You're being hilariously disingenuous by suggesting that no innocent person has even been executed. Your argument is based on willful ignorance and a total lack of the mental capacity to extrapolate facts.


Your position has two options: the system prior to DNA evidence was 100% accurate or innocent people have been executed. That leaves you with two options: you're stupid or you're wrong. Take your pick.

And you can't prove that an innocent person has been executed either.

 

So that means I'm stupid because I don't take your or the scumbag lawyer's word for it?

 

I think you may have things backward here chief. The whole "take my word for it" bit doesn't get it for me.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

And you can't prove that an innocent person has been executed either.

 

So that means I'm stupid because I don't take your or the scumbag lawyer's word for it?

 

I think you may have things backward here chief. The whole "take my word for it" bit doesn't get it for me.

Question:


Why are you calling me a scumbag?


What is wrong with you?

---

You're being hilariously disingenuous by suggesting that no innocent person has even been executed. Your argument is based on willful ignorance and a total lack of the mental capacity to extrapolate facts.

Your position has two options: the system prior to DNA evidence was 100% accurate or innocent people have been executed. That leaves you with two options: you're stupid or you're wrong. Take your pick.

Well, that about sums it up.

---

No need for name calling try and keep the emotions out of it. I get it politics is going to hit some chords a couple of our discussions have raised my blood pressure but ya gotta step back and examine where the other sides coming from, and then either counter or take the point into consideration. Emotions cloud judgement lets keep this a civil forum for an exchanging of ideas and theory. We can disagree and not hate each other! /rant

---

All lawyers are indeed scumbags. Nobody should take that personally.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

No need for name calling try and keep the emotions out of it. I get it politics is going to hit some chords a couple of our discussions have raised my blood pressure but ya gotta step back and examine where the other sides coming from, and then either counter or take the point into consideration. Emotions cloud judgement lets keep this a civil forum for an exchanging of ideas and theory. We can disagree and not hate each other! /rant

It's actually pretty impressive how the majority have kept things as civil as they have been. It's gotten rocky a couple of times but save a few bitter apples incapable of listening to views not their own, it's been fairly constructive IMO

---

All lawyers are indeed scumbags. Nobody should take that personally.

LOL it's like lacrosse! (All my kids play lacrosse so don't get offended!)

 

 

It's actually pretty impressive how the majority have kept things as civil as they have been. It's gotten rocky a couple of times but save a few bitter apples incapable of listening to views not their own, it's been fairly constructive IMO

I hate you all

---

LOL it's like lacrosse! (All my kids play lacrosse so don't get offended!)

 

 

I hate you all

:thumbsup:

---

And you can't prove that an innocent person has been executed either.

 

So that means I'm stupid because I don't take your or the scumbag lawyer's word for it?

 

I think you may have things backward here chief. The whole "take my word for it" bit doesn't get it for me.

Where did I ask you to take my word for anything? I laid out the only two possible options - either the system is perfect or innocent people have been killed - and asked you to take your pick. So, which is it? Was the system perfect (it certainly isn't now) or were innocent people killed?

---

Where did I ask you to take my word for anything? I laid out the only two possible options - either the system is perfect or innocent people have been killed - and asked you to take your pick. So, which is it? Was the system perfect (it certainly isn't now) or were innocent people killed?

Actually, that's not what you said. You said, "Either you are stupid, or you are wrong, take your pick."

 

That is pretty much an indictment of what your feelings are. So, backpeddling and an attempted re-phrase of the question in order to make me sound wrong won't work. Your own words clearly indicate what you meant. 

 

Again, You, like your counterpart, love to avoid this question like the plague: Which executed offenders were later proven innocent?

 

Continue to spin. Continue to put this on me. I am fine with that. Until you give one single name, I will remain unimpressed.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

Actually, that's not what you said. You said, "Either you are stupid, or you are wrong, take your pick."

 

That is pretty much an indictment of what your feelings are. So, backpeddling and an attempted re-phrase of the question in order to make me sound wrong won't work. Your own words clearly indicate what you meant. 

 

Again, You, like your counterpart, love to avoid this question like the plague: Which executed offenders were later proven innocent?

 

Continue to spin. Continue to put this on me. I am fine with that. Until you give one single name, I will remain unimpressed.

Yeah, I said that because you'd have to be stupid to think the system is perfect. If the system isn't perfect then you are wrong.


Cameron Todd Willingham was executed February, 2004, for murdering his three young children by arson. Nationally known fire investigator Gerald Hurst reviewed the case documents, including the trial transcriptions an an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene and said in December 2004 that "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire."


Joseph Roger O'Dell III, executed in Virginia in 1997 for a rape and murder, the case's evidence was destroyed in 1997 after an attorney argued against the idea of posthumously exonerating O'Dell because "it would be shouted from the rooftops that ... Virginia executed an innocent man."


Johnny Garrett of Texas was executed February, 1992, for allegedly raping and murdering a nun. In 2004 cold-case DNA testing identified Leoncio Rueda as the rapist and murderer of another elderly victim killed four whom the prosecutor and police were certain was killed by the same assailant even at the time of the nun's murder.


Joe Arridy of Colorado was posthumously granted a pardon in 2011.


Chipita Rodriguez was posthumously exonerated 122 years after her death.


You've already denied Jesse Tafero as proof - who's co-defendant's conviction was overturned because it was shown that a third person committed the murders he was executed for - so I can't imagine you'll do anything other than remain willfully ignorant so that you can continue your moronic defense of capital punishment.



Also, for someone who toots their own "patriotic horn" so much, you seem awfully intent of forcing innocence to be proven rather than guilt.

---

Yeah, I said that because you'd have to be stupid to think the system is perfect. If the system isn't perfect then you are wrong.

Cameron Todd Willingham was executed February, 2004, for murdering his three young children by arson. Nationally known fire investigator Gerald Hurst reviewed the case documents, including the trial transcriptions an an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene and said in December 2004 that "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire."

Joseph Roger O'Dell III, executed in Virginia in 1997 for a rape and murder, the case's evidence was destroyed in 1997 after an attorney argued against the idea of posthumously exonerating O'Dell because "it would be shouted from the rooftops that ... Virginia executed an innocent man."

Johnny Garrett of Texas was executed February, 1992, for allegedly raping and murdering a nun. In 2004 cold-case DNA testing identified Leoncio Rueda as the rapist and murderer of another elderly victim killed four whom the prosecutor and police were certain was killed by the same assailant even at the time of the nun's murder.

Joe Arridy of Colorado was posthumously granted a pardon in 2011.

Chipita Rodriguez was posthumously exonerated 122 years after her death.

You've already denied Jesse Tafero as proof - who's co-defendant's conviction was overturned because it was shown that a third person committed the murders he was executed for - so I can't imagine you'll do anything other than remain willfully ignorant so that you can continue your moronic defense of capital punishment.

Also, for someone who toots their own "patriotic horn" so much, you seem awfully intent of forcing innocence to be proven rather than guilt.

It really is no use.


I've provided names, case numbers, brother's sister's aunt's boyfriend, and he cannot even argue a point. Not a suprise either.


And as for your last point, BRAVO!


People want to act like they wave the flag until you actually question what they believe, and it turns out they don't believe in the principals this country was based on at all.

---

Yeah, I said that because you'd have to be stupid to think the system is perfect. If the system isn't perfect then you are wrong.

Cameron Todd Willingham was executed February, 2004, for murdering his three young children by arson. Nationally known fire investigator Gerald Hurst reviewed the case documents, including the trial transcriptions an an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene and said in December 2004 that "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire."

Joseph Roger O'Dell III, executed in Virginia in 1997 for a rape and murder, the case's evidence was destroyed in 1997 after an attorney argued against the idea of posthumously exonerating O'Dell because "it would be shouted from the rooftops that ... Virginia executed an innocent man."

Johnny Garrett of Texas was executed February, 1992, for allegedly raping and murdering a nun. In 2004 cold-case DNA testing identified Leoncio Rueda as the rapist and murderer of another elderly victim killed four whom the prosecutor and police were certain was killed by the same assailant even at the time of the nun's murder.

