Should James Holmes face the Death Penalty if found guilty?

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Forgiveness is nice for "some", and it doesn't really matter how expensive it is to execute this person. Executing him will prevent him from ever killing again.

So will life in prison, but we also have the chance to get inside his mind, and that's what I'm all about.

If he's still alive, there's always the chance he could kill someone again

That chance is a lot smaller than the chance that our government WILL put an innocent man to death again at some time in the near future.

[billvon 2,416]

>>Ya...I get inside peoples heads every day, and we save lives....though it may not
>>always be constitutional. I can live with that.

>How so Corey?

Jack Bauer from "24", now in re-runs.

[AndyBoyd 0]

You will likely get your wish and see this guy killed. Sorry it won't happen quickly enough to suit you.

You really didn't answer my questions, though. So let's try again. What parts of the judicial process would you bypass in this case? Should this guy get a trial? An appeal? State or federal habeas petitions? What specific legal rights would you take away from this guy, and why? And who makes the decision to take away this guy's rights? And what specific criteria do we use to decide when we are going to take away criminal defendant's rights? In other words, what new legal rules do you propose we use, and why?

[quade 3]

He should get all the judicial process he's due.

That said...there's no real question he's the shooter and killed more than a dozen people. The death penalty is appropriate.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

You will likely get your wish and see this guy killed. Sorry it won't happen quickly enough to suit you.

You really didn't answer my questions, though. So let's try again. What parts of the judicial process would you bypass in this case? Should this guy get a trial? An appeal? State or federal habeas petitions? What specific legal rights would you take away from this guy, and why? And who makes the decision to take away this guy's rights? And what specific criteria do we use to decide when we are going to take away criminal defendant's rights? In other words, what new legal rules do you propose we use, and why?

I don't want to figure all of that out. Just like people don't want to figure out the real issue, they just want a knee jerk gun ban.

But to answer part of your question. Sure, give the guy a trial. A quick one. Then execute him. If it makes you feel better to keep him in jail for an extended amount of time then make sure my tax money is not being used to keep him in jail or feed him. This guy is defective, he will never be a productive member of society. There is zero reason to warehouse him.

I don't care how we do it, let Obama decide, make a committee. Bottom line there are cases where there should be no long drawn out appeal process, the person should never be released and there is no reason to warehouse defective people.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

I don't want to figure all of that out. Just like people don't want to figure out the real issue, they just want a knee jerk gun ban.

It's not a knee jerk gun ban we seek. We've been working on it for many years and we won't give up until assault weapons are once again banned and gun regulations tightened.

Quote

I don't care how we do it, let Obama decide, make a committee. Bottom line there are cases where there should be no long drawn out appeal process, the person should never be released and there is no reason to warehouse defective people.

The reason we live under the rule of law is precisely to prevent this kind of approach to crime.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Have a great afternoon. I'm going out to fire my fully legal assault rifle,my fully legal sawed off double barrel shot gun and a few of my hand guns.

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

Quote

You will likely get your wish and see this guy killed. Sorry it won't happen quickly enough to suit you.

You really didn't answer my questions, though. So let's try again. What parts of the judicial process would you bypass in this case? Should this guy get a trial? An appeal? State or federal habeas petitions? What specific legal rights would you take away from this guy, and why? And who makes the decision to take away this guy's rights? And what specific criteria do we use to decide when we are going to take away criminal defendant's rights? In other words, what new legal rules do you propose we use, and why?

Well, Stephen King had an idea for this. It was in the long version of the novel "The Stand."
It was a special "Death Penalty Appeals Court" thing, used only for those whose guilt was perfectly clear.

Limited appeals, quick access to the various appeals courts and even the Supreme Court, no messsing around. Get through the process as quickly as possible, but still follow the process.

It's kind of a neat idea, but would never work in the real world.

Personally, I oppose the death penalty in any case. First due to costs, second due to the irrrevocablilty if the conviction is wrong.

IIRC, from the time the death penalty was reintroduced until the governor gave everyone on death row "Life Without" instead, Illinois executed fewer people than were exonerated by the Innocence Project.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Gravitymaster 0]

Define assault weapon.

[CSpenceFLY 1]

Quote

Define assault weapon.

When they get started it will be any weapon used to assault.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Have a great afternoon. I'm going out to fire my fully legal assault rifle,my fully legal sawed off double barrel shot gun and a few of my hand guns.

I will also go shoot my guns. And I've already made an additional donation to the Brady campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Define assault weapon.

Go look it up.

[matthewcline 0]

Quote

Quote

Have a great afternoon. I'm going out to fire my fully legal assault rifle,my fully legal sawed off double barrel shot gun and a few of my hand guns.

I will also go shoot my guns. And I've already made an additional donation to the Brady campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.

If that was all they wanted to do, that would be noble of them.

Matt

An Instructors first concern is student safety.
So, start being safe, first!!!

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Define assault weapon.

Go look it up.

I'm asking you.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Define assault weapon.

Go look it up.

I'm asking you.

I'm not going to argue with you about the definition of "assault weapons". It doesn't matter how many times you ask.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Define assault weapon.

Go look it up.

I'm asking you.

I'm not going to argue with you about the definition of "assault weapons". It doesn't matter how many times you ask.

What's the matter, too hard to define?

I believe the official anti-gun nut definition is :

"Any gun that looks scary"!!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm not going to argue with you about the definition of "assault weapons". It doesn't matter how many times you ask.

Of course not. It's like a Christian being asked to defend the Bible's 6000 year old earth. Or how Joe Smith translated God's word into the Book of Mormon.

Your only answer is to run away screaming.

[1969912 0]

He should get a trial with full access to legal services, just like any other defendant. If CO allows for the death penalty and he gets sentenced to death, then he should be allowed all appeals that any other condemned person is given.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Define assault weapon.

Go look it up.

I'm asking you.

I'm not going to argue with you about the definition of "assault weapons". It doesn't matter how many times you ask.

What's the matter, too hard to define?
I believe the official anti-gun nut definition is :
"Any gun that looks scary"!!

That was never the definition by anyone except spouted in response by pro-gun advocate.

Certainly it's not the old legal definition by the laws of the previous ban.

You may not have liked their definition, but it was legal.
There is another and completely different definition that is not legally binding, but is used by the US Military.

Historically, the term "assault rifle" is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", as in "to storm a position").

The term may need to be more precisely defined, but to suggest there is no legal or historical definition is wildly inaccurate.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Define assault weapon.

Go look it up.

I'm asking you.

I'm not going to argue with you about the definition of "assault weapons". It doesn't matter how many times you ask.

What's the matter, too hard to define?
I believe the official anti-gun nut definition is :
"Any gun that looks scary"!!

That was never the definition by anyone except spouted in response by pro-gun advocate.

Certainly it's not the old legal definition by the laws of the previous ban.

You may not have liked their definition, but it was legal.
There is another and completely different definition that is not legally binding, but is used by the US Military.

Historically, the term "assault rifle" is a translation of the German word Sturmgewehr (literally "storm rifle", as in "to storm a position").

The term may need to be more precisely defined, but to suggest there is no legal or historical definition is wildly inaccurate.

So you can't really define what an assault weapon is either? What would be the caliber cut-off? How many rounds per minute is the cut-off?

[quade 3]

Quote

So you can't really define what an assault weapon is either? What would be the caliber cut-off? How many rounds per minute is the cut-off?

Don't be silly. Of course I can define it. You may not like my definition, in fact I'm nearly certain you won't, but I can absolutely make up a definition. I'm pretty sure you won't like it because you didn't like the previous LEGAL definition and tried to reframe it as "Any gun that looks scary", which is a complete untruth.

If YOU aren't going to be honest about what is and isn't a legal definition, then why the fuck should anybody try to give you a different one of their own design?

Argue you don't like the previous definition; fine. You're entitled to your opinion. However, that doesn't mean the definition didn't exist.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Under our system the man deserves a fair and impartial trail with the best defense possible. If that means the state of Colorado has to tap Johnny Cochran to come in as Public Defender than so be it.

Heh Heh. Ol' Johnny's dead, so one could interpret this post a couple of ways.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

Quote

So you can't really define what an assault weapon is either? What would be the caliber cut-off? How many rounds per minute is the cut-off?

Don't be silly. Of course I can define it. You may not like my definition, in fact I'm nearly certain you won't, but I can absolutely make up a definition. I'm pretty sure you won't like it because you didn't like the previous LEGAL definition and tried to reframe it as "Any gun that looks scary", which is a complete untruth.

If YOU aren't going to be honest about what is and isn't a legal definition, then why the fuck should anybody try to give you a different one of their own design?

Argue you don't like the previous definition; fine. You're entitled to your opinion. However, that doesn't mean the definition didn't exist.

You have been wrong on 2 accounts so far:

1. Liberals came up with the definition of an assault rifle several years ago when they enacted the assault rifle ban in 1994.

2. Your definition, as good as it may be, doesn't matter. What matters is the legal definition, which is used to enforce laws. I could give you a run down of the legal definition but "it looks scary" pretty much sums it up.

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Gravitymaster 0]

Do you believe the assault weapon ban of 1994 had any effect on the number of crimes involving weapons? Do you believe fewer people died as a result of the assault weapons ban?

[wolfriverjoe 1,346]

Quote

Quote

Quote

So you can't really define what an assault weapon is either? What would be the caliber cut-off? How many rounds per minute is the cut-off?

Don't be silly. Of course I can define it. You may not like my definition, in fact I'm nearly certain you won't, but I can absolutely make up a definition. I'm pretty sure you won't like it because you didn't like the previous LEGAL definition and tried to reframe it as "Any gun that looks scary", which is a complete untruth.

If YOU aren't going to be honest about what is and isn't a legal definition, then why the fuck should anybody try to give you a different one of their own design?

Argue you don't like the previous definition; fine. You're entitled to your opinion. However, that doesn't mean the definition didn't exist.

You have been wrong on 2 accounts so far:

1. Liberals came up with the definition of an assault rifle several years ago when they enacted the assault rifle ban in 1994.

2. Your definition, as good as it may be, doesn't matter. What matters is the legal definition, which is used to enforce laws. I could give you a run down of the legal definition but "it looks scary" pretty much sums it up.

Wrong on point 1. An assault rifle is a mid-caliber, select fire military rifle. They've been called that since shortly after WW II. The Stg-44 was thie first one.
But a true assault rifle is select fire. Capable of full auto fire. Something that is rather difficult and very expensive for a civilian to own. A real M-16 will run $10k or more. A Thompson sub-machine gun will run well over $20k.

The term "assault weapon" came to be during the early 80s, when it started to become fashionable to ban guns based on appearance. It's generally taken to mean military style semi autos.

And I do agree that since the definition was (IIRC) based on pistol grips, bayonet lugs, folding stocks and big magazines, not anything that was really a functional aspect, it really was "It Looks Scary!!!"

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo