home

Another Wrongful Conviction on Death Row, Inmate Released

By Jeralyn, Section Innocence Cases
Posted on Fri May 11, 2007 at 02:26:02 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

An unethical prosecutor and a fraudulent lab chemist put Curtis McCarty on death row in Oklahoma, not once, but three times. After 21 years in prison, he's now been exonerated:

The Innocence Project details the case and says:

“For anyone who believes the death penalty is being carried out appropriately in this country, and anyone who believes that prosecutors and government witnesses can always be relied on to pursue the truth, this case is a wake-up call,” said Peter Neufeld, Co-Director of the Innocence Project. “Three separate times, an innocent man was sentenced to die because of the actions of an unethical prosecutor and a fraudulent analyst.”

McCarty is the 201st person in the United States exonerated through DNA evidence – and the 15th of those 201 who has served time on death row. McCarty is the ninth person to be exonerated by DNA evidence in Oklahoma and the third to be exonerated from the state’s death row.

As for the prosecutor, it was Bob Macy of Oklahoma City.

Robert H. Macy, who was the Oklahoma County District Attorney for 21 years, prosecuted McCarty in both of his trials. Macy sent 73 people to death row – more than any other prosecutor in the nation – and 20 of them have been executed. Macy has said publicly that he believes executing an innocent person is a sacrifice worth making in order to keep the death penalty in the United States.

Macy committed misconduct in the manner that he prosecuted McCarty and presented the case to the jury. His misconduct was compounded when he relied on Joyce Gilchrist, a police lab analyst who falsified test results and hid or destroyed evidence in order to help secure McCarty’s convictions. Gilchrist was the lead forensic analyst in 23 cases that ended in death sentences (11 of the defendants in those cases have been executed).

“This is by far one of the worst cases of law enforcement misconduct in the history of the American criminal justice system,” said Barry Scheck, Co-Director of the Innocence Project, which is affiliated with Cardozo School of Law. “Bob Macy has said that executing an innocent person is a risk worth taking – and he came very close to doing just that with Curtis McCarty.”

< Author John Grisham: Stop Executions | 33 Years Ago This Week >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Another Wrongful Conviction on Death Row, Inmate Released | 89 comments (89 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    What happens to them? (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by libdevil on Fri May 11, 2007 at 02:37:42 PM EST
    The 'scientist' and the prosecutor, that is?  Will they be charged with what is nothing less than a conspiracy to commit murder?  Will the other cases they've handled be reexamined, including the ones where they've already managed to execute the convicted?

    Mistakes Happen (5.00 / 3) (#2)
    by squeaky on Fri May 11, 2007 at 02:42:08 PM EST
    edger (none / 0) (#8)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 10:00:53 AM EST
    Workman was tried, found guilty and had 26 years of appeals.  He was lawfully executed.....

    Huh?? (none / 0) (#49)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed May 09, 2007 at 07:30:39 PM EST
    And none of this came to light in 26 years??  

    Guess all those convictions, and appeals that are rejected are not always correct. Too late is not a good answer. The Death Penalty unfair, barbaric and plain wrong.

    If murder is wrong, then murder is wrong. (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by lilybart on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:12:03 PM EST

    "do as we say, not as we do"

    That is what the State says to citizens when they kill you for killing someone.

    Parent

    Squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:42:00 PM EST
    I don't mind you quoting me. At least that shows you have been exposed to  small amount of sanity. But let's examine the rest of what I wrote.

    And, as you know, I am somewhat conflicted over capital punishment, believeing that we must be very certain. Arguing for it, there have been too many guards and other prisioners killed by convicted killers to just say LWOP solves all.

    So. Do you have an answer?

    How do you prevent someone on LWOP from killing another prisoner, guard, or someother employee?

    And if he does, would you agree that the sentence is automatic, dead? And if it is automatic, why shouldn't the killer kill as many as possible??

    I await your response, squeaky.

    Parent

    What? (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by squeaky on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:55:41 PM EST
    Not only are you pro death penalty, you are for shooting people before they even get a trial. And if the FBI says someone is guilty then there is no need for due process as we have seen in your comments about the recent Fort DIx arrests.  Seems that there is nothing to argue about. Putting people to death is barbaric.

    BTW this thread is not about prison violence although I am sure that you would like to change the subject.

    Parent

    Squeaky smears again (1.00 / 1) (#13)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2007 at 09:30:56 PM EST
    Hmmm

    I didn't know that:

    Not only are you pro death penalty, you are for shooting people before they even get a trial.

    Could you please show us a link along with those tall tales you put together?

    Really squeaky, you compell me to remind the world of your standard of truth:

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I

    Why should you? Of, I don't know. Truth? Justice? Morally Right? The American Way?

    I would say you pick'em, but you are so challenged  that it is a hopless case.

    Would you please quit?? This is just sooooooo boring.

    Parent

    Links (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by squeaky on Fri May 11, 2007 at 11:37:01 PM EST
    Re: Inside the Superdome: Child Raped, Three Deat (none / 0) (#3)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Sep 01, 2005 at 02:39:20 PM EST
    edger - I hope it convinces the public that when things such as this happens, people who break the law should be dealt with very quickly and very harshly.

    link

    Re: Inside the Superdome: Child Raped, Three Deat (none / 0) (#24)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:03:02 PM EST
    scar writes
    Jim, there's enough people dying, for f*ck's sake. How about we concentrate on saving the good ones first.
    Scar, these are people shooting at the rescue teams for God's sake. Try; just try, perhaps for the first time in your life to visit reality. Why do you think rescue workers will go into a situation in which people are shooting at them? Gesh. desertswine - Can you explain to me why having something bad happen to you should allow you to not pay your debts? Did anyone hold a gun on these people to use the cards? Sailor - As you well know, the comment was about people shooting at the rescue teams. But hey, a nice out of context try. ShernBuck writes:
    Because what really matters is all of us pulling together to help the folks of New Orleans.
    There is a saying in Las Vegas, "Money talks and BS walks." And man you are walking right along.

    Re: Murder or Treatment? (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 08:20:26 PM EST
    Squeaky - Perhaps you can tell us how shooting looters is the same as a Doctor deciding thst it is in the best interest of a patient to die, now.

    Re: Murder or Treatment? (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:42:52 AM EST

    .....Killing looters, good. Killing medical patients, bad.

    link

    link

    The facts are that if the area is not secure, you can't ask aid workers to risk their lives. So law and order must be the first priority. I favor shooting back and killing a few of these criminals in a very effective and public manner.

    link

    Parent

    Thank You Squeaky!!!! (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 12, 2007 at 09:40:26 AM EST
    Not only are you pro death penalty, you are for shooting people before they even get a trial.

    I love it.

    You take a thread that is about Capital Punishment and turn it into comments about what should be done about looters and rapists and those who shoot at first responders.

    Thank You Thank You. Thank you for pointing out that I believe that people who are shooting at First Responders, looters who do do not stop and rapist who rape, deserve to be shot.

    Jim, there's enough people dying, for f*ck's sake. How about we concentrate on saving the good ones first.

    Scar, these are people shooting at the rescue teams for God's sake. Try; just try, perhaps for the first time in your life to visit reality.

    jimakaPPJ on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 10:00:27 AM EST
    From the post:

        will a jury second-guess what may have been a medical judgment that doomed patients should die in peace, not in pain?

    A medical judgment? Have we came to the point that a Doctor can use "medical judgment" to determine if someone should die? Absent any evidence that the patients asked to die, then this is murder, pure and simple.

    Now what else did you leave out in your little attempt at slander?

    First, my comment is not towards the particular doctor. I do not have enough information to either approve or disapprove. I speak from a generic viewpoint. And that, again, is simple. It is not up to the doctors to decide to kill someone in "mercy." If you can't see the danger in that there is nothing I can add. Squeaky you got it. Killing looters, good. Killing medical patients, bad
    .

    You again prove that your are as intellectually dishonest as your comment about Rove show.

    I stand behind my comments 100%.

    Parent

    Jim (none / 0) (#23)
    by Edger on Sat May 12, 2007 at 09:51:02 AM EST
    For once in your life, grow up, and quit your childish thread hijacking crap.

    And you don't need to respond with more of it to this. You know exactly what you are doing. So does everyone else. And it has nothing to do with Squeaky.

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 12, 2007 at 10:46:47 AM EST
    Tell it to your buddy squeaky.

    He is very useful to you and sailor in making false charges, and when I take the opportunity to point out what he is doing, you two come making snarky comments about me.

    Remember this? It is on the same thread, so it is quite easy to find. Just try scrolling up.

    by squeaky on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:55:41 PM EST

    Not only are you pro death penalty, you are for shooting people before they even get a trial.

    Now that was after I had noted I was conflicted over the death peanlty, and squeaky used the word "people." The word "people" was misused. When I challenged him to not make things up as he does so often, and reminded everyone that he has said what he will do, he comes back with links and quotes to a thread that was about responses to illegal actions, including looters shooting at First Responders, etc.

    In other words, he takes specifics and smears with  a broad brush by using the word "people" rather than the specifics.

    That is dishonest.

    Now, tell me this. Since all of this is on the same thread as is so easy to see, why do you try your dishonest move. Good grief. You are as bad as sailor who I recently showed doing the same thing two, or was it three, times in the same day.

    BTW - At the end of this thread I made a detailed comment about the death penalty. I have also asked several, and I think you, to explain how LWOP doesn't place guards, prisoners and rehab workers in great harm..

    Why don't you try and engage in an on topic debate rather than complaining about my response to an off topic attack and smear.

    Parent

    No one needs to smear you Jim (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Edger on Sat May 12, 2007 at 11:28:52 AM EST
    You do it well enough to yourself.

    Parent
    looters are people too (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by squeaky on Sat May 12, 2007 at 12:00:14 PM EST
    And last time I checked people are allegedly looters until proven guilty in a court of law. Shooting people who you think are looters is not an American principal, maybe amongst your circle it is but that is not how justice in America works.

    You also are against due process for alleged terrorist. So far I have only seen you argue against due process and innocence until proven guilty when Muslims are the terror suspects, do you also advocate suspending civil rights for non muslims aka homegrown christianists?

    some are willing to give 6 Islamic extrimists the benifit of the doubt over the FBI.
    Well yes, we assume innocence until proven guilty here in America.

    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 10, 2007 at 04:42:04 PM EST

    At this point, having listened carefully, I'd say these guys are ready to go to prison for say, 40 to 60 years WOP.

    Listened carefully?? to what Faux news? the government who is trying the case?

    You sound like someone who would have lead a lynch mob, back in the days where that sort of thing was popular.

    Parent

    Squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#40)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 12, 2007 at 10:44:39 PM EST
    As dear ole Col Potter said.

    Horse hockey....

    Your example went right into a thread that was discussing looters who were:

    Scar, these are people shooting at the rescue teams for God's sake. Try; just try, perhaps for the first time in your life to visit reality.

    You tried to smear and got caught.

    'Nuff said.

    Parent

    You have it backwards as usual (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Edger on Sat May 12, 2007 at 10:48:39 PM EST
    You tried to smear, but you missed and shot yourself in both feet. Again. You're leaving a trail of bloody footprints now, everywhere you go. Clean up after yourself, will you.

    Parent
    Vigilante (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by squeaky on Sat May 12, 2007 at 11:54:09 PM EST
    Scar, these are people shooting at the rescue teams for God's sake. Try; just try, perhaps for the first time in your life to visit reality.
    Yes even though there was plenty of evidence that much of the looting was going on for survival and little evidence that the looters were shooting at people, you chose to believe that the looters shooting at people. Had you been in charge there would have been riots and many more deaths. There was no looters shooting.

    Of it turned out that the Blackwater mercs were just having a little target practice on the locals.

    And don't forget this:

    Killing looters, good. Killing medical patients, bad.

    You also mentioned your favorite method for vigilante justice:
    an automatic rifle.

    All people are not of equal value, isn't that the way you think of it.

    Parent

    Squwaky plays dumb. (1.00 / 1) (#51)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 13, 2007 at 09:12:38 AM EST
    And he isn't. He is smart. So why does he pretend to not understanding this simple statement about looters who were shooting at First Responders, which got a lot of play in the MSM.


    Scar, these are people shooting at the rescue teams

    Because.....

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    So keep on making things up. Have fun demonstrating your standard method of operation. I'll be there to provide the highlights.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by squeaky on Sun May 13, 2007 at 10:24:13 AM EST
    You have argued for shooting looters in several threads.

    Re: Murder or Treatment? (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:42:52 AM EST
    .....Killing looters, good. Killing medical patients, bad.

    This quote had nothing to do with first responders. It is a comparison you used to defend your position that an alleged case of triage euthanasia should be prosecuted as murder. You make the argument that a doctor should not be able to decide to kill someone that is going to die a painful death, under horrible circumstances, during a disaster, but it is OK for anyone to shoot looters.

    It is hard to imagine that there is any qualification in your mind when it comes to shooting looters. It is clear to all that as far as you are concerned it is a good thing, period.

