Poll Question on Danziger Bridge Massacre

Assuming Michael Hunter's account of the actions of "Officer A" and "Seargent A"

  • Both should be put to death under Title 18 U.S.C. Section 242

    Votes: 4 33.3%
  • Only Officer A should be put to death

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Only Seargent A should be put to death

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Neither should receive the death penalty

    Votes: 8 66.7%

  • Total voters
    12
Why don't people want the law applied? Under "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law", Officer A and Sergeant are liable for the death penalty, why does no one want it applied? Because they are cops and cops are above the law?

You are also assuming that all agree with this 'civil rights' or 'hate crime' additions to law... I personally do not... murder is murder, robbery is robbery, assault is assault

I'm not sure what you're referring to. The federal government does not have jurisdiction to charge murder in this case. The charge under "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law" would stand on its own, its not an add-on to any other charge.



I am all for the death penalty of heinous murderers who are proven without doubt to have committed 1st degree murder(s)....

Why wouldn't you want the death penalty to be enforced whenever it is applicable? Why just murder? Are you against executing those guilty of treason, for instance?

And actually.. quite tired of people like you and a few others on here who continually show an inherent hatred for law enforcement

Why are you defending people who brutally gunned down unarmed civilians and then literally jumped up and down on their dying bodies?

I am not for add on stipulations to law and I am not not for this 'civil rights' punishment

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, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

This is a 'catch all' law.... for if someone commits murder, that is the crime... whether it be a murder because that person wanted your slurpee or because it was because of the color of your skin or because they wanted to prevent you from voting... much like 'hate crime' laws are 'feel good' bullshit additions, this is as well

As for treason.... it is in line with a war crime... war against our country leads to deaths... and hence why treason CAN carry the death penalty... but does not INHERENTLY carry the death penalty...

I am not defending anyone who 'brutally gunned down' anyone, nor am I defending a murderer... but nice try... I stated that you have an inherent hatred for law enforcement, as evidenced by your continual attacks on them and your propensity to want nasty things to happen to them because they are law enforcement
 
I am not for add on stipulations to law and I am not not for this 'civil rights' punishment

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, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

This is a 'catch all' law.... for if someone commits murder, that is the crime... whether it be a murder because that person wanted your slurpee or because it was because of the color of your skin or because they wanted to prevent you from voting... much like 'hate crime' laws are 'feel good' bullshit additions, this is as well


Its not an "add-on" I have no idea why you continue to refer to it as that. It is a federal crime to unlawfully deprive someone of their right to life under color of law - for any reason. Do we have you on record as stating that you are against the right to life? Or is the right to life something you don't think the federal government has any business protecting?



As for treason.... it is in line with a war crime... war against our country leads to deaths... and hence why treason CAN carry the death penalty... but does not INHERENTLY carry the death penalty...

Treason is not a war crime nor does it require an act of war. It does not require the death penalty but then again neither does 1st degree murder. Now you're just making shit up.




I am not defending anyone who 'brutally gunned down' anyone, nor am I defending a murderer... but nice try... I stated that you have an inherent hatred for law enforcement, as evidenced by your continual attacks on them and your propensity to want nasty things to happen to them because they are law enforcement



How am I attacking law enforcement by wanting murderers executed?
 
I am not for add on stipulations to law and I am not not for this 'civil rights' punishment

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, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

This is a 'catch all' law.... for if someone commits murder, that is the crime... whether it be a murder because that person wanted your slurpee or because it was because of the color of your skin or because they wanted to prevent you from voting... much like 'hate crime' laws are 'feel good' bullshit additions, this is as well


Its not an "add-on" I have no idea why you continue to refer to it as that. It is a federal crime to unlawfully deprive someone of their right to life under color of law - for any reason. Do we have you on record as stating that you are against the right to life? Or is the right to life something you don't think the federal government has any business protecting?



As for treason.... it is in line with a war crime... war against our country leads to deaths... and hence why treason CAN carry the death penalty... but does not INHERENTLY carry the death penalty...

Treason is not a war crime nor does it require an act of war. It does not require the death penalty but then again neither does 1st degree murder. Now you're just making shit up.




I am not defending anyone who 'brutally gunned down' anyone, nor am I defending a murderer... but nice try... I stated that you have an inherent hatred for law enforcement, as evidenced by your continual attacks on them and your propensity to want nasty things to happen to them because they are law enforcement



How am I attacking law enforcement by wanting murderers executed?

It is an add on... as the crime committed and is being charged by the state is the pertinent issue... not the addition federal 'catch all'

I suggest you actually educate yourself on the act of treason....
Violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign, especially the betrayal of one's country by waging war against it or by consciously and purposely acting to aid its enemies.
..
the offense of attempting to overthrow the government of one's country or of assisting its enemies in war; specifically : the act of levying war against the United States or adhering to or giving aid and comfort to its enemies by one who owes it allegiance

You are continually attacking law enforcement, with your continual use of 'pig' and other terms, your over the top attacks on anything dealing with law enforcement, etc....
 
It is an add on... as the crime committed and is being charged by the state is the pertinent issue... not the addition federal 'catch all'

There are no state charges to add on to. You don't follow very well, do you?


You are continually attacking law enforcement, with your continual use of 'pig' and other terms, your over the top attacks on anything dealing with law enforcement, etc....

I'm only using the term "pig" to refer to law enforcement officers who committed and/or covered up a heinous crime. Why do you insist on defending them?
 
On April 7th, 2010, Michael Hunter, one of the seven officers originally charged with attempted murder in 2007, pleaded guilty to misprision of a felony and obstruction of justice.[9] His first hand account, if accurate, reveals that the Danziger bridge shooting was quite simply a massacre of unarmed civilians [10]. A man identified in the court document as "Sergeant A", according to Hunter, fired at unarmed civilians, with an assault rifle "in a sweeping motion", who were trying to shield themselves behind a concrete barrier. Meanwhile, on the other side of the bridge, a man identified as "Officer A" shot Ronald Madison in the back with a shotgun, from a moving police vehicle, as Madison ran away. Madison had his hands in plain view while he ran, held no weapon, and did not pose a threat. After the shooting of Madison, "Sergeant A" ran from the other side of the bridge. He the proceeded to kick and stomp Madison as he lay bleeding to death.

http://freepdfhosting.com/ae708ed692.pdf


Danziger Bridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They should have a fair trial and if they are found guilty let the jury selected and the judge determine their sentence. It's not up to message board posters to determine their sentence as we are NOT in possession of all of the facts in this case.
 
It is an add on... as the crime committed and is being charged by the state is the pertinent issue... not the addition federal 'catch all'

There are no state charges to add on to. You don't follow very well, do you?


You are continually attacking law enforcement, with your continual use of 'pig' and other terms, your over the top attacks on anything dealing with law enforcement, etc....

I'm only using the term "pig" to refer to law enforcement officers who committed and/or covered up a heinous crime. Why do you insist on defending them?

It is a catch all... as these persons were not found guilty of murder or attempted murder in a court of law.... this is a federal add on as a feel good double whammy, much as 'hate crime' is in so many states

I am all for fully prosecuting and punishing those who commit murder and the execution of the most heinous of 1st degree murderers.... I am simply pointing out that you CONTINUALLY over time on this board have shown a contempt for law enforcement and a hatred toward them as well.. as evidenced by your types of posts about law enforcement and the terms you use in general to describe law enforcement... we know what pig means in cop hater circles and we know exactly why you are using that term.... if you are angry about the alleged murder or whatever and would even use the term murderer when talking against those accused, all well and fine.. but your continual use of the term 'pig' shows the type of asshole you really are
 
