savages

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
I always appreciate the race to the bottom of revenge fantasy that death penalty supporters do in any thread like this.

What would you suggest for punishment if they are found guilty?

Death. Quickly, painlessly, quietly, and privately. It is never right to take a life let alone to relish in the act but we cannot allow misanthropes like this to walk among us whenever it is in our power to prevent them permanently from ever having the chance to repeat their heinous acts. There can be no redemption for "people" like this. They are too far gone and their removal from society should be not a matter of vindication or justice but should be about disposing of useless wastes of resources so that the rest of us may live just a little bit better. They should be remorselessly removed from society much as one would expel unwanted excess mucus from their nasal passages into a tissue and then throw it in the garbage and never think of it again. We euthanize domesticated dogs for doing far less serious things to people than what these four have allegedly done. And we do it not because we are punishing the animal but so that it cannot happen again. So should it be with human beings like these. Their existence amounts to nothing and to keep them alive would only be like taking money that could have done somebody more worthy some good and flushing it straight down the toilet.

You wrote a lot of words just to say "Kill them, I must know someone is dead so I can feel better about myself and my empty soulless existence that only knows joy when others are dead."

Maybe you and the rest of the death worshipers could get together and think of something that doesn't sound like the justification for eugenics.

 

[fallout man]

Originally posted by: daishi5
I know it is not much, but probably only one of them was actually a psychopath. Apparently psychopaths are very good at getting people to go along with their ideas, and they are very manipulative. Like the kids at columbine, one was actually psychotic and he tried to get several friends to help him. Most people don't actually go along with it, but the true psychopath is so good at manipulation that they fool them into thinking it was a joke, and they are often so good that they fool professionals. So most likely we have one true sicko, and 3 other kids who he has also ruined.

One of the accused boys' dad blames it all on one fuck-up. He said something along the lines of "I dread the day I met that kid."

Steven Spader, 17, and Christopher Gribble, 19, who face murder charges, were longtime friends and had committed crimes together in the past. Earlier this year, Spader had befriended William Marks, a friendly and eager-to-belong 18-year-old. How the fourth, 17-year-old Quinn Glover, knew the others, and how the murderous night was allegedly conceived remains murky.

Spader, a longtime Boy Scout who once shaved his head clean to play Daddy Warbucks in ?Annie,?? in recent months grew increasingly distant and depressed, often disappearing for days at a time until the police brought him home.

Gribble, a home-schooled Mormon who was planning to become a church missionary, had rebelled against a sheltered upbringing to become a dark and brooding figure who obsessed over perceived slights and expressed a fondess for knives.

Marks, already an insecure and angst-ridden teen, apparently took an alarming turn earlier this year when he met Spader, whose influence sent him into a downward spiral. And Glover - a musician who performed in coffee shops, sang in the chorus, and starred in a school production of ?Cabaret?? - fell into a bad crowd in an effort to fit in.

Link


bad apples

William Marks began getting in trouble when he met Steven Spader, 17, one of the accused ringleaders, James Marks said.

?He (Spader) knocked on my door in April and it?s been downhill ever since,? Marks said. ?I?ve had the police at my door every other day.?

The most recent sign of trouble occurred the night of the murder, when Spader and a group of teens gathered at Marks? home.

Spader flipped open a folding knife, Marks said. ?I told him he should probably get rid of it,? Marks said. ?It was new and he wanted to show it to us. He didn?t say he was gonna go kill somebody.?

Marks said he ordered his son to stay away from Spader ?until I was blue in the face . . . (Spader) would come up on caller ID and my son wouldn?t answer.?

.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
I always appreciate the race to the bottom of revenge fantasy that death penalty supporters do in any thread like this.

What would you suggest for punishment if they are found guilty?

Life in prison?

You know, like a civilized country.

LIFE, HARD LABOR.

 

[gingermeggs]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
This is what our violent system of competition produces, people who are insane.

Yep'
The legal system feeds off this behavior, it encourages it, via social inequity and a failure to address social justice issues. It makes the "lowly" feel scared and hopeless.
How else could the justice system justify its bloated take of the GDP. How many pollies are law grads?
The system should be held accountable, one day in the future people will look how this system operated and study how unjust it was.
People can't afford the time to raise their children to be good and caring people anymore, their kids do drugs at younger ages and more potent then imagined 20 years ago- pot is a good example, nowadays it has 20% THC with no anti-psychotic CBD in it at all, they are exposed to violence almost continuously on tv, games, school, pro sports and wars on tv. Some of the factors are things like lack of fatherly presence in kids lives, men these days as soon as thing get rocky in a marriage pull the pin and fuck off (usually cause of financial pressure), leaving the mother to be the sole parent- 50% divorce rate these days.
Another thing is how many hours working parents have to work to provide a house and the basic necessities for a family, a father should take his kids to the park and play with them for an hour a day, not come home exhausted and frustrated by his lot in life lead to a cynical, negative outlook with is handed down to the children.
It is the self absorbed RICH' causing these things and we all pay dearly for our apathy to change the system.
The system is largely culpable.
It's a SHAME on us all!

 

[Fear No Evil]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Why can't American citizens be responsible with machetes? This is why we need more legislation banning them. :roll:

Keep your BS out of threads like this. Is there a button somewhere that turns you being an asshole off?

But its perfectly OK when the left spouts in with their anti-gun BS in every gun thread? I may be an asshole but I am right in this case. If a gun were used here we'd be getting all sorts of posts about banning guns.

