will Arnold let Tookie live?

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 5:51 pm

Joel, see Tavis Smiley archives on Tookie for that.
Next week they're gonna execute a cripled blind man in a wheel chair.
I'll be there outside tryin to do a live video stream. check it out..what a fucked neighborhood I live in.....

Cabanasprings · Post by **Cabanasprings** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:12 pm

cowboyangel wrote:
Cabanasprings wrote:
cowboyangel wrote:nothing like executing the innocent
WTF - That makes no sense at all.

Kemp killed, was realeased and killed again. Now he sits in jail getting three hot meals a day and Armida is still dead and her young son grew up without a mother. No to mention all the women he brutally raped.

Gosh that sounds fair to me.
average of 1 in 9 is innocent on death row...(Tavis Smiley) you make a big fuss over Kemp and ignore this glaring injustice? come on man get real.

As your statement proves you to be misguided, I am not making a "big fuss" over Kemp. I am making a big fuss over Armida.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:55 am

Well looks like we shall find out today if Roger Keith Coleman was innocent or not. DNA Test results are to be released today.

This should be interesting.

Magikal · Post by **Magikal** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:50 am

Aye, indeed. And I read yesterday that the state of Kalifornia has, indeed, put a moratorium on the death penalty. So it seems Clarence Ray Allen may die in his wheelchair after all.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 10:51 am

I'm starting to wonder weather Virginia (sp) is gonna actually state the results if the DNA comes back negative.

just think of the repercussions.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:53 am

News just in.

The DNA mached.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:09 pm

DVD Burner wrote:Well looks like we shall find out today if Roger Keith Coleman was innocent or not. DNA Test results are to be released today.

This should be interesting.

DVD Burner wrote:News just in.

The DNA mached.

so, he is guilty?

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:11 pm

Apprently so.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 12:22 pm

Even though, I would imagine that just because the DNA matches.....does that really make him guilty?

I'm gonna have to wait till I can find info on the net to actually see what this means.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:07 pm

2+2=4. The DNA matches, he's guilty. Next topic?

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:13 pm

Actually it just came on CNN not too long ago....or maybe MSNBC ( I'm working right now doing a deployment so I may be wrong about the source.) said that the DNA came from a swab from the victom 20 years ago and DNA from Coleman 14 years ago.

So that seems conclusive at least on the rape or sexual side.

Cabanasprings · Post by **Cabanasprings** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 1:20 pm

From MSNBC The APP - "The case had been closely watched, because no executed convict in the United States has ever been exonerated by scientific testing."

Interesting.

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 5:49 pm

if you love executing so much, why don't you pull the switch yourself?

Cabanasprings · Post by **Cabanasprings** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:06 pm

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 9:27 pm

cowboyangel wrote:if you love executing so much, why don't you pull the switch yourself?

I would. Some people are no better than rabid dogs.

Magikal · Post by **Magikal** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 8:52 am

cowboyangel wrote:if you love executing so much, why don't you pull the switch yourself?

CA, that's a cheap shot. Indeed, some are rabid dogs, and yes, I would pull the switch myself. But don't think anyone takes any great pleasure in taking a human life, no matter how deserving; it is merely a nasty job that must be done. I would have no great glee as I did it, but as you say, I don't think anyone can conscienciously support the death penalty if they are not willing to get blood on their hands and do the job themselves. Those who would take glee, I think, should be excluded from the process.

mojo · Post by **mojo** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:34 pm

Magikal, you have just expressed the same opinion as that of a man who will have his formal death penalty read to him in Court this coming Tuesday.

He admitted to stabbing a rival gang member 47 times.

He did not allow his defense to say so in Court (he really didn't allow his defense to say anything), but the gang was the only group in which he had ever been accepted or respected.

I think he did and does believe that the killing of another man was necessary for the continued well being of his "society" and it became his job, however distasteful, to dispatch the enemy.

This motivation is considered heroic in other circumstances, and may not be a lot less heroic in those who don't have the cognitive ability to tell the difference between fighting for one's country or fighting for one's street gang. A lack of education and family often lead to a gigantic defecit in understanding of how the big picture differs from everyday survival.

I understand those who believe that for this act, a horrible, premeditated, overzealous killing, he must be put to death. I guess if ever there was a case for the death penalty, this is one. But I must stand with CowboyAngel each and every time we choose to take a life in retaliation for the act of another.

