Apologies

[inyati13]

I missed it also. But I said shoot him behind the ear, not in the back of the head. And I see no reason for someone that committed a crime like Hinkley diIId, deserves or needs a trial. He was a 100% guilty of trying to kill someone, no ifs ands or butts. Pictures don't lie, and are worth a thousand words. I'm all for jury trials and reasonable doubt, but there was no need in this case. At least the cops have it figured out now, shoot'em six times and don't worry about a trial.
TB, you need to learn some manners.

Grit.
Do the conditions you set forth for the execution of Hinkley apply to anyone? As follows:

Any person who shoots someone with the intent to kill shall be executed without trial or judicial review by a shot fired into the head at a point located behind the ear when said shooting is captured on camera and no reasonable doubt exists in the circumstances of the shooting?

 

[TexasBred]

I missed it also. But I said shoot him behind the ear, not in the back of the head. And I see no reason for someone that committed a crime like Hinkley did, deserves or needs a trial. He was a 100% guilty of trying to kill someone, no ifs ands or butts. Pictures don't lie, and are worth a thousand words. I'm all for jury trials and reasonable doubt, but there was no need in this case. At least the cops have it figured out now, shoot'em six times and don't worry about a trial.
TB, you need to learn some manners.

YOu expect the law of the land to protect you yet you propose lawlessness toward others. You can't have it both way. BTW pictures do lie. Camera angles, lighting, shadows can change a picture completely.

 

[TexasBred]

The jury, the law, and the constitution, says differently.

GB they all mean nothing to him.

 

[Caustic Burno]

:pop: :pop:
Front yard mowed hog traps checked this morning time to sit on the porch swing enjoy the show and wait on this afternoons rain,

 

[True Grit Farms]

I missed it also. But I said shoot him behind the ear, not in the back of the head. And I see no reason for someone that committed a crime like Hinkley diIId, deserves or needs a trial. He was a 100% guilty of trying to kill someone, no ifs ands or butts. Pictures don't lie, and are worth a thousand words. I'm all for jury trials and reasonable doubt, but there was no need in this case. At least the cops have it figured out now, shoot'em six times and don't worry about a trial.
TB, you need to learn some manners.

Grit.
Do the conditions you set forth for the execution of Hinkley apply to anyone? As follows:

Any person who shoots someone with the intent to kill shall be executed without trial or judicial review by a shot fired into the head at a point located behind the ear when said shooting is captured on camera and no reasonable doubt exists in the circumstances of the shooting?

There's a big difference between kill and murder. IMO
There's no doubt that we need laws, judges and trials. But when someone is caught red handed and is guilty without doubt I see no need for a trial. How many rustlers, horse thieves, and robbers that were caught red handed ended up with a trail in the old days? The judicial system and Lawyers have the system tilted in their favor, all because of the almighty $dollar.

 

[inyati13]

I missed it also. But I said shoot him behind the ear, not in the back of the head. And I see no reason for someone that committed a crime like Hinkley diIId, deserves or needs a trial. He was a 100% guilty of trying to kill someone, no ifs ands or butts. Pictures don't lie, and are worth a thousand words. I'm all for jury trials and reasonable doubt, but there was no need in this case. At least the cops have it figured out now, shoot'em six times and don't worry about a trial.
TB, you need to learn some manners.

Grit.
Do the conditions you set forth for the execution of Hinkley apply to anyone? As follows:

Any person who shoots someone with the intent to kill shall be executed without trial or judicial review by a shot fired into the head at a point located behind the ear when said shooting is captured on camera and no reasonable doubt exists in the circumstances of the shooting?

There's a big difference between kill and murder. IMO
There's no doubt that we need laws, judges and trials. But when someone is caught red handed and is guilty without doubt I see no need for a trial. How many rustlers, horse thieves, and robbers that were caught red handed ended up with a trail in the old days? The judicial system and Lawyers have the system tilted in their favor, all because of the almighty $dollar.

Good point: Edited.

Any person who shoots someone with the intent to commit murder shall be executed without trial or judicial review by a shot fired into the head at a point located behind the ear when said shooting is captured on camera and no reasonable doubt exists in the circumstances of the shooting?

Note: I have no intent to judge you. I am a firm believer that I have no right to judge your values.

 

[Bestoutwest]

There's a big difference between kill and murder. IMO
There's no doubt that we need laws, judges and trials. But when someone is caught red handed and is guilty without doubt I see no need for a trial. How many rustlers, horse thieves, and robbers that were caught red handed ended up with a trail in the old days? The judicial system and Lawyers have the system tilted in their favor, all because of the almighty $dollar.

