[firefeng]

Short summary: Texas executed a man who was empirically proven innocent before his death.

Article Here. It's very long - though not a bad read - but I've no doubt whatsoever that our esteemed population of intellects and truth-seekers will read through it thoroughly before jumping on the bandwagon of vigorous debate over the death penalty. But first, an apology: I'm sorry I linked to the New Yorker - I feel like I should inject bleach under my skin to get that unclean sensation out, so while I do that, you guys start screaming at each other until Alahel comes along and trolls the thread, getting it locked.

Srsly, mods, next time move it to Flame Wars...that's what it's there for, right?

[Knyte]

Read through it....but honestly...the moment I saw "Texas" and "death penalty" I just knew what most of the article would be talking about. Seriously...its Texas. Are you that surprised? If it was any other state I would be generally in a "wow...really?" state of mind. But its fucking Texas. Its like being surprised that something living breathes.

*awaits the flames of firefeng*

[firefeng]

Clearly, I should have just created a thread called "LOLTexas" because that's what the article was secretly about. Obviously, the implications of executing an innocent individual do not apply to other states because they are not LOLTexas. Okay, guys, thread's over. Nothing to see here. I'm off to bomb Texas, and then we can all bask in the blissful superiority of our legal system since the only blight on its otherwise perfect record was an entire state.

[pathwriter]

Reading the life story of the damned arson investigator and comparing it to Hollywood movies, I lost interest.

The justice system is flawed. This isn't really news. I don't know what can be said beyond that.

[firefeng]

Unfortunately you have to sift through The New Yorker hubris to get to the story. I'd hunt down a more dry source that includes all relevant information, but I'm really, really lazy.

[Alahel]

Quote

so while I do that, you guys start screaming at each other until Alahel comes along and trolls

Not worth my time, It would be different if there was even a small fight put up by the other side but when it boils down to repeated post of "I quit" or "i'm telling" or repeat point over and over ad nauseum that has already been adressed and proven false or a weak strawman generalization just to keep it going.{Example see any of your post} Or my personal fave "I'll ignore you".Only to sit and wait for a reply then read it its just sad realy.

I am curious what you think my opinion is on this outside of the obvious "LOLTexas"?I always find it odd how Neocons assume they know everything that everyone is thinking.

[firefeng]

Alahel, on 02 November 2009 - 01:10 PM, said:

I am curious what you think my opinion is on this outside of the obvious "LOLTexas"?I always find it odd how Neocons assume they know everything that everyone is thinking.

And I am curious why you think I'm a neocon, although really I know you don't think that, it's just a convenient slur that you repeat ad nauseum to elicit a reaction so that internet folk can distract you from your banal wife and the mangled monstrosity that burst forth from her loins. As for your opinion on the matter, I don't give the 200 or so neurons that comprise the whole of your reasoning capacity enough credit to believe you actually have an opinion outside of "LOLTexas". Feel free to surprise me by proving me wrong, just don't be offended if I don't hold my breath for it.

[DaEvilOne]

I read the whole thing. It reminds me when I read the story on the couple that spiked the baby. Only this story helps confirm my dislike of the death penalty as a form of punishment. I will conclude with what I concluded then.

Sad story is sad

[Alahel]

Quote

And I am curious why you think I'm a neocon

Walks,Talks and looks like a duck yada yada yada.

Quote

it's just a convenient slur that you repeat ad nauseum to elicit a reaction

Realy? You cant even come up with your own material so you copy paste mine?This is what you want me to debate?You are going to have to do better than that.I'm glad after years of post you finaly have figured out I am not the one who was in my Avatar it was my wife and child. I do hope you know that I am not old honest Abe either but you are not that quick so I wont assume.But I do find it curious that you still seem more focused on my wife and daughter then me.{Not realy your type always prefer to fight women and children}
I do find it odd how you seem to think I would be bothered by a child on the interenet talking shit.{No doubt because you take this so seriously as its all you have} Like a 10 year old on Xbox live or PSN no bias here you are easy enough to swat down and laugh at.{Or as the chidren say PWNED!!!}

Now as for my Opinion on this article wich you so clearly want ,the only thing I found of intrest in the entire thing that did not make me think this is sad and horrible and LOLTexas was this.

Quote

An even starker shift occurred with Father Monaghan’s testimony. In his first statement, he had depicted Willingham as a devastated father who had to be repeatedly restrained from risking his life. Yet, as investigators were preparing to arrest Willingham, he concluded that Willingham had been too emotional (“He seemed to have the type of distress that a woman who had given birth would have upon seeing her children die”); and he expressed a “gut feeling” that Willingham had “something to do with the setting of the fire.”

I am always amazed at how quickly a person will change there tune even if they were present, or saw what happened with there own eyes when confronted by the opinons of so called "experts." His story is sad,but this happens every day even in FFXI it happens. Someone tries something or sudgest an idea only to be swat down by the elite "experts." We live in a time where the majority of people dont take the time to think for themselves and would rather listen to "experts" all the while they dont bother to check and see if these people have the credentials to be called an expert.For real life examples see the "Tea party movement" or "Birthers" Or Faux news.

It is just a sad fact that some people can be conviced of just about anything no matter how absurd with such little effort.

[Cruzandercerberus]

Alahel, on 03 November 2009 - 10:01 AM, said:

a person will change there tune

[Alahel]

Thats the best you have?Yes I made an error and fast typed as did you in the last thread.Three times in fact it happens to everyone but please do continue.Oh no a spelling error on the internet call the POLICE!!!!

We get it you could not debate your way out of a paperbag and quit like a bitch after you admitted defeat by your superior.

[Cruzandercerberus]

lol. You are still sub-human degenerate trash.