CowboyAngel - thanks for standing up for what you believe in. Know that there are many of us working behind the scenes, case by case.

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 5:59 pm

thanks Mojo. Will be live streaming the Clarence Allen Execution Protest on Monday night starting at 9pm Pacific. at
http://www.brightpathvideo.com

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 6:10 pm

"I must stand with CowboyAngel each and every time we choose to take a life in retaliation for the act of another."

Is it in retaliation or is it a deterrent? I think the latter. And as I mentioned earlier, without the death penalty, we might have people executing each other without the benefit of a trial.

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 10:10 pm

HughMungus wrote:"I must stand with CowboyAngel each and every time we choose to take a life in retaliation for the act of another."

Is it in retaliation or is it a deterrent? I think the latter. And as I mentioned earlier, without the death penalty, we might have people executing each other without the benefit of a trial.

see http://www.deathpenalty.org/pdf_files/M ... sh2004.pdf

Magikal · Post by **Magikal** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:49 am

mojo wrote:Magikal, you have just expressed the same opinion as that of a man who will have his formal death penalty read to him in Court this coming Tuesday.

He admitted to stabbing a rival gang member 47 times.

...

I think he did and does believe that the killing of another man was necessary for the continued well being of his "society" and it became his job, however distasteful, to dispatch the enemy.

Oh, lordy, are we gonna launch off into one of those philisophical tail-chasing "is the glass half full or half empty" things? Well, the gang was the only society he ever knew, therefor he was just as justified to take life as the state is in a lawful execution, right?

Please.

By that logic, how dare the cop give me a ticket for running a red light? Or speeding? Or running someone over 'cause they got in my way when I was in a hurry? Heck, I believe they're guilty of something; why shouldn't I be allowed to just shoot them? If you want to leap out onto that slippery slope, then we don't have a nation of laws, we have a nation of anarchy. The very young might think anarchy is cool... until the first time they get the shit beaten out of them by someone bigger who also believes in no laws.

P.S. Not to rag on you, but I just can't pass by your tagline. I know you've heard this before, but I'll give it another shot: Bill Clinton was not impeached for getting head. Contrary to what the lefty "news" media wants you to believe (to divert attention from the facts & paint Republicans as eeeeeeeeeeevil), nobody gave a damn about his stupid sex life. He was impeached for lying under oath.

mojo · Post by **mojo** » Sat Jan 14, 2006 11:45 am

Yep, you have put your finger on it, and no offense taken by the "lying under oath" issue. (Yes, even we bleeding hearts were pissed off by that one.)

In a perfect world I guess anarchy is not an issue, but it seems that there is always a bigger bully, especially for those who have been raised on the streets. Depending on who you are and which side of the chain link fence you are on today, the biggest bully might be the cops, your government, or a violent criminal. Right or wrong, we have been in that position even as a nation.

I just wanted to add to this thread my feelings on a case that I am very, very familiar with, and I am grateful that I have the opportunity to add my two cents.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 8:37 am

So I guess california is giving Clarence Ray Allen his Bday gift a day later.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 9:53 am

Interesting.

Cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarence_Ray_Allen

Blatantly swiped from Wikipedia for those who hate links:

Allen is severely disabled: he is deafblind, uses a wheelchair, and has an advanced case of diabetes. He also suffered a heart attack on September 2, 2005. His lawyers declared that "he presents absolutely no danger at this point, as incapacitated as he is. There's no legitimate state purpose served by executing him. It would be gratuitous punishment." They argued that his execution would constitute cruel and unusual punishment and requested that he be granted clemency by California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

California Deputy Attorney General Ward Campbell stated in an interview:

Well, Mr. Allen has cited his age, the length of time on death row, claims about innocence, errors at his trial. We found and told the governor we found all those reasons to be unpersuasive given the nature of his crime, which was in fact a direct attack on the criminal justice system perpetrated by a man for whom society thought — for whom society thought was safe. They thought they were safe from him because he was behind bars and yet he continued to perpetrate these types of crimes and none of the factors that they cite now overshadow or outbalance those reasons for now executing the judgment of the people of the State of California.
On January 13, 2006, Schwarzenegger refused to grant Allen clemency, stating that "his conduct did not result from youth or inexperience, but instead resulted from the hardened and calculating decisions of a mature man." Schwarzenegger also cited a poem in which Allen glorified his actions, where Allen wrote "We rob and steal and for those who squeal are usually found dying or dead."

