Officials in the town of Webster tell local media outlets that someone shot at firefighters around 6 a.m. Monday when they arrived at the scene of the blaze just east of Rochester.
The shooter has been identified as William Spengler, 62, a convicted killer.
The dead are Lt. Mike Chiapperini, 43, a volunteer firefighter and Webster Police Department’s public information officer, and firefighter Tomasz Kaczowka. Theodore Scardino and Joseph Hofstetter were also shot and are recovering in guarded condition at Strong Memorial Hospital.
Webster Police Chief Gerald Pickering told reporters that Spengler was found dead outside the home where the shootings occurred, killed by a self-inflicted gunshot. Pickering said Spengler opened fire at the firefighters when they pulled up to a house in the 100 block of Lake Road. One firefighter was able to flee the scene, while the other three were "pinned down at the location." A SWAT team responded, rescued the firefighter who was alive and then engaged the suspect.
Pickering spoke through tears as he described the violent scene, which appeared to be set up on purpose.
"It does appear that [the fire scene] was a trap that was set," Pickering said in a press conference.
Why the hack would someone do this :/ This is even sicker than killing random people... These Firefighters were called up to help this person and he in turn had actually set up a trap to kill them. Bloody hell what a twisted world...
Saw this earlier. Truly fucked up that someone would lure people in to shoot them on Christmas Eve. Let alone firefighters and volunteer firefighters at that. =/
Of all people, why the fuck firefighters? They're literally the most guiltless people in the governmental system. Especially volunteer firefighters. What the hell man.
You know it's a sad time when it's Christmas and you're sitting at home thinking to yourself and judging what's a worse case of evil - luring firefighters who save lives and killing them on active duty, or indiscriminately murdering young children and their caretakers.
Those firefighters had NO right trespassing on that man's property. He was repelling an obvious invasion and succeeded in deterring what was obviously a plan against him by the tyrannical government that convicted him of murder. He valiantly suppressed the insurrection that involved having his house set on ablaze, and the firefighters that were deceptively going to put out the conflagration on his own home but were obviously sent as part of an opposition militia learned a valuable lesson on Christmas Eve. He was facilitating his right to self-defense, he stood up to his rights to participate in law enforcement.
On December 25 2012 10:01 Sableyeah wrote: Why the hack would someone do this :/ This is even sicker than killing random people... These Firefighters were called up to help this person and he in turn had actually set up a trap to kill them. Bloody hell what a twisted world...
On December 25 2012 10:11 kukarachaa wrote: There is gotta be more to this story, I find it extremely hard to believe someone would do that, just for the hell of it without any motive.
On December 25 2012 10:12 dNa wrote: that's truly awful what the hell would be the reason for something like that anyway.
On December 25 2012 10:15 Grobyc wrote: Wow, how could you do that to random firefighters of all people
And then just kill yourself afterward. How pathetic.
RIP
Well, if Adam Lanza had killed random adults, he would have been lumped together in the news with previous mass shooters. Many people wouldn't have even followed the news much because they're "used" to it by now.
The most insane part of all this is that they may not have randomly decided on kids or fire fighters, they may have done it very intentionally knowing the news would cover them more than they would otherwise. Yes, killing kids and firefighters is sicker than killing random people, and getting even more coverage on the news may be the motive behind it.
There may even be numerous ill minded murderous attention seeking freaks watching the news coverage right now, getting ideas directly from it. Oh but.. it's video games that are giving people murderous ideas, not the news that continuously proves to these sick people that mass murder works. I forgot.
On December 25 2012 10:19 Xpace wrote: What's next? + Show Spoiler +
Those firefighters had NO right trespassing on that man's property. He was repelling an obvious invasion and succeeded in deterring what was obviously a plan against him by the tyrannical government that convicted him of murder. He valiantly suppressed the insurrection that involved having his house set on ablaze, and the firefighters that were deceptively going to put out the conflagration on his own home but were obviously sent as part of an opposition militia learned a valuable lesson on Christmas Eve. He was facilitating his right to self-defense, he stood up to his rights to participate in law enforcement.
Turn off your TV on christmas. Don't watch the news. Don't visit the Huffington post or any other news site. There is always a tragedy being peddled. At least for one day, don't give in to the grief porn.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
The real question is why wasn't he properly rehabilitated. When 60-74% of your incarcerated criminals re-offend within 3 years, you know your "lock em up to sort em out" mentality is not working.
And yet no doubt lots of people will call for stricter sentencing. I really despair of Average Joe sometimes.
There is a lot involved in this tragedy it seems. Hopefully the two being treated in the hospital will survive minimizing the impact. In addition, the suspect's sister is also missing and it is feared she may be among one of the seven houses that were set alight.
I'm curious as to whether or not this shooting was mimicking the Sandy Hook incident and if so what that has to say about the media encouraging this type of malicious behavior in troubled people.
Do we ignore the shooting because that's the only way we can stop these publicity stunts? Or do we mourn the shootings even more because of how you can possibly shoot a firefighter. Jesus.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
The real question is why wasn't he properly rehabilitated. When 60-74% of your incarcerated criminals re-offend within 3 years, you know your "lock em up to sort em out" mentality is not working.
And yet no doubt lots of people will call for stricter sentencing. I really despair of Average Joe sometimes.
Putting them away for life would be 100% effective in stopping them from committing another murder too.
On December 25 2012 10:19 Xpace wrote: What's next? + Show Spoiler +
Those firefighters had NO right trespassing on that man's property. He was repelling an obvious invasion and succeeded in deterring what was obviously a plan against him by the tyrannical government that convicted him of murder. He valiantly suppressed the insurrection that involved having his house set on ablaze, and the firefighters that were deceptively going to put out the conflagration on his own home but were obviously sent as part of an opposition militia learned a valuable lesson on Christmas Eve. He was facilitating his right to self-defense, he stood up to his rights to participate in law enforcement.
what?
That was sarcasm in a spoiler. You didn't quote how I really feel about the situation.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
Because the majority of convicted killers don't murder firefighters on Christmas eve. It's an anomaly.
But they do have a tendency to repeat their crimes. Am I wrong in saying that? One could say that this particular criminal picked unusual targets and committed the crime at an unusual time..
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
The real question is why wasn't he properly rehabilitated. When 60-74% of your incarcerated criminals re-offend within 3 years, you know your "lock em up to sort em out" mentality is not working.
And yet no doubt lots of people will call for stricter sentencing. I really despair of Average Joe sometimes.
Putting them away for life would be 100% effective in stopping them from committing another murder too.
As if that's a reasonable, humanitarian or possible solution.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
The real question is why wasn't he properly rehabilitated. When 60-74% of your incarcerated criminals re-offend within 3 years, you know your "lock em up to sort em out" mentality is not working.
And yet no doubt lots of people will call for stricter sentencing. I really despair of Average Joe sometimes.
Putting them away for life would be 100% effective in stopping them from committing another murder too.
As if that's a reasonable, humanitarian or possible solution.
Also, technically it wouldn't be 100% effective since there's nothing stopping them from killing another prisoner or guard.
On December 25 2012 09:59 peekn wrote: Jesus... This has to stop. How many more innocent people are going to have to die before we start doing something. These random acts are so terrible.
My thoughts with their family's.
The problem is it's really not as easy as simply "doing something".
Making my clothes clean, feeding myself.. These are things that all I have to do is do something to make them happen.
Obviously emotions run high in times like this.
Personally I don't think anyone needs an assault rifle in their home, or for hunting. Hunting is/was a sport. Animals are even referred to as 'game'. I don't see the game in killing animals with an assault rifle. I'm not sure the necessity of that. Some people wouldn't even agree to hunting as a sport, they would say killing animals should only be done if it's for food or to end the suffering of the animal. Yet others would say we don't even need to kill animals for sustenance. So you see how hard it is to "just do something". No matter what you propose there will be people who outright oppose you for whatever reason.
The real solutions is to create a society where these types of things are less common. It should also be noted that the frequency and commonality of these types of things is much more profound today that it would have been 10-15 years ago. Even if these types of murders were more common by a factor of 10, there simply wasn't a 24 hour news cycle, and people weren't as engaged. I may very well be wrong, but I believe 10-15 years ago, only the most astute news readers would get wind of this story. I'm only 26, so I don't have any actual basis or frame of reference for this.
Day 9 always talks about being able to identify the underlying problem, and not merely the symptoms or surface issues. I believe that guns are tools. Tools are only the surface. Of course it's easier to kill someone with a sharp edge than a dull blade, much the same it's easier to kill someone firing 60 bullets a minute rather than 5 or 10. Some tools shouldn't be freely and readily available (chemical/nuclear weapons, assault rifles etc) but the stark reality is that if people want to hurt people they will. This is not my novel idea or thought. I think it was on reddit that I saw this visualized pretty well. Fertilizer, bullets, an airplane. These are just tools. The real problem is the people.
First of all; too many kids are taught to hate from birth. I'm not talking about being taught physiological and physical differences between different races of humanity. I'm talking about they are taught that a skin color or sexual orientation actually makes another human not human. They have no respect for these people that aren't like them. They don't try to understand and they don't care to understand. They don't call it hate, because to them it's normal; not taboo. I don't think this particular type of teaching is what leads to the horrible events that happened recently in Connecticut and New York. I just think this is a major problem in our society that makes everything else harder.
I think the real problem is that people don't have access to real help. It's interesting to me how many fallacies and illogical processes their are in our society (USA, I don't pretend to speak for Europe or any other country, each country is VERY different). Most people you talk to see no merit in many of the ways our society works, and even the most layman of the laymen can think of common sense ways to make things more efficient and better, but bureaucratic and politics constantly gets in the way. Imprisonment, education, welfare, you name it and pretty much everyone can think of a better way to do things. The bottom line is that we don't help each other. I realize that we are a capitalistic country but why does that mean we have to give up our values? If someone needs help they should get it as long as they aren't actively trying to leech off of society. If someone needs food they should have food as long as they contribute to society in some way. We aren't fighting for resources any more (or yet). We can afford to help each other out and work together. But it goes further than food. If someone needs mental help they should get that too.
If your mother/father, brother/sister wasn't able to feed themselves, would you feed them? If they couldn't afford to buy food, would you help them with that? Or would you let them stay on your couch if they didn't have a place to live? What about your neighbor? Why are other members of the community any different?
Bottom line people need real help and they can't get it. The tools that people use to hurt others is not the problem. I don't know what the real answers are but I think we can start acting like a community not just in our little niches'. Not just with our close personal friends that we're comfortable with, but everyone in our lives.
If you're really only living to own things and make money, then why don't you go steal and rob a bank? The end result is the same, you'll have more thrill doing it. Society is people coming together to create something better. If you only care about yourself anyways, then please do not call yourself part of my society, you haven't done anything real to contribute to my society? Going to work 9-5 is not contributing to society.
Instead of a plea for someone to do SOMETHING. Ask yourself what have you done to help prevent such atrocities?
This should probably have been a blog. We are in this together, lets start acting like it huh?
On December 25 2012 11:13 Ratch! wrote: A 62 year old gamer I assume.
Seriously, the guns on the US are a serious problem. And it's a tragedy being on Christmas eve.
This guy killed his grandmother with a hammer.
A gun was not needed to do this, he could have rigged a propane tank and blew them up for all that it mattered.
It's his is mental state. The guns make it easier for people to kill people, but a crazy person with a lot of time can find a hundred other ways.
