Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^RadHazG:
As for the killer himself, as horrible as our prisons can be, I still have a hard time justifying keeping people like him alive, costing the taxpayers money and time when he himself deprived 4 people of their lives and many others of their family/friends. The problem is, if even ONE innocent man/woman ever got killed by the death penalty by my view that made/makes anyone who supported the system who killed him, accessories by default. Opinions?


It's actually more expensive and time consuming to put people to death. Link.

It has also been shown NOT to be a deterrent; that is, capital offenses do not happen less frequently in areas with the death penalty.

Additionally, if you click through my link above and scroll down to Federal Costs (3rd heading down) you will see that defendants in the lower 3rd of money spent on legal representation (less than $320,000) had a 44% chance of receiving a death sentence. For the upper 2/3rd (spending more than $320,000 on representation), the rate is 19%. Our system is imperfect and skewed toward those with money. It's not something that can necessarily be fixed, but it's not dependable enough to use as a basis to start killing people.

>> ^gwiz665:
Street justice. I understand, I don't condone or condemn.


I condone every single hit and wish that he had gotten in several more.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^COriolanus:
If I was on the son's jury, I would vote not guilty.

Then you've got no business being on a jury. I understand the son's actions; my aunt was raped and stabbed to death a few years back; but it doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to his actions. I sure as hell don't feel sorry for the defendant, but the law is the law.


The law is only the law as far as a jury of one's peers is willing to enforce it. The law's basically just an algorithm/script for justice, and you could say it leaves room for a jury of peers to manually fine-tune the application of that script.

Yo, I'm smokin herbals till it hurts you
I keep your daughter way out past her curfew
Hard far from commercial
(So what cha mean nigga)
We don't give a fuck when we smoked out
In the land that's doped out [it's like that?] no doubt
From this bomb weed, I cock from the streets
Get you open like buttcheeks, from girls who be freaks
Aiyyo, can I be SWV?
You the One nigga
Rap Shogun, yes E the one
Yo, I'm rollin with a forty pack of niggaz
Get my weed from Branson cause his sack's bigger
Yo give me dap nigga
What I clap lyrically tap call back
Ferocious causin comatoses to collapse
So chinky eyed I see people wavin on a map
I make it hotter than your thermostats (beep beep beep beep)
Bomb MC's with rough megahertz so call me
Funk Doctor verbal starburst, lyrical expert
Your boombox better form a union
Cause I leave your circus overworked, word bond
Niggaz front like they want it
But I be in the five hundred with E steadily gettin blunted
Damn nigga you cool at what you spittin
So why you holdin the blunt so long politickin
Huh, I ace them blunts with the technician
of electrician, I don't got a pot to piss in
But still spend my last on hyrdroglycerin
I keep it live no jive rollin Dutches
that's Masters like the Furious Five
I, keep your crew chinky eyed, for bitches actin dog
(Can you hit it from the back?) Why not, while we toke on this

I smoked with a lot of college, students
Most of em, wasn't graduatin and they knew it
You know the weed slang? Yeah boy I speak it fluent
I light your college dorm with my entourage from Newark
Bigger they come, harder they fall
That goes for, knuckleheads, MC's, pussy walls and all
I lit my first L before I started to crawl
I got my ass whupped when I had my first brawl
But things changed since I was twelve years old
I specialize in wreckin mics and area codes
Now, PPP the kinda niggaz that'll bug witcha
Smoke bud witcha, later on stick a sluginya
Everything that's like green ain't the bomb bitch
I got different forms to make you lose your calm bitch
Read my lips, you ain't hittin unless you got
Ten on it, get on it, or get the fuck out my cypher

>> ^Tymbrwulf:
Prison justice will play itself out. Rapists are on the low rung of the pecking order in prison.


hahaha what?

pedophiles yes, rapists and murderers no.

>> ^COriolanus:
If I was on the son's jury, I would vote not guilty.


Then you've got no business being on a jury. I understand the son's actions; my aunt was raped and stabbed to death a few years back; but it doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to his actions. I sure as hell don't feel sorry for the defendant, but the law is the law.

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

>> ^RadHazG:
As for the killer himself, as horrible as our prisons can be, I still have a hard time justifying keeping people like him alive, costing the taxpayers money and time when he himself deprived 4 people of their lives and many others of their family/friends.


I'm sorry, what? You're saying a dehumanizing prison system is desirable? Last I checked, modern law is not about vengeance, but about maintaining social order. There's no place for brutality there.

>> ^Psychologic:
>> ^RadHazG:
...if the guy had been found beyond the shadow of a doubt, innocent.
That is the standard for proving guilt, not innocence.

The problem is, if even ONE innocent man/woman ever got killed by the death penalty...
It has happened multiple times.


Actually, I believe the standard for proving guilt in a criminal case is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, not a shadow of a doubt. Beyond a shadow of a doubt is far to high of a bar to set for the justice system, most defendants would be acquitted. In a civil case the usual standard is that a claim is proven or not based on a preponderance of evidence. This is why someone like OJ may be acquitted on criminal charges but lose the related wrongful death suit even though on some level it might be considered double jeopardy.

Your video, Courtroom brawl - Son attacks his mom's killer/rapist, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^RadHazG:
...if the guy had been found beyond the shadow of a doubt, innocent.

