If you oppose the death penalty than you think an illegal alien cop killer is entitled...

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, we really don't. Do you think anyone who wrongfully convicted people were absolutely sure that they had "undisputed" evidence.

Here's the thing, if there is ANY dispute in evidence at all, the guy should go free.

We probably got the right guy is never good enough.

Even for the Darkies.

No, because if a mistake was made, then that prisoner could be released. If the prisoner is definitely guilty without a doubt, there is no sense in taxpayers supporting him. In the past people were convicted and sentenced to capital punishment because our ability to provide indisputable evidence was impossible. There I agree with no death penalty. But today with DNA, forensic science, videos, it's pretty easy in some cases to provide empirical evidence.

Yeah, Ray brought the Racism again! Ray always bringing the racism!

Um, last time I checked, the Japanese weren't very White. They have the lowest gun violence rates of anyone.

Japanese Americans are not a problem here either. It boils down to the gun argument. If you gave all those Japanese guns, it wouldn't change their murder or assault rate because it's the people who shoot or kill others--not the gun. The gun is merely an object.

Statistics are not racist, statistics are facts. Facts cannot be racist. That's like saying most football or basketball players are black is racist. It's not racist, those are statistics.

 

[Timmy]

So who has tougher gun laws in this country than California? Speaking of which, another mass shooting there this morning as well.

Seems those laws don't work all that well.

Well, they work just fine in countries that actually have them.

Dipshit.

"Toughest gun laws in the country" is like "Leper with the most fingers."

They work fine in white countries. But we don't have an all white country, we have a very diverse country. Taking minorities out of the mix, the US has around the same murder rate those anti-gun countries have because if somebody wants to kill, they will kill no matter what.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

London's murder rate surpasses New York's for 1st time ever
\

Guns and race: The different worlds of black and white Americans

Wow . In one post U say racist cops are a myth and in the next u spew racist propaganda.

Truth is not propaganda, truth is truth and propaganda is propaganda.

Propaganda is comparing murder stats when we are talking about gun crime . You should be comparing gun murders .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So who has tougher gun laws in this country than California? Speaking of which, another mass shooting there this morning as well.

Seems those laws don't work all that well.

Well, they work just fine in countries that actually have them.

Dipshit.

"Toughest gun laws in the country" is like "Leper with the most fingers."

They work fine in white countries. But we don't have an all white country, we have a very diverse country. Taking minorities out of the mix, the US has around the same murder rate those anti-gun countries have because if somebody wants to kill, they will kill no matter what.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

London's murder rate surpasses New York's for 1st time ever
\

Guns and race: The different worlds of black and white Americans

Wow . In one post U say racist cops are a myth and in the next u spew racist propaganda.

Truth is not propaganda, truth is truth and propaganda is propaganda.

Propaganda is comparing murder stats when we are talking about gun crime . You should be comparing gun murders .

Would you like to? I have the links in my folder if you'd like.

 

[Timmy]

Well, they work just fine in countries that actually have them.

Dipshit.

"Toughest gun laws in the country" is like "Leper with the most fingers."

They work fine in white countries. But we don't have an all white country, we have a very diverse country. Taking minorities out of the mix, the US has around the same murder rate those anti-gun countries have because if somebody wants to kill, they will kill no matter what.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

London's murder rate surpasses New York's for 1st time ever
\

Guns and race: The different worlds of black and white Americans

Wow . In one post U say racist cops are a myth and in the next u spew racist propaganda.

Truth is not propaganda, truth is truth and propaganda is propaganda.

Propaganda is comparing murder stats when we are talking about gun crime . You should be comparing gun murders .

Would you like to? I have the links in my folder if you'd like.

Yes . How about gun murders in gun nut states vs gun control states .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

They work fine in white countries. But we don't have an all white country, we have a very diverse country. Taking minorities out of the mix, the US has around the same murder rate those anti-gun countries have because if somebody wants to kill, they will kill no matter what.

The Captain's Journal » Do Gun Bans Reduce Violent Crime? Ask the Aussies and Brits

London's murder rate surpasses New York's for 1st time ever
\

Guns and race: The different worlds of black and white Americans

Wow . In one post U say racist cops are a myth and in the next u spew racist propaganda.

Truth is not propaganda, truth is truth and propaganda is propaganda.

Propaganda is comparing murder stats when we are talking about gun crime . You should be comparing gun murders .

Would you like to? I have the links in my folder if you'd like.

Yes . How about gun murders in gun nut states vs gun control states .

You'll find it mixed if anything. Take California for instance. They have very strict gun laws. Besides the police officer last week, they had a mass shooting over the weekend in a bowling ally. It seems that state is always in the news when it comes to shootings.

North Dakota has very lenient laws, and in fact recently got rid of their CCW license. Now anybody with a state ID can carry and use a firearm for self defense. They have a low crime and gun shooting rate.

New York has one of the strictest, and it's very low in homicides.

It's not really the guns or gun laws. Again, it's the people.

 

[JoeB131]

He has no point and rarely does. Joey is a True Believer.

And you sadly follow me around looking for attention.