How many murders-by-propane tank have happened? Or any other elaborate device? So far the only people I can think of are those guys who did the Oklahoma City bombing, the unibomber and that guy who sent out that poison in the mail around September 11th. And obviously September 11th, although that will never happen in that fashion again. So that is 4-5 major incidents over the last almost 20 years. Now compare that to the number of gun deaths caused by maniacs. Seems like the presence of guns make it much more likely that an insane person will succeed in murder.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
Because the majority of convicted killers don't murder firefighters on Christmas eve. It's an anomaly.
But they do have a tendency to repeat their crimes. Am I wrong in saying that? One could say that this particular criminal picked unusual targets and committed the crime at an unusual time..
A proportion of convicted criminals will become reoffenders. On the other hand, a proportion of non offenders will become first time offenders. I think the system works better if you don't punish people pre-emptively.
On December 25 2012 11:20 thurst0n wrote: Day 9 always talks about being able to identify the underlying problem, and not merely the symptoms or surface issues. I believe that guns are tools. Tools are only the surface. Of course it's easier to kill someone with a sharp edge than a dull blade, much the same it's easier to kill someone firing 60 bullets a minute rather than 5 or 10. Some tools shouldn't be freely and readily available (chemical/nuclear weapons, assault rifles etc) but the stark reality is that if people want to hurt people they will. This is not my novel idea or thought. I think it was on reddit that I saw this visualized pretty well. Fertilizer, bullets, an airplane. These are just tools. The real problem is the people.
Indeed, and that's why I'm advocating for the freedom for every American man to bear biological weapon. To protect himself and his family from a world gone crazy. Do you think Jew people would have had to suffer such oppression during WW2 would they have had free access to biological weapons?
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
You guys already have the highest incarceration rate in the world (by far). I think it's a bit past just keeping criminals in prisons longer.
Can't argue that but is a convicted killer really one of the guys we let go? This isn't some random dude who got caught with pot, had a buncha tickets, didn't show up to court, or some other random non-violent offense. He's a convicted murderer, he should be in there for life.
Not setting places on fire and then killing volunteer firefighters with an assault rifle.
On December 25 2012 11:35 Pufftrees wrote: Feel terrible for the family and friends of the victims, very sad.
To the people who want US to make the firearms illegal, maybe we should just make murder illegal instead... solve the root of the problem
Very catty, Mr. Slax, but the reality is that we should probably have a lot more stringent gun laws. Our gun laws are far more lax than our drug laws, and see relatively zero enforcement comparatively.
My condolences to the families. What jumped at me when I read the text, firefighters being shot while trying to put out a fire, and a convincted murderer owning a weapon, what the hell!? EDIT: he owned a assault rifle? double wtf.
On December 25 2012 11:35 Pufftrees wrote: Feel terrible for the family and friends of the victims, very sad.
To the people who want US to make the firearms illegal, maybe we should just make murder illegal instead... solve the root of the problem
Very catty, Mr. Slax, but the reality is that we should probably have a lot more stringent gun laws. Our gun laws are far more lax than our drug laws, and see relatively zero enforcement comparatively.
as successful as the war on drugs is, I think sometimes less government intervention is better
Please no mass media attention about the killer, its obvious that he wanted attention from this killing because he chose to kill firefighters.... Lets just focus on the victims
RIP - Condolences to the families of these people.
No doubt the gun control policy will be an issue but sometimes there will always be black sheep in humanity. No one will understand how did events happen but taking the lives of innocents, one must wonder what was this man thinking.
This happened about 5 minutes from me, and about 2 minutes from my grandma's house. Pretty sickening. My dad knows one of the survivors, who got shot in the butt and is having pelvis/spine complications.
Don't know what to say, I don't feel like getting into the gun control debate or the media coverage debate or the mental health debate right now.
This is so wrong on so many levels. How did this convicted killer get hold of a weapon? And why is he free? How on earth is that possible? So many people must have done a really shitty job and that made it possible for this mentally fuked person to do this. This must be the nail in the coffin for the gun law debate. At least i hope so. Or will the gun lobbiests say that the firefighters should be escorted by the police or carry guns themselves?
If he wasn't armed with a gun, I wonder just how many of them he could've killed.. Oh wait, none.
I guess firefighters should be armed too now according to NRA-logic? Those poor families, the argument keeps getting more ridiculous (pro-arms advocates of course).
On December 25 2012 11:35 Pufftrees wrote: Feel terrible for the family and friends of the victims, very sad.
To the people who want US to make the firearms illegal, maybe we should just make murder illegal instead... solve the root of the problem
Very catty, Mr. Slax, but the reality is that we should probably have a lot more stringent gun laws. Our gun laws are far more lax than our drug laws, and see relatively zero enforcement comparatively.
as successful as the war on drugs is, I think sometimes less government intervention is better
True. But there should be a higher standard for legal gun ownership, more incentive to sell arms back to the government, and quick elimination of the 'grey areas' involved in firearm trades. For too long the government has acted like a sloth in filling this void. Overall disarmament should be the goal of any population that is not at constant war, but we'd be lokky if this was achieved within the next 50 years.
Starting to get the feeling that corrupt people in the U.S. are purposely releasing criminals/felons that have a high probability to commit crimes that will get on the news to spur up gun control debates. Hearing stories like this always suck, just remember if you live in the USA you have the right to bear arms, and the government/politicians do not care if this is taken away or not in the end, they just want to get re-elected.
On December 25 2012 11:20 thurst0n wrote: Day 9 always talks about being able to identify the underlying problem, and not merely the symptoms or surface issues. I believe that guns are tools. Tools are only the surface. Of course it's easier to kill someone with a sharp edge than a dull blade, much the same it's easier to kill someone firing 60 bullets a minute rather than 5 or 10. Some tools shouldn't be freely and readily available (chemical/nuclear weapons, assault rifles etc) but the stark reality is that if people want to hurt people they will. This is not my novel idea or thought. I think it was on reddit that I saw this visualized pretty well. Fertilizer, bullets, an airplane. These are just tools. The real problem is the people.
Indeed, and that's why I'm advocating for the freedom for every American man to bear biological weapon. To protect himself and his family from a world gone crazy. Do you think Jew people would have had to suffer such oppression during WW2 would they have had free access to biological weapons?
Short answer. Yes I do.
I was raised Jewish but now consider myself atheist. It should be noted that Jews were not the only people targeted by Nazi Germany.
I feel I have to tread lightly, I'm not sure how serious you are about the biological weapons or if you're being 'devils advocate'. But I"ll bite.
I just don't think any society needs biological weapons. I do live in the real world, and I will be the first to point out when people are trying to be Utopian. There are certain realities we just all have to accept.
Nazi Germany is a horrible analogy. The Nazi regime had complete power of the region, they had the backing of entire communities which would ridicule and demean all those not chosen (or the chosen people ;-)). It's not just about bearing arms, it's also about the right to ASSEMBLE freely. The Jewish people say "Never Again", yet it's happening in other places around the world. I think the saddest thing about this whole thing is that there are systematic executions of people throughout the world, and most people in America don't know about it, if they do they forget about it 5 minutes after the read the news article (I include myself here). Why are 4 murders worse than what's going on in North Korea? Judaism teaches that every life has an infinite value. This logic means that for one person to be murdered is just as bad/wrong as 6 million people.
I just think our focus as a society is consistently on straw men. I am a hypocrite. I do nothing about it. I just hope my awareness eventually can lead to action. I wish the news was talking about real solutions instead of trying to find a scapegoat and trying to monetize everything including these tragedies and literally the worst day of peoples lives.
The story in my eyes is "Man never got the help he needed and ended the life of 4 Firefighters"
On December 25 2012 12:34 Emnjay808 wrote: Fuck the world sometimes.
I hope this will push a real revolution, not some reformation, of the justice system and the way we look at safety. I really think that at this point it is too easy to get powerful weapons and I think it is time for the U.S. as a country to band together with the notion that guns do kill people, it's not just people that kill people. Also, good that you edited out the pun, it's a bit to early for those . I hope this furthers the gun debate in a way that is meaningful with so many staunch gun rights groups trying to halt debate.
On December 25 2012 11:35 Pufftrees wrote: Feel terrible for the family and friends of the victims, very sad.
To the people who want US to make the firearms illegal, maybe we should just make murder illegal instead... solve the root of the problem
Very catty, Mr. Slax, but the reality is that we should probably have a lot more stringent gun laws. Our gun laws are far more lax than our drug laws, and see relatively zero enforcement comparatively.
as successful as the war on drugs is, I think sometimes less government intervention is better
True. But there should be a higher standard for legal gun ownership, more incentive to sell arms back to the government, and quick elimination of the 'grey areas' involved in firearm trades. For too long the government has acted like a sloth in filling this void. Overall disarmament should be the goal of any population that is not at constant war, but we'd be lokky if this was achieved within the next 50 years.
I don't see any reason at all that we should work towards disarmament here.
Fact is, the killer in this instance, as a convicted felon who had, in the past murdered a family member was already not allowed to own a firearm - and he had one. People who want guns are going to get ahold of them - the only thing gun control laws do is remove them from the possesion of people on the other side.
so for all those using the backs of dead fireman to further advocate their arguement of banning guns. This man was a convicted felon, guns WERE BANNED for him. we see how well that stopped him from getting one. Soooooo can we just grieve for the dead a bit before hurling our arguements from our morally high soap boxes
HOUSTON - A traffic stop turned into a fatal shooting on Christmas Eve when a gunman killed a police officer and bystander in the parking lot of a Houston body shop, police said.
...
The suspect, identified by Cannon as Harlem Harold Lewis, 21, and the white truck eventually pulled into a nearby Maaco body shop, where Bellaire police Cpl. Jimmie Norman approached the vehicle. Cannon said an argument apparently erupted, and the suspect pulled out a .380 calibre handgun and shot Norman.
"The saddest thing is that the officer, who is deceased, didn't have the opportunity to pull his weapon and defend himself," Cannon said. "It happened that fast."
...
He said a man then walked out of the body shop, and the suspect shot him.
On December 25 2012 11:47 jdseemoreglass wrote: OP, the link you offered didn't say anything about an assault rifle. Can you please link that source please?
Got it from the recording of the exchange between an emergency dispatcher and one of the firefighters.
On December 25 2012 11:35 Pufftrees wrote: Feel terrible for the family and friends of the victims, very sad.
To the people who want US to make the firearms illegal, maybe we should just make murder illegal instead... solve the root of the problem
Very catty, Mr. Slax, but the reality is that we should probably have a lot more stringent gun laws. Our gun laws are far more lax than our drug laws, and see relatively zero enforcement comparatively.
as successful as the war on drugs is, I think sometimes less government intervention is better
True. But there should be a higher standard for legal gun ownership, more incentive to sell arms back to the government, and quick elimination of the 'grey areas' involved in firearm trades. For too long the government has acted like a sloth in filling this void. Overall disarmament should be the goal of any population that is not at constant war, but we'd be lokky if this was achieved within the next 50 years.
I don't see any reason at all that we should work towards disarmament here.
Fact is, the killer in this instance, as a convicted felon who had, in the past murdered a family member was already not allowed to own a firearm - and he had one. People who want guns are going to get ahold of them - the only thing gun control laws do is remove them from the possesion of people on the other side.
