RE: Acceptable Murder

RE: Acceptable Murder (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

truckinslave -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/4/2009 10:52:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 Fast Reply http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-crisis-american-death-penalty So, all of you death penalty proponents, how many of these innocent people's blood do you want on your hands? I want none. You want to leave that decision to this fucked up justice system? You have to be kidding. Public ones too, did I read that correctly? Huh, let's give the wife, parents and kids of the innocent a front row seat, shall we? No wonder everyone thinks we are a nation of armchair warriors. I have never read one of these tear-jerkers that I believed. Short form: In every one of these that I have read, some thug was convicted in part because a blood/semen sample found at the scene was typed to match his. Decades later, DNA analysis proved the blood wasn't his. Pursuant either to state law which demands a new trial if any evidence in a capital case is disproved or to his own weak-mindedness, some state judge orders a new trial. Barry Sheck and his ultra-liberal anti-death penalty crowd declare that the thug has been proven innocent; the ultralib press doesn't question them, and a gullible populace incapable of analytical thought accepts their version of things. Meanwhile, the DA's office reviews the case and declines to bring it back to court because key evidence has been lost/destroyed/degraded, witnesses have died, whatever. The thing is, though, that *never* has anyone been convicted solely on the basis of blood type, which is the only evidence that been can be disproved by DNA evidence. The bad news is that thugs are beating the hangman with DNA evidence today. The good news is that it will send them straight to the gallows from now on.

truckinslave -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/4/2009 10:55:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: TNstepsout quote: ORIGINAL: UPSG quote: ORIGINAL: StrangerThan Of course that is entirely different than the contemporary culture of the United States which admonishes 16 year old boys (who really know sht in the world) and demand they, "Be a man," and take responsibility for the child they created through the choices of their own, yet turns around and tells 30 year old women it is ok to be porn stars, have 12 different lovers, and have as many abortions as they want because women should never have to, "Be women," and take responsibility for the child they created through the choices of their own*. I don't want to get too far off track, but what are you talking about? What makes you think the majority of people approve of women being porn stars, having 12 lovers and as many abortions as they want? it is entirely immaterial what the majority of people "approve". The law in fact does approve.

truckinslave -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/4/2009 11:03:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SpinnerofTales quote: I quote: ORIGINAL: Kana You see, even if a man doesn't choose to do so, he knows every day of his life that in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, he can hit the road and get into the wind. That's waaay dated. Have you checked some of the "new" child-support laws? Do you have any idea how hard it is to hide from LE and work more than the crummiest of jobs?

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/4/2009 11:52:20 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 Fast Reply http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-crisis-american-death-penalty So, all of you death penalty proponents, how many of these innocent people's blood do you want on your hands? I want none. You want to leave that decision to this fucked up justice system? You have to be kidding. Public ones too, did I read that correctly? Huh, let's give the wife, parents and kids of the innocent a front row seat, shall we? No wonder everyone thinks we are a nation of armchair warriors. I have never read one of these tear-jerkers that I believed. Short form: In every one of these that I have read, some thug was convicted in part because a blood/semen sample found at the scene was typed to match his. Decades later, DNA analysis proved the blood wasn't his. Pursuant either to state law which demands a new trial if any evidence in a capital case is disproved or to his own weak-mindedness, some state judge orders a new trial. Barry Sheck and his ultra-liberal anti-death penalty crowd declare that the thug has been proven innocent; the ultralib press doesn't question them, and a gullible populace incapable of analytical thought accepts their version of things. Meanwhile, the DA's office reviews the case and declines to bring it back to court because key evidence has been lost/destroyed/degraded, witnesses have died, whatever. The thing is, though, that *never* has anyone been convicted solely on the basis of blood type, which is the only evidence that been can be disproved by DNA evidence. The bad news is that thugs are beating the hangman with DNA evidence today. The good news is that it will send them straight to the gallows from now on. I can't make any sense out of this post at all. You say thugs are "beating the hangman" because DNA tests are proving they were convicted on false evidence? The blood and/or semen samples clearly came from someone other than the person who was convicted of teh crime, so how in the world is that "beating the hangman?" It doesn't make any sense to me at all. Are you saying that if the DNA clearly proves that, say, an eyewitness is mistaken in identifying the criminal, that the eyewitness testimony should be enough to convict the defendant?

