i am neither happy nor sad he suffered. more like, i don't care... like speedy often says, "i don't give a rat's ass." i am not happy, i am not sad. i just am wondering why not sooner?
because like most things in the US ... the decision/timing is based on $$$ ... like how much money can the prisoner industrial complex extract from the people before finally killing him ...
do death row inmates have a job? sure they get tax money to feed, shelter & give health care too
They should work to produce something and they should receive minimum comforts to limit their expense so if little entertainment is needed to keep them out of solitary or needing special care then so be it. Then later if it's found he was railroaded on false charges he can be let go.
They should work to produce something and they should receive minimum comforts to limit their expense so if little entertainment is needed to keep them out of solitary or needing special care then so be it. Then later if it's found he was railroaded on false charges he can be let go.
I don't follow you here, callen - what is considered special care? Or little entertainment?
Maybe I AM callous (honestly, I know I'm not, but cool by me if my views would make others believe I am), but I have no problem with not providing entertainment to some sick fuck who demonstrated they have no respect for life. Let them entertain themselves.
Notice he never mentions what true justice would be? All he said was it's not justice, it's vengeance, to kill a bad person for killing a good person. So what is true justice then?
Your question lies at the root of the death penalty debate.
For some, in this case those most directly impacted by the rape, sodomy, shooting and live burial... justice is what was levied. Steve and Susie Neiman asked jurors to give Lockett the death penalty for taking the life of their only child, who had graduated from Perry High School two weeks before her death.
They wrote: "We were left with an empty home full of memories and the deafening silence of the lack of life within its walls. ... We feel that the only thing left to do is let Clayton Lockett serve out the sentence of death that a jury sentenced him to. Anything less is a travesty of justice."
Ironically, Bornt (one of the survivors) wrote a letter Feb. 7 stating: "Clayton being put to death by lethal injection is almost too easy of a way to die after what he did to us. ... He will just be strapped to the table and will go to sleep and his heart will stop beating."
You can't argue with the pain that the parents are going through. I can't imagine it, and I hope I will never have to experience it. Again, I can understand their feelings, their hurt, their anger, their demand for payback.
But as I've said to you many, many times, Thirty, justice has to be, by definition, dispassionate, balanced and equitable. If it is not those things, it is not justice, by both the legal and linguistic meanings of the word. Justice cannot be based on emotion, hurt, outrage, grief. Victims and their families, and we as individuals, may of course feel those things. But it is the duty of a justice system to not be swayed by emotion or outrage, because that would not be dispassionate and therefore cannot be justice.
It is for that very reason that we have courts to administer justice removed from those individual biases. It is for that very reason that courts, not victims' families, determine sentences. If justice is about giving the victims' families the payback they decide, why would we even need courts? Why not let them do it themselves? Why? Because that's not what justice really is. Because that would undermine the social fabric. The courts exist precisely to maintain order and reason in the face of often overwhelming passions. If they defer to those passions, they have failed, and justice is impossible. And when think it's okay to use criminals as guinea pigs because they're nasty people anyway, then they have become dysfunctional and are perverting the very notion of justice.
And that's why I am not convinced by arguments for the death penalty that rely on graphic descriptions of crimes or references to the parents' grief. It's not because I don't feel just as horrified or just as moved as you. It's not because I'm taking the side of the criminal. It's simply because that approach always misses the entire point of what justice is.
Post edited by wolfamongwolves on
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Am I missing the point that an execution can be botched if the person ends up dead. Now I don't want to get into a pissing match with people who think that he should rot in jail forever or that he can find god and become a good citizen, but when you are involved in a b&e, shoot the owner when they arrive home and then bury the body, ahhhhhhh I don't really care that he was gasping for air and looked like he was dying a bad death.
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
They should work to produce something and they should receive minimum comforts to limit their expense so if little entertainment is needed to keep them out of solitary or needing special care then so be it. Then later if it's found he was railroaded on false charges he can be let go.
I don't follow you here, callen - what is considered special care? Or little entertainment?
Maybe I AM callous (honestly, I know I'm not, but cool by me if my views would make others believe I am), but I have no problem with not providing entertainment to some sick fuck who demonstrated they have no respect for life. Let them entertain themselves.
Right and I agree. Let me clarify. If a tv will allow inmates to chill so you can house more of them together thereby reducing costs, provide it. If we gave no mental enrichment and that then results in inmate losing ones mind, requiring separate cells , food, more staff etc give them tv. So minimal creature comforts to minimize costs.