    Parent

    squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:01:52 PM EST
    Sigh.... You are just so dense...

    The total comment was in the context of LEGAL activity vs ILLEGAL activities. Shooting people engaged in illegal acts is LEGAL under certain circumstances.

    I argued that it is illegal for doctors to engage in mercy killing without the patients permission.

    I assume from your comments that you are for mercy killig and against stopping looters and other people engaged in criminal activity.

    Since you are a member of the Left I understand that your position is that property ownership is assumed to be held by the state, thus no individul should be allowed to defend property from people who are trying to steal it.

    I maintain that without the right to own and defend private property you have no rights.

    It is has been my experience that the LESS private property someone owns the MORE they think property shouldn't be defended.

    Go get modestly wealthy and then come back to me.

    Parent

    What an ignorant comment... (none / 0) (#56)
    by Edger on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:59:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Edger (1.00 / 0) (#64)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 13, 2007 at 02:42:13 PM EST
    Really? Did you think I thought you would be smart enough to understand it?

    Now go give us a link to your blog to a link from someone whose comment will probably not work because you couldn't even understand the question.

    Parent

    C'mon, jim (none / 0) (#70)
    by Edger on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:40:01 PM EST
    Don't make me make you do it to yourself again. You  appear to be having enough trouble keeping up appearances today.

    Parent
    Besides (none / 0) (#52)
    by Edger on Sun May 13, 2007 at 09:23:16 AM EST
    whether it's helpless old women or students, shooting protesters with automatic weapons is fun, right Jim?

    Parent
    Thread crapping (none / 0) (#14)
    by Edger on Fri May 11, 2007 at 09:35:20 PM EST


    Parent
    edger (1.00 / 1) (#15)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2007 at 10:13:58 PM EST
    You know, I thought the same thing when I read squeaky's dishonest comments.

    How remarkable we are finally on the same page.

    Parent

    If we were (none / 0) (#17)
    by Edger on Fri May 11, 2007 at 10:29:43 PM EST
    I wouldn't have had to make my comment and you wouldn't be trying to convince yourself.

    Parent
    Right on, Squeaky (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Che's Lounge on Fri May 11, 2007 at 02:50:20 PM EST
    The Death Penalty unfair, barbaric and plain wrong.

    As are those who support it.

    Che (1.00 / 2) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2007 at 10:17:40 PM EST
    I find it remarkable that someone with the moniker of a stone cold killer would dare enter into the conversation.

    But, in the interest of the betterment of communication, I would ask you to tell us how LWOP can be used to first punish a killer, and then ensure the killer doesn't kill a guard, or teacher or another inmate.

    Your response will be read avidly.

    Parent

    Poker Player Jim (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by squeaky on Sat May 12, 2007 at 12:46:45 PM EST
    I find it remarkable that someone with the moniker of a stone cold killer would dare enter into the conversation.

    As opposed to the moniker of a deceitful gambler that prides himself on the ability to lie with a straight face?

    Parent

    I'm amazed once again Jim by your logic (none / 0) (#32)
    by Freewill on Sat May 12, 2007 at 11:40:43 AM EST
    and reasoning process. Do you have experience inside of a prison? Do you have experience working with those who have been convicted by the courts for murder? Have you ever been around someone who has been sentenced to death or sentenced to life without the possibility of parole?

    I would ask you to tell us how LWOP can be used to first punish a killer, and then ensure the killer doesn't kill a guard, or teacher or another inmate.

    Jim it's called being professional! Might I ask you, "Can you ensure that I don't get hit by a Bus today?" Nothing in life is guaranteed except for the fact that you will, no matter the topic, find a way to side-track the topic, disagree and become combative with everyone, and accuse everyone who doesn't agree with you as being HATERS.

    Jim, Professional people work in prisons and know how to best deal with those who have nothing to lose. Your argument(s) are based upon what study? Do you simply make up an argument to defend your position and then stick with that argument until its purpose becomes useless to your agenda?

    Let me demonstrate: You constantly remind us all here at TL that you used to be a Democrat but you became disillusioned (Jim that's called paraphrasing your message and before you ask provide a link I ask, do you disagree with this paraphrasing?) and therefore you are now an Independent. Apply your reasoning that comes across as "Once a Killer, Always a Killer" (again paraphrasing your message because that is how it comes off. If you disagree then I suggest you explain your position better!).

    Reasoning: Jim's "Once a Killer, Always a Killer" theory. Is it safe to say based upon your own reasoning that it is impossible for you to have ever been a Democrat?


    Parent

    I just don't understand (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by HK on Fri May 11, 2007 at 02:58:38 PM EST
    how anyone can say it is acceptable to execute an innocent person in the name of justice.  If the person is innocent, it's not justice!

    Where the death penalty is concerned, no level of error is acceptable.  It's not like we are talking about the success rate of, say, a face cream, when we can say if it doesn't work, "well, we gave it a go and money was wasted, but we have to accept they don't promise it always works and that's that."  We are talking about people's lives.  The lives of those convicted and their families.  And don't forget that for those 21 years, the guilty person has been free.

    If a prosecutor, like Macy, makes it known that he doesn't mind sending an innocent person to their death, surely that must lead to questions about their level of commitment to doing their job with the integrity that is required.

    IMO, it's rather telling that (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Edger on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:26:36 PM EST
    when things like McCarty's case come to light, or worse, when it's shown that someone executed was innocent, we rarely if ever hear any expressions of remorse or sorrow or even questioning of the death penalty from it's supporters.

    Usually their responses seem to boil down to something like 'shrug, mistakes happen' or 'the system isn't perfect' or, worst of all, something along the lines of 'he/she must have deserved it or wouldn't have been convicted', as if conviction is a justification.

    But rarely any questioning, only silence or defensiveness. How else could anyone convince themselves it's acceptable to execute an innocent person?

    Parent

    Didn't the Founders feel the opposite? (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by lilybart on Fri May 11, 2007 at 07:13:54 PM EST
    I think that strict rules of search and other protections for the accused were thought to be more important than someone getting away with a crime once in awhile.  NOT a "kill them all let god sort it out."

    Parent
    That (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri May 11, 2007 at 03:27:25 PM EST
    If a prosecutor, like Macy, makes it known that he doesn't mind sending an innocent person to their death, surely that must lead to questions about their level of commitment to doing their job with the integrity that is required.
    bears repeating.

    If the article (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by jondee on Fri May 11, 2007 at 04:19:15 PM EST
    is accurate, Macy dosnt say he accepts the trade-off of the occasional killing of innocents in the name of justice, but as an acceptable price to pay in order to keep the death penalty.

