Maes Posted July 21, 2012 Don't the jurors just decide guilty/non guilty but the final verdict/sentence (and final opinion, too, which might overturn theirs) is still up to the judge? After all most jurors don't have legal training and don't know how to interpret and apply the most hairy aspects of the Law, especially those that specify what the minimum/maximum extents for punishing crime X are. They are there just, as Gez said, for the ethical aspects of the question. Deciding the precise amount of prison time or applicability of the death sentence and under which conditions is hardly ethical -it's purely technical, once guilt has been ascertained. 0 Share this post Link to post
Quast Posted July 21, 2012 Maes said:Don't the jurors just decide guilty/non guilty but the final verdict/sentence (and final opinion, too, which might overturn theirs) is still up to the judge? For the most part, yes. However, most judges really don't make any decision in regards to sentencing in the first place. They have their hands tied with legislated 'mandatory minimum' and '3 strikes' type of guidelines to follow. This does vary from state to state and jurisdiction to jurisdiction of course. Not a bit of this is relevant to this particular case anyhow because it is not likely to go to jury trial. 0 Share this post Link to post
DeathevokatioN Posted July 21, 2012 Snakes said:Super-stoked to see this get twisted into a major political issue over the next 4 months. Aurora's going to be identified by this mess and that's a goddamn shame. lmao, well predicted man... the left wing media identified him with "Tea Party connections", and right wingers media identified him as an Occupy liberal. I'm not joking. Politics can be so obnoxious over tragic cases sometimes, but what can you do? 0 Share this post Link to post
Craigs Posted July 21, 2012 It really blows my mind how much people are struggling to understand the shooter's motives. It's pretty simple when you get right down to it. He thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn. 0 Share this post Link to post
Maes Posted July 22, 2012 At least if some of those psychos decided to take on a symbol of authority or corrupt politician....then there might be a net gain for society thank to their actions, once in a while. But for some reason they choose inconsequential targets and/or pointless suicide, as bad as this will make the victims' parents feel. 0 Share this post Link to post
myk Posted July 22, 2012 Vordakk said: You act as though every time someone is up for death, Janet Napolitano herself reads the verdict. Article Three of the United States Constitution states "The Trial of all Crimes...shall be by Jury". A criminal's fate is held in the hands of jurors, not government. The person who actually does the injection is probably is a government employee, but the decision should be made by a jury of peers. In trying to refute a supposed stereotype you fell for another. It's done under laws made by congress, as long as the executive doesn't grant a pardon, and not just with a government employee but also with the full force of the government backing the execution of the law. That is, the jury may say guilty or innocent, but its surrounded by tons of cops and other officials who make sure that is applied or occasionally refuted. A form of justice that were independent of the government would have nothing to do with that. In other words, the jury is itself a temporary part of the government apparatus. Clearly it's wrong to expect avid players of violent video games to be anything but total pussies when it comes to actually killing a hardened criminal in the name of justice. Don't say, with DOOM being about a macho military man kicking ass to and fro, I was sure you could expect nothing but virile cries for blood from our crowd! I'm sure that you all would rather the system resemble Sweden, where Jon Nodtveit was able to kill a gay man in cold blood and serve a mere 7 years in prison before being released. Or how about Norway, where murderer and church-burner Varg Vikernes was allowed to record music in prison, then released on parole in 2009. Those are the type of guys we want out on the streets, right? Let's mention two cases of recidivism, ignore many others that turned out well and ignore innocents condemned to death elsewhere. GoatLord said: I have no idea what his background is or whether he feels guilty of what he's done, though based on what I've heard it doesn't seem likely. This seems too extreme for someone who got caught up in their own dysfunctional upbringing. What you heard where, the media? If there is any social impact of such behavior it's well integrated into commercial media. What could they transmit of this person's life in such a short time anyway? Even long trials and evaluations are often confusing in respect to a person's upbringing or the effect of their neighborhood, which is a further argument against irrevocable penalties. In fact, if it's so extreme and not tied to an organized initiative (such as what they call "terrorism"), how could he not be caught up in some form of dysfunctional upbringing? What theory are you using to judge, a deterministic theory on genetics? Judgment by spiritual fundamentalism? Since it eliminates the suspect, the death penalty more or less says, "society has nothing to do with it, it's all his fault." With the mess we live in, I'd have great doubts about such a verdict and to reach it would require the most exhaustive investigation. I might understand some people defending the death penalty by principle or as a method, but already concluding it should apply to this guy? Hold your horses, there is something called a due process of justice! 0 Share this post Link to post
