I know we have a death penalty thread over in the politics forum but this issue has now become a political hotcake for Arnold and has very little to do with the actual death penalty.

One one hand, if turns down the appeal, he alienates pretty much of all voters in California that aren't white-christian-males and on the other hand if he commutes Tookies death sentence, he further pisses-off his conservative base who are alerady livid over Arnold choosing a liberal lesbian for his chief of staff.

I say he lets Tookie die to try and get back his base.

I'd like to hear the opinions of the posters ... which way will arnold go?

It's a hard call...and sad, I might add, that politics even come into it to begin with. but that's often the case.....
when only the fact of the man's guilt and a sense of justice should be the only factors. my 2 cents on THAT, for what it's worth...but IMO, I say that Arnold will do nothing for this man.

Almost anyone can rehabilitate while sitting on death row. What else is there to do?

fry him

Originally posted by Travh20
fry him

Why?

becasue he murdered 4 people in cold blood and started a violent street gang that still plagues america to this day. Plus, if he truly wants to send a message to youth to not join gangs, what better way then to take your punishment and be executed? somehow I dont see his being granted clemency as a deterent to the youth he supposedly trys to talk out of joining gangs, more like an incentive.

Originally posted by Travh20
becasue he murdered 4 people in cold blood

And killing him is another corpse, murdered in "cold blood".

and started a violent street gang that still plagues america to this day.

Ahh, 'The Crips' I believe they are called. Who would have thought someone named Stanley Williams would start 'The Crips' and not 'Tyrone Crackakilla'. :D

Plus, if he truly wants to send a message to youth to not join gangs, what better way then to take your punishment and be executed?

Or crusade against youth violence and gangs by use of literature, protests, and other activities?

somehow I dont see his being granted clemency as a deterent to the youth he supposedly trys to talk out of joining gangs, more like an incentive.

Kill him because it will supposedly deter incentive to join gangs?
Execute someone for propagandizing purposes is not the reason he is on death row, nor should it be.

I don't pretend that executing this scum will really make a dent in the social problem of violent crime, but if he really is guilty of what they say he is, I have no sympathy.

Killing this guy (or anyone) proves nothing, brings nothing in the form of closure and results in little more than reinforcing the world opinion that the united states believes in and practices cruel and inhumane punishment.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Killing this guy (or anyone) proves nothing, brings nothing in the form of closure and results in little more than reinforcing the world opinion that the united states believes in and practices cruel and inhumane punishment.

I wouldn't want to change that opinion - it would be a myth to portray the US as a just or humane country. Around 40 million don't have health care for example. This is a brutal country.

The one and only justification for the death penalty is to ensure that there are no future victims. Rehabilitation, punishment, etc are just a joke.

Btw, Erenesto Che Guevara, the statue you have in your avatar, personally executed 500 fascists after the revolution. :cool:

Originally posted by Deepest Red

Btw, Erenesto Che Guevara, the statue you have in your avatar, personally executed 500 fascists after the revolution. :cool:

Actually his name was Ernesto Guevara de la Serna -- with Che being a nickname of sorts :)

Yes, Che was responsible for the deaths of many people. I won't defend his acts but rather his motives and point out the time difference of 40-50 years ago.

Had Che been in that position today, he might likely not have killed anyone. Times have changed, mindsets are different and Che would not be immune to those changes.

Back in the '60's Che had spent nearly half of his young life involved in a revolution of some kind or another. He had witnessed the coup against Jacobo Arbenz in Guatemala and it was there he convinced himself that when you can identify the enemy, you get rid of the enemy if at all possible or that enemy will come back to get rid of you. He always thought that was Arbenz's downfall ... not caring enough about his own existence and doing even less to protect it.

When Che made the call to kill Batistaites after the revolution it was with Arbenz's mistake in mind and with that as ammunition, he convinced Fidel these people must never be given a chance to recoup their losses. He also pointed out that some of them were also responsible for the slaughter of Fidel's forces at the Moncada army barracks battle in the early 50's when Fidel's men were slaughtered like pigs in the streets.

IOW - there was thought and reasoning behind the killings, not cold blooded and uncalculating with no reason at all. That doesn't make it right but it does make it different.

Yes, I agree that Che's decision to kill the enemies of the people was wise, especially with hindsight.

I was aware of his name. Apparently Che meant 'Hey' - that's what someone told me.

Did you see the Motorcycle Diaries? I haven't yet but I herad it's good.

Funny (curious) thing about his name ...

Some say it means 'hey', others say it is just a general nickname for kids and several other interpretations including one that has italian origins.

Yes I saw the Motorcycle diaries (I have the dvd) (you'll enjoy it) and I've read the book which has a very inspiring introduction written by his daughter. Try reading it in spanish so there isn't any loss from translation.

Also, if you haven't already, read 'Back on the road -- a journey to south america'.

