Killer of James Byrd Jr executed in Texas

[Kingfisher]

No, it is justice.

Deuteronomy 19:19-21 (KJV)
19: Then shall ye do unto him, as he had thought to have done unto his brother: so shalt thou put the evil away from among you.

20: And those which remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil among you.

21: And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.

:flame:

Whoa, check out Will E whipping out the biblical verses.

 

[Zolf J. Kimbly]

Whoa, check out Will E whipping out the biblical verses.

you must be new

 

[Jagger69]

Now if you're the type of person who simply has to be in the throes of engagement in order to take a life. I would say you're not one for military duty either. As there will be plenty of times that call will have to be made by you without actually being in the technical throes. I don't know if or how you draw a distinction from that but there is very little difference from the perspective (dispassionate).

Please don't ordain yourself fit to draw conclusions about my stance on the death penalty as it may correlate to duty under military service. The two scenarios have nothing in common and I resent your insinuation that you propose to know what I would think.

We've been over all this before, 'Mega. Think and believe what you want. No one ever wins an argument with you and I'm not about to try to buck that trend. Keep on killing, brother.

I certainly respect your opinion on this issue J, but to me, if it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt, it's no different executing violent criminals (especially rapists and murderers) than putting down a rabid dog. :2 cents:

I also respect your opinion but to equate any human life with that of an animal is just as bad as the original thought processes of the perpetrator of the crime from my perspective. Brewer considered James Byrd to be subhuman because he was black....you consider Brewer to be subhuman because he murdered in cold blood. How does that differentiate you from him as it pertains to respect for the sanctity of human life? Simple answer....it doesn't. Hence, in actuality, you are no better than he is IMO.

 

[Hot Mega]

Please don't ordain yourself fit to draw conclusions about my stance on the death penalty as it may correlate to duty under military service. The two scenarios have nothing in common and I resent your insinuation that you propose to know what I would think.

We've been over all this before, 'Mega. Think and believe what you want. No one ever wins an argument with you and I'm not about to try to buck that trend. Keep on killing, brother.

WTF with the personal shit. This was just a simple discussion where I haven't slighted you nor your opinion.

In my book you don't kill an innocent person and you don't summarily kill a person without due process.

If you're trying to differentiate the distinctions you apparently hold while on the battlefield I would say it's just best not to offer service on the chance that there could be war and you find yourself in moral conflict.

If you couldn't pull the lever to execute a man who slaughtered people I don't understand how you would then be able to all the sudden execute a sniper kill for example.:dunno:

I doubt I'm alone in that confusion.

 

[adeptblue]

I think the death penalty should be abolished.

 

[MrZiggles]

Brewer and his friends killed Byrd for something Byrd had no control over - his race. The government executed Brewer for his actions, which he certainly had control over. Huge difference.

 

[Jagger69]

WTF with the personal shit. This was just a simple discussion where I haven't slighted you nor your opinion.

Personal? When did I get personal? I simply told you not to presuppose to know what I think. If you take offense to that....grow some skin, dude.

If you couldn't pull the lever to execute a man who slaughtered people I don't understand how you would then be able to all the sudden execute a sniper kill for example.:dunno:

I doubt I'm alone in that confusion.

Let me make this really simple for you. Brewer (or any death row inmate for that matter) represented no immediate or eventual threat to the health and welfare of anyone. He was incarcerated in solitary confinement in the Polunsky unit in Livingston and had no direct physical access or opportunity to harm others whatsoever. An enemy sniper is free to roam and do what he wants at will and represents a clear and immediate threat not only to me but to others if he gets the opportunity. Hopefully, that will clarify my thought process for you and any other like-minded individuals out there who somehow fail to perceive what should easily be recognized as the obvious difference in your comparative scenarios.

 

[Hot Mega]

Personal? When did I get personal? I simply told you not to presuppose to know what I think. If you take offense to that....grow some skin, dude.

Again, it was a simple exchange of ideas. Who the fuck asked you whether someone wins an argument with me or not???

What was the use in imparting that silly shit? Just say you disagree.