subrob1967 -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/4/2009 1:12:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 Fast Reply http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-crisis-american-death-penalty So, all of you death penalty proponents, how many of these innocent people's blood do you want on your hands? I want none. You want to leave that decision to this fucked up justice system? You have to be kidding. Public ones too, did I read that correctly? Huh, let's give the wife, parents and kids of the innocent a front row seat, shall we? No wonder everyone thinks we are a nation of armchair warriors. Unlike you, I accept that our system is flawed, which is why I said beyond a reasonable doubt. If there's doubt, don't kill him. I also realize that our system is flawed, and innocents die due to due process, but unlike you, I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. People die every day, life is cheap. And if one innocent person dies for every 10 guilty ones, I can accept that.

jesiul -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/4/2009 1:19:36 PM)
Abortion: I feel that this is up to the person facing the appending birth and subsequent child. So I am pro-choice. Execution: I have very strong feelings on this. A penitentiary is a public institution in which offenders against the law are confined for detention or punishment. It also means to be penitent for ones crimes/mistakes. For those who are unable to be penitent, rehabilitated and remorseful then keeping them housed for more than 20 years at the continual cost of the tax payer seems unproductive to society in general. My personal feeling is that anyone who can not reenter society should not be sentenced to any other thing than death. If your unredeemable and can not be part of society ever then the criminal should be pay the permanent price of removal. These feeling come from having had a sister brutally beaten, raped, sodomized and then strangled to death at the age of 21. The to men (brothers) who did this where caught, tried and found guilty and are serving a sentence of life without possibility of parole, which 20 years ago was at the yearly cost to the State of $48,000 each. Right to die: For me personally I would not wish to linger in agony while dying a slow death in front of my loved ones. I would opt for a quick death. ~jesi~

subrob1967 -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/4/2009 1:20:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol quote: ORIGINAL: Lashra I also do not believe that prisoners should sit on death row for years. Perhaps a few weeks at most and then carry out the sentence. This would be refusing them due process and take away their right to appeal the sentence, thus making the legal system even more unbalanced and unethical than it already is. The appeal process doesn't have to take 10 years or longer, thats why it costs so much to kill them, give them 2 years on death row, and execute them.

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/4/2009 1:25:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 Fast Reply http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-crisis-american-death-penalty So, all of you death penalty proponents, how many of these innocent people's blood do you want on your hands? I want none. You want to leave that decision to this fucked up justice system? You have to be kidding. Public ones too, did I read that correctly? Huh, let's give the wife, parents and kids of the innocent a front row seat, shall we? No wonder everyone thinks we are a nation of armchair warriors. Unlike you, I accept that our system is flawed, which is why I said beyond a reasonable doubt. If there's doubt, don't kill him. And with that statement, you demonstrate either a complete misunderstanding of, or complete lack of respect for, our Constitution. If there is any reasonable doubt, they're not convicted in the first place. There is no legal basis for varying degrees of guilt, for a justice system in which a defendant is not guilty, maybe guilty, probably sorta guilty, or really most sincerely guilty. They're either definitely guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt, or they're not guilty. Period. There's no, "Well, this one I'm really sure about, so let's fry him." It just doesn't work that way. quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 I also realize that our system is flawed, and innocents die due to due process, but unlike you, I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. People die every day, life is cheap. And if one innocent person dies for every 10 guilty ones, I can accept that. Thank god the guy who wrote the Constitution felt exactly the opposite. Jefferson's famous quote, "Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned," explains quite a lot of the reasoning behind why he wrote the Constitution the way he did. I prefer his philosophical approach, and his interpretation of the Constitution, to yours. Thankfully most Anericans still seem to agree.