On January 15, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Allen's claim that executing an aged or infirm person was cruel and unusual punishment, observing that his mental acuity was unimpared and that he had been fifty years of age when he arranged the murders from prison. Judge Kim Wardlaw writing for the panel of judges Susan Graber, Richard Clifton and herself:

His age and experience only sharpened his ability to coldly calculate the execution of the crime. Nothing about his current ailments reduces his culpability and thus they do not lessen the retributive or deterrent purposes of the death penalty.

So what purpose is served here by this state conducted murder (murder being the taking of life by someone else - simplistic definition)? IMHO his sentence should be commuted to life, which he is quickly running out of due to natural causes.

Magikal · Post by **Magikal** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:12 am

Kinetic IV wrote:"Well, Mr. Allen has cited his age, the length of time on death row, claims about innocence, errors at his trial. We found and told the governor we found all those reasons to be unpersuasive given the nature of his crime, which was in fact a direct attack on the criminal justice system perpetrated by a man for whom society thought was safe. They thought they were safe from him because he was behind bars and yet he continued to perpetrate these types of crimes and none of the factors that they cite now overshadow or outbalance those reasons for now executing the judgment of the people of the State of California.
On January 13, 2006, Schwarzenegger refused to grant Allen clemency, stating that "his conduct did not result from youth or inexperience, but instead resulted from the hardened and calculating decisions of a mature man."

On January 15, 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Allen's claim that executing an aged or infirm person was cruel and unusual punishment, observing that his mental acuity was unimpared and that he had been fifty years of age when he arranged the murders from prison. Judge Kim Wardlaw writing for the panel of judges Susan Graber, Richard Clifton and herself:

His age and experience only sharpened his ability to coldly calculate the execution of the crime. Nothing about his current ailments reduces his culpability and thus they do not lessen the retributive or deterrent purposes of the death penalty."

So what purpose is served here by this state conducted murder (murder being the taking of life by someone else - simplistic definition)? IMHO his sentence should be commuted to life, which he is quickly running out of due to natural causes.

You're joking, right? Did you even read your own posting? This guy, as aged and infirm as he is, is still ordering killings from his prison cell. This is not Kermit the frog. We need to take this guy out.

And murder? Please. If a cop shoots someone robbing a bank, I suppose you would call that murder too, right?

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:22 am

So how does a deaf and blind man direct killings? Does he write out the orders? Does he call on the phone and say Hey Sal, I need you to whack so and so? Does he type out the orders on a braille typewriter and dispatch them like Western Union telegraphs back in the day?

I won't argue about what he did in the past...but in his current state he's not able to do very much. Killing him serves what purpose now? If it's punishment they want then leaving him to suffer with his infirmities and the degrading experiences that come with that would be more effective.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:27 am

Kinetic IV wrote:So how does a deaf and blind man direct killings? Does he write out the orders? Does he call on the phone and say Hey Sal, I need you to whack so and so? Does he type out the orders on a braille typewriter and dispatch them like Western Union telegraphs back in the day?

That was pretty funny.

Magikal · Post by **Magikal** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 11:01 am

Hey, I like this guy:

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArtic ... a+governor

Vampire seeks Minnesota governor's job

"MINNEAPOLIS (Reuters) - Minnesota voters, who eight years ago elected a former professional wrestler as their governor, may find a self-proclaimed vampire on the ballot for the office this year.

<snip>

Sharkey also pledged to execute convicted murders and child molesters personally by impaling them on a wooden pole outside the state capitol."

Subtle. I like it.

As someone else said, I wonder if he'd leave them out for the crows to pick at.

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 12:12 pm

A man and his crimes.

I can't say as I mind seeing you go, Clarence.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Mon Jan 16, 2006 1:11 pm

cowboyangel wrote:
HughMungus wrote:"I must stand with CowboyAngel each and every time we choose to take a life in retaliation for the act of another."

Is it in retaliation or is it a deterrent? I think the latter. And as I mentioned earlier, without the death penalty, we might have people executing each other without the benefit of a trial.

see http://www.deathpenalty.org/pdf_files/M ... sh2004.pdf

Give me the summary.