Brian Williams Death Penalty QUestion

[Jarhead]

How can I debate with a moron?

The jury is part of the judicial system which is part of the government.

It's sad that you don't understand this fact. But it is a fact.

it is fact yes...but not at all relevant to the debate at hand..and I have not denied the fact and I am by no means a moron...but of course, once again, you resort to name calling.

Yes, a jury is comprised of primarily non elected officials and governed by the judicial system which is part of the government...

However...and try to stay with me...the debate was whether or not it was the GOVERNMENT who decides who is guilty and who is up for the death penalty....

And whereas technically, yes it is...


for this debate we are referring to the jury as "ordinary citizens"...which they are......it is NOT an elected official who determines the persons guilt....unless there is an elected official on the jury.....

So if you want to play that little game and not have the debate as we were having, then stay the hell out of it...but if you want to debate, then debate fairly and stop playing semantics.

Looks like you just conceded her point (bolded above) and it is you who is playing semantics...




PS I fixed your typos for ya.

Wrong..

I did not conede her point. You were not part of the debate early on...Her point, although an accurate one...was a diversion from the debate at hand.

But its not worth getting into.

She resorted to name calling. To me, that is a true sign of weakness. It also shows me the little character she has.

Move on. Nothing more to see here.

 

[Ravi]

How can I debate with a moron?

The jury is part of the judicial system which is part of the government.

It's sad that you don't understand this fact. But it is a fact.

it is fact yes...but not at all relevant to the debate at hand..and I have not denied the fact and I am by no means a moron...but of course, once again, you resort to name calling.

Yes, a jury is comprised of primarily non elected officials and governed by the judicial system which is part of the government...

However...and try to stay with me...the debate was whether or not it was the GOVERNMENT who decides who is guilty and who is up for the death penalty....

And whereas technically, yes it is...


for this debate we are referring to the jury as "ordinary citizens"...which they are......it is NOT an elected official who determines the persons guilt....unless there is an elected official on the jury.....

So if you want to play that little game and not have the debate as we were having, then stay the hell out of it...but if you want to debate, then debate fairly and stop playing semantics.

Looks like you just conceded her point (bolded above) and it is you who is playing semantics...




PS I fixed your typos for ya.

Thanks. I don't know where people get this idea that juries operate outside of the law. Laws that elected officials write.

It's

 

[Jarhead]

The next time you see a jury operating outside of the judicial system will be the first time.

the fact that you needed to resort to that shows how you are quite insecure with your position in the debate.

So lets make this a little more challenging for you.

Lets not use the word government becuase it makes things way too difficult for you.

Lets use the word "elected officials"

Now...who decides the guilt of a person...an elected official or a jury of non elected citizens?

The people, operating under the auspices of the government, operating as a government body, are deciding who lives and who dies.

That is wrong, imo. It is big government at its worst.

And to make it even worse, as pertains to the OP, the Governor has the final say.

So you do not believe in the jury system?

What do you suggest?

And by the way...I am against the death penalty.

 

[Jarhead]

it is fact yes...but not at all relevant to the debate at hand..and I have not denied the fact and I am by no means a moron...but of course, once again, you resort to name calling.

Yes, a jury is comprised of primarily non elected officials and governed by the judicial system which is part of the government...

However...and try to stay with me...the debate was whether or not it was the GOVERNMENT who decides who is guilty and who is up for the death penalty....

And whereas technically, yes it is...


for this debate we are referring to the jury as "ordinary citizens"...which they are......it is NOT an elected official who determines the persons guilt....unless there is an elected official on the jury.....

So if you want to play that little game and not have the debate as we were having, then stay the hell out of it...but if you want to debate, then debate fairly and stop playing semantics.

Looks like you just conceded her point (bolded above) and it is you who is playing semantics...




PS I fixed your typos for ya.

Thanks. I don't know where people get this idea that juries operate outside of the law. Laws that elected officials write.

It's

I never said that. Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth?

Does it make you feel superior?

 

[Ravi]

it is fact yes...but not at all relevant to the debate at hand..and I have not denied the fact and I am by no means a moron...but of course, once again, you resort to name calling.

Yes, a jury is comprised of primarily non elected officials and governed by the judicial system which is part of the government...

However...and try to stay with me...the debate was whether or not it was the GOVERNMENT who decides who is guilty and who is up for the death penalty....

And whereas technically, yes it is...


for this debate we are referring to the jury as "ordinary citizens"...which they are......it is NOT an elected official who determines the persons guilt....unless there is an elected official on the jury.....

So if you want to play that little game and not have the debate as we were having, then stay the hell out of it...but if you want to debate, then debate fairly and stop playing semantics.

Looks like you just conceded her point (bolded above) and it is you who is playing semantics...




PS I fixed your typos for ya.

Wrong..

I did not conede her point. You were not part of the debate early on...Her point, although an accurate one...was a diversion from the debate at hand.

But its not worth getting into.

She resorted to name calling. To me, that is a true sign of weakness. It also shows me the little character she has.

Move on. Nothing more to see here.

Dude. You said I pulled stuff out of my ass and was not worth debating.

Quit whining that you got called a moron after those statements.

 

[Jarhead]

Never mind Ravi.
Had enough of you.

 

[Jarhead]

Looks like you just conceded her point (bolded above) and it is you who is playing semantics...




PS I fixed your typos for ya.

Wrong..

I did not conede her point. You were not part of the debate early on...Her point, although an accurate one...was a diversion from the debate at hand.

But its not worth getting into.

She resorted to name calling. To me, that is a true sign of weakness. It also shows me the little character she has.

Move on. Nothing more to see here.

Dude. You said I pulled stuff out of my ass and was not worth debating.

Quit whining that you got called a moron after those statements.

Yep...you pulled shit out of your ass as a diversion from the debate making you not worth debating.

You opted to put words in my mouth and then use those words against me as you called me a moron fo0r using those words when, in fact, I never did...you simply claimed i idid.

So I am done with you.

 

[Ravi]

Okay by me.

Supporters of the death penalty support the ultimate big government. Nothing you've said detracts from that point.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Brian Williams showed his liberal disgust with capital punishment in Texas.

And was horrified when the audience applauded.

Perry's answer was awesome. He didn't give an inch.

Yeah......you Teabaggers never were all-that-interested in Science....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-cMpKfDPHg]Nightline: The Wrongful Execution of Cameron Todd Willingham - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Valerie]

Okay by me.

Supporters of the death penalty support the ultimate big government. Nothing you've said detracts from that point.

I agree, Jarhead has demonstrated his own character weakness here...



FTR - I support the death penalty in cases where there is no doubt of guilt in a heinous crime.

 

[Toro]

it is fact yes...but not at all relevant to the debate at hand..and I have not denied the fact and I am by no means a moron...but of course, once again, you resort to name calling.

Yes, a jury is comprised of primarily non elected officials and governed by the judicial system which is part of the government...

However...and try to stay with me...the debate was whether or not it was the GOVERNMENT who decides who is guilty and who is up for the death penalty....

And whereas technically, yes it is...


for this debate we are referring to the jury as "ordinary citizens"...which they are......it is NOT an elected official who determines the persons guilt....unless there is an elected official on the jury.....

So if you want to play that little game and not have the debate as we were having, then stay the hell out of it...but if you want to debate, then debate fairly and stop playing semantics.

Looks like you just conceded her point (bolded above) and it is you who is playing semantics...




PS I fixed your typos for ya.

Thanks. I don't know where people get this idea that juries operate outside of the law. Laws that elected officials write.

It's

Elected officials pass laws to increase regulations on banks and that's Big Government.

Elected officials pass laws to execute citizens and that's not Big Government.

?????!

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The audience was friendly to start with, and while the question was loaded, or meant to be anyway, no one can produce a case of an innocent man dieing on Perry's watch.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......that's dying.....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4rZF7e-C5IU]Texas attorney Walter Reaves saysTodd Willingham was innocent and wrongly executed - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWA5RRLPBVE&feature=relmfu]Barry Scheck on Todd Willingham and Rick Perry - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDcs7s04jUs]Innocence Project - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Toro]

the fact that you needed to resort to that shows how you are quite insecure with your position in the debate.

So lets make this a little more challenging for you.

Lets not use the word government becuase it makes things way too difficult for you.

Lets use the word "elected officials"

Now...who decides the guilt of a person...an elected official or a jury of non elected citizens?

The people, operating under the auspices of the government, operating as a government body, are deciding who lives and who dies.

That is wrong, imo. It is big government at its worst.

And to make it even worse, as pertains to the OP, the Governor has the final say.

So you do not believe in the jury system?

What do you suggest?

And by the way...I am against the death penalty.

Then you are for Small Government. Good for you.

I don't think many are against the jury system. I think the point being made is that many on the right who are otherwise supporters of Small Government - unlike yourself - cast that aversion aside when it comes to the death penalty, which is the ultimate Big Government law. After all, almost all Big Government laws can be reversed if they are wrong, such as high taxes and excessive regulations. But if you're wrong on the death penalty, the consequences cannot be reversed. You can cut taxes and deregulate but you can't bring an innocent man back to life.

 

[Ravi]

ftr, I do agree with the jury system and have no idea why Jughead made the claim that I didn't.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The audience was friendly to start with, and while the question was loaded, or meant to be anyway, no one can produce a case of an innocent man dieing on Perry's watch.

That's basically because it was Perry that dismantled investigators looking into whether or not that has happened.

This isn't going away.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-P-wreUK0k]CNN AC360 on Todd Willingham Execution and Rick Perry's Cover Up - Oct 13, 2009 - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The audience was friendly to start with, and while the question was loaded, or meant to be anyway, no one can produce a case of an innocent man dieing on Perry's watch.

That's basically because it was Perry that dismantled investigators looking into whether or not that has happened.

This isn't going away.

Actually, the only people who are upset about career dirtbags getting executed are the kind of people who would never vote Republican, anyway.

i.e. High School Grads.....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGXlvl94bDo]Chris Matthews on Gov Rick Perry Impeding Todd Willingham Execution Investigation Oct 14, 2009 - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Skull Pilot]

All opinion from opposition groups. They had all there appeals, and all rights were considered. And notice the last one there, the word is "presumed" not "found" innocent. They were presumed innocent before there trial, and found guilty after. Its the law.

In the case of Willingham in TX the conviction was found to be unsupportable. Obviously mistakes were made.

Cameron Todd Willingham, Texas, and the death penalty : The New Yorker

By whom ?

08-21-92

Summary:
Two days before Christmas in 1991, Willingham poured a combustible liquid on the floor throughout his home and intentionally set the house on fire, resulting in the death of his three children. According to autopsy reports, Amber, age two, and twins Karmon and Kameron, age 1, died of acute carbon monoxide poisoning as a result of smoke inhalation. Neighbors of Willingham testified that as the house began smoldering, Willingham was “crouched down” in the front yard, and despite the neighbors’ pleas, refused to go into the house in any attempt to rescue the children. An expert witness for the State testified that the floors, front threshold, and front concrete porch were burned, which only occurs when an accelerant has been used to purposely burn these areas. The witness further testified that this igniting of the floors and thresholds is typically employed to impede firemen in their rescue attempts. The testimony at trial demonstrates that Willingham neither showed remorse for his actions nor grieved the loss of his three children. Willingham’s neighbors testified that when the fire “blew out” the windows, Willingham “hollered about his car” and ran to move it away from the fire to avoid its being damaged. A fire fighter also testified that Willingham was upset that his dart board was burned. Willingham told authorities that the fire started while he and the children were asleep. An investigation revealed that it was intentionally set with a flammable liquid. His claims of heroic effort to save the girls were not borne out by his unscathed escape with little smoke in his lungs.

Cameron Todd Willingham #899

If you bothered to read the article in the New Yorker you would see that a renowned arson expert refuted all the state's evidence in the case. Unfortunately he was found very late in the appeals process

read pages 11-15 of the article and then tell me there were no mistakes made and that the independent arson expert had he been allowed to testify may have turned the case.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

How much has the murder rate in Texas gone down since Perry executed over 200 prisoners?

Any non-Death-Penalty state is doing better than.....

TEXAS.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Some crimes require the death penalty if there is to be justice. There is nothing just about requiring the family, friends, and neighbors of murder victums to feed, house, and protect such animals for the rest of their natural lives.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Not going to back down bluster...I recall another Texan like that...

Ah, yes.....those Texas DECIDERS!!!!!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYpu3Qaw8AI]George W. Bush (POTUS :: 43) "I'm the decider" - YouTube[/ame]
*
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD3xfT0c99g]Bush Dictator - YouTube[/ame]​