Author Topic: Death sentence for the Arizona killer?? (Read 3216 times)

gypsyman · « **on:** January 11, 2011, 05:14:01 AM »

Knowing how things work in this judicial system, the lawyer that represents him, will probably use the insainity plea. Knowing full well, that he can bring up some of the things in the past, that might possibly be used in his defense.
My thought is, too many times this defense has put criminals in a hospital, where they might spend the rest of their life, although too many of them get out and commit many other crimes.
My opinion is, if he had brain power enough to do what he did, he's mentally well enough to have the death sentence.
If a mentally ill person, commits no crime on anyone, and does no harm to himself/herself, then lets do what we can to help them.
We had a case here in the Toledo are back in the early 90's, where a mentally ill man, kidnapped and raped a 7 or 8 year old girl.They found her dead in his crawl space. He died of cancer in jail, in his 60's. His history was that he had been caught several times for child molestation in other state's. Never spent more than a year in a mental hospital. This guy spent over 20 years bouncing in and out of jail and hospital's, and nobody knows just how many children this animal had contact with. Sorry guys, people like this should be killed.
gypsyman

Pat/Rick · « **Reply #1 on:** January 11, 2011, 06:47:44 AM »

Pretty much bet on it.

tcencore3006 · « **Reply #2 on:** January 11, 2011, 06:56:08 AM »

I vote for the death penalty. You know the Federal Gov is going to push for it. I would actually be shocked if it didn't happen.

The Famous Grouse · « **Reply #3 on:** January 11, 2011, 07:57:18 AM »

Quote from: gypsyman on January 11, 2011, 05:14:01 AM

Knowing how things work in this judicial system, the lawyer that represents him, will probably use the insanity plea. Knowing full well, that he can bring up some of the things in the past, that might possibly be used in his defense. My thought is, too many times this defense has put criminals in a hospital, where they might spend the rest of their life, although too many of them get out and commit many other crimes.
My opinion is, if he had brain power enough to do what he did, he's mentally well enough to have the death sentence.
gypsyman

There are many myths/urban legends about use of the so-called "insanity plea" and how people accused of crimes can "use it to get off". First, in most sates, it's not a "plea", it's a defense. The accused cannot plead "insanity", he can only plead "not guilty by reason of insanity" which is completely different from "not guilty." It depends on the state, but some states only allow the "guilty, but insane" defense, but in the states that do allow an insanity defense, it's essentially a mitigating factor in sentencing in that even if a defendant is found "not guilty by reason of insanity", they are still imprisoned. John Hinckley Jr. being the most famous example.

Secondly, in most states, the bar is set very high to use this defense. Most states base their handling of the so-called "insanity defense" on the M'Naughten ruling. In general terms, this ruling stated that the defendant must have been wholly incapable of knowing right from wrong. This is a very difficult burden on the defense because it's not enough for the defendant to simply be mentally ill or have a mental defect. It must be proved that they could not tell the difference between right and wrong at the time they committed the crime.

It's a very risky defense, mostly because essentially the defendant is generally seen as admitting responsibility for the crime in the process of the defense,. In the Arizona shootings case, I wouldn't' be surprised to see a plea deal of guilty to avoid the death penalty. It would surprise me if the defense would want to risk trial and it would surprise me if the prosecution wanted to risk "losing" to an insanity defense.

Grouse

powderman · « **Reply #4 on:** January 11, 2011, 07:59:13 AM »

GYPSYMAN. Agreed Sir. Some people just need killing, he's one of them. POWDERMAN.

guzzijohn · « **Reply #5 on:** January 11, 2011, 09:02:23 AM »

Agreed Sir. Some people just need killing, he's one of them. POWDERMAN.

