birdlike

I guess I simply don't mind so much when a treaty obligation, which was not written as part of our Constitution itself, was not followed through on, especially when I have every confidence that the person who was convicted is sure to be the one who did the crime. Lots of appeals are denied because a court finds that the issue under appeal would not have and could not have changed the outcome of the trial. If any such case exists, surely it is this one. Would I prefer it if this T had been crossed and this I dotted, so that the anti-executionists would be force to either shut the fuck up or parade their sympathy and compassion for a vicious rapist/murderer publicly? Of course. I'd prefer that the case had been airtight and unassailable, which right now it isn't. But I'm still not altogether dissatisfied. I'm rather glad the guy had to lie on the gurney and let them stick the needle in (I'm talking about that mexican piece of shit from the other thread, to which you're referring) knowing that not only had he been convicted, and probably he believes God's gonna condemn him to hell, but he also didn't get all the "right" to which he was "entitled." I hope they make fun of him about that in hell, and constantly remind him of it. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Only in America plebs put numbers after their name WTF is with that? Is it better to live in a country with overt recognition of who is a "pleb" and who is a "patrician"? Maybe you'd prefer to replace the "land of opportunity" with "stay in your fuckin' CASTE!" as the motto of the U.S.? The fact that you condescend to people as though you have the standing to call them "pleb" says a lot about you. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

The court, unlike you, does not base their verdict on videotape. No, true, it will use a congomeration of that, and witness statements (which can be lies, or mistakes); fingerprint and DNA analysis (which can be faked or mistaken); confessions (which can be coerced)... Why is any of this better than videotape, anyway? It's probably easier to get false testimony out of someone (including cops and expert witnesses, who are PAID by one side in the prosecution), than it is to make a convincing fake videotape. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Stay on topic. This thread isn't about birdlike. THAT was funny. The really funny thing is how badly you have misconstrued the intent of that original post! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You didn't write anything funny Here's some LOGIC for you (see if you can follow it): Since you have no sense of humor, as accused, everything he says, even if funny, will be called un-funny by you. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Apparently you just don't understand the concept of "due process". I would have thought that you, in your vaunted erudition, would have volunteered up an explanation right here. I get a little verbose, yeah, but at least I explain my positions and fully explicate my points. You, instead, do these hit-and-runs, claiming that others simply don't rise to your enlightened level of understanding, but never explaining where they're wrong or you're right. That leads me (and I'm sure others) to conclude that YOU don't have the facts, either. Otherwise, why withhold them. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You should try "flange." Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Have you ever heard the expression An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure? It'd be a lot easier and more reliable for the susceptible kid to carry the cure to a peanut problem than to hope the world clears a peanut-free path around the kid. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Or, even better... a Squishy that's made entirely out of SYRUP! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

How do you address the fact that for ALL THESE YEARS, there have been peanuts brought to school, but we haven't been reading about these deaths? Did humanity just evolve an allergy to peanuts? Hardly. I think that if there was reason to be nervous about peanuts being in schools, we'd have seen the mandate to do away with peanuts in our society across the board. There hasn't been a big torrent of peanut-related deaths, so that proves this is an overreaction, in my book. If I had a kid in a school and they pulled this mamby pamby bullshit, I'd send my kid to school with peanuts every fuckin' day. I am SiCK of the fucking pussies running things, trying to make every fucking person afraid of his own shadow. I am fine with the institutions not serving peanuts. No big deal. But asking parents to modify their kids' diets for the one in a thousand or whatever? No. What's causing tha-- Oh, I forgot: Global Warming. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

SHADDAP!! Now... stalk me with that banana! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

No. Wrong. We ARE sure he did it, BECAUSE due process made such a finding. When did anyone here ever say that we did not have to have a trial just because someone was seen committing a torture-murder on a video he made himself? We STILL insist on a trial, a jury, evidence, etc., even with that kind of certainty. Just last week you were willing to skip treaty obligations for a foreign national...because you KNEW he was guilty, so skipping process was unimportant. "harmless error" as the upper courts like to say. Nice to misstate the facts. I "know" that a FAIR TRIAL FOUND HIM GUILTY. Whether he got a phone call to a consulate would have been immaterial, and you know it. I didn't say a fucking thing about "skipping due process," but yeah, I did say "fuck the treaty obligation" -- but those are two entirely separate things. He GOT his fucking due process. Stop twisting things. Remember, the fewer distortions you make, the easier it will be for you to keep track of what you've said. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I am so glad you are a police officer, you don't even know.

