Should we kill people for not killing people?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

redhotswami

Blue Crack Addict
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
24,595
Location
Waiting for this madness to end.
Texas government seems to think so.

Kenneth Foster Jr. is scheduled to be executed in Texas later this month for the 1997 murder of Michael LaHood, though everybody — even prosecutors — concede that Foster was at the scene of the crime, but did not pull the trigger.

Mauriceo Brown, who admitted to fatally shooting LaHood, was executed last year, but barring an unlikely 11th-hour commutation from Gov. Rick Perry and the Texas Board of Pardons and Parole, Foster will meet the same fate Aug. 30.
Related Stories

On the night of Aug. 14, 1997, Foster, Brown, DeWayne Dillard and Julius Steen were drinking and smoking marijuana. That night, they used Dillard's gun to commit two armed robberies, with Foster serving as driver, and ended up behind a car carrying LaHood and his girlfriend, Mary Patrick, according to testimony in the case.

According to Patrick, the men then began to tail her car so she got out of the car and approached the vehicle to see who they were. The men in the car denied that they had been following her and said that she had flagged down their car. Foster, still behind the wheel, then pulled over beside Patrick.

The men conversed with Patrick, and then Brown got out of the car carrying the gun. Dillard and Steen both testified that there was no discussion that he would rob or kill LaHood and that Brown was acting independently.

Brown and LaHood got into an altercation and Brown shot and killed him. Foster, 19 at the time, became very anxious and started to drive away from the scene, but Dillard and Steen made him wait for Brown to get back in the car. They drove off, but were arrested shortly after, Foster's attorney, Keith Hampton, told ABC News.

Rather than being given a separate trial, Foster was tried alongside Brown. Foster was charged under the Texas "law of parties" statute that eliminates the distinction between the perpetrator of a crime and an accomplice, allowing Foster to be put to death, even though he did not pull the trigger.

Texas is the only state in the country where a person may be executed if a murder he or she did not anticipate or plan occurs during the course of another crime they committed, Foster's lawyer said.

Dillard and Steen both cooperated with the government and were given plea deals, Hampton said. Brown had testified that he acted in self-defense, but the jury didn't buy agree. Both he and Foster were found guilty of murder in the course of a robbery and they were given the death penalty.

Susan Reed, the district attorney of Bexar County, which prosecuted the case, dismissed the possibility that Foster did not know Brown was going to attempt to rob and possibly shoot LaHood. She said Foster was an accomplice in the case, and even though he did not actually pull the trigger is considered guilty of murder under Texas law.

"He was guilty. He was driving that car, he helped set that up, he was reaping the rewards. It was all of them working together on it," Reed said.

Giving Foster the death penalty is technically legally sound, but nonetheless represents a very strict reading of the law, several law professors said. They said the death penalty for Foster represents "extraordinarily severe punitive consequences," with legal precedent normally dictating more lenient consequences.

"These are extraordinarily severe consequences about what was at best, a guess about what was in [Foster's] mind when these things happened," Robert C. Owen, a law professor at the University of Texas-Austin law school said.

"This is a type of case that rarely, if ever, ends up with a death sentence imposed," said John H. Blume, a law professor, and director of Cornell University's Death Penalty Project. "I am willing to bet you there are hundreds of people in prison doing life or substantially less time, who, what they did is as bad if not worse than what Foster did."

Full article here

Texas has executed their 400th prisoner since they started up again in 1982. Next week 3 more are scheduled, including Kenneth Foster.

I will never ever ever move to Texas. It is a damn shame all that can be done for this INNOCENT man is the stay that was granted to him last month.
 
No we shouldn't. I'm not a DP supporter at all, but certainly not in this case.

Oh and his lawyer absolutely sucks. The other 2 guys copped out, easier for his lawyer to roll the dice when it's Foster who will die when he blows the trial.

Also I'm betting he wouldn't be on death row if he was white.
 
CTU2fan said:


Also I'm betting he wouldn't be on death row if he was white.

Death penalty sentences are basically handed down by the jury. So before making that white assumption, it be interesting to to uncover the racial mix of the jury.

On top of that, look at what isn't mentioned here. Who drives around town with an armed buddy? Think he didn't know the other guy had a gun? Why pull over a strangers car? Did Foster, who had "nothing to do with this" call 911 on behalf of the shooting victim? Did he turn his buddy in to the police?

From further on the article:

"These are extraordinarily severe consequences about what was at best, a guess about what was in [Foster's] mind when these things happened," Robert C. Owen, a law professor at the University of Texas-Austin law school said."

You know what else was severe? Getting frickin' shot for no apparent reason when you're on a night out with your girl friend .

Nothing more than another burden on society. Only bad part is they're going to waste taxpayers money on the lethal injection dosage. Just throw him off a cliff.
 
Acording to the law, apparently it does. It's kind of nice when the law works the way it's supposed to for a change, even if it's by accident.
 