Belial Posted July 22, 2012 Maes said:You confirmed a personal theory of mine according to which no society whatsoever justifies random killings without ANY sort of justification, but as long as one presents a "valid" moral justifier, it's A-OK. I have no idea how you derived that from what's been said. It's plain fact that a psycho without identifiable motives is a more universal threat than some street thug you could meet in a dark alley. You can avoid dark alleys, expecting what could happen, but you couldn't convince anyone that a movie theater should be treated with similar caution. Me not giving a fuck about what gang members do to each other doesn't mean I find it justifiable in terms of morality or law. 0 Share this post Link to post
Maes Posted July 22, 2012 Belial said:Me not giving a fuck about what gang members do to each other doesn't mean I find it justifiable in terms of morality or law. And yet, you already find it more acceptable if they stick to killing only their kin. And yeah, you can avoid dark alleys, but what about when gangsters pick your home for burglary and robbery at gunpoint? Would it be any different if instead of motivated robbers you got broke in by some random guy who thinks he's was a ninja with Real Ultimate Power or a wannabe Dark Op who thinks you're a dangerous terrorist or whatever? 0 Share this post Link to post
Belial Posted July 22, 2012 Maes said:And yet, you already find it more acceptable if they stick to killing only their kin. And yeah, you can avoid dark alleys, but what about when gangsters pick your home for burglary and robbery at gunpoint? Would it be any different if instead of motivated robbers you got broke in by some random guy who thinks he's was a ninja with Real Ultimate Power or a wannabe Dark Op who thinks you're a dangerous terrorist or whatever? I don't find it acceptable, I just wouldn't feel sorry for their families. Robbers could take what they want for what I care, a nutcase would be harder to reason with, thus more dangerous. 0 Share this post Link to post
Technician Posted July 22, 2012 Belial said:I don't find it acceptable, I just wouldn't feel sorry for their families.I'm glad to see your sympathy shows no bounds. 0 Share this post Link to post
neubejiita Posted July 22, 2012 One thing to come from this is that gun control will be at the forefront. The politicians and people will be calling for greater restrictions on automatic weapons. They have already banned costumes at movie theaters and the banning of illegal weapons will be next. Just you wait. 0 Share this post Link to post
Technician Posted July 22, 2012 neubejiita said:One thing to come from this is that gun control will be at the forefront. The politicians and people will be calling for greater restrictions on automatic weapons. They have already banned costumes at movie theaters and the banning of illegal weapons will be next. Just you wait. Heh I get jokes. 0 Share this post Link to post
40oz Posted July 22, 2012 I'll bet Christopher Nolan is pisssssseedddd 0 Share this post Link to post
Maes Posted July 22, 2012 neubejiita said:the banning of illegal weapons will be next Hmm...weren't they banned already simply by being illegal (or viceversa)? What more can they do, halt production and seize every last one of them all over the world? 0 Share this post Link to post
printz Posted July 22, 2012 What's the point of banning "illegal" firearms? A low-range pistol is not any less deadly than an assault rifle. Just make the gun license hard to obtain for all metal bullet firearms. 0 Share this post Link to post
Maes Posted July 22, 2012 printz said:Just make the gun license hard to obtain for all metal bullet firearms. That's what happens in most EU countries and yet, gun crime isn't exactly zero, far from it. Of course such bans never affect criminals and the black market at all, but one would think that they would be effective in preventing exactly this type of random shootings by part otherwise ordinary citizens. Only that they don't. A determined mass-murderer will always find a way to do it, even if it's not as convenient as walking into a gun store and saying "Hi, I'd like some guns for a little project of mine. What do you suggest?" "Certainly sir. I recommend this here urban combat pump-action shotgun and this extended-magazine submachine gun. Satisfaction guaranteed!". "Gimme half a dozen". 0 Share this post Link to post
Fulgrim Posted July 22, 2012 Gun control won't stop things like this in the first place. If someone wants a gun bad enough they will find a way to get it. On top of that there are entire towns and villages across the world where two warring factions have been stripped of firearms and they continued to fight.You take away there guns and a few days later the people are fighting in the street using everything from a kitchen knifes, 2x4's, hammers to pitchforks. The fighting just keeps going no matter what the people in power do. 0 Share this post Link to post
DoomUK Posted July 22, 2012 You don't even need a gun to go on a killing spree. Also:- The NRA said:Guns don't kill people, people kill people 0 Share this post Link to post
printz Posted July 22, 2012 DoomUK said:You don't even need a gun to go on a killing spree. Yes you do, because it's much easier with a gun. Try doing that with a bow or darts. You can still kill one or two if you're trained, but it's much slower. Also guns kill people, they're tools designed to make that thing easier.Satyr000 said:You take away there guns and a few days later the people are fighting in the street using everything from a kitchen knifes, 2x4's, hammers to pitchforks. And what are you trying to prove by that? I'd much rather be chased by someone with kitchen knifes, than be pointed with a pistol from a distance where I don't even see him (because if I turn around, I'm dead). 0 Share this post Link to post
