Should James Holmes face the Death Penalty if found guilty?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

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!!!"

IIRC, the ban wasn't due to looking scary; it was due to how easy it (supposedly) was to convert a semi-automatic civilian version (e.g., AR-15) of a military assault rifle to fully automatic.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

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.

And this is the problem, right here.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Quote

Quote

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!!!"

IIRC, the ban wasn't due to looking scary; it was due to how easy it (supposedly) was to convert a semi-automatic civilian version (e.g., AR-15) of a military assault rifle to fully automatic.

One more piece of anti-gun propaganda. There was a lot of confusion about the difference between military select fire rifles and civilian semi-auto. A lot of that confusion was no accident. I ran into people who swore up and down that my AR was capable of full auto. They saw it on the news. And converting legal semi to full is a lot harder than it looks. And a military style semi-auto isn't any different functionally than any other semi-auto. And a skilled machinist can make a functional full auto by making a few parts from scratch and adapting the rest. Look up the WW II Sten gun or the M3 "Grease Gun" to see how simple they can be.

Pistol grips were supposed to allow the shooter to hold the weapon steadier to "spray bullets"

Folding stocks make them easier to hide (but harder to shoot accuartely with the stock folded).

And I still want to know why a bayonet lug is a bad thing.

"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

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

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!!!"

You said I was wrong and then went on to prove my point... As I said, what an assault rifle is doesn't matter. The rules for the ban are based on the liberal definition found in the ban. If during the ban you had an assault rifle that didn't fit the definition, good on you...

"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

[Coreece 189]

never mind, I was just talking out my ass again.

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[davjohns 1]

Quote

Quote

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!!!"

IIRC, the ban wasn't due to looking scary; it was due to how easy it (supposedly) was to convert a semi-automatic civilian version (e.g., AR-15) of a military assault rifle to fully automatic.

One of the qualifying factors was a bayonet lug. I've done a bit of gunsmithing in my time. I've never found where the bayonet lug is linked to auto fire. Similarly, the extruded pistol grip was a factor. I haven't figured out how it is linked to the seer either. Then, there's the collapsible buttstock, high cap mag ability, detachable mag...hey...I don't think anything in the definition of an assault weapon was related to rate of fire. How did that happen?

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.

[1969912 0]

Quote

How did that happen?

It was a typo

"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

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

Hi jcd,

Quote

(with possible exceptions for combat theater military justice, since the mission is more important than the man)

I tend to agree with you.

However, I do disagree on this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik

JerryBaumchen

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

converting legal semi to full is a lot harder than it looks

MacGyver can do it with a paper clip.

Hey, here's an interesting factoid for a gun thread. One of the exec producers of MacGuyver was This Guy. Coincidence? Hmm.

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

How could that even remotely be true? I've read that depending on the state, facility, etc. that housing a prisoner costs tax payers "around" $45K annually.

I don't see how an execution would equate to even one year in prison, financially speaking.

It's not the actual execution that is so expensive - it's all the legal wranglings leading up to it.

The laws should be overhauled so that clear cut, caught red handed BS like this gets the proper treatment.

There is no excuse to keep this person alive.

+1

Who gets to decide when a situation is so "clear cut" that certain individuals get fast-tracked to the death penalty? What criteria do we use to make this decision? How would you draft legislation to make this work?

Look, I understand the anger towards this guy. But what you are proposing simply is not going to work in America. Everyone gets due process of law. And yes, in death penalty cases, the process is long and drawn out. This will not change, and it shouldn't. We can't have a system where certain individuals are simply fast-tracked to the gas chamber, and others are given full due process of law. Any legislation attempting to do this would immediately be found unconstitutional.

You may well get your wish and see this guy executed. But it won't happen any time soon.

FWIW - Timothy McVeigh was convicted in the Oklahoma City bombing and executed a mere 2 years later IIRC. That's pretty damned fast considering the average death row stay can be as long as 15 years or so. What he did was kill scores of federal agents, which made it a federal criminal case, rather than a state criminal case.

I wish the states could follow the feds example for people like Holmes.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

FWIW - Timothy McVeigh was convicted in the Oklahoma City bombing and executed a mere 2 years later IIRC.