Snowlock said:
Acording to the law, apparently it does. It's kind of nice when the law works the way it's supposed to for a change, even if it's by accident.

That's sick, really.
 
BonoVoxSupastar said:


Wow, just wow...

I hope you're never in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Wrong place at the wrong time?

HE WAS DRIVING!!!! How could he be in the wrong place when the place was of his choosing?

LOL. That's just rediculous! :lol:

And what's even more bizarre, you don't even realize or at least mention the two who really were at the wrong place at the wrong time; LaHood & Patrick. Beyond irony.
 
Snowlock said:


No, what's sick is worrying about this piece of garbage and forgetting all about LaHood and Patrick.

Oh yes, of course, we totaly forgot, yes even don't care about them. Right!

Statistically, there is a weapon in every third car in the US. So chances are that you even might be unknowingly in a car with someone who has a gun with him. And when he shoots someone, this stupid law can get you killed.

This case is a bit different. Yes, they were on a robbery tour, which is a crime. Yes, they were no angels.
No, law is not about f:censored: kill everyone who has committed a crime or has been accomplice in a crime. No, Foster was apparently not out there going with someone who would kill another perfectly innocent person.

A legal system has to differentiate between who has murdered someone and who not. And Foster didn't kill that person.
A legal system is about repentence and remission, not revenge. Some of the good Christian values that have translated into legal speech in most of the western world.
 
Vincent Vega said:


Oh yes, of course, we totaly forgot, yes even don't care about them. Right!

Statistically, there is a weapon in every third car in the US. So chances are that you even might be unknowingly in a car with someone who has a gun with him. And when he shoots someone, this stupid law can get you killed.


Please tell me you're kidding me. "Unknowningly"!? Do you think he was on his way to church that night? Do you think he was following that couple because he saw an amusing bumper sticker? No, you don't.

This case is a bit different. Yes, they were on a robbery tour, which is a crime. Yes, they were no angels.
No, law is not about f kill everyone who has committed a crime or has been accomplice in a crime. No, Foster was apparently not out there going with someone who would kill another perfectly innocent person.

They were on a robbery tour with a handgun. Are you really so innocent of a person as to think that having a handgun during a robbery tour wasn't part of the plan? And if you have a handgun and are out on this robbery tour thing, or as it's also known, CRIME SPREE, yeah, you're gonna kill someone.

A legal system has to differentiate between who has murdered someone and who not. And Foster didn't kill that person.
A legal system is about repentence and remission, not revenge. Some of the good Christian values that have translated into legal speech in most of the western world.

Oh, I'm sure he's repented many times. And I'm unsure what you are referring to by remission, but if it's that the crime can never happen again, then at least by this person, mission accomplished. As to revenge, you or I can call it that, but to the families of the victims, it's called justice or closure. And it's really easy to sit there in your dorm room and judge them on that I'm sure.

Oh, and btw, those handguns in 1 & 3 cars? That's not even remotely accurate but still I'd bet most of those guns were to protect from people exactly like our poor "victim" here.
 
I wonder why some people get such satisfaction from the deaths of others. Even if they are guilty and even if they are human scum, I wonder what part of you as a human being is missing in order to feel so triumphant about it. It's kind of sad to me.
 
Snowlock said:
And if you have a handgun and are out on this robbery tour thing, or as it's also known, CRIME SPREE, yeah, you're gonna kill someone.

Sorry, but that's utter bullshit. Are you honestly telling me that if someone is committing a crime and has a gun, their intention is to kill someone? Or that if a group of guys are out on a crime spree and one of them has a gun, everyone has the understanding that someone will get shot? Please.
 
Snowlock said:
Please tell me you're kidding me. "Unknowningly"!? Do you think he was on his way to church that night? Do you think he was following that couple because he saw an amusing bumper sticker? No, you don't.

Reading comprehension?

The next sentence reads: "This case is a bit different." OK, the qualifier "a bit" is misplaced, you could leave that out. Still, it indicates that I wasn't describing that very situation in the paragraph above.

They were on a robbery tour with a handgun. Are you really so innocent of a person as to think that having a handgun during a robbery tour wasn't part of the plan? And if you have a handgun and are out on this robbery tour thing, or as it's also known, CRIME SPREE, yeah, you're gonna kill someone.

Maybe where you live, but here, in fact, guns are rarely used.
You have to differentiate between who pulled the trigger, and who was accomplice. That's how it works normally. But apparently not in Texas, which is sad.

Oh, I'm sure he's repented many times. And I'm unsure what you are referring to by remission, but if it's that the crime can never happen again, then at least by this person, mission accomplished. As to revenge, you or I can call it that, but to the families of the victims, it's called justice or closure. And it's really easy to sit there in your dorm room and judge them on that I'm sure.