    My guess is that being pro D.P, with it's frontier justice overtones, is still a sexy campaign issue in that neck of the woods. For an exemplar of someone who milked that cow for all it was worth look no further than the current as* clown-in-chief.

    Jondee (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2007 at 10:33:02 PM EST
    That has long been the position of various people. That you, and I, reject it, has nothing to do with the argument itself, given that society has many times required men to die for a concept.

    I reference those who went ashore on D-Day and those who went up Cemetary Ridge.

    The additional argument is that the death penalty, administered by the state, elimnates blood feuds and insures a more orderly and proper society by providing the function of revenge for the family/friends of the wronged individual.

    The argument that no one should be punished because we have had bad prosecutors and didn't have DNA testing is compelling until you ask the question, "Is there nothing that the individual can do that society can ask him to pay the ultimate price?"

    As you think about your response you can, as I suspect you will, go for the short vulgar comeback. As you do, remember that, as I quoted above, I am conflicted over the issue.

    Now is your chance to demonstrate a previoulsy uneseen capability to presuade.

    Parent

    so (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by orionATL on Fri May 11, 2007 at 09:16:04 PM EST
    does this mean we can execute mr macy now?

    Which (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jondee on Sat May 12, 2007 at 11:26:44 AM EST
    "false claim": that you, a "conflicted" person, have never, in three or four years, made so much as a pithy boo in reference to Bush's record vis a vis executions? But, I should know better: doing that would emboden the enemy and we sure dont want the Left emboldened, even if our moral sense has to "die" to prevent it.

    Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 12, 2007 at 10:51:11 PM EST
    None of this has anything to do with my comment.

    But just for funzies.... Provide some links.

    Parent

    Like the 73 y/o NOLA woman (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Che's Lounge on Sat May 12, 2007 at 12:36:16 PM EST
    who was busted for "looting" from the trunk of her own car. Spent 2 weeks in jail before they realized their FU.

    Jim believes she should have been shot on sight. Disgusting.

    And the only concern I have about my pseudonym is that I hope I do not dishonor the name of DOCTOR Ernesto "Che" Guevara De La Serna Lynch. We have the same enemies. I could care less about your opinion of him. He was a better man than you could ever hope to be. Fortunately the VAST majority the world can easily see through your spoon fed, self righteous propaganda.

    Che (1.00 / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 12, 2007 at 10:53:19 PM EST
    Jim believes she should have been shot on sight. Disgusting.

    Che, this is why comments by people like Squeaky are  so damanable. I didn't say that.

    Now that you know, if you repeat it, then I think it will fall under the "Lie" category.

    Parent

    Che - Since you brought the subject up (1.00 / 0) (#47)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 12, 2007 at 11:08:45 PM EST
    Here Che was, finally in his element. In battle he was a sad joke, a bumbler of epic proportions [for details see "Fidel: Hollywood's Favorite Tyrant"], but up against disarmed and bloodied boys he was a snarling tiger.

    "'Kneel Down!' Che barked at the boy.

    "'ASSASSINS!' We screamed from our window. 'MURDERERS!! HOW CAN YOU MURDER A LITTLE BOY!'

    "'I said, KNEEL DOWN!' Che barked again.

    "The boy stared Che resolutely in the face. 'If you're going to kill me,' he yelled. 'you'll have to do it while I'm standing! MEN die standing!'

    "COWARDS! MURDERERS! Sons of B**TCHES!" The men yelled desperately from their cells. "LEAVE HIM ALONE!" HOW CAN ...?!"

    "And then we saw Che unholstering his pistol. It didn't seem possible. But Che raised his pistol, put the barrel to the back of the boy's neck and blasted. The shot almost decapitated the young boy.

    Link

    You want him? You've got him. The smell of blood, puke, guts and death is too much for me.

    Parent

    OFF TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACK (none / 0) (#55)
    by Sailor on Sun May 13, 2007 at 12:36:44 PM EST
    but what else is new.

    Parent
    Sailor logic (1.00 / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:20:08 PM EST
    Yeah, I would say that the REAL Che did a very personal attack.

    As for OUR Che... Hey, if you don't want to talk about something, why bring up??

    Or do you go around bring up subjects you don't want to talk about????

    Parent

    The (none / 0) (#58)
    by Edger on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:28:34 PM EST
    smell of blood, puke, guts and death is too much for you?

    Is that why you try to bury your head and avoid subjects you don't want to talk about?

    Parent

    the topic (none / 0) (#69)
    by Sailor on Sun May 13, 2007 at 06:23:37 PM EST
    is about wrongful convictions on death row, not che and not you.

    Try to stay on topic and stop making personal attacks.

    Folks who think killing innocent people 'occasionally' is just the cost of law and order are an anathema to what America was founded on.

    Parent

    Sigh, yawn (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by jondee on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:39:09 PM EST
    If it weren't for all intents and purposes your site, I'd elaborate in pungent detail exactly how meaningless your assessment of who-can-debate is to me, Jim.

    I'll just leave it to your imagination. Such as it is.

    The "last chance" to read a ppj post? Are you trying to set off a panic reaction at the site: you can almost hear the mad scramble. LOL.

    Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#46)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 12, 2007 at 11:01:08 PM EST
    For about the 100th time I invite you to provide some links.

    You never do.

    That tells us all what you are.

    Incapable of debating, incapable of making a point, incapable of anything else, you make things up and smear.

    Prove me wrong.

    Of course you will not because you can not.

    Go back and read my 11:07AM comment, and respond.

    You can't.


    Parent

    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by jondee on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:49:20 PM EST
    dosnt it ever bother you -- even a teeny bit -- that, after all these years, you wind up playing slavish lapdog for a someone who cant even summon the dignity and sense of common decency to refrain from publicly mocking a condemned prisoner?

    And you want us to believe that you can distinguish between civility and vulgarity.

    death penalty (none / 0) (#19)
    by diogenes on Fri May 11, 2007 at 10:42:28 PM EST
    Doesn't the ultimate outcome prove that the death penalty is being properly carried out?  He wasn't executed.  If he had wrongfully been sentenced to LWOP he'd still have been wrongfully sentenced.
    Who exactly are all the "wrongfully executed" people that people keep talking about here?

