|
Post by debjorgo on Aug 7, 2013 21:44:21 GMT -5
And puss sucker wanted fame. Release his final picture to the press. Hell, dig him up every year for a press conference.
I am against the death penalty, because we are supposed to be a civilized people. But this guy makes it hard.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 7, 2013 23:37:18 GMT -5
It would certainly solve some of MY problems! Ha ha. So you got your list, too, huh Vectis? LOL, but I think vectis' list is harmless venting. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be on your list Ace(I am not right?!). Hey, we need a code man for the killer's wife: how about "accomplice doormat?" She knew he went to NYC once earlier to kill John but changed his mind yet she said nothing. He goes back in December 1980 and that whore says nothing again. Yet she gets to fellate that fat piece of shit in prison. What a wonderful world this can be.
|
|
|
Post by ursamajor on Aug 8, 2013 2:23:14 GMT -5
If you're going to talk about state-sanctioned execution of people in such casual terms as "frying" them, don't expect to be taken seriously. And do expect your intention to be misinterpreted. Interestingly enough, some people on this board who are self confessed drug abusers should consider themselves lucky they weren't born in an Asian country where they would have been shot instead of "fried" if caught.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 8, 2013 4:14:56 GMT -5
LOL, but I think vectis' list is harmless venting. As I get older, I'm less tolerant of people who treat me like proverbial. There are 4 current candidates: 1. People who regularly park a bus right outside my house; 2. People who bring their dogs down the drive to my office at night to have a shit (the dogs, not the people); 3. The bastard who built a block of flats 18 inches away from the back window of my office building; 4. The pathetic pillock who feeds the pigeons on his flat roof extension which encourages them to sit on my office roof all day clogging my gutters and drains with pigeon shit. It can be argued that death may be a bit strong as a response, but at least it would put a stop to problems 1, 2 and 4. Unfortunately, the flats are built, so offing number 3 would merely be an act of revenge.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 8, 2013 4:17:58 GMT -5
As opposed to John Lennon's "motherfucking brains were splattered all over the sidewalk." I have to say that I find that a little more offensive than my using the killer's name.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 8, 2013 7:18:47 GMT -5
Hey, we need a code man for the killer's wife: how about "accomplice doormat?" She knew he went to NYC once earlier to kill John but changed his mind yet she said nothing. He goes back in December 1980 and that whore says nothing again. Yet she gets to fellate that fat piece of shit in prison. What a wonderful world this can be. I have often said that the way to settle the score and tear the killer apart would be for someone to find his wife and murder her. I wonder how that would make him feel, the one thing in his miserable existence that truly gives him joy? Vengeance-seekers may not be able to get to this creep in his high security prison apartment, but they could still slaughter his lady. If she really knew stuff she should have been arrested as an accomplice.
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 8, 2013 7:33:35 GMT -5
And puss sucker wanted fame. Release his final picture to the press. Hell dig him up every year for a press conference. I am against the death penalty, because we are supposed to be a civilized people. But this guy makes it hard. I think society has a right to protect itself, and if that means the death penalty, well that person can't kill a prison guard, prisoner, or others if they get back out. Stalking an innocent guy with the sole intent of wiping him out qualifies in my book for forfeiting the right to live. The reason I am against it personally is because laws don't differentiate between the smoking gun killers (like shit speck) and the circumstantial people, where a clever DA can get an innocent man executed, because a strand of his hair was found at the death scene.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 8, 2013 11:20:06 GMT -5
Hey, we need a code man for the killer's wife: how about "accomplice doormat?" She knew he went to NYC once earlier to kill John but changed his mind yet she said nothing. He goes back in December 1980 and that whore says nothing again. Yet she gets to fellate that fat piece of shit in prison. What a wonderful world this can be. I have often said that the way to settle the score and tear the killer apart would be for someone to find his wife and murder her. I wonder how that would make him feel, the one thing in his miserable existence that truly gives him joy? Vengeance-seekers may not be able to get to this creep in his high security prison apartment, but they could still slaughter his lady. Joe, I am very angry at the killer's wife(obviously) but I can't advocate violence against her but I believe fully she should have been prosecuted as an accomplice for her damn knowledge yet silence to alert authorities. Her defense would be she never thought him serious, that he was all talk. Still, she is an awful person in my book She is a doormat for sure
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 8, 2013 12:20:44 GMT -5
Ha ha. So you got your list, too, huh Vectis? LOL, but I think vectis' list is harmless venting. On the other hand, I wouldn't want to be on your list Ace(I am not right?!). Nah, I'm harmless. Just don't tell my enemies that. Sometimes I can bluff them off by pretending to be a bad ass.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 8, 2013 12:23:32 GMT -5
As opposed to John Lennon's "motherfucking brains were splattered all over the sidewalk." I have to say that I find that a little more offensive than my using the killer's name. Sorry if I offended you but I was trying to make a point. Panther was apparently offended by my using the term "frying" the killer. And I just wanted to make the point that, considering the truly offensive nature of what That Guy did, I think its wholly appropriate to talk about him in that fashion.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 8, 2013 12:24:52 GMT -5
If you're going to talk about state-sanctioned execution of people in such casual terms as "frying" them, don't expect to be taken seriously. And do expect your intention to be misinterpreted. Interestingly enough, some people on this board who are self confessed drug abusers should consider themselves lucky they weren't born in an Asian country where they would have been shot instead of "fried" if caught. "Drug abusers" on a Beatles message board?? Tell me its not so??!! Who are these scoundrels? And where can I score from them?
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 8, 2013 12:27:50 GMT -5
If you're going to talk about state-sanctioned execution of people in such casual terms as "frying" them, don't expect to be taken seriously. And do expect your intention to be misinterpreted. Interestingly enough, some people on this board who are self confessed drug abusers should consider themselves lucky they weren't born in an Asian country where they would have been shot instead of "fried" if caught. I was just reading about a 14 year old girl in some Muslim country who was stoned to death for the "crime" of being raped. There are some truly barbaric forms of criminal justice in this world. But I'm not exactly sure what your point is Ursamajor. Are you equating that kind of barbarism with executing heinous murderers. Or is your point: "First they came for the murderers and I did nothing. And then they came for the drug abusers and I did nothing . . ."
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 8, 2013 15:17:16 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Aug 8, 2013 23:15:57 GMT -5
While it makes my opinion no more valuable than any other one on this topic, I may be the only one here that has actually participated in a capital murder trial. My role, in a 1986 trial, was limited to that of 'gofer,' but I did sit at the counsel table during much of the trial as my boss sought--and got--a death penalty in a week long trial. I also remember filing a capital murder case in 1985 as a deputy prosecutor, where a guy killed his wife and mother after having gone nuts from huffing paint. The surviving family didn't want the man executed, and we pled it to life in prison.
I have also represented some folks--two I can think of as I sit here, and I don't think there have been any others--that were charged with capital murder. Both cases were overcharged as far as my client was concerned as there were multiple co-defendants in each, and both were resolved without the necessity of a trial. One of these was an appointed case, and the other was one in which I was hired. These days, the rules in Arkansas have changed as to who can be appointed to represent a defendant in a capital case, with education and experience thresholds. Despite having been a lawyer for over 30 years, 6 of which were as a prosecutor and the rest in criminal defense, I do not currently qualify for an appointment on a capital case, and I have no intentions of getting the requisites so I will not have to take one of those. I can, however, be hired by someone to handle such a case.
With that said, here's some random thoughts on capital punishment:
1. I am not against it on moral grounds. Those that call it "state-sanctioned murder" are, in my estimation, wrong. Murder does not afford the victim due process before the victim is killed.
2. I am aware that mistakes are made in capital cases, and I have no doubt that an innocent person (or more than one) has been executed. As such, I have no problem with all the appeals that follow such a conviction, but I do believe things could move a bit faster through the system. Lawyers that are zealously against the death penalty do things to drag out the process, and I don't fault them for doing what they can do for their clients; it's the courts that have to keep things moving.
3. Proponents of the death penalty claim it is a deterrent to others. I think that's wrong for a very simple reason--criminals don't think like law-abiding citizens, and don't think they will be caught. The guy that robs a convenience store and kills the clerk doesn't tend to think "now, if I don't pull the trigger, my maximum exposure is only 20 years, but if I do, I can get death." They think "I won't be prosecuted at all, because I'm smarter than the cops."
4. As I mentioned above, the state--at least in this state--has an interest in making sure the lawyer that is defending the accused in a death penalty case is competent. Historically, capital murder cases that were tried in areas without a public defender system involved lawyers that weren't quick enough to avoid the appointment, and didn't want the gig. Lawyers with little criminal experience would find it was "their turn" to take one of the time consuming and gut-wrenching murder cases, for little recompense. The expenses involved in trying one of these matters twice after it was determined that counsel for the defense didn't try hard enough or wasn't up to the task--and the risk that evidence or witnesses couldn't be located years later--caused several states to decide it was better to pay to have it done right the first time.