Joe Arridy of Colorado was posthumously granted a pardon in 2011.

Chipita Rodriguez was posthumously exonerated 122 years after her death.

You've already denied Jesse Tafero as proof - who's co-defendant's conviction was overturned because it was shown that a third person committed the murders he was executed for - so I can't imagine you'll do anything other than remain willfully ignorant so that you can continue your moronic defense of capital punishment.

Also, for someone who toots their own "patriotic horn" so much, you seem awfully intent of forcing innocence to be proven rather than guilt.

By the way, if it isn't a florida case, it doesn't count. Duh!


Florida is the one state that has a spectacular system that never makes mistakes.

---

Yeah, I said that because you'd have to be stupid to think the system is perfect. If the system isn't perfect then you are wrong.


Cameron Todd Willingham was executed February, 2004, for murdering his three young children by arson. Nationally known fire investigator Gerald Hurst reviewed the case documents, including the trial transcriptions an an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene and said in December 2004 that "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire."


Joseph Roger O'Dell III, executed in Virginia in 1997 for a rape and murder, the case's evidence was destroyed in 1997 after an attorney argued against the idea of posthumously exonerating O'Dell because "it would be shouted from the rooftops that ... Virginia executed an innocent man."


Johnny Garrett of Texas was executed February, 1992, for allegedly raping and murdering a nun. In 2004 cold-case DNA testing identified Leoncio Rueda as the rapist and murderer of another elderly victim killed four whom the prosecutor and police were certain was killed by the same assailant even at the time of the nun's murder.


Joe Arridy of Colorado was posthumously granted a pardon in 2011.


Chipita Rodriguez was posthumously exonerated 122 years after her death.


You've already denied Jesse Tafero as proof - who's co-defendant's conviction was overturned because it was shown that a third person committed the murders he was executed for - so I can't imagine you'll do anything other than remain willfully ignorant so that you can continue your moronic defense of capital punishment.



Also, for someone who toots their own "patriotic horn" so much, you seem awfully intent of forcing innocence to be proven rather than guilt.

The problem is he wants an actual overturned case. 

 

It really is no use.


I've provided names, case numbers, brother's sister's aunt's boyfriend, and he cannot even argue a point. Not a suprise either.


And as for your last point, BRAVO!


People want to act like they wave the flag until you actually question what they believe, and it turns out they don't believe in the principals this country was based on at all.

He is trying to present this as a gotcha moment. No one has been exonerated (that I know of) and is unwilling to accept anything else. The point that there is plenty of evidence pointing to wrongful execution is not enough because it does not fit his narrative... I find his need for 100% factual proof to be interesting to say the least. 

---

The problem is he wants an actual overturned case. 

 


He is trying to present this as a gotcha moment. No one has been exonerated (that I know of) and is unwilling to accept anything else. The point that there is plenty of evidence pointing to wrongful execution is not enough because it does not fit his narrative... I find his need for 100% factual proof to be interesting to say the least.

I know what you are saying.


It is completely disingenuous, a shallow, threadbare point that is fooling no one, and makes him look foolish in the process.



Once someone is executed, the case ceases to be litigated, as, you know, the man is dead.


It would be a tad difficult to wheel them into court at that point.


However, that is the standard of proof ol' Dakota wants, or his head shall remain safely, soundly, buried in the sand.

---

The problem is he wants an actual overturned case. 

 


He is trying to present this as a gotcha moment. No one has been exonerated (that I know of) and is unwilling to accept anything else. The point that there is plenty of evidence pointing to wrongful execution is not enough because it does not fit his narrative... I find his need for 100% factual proof to be interesting to say the least.

Not just 100% proof......he needs a court ruling after the fact saying the wrong man was executed.


Having thousands of cases, studied appealate process, hundreds of actual briefs themselves, I cannot fathom how this would procedurally and logically come about.

---

Not just 100% proof......he needs a court ruling after the fact saying the wrong man was executed.


Having thousands of cases, studied appealate process, hundreds of actual briefs themselves, I cannot fathom how this would procedurally and logically come about.