    As I've said before (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by HK on Sat May 12, 2007 at 05:22:41 AM EST
    few people are pardoned after execution, not least because the defence lawyers who were working on their cases move onto other cases in which their client is still alive and stands a chance of being saved.  Thus the list of "wrongfully executed" inmates is short, although there is a list.  This is from the Death Penalty Information Center:

    Determining Innocence After An Execution

    This report does not include in its totals the cases of possibly innocent persons who have been executed. Reports of executions of innocent people weighed heavily in some other countries' decisions to stop using the death penalty. Two American researchers, Professors Hugo Bedau and Michael Radelet, reported 23 instances in which innocent people have been executed in the United States in this century.39

    Among the cases noted by Bedau and Radelet are cases in the south of black men tried by all white juries and executed for the rape of a white woman. In some of these cases, subsequent evidence revealed that the woman had an ongoing sexual relation with the accused, but such evidence was considered either unbelievable or irrelevant at the time.

    The difficulty with such cases is that generally no court decides that an executed person was innocent. Courts hear current cases brought by live petitioners. Whether an executed person was innocent becomes a matter of historical research (which is rarely undertaken) and an evolving consensus among the public. This is a much slower and less precise process than a retrial ending in an acquittal.

    The full report that this extract came from is here.

    Parent

    ppj (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Sat May 12, 2007 at 10:36:57 AM EST
    If you're trolling for me, you might need a lure  with better action; something with the same dip-dive-and duck motions you go through in order to avoid being persuaded in any way about things you were persuaded about forty years ago.

    Sorry for reminding you that you've been slavishly plugging for the guy who ran 150 people through the "tough on crime" shredder as career move: speaking of the essence of vulgarity.

    Jondee mistates my position... (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 12, 2007 at 11:07:47 AM EST
    What Jondee said I said:

    Sorry for reminding you that you've been slavishly plugging for the guy

    What I said:

    That has long been the position of various people. That you, and I, reject it, has nothing to do with the argument itself, given that society has many times required men to die for a concept

    Is there something about "and I, reject it" that you can not understand.

    Your cute Jondee. But you should try for a little distance before you make your false claims.

    BTW - I guess this means you can't answer the question. So I will give you mine.

    Society has the right to ask people to die fighting an evil such as the Nazi's and slavery.

    Society does not have the right to ask an innocent individual to die because the state has made a mistake.

    It is a matter of degree and definition.

    Now. Just to show that I really want to engage you in a debate. Can you tell me how you would protect the lives of guards, other prisoners and other workers in the prison if the LWOP prisoner decides to kill again?

    Would you agree that the seond killing rates the death penalty?

    Parent

    Determined to find some way, (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Edger on Sat May 12, 2007 at 01:11:30 PM EST
    some how, some where, some when, to find some body to tell you it's ok to kill some one, and relieve you of that pesky little conscience on your shoulder?

    If some body did, you'd argue with them anyway.

    Cain't win fer losin', huh?

    Parent

    edger (1.00 / 0) (#41)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 12, 2007 at 10:46:49 PM EST
    I say I reject something and you still want to argue.

    Decon was right. I couldn't invent you if I wanted to.

    Parent

    I doubt Decon much wants to be (none / 0) (#50)
    by Edger on Sun May 13, 2007 at 05:39:19 AM EST
    associated with you, jim.

    Parent
    Jondee tag me in --- oooh, oooh (none / 0) (#37)
    by Freewill on Sat May 12, 2007 at 01:22:48 PM EST
    tag me in!

    Parent
    Eagerly awaiting Jondee's tag (none / 0) (#38)
    by Freewill on Sat May 12, 2007 at 01:46:08 PM EST
    Freewill <-- jumps into the match while the referee has his back to him and enters the fray!

    Now. Just to show that I really want to engage you in a debate. Can you tell me how you would protect the lives of guards, other prisoners and other workers in the prison if the LWOP prisoner decides to kill again?

    Jim, I will answer this one since this is my Profession!

    I do not, and I repeat DO NOT want you or anyone else who has no experience in these matters coming up with solutions to problems that do not exist!

    Riots and prison tensions are elevated by those who, with out the slightest hint of experience, tries to write a solution to a non-existing problem. I take your comment as a means to protect your "Pro-Killem All" attitude and I would like to stop you right there. Too many of those who think like you do try to take their stances on arguments and make them into reality only to severely cause many more problems.

    So, please Jim, LEAVE IT TO THE PROFESSIONALS!

    Parent

    Freewill (1.00 / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 12, 2007 at 10:49:44 PM EST
    Yeah, the professionals have created such a wonderful prison system, eh?

    (Sound of laughter.)

    How many worker bees/other prisoners have been killed by prisoners serving a murder sentence??

    Go ahead and tell me NONE.

    Make my day.


    Parent

    Outrageous (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by HK on Sun May 13, 2007 at 05:23:53 AM EST
    When I see guys fighting, I usually leave them to it (don't want to break a nail)  but I think your response, Jim, to Freewill is really offensive.  Rather than admit that you don't really have any experience of working inside a prison, but that the idea of LWOP inmates killing again inside troubles you (which would have been fair enough) you mock Freewill's perfectly reasonable ascertation that solutions to such problems are best left to those who have experience.  I don't think for a minute that Freewill was saying that no killer has ever killed again inside; he/she was simply saying that it was an issue brought up by those who agree with the death penalty in order to support their stance when really the problem is not anywhere near as widespread as those people make out.

    I think prisons would run much better if those who work in them had a forum in which to express their views based on experience which could then be given due consideration instead of all the decisions being made by some group of suits whose only experience of prisons is through official visits which provide an artificial and snapshot view of the reality of the situation.

    Parent

    HK (2.00 / 2) (#62)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 13, 2007 at 02:31:45 PM EST
    First of all, I have no reason to believe Freewill works in a prsion, although he does like to bring it out for an attack that typically yields nothing.

    Let us review. My question was:

    Now. Just to show that I really want to engage you in a debate. Can you tell me how you would protect the lives of guards, other prisoners and other workers in the prison if the LWOP prisoner decides to kill again?

    Now I have read that statement five times, and it still comes out as a QUESTION. Now, you would think that a perfect time to demonstrate his experience. I have opened the door for him.

    But what does he do??

    Jim, I will answer this one since this is my Profession!

    I do not, and I repeat DO NOT want you or anyone else who has no experience in these matters coming up with solutions to problems that do not exist!

    Wait.

    I didn't provide a solution. I asked for a solution. And what is his solution? He says the problem doesn't exist!!!!!!!!!!

    No one serving a sentence for murder has not killed the second time? Really??

    McGuinn didn't get the option of having a public discourse on how he would die. He was just a corrections officer at the Maryland House of Correction who did his job as he was told.  