truckinslave -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/4/2009 1:30:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 Fast Reply http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-crisis-american-death-penalty So, all of you death penalty proponents, how many of these innocent people's blood do you want on your hands? I want none. You want to leave that decision to this fucked up justice system? You have to be kidding. Public ones too, did I read that correctly? Huh, let's give the wife, parents and kids of the innocent a front row seat, shall we? No wonder everyone thinks we are a nation of armchair warriors. I have never read one of these tear-jerkers that I believed. Short form: In every one of these that I have read, some thug was convicted in part because a blood/semen sample found at the scene was typed to match his. Decades later, DNA analysis proved the blood wasn't his. Pursuant either to state law which demands a new trial if any evidence in a capital case is disproved or to his own weak-mindedness, some state judge orders a new trial. Barry Sheck and his ultra-liberal anti-death penalty crowd declare that the thug has been proven innocent; the ultralib press doesn't question them, and a gullible populace incapable of analytical thought accepts their version of things. Meanwhile, the DA's office reviews the case and declines to bring it back to court because key evidence has been lost/destroyed/degraded, witnesses have died, whatever. The thing is, though, that *never* has anyone been convicted solely on the basis of blood type, which is the only evidence that been can be disproved by DNA evidence. The bad news is that thugs are beating the hangman with DNA evidence today. The good news is that it will send them straight to the gallows from now on. I can't make any sense out of this post at all. You say thugs are "beating the hangman" because DNA tests are proving they were convicted on false evidence? The blood and/or semen samples clearly came from someone other than the person who was convicted of teh crime, so how in the world is that "beating the hangman?" It doesn't make any sense to me at all. Are you saying that if the DNA clearly proves that, say, an eyewitness is mistaken in identifying the criminal, that the eyewitness testimony should be enough to convict the defendant? Your post is illustrative of some of the confusion prevailing on this subject- and I truly do NOT mean that in any way disparagingly. Let's start with an examination of your premise- that DNA evidence can prove an eyewitness is mistaken. I can imagine one circumstance under which that premise can almost be true. 1. Witness saw a suspect running away bleeding from his arm. 2. Witness picked a suspect from a lineup. 3. DNA revealed the blood recovered at the scene did not belong to the suspect. That's the strongest realistic scenario that I can think of, quickly, to support the idea of DNA evidence disproving eyewitness tetimony. But the possibility remains that the suspect committed the crime, and staged the bleeding arm as part of a frame-up using someone else's blood. It should be clear to any intelligent person that the relatively smart criminals of the future will as a matter of routine plant false DNA evidence. In our above scenario, the DNA evidence conflicts with the eyewitness testimony but does not disprove it. Conflicting evidence and conflicting testimony are matters for the judgement of the jury. Most if not all criminal trials involve jury resolution of such conflicts. What has normally happened in the cases so revered by Sheck (sic?) and his ilk are much more easily explained. The presence of a DNA sample, recovered at the crime scene, that does not match that of the convicted man, proves only, and I do mean *only,* that someone else was present. May have been an accomplice, may have been an innocent person, may have been there before, during, or after the commission of the crime in question; but that's it. DNA evidence does not and cannot conceivably, imo, prove innocence.

subrob1967 -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/4/2009 1:31:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda I can't make any sense out of this post at all. You say thugs are "beating the hangman" because DNA tests are proving they were convicted on false evidence? The blood and/or semen samples clearly came from someone other than the person who was convicted of teh crime, so how in the world is that "beating the hangman?" It doesn't make any sense to me at all. Are you saying that if the DNA clearly proves that, say, an eyewitness is mistaken in identifying the criminal, that the eyewitness testimony should be enough to convict the defendant? I believe what s/he's trying to say is now science is caught up with the times, and it's a lot easier to convict with much less chance of a reasonable doubt, therefore death row appeals process shall speed up significantly, and the guilty shall be executed much faster.

NeedToUseYou -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/4/2009 1:32:54 PM)
oh boy I get to pontificate, about abortion, execution, and assisted suicide all in one paragraph. Abortion: Pro-Choice, because there is not a viable alternative yet, however, most reasons for abortion are disgusting, and in most circumstances I have little respect for the woman getting one. However, it depends on the situation, the vast majority of abortions though are far disgusting, arrogant reasons. However, my personal view is it should be deemed illegal at the point when the fetus could have a statistical 70% chance of developing normally external from the "holy" cave. Execution: Against in all cases, the government simply can not be trusted, abuse is rampant, many judges are incompetent if not criminal, some lawyers don't care or are drunks or worse, the general populace that composes most juries are less than rational. Thus there is no reasonable expectation of justice, many guilty walk, more innocent are jailed. Suicide: A person should have the right to commit suicide upon reaching the age of consent 18. Pulling the plug: If the person is brain dead longer than the time that would allow for greater than 1:10000 chance of recovery, then they are dead. Insurance should not be required to pay for any treatment afterward, if they have stated explicitly somewhere and made provisions for care for the vegetable, then they can remain "alive". The default position should be IMO, once the brain goes, all insurance obligations go, as well as legal medical obligations to the remaining body. So, to answer the question I'd pull the plug, and beyond that I think no insurance, public or private should have to pay after that point either.

subrob1967 -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/4/2009 1:41:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda And with that statement, you demonstrate either a complete misunderstanding of, or complete lack of respect for, our Constitution. If there is any reasonable doubt, they're not convicted in the first place. There is no legal basis for varying degrees of guilt, for a justice system in which a defendant is not guilty, maybe guilty, probably sorta guilty, or really most sincerely guilty. They're either definitely guilty, beyond any reasonable doubt, or they're not guilty. Period. There's no, "Well, this one I'm really sure about, so let's fry him." It just doesn't work that way. You completely missed my point, one can be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, and then provide a reasonable doubt upon appeal. And despite their innocence, innocent people have been put to death. It happens. There are varying degrees of guilt, murder in the 1st, 2nd, Manslaughter...etc quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 I also realize that our system is flawed, and innocents die due to due process, but unlike you, I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. People die every day, life is cheap. And if one innocent person dies for every 10 guilty ones, I can accept that. Thank god the guy who wrote the Constitution felt exactly the opposite. Jefferson's famous quote, "Better one hundred guilty men go free than one innocent man be condemned," explains quite a lot of the reasoning behind why he wrote the Constitution the way he did. I prefer his philosophical approach, and his interpretation of the Constitution, to yours. Thankfully most Anericans still seem to agree. Yeah, he wrote it, and "God" wrote the 10 commandments, I doubt neither "God" not Thomas Jefferson forsaw the likes of Bundy, Stalin, Hitler, Gacy, Pol Pot...etc

