because killing innocent people and attempting to cross the street are very similar acts. crossing the street slowly is clearly an evil thing to do and a menace to society gotta love liberal logic
Do you really believe that or are you intentionally being obtuse? The similarity is that the guy with the bad leg and the guy with the bad brain are disabled. We don't execute those with bad legs, why execute those with bad brains? Gotta love those with no grasp of logic whatsoever.
Not.... you don't have to be guilty of murder to be punished in this country for being mentally ill. I've met with people whose family have kept them hidden under stairs, given insulin shock treatment until they lose their short term memories or just thrown away in state hospitals and raped on a regular basis, so to be considered worthy of capital punishment would probably be an honor!
yea we all get the similarity guy. I don't think you'd know what logic was if it slapped you in the face. there is none in comparing a guy with a cane crossing the street slowly to a guy who murdered a bunch of innocent people in cold blood. the real problem here is the guy who sold the man a cane knowing he was fully capable of crossing a street slowly. the government needs to make it more difficult for these assholes to get canes.
Too progressive and forward thinking..it'll never happen. Besides, that'll mean no money to the politicians who are being paid by said companies because that's exactly what they're paying them for. fukin sad. Hey ...just ftr, there are many "libs" "Progressives" or any other left name you wanna use who are ok with owning guns... Problem is the right wants ZERO accountability. Mostly because they refuse to budge.
Exactly the type of response I have come to expect from you. No, I think that anyone who goes into a movie theatre and kills a bunch of innocent people should be killed. I don't give a flying fuck if they're disabled or not, they committed an evil act and destroyed many families for no reason. The guy is a monster and there no need to dig further into his abilities or disabilities. Why should being mentally ill make his punishment less given the crime? It doesn't make the people any less dead.
ralebird couldn't anyone who commits such a horrible crime as Holmes in Colorado be considered "mentally ill?" I mean you gotta be pretty ill to do something like that.. how is Holmes in Colorado going to get off because of mental illness but the Boston marathon bomber is not? aren't they both sick individuals? how is one considered "disabled" to use your term and the other not? the kid in SC, you wanna say a person who is NOT mentally ill would shoot up a prayer group? of course he was ill to a degree. you either take the death penalty off the table completely IMO or you give it to people who commit crimes as horrible as these. the picking and choosing who was mentally "disabled" and who wasn't, to what levels, etc. is pretty dumb and inconsistent to me.... especially when you consider these were people that were functioning in society prior to their acts.
No. some people are just plain mean and evil on their own without benefit of mental deficiency. And then there are all those shades of gray in between which must be examined individually. The Tsarnaevs were evil, possibly one more than the other, but both were capable of making plans and decisions and being fully capable of understanding the consequences of their acts. We don't prosecute the four year old who picks a gun up off the coffee table and kills his mother or another kid so why do we feel the need to execute a shooter whose thought process is not as developed as that four year old? Unfortunately, we are loathe to fully prosecute those who leave the gun around for the four year old or make one available to the nutjobs in theatres and churches; and that includes those whose failure to perform their duties is implicit in many safeguards being meaningless.
to be fair here- no one is talking about a person who's thought process is not as developed as that of a four year old. someone that underdeveloped can't leave the house, let alone become a ph.D. student and a working adult member of society.
Six? Eight? Fourteen? What about those who once were fully capable functioning members of society but by illness or injury no longer are? Should they not be judged individually by their capabilities or only by the consequences of their actions?
idk. thats a good question. which was my original point. how the hell are we supposed to determine just how "disabled" these people are, and even if we can, where do we draw the line between just evil vs. disabled? and what degree of illness constitutes death vs. what degree doesn't? assuming we can actually determine that. lets look further at the case of Holmes. Psychiatrists in the trial sat on the stand and determined that he was "mentally ill but sane" at the time he committed the crime. Thats what got him the guilty charge, as jurors threw out the "non guilty by insanity" defense. so its fair to say he was competent enough to be determined guilty but not enough that they spared his life? huh?
There is no easy answer and all too often the verdict swings on which side can buy the best medical testimony. All the more reason to not simply execute everyone who engages in such an act.
or you could say its all the more reason TO simply execute everyone who engages in such heinous acts. just a thought
okay damnit I'm hooked. who is this specific gentleman you are referring to 75-80 years ago who advocated executing all people who commit mass murders like shooting up movie theaters, schools, churches, bombing marathons?
He wasn't that specific, just the mentally ill and people with other disabilities, like having the wrong parents, wrong language, wrong religion, etc.