    Lee E. Stephens and Lamarr C. Harris have been charged with killing McGuinn. Stephens is serving life plus 15 years for killing a man in 1997. Harris won't be going anywhere but from one Maryland prison to another for the rest of his days. He got a triple life sentence for killing two people in 1989.

    Link

    Now. Tell me about Freewill's expertise.

    He ignores the question. Declares there is no problem. And demands that only such professional as he be permitted to talk about it.

    HG, if you think that I am being outrageous when I laugh about something like that, I don't know what to say.

    But if you believe that we should leave things to those who have experience, I would assume that you are against all changes.

    History is full of people defending the established order and being against change. They are usually referred to as "Conservatives."

    But enough about Freewill. He is probably off writing some, in his opinion, suitable sarcastic comments that don't insult.

    So I will ask you again, or anyone who wants to answer.

    What would be your position on people who are in prison killing the second, or third, or more...times.

    And please remember that I admit to being conflicted over capital punish and have said I must see absolute proof, so don't try and toss me and my question into the "oh well he believes" pile.

    Parent

    Jim (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by HK on Sun May 13, 2007 at 03:23:16 PM EST
    I accept that you posted a genuine question and that you found Freewill's response a little heavy-handed. I can see how that may have got your back up.  But it was this comment that I though was outrageous:

    Yeah, the professionals have created such a wonderful prison system, eh?
    (Sound of laughter.)

    This is mocking Freewill's profession and considering prison guards do a very difficult job on a wage that isn't wonderful, I think that is pretty low.

    As for this:

    I have no reason to believe Freewill works in a prsion

    Do you have any reason to believe that Freewill does not work in a prison?  I have a lot of respect for prison workers who have integrity and try to do their job well; for those it is a very worthy occupation.  However, if I was going to lie about what I did for a living, I would choose to say I was a brain surgeon or an astronaught, not a prison guard.

    You are correct to say that Freewill said that a problem didn't exist that in fact does, but as I pointed out above, I think that what Freewill meant was that the problem is not as widespread as it is made out.  So for you to pounce on that statement - while technically correct - is a little pedantic.  For those who murder again after being released, the answer is simple - LWOP.  For those who murder in prison, clearly solitary confinement is needed for the safety of other inmates and prison workers.  I am most certainly not against all changes, as you suggest.  Maybe psychological evaluation together with a look at the past record of inmates may help to identify the ones who need to be kept in these ways.

    I don't think that the death penalty is ever the answer.  I think it is barbaric and immoral and while some of the people it is applied to also have these traits, I do not and so would not want the State behaving in this way in my name.  As a person who reads up on such issues and an ex-military person, have you not seen enough killing too?

    Parent

    HK (4.00 / 1) (#67)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 13, 2007 at 05:24:32 PM EST
    Hmmmm, where to begin.

    So your problem is with the "profession" vs "individual." Works for me. BTW - I have family "in the profession," so I have a fairly good grasp of the dynamics...

    I have no idea if Freewill works anywhere.

    You can think you know what Freewill meant. That doesn't mean that you do. He wrote what he wrote.
    If he meant otherwise he could have claimed it wasn't a big problem..... except to the guard(s) who was killed, eh??

    So a guy gets two murders free? And if he kills the third while in LWOP he gets put in solitary?
    How long do you think it would be before the ACLU is there screaming "cruel and unusual?"

    Well, I think I see why Freewill's claim of no problem worked for you. Me, I live by this:

    Fool me once, shame on you.

    Fool me twice, shame on me.



    Parent
    Some fair points (none / 0) (#68)
    by HK on Sun May 13, 2007 at 05:46:01 PM EST
    This is quite right:

    You can think you know what Freewill meant. That doesn't mean that you do. He wrote what he wrote.

    But this is a little off the mark of what I meant:

    So a guy gets two murders free?

    People need to be sentenced appropriately and then assessed thoroughly so that both the sentence and the terms of imprisonment are as they should be - first time round.  That would be humane but protect people as they deserve to be.

    There will of course still be murders committed inside; mistakes will always be made that will allow that to happen.  That is neither right nor good, it just is.  Measures should be taken to prevent it, but to say that someone should be executed in case they murder again is a non sequitur.  Demographics show that murderers tend to have certain characteristics, for example, they are mostly male.  Should we execute all those who come within those groups labelled 'likely to offend' just in case?  Of course not.  And in the justice system, to use execution as a preventative measure is not just unfair, it is impractical.  Appeals for death row inmates typically take more than a decade.  For the death penalty to be used as a crime prevention measure, it would have to be carried out immediately.

    Parent

    HK (1.00 / 0) (#71)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 13, 2007 at 09:48:11 PM EST
    mistakes will always be made that will allow that to happen.  That is neither right nor good, it just is.

    That is the same argument that some use supporting the death penalty.

    Look. Let's focus on people who, instead of being put to death, are sentenced to LWOP. That narrows the discussion. If I understand correctly, if they kill again, they go into solitary confinement. As I noted, the ACLU will immediately call that cruel and unusal punishment. See the tears shed over SuperMax prisoners.

    If you would agree that a second murder conviction by a LWOP convict would result in the death penalty, I would say we get rid of the death penalty for all first convictions. And I would guess that would be appealing to a large number of people. (There would still be the shadings... manslaughter, second degree, etc. We're talking replacing what would have been the death penalty.)

    If you would also agree that a second murder conviction by a previously convicted but released murderer, would result in the death penalty, then I think LWOP would be acceptable to 99.5% of the people.

    To me this eliminates all of the "psycho evals," etc. He has murdered, been convicted, and then done it again. What else is needed??

    If that doesn't clearly say to you that society should execute this person, nothing will.

    Parent

    Btw, (none / 0) (#26)
    by jondee on Sat May 12, 2007 at 10:47:08 AM EST
    Dont conflate not being executed outright with "not being punished", "being coddled" or any of that other O'Reillian bogus wedge issue nonsense.

    That (none / 0) (#27)
    by jondee on Sat May 12, 2007 at 11:04:59 AM EST
    seeming equivalence made between those that died on D-Day, the fallen of Cemetary Ridge and those sacrificial lambs who die "for" the preservation of the death penalty was worthy of a chuckle though.

    Jondee, Again you make up my answer. (1.00 / 2) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 12, 2007 at 11:10:56 AM EST
    sigh... That you re wrong (again and again) makes
    it plain that you can not debate, and do not want to debate.

    Last chance.

    Read my 11:07 comment.

    Parent

    Another (none / 0) (#60)
    by jondee on Sun May 13, 2007 at 02:22:56 PM EST
    stupid disengenuous comment made by an intellectual coward who cant own up to his other ones.