 

[JoeB131]

No, because if a mistake was made, then that prisoner could be released. If the prisoner is definitely guilty without a doubt, there is no sense in taxpayers supporting him. In the past people were convicted and sentenced to capital punishment because our ability to provide indisputable evidence was impossible. There I agree with no death penalty. But today with DNA, forensic science, videos, it's pretty easy in some cases to provide empirical evidence.

13 people in IL were convicted beyond a reasonable "doubt", but they didn't do what they were convicted of. Nope, I'm not convinced that a government you wouldn't trust to run health care has the ability to determine who is guilty beyond a doubt and take their lives.

The gun is merely an object.

Yes, an object designed to kill people... that's the point.

You aren't very bright, are you?

 

[Rigby5]

No, we really don't. Do you think anyone who wrongfully convicted people were absolutely sure that they had "undisputed" evidence.

Here's the thing, if there is ANY dispute in evidence at all, the guy should go free.

We probably got the right guy is never good enough.

Even for the Darkies.

No, because if a mistake was made, then that prisoner could be released. If the prisoner is definitely guilty without a doubt, there is no sense in taxpayers supporting him. In the past people were convicted and sentenced to capital punishment because our ability to provide indisputable evidence was impossible. There I agree with no death penalty. But today with DNA, forensic science, videos, it's pretty easy in some cases to provide empirical evidence.

Yeah, Ray brought the Racism again! Ray always bringing the racism!

Um, last time I checked, the Japanese weren't very White. They have the lowest gun violence rates of anyone.

Japanese Americans are not a problem here either. It boils down to the gun argument. If you gave all those Japanese guns, it wouldn't change their murder or assault rate because it's the people who shoot or kill others--not the gun. The gun is merely an object.

Statistics are not racist, statistics are facts. Facts cannot be racist. That's like saying most football or basketball players are black is racist. It's not racist, those are statistics.

As to modern proof of guilt.
No, there is no way to ever be sure.
If you think DNA evidence help prove guilt, you don't know anything about DNA evidence.
In order to detect any identity of what the DNA present contains, it has to be totally ripped apart and destroyed. In the process, contamination, from even the lab techs themselves, makes all DNA evidence almost useless. About 99% of all DNA in all humans is identical. There is very little that is different. So when you get the same DNA as the suspect, that proves nothing. The ONLY time DNA is at all useful is when there is an absolute conflict between the DNA found and the suspect. So DNA can ONLY be used to free, NEVER to convict.

The fact you think that DNA evidence can be used to convict, only shows how badly corrupt our modern legal system is, that has deliberately propagated these lies about DNA testing.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

13 people in IL were convicted beyond a reasonable "doubt", but they didn't do what they were convicted of. Nope, I'm not convinced that a government you wouldn't trust to run health care has the ability to determine who is guilty beyond a doubt and take their lives.

So when were these people convicted? What was their penalty to pay? In most cases, a jury is the decider on innocence or guilt unless the accused requests a judge to determine the outcome.

Yes, an object designed to kill people... that's the point.

You aren't very bright, are you?

When it comes to bright, I run circles around you.

 

[Timmy]

No, because if a mistake was made, then that prisoner could be released. If the prisoner is definitely guilty without a doubt, there is no sense in taxpayers supporting him. In the past people were convicted and sentenced to capital punishment because our ability to provide indisputable evidence was impossible. There I agree with no death penalty. But today with DNA, forensic science, videos, it's pretty easy in some cases to provide empirical evidence.

13 people in IL were convicted beyond a reasonable "doubt", but they didn't do what they were convicted of. Nope, I'm not convinced that a government you wouldn't trust to run health care has the ability to determine who is guilty beyond a doubt and take their lives.

The gun is merely an object.

Yes, an object designed to kill people... that's the point.

You aren't very bright, are you?

Righty logic : Guns don’t kill people , immigration status kills people .

 

[Rigby5]

No, because if a mistake was made, then that prisoner could be released. If the prisoner is definitely guilty without a doubt, there is no sense in taxpayers supporting him. In the past people were convicted and sentenced to capital punishment because our ability to provide indisputable evidence was impossible. There I agree with no death penalty. But today with DNA, forensic science, videos, it's pretty easy in some cases to provide empirical evidence.

13 people in IL were convicted beyond a reasonable "doubt", but they didn't do what they were convicted of. Nope, I'm not convinced that a government you wouldn't trust to run health care has the ability to determine who is guilty beyond a doubt and take their lives.

The gun is merely an object.

Yes, an object designed to kill people... that's the point.

You aren't very bright, are you?

I agree with you on the fact convictions are wrong far too often.

But you are wrong about guns. The motivation for almost all people who have guns is to deter violence, not to cause it.
That is easy to prove.
All police have guns.
It that because their goal is to kill?
Of course not.

 

[Rigby5]

No, because if a mistake was made, then that prisoner could be released. If the prisoner is definitely guilty without a doubt, there is no sense in taxpayers supporting him. In the past people were convicted and sentenced to capital punishment because our ability to provide indisputable evidence was impossible. There I agree with no death penalty. But today with DNA, forensic science, videos, it's pretty easy in some cases to provide empirical evidence.

