Texas executes oldest death row inmate. Christians rejoice.

God must be happy today



https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2022-04-21/oldest-texas-death-row-inmate-faces-execution-in-cops-death?context=amp

Choose life.

AvgMSUJoe wrote:Choose life.

But what if the person has brown skin and has killed a police officer? Wouldn’t God be happier if we killed him?

Hypocrites (ie Merican right wingers) would say yes.

DWags wrote:

AvgMSUJoe wrote:Choose life.

But what if the person has brown skin and has killed a police officer? Wouldn’t God be happier if we killed him?

The police officer he killed was white. The murderer was white. Why bring race into this, unless you are following the steps of the race baiting media.

NumbersDude wrote:

DWags wrote:

But what if the person has brown skin and has killed a police officer? Wouldn’t God be happier if we killed him?

The police officer he killed was white. The murderer was white. Why bring race into this, unless you are following the steps of the race baiting media.

Read the link. White guy killed a police officer with a young family in cold blood. Generally I am against the death penalty but in this case justice was served.

RQA wrote:

NumbersDude wrote:

The police officer he killed was white. The murderer was white. Why bring race into this, unless you are following the steps of the race baiting media.

Read the link. White guy killed a police officer with a young family in cold blood. Generally I am against the death penalty but in this case justice was served.

I did read it. The killer had a long criminal history and was determined to kill a cop. Shot him in the face. Not sure why religion was brought up by some here, it appears that many posters here take jabs at christians for some reason - is it the popular thing for libs now?

the party that celebrates the 'sanctity of life' and small government just participated in a government-sponsored premeditated murder of an American citizen.

'christianity'.

Robert J Sakimano wrote:the party that celebrates the 'sanctity of life' and small government just participated in a government-sponsored premeditated murder of an American citizen.

'christianity'.

I will give the Pope credit for being against the death penalty.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Robert J Sakimano wrote:the party that celebrates the 'sanctity of life' and small government just participated in a government-sponsored premeditated murder of an American citizen.

'christianity'.

I will give the Pope credit for being against the death penalty.

he's just some woke, virtue signaling cross-dresser.

sincerely,

GOP

Robert J Sakimano wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

I will give the Pope credit for being against the death penalty.

he's just some woke, virtue signaling cross-dresser.

sincerely,

GOP

Keep abortion legal. This person self aborted. Allu Akbar!

NumbersDude wrote:

DWags wrote:

But what if the person has brown skin and has killed a police officer? Wouldn’t God be happier if we killed him?

The police officer he killed was white. The murderer was white. Why bring race into this, unless you are following the steps of the race baiting media.

I don’t know why we’re talking about race either but then again I know nothing about this case.

I’m just curious though- based on what you’ve said in other threads there is no way you support the death penalty, correct?

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

NumbersDude wrote:

The police officer he killed was white. The murderer was white. Why bring race into this, unless you are following the steps of the race baiting media.

I don’t know why we’re talking about race either but then again I know nothing about this case.

I’m just curious though- based on what you’ve said in other threads there is no way you support the death penalty, correct?

This falls along the lines of states rights. In this case in particular he committed murder- totally intentionally.
He earned it. The view I have which is not a popular one:
The decision should be left in the hands of the deceased’s family. As they are most effected by it. Courts find the offender guilty and set the sentencing options and the next of kind get to decide how to carry it out.
This man in particular was a career criminal and had many chances, those chances allowed him to brutally take the life of an innocent person.

The deceaseds family opinion is absurd, that’s why they would be automatically eliminated from a jury pool in the first place. I’m not even going to address that because it’s that stupid of an idea. Sorry.

Really what I’m more interested in is how you square the circle of not trusting the government but sanctioning the governments right to murder citizens. That doesn’t make sense.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote: but sanctioning the governments right to murder citizens.

This why serious discourse is so difficult. One might agree with capital punishment. One might disagree with capital punishment. I have stated here that I am, generally, against capital punishment.

All deaths are not murder. A few are, but capital punishment is not murder.

RQA wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote: but sanctioning the governments right to murder citizens.

This why serious discourse is so difficult.   One might agree with capital punishment.   One might disagree with capital punishment.   I have stated here that I am, generally, against capital punishment.  

All deaths are not murder.   A few are, but capital punishment is not murder.  

Call it whatever the fuck you want dude, that’s not answering the question.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

RQA wrote:

This why serious discourse is so difficult.   One might agree with capital punishment.   One might disagree with capital punishment.   I have stated here that I am, generally, against capital punishment.  

All deaths are not murder.   A few are, but capital punishment is not murder.  

Call it whatever the fuck you want dude, that’s not answering the question.

If you want discussion then frame your question in a noninflammatory honest way. Some good discussion might ensue.

Or we could continue with your usual method and just type fuck a few times.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

RQA wrote:

This why serious discourse is so difficult.   One might agree with capital punishment.   One might disagree with capital punishment.   I have stated here that I am, generally, against capital punishment.  

All deaths are not murder.   A few are, but capital punishment is not murder.  

Call it whatever the fuck you want dude, that’s not answering the question.

Minimal gov interference. In the case of murder. Yes. The justice system is needed but should not impose itself unless a crime is committed.
You think I am a crazy anarchist? Ultra capitalist yes.
I am a poor. But want to make $$$.

RQA wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Call it whatever the fuck you want dude, that’s not answering the question.

If you want discussion then frame your question in a noninflammatory honest way. Some good discussion might ensue.

Or we could continue with your usual method and just type fuck a few times.

To be fair I don’t really care what you think so having an “honest” discussion with you isn’t really the motivator that you think it is

NumbersDude wrote:

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

Call it whatever the fuck you want dude, that’s not answering the question.

Minimal gov interference. In the case of murder. Yes. The justice system is needed but should not impose itself unless a crime is committed.
You think I am a crazy anarchist? Ultra capitalist yes.
I am a poor. But want to make $$$.

But if the government can’t be trusted with easily correctable decisions how can they be trusted with completely irreversible decisions? Especially when we know for an absolute fact that they’ve fucked up that irreversible decision in the past

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:The deceaseds family opinion is absurd, that’s why they would be automatically eliminated from a jury pool in the first place. I’m not even going to address that because it’s that stupid of an idea. Sorry.

Really what I’m more interested in is how you square the circle of not trusting the government but sanctioning the governments right to murder citizens. That doesn’t make sense.

If you break it down: the government does not decide the mans guilt. It is left up to the JURY. I can debate this with you even further by allowing the next if kin of the deceased decide- it limits the government involvement and puts it in the hands of the people not bureaucrats with political ambitions.

I just think God is happier when we kill people who have committed crimes.

Alleluia. Praise God.

To add on to what seems like a great idea mentioned here, do you think maybe we could have the family of the deceased, kill the person themselves? Maybe if they have like an AR15 at home, bring it up to the prison and put it to use?

Praise Jesus our country keeps evolving like this. Amen.

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:

NumbersDude wrote:
Minimal gov interference. In the case of murder. Yes. The justice system is needed but should not impose itself unless a crime is committed.
You think I am a crazy anarchist? Ultra capitalist yes.
I am a poor. But want to make $$$.

But if the government can’t be trusted with easily correctable decisions how can they be trusted with completely irreversible decisions? Especially when we know for an absolute fact that they’ve fucked up that irreversible decision in the past

There are no absolutes. Government is needed. But to what extent? What we injest and consume? The materials we can read? How our children are raised?
There is a balance of how much regulation people want in their lives.
Some people would trade freedom for a sense of security and protection. Others don’t. What is right and wrong most of the time is a matter of perspective.
America is not a homogeneous country therefore there are many different perspectives and points of view. The balance is maintaining order while not eroding personal freedom. My view of the federal government is to ensure that Americans freedoms and rights are not trampled by local and state laws and foreign influences. Not to make laws to impose on citizens.

Capital punishment is murder if there is a wrongful conviction.  That’s the primary reason MI doesn’t have the death penalty,

Conversely I am not opposed to life without parole sentences that keep convicted incarcerated unless they are proven innocent on appeal.

GRR Spartan wrote:Capital punishment is murder if there is a wrongful conviction.  That’s the primary reason MI doesn’t have the death penalty,

Conversely I am not opposed to life without parole sentences that keep convicted incarcerated unless they are proven innocent on appeal.

Michigan has never in its history as a State had a death penalty.

Trapper Gus wrote:

GRR Spartan wrote:Capital punishment is murder if there is a wrongful conviction.  That’s the primary reason MI doesn’t have the death penalty,

Conversely I am not opposed to life without parole sentences that keep convicted incarcerated unless they are proven innocent on appeal.

Michigan has never in its history as a State had a death penalty.

Wikipedia tells me that Michigan had the death penalty formally in place for treason until 1963, but never used it.