You're making a circular argument. Guns are too easy to get, so we need guns. This is DPRK level propaganda from the NRA (the lobby for gun manufacturers). The hilarious part is that the NRA benefits as much from the 'ruthless criminals' owning guns as much as they do from the so called 'law abiding citizens' who own guns. With the exceptions of countries that have mandatory military service and training and those that are currently unstable, (think Somalia, Israel, Sudan, Congo) disarmament is ideal. Mandatory military service is an exception to the rule because it generally has a system to weed out the people who break under stress, as well as periodic tests to make sure that their constituents are not insane. Background checks, ethics tests, and basic military tactic classes should be prerequisites for owning a gun. You should understand basic concepts such as bullet penetration through common building materials, establishing and evaluating the extent of damage done to friendlies in your field of fire, and be able to fire within a basic accuracy range.
On December 25 2012 13:06 izmatic wrote: so for all those using the backs of dead fireman to further advocate their arguement of banning guns. This man was a convicted felon, guns WERE BANNED for him. we see how well that stopped him from getting one. Soooooo can we just grieve for the dead a bit before hurling our arguements from our morally high soap boxes
deleted edit: oops wrote this just after mod note is up.
.....ok the only think that i can come up with that make sence is although i wasent too keen on it ... i think morgan freeman may be actually true when he says media glorification of killer (ex we always know the name of the killer but not the victims )is a part of the problem.Sound to me like someone that wanted to go out in the spotlight
How does a convicted killer gets his hands on a assault rifle?
That's just the thing, he doesn't do it LEGALLY.
So anything that the government does to hamper LEGAL gun control is just leaving people defenseless against criminals who regardless of laws, would continue to get their weaponry illegally.
On December 25 2012 13:13 jdseemoreglass wrote: ^^ Yeah, this is a country of 300,000,000+ people. Someone gets shot every day. Big shock.
By the way, I am still waiting on the OP to provide a source for his claim that the man had an assault rifle. I haven't been able to find any yet.
Yea. It is a big shock. There's going to be a some kids out there who found out their dad died on Christmas eve.
And there's going to be a hundred other families who receive the shock of a family member dying in a car accident, or dying of heart disease or dying of.... etc. etc. HUNDREDS of families, all on Christmas Eve. lt's tragic, but it's part of life.
On December 25 2012 13:13 jdseemoreglass wrote: ^^ Yeah, this is a country of 300,000,000+ people. Someone gets shot every day. Big shock.
By the way, I am still waiting on the OP to provide a source for his claim that the man had an assault rifle. I haven't been able to find any yet.
Yea. It is a big shock. There's going to be a some kids out there who found out their dad died on Christmas eve.
And there's going to be a hundred other families who receive the shock of a family member dying in a car accident, or dying of heart disease or dying of.... etc. etc. HUNDREDS of families, all on Christmas Eve. lt's tragic, but it's part of life.
I'm sorry but you are going off on a tangent here. We are talking about a murder not an accident, what's wrong with you?
On December 25 2012 13:13 jdseemoreglass wrote: ^^ Yeah, this is a country of 300,000,000+ people. Someone gets shot every day. Big shock.
By the way, I am still waiting on the OP to provide a source for his claim that the man had an assault rifle. I haven't been able to find any yet.
Yea. It is a big shock. There's going to be a some kids out there who found out their dad died on Christmas eve.
And there's going to be a hundred other families who receive the shock of a family member dying in a car accident, or dying of heart disease or dying of.... etc. etc. HUNDREDS of families, all on Christmas Eve. lt's tragic, but it's part of life.
I'm sorry but you are going off on a tangent here. We are talking about a murder not an accident, what's wrong with you?
he also dodged the 2 guy answering for source of an assault rifle .. haha
back to topic ... to add to my previous post . i think this shocks me even more than the last shotting we had. I am not really sure why .volunteer fireman too ... so fucked up
On December 25 2012 13:13 jdseemoreglass wrote: ^^ Yeah, this is a country of 300,000,000+ people. Someone gets shot every day. Big shock.
By the way, I am still waiting on the OP to provide a source for his claim that the man had an assault rifle. I haven't been able to find any yet.
Yea. It is a big shock. There's going to be a some kids out there who found out their dad died on Christmas eve.
And there's going to be a hundred other families who receive the shock of a family member dying in a car accident, or dying of heart disease or dying of.... etc. etc. HUNDREDS of families, all on Christmas Eve. lt's tragic, but it's part of life.
I'm sorry but you are going off on a tangent here. We are talking about a murder not an accident, what's wrong with you?
Murder has been illegal for a long time. Obviously what we are talking about here is the statistical probability of death.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
You guys already have the highest incarceration rate in the world (by far). I think it's a bit past just keeping criminals in prisons longer.
The issue is that the wrong people are filling up the system. We are flooded with drug offenders because of the failed drug war, and then it makes financial strains so high that violent criminals are released too often. If we were to reserve our system for only violent offenders and find other forms of rehabilitation and education for others we would be in much better shape.
I dont understand why this does not make sense to people. As long as the media keeps releasing names and making killers infamous, the things they do will keep getting more strange and sicker to attract the attention of the media. You think killing children and then firefighters on christmas eve is bad, well somebody out there is already planning to one up them so he can go out in the spotlight.
Our culture really needs to change....and fast. But thats not likely...
On December 25 2012 15:13 imBLIND wrote: I don't know if people are born this way or if they become that way, but this is beyond fucked up.
Become this way for sure, it has to do with culture more than anything. Just so were clear im not saying that this couldn't happen anywhere in the world, just that certain cultures will make it occur more often.
This is just sick. There seriously needs to be a petition started to stop the media from releasing murderer's names. As many others have already stated, there are just sick people out there wanting to get some attention even if it means killing themselves in the end.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
You guys already have the highest incarceration rate in the world (by far). I think it's a bit past just keeping criminals in prisons longer.
We should start executing them.
Seems to work for Singapore.
Can we just stop responding to these events in such a simplistic manner? The events that lead to this event, high incarceration, etc. are complex. Saying things like ban all guns or execute them all just get us nowhere and have probably even contributed to the current condition. Complex problems deserve complex thought, and it would do us good to have some introspection about what are the causes of this behavior and how to limit it.
The media need to stop covering these stories - this is the very thing that's encouraging people to keep doing this. Unfortunately the news companies are just after higher ratings/views/hits. The only thing we can really do is to stop linking these stories.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
You guys already have the highest incarceration rate in the world (by far). I think it's a bit past just keeping criminals in prisons longer.
We should start executing them.
Seems to work for Singapore.
Can we just stop responding to these events in such a simplistic manner? The events that lead to this event, high incarceration, etc. are complex. Saying things like ban all guns or execute them all just get us nowhere and have probably even contributed to the current condition. Complex problems deserve complex thought, and it would do us good to have some introspection about what are the causes of this behavior and how to limit it.
It's actually not _that_ complex. These shooters aren't the typical death row inmate that suffered from a horrible childhood and was abandoned by society. That's a completely separate topic of discussion and is obviously the "real" problem in terms of total cost to society. The kinds of shootings publicized in the news are executed by, for the lack of a better word, "crazy" people. They're the outliers and frankly they're being encouraged by the media to act on their delusion.
How can there be a thread with any real discussion involving a felon shooting a bunch of firefighters and not allow folks to talk about guns? I understand that people get pissy about it one way or another, but otherwise it's just 'well gosh that sucks' without really talking about anything useful.
I don't read General as often as I'd like, but do these threads just go full retard each an every time without accomplishing anything? I guess that'd make sense.
On December 25 2012 09:59 peekn wrote: Jesus... This has to stop. How many more innocent people are going to have to die before we start doing something. These random acts are so terrible.
My thoughts with their family's.
Edit: Nvm I just noticed the update to NOT discuss any sort of law.
Thoughts and prayers to the victims, its rough what is going on now a days :/
For what it's worth, the stat is for those responding "yes". A lot of Singaporeans ostensibly could be responding with no comments or generally be annoyed by the questions (such is their culture). I think there was an Economist editorial from someone who had lived in Singapore for many years questioning the veracity of the survey. But I don't want to derail too far to Singapore.
This was yet another terrible, terrible tragedy this year, and it's just so shocking that firefighters, of all people, were apparently targeted man...
Another shooting in America?? Man...my heart goes out to you guys, this has certainly been a rough year for ya First it's kids, now it's Firefighters...this especially pisses me off coz firefighters, like paramedics, are there on call all the time to save lives and provide a very valuable service.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
The real question is why wasn't he properly rehabilitated. When 60-74% of your incarcerated criminals re-offend within 3 years, you know your "lock em up to sort em out" mentality is not working.
And yet no doubt lots of people will call for stricter sentencing. I really despair of Average Joe sometimes.
Putting them away for life would be 100% effective in stopping them from committing another murder too.
As if that's a reasonable, humanitarian or possible solution.
Let's get real though. The system is already overburdened with costs. Adding additional expenses to cover to personal rehabilitation of every criminal in the US system as they do in, say, Norway, would be unrealistically expensive. Wouldn't it?
I know nothing on this subject really, so maybe it's actually the case that the fancy sort of rehab they advocate for in certain EU countries such as Norway is not actually as fancy as it appears, and actually costs far less to sustain. I'd like to know more about this, if anyone happens to know...
I also live about 5 minutes from where this happened. I spent the day today dealing with friends and neighbors who knew the victims. One was my age, a year or so out of high school. The other was also a police officer and a very respected member of the community. Both taken well before their time.
I don't want to argue about gun laws (and can't now), because that's not the point of what happened today. What happened today was a tragedy of human lives being needlessly thrown away by a man no longer capable of reasonable human thought. This was not a ploy for attention. The asshole shot himself after he'd done the deed. You don't do something for attention just to kill yourself (not unless you're a terrorist and you're actually delivering a message with it).
Also, I don't think the media blew it out of proportion. In a large country it made top news headlines, yes, and it most likely was not the ABSOLUTE worst thing to happen in America today. However, it needed to be mentioned that 'hey, even people who are trying to protect the public are no longer safe from psychos'. It becomes out of proportion if it's top news for the next week as well. And for us here in Webster, it's going to be news for a while, because we lost two respected members. It's going to take time for the entire town to cope, and while some people may just disregard this story, respect should be paid because it's not just the two brave men who died, but it's also about the family, friends, and community that now has to pick up the pieces.
Thank you for all your kind words in this thread, and thank you for taking the time to read my thoughts on this.
its incredibly sad and infuriating that people who are waiting on call solely for the purpose of going out to help and save peoples lives get killed like that
and that fucking terrible murderder coward takes his life
Really sad news, my condolences to the family of those who passed away and my prayers for those two firefighters who are currently fighting for their lives in the hospital. Hope that this kind of tragedy never happens again, one can dream
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure.This guy was obviously a nutjob - should have at least been locked up in a mental home.
On December 25 2012 16:15 Flaccid wrote: Honest question:
How can there be a thread with any real discussion involving a felon shooting a bunch of firefighters and not allow folks to talk about guns? I understand that people get pissy about it one way or another, but otherwise it's just 'well gosh that sucks' without really talking about anything useful.
I don't read General as often as I'd like, but do these threads just go full retard each an every time without accomplishing anything? I guess that'd make sense.
They just want to keep everything organized. This isn't the thread for gun control debate. This is the thread for people to discuss which psychotic method should have been used to dispose of this psychopath if he hadn't been such a "pussy" and killed himself.
Because we all know what the real tragedy is here...