    "I reference those that went ashore (none / 0) (#61)
    by jondee on Sun May 13, 2007 at 02:28:30 PM EST
    at D-Day and those who died on Cemetary Ridge.."

    I "made that up"? LOL

    Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 13, 2007 at 02:37:44 PM EST
    You cannot read. You don't want to read.

    You can't even figure out when someone is agreeing with you. WOW.

    I give you the other sides argument, point out how it is flawed, and you want to hang me with it???

    Pardon me. Please don't stop. You are demonstrating zero capability of having a discussion.

    Parent

    Now, Freewill is a lier (none / 0) (#65)
    by jondee on Sun May 13, 2007 at 02:42:45 PM EST
    I think the one that says "he declares theres no problem" is, and a rather pathetic one at that.

    "Son of a poor share cropper" LOL

    A summation of Jondee's tactics (1.00 / 0) (#77)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 14, 2007 at 09:53:41 AM EST
    In the hope that you can grasp some facts the following are from this thread. The first by you.

    If the article (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by jondee on Fri May 11, 2007 at 04:19:15 PM EST

    is accurate, Macy dosnt say he accepts the trade-off of the occasional killing of innocents in the name of justice, but as an acceptable price to pay in order to keep the death penalty

    Now what is my response that so disturbed you that you went into a spasm of claims?

    Jondee (1.00 / 1) (#18)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 11, 2007 at 10:33:02 PM EST

    That has long been the position of various people. That you, and I, reject it, has nothing to do with the argument itself, given that society has many times required men to die for a concept.

    Now, what have I said in this comment? I agree with you!! This argument some people state is wrong!!!

    Wow. Do you go off on everyone who agrees with you?

    Jondee: Nice day.

    Waitress: Yes it is.

    Jondee: How dare you say it is a nice day!!!!!

    Now, go back and read the rest of the comment, and you will see that I state the argument that I have just said WE disagree with, and invite you to comment.

    Now, what is your response??

    ppj (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Sat May 12, 2007 at 10:36:57 AM EST

    If you're trolling for me, you might need a lure  with better action; something with the same dip-dive-and duck motions you go through in order to avoid being persuaded in any way about things you were persuaded about forty years ago.

    Sorry for reminding you that you've been slavishly plugging for the guy who ran 150 people through the "tough on crime" shredder as career move: speaking of the essence of vulgarity.

    Now, why that comment? I have just agreed with you and invited you to comment on why this guy's argument is BS, and you make a veiled claim regarding something I was "presuaded about forty years ago.." You know Jondee, your answer was about race. Why? Is everything you see/do through a lens of race?

    But, did I act rashly?? No.

    Jondee mistates my position... (1.00 / 1) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat May 12, 2007 at 11:07:47 AM EST

    No my reply merely states that you have mistated my position, and restates what I had written.

    I then give you my answer to the position:

    BTW - I guess this means you can't answer the question. So I will give you mine.

    Society has the right to ask people to die fighting an evil such as the Nazi's and slavery.

    Society does not have the right to ask an innocent individual to die because the state has made a mistake.

    It is a matter of degree and definition.

    Now, being the type guy who likes to extend the olive branch, I then wrote:

    Now. Just to show that I really want to engage you in a debate. Can you tell me how you would protect the lives of guards, other prisoners and other workers in the prison if the LWOP prisoner decides to kill again?

    And what follows is utter nonsense and misstatements of what I had written, etc... ending with:

    Now, Freewill is a lier (none / 0) (#65)

    by jondee on Sun May 13, 2007 at 02:42:45 PM EST
    I think the one that says "he declares theres no problem" is, and a rather pathetic one at that.

    "Son of a poor share cropper" LOL

    Of course no one has called Freewill a liar. But I am, and then you bring in the "poor share cropper"
    snark.

    Have a nice day, Jondee. Thanks for showing everyone who you are.

    BTW - I am going to bookmark this comment and just link to it everytime you start mistating what I have written.

    Parent

    Dn't forget, Jim (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edger on Mon May 14, 2007 at 10:36:57 AM EST
    to post links to every time you mis-state or partial quote out of context what others have written.

    Do try to be cognizant of and balance it with the bandwith requirements of Talkleft though. They are not unlimited.

    Parent

    edger, thanks (1.00 / 0) (#82)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 14, 2007 at 02:54:44 PM EST
    I am glad you brought the links up.

     

    Re: Murder or Treatment? (none / 0) (#15)
    by squeaky on Thu Jul 20, 2006 at 10:32:12 AM EST
    From a TL NOLA thread:

    (squeaky quotes me)ppj:The facts are that if the area is not secure, you can't ask aid workers to risk their lives. So law and order must be the first priority. I favor shooting back and killing a few of these criminals in a very effective and public manner.

    (squeaky writes)Not to mention that you were all for martial law where innocent people can be shot at will indiscriminately, but doctors suspected of humanitarian euthanasia are tried as criminals. And not to mention that the alleged shootings of rescue workers was all hype. Ah, your insight into the ethics of murder is breathtaking

    Now, follow the thread on down and we will finally get to Squaky's partial quote. The one he likes to made so much about.

    Re: Murder or Treatment? (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:42:52 AM EST
    (I quote HK)HK writes: "but to opine that she was acting outside her job is to say that you think she should have gone home when her shift ended. I imagine that she now may wish that she had."

    (I respond)First, my comment is not towards the particular doctor. I do not have enough information to either approve or disapprove. I speak from a generic viewpoint. And that, again, is simple. It is not up to the doctors to decide to kill someone in "mercy." If you can't see the danger in that there is nothing I can add. Squeaky you got it. Killing looters, good. Killing medical patients, bad.

    Pretty plain, eh. My position was simple. It's okay to shoot looters in a disaster zone, especially if they are shooting at First Responders. If that "kills'em," then "Sorry about that.

    I wonder why Squeaky couldn't provide the context quotes....You think he is being dishonest? Would mistate things?? Wellllllll, he did write:

    I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi.

    The end justifies the means, eh? Well, you did say:

    Do we offer them respect? Absolutely not. We do our best to marginalize and get rid of them.

    Have a nice day, and thanks for allowing me to again provide some information.

    Parent

    PPJ (none / 0) (#72)
    by squeaky on Sun May 13, 2007 at 11:20:03 PM EST
    Shooting looters in not legal and never was. So your comment and defense of is BS.

    Re: Murder or Treatment? (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:42:52 AM EST
    .....Killing looters, good. Killing medical patients, bad.

    As far as property goes I am more than modesty weathy, and i do not believe in shooting looters unlike you.

