AZ. Representative shot among others

[crank lucas]

a nine year old girl, im raging so hard right now, how can you aim at a human let alone in the direction of a @*$**$@ kid

hope he burns in eternity

 

[moonmaster3]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

PHOENIX – The nation got its first look on Monday at the 22-year-old loner accused of trying to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Jared Loughner, head shaved, a cut above the right temple and his hands cuffed, scanned a packed courtroom and sat down.

His attorney, who defended Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, whispered to him.

What I really want to know is why this man is being defended in court. Why does he deserve that right...no, privilege?

Worse yet is the fact that he's being defended by the very same lawyer who defended other notable domestic terrorist. Only upside to this is the possibility that his association with that particular attorney will work to effectively demonize him more--which is good, in my opinion.

...

Since when was having a right to an attorney a privilege? No matter who you are you have the right to counsel and a right to a trial by jury, those aren't things you can just get taken away from you just because of your crime. 

Terrorists who destroy lives, and in the process, completely disregard the humanity of their direct and indirect victims are not worthy of those inalienable rights we all share/enjoy. The fact that this guy went in there to kill is evidence enough of this. Why must a monster like him be treated like a citizen.

He aint one of us. He aint a law abiding citizen. So why must the law treat him equally? And spare your me w/e moral retort you were planning--if one was in the works, of course.

I mean, really, how nutty is it that an obvious monster like him (after the fact) is worthy of a defense team? Are you friggin serious.


...

So...if it was up to you...we'd basically just shoot the guy in the back of the head or what? 

Tryna put words in my mouth eehh? Just because I'm against him having so much as a defense team doesn't mean that I think he should be killed.

I'm against the death penalty, if you must know...

People like this, who go out of their way to destroy the fabric of society, deserve to be locked up for life in some hole. That's a punishment worthy enough of a man like this.

Killing him accomplished nothing. Depriving him of his rights, like that of freedom, however, accomplishes something.


...



I mean...it's hard to take what your saying seriously when you're advocating taking away a person's due process. What's the point of even having prosecutors then if there isn't anyone to rebut it? Any other crimes you can think of where we should take away a person's due process? You have some sort of Constitutional justification for your mindset or are you just talking out of your #%@? 

 

[moonmaster3]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

PHOENIX – The nation got its first look on Monday at the 22-year-old loner accused of trying to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Jared Loughner, head shaved, a cut above the right temple and his hands cuffed, scanned a packed courtroom and sat down.

His attorney, who defended Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, whispered to him.

What I really want to know is why this man is being defended in court. Why does he deserve that right...no, privilege?

Worse yet is the fact that he's being defended by the very same lawyer who defended other notable domestic terrorist. Only upside to this is the possibility that his association with that particular attorney will work to effectively demonize him more--which is good, in my opinion.

...

Since when was having a right to an attorney a privilege? No matter who you are you have the right to counsel and a right to a trial by jury, those aren't things you can just get taken away from you just because of your crime. 

Terrorists who destroy lives, and in the process, completely disregard the humanity of their direct and indirect victims are not worthy of those inalienable rights we all share/enjoy. The fact that this guy went in there to kill is evidence enough of this. Why must a monster like him be treated like a citizen.

He aint one of us. He aint a law abiding citizen. So why must the law treat him equally? And spare your me w/e moral retort you were planning--if one was in the works, of course.

I mean, really, how nutty is it that an obvious monster like him (after the fact) is worthy of a defense team? Are you friggin serious.


...

So...if it was up to you...we'd basically just shoot the guy in the back of the head or what? 

Tryna put words in my mouth eehh? Just because I'm against him having so much as a defense team doesn't mean that I think he should be killed.

I'm against the death penalty, if you must know...

People like this, who go out of their way to destroy the fabric of society, deserve to be locked up for life in some hole. That's a punishment worthy enough of a man like this.

Killing him accomplished nothing. Depriving him of his rights, like that of freedom, however, accomplishes something.


...



I mean...it's hard to take what your saying seriously when you're advocating taking away a person's due process. What's the point of even having prosecutors then if there isn't anyone to rebut it? Any other crimes you can think of where we should take away a person's due process? You have some sort of Constitutional justification for your mindset or are you just talking out of your #%@? 

 

[essential1]

Right to a fair trial applies to all of us.. No matter how bat %#$@ crazy you are.. And no matter how $%#*+% up you act, no matter how cold you are ...It is the fabric of America.. His actions are indefensible, but he has the right to defend himself with counsel..

 

[essential1]

Right to a fair trial applies to all of us.. No matter how bat %#$@ crazy you are.. And no matter how $%#*+% up you act, no matter how cold you are ...It is the fabric of America.. His actions are indefensible, but he has the right to defend himself with counsel..

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

PHOENIX – The nation got its first look on Monday at the 22-year-old loner accused of trying to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Jared Loughner, head shaved, a cut above the right temple and his hands cuffed, scanned a packed courtroom and sat down.