A volunteer firefighter and a police officer on christmas eve.. There are so many tragedies in the United States, I don't know what to say. My thougts with the families of course.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure.
No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
Because the majority of convicted killers don't murder firefighters on Christmas eve. It's an anomaly.
But they do have a tendency to repeat their crimes. Am I wrong in saying that? One could say that this particular criminal picked unusual targets and committed the crime at an unusual time..
It depends on what happens in prisons. Look up scandinavic countries. They release people from prisons, and most of the time the crime is never repeated and they become law-abiding citizens.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure.
No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime.
... do you really think things are gonna pan out that way ? .Anyway your signature show me how much of fallatious argument you can come up with
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure.
No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime.
I think people in prisons should work hard and earn their living at least partially (or fully if they are skilled). Combined with proper counselling it actually may help them become law-abiding citizens faster (and it would be much cheaper for tax payers).
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure.
No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime.
Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
Because the majority of convicted killers don't murder firefighters on Christmas eve. It's an anomaly.
But they do have a tendency to repeat their crimes. Am I wrong in saying that? One could say that this particular criminal picked unusual targets and committed the crime at an unusual time..
It depends on what happens in prisons. Look up scandinavic countries. They release people from prisons, and most of the time the crime is never repeated and they become law-abiding citizens.
I suppose it's a matter of how you approach the prison system. From what I have seen, Americans regard prison as an institution to punish people, where Scandinavians try to rehabilitate their criminals.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure.
No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime.
Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life.
What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined.
I think people in prisons should work hard and earn their living at least partially (or fully if they are skilled). Combined with proper counselling it actually may help them become law-abiding citizens faster (and it would be much cheaper for tax payers).
Then they just undercut wages in the private sector.Growing all their own food is fine but actually manufacturing stuff that is then onsold in the private sector? well i am against it.
Probably got the gun from a legal owner. The same way kids (and other mass shooters) get their drugs and guns from the easiest source available, their parents.
A sad thing to happen at this time of year. Thoughts and prayers with everyone suffering some hardship at this time.
On December 25 2012 21:19 TheSwamp wrote: I guess an arbitrary amount of time spent in a little box doesn't make a killer into a normal person.
It is really like sitting a two year old in the corner and expecting them to come out the other end never to draw on walls again. I love the way you put this though.
another psychopath tearing other innocent peoples lives and families apart.
so fucking pathetic.
another tragedy which could have been prevented if only we had more good guys with guns.
Yes, I hope we all learned a lesson here. Firefighters need assault rifles or better yet RPGs as standard equipment to protect themselves against psychos so scenes like this dont happen anymore.
Since you're from canada, i have reason to believe your post was sarcasm, but im not sure. Or maybe you meant more police officers. In any case, more guns is never the solution.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure.
No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime.
Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life.
What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined.
The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution.
Seriously US needs to fix their weapon policy, there should be some kind of research before someone is allowed to just go to a store and buy a gun, its srsly fucked up.
There will always be this kind of shit when mentally retarded people can buy a gun like an child buys candy
I think it's quite unsettling that these types of murders are increasing in occurrence, on top of the rising rate of crime in the United States. These types of crimes where you have someone who decides he wants to have his twisted sense of fun before offing himself are the worse. Imagine yourself in the firefighters shoes. What can you possible do to even know if the call for your help isn't just a random prank to gun you down?
That said, this is really some messed up nonsense, no idea what a convicted killer was doing out of prison and why he hated firefighters, but I'm sure the media will continue to dig and exploit the victims for all it's worth just like the school shooting earlier.
Give it a rest, send your condolences and move on, and try to enjoy Christmas knowing that you are fortunate.
Edit: Saw the mod thing, seems kind of ridiculous because the debate was started in the OP, but edited.
On December 25 2012 11:03 Bobgrimly wrote: Did he play violent video games too? What will the media blame for this one?
The media didn't blame games, the NRA did.
The media was the first group to blame video games. There was even a thread about it on here because they were trying to blame Starcraft.
Some Democrat senators also blamed video games before the NRA and have proposed a bill to fund a study into the impact of violent video games on children.
I think if anything needs to be looked at a bit more, its the support for mentally ill people in the US. Gun control and Video games just seem to be false paths to a solution for these sorts of killings.
This is actually heart breaking. Emergency services people who work around Christmas time is always a sad time for family members who don't get to see them, but to top this off, they get murdered on Christmas Eve. The most joyest of holidays around the world
My heart mourns in this sad sad event, i hope the families pull through in this awful awful time
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure.
No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime.
Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life.
What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined.
The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution.
Yea, you can't just put put one bullet into the guy's brain that easily.
Unlike criminals, we, as a society, see ourselves on the high moral ground, so we do not act on emotions or on hatred or on desire of vengeance ; but we seek justice (Whatever that means!)
I don't know for the US, but in Canada, even when one is guilty of a crime, if found to be "mad" or psychologically troubled, that person will not be guilty in a criminal way. For the sake of discussion, if we had the death penalty, the persons who are not criminally guilty probably wouldn't be executed
And finally, the reason why it takes so long to send someone to their death is because you want to be 100% sure that there isn't a mistake. A mistake = 1 innocent life taken away. I think there have been many cases, or suspicious cases in your history.
On December 26 2012 07:32 Ettick wrote: I love how even the OP confuses an AR-15 with an assault rifle. People need to at least do some research into things before they say them.
are you serious ...an ar-15 is basicly a m-16 labeled as semi-automatic for civilian sales...if you tell me a m-16 is not an assault rifle you are lieing to your self even if your playing on words
from wikipedia **The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963**
On December 26 2012 07:32 Ettick wrote: I love how even the OP confuses an AR-15 with an assault rifle. People need to at least do some research into things before they say them.
are you serious ...an ar-15 is basicly a m-16 labeled as semi-automatic for civilian sales...if you tell me a m-16 is not an assault rifle you are lieing to your self even if your playing on words
from wikipedia **The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963**
Is a civilian AR-15 a select fire gun? Last time I checked, it isn't.
Also, in case you don't know, an assault rifle is defined as a select fire rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge. An AR-15, being only semi-auto, is a military style semiautomatic rifle.
On December 26 2012 07:32 Ettick wrote: I love how even the OP confuses an AR-15 with an assault rifle. People need to at least do some research into things before they say them.
are you serious ...an ar-15 is basicly a m-16 labeled as semi-automatic for civilian sales...if you tell me a m-16 is not an assault rifle you are lieing to your self even if your playing on words
from wikipedia **The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963**
Is a civilian AR-15 a select fire gun? Last time I checked, it isn't.
Also, in case you don't know, an assault rifle is defined as a select fire rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge. An AR-15, being only semi-auto, is a military style semiautomatic rifle.
btw do we know if ti was a civilian ar 15 or not ?
ok as i said ,it's been tweaked to not be called an assault rifle,but if your not using it no one can tell its not select fire,admit were nto too far off it,so to go and call people that they dont check theyre fact is pushing it way above the top.Its not like people are calling a .22 an assault rifle lol
On December 26 2012 07:32 Ettick wrote: I love how even the OP confuses an AR-15 with an assault rifle. People need to at least do some research into things before they say them.
are you serious ...an ar-15 is basicly a m-16 labeled as semi-automatic for civilian sales...if you tell me a m-16 is not an assault rifle you are lieing to your self even if your playing on words
from wikipedia **The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963**
Is a civilian AR-15 a select fire gun? Last time I checked, it isn't.
Also, in case you don't know, an assault rifle is defined as a select fire rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge. An AR-15, being only semi-auto, is a military style semiautomatic rifle.
Dude, he obviously knows.
He said "the select-fire AR-15 entered the US military..."
He never said ALL AR-15s are select fire for sucks sake.
The point he's trying to make is that there is obviously a crossover between civilian weaponry and military firearms. And the line between the two categories is so thin its almost negligible.
Stop putting words in people's mouths and give a little bit of charity to the case others are trying to make, maybe try rereading also.
On December 26 2012 07:32 Ettick wrote: I love how even the OP confuses an AR-15 with an assault rifle. People need to at least do some research into things before they say them.
are you serious ...an ar-15 is basicly a m-16 labeled as semi-automatic for civilian sales...if you tell me a m-16 is not an assault rifle you are lieing to your self even if your playing on words
from wikipedia **The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963**
Is a civilian AR-15 a select fire gun? Last time I checked, it isn't.
Also, in case you don't know, an assault rifle is defined as a select fire rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge. An AR-15, being only semi-auto, is a military style semiautomatic rifle.
btw do we know if ti was a civilian ar 15 or not ?
ok as i said ,it's been tweaked to not be called an assault rifle,but if your not using it no one can tell its not select fire,admit were nto too far off it,so to go and call people that they dont check theyre fact is pushing it way above the top.Its not like people are calling a .22 an assault rifle lol
.22 and .223 are quite different calibers actually...
On December 26 2012 07:32 Ettick wrote: I love how even the OP confuses an AR-15 with an assault rifle. People need to at least do some research into things before they say them.
are you serious ...an ar-15 is basicly a m-16 labeled as semi-automatic for civilian sales...if you tell me a m-16 is not an assault rifle you are lieing to your self even if your playing on words
from wikipedia **The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963**
Is a civilian AR-15 a select fire gun? Last time I checked, it isn't.
Also, in case you don't know, an assault rifle is defined as a select fire rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge. An AR-15, being only semi-auto, is a military style semiautomatic rifle.
btw do we know if ti was a civilian ar 15 or not ?
ok as i said ,it's been tweaked to not be called an assault rifle,but if your not using it no one can tell its not select fire,admit were nto too far off it,so to go and call people that they dont check theyre fact is pushing it way above the top.Its not like people are calling a .22 an assault rifle lol
.22 and .223 are quite different calibers actually...
ok but why are you adding a caliber... when i never mentioned it ? i stricly mentionned .22 wich is not an assault rifle at all as i was using it to compare ,to top it off you ignored my answer and the one above me
On December 26 2012 07:32 Ettick wrote: I love how even the OP confuses an AR-15 with an assault rifle. People need to at least do some research into things before they say them.
are you serious ...an ar-15 is basicly a m-16 labeled as semi-automatic for civilian sales...if you tell me a m-16 is not an assault rifle you are lieing to your self even if your playing on words
from wikipedia **The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963**
Is a civilian AR-15 a select fire gun? Last time I checked, it isn't.
Also, in case you don't know, an assault rifle is defined as a select fire rifle that fires an intermediate cartridge. An AR-15, being only semi-auto, is a military style semiautomatic rifle.
btw do we know if ti was a civilian ar 15 or not ?
ok as i said ,it's been tweaked to not be called an assault rifle,but if your not using it no one can tell its not select fire,admit were nto too far off it,so to go and call people that they dont check theyre fact is pushing it way above the top.Its not like people are calling a .22 an assault rifle lol
.22 and .223 are quite different calibers actually...
ok but why are you adding a caliber... when i never mentioned it ? i stricly mentionned .22 wich is not an assault rifle at all as i was using it to compare ,to top it off you ignored my answer and the one above me
**edit for bad english **
Wait a sec... I think I just completely misunderstood your post lol... Sorry about that
Don't feed the errick troll... i really believed shooting children was the stupidest thing anyone could ever do, but i think setting a trap for voluntary helpers might be even worse. What has this world come to, and why is it we only ever get these kind of stories from the USA? (or at least regulary)
Reminds me of the scene from Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels when a guy gets shot by a .22. "He shot me in the neck!" and his boss replies "No he didn't since you're not dead, you idiot".