Originally posted by Deepest Red
I wouldn't want to change that opinion - it would be a myth to portray the US as a just or humane country.
Fuck you Deepest Red. I have no problem with people finding flaws with America, not agreeing with America, and hating our government. But what I do have a problem with is when people don't want to help change and better our nation. The thing that gets me is when Republicans say, "leave our nation if you don't agree with it" and I disagree with that because our nation was founded on the idea that we all have the right to freely work towards progress and change. However, you don't want to change or help America. You don't want to change our world "opinion." You want to see us fail. So, here is a big fuck you. Go to your communist Cuba you love so much. Write us in a few years and tell us how it is goin'.

Go to your communist Cuba you love so much.

You might say that, and indeed lots of people do, but The US doesn't allow citizens to travel to Cuba, much less emigrate. One wonders what it's so afraid of.

They're afraid we'll see some of the world's best educated people that live on average 3 years longer than americans and have the best health care system in the world.

Originally posted by Overdose
Fuck you Deepest Red. I have no problem with people finding flaws with America, not agreeing with America, and hating our government. But what I do have a problem with is when people don't want to help change and better our nation. The thing that gets me is when Republicans say, "leave our nation if you don't agree with it" and I disagree with that because our nation was founded on the idea that we all have the right to freely work towards progress and change. However, you don't want to change or help America. You don't want to change our world "opinion." You want to see us fail. So, here is a big fuck you. Go to your communist Cuba you love so much. Write us in a few years and tell us how it is goin'.

Get off your cross. I said I wouldn't like to change the opinion people have of America as being a bully and having an unjust system. We were discussing the issue of how the USA is percieved. I never said I wouldn't work to change things and make them better - indeed I do that nearly every day in my own way by helping people whenever I can and through a lot of activism I'm involved in.

Telling me to fuck off to another country is just infantile - I've never said the rest of the world, including Cuba is a paradise. I just point out what I think is a positive example, the same as anyone else.

Originally posted by Deepest Red
Get off your cross.
Get on a raft and get to Cuba.

Originally posted by Deepest Red
I said I wouldn't like to change the opinion people have of America as being a bully and having an unjust system.
Basically wanting to keep America a shitty country. If we don't change our world support will fall. And if we have no world support we cannot succeed. So, you are not for "helping" America if you don't want to change our world image.

Originally posted by Deepest Red
We were discussing the issue of how the USA is percieved. I never said I wouldn't work to change things and make them better - indeed I do that nearly every day in my own way by helping people whenever I can and through a lot of activism I'm involved in.
Actually, we were talking about how we can fix America from the inside to change our world opinion. And you don't want to see America change, and you want to keep that horrible world opinion. How we are percieved affects if we or if we don't succeed dumbshit.

Originally posted by Deepest Red
Telling me to fuck off to another country is just infantile - I've never said the rest of the world, including Cuba is a paradise. I just point out what I think is a positive example, the same as anyone else.
Stupid commie. Blah. Keep backtracking dude. Its funny to watch.

I said I wouldn't like to change the opinion people have of America as being a bully and having an unjust system.

Seems to me Overdose read you pretty well, Deepest Red. You hate your country more than just about anyone I have posted with. You keep negatively comparing the U.S. to Cuba. Perhaps you should take Overdose's advice and move there. If it as great as you constantly say and if the U.S. is as bad as you constantly accuse, you would probably be much happier there.

I will stand on the beach in Miami and wave to you as you sail southward. Maybe you could use one of those cars people transform into boats in their desperate attempts to leave your worker's paradise.

Originally posted by Overdose Get on a raft and get to Cuba.

How original.

Originally posted by Overdose
Basically wanting to keep America a shitty country. If we don't change our world support will fall. And if we have no world support we cannot succeed. So, you are not for "helping" America if you don't want to change our world image.

Ah, I see - image can change substance. Brillaint insight! Turns out actual work is unnecessary.

Originally posted by Overdose
Actually, we were talking about how we can fix America from the inside to change our world opinion. And you don't want to see America change, and you want to keep that horrible world opinion. How we are percieved affects if we or if we don't succeed dumbshit.

That's just jibberish.

Your attempts to change people's perceptions of America will amount to a big nothin in terms of helping America... meanwhile people like me work hard to improve our communities, and people like Chavez actually help the poorest Americans.

Originally posted by Overdose
Stupid commie. Blah. Keep backtracking dude. Its funny to watch.

This makes even less sense. For the record, you assigned me a position I didn't take - that I don't want to improve conditions in the USA - and then attacked me from that assumption.

You resorted to at least three forms of abuse in your post to me, proof if any that you have no substance behind your attack, just more sad red baitin.

Seems to me Overdose read you pretty well, Deepest Red. You hate your country more than just about anyone I have posted with. You keep negatively comparing the U.S. to Cuba. Perhaps you should take Overdose's advice and move there. If it as great as you constantly say and if the U.S. is as bad as you constantly accuse, you would probably be much happier there.