His attorney, who defended Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, whispered to him.

What I really want to know is why this man is being defended in court. Why does he deserve that right...no, privilege?

Worse yet is the fact that he's being defended by the very same lawyer who defended other notable domestic terrorist. Only upside to this is the possibility that his association with that particular attorney will work to effectively demonize him more--which is good, in my opinion.

...
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/undat...lYwN5bl9yX3RvcF9waG90bwRzbGsDdGhpc3VuZGF0ZWRw

Since when was having a right to an attorney a privilege? No matter who you are you have the right to counsel and a right to a trial by jury, those aren't things you can just get taken away from you just because of your crime. 

Terrorists who destroy lives, and in the process, completely disregard the humanity of their direct and indirect victims are not worthy of those inalienable rights we all share/enjoy. The fact that this guy went in there to kill is evidence enough of this. Why must a monster like him be treated like a citizen.

He aint one of us. He aint a law abiding citizen. So why must the law treat him equally? And spare your me w/e moral retort you were planning--if one was in the works, of course.

I mean, really, how nutty is it that an obvious monster like him (after the fact) is worthy of a defense team? Are you friggin serious.


...

So...if it was up to you...we'd basically just shoot the guy in the back of the head or what? 

Tryna put words in my mouth eehh? Just because I'm against him having so much as a defense team doesn't mean that I think he should be killed.

I'm against the death penalty, if you must know...

People like this, who go out of their way to destroy the fabric of society, deserve to be locked up for life in some hole. That's a punishment worthy enough of a man like this.

Killing him accomplished nothing. Depriving him of his rights, like that of freedom, however, accomplishes something.


...

I mean...it's hard to take what your saying seriously when you're advocating taking away a person's due process. What's the point of even having prosecutors then if there isn't anyone to rebut it? Any other crimes you can think of where we should take away a person's due process? You have some sort of Constitutional justification for your mindset or are you just talking out of your #%@? 


Simply stated, our difference in opinion ultimately boils down to this: you still view this guy to be a citizen whereas me, I don't view him as such.

As a citizen, he's is deserving of lawful trial in front of and to be judged by his peers--his due process. This is where you're coming from.

The way I see it, he renounced his status as a law abiding citizen when he went on a rampage with the INTENT to kill and effectively destroy innocent lives.

At this point, he is no longer my peer, and is certainly not deserving or WORTHY of the rights and privileges that law abiding citizens enjoy. This is how I feel with radical cases such as this.

What is honestly there to consider in terms of a defense? Really, what is there?

Did he not attempt to murder a civil servant in cold blood?

Did he not succeed in murdering another civil servant in cold blood?

Did he not kill an innocent 9 year old child in cold blood?

Did he not wound several other individuals with no remorse?

So what exactly are we defending here?

Is there the remote possibility that this guy is actually innocent? Because if there is, I would really love to hear the argument from the defense.

Why must law abiding citizens waste their time sitting in a court of law, and listen to a defense team whose aim is to make humanize an obvious monster? Why must said citizens then subsequently waste their time deliberation on whether this guy is innocent (

), or guilty?

Due process is a waste of time in certain cases. This is one of them. That's as simple as I can put it.

Murderers who kill with intent, as cold blooded as this guy, in situations as callous as the recently transpired events, are not deserving of due process.


...
 

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

PHOENIX – The nation got its first look on Monday at the 22-year-old loner accused of trying to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Jared Loughner, head shaved, a cut above the right temple and his hands cuffed, scanned a packed courtroom and sat down.

His attorney, who defended Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, whispered to him.

What I really want to know is why this man is being defended in court. Why does he deserve that right...no, privilege?

Worse yet is the fact that he's being defended by the very same lawyer who defended other notable domestic terrorist. Only upside to this is the possibility that his association with that particular attorney will work to effectively demonize him more--which is good, in my opinion.

...
http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/undat...lYwN5bl9yX3RvcF9waG90bwRzbGsDdGhpc3VuZGF0ZWRw

Since when was having a right to an attorney a privilege? No matter who you are you have the right to counsel and a right to a trial by jury, those aren't things you can just get taken away from you just because of your crime. 

Terrorists who destroy lives, and in the process, completely disregard the humanity of their direct and indirect victims are not worthy of those inalienable rights we all share/enjoy. The fact that this guy went in there to kill is evidence enough of this. Why must a monster like him be treated like a citizen.

He aint one of us. He aint a law abiding citizen. So why must the law treat him equally? And spare your me w/e moral retort you were planning--if one was in the works, of course.

I mean, really, how nutty is it that an obvious monster like him (after the fact) is worthy of a defense team? Are you friggin serious.


...

So...if it was up to you...we'd basically just shoot the guy in the back of the head or what? 

Tryna put words in my mouth eehh? Just because I'm against him having so much as a defense team doesn't mean that I think he should be killed.

I'm against the death penalty, if you must know...

People like this, who go out of their way to destroy the fabric of society, deserve to be locked up for life in some hole. That's a punishment worthy enough of a man like this.

