Poll Question on Danziger Bridge Massacre

[SpidermanTuba]

By my reading of the statute, if the prosecution wants to pursue a death penalty under this law, they will have to prove that the victims were intentionally targeted because they were black.

Incorrect. You do not understand English. Let's try the opening clause again. I've not changed the words, but have added some spacing and punctuation to make it easier for your feeble mind to understand.

Whoever, (under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
or custom), willfully subjects any person (in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District) to


the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States

,


or


to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being
an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed
for the punishment of citizens,

The latter part is meant to encompass cases where the deprivation of the right is lawful, for instance, as the result of a trial and sentence, but it is being applied unequally based on race, or nationality. The qualification that it be because of race only applies to the making of unequal punishments as a result of lawful deprivation of rights - not to the deprivation of rights unlawfully.




But you don't have to take my word for it.

The justice department's home page
Civil Rights Division Home Page

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

as well as the FBI

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Civil Rights Statutes

 

[SpidermanTuba]

The full extend of Title 18 Section 242 is death.

Doesn't matter. Its what the law provides for. In the context of how the death penalty is applied, I think it would only be fair to do so in this case.

I said the full extent of "just" law. The death penalty is inherently unjust. If convicted, and I'd certainly expect them to be, I think life in prison is the just sentence.

How is it unjust? It fits precisely with the concept that the punishment should fit the crime.

If you're interested in real punishment, let them be among the general population. Prisoners love ex-cops.

Wow. Its amazing that you consider the death penalty inherently unjust, yet you think it just to subject someone to lifetime of rape and beatings at the hands of fellow prisoners.

Like I said, I don't support the death penalty, but the two responsible for killing the civilians should be tried and if found guilty sentenced to life imprisonment.

You would even not want them sentenced to death based on the fact that had anyone else - and ordinary civilian like you or I - gunned down unarmed people in the same manner - we would be looking at the death penalty? Specifically, with regards to the shooting of Madison, the shot was made from a moving vehicle. Under state law, this makes it a drive by shooting, thus any civilian committing the same act would be subject to death, regardless of whether or not they had the aforethought ordinarily required of 1st degree murder.

I'd want stiff sentences for those who covered it up as well, covering up a murder in an official capacity should be a ten-year minimum sentence.

This will depend on their level of cooperation, but from what I understand, with the possible exception of the single officer who did not participate in either the incident or the coverup (he merely had knowledge of the coverup) - they are all looking at prison time even with cooperation.

 

[Nonelitist]

By my reading of the statute, if the prosecution wants to pursue a death penalty under this law, they will have to prove that the victims were intentionally targeted because they were black.

Incorrect. You do not understand English. Let's try the opening clause again. I've not changed the words, but have added some spacing and punctuation to make it easier for your feeble mind to understand.

Whoever, (under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation,
or custom), willfully subjects any person (in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District) to


the deprivation of any
rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the
Constitution or laws of the United States

,


or


to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being
an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed
for the punishment of citizens,

The latter part is meant to encompass cases where the deprivation of the right is lawful, for instance, as the result of a trial and sentence, but it is being applied unequally based on race, or nationality. The qualification that it be because of race only applies to the making of unequal punishments as a result of lawful deprivation of rights - not to the deprivation of rights unlawfully.




But you don't have to take my word for it.

The justice department's home page
Civil Rights Division Home Page

Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

as well as the FBI

Federal Bureau of Investigation - Civil Rights Statutes

Prove their intent to have gone there with the purpose of denying them their civil rights. If you cannot prove that, you cannot prosecute under that statute.

Just proving that a civil right was denied doesn't prove that they set out with that intention. Again, that is one reason why this statute sucks.. it isn't really enforcable.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Prove their intent to have gone there with the purpose of denying them their civil rights. If you cannot prove that, you cannot prosecute under that statute.

Section 242 does not require they had intent before arriving at the scene. It only requires the act be "willful". We've already been through this. Please do your homework next time.

Just proving that a civil right was denied doesn't prove that they set out with that intention. Again, that is one reason why this statute sucks.. it isn't really enforcable.