Ye gods this is horrible. I'm no expert on gun laws, so I don't know what's allowed and what isn't, but if he got this gun legally, shit's going to hit the fan, and rightly so.
It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied?
On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote: It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied?
I think that has to be decided on a case by case basis. The dude did kind of murder his grandmother with a hammer. I'd be perfectly fine denying him the right to own a firearm long after he served his sentence.
edit: Holy shit 2000th post, I'm glad it was made expressing my views on important issues.
My thoughts are with the families affected by this heinous and unforgivable crime.
I'm afraid I can't feign emotional turmoil because I'm not the least surprised nor upset by this sort of news anymore, long ago I read these types of stories without the slightest stirring in my heart. I've come to acknowledge this sort of thing happens in the world we live in and prefer to focus on what can be done to alleviate the situation as this type of occurrence is clearly unnacceptable.
That said, my condolences. This atrocity should not be forgotten and it is indeed a very sad day in the lives of those concerned and to a lesser extent, all of us.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure.
No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime.
Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life.
What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined.
The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure.
No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime.
Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life.
What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined.
The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution.
Yea, you can't just put put one bullet into the guy's brain that easily.
Unlike criminals, we, as a society, see ourselves on the high moral ground, so we do not act on emotions or on hatred or on desire of vengeance ; but we seek justice (Whatever that means!)
I don't know for the US, but in Canada, even when one is guilty of a crime, if found to be "mad" or psychologically troubled, that person will not be guilty in a criminal way. For the sake of discussion, if we had the death penalty, the persons who are not criminally guilty probably wouldn't be executed
And finally, the reason why it takes so long to send someone to their death is because you want to be 100% sure that there isn't a mistake. A mistake = 1 innocent life taken away. I think there have been many cases, or suspicious cases in your history.
It's a complete fallacy to make these kind of arguments because these people are going to be imprisoned for huge amounts of time anyway. You can't just take the average cost of keeping somebody on death row for 15 years and executing them and going "omg that's so expensive" because the alternative is just keeping them in jail for 30 years or even worse turning them loose after 15 years so they can go and commit more crimes and incur more costs, financial and otherwise.
On the side of making sure, you're happy to keep people imprisoned indefinitely because you're not 100% sure they're guilty but you're not happy with executing them?
Very often these people have admitted to their crimes or they have been proven 100% guilty and a degree of uncertainty of their guilt has absolutely nothing to do with the length of time it takes to execute them, so again this is a very poor argument against executing more violent offenders.
On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote: It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied?
I don't believe he ever should have been let out of jail in the first place, so I'm not really inclined to answer that question on these terms. If it's something like a motorist who doesn't pay parking fines and ultimately loses his license then maybe there should be a time in the future when he should be allowed to reapply... or maybe there isn't?
You know you made that many direct violations of the law and were penalised repeatedly by ever escalating measures until finally your right to own or drive a car was completely removed... at that point you know what? You've fucked up repeatedly beyond any mitigating circumstances and I don't think you have a right to call yourself a "law abiding citizen" again nor be granted any revoked privileges, ever. You're a proven repeat offender and that should mean either attempted rehabilitation with permenantly revoked privileges or in the case of more serious offences such as those described in the OP, execution.
You can't just commit a shit ton of crimes and cause a shit ton of pain, hurt and financial cost to individuals and society then serve your time and declare yourself a law abiding citizen and expect the same treatment as somebody who's never been charged with a single offence. That's bullshit IMO. To expand upon this, would you be happy with a child molester who has been "clean" for 30 years becoming a primary school teacher? I think at some point you've got to acknowledge you've hit the point of no return and you either accept diminished rights in a society that you frankly don't deserve to live in or you submit yourself to be put down.
How long after you beat your grandmother to death with a hammer should you be allowed to legally acquire a firearm is a really dumb question as far as I'm concerned (I'm not saying that's specifically what you were asking, you were perhaps addressing the larger issue which I've tried to do in my response also). The answer is never and it's also a moot point because you should be dead anyway.
This is pretty disgusting. Killing firefighters... Probably one of the noblest professions in my book, so innocent and the guy kills them for no reason?
On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote: It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied?
Well America denies them (convicted criminals) a right to vote, so...
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure.
No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime.
Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life.
What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined.
The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure.
No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime.
Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life.
What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined.
The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution.
Yea, you can't just put put one bullet into the guy's brain that easily.
Unlike criminals, we, as a society, see ourselves on the high moral ground, so we do not act on emotions or on hatred or on desire of vengeance ; but we seek justice (Whatever that means!)
I don't know for the US, but in Canada, even when one is guilty of a crime, if found to be "mad" or psychologically troubled, that person will not be guilty in a criminal way. For the sake of discussion, if we had the death penalty, the persons who are not criminally guilty probably wouldn't be executed
And finally, the reason why it takes so long to send someone to their death is because you want to be 100% sure that there isn't a mistake. A mistake = 1 innocent life taken away. I think there have been many cases, or suspicious cases in your history.
It's a complete fallacy to make these kind of arguments because these people are going to be imprisoned for huge amounts of time anyway. You can't just take the average cost of keeping somebody on death row for 15 years and executing them and going "omg that's so expensive" because the alternative is just keeping them in jail for 30 years or even worse turning them loose after 15 years so they can go and commit more crimes and incur more costs, financial and otherwise.
On the side of making sure, you're happy to keep people imprisoned indefinitely because you're not 100% sure they're guilty but you're not happy with executing them?
Very often these people have admitted to their crimes or they have been proven 100% guilty and a degree of uncertainty of their guilt has absolutely nothing to do with the length of time it takes to execute them, so again this is a very poor argument against executing more violent offenders.
To your first point, I think you misunderstood something.
Death penalty trials are more expensive for several reasons: They often require extra lawyers; there are strict experience requirements for attorneys, leading to lengthy appellate waits while capable counsel is sought for the accused; security costs are higher, as well as costs for processing evidence — DNA testing, for example, is far more expensive than simple blood analyses.
After sentencing, prices continue to rise. It costs more to house death row inmates, who are held in segregated sections, in individual cells, with guards delivering everything from daily meals to toilet paper.
In California, home to the nation's biggest death row population at 667, it costs an extra $90,000 per inmate to imprison someone sentenced to death — an additional expense that totals more than $63.3 million annually, according to a 2008 study by the state's Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.
To your second point, yes I prefer a lifetime of incarceration because if a conviction is proven false, a lifetime prisoner can be released, whereas a corpse cannot be brought back to life.
To your third point, even those who have admitted to their crimes and are 100% undoubtedly guilty may have mitigating circumstances that could change a sentencing decision.
Okay guys. WBC says they're going to picket the funeral. WTF. I know this throws this off topic, but this has to be thrown out here. This disgusts me utterly.
@WBCpauletta: WBC will picket funerals of Lt. Michael Chiapperini &Tomasz Kaczowka #GodSentTheShooter #StrengthComesFrmGod Not man Ps 92: 7-9 Prov 11: 7
I cannot believe that anyone could do something like this. But then again, the original act proved me wrong there, too.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure.
No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime.
Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life.
What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined.
The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution.
On December 26 2012 02:00 XenOmega wrote:
On December 26 2012 01:26 Trumpet wrote:
On December 25 2012 22:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
On December 25 2012 22:03 Recognizable wrote:
On December 25 2012 21:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
On December 25 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:
On December 25 2012 19:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure.
No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime.
Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life.
What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined.
The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution.
Yea, you can't just put put one bullet into the guy's brain that easily.
Unlike criminals, we, as a society, see ourselves on the high moral ground, so we do not act on emotions or on hatred or on desire of vengeance ; but we seek justice (Whatever that means!)
I don't know for the US, but in Canada, even when one is guilty of a crime, if found to be "mad" or psychologically troubled, that person will not be guilty in a criminal way. For the sake of discussion, if we had the death penalty, the persons who are not criminally guilty probably wouldn't be executed
And finally, the reason why it takes so long to send someone to their death is because you want to be 100% sure that there isn't a mistake. A mistake = 1 innocent life taken away. I think there have been many cases, or suspicious cases in your history.
It's a complete fallacy to make these kind of arguments because these people are going to be imprisoned for huge amounts of time anyway. You can't just take the average cost of keeping somebody on death row for 15 years and executing them and going "omg that's so expensive" because the alternative is just keeping them in jail for 30 years or even worse turning them loose after 15 years so they can go and commit more crimes and incur more costs, financial and otherwise.
On the side of making sure, you're happy to keep people imprisoned indefinitely because you're not 100% sure they're guilty but you're not happy with executing them?
Very often these people have admitted to their crimes or they have been proven 100% guilty and a degree of uncertainty of their guilt has absolutely nothing to do with the length of time it takes to execute them, so again this is a very poor argument against executing more violent offenders.
To your first point, I think you misunderstood something.
Death penalty trials are more expensive for several reasons: They often require extra lawyers; there are strict experience requirements for attorneys, leading to lengthy appellate waits while capable counsel is sought for the accused; security costs are higher, as well as costs for processing evidence — DNA testing, for example, is far more expensive than simple blood analyses.
After sentencing, prices continue to rise. It costs more to house death row inmates, who are held in segregated sections, in individual cells, with guards delivering everything from daily meals to toilet paper.
In California, home to the nation's biggest death row population at 667, it costs an extra $90,000 per inmate to imprison someone sentenced to death — an additional expense that totals more than $63.3 million annually, according to a 2008 study by the state's Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.
To your second point, yes I prefer a lifetime of incarceration because if a conviction is proven false, a lifetime prisoner can be released, whereas a corpse cannot be brought back to life. To your third point, even those who have admitted to their crimes and are 100% undoubtedly guilty may have mitigating circumstances that could change a sentencing decision.
Well then assess those mitigating circumstances and pass your judgement then, it doesn't take 15 years to make an informed decision.
So I think you've misunderstood something. This extra expense is not necessary. I'm well aware the current system is flawed, that's why I'm proposing change.
Also, part of the reason the extra costs amount to such a high amount is the stupidity of keeping these people on death row for a long time. They should just be treated like any other inmates and the moment a death sentence is passed you are executed. This stupid inbetween oh let's make extra super careful that we're right about this is completely idiotic. You shouldn't be sentencing somebody to death and putting them onto death row until you're absolutely certain of this judgement, and if you are absolutely certain of this judgement then delay is just causing further expense to the taxpayer and risking more lives.
Convictions made on solid evidence can never be proven false, if convictions are made where an inmate is sentenced to life in prison or death when they are actually innocent of the crime they're accused of then that's just shoddy work on behalf of the justice system and in no way should factor into their methodology.
Oh crap sometimes we make mistakes so what we're going to do is completely change the way we process criminals, that's akin to what Kwark mentioned about preemptive action.
You don't arrest innocent people because a certain percentage of them will become criminals in the future, and on that same basis you shouldn't be afraid to judge and deal with murderers appropriately because an absolutely miniscule percentage will actually be innocent.
That's a terrible approach and in the end is probably costing a good deal more lives than it saves, but because people get so caught up in the loss of life of one innocent man they forget that because of this type of attitude there's maniacs roaming the streets shooting up firemen.