Killing him accomplished nothing. Depriving him of his rights, like that of freedom, however, accomplishes something.


...

I mean...it's hard to take what your saying seriously when you're advocating taking away a person's due process. What's the point of even having prosecutors then if there isn't anyone to rebut it? Any other crimes you can think of where we should take away a person's due process? You have some sort of Constitutional justification for your mindset or are you just talking out of your #%@? 


Simply stated, our difference in opinion ultimately boils down to this: you still view this guy to be a citizen whereas me, I don't view him as such.

As a citizen, he's is deserving of lawful trial in front of and to be judged by his peers--his due process. This is where you're coming from.

The way I see it, he renounced his status as a law abiding citizen when he went on a rampage with the INTENT to kill and effectively destroy innocent lives.

At this point, he is no longer my peer, and is certainly not deserving or WORTHY of the rights and privileges that law abiding citizens enjoy. This is how I feel with radical cases such as this.

What is honestly there to consider in terms of a defense? Really, what is there?

Did he not attempt to murder a civil servant in cold blood?

Did he not succeed in murdering another civil servant in cold blood?

Did he not kill an innocent 9 year old child in cold blood?

Did he not wound several other individuals with no remorse?

So what exactly are we defending here?

Is there the remote possibility that this guy is actually innocent? Because if there is, I would really love to hear the argument from the defense.

Why must law abiding citizens waste their time sitting in a court of law, and listen to a defense team whose aim is to make humanize an obvious monster? Why must said citizens then subsequently waste their time deliberation on whether this guy is innocent (

), or guilty?

Due process is a waste of time in certain cases. This is one of them. That's as simple as I can put it.

Murderers who kill with intent, as cold blooded as this guy, in situations as callous as the recently transpired events, are not deserving of due process.


...
 

 

[2lipslegit]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

PHOENIX – The nation got its first look on Monday at the 22-year-old loner accused of trying to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Jared Loughner, head shaved, a cut above the right temple and his hands cuffed, scanned a packed courtroom and sat down.

His attorney, who defended Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, whispered to him.

What I really want to know is why this man is being defended in court. Why does he deserve that right...no, privilege?

Worse yet is the fact that he's being defended by the very same lawyer who defended other notable domestic terrorist. Only upside to this is the possibility that his association with that particular attorney will work to effectively demonize him more--which is good, in my opinion.

...

Since when was having a right to an attorney a privilege? No matter who you are you have the right to counsel and a right to a trial by jury, those aren't things you can just get taken away from you just because of your crime. 

Terrorists who destroy lives, and in the process, completely disregard the humanity of their direct and indirect victims are not worthy of those inalienable rights we all share/enjoy. The fact that this guy went in there to kill is evidence enough of this. Why must a monster like him be treated like a citizen.

He aint one of us. He aint a law abiding citizen. So why must the law treat him equally? And spare your me w/e moral retort you were planning--if one was in the works, of course.

I mean, really, how nutty is it that an obvious monster like him (after the fact) is worthy of a defense team? Are you friggin serious.


...

So...if it was up to you...we'd basically just shoot the guy in the back of the head or what? 

Tryna put words in my mouth eehh? Just because I'm against him having so much as a defense team doesn't mean that I think he should be killed.

I'm against the death penalty, if you must know...

People like this, who go out of their way to destroy the fabric of society, deserve to be locked up for life in some hole. That's a punishment worthy enough of a man like this.

Killing him accomplished nothing. Depriving him of his rights, like that of freedom, however, accomplishes something.


...

I mean...it's hard to take what your saying seriously when you're advocating taking away a person's due process. What's the point of even having prosecutors then if there isn't anyone to rebut it? Any other crimes you can think of where we should take away a person's due process? You have some sort of Constitutional justification for your mindset or are you just talking out of your #%@? 

Simply stated, our difference in opinion ultimately boils down to this: you still view this guy to be a citizen whereas me, I don't view him as such.

As a citizen, he's is deserving of lawful trial in front of and to be judged by his peers--his due process. This is where you're coming from.

The way I see it, he renounced his status as a law abiding citizen when he went on a rampage with the INTENT to kill and effectively destroy innocent lives.

At this point, he is no longer my peer, and is certainly not deserving or WORTHY of the rights and privileges that law abiding citizens enjoy. This is how I feel with radical cases such as this.

What is honestly there to consider in terms of a defense? Really, what is there?

Did he not attempt to murder a civil servant in cold blood?

Did he not succeed in murdering another civil servant in cold blood?

Did he not kill an innocent 9 year old child in cold blood?

Did he not wound several other individuals with no remorse?

So what exactly are we defending here?

Is there the remote possibility that this guy is actually innocent? Because if there is, I would really love to hear the argument from the defense.

Why must law abiding citizens waste their time sitting in a court of law, and listen to a defense team whose aim is to make humanize an obvious monster? Why must said citizens then subsequently waste their time deliberation on whether this guy is innocent (

), or guilty?