Let me make this really simple for you. Brewer (or any death row inmate for that matter) represented no immediate or eventual threat to the health and welfare of anyone. He was incarcerated in solitary confinement in the Polunsky unit in Livingston and had no direct physical access or opportunity to harm others whatsoever. An enemy sniper is free to roam and do what he wants at will and represents a clear and immediate threat not only to me but to others if he gets the opportunity. Hopefully, that will clarify my thought process for you and any other like-minded individuals out there who somehow lack the capacity to perceive what should easily be recognized as the obvious difference in your comparative scenarios.

Yea...seems simple from behind a computer. But consider this, why pull the trigger of the sniper rifle when you have this person in your crosshairs and kill them when there is a possibility of taking them alive (under what I suppose could be a derivative of your position)??

You characterized our previous discussions as pissing matches. I didn't see it like that as I read your points and responded.

But it seems you were determined to deteriorate this one into a pisser.

 

[Waterline]

'Mega, you and I have gone to the mat on this before so I'm not about to get in another useless pissing match with you about it. If it somehow makes you feel disconnected and not responsible for the killing of another human being without any immediate cause then so be it. You're certainly not alone. However, I seem to recall a conversation we had where you admitted that you would be willing to personally administer the lethal drugs in order to kill a convicted murderer. If you could remain "dispassionate" about doing that, you have no soul from my perspective.

To me, the death penalty is inherently wrong and there's nothing "theoretical" about it. You don't kill others for no reason.

In my opinion, you're 100% correct Jagger.

I'm not for the death penalty either. I can think of a few good argument to just let someone rot in jail instead. However, taking a life because someone committed a horrible crime is a moral issue to me.

 

[El Perro Mayor]

The good thing about the death penalty for scum such as him and his kind is that the anticipation of death is worse than death itself.

 

[Bloodshot Scott]

Special Last Meals: Texas Prisons End Special Last Meals For Inmates Facing Execution

HOUSTON — Texas inmates who are set to be executed will no longer get their choice of last meals, a change prison officials made Thursday after a prominent state senator became miffed over an expansive request from a man condemned for a notorious dragging death.

Lawrence Russell Brewer, who was executed Wednesday for the hate crime slaying of James Byrd Jr. more than a decade ago, asked for two chicken fried steaks, a triple-meat bacon cheeseburger, fried okra, a pound of barbecue, three fajitas, a meat lover's pizza, a pint of ice cream and a slab of peanut butter fudge with crushed peanuts. Prison officials said Brewer didn't eat any of it.

"It is extremely inappropriate to give a person sentenced to death such a privilege," Sen. John Whitmire, chairman of the Senate Criminal Justice Committee, wrote in a letter Thursday to Brad Livingston, the executive director of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.

Within hours, Livingston said the senator's concerns were valid and the practice of allowing death row offenders to choose their final meal was history.

"Effective immediately, no such accommodations will be made," Livingston said. "They will receive the same meal served to other offenders on the unit."

That had been the suggestion from Whitmire, who called the traditional request "ridiculous."

"It's long overdue," the Houston Democrat told The Associated Press. "This old boy last night, enough is enough. We're fixing to execute the guy and maybe it makes the system feel good about what they're fixing to do. Kind of hypocritical, you reckon?

"Mr. Byrd didn't get to choose his last meal. The whole deal is so illogical."

This part was the best:

While extensive, Brewer's request was far from the largest or most bizarre among the 475 Texas inmates put to death.

On Tuesday, prisoner Cleve Foster's request included two fried chickens, French fries and a five-gallon bucket of peaches. He received a reprieve from the U.S. Supreme Court but none of his requested meal. He was on his way back to death row, at a prison about 45 miles east of Huntsville, at the time when his feast would have been served.

Last week, inmate Steven Woods' request included two pounds of bacon, a large four-meat pizza, four fried chicken breasts, two drinks each of Mountain Dew, Pepsi, root beer and sweet tea, two pints of ice cream, five chicken fried steaks, two hamburgers with bacon, fries and a dozen garlic bread sticks with marinara on the side. Two hours later, he was executed.

Years ago, a Texas inmate even requested dirt for his final meal.

:rofl: Who do these clowns think they are?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...ml?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3|98288

 

[Hot Mega]

Special Last Meals: Texas Prisons End Special Last Meals For Inmates Facing Execution



This part was the best:



:rofl: Who do these clowns think they are?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...ml?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3|98288

I tend to disagree. A condemned person should be afforded a dying meal request. Now maybe it should be limited to a total (reasonable) weight of food so it isn't abused but the privileged should continue IMO.

