will however say that considering the recent record of who is on the UN Human Rights Commission that I'm not predisposed to want to be on the side of them on such issues these days.


So many points.
1. The real translation is" not murder", not "not kill" and the Bible recognizes a huge difference between the two.

2. Life in solitary isn't torture, you may argue it's cruel and unusual punishment but not tortue.

3. If we choose to ignore things such as the UDHR, I have no problem with that. I'm not sure it's relevant here anyways. BUT, we tend to cherry pick what we will and will not accept in areas such as this depending on whether or not we like it. We as a country either accept or don't accept organizations and documants such as ths. We need to decide.

4. Rule of Law folks. We are a nation of laws not emotions. The gut reactions here are understandable but that is the reason we have laws so that emotion isn't supposed to rule. I am personally opposed to the death penalty but not for the reasons you may think and they aren't particularly relevant here. The death penalty option is in the law and if that is the decided punishment fine. The main thing is that these nutcases are off the streets forever.

5. No matter how heinous a person's life is, I refuse to take pleasure in the loss of a life. Maybe relief they can't do any more harm.

6. I hope guilty covictions and sentence execution brings some small measure of comfort to those affected by these bastards.
ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE
Thread ahead: How much is a Nielsen ratings point?
Next thread: Coolest...newscast...EVER.
Previous thread: Pacquaio KOs Barrera
(1725 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Random - One down, one to goRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.245 seconds.