First off, how do you know what my country is? :rolleyes:

I actually like many things about the USA, it's geography, languages, women, sports, it's hard working people, it's diverse communities and so on. Saying I hate America because I don't subscribe to your nationalist way of seeing things (musn't criticize the great leader!) means fuck all.


I will stand on the beach in Miami and wave to you as you sail southward. Maybe you could use one of those cars people transform into boats in their desperate attempts to leave your worker's paradise.

I've never said Cuba was a paradise. People who believe that there can be such a thing are suckers.

After all the hard work I've put into my life and my community, I'd be damned to leave it. It's the lazy bosses and mindless reactionaries who should piss off.

You don't see too much of that deepest red flag anymore and there is a reason for it. Communism is a failed system.

Originally posted by Frogger
You don't see too much of that deepest red flag anymore and there is a reason for it. Communism is a failed system.

How can a ship that hasn't set sail yet sink?

Communism has never been attempted. The most that's been accomplished is socialism, and usually under the worst conditions imaginable.

I don't think the working class has fully emerged as a class for itself yet ... though certain conditions make me optimistic.

Originally posted by Deepest Red
Your attempts to change people's perceptions of America will amount to a big nothin in terms of helping America... meanwhile people like me work hard to improve our communities, and people like Chavez actually help the poorest Americans.

This makes even less sense. For the record, you assigned me a position I didn't take - that I don't want to improve conditions in the USA - and then attacked me from that assumption.

You resorted to at least three forms of abuse in your post to me, proof if any that you have no substance behind your attack, just more sad red baitin.
Regardless of if you actually want to change America, isn't the point. The point is that you said you didn't want to change our world opinion. Period. That is all you said. And that shows me you don't truly care about helping or changing America.

If we don't have world support we will not be able to succeed as a nation. We rely on the world and the world relies on us. We both can't live without help and support from each other.

It makes no sense to say, "well I work towards change in America, but I don't want us to change to the point where the world views us as a good nation" What the hell is that about?

Anyway. I was only going off of the basis of what you said. And you want the world to hate us and you don't want to change that image. Thus, I find you a horrible person no matter what you say.

You find me to be "horrible" despite the fact that I probably do more on a daily basis to actually help people than most people I know. Well coming from a mindless reactionary like you who has a history of not reading what people actually write that's almost a compliment.

I'll try one more time as you have so much difficulty with comprehension.

If you project an image that everything's a-ok and cover up injustice ... nothing changes! People don't act if they don't know the truth.

I have zero motivation, in fact it would be self-defeating to portray the USA as a just and happy country. For example, I've worked full time for years and yet have no health insurance and can barely pay my bills. This isn't a personal flaw with me, as reactionaries always say, because most people I know are in the same situation! If more people know that more people are in the shit just like they are, they can get together and do something about it. Until then, we just suffer alone.

But I'm "horrible" because I don't want to change the image most people on this planet have that the USA is a fortress of reaction that kills more of its own people than any other 'first world' nation.

That's called killing the messenger. ;)

You want some cheese with that whine, Deepest Red?

Originally posted by Deepest Red
You find me to be "horrible" despite the fact that I probably do more on a daily basis to actually help people than most people I know. Well coming from a mindless reactionary like you who has a history of not reading what people actually write that's almost a compliment.
If you do not want to improve our world image (regardless of if you help inside of America) then I view you as a horrible person because anyone who does not want to see our image changed for the better deserves no respect.

Originally posted by Deepest Red
I'll try one more time as you have so much difficulty with comprehension.
Keep trying commie. haha

Originally posted by Deepest Red
If you project an image that everything's a-ok and cover up injustice ... nothing changes! People don't act if they don't know the truth.
What the fuck are you talking about? I'm not talking about "covering up" the image. I'm talking about changing the image, dumbshit. And the way you do that is by improving our country.

Originally posted by Deepest Red
I have zero motivation, in fact it would be self-defeating to portray the USA as a just and happy country.
No one ever said we had to change our historical image. What we are talking about is changing our image for the future. Changing our image now does not get rid of our image from the past. How could you not understand that?

Originally posted by Deepest Red
But I'm "horrible" because I don't want to change the image most people on this planet have that the USA is a fortress of reaction that kills more of its own people than any other 'first world' nation.
Again, you don't ever want this image changed. But my question is, why? We aren't going to get rid of the image of our past, but what we can get rid of is this image for the future. And if we can, we will better our country. And you don't want this image to ever change.

If you do not want to improve our world image (regardless of if you help inside of America) then I view you as a horrible person because anyone who does not want to see our image changed for the better deserves no respect.

Oh the horror!

Really though, America's reputation is deserved, and there isn't anything you, me, Deepest Red, or anybody else can do to change it much, because for every one of us. there's a truckload of assholes out there ready to prove us wrong.

If Arnold give the go ahead to murder Tookie, then whoever murder him is just another murderer like Tookie.

If so, I say fry the fryer, too. They both will be murderers.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Oh the horror!