It is hilarious that you argued for pages about one example invalidating a rule and then end your post with an entire paragraph of vague generalizations and weasel words.

You are a slobbering piece of garbage. Reactionary leftists are just Right-wingers with an inferiority complex.

[cidbahamut]

Proofreading and the edit button will work wonders for you while posting on a forum.

[Alahel]

I find it amusing that you and Fire seek my approval with such vigor.{Actualy I find it sad and a sign of mental health issues}

Quote

It is hilarious that you argued for pages about one example invalidating a rule

I find only fools follow generalizations and use them to speak in absolutes.Oh and point of fact I did'nt argue I baited you for my amusement wich others saw you walk into time after time.Good to know that you admit there is one example that invalidates your entire line of logic.Only takes one.I guess thats why you quit and admitted defeat. Now is there anything on this topic you need or is this just more attention seeking on your part?

[Cruzandercerberus]

Yes we know. Generalizations are true when they confirm your prejudices. That would be faith. Goddamn right wing "liberals" are a fucking mess.

Even though I quit arguing with a brick wall of stupid I still win because the final proof of my statement that in the end force wins has been shown to be true.

Eat my shit, loser.

The legal system is never going to be perfect, there is always going to be a line drawn in the degree of punishment inflicted based on mens rea. With the abysmal record of arson investigators in achieving conviction, I can understand how it would be difficult to believe that this was anything but an intentional act. No one will ever know but him.

[Alahel]

Quote

With the abysmal record of arson investigators in achieving conviction, It's hard to believe that this was anything but an intentional act. No one will ever know but him.

So you did not even read the article?{I'll understand if you did not since its long for you and your poor reading comprehension}I'm curious if you think he was guilty or do you mean to imply that the arson investigators the first time around are guilty?If its the previous then I think its safe to say the evidence shows just the opposite,And that its not hard to believe he was innocent at all.Wich was my previous point its sad how all the evidence pointed away from him and yet all it took was two men to walk in and say "nope he did it" to send this man to his death.They did not have the credentials to make this call.Whats worse is how people rolled over in light of these mens opinions and turned on a man they called a friend/neighbor.If only it stopped there he sat on death row as people time after time ignored the evidence and did not even take the minimal bit of effort to look into if he was actualy guilty.{its not like his life depened on it}

I ignored the rest of your post as it had nothing to do with topic and is just more attention whoring,If you had put up a decent debate before maybe I would consider responding but since it will just end with you crying,ignoring,rambling on and on about how inferior women are and why they should not be allowed to vote,speak,breathe. Why should I bother.

[Cruzandercerberus]

Credentials have nothing to do with truth/untruth of an assertion. That would be an appeal to authority, which is a logical fallacy.

Someone might question the credentials of the experts, or take what they say as truth when it isn't. Or not, we don't know. unless I knew the intent of the jurors, which I don't (at least not nearly as well as you think you know my intent) Such an impact is speculative as the testimony provided. I simply stated I understood how such a conclusion could be reached by a jury given the physical evidence (blocked rear door, possible accellerant, conflicting reports from eyewitnesses) I was not there so I have no idea how I would have acted in the situation. I don't do jury duty.

Alahel, on 03 November 2009 - 11:42 AM, said:

mabey

Lol.

I also don't hate women, just your ugly wife for cursing the next generation with the burden of supporting the propogation of your junk genetics.

[Alahel]

So many edits your mind must be a serious clusterfuck no doubt like Glen beck your mentor.Is it realy that hard to get out your point the first time?

Quote

at least not nearly as well as you think you know my intent

I at no point assumed your point or intent wich is why I asked in the previous post.Its better to let people clarify there stance then respond you should try this.

Quote

Someone might question the credentials of the experts

As was stated in the article the men who help to convict him are not actual "experts" wich was my point{Do I realy need to repeat this again?} They used the old tried and true hand me down logic with no real schooling or science involved.Its not a matter of questioning there credentials as they had none. Again did you read the whole article?

Quote

I also don't hate women

Who said hate? I said you think you are superior.{freudian slip}On your part aside you and Fire sure do seem to be fascinated with my wife and daughter {No doubt because you have never seen or spoken to a woman outside of your mothers} Its like you cant deal with me. Its just sad realy almost like a broken ....... yada yada yada .

[firefeng]

Forum said:

This post is hidden because you have chosen to ignore posts by Alahel . View it anyway?

This is gonna be another thread where I see Cruz arguing with empty space again, isn't it? (Figuratively and literally, as it were.)

[Cruzandercerberus]

Alahel, on 03 November 2009 - 12:11 PM, said:

As was stated in the article the men who help to convict him are not actual "experts" wich was my point.

Actual as in what? A License? A degree in fire science? All pointless arguments from authority. People believe politicians in debates because they're assumed to be experts. They are not.

I disagree with all forms of licenses. What do all successful butchers/scammers/ponzi schemers all have in common? They were licensed.

For example before widespread accreditation, you didn't have to go to law school to become a lawyer. In fact, a vast majority of lawyers didn't have any formal education beyond the high school level. They graduated from their basic courses in the 3 Rs, and then went in as an apprentice at a law firm, where they "read law" for years until becoming competent in the practice of it. Abraham Lincoln is one of countless famous people in the US to have obtained his law experience in this manner.

The simple fact is that most jobs could be done by anyone with 3 brain cells (especially lawyer). Fire inspector/investigator included. Licensing is just a way for those in the system to screw young people and keep their aggregate salaries high by shutting people out of the system, it's a recipe for systemic corruption and societal failure (see: Detroit).

What should have been done is that the defense should have gotten their own experts to try and rebut the testimony of the investigator.

Or we should take some of these millions of lawyers that are being spewed forth onto the public and create professional, paid juries out of them.