5. For those like Chapman, there were at least two factors that cut against giving him the death penalty. First, he had no criminal record; few people get the death penalty on their first criminal conviction. Second, he did have mental issues, to the extent that he could have perhaps gotten a verdict like Hinckley did--not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Even if he did not meet that standard, the evidence of his mental state could have been considered in the sentencing phase, where mitigating and aggravating circumstances are presented to the jury. (I assume this is how New York handled capital matters in 1981--but I don't pretend to know for sure.)
6. I went to a breakfast recently where a candidate for governor in 2014--a friend that I've golfed with and played basketball with many times--was peppered with questions about the death penalty. I wanted to interrupt and point out that such cases are a miniscule part of the criminal justice system, and that the governor only gets involved after all the other legal proceedings have played out. I would never make a decision on who I'd want for governor based solely on his/her stance on the death penalty; it just isn't a huge part of what the governor will be handling.
Enough for now...
JcS
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 9, 2013 3:15:57 GMT -5
Thanks for that, Joey - interesting reading for a Brit who wishes we still had the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 9, 2013 9:37:14 GMT -5
Thanks for that, Joey - interesting reading for a Brit who wishes we still had the death penalty. "Britain Murdered Hanratty'!" John & Yoko 1969 John and Yoko lend comfort and support to the parents of James Hanratty at a protest meeting.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 9, 2013 10:21:42 GMT -5
Turns out J&Y were wrong - recent DNA evidence indicates his guilt. I'd post a link, except that my internet is being a pain.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 9, 2013 13:17:49 GMT -5
While it makes my opinion no more valuable than any other one on this topic, I may be the only one here that has actually participated in a capital murder trial. I've been involved in two murder trials. One where I was a witness, and another one where my best friend was a witness.
|
|
|
Post by acebackwords on Aug 9, 2013 13:23:49 GMT -5
Turns out J&Y were wrong - recent DNA evidence indicates his guilt. Turns out J & Y were wrong about Michael X, too. Another one of their pet causes. That is until he hacked two people to death with a machete, was found guilty of murder, and hung.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Aug 9, 2013 15:04:05 GMT -5
While it makes my opinion no more valuable than any other one on this topic, I may be the only one here that has actually participated in a capital murder trial. I've been involved in two murder trials. One where I was a witness, and another one where my best friend was a witness. I've been involved in many homicide cases, both as a defense attorney and as a prosecutor, but only those I mentioned in which the death penalty was in play. I'm a three time member of the "lifer" club--two of my clients got life for their role in a murder (the other was a case in which a baby was almost starved to death). JcS
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Aug 9, 2013 16:21:44 GMT -5
A thought occurred to me this week about those that don't want Lennon's killer's name used in any form. An analogy might be when a loon runs out onto the field/floor of a sporting event, and the networks broadcasting it won't show that person, so as not to encourage other people to get their 15 seconds of infamy. I support that choice by the networks, even if it might be funny to see the guy/gal get tackled or otherwise roughed up for interrupting the game. There is a difference in this and in the name of the assassin of anyone--the next day, I'm still interested in knowing more about the event, including who did it, why, could it have been prevented, etc.
I have to wonder, though, if there might be a nice deterrent effect if something like this was released to the press the next day after a sporting event was : "Last night, John S. Damm, who lives at 123 Maple Shade Lane, home phone number of XXX-XXXX ran out onto the floor of the Pacers/Heat game. He apparently wants attention, so please, go by his house, call him, write to him, whatever, to let him know what you thought of his actions in interrupting the game last night."
I don't know, but I suspect a lot of that stuff would stop in a hurry.
JcS
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 9, 2013 17:32:46 GMT -5
A thought occurred to me this week about those that don't want Lennon's killer's name used in any form. An analogy might be when a loon runs out onto the field/floor of a sporting event, and the networks broadcasting it won't show that person, so as not to encourage other people to get their 15 seconds of infamy. I support that choice by the networks, even if it might be funny to see the guy/gal get tackled or otherwise roughed up for interrupting the game. There is a difference in this and in the name of the assassin of anyone--the next day, I'm still interested in knowing more about the event, including who did it, why, could it have been prevented, etc. I have to wonder, though, if there might be a nice deterrent effect if something like this was released to the press the next day after a sporting event was : "Last night, John S. Damm, who lives at 123 Maple Shade Lane, home phone number of XXX-XXXX ran out onto the floor of the Pacers/Heat game. He apparently wants attention, so please, go by his house, call him, write to him, whatever, to let him know what you thought of his actions in interrupting the game last night." I don't know, but I suspect a lot of that stuff would stop in a hurry. JcS That is hilarious-I love it, only you know that person would sue and probably win...damn lawyers!!!
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Aug 9, 2013 22:17:00 GMT -5
Well, if not to the press, then to the bulletin boards of the fans in the area of the miscreant.
Most media outlets do not print the name of misdemeanor offenders, unless the person is well known (the mayor, off duty cop, something of that nature). However, the arrest report is a public record, and would have most of the personal information on it.
Bottom line is that those seeking attention might find it's not as much fun as they thought it would be. I think Chapman is now in that category.
JcS
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 20, 2015 10:14:26 GMT -5
One has the right to say his name, but I say shame on them for such disrespect to John's memory and for perpetuating the name while the scum is alive and able to see it. I hold that view for any still living assassin or killer who's sole point was to achieve fame and have their name associated with their victim's for all time. Then, shame on Yoko? www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/13/yoko-ono-i-still-fear-lennon-s-killer.html wherein we have this quote from Yoko: “So when I go out or when I don’t go out, in my apartment, I’m very, very careful. It’s very, very difficult for me to think about Chapman, especially because he doesn’t seem to think that was a bad thing to do. It’s crazy.” JcS
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 20, 2015 11:52:06 GMT -5
One has the right to say his name, but I say shame on them for such disrespect to John's memory and for perpetuating the name while the scum is alive and able to see it. I hold that view for any still living assassin or killer who's sole point was to achieve fame and have their name associated with their victim's for all time. Then, shame on Yoko? www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/13/yoko-ono-i-still-fear-lennon-s-killer.html wherein we have this quote from Yoko: “So when I go out or when I don’t go out, in my apartment, I’m very, very careful. It’s very, very difficult for me to think about Chapman, especially because he doesn’t seem to think that was a bad thing to do. It’s crazy.” JcS Yup; Shame on Yoko as well.... Wouldn't bother me as much if the scum was already dead and rotting in a grave somewhere, but he once more gets to hear, or read, about John's widow mentioning him by name in a publication....
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 20, 2015 16:46:44 GMT -5
I applaud your consistency while I remain dubious of your premise.
JcS
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Oct 20, 2015 17:55:51 GMT -5
I'm not convinced that Yoko actually said that, unless it was recorded or filmed. It's just as likely she said, "...very difficult for me to think about him", but the reporters took the liberty of inserting the referent for the pronoun. Reporters do do that.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 20, 2015 20:12:16 GMT -5
I applaud your consistency while I remain dubious of your premise. JcS It is simple; I don't want the scum to ever see his name mentioned in any sort of publication regarding his heinous act perpetrated upon John. That is all he has now to remind himself he is forever linked to John and his legacy. Why should he be allowed that publicity? He should, if possible, never be allowed to hear his name or see it in print along side of John's other than in parole hearings. Do you think it should be otherwise? He should be as good as dead and forgotten in the minds of Beatle fans and John's family and personal fans.
|
|
lowbasso
A Hard Day's Knight
Posts: 2,776
|
Post by lowbasso on Oct 20, 2015 20:13:39 GMT -5
I'm not convinced that Yoko actually said that, unless it was recorded or filmed. It's just as likely she said, "...very difficult for me to think about him", but the reporters took the liberty of inserting the referent for the pronoun. Reporters do do that. That is sadly, very likely.
|
|
|
Post by joeyself on Oct 20, 2015 22:40:14 GMT -5
I applaud your consistency while I remain dubious of your premise. JcS It is simple; I don't want the scum to ever see his name mentioned in any sort of publication regarding his heinous act perpetrated upon John. That is all he has now to remind himself he is forever linked to John and his legacy. Why should he be allowed that publicity? He should, if possible, never be allowed to hear his name or see it in print along side of John's other than in parole hearings. Do you think it should be otherwise? He should be as good as dead and forgotten in the minds of Beatle fans and John's family and personal fans. As I have pointed out to you a couple of times, Chapman circa 1980 wanted the publicity. Chapman circa 2015 doesn't--or at least that is the evidence we have. You can look at his statements now and determine you put no credibility in them--your choice--but I tend to think after this much time has passed, he would just as rather be forgotten. If that is true, you are giving him what he wants, however inadvertently. Also, he doesn't see message boards--he has no internet access where he is. As I lauded your consistency, I am also--I have used the name Oswald, Sirhan, Hinkley, bin-Laden, and others that have committed heinous acts. That Chapman killed a former member of the Beatles doesn't change my way of thinking about such. JcS
|
|