Executions R not us

[bannination]

Since to Mr. B, being gay is a choice, I firmly believe he is equally attracted to both sexes. I think that applies to all people who really think it's a choice.


//offtopic.

[bannination]

One has to wonder if they took any test drives so they could make an informed choice.

They'd never admit they are attracted, and especially wouldn't admit the test drives.

[Mr.B]

"Suck it up, you made your bed..."

The opinions expressed here are my own; co-management neither endorses nor accepts responsibility.

I'm asking you nicely......leave my wife out of these discussions.

[Mr.B]

//offtopic.

"Since to Mr. B, being gay is a choice, I firmly believe he is equally attracted to both sexes. I think that applies to all people who really think it's a choice."

I have never said that; why are you being dishonest?

I have said that I don't know if it's a choice or something you're born with. I have said I believe one can choose.

[O Really]

Naaa, just another creative application of "I wuz skeered."

[O Really]

Well, yeah - he's crazy as a teabagger, but that is his defence, right? Now take that idea to its logical conclusion in a place like Florida (I know, he's not in Florida), and see if it's consistent with other "I wuz skeered" stories - some of which have been successful, some not. Of course, it's kinda hard to show a direct and immediate threat to his life when those he fears are little kids. He'll have to use a cumulative fear of abuse theory, I guess. With any luck, he'll get convicted and not just an insanity decision.

[Mr.B]

I think you know what you need to do to close the door you opened. Your choice."

Yep.

[O Really]

It won't surprise me if that is his defense, but it's the prosecutor that's calling him "mad" at the moment. If he ever goes to trial I'll bet the prosecutor's word choice is cited.

From the little we know so far I don't think he is consistent with other "I wuz skeered" killer crybabies. Please elaborate.

If he is truly insane, why do you prefer convicted over an insanity decision? Anyone that butchers 5 kids will never be released either way.

As you know, "insane" when used as a defence, is a legal term, not a medical or psychiatric term. As such, it requires not only that the loon be crazy, but that at the time of the crime s/he was not capable of knowing right from wrong. The "not knowing" part is the reason it makes a viable defence, since that would prevent the crime from being intentional, willful, pre-meditated, etc. Basically turns it into an accident (oversimplified). I think if I were the prosecutor (and I'm glad I'm not in that line of work), I'd make a lot over his attempts to hide his actions. Chopping them up, packing in bags, driving around all over...sounds to me like crazy as he was, he still knew what he did was wrong.

[O Really]

I still don't get why it matters. He's never going to be free again, regardless.

Doesn't matter to me personally in the least. I'm just holding up my end of the conversation. Where do they send homicidal nutsos now? I'm pretty sure there are some certifiable nutsos in Pelican Bay, too.

[bannination]

State mental hospitals with lockdown units, which aren't much better than prisons. Some stay there forever. Others are treated, deemed competent for trial, then sent to prison forever where some go nuts all over again.

Mental Health in this country is pathetic.

[O Really]

Maybe they'll have to re-open the Trans-Allegheny Lunatic Asylum. If you're anywhere around Weston, WV (on I-81N), be sure to take the tour. Then remember that it's been used recently enough that one of the guides we had (two years ago) had worked there as a nurse.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfpYoGhvAz0

[O Really]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... picks=true

"Wrongly Convicted by the Innocence Project" (and maybe set up)

[O Really]

We don't know if the state got it wrong twice - Porter could have done it. But he's described as "...a gangster who’d shot a man in the head only two weeks prior..." so would it really have been tragic if they had killed him whether or not he was the one who killed the kids?

[O Really]

I also wonder about the implication that the Innocence Project allegedly did things that cops don't do. It seems to me they may have done exactly what cops do.

Apparently they did. But that doesn't excuse it, and sorta takes away their ticket to the high road, doesn't it?

[O Really]

Besides, no innocent got killed.

Well, unless you count the kids.
But then no guilty got killed, either.

[Mr.B]

"Mental Health in this country is pathetic."

Why's that? Did they release you too soon?

[O Really]

...Besides, no innocent got killed.

Well, unless you count the kids....

They were already dead, we're discussing the actions of the state and the IP.

True, but that's a weasly comment not worthy of yourself. There wouldn't have been any actions of the state or the IP if it weren't for the dead kids. There was a crime committed, and apparently the state either:
1. Convicted the right guy at first
2. Convicted the wrong guy at first
3. Convicted the right guy after IP's work
4. Convicted the wrong guy after IP's work

From those, it is possible that the "real killer" escaped totally or the correctly convicted Porter was turned loose wrongly. There are too many variables to know for sure, but it all derives from the dead kids and appears that no matter which of the possibles happened, justice was not served.

[O Really]

I'm not really opposing what you say, and sure, there is no real "justice" that would help the dead kids. But the term is, as you know, usually used to mean that s/he who commits a crime is caught and punished appropriately. In this instance, there seems to be no way to tell if the real killer was caught. There seems to be no scenario in which anybody did anything right. Of course, we're talking about Illinois and Chicago in particular and sleazy courts, corrupt cops, and paid-for politicians are the most plentiful north of New Orleans. So it's no real shocker that they could possibly have convicted two black guys for the same crime and neither of them be guilty.

[O Really]

As I've added years to my life, I find I may still have the same principles I had when I was young, but have a different perception of practicality and "big picture" or "overall scheme of things." Things I once thought had great importance are now seen as barely making a blip on the personal radar. For example, I might have at one time thought it really mattered if a given sports team won or lost, or if a current girl friend called me or didn't, or if a given political candidate won their election.
I still have an idealistic view of how the law should work, and how defence of the Constitution including all Amendments is important, but I also recognize that one guy getting wrongly convicted and wrongly killed really isn't going to send the Republic into chaos any more than one guy getting away with murder would. We all define what is important in our own existence and in many cases we believe that is also important in the larger picture. Usually it isn't.

[rstrong]

If I ever saw an amputee being hanged, I think I would just yell out letters.