Due process is a waste of time in certain cases. This is one of them. That's as simple as I can put it.

Murderers who kill with intent, as cold blooded as this guy, in situations as callous as the recently transpired events, are not deserving of due process.


...
 


Note to self: disregard any and all posts by UnkleTomCruze in the future

 

[2lipslegit]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

PHOENIX – The nation got its first look on Monday at the 22-year-old loner accused of trying to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Jared Loughner, head shaved, a cut above the right temple and his hands cuffed, scanned a packed courtroom and sat down.

His attorney, who defended Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, whispered to him.

What I really want to know is why this man is being defended in court. Why does he deserve that right...no, privilege?

Worse yet is the fact that he's being defended by the very same lawyer who defended other notable domestic terrorist. Only upside to this is the possibility that his association with that particular attorney will work to effectively demonize him more--which is good, in my opinion.

...

Since when was having a right to an attorney a privilege? No matter who you are you have the right to counsel and a right to a trial by jury, those aren't things you can just get taken away from you just because of your crime. 

Terrorists who destroy lives, and in the process, completely disregard the humanity of their direct and indirect victims are not worthy of those inalienable rights we all share/enjoy. The fact that this guy went in there to kill is evidence enough of this. Why must a monster like him be treated like a citizen.

He aint one of us. He aint a law abiding citizen. So why must the law treat him equally? And spare your me w/e moral retort you were planning--if one was in the works, of course.

I mean, really, how nutty is it that an obvious monster like him (after the fact) is worthy of a defense team? Are you friggin serious.


...

So...if it was up to you...we'd basically just shoot the guy in the back of the head or what? 

Tryna put words in my mouth eehh? Just because I'm against him having so much as a defense team doesn't mean that I think he should be killed.

I'm against the death penalty, if you must know...

People like this, who go out of their way to destroy the fabric of society, deserve to be locked up for life in some hole. That's a punishment worthy enough of a man like this.

Killing him accomplished nothing. Depriving him of his rights, like that of freedom, however, accomplishes something.


...

I mean...it's hard to take what your saying seriously when you're advocating taking away a person's due process. What's the point of even having prosecutors then if there isn't anyone to rebut it? Any other crimes you can think of where we should take away a person's due process? You have some sort of Constitutional justification for your mindset or are you just talking out of your #%@? 

Simply stated, our difference in opinion ultimately boils down to this: you still view this guy to be a citizen whereas me, I don't view him as such.

As a citizen, he's is deserving of lawful trial in front of and to be judged by his peers--his due process. This is where you're coming from.

The way I see it, he renounced his status as a law abiding citizen when he went on a rampage with the INTENT to kill and effectively destroy innocent lives.

At this point, he is no longer my peer, and is certainly not deserving or WORTHY of the rights and privileges that law abiding citizens enjoy. This is how I feel with radical cases such as this.

What is honestly there to consider in terms of a defense? Really, what is there?

Did he not attempt to murder a civil servant in cold blood?

Did he not succeed in murdering another civil servant in cold blood?

Did he not kill an innocent 9 year old child in cold blood?

Did he not wound several other individuals with no remorse?

So what exactly are we defending here?

Is there the remote possibility that this guy is actually innocent? Because if there is, I would really love to hear the argument from the defense.

Why must law abiding citizens waste their time sitting in a court of law, and listen to a defense team whose aim is to make humanize an obvious monster? Why must said citizens then subsequently waste their time deliberation on whether this guy is innocent (

), or guilty?

Due process is a waste of time in certain cases. This is one of them. That's as simple as I can put it.

Murderers who kill with intent, as cold blooded as this guy, in situations as callous as the recently transpired events, are not deserving of due process.


...
 


Note to self: disregard any and all posts by UnkleTomCruze in the future

 

[moonmaster3]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

PHOENIX – The nation got its first look on Monday at the 22-year-old loner accused of trying to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Jared Loughner, head shaved, a cut above the right temple and his hands cuffed, scanned a packed courtroom and sat down.

His attorney, who defended Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, whispered to him.

What I really want to know is why this man is being defended in court. Why does he deserve that right...no, privilege?

Worse yet is the fact that he's being defended by the very same lawyer who defended other notable domestic terrorist. Only upside to this is the possibility that his association with that particular attorney will work to effectively demonize him more--which is good, in my opinion.

...

Since when was having a right to an attorney a privilege? No matter who you are you have the right to counsel and a right to a trial by jury, those aren't things you can just get taken away from you just because of your crime. 

Terrorists who destroy lives, and in the process, completely disregard the humanity of their direct and indirect victims are not worthy of those inalienable rights we all share/enjoy. The fact that this guy went in there to kill is evidence enough of this. Why must a monster like him be treated like a citizen.

He aint one of us. He aint a law abiding citizen. So why must the law treat him equally? And spare your me w/e moral retort you were planning--if one was in the works, of course.

I mean, really, how nutty is it that an obvious monster like him (after the fact) is worthy of a defense team? Are you friggin serious.