We had this debate recently here in Germany regarding the RAF terrorists and whether it's right to release them from jail.

Most people agreed that the legal system has to be independent from the wishes of the victims, as of course they will hardly forgive the murderer that easily. But even between the wifes, sons and daughters of those killed reactions were different whether the top-level terrorists should get released, yet all agreed that you can't let them decide, but the legal system.
We abolished the death penalty.
But maybe that's another philosophy, and the death penalty debate is like the abortion debate, it will never end.

I don't ask the victims for remission, but the legal system, basically for lack of a better term in English.

Furthermore it's easy for you to judge every criminal and wish him the death penalty, as long as it's no relative or friend to yourself.

Oh, and btw, those handguns in 1 & 3 cars? That's not even remotely accurate but still I'd bet most of those guns were to protect from people exactly like our poor "victim" here.

That's the figure I've read some while ago, maybe you have another one.
 
Snowlock I don't understand how you find the death penalty in this case justifiable. Foster did not kill the victim here. That guy has already been executed. Why should he get the death penalty if he didn't kill anyone? Many people go to jail for charges of being an accomplice or whatever. But this is different, he is being sentenced to death! Why should he be killed when he didn't even kill. Yes he fled, but people aren't sentenced to death for fleeing.
 
unico said:
Snowlock I don't understand how you find the death penalty in this case justifiable. Foster did not kill the victim here. That guy has already been executed. Why should he get the death penalty if he didn't kill anyone? Many people go to jail for charges of being an accomplice or whatever. But this is different, he is being sentenced to death! Why should he be killed when he didn't even kill. Yes he fled, but people aren't sentenced to death for fleeing.

Because the dude's a scumbag. I'm not the sort of person who believes all life is sacred. He was and is a burden on society and I'm all to happy to have him removed from it.

That's not to say I think this is how things should be done, period. This is more of a happy accident, like tripping on the sidewalk and finding a 5 dollar bill in the grass.

I hate predators, and I'm very happy to see them get theirs.
 
Snowlock said:


Because the dude's a scumbag. I'm not the sort of person who believes all life is sacred. He was and is a burden on society and I'm all to happy to have him removed from it.

That's not to say I think this is how things should be done, period. This is more of a happy accident, like tripping on the sidewalk and finding a 5 dollar bill in the grass.

I hate predators, and I'm very happy to see them get theirs.



so are there other criminals/scumbags you'd just assume see lined up and shot into an open grave? what other crimes do you feel are worthy of the death penalty? car theft? robbery? rape? selling pot? certainly these things are burdens on society, should we just kill these criminals too? one strike and you're out?
 
Snowlock said:


Because the dude's a scumbag. I'm not the sort of person who believes all life is sacred. He was and is a burden on society and I'm all to happy to have him removed from it.

That's not to say I think this is how things should be done, period. This is more of a happy accident, like tripping on the sidewalk and finding a 5 dollar bill in the grass.

I hate predators, and I'm very happy to see them get theirs.

What makes him a predator? How is that worth KILLING him? What did he do wrong? He didn't hurt anybody.
 
Vincent Vega said:


Reading comprehension?

The next sentence reads: "This case is a bit different." OK, the qualifier "a bit" is misplaced, you could leave that out. Still, it indicates that I wasn't describing that very situation in the paragraph above.


Reading comoprehension? CAREFUL. You see where I acknowledge you don't when I say "no, you don't." Someone needs to take their own advice, perhaps.

Maybe where you live, but here, in fact, guns are rarely used. You have to differentiate between who pulled the trigger, and who was accomplice. That's how it works normally. But apparently not in Texas, which is sad.

No that's not how it works normally, necessarily. What about conspiracy cases when the guy who hires another guy gets a longer prison term than the guy who pulls the trigger. Or what about the guy who is serving a life sentance, the same as a killer, when all they did was rob a convenience store three times and got nailed on a three-strikes-you're-out law?

Furthermore it's easy for you to judge every criminal and wish him the death penalty, as long as it's no relative or friend to yourself.

That's just it, no one I know, and lets not be so silly as to bring race into this, does this. Decent everyday human beings do not carjack. It's the sociopaths and the psychopaths that do this, and no amount of prison time is going to fix them. It's the rabid dog principle.

That's the figure I've read some while ago, maybe you have another one.
Dude, I don't know where you got that figure from, be it yesterday or a while ago, it's b.s. How do I prove it? I ride in cars without guns every day. All kinds of people's cars.
 
Snowlock said:

That's just it, no one I know, and lets not be so silly as to bring race into this, does this. Decent everyday human beings do not carjack. It's the sociopaths and the psychopaths that do this, and no amount of prison time is going to fix them. It's the rabid dog principle.




this is an incredibly naive statement.

would that the world were actually this simple. only bad people do bad things, and only good people do good things, and good people never do bad things.

that's how it is in Simple World.
 
Back
Top Bottom