JohnRich 4 #1 July 21, 2010 News:Lockerbie bomber release 'in good faith' Scottish Secretary Michael Moore has told the House of Commons that the decision to free the Lockerbie bomber from prison was made "in good faith". Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill released Megrahi, who has prostate cancer, last year on compassionate grounds after being told that three months was a "reasonable estimate" of his life expectancy. However, he is still alive after almost a year...Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-10716229 Fuck Scottish Secretary Michael Moore. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,133 #2 July 21, 2010 Time for Joe Barton to apologize to the bomber. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CornishChris 5 #3 July 22, 2010 There is a very large school of thought that says that Megrahi didn't even commit the crime and that it was nothing to do with Libya at all but actually Iran. A number of the victims families subscribe to this school of thought. The most active of these in the UK is a Dr Jim Swire, who irrelevantly happens to be from the same town as my parents. He described the jailing of Megrahi as "one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in history". When he was released these discussions started again and there is another school of thought that says that the only reason he was released is because even the authorities didn't really think he had done it. With many islamic terrorists they are only too happy to take the blame and praise Allah for their actions - Megrahi has protested innocence all along. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with these theories but just putting them out there. If he did do it then he should not have been released. If he did not then he should have been released but also fully pardoned. We all love to have someone to pin a crime on and be able to draw a line under it but maybe they did have the wrong guy... CJP Gods don't kill people. People with Gods kill people Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #4 July 22, 2010 QuoteThere is a very large school of thought that says that Megrahi didn't even commit the crime and that it was nothing to do with Libya at all but actually Iran. A number of the victims families subscribe to this school of thought. The most active of these in the UK is a Dr Jim Swire, who irrelevantly happens to be from the same town as my parents. He described the jailing of Megrahi as "one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in history". When he was released these discussions started again and there is another school of thought that says that the only reason he was released is because even the authorities didn't really think he had done it. With many islamic terrorists they are only too happy to take the blame and praise Allah for their actions - Megrahi has protested innocence all along. I am not agreeing or disagreeing with these theories but just putting them out there. If he did do it then he should not have been released. If he did not then he should have been released but also fully pardoned. We all love to have someone to pin a crime on and be able to draw a line under it but maybe they did have the wrong guy... What's the big deal about that? In the US (Herrera v. Collins, 1993) the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist said it was OK for Texas to execute a person who could show actual innocence but was procedurally barred from another review of their conviction. JohnRich's views on Texas justice are apparent in this thread.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zep 0 #5 July 22, 2010 Another school of thought is that BP actually did quite a bit of lobbying to get him released. and that the English government was aghast when he was released. Gone fishing Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #6 July 22, 2010 Quote Another school of thought is that BP actually did quite a bit of lobbying to get him released. and that the English government was aghast when he was released. There is an English government? I thought the absence of such a thing was a bone of contention, when the Welsh, Scots and Irish have their own assemblies and the English don't.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #7 July 22, 2010 Quote What's the big deal about that? In the US (Herrera v. Collins, 1993) the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist said it was OK for Texas to execute a person who could show actual innocence but was procedurally barred from another review of their conviction. Let's try again - Mr. Herrera was stopped in his girlfriend's car as he was speeding away from the murder of Officer Rucker. Mr. Herrera's Social Security Card was found lying beside Officer Rucker. Officer Rucker had been shot in the head. At the subsequent stop, Mr. Herrera shot Officer Carrisalez. Officer Carrisalez died of his wounds, but not before identifying a picture of Herrera. Officer Carisalez's partner also identified Herrera. Herrera had Rucker's blood on his pants and his vehicle. Herrera wrote a letter that implied he committed the murders. Herrera was convicted of murdering Carrisalez based on victim identification, eye witness identification and other evidence. Herrera plead guilty to the murder of Rucker. Two state appeals, one federal habeas corpus and ten years later, Herrera came up with an affidavit from his dead brother's cell mate and another from the dead brother's lawyer saying that the brother might have admitted to the murders before HE was murdered eight years previous. The SCOTUS ruled that the procedure used to seek relief was not available to the Defendant and recommended another one in the opinion. Innocent is not a word I would use to describe Mr. Herrera in this lifetime.