...

So...if it was up to you...we'd basically just shoot the guy in the back of the head or what? 

Tryna put words in my mouth eehh? Just because I'm against him having so much as a defense team doesn't mean that I think he should be killed.

I'm against the death penalty, if you must know...

People like this, who go out of their way to destroy the fabric of society, deserve to be locked up for life in some hole. That's a punishment worthy enough of a man like this.

Killing him accomplished nothing. Depriving him of his rights, like that of freedom, however, accomplishes something.


...

I mean...it's hard to take what your saying seriously when you're advocating taking away a person's due process. What's the point of even having prosecutors then if there isn't anyone to rebut it? Any other crimes you can think of where we should take away a person's due process? You have some sort of Constitutional justification for your mindset or are you just talking out of your #%@? 

Simply stated, our difference in opinion ultimately boils down to this: you still view this guy to be a citizen whereas me, I don't view him as such.

As a citizen, he's is deserving of lawful trial in front of and to be judged by his peers--his due process. This is where you're coming from.

The way I see it, he renounced his status as a law abiding citizen when he went on a rampage with the INTENT to kill and effectively destroy innocent lives.

At this point, he is no longer my peer, and is certainly not deserving or WORTHY of the rights and privileges that law abiding citizens enjoy. This is how I feel with radical cases such as this.

What is honestly there to consider in terms of a defense? Really, what is there?

Did he not attempt to murder a civil servant in cold blood?

Did he not succeed in murdering another civil servant in cold blood?

Did he not kill an innocent 9 year old child in cold blood?

Did he not wound several other individuals with no remorse?

So what exactly are we defending here?

Is there the remote possibility that this guy is actually innocent? Because if there is, I would really love to hear the argument from the defense.

Why must law abiding citizens waste their time sitting in a court of law, and listen to a defense team whose aim is to make humanize an obvious monster? Why must said citizens then subsequently waste their time deliberation on whether this guy is innocent (

), or guilty?

Due process is a waste of time in certain cases. This is one of them. That's as simple as I can put it.

Murderers who kill with intent, as cold blooded as this guy, in situations as callous as the recently transpired events, are not deserving of due process.


...
 

I think you should look up how mens rea works before you start talking about intent, it's clear you don't have a grasp on it. As to you thinking his citizenship should be revoked...that doesn't make sense either. I'm still not sure how I'm having an argument about why due process should be applicable to all. Good stuff though, cheers. 

 

[moonmaster3]

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

PHOENIX – The nation got its first look on Monday at the 22-year-old loner accused of trying to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Jared Loughner, head shaved, a cut above the right temple and his hands cuffed, scanned a packed courtroom and sat down.

His attorney, who defended Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, whispered to him.

What I really want to know is why this man is being defended in court. Why does he deserve that right...no, privilege?

Worse yet is the fact that he's being defended by the very same lawyer who defended other notable domestic terrorist. Only upside to this is the possibility that his association with that particular attorney will work to effectively demonize him more--which is good, in my opinion.

...

Since when was having a right to an attorney a privilege? No matter who you are you have the right to counsel and a right to a trial by jury, those aren't things you can just get taken away from you just because of your crime. 

Terrorists who destroy lives, and in the process, completely disregard the humanity of their direct and indirect victims are not worthy of those inalienable rights we all share/enjoy. The fact that this guy went in there to kill is evidence enough of this. Why must a monster like him be treated like a citizen.

He aint one of us. He aint a law abiding citizen. So why must the law treat him equally? And spare your me w/e moral retort you were planning--if one was in the works, of course.

I mean, really, how nutty is it that an obvious monster like him (after the fact) is worthy of a defense team? Are you friggin serious.


...

So...if it was up to you...we'd basically just shoot the guy in the back of the head or what? 

Tryna put words in my mouth eehh? Just because I'm against him having so much as a defense team doesn't mean that I think he should be killed.

I'm against the death penalty, if you must know...

People like this, who go out of their way to destroy the fabric of society, deserve to be locked up for life in some hole. That's a punishment worthy enough of a man like this.

Killing him accomplished nothing. Depriving him of his rights, like that of freedom, however, accomplishes something.


...

I mean...it's hard to take what your saying seriously when you're advocating taking away a person's due process. What's the point of even having prosecutors then if there isn't anyone to rebut it? Any other crimes you can think of where we should take away a person's due process? You have some sort of Constitutional justification for your mindset or are you just talking out of your #%@? 

Simply stated, our difference in opinion ultimately boils down to this: you still view this guy to be a citizen whereas me, I don't view him as such.

As a citizen, he's is deserving of lawful trial in front of and to be judged by his peers--his due process. This is where you're coming from.

The way I see it, he renounced his status as a law abiding citizen when he went on a rampage with the INTENT to kill and effectively destroy innocent lives.

At this point, he is no longer my peer, and is certainly not deserving or WORTHY of the rights and privileges that law abiding citizens enjoy. This is how I feel with radical cases such as this.