13 people in IL were convicted beyond a reasonable "doubt", but they didn't do what they were convicted of. Nope, I'm not convinced that a government you wouldn't trust to run health care has the ability to determine who is guilty beyond a doubt and take their lives.

The gun is merely an object.

Yes, an object designed to kill people... that's the point.

You aren't very bright, are you?

Righty logic : Guns don’t kill people , immigration status kills people .

People die because they are unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

 

[Timmy]

No, because if a mistake was made, then that prisoner could be released. If the prisoner is definitely guilty without a doubt, there is no sense in taxpayers supporting him. In the past people were convicted and sentenced to capital punishment because our ability to provide indisputable evidence was impossible. There I agree with no death penalty. But today with DNA, forensic science, videos, it's pretty easy in some cases to provide empirical evidence.

13 people in IL were convicted beyond a reasonable "doubt", but they didn't do what they were convicted of. Nope, I'm not convinced that a government you wouldn't trust to run health care has the ability to determine who is guilty beyond a doubt and take their lives.

The gun is merely an object.

Yes, an object designed to kill people... that's the point.

You aren't very bright, are you?

Righty logic : Guns don’t kill people , immigration status kills people .

People die because they are unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

I’m pretty sure that cop was armed .

 

[JoeB131]

So when were these people convicted? What was their penalty to pay? In most cases, a jury is the decider on innocence or guilt unless the accused requests a judge to determine the outcome.

these are the 13 people who got convicted and sentenced to DEATH in IL between 1976 when the DP was restored and 2003 when Governor Ryan commuted all DP's to life in prison. All 13 were exonerated later, mostly due to the efforts of college students.

In all 13 cases police, prosecutors, juries and judges were all convinced of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

When it comes to bright, I run circles around you.

Sure you are. Did you get your health insurance back yet?

 

[JoeB131]

I agree with you on the fact convictions are wrong far too often.

But you are wrong about guns. The motivation for almost all people who have guns is to deter violence, not to cause it.
That is easy to prove.
All police have guns.
It that because their goal is to kill?
Of course not.

Well, no, they have guns because they want to feel important as insecure bullies..

But anyway, stats show that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy, so there's that.

 

[JoeB131]

People die because they are unarmed and unable to defend themselves.

No, people die because the presense of a gun changes a petty argument into a tragedy.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I agree with you on the fact convictions are wrong far too often.

But you are wrong about guns. The motivation for almost all people who have guns is to deter violence, not to cause it.
That is easy to prove.
All police have guns.
It that because their goal is to kill?
Of course not.

Well, no, they have guns because they want to feel important as insecure bullies..

But anyway, stats show that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy, so there's that.

The reason for that is bad guys go through great lengths to insure nobody is home before they break in. Why? Because breaking into a possibly occupied home could easily get you killed. Not worth it to steal a playstation 4.

Take guns away from people and criminals would have little fear breaking into an occupied home. Even if you don't own a firearm, you are safer because of the people that do. Uncertainty plays a part here.

Years ago when I was in a local blog and our CCW laws were in consideration, I got into a debate with a guy (I'm assuming) just like you. He asked why I would like to see the law passed. I explained to him that my mother never had a drivers license in her life, and she walks everywhere. He then asked if the law passed, would my mother carry a gun with her? To that I replied "No she wouldn't, but the criminal doesn't know that."

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

these are the 13 people who got convicted and sentenced to DEATH in IL between 1976 when the DP was restored and 2003 when Governor Ryan commuted all DP's to life in prison. All 13 were exonerated later, mostly due to the efforts of college students.

In all 13 cases police, prosecutors, juries and judges were all convinced of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

That's what I thought, long before we had more ability to provide undisputed evidence. At least you admitted to it.

Sure you are. Did you get your health insurance back yet?

No I didn't. Did you find a shrink for your OCD yet?

 

[skye]

I'm beginning to like the death penalty for these illegals scum

 

[Timmy]

I agree with you on the fact convictions are wrong far too often.

But you are wrong about guns. The motivation for almost all people who have guns is to deter violence, not to cause it.
That is easy to prove.
All police have guns.
It that because their goal is to kill?
Of course not.

Well, no, they have guns because they want to feel important as insecure bullies..

But anyway, stats show that a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy, so there's that.

The reason for that is bad guys go through great lengths to insure nobody is home before they break in. Why? Because breaking into a possibly occupied home could easily get you killed. Not worth it to steal a playstation 4.

Take guns away from people and criminals would have little fear breaking into an occupied home. Even if you don't own a firearm, you are safer because of the people that do. Uncertainty plays a part here.

Years ago when I was in a local blog and our CCW laws were in consideration, I got into a debate with a guy (I'm assuming) just like you. He asked why I would like to see the law passed. I explained to him that my mother never had a drivers license in her life, and she walks everywhere. He then asked if the law passed, would my mother carry a gun with her? To that I replied "No she wouldn't, but the criminal doesn't know that."

Well then. Your theory would mean states wh more gun ownership have fewer break ins .

I say that is bunk!