I thought you were against the taking of life of one of God's creations? Guess it just depends upon when you want to play God.
GuzziJohn

gypsyman · « **Reply #6 on:** January 11, 2011, 11:01:05 AM »

I'm not sure if POWDERMAN will agree with this, but this is my opinion. Killing a baby in the womb is wrong, and against gods will. But, after being born, and proving to society that you might be a complete waste of human flesh, and you take a life for no reason, even the Bible says you should be killed. gypsyman

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #7 on:** January 11, 2011, 11:07:52 AM »

Lets hear the case before we return the verdict , just a thought

myronman3 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 11, 2011, 11:15:51 AM »

right on, shootall.

powderman · « **Reply #9 on:** January 11, 2011, 11:32:15 AM »

GYPSYMAN. Yes, I agree.
guzzi. I'm not surprised that you can't tell the difference between murdering a child, and putting down a rabid dog. When I saw that smirky face of the killer on tv I envisioned a red X right in the middle of it's forehead. I may be wrong but I believe I just heard on the news that they might actually allow the guards to be ARMED?

?POWDERMAN.

tcencore3006 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 11, 2011, 01:50:05 PM »

Powderman, I could not believe the grin on that killers face. It really ticked me off. To bad the law enforcement didn't just take him out when they had the chance.

DDZ · « **Reply #11 on:** January 11, 2011, 02:07:11 PM »

Quote from: guzzijohn on January 11, 2011, 09:02:23 AM

Agreed Sir. Some people just need killing, he's one of them. POWDERMAN.

I thought you were against the taking of life of one of God's creations? Guess it just depends upon when you want to play God.
GuzziJohn

Lets see, the comparison is, an innocent life that has not been born yet, and a murderer. Just a bit of a difference, don't ya think?

dukkillr · « **Reply #12 on:** January 11, 2011, 02:49:57 PM »

Quote from: The Famous Grouse on January 11, 2011, 07:57:18 AM

Quote from: gypsyman on January 11, 2011, 05:14:01 AM
Knowing how things work in this judicial system, the lawyer that represents him, will probably use the insanity plea. Knowing full well, that he can bring up some of the things in the past, that might possibly be used in his defense. My thought is, too many times this defense has put criminals in a hospital, where they might spend the rest of their life, although too many of them get out and commit many other crimes.
My opinion is, if he had brain power enough to do what he did, he's mentally well enough to have the death sentence.
gypsyman

There are many myths/urban legends about use of the so-called "insanity plea" and how people accused of crimes can "use it to get off". First, in most sates, it's not a "plea", it's a defense. The accused cannot plead "insanity", he can only plead "not guilty by reason of insanity" which is completely different from "not guilty." It depends on the state, but some states only allow the "guilty, but insane" defense, but in the states that do allow an insanity defense, it's essentially a mitigating factor in sentencing in that even if a defendant is found "not guilty by reason of insanity", they are still imprisoned. John Hinckley Jr. being the most famous example.

Secondly, in most states, the bar is set very high to use this defense. Most states base their handling of the so-called "insanity defense" on the M'Naughten ruling. In general terms, this ruling stated that the defendant must have been wholly incapable of knowing right from wrong. This is a very difficult burden on the defense because it's not enough for the defendant to simply be mentally ill or have a mental defect. It must be proved that they could not tell the difference between right and wrong at the time they committed the crime.

It's a very risky defense, mostly because essentially the defendant is generally seen as admitting responsibility for the crime in the process of the defense,. In the Arizona shootings case, I wouldn't' be surprised to see a plea deal of guilty to avoid the death penalty. It would surprise me if the defense would want to risk trial and it would surprise me if the prosecution wanted to risk "losing" to an insanity defense.