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #8 July 22, 2010 QuoteQuote What's the big deal about that? In the US (Herrera v. Collins, 1993) the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist said it was OK for Texas to execute a person who could show actual innocence but was procedurally barred from another review of their conviction. Let's try again - .... Not at all relevant in the slightest to the point that SCOTUS ruled that actual innocence is constitutionally irrelevant.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #9 July 22, 2010 QuoteIn the US (Herrera v. Collins, 1993) the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist said it was OK for Texas to execute a person who could show actual innocence but was procedurally barred from another review of their conviction. JohnRich's views on Texas justice are apparent in this thread. Oh boy, more cheap word games by kallend: "John Rich favors executing innocent prisoners!" Your link does not prove your hypothesis. QED Keep diggin' Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #10 July 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteIn the US (Herrera v. Collins, 1993) the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist said it was OK for Texas to execute a person who could show actual innocence but was procedurally barred from another review of their conviction. JohnRich's views on Texas justice are apparent in this thread. Oh boy, more cheap word games by kallend: "John Rich favors executing innocent prisoners!" QED Keep diggin' I just invited anyone to form their own conclusions by reading this thread. The only person to write "John Rich favors executing innocent prisoners!" was John Rich, July 22, 2010. If you draw that conclusion from your own words in a thread from last year, so be it.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #11 July 22, 2010 QuoteQuoteIn the US (Herrera v. Collins, 1993) the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Rehnquist said it was OK for Texas to execute a person who could show actual innocence but was procedurally barred from another review of their conviction. JohnRich's views on Texas justice are apparent in this thread. Oh boy, more cheap word games by kallend: "John Rich favors executing innocent prisoners!" QED Keep diggin' Innocent prisoners? No such thing. There are people that may be jailed for different crimes that they comitted though.Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,603 #12 July 22, 2010 QuoteInnocent prisoners? No such thing. There are people that may be jailed for different crimes than they comitted though. I'm hoping you left the smiley off. By that standard, none of us are innocent, but should we all be in prison? Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Bolas 5 #13 July 22, 2010 Quote Quote Innocent prisoners? No such thing. There are people that may be jailed for different crimes than they comitted though. I'm hoping you left the smiley off. By that standard, none of us are innocent, but should we all be in prison? Wendy P. Typo. Damn you're quick. Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #14 July 22, 2010 QuoteI just invited anyone to form their own conclusions... QED Keep diggin' Now, demonstrate to everyone how you're ego won't let you walk away from hurling insults, and absolutely must have the last word. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
champu 1 #15 July 22, 2010 Quote(Herrera v. Collins, 1993) Hypothetical situation... John Doe kills a couple people and witnesses see him jump in a car and get away. Police throw up check points and start a man hunt. John can't get out of the city so he goes to his brother Joe who he looks somewhat similar to, and concocts a plan. Joe gets in the car John was driving and heads to a check point where he's arrested and charged. Check points come down, man hunt is called off. At the trial, the defense plays dumb and rolls over and he's convicted and sentenced to death. Meanwhile, John flees the country. A few months later while on death row, miraculously, the murder weapon surfaces, is traceable to John, has John's fingerprints on it, and no evidence that Joe has ever touched it. And let's say there's also a signed confession by John or some other such evidence. Joe asks for, and is granted, a new trial and is found not guilty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,133 #16 July 22, 2010 >Now, demonstrate to everyone how you're ego won't let you walk away >from hurling insults, and absolutely must have the last word. I think that proving that you can do that is a poor way to claim someone else is doing that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #17 July 22, 2010 Quote .... Now, demonstrate to everyone how you're ego won't let you walk away from hurling insults, and absolutely must have the last word. Whose ego ....? dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