    Squeaky (1.00 / 1) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 14, 2007 at 08:41:31 AM EST
    Again you smear.

    The comment was about taking someone's life. Was it legal for it to be done.

    I said Doctors engaged in mercy killing, was bad.
    Shooting looters enaged in killing was good.

    Now you understand that because you also included my comment to scar in which I pointed out that looters were shooting at First Responders.

    The background in both comments  was Katrina, and the response/actions.

    Keep at it squeaky, the more you stir the more you prove that you aren't interested, as you said in your:

    Posted by Squeaky at September 19, 2005 11:19 PM

    Rove never needed proof for his smear machine, why should I.

    You even reaffirmed this declaration in March of '07.

    ppj does as ppj does (none / 0) (#30)
    by squeaky on Sat Mar 03, 2007 at 09:58:35 PM EST

    (I had questioned you.)So because Rove is doing wrong, it is okay for you to do wrong?

    (You replied)I have no problem with alleging that Rove's grandparents were Nazi's. Even if they were not, he uses Goebbels' propaganda techniques as a bible and may as well be a born and bred Nazi.

    Squeaky, you impeach yourself time and again with these statements, and now you want to play word games??

    You know, this thread is about an innocent man being set free, and the death penalty. Why don't you try and read my comments, especially mine at 10:33AM on Friday and then several between me and HK re how to make LWOP acceptable.

    Those are reasonable comments made between reasonable people. Contrast those with your statements about Rove and your restatement re Rove.

    Are you capable of reasoned debates, or are you just an attack troll wanting to attack everything said by someone you disagree with over the war??

    Parent

    You really have no idea (none / 0) (#74)
    by Edger on Mon May 14, 2007 at 08:47:31 AM EST
    how ridiculous you sound when you do this, do you?

    No one needs to smear you, jim. You do it more than well enough to your self. Go ahead - ask me for links.

    Parent

    A reasoned debater (none / 0) (#75)
    by jondee on Mon May 14, 2007 at 09:43:07 AM EST
    Dosnt dismiss links -- that he asks for -- out of hand without addressing the arguments put forth, because he disagrees with the bias. As if there were such a thing as "unbiased".

    And a reasoned debater dosnt call other debaters liers when they put forth arguments based on their personal experience related to the topic under discussion.

    Btw, (none / 0) (#76)
    by jondee on Mon May 14, 2007 at 09:51:31 AM EST
    In forty years I've never heard "the other side" ever compare the execution of innocent people to the sacrifices made on D-Day and at Cemetary Ridge.

    Only by someone who would probobly consider it a step up to become Macy's speech writer. And it probobly would be.

    Jondee is making things up (1.00 / 0) (#83)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 14, 2007 at 02:59:52 PM EST
    again and again.

    Why do you tell such golly whoppers.

    Think I kid you? Look at my 9:53AM comment.

    Parent

    Killing looters (none / 0) (#78)
    by squeaky on Mon May 14, 2007 at 10:04:37 AM EST
    Re: Murder or Treatment? (none / 0) (#57)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jul 21, 2006 at 11:42:52 AM EST
    ......And that, again, is simple. It is not up to the doctors to decide to kill someone in "mercy." If you can't see the danger in that there is nothing I can add. Squeaky you got it. Killing looters, good. Killing medical patients, bad.

    Plain as day.  Killing looters good.  Property trumps life. For someone as rich as you claim to be it seems strange that you so frightened about someone stealing your property that you would advocate setting an example by shooting a few looters.

    If you are so rich you can replace stolen goods but no one can replace a stolen life.

    Squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#80)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 14, 2007 at 02:20:27 PM EST
    I have explained it time and again..

    Keep on smearing.

    Parent

    Explained? (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Mon May 14, 2007 at 02:53:06 PM EST
    You have explained nothing.

    Parent
    Squeaky (1.00 / 0) (#84)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 14, 2007 at 03:01:34 PM EST
    If the student is not prepared to learn, then the teacher cannot teach.


    Parent
    "I have no reason to believe Freewill (none / 0) (#85)
    by jondee on Mon May 14, 2007 at 04:05:22 PM EST
    works in a prison.." Nothing other than his word.

    "Of course no one has called Freewill a liar."

    You're truely pathetic, Jim. As I've said before if you were caught in flagrante delicto with a goose, you'd say you were just stuffing sofa cushions.

    Squeaky - Good Grief (1.00 / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 14, 2007 at 06:03:30 PM EST
    Saying I have no reason to believe anything is not a judgemental statement.

    I have no reason to believe Squeaky is wealthy.

    It is a statement of lack of information.

    Gesh.

    Parent

    Jondee (1.00 / 0) (#87)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:02:33 AM EST
    Gosh, it is getting harder and harder to tell you and squeaky apart.

    I also wrote:

    I have no idea if Freewill works anywhere.

    And I don't. Now why I waste my time I don't know... but....since I am listening to music on hold....

    As I noted to Squeaky, that is not a judgemental statement, merely a statement of lack of information.

    I have no idea....

    I have no reason to believe...

    In neither case did I say he did not.

    I am not required to believe anything.

    Not believeing is not calling someone a liar.

    It is saying... give me more information..at that point I may choose to believe, or not.

    I have commented that I spent 10 years in Naval Aviation. Several, including you I think, have stated that they don't believe that. Fine with me.

    Have a nice day being you and I'll have a nice day being me.

    Parent

    I actually (none / 0) (#88)
    by jondee on Tue May 15, 2007 at 11:46:13 AM EST
    do believe you were in Naval Aviation, Jim.

    I do, however, have a hard time believing you were ever poor: you exhibit too much seeming single-minded, unquestioning devotion to those that never have been.

    Btw, Freewill's word is "information" which you choose to reject. Or, is it just, because of the water you swim in, that you assume everyones lying?

    Jondee (none / 0) (#89)
    by jimakaPPJ on Tue May 15, 2007 at 01:42:37 PM EST
    Perhaps it is because I never considered myself "poor." My parents had no money to speak of, so we all worked like crazy, but so did everyone else we knew. Even the ones who actually had more.

    So I just worked and worked and saved and invested... and before you know it, retirement time..

    But I did recognize the social problems we had. That's what made me a Demo until the Demos were seized by the socialist/radical Left... and decided to not support the military... that was Vietnam. I thought the disease had died out, but I see that it has come back.

    And just because I don't believe someone's comment doesn't mean I think they are lying, why do you think anyone would think so?

    You're the world that believes people lie all the time, not me..

    Parent

    Another Wrongful Conviction on Death Row, Inmate Released | 89 comments (89 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment