Death penalty for the CO movie shooter ?

I was on a jury that sentenced a man to death, he stabbed an old man to death with a pair of scissors, he died in prison last year after 20 some years on death row. I think of the crime and trial often.
Both of which were a huge waste of time and money.

 

Thats it???? Nothing about the "penile" gaf??? That screw up was funny as hell and we made great sport of it and you pretend it didnt happen???

Bad form indeed.

 

If my spelling is all thats wrong with this world, were good.
We have sever thunderstorms with a tornado thrown in here and there outside, I'm altering one set of drawings , writing a CNC program for an inspection fixture and chatting here.
I think I got all of the fours and two used correctly so if just one penis outta place in a prison thread is it, I'm busted!

 

But it was classic (and pretty funny). If at some point in the distant future I ever make a mistake, I would expect there to be great sport made of it and I would have to eat crow. It’s the internet after all.

 

Crow is not all that bad, if you have a nice warm glass of bacon grease to chase it down with.

 

Does inflation have anything to do with that penile system?

 

You know actually this isn't actually correct. I recently had to do a report on the death penalty for my Introduction to Criminal Justice and in my research I found a report published about the state of North Carolina that it cost $2.16 million more per execution than life without parole. (This was cost from arrest through death.) A majority of the expense occurs during the trial phase because each person sentenced to death gets an automatic appeal. The average cost to support an inmate serving life without parole including incarceration is half a million. Needless to say I was surprised when I was doing my research.

But as I stated before I think this guy should be put to death.

 

So if there are a hundred witnesses and the police catch the guy redheanded and it is on video... why the appeal? The should have just dispatched him on the spot for about .28 cents, then been paid 10 percent of the money they saved the taxpayers with a little extra tossed in just because we don't have to watch the stupid trial on television for 6 months.

 

Don't know if this is authentic or not, just one of those random e-mails you receive, but never the less I like it and agree with it and thought it was appropriate:


"The Gun Is Civilization"

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society. But, a firearm makes it easier for an armed mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat - it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly .

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier, works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply would not work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...And that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act !!

By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced !!

 

He should be tear gassed and shot multiple times as he try's to escape!!!!!!


"Live Life at Full Draw"
Sent from my IPhone

 

seriously, this fool deserves to die, he also should have no chance to live. i think a mass target practice session is in order for his sorry exccuse of useless flesh.