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/4/2009 1:58:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Your post is illustrative of some of the confusion prevailing on this subject- and I truly do NOT mean that in any way disparagingly. Let's start with an examination of your premise- that DNA evidence can prove an eyewitness is mistaken. I can imagine one circumstance under which that premise can almost be true. 1. Witness saw a suspect running away bleeding from his arm. 2. Witness picked a suspect from a lineup. 3. DNA revealed the blood recovered at the scene did not belong to the suspect. That's the strongest realistic scenario that I can think of, quickly, to support the idea of DNA evidence disproving eyewitness tetimony. But the possibility remains that the suspect committed the crime, and staged the bleeding arm as part of a frame-up using someone else's blood. It should be clear to any intelligent person that the relatively smart criminals of the future will as a matter of routine plant false DNA evidence. In our above scenario, the DNA evidence conflicts with the eyewitness testimony but does not disprove it. Conflicting evidence and conflicting testimony are matters for the judgement of the jury. Most if not all criminal trials involve jury resolution of such conflicts. What has normally happened in the cases so revered by Sheck (sic?) and his ilk are much more easily explained. The presence of a DNA sample, recovered at the crime scene, that does not match that of the convicted man, proves only, and I do mean *only,* that someone else was present. May have been an accomplice, may have been an innocent person, may have been there before, during, or after the commission of the crime in question; but that's it. DNA evidence does not and cannot conceivably, imo, prove innocence. No worries, I didn't take what you said disparagingly at all. But I can think of lots of scenarios in which your reasoning would not hold up. For example, a rape in which the victim adamantly insists there was only one attacker, and she makes an eye-witness identification of a suspect. But the suspect's DNA clearly does not match the DNA of the person whose semen was collected from the victim. So, something doesn't fit. Either she's wrong about the number of people who raped her, she's wrong about the identity of the one who did, or the DNA test is wrong. At least one of those things is clearly wrong. Most likely her identification of the rapist. Ask any cop or criminal attorney, and 9 out of 10 of them will tell you that eye-witness identification of a stranger is notoriously unreliable, far less reliable than DNA tests. I could think of an infinite number of similar scenarios, but there wouldn't be any point in it. The point is, DNA evidence in and of itself doesn't have to directly and incontrovertibly prove that someone is innocent; it only has to make the eyewitness testimony (or whatever evidence) seem unlikely enough that there is suddenly a reasonable doubt that the suspect is guilty. And that's what it's all about, a reasonable doubt. Do you seriously think that your hypothetical scenario in which a criminal plans a crime, collects a blood sample from an innocent person, cuts his own arm, then splatters the innocent person's blood at the scene while running away is reasonably more likely than the possibility that the suspect with the cut on his arm and the DNA matching the blood at the scene is the guy who committed the crime? I find it hard to believe you do. And having served on juries in criminal trials, I can guarantee you no jury in their right mind would. In order to get their defendant off, the attorney needs to prove not that it could possibly have happened that way, but that it's reasonable to believe that it did. That theory, without any supporting evidence, would be discussed for about 3 minutes, tops, in the jury room before being tossed aside once and for all. DNA evidence is not the be all and end all of criminal justice, but it's a lot more useful and a lot more reliable than you seem to give it credit for. Generally far more so than eyewitness identifications, if and when they match up head to head.

kittinSol -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/4/2009 4:43:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 The appeal process doesn't have to take 10 years or longer, thats why it costs so much to kill them, give them 2 years on death row, and execute them. It's called 'due process of appeal'. The judicial process is usually long: and so it should be, especially in capital cases. Your ignorance is staggering. If the thought of taking out the condemned and shooting him in the back of the head without any further ceremony is a source of pleasure for you, you should emigrate to China. Just make sure you don't get accused of a crime you didn't commit.

Aynne88 -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/4/2009 4:49:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 Fast Reply http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-crisis-american-death-penalty So, all of you death penalty proponents, how many of these innocent people's blood do you want on your hands? I want none. You want to leave that decision to this fucked up justice system? You have to be kidding. Public ones too, did I read that correctly? Huh, let's give the wife, parents and kids of the innocent a front row seat, shall we? No wonder everyone thinks we are a nation of armchair warriors. Unlike you, I accept that our system is flawed, which is why I said beyond a reasonable doubt. If there's doubt, don't kill him. I also realize that our system is flawed, and innocents die due to due process, but unlike you, I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. People die every day, life is cheap. And if one innocent person dies for every 10 guilty ones, I can accept that. Sure you can, so, who are you volunteering from your batch of loved ones? Accept that our system is flawed? Absolutely. That is why I am vehemently against that death penalty. Well, that and I find it morally reprehensible.

