SpidermanTuba
Rookie
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #61
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If you had actually graduated high school you'd know the three fold purpose of the criminal justice system - retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation.
Revenge and retribution are listed as synonyms in any thesaurus you pick up.
and if you weren't a psychotic inbred from the swamps of Louisiana you would know that any appearance of impropriety in our system of justice would cause the breakdown of our society as we know it. Revenge has no place in our justice system.
You're babbling again.
You're essentially stating that retributive justice has no place in our system of justice - which means you do not believe that punishment for a crime is morally justified so long as the punishment is in proportion to the crime.
So which theory of justice do you prescribe to? Transformative justice? Restorative justice? Its odd to me, you being a rightwinger, that you would believe in liberal hogwash such as that, but if you don't believe in retributive justice, what's left?
Why do you not believe criminals should be punished?
What happened to the other 2 tenets of criminal justice...did you forget those?
Retributive justice operates hand in hand with deterrence and rehabilitation right? That's what you said...and I stated that REVENGE is NOT part of our justice system like you imply.
What happened to the other 2 tenets of criminal justice...did you forget those?
Uhh, no. In fact, I mentioned them before you. Stop being a butt fuck.
Retributive justice operates hand in hand with deterrence and rehabilitation right? That's what you said...and I stated that REVENGE is NOT part of our justice system like you imply.
Retribution and revenge are synonyms. Seriously, why do you insist on being a complete douchebag instead of debating the issue?
That's what you said...and I stated that REVENGE is NOT part of our justice system like you imply. Is deterrence revenge...is rehab revenge?
I don't think I explained the civil rights thing correctly. To be convicted under that statute, you have to prove that they intended to deny him his civil rights. Jumping up and down on chest may very well have been with intent of harming, but that doesn't prove they intended to deny them of their civil rights.
I have on multiple occasions. If you want to start a thread on the T-Shirts they sell in Kansas City, you're more than welcome. I fail to see the relevance here.Address the "snitching" thing I brought up earlier please.
Uhh, no. In fact, I mentioned them before you. Stop being a butt fuck
I don't think I explained the civil rights thing correctly. To be convicted under that statute, you have to prove that they intended to deny him his civil rights. Jumping up and down on chest may very well have been with intent of harming, but that doesn't prove they intended to deny them of their civil rights.
WTF
You are aware that LIFE is a civil right, aren't you? You don't think shooting an unarmed man in the back qualifies as intending to deny that man life? Are you seriously this stupid? Really?
Look chap....if you don't care to debate this any further then shut your mouth....you're making yourself look real bad.
Those poor hypotheticals, it sure is unfortunate for them that the founders didn't do more to provide written protections for them in the Constitution, them and movie characters.
Well there you have it folks, 73% of US Messageboard posters think its OK for cops to gun down innocent civilians in the streets.![]()
Why don't people want the law applied? Under "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law", Officer A and Sergeant are liable for the death penalty, why does no one want it applied? Because they are cops and cops are above the law?
I am anti-death penalty so I voted against that.
I want to see justice done.
As I said before, you can't argue for justice when you have already reached a verdict in your mind.
Its a question about two hypothetical people, "Officer A" and "Sergeant A", and the question assumes the facts presented about them are true.
So given those facts, and given what the federal statute say - do you think they deserve the death penalty? That's the question.
If you had actually graduated high school you'd know the three fold purpose of the criminal justice system - retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation.
Revenge and retribution are listed as synonyms in any thesaurus you pick up.
Are either of the anonymous officers currently charged with any crimes by the state or federal government?
Or is it just Hunter so far?
Hunter is the 4th NOPD officer to be charged, and the 2nd involved directly in the shooting. Which leaves 5 cops who participated in the shooting and who have not been charged yet.
Wow, so far only one other person thinks that a cop who shoots an unarmed mentally handicapped civilian in the back from a moving vehicle, killing him, should actually have to pay for his crime with his life.
My question for the others is - if I were to shoot an unarmed mentally handicapped man in the back from a moving vehicle, and then have one of my buddies come over and jump up and down on his body as he lay bleeding to death - would I deserve the death penalty?
If the cops intended simply to massacre people on the Danziger Bridge, then I want them punished to the full extent of the law (short of the death penalty).
However, I am hesitant to believe that was the officers' intent. The whole situation was a cluster fuck and a text book example of how not to do things.
The officers were responding to reports of gunshots in a rental van they had commandeered. They showed up, saw a mob they believed to be responsible for the gunfire, and fired warning shots out of an un-marked vehicle. The innocent people on the Danziger Bridge, naturally, were terrified and started to flee. The officers perceived this to be hostile and started firing indescrimately.
In normal circumstances, they would have had a cop car and there would have been no need for warning shots (probably wasn't to begin with).
I don't think they were the brutal killers you make them out to be.
And so far its the only side not shown to be full of lies and deliberate coverups.The complaint against them is just one side of the story.
With most things in Katrina, myth, hyperbole, out-right lies, and half truths accompany most of the salacious accusations in Katrina.
Are either of the anonymous officers currently charged with any crimes by the state or federal government?
Or is it just Hunter so far?
Hunter is the 4th NOPD officer to be charged, and the 2nd involved directly in the shooting. Which leaves 5 cops who participated in the shooting and who have not been charged yet.
Weren't the charges dropped though? Who is currently charged besides Hunter?
Title 18 Section 242 does not require that they hatch a conspiracy from the beginning to deprive people of their rights - it only requires that the action be "willful" If indeed the facts are as described by Hunter - that means a police officer shot a man in the back who was running with his hands in view and clearly not carrying a weapon - that officer willfully deprived that man of his right to life. Title 18 Section 242 does not care whether this was the result of pure evil - or simply a result of total disregard for civilian life (apathy as opposed to hate) - it only cares that it was a willful act.
So you're wrong.
Dude I don't think you actually read the bill of information . Madison was shot FROM A MOVING COP CAR in the BACK while running with his hands in plain view.
Of course you don't. You haven't actually been keeping up with the news. Its as if yo don't even know what happened.
And so far its the only side not shown to be full of lies and deliberate coverups.
OK. Read the fucking bill of information. All if it. Then get back to us.
BTW - the supposed phone call these cops got for assistance, there's no record of it existing.
Danziger Bridge Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(full disclosure - the wiki article is written by me)
The police officers involved in the shooting were taken into custody on January 2, 2007 and were indicted for murder and attempted murder. [2]. NOPD officers Robert Gisevius, Kenneth Bowen, and Anthony Villavaso were charged with the first-degree murder of Brissette. NOPD officer Robert Faulcon was charged with the first-degree murder of Madison. Those officers, as well as NOPD officers Michael Hunter, Ignatius Hills and Robert Barrios, were indicted on charges of attempted murder relating to the other four victims. [3] On August 13, 2008, charges against the officers were dismissed by District Judge Raymond Bigelow due to misconduct by the prosecution with regards to the grand jury.[4]
In September of 2008, the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI began investigating the case. U.S. Attorney Jim Letten vowed his office would take "as much time and resources as necessary" to resolve the case.[5]
After a year and a half of investigation, on 24 February 2010, former New Orleans police lieutenant Michael Lohman entered a plea of guilty to obstruction of justice in federal court. [6]..............
On April 7th, 2010, Michael Hunter, one of the seven officers originally charged with attempted murder in 2007, pleaded guilty to misprision of a felony and obstruction of justice.[9]..............
On April 16th Robert Barrios was charged by a bill of information with one count of conspiring to obstruct justice, becoming the fourth NOPD officer to be federally charged in the case....................
At the time of this writing, April 22nd 2010, no federal charges have been filed against any of the other five officers involved in the shooting. However, it is expected that charges will be filed.
If Hunter's testamony is true, I'd say they should get the death penalty.
What I don't get though, is why in the hell would this Hunter guy fired shots in the direction of citizens just because they wouldn't had known they were cops. Doing essentially a drive-bye shooting in an unmarked truck or van isn't exactly the best way to identify yourself as a cop. Anyone with a gun would have the right to fire back to defend themselves. But then again, maybe that's exactly what the cops were hoping for.