Typical. You take this from "fire a lifesaving shot or two at a dog that IS ATTACKING" to "popping caps at every dog that barked..." No wonder I can't take you seriously. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

IMHO the best defense against a dog attack while walking is as simple as carrying a walking stick. The dog knows what a stick is, and raising it up or banging it against the grounds sends a clear message that our non-human friends easily understand. If you are really afraid of the dogs in your neighborhood, carry a sturdy stick and a can of pepper spray. If the stick fails, spray 'em because they aren't fooling around. Um, go read the question again. We were asked what would be the "more sensible option for getting an attacking dog off of you." Do you not see that we're talking about a dog that is ON YOU? Not a dog that is approaching, or standing there barking. ON you. How will that stick work, exactly? Ah yes, when a dog is ON you, go take some time to learn about dog behavior. Just like when you are attacked by an armed mugger, don't shoot him, support politicians who will invest tax money in education and vocational programs. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

It's pretty inane to think that I would be able to give a definitive answer to a question that involves a scenario that is going to be different in each case. Are you asking for a one-size-fits all answer? Sorry, I can't (and won't) give that. What I will say, by way of an answer, is that I have not answered all of my problems in life by shooting at them, nor do I expect to ever have to. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You didn't read it very carefully, did you? He didn't have a BLANK in the handgun. He THOUGHT he had a BLANK in the gun and he was WRONG. Responsible gun ownership at its best. OK, I misspoke. Why did he ever have the plan of carrying a blank in the gun. Sounds like someone too stupid to be allowed to be a police officer. Seriously questionable judgment. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I worked my way to it by eating fried worms. (Got me a minibike out of the deal, though!) Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

For just around $5,000 and your good photo you'll get video showing _you_ doing something even worse... OK, so you just single-handedly insisted that no court EVER admit photographic or video evidence EVER AGAIN, I guess. You must have just finished watching "Rising Sun" again. You know, a Jib-Jab-lookin' video is not going to convince anyone. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

No. Wrong. We ARE sure he did it, BECAUSE due process made such a finding. When did anyone here ever say that we did not have to have a trial just because someone was seen committing a torture-murder on a video he made himself? We STILL insist on a trial, a jury, evidence, etc., even with that kind of certainty. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Then you should confine your anti-death penalty talk those marginal cases only, and acknowledge the validity of the death penalty for the obvious cases. But instead, you want to treat everyone as if they're potentially innocent, even the obvious cases where they're not. And that's where you lose credibility with me. Another one who thinks the penalty for a crime should depend on the quality of the evidence. Must be a Texas thing. What a bloodthirsty bunch you are down there. Kallend, it's your side that keeps insisting that even after our best efforts at getting at the truth (via our courts) have done what they can, we cannot put enough faith in them to actually carry out a punishment with confidence. YOU are the one who wants the severity of the crime to be determined by the quality of the evidence. The proof is that you will never grant that the evidence is good enough to support a death sentence. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

So, you harbor deep desires to torture human beings. Go figure. More fucking doublespeak.. if you want to EXECUTE anyone..... then you want to KILL.. Then draw a distinction between "kill justifiably and with society's sanction," and "kill indiscriminately." No, but you'd like to show some people how torture is done, personally. That's so much better. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I don't want to kill people, I want to execute convicted criminals. If you want to TORTURE PEOPLE, there are places you can go ... I'm surprised you haven't. You forget that she's come to DZ.com, where all of us are tortured by her postings. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

You're not doing yourself any favors by continuing to misapply the term "murder" to the post-conviction killing, for punishment, of a true murderer. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Then why, in cases like this where you and we don't dispute guilt, can't we execute him? The very fact that it's an "obvious case" combined with the fact that no impropriety has been shown about his conviction should obviate any concerns you would otherwise have that would lead to opposition to the death penalty for him. I mean, if you oppose it because of possibly being wrong, and we all agree that in this case it's not possible, why not fry the bastard? ????????? WTF?? First of all, OJ wasn't CONVICTED. Second of all, we're talking about a case where NO ONE is saying "maybe we convicted him in error"!! Your analogy is totally out of whack. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire