Skyrad 0 #1 September 30, 2015 I'm undecided on the DP but I can't quite believe that Richard Glossip is being put to death right now for a crime someone else committed and then blamed on him. Quite honestly I'm really glad I don't live in a country they can execute you in on the word of a self confessed murderer. Tonight it seems the USA is no better than Iran or Saudi Arabia.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #2 September 30, 2015 Looks like the Gov stepped in until they can find a more reliable way to off him. Poor bugger.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,050 #3 September 30, 2015 QuoteThe death penalty in Oklahoma is reserved for the most heinous crimes. Two juries who heard all of the testimony agreed this case warranted the death penalty for Richard Glossip. Numerous courts have reviewed the facts of this case and have determined Richard Glossip's case warrants the death penalty. To ensure Richard Glossip received a fair judgement, he was given a second trial where he was represented by a legal team with decades of experience. The facts and testimony of the case have been proven in two trials and reviewed by every possible court all the way to include the US Supreme Court. And, finally, as the law provides in these types of cases, the Pardon and Parole board extensively reviewed the case, talked with and questioned Glossip, and voted unanimously against clemency. SOURCE: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/richard-glossip-case-here-s-the-story-of-his-victim/article_1247f4c4-a8be-5492-b438-1c5d39c8b571.htmlNobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wolfriverjoe 1,340 #4 September 30, 2015 BIGUN QuoteThe death penalty in Oklahoma is reserved for the most heinous crimes. Two juries who heard all of the testimony agreed this case warranted the death penalty for Richard Glossip. Numerous courts have reviewed the facts of this case and have determined Richard Glossip's case warrants the death penalty. To ensure Richard Glossip received a fair judgement, he was given a second trial where he was represented by a legal team with decades of experience. The facts and testimony of the case have been proven in two trials and reviewed by every possible court all the way to include the US Supreme Court. And, finally, as the law provides in these types of cases, the Pardon and Parole board extensively reviewed the case, talked with and questioned Glossip, and voted unanimously against clemency. SOURCE: http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/courts/richard-glossip-case-here-s-the-story-of-his-victim/article_1247f4c4-a8be-5492-b438-1c5d39c8b571.html You do realize that the above quote is from the family of the victim, right? Not exactly unbiased. Lots of families have wanted "justice" or "closure" through the death of someone who was later found to be wrongly convicted. I don't know enough about the case to have an opinion on his innocence or guilt. But I can see enough questions in the linked newspaper story that my general opposition to the DP on the grounds that someone wrongfully convicted cannot be brought back to life certainly applies here. LWOP would protect society, punish him if he's really guilty, but protect him if he's innocent. But it's Oklahoma. Which is right next to Texas. Both geographically and ideologically."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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BIGUN 1,050 #5 September 30, 2015 QuoteYou do realize that the above quote is from the family of the victim, right? Not exactly unbiased. Lots of families have wanted "justice" or "closure" through the death of someone who was later found to be wrongly convicted. Of course I knew that. But, it was a summary of the legal steps taken to get to this point and hopefully enough motivation to read the whole article QuoteI don't know enough about the case to have an opinion on his innocence or guilt. But I can see enough questions in the linked newspaper story that my general opposition to the DP on the grounds that someone wrongfully convicted cannot be brought back to life certainly applies here. LWOP would protect society, punish him if he's really guilty, but protect him if he's innocent. The Clemency Board di not see it that way. He used someone with a very low IQ to do his bidding. He helped with the body and the plan to dispose of it. He did NOT call the police and say; one of my employees just murdered our boss. QuoteBut it's Oklahoma. Which is right next to Texas. Both geographically and ideologically I think we'll both take that as a compliment.Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #6 October 1, 2015 This isn't a clear cut case. Quote 'Sneed is serving a life sentence without parole for his role in the murder after pleading guilty and testifying against Glossip'. With no physical evidence at all the conviction rests upon the testimony of the self confessed killer without this testimony he would be on death row instead of sentenced to life. Quote Sneed is serving a life sentence without parole for his role in the murder after pleading guilty and testifying against Glossip An appeal then overturned the first conviction so they tried him a second time? The killer has changed his story about the gloves and is inconsistent. Shaky stuff, if his defence team have new evidence it should be heard and life without parole fair enough but at this point the DP looks like its been liberally applied. On another note I think its a positive move to switch from the tree drug protocol to Nitrogen.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #7 October 1, 2015 SkyradI'm undecided on the DP but I can't quite believe that Richard Glossip is being put to death right now for a crime someone else committed and then blamed on him. Quite honestly I'm really glad I don't live in a country they can execute you in on the word of a self confessed murderer. Tonight it seems the USA is no better than Iran or Saudi Arabia.I don't know anything about this case. How do you know he is not guilty but still being put to death as you say!I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,384 #8 October 1, 2015 >How do you know he is not guilty but still being put to death as you say! I guess that's the difference between you and most people on the topic of the death penalty. You need to know he's not guilty before the death penalty can be avoided; most people think you have to know he's guilty for sure before using the death penalty. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #9 October 1, 2015 Exactly. Well I'm glad to see that his Stay of execution has now been made indefinite. I'm not sure why just yet but in this case I think its a sound call.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #10 October 1, 2015 billvon>How do you know he is not guilty but still being put to death as you say! I guess that's the difference between you and most people on the topic of the death penalty. You need to know he's not guilty before the death penalty can be avoided; most people think you have to know he's guilty for sure before using the death penalty. Was due diligence completed? How does that poster I replied to know he is other than what the court, and two separate juries have said he is?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #11 October 1, 2015 turtlespeed How does that poster I replied to know he is other than what the court, and two separate juries have said he is? When someone points out a flaw in the premise of your question, simply repeating the question is unlikely to work, either in eliciting answer or persuading anyone to agree with your point of view. Also, there was quite a lot of talk about dirty defence attorneys in the Clinton thread, I wonder where the people stand on prosecutors using sentence reductions to buy testimony from heinous criminals?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #12 October 1, 2015 turtlespeed***>How do you know he is not guilty but still being put to death as you say! I guess that's the difference between you and most people on the topic of the death penalty. You need to know he's not guilty before the death penalty can be avoided; most people think you have to know he's guilty for sure before using the death penalty. Was due diligence completed? How does that poster I replied to know he is other than what the court, and two separate juries have said he is? How many cases have we had recently in the US of people who have spent decades in prison, sometimes on death row, after being convicted by one or more juries and having appeals dismissed, THEN being found actually innocent and released? I have NO faith that the system is infallible enough to warrant killing people out of vengeance.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #13 October 1, 2015 jakee*** How does that poster I replied to know he is other than what the court, and two separate juries have said he is? When someone points out a flaw in the premise of your question, simply repeating the question is unlikely to work, either in eliciting answer or persuading anyone to agree with your point of view. Also, there was quite a lot of talk about dirty defence attorneys in the Clinton thread, I wonder where the people stand on prosecutors using sentence reductions to buy testimony from heinous criminals? It's only a flaw in his perception. It could have been worded in a different way, but that won't ever be good enough if all you want to do is argue the premise of a question asked to another poster.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,254 #14 October 1, 2015 If the premise of the question is flawed then no discussion can result from it, all you will get is a stand off. But anyway, if you're asking Skyrad specifically why he believes Glossip is innocent, I think he's laid out his reasons in at least three posts so far...Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #15 October 1, 2015 jakeeIf the premise of the question is flawed then no discussion can result from it, all you will get is a stand off. But anyway, if you're asking Skyrad specifically why he believes Glossip is innocent, I think he's laid out his reasons in at least three posts so far... If he thinks he is innocent, that's fine, it's his opinion. I asked how does he know.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,621 #16 October 1, 2015 turtlespeed***If the premise of the question is flawed then no discussion can result from it, all you will get is a stand off. But anyway, if you're asking Skyrad specifically why he believes Glossip is innocent, I think he's laid out his reasons in at least three posts so far... If he thinks he is innocent, that's fine, it's his opinion. I asked how does he know. How did JURIES know that these innocent men were guilty when sentencing them to death? www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row FACT is, you are perfectly happy to kill someone on the basis of a system that has proven itself to be horribly fallible.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,121 #17 October 2, 2015 turtlespeed***If the premise of the question is flawed then no discussion can result from it, all you will get is a stand off. But anyway, if you're asking Skyrad specifically why he believes Glossip is innocent, I think he's laid out his reasons in at least three posts so far... If he thinks he is innocent, that's fine, it's his opinion. I asked how does he know. How does he know he has an opinion? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,116 #18 October 2, 2015 The issue isn't knowing that he's innocent. It's not being certain enough of actual guilt to put someone to death. Actual guilt is different from judged guilt. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #19 October 2, 2015 kallend******If the premise of the question is flawed then no discussion can result from it, all you will get is a stand off. But anyway, if you're asking Skyrad specifically why he believes Glossip is innocent, I think he's laid out his reasons in at least three posts so far... If he thinks he is innocent, that's fine, it's his opinion. I asked how does he know. How did JURIES know that these innocent men were guilty when sentencing them to death? www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-list-those-freed-death-row FACT is, you are perfectly happy to kill someone on the basis of a system that has proven itself to be horribly fallible. Juries are there in person to make that decision based on the evidence they experience at the time when court is in session. They have a much much better seat than an arm chair jurist wit a biased system of beliefs. I'm just as perfectly happy to kill someone based on the system you describe as you are perfectly happy about all those abortions.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,121 #20 October 2, 2015 QuoteI'm just as perfectly happy to kill someone based on the system you describe as you are perfectly happy about all those abortions. What would make you think kallend is happy about abortions? I support the right for women to have abortions, however a woman having an abortion doesn't make me happy. But, stating you are perfectly happy to kill someone is well.....not sure I have words for it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #21 October 2, 2015 SkyDekkerQuoteI'm just as perfectly happy to kill someone based on the system you describe as you are perfectly happy about all those abortions. What would make you think kallend is happy about abortions? I support the right for women to have abortions, however a woman having an abortion doesn't make me happy. But, stating you are perfectly happy to kill someone is well.....not sure I have words for it. A swing and a miss, apparently. You almost got the reference. Look at it this way, killing is killing, wether it is an adult that deserves a harsh punishment for deeds or a child/fetus that has life but hasn't even had the opportunity to have any misdeeds. He says I am perfectly happy to kill someone, I say I am just as perfectly happy about it as he is. Maybe I assumed too much credit on his behalf that his happiness would not be very strong regarding abortion. Maybe you think he is more perfectly happy about abortive procedures than I am.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