And so, it has clearly never happened. This is obvious 

---

Anyway...

Anyone see Scotts latest tv ad? Him and his wife walking a beach, holding hands..geeezusss chrissst... I friggin Linda Blair'd all over my tv screen.

Lucky us. Two guys running and both as useful as a $3 bill. 

Then he;s talking to a warehouse full of workers. Puhleeeze. This schmuck is not a workers rights advocate. But, its on tv, it must be true how he cares about us little guys. 

There truly is no shame in politics.

---

Blakes Life Matters

Not just 100% proof......he needs a court ruling after the fact saying the wrong man was executed.


Having thousands of cases, studied appealate process, hundreds of actual briefs themselves, I cannot fathom how this would procedurally and logically come about.

 

Yeah, I said that because you'd have to be stupid to think the system is perfect. If the system isn't perfect then you are wrong.


Cameron Todd Willingham was executed February, 2004, for murdering his three young children by arson. Nationally known fire investigator Gerald Hurst reviewed the case documents, including the trial transcriptions an an hour-long videotape of the aftermath of the fire scene and said in December 2004 that "There's nothing to suggest to any reasonable arson investigator that this was an arson fire. It was just a fire."


Joseph Roger O'Dell III, executed in Virginia in 1997 for a rape and murder, the case's evidence was destroyed in 1997 after an attorney argued against the idea of posthumously exonerating O'Dell because "it would be shouted from the rooftops that ... Virginia executed an innocent man."


Johnny Garrett of Texas was executed February, 1992, for allegedly raping and murdering a nun. In 2004 cold-case DNA testing identified Leoncio Rueda as the rapist and murderer of another elderly victim killed four whom the prosecutor and police were certain was killed by the same assailant even at the time of the nun's murder.


Joe Arridy of Colorado was posthumously granted a pardon in 2011.


Chipita Rodriguez was posthumously exonerated 122 years after her death.


You've already denied Jesse Tafero as proof - who's co-defendant's conviction was overturned because it was shown that a third person committed the murders he was executed for - so I can't imagine you'll do anything other than remain willfully ignorant so that you can continue your moronic defense of capital punishment.



Also, for someone who toots their own "patriotic horn" so much, you seem awfully intent of forcing innocence to be proven rather than guilt.

There is still no proof of innocence. Legally, every one of those names are still listed as guilty of their crimes. If that is a problem for you, your issue is not with me for pointing it out, but with the legal system. Perhaps you "smart people" should challenge the legal system as to why they won't exonerate an innocent person, even if they have been executed. 

 

The reason it would never happen is that the legal system and the legal fraternity is and will always be self-serving first. It is a perversion of what the founding founders intended it to be, and they would rightfully be ashamed at what it has become.

 

So, remember, no matter what you say, you will never be able to win this because those people are legally judged guilty. They were never proven innocent. Until then, you simply have no argument. If and when that changes, I will gladly concede.

---

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.







 

There is still no proof of innocence. Legally, every one of those names are still listed as guilty of their crimes. If that is a problem for you, your issue is not with me for pointing it out, but with the legal system. Perhaps you "smart people" should challenge the legal system as to why they won't exonerate an innocent person, even if they have been executed. 

 

The reason it would never happen is that the legal system and the legal fraternity is and will always be self-serving first. It is a perversion of what the founding founders intended it to be, and they would rightfully be ashamed at what it has become.

 

So, remember, no matter what you say, you will never be able to win this because those people are legally judged guilty. They were never proven innocent. Until then, you simply have no argument. If and when that changes, I will gladly concede.

You concede to framing your argument on a point that has no basis for fact, reality, or the basis for how the law works.


Great. Well done.


Basically, you have avoided the issues at all cost, ignored points and questions as to your own argument. Like I said, disingenuous, and frankly a dishonest way to discuss an issue. And again.... You have fooled no one.


Only a fool really believes innocent people haven't been executed. That really isn't even your point anymore, though, and everyone sees right through this.


At the end, all you've done is certainly proven the point you are A-ok with innocent people being executed, which goes against everything our nation is based on.


Well done there as well. Thank you for making it so obvious

---