The more time passes the less and less innocent people are going to be sentenced to death, I'm pretty sure that right now almost 2013 if someone is sentenced to death the odds of him being innocent will be similar to those of winning the lottery. There's very few mitigating circumstances that are relevant in all honesty..either this person murdered your wife or sexually abused you as a child or something similar like that or you were trying to steal their watch or just didn't like the way they looked at you. All this deliberation is mostly a complete waste of time...
Humans are far too ethical and far too unpractical about this sort of thing IMO and it's to our detriment and costing more innocent lives than it saves and if that's the price we pay for being "ethical" about this sort of thing then I say the price is too high.
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure.
No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime.
Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life.
What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined.
The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution.
On December 26 2012 02:00 XenOmega wrote:
On December 26 2012 01:26 Trumpet wrote:
On December 25 2012 22:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
On December 25 2012 22:03 Recognizable wrote:
On December 25 2012 21:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
On December 25 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:
On December 25 2012 19:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: [quote] It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure.
No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime.
Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life.
What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined.
The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution.
Yea, you can't just put put one bullet into the guy's brain that easily.
Unlike criminals, we, as a society, see ourselves on the high moral ground, so we do not act on emotions or on hatred or on desire of vengeance ; but we seek justice (Whatever that means!)
I don't know for the US, but in Canada, even when one is guilty of a crime, if found to be "mad" or psychologically troubled, that person will not be guilty in a criminal way. For the sake of discussion, if we had the death penalty, the persons who are not criminally guilty probably wouldn't be executed
And finally, the reason why it takes so long to send someone to their death is because you want to be 100% sure that there isn't a mistake. A mistake = 1 innocent life taken away. I think there have been many cases, or suspicious cases in your history.
It's a complete fallacy to make these kind of arguments because these people are going to be imprisoned for huge amounts of time anyway. You can't just take the average cost of keeping somebody on death row for 15 years and executing them and going "omg that's so expensive" because the alternative is just keeping them in jail for 30 years or even worse turning them loose after 15 years so they can go and commit more crimes and incur more costs, financial and otherwise.
On the side of making sure, you're happy to keep people imprisoned indefinitely because you're not 100% sure they're guilty but you're not happy with executing them?
Very often these people have admitted to their crimes or they have been proven 100% guilty and a degree of uncertainty of their guilt has absolutely nothing to do with the length of time it takes to execute them, so again this is a very poor argument against executing more violent offenders.
To your first point, I think you misunderstood something.
Death penalty trials are more expensive for several reasons: They often require extra lawyers; there are strict experience requirements for attorneys, leading to lengthy appellate waits while capable counsel is sought for the accused; security costs are higher, as well as costs for processing evidence — DNA testing, for example, is far more expensive than simple blood analyses.
After sentencing, prices continue to rise. It costs more to house death row inmates, who are held in segregated sections, in individual cells, with guards delivering everything from daily meals to toilet paper.
In California, home to the nation's biggest death row population at 667, it costs an extra $90,000 per inmate to imprison someone sentenced to death — an additional expense that totals more than $63.3 million annually, according to a 2008 study by the state's Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.
To your second point, yes I prefer a lifetime of incarceration because if a conviction is proven false, a lifetime prisoner can be released, whereas a corpse cannot be brought back to life. To your third point, even those who have admitted to their crimes and are 100% undoubtedly guilty may have mitigating circumstances that could change a sentencing decision.
Well then assess those mitigating circumstances and pass your judgement then, it doesn't take 15 years to make an informed decision.
So I think you've misunderstood something. This extra expense is not necessary. I'm well aware the current system is flawed, that's why I'm proposing change.
Also, part of the reason the extra costs amount to such a high amount is the stupidity of keeping these people on death row for a long time. They should just be treated like any other inmates and the moment a death sentence is passed you are executed. This stupid inbetween oh let's make extra super careful that we're right about this is completely idiotic. You shouldn't be sentencing somebody to death and putting them onto death row until you're absolutely certain of this judgement, and if you are absolutely certain of this judgement then delay is just causing further expense to the taxpayer and risking more lives.
Convictions made on solid evidence can never be proven false, if convictions are made where an inmate is sentenced to life in prison or death when they are actually innocent of the crime they're accused of then that's just shoddy work on behalf of the justice system and in no way should factor into their methodology.
Oh crap sometimes we make mistakes so what we're going to do is completely change the way we process criminals, that's akin to what Kwark mentioned about preemptive action.
You don't arrest innocent people because a certain percentage of them will become criminals in the future, and on that same basis you shouldn't be afraid to judge and deal with murderers appropriately because an absolutely miniscule percentage will actually be innocent.
That's a terrible approach and in the end is probably costing a good deal more lives than it saves, but because people get so caught up in the loss of life of one innocent man they forget that because of this type of attitude there's maniacs roaming the streets shooting up firemen.
The more time passes the less and less innocent people are going to be sentenced to death, I'm pretty sure that right now almost 2013 if someone is sentenced to death the odds of him being innocent will be similar to those of winning the lottery. There's very few mitigating circumstances that are relevant in all honesty..either this person murdered your wife or sexually abused you as a child or something similar like that or you were trying to steal their watch or just didn't like the way they looked at you. All this deliberation is mostly a complete waste of time...
Humans are far too ethical and far too unpractical about this sort of thing IMO and it's to our detriment and costing more innocent lives than it saves and if that's the price we pay for being "ethical" about this sort of thing then I say the price is too high.
Is any of this based upon evidence? In the UK innocent people are jailed every day, there are literally hundreds of miscarriages of justice each year The justice system is far from perfect. You are saying that the courts should sentence innocent people to death each year.
Also, you cannot sentence someone to jail and then later increase the sentence for that same crime.
Here are 45 people who you think the courts should murder:
On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote: It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied?
he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. he should have never been let out of jail, let alone be given the right to own weapons
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure.
No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime.
Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life.
What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined.
The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution.
On December 26 2012 02:00 XenOmega wrote:
On December 26 2012 01:26 Trumpet wrote:
On December 25 2012 22:27 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
On December 25 2012 22:03 Recognizable wrote:
On December 25 2012 21:41 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
On December 25 2012 20:51 kwizach wrote:
On December 25 2012 19:42 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: [quote] It makes a good case for more death penalty enforcements thats for sure.
No it doesn't. No need for the death penalty if you can simply keep him in jail longer.
Taxpayers shouldn't have to fork out 50,000 a year for the rest of his life when a bullet costing a buck would do the job just fine. 50,000 a year will feed a good number of homeless people and maybe feeding those homeless will mean they also commit less petty crime.
Your argument would have validity. If, and only if the death penatly wasn't 10x more expensive than putting someone behind bars for life. It's such a common myth that the death penalty is cheaper than sentencing for life.
What is expensive about one bullet to the head? The system needs to be streamlined.
The legal costs of putting someone on death row and processing a death sentence far outweigh prison costs. Killing someone takes, as it should, enormously more effort in the courts. Those convicted on death row spend an average 178 months, close to 15 years, awaiting execution.
Yea, you can't just put put one bullet into the guy's brain that easily.
Unlike criminals, we, as a society, see ourselves on the high moral ground, so we do not act on emotions or on hatred or on desire of vengeance ; but we seek justice (Whatever that means!)
I don't know for the US, but in Canada, even when one is guilty of a crime, if found to be "mad" or psychologically troubled, that person will not be guilty in a criminal way. For the sake of discussion, if we had the death penalty, the persons who are not criminally guilty probably wouldn't be executed
And finally, the reason why it takes so long to send someone to their death is because you want to be 100% sure that there isn't a mistake. A mistake = 1 innocent life taken away. I think there have been many cases, or suspicious cases in your history.
It's a complete fallacy to make these kind of arguments because these people are going to be imprisoned for huge amounts of time anyway. You can't just take the average cost of keeping somebody on death row for 15 years and executing them and going "omg that's so expensive" because the alternative is just keeping them in jail for 30 years or even worse turning them loose after 15 years so they can go and commit more crimes and incur more costs, financial and otherwise.
On the side of making sure, you're happy to keep people imprisoned indefinitely because you're not 100% sure they're guilty but you're not happy with executing them?
Very often these people have admitted to their crimes or they have been proven 100% guilty and a degree of uncertainty of their guilt has absolutely nothing to do with the length of time it takes to execute them, so again this is a very poor argument against executing more violent offenders.
To your first point, I think you misunderstood something.
Death penalty trials are more expensive for several reasons: They often require extra lawyers; there are strict experience requirements for attorneys, leading to lengthy appellate waits while capable counsel is sought for the accused; security costs are higher, as well as costs for processing evidence — DNA testing, for example, is far more expensive than simple blood analyses.
After sentencing, prices continue to rise. It costs more to house death row inmates, who are held in segregated sections, in individual cells, with guards delivering everything from daily meals to toilet paper.
In California, home to the nation's biggest death row population at 667, it costs an extra $90,000 per inmate to imprison someone sentenced to death — an additional expense that totals more than $63.3 million annually, according to a 2008 study by the state's Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice.
To your second point, yes I prefer a lifetime of incarceration because if a conviction is proven false, a lifetime prisoner can be released, whereas a corpse cannot be brought back to life. To your third point, even those who have admitted to their crimes and are 100% undoubtedly guilty may have mitigating circumstances that could change a sentencing decision.
Well then assess those mitigating circumstances and pass your judgement then, it doesn't take 15 years to make an informed decision.
So I think you've misunderstood something. This extra expense is not necessary. I'm well aware the current system is flawed, that's why I'm proposing change.
Also, part of the reason the extra costs amount to such a high amount is the stupidity of keeping these people on death row for a long time. They should just be treated like any other inmates and the moment a death sentence is passed you are executed. This stupid inbetween oh let's make extra super careful that we're right about this is completely idiotic. You shouldn't be sentencing somebody to death and putting them onto death row until you're absolutely certain of this judgement, and if you are absolutely certain of this judgement then delay is just causing further expense to the taxpayer and risking more lives.
Convictions made on solid evidence can never be proven false, if convictions are made where an inmate is sentenced to life in prison or death when they are actually innocent of the crime they're accused of then that's just shoddy work on behalf of the justice system and in no way should factor into their methodology.
Oh crap sometimes we make mistakes so what we're going to do is completely change the way we process criminals, that's akin to what Kwark mentioned about preemptive action.
You don't arrest innocent people because a certain percentage of them will become criminals in the future, and on that same basis you shouldn't be afraid to judge and deal with murderers appropriately because an absolutely miniscule percentage will actually be innocent.
That's a terrible approach and in the end is probably costing a good deal more lives than it saves, but because people get so caught up in the loss of life of one innocent man they forget that because of this type of attitude there's maniacs roaming the streets shooting up firemen.
The more time passes the less and less innocent people are going to be sentenced to death, I'm pretty sure that right now almost 2013 if someone is sentenced to death the odds of him being innocent will be similar to those of winning the lottery. There's very few mitigating circumstances that are relevant in all honesty..either this person murdered your wife or sexually abused you as a child or something similar like that or you were trying to steal their watch or just didn't like the way they looked at you. All this deliberation is mostly a complete waste of time...
Humans are far too ethical and far too unpractical about this sort of thing IMO and it's to our detriment and costing more innocent lives than it saves and if that's the price we pay for being "ethical" about this sort of thing then I say the price is too high.
I was merely pointing out why putting people to death is significantly more costly than jailing them for life. You're arguing that it shouldn't be that way, which is a different debate entirely.
