If he somehow managed to kill the executioners in self-defense with their own weapons and survived, which is very unlikely, would his sentence be reduced to life without parole, or would three more executioners be brought in, cause you said he would be turned loose in a room, so he wouldn't be restrained?
Should Nikolas Cruz (2018 Parkland shooter) be sentenced to life or death?
26,820 Views |
532 Replies |
Last: 2 yr ago by FireAg
Still talking about how to handle the transcripts. Judge preference is to just print the transcripts and give them to the jury as they have already been certified. State thinks that may bring an issue on appeal based on another case but could not cite the actual case. State says they are just trying to be careful. Defense seems wishy-washy with what they want to do.
Granted this kid had a screwed up upbringing and in ways I feel sorry for him, but it doesn't excuse his actions at all. He knew it was wrong.
Hell, look at his mother and sister. Repeat felons who have been in and out of prison their entire life. If prison punishments worked they'd fear returning and change their ways. It's a systematic problem that imprisonment as a whole doesn't serve its purpose as it used to. When living conditions include satellite TV and daily showers they aren't "roughing it" enough IMO to deter future offenses.
Granted I get people screw up from time to time and a jail sentence could have a positive impact on some offenders, but generally speaking in modern times it doesn't.
Hell, look at his mother and sister. Repeat felons who have been in and out of prison their entire life. If prison punishments worked they'd fear returning and change their ways. It's a systematic problem that imprisonment as a whole doesn't serve its purpose as it used to. When living conditions include satellite TV and daily showers they aren't "roughing it" enough IMO to deter future offenses.
Granted I get people screw up from time to time and a jail sentence could have a positive impact on some offenders, but generally speaking in modern times it doesn't.
Defense objected to the entire testimony being read back. Judge will issue a statement to the jury telling them they are preparing the transcripts and the testimony will be read back to them. They will continue deliberations until the transcripts have been prepared. Judge will let jury decide which order they want the transcripts to be read.
It is going to take a long time to read this testimony back to them. I doubt they will ask for any more transcripts after this experience.
It is going to take a long time to read this testimony back to them. I doubt they will ask for any more transcripts after this experience.
The logical me says televised firing squad.
The cynical me says house all the violent lifers together in one big room and televise. Let nature take it's course.
I envision (or hope for) one big death match each night.
The cynical me says house all the violent lifers together in one big room and televise. Let nature take it's course.
I envision (or hope for) one big death match each night.
Can they request for the transcripts to stop being read if they've heard enough?
This would be good.mrad85 said:
The logical me says televised firing squad.
The cynical me says house all the violent lifers together in one big room and televise. Let nature take it's course.
I envision (or hope for) one big death match each night.
I have also thought about parachuting them out over an open war zone. Like when we were in the Middle East, kick them out of the plane and let them fight it out with the Taliban. Strap Go Pros on all of them, but only give every other one a handgun, Russian style. You either get the gun or the magazine. They either get killed and it saves us a bunch of money, or they kill some other terrorist and save us some money.
Probably not. There's always a lot of concern with a jury over-focusing on specific parts of evidence or testimony. The state was apparently concerned enough about it being a potential appeal point that they didn't want them to have the transcripts in the jury room at risk of them overfocusing on a specific part.
There was debate in the Rittenhouse case as to how many times a video could be played back during deliberations. The judge let them see the ridiculous, improper, last minute, grainy, surprise video from the prosecution as many times as they wanted. He was a horrible judge.
A different Wisconsin judge in the trial of Edgecombe put the lid on it and told the jury they could see a video replay one time and cut them off.
In watching these trials as a hobby for years, I don't remember a judge allowing the jury only hear one part of a transcript, but I suppose it has happened.
There was debate in the Rittenhouse case as to how many times a video could be played back during deliberations. The judge let them see the ridiculous, improper, last minute, grainy, surprise video from the prosecution as many times as they wanted. He was a horrible judge.
A different Wisconsin judge in the trial of Edgecombe put the lid on it and told the jury they could see a video replay one time and cut them off.
In watching these trials as a hobby for years, I don't remember a judge allowing the jury only hear one part of a transcript, but I suppose it has happened.