Grouse

Good post, and correct.

torpedoman · « **Reply #13 on:** January 11, 2011, 02:58:32 PM »

I think his own statement that he planned it will sink any insanity plea. His writings and postings reveal that he knew what he was doing was wrong that disqualifies insanity

powderman · « **Reply #14 on:** January 11, 2011, 04:18:36 PM »

Most of the time plea bargaining is a bargain for the criminal, not the law abiding citizens. I don't care why he did it, no reason for him to live. POWDERMAN.

coldmold · « **Reply #15 on:** January 12, 2011, 09:46:51 AM »

GET A ROPE

buffermop · « **Reply #16 on:** January 12, 2011, 10:01:58 AM »

If he gets the death sentance, they should let the family members of the victims club him to death.vigilante justice.

jimster · « **Reply #17 on:** January 12, 2011, 01:54:06 PM »

I figure if anyone would have been close to him and armed when he fired the first shot, he would have got the death sentence on the spot. Nobody would be questioning it or feeling sorry for him, specially if more people could have been spared with less shots fired. Same ones that want to protect him from death now, would have thought it was a great deal if he was killed at the scene. Time for the lawyers, the media, the courts, maybe an organization or two, and a whole bunch of people to make money now. All vultures for the tax dollars that are going to be in this.

cabledad · « **Reply #18 on:** January 12, 2011, 04:59:07 PM »

The thing that bothers me about the news medias rehashing of this event is that only one reporter said that he was turned down by the Marine Corp because he failed the drug test.Only heard this once but I would believe drugs might have more to do with it than Sara Palin.My wife just told me she had heard the same thing.Chuck

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #19 on:** January 13, 2011, 10:12:21 AM »

Ita amazing how fast a gun can be emptied vs how fast one can realize the threat , draw and fire if the threat was easy to pick up. In many cases it makes more sense to do as the lady did and grab the mag. or gun along with the help of others. Most like the idea of going John Wayne but it has pit falls . First shooting an innocent . Second if security or police were near and saw you with a gun how would they know you were the good guy ? I don't know but it would not suprise me if all the shooting took place in a few seconds start to finish.
I for one think those there did a great job and should be told such and respected . They had to go from peace loving people having a nice time to inraged enough to take down a cold blooded killer in a few seconds. Now it the courts time to carry out the law . The sherrif already tainted his dept.

powderman · « **Reply #20 on:** January 13, 2011, 11:04:24 AM »

SHOOTALL. Makes a lot of sense. Good post. POWDERMAN.

Big Nasty · « **Reply #21 on:** January 13, 2011, 03:11:20 PM »

Can I be the executioner? PLEASE

Dogshooter · « **Reply #22 on:** January 15, 2011, 03:33:57 AM »

Lib logic. (I know, that's an oxymoron.) Libs always cry to "wait for the trial before declaring his guilt." In cases where there are no witnesses, or even a few witnesses to a crime, I agree. When someone does what this whacko (who I am certain has the same mental defect that all liberals have) did, in front of so many, there can be no question of their guilt. The trial only serves to give lawyers the opportunity to try to place the blame on the innocent. We are already seeing the blame game in full bloom. Can you imagine how many good citizens will face damning cross examination in the upcoming trial for not doing SOMETHING to stop this moron BEFORE he did this. We all know, because of the laws that libs put in place, nobody can do ANYTHING to someone until that person actually commits a crime. If he had been arrested and institutionalized before the act, the ACLU would have been all about getting him released. I sincerely hope smeone in lockup does a GOOD thing and save us the trouble of a trial.

dukkillr · « **Reply #23 on:** January 15, 2011, 06:41:23 AM »

Quote from: Dogshooter on January 15, 2011, 03:33:57 AM

Lib logic. (I know, that's an oxymoron.) Libs always cry to "wait for the trial before declaring his guilt." In cases where there are no witnesses, or even a few witnesses to a crime, I agree. When someone does what this whacko (who I am certain has the same mental defect that all liberals have) did, in front of so many, there can be no question of their guilt. The trial only serves to give lawyers the opportunity to try to place the blame on the innocent. We are already seeing the blame game in full bloom. Can you imagine how many good citizens will face damning cross examination in the upcoming trial for not doing SOMETHING to stop this moron BEFORE he did this. We all know, because of the laws that libs put in place, nobody can do ANYTHING to someone until that person actually commits a crime. If he had been arrested and institutionalized before the act, the ACLU would have been all about getting him released. I sincerely hope smeone in lockup does a GOOD thing and save us the trouble of a trial.