 

[Will E Worm]

Whoa, check out Will E whipping out the biblical verses.

You're welcome. :hatsoff:

I think the death penalty should be abolished.

Think again.

 

[Jagger69]

Again, it was a simple exchange of ideas. Who the fuck asked you whether someone wins an argument with me or not???

What was the use in imparting that silly shit? Just say you disagree.

......You characterized our previous discussions as pissing matches. I didn't see it like that as I read your points and responded.

But it seems you were determined to deteriorate this one into a pisser.

My my it seems to me that you're the one getting pissy, 'Mega. I simply asked you not to assume to know what I thought and you start dropping f-bombs on me? Classy.

I used the "can't win an argument" reference about you as a personal observation based on personal experience. I did not presume to speak for you as you did for me and that is the difference. Pissing match? It's a matter of semantics. If the colloquialism offends you, I'm sorry. How about stalemate, deadlock, standoff? Hopefully you'll find one of those terms more palatable.

Yea...seems simple from behind a computer. But consider this, why pull the trigger of the sniper rifle when you have this person in your crosshairs and kill them when there is a possibility of taking them alive (under what I suppose could be a derivative of your position)??

I'll try this one more time and then I'm outta here. Simply because I am an anti death-penalty advocate does not mean I am absolutely opposed to killing when the situation warrants it. If someone breaks into my house and threatens my family, he's getting a .38 slug to the forehead. That's because he represents a clear and immediate threat to me and those around me. Same scenario translates to the enemy sniper. It does not, however, translate to someone who is incarcerated and under heavy guard and represents a clear and immediate threat to absolutely no one. That is the difference. Got it? I sure hope so.

 

[Hot Mega]

My my it seems to me that you're the one getting pissy, 'Mega. I simply asked you not to assume to know what I thought and you start dropping f-bombs on me? Classy.

I used the "can't win an argument" reference about you as a personal observation based on personal experience. I did not presume to speak for you as you did for me and that is the difference. Pissing match? It's a matter of semantics. If the colloquialism offends you, I'm sorry. How about stalemate, deadlock, standoff? Hopefully you'll find one of those terms more palatable.

You too huh...

I'll try this one more time and then I'm outta here. Simply because I am an anti death-penalty advocate does not mean I am absolutely opposed to killing when the situation warrants it. If someone breaks into my house and threatens my family, he's getting a .38 slug to the forehead. That's because he represents a clear and immediate threat to me and those around me. Same scenario translates to the enemy sniper. It does not, however, translate to someone who is incarcerated and under heavy guard and represents a clear and immediate threat to absolutely no one. That is the difference. Got it? I sure hope so.

Sighh.. YOU'RE THE SNIPER!!! The 'tango' could be anybody including someone who DOESN'T actually pull 'triggers'.

You're preaching like I actually know how you would feel/react to all situations involving a necessity or order to kill...I don't that's why I'm playing this game of asking where your point of demarcation is.

I gave you an example of a real life person who would apparently sacrifice their own life before taking that of another even in self defense. In light of that example I though it relevant to probe the extent of your beliefs. You could have said, 'ya know 'Mega..I don't want to get into it' or whatever and that would have been the end of it as I know your general position on the death penalty. You piqued my interest when you sought to characterize the nature of necessary killing and whether being dispassionate about it makes one more or less have a soul.

In light of that, I wondered how one could see a distinction in the dispassionate effecting of the death on a deserving person and that of a person on the battlefield you're ordered to kill but have an opportunity to take alive. Yes, there are many situations like that...which aren't summary executions nor murder.

The whole point....in order to even kill on the battlefield, especially someone you must take down who isn't posing an immediate threat is to be dispassionate about it. Sober, but dispassionate... otherwise you will never sleep again for the rest of your life if you don't dispassionately objectify the circumstance.

That's how you can have a soul but at the same time be dispassionate about taking what is deemed the appropriate action in a circumstance involving death.

Instead of wondering if someone is actually trying to win a discussion..try just keeping it the point of simply reading and responding.