They should work to produce something and they should receive minimum comforts to limit their expense so if little entertainment is needed to keep them out of solitary or needing special care then so be it. Then later if it's found he was railroaded on false charges he can be let go.
I don't follow you here, callen - what is considered special care? Or little entertainment?
Maybe I AM callous (honestly, I know I'm not, but cool by me if my views would make others believe I am), but I have no problem with not providing entertainment to some sick fuck who demonstrated they have no respect for life. Let them entertain themselves.
Right and I agree. Let me clarify. If a tv will allow inmates to chill so you can house more of them together thereby reducing costs, provide it. If we gave no mental enrichment and that then results in inmate losing ones mind, requiring separate cells , food, more staff etc give them tv. So minimal creature comforts to minimize costs.
Fair enough.
If we're talking cost reduction, I'd say provide books, crayons, paper. TV doesn't necessarily provide mental benefits or salvage sanity. When I was a kid, I found and was provided with non-TV ways to entertain myself (hell, even as an adult I still do). So let those convicted of heinous crimes do the same.
0
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
because 75% of the countries on earth do something, does that make it right? norway's prison system hands out gaming systems. how many prisons have internet? ever looked at the prison systems in latin america?
south of the border on down = a free for all circus controlled by inmates
just sayin
No of course it doesn't make it right per se. And you're thinking of it back to front - discarding the death penalty isn't right because majority have done it. The majority have done it because it is right, as they've found through years and centuries of experience.
Also, when you look a little deeper, beyond just focusing on that top line statistic, look at which countries have abolished it and which ones haven't, when you look at the condition of their societies, levels of violent crime and homicide, you start to see pretty hard evidence for how and why the death penalty is such an abject failure. Not the least of which is that those countries have found that effective justice - in most cases more effective justice - is achievable without having to execute. In other words, you find that the death penalty is entirely unnecessary. No country has found it necessary to reinstate the death penalty once it abolished it. Why? Because those 75% of countries abolished it because it was right (and has proven to be so) - it is not right because so many of them abolished it.
As for whatever you have to say about gaming systems or internet in prison that is a different discussion entirely - it is a superficial tangent that has zero relevance to whether it is ethically permissible to kill prisoners. In the same way, ineffective prison control in Latin America has nothing to do with whether the state has the right to kill anyone.
Post edited by wolfamongwolves on
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
I'll say in the same breath that I generally respect the views of those who oppose the death penalty but also call bullshit on those who paint proponents of it as lusting for blood.
PS to wolf - there's a drug shortage crisis?! Where? Have you not seen the plethora of commercials practically begging people to partake of their pharmaceutical wares?
No, I haven't, because i don't live there, but anyway I'm talking about lethal injection drugs for executions. And the reason why this shit happened, why the big execution-happy states are having a few horror stories lately is because they have run out of their usual approved poisons, because the EU won't supply them. So if they want to keep the killings on schedule, they're reduced to guinea-pigging prisoners with untested drugs. Result: 47-minute executions, seizures, heart attacks, cancelled executions. All because it's more important to keep up the killing than to give a shit about how they do it. Criminal incompetence and nothing less.
As for calling" bullshit on those who paint proponents of it as lusting for blood": read Chadwick's many nauseatingly violent and even gleeful suggestions about what to do with murderers on this thread and on the main DP thread, and come back to me.
Post edited by wolfamongwolves on
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
Notice he never mentions what true justice would be? All he said was it's not justice, it's vengeance, to kill a bad person for killing a good person. So what is true justice then?
Your question lies at the root of the death penalty debate.
For some, in this case those most directly impacted by the rape, sodomy, shooting and live burial... justice is what was levied. Steve and Susie Neiman asked jurors to give Lockett the death penalty for taking the life of their only child, who had graduated from Perry High School two weeks before her death.
They wrote: "We were left with an empty home full of memories and the deafening silence of the lack of life within its walls. ... We feel that the only thing left to do is let Clayton Lockett serve out the sentence of death that a jury sentenced him to. Anything less is a travesty of justice."
Ironically, Bornt (one of the survivors) wrote a letter Feb. 7 stating: "Clayton being put to death by lethal injection is almost too easy of a way to die after what he did to us. ... He will just be strapped to the table and will go to sleep and his heart will stop beating."
You can't argue with the pain that the parents are going through. I can't imagine it, and I hope I will never have to experience it. Again, I can understand their feelings, their hurt, their anger, their demand for payback.
But as I've said to you many, many times, Thirty, justice has to be, by definition, dispassionate, balanced and equitable. If it is not those things, it is not justice, by both the legal and linguistic meanings of the word. Justice cannot be based on emotion, hurt, outrage, grief. Victims and their families, and we as individuals, may of course feel those things. But it is the duty of a justice system to not be swayed by emotion or outrage, because that would not be dispassionate and therefore cannot be justice.
It is for that very reason that we have courts to administer justice removed from those individual biases. It is for that very reason that courts, not victims' families, determine sentences. If justice is about giving the victims' families the payback they decide, why would we even need courts? Why not let them do it themselves? Why? Because that's not what justice really is. Because that would undermine the social fabric. The courts exist precisely to maintain order and reason in the face of often overwhelming passions. If they defer to those passions, they have failed, and justice is impossible. And when think it's okay to use criminals as guinea pigs because they're nasty people anyway, then they have become dysfunctional and are perverting the very notion of justice.
And that's why I am not convinced by arguments for the death penalty that rely on graphic descriptions of crimes or references to the parents' grief. It's not because I don't feel just as horrified or just as moved as you. It's not because I'm taking the side of the criminal. It's simply because that approach always misses the entire point of what justice is.
We have gone through this discussion before, Wolf, in public and in private, so I'm not inclined to get fully into it with you again; however, what I would speak to is the rich irony associated with the following statement you offered in your first post:
The reason lethal injection is used is because other methods of killing prisoners were deemed to be "cruel and unusual punishment", in violation of the 8th Amendment. The fact that this execution was carried out in full explicit knowledge that it may very well result in a drawn-out and torturous death illustrates the depth of the empty cynical lip-service that is paid to the 8th Amendment, and to real justice.
I find it incredibly ironic that murderers, who blatantly disregard the most sacred laws of the land- stealing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from innocents... then scurry behind them seeking the protection and comfort they afford once apprehended.
You also stated in this post justice has to be, by definition, dispassionate, balanced and equitable. Well... fair enough... lets let it be that then. Is an outdated gaming system, small allowance, on-line university degree and limited internet usage a 'dispassionate, balanced, and equitable punishment' for murdering 77 people?
the drug manufacturers are no longer selling lethal drugs to states and countries that use the drugs for execution. these are mainly european drug companies and the death penalty is banned in those countries. they do not believe in the death penalty. they do not want their medications used to kill people. they are basically turning money down and i admire them for that.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
(*With apologies to polaris: I tend to agree that a lot of this discussion belongs in the other thread, not here.... Last off-topic word from me, I promise.)
I find it incredibly ironic that murderers, who blatantly disregard the most sacred laws of the land- stealing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from innocents... then scurry behind them seeking the protection and comfort they afford once apprehended.
You also stated in this post justice has to be, by definition, dispassionate, balanced and equitable. Well... fair enough... lets let it be that then. Is an outdated gaming system, small allowance, on-line university degree and limited internet usage a 'dispassionate, balanced, and equitable punishment' for murdering 77 people?
You know what? I agree with you on both counts. It is ironic that someone who violates the "the most sacred laws of the land" should then rely on the protection of the most "sacred" of them all - the Constitution. But I also find it ironic that you should speak of the "sacredness" of those laws, yet imply that we can play just as fast and loose with who they apply to. As with human rights, the constitution applies to all, regardless of how odious. It might be ironic of a murderer who violates someone's right to life to demand his right to life, who violates the law to expect the protection of the law. But ironic or no, whether we hate the fact or not, the fact is those rights and that constitution still applies to him. If that were not the case, the sanctity the constitution, of human rights are null and void.
And I agree that the comforts Anders Breivik might appear to be enjoying don't seem particularly fair or just. I'm not saying they are. I spoke in terms of imprisonment for life - I didn't speak of the particular conditions, and personally, I would not be thrilled about such freedoms being afforded when limiting freedom is the objective of the penalty.
But though I agree with you on the points you made, neither of them make any difference to the ethics of the DP.
93: Slane
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
the drug manufacturers are no longer selling lethal drugs to states and countries that use the drugs for execution. these are mainly european drug companies and the death penalty is banned in those countries. they do not believe in the death penalty. they do not want their medications used to kill people. they are basically turning money down and i admire them for that.
(*With apologies to polaris: I tend to agree that a lot of this discussion belongs in the other thread, not here.... Last off-topic word from me, I promise.)
I find it incredibly ironic that murderers, who blatantly disregard the most sacred laws of the land- stealing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from innocents... then scurry behind them seeking the protection and comfort they afford once apprehended.
You also stated in this post justice has to be, by definition, dispassionate, balanced and equitable. Well... fair enough... lets let it be that then. Is an outdated gaming system, small allowance, on-line university degree and limited internet usage a 'dispassionate, balanced, and equitable punishment' for murdering 77 people?
You know what? I agree with you on both counts. It is ironic that someone who violates the "the most sacred laws of the land" should then rely on the protection of the most "sacred" of them all - the Constitution. But I also find it ironic that you should speak of the "sacredness" of those laws, yet imply that we can play just as fast and loose with who they apply to. As with human rights, the constitution applies to all, regardless of how odious. It might be ironic of a murderer who violates someone's right to life to demand his right to life, who violates the law to expect the protection of the law. But ironic or no, whether we hate the fact or not, the fact is those rights and that constitution still applies to him. If that were not the case, the sanctity the constitution, of human rights are null and void.
And I agree that the comforts Anders Breivik might appear to be enjoying don't seem particularly fair or just. I'm not saying they are. I spoke in terms of imprisonment for life - I didn't speak of the particular conditions, and personally, I would not be thrilled about such freedoms being afforded when limiting freedom is the objective of the penalty.
But though I agree with you on the points you made, neither of them make any difference to the ethics of the DP.
Respectfully tabled for the integrity of the thread.
He shot a 19 year old woman with a sawed off shotgun and then watched as 2 accomplices buried her alive. She happened to walk in on him as he was robbing the house. Who cares what happened to him on the gurney. He did it to himself.
I think it is absolutely DISGUSTING that the people trying to murder him are the same people who took him to the hospital to try and save him so that they can try and murder him again later. Talk about barbaric and fucking sick and twisted.
What this criminal did is totally irrelevant to this discussion IMHO. How I feel about that creep has no bearing for me. To be clear I feel no sympathy for him at all (but I do have plenty for his family). No matter how bad he or anyone else on death row is, nothing can justify a government murdering its citizens out of pure revenge. I can't believe people think that governments committing this act is anything other than fucking primitive and complete embarrassment for what people like to call a civilized society.
Well, yet ANOTHER reason to be against government sanctioned murder of its own citizens, as though I didn't have enough reasons already.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
PJ_Soul I agree murder is unexcusable but in this case and others like it I have zero sympathy and even less thought on the matter I don't care if he clenched his teeth till they shattered and begged for death, maybe they should go back to the gallos and rope.
I think it is absolutely DISGUSTING that the people trying to murder him are the same people who took him to the hospital to try and save him so that they can try and murder him again later. Talk about barbaric and fucking sick and twisted.
What this criminal did is totally irrelevant to this discussion IMHO. How I feel about that creep has no bearing for me. To be clear I feel no sympathy for him at all (but I do have plenty for his family). No matter how bad he or anyone else on death row is, nothing can justify a government murdering its citizens out of pure revenge. I can't believe people think that governments committing this act is anything other than fucking primitive and complete embarrassment for what people like to call a civilized society.
Well, yet ANOTHER reason to be against government sanctioned murder of its own citizens, as though I didn't have enough reasons already.
Don't yell too loudly from your soapbox. I'm glad your experiences have brought you to such a 'civilized' state of mind above all us primitive people... but if someone close to you got raped, shot, and buried alive amid their tormentors' laughter... something tells me you might be finding some reasons to support capital punishment.
I find it hard to believe that we are not good at killing a person. Why wouldn't they first administer a knock out drug? After that you could have a donkey kick him in the head and it would be done and done.
we are/were very good at it, the problem has become , an ever changing definition of cruel and unusual. The attack is now on pharmacies and a few of the docs willing to serve the state in this way. I have an idea. Lets shoot them up with a hotshot of herion instead. That should do it right?
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
disagree with the states that have this LAW on their books , seek to change it. Until then,be damned sure they are guilty and dont fuck around with how. Firing squad worked VERY well. Let some of these want to see what its like to kill douchebags see whats its like then. They get to help bury the poor fucker too. AFTER cleaning up the blood and brains.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Comments
Maybe I AM callous (honestly, I know I'm not, but cool by me if my views would make others believe I am), but I have no problem with not providing entertainment to some sick fuck who demonstrated they have no respect for life. Let them entertain themselves.
But as I've said to you many, many times, Thirty, justice has to be, by definition, dispassionate, balanced and equitable. If it is not those things, it is not justice, by both the legal and linguistic meanings of the word. Justice cannot be based on emotion, hurt, outrage, grief. Victims and their families, and we as individuals, may of course feel those things. But it is the duty of a justice system to not be swayed by emotion or outrage, because that would not be dispassionate and therefore cannot be justice.