I am glad you said this. Many here feel this way, and it is a compellingly simple thought process. Please tell me two things:
1) Do you support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
2) Could you explain to me, in your own words, what the sixth amendment means?

Dogshooter · « **Reply #24 on:** January 15, 2011, 07:10:22 AM »

Yes I do and yes I know what it says. I did not say that any government entity carry out the execution. I said, and truly hope, the dweeb is murdered by a fellow inmate. There are murders committed every day on innocent people in this country, mostly by scum bags that have already been thru our legal system for crimes that they committed against other innocents. I'd just like to see them start killing each other off.

powderman · « **Reply #25 on:** January 15, 2011, 07:21:58 AM »

DOGSHOOTER. Good post. The A nti C hristian L iars U nion is not our friend. I hope he never makes it to trial. If a citizen with ccw had killed him the aclu and pantywetters would be screaming to high Heaven, YOU KILLED HIM AND DIDN"T EVEN WARN HIM, he never had a chance. If there was any doubt he did it it, might be different, but theres not. He'll have no problem getting a lawyer to make excuses for him either, it's what they do. A lawyer told me several years ago that money talks. He said that if a man was caught in the act of sodomy with a child, that if he had enough money, he could get the charge dropped to following too close. POWDERMAN.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #26 on:** January 17, 2011, 09:00:50 AM »

Dogshooter I have to ask if we apply guilt before trial in some cases that seem clear cut who will decide which cases ? In times past it was the King , Empror , Head of the church , indian chief , tribal leader or dictator . Our fore fathers understood the need for a rule to apply law to all in a fair way . ANY ONE ADVOCATING THE SKIPPING OF RULE OF LAW IS ADVOCATING RETURN TO ONE OF THE OTHER FORMS OF GOVT. AND LAW . Its not what the ACLU wants or the NAACP or for that matter what you or I want its what the LAW SAYS WE AS AMERICAN CITIZENS ARE SUPPOSE TO GET !
Remember the old saying if you don't use it you lose it ! applies to freedom and law also

Dogshooter · « **Reply #27 on:** January 17, 2011, 09:19:55 AM »

I still stand by my previous post. I am not advocating a lynching by the public, or any miscarriage of our justice system. I said I HOPE that some scum bag currently incarcerated in our legal system will save us the cost and aggravation of a trial. I am not advocating anything but I refuse to give up hoping the scum among us suffer like the good people they victimize. I'll leave it to the left wingers and lawyers to loose sleep worrying about giving aid and comfort to those who deserve neither.

SHOOTALL · « **Reply #28 on:** January 17, 2011, 09:29:56 AM »

I don't give a tinkers da-- about the criminal other than they get what they deserve , however with all the criminals being released these days because of being wrongly sent to prision its better to stick to the legal way. As for wishing someone else would do the duty of socity is little more than a cop out .

powderman · « **Reply #29 on:** January 17, 2011, 11:02:13 AM »

SHOOTALL. I understand what you are saying but personally I'm fed up seeing lawyers make excuses for pukes like this guy and insisting that society foot the bill for him to live a full life that he denied to others. No excuse for him to live at taxpayers expense the rest of his natural life. Free food, clothing, meds, drs care, even operations, all at our expense. Yes, I know mistakes have been made in the past but I'm all for capitol punishment, and it should NOT take 30 years to do it either. There are thousands of murders committed in America by supposedly rehabilitated convicted murderers every year. In most cases theres no reason for them to be alive, let alone walking around free. Lawyers are a necessary evil. They are the reason our justice system is so screwed up. The longer the appeals and trials the more money they make. Society pays the price in money and innocent lives. POWDERMAN.