So if all twelve jurors agree that they've heard enough during the middle of the transcripts and ask if they can continue deliberating instead of continuing to listen to the transcripts, they would still have to listen to them, since they requested to hear them read back? Or would they be allowed to continue deliberating if that was the case?
That would be an interesting debate with the attorneys. Having seen so many judges be careful about this, there's got to be case law in which verdicts were overturned due to jurors overfocusing on one part of a witness' testimony. If they only hear one part of a witness testimony out of context of the rest of the testimony of the witness then it may distort their view of the entire testimony.
Aggravating factors: 1. The first-degree murder was committed by Cruz who was previously convicted of a felony involving the use or threat of violence to a person. Scherer said Cruz was convicted of a felony after the attack on Sgt. Ramon Beltran at the Broward County main jail and pleaded guilty to the 17 counts of attempted murder.
2. Cruz knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons.
3. The first-degree murder was committed while Cruz was engaged in the commission of a burglary.
4. The first-degree murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.
5. The first-degree murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification.
6. The first-degree murder was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws. This applies to Hixon, Feis, and Beigel.
7. The victim of the capital felony was an elected or appointed public official engaged in the performance of his or her official duties if the motive for the capital felony was related, in whole or in part, to the victim's official capacity. This applies to Hixon, Feis, and Beigel.
2. Cruz knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons.
3. The first-degree murder was committed while Cruz was engaged in the commission of a burglary.
4. The first-degree murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.
5. The first-degree murder was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification.
6. The first-degree murder was committed to disrupt or hinder the lawful exercise of any governmental function or the enforcement of laws. This applies to Hixon, Feis, and Beigel.
7. The victim of the capital felony was an elected or appointed public official engaged in the performance of his or her official duties if the motive for the capital felony was related, in whole or in part, to the victim's official capacity. This applies to Hixon, Feis, and Beigel.
The read back is going to go a lot faster than the questioning did, but it will probably take the rest of the day at least. This poor lady is having to read all of this stuff.
When did the read back start?
Do you think he'll get the death penalty? I think he will on at least one out of the seventeen charges.
Thou shall not kill… Christians seem to forget that.
Manual labor everyday. Shouldn't be a speck of trash in the country if we treated prison as a real punishment.
Manual labor everyday. Shouldn't be a speck of trash in the country if we treated prison as a real punishment.
I'm not sure. I didn't see much of it.
Dumb, and not true. It's, "thou shall not murder."Howdy Dammit said:
Thou shall not kill… Christians seem to forget that.
Manual labor everyday. Shouldn't be a speck of trash in the country if we treated prison as a real punishment.
Quote:
Gen 9:6 "Whoever sheds man's blood, By man his blood shall be shed; For in the image of God He made man."
I'd recommend quoting the New Testament preacher... No one on earth should ever take away a man's right to repent. Surprised so many so called Christian's believe they can.
This is the only death penalty trial his judge has presided over, since she was randomly assigned to the case. They should have picked a judge with experience over death penalty trials, especially for a high profile case like this.
After listening to a court reporter read back Connor's testimony aloud, the jurors indicated that they no longer needed to hear Denney's testimony.
Scherer said all 12 jurors raised their hands in agreement "that the information that they were seeking was in the cross examination and that any questions that they may have had was answered in the cross examination that was just read back and that they no longer needed Dr. Denney's testimony."
Scherer said all 12 jurors raised their hands in agreement "that the information that they were seeking was in the cross examination and that any questions that they may have had was answered in the cross examination that was just read back and that they no longer needed Dr. Denney's testimony."
I feel as if the parents get to decide his death. The judge creates the death sentence, so wimpy left parents can't allow him to escape death, but then the parents suggest options and then vote. No option is too gruesome. In other words torture is allowed.
I'd start with one of those glass stir rods used in science class. It would get inserted into pen-is and then his shaft would get hammered until the glass fractures into tiny slivers of glass. No antibiotics. After the boiling water, being tied to 4 stakes over an ant bed would start to reveal some level of revenge. The final move would be to intubate the lungs with the hose from a can of fix-a-flat and open it up.