There are numerous examples of people being fingered for a crime only to be exonerated after the fact through DNA evidence. They're only crime was being in the wrong place at the wrong time. If the law worked the way that you advocate for, there'd be a lot of dead people. I'm sure that there were quite a few horse thieves, rustlers and robbers that were executed b/c they looked like the guy, had an animal that looked similar to the one stolen, or they were un-liked by the mob that had been worked into a frenzy.

 

[Bestoutwest]

Good point: Edited.

Any person who shoots someone with the intent to commit murder shall be executed without trial or judicial review by a shot fired into the head at a point located behind the ear when said shooting is captured on camera and no reasonable doubt exists in the circumstances of the shooting?

Note: I have no intent to judge you. I am a firm believer that I have no right to judge your values.

Since this is hypothetical, let's do the hypothetical lawyer review. Does this only pertain to professional photography? How about surveillance video? If it is film does that still count or does it have to be digital? Would a side profile of the face be sufficient or does this have to have a full frontal view?

This lady must be executed b/c she's on film, appearing to hold something in the direction of Kennedy when he was shot.
http://coolinterestingstuff.com/real-un ... ushka-lady

 

[greybeard]

There's a big difference between kill and murder. IMO
There's no doubt that we need laws, judges and trials. But when someone is caught red handed and is guilty without doubt I see no need for a trial. How many rustlers, horse thieves, and robbers that were caught red handed ended up with a trail in the old days? The judicial system and Lawyers have the system tilted in their favor, all because of the almighty $dollar.

Today's date is July 29, 2016.
You don't live in the 1800s, or in the 1600s when mentally incompetent people were killed for being a 'witch'.
I highly recommend you do NOT attempt this, but try it one time and you will suddenly find out that your opinion is absolutely worthless in the eyes of the law, the constitution and your jury.
There was a pharmacist in Oklahoma a few years back, that was being robbed in his place of business. Shot one at the counter, chased another outside, and then returned inside and administered a 5 bullet coup de grâce on the one laying unconscious on the floor. Last I heard, he was still doing his prison sentence of life with possibility for parole for murder.

It's one thing to defend one's self---another thing entirely to become judge, jury and executioner. Had the Secret Service shot dead Hinkley as he attempted to assassinate the president, it would have been justified. After the fact and determining he was a loony?--no!

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43710936/ns/u ... be-robber/

We do not, even after a trial, execute the mentally ill, reason being, they are not cognizant of their thoughts and actions in reference to right vs wrong or what the law says. I suspect very much TG, that you have been blessed not to have any mentally handicapped persons in your family--no mental birth defects, dementia or Alzheimer. They don't know whatthey are doing or saying, and often do turn violent, but none of us are ready to kill our parents or grandparents because they can no longer act in a logical manner.
I also find it more than a little ironic, that so many who complain loudly and often about a govt entity trying to abridge their own constitutional rights (I'm one of them) are so often guilty of wanting to do the same thing regarding other's constitutional rights.

 

[Commercialfarmer]

Union soldiers held the same kind of trial. They caught two boys out hunting with rifles, so they executed them without judge or jury. They paid a heavy price.

http://www.ozy.com/flashback/the-sniper ... iers/64502


Justice can take it's time to uncover all facts. Executing today will not make someone anymore dead than if done tomorrow. Once done it's done. There is no recourse for a wrong decision.

Emotionally, I'd like to see swift justice. But rationally, all facts should be produced. It's the right thing to do.

 

[True Grit Farms]

Commit and reasonable doubt is questionable wording. Being judged by your peers won't work in every case, and for those cases a judge and jury will be needed. But the Hinkley case and the Fort Hood killer left no reasonable doubt or question of who did what. The cops are using the "feared for my life" to kill people all the time. And are doing so with very little proof. Hinkley and the Fort Hood killer needed killing, no trial no nothing they were both guilty.
GB, what the Pharmacist did was against the law but he saved the country alot of money. And probably saved some other folks lives because of our judicial system. I'm sure that the robber got what he deserved and the Pharmacist got screwed.

 

[greybeard]

Once we go down the road of judge, jury and executioner in regards to mentally incompetent, we are no better than Hitler and ISIS, and are probably worse.

saved the country alot of money.

I do not, cannot, and will not ever put any monetary value on anyone's life, least of all a mentally imbalanced or handicapped person.
What you are advocating is not even allowed in govt authorized combat. We cannot shoot POWs, no matter how many of our friends they may have killed before capture. That's a fast track to a courts martial.

 

[TexasBred]

I missed it also. But I said shoot him behind the ear, not in the back of the head. And I see no reason for someone that committed a crime like Hinkley did, deserves or needs a trial. He was a 100% guilty of trying to kill someone, no ifs ands or butts. Pictures don't lie, and are worth a thousand words. I'm all for jury trials and reasonable doubt, but there was no need in this case. At least the cops have it figured out now, shoot'em six times and don't worry about a trial.
TB, you need to learn some manners.

