Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Congratulations! Gun Safety courses cover that!

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?

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Congratulations! Gun Safety courses cover that!

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.

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Dreadwinter wrote:
Congratulations! Gun Safety courses cover that!

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?

Also still waiting on any kind of evidence for him "bragging about it" , as you have said, Relapse.

 curran12 wrote:
Also still waiting on any kind of evidence for him "bragging about it" , as you have said, Relapse.

Here you go:

http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2007/06/murder_in_the_k.html

A quote:

"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."

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? 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.

Relapse wrote:

 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.

Well, you tried.

So, it's the depravity of it that bothers you. Alright.

Do you think he should have gotten the death penalty, or just life in prison forever?

Relapse wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Also still waiting on any kind of evidence for him "bragging about it" , as you have said, Relapse.

Here you go:

http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2007/06/murder_in_the_k.html

The line from the article:

" 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.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
[Well, you tried.

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.

 Ouze wrote:
So, it's the depravity of it that bothers you. Alright.

Do you think he should have gotten the death penalty, or just life in prison forever?

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 curran12 wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 curran12 wrote:
Also still waiting on any kind of evidence for him "bragging about it" , as you have said, Relapse.

Here you go:

http://blog.wfmu.org/freeform/2007/06/murder_in_the_k.html

The line from the article:

" 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.

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.

Yeah I know, you're having 2 lines of debate at once.

 Ouze wrote:
Yeah I know, you're having 2 lines of debate at once.

I don't really feel like you and I are in a debate so much as an idea exchange.

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?

I would still like for you to address this.

 curran12 wrote:

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?


Looks for openers, she was shot multiple times:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=348&dat=19731112&id=Y54xAAAAIBAJ&sjid=20MDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5164,1817228


http://www.martystuart.com/ZArt-Misc-Murf-8-7-11.htm

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:
Shot execution style 3 times? Who does that?

OCD Assassins

 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.

Then it seemed like, for once, the system worked.

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:

but whatever, the guy just got lost on the way to the church bingo game and one thing led to another.

More pathetic nonsense.

Relapse wrote:

Never mind the newspaper article from the event stating she was shot multiple times because it doesn't fit your narrative.

That doesn't mean he went out with the intent to kill her.

It does mean that he did kill her.