I'd start with one of those glass stir rods used in science class. It would get inserted into pen-is and then his shaft would get hammered until the glass fractures into tiny slivers of glass. No antibiotics. After the boiling water, being tied to 4 stakes over an ant bed would start to reveal some level of revenge. The final move would be to intubate the lungs with the hose from a can of fix-a-flat and open it up.
What if some of the parents wanted him to be tortured for the rest of his life instead of dying? I don't know what their thoughts are on him being tortured, but I wouldn't be surprised if at least one family member thought he deserved to be tortured for life or at least several months or years.
Howdy Dammit said:
I'd recommend quoting the New Testament preacher... No one on earth should ever take away a man's right to repent. Surprised so many so called Christian's believe they can.
Pacifist bad theology. Lots of death penalty passages in the OT. So God changed His position?
What is a sword used for?Quote:
Romans 13:3-4 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, 4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
Modern self dense law is also based on the bible:
Quote:
Exodus 22:2 If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him
He should get death but that kid is waaaayyyy off. He'll have life in prison
The Bible both supports and is against the death penalty: Perhaps the strongest case against capital punishment in the New Testament can be made from John 8, where Jesus seems to say that it should not be carried out contrary to Mosaic law (let he who is without sin throw the first stone). There are however far more verses that command and condone capital punishment, and examples of it being carried out, especially in the Torah/Old Testament. While the Bible very clearly condones and commands capital punishment, there are verses that can be interpreted as opposing the practice. For example, when Cain murdered Abel, God sentenced him to wandering as a fugitive rather than to death, and even issued a warning against killing Cain.
If you think Jesus would inject the needle, then by all means, continue your beliefs. There's also a lot of tough guys on this thread calling for outrageous death sentences, who wouldn't pull the trigger to that man's head right now if given the chance. Capital punishment is against everything Jesus stood for while on this earth. Sure am glad Paul wasn't put to death for murder and had a chance at repentance. It truly blows my mind that a Christian thinks they have a right to end a life they didn't create. It's almost as if you don't want what is best for that man's soul, which is the only thing we should be concerned with. We will have to agree to disagree. And I'm no pacifist. I will protect myself and family at all costs and deal with those ramifications if I have to.
No
Death, by gauntlet of survivors and victims families.
If he survives the first "run", then repeat.
If he survives the first "run", then repeat.
Howdy Dammit said:
If you think Jesus would inject the needle, then by all means, continue your beliefs. There's also a lot of tough guys on this thread calling for outrageous death sentences, who wouldn't pull the trigger to that man's head right now if given the chance. Capital punishment is against everything Jesus stood for while on this earth. Sure am glad Paul wasn't put to death for murder and had a chance at repentance. It truly blows my mind that a Christian thinks they have a right to end a life they didn't create. It's almost as if you don't want what is best for that man's soul, which is the only thing we should be concerned with. We will have to agree to disagree. And I'm no pacifist. I will protect myself and family at all costs and deal with those ramifications if I have to.
Did Jesus object when God struck people dead, opened pits that swallowed people up, or rained hellfire, and brimstone?
He is God after all, so that would be weird. Ever read acts 5 about Ananias and Sapphira.
What blows my mind is Christians calling good evil and evil good when someone stops a mass shooter, because "they didn't give them a chance to repent". And yes, I did see a preacher say that. He called the guy that stopped the shooting in the ft worth church a murderer.
Quote:
No one on earth should ever take away a man's right to repent. Surprised so many so called Christian's believe they can.
You can crawfish all you want, but you espoused the same arguments with the same implications.
Show the the verse that says you have to allow mass killing and cant use deadly force... you cant because the bible says the opposite. You're building law around the law, and inserting your opinion that contradicts what the bible actually says. No bible verse says you are taking away someone's right to repent by using deadly force or dispensing biblical justice.
TxAgPreacher said:Howdy Dammit said:
If you think Jesus would inject the needle, then by all means, continue your beliefs. There's also a lot of tough guys on this thread calling for outrageous death sentences, who wouldn't pull the trigger to that man's head right now if given the chance. Capital punishment is against everything Jesus stood for while on this earth. Sure am glad Paul wasn't put to death for murder and had a chance at repentance. It truly blows my mind that a Christian thinks they have a right to end a life they didn't create. It's almost as if you don't want what is best for that man's soul, which is the only thing we should be concerned with. We will have to agree to disagree. And I'm no pacifist. I will protect myself and family at all costs and deal with those ramifications if I have to.