What is honestly there to consider in terms of a defense? Really, what is there?

Did he not attempt to murder a civil servant in cold blood?

Did he not succeed in murdering another civil servant in cold blood?

Did he not kill an innocent 9 year old child in cold blood?

Did he not wound several other individuals with no remorse?

So what exactly are we defending here?

Is there the remote possibility that this guy is actually innocent? Because if there is, I would really love to hear the argument from the defense.

Why must law abiding citizens waste their time sitting in a court of law, and listen to a defense team whose aim is to make humanize an obvious monster? Why must said citizens then subsequently waste their time deliberation on whether this guy is innocent (

), or guilty?

Due process is a waste of time in certain cases. This is one of them. That's as simple as I can put it.

Murderers who kill with intent, as cold blooded as this guy, in situations as callous as the recently transpired events, are not deserving of due process.


...
 

I think you should look up how mens rea works before you start talking about intent, it's clear you don't have a grasp on it. As to you thinking his citizenship should be revoked...that doesn't make sense either. I'm still not sure how I'm having an argument about why due process should be applicable to all. Good stuff though, cheers. 

 

[trent ferris]

UnkleTomCruze = "Here! Take my rights away! I don't want other people using them the wrong way so I'd rather not have them either!"

 

[trent ferris]

UnkleTomCruze = "Here! Take my rights away! I don't want other people using them the wrong way so I'd rather not have them either!"

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Right to a fair trial applies to all of us.. No matter how bat %#$@ crazy you are.. And no matter how $%#*+% up you act, no matter how cold you are ...It is the fabric of America.. His actions are indefensible, but he has the right to defend himself with counsel..

See I can understand when you say something like this, because it's communicated that it's just a legality that is weaved into the fabric of our constitution which we must uphold if we are to consider ourselves Americans in constitutional sense of the word.

But that said, and as stated by you, "his actions are indefensible"...so for me, it's like why are we wasting our time here. Lock this monster in some hell hole already so he can spend the rest of his life considering where he went wrong and how he gave up his inalienable rights by violating that of others.

In situations like this, this whole talk of "due process" is just a theatrical event--really. That's what it boils down to. It gives the public a sense of closure. That he went through trial, and he got what was fairly coming to him--a conclusion that would have been so irrespective of whether he went through trial or not.

I'm of the opinion that he doesn't deserve on because it's a waste of time. Like you said, "his actions are indefensible", so why are we going to put on a show where some defense team will pretend to find some human element in this outcast.

I say we cut our losses, and rather focus our attention on what really matters, which consists of nursing the country back to some level of confidence after an incident like this, while doing all we can to make sure that the victims of this tragedy dont suffer anymore than they have--physically and mentally speaking.


...

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by Essential1

Right to a fair trial applies to all of us.. No matter how bat %#$@ crazy you are.. And no matter how $%#*+% up you act, no matter how cold you are ...It is the fabric of America.. His actions are indefensible, but he has the right to defend himself with counsel..

See I can understand when you say something like this, because it's communicated that it's just a legality that is weaved into the fabric of our constitution which we must uphold if we are to consider ourselves Americans in constitutional sense of the word.

But that said, and as stated by you, "his actions are indefensible"...so for me, it's like why are we wasting our time here. Lock this monster in some hell hole already so he can spend the rest of his life considering where he went wrong and how he gave up his inalienable rights by violating that of others.

In situations like this, this whole talk of "due process" is just a theatrical event--really. That's what it boils down to. It gives the public a sense of closure. That he went through trial, and he got what was fairly coming to him--a conclusion that would have been so irrespective of whether he went through trial or not.

I'm of the opinion that he doesn't deserve on because it's a waste of time. Like you said, "his actions are indefensible", so why are we going to put on a show where some defense team will pretend to find some human element in this outcast.

I say we cut our losses, and rather focus our attention on what really matters, which consists of nursing the country back to some level of confidence after an incident like this, while doing all we can to make sure that the victims of this tragedy dont suffer anymore than they have--physically and mentally speaking.


...

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by 2LipsLegit


Note to self: disregard any and all posts by UnkleTomCruze in the future

Be my guest.

There's an ignore feature under every SN...have a ball.

...

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by 2LipsLegit


Note to self: disregard any and all posts by UnkleTomCruze in the future

Be my guest.

There's an ignore feature under every SN...have a ball.

...

 

[luckyp90]

You dont think revoking some peoples rights will end up bad in the future? You dont think there is grey areas where people will feel cheated? You dont think there should be explanations for why something happened to get more information on the crime and other possible victims or partners to the crime? You think we should just be like oh well he just killed some people so lets just throw him in prison fo lifee.

 

[luckyp90]

You dont think revoking some peoples rights will end up bad in the future? You dont think there is grey areas where people will feel cheated? You dont think there should be explanations for why something happened to get more information on the crime and other possible victims or partners to the crime? You think we should just be like oh well he just killed some people so lets just throw him in prison fo lifee.

