We have enough gun violence in this country that we tend to forget the things that made a splash in the *last* news cycle.
Michael Dunn, the white man who shot up a SUV full of unarmed black teenagers in Florida and killed one of them, is on trial for first degree murder. He's pleading not guilty. Now granted, he's entitled to his due process and we really can't be sure of all the details until the trial is over. But based on the preponderance of evidence that we know from the media, his case looks lame. No weapons found in the car or nearby. No drugs. No history of troublemaking. Just teens cranking up their music too loud and pissing off a grumpy middle aged white guy.
I am surprised that the state attorney is not seeking the death penalty. I have my questions about the number of times an innocent person is executed, but I do believe in executing the clearly guilty. Is there going to be something unclear here? Some missing piece of evidence or extenuating circumstance we don't know about?
People would like to compare this case to the Trayvon Martin case, but it's actually a really good case for Stand Your Ground. That is to say, it's exceedingly unlikely that the defendant will have any way of making such a defense at all. That's a good thing. If he's found guilty, it will say that the law works as designed, and doesn't authorize people to be trigger happy.
The speed with which this indictment came, compared to the Trayvon Martin case, is telling. This case had plenty of witnesses. No media drama of waiting for arraignment based on uncertainties. If the cops are booking you for murder a day afterwards, there's a pretty good chance it is what it looks like. In contrast, a defendant in Flordia who has a legitimate self-defense claim cannot be arrested. That's what happened with Zimmerman.
I've wondered if a standard of jurisprudence for "public murder" could be developed. Some standard of evidence that requires X number of witnesses, or video tape, proof of nothing being forged, etc. that establishes the perpetrator is clearly guilty. Then, execute such people. Should be a pretty quick trial, if the bar of evidence is really that high, and can be met. No screwing around with year upon year of appeals, and huge costs to the taxpayer just to off someone. To safeguard such a process, the standards of evidence would have to be really really high. Is 10 witnesses enough? With physical evidence of course too. No circumstantial evidence allowed, no guesswork. Just straight facts, you did it, you're guilty.
Get rid of the death penalty for any case involving circumstantial evidence, not enough witnesses, etc. This would protect the possibly innocent. Basically I'm saying, let's execute the mass murderers, and others who think they can just open fire on people because they got angry. The human race doesn't need them.
For instance, I'd like to see that guy who shot up the theater in Arvada CO tried and executed that way. I honestly don't care if he was insane. Damn dangerous dude; get rid of him. We don't need his genetics or his problems. I'm all for trying to solve people's problems *before* they shoot up a theater. After that... sorry, lost cause. Too expensive to society, get rid of them.
Yep that's cold-blooded of me. No Christian compassion to it at all. Hey, I'm an Atheist. I see such a person as a broken down machine. I don't really care if he's got some humanity left in him, after what he did. I'm not really interested in vengeance, let alone torture or a painful death. I'm just interested in making sure he can never do it again. Nor do I think society owes him any resources in a safe cell somewhere. You kill a bunch of people like that, then you've "taken your share" from Life and the species. You should be gone, crossed off the ledger of social balances.
Is it sad? Sure. Watching a cat kill a mouse is sad too. Bad, pointless things happen in life. Someone dies. You did it? Hey, here's some sadness... you die too.
Society invests way too much emotional energy in fantasies of redemption. It's an emotional reaction, people who don't wish to face the horrors of what's happening in their world. People can't bear the thought of... oh wow... this person really might be... worthless. A detriment to the race.
This post was modified from its original form on 07 Jan, 19:28
This post was modified from its original form on 07 Jan, 19:29
I am in total agreement with what you have said in here. An eye for an eye, it's my mantra for those that are criminally insame or just cannot control their anger. Yes, it would cost a lot of money to keep them in jail for the rest of their lives or in a mental institution if they are pleading insanity, or bi-polar or anything else. True that it also cost a lot to execute them, but to me that is the just consequence for their actions.
For all those others that are in jail on circumstancial evidence, the law needs to change, there are so many that have been found guilty and are innocent and then after years in prison and dna brought forth, they have been found innocent, it is a shameful thing to have someone loose years of their lives because of inadequate due process!