It's also worth noting my perspective is strictly in reference to the US system. I have no idea how similar matters are handled in the UK.
The crimes that these men and women are convicted of are appalling but in every single case there are questions, conflicts and problems in the evidence that led to their conviction.
Do I need to say any more?
I'm not implying we should be handing out death sentences based on shaky evidence, I'm saying where death sentences are undeniably due they should be carried out immediately and cheaply and the line should be drawn clearer. You don't house someone in solitary confinement because you're half sure that he's too dangerous to be with other inmates but also half not sure that he deserves to be executed so you're just going to waste hundreds and thousands of £$£$ keeping him there until you make your mind up. It's a complete joke.
What you have drawn my attention to is convictions that are not rock solid and I've already made it clear I'm not talking about that type of case.
I'm very well aware the justice system isn't perfect, that's why it needs changing. This is just one area.
trumpet, Last time I checked the UK doesn't employ the death penalty and that's a complete shambles in my opinion, I'm not talking from a UK or a US perspective I'm just saying what I think should be done everywhere.
I'm saying there's a problem with the current system and I'm proposing changes. One of the changes is executing more maniacs, and you are trying to use financial reasons to argue against that. I'm saying these financial reasons are also in need of changing and can be done so easily and have proposed changes there too.
I don't think "it's too expensive" is a valid argument because it shouldn't be costing that much money in the first place.
If I was saying I think we should just build a bridge across the Atlantic Ocean you can tell me it's too expensive or not economically viable or whatever, because that's based upon cold hard facts and physical reality. There's no reason for such a bridge, the materials required and labour costs would outweigh any benefits etc etc No amount of philisophical debate or policy alteration could change that. This is something completely different and it's "too expensive" is just a temporary reality concerning the flawed system that needs changing in the first place, not some unalterable physical property that is constant and cannot be changed.
The problem is, the shaky evidence is not considered shaky at the time of conviction. If you execute people as soon as they are convicted then by the time you realise the evidence was not solid it is too late.
Using your idea, innocent people will be executed more regularly than they currently are. You can only argue that the ends justify the means, but I would not want to live in a place where innocent people are executed by the government in order to make sure that crazy people are not walking the streets.
On December 27 2012 04:19 hzflank wrote: The problem is, the shaky evidence is not considered shaky at the time of conviction. If you execute people as soon as they are convicted then by the time you realise the evidence was not solid it is too late.
Using your idea, innocent people will be executed more regularly than they currently are. You can only argue that the ends justify the means, but I would not want to live in a place where innocent people are executed by the government in order to make sure that crazy people are not walking the streets.
Best be making sure the evidence is solid before passing the sentence of death then? The amount of criminals released back into society who shouldn't be is appalling. You look at the figures for inmates who re-offend and it's obvious these people should not be free in open society, but they are. They are freed time and time again and they re-offend time and time again.
This needs to be changed, and one particular aspect that I've drawn attention to in the context of this particular story is that maniacs who hammer their grandmother to death for no reason need to be executed immediately. You can quote me all the shaky evidence stories you like that's absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
If people are being sentenced to death on shaky evidence and then later it's being found out they shouldn't have been well then that's just one more problem in the justice system that needs solving and doesn't concern what I've said at all.
I'm talking specifically about cases where there is zero doubt, and there's a lot of them.
The current expense of uncertainty is not acceptable and needs to be changed, as do the current levels of leniency shown to repeat offenders.
On December 27 2012 04:19 hzflank wrote: The problem is, the shaky evidence is not considered shaky at the time of conviction. If you execute people as soon as they are convicted then by the time you realise the evidence was not solid it is too late.
Using your idea, innocent people will be executed more regularly than they currently are. You can only argue that the ends justify the means, but I would not want to live in a place where innocent people are executed by the government in order to make sure that crazy people are not walking the streets.
Best be making sure the evidence is solid before passing the sentence of death then? The amount of criminals released back into society who shouldn't be is appalling. You look at the figures for inmates who re-offend and it's obvious these people should not be free in open society, but they are. They are freed time and time again and they re-offend time and time again.
This needs to be changed, and one particular aspect that I've drawn attention to in the context of this particular story is that maniacs who hammer their grandmother to death for no reason need to be executed immediately. You can quote me all the shaky evidence stories you like that's absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
If people are being sentenced to death on shaky evidence and then later it's being found out they shouldn't have been well then that's just one more problem in the justice system that needs solving and doesn't concern what I've said at all.
I'm talking specifically about cases where there is zero doubt, and there's a lot of them.
This is a patently unprovable claim, at least in terms of the US justice system, and this has everything to do with what an adversarial justice system brings with it. You can speak of "unshakeable evidence" all you want, but the gravity and meaning of evidence is necessarily tied to the people who are interpreting it and presenting it, and herein lies the problem in expediting the application of the death penalty. Evidentiary validity is merely one component of an appropriate conviction, with rules of presentation, due process, and representation figuring into things with almost equal influence. Evidence never exists in a vacuum, as it must pass through the hands of investigators, prosecutors, and the defense, and all along that path exist opportunities for misrepresentation, incomplete release, or straight up miscommunication. So you see, what appears to be "unshakeable evidence" can in fact be very shakeable, and it is in this margin of error that the totality of the death penalty becomes a very troublesome factor in its application. While you personally might be fine with the possible execution of a few innocents in the name of getting rid of people like William Spengler, many others and the framework of our judicial system are not.
On December 27 2012 04:19 hzflank wrote: The problem is, the shaky evidence is not considered shaky at the time of conviction. If you execute people as soon as they are convicted then by the time you realise the evidence was not solid it is too late.
Using your idea, innocent people will be executed more regularly than they currently are. You can only argue that the ends justify the means, but I would not want to live in a place where innocent people are executed by the government in order to make sure that crazy people are not walking the streets.
Best be making sure the evidence is solid before passing the sentence of death then? The amount of criminals released back into society who shouldn't be is appalling. You look at the figures for inmates who re-offend and it's obvious these people should not be free in open society, but they are. They are freed time and time again and they re-offend time and time again.
This needs to be changed, and one particular aspect that I've drawn attention to in the context of this particular story is that maniacs who hammer their grandmother to death for no reason need to be executed immediately. You can quote me all the shaky evidence stories you like that's absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
If people are being sentenced to death on shaky evidence and then later it's being found out they shouldn't have been well then that's just one more problem in the justice system that needs solving and doesn't concern what I've said at all.
I'm talking specifically about cases where there is zero doubt, and there's a lot of them.
This is a patently unprovable claim, at least in terms of the US justice system, and this has everything to do with what an adversarial justice system brings with it. You can speak of "unshakeable evidence" all you want, but the gravity and meaning of evidence is necessarily tied to the people who are interpreting it and presenting it, and herein lies the problem in expediting the application of the death penalty. Evidentiary validity is merely one component of an appropriate conviction, with rules of presentation, due process, and representation figuring into things with almost equal influence. Evidence never exists in a vacuum, as it must pass through the hands of investigators, prosecutors, and the defense, and all along that path exist opportunities for misrepresentation, incomplete release, or straight up miscommunication. So you see, what appears to be "unshakeable evidence" can in fact be very shakeable, and it is in this margin of error that the totality of the death penalty becomes a very troublesome factor in its application. While you personally might be fine with the possible execution of a few innocents in the name of getting rid of people like William Spengler, many others and the framework of our judicial system are not.
Not really open for presentation or interpretation.
If there's room for doubt I'm not talking about those cases. Do I need to keep explaining that?
I've already said you need to be certain, and if you're not certain you shouldn't be wasting money keeping these people in limbo, make a decision and act upon it.
Repeat offenders and proven murderers are dealt with too lightly by the justice system and we all pay the price for it.
Perhaps you're content with that but I'm not, that is all.
On December 27 2012 04:19 hzflank wrote: The problem is, the shaky evidence is not considered shaky at the time of conviction. If you execute people as soon as they are convicted then by the time you realise the evidence was not solid it is too late.
Using your idea, innocent people will be executed more regularly than they currently are. You can only argue that the ends justify the means, but I would not want to live in a place where innocent people are executed by the government in order to make sure that crazy people are not walking the streets.
Best be making sure the evidence is solid before passing the sentence of death then? The amount of criminals released back into society who shouldn't be is appalling. You look at the figures for inmates who re-offend and it's obvious these people should not be free in open society, but they are. They are freed time and time again and they re-offend time and time again.
This needs to be changed, and one particular aspect that I've drawn attention to in the context of this particular story is that maniacs who hammer their grandmother to death for no reason need to be executed immediately. You can quote me all the shaky evidence stories you like that's absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
If people are being sentenced to death on shaky evidence and then later it's being found out they shouldn't have been well then that's just one more problem in the justice system that needs solving and doesn't concern what I've said at all.
I'm talking specifically about cases where there is zero doubt, and there's a lot of them.
This is a patently unprovable claim, at least in terms of the US justice system, and this has everything to do with what an adversarial justice system brings with it. You can speak of "unshakeable evidence" all you want, but the gravity and meaning of evidence is necessarily tied to the people who are interpreting it and presenting it, and herein lies the problem in expediting the application of the death penalty. Evidentiary validity is merely one component of an appropriate conviction, with rules of presentation, due process, and representation figuring into things with almost equal influence. Evidence never exists in a vacuum, as it must pass through the hands of investigators, prosecutors, and the defense, and all along that path exist opportunities for misrepresentation, incomplete release, or straight up miscommunication. So you see, what appears to be "unshakeable evidence" can in fact be very shakeable, and it is in this margin of error that the totality of the death penalty becomes a very troublesome factor in its application. While you personally might be fine with the possible execution of a few innocents in the name of getting rid of people like William Spengler, many others and the framework of our judicial system are not.
Not really open for presentation or interpretation.
Every single one of those categories of evidence relies on a human for gathering, with CCTV being the only real exception (and even then, chain of custody with video evidence is still a concern). Confessions can be coerced, given under duress, or simply solicited illegally. If you've got multiple credible witnesses, great, one must still prove that these witnesses are credible or that their views even matter. Forensic evidence brings with it tons of issues in regards to chain of custody, gathering procedure and rigor, and interpretation. There is a reason expert witness testimony is such a hot topic, as one can find an expert to testify to a great many interpretations of evidence that seems otherwise quite straight forward, and this problem is especially bad when it comes to forensics. I guess my point is that judicial "certainty" is necessarily tied to temporal elongation, for the system must acknowledge the immense room for error, even in cases that seem utterly obvious.
What does "convicted killer" mean? Manslaughter? Second degree murder? First degree murder? If it's one of the first two, it's understandable that Spengler was out of prison and capable of getting a rifle (arguably even RIGHT that he was, because if your prison sentence has been served, there's no reason you shouldn't be a full citizen again). But if he's guilty of first degree murder, the fact that he was out of jail means that someone fucked up big time. If you plot to end the life of an innocent human, then you have lost your right to be part of society and the fact that he was back in society was just a tragedy waiting to happen.
On December 27 2012 04:19 hzflank wrote: The problem is, the shaky evidence is not considered shaky at the time of conviction. If you execute people as soon as they are convicted then by the time you realise the evidence was not solid it is too late.
Using your idea, innocent people will be executed more regularly than they currently are. You can only argue that the ends justify the means, but I would not want to live in a place where innocent people are executed by the government in order to make sure that crazy people are not walking the streets.