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

PHOENIX – The nation got its first look on Monday at the 22-year-old loner accused of trying to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Jared Loughner, head shaved, a cut above the right temple and his hands cuffed, scanned a packed courtroom and sat down.

His attorney, who defended Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, whispered to him.

What I really want to know is why this man is being defended in court. Why does he deserve that right...no, privilege?

Worse yet is the fact that he's being defended by the very same lawyer who defended other notable domestic terrorist. Only upside to this is the possibility that his association with that particular attorney will work to effectively demonize him more--which is good, in my opinion.

...

Since when was having a right to an attorney a privilege? No matter who you are you have the right to counsel and a right to a trial by jury, those aren't things you can just get taken away from you just because of your crime. 

Terrorists who destroy lives, and in the process, completely disregard the humanity of their direct and indirect victims are not worthy of those inalienable rights we all share/enjoy. The fact that this guy went in there to kill is evidence enough of this. Why must a monster like him be treated like a citizen.

He aint one of us. He aint a law abiding citizen. So why must the law treat him equally? And spare your me w/e moral retort you were planning--if one was in the works, of course.

I mean, really, how nutty is it that an obvious monster like him (after the fact) is worthy of a defense team? Are you friggin serious.


...

So...if it was up to you...we'd basically just shoot the guy in the back of the head or what? 

Tryna put words in my mouth eehh? Just because I'm against him having so much as a defense team doesn't mean that I think he should be killed.

I'm against the death penalty, if you must know...

People like this, who go out of their way to destroy the fabric of society, deserve to be locked up for life in some hole. That's a punishment worthy enough of a man like this.

Killing him accomplished nothing. Depriving him of his rights, like that of freedom, however, accomplishes something.


...

I mean...it's hard to take what your saying seriously when you're advocating taking away a person's due process. What's the point of even having prosecutors then if there isn't anyone to rebut it? Any other crimes you can think of where we should take away a person's due process? You have some sort of Constitutional justification for your mindset or are you just talking out of your #%@? 

Simply stated, our difference in opinion ultimately boils down to this: you still view this guy to be a citizen whereas me, I don't view him as such.

As a citizen, he's is deserving of lawful trial in front of and to be judged by his peers--his due process. This is where you're coming from.

The way I see it, he renounced his status as a law abiding citizen when he went on a rampage with the INTENT to kill and effectively destroy innocent lives.

At this point, he is no longer my peer, and is certainly not deserving or WORTHY of the rights and privileges that law abiding citizens enjoy. This is how I feel with radical cases such as this.

What is honestly there to consider in terms of a defense? Really, what is there?

Did he not attempt to murder a civil servant in cold blood?

Did he not succeed in murdering another civil servant in cold blood?

Did he not kill an innocent 9 year old child in cold blood?

Did he not wound several other individuals with no remorse?

So what exactly are we defending here?

Is there the remote possibility that this guy is actually innocent? Because if there is, I would really love to hear the argument from the defense.

Why must law abiding citizens waste their time sitting in a court of law, and listen to a defense team whose aim is to make humanize an obvious monster? Why must said citizens then subsequently waste their time deliberation on whether this guy is innocent (

), or guilty?

Due process is a waste of time in certain cases. This is one of them. That's as simple as I can put it.

Murderers who kill with intent, as cold blooded as this guy, in situations as callous as the recently transpired events, are not deserving of due process.


...
 

I think you should look up how mens rea works before you start talking about intent, it's clear you don't have a grasp on it. As to you thinking his citizenship should be revoked...that doesn't make sense either. I'm still not sure how I'm having an argument about why due process should be applicable to all. Good stuff though, cheers. 



I don't have a grasp on it, you say? Please enlighten me. No really, please do.

And as for the citizenship point--it's rather straight forward. You're just being obtuse about the matter.

All that is being said, by me, is that individuals who commit egregious crimes such as this--crimes which affect and effect the entirety of a society in such a negative way--should no longer be viewed as citizens, and are consequently, undeserving and unworthy of being treated in a manner befitting the very citizens they hurt.

It's that simple.


...

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

Originally Posted by moonmaster3

Originally Posted by UnkleTomCruze

PHOENIX – The nation got its first look on Monday at the 22-year-old loner accused of trying to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Jared Loughner, head shaved, a cut above the right temple and his hands cuffed, scanned a packed courtroom and sat down.

His attorney, who defended Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, whispered to him.

What I really want to know is why this man is being defended in court. Why does he deserve that right...no, privilege?

Worse yet is the fact that he's being defended by the very same lawyer who defended other notable domestic terrorist. Only upside to this is the possibility that his association with that particular attorney will work to effectively demonize him more--which is good, in my opinion.

...

Since when was having a right to an attorney a privilege? No matter who you are you have the right to counsel and a right to a trial by jury, those aren't things you can just get taken away from you just because of your crime. 

Terrorists who destroy lives, and in the process, completely disregard the humanity of their direct and indirect victims are not worthy of those inalienable rights we all share/enjoy. The fact that this guy went in there to kill is evidence enough of this. Why must a monster like him be treated like a citizen.

He aint one of us. He aint a law abiding citizen. So why must the law treat him equally? And spare your me w/e moral retort you were planning--if one was in the works, of course.

I mean, really, how nutty is it that an obvious monster like him (after the fact) is worthy of a defense team? Are you friggin serious.


...

So...if it was up to you...we'd basically just shoot the guy in the back of the head or what? 

Tryna put words in my mouth eehh? Just because I'm against him having so much as a defense team doesn't mean that I think he should be killed.

I'm against the death penalty, if you must know...

People like this, who go out of their way to destroy the fabric of society, deserve to be locked up for life in some hole. That's a punishment worthy enough of a man like this.

Killing him accomplished nothing. Depriving him of his rights, like that of freedom, however, accomplishes something.


...

I mean...it's hard to take what your saying seriously when you're advocating taking away a person's due process. What's the point of even having prosecutors then if there isn't anyone to rebut it? Any other crimes you can think of where we should take away a person's due process? You have some sort of Constitutional justification for your mindset or are you just talking out of your #%@? 

Simply stated, our difference in opinion ultimately boils down to this: you still view this guy to be a citizen whereas me, I don't view him as such.

As a citizen, he's is deserving of lawful trial in front of and to be judged by his peers--his due process. This is where you're coming from.

The way I see it, he renounced his status as a law abiding citizen when he went on a rampage with the INTENT to kill and effectively destroy innocent lives.

At this point, he is no longer my peer, and is certainly not deserving or WORTHY of the rights and privileges that law abiding citizens enjoy. This is how I feel with radical cases such as this.

What is honestly there to consider in terms of a defense? Really, what is there?

Did he not attempt to murder a civil servant in cold blood?

Did he not succeed in murdering another civil servant in cold blood?

Did he not kill an innocent 9 year old child in cold blood?

Did he not wound several other individuals with no remorse?

So what exactly are we defending here?

Is there the remote possibility that this guy is actually innocent? Because if there is, I would really love to hear the argument from the defense.

Why must law abiding citizens waste their time sitting in a court of law, and listen to a defense team whose aim is to make humanize an obvious monster? Why must said citizens then subsequently waste their time deliberation on whether this guy is innocent (

), or guilty?

Due process is a waste of time in certain cases. This is one of them. That's as simple as I can put it.

Murderers who kill with intent, as cold blooded as this guy, in situations as callous as the recently transpired events, are not deserving of due process.


...
 

I think you should look up how mens rea works before you start talking about intent, it's clear you don't have a grasp on it. As to you thinking his citizenship should be revoked...that doesn't make sense either. I'm still not sure how I'm having an argument about why due process should be applicable to all. Good stuff though, cheers. 



I don't have a grasp on it, you say? Please enlighten me. No really, please do.

And as for the citizenship point--it's rather straight forward. You're just being obtuse about the matter.

All that is being said, by me, is that individuals who commit egregious crimes such as this--crimes which affect and effect the entirety of a society in such a negative way--should no longer be viewed as citizens, and are consequently, undeserving and unworthy of being treated in a manner befitting the very citizens they hurt.

It's that simple.


...

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by LuckyP90

You dont think revoking some peoples rights will end up bad in the future? You dont think there is grey areas where people will feel cheated? You dont think there should be explanations for why something happened to get more information on the crime and other possible victims or partners to the crime? You think we should just be like oh well he just killed some people so lets just throw him in prison fo lifee.

I'm way ahead of you brah (no shots). That's why I've been particular in stating the types of criminals (monsters) who are undeserving of these rights.

As for getting information, that's a given. And that's certainly not something that requires a trial for. Most, if not all info on crimes, is often acquired before the trial. Right?


...

 

[unkletomcruze]

Originally Posted by LuckyP90

You dont think revoking some peoples rights will end up bad in the future? You dont think there is grey areas where people will feel cheated? You dont think there should be explanations for why something happened to get more information on the crime and other possible victims or partners to the crime? You think we should just be like oh well he just killed some people so lets just throw him in prison fo lifee.

I'm way ahead of you brah (no shots). That's why I've been particular in stating the types of criminals (monsters) who are undeserving of these rights.

As for getting information, that's a given. And that's certainly not something that requires a trial for. Most, if not all info on crimes, is often acquired before the trial. Right?


...

 

[whiterails]

In your world, who determines who gets a trial and who doesn't?   
I can see a whole lot of problems with not giving a fair trail to everybody, but where's the upside?

The dude will either end up with a needle in his arm or locked away in a SuperMax for life.  

That's not enough?

 

[whiterails]

In your world, who determines who gets a trial and who doesn't?   
I can see a whole lot of problems with not giving a fair trail to everybody, but where's the upside?

The dude will either end up with a needle in his arm or locked away in a SuperMax for life.  

That's not enough?