Really though, America's reputation is deserved, and there isn't anything you, me, Deepest Red, or anybody else can do to change it much, because for every one of us. there's a truckload of assholes out there ready to prove us wrong.
I never said our reputation isn't deserved in some ways. All I am saying is that we should all be for trying to improve our furture reputation.

All I am saying is that we should all be for trying to improve our furture reputation.

I don't see the point myself, I think the best thing to do would be to vote the neo-cons out of office. 90% of how other nations see us relies on factors we have next to no control over, corporate exploitation, foreign policy, and the like.

that was sad.

I've worked full time for years and yet have no health insurance and can barely pay my bills. This isn't a personal flaw with me, as reactionaries always say, because most people I know are in the same situation!

All I can say, Deepest Red, is if most of the people you know are in the same situation perhaps you should find new friends and acquaintances. Most people I know do have health insurance and can afford to pay their bills.

Maybe it's time for you to stop whining, get up off your ass, stop waving your deepest red flag and look for a job where you get health insurance and can afford to pay your bills.

Join the military! *ducks*

Hey, Napsterbater, joining the military isn't necessarily a bad thing. Face it - we need a military, and somebody's got to do it. Personally, I see compulsory federal service of some sort for each and every citizen of this great country of ours as they complete highschool and before the age of 25, as being a good thing.

Originally posted by Deepest Red
How can a ship that hasn't set sail yet sink?

Communism has never been attempted. The most that's been accomplished is socialism, and usually under the worst conditions imaginable.

You're 100% correct when you point out this fact.

No country has ever tried pure communism that followed the Communist Manifesto as outlined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. All attempts, so far, have been either Trotsky/Lennin/Stalin-ized or Fidel/Che-ized or some other form of Communism-for-dummies in a unleaded, homogenized form.

Hey, Napsterbater, joining the military isn't necessarily a bad thing.

Didn't say it was. However, giving that advice to Deepest Red is likely to get something thrown in my direction, hence the *duck*.

The military is different things to different people. I am not naive enough to assume that just because it shafted me, that it won't give others the same treatment.

Took die -- city fry

http://www.pensitoreview.com/2005/11/23/america-turns-blue/?p=1506

Maybe Arnold will call them girlie men -- my guess is Arnold will be someplace on the other side of the planet if we have riots in LA.

Just up now on MSNBC

Arnie says NEIN

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10355657

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
You're 100% correct when you point out this fact.

No country has ever tried pure communism that followed the Communist Manifesto as outlined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. All attempts, so far, have been either Trotsky/Lennin/Stalin-ized or Fidel/Che-ized or some other form of Communism-for-dummies in a unleaded, homogenized form.

I love this line of thought. The same can be said about christianity, yet you have no problem labeling all christians and the entire christian religion as assholes because a few crazys who called themselves christians gave it a bad name. Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Castro, they are not REAL communists, yes they call themselves communists and all the communists look to them as idols, and that doesnt stop the dream of real communism as it was written from dissapearing. Really, the REAL communists and the REAL christians have much in common, they both hold beliefs in ideals that will never come true, yet they hang onto them and study them all their lives. Perhaps REAL communism would be a good way to go, and if everyone lived like a true chrisitan the world would be perfect too.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Didn't say it was. However, giving that advice to Deepest Red is likely to get something thrown in my direction, hence the *duck*.

The military is different things to different people. I am not naive enough to assume that just because it shafted me, that it won't give others the same treatment.

it explains a lot about your personality and your agenda to know you got shafted by the military. May I ask what happened?

All I can say, Deepest Red, is if most of the people you know are in the same situation perhaps you should find new friends and acquaintances. Most people I know do have health insurance and can afford to pay their bills.

Maybe it's time for you to stop whining, get up off your ass, stop waving your deepest red flag and look for a job where you get health insurance and can afford to pay your bills.

Who the hell do you know that has health care today? I hardly know anyone anymore that does? What are you a govenment worker or on the dole?

Your health insurance is in joepardy also as is everyone's. If not taken directly away or price you out of the market, your job will go to India and with it goes your HI.

Have a nice life.

This does not surprise me.

Do others here feel that riots/bloodshed will break out in LA and elsewhere because of this forthcoming execution?

(last I heard, Tookie's lawyer has filed a request for a last minute stay at the federal level..the recent request via the state court of appeals was denied.)

I doubt it. The Rodney King beating verdict was so outrageous that it came as a shock to many. There is no shock factor here. I'm sure there will be minor incidents here and there, but nothing as bad as then. Who really knows? I just hope I'm right.

I tend to think you're right sedan. Maybe some isolated stuff -- let's hope so anyway. We don't need anymore shit in LA.

And good point about the shock factor of Rodney King -- this time there is none but there is a martyr factor to watch for.

your job will go to India Lungdop Philing

No it won't. I'm retired. :p

it explains a lot about your personality and your agenda to know you got shafted by the military. May I ask what happened?