It is for that very reason that we have courts to administer justice removed from those individual biases. It is for that very reason that courts, not victims' families, determine sentences. If justice is about giving the victims' families the payback they decide, why would we even need courts? Why not let them do it themselves? Why? Because that's not what justice really is. Because that would undermine the social fabric. The courts exist precisely to maintain order and reason in the face of often overwhelming passions. If they defer to those passions, they have failed, and justice is impossible. And when think it's okay to use criminals as guinea pigs because they're nasty people anyway, then they have become dysfunctional and are perverting the very notion of justice.
And that's why I am not convinced by arguments for the death penalty that rely on graphic descriptions of crimes or references to the parents' grief. It's not because I don't feel just as horrified or just as moved as you. It's not because I'm taking the side of the criminal. It's simply because that approach always misses the entire point of what justice is.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
The poison from the poison stream caught up to you ELEVEN years ago and you floated out of here. Sept. 14, 08
If we're talking cost reduction, I'd say provide books, crayons, paper. TV doesn't necessarily provide mental benefits or salvage sanity. When I was a kid, I found and was provided with non-TV ways to entertain myself (hell, even as an adult I still do). So let those convicted of heinous crimes do the same.
Go back to the firing squad.
Also, when you look a little deeper, beyond just focusing on that top line statistic, look at which countries have abolished it and which ones haven't, when you look at the condition of their societies, levels of violent crime and homicide, you start to see pretty hard evidence for how and why the death penalty is such an abject failure. Not the least of which is that those countries have found that effective justice - in most cases more effective justice - is achievable without having to execute. In other words, you find that the death penalty is entirely unnecessary. No country has found it necessary to reinstate the death penalty once it abolished it. Why? Because those 75% of countries abolished it because it was right (and has proven to be so) - it is not right because so many of them abolished it.
As for whatever you have to say about gaming systems or internet in prison that is a different discussion entirely - it is a superficial tangent that has zero relevance to whether it is ethically permissible to kill prisoners. In the same way, ineffective prison control in Latin America has nothing to do with whether the state has the right to kill anyone.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
http://www.npr.org/2013/10/26/241011316/lacking-lethal-injection-drugs-states-find-untested-backups
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/world/57561395-68/death-execution-drug-penalty.html.csp
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/28/us-executions-delayed-drug-shortage
As for calling" bullshit on those who paint proponents of it as lusting for blood": read Chadwick's many nauseatingly violent and even gleeful suggestions about what to do with murderers on this thread and on the main DP thread, and come back to me.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
The reason lethal injection is used is because other methods of killing prisoners were deemed to be "cruel and unusual punishment", in violation of the 8th Amendment. The fact that this execution was carried out in full explicit knowledge that it may very well result in a drawn-out and torturous death illustrates the depth of the empty cynical lip-service that is paid to the 8th Amendment, and to real justice.
I find it incredibly ironic that murderers, who blatantly disregard the most sacred laws of the land- stealing life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from innocents... then scurry behind them seeking the protection and comfort they afford once apprehended.
You also stated in this post justice has to be, by definition, dispassionate, balanced and equitable. Well... fair enough... lets let it be that then. Is an outdated gaming system, small allowance, on-line university degree and limited internet usage a 'dispassionate, balanced, and equitable punishment' for murdering 77 people?
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
And I agree that the comforts Anders Breivik might appear to be enjoying don't seem particularly fair or just. I'm not saying they are. I spoke in terms of imprisonment for life - I didn't speak of the particular conditions, and personally, I would not be thrilled about such freedoms being afforded when limiting freedom is the objective of the penalty.
But though I agree with you on the points you made, neither of them make any difference to the ethics of the DP.
96: Cork, Dublin
00: Dublin
06: London, Dublin
07: London, Copenhagen, Nijmegen
09: Manchester, London
10: Dublin, Belfast, London & Berlin
11: San José
12: Isle of Wight, Copenhagen, Ed in Manchester & London x2
agreed
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Godfather.
What this criminal did is totally irrelevant to this discussion IMHO. How I feel about that creep has no bearing for me. To be clear I feel no sympathy for him at all (but I do have plenty for his family). No matter how bad he or anyone else on death row is, nothing can justify a government murdering its citizens out of pure revenge. I can't believe people think that governments committing this act is anything other than fucking primitive and complete embarrassment for what people like to call a civilized society.
Well, yet ANOTHER reason to be against government sanctioned murder of its own citizens, as though I didn't have enough reasons already.
Godfather.
but there has to be a better way ...
Jason P for POTUS 2016 .... Oh shit ... You have to be 40 years old ... X_X
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14