TG you need to act like you have some inkling of the law of our land. You sound just like some Imam preaching in a mosque. Stop and think about it. :nod: :nod: Really hard to imagine an intelligent man thinking the way you do. You're really warped.

 

[inyati13]

I missed it also. But I said shoot him behind the ear, not in the back of the head. And I see no reason for someone that committed a crime like Hinkley did, deserves or needs a trial. He was a 100% guilty of trying to kill someone, no ifs ands or butts. Pictures don't lie, and are worth a thousand words. I'm all for jury trials and reasonable doubt, but there was no need in this case. At least the cops have it figured out now, shoot'em six times and don't worry about a trial.
TB, you need to learn some manners.

TG you need to act like you have some inkling of the law of our land. You sound just like some Imam preaching in a mosque. Stop and think about it. :nod: :nod: Really hard to imagine an intelligent man thinking the way you do. You're really warped.

Grit is an honest, intelligent man. He has described his childhood, that may account for some scars- but I avoid psychoanalysis. I wish you would not say he is warped, Richard. You don't know what he might have gone through growing up. He loves his family and wants to protect them and his lifestyle. I don't consider it anyone else's problem what he believes. However, as GB stated, if he acts out some of his beliefs, I have great concern for where he will spend the remainder of his mortal life.

 

[True Grit Farms]

I just can see giving any compassion or rights to a murderer. The victims and their families should have the last say in the punishment of the criminal. If you or one of your family members were murdered and there was 100% proof of who committed it, y'all think that person should still be afforded a trial? I want them dead ASAP.
I state my opinions on how I feel, and try not to single anyone personally out. We all have ghosts hidden away somewhere. Life's not all peaches and cream, but in the end you do whatever you think needs to be done. You know the phrase "eye for an eye, tooth for tooth" that's the way real life should be.
If everyone followed the 10 commandments we'd have no problems.

 

[greybeard]

Grit is an honest, intelligent man. He has described his childhood, that may account for some scars- but I avoid psychoanalysis. I wish you would not say he is warped, Richard. You don't know what he might have gone through growing up. He loves his family and wants to protect them and his lifestyle. I don't consider it anyone else's problem what he believes. However, as GB stated, if he acts out some of his beliefs, I have great concern for where he will spend the remainder of his mortal life.

Now, put that in context of what we're discussing. If he gets a 'bye' for any long held emotional scars or oddities, why would he be so unwilling to understand the same regarding the law in the Hinkley case? We don't know what caused Hinkley to go down the irrational path he did, but something beyond his control did that affected the way he acted and thought.

 

[inyati13]

Grit is an honest, intelligent man. He has described his childhood, that may account for some scars- but I avoid psychoanalysis. I wish you would not say he is warped, Richard. You don't know what he might have gone through growing up. He loves his family and wants to protect them and his lifestyle. I don't consider it anyone else's problem what he believes. However, as GB stated, if he acts out some of his beliefs, I have great concern for where he will spend the remainder of his mortal life.

Now, put that in context of what we're discussing. If he gets a 'bye' for any long held emotional scars or oddities, why would he be so unwilling to understand the same regarding the law in the Hinkley case? We don't know what caused Hinkley to go down the irrational path he did, but something beyond his control did that affected the way he acted and thought.

I did not intend to make a significant point of Grit's childhood. My primary point is that he has a right to his beliefs. Even if he fails to see the obvious justification for how the Hinkley case was handled. All we can do is voice our disagreement. I don't agree with disparaging him because of his beliefs. I do not share Grit's beliefs and values but he has done no harm.

The important point is that he can believe what ever he wants but he will suffer the consequences of acting contrary to the rules, laws and doctrines of our society. Therefore, professing his beliefs is primarily rhetorical and in vain.

 

[greybeard]

Yep, a great deal of what is posted in 'off topic' type sections of internet boards is just rhetoric.

 

[bball]

Yep, a great deal of what is posted in 'off topic' type sections of internet boards is just rhetoric.

Same could be said of much of the 'on topic' sections. :hide:

 

[Nesikep]

I think everyone deserves a trial.. HOWEVER, taking the case of a local serial rapist and murderer Robert Pickton, who raped and killed something like 40 women over the years and fed them to his pigs, prove he's guilty of one or two of them, lump the rest of them together.. don't spend 5 years in the courtroom debating every case on taxpayer dollar.. For men like that I think capital punishment isn't sufficient.. and we don't even have that here.

Read up on one darned sick mind here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Pickton