On April 7th, 2010, Michael Hunter, one of the seven officers originally charged with attempted murder in 2007, pleaded guilty to misprision of a felony and obstruction of justice.[9] His first hand account, if accurate, reveals that the Danziger bridge shooting was quite simply a massacre of unarmed civilians [10]. A man identified in the court document as "Sergeant A", according to Hunter, fired at unarmed civilians, with an assault rifle "in a sweeping motion", who were trying to shield themselves behind a concrete barrier. Meanwhile, on the other side of the bridge, a man identified as "Officer A" shot Ronald Madison in the back with a shotgun, from a moving police vehicle, as Madison ran away. Madison had his hands in plain view while he ran, held no weapon, and did not pose a threat. After the shooting of Madison, "Sergeant A" ran from the other side of the bridge. He the proceeded to kick and stomp Madison as he lay bleeding to death.

http://freepdfhosting.com/ae708ed692.pdf


Danziger Bridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They should have a fair trial and if they are found guilty let the jury selected and the judge determine their sentence. It's not up to message board posters to determine their sentence as we are NOT in possession of all of the facts in this case.



The question was a hypothetical one based on the actions of "Officer A" and "Sergeant A" as described in the bill of information.

Perhaps I should have been more specific and specified, "if you were on the JURY, would you sentence them to death" - but I figured most people were well aware that it was jury members and not message board posters that have the final decision. My bad. I underestimated your gross stupidity and inability to determine context.
 
On April 7th, 2010, Michael Hunter, one of the seven officers originally charged with attempted murder in 2007, pleaded guilty to misprision of a felony and obstruction of justice.[9] His first hand account, if accurate, reveals that the Danziger bridge shooting was quite simply a massacre of unarmed civilians [10]. A man identified in the court document as "Sergeant A", according to Hunter, fired at unarmed civilians, with an assault rifle "in a sweeping motion", who were trying to shield themselves behind a concrete barrier. Meanwhile, on the other side of the bridge, a man identified as "Officer A" shot Ronald Madison in the back with a shotgun, from a moving police vehicle, as Madison ran away. Madison had his hands in plain view while he ran, held no weapon, and did not pose a threat. After the shooting of Madison, "Sergeant A" ran from the other side of the bridge. He the proceeded to kick and stomp Madison as he lay bleeding to death.

http://freepdfhosting.com/ae708ed692.pdf

Danziger Bridge - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before making a decision, I will need to know what kind of home the police officers were raised in, did they suffer from an abusive parent, were they bullied in school, did they suffer from a medical illness like alcoholism or drug abuse, did they suffer from the traumatic effects of the devastation of Katrina, did they eat a Twinkie that morning, etc. You see, everyone is born good and becomes bad because of external influences, so they probably didn't have control over themselves and therefore should not be charged with a crime. I'd recommend letting them go free.

Ah...that's right. Police officers and former police officers are afforded the Twinkie defense.
 

They should have a fair trial and if they are found guilty let the jury selected and the judge determine their sentence. It's not up to message board posters to determine their sentence as we are NOT in possession of all of the facts in this case.



The question was a hypothetical one based on the actions of "Officer A" and "Sergeant A" as described in the bill of information.

Perhaps I should have been more specific and specified, "if you were on the JURY, would you sentence them to death" - but I figured most people were well aware that it was jury members and not message board posters that have the final decision. My bad. I underestimated your gross stupidity and inability to determine context.

I understand that. What I'm saying is we haven't heard Officer "A" and Sergeant "A" speak about why they did what they did. I would be inclined to give the death penalty if they displayed an attitude consistent to their portrayal by the media but if they displayed remorse for what they did then I might be inclined to be lenient.
 
It is a catch all... as these persons were not found guilty of murder or attempted murder in a court of law

NO THEY WERE NOT. YOU ARE INCREDIBLY IGNORANT TO EITHER LAW AND/OR THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. A DISMISSAL OF CHARGES BEFORE TRIAL EVEN BEGINS IS NOT AN ACQUITTAL.

.... this is a federal add on as a feel good double whammy, much as 'hate crime' is in so many states



Why are you against the Congress enforcing the provisions of the 14th amendment in accordance with the power granted it under Section 5 of the same amendment?