DoomUK Posted July 22, 2012 printz said:it's much easier with a gun The point is that, while no one with half a brain could seriously contend with that statement, ridding the world of guns wouldn't stop psychotic people from doing terrible things. It might only lessen the death-toll whenever someone decides to go and kill a bunch of people (assuming they know nothing about making explosives, which can incidentally do a lot more damage then any firearm can). Is that really a victory in the eyes of the anti-gun party? Don't you think people's behaviour is what needs focus, and not what they're holding in their hands? 0 Share this post Link to post
Maes Posted July 22, 2012 printz said:Try doing that with a bow or darts. You'd get your ass kicked. A machete works much better. Plus, anyone can fill a bottle with petrol, ignite it and throw it inside a closed space, Postal 2 style. Imagine if the killer had chosen to do that instead. 0 Share this post Link to post
DoomUK Posted July 22, 2012 Maes said:A machete works much better. Or a "samurai sword". 0 Share this post Link to post
Vordakk Posted July 22, 2012 Banning guns never works as progressives intend for it to. All it does is keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and gives criminals(who have no qualms about breaking the law in the first place) a chance to go on a killing spree unchecked. A gun is basically a tool, an extension of the human hand. It's the person's will that turns this tool into an agent of death. Motor vehicles are arguably more dangerous than guns in many cases, yet we use those every day. I guarantee that if I take my car up onto the sidewalk in the ritzy shopping sections of my city, I could very easily beat this guys death-count. Psychos are gonna be psycho whether or not they have access to projectile weapons. They'll use whatever they can to kill. This website is a good starting point. As the old saying goes: "When seconds count, the police are minutes away." 0 Share this post Link to post
Maes Posted July 22, 2012 Vordakk said:gives criminals(who have no qualms about breaking the law in the first place) a chance to go on a killing spree unchecked. Ironically, most "real" criminals are very careful about not doing that, since they want a long career and avoiding undue attention as much as possible. This leads to people like Belial "preferring" armed criminals -even if illegally- to legally armed civilians, who could -in his logic- lash out without any self-control or restraint, as opposed to the carefully planning criminals who "play by the rules"...whatever these might be. Sadly, this is also many states' unstated policy: an armed criminal that does a "clean job" once in a blue moon (aka kills maybe one-two victims at a time and then covers his traces and disappears quietly for a while) is preferable to an armed civilian shooting a criminal in self-defense, or abusing of his right to bear arms to openly commit massacres. The former can be shrugged with a "shit happens" statement, the latter stirs up media & PR shitstorms. Guess which one is preferable to authorities. 0 Share this post Link to post
Quast Posted July 22, 2012 Gun ownership in the united states is not only very deeply tied to a sense of national identity and national history, but it's very much tied to familial identity. The vast majority of gun owners in the united states are not the crazies, they are not liquor store robbing gang members but normal people. Many of which, myself included, have seen firearms passed down 4 or 5 generations or more. It might seem like a minor point, but the symbolic and ritual aspects of it are more meaningful than people might give it credit for. For anyone concerned, gun ownership is not going away, ever. The 2nd amendment trumps any international treaty or agreement. So no one needs to worry about the UN kicking in your door. 0 Share this post Link to post
printz Posted July 22, 2012 Vordakk said:Banning guns never works as progressives intend for it to. All it does is keep guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizensVery good. I don't want "law-abiding" (so far) citizens to have pistols and be able to use them when something rare in their life makes them lose their mind. 0 Share this post Link to post
Vordakk Posted July 22, 2012 printz said:Very good. I don't want "law-abiding" (so far) citizens to have pistols and be able to use them when something rare in their life makes them lose their mind. But it's ok for them to use their legally-purchased knife, ax, or ballpeen hammer when they "lose their mind"? Use that brain in your head sometime. 0 Share this post Link to post
40oz Posted July 22, 2012 Guns don't kill people. I KILL PEOPLE But seriously, just because you don't have a gun doesn't necessarily mean that household items are the only alternative. There's arson, bombs, poison gas, vehicular homicide, etc. If someone needs to kill people, they will find a way to do it. Guns or no guns. 0 Share this post Link to post
printz Posted July 22, 2012 Vordakk said:But it's ok for them to use their legally-purchased knife, ax, or ballpeen hammer when they "lose their mind"? Use that brain in your head sometime. My answer to this has already been posted. 0 Share this post Link to post
Maes Posted July 22, 2012 Interesting. So some people in this thread are, effectively, more afraid of ordinary citizens with guns (which the authorities can restrict at anytime), rather than declared criminals, also with guns (for which authorities cannot or don't want to do shit about). Not only that, but they seem to idealize criminals by postulating that some "code of honour" causes them to self-regulate far better than what ordinary citizens can do (in a sense, they do: they are certainly better at not getting caught than the average citizen). 0 Share this post Link to post