Views on death penalty

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: convicted without a trial

You've got to stop using that as some sort of argument. He went through the legal process. A judge sentenced him. He was in court. He went into the courts and pleaded guilty. It is not the same thing as being held without trial - which has happened in Australia to illegal immigrants. There is a difference, so you shouldn't present the facts in this light. It's incorrect.

[ 04-09-2004, 01:19 PM: Message edited by: Yorick ]

[Oblivion437]

You're really dodging the issue aren't you...

What's more you assign guilt by association to the Pro gun side of the debate by mentioning a racist politician...

Let me ask you this, just because you can do something, does that mean you're automatically superhuman at it? Ask any competition shooter if those particular numbers (greater than one shot per second rate of fire, with 100% accuracy) are even feasible. Rather than assume this idealistic picture of superhumanity and idiot savantism, both of which are so incredibly rare they aren't even relevant in this case, I'll take the logical route, and say that two men did the shooting.

If you'll swallow a pill that big, believe lies those obvious, I've got a book here by a few old Russian folks, it's called The Protocols of The Elders of Zion, with it, I'll even throw in a good dose of flat Earth theory.\

There was no presentation of the facts in the carrying out of this process. The process itself was in the wrong in this case... I can't seem to get through to you the fact that 'he' plead guilty is in fact significant, as it leaves the window very open to conspiracy. Including the facts of the case not adding up to convict him alone, the fact that any lawyer who went over the case file would have known very well he couldn't be convicted, shows that the lawyer was a cop-out. Either he was incompetent, lazy or was part of a conspiracy. In any of those cases, Bryant didn't get a fair trial. He wasn't convicted after the facts were presented to a jury, and the jury deliberated, and came back with the verdict. It was just,

"How does the plead?"

"Guilty on all counts your honor"

and then...

"Defendant is hereby sentenced to life imprisonment."

That's basically it. All other words are just mincing bullshit filling holes in dialogue. That was the gut of the process. The whole thing came and went, with no actual defense of Bryant. As I said, in Bryant's position, he'd have nothing to lose by fighting it out, so why didn't he? Looking at the facts, he had a pretty good defense.

"My client is not superhuman, he isn't even average. To assume this below average man comitted a feat that's to say the least beyond the limits of human usage of a firearm, firing more than one shot per second, landing perfect hits EVERY TIME against MOVING TARGETS in sustained manner, is both implausible and humanly impossible."

The prosecution wouldn't even have an answer to that. There'd be no way to counter this. You'd have to idealistically leap off the legal system into the realm of theoretical biomechanics and argue that he himself, an undisciplined shooter, had done something never done before. In case the prosecution pulled something, pull together the top 5 men in the world with the rifles in question and have them try the same feat. They wouldn't be able to do it, and there would be no case against Martin Bryant. IF Martin Bryant couldn't do it, and no one member of that top 5 group could, obviously 2 men were involved. As it stands, I believe that one of those two men was in the courtroom, serving as Bryant's attorney.

[ 04-09-2004, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: What's more you assign guilt by association to the Pro gun side of the debate by mentioning a racist politician...

Who happens to have led a racist, pro gun party in Australia. I'm simply presenting facts Oblivion.

http://www.guncontrol.org.au/index.php?article=61 Pro-gun groups have been eclipsed in Federal politics -- and most satisfying of all, arch gun-proponents Pauline Hanson and David Oldfield of One Nation failed to win seats.

[Oblivion437]

Ironically, I note that the social engineers and controllers (who happen to have a thing for racist thinking, including anti-semitism) tend to lean in favor of gun control in the US. The first gun control laws enacted in the US were to keep Freedmen down, not to protect anyone. That trend continues today, passing laws that will affect minorities or specific groups, a way to control individuals within society for reasons archaic at best (racism, authoritarian ideals, social engineering plans, the sort of things that shouldn't proliferate in a free society) and malicious in result. Firearms in America are as integral to Liberty on a symbolic level as they are on the practical. A society where individuals own something as potentially destructive as firearms, where citizens are not dependant upon others for their security, is inherently more free. More safe is debatable, but I put group safety and security in the backseat to liberty. What little security Americans as a group might gain from their fellow law abiders not having firearms is more than amplified by the serious risk of being unarmed with the obvious presence of still very well armed criminals on the prowl, terrorists knowing that nobody is in any way capable of defending themselves against direct attack would be able to operate more openly. Not to mention police who'd be able to shake down and harass anyone who tried to resist abuse of their power. Corruption against innocent people directly would likely sky rocket. Just take the CRASH units in LA as an example of what happens when you give incompetent and trigger happy individuals too much power.

The law abiding seem to be the only ones who'd lose from gun control in the US, we always have, and we always will.

EDIT: This article at justfacts.com will show all you need to know about how gun control is working for America...

Click here

[ 04-09-2004, 03:21 PM: Message edited by: Oblivion437 ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: Ironically, I note that the social engineers and controllers (who happen to have a thing for racist thinking, including anti-semitism) tend to lean in favor of gun control in the US. [/URL]

Well it's the other way around in Australia. I told you it was a different place. If there was ever a conspiracy in Australia, it would be the gun lobby/racist Hanson movt. that would be more likely to do it.

[Oblivion437]

But that's the thing, if it's a true terrorist act by a group seeking to upheave the social structure of Australia, it's too small.

Then there's what ended up happening, and as was said, they don't have any seats in power. It seems to me that they have motive, but lack of ability to execute. It could be any two people, a couple of good shots, one's a lawyer, one's a politician. I'm guessing marksmen are few and far between as a group in Australia, especially in the government.

However, Australia was on the road to ban guns anyways, to say 'they wanted to be sure' just doesn't cut the mustard...

I'm not sure, but this may be more complicated than I originally thought.

[Donut]

Originally posted by Oblivion437: I could explain the Northern Irish problem as well. I understand it.

Go ahead - I would be intrigued to hear your insight into a 300 year old problem

Originally posted by Oblivion437: Go to England sometime. Those people seem to live by their tabloids...

Firstly - Yorick has been to England on several occasions. Secondly - what do you mean "live by their tabloids"? Are you saying that we base our actions on information in the tabloids? If so - what proof do you have of this?

Originally posted by Oblivion437: I won't go to Europe any time soon. Certain behavior goes on quite frequently that I don't like. Rather than go over there and be a jerk telling them how to live, I'll just stay where that sort of thing doesn't go on.

Now I'm intrigued. What is it that 400 million of us do; that you don't approve of?

[Timber Loftis]

Well, you drive on the wrong damn side of the road, for starters! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Night Stalker]

And Ya'awls talks wit funny accents! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Donut]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Well, you drive on the wrong damn side of the road, for starters! [img]tongue.gif[/img]

LOL - thank you for proving my point TL. We may drive on the left but 350 million other europeans drive on the right (that's the wrong) side of the road.



It's difficult to pigeon hole us, which is why I'm so intrigued as to what it is that we "all" do!