I'm perplexed as to why you don't think the Constitution should be enforced. The authority to enforce the provisions of the 14th amendment through law is clear - and the "Deprivation of Civil Rights Under Color of Law" statute is intended to enforce Section 1 of the 14th amendment.

Why are you against enforcement of the Constitution?




I am all for fully prosecuting and punishing those who commit murder and the execution of the most heinous of 1st degree murderers.

But you are clearly against the Congress enforcing the 14th amendment through legislation.
 

Before making a decision, I will need to know what kind of home the police officers were raised in, did they suffer from an abusive parent, were they bullied in school, did they suffer from a medical illness like alcoholism or drug abuse, did they suffer from the traumatic effects of the devastation of Katrina, did they eat a Twinkie that morning, etc. You see, everyone is born good and becomes bad because of external influences, so they probably didn't have control over themselves and therefore should not be charged with a crime. I'd recommend letting them go free.

Ah...that's right. Police officers and former police officers are afforded the Twinkie defense.




To be fair .... "I was under a lot of stress from the most horrible natural disaster in the country in 100 years"
is a much better defense than
"I ate too many twinkies"
 
They should have a fair trial and if they are found guilty let the jury selected and the judge determine their sentence. It's not up to message board posters to determine their sentence as we are NOT in possession of all of the facts in this case.



The question was a hypothetical one based on the actions of "Officer A" and "Sergeant A" as described in the bill of information.

Perhaps I should have been more specific and specified, "if you were on the JURY, would you sentence them to death" - but I figured most people were well aware that it was jury members and not message board posters that have the final decision. My bad. I underestimated your gross stupidity and inability to determine context.

I understand that. What I'm saying is we haven't heard Officer "A" and Sergeant "A" speak about why they did what they did. I would be inclined to give the death penalty if they displayed an attitude consistent to their portrayal by the media but if they displayed remorse for what they did then I might be inclined to be lenient.


Intent is not relevant to the "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law" statute, so who the fuck cares why they did what they did? If they had wanted to explain why the did what they did they had a great opportunity 5 years ago when it happened. Instead they have done everything in their power to conceal what they did - so who the fuck cares WHY they did it?

Portrayal by the media? What are you even talking about? This is a bill of information we are referring to, not any media portrayal. The question is about the actions of the police as described in that bill.
 
Before making a decision, I will need to know what kind of home the police officers were raised in, did they suffer from an abusive parent, were they bullied in school, did they suffer from a medical illness like alcoholism or drug abuse, did they suffer from the traumatic effects of the devastation of Katrina, did they eat a Twinkie that morning, etc. You see, everyone is born good and becomes bad because of external influences, so they probably didn't have control over themselves and therefore should not be charged with a crime. I'd recommend letting them go free.

Ah...that's right. Police officers and former police officers are afforded the Twinkie defense.




To be fair .... "I was under a lot of stress from the most horrible natural disaster in the country in 100 years"
is a much better defense than
"I ate too many twinkies"

But, the twinkie defense did work as well as any other "winning" arguement.
 
Ah...that's right. Police officers and former police officers are afforded the Twinkie defense.




To be fair .... "I was under a lot of stress from the most horrible natural disaster in the country in 100 years"
is a much better defense than
"I ate too many twinkies"

But, the twinkie defense did work as well as any other "winning" arguement.



Only because the victim was gay.



If the victims in this case had criminal histories, we wouldn't have even heard about it. But the cops fucked up and shot at respectable people with jobs and with no criminal or arrest record to speak of.
 
The question was a hypothetical one based on the actions of "Officer A" and "Sergeant A" as described in the bill of information.

Perhaps I should have been more specific and specified, "if you were on the JURY, would you sentence them to death" - but I figured most people were well aware that it was jury members and not message board posters that have the final decision. My bad. I underestimated your gross stupidity and inability to determine context.

I understand that. What I'm saying is we haven't heard Officer "A" and Sergeant "A" speak about why they did what they did. I would be inclined to give the death penalty if they displayed an attitude consistent to their portrayal by the media but if they displayed remorse for what they did then I might be inclined to be lenient.