The prosecution must only prove the act willful. Proving that kicking and stomping on an unarmed man as he lay bleeding to death is "willful" won't be hard.

I take it you're NOT a lawyer.




I find it disturbing that you will go through any perverted twist of logic you find necessary in order to defend a man who kicked an unarmed mentally handicapped man as he lay bleeding to death.

 

[Nonelitist]

Prove their intent to have gone there with the purpose of denying them their civil rights. If you cannot prove that, you cannot prosecute under that statute.

Section 242 does not require they had intent before arriving at the scene. It only requires the act be "willful". We've already been through this. Please do your homework next time.

Just proving that a civil right was denied doesn't prove that they set out with that intention. Again, that is one reason why this statute sucks.. it isn't really enforcable.

The prosecution must only prove the act willful. Proving that kicking and stomping on an unarmed man as he lay bleeding to death is "willful" won't be hard.

I take it you're NOT a lawyer.




I find it disturbing that you will go through any perverted twist of logic you find necessary in order to defend a man who kicked an unarmed mentally handicapped man as he lay bleeding to death.

It isn't my logic... it is the justice systems logic. See the Rodney King verdicts for an example.

 

[QUENTIN]

How is it unjust? It fits precisely with the concept that the punishment should fit the crime.

"The punishment should fit the crime" is another way of saying "an eye for an eye." You get done to you what you did. That may have been what people considered justice 4,000 years ago but I think we've moved beyond that and evolved as a people. We no longer need to resort to barbarism.

The government cannot commit crimes in order to punish crimes. Murder is wrong. You don't demonstrate that by murdering people. "Justifiable homicide" is literal self-defense, someone attacking you and you protect yourself by killing them, not taking someone already shackled in chains and confined to a cell posing no threat to society to be put down like an animal. The death penalty is premeditated and deliberate murder.

If you want to avoid the moral argument, the death penalty has been proven to be an ineffective deterrent to crime and is more costly. There's no reason for it, save a primitive desire for vengeance.

Wow. Its amazing that you consider the death penalty inherently unjust, yet you think it just to subject someone to lifetime of rape and beatings at the hands of fellow prisoners.

I didn't say I think that. I said "If you're interested in real punishment..." I don't think the goal of incarceration is to punish people, but to keep society safe from them and uphold the rule of law. Since you seemed to be calling for their blood, I was offering that there are much worse fates than the death penalty. But that's not my concern or desire.

You would even not want them sentenced to death based on the fact that had anyone else - and ordinary civilian like you or I - gunned down unarmed people in the same manner - we would be looking at the death penalty? Specifically, with regards to the shooting of Madison, the shot was made from a moving vehicle. Under state law, this makes it a drive by shooting, thus any civilian committing the same act would be subject to death, regardless of whether or not they had the aforethought ordinarily required of 1st degree murder.

No, I don't give them quarter because they're cops and think that should get the special treatment. In fact, I think the book should be thrown at criminal cops to deter abuses of power. I am simply against the death penalty full stop. Whether it's a murdering cop or a gangbanger pulling a drive-by, I think the sentence for murder should be life imprisonment not execution.

This will depend on their level of cooperation, but from what I understand, with the possible exception of the single officer who did not participate in either the incident or the coverup (he merely had knowledge of the coverup) - they are all looking at prison time even with cooperation.

Yeah, that's good. Hopefully they too are prosecuted to the full extent of just law.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

How is it unjust? It fits precisely with the concept that the punishment should fit the crime.

"The punishment should fit the crime" is another way of saying "an eye for an eye." You get done to you what you did. That may have been what people considered justice 4,000 years ago but I think we've moved beyond that and evolved as a people. We no longer need to resort to barbarism.

Actually, retribution - in proportion to the offense - is part of the purpose of the modern justice system. The other purposes being rehabilitation and deterrence.

4000 years ago if you stole a loaf of bread they would lop off your hand. That is not an "eye for an eye".

The government cannot commit crimes in order to punish crimes. Murder is wrong. You don't demonstrate that by murdering people.
"Justifiable homicide" is literal self-defense, someone attacking you and you protect yourself by killing them, not taking someone already shackled in chains and confined to a cell posing no threat to society to be put down like an animal. The death penalty is premeditated and deliberate murder.

Lawful execution is not murder. For one thing, its lawful, and murder by definition is illegal. By your logic we shouldn't even put people in prison, since I am fairly certain that confining someone against their will is a crime in most other circumstances.

If you want to avoid the moral argument, the death penalty has been proven to be an ineffective deterrent to crime and is more costly.

That's not actually true. Although the upfront costs of the initial conviction is much higher in death penalty cases, the cost to house a prisoner for life without parole (30-40 years on average) adds up to much more.

Argument: Executions are no more costly than life in prison - Debatepedia

 

[geauxtohell]

Incorrect. You do not understand English. Let's try the opening clause again. I've not changed the words, but have added some spacing and punctuation to make it easier for your feeble mind to understand.

And you choose to result to insults as opposed to rational discussion when people disagree with you. If you are a lawyer, as you insinuate, is that how you conduct business? How is that working out for you?

As I said, you are far too emotionally invested in this issue to be rational and now even civil.

The latter part is meant to encompass cases where the deprivation of the right is lawful, for instance, as the result of a trial and sentence, but it is being applied unequally based on race, or nationality. The qualification that it be because of race only applies to the making of unequal punishments as a result of lawful deprivation of rights - not to the deprivation of rights unlawfully.

I understand that, and understood it from the onset. This situation doesn't involve any part of due process so the latter is irrelevant. So basically, you want to try these guys under this statute because they were cops that killed people.

I really fail to see how, if I understand you correctly, how you are going to argue that this should be a civil rights issue while saying that race was not a factor in the slaying. If you are going to argue that this statute applies simply because these were police officers who killed in the line of duty, I think it's a massive stretch. I would think you would have to prove that the officers responded with the intent to murder people under the "color of law" and you would have to ignore all the ancillary factors. If these officers had arrested a person, taken them back to prison, and then beat them to death, It would be a different story. As it stands, they were in a chaotic situation (of their own making) and, for reasons we don't fully know (and you are unconcerned with) ended up killing innocent civilians. Perhaps your eagerness to execute these guys is why you are so resistant to hearing their side of the story.

Anyways, I think these cops acted recklessly. I doubt they set out for the Danziger Bridge with the intent to use their status as police officers to kill people.

BTW, did you notice how no federal prisoner has ever been executed under this statute (at least not as of 2003) and that the federal government generally doesn't execute very many people? (Again, prior to McVeigh in '01, the last federal execution was in 1963).

I am afraid your blood lust will not be satisfied. Condolences.

But you don't have to take my word for it.

Thanks for requoting the statute that I already quoted. Very helpful.

 

[geauxtohell]

I take it you're NOT a lawyer.

Are you a lawyer? This is a general message board, so it should be a no-brainer that most of us aren't lawyers.

If you are a lawyer, instead of being a jackass about the fact that the rest of us aren't and lording over the fact that we don't have the knowledge base of a profession we did not choose to go into, why don't you go find a board full of other lawyers and swim with the big fish?

I can think of a good website that is full of lawyers, mostly liberals, who like to kick around case law. I like to hang out on it and see their logic. They enjoy the back and forth. Let me know if you want the link. You'd be welcomed.

Or maybe you just like berating non-lawyers for their lack of legal knowledge. That makes you an asshole.

Or maybe you aren't a lawyer. That makes you a poser and an asshole.

I find it disturbing that you will go through any perverted twist of logic you find necessary in order to defend a man who kicked an unarmed mentally handicapped man as he lay bleeding to death.

I find it disturbing that you can't accept the fact that anyone that we all aren't praying they get executed like you are.

Saying we don't think they deserve the death penalty is not defending the actions of the cops. That's asinine logic, and I suspect you know it.

Quit throwing a little snit over the fact that people aren't automatically going to subscribe to your opinion on the matter. Act like a frigging adult for crying out loud.

 

[geauxtohell]

It isn't my logic... it is the justice systems logic. See the Rodney King verdicts for an example.

Oh!

Good example.

The officers were acquitted by the state and prosecuted and convicted by the federal government for civil rights violations.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Incorrect. You do not understand English. Let's try the opening clause again. I've not changed the words, but have added some spacing and punctuation to make it easier for your feeble mind to understand.

And you choose to result to insults as opposed to rational discussion when people disagree with you. If you are a lawyer, as you insinuate, is that how you conduct business? How is that working out for you?

I've never claimed to be or insinuated that I am a lawyer. Seriously, English, English, English, read it, understand it.

So basically, you want to try these guys under this statute because they were cops that killed people.

No, because they unlawfully deprived people their right to life under color of law, that's why.

I really fail to see how, if I understand you correctly, how you are going to argue that this should be a civil rights issue while saying that race was not a factor in the slaying.

WTF? I don't think you understand what "civil right" means. A civil right is merely a right protected by government, as opposed to a "human right", a right granted by God or Nature (obviously, many "human rights" are also "civil rights" and vice versa). The right to life is one of those rights.

If you are going to argue that this statute applies simply because these were police officers who killed in the line of duty, I think it's a massive stretch.

I'm not, like I said, its not merely depriving them of their right to life - its unlawfully depriving them of this right. It is not legal to just kill unarmed civilians - your life or the lives of others must be threatened - and if Michael Hunter's testimony is true, at least with regards to Madison, the officers knew or should have known he posed no threat and killed him anyway.

I would think you would have to prove that the officers responded with the intent to murder people under the "color of law" and you would have to ignore all the ancillary factors.

I don't know why you would think this, considering it isn't mentioned anywhere in the statue. All the statue requires is the act be willful.

If these officers had arrested a person, taken them back to prison, and then beat them to death, It would be a different story.

But shooting an unarmed man in the back and then arresting his brother and trying to frame him for attempted murder of a cop - A-OK!

As it stands, they were in a chaotic situation (of their own making) and, for reasons we don't fully know (and you are unconcerned with) ended up killing innocent civilians. Perhaps your eagerness to execute these guys is why you are so resistant to hearing their side of the story.

Considering the police involved clearly were not concerned with us knowing the truth - please tell me why we should care about their reasons? If they had wanted to tell us why - they've had 5 years.

Thanks for requoting the statute that I already quoted. Very helpful.

I didn't. I quoted the justice departments paraphrasing of the statue. You are having real trouble comprehending stuff today, take a break.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Prove their intent to have gone there with the purpose of denying them their civil rights. If you cannot prove that, you cannot prosecute under that statute.

Section 242 does not require they had intent before arriving at the scene. It only requires the act be "willful". We've already been through this. Please do your homework next time.

Just proving that a civil right was denied doesn't prove that they set out with that intention. Again, that is one reason why this statute sucks.. it isn't really enforcable.

The prosecution must only prove the act willful. Proving that kicking and stomping on an unarmed man as he lay bleeding to death is "willful" won't be hard.

I take it you're NOT a lawyer.




I find it disturbing that you will go through any perverted twist of logic you find necessary in order to defend a man who kicked an unarmed mentally handicapped man as he lay bleeding to death.

It isn't my logic... it is the justice systems logic. See the Rodney King verdicts for an example.

You mean the verdict where two officers were sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison for unlawfully depriving King of his civil rights? I fail to see how that helps your case.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

It isn't my logic... it is the justice systems logic. See the Rodney King verdicts for an example.

Oh!

Good example.

The officers were acquitted by the state and prosecuted and convicted by the federal government for civil rights violations.

Yeah. And 2 were found guilty. What's your point?

 

[Nonelitist]

It isn't my logic... it is the justice systems logic. See the Rodney King verdicts for an example.

Oh!

Good example.

The officers were acquitted by the state and prosecuted and convicted by the federal government for civil rights violations.

Yeah. And 2 were found guilty. What's your point?

I remember there being more than two there. What were they convicted of?

 

[geauxtohell]

I didn't say I think that. I said "If you're interested in real punishment.

Don't take it hard. ST likes to misconstrue or simply make up what you said to buttress his/her own position.

Short of saying "yes sir, yes sir, three bags full! Execute the motherfuckers!" he/she will never be happy with your position.

I don't get bloodthirsty people. I never have. I guess I could understand if it was a family member, but I still don't count someone who is close to the victims as a rational person.

I really oscillate on the death penalty. I oppose it on principle, and then something so atrocious will happen that I re-consider it. However, I always come back to the same idea: the state should not sanction the taking of a life.

Furthermore, look at how unfairly the punishment is applied. If you are black and on trial for a capital offense, your odds of being executed are proportionally higher than if you are white.

If you live in Texas, your odds are higher than in other states.

Like crack sentences (versus cocaine sentences) the standards of justice aren't being equally applied.

 

[geauxtohell]

It isn't my logic... it is the justice systems logic. See the Rodney King verdicts for an example.

Oh!

Good example.

The officers were acquitted by the state and prosecuted and convicted by the federal government for civil rights violations.

Yeah. And 2 were found guilty. What's your point?

That it was a good example of a civil rights case.

Maybe you don't understand English very well.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

Oh!

Good example.

The officers were acquitted by the state and prosecuted and convicted by the federal government for civil rights violations.

Yeah. And 2 were found guilty. What's your point?

I remember there being more than two there. What were they convicted of?

You know the answer. Make your point or shut up.

 

[SpidermanTuba]

That it was a good example of a civil rights case.

So what?

 

[geauxtohell]

I've never claimed to be or insinuated that I am a lawyer. Seriously, English, English, English, read it, understand it.

Oh, you definitely insinuated it. Why else would you say things like "You are definately not a lawyer" or "Please tell me that you don't go to Tulane Law".

So you aren't a lawyer? Then you go in the poser AND jackass column.

So since you don't really have any professional knowledge base above the average poster on this matter, you can get off your fucking high horse.

However: Welcome to PolitiJab.com

It's full of lawyers. They are very smart and liberal. Go float your ideas over there and see what they say.

No, because they unlawfully deprived people their right to life under color of law, that's why.

Is life a "civil right" as secured under the 14th amendment? I know the 14th amendment covers issues such as due process.

WTF? I don't think you understand what "civil right" means. A civil right is merely a right protected by government, as opposed to a "human right", a right granted by God or Nature (obviously, many "human rights" are also "civil rights" and vice versa). The right to life is one of those rights.

Than why isn't every person who commits murder prosecuted for violating "civil rights"?

I'm not, like I said, its not merely depriving them of their right to life - its unlawfully depriving them of this right. It is not legal to just kill unarmed civilians - your life or the lives of others must be threatened - and if Michael Hunter's testimony is true, at least with regards to Madison, the officers knew or should have known he posed no threat and killed him anyway.

But we don't know why they fired. We don't know the circumstances around their actions. You are wholly unconcerned with this, but the courts will not be.

I don't know why you would think this, considering it isn't mentioned anywhere in the statue. All the statue requires is the act be willful.

You don't think motive and intent factors into sentencing?

But shooting an unarmed man in the back and then arresting his brother and trying to frame him for attempted murder of a cop - A-OK!

No, I never said that. Why do you find it necessary to act dishonestly on this subject? My point, obviously lost to you, is that "under the color or law" has meaning beyond the fact that these were police officers. If these officers thought they were acting within the scope of their duties, ended up killing innocent people, and then tried to cover it up then it becomes a much different issue than if these officers used their position of power to selectively target and murder people for whatever reason.

Considering the police involved clearly were not concerned with us knowing the truth - please tell me why we should care about their reasons? If they had wanted to tell us why - they've had 5 years.

I've already answered this. Furthermore, if you think these officers don't deserve their day in court and a defense based on the fact that they tried to cover up their acts, then stop fucking lecturing the rest of us on the ins and outs of the law.

 

[geauxtohell]

That it was a good example of a civil rights case.

So what?

We are discussing what you deem to be a civil rights case. No?