Best be making sure the evidence is solid before passing the sentence of death then? The amount of criminals released back into society who shouldn't be is appalling. You look at the figures for inmates who re-offend and it's obvious these people should not be free in open society, but they are. They are freed time and time again and they re-offend time and time again.
This needs to be changed, and one particular aspect that I've drawn attention to in the context of this particular story is that maniacs who hammer their grandmother to death for no reason need to be executed immediately. You can quote me all the shaky evidence stories you like that's absolutely nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
If people are being sentenced to death on shaky evidence and then later it's being found out they shouldn't have been well then that's just one more problem in the justice system that needs solving and doesn't concern what I've said at all.
I'm talking specifically about cases where there is zero doubt, and there's a lot of them.
This is a patently unprovable claim, at least in terms of the US justice system, and this has everything to do with what an adversarial justice system brings with it. You can speak of "unshakeable evidence" all you want, but the gravity and meaning of evidence is necessarily tied to the people who are interpreting it and presenting it, and herein lies the problem in expediting the application of the death penalty. Evidentiary validity is merely one component of an appropriate conviction, with rules of presentation, due process, and representation figuring into things with almost equal influence. Evidence never exists in a vacuum, as it must pass through the hands of investigators, prosecutors, and the defense, and all along that path exist opportunities for misrepresentation, incomplete release, or straight up miscommunication. So you see, what appears to be "unshakeable evidence" can in fact be very shakeable, and it is in this margin of error that the totality of the death penalty becomes a very troublesome factor in its application. While you personally might be fine with the possible execution of a few innocents in the name of getting rid of people like William Spengler, many others and the framework of our judicial system are not.
Not really open for presentation or interpretation.
Every single one of those categories of evidence relies on a human for gathering, with CCTV being the only real exception (and even then, chain of custody with video evidence is still a concern). Confessions can be coerced, given under duress, or simply solicited illegally. If you've got multiple credible witnesses, great, one must still prove that these witnesses are credible or that their views even matter. Forensic evidence brings with it tons of issues in regards to chain of custody, gathering procedure and rigor, and interpretation. There is a reason expert witness testimony is such a hot topic, as one can find an expert to testify to a great many interpretations of evidence that seems otherwise quite straight forward, and this problem is especially bad when it comes to forensics. I guess my point is that judicial "certainty" is necessarily tied to temporal elongation, for the system must acknowledge the immense room for error, even in cases that seem utterly obvious.
You are standing in the court room and there's like 100 people there. The judge asks the criminal, did you do it? If he says yes that's a confession. I'm not talking about good cop bad cop shine a light in his face and beat him until he admits that he did it confession, I'm talking about an actual confession.
If you've got multiple credible witnesses one must still prove that these witnesses are credible? No you don't, that's already been done and why they are being referred to as credible. Do their views even matter? If they witnessed the crime and are impartial in the case then their views always matter, I think that has to be two of the most basic definitions of a credible witness. Did you see it? Yes. Do you have any reason to lie? No. All five of us saw him walk into the shop and shoot this person etc
If it's overwhelming forensic evidence like hmm she had human flesh between her teeth and the DNA is yours and you've got a bite taken out of your arm and we found the murder weapon hidden in your house and it's got your fingerprints all over it and it's covered in her blood etc lol are you really so worried that there's somehow an innocent explanation for all of this?
There's plenty of clear cut cases you're trying to make it out like every murder conviction is some extremely difficult case and they are never quite sure if he did it or not and 40% of people arrested and put in jail for years on murder charges are then released back into society because they realised they were actually innocent all along oops lol sorry it happens all the time and they just make a big habit of arresting people and accusing them of murder on the shakiest of evidence...
I'm aware you can't just round up all the evidence and witnesses in one day and run some kind of 24 hour sentence, execution and burial service but the current system in my opinion is seriously lacking.
If you don't have the evidence to sentence the person to death then they shouldn't be on death row in the first place, treat them like a normal inmate without incurring any extra costs.
I think you underestimate how large a percentage of crimes are committed by the same small percent of the population.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
On December 27 2012 05:19 Reason wrote: Repeat offenders and proven murderers are dealt with too lightly by the justice system and we all pay the price for it.
Perhaps you're content with that but I'm not, that is all.
You're coming at this from a completely different angle from me, I've made the statement I came here to make, which I'll rephrase for clarity.
A terrible thing happened here and in my opinion it could have and should have been prevented if the justice system wasn't so lenient on repeat offenders/proven murderers. I will not speak further on this matter.
There are some, albeit only few, where the innocent are prosecuted. Read this in an AMA on reddit. Recently these two guys (were brothers?) were released after DNA testing from prison after 10+ years (One of their mother died before the release). Family members were divided between the prosecuted innocence and guilty.
Anyway the point being is they were essentially condemned after the victim (believe it was rape?) wrongfully, accidentally, picked out of the suspect screening...Idk how you fuck that up but someone tried to reason that mental trauma probably played a large role in the deciding factor.
So...our justice system is anything but perfect and we still make mistakes...which is very scary if you think about it.
edit: on topic: The police didn't have any reason to suspect or follow the killer after his release. What were they suppose to bank off of? He just seemed like another ex who made a mistake and possibly redeemed himself in our justice eyes. The guy was going to kill no matter what. This terrible tragedy was going to happen in one way or another with or without guns considering you can still cause mayhem and violence without guns. Just reading his little journal was so damn disturbing (figuring out how many houses he can burn down and "...do what I do best- killing people..."). Who the fuck makes a trap for firefighters...I mean wtf..
You couldn't even believe it if you tried to be honest. Who could even tell? Maybe if it was Sunday but even then, I don't know. It's 2013 and things are fucked still. I guess that (among a few other things!) is all that can be said!
On December 25 2012 10:17 Gunther wrote: I think the better question is why a convicted killer is released from prison.
You guys already have the highest incarceration rate in the world (by far). I think it's a bit past just keeping criminals in prisons longer.
We should start executing them.
Seems to work for Singapore.
no desire to ever live there, I would rather not live in the United States if it became like singapore.
-_- have you been to Singapore, it's a great country / city, clean streets, nice food, nice weather, fine security, good standard of living.
i know all of that, but non of that is special in most western countries. i frankly prefer not to obey laws that have no ostensible reason for existing other than 'we don't like it'.
IDK if this has been posted here yet, but it turns out that the guns he used were bought for him by a woman from Greece, so they were obtained illegally.
On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote: It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied?
he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. he should have never been let out of jail, let alone be given the right to own weapons
On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote: It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied?
he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. he should have never been let out of jail, let alone be given the right to own weapons
You don't think people can be rehabilitated?
I don't think the risk is worth it in a case where the murder was THAT personal and brutal.
If say a bully pushes someone so much that the victim stabs the bully, I could see that the victim could possibly be rehabilitated and released in a few years.
Or say a mother who cannot take the burden of a new child ends up suffocating that child. I could understand that and see them out of prison in a few years.
But take another case like a man who is getting divorced because his wife decided she loved another man more. If that husband decided to plan the wife's murder for a few months and ended up stabbing her 30 times in anger? I would not trust that person to ever be released back to the public.
Then there is the argument of who gets to decide who is and is not insane still, as that field of study is pretty loose still.
On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote: It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied?
he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. he should have never been let out of jail, let alone be given the right to own weapons
On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote: It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied?
he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. he should have never been let out of jail, let alone be given the right to own weapons
You don't think people can be rehabilitated?
I don't think so, but I'm just a cold, cynical bastard.
My condolences to the deceased and their families. This was too awful; too many horrible things have been happening.
And through all this what is the government concerned about? Lightbulbs, apparently. o-o;
On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote: It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied?
he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. he should have never been let out of jail, let alone be given the right to own weapons
You don't think people can be rehabilitated?
Well, they can I think, but to release them after doing something like that it should have to be proven beyond reasonable, or any, doubt that they will never do something like that again.
I mean where I live, West Coast of Canada, there's stuff in the newspaper all the time about how they just released guy from jail who was incarcerated for rape or molestation, and you better watch out cause he's still dangerous. If he's still dangerous he should still be in prison.
On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote: It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied?
he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. he should have never been let out of jail, let alone be given the right to own weapons
You don't think people can be rehabilitated?
They can, but they don't deserve it. At least not the more brutal ones.
Just my opinion though..
Should also maybe jail parents of killers too, or at least fine them. Or maybe they have to support their child's stay in jail, or at least some of it..
very sad. its amazing that people target first responders, but at the end of the day if you want to splash the headlines kids and first responders are the best targets. this guy got what he wanted. piece of shit.
Media makes MASSIVE news over the 2 police baited by a 999 call and shot, few months later another bait attack. Sad that the media care more about money and ratings than the people, the media are parading this round just like the one a few months ago, pretty much guaranteeing it will happen again. Shame its never the people responsible who get fucked over.
On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote: It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied?
he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. he should have never been let out of jail, let alone be given the right to own weapons
You don't think people can be rehabilitated?
Well, they can I think, but to release them after doing something like that it should have to be proven beyond reasonable, or any, doubt that they will never do something like that again.
I mean where I live, West Coast of Canada, there's stuff in the newspaper all the time about how they just released guy from jail who was incarcerated for rape or molestation, and you better watch out cause he's still dangerous. If he's still dangerous he should still be in prison.
you know its pretty much impossible to prove what will happen in the future, right?
On December 26 2012 08:59 KwarK wrote: It had been over a dozen years since he got out of jail, a fact that I think a lot of people in this topic are missing. After how many years of being a law abiding citizen should rights still be denied?
he beat his grandmother to death with a hammer. he should have never been let out of jail, let alone be given the right to own weapons
You don't think people can be rehabilitated?
Well, they can I think, but to release them after doing something like that it should have to be proven beyond reasonable, or any, doubt that they will never do something like that again.
I mean where I live, West Coast of Canada, there's stuff in the newspaper all the time about how they just released guy from jail who was incarcerated for rape or molestation, and you better watch out cause he's still dangerous. If he's still dangerous he should still be in prison.
you know its pretty much impossible to prove what will happen in the future, right?
Yeah, I know and that leads to some moral delemas, which I don't claim to have the answer. But what do you do? Should someone be locked up for life for one act? Kinda makes sense since it guarantees they won't hurt anyone ever again? But then you might as well just kill them right? I don't know the answer and the truth is that we will probably never come to a solution to this problem. It's just one of those things.
Just wanted to post a pic that really moved me, im from Rochester, NY and have family and friends that knew some of these heroes. I got the chance to play a benefit show for the West Webster FD. Been playin music for a while and ive got loads of pictures, but this one takes the cake. + Show Spoiler +
FYI im the guy all the way left on stage with all the red hair
We got more or less the same thing happening in France. It's not gunshots, but when firemen / ambulances are called in some of the more "sketchy" places we have, some people set them up, and throw heavy stuff from the roof of skyscrapers. So for exemple you're a fireman, and you're arriving on the scene of an incident, and you get dishwashers / huge rocks falling from the roof of skyscrapers on you and your equipment/vehicle.
I do not understand what goes through the mind of someone thinking doing such thing is a good idea, and to be honest these people infuriate me to no end. I mean who doesn't appreciate firemen / ambulances? These people save lives everyday.
EPT
. I hope this furthers the gun debate in a way that is meaningful with so many staunch gun rights groups trying to halt debate.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XvROrHv.jpg)
