Relapse wrote: There is no way this murderer should have been released.
Meh. He's no Charles Manson. There really isn't much to go on with this story. We only have his quotes from the parole board hearing, but there's no mention of the guards/warden of the prisons he was in. Perhaps he was a "model inmate" for most of those 40 years.
curran12 wrote: Why shouldn't he have been released, exactly?
Because he needed to ride the lightning? Or he needed to take a quick fall, followed by a quick stop?... Maybe he needed a trim, a heads' length off the top??
curran12 wrote: Why shouldn't he have been released, exactly?
Because he needed to ride the lightning? Or he needed to take a quick fall, followed by a quick stop?... Maybe he needed a trim, a heads' length off the top??
Yeah, even though he was sentenced to life in prison, he wasn't sentenced with "no possibility of parole".
So if he met the conditions to be paroled, then he has technically paid his debt to society according to the conditions of his sentencing.
I suspect he got convicted of 2nd Degree Murder:
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.
My interpretation: they didn't go out planning on killing anybody, were surprised by the guy, freaked, and killed him...his wife still alive they freaked again and thought that killing her was the only option.
I disagree, I feel that prison should be about rehabilitation and if experts agree that this man has been rehabilitated, then he should be allowed to rejoin society.
Or we could keep him in Prison forever and ever! That is working out for us right now.
Just my thought on the matter. They gunned down an elderly couple. When the wife ran out of the building and he chased her down and shot her in the back of the head is the real point I think sealed the idea he be put away for good.
Relapse wrote: Just my thought on the matter. They gunned down an elderly couple. When the wife ran out of the building and he chased her down and shot her in the back of the head is the real point I think sealed the idea he be put away for good.
He did not go to the house to murder the couple and made a terrible decision which cost him 40 years of his life and probably an untold amount of grief. There is a difference.
Relapse wrote: Just my thought on the matter. They gunned down an elderly couple. When the wife ran out of the building and he chased her down and shot her in the back of the head is the real point I think sealed the idea he be put away for good.
He did not go to the house to murder the couple and made a terrible decision which cost him 40 years of his life and probably an untold amount of grief. There is a difference.
Relapse wrote: Just my thought on the matter. They gunned down an elderly couple. When the wife ran out of the building and he chased her down and shot her in the back of the head is the real point I think sealed the idea he be put away for good.
He did not go to the house to murder the couple and made a terrible decision which cost him 40 years of his life and probably an untold amount of grief. There is a difference.
He's lucky that's all it cost him.
Wow, do you want to try to provoke me in to an argument any harder?
curran12 wrote: Why shouldn't he have been released, exactly?
Because our anger is everlasting and our need to satiate it always goes unquenched. If we are considerate and thoughtful on the subject people might think we are soft on crime so they must pay for their crime ad infinitum. Everything else, even justice, rehabilitation, and research, all take a back seat to revenge and punishment!
I don't see what is notable about this. It's pretty unusual for a murderer to actually spend their entire life in jail - isn't the average sentence (served) like 17 years for a murder? I'm guessing, I don't know. But 40 years for a double murder seems to me about correct.
I'd like to think the purpose of jail is to rehabilitate someone, ideally. Putting someone in jail until the day they die doesn't seem to serve that purpose well; might as well just give them the needle if that's the case.
Because our anger is everlasting and our need to satiate it always goes unquenched.
Not to bring further "logic" into the discussion, but how many of us on this board, outside of Frazzled are of an age to even possibly remember first hand hearing about this on the telegraph, or radio??
TheMeanDM wrote: Yeah, even though he was sentenced to life in prison, he wasn't sentenced with "no possibility of parole".
So if he met the conditions to be paroled, then he has technically paid his debt to society according to the conditions of his sentencing.
I suspect he got convicted of 2nd Degree Murder:
Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as: 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion"; or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.
My interpretation: they didn't go out planning on killing anybody, were surprised by the guy, freaked, and killed him...his wife still alive they freaked again and thought that killing her was the only option.
They went with a loaded gun. It seems like they weren't shy about using it, so it was in the plan to kill people if they felt they had to.
In any case, the descision about the guy has been made by the board.k
Ouze wrote: I don't see what is notable about this. It's pretty unusual for a murderer to actually spend their entire life in jail - isn't the average sentence (served) like 17 years for a murder? I'm guessing, I don't know. But 40 years for a double murder seems to me about correct.
I'd like to think the purpose of jail is to rehabilitate someone, ideally. Putting someone in jail until the day they die doesn't seem to serve that purpose well; might as well just give them the needle if that's the case.
I think you are living in the wrong country for that ideal Ouze
They went with a loaded gun. It seems like they weren't shy about using it, so it was in the plan to kill people if they felt they had to.
In any case, the descision about the guy has been made by the board.k
Soldiers go into battle with firearms, but hope they don't have to use it. Nurses go in to work with stethoscopes, but hope they wont have to use it, etc. There isn't really a group of supervillains a la, DC and Marvel who go around "hoping" to use weapons when they commit robberies. It's just that, in Tennessee, if you're going to rob a house, it's definitely a good idea to bring a gun, since everyone and their mom has guns in the state.
Probably one of the few times I can think of where people bring something, with hopes of using that item, is when a hunter goes out for a deer/elk, etc. with a rifle.
curran12 wrote: Why shouldn't he have been released, exactly?
Because our anger is everlasting and our need to satiate it always goes unquenched. If we are considerate and thoughtful on the subject people might think we are soft on crime so they must pay for their crime ad infinitum. Everything else, even justice, rehabilitation, and research, all take a back seat to revenge and punishment!
Why won't the Exalt button allow more clicks damn it!
They went with a loaded gun. It seems like they weren't shy about using it, so it was in the plan to kill people if they felt they had to.
In any case, the descision about the guy has been made by the board.k
Soldiers go into battle with firearms, but hope they don't have to use it. Nurses go in to work with stethoscopes, but hope they wont have to use it, etc. There isn't really a group of supervillains a la, DC and Marvel who go around "hoping" to use weapons when they commit robberies. It's just that, in Tennessee, if you're going to rob a house, it's definitely a good idea to bring a gun, since everyone and their mom has guns in the state.
Probably one of the few times I can think of where people bring something, with hopes of using that item, is when a hunter goes out for a deer/elk, etc. with a rifle.
I don't see robbers as being ordered to go into a house to steal or going in somewhere with the objective of saving lives.
Many Americans carry firearms each day, and they are loaded (or they would be somewhat useless), that doesn't mean they plan on killing anyone by any stretch of the imagination.
Ahtman wrote: Many Americans carry firearms each day, and they are loaded (or they would be somewhat useless), that doesn't mean they plan on killing anyone by any stretch of the imagination.
Once again, a bad comparison. People carry firearms to protect themselves and family. These people were out to victimize a family, and kill if it suited their purpose. When people with conceal carry have to shoot someone, I don't believe it's a standard practice to loot the bodies, either.
anyone who has been institutionalised for 40 years will be fethed up beyond belief. Add to that the removal from society from the changes made whilst they were interred. 40 years of change, i think that's punishment enough...without thinking of old testament feelings.
Bullockist wrote: anyone who has been institutionalised for 40 years will be fethed up beyond belief. Add to that the removal from society from the changes made whilst they were interred. 40 years of change, i think that's punishment enough...without thinking of old testament feelings.
Is it then rehabilitation to lock someone up that long, or torture that would be worse than the death penalty?
Frankly, it sounds more like you're interested in rage and revenge than justice. As Ahtman has put it, you have some deep seeded need for their suffering, which is a little out of place.
Ahtman wrote: Many Americans carry firearms each day, and they are loaded (or they would be somewhat useless), that doesn't mean they plan on killing anyone by any stretch of the imagination.
Once again, a bad comparison. People carry firearms to protect themselves and family. These people were out to victimize a family, and kill if it suited their purpose. When people with conceal carry have to shoot someone, I don't believe it's a standard practice to loot the bodies, either.
"Although police said the motive for the slayings was robbery, the Browns took only a chain saw and some guns."
This was quoted from the article you posted in the thread. Please, read your own posts before making false and sensationalist claims. Their bodies were not looted. Unless they were packing heat for an eventual Zombie Apocalypse.
Ahtman wrote: Many Americans carry firearms each day, and they are loaded (or they would be somewhat useless), that doesn't mean they plan on killing anyone by any stretch of the imagination.
Once again, a bad comparison. People carry firearms to protect themselves and family. These people were out to victimize a family, and kill if it suited their purpose. When people with conceal carry have to shoot someone, I don't believe it's a standard practice to loot the bodies, either.
"Although police said the motive for the slayings was robbery, the Browns took only a chain saw and some guns."
This was quoted from the article you posted in the thread. Please, read your own posts before making false and sensationalist claims. Their bodies were not looted. Unless they were packing heat for an eventual Zombie Apocalypse.
If you think someone with a conceal carry that uses it in the street to defend themselves is going to the house of the person they shot to loot it, then that's your delusion. I used the looting of the bodies analogy because I thought it would be understood.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
curran12 wrote: Frankly, it sounds more like you're interested in rage and revenge than justice. As Ahtman has put it, you have some deep seeded need for their suffering, which is a little out of place.
I think people like that have forfeited their place in society.
No, you used the 'loot the bodies' analogy to cause people to side with you. You could have been very clear on the topic, since the details are very important in this. But instead you decided to cloud them. But that is alright, we are here for you! We can help you!
So, they clearly went to the house to rob it. (Which I think is the part you seem to be getting confused by) During the robbery, they were surprised by the family returned home. John Brown shoots and kills the man, then chases down and shoots the woman. Leaves the bodies out in the open for everyone to discover, which later leads to his arrest.
Obviously he was thinking clearly on this night, as shown by all of the decisions he made. 40 years was probably enough time to realize what he had done and come to terms with it.
Relapse wrote: When people with conceal carry have to shoot someone, I don't believe it's a standard practice to loot the bodies, either.
Speaking as a conceal carry holder and a former mmog enthusiast, if I have to shoot someone I definitely feel I have the right to loot the corpse of any rares I might find in addition to gold and xp.
Dreadwinter wrote: No, you used the 'loot the bodies' analogy to cause people to side with you. You could have been very clear on the topic, since the details are very important in this. But instead you decided to cloud them. But that is alright, we are here for you! We can help you!
So, they clearly went to the house to rob it. (Which I think is the part you seem to be getting confused by) During the robbery, they were surprised by the family returned home. John Brown shoots and kills the man, then chases down and shoots the woman. Leaves the bodies out in the open for everyone to discover, which later leads to his arrest.
Obviously he was thinking clearly on this night, as shown by all of the decisions he made. 40 years was probably enough time to realize what he had done and come to terms with it.
I know what I was thinking when I used the analogy, but you appeared to not understand, so I explained in more detail. They went to the house to rob it, yes, but they were also prepared to kill, as was evidenced by the two bodies. He chased down Stringbeans wife and shot her in the back of the head as she was on her knees begging for mercy. Charming fellow.
Relapse wrote: When people with conceal carry have to shoot someone, I don't believe it's a standard practice to loot the bodies, either.
Speaking as a conceal carry holder and a former mmog enthusiast, if I have to shoot someone I definitely feel I have the right to loot the corpse of any rares I might find in addition to gold and xp.
There was no loot taken because the motivation was to rob the couple of this "legendary" stash of cash that they had.....which proved to be true, when, years later, they found loads of $$ stashed in the walls.
Dreadwinter wrote: No, you used the 'loot the bodies' analogy to cause people to side with you. You could have been very clear on the topic, since the details are very important in this. But instead you decided to cloud them. But that is alright, we are here for you! We can help you!
So, they clearly went to the house to rob it. (Which I think is the part you seem to be getting confused by) During the robbery, they were surprised by the family returned home. John Brown shoots and kills the man, then chases down and shoots the woman. Leaves the bodies out in the open for everyone to discover, which later leads to his arrest.
Obviously he was thinking clearly on this night, as shown by all of the decisions he made. 40 years was probably enough time to realize what he had done and come to terms with it.
I know what I was thinking when I used the analogy, but you appeared to not understand, so I explained in more detail. They went to the house to rob it, yes, but they were also prepared to kill, as was evidenced by the two bodies. He chased down Stringbeans wife and shot her in the back of the head as she was on her knees begging for mercy. Charming fellow.
TheMeanDM wrote: There was no loot taken because the motivation was to rob the couple of this "legendary" stash of cash that they had.....which proved to be true, when, years later, they found loads of $$ stashed in the walls.
According to the article, items were taken, hence the term looting.
Dread said that they didn't loot the bodies....I was referencing that comment, sorry.
Yes, I know they took a chainsaw (they must have needed to do some tree removal) and some guns (for hunting, I'm sure!).
Unless you're a complete psychopath or your actual intent is murder, most criminals do not go armed with the intent to kill someone.
They carry the guns for intimidation purposes....it's only when they perceive that things go wrong that they panic and people get shot.
Look at the reasons people in "open carry" states or cities...they flash their hardware around as a statement...as an intimidating deterrent to criminals. Their intent (unless they're homicidal psychopaths) is to avoid hurting someone by intimidating criminals into avoiding them to begin with.
Dreadwinter wrote: So, was that an eyewitness account or did he admit to doing that? I am a little hazy on these details at the moment.
It seems there was an admission.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheMeanDM wrote: Dread said that they didn't loot the bodies....I was referencing that comment, sorry.
Yes, I know they took a chainsaw (they must have needed to do some tree removal) and some guns (for hunting, I'm sure!).
Unless you're a complete psychopath or your actual intent is murder, most criminals do not go armed with the intent to kill someone.
They carry the guns for intimidation purposes....it's only when they perceive that things go wrong that they panic and people get shot.
Look at the reasons people in "open carry" states or cities...they flash their hardware around as a statement...as an intimidating deterrent to criminals. Their intent (unless they're homicidal psychopaths) is to avoid hurting someone by intimidating criminals into avoiding them to begin with.
At least, that's how I have always viewed it.
They willingly put themselves into that situation, though. If the idea was intimidation, why not go with an empty gun and factor out the possibility of murder?
Yeah, I don't see this in a court record, just what the article said without even a quotation. This is what the author of the article has said, little else unless we see something that proves it.
Why do open carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do concealed carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do police carry loaded weapons?
Why do soldiers carry loaded weapons?
By your argument, anybody that carries a loaded weapon has the primary intent of killing another human being.
A hunter goes with a loaded weapon because his intent is to kill something.
I don't view robbers and soldiers and police and carrying citizens as having the primary intent to kill someone.
TheMeanDM wrote: Why do open carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do concealed carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do police carry loaded weapons?
Why do soldiers carry loaded weapons?
By your argument, anybody that carries a loaded weapon has the primary intent of killing another human being.
A hunter goes with a loaded weapon because his intent is to kill something.
I don't view robbers and soldiers and police and carrying citizens as having the primary intent to kill someone.
Anyone that carries a loaded weapon does so in order to be able to kill.
TheMeanDM wrote: Why do open carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do concealed carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do police carry loaded weapons?
Why do soldiers carry loaded weapons?
By your argument, anybody that carries a loaded weapon has the primary intent of killing another human being.
A hunter goes with a loaded weapon because his intent is to kill something.
I don't view robbers and soldiers and police and carrying citizens as having the primary intent to kill someone.
Anyone that carries a loaded weapon does so in order to be able to kill.
1) intimidation
2) self defense (which may or may not result in death)
TheMeanDM wrote: Why do open carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do concealed carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do police carry loaded weapons?
Why do soldiers carry loaded weapons?
By your argument, anybody that carries a loaded weapon has the primary intent of killing another human being.
A hunter goes with a loaded weapon because his intent is to kill something.
I don't view robbers and soldiers and police and carrying citizens as having the primary intent to kill someone.
Anyone that carries a loaded weapon does so in order to be able to kill.
TheMeanDM wrote: Why do open carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do concealed carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do police carry loaded weapons?
Why do soldiers carry loaded weapons?
By your argument, anybody that carries a loaded weapon has the primary intent of killing another human being.
A hunter goes with a loaded weapon because his intent is to kill something.
I don't view robbers and soldiers and police and carrying citizens as having the primary intent to kill someone.
Anyone that carries a loaded weapon does so in order to be able to kill.
TheMeanDM wrote: Why do open carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do concealed carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do police carry loaded weapons?
Why do soldiers carry loaded weapons?
By your argument, anybody that carries a loaded weapon has the primary intent of killing another human being.
A hunter goes with a loaded weapon because his intent is to kill something.
I don't view robbers and soldiers and police and carrying citizens as having the primary intent to kill someone.
Anyone that carries a loaded weapon does so in order to be able to kill.
But that isn't the primary motivator, again you seem to want to have this guy locked up for all eternity rather than believe the Jail system actually reformed a person
In my opinion he committed a terrible crime but has served 40 years in an institution and passed a psych evaluation and a direct quote from the article "I can't undo anything to change my past. I've committed the last 40 years to changing my life," he said." He should be allowed the chance to show he is a reformed man and be allowed a few years of freedom before he finally dies (unless he re-offends, in which case he should be punished as is appropriate for the crime)
TheMeanDM wrote: Why do open carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do concealed carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do police carry loaded weapons?
Why do soldiers carry loaded weapons?
By your argument, anybody that carries a loaded weapon has the primary intent of killing another human being.
A hunter goes with a loaded weapon because his intent is to kill something.
I don't view robbers and soldiers and police and carrying citizens as having the primary intent to kill someone.
Anyone that carries a loaded weapon does so in order to be able to kill.
Holy crap that is a frightening statement.
Yes it is.
Well, I think it is frightening because by your definition, anybody out there with a gun has it for the sole reason of killing. You fail to take in to account that you can be shot anywhere non-fatal on purpose.
curran12 wrote: Yeah, I don't see this in a court record, just what the article said without even a quotation. This is what the author of the article has said, little else unless we see something that proves it.
I imagine it came out in the trial or them bragging about the crime before they were caught.
TheMeanDM wrote: Why do open carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do concealed carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do police carry loaded weapons?
Why do soldiers carry loaded weapons?
By your argument, anybody that carries a loaded weapon has the primary intent of killing another human being.
A hunter goes with a loaded weapon because his intent is to kill something.
I don't view robbers and soldiers and police and carrying citizens as having the primary intent to kill someone.
Anyone that carries a loaded weapon does so in order to be able to kill.
Holy crap that is a frightening statement.
Yes it is.
Well, I think it is frightening because by your definition, anybody out there with a gun has it for the sole reason of killing. You fail to take in to account that you can be shot anywhere non-fatal on purpose.
Have you never taken a gun course? From your reply I guess not.
TheMeanDM wrote: Why do open carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do concealed carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do police carry loaded weapons?
Why do soldiers carry loaded weapons?
By your argument, anybody that carries a loaded weapon has the primary intent of killing another human being.
A hunter goes with a loaded weapon because his intent is to kill something.
I don't view robbers and soldiers and police and carrying citizens as having the primary intent to kill someone.
Anyone that carries a loaded weapon does so in order to be able to kill.
Holy crap that is a frightening statement.
Yes it is.
Well, I think it is frightening because by your definition, anybody out there with a gun has it for the sole reason of killing. You fail to take in to account that you can be shot anywhere non-fatal on purpose.
Have you never taken a gun course? From your reply I guess not.
I have! It is required in my state for hunting and gun ownership! What part of the Gun Course are you referencing?
curran12 wrote: Yeah, I don't see this in a court record, just what the article said without even a quotation. This is what the author of the article has said, little else unless we see something that proves it.
I imagine it came out in the trial or them bragging about the crime before they were caught.
...are you serious?
Is this utter speculation to rationalize -your- bloodlust, or do you have a source?
TheMeanDM wrote: Why do open carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do concealed carry people go with loaded weapons?
Why do police carry loaded weapons?
Why do soldiers carry loaded weapons?
By your argument, anybody that carries a loaded weapon has the primary intent of killing another human being.
A hunter goes with a loaded weapon because his intent is to kill something.
I don't view robbers and soldiers and police and carrying citizens as having the primary intent to kill someone.
Anyone that carries a loaded weapon does so in order to be able to kill.
Holy crap that is a frightening statement.
Yes it is.
Well, I think it is frightening because by your definition, anybody out there with a gun has it for the sole reason of killing. You fail to take in to account that you can be shot anywhere non-fatal on purpose.
Have you never taken a gun course? From your reply I guess not.
I have! It is required in my state for hunting and gun ownership! What part of the Gun Course are you referencing?
Good for you then. Let's take this a little further, do they tell you not to draw your gun unless you intend to use it?
They did! But they did not tell me that my intended use had to be to kill.
Here we are at the old shoot to wound argument. What does your gun course tell you, then?
You know, it has been awhile. I can't remember exactly what they told me, but I can tell you for sure that not a single person in my life has ever told me "Shoot to kill".
I do remember that they made sure to stress the power and consequences of firearms, even going so far as to show us the damage they can cause.
Good for you then. Let's take this a little further, do they tell you not to draw your gun unless you intend to use it?
They did! But they did not tell me that my intended use had to be to kill.
Here we are at the old shoot to wound argument. What does your gun course tell you, then?
You know, it has been awhile. I can't remember exactly what they told me, but I can tell you for sure that not a single person in my life has ever told me "Shoot to kill".
I do remember that they made sure to stress the power and consequences of firearms, even going so far as to show us the damage they can cause.
Good enough, these guys knew the power of the weapon they had and went so far as to shoot a woman point blank in the back of the head.
Heh. Oddly enough, the Stand your Ground Law in Florida protects a gun owner from firing at someone they believe to be a credible threat in self defense, even if they kill them or are not in their home.
However, it provides no defense if you feel you have the time to fire a warning shot in the air.
As Community has taught us-"Fact: in 100% of all fake gun shootings, the victim is always the one with the fake gun" In this case, a fake gun would also be an unloaded gun. so if you feel the need to carry, be ready to use it. And if you draw, use it.
@OP- this isn't premeditated, and we know little of the circumstances surrounding the crime. It sounds like a poorly thought out plan that went awry and had some people panick. We're not talking about a rapist, or torturer, or even a serial killer- just an armed robber who was trigger happy and became a murderer. I have no issue with the release from the facts given.
Again, where is it said she was shot "point blank" in the back of the head? Also, did these guys take Gun Safety courses at the time? Are you sure they truly knew or is this another thing you have imagined?
"Police obtained some leads, not because of any clues left at the scene of the crime, but because the two killers were full of bravado and were heard bragging around town. Within two months John and Doug Brown were arrested and charged with first-degree murder. Even after they were arrested, pleading their innocence in the courts, they couldn't help but brag on the streets."
Lets try and roll it back a bit. What is it about this guy specifically that made it noteworthy? Is it that the original sentence was so long (almost 200 years) and he was out in 40? Was it the depravity of the crimes? Do you not think any convicted murderer should be paroled? California, for example, paroles about 50 murderers a year - 80% of the people convicted of murder will be eventually paroled, if they live. Is it because he killed someone sort of famous?
I'm still honestly trying to see the angle, not setting some elaborate trap or hell, even arguing with the premise.
Ouze wrote: This is going off into some weird tangents.
Lets try and roll it back a bit. What is it about this guy specifically that made it noteworthy? Is it that the original sentence was so long (almost 200 years) and he was out in 40? Was it the depravity of the crimes? Do you not think any convicted murderer should be paroled?
No, but when a man chases a woman down and shoots her as she begs for mercy from her knees, he should be tucked away for the entirety of his life.
Ouze wrote: This is going off into some weird tangents.
Lets try and roll it back a bit. What is it about this guy specifically that made it noteworthy? Is it that the original sentence was so long (almost 200 years) and he was out in 40? Was it the depravity of the crimes? Do you not think any convicted murderer should be paroled?
No, but when a man chases a woman down and shoots her as she begs for mercy from her knees, he should be tucked away for the entirety of his life.
" Police obtained some leads, not because of any clues left at the scene of the crime, but because the two killers were full of bravado and were heard bragging around town."
Okay. What were they bragging about? Were they bragging about, as you claim, the victim begging for her life?
And I'll repeat from before: an unquoted line from an internet blog =/= evidence.
No, I think that's a fair answer. Some people think the primary purpose of a jail is, or at least should be to punish; and maybe to deter. To that end, putting someone in jail for the rest of their lives with no possibility of freedom certainly punishes and maybe deters. To that line of thinking, out in 40 at 64 - with still a reasonable bit of your useful life left - is an injustice.
I don't wholly agree with that stance, but hell it's not wrong, either, it's just not what I agree with.
" Police obtained some leads, not because of any clues left at the scene of the crime, but because the two killers were full of bravado and were heard bragging around town."
Okay. What were they bragging about? Were they bragging about, as you claim, the victim begging for her life?
And I'll repeat from before: an unquoted line from an internet blog =/= evidence.
I guess Stringbean is really still alive and this is all just a story.
Relapse wrote: I've had some conversations with d-usa about this, and he made some points that have me see it's not so cut and dried in favor of the death penalty.
Oh hey, I wasn't even going there. My feelings on capital punishment are hella mixed too. I'm ok with it in some extreme circumstances, with the right confluence of completely undeniable evidence, but the way we execute it in practice is so slipshod, so racially uneven, I think it's probably unconstitutional.
Relapse wrote: You asked me to show you where it said they were bragging, now you move the goal.
Sorry Ouze, that wasn't meant for you.
I asked for that they were bragging about her begging for her life. Apologies if I wasn't clear. But frankly, the term "bragging" is so vague and unclear that it begs for more information.
You could be completely right and this guy was unrepentantly bragging about executing a woman. But "bragging" cannot be construed to mean that. What if he was showing off the take?
All I want is for you to stop trying to misguide people.
Three thousand dollars in cash remained in the bib of Stringbean's overalls. Two thousand dollars remained in Estelle's pockets, as she lay lifeless in the grass.
This is for people reading your comment about the bodies being looted. They were not. From his own link.
Dreadwinter wrote:Again, where is it said she was shot "point blank" in the back of the head?
Relapse wrote: You asked me to show you where it said they were bragging, now you move the goal.
Sorry Ouze, that wasn't meant for you.
I asked for that they were bragging about her begging for her life. Apologies if I wasn't clear. But frankly, the term "bragging" is so vague and unclear that it begs for more information.
You could be completely right and this guy was unrepentantly bragging about executing a woman. But "bragging" cannot be construed to mean that. What if he was showing off the take?
There are articles that have different patches of the story, I wish I had posted all of the links, but it seemed like a lot of repitition on the main parts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadwinter wrote: All I want is for you to stop trying to misguide people.
Three thousand dollars in cash remained in the bib of Stringbean's overalls. Two thousand dollars remained in Estelle's pockets, as she lay lifeless in the grass.
This is for people reading your comment about the bodies being looted. They were not. From his own link.
Dreadwinter wrote:Again, where is it said she was shot "point blank" in the back of the head?
I would still like for you to address this.
You are so all over the boards on this, allow me to explain once again, I used the analogy of looted bodies in relation to a concealed carry owner shooting someone in the street. The cabin was looted, not the bodies.
As far as being shot point blank. If I produce the article, is it going to matter to you?
Thank you, while I still completely disagree with you on this topic and I am skeptical on the shot behind the head thing, you did finally come through on this and prove you did not make it up on your own.
So yes, it did matter to me.
Also, just to be clear, I am skeptical because we are getting mixed information on the subject. Not because you said it or provided the information. Shot execution style 3 times? Who does that?
Dreadwinter wrote: Thank you, while I still completely disagree with you on this topic and I am skeptical on the shot behind the head thing, you did finally come through on this and prove you did not make it up on your own.
So yes, it did matter to me.
Also, just to be clear, I am skeptical because we are getting mixed information on the subject. Not because you said it or provided the information. Shot execution style 3 times? Who does that?
She might have been shot a couple of times as she ran and then finished off, or maybe he was just that kind of guy. The full story appears to be spread out over several articles with a lot of redundant information.
If it matters, this guy is out in the world at 64, with no skills and a serious criminal record. Unless he did some major self improvement work in jail, plus has the kind of likeable personality that motivates other people to help him get a real, stable life going, he's going to have a miserable, homeless existence with a premature, lonely death.
feeder wrote: If it matters, this guy is out in the world at 64, with no skills and a serious criminal record. Unless he did some major self improvement work in jail, plus has the kind of likeable personality that motivates other people to help him get a real, stable life going, he's going to have a miserable, homeless existence with a premature, lonely death.
He has a wife that stuck by him all the years he was in prison and a job at a local church when he gets out. He did do a lot of self improvement by getting more schooling, etc.
So the only proof he did the things Relapse claimed to make it seem like it was anything other than panic killing are blog posts?
Ok, this is about the normal.
Also, the "I guess he's still alive" line due to someone being sceptical about the blog evidence of "begging" is so fething pathetic you should be ashamed. Then again, after the Ted Bundy thread...
MrDwhitey wrote: So the only proof he did the things Relapse claimed to make it seem like it was anything other than panic killing are blog posts?
Ok, this is about the normal.
Also, the "I guess he's still alive" line due to someone being sceptical about the blog evidence of "begging" is so fething pathetic you should be ashamed. Then again, after the Ted Bundy thread...
You can go into the court records if you wish, but but whatever, the guy just got lost on the way to the church bingo game and one thing led to another. Never mind the newspaper article from the event stating she was shot multiple times because it doesn't fit your narrative.
Relapse wrote: Just my thought on the matter. They gunned down an elderly couple. When the wife ran out of the building and he chased her down and shot her in the back of the head is the real point I think sealed the idea he be put away for good.
He did not go to the house to murder the couple and made a terrible decision which cost him 40 years of his life and probably an untold amount of grief. There is a difference.
Yet he did not heistate to get rid of all the witnesses. I agree, he needed a sitdown with Old Sparky for his true debt to society payment.
feeder wrote: If it matters, this guy is out in the world at 64, with no skills and a serious criminal record. Unless he did some major self improvement work in jail, plus has the kind of likeable personality that motivates other people to help him get a real, stable life going, he's going to have a miserable, homeless existence with a premature, lonely death.
He has a wife that stuck by him all the years he was in prison and a job at a local church when he gets out. He did do a lot of self improvement by getting more schooling, etc.
Well, sounds like he did his time wisely then. Hopefully he can earn forgiveness out in society, too.
Ouze wrote: I don't see what is notable about this. It's pretty unusual for a murderer to actually spend their entire life in jail - isn't the average sentence (served) like 17 years for a murder? I'm guessing, I don't know. But 40 years for a double murder seems to me about correct.
I'd like to think the purpose of jail is to rehabilitate someone, ideally. Putting someone in jail until the day they die doesn't seem to serve that purpose well; might as well just give them the needle if that's the case.
I think you are living in the wrong country for that ideal Ouze
I think 40 years is fair, the prisoner has served his time, 40 years is an adult lifespan, his life will be over, he must be an old many now and highly institutionalized.
In the UK actually serving 40 years for anything is extremely rare, murders are often out in under ten years, even one with crimes worse than this. Though that is mostly due to prison overcrowding. We have some prisoners on life tariff, but its rare and most involve child murderers, and the ones that make the press and hit a cord of public revulsion. People like Brady, Huntley and Sutcliffe will remain behind bars for the rest of their lives, and there are rumours of moves by the EU to halt even that.
I would be happy for there to be eventual release, and it is important in many cases, though it should never become a right, some people, and Ian Brady tops my list, deserve to sit and rot for as long as they live. Howeever I am fully opposed to the death penalty, as are most in the UK.
you knew what I meant
