So I think the two sides of the argument is do you take a stand and say it is not acceptable to kill others and try to back society away from thinking it is ok to do such a thing? Or do you arm a large portion of society and just trust in the luck of the draw to deter the dim witted members of society that they should not commit crime.

Well, obviously the whole apparatus is just far different in Florida than around here where I'm from. Further articles I've read on the case in the OP are saying now that the defense atty's feel it will be arguable as a self-defense case under something Florida has (a counterpart to concealed carry, I'm sure) called "Stand Your Ground" law. And it seems the victim did pull into the parking lot after the older man, evidently with the intent of carrying the dispute further. Obviously that was wrong on his part; especially with his 12-year old daughter in the car. A fatal misjudgement. So , some are arguing on some other forums I've seen that were talking about this case that the victim essentially caused his own demise through his own hot-headedness, and so on. Still, I can't fathom how threatening he could have been to render necessary this level of "defensive" action on the part of the older gentleman. I think that will be a hard case to sell a jury.

Britain the superpower!. Is that the same as the Ottoman superpower or the Roman superpower?. We had an empire and the last time I looked most of the countries and people who made up that empire were still on our books as peoples who are proud to call themselves British as part of the commonwealth of nations. Doesn't speak too badly of this country that even now after all these years and all that colonial oppression we can still claim to have almost 1 billion people now as part of our country and as our friends and allies and partners in the EU. How many friends and allies do you have?. I mean countries that look up to you and admire and respect you?. Hmmm let me think about that, oh yes, none. To most nations on earth you are just a cash cow whom they can suckle at the teat of. Tells you something doesn't it.

There is no reason for America to take notice of what anyone says or thinks let alone the international courts that they played a fundamental part in establishing and on which many respected and well esteemed American judges serve to this day. The international courts have already made tentative steps to bringing the issue such as guns and the torture camps you have in Cuba and other places to the negotiating table, in particular China (to who you now owe more money than you can shake a stick at), but well supported by other countries too.

It is only a matter of time before you have no choice but to comply. This ridiculous self belief in your own importance and divine right to rule without constraint or compassion is hard for those not indocrinated into your cult to comprehend. Your nation is spiraling out of control like a bald eagle with a broken wing. Soon you will be turning to those peoples you hate and wanting our help. I am sure that because we love you for the family you are, we will help you when the time comes just like we have always done.

Being a better international neighbour and supporting both the international courts and the United Nations will be the price you will be expected to pay for that help.

Your own courts are corrupt and ineffective as seen many times on issues such as gun control, immigration and human rights abuses.

The world courts are there for the benefit of all nations and all peoples. The durisdiction of them is not constrained by national borders and their ruling take precidence over your national court rulings. Using your veto in the same way you use your veto in the UN is America's greatest shame. These men have a right to protection under the law the same as everyone else. To kill is against the word of God as delivered to Moses on tablets of stone. There was no addendum as I can recall that made exceptions. Not even to sate the lust for blood and revenge that many Americans relish so much.

You should pay more heed to the decisions and findings of the international courts and their function. Other than rising against your government in armed struggle you have no redress against injustice and even that could never be so effective as international world rulings in controlling your criminal leadership. Your own courts are corrupt and ineffective as seen many times on issues such as gun control, immigration and human rights abuses. Many of you are now starting to see your ountry and it's foreign policies and actions for the criminality that it is and are calling for impeachment and trial of it's corrupt leadership. It is only the world courts that can offer you this solution.

You want to play in our world, you play by our rules.{/quote]

what an utter crock of shyt.
first, you demonstrate that you have NO knowledge of the bible whatsoever. there is NOWHERE in the bible that says anything remotely close to decrying the death penalty. your absolute foolishness in misquoting the commandment is laughable. the commnadment, lad, is "thou shalt not MURDER". since the death penalty is not similar to murder in any way, the commandment obviously does not cover it.
then, you compound it with the lunacy about the world court. there is NO reason for the u.s. to pay attention to ANYTHING the world court says. the abjectly stupid clowns that make it up have yet to utter an intelligent word since it's inception.
no laddie, you will play by OUR rules, or you will not play at all. that's simple reality
when you euroweenies get some sense and become at least partially rational, we might consider what you say. until that time, too bad, but not sad.

Most of my msg was taken from a Reuters news report this am except for the editorial quips . True the above , which is why there's a Canadian tourist backlash against visiting Mexico . Their justice system is less than world class , and police officers are barely above the Keystone cops . Witness the Ianero murders last year . A Canadian couple murdered at a resort , and the hotel staff were in cleaning the room before the investigation was done . And the prime suspects were two soccer moms from Thunder Bay .
If I want sun and sand , I'll be going to South Padre Island , Texas .

Medellin's execution is sure to anger neighboring Mexico and analysts have said it could make life rough for Americans arrested abroad if other countries decide to evoke the U.S. example and deprive them of their right to consular services.

We all need to look at the big picture here. Our country is becoming swallowed up. United States sovereignty will become less and less as we move into a one world currency, one world laws, education, health care etc. Already, we are not "allowed" to celebrate Christmas as we know it in the schools and heaven forbid any pictures of God as we know him, so as not to "offend" people visiting our country. (Be aware of the talk to change our name to the "World States").
If people come here they should learn our language, abide by our laws and adapt to our culture. As it stands now, we stifle our beliefs and culture to accomadate visiting foreigners. We allow them to fly their flags.
We should not apply Mexican laws to the Mexicans, Iranian laws to the Iranians etc. We have our OWN laws that everyone should live by when in America.
If you aren't outraged, then you are not paying attention!

I'll cite you one other little thing that puts Texas apart as a world unto itself.

It is actually, "The Republic of Texas"...it's not a state. People mistakenly call it a state, but it has a few additional rights because it isn't one. This is one of the reasons why SCOTUS said that niether SCOTUS itself nor President Bush could do ANYTHING to Texas on this particular matter. Texas, for all intents and purposes for the ICJ, could just as well be on Mars.

yet to me, honour is important - and should be to you too.

if scotus says .. it does not apply to the states
So lets just ignore any other court/country - sounds like a plan, except that the US would expect other countries to honor their obligations ? why should they if you dont.
But thats politics for you... one rule for you, one for the rest of the world...

Or:



perhaps if other countries honored their treaty obligations and extradited criminals back to the u.s.
from our point of view, UK, its the US that doesnt extradite criminals to us, we seem to do it willynilly. We are even likely to send a simple hacker back to you to serve a disproportionate sentence.
I've no idea what Mexico does or doesnt do.

then, there is your delusion that the police have an obligation to protect you. i truly do not know where people get this ridiculous idea from. it has been settled law since scotus decided warner vs district of columbia in 1981 that the police have NO duty to protect anyone.


I am not particularly familiar with this case, but if you'd like to cite your source, I'd be more than willing to become familiar with it.



what has materialism to do with anything? as i said, what the trash is trying to steal has nothing to do with anything, although, the irrefutable fact remains that it is the thief who decides that the tv is worth more than his life, not mine. once again, it is the fact that the trash breaks into your house that makes him deserve death, not what he tries to take.


Again, the question is how much do you put on the value of life and whether or not you think someone has the potential to be reformed. Again, as I have stated before, I do believe that many people can be reformed. You however, apparently do not believe that, and therefore, we should be also executing speeders, jaywalkers, and litterers.



as with EVERYTHING in life, you, and you alone, are solely responsible for each and everything that you do. a thief chooses to steal, and the consequences of stealing can be death. if a thief chooses to die by stealing from me, i am more than happy to grant his wish.


This is part of the reason we do live in a society based upon the Rule of Law, a Social Contract, and do not allow vigilante justice.

Yes those are derogatory remarks, and you are in ignorance of the facts. Benefit of doubt does not seem to be your way at all, I have read other postings by you. Your outright fallacy is neither obvious nor outright; you can state that a comment is false, but not that a comment is moronic - comments themselves have no intelligence and as such cannot be moronic, merely the person making them. People either comprehend, or not; you do not usually get a choice to "bother". What I quoted was from the scotus site - try searching on it for relevant documents you will find exactly what I suggested, however you want to read it. And yet I have since read the opinion document, which says that states should be honor bound to accept higher authority. And as I said earlier, I do not accept that Scotus is actually the ultimate authority anyway. I would get into why thats the case, but you're so stuck in your ways it would probably be a further waste of time. You seem to be a prime example of legal idiocy over justice.

Just out of curiosity though ...should John Couey who brutally raped a girl under the age of 13 then buried her alive so she died from suffocation be allowed to live? Throw in the fact that Couey was already a convicted sex offender who had"served his time" and "repaid" his debt to society.



Basing public policy on individual high profiles crimes is madness. if you buy into that kind of thinking, guns should have been banned after Columbine.



that is what is truly sad. you have these irrational people trying to claim that murderers are still human beings and should be treated like everyone else. they try to blame society instead of the ONLY one responsible. you really do have to feel sorry for them.
the good thing is that i thought exactly like they do until i was forty and grew up and got it right. there is always hope that they will also




A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]


If people only though society was responsible and not the criminal at all, they would advocate no sentence at all, not a life sentence.



The liberals always want empathy for the wrong person. They want you to feel bad for the criminal and make the victim into the bad guy. Kind of like the ACLU.


God you're so ignorant sometimes, thats not even what Empathy means, what you're talking about is Sympathy, which isn't what we're discussing at all. Empathy is the understanding of somebodies motivations and the reasons for their action.

You want to reduce crime? you need Empathy, dirision gets you nowhere.

As for the ACLU, i'm well aware that you don't believe in civil liberties such as free speech, republicans believe the only right that is worth preserving is the right to bear arms, usually to shoot people when they don't agree with what they're saying.



however, the simple fact that there were 208 exonerations, 124 from death row, from 1973-2007 is conclusive proof that the system works, and that no truly innocent person can be executed.


Never use the term stupid for another person again. Thats like saying because seat belts save thousands of people every year, it's proof that nobody dies while wearing a seat belt.