That is the standard for proving guilt, not innocence.


The problem is, if even ONE innocent man/woman ever got killed by the death penalty...

It has happened multiple times.

Being an idiot prone to assaulting people and punching like a girl with your pinky out is actually the pre-existing condition Brycewi19.

Not only is this guy so stupid that he gets in a brawl just because someone called him an idiot (and rightly so, Americans need a good healthcare overhaul) but he doesn't even know that you're supposed to ball up your hand when you punch someone?

"So, let me get this straight.. You wake up, you're tired because you're halfway through your sleep cycle, so instead of a melee weapon where you can see what you'll be swinging at, you instead grab a gun? Yeah, have fun shooting a loved one."

No, you identify the person first in either case. It's easier to shoot someone while tired than it is to get involved in a melee. You're more likely to win in other words. You can id someone within seconds of waking up, but only sleep will give you the alertness needed to fight a brawl.

"It doesn't matter if they bring a friend, the first thing you SHOULD be doing when you hear people in your house is calling the cops (hey look, that statement wasn't actually irrelevant after all!)."

Yes, that is the first thing you do if you aren't armed. If you are armed, you arm yourself, then you call the cops and hide.

The reason it wasn't relevant is because the police will take enough time to arrive that you may very well be dead by the time they get there.

"The only time you should be engaging them anyway is if they come after you."

Yes. And if they come after you, they are most likely to win, provided you don't have a gun. If you do, the odds are about 50/50 or better in your favor.

"And saner people realise that they'll be breaking into the house and getting the jump on you, hmm? So..What the fuck good does it do you then? Neither the bat OR the gun is any use because you're now either dead, or locked in a closet. Oh, and if they continue to search after that's happened, they get to steal your gun. yay."

Except as a matter of fact, break-ins do occur when the owner has a firearm, and when the owner is not expecting it, and even though the break in itself was a surprise, it's almost always the firearm toting homeowner that wins. Your hypothetical scenario logically supports your conclusion, but it is not representative of reality.

"Strength in combat is usually not a deciding factor, if you're not as strong as some, pick a lighter bat. You don't need to be sleeping beside a 32 oz. home run machine, a 24-26 ounce metal softball bat is less then 2 pounds and longer then a knife."

No seriously, how much experience do you have fighting with a baseball bat vs someone with a knife?

I contend that
A) A knife, even a short one is much more dangerous than a baseball bat (getting hit with a bat is painful and can break bones, but being stabbed is much worse).
B) Even a short knife has a longer reach than a baseball bat (because of the thrusting motion with arm vs swing motion).

The above isn't to invite discussion on what people should arm themselves with, it's to demonstrate that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

"He brings friends, you're probably SOL in the first place, but seriously.. "

If he brings friends you can easily bring them down if you're armed with a gun and they aren't, they will be the people who are SOL. If they are armed with guns (which is very rare), then you are much better off armed yourself.

"do you think that no burglars can be stopped without a gun? I'm genuinely curious now, because if the answer is yes, then what do you think they do in..say..Canada?"

I do think burglars can be stopped without a gun. It's just that keeping guns legal helps you a lot more than it helps them. As for Canada, I believe guns are legal there. As for what they do in any given place where it is not legal to own a firearm, for the most part they deal with whatever the perps want to do with them and then file a police report after the fact. Sometimes letting the police deal with it is the correct state of affairs (robbery), and sometimes barring citizens to the means of self defense is a terribly unjust state of affairs (rape, murder).

"a decent mugger/rapist/murder/gang, which again will have the advantage of surprise."
..so, how exactly do you draw and fire a gun if you've been taken by surprise? a "decent" any one of those would have a weapon pointed at you, and have your arms either up, or somewhere away from where a concealed weapon could be. And you call my logic flawed.

Your logic is perfect. If it were true that muggings worked like that, then a concealed weapon would do you no good.

Your facts however, are wrong.

Like your previous example, you constructed a hypothetical scenario, then force it to work out like you want it to, rather than looking at what actually happens in reality.

This is the typical (real) case: someone carrying a (concealed) firearm is mugged or otherwise held up while doing something else (so as a matter of course, they were taken by surprise). The usual result of this scenario is the perpetrator running away, rarely being shot, rarer still winning a confrontation. On the other hand, if you are not armed and the perpetrator wants more than your money, then all you can do is file a police report afterward, assuming he has no interest in killing you.

P.S. My last post wasn't meant to be laughed at. Neither is this one.

That's actually what the left's organizations are putting out, that it's absolutely critical that we not match shouting with shouting, and fight the incivility with civility.

Like I said elsewhere, I think the right move is to just observe and report, and drive the narrative to be about the deceptiveness and crude anti-democratic nature of what's being done.

However, I do think it's worth noting that the right inciting angry mobs to intimidate our politicians and supporters in the hope of shutting down rational conversation crosses an important line between peaceful, rowdy political activism and thuggery and intimidation.

I can't imagine anyone who said anything like this or this would retain any kind of position of authority or respect in the progressive movement.

Fox News is already talking up this incident as if it's an example of Union "thugs" trying to beat down righteous protesters.

Why the hell can't we just have a public debate on the merits of the issue? I hunger for a real, reasonable debate, but it doesn't seem like the other side wants to engage on the merits, just with lies, fear, and now outright intimidation.