ScooterTrash -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/4/2009 6:38:48 PM)
Abortion; Short answer, Pro-Choice Executions: In cases involving reliable eye witnesses (absolutely no doubt) or in cases where there is a confirmed confession, it should be a quick trial for sentencing and immediate execution, no option for appeal. In cases where it is based on circumstantial evidence, allow a reasonable amount of time for appeals (say 2 years) and if not successful, move along to the execution. Under the current system, in most states, you could be seen committing a murder or plead guilty and the case still goes up for appeal. This is ludicrous and serves no purpose. Right to die: Certainly a choice, regular people have this choice all the time on the streets, taking that choice away from someone because they are sick and in a medical facility, is just wrong. If they request to terminate, after counciling just to be certain they know what they are requesting, their wish should be honored. Pulling the plug: By all means, if I'm brain dead, go for it, I'm already gone.

blacksword404 -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/5/2009 2:10:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slaveboy291 quote: a previous poster stated the exact reason why i also am not an organ donor on my license. if they're more concerned with my parts, they'll worry about that, rather than saving me. and i don't necessarily like that. my family/loved ones will know my stance on it, and if there is nothing that can be done, they'll know what to do. but i don't want to be considered spare parts before my life has been saved =p They wouldn't do that. If they did, they would be in big trouble. You and the other member are being excessively paranoid. Whenever i think about organ donating, I think about the movie escape from L.A.

sirsholly -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/5/2009 2:20:53 AM)
quote: I also realize that our system is flawed, and innocents die due to due process, but unlike you, I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. People die every day, life is cheap. And if one innocent person dies for every 10 guilty ones, I can accept that. if that one innocent person was you, your son or daughter, wife or parent...how accepting would you be then? Life is only cheap when you are looking at someone you care nothing about, through eyes clouded with apathy

blacksword404 -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/5/2009 3:19:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave quote: ORIGINAL: Aynne88 Fast Reply http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-and-crisis-american-death-penalty So, all of you death penalty proponents, how many of these innocent people's blood do you want on your hands? I want none. You want to leave that decision to this fucked up justice system? You have to be kidding. Public ones too, did I read that correctly? Huh, let's give the wife, parents and kids of the innocent a front row seat, shall we? No wonder everyone thinks we are a nation of armchair warriors. I have never read one of these tear-jerkers that I believed. Short form: In every one of these that I have read, some thug was convicted in part because a blood/semen sample found at the scene was typed to match his. Decades later, DNA analysis proved the blood wasn't his. Pursuant either to state law which demands a new trial if any evidence in a capital case is disproved or to his own weak-mindedness, some state judge orders a new trial. Barry Sheck and his ultra-liberal anti-death penalty crowd declare that the thug has been proven innocent; the ultralib press doesn't question them, and a gullible populace incapable of analytical thought accepts their version of things. Meanwhile, the DA's office reviews the case and declines to bring it back to court because key evidence has been lost/destroyed/degraded, witnesses have died, whatever. The thing is, though, that *never* has anyone been convicted solely on the basis of blood type, which is the only evidence that been can be disproved by DNA evidence. The bad news is that thugs are beating the hangman with DNA evidence today. The good news is that it will send them straight to the gallows from now on. I guess if a woman you had sex with 3 years ago claimed the child was yours and the DNA said it was not, we should throw out the DNA and go with her testimony?

SpinnerofTales -> RE: Acceptable Murder (3/5/2009 4:05:25 AM)
quote: Executions: In cases involving reliable eye witnesses (absolutely no doubt) or in cases where there is a confirmed confession, it should be a quick trial for sentencing and immediate execution, no option for appeal. In cases where it is based on circumstantial evidence, allow a reasonable amount of time for appeals (say 2 years) and if not successful, move along to the execution. Under the current system, in most states, you could be seen committing a murder or plead guilty and the case still goes up for appeal. This is ludicrous and serves no purpose. ORIGINAL: ScooterTrash . For all you "let's get 'em dead and get 'em dead quick" proponents of the death penalty, let me say three words to you "Ruben Hurricane Carter"....check the case out, and then let's talk.

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875