6 years from arrest to execution; about 4 years from sentencing to execution. He also voluntarily dropped some of his appeals, which hastened the process.

Condemnees who voluntarily drop appeals or choose minimal appeals (many states have automatic appeals) generally do hasten their time until execution.

Further hastening McVeigh's execution is the fact that it was a federal, and not a state, case. (His was the first federal execution in 38 years). Almost all murder convictions are state convictions, resulting first in state-court appeals, followed by federal court habeas corpus appeals. More total levels, so takes longer.

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Hi jcd,

Quote

(with possible exceptions for combat theater military justice, since the mission is more important than the man)

I tend to agree with you.

However, I do disagree on this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Slovik

JerryBaumchen

I hadn't heard of Eddie Slovik before your post although I would not condemn him for cowardice, unless one has been under a 24 hour artillery barrage its impossible to understand what that can do to a mans nerves. However as tragic as his death was I can understand why he was executed given precarious the situation at the time. Without doubt he was a victim of the war.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[rehmwa 2]

If found guilty, the laws of the state will apply for this type of crime.

If death penalty is determined (if even allowed by the laws of the people of Colorado), it should be done quickly and with zero passion in a clinical way.

Death penalty is not vengeance or anger (that's a stupid position to take and I don't understand why people throw that out there). Simply an action to protect the rest of us from a repeat performance from a damaged and homicidal individual. Vengeance killing is against the law and is something done by individuals that don't understand true right from wrong.

If one of the victim's family members walked up to this guy and shot him - that would be vengeance, and that person would have to go to trial for murder and absolutely should go to jail. Vengeance is selfish and shows a total disregard for the legal process. DP is part of the legal process....

If a court cannot apply the death penalty in a calm and clinical fashion, void of the bias of anger, vengeance, or any other passion than the duty to protect society, then that judge should recuse.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[davjohns 1]

Quote

If found guilty, the laws of the state will apply for this type of crime.

If death penalty is determined (if even allowed by the laws of the people of Colorado), it should be done quickly and with zero passion in a clinical way.

Death penalty is not vengeance or anger (that's a stupid position to take and I don't understand why people throw that out there). Simply an action to protect the rest of us from a repeat performance from a damaged and homicidal individual. Vengeance killing is against the law and is something done by individuals that don't understand true right from wrong.

If one of the victim's family members walked up to this guy and shot him - that would be vengeance, and that person would have to go to trial for murder and absolutely should go to jail. Vengeance is selfish and shows a total disregard for the legal process. DP is part of the legal process....

If a court cannot apply the death penalty in a calm and clinical fashion, void of the bias of anger, vengeance, or any other passion than the duty to protect society, then that judge should recuse.

Agreed. It should be implemented without passion, but with a profound sadness that it is necessary to destroy another. Some introspection should be practiced to determine how society could better prevent such aberant behavior in the future. It is regrettable, but sometimes necessary, to declare one of our number beyond saving. Like cancer, the harmful person must be excised. Unlike cancer, it should not be easy or leave us unchanged when we are forced to take these measures.

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.

[rehmwa 2]

I should mitigate my statement that it's a stupid argument.

To me, just Me, that would be a stupid argument.

I need to recognize, that others just may not be capable of making that type of decision without a huge emotional stresser. Therefore, from their perspective, they may not be able to comprehend the pure justice viewpoint and only comprehend the notion of vengeance and that would drive an inability to understand what you and I are talking about.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[normiss 620]

Then there are those that do in fact fully understand the social implications of making those type decisions. I did fully support the death penalty for a long time. Until I really looked into it and the US justice system. It's fucked up. It has had too many mistakes.
A government that kills it's own cannot be trusted with selective murder IMO. It really serves no purpose at all.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

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.

Or that massacres like the one in Aurora are simply the price to pay for the right to bear arms.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

I should mitigate my statement that it's a stupid argument.

To me, just Me, that would be a stupid argument.

I need to recognize, that others just may not be capable of making that type of decision without a huge emotional stresser. Therefore, from their perspective, they may not be able to comprehend the pure justice viewpoint and only comprehend the notion of vengeance and that would drive an inability to understand what you and I are talking about.

I think we understand what you are talking about just fine. We're just not convinced.

The death penalty accomplishes nothing except vengeance. The worst part about it is that innocent people, inevitably, are murdered by the State. It's barbaric.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Then there are those that do in fact fully understand the social implications of making those type decisions. I did fully support the death penalty for a long time. Until I really looked into it and the US justice system. It's fucked up. It has had too many mistakes.
A government that kills it's own cannot be trusted with selective murder IMO. It really serves no purpose at all.

and that's reasonable because, perhaps, the ability to be objective about may be extremely rare, and, if so, then the potential for misuse is out there. I try to still trust that enough people 'get it' that it can be a tool of justice. But I think it should be very rare, and very reluctant to apply.

but I get your position and respect it, you state it well, without all the stupid hyperbole we see so often

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[SkyDekker 1,121]

He should afce teh death penalty if that is allowed for under Colerado law.

However, I don't think there should be a death penalty.

Not sure which angle you are asking from, hence the two answers.

[ChangoLanzao 0]

Quote

He should afce teh death penalty if that is allowed for under Colerado law.

However, I don't think there should be a death penalty.

Not sure which angle you are asking from, hence the two answers.

I really don't see how you could have it both ways. To me, it doesn't matter that it is *allowed* under Colorado law. It's not *required*. I don't think there should be a death penalty, but if there is one, then it certainly shouldn't be imposed.

[Throttlebender 0]

Quote

Quote

How could that even remotely be true? I've read that depending on the state, facility, etc. that housing a prisoner costs tax payers "around" $45K annually.

I don't see how an execution would equate to even one year in prison, financially speaking.

It's not the actual execution that is so expensive - it's all the legal wranglings leading up to it.

The laws should be overhauled so that clear cut, caught red handed BS like this gets the proper treatment.

There is no excuse to keep this person alive.

Agreed!

Life expands or contracts in proportion to one's courage. ~Anais Nin

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The death penalty accomplishes nothing except vengeance.

I think you (and select others) deliberately misuse the word vengeance for reactive impact. It adds nothing to the debate to do so. Nor does it acknowledge the legitimate goal of what I've said or Davjohns, etc. The justice system, dispassionately executing the results of a verdict, is a long way from your intent to characterize the action as equivalent to an angry and unreasoning individual slaughtering someone in a blind, out of control rage in reaction to some wrong that was committed.

Strangely enough, I'm amazed at those that are against the DP, yet loudly claim that "if someone did something like (example) to my (wife/daughter), I'd kill them right there" - or even support or relate to someone that did....(like it's acceptable to kill in a blind rage, but not ok to do it after weighing the evidence in a court of law)

If the problem is in the (mis) application/implementation, that's a good (excellent) discussion point, much better than dropping it down to low brow vagueness. Take a lesson from normiss.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If found guilty, the laws of the state will apply for this type of crime.

If death penalty is determined (if even allowed by the laws of the people of Colorado), it should be done quickly and with zero passion in a clinical way.

Death penalty is not vengeance or anger (that's a stupid position to take and I don't understand why people throw that out there). Simply an action to protect the rest of us from a repeat performance from a damaged and homicidal individual. Vengeance killing is against the law and is something done by individuals that don't understand true right from wrong.

If one of the victim's family members walked up to this guy and shot him - that would be vengeance, and that person would have to go to trial for murder and absolutely should go to jail. Vengeance is selfish and shows a total disregard for the legal process. DP is part of the legal process....

If a court cannot apply the death penalty in a calm and clinical fashion, void of the bias of anger, vengeance, or any other passion than the duty to protect society, then that judge should recuse.

I think the death penalty is often supported for reasons of vengeance, such as for the victim's family. From a purely pragmatic perspective, life in prison is cheaper and protects society just as well.

I do agree, however, that if it is applied, it should be "in a calm and clinical fashion, void of the bias of anger, vengeance, or any other passion than the duty to protect society."

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think the death penalty is often supported for reasons of vengeance, such as for the victim's family.

I find that to be a crappy reason to support it. The family is already victimized, you can't undo that. The only reason is to keep it from happening again to someone else. Justice isn't about making people "feel better". It's about protecting the innocent.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants