xiannaix thinks......

[willy_jack]

since obviously he IS the source of all correct information i have decided to dedicate this thread to him and what he thinks is right and wrong with the world......

for example: xiannaix thinks the jurors in the scott peterson trial were right to fry him.
xiannaix thinks that jurys deliberate with the heaviest of wieghts upon their shoulders, so therefore they are correct in their judgements..... in the scott peterson case.

well i wanna know how in the hell does xiannaix have that opinion on jurys when just today a jury let a murdering bastard like Robert Blake walk, and also we all remember the OJ case.

xiannaix thinks........ a little backward in my opinion.

*just a gentle stab*

Nothing serious.


p.s. for the rekkid, i do think peterson is guilty.i do not agree with the death penalty. even if he never does see a gas chamber, the death penalty is wrong.

Originally Posted by willy_jack

since obviously he IS the source of all correct information i have decided to dedicate this thread to him and what he thinks is right and wrong with the world......

w_j if you'd have bothered to read what I wrote about the Peterson jury I said that they were in a better position than any of us arm chair quarterbacks to decide on his guilt. I didn't say they were right or wrong. I have no clue whether they were right or wrong... but, as I said. who better to rely on?

Originally Posted by willy_jack

for example: xiannaix thinks the jurors in the scott peterson trial were right to fry him.
xiannaix thinks that jurys deliberate with the heaviest of wieghts upon their shoulders, so therefore they are correct in their judgements..... in the scott peterson case.

Again, I never said they were right. I said they are far more likely to be right than say - you - or me.

Originally Posted by willy_jack

well i wanna know how in the hell does xiannaix have that opinion on jurys when just today a jury let a murdering bastard like Robert Blake walk, and also we all remember the OJ case.

xiannaix thinks........ a little backward in my opinion.

w_j you need to lrearn to read more thoroughly. As I said in the other thread... juries make errors.... and most likely error is one acquitting a guilty man....not convicting an innocent one. Does that clear the issue up for you?

[willy_jack]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

w_j you need to lrearn to read more thoroughly. As I said in the other thread... juries make errors.... and most likely error is one acquitting a guilty man....not convicting an innocent one. Does that clear the issue up for you?

[/QUOTE]
one movie: the thin blue line...... you need to see it.

the world is not god

Originally Posted by scottkilldlaci

the world is not god

yeah well, "god is god"

hahahahaah @ xiannaix, so bland............................................. .....................

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by willy_jack

since obviously he IS the source of all correct information i have decided to dedicate this thread to him and what he thinks is right and wrong with the world...

This is debatable. If we took this stance to everyone that offered an opinion in A & P, no one would ever see reason in others' thoughts. Taking a stance and using substantiated facts is what leads most of us to argue the way we do.

Originally Posted by willy_jack

well i wanna know how in the hell does xiannaix have that opinion on jurys when just today a jury let a murdering bastard like Robert Blake walk, and also we all remember the OJ case.

The world is open to flaw, but according to what the jurors felt, your opinion is not fact. The only fact now left is that he is a free man (as bad or good as that may be).

Originally Posted by willy_jack

xiannaix thinks........ a little backward in my opinion.

*just a gentle stab*

Nothing serious.

I don't always agree with the man myself, but I don't try to combat his stance without bringing out the big guns myself. Going off opinion alone is tough which (not to be funny here) both Stargazer and you do from time to time. Do note that the bolded words are an opinion.

Clashing opinions are what foster revolutions.

Originally Posted by willy_jack

p.s. for the rekkid, i do think peterson is guilty.i do not agree with the death penalty. even if he never does see a gas chamber, the death penalty is wrong.

I concur wholeheartedly here. It hasn't been placed at my doorstep yet, but due to both personal belief and religion, I find the death penalty abhorrant.

[prince vlad]

i want xiannaix to have my love child

[Led]

I want to be at the Peterson barbecue with a plate and fork.

[Krash]

At the end of the day I wish to present myself, the omnipotent one, now bow before me, peons.

Originally Posted by rufuspfunk

I concur wholeheartedly here. It hasn't been placed at my doorstep yet, but due to both personal belief and religion, I find the death penalty abhorrant.

I'd point out that death is the requied penalty for many sins in the Bible... however, that's in the old testament.

I think something that's lost here is this notion that I'm cheerful about the DP. I'm not. I usually argue what is not what should be or what I would do or believe. It was only in one of the very last posts of the other thread that I noted that I wouldn't have asked for the DP if I prosecuted Peterson. I don't think it was a good case. I would except out mother/fetus homicides from the multiple homicide basis for filing special circumstances - but that's another debate.

A religious rational that you noted here and the risk of condemning an innocent noted by w_j are quite valid reasons to oppose the DP. I have no problem with that at all. As I noted in the other thread.... 1) bifurated trial a) guilt phase b) penalty phase - death or LWOP - with a unanimous verdict required in each. 2) it is a penalty that should be sought only in the most egregious of circumstances. eg - multiple homicides or torture homicides (there are prolly others but those will do for now) - murders that scream out in their depravity. I support the DP for the exact reason stargazer finds it so horrible. I support it mostly as a supreme sanction - which he'd call revenge. Absolutely right (and it does have some degree of deterrant effect - but - as noted earlier - its hard to measure crimes not committed). I was anti-DP until I starter working homicide trials....I got my eyes opened quickly. Some cases are, imo, simply too horrifying to find any reason whatsoever not to execute the sick fucking bastard who committed the crime.

I'd add that my experience is entirely with CA (it seems I have to do this everytime I get into this discussion). The procedure, I noted above. I don't feel a religious restriction to supporting the DP and the procedure outlined gives me adequate assurances that an innocent isn't being sent to the gallows... indeed if a prosecutor take a case to trial that he does not believe in his heart of hearts to be the right guy - he's committing as breach of the public trust at a minimum and possibly worse.

Now, I have zero experience with the DP in any other state. I cannot speak to or about any of those states either to defend or attack their systems... including Texas. However, I have been advised from a CA homicide prosecutor that Texas' application of the DP is troubling and I take him at his word.

Originally Posted by Krash

At the end of the day I wish to present myself, the omnipotent one, now bow before me, peons.

Fucking Limey Hippy

[Funkenstein]

Originally Posted by xiannaix

I'd point out that death is the requied penalty for many sins in the Bible... however, that's in the old testament.

Yeah, but Lord knows (pun intended) that if we expected expiation in the ways we did then that we wouldn't have made much progress as being "civilized" people, LOL.

Originally Posted by xiannaix

I think something that's lost here is this notion that I'm cheerful about the DP. I'm not. I usually argue what is not what should be or what I would do or believe. It was only in one of the very last posts of the other thread that I noted that I wouldn't have asked for the DP if I prosecuted Peterson. I don't think it was a good case. I would except out mother/fetus homicides from the multiple homicide basis for filing special circumstances - but that's another debate.

From our discussions in the past, I know that you aren't out there with a torch and pitchfork crying for blood at every rally. This leads to the next comment:

Originally Posted by xiannaix

I was anti-DP until I starter working homicide trials....I got my eyes opened quickly. Some cases are, imo, simply too horrifying to find any reason whatsoever not to execute the sick fucking bastard who committed the crime.

I can only go off of the stories that I read/hear about and talk about with my father (who is also an attorney). Since I haven't had to be faced with understanding personally the stress of having to deal with something of that magnitude (and I hope I never do), it has not ever weighed fully into my stance. I imagine that working in that field would do more to "possibly" sway my stance, though.

Originally Posted by xiannaix

I'd add that my experience is entirely with CA (it seems I have to do this everytime I get into this discussion). The procedure, I noted above. I don't feel a religious restriction to supporting the DP and the procedure outlined gives me adequate assurances that an innocent isn't being sent to the gallows... indeed if a prosecutor take a case to trial that he does not believe in his heart of hearts to be the right guy - he's committing as breach of the public trust at a minimum and possibly worse.

It is your experience that I look upon and take the time to understand when I read your posts. The ability to agree to disagree and then see the commonalities are what make this forum so much fun (for those who are willing to do so).

Originally Posted by Krash

At the end of the day I wish to present myself, the omnipotent one, now bow before me, peons.

I refuse to bow to Pharoah. Let my people go lest I come hack Hadrian's Wall down. Oh wait. That's been done already.

Originally Posted by rufuspfunk

Yeah, but Lord knows (pun intended) that if we expected expiation in the ways we did then that we wouldn't have made much progress as being "civilized" people, LOL.

I cannot argue against that observation.

Although I think I failed in the above post - my intent in noting the "religious" and "marginal error" objections was to say I do have great respect for them... I just don't share them for reasons I explained.

Originally Posted by rufuspfunk

From our discussions in the past, I know that you aren't out there with a torch and pitchfork crying for blood at every rally. This leads to the next comment:



I can only go off of the stories that I read/hear about and talk about with my father (who is also an attorney). Since I haven't had to be faced with understanding personally the stress of having to deal with something of that magnitude (and I hope I never do), it has not ever weighed fully into my stance. I imagine that working in that field would do more to "possibly" sway my stance, though.

I wouldn't deny that the "passion" of having gigantic binders full of autopsy and crime scene photos on my desk didn't sway my opinion. Quite the contrary - I meant that things like that played a major role in changing my mind. I could describe in graphic detail the specific photo that finally did it for me - but - I'll spare you After a while it gets to be old hat and not interfere with one's ability to eat lunch - and then neither does the thought of executing the guy that made those lovely photos possible.

Originally Posted by rufuspfunk

It is your experience that I look upon and take the time to understand when I read your posts. The ability to agree to disagree and then see the commonalities are what make this forum so much fun (for those who are willing to do so).

greatly appreciated... agreement is good. Polite disagreement can often be much much better.

[J. Fees]

who will have the last word?