Hah, agenda, huh? I guess everybody's got one, right? My agenda is, "Have fun, make cool shit."

As for the military, first they denied me my contract job, (crypto-linguist) then the Inspector General blew me off, then the military wouldn't let me out cleanly, sticking me with a six year contract with nothing to show for it. I had to get myself kicked out, fucking me out of my MGIB, and being forced to do shitty details for months because those assholes care more about getting promoted and looking like they're tough than doing the right thing.

As bad as that sounds, I neither regret joining or getting out.

Originally posted by Frogger
your job will go to India Lungdop Philing

No it won't. I'm retired. :p

I'm retired too ... but you catch my drift.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Hah, agenda, huh? I guess everybody's got one, right? My agenda is, "Have fun, make cool shit."

As for the military, first they denied me my contract job, (crypto-linguist) then the Inspector General blew me off, then the military wouldn't let me out cleanly, sticking me with a six year contract with nothing to show for it. I had to get myself kicked out, fucking me out of my MGIB, and being forced to do shitty details for months because those assholes care more about getting promoted and looking like they're tough than doing the right thing.

As bad as that sounds, I neither regret joining or getting out.

sorry to hear that napster.

One of the things it's done to me is make me abundantly aware of the fact that there is nothing inherently good about any of the paths we take, nor anything inherently bad. Why should I feel respectful towards my commander any more than I am forced to, if there is nothing inherently respectful about his position? He is every bit as fucked up and every bit as good as the people he's commanding. He has the same capacity for kindness, and the same capacity for destructive weakness. There isn't anything that climbing the ranks does to a person that makes him better than me.

Which is what makes me feel better about the fact that I now work for seven-fifty an hour. I can actually feel good about myself doing this. I can keep doing this for the rest of my days, and still lead a happy, fulfilling life doing the things I want to do. Of course, that isn't the plan, but if worse came to worse, I won't have any regrets when I'm older.

Focusing on the little things in life, like posting to an internet message board, gives me all the satisfaction that the military took out of my life. I can work on doing the creative things I want to do, like work on my musical ability, writing, and martial arts, whenever and however I want to.

One thing I'm going to do is write a song, have it translated into Japanese, then come up with the beat, melody, have it put into sheet music by a friend, and put together a demo, with me as the composer and singer. All just for fun. I'm not trying to break into the music industry, just play around with it for awhile until I get bored. If I make it big, I play around with that for awhile, then take my money and move into my next creative venture. If not, well, nobody needs money (or anything else for that matter) to be creative.

So please don't paint me as some bitter hopeless guy who lost everything when the military kicked him out. There's far more to me than that. And I intend on exploring it all.

Good luck with that song napster and whatever else you choose to embrace.

Luck? Luck has nothing to do with it! As long as you structure what you are doing properly, there is no need to rely on it.

Look at it like this. I'm not trying to get anywhere, so how can I fail? All the luck in the world won't get me anything. I already have everything I need. If I am a failure as an artist, it would make little difference to me, because I'm not basing my whole life on it. Hell, failure would be good for me. I don't see how it is I could fail, because everything I do is aimed at making failure meaningless.

SAN QUENTIN, California (Reuters) - California prison officials executed Stanley Tookie Williams, 51, the ex-leader of the Crips gang who brutally killed four people in 1979, early on Tuesday after top courts and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger rejected final appeals to spare his life.

The unofficial time of death was 12:35 a.m. PST Tuesday.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Luck? Luck has nothing to do with it! As long as you structure what you are doing properly, there is no need to rely on it.

Look at it like this. I'm not trying to get anywhere, so how can I fail? All the luck in the world won't get me anything. I already have everything I need. If I am a failure as an artist, it would make little difference to me, because I'm not basing my whole life on it. Hell, failure would be good for me. I don't see how it is I could fail, because everything I do is aimed at making failure meaningless.

Sorry napster ... I didn't know that wishing you good luck would fuck up your whole day.

Heh, I thought you would understand, but I guess not. Would you guys please stop being so damn touchy? If I want to state an idea, I should be able to do it without you guys whining about how it doesn't sound exactly right for you.

LMAO, I am not laughing at you napster, but you have to admit saying you are not bitter then laying into dop for wishing you good luck and everyone else for no real reason at all is a bit, well, funny. anyway, I hope it all works out for you.

and remember, you don't salute the man, you salute the rank. I had a very, very bad experience with my first squad leader. he HATED us three cherries who all came out of basic together and never gave us a minutes peace. I think the fact he had just come to the infantry from supply and was totally inadequate as an infantry leader had something to do with it. He saw us as weak and someone who he could hold his rank over and abuse. One day he and I had words and I almost got into big trouble. My team leader at the time, a really down to earth E-5 basically told me not to sweat it. "you salute the rank, not the man. Drive on". Anyway, that asshat squad leader wound up getting his worthless ass back to supply after an investigation into his total inability to lead men that resulted from him having an accidental discharge during a patrol. He was on thin ice at that point already, and once that happened, and he tried to blame it on one of the privates, the platoon leadership decided enough was enough. They got a JAG guy or someone like that in there and got testimony from all of us on his behavior and lack of leadership and booted him. Happiest day of my life really, happier then the birth of my children or day got married. To this day I still say that if I were to ever run into that man, I would sock him right in the nose.

sorry for the rant, but this reminded me of that

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Heh, I thought you would understand, but I guess not. Would you guys please stop being so damn touchy? If I want to state an idea, I should be able to do it without you guys whining about how it doesn't sound exactly right for you.

I do understand but you don't understand that I understand. You're talking to a guy that tracks the migou, hangs out with aliens, studies yoga and surfs during winter storms after drinking a 6-pack of rolling rocks. What is it I don't understand?

Lighten up a bit and let people like you. Life is more fun that way. :)

The catholic church denied kerry communion for being pro-choice as they saw that as murder ... will they deny communion to Arnold for the murder of Tookie?

F*ckin-A they won't.

I don't salute anybody anymore! And I like it that way!

And Dop, when I said understand, I meant understand that I appreciate the gesture, but I wanted to illustrate another idea of mine. I thought you would be able to see through that. I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.

And really, who doesn't want people to like them? Though, I would prefer that it was you and Vile that had said it first, instead of Prea and Frogger. He's too fun to poke, it's going to be a little harder to do it now.

Understand napster ... finally that is.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
The catholic church denied kerry communion for being pro-choice as they saw that as murder ... will they deny communion to Arnold for the murder of Tookie?

F*ckin-A they won't.

Is Arnold even Catholic? Regardless, the church is pretty consistently anti-death whether it be abortion, death penalty or even Schiavo-like circumstances. Which isn't to say that the average Catholic agrees with those stances.

Good question Lionel -- dunno if Arnold is catholic.

But that doesn't moot the point ... why do conservatives (I'll lump in the cahtolics here considering their positions of late) see abortion as murder, Terry Schiavo as murder, stem-cell research as murder and yet injecting Tookie not as murder.

Just doesn't make any sense to me. Guess I must be old fashioned or something ... you know ... where thou shalt not kill still means something.

What happened to Tookie is not properly called murder but "judicial homicide."
He received "judicial homicide" because he murdered people.

This per the laws and statutes of the State of California.

They can be changed if people press their legislators enough.

Originally posted by rendova
What happened to Tookie is not properly called murder but "judicial homicide."
He received "judicial homicide" because he murdered people.

Then why don't we judicially homicide all murderers?

Good question!

Legally, it's because some of these murderers don't meet the aggravating circumstances per their state's laws. Some of these are:

Using an explosive, murder of a victim under a certain age, use of torture, murder while committting another felony, murder while on parole or probation, murder for monetary gain, "laying in wait".
There's others-- they differ by state.

Or, could be, because some states don't have capital punishment--like Wisconsin.

And it could be ... some states just want to be able to cherry-pick who they kill. Murder is murder -- there are no qualifiers or it wouldn't be called murder.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
there are no qualifiers or it wouldn't be called murder.

When the state does it, it's not called murder.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
And it could be ... some states just want to be able to cherry-pick who they kill. Murder is murder -- there are no qualifiers or it wouldn't be called murder.

This could seem to be nit-picking to many.
but there are degrees of murder--first, second. In my state, there is only murder, and then murder with aggravating circumstances. It can seem tricky.

Here's an example--a guy kills another guy in a tavern. Both are drunk. A fight breaks out. Guy one bashes beer bottle over other guy's head. Other guy dies.
What kind of murder is this? Yes, he took a life, but he didn't mean to. There is no malice aforethought. This would be seen as second-degree murder in many states. There is no way guy one should be executed for this, and he won't be. Heck, in many states, it could even be called self-defense, or even, reckless homicide.

This is also why a person who defends himself when he is in ANY kind of felony trouble is making a huge mistake!

actually arnold is a catholic

Originally posted by LionelHutz
When the state does it, it's not called murder.

OK -- what is it called?

Originally posted by rendova
This could seem to be nit-picking to many.
but there are degrees of murder--first, second. In my state, there is only murder, and then murder with aggravating circumstances. It can seem tricky.

Here's an example--a guy kills another guy in a tavern. Both are drunk. A fight breaks out. Guy one bashes beer bottle over other guy's head. Other guy dies.
What kind of murder is this? Yes, he took a life, but he didn't mean to. There is no malice aforethought. This would be seen as second-degree murder in many states. There is no way guy one should be executed for this, and he won't be. Heck, in many states, it could even be called self-defense, or even, reckless homicide.

This is also why a person who defends himself when he is in ANY kind of felony trouble is making a huge mistake!

Same guy leave bar after bashing guy in head, gets behind the wheel and t-bones a family of 4 in an intersection -- killing all of them.

Murder? or is this acceptable too because he had no malice aforethought.

Originally posted by Travh20
actually arnold is a catholic

Thanks trav -- I was too lazy to look it up :D

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
The catholic church denied kerry communion for being pro-choice as they saw that as murder ... will they deny communion to Arnold for the murder of Tookie?

F*ckin-A they won't.
Dop, do yourself a favor and face facts...

Williams was a fucking scumbag and a multiple murder that started, arguably, the 1st or 2nd most RUTHLESS gang in our ENTIRE country. When he was sentenced, he was sentenced to death, period. Considering the overwhelming evidence against him, and the fact that he was a degenerate criminal makes it perfectly justifiable in my mind to smoke his stupid ass. Arnold didn't sentence him...he did his job.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Same guy leave bar after bashing guy in head, gets behind the wheel and t-bones a family of 4 in an intersection -- killing all of them.

Murder? or is this acceptable too because he had no malice aforethought.

No, it is not acceptable. No taking of life is..... and it's not murder, which is the willful, premeditated taking of life.

But there are degrees here. Drunk guy did not plan for this to happen. He will pay a price, believe me. But the WILLFUL taking of lives is another matter altogether.

Our system of justice can be skewed, but it's not THAT skewed.

Sure thing Prae -- haden't been for Tookie South-Central LA would be a wonderful place to grow up and prosper.

It's not about Tookie -- it'a about the death penalty.

Originally posted by rendova
No, it is not acceptable. No taking of life is..... and it's not murder, which is the willful, premeditated taking of life.

But there are degrees here. Drunk guy did not plan for this to happen. He will pay a price, believe me. But the WILLFUL taking of lives is another matter altogether.

Our system of justice can be skewed, but it's not THAT skewed.

WOW! You walk a razor-thin line when it comes to distinguishing and classifiying death.

Why shouldn't the dude that kills the entire family pay with his life? Isn't that why they did Tookie -- he killed 4 -- he paid with his life.

PS If drunk guy has previous drunken driving convictions and willfully disobeyed the rules of the road, most likely he'll be charged with vehicular homicide, and do time.

If not, he'll probably just get his license suspended, pay fines, and have to do court-ordered counseling, etc.
Varies by state, which is ANOTHER reason why all this is so confusing. And people wonder why there's so many lawyers out there.

But it's not murder. Remember, homicide is not always murder.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
WOW! You walk a razor-thin line when it comes to distinguishing and classifiying death.

Why shouldn't the dude that kills the entire family pay with his life? Isn't that why they did Tookie -- he killed 4 -- he paid with his life.

It can be thin, but I look at it this way--

Tookie willfully, with premediation and with malice aforethought, killed those 4 people. He went there with INTENT to kill--nothing else. One victim, in fact, he shot in the back as the poor guy begged for his life. The guy was shot twice, with a shotgun yet, as he lay on the ground. Wrong move, Tookie.

This is the difference here--the degree. It does matter--to the families, to the prosecutors, to the judges, to the juries.

Pick and choose ... I would not want to be a black male in this USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye#Counsel

Police executing a search warrant/drug raid on a house are unaware that the house is a duplex. The subject of the warrant is arrested, yet the raid team mistakenly enters the other side of the dwelling where a 23 year old black man (Corey Mayes) and his 18 month old daughter are sleeping. As it appears that the officers believed they were in the same dwelling it is thought that they did not reannounce their presence. The officers kick down the door to Mayes’ bedroom and he fires a shot, killing a white police officer - the son of the small town’s police chief. He is arrested. Apparently police acknowledge initially that there were no drugs in Maye’s apartment then the story shifts to them finding “traces” of marijuana and cocaine - possibly the remains of a smoked joint. In January, 2004, Mayes is tried and convicted by a nearly all-white jury of capital murder and sentenced to death.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Why shouldn't the dude that kills the entire family pay with his life? Isn't that why they did Tookie -- he killed 4 -- he paid with his life.
"Razor thin"???? You've gotta be kidding me, Dop. Do you seriously not understand the difference between intent and accident?

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Pick and choose ... I would not want to be a black male in this USA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Maye#Counsel

Police executing a search warrant/drug raid on a house are unaware that the house is a duplex. The subject of the warrant is arrested, yet the raid team mistakenly enters the other side of the dwelling where a 23 year old black man (Corey Mayes) and his 18 month old daughter are sleeping. As it appears that the officers believed they were in the same dwelling it is thought that they did not reannounce their presence. The officers kick down the door to Mayes’ bedroom and he fires a shot, killing a white police officer - the son of the small town’s police chief. He is arrested. Apparently police acknowledge initially that there were no drugs in Maye’s apartment then the story shifts to them finding “traces” of marijuana and cocaine - possibly the remains of a smoked joint. In January, 2004, Mayes is tried and convicted by a nearly all-white jury of capital murder and sentenced to death. [/QUOTE

Black, white, green, female, crippled--if you kill a cop you are going straight to Old Sparky.
That's one of the aggravating circumstances in most evey state I can think of, if not all of them..
There's a guy on my own state's Death Row who's a cop killer. He is white. And check out the TexasDept of Corrections death penalty page--lots of cop killers there, of evey color.