Did Jesus object when God struck people dead, opened pits that swallowed people up, or rained hellfire, and brimstone?
He is God after all, so that would be weird. Ever read acts 5 about Ananias and Sapphira.
What blows my mind is Christians calling good evil and evil good when someone stops a mass shooter, because "they didn't give them a chance to repent". And yes, I did see a preacher say that. He called the guy that stopped the shooting in the ft worth church a murderer.
You can crawfish all you want, but you espoused the same arguments with the same implications.
Show the the verse that says you have to allow mass killing and cant use deadly force... you cant because the bible says the opposite. You're building law around the law, and inserting your opinion that contradicts what the bible actually says.
God can kill anyone he wants. He is the creator. Not sure what you mean by that reference. And I never said I wouldn't stop a mass shooting. Very confused. There is incredible differences in protecting life from a crime that is currently being committed, and murdering someone after they have been arrested. I already said I would defend myself and my family.
You implied it by this:Howdy Dammit said:TxAgPreacher said:Howdy Dammit said:
If you think Jesus would inject the needle, then by all means, continue your beliefs. There's also a lot of tough guys on this thread calling for outrageous death sentences, who wouldn't pull the trigger to that man's head right now if given the chance. Capital punishment is against everything Jesus stood for while on this earth. Sure am glad Paul wasn't put to death for murder and had a chance at repentance. It truly blows my mind that a Christian thinks they have a right to end a life they didn't create. It's almost as if you don't want what is best for that man's soul, which is the only thing we should be concerned with. We will have to agree to disagree. And I'm no pacifist. I will protect myself and family at all costs and deal with those ramifications if I have to.
Did Jesus object when God struck people dead, opened pits that swallowed people up, or rained hellfire, and brimstone?
He is God after all, so that would be weird. Ever read acts 5 about Ananias and Sapphira.
What blows my mind is Christians calling good evil and evil good when someone stops a mass shooter, because "they didn't give them a chance to repent". And yes, I did see a preacher say that. He called the guy that stopped the shooting in the ft worth church a murderer.
You can crawfish all you want, but you espoused the same arguments with the same implications.
Show the the verse that says you have to allow mass killing and cant use deadly force... you cant because the bible says the opposite. You're building law around the law, and inserting your opinion that contradicts what the bible actually says.
God can kill anyone he wants. He is the creator. Not sure what you mean by that reference. And I never said I wouldn't stop a mass shooting. Very confused. There is incredible differences in protecting life from a crime that is currently being committed, and murdering someone after they have been arrested. I already said I would defend myself and my family.
I'm not trying to misrepresent you, but you were using pacifist arguments including taking thou shall not murder out of context.Quote:
No one on earth should ever take away a man's right to repent. Surprised so many so called Christian's believe they can.
I think you're crawfishing after you couldn't argue the clear biblical precedent, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you just hadn't thought through the implications of your arguments.
I will retract my "ever" comment. Cause that does contradict my "self defense" statement. That was more directed at capital punishment since that was what we were discussing. The two scenarios are very different. Killing someone who is in the process of killing you/others is not the same as killing someone who is no longer a threat for a punishment. This is also the position of the church. Capital punishment is in opposition to the faith.
No it's not read the Romans passage 13 againHowdy Dammit said:
I will retract my "ever" comment. Cause that does contradict my "self defense" statement. That was more directed at capital punishment since that was what we were discussing. The two scenarios are very different. Killing someone who is in the process of killing you/others is not the same as killing someone who is no longer a threat for a punishment. This is also the position of the church. Capital punishment is in opposition to the faith.
I'll side with the teachings of the Church and my interpretation of Jesus's teachings
Featured Stories
See All
21:11
12h ago
1.6k
Payne makes Reed debut as Aggies host East Texas A&M on Friday night
by Olin Buchanan
38:43
1d ago
2.6k
Scouting Report: No. 13 Texas A&M vs. East Texas A&M
by Tom Schuberth
35:14
9h ago
645
Reed Report: Catching up with Boots as A&M hoops is underway
by Luke Evangelist