Statistician you are not.



Ruben Cantu was executed in Texas in 1993. The eyewitness and co-defendant whose testimony was crucial to putting Cantu on death row have since recanted.(17) In a development that is reminiscent of the Troy Davis case (see below), the lone eyewitness has said that he felt pressured by police into identifying Ruben Cantu as the murderer.
Larry Griffin was executed in Missouri in 1995. An investigation by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund has cast serious doubt on the credibility of the state's key witness.(18)
Gary Graham was executed in Texas in 2000 primarily on the testimony of a single eyewitness. Other eyewitnesses, not interviewed by the defence lawyer, said that Graham was not the perpetrator.(19)
Angel Nieves Diaz was executed in Florida in 2006 despite the fact that a key prosecution witness -- a jailhouse informant -- had recanted his trial testimony implicating Diaz. Angel Diaz maintained his innocence in his final statement before being killed in a botched execution.

Just out of curiosity though ...should John Couey who brutally raped a girl under the age of 13 then buried her alive so she died from suffocation be allowed to live? Throw in the fact that Couey was already a convicted sex offender who had"served his time" and "repaid" his debt to society.



Basing public policy on individual high profiles crimes is madness. if you buy into that kind of thinking, guns should have been banned after Columbine.



that is what is truly sad. you have these irrational people trying to claim that murderers are still human beings and should be treated like everyone else. they try to blame society instead of the ONLY one responsible. you really do have to feel sorry for them.
the good thing is that i thought exactly like they do until i was forty and grew up and got it right. there is always hope that they will also




A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to describe a position that superficially resembles an opponent's actual view but is easier to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent (for example, deliberately overstating the opponent's position).[1] A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it carries little or no real evidential weight, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.[2]


If people only though society was responsible and not the criminal at all, they would advocate no sentence at all, not a life sentence.



The liberals always want empathy for the wrong person. They want you to feel bad for the criminal and make the victim into the bad guy. Kind of like the ACLU.


God you're so ignorant sometimes, thats not even what Empathy means, what you're talking about is Sympathy, which isn't what we're discussing at all. Empathy is the understanding of somebodies motivations and the reasons for their action.

You want to reduce crime? you need Empathy, dirision gets you nowhere.

As for the ACLU, i'm well aware that you don't believe in civil liberties such as free speech, republicans believe the only right that is worth preserving is the right to bear arms, usually to shoot people when they don't agree with what they're saying.



however, the simple fact that there were 208 exonerations, 124 from death row, from 1973-2007 is conclusive proof that the system works, and that no truly innocent person can be executed.


Never use the term stupid for another person again. Thats like saying because seat belts save thousands of people every year, it's proof that nobody dies while wearing a seat belt.

Statistician you are not.



Ruben Cantu was executed in Texas in 1993. The eyewitness and co-defendant whose testimony was crucial to putting Cantu on death row have since recanted.(17) In a development that is reminiscent of the Troy Davis case (see below), the lone eyewitness has said that he felt pressured by police into identifying Ruben Cantu as the murderer.
Larry Griffin was executed in Missouri in 1995. An investigation by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund has cast serious doubt on the credibility of the state's key witness.(18)
Gary Graham was executed in Texas in 2000 primarily on the testimony of a single eyewitness. Other eyewitnesses, not interviewed by the defence lawyer, said that Graham was not the perpetrator.(19)
Angel Nieves Diaz was executed in Florida in 2006 despite the fact that a key prosecution witness -- a jailhouse informant -- had recanted his trial testimony implicating Diaz. Angel Diaz maintained his innocence in his final statement before being killed in a botched execution.

This goes to prove what i am saying people use what ever excuse they can to justfiy what they did. thier is no reason to cheat get a divorce first hell what do you thunk they will take you back after you cheat on them. i wont give a cheater compassion as they dont dersve it where was thier compassion when they cheated they didnt show any to thier mate so what makes them derserve it. I am glad that i can be a problem to cheaters as i feel they dont dersve anything but shame and heart ache.

What it says is bad guys should not be held accountable.



- well therein lies the problem. there are no more 'bad guys.' they are all victims of circumstance - be it poverty, fatherless childhoods, trash tv or bad role models in sports, nobody's at fault for their own actions.

I remember when Nathaniel Brazille, 15 years old, shot his teacher to death with a Raven .25 automatic. The kid kills his teacher but his mother AND the teacher's wife went after the manufacturer for making a cheap weapon with lousy safety features. It wasn't Nathaniel's fault - the gun killed Barry Grunow!


I remember a few years ago, near where I live in MA. these 3 boys, 11-14 respectively, conned some 15 year old girl into coming over, where they repeatedly raped her for hours. The mother of one of the little punks came out and said 'its not his fault, he was just trying to be a man.' Huh? Later on she blamed the media and MTV- currently, these little pukes are serving no time.

We teach this garbage to our kids at an early age - that they are all special and dammit, the world owes them something. So its no wonder this attitude of passing the buck is passed on to the rest of society.

And people wonder why I don't have a problem with the gas chamber.