Intent is not relevant to the "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law" statute, so who the fuck cares why they did what they did? If they had wanted to explain why the did what they did they had a great opportunity 5 years ago when it happened. Instead they have done everything in their power to conceal what they did - so who the fuck cares WHY they did it?

Portrayal by the media? What are you even talking about? This is a bill of information we are referring to, not any media portrayal. The question is about the actions of the police as described in that bill.

Sorry. Your hypothetical is based on the sick desire for revenge against the "pig" as you so eloquently put it. There is no place for that in the justice system. Let them be tried by a jury of their peers and let them sentence them. If you're unhappy with the sentence then you can go start a riot. You have that right.
 
To be fair .... "I was under a lot of stress from the most horrible natural disaster in the country in 100 years"
is a much better defense than
"I ate too many twinkies"

But, the twinkie defense did work as well as any other "winning" arguement.



Only because the victim was gay.



If the victims in this case had criminal histories, we wouldn't have even heard about it. But the cops fucked up and shot at respectable people with jobs and with no criminal or arrest record to speak of.

Not sure it was because the victim was gay, as this took place in probably the most liberal city in the nation.
 
Sorry. Your hypothetical is based on the sick desire for revenge against the "pig" as you so eloquently put it.

Are you denying that part of the purpose of the death penalty is revenge?


There is no place for that in the justice system.

:clap2: Congratulations, you're an idiot. One of the main purposes of the penal justice system is to exact a price in exchange for crimes. That is revenge. Its not done merely as a deterrent to others - it is done to "get back" at the criminal.

And its not really "my" hypothetical - its the facts that an officer at the scene (Hunter) agrees are true.

Let them be tried by a jury of their peers and let them sentence them.

What would you decide if you were on a jury and you were convinced that the facts laid out in the bill of information were true?
 
Last edited:
But, the twinkie defense did work as well as any other "winning" arguement.



Only because the victim was gay.



If the victims in this case had criminal histories, we wouldn't have even heard about it. But the cops fucked up and shot at respectable people with jobs and with no criminal or arrest record to speak of.

Not sure it was because the victim was gay, as this took place in probably the most liberal city in the nation.



Bigotry abounds all over the place.
 
Sorry. Your hypothetical is based on the sick desire for revenge against the "pig" as you so eloquently put it.

Are you denying that part of the purpose of the death penalty is revenge?


There is no place for that in the justice system.

:clap2: Congratulations, you're an idiot. One of the main purposes of the penal justice system is to exact a price in exchange for crimes. That is revenge. Its not done merely as a deterrent to others - it is done to "get back" at the criminal.

Let them be tried by a jury of their peers and let them sentence them.

What would you decide if you were on a jury and you were convinced that the facts laid out in the bill of information were true?

Wow...sounds like you must have had a few bad run in's with the police!!! Are you a felon? Revenge, a total disregard for our system of justice....

In case you were raised in Mexico...let me clue you in...there is a difference between justice and revenge.
 
Sorry. Your hypothetical is based on the sick desire for revenge against the "pig" as you so eloquently put it.

Are you denying that part of the purpose of the death penalty is revenge?




:clap2: Congratulations, you're an idiot. One of the main purposes of the penal justice system is to exact a price in exchange for crimes. That is revenge. Its not done merely as a deterrent to others - it is done to "get back" at the criminal.

Let them be tried by a jury of their peers and let them sentence them.

What would you decide if you were on a jury and you were convinced that the facts laid out in the bill of information were true?

Wow...sounds like you must have had a few bad run in's with the police!!! Are you a felon? Revenge, a total disregard for our system of justice....

In case you were raised in Mexico...let me clue you in...there is a difference between justice and revenge.




If you had actually graduated high school you'd know the three fold purpose of the criminal justice system - retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Revenge and retribution are listed as synonyms in any thesaurus you pick up.
 

Forum List

Back
Top