So you're saying it has to be both ways?

Man breaks into your house and you shoot him - it is self-defense.
A cop breaks into your house and you shoot him - it's not self-defense.

Where's the libertarians and NRA on this one?

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
So you're saying it has to be both ways?

Man breaks into your house and you shoot him - it is self-defense.
A cop breaks into your house and you shoot him - it's not self-defense.

Where's the libertarians and NRA on this one?
I'll agree with you here, Dop - that was bullshit.

Had you figured for a libertarian and a NRA dude long time ago prea. :D

In reading this over again, I noticed that there's some discrepancy whether the cop identified himself as such.
If he did, then that's one thing--if he did not, that's something else.
I would say this needs looked into again.It would be a natural reaction when, seeing a stranger in your house, to shoot first and ask questions later.

Even more complicated rendova (and Prae) -- what state is it that has the shoot first law? Florida? Anyway, if it happened there, where you can legally shoot anytime you feel your life is in danger ... then what?

I'm not all that familiar with that law, but from the sounds of it, it's pretty frightening stuff. We would turn into the Old West again, except with more deadly weapons.

Speaking of self-defense, this doesn't always work the way people think. Here's an example, and tell me if you think this is right--
Say a guy is trying to break into your house. It's late at night, it's dark and you're home alone and scared.
The guy MUST be in your house before you shoot him. He could come in with guns blazing away but you have to wait before he's actually in your house.
To me, this seems a little wrong.
I've talked to people who say, well, just shoot him while he's still outside, then drag his dead body into your doorway and then call the cops.
but you know, the cops could tell if you did that or not!

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Even more complicated rendova (and Prae) -- what state is it that has the shoot first law? Florida? Anyway, if it happened there, where you can legally shoot anytime you feel your life is in danger ... then what?
Then he should be acquitted. Personally, and from what I've heard here, not only should he be released, he should sue the shit out of the state.

In short, the police had NO BUSINESS in his unit, and outside of that, what else matters???

There has to be something more to this case...

Here's the law ren ... it apparently applies to anywhere including in the general public.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/26/national/main691124.shtml

Pretty scarry stuff I agree. We'll have to wait and see how it works out over time.

My fear would be that a confrontation takes place - a couple of dudes clear leather - both miss and a whole bunch of innocent bystanders do some dirt-napping.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Then he should be acquitted. Personally, and from what I've heard here, not only should he be released, he should sue the shit out of the state.

In short, the police had NO BUSINESS in his unit, and outside of that, what else matters???

There has to be something more to this case...

Correctomundo and yes something else was going on. A nearly all white jury.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Correctomundo and yes something else was going on. A nearly all white jury.
You still think the white man is dead set on "getting" darky, don't you?

From the face of it, the "shoot first" law seems extreme.

The wording "reasonably believe" is very ambigous and fraught with too much margin for error, IMO.

I could reasonably believe someone was going to shoot me over a parking place at WalMart and blaze away.
This is going to create more problems than it solves.

I can see why laws say someone should wait before a criminal is in your house. It could be just a lost drunk guy out there banging away on your door and you kill him by accident. That's not right.

But this other--Well, just too much of people taking the law into their own hands.

Originally posted by rendova
It could be just a lost drunk guy out there banging away on your door and you kill him by accident. That's not right.


Some parts of the country that would be extra points ... almost a trophy kill.

Praetorian -- I try not to think like that but I know too many people that are that way. If I'm guilty of anything it's painting with a broad brush. Still, you have to admit, we may beyond Jim Crow but there is still lots of room for improvement.

Originally posted by Lungdop Philing
Thanks trav -- I was too lazy to look it up :D

Why would you have to look it up[? Arnold was born in Austria so there is an overwhelming probaability that he is Roman Catholic.

I guess I am one of the few right of center posters here who thinks it was wrong to execute Williams.

Originally posted by Frogger
Why would you have to look it up[? Arnold was born in Austria so there is an overwhelming probaability that he is Roman Catholic.

Spain = catholic (check)
Italy = catholic (check)
Mexico = catholic (check)

Austria = catholic (not that obvious)

According to the 1991 census, a majority of Austrians (77.9 percent) belonged to the Roman Catholic Church. This is a decline from the 1971 figure of 87.2 percent.

This percentage was probably even higher when Arnold was born.

I'm not arguing the percentage Frog -- just that it's not as obvious to the mind as some other countries. Out of the box, I would think Luthern (for whatever reason). Anyway, now I know.

That's funny that you should say that, Dop - I thought the same thing. Most Germans are Lutheran (like my dads whole side of the family), so by default, I thought the Austrians would be as well.

I'm with Dop - not obvious.

Most Northern and Eastern Germans are Lutheran or Evangälisch. Bavarians are almost all Roman Catholics.