 

[umbrella39]

Nonsense. There are only a handful of people here who are anti gun. Most of us are either proud owners ourselves or at the very least tolerant of those law abiding citizens that are. This thread had nothing to do with gun banning before you showed up. I think most would agree it's a shame she didn't have some sort of alarm AND a gun so she could have killed these bastards where they stood.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: fleshconsumed

Originally posted by: CitizenKain
I always appreciate the race to the bottom of revenge fantasy that death penalty supporters do in any thread like this.

What would you suggest for punishment if they are found guilty?

Death. Quickly, painlessly, quietly, and privately. It is never right to take a life let alone to relish in the act but we cannot allow misanthropes like this to walk among us whenever it is in our power to prevent them permanently from ever having the chance to repeat their heinous acts. There can be no redemption for "people" like this. They are too far gone and their removal from society should be not a matter of vindication or justice but should be about disposing of useless wastes of resources so that the rest of us may live just a little bit better. They should be remorselessly removed from society much as one would expel unwanted excess mucus from their nasal passages into a tissue and then throw it in the garbage and never think of it again. We euthanize domesticated dogs for doing far less serious things to people than what these four have allegedly done. And we do it not because we are punishing the animal but so that it cannot happen again. So should it be with human beings like these. Their existence amounts to nothing and to keep them alive would only be like taking money that could have done somebody more worthy some good and flushing it straight down the toilet.

You wrote a lot of words just to say "Kill them, I must know someone is dead so I can feel better about myself and my empty soulless existence that only knows joy when others are dead."

Maybe you and the rest of the death worshipers could get together and think of something that doesn't sound like the justification for eugenics.

I wrote a lot which you quite obviously didn't bother to read because from what you wrote in response you have demonstrated that you didn't read beyond the first word of my post. Please refrain from paraphrasing my words in the future without having fully read and comprehended them first. I abhor killing and violence but at the same time I am pragmatic enough to realize that sometimes it is necessary for the greater good of society. Life is just like that. . .full of ugly truths and realities that we'd rather pretend didn't exist so we can imagine ourselves on some morally higher plain of existence but altruistic idealism isn't going to make the ugly realities of the world we live in go away. The problem with the "death penalty" is that they've named it incorrectly. It is really a remedy (which should be reserved for use only under the most heinous and irreversible of circumstances), not a punishment.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I wrote a lot which you quite obviously didn't bother to read because from what you wrote in response you have demonstrated that you didn't read beyond the first word of my post. Please refrain from paraphrasing my words in the future without having fully read and comprehended them first. I abhor killing and violence but at the same time I am pragmatic enough to realize that sometimes it is necessary for the greater good of society. Life is just like that. . .full of ugly truths and realities that we'd rather pretend didn't exist so we can imagine ourselves on some morally higher plain of existence but altruistic idealism isn't going to make the ugly realities of the world we live in go away. The problem with the "death penalty" is that they've named it incorrectly. It is really a remedy (which should be reserved for use only under the most heinous and irreversible of circumstances), not a punishment.

So how exactly is life in prison not sufficient exactly? Does it not satisfy your desire for vengeance? Does the skull throne yet need more skulls?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I abhor killing and violence but at the same time I am pragmatic enough to realize that sometimes it is necessary for the greater good of society.

So how exactly does the death penalty serve the greater good of society? It's more expensive, and it's not shown to be a deterrent. How is society served again?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: fallout man


What the fuck is wrong with people. These fuckhead animals were 17-19 years old... CAN NOT COMPUTE.

Despite that here in Boston, in some parts of the city, we have kids as young as 10 getting shot and killed riding a bike or playing in a playground from getting caught in gang violence, I am completely fucking flabber-gasted that four pimply pencil-neck fucks would take a machete to a 11 year old girl.

How does God manage to knock together FOUR sociopaths capable of doing something this visceral?

The same is happening in Chicago.

I said this would happen when the economy tanks.

This is a direct result of Bush and the Republicans wealth hording at the top.

No, it is not the "direct result of Bush and the Republicans wealth hording at the top." It is the result of:

1) People having no sense of right or wrong
2) People having no respect for the lives of others
3) People only concerned with themselves and immediate gratification
4) People who take no responsibility for their own problems and tend to blame others (you are a perfect example)

People like you and your idiotic "blame others for every problem I have in life; after all, I can't be held responsible for ANYTHING because <insert favorite bogeyman here> is holding me down!" are the real root of the problem.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Cut the fuckers up with a machete. Let the punishment suit the crime.

this, eye for an eye...that's not a religious reference, it's just my personal belief.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I wrote a lot which you quite obviously didn't bother to read because from what you wrote in response you have demonstrated that you didn't read beyond the first word of my post. Please refrain from paraphrasing my words in the future without having fully read and comprehended them first. I abhor killing and violence but at the same time I am pragmatic enough to realize that sometimes it is necessary for the greater good of society. Life is just like that. . .full of ugly truths and realities that we'd rather pretend didn't exist so we can imagine ourselves on some morally higher plain of existence but altruistic idealism isn't going to make the ugly realities of the world we live in go away. The problem with the "death penalty" is that they've named it incorrectly. It is really a remedy (which should be reserved for use only under the most heinous and irreversible of circumstances), not a punishment.

So how exactly is life in prison not sufficient exactly? Does it not satisfy your desire for vengeance? Does the skull throne yet need more skulls?

As I already said, and I quote from my own post: Their existence amounts to nothing and to keep them alive would only be like taking money that could have done somebody more worthy some good and flushing it straight down the toilet.

So now I'm repeating myself. . .more evidence that, as I suspected, you are not even bothering to read or even try to comprehend another point of view. You obviously have it in your mind that the death penalty is always wrong without exception so you aren't even bothering to actually read what anybody posts. You read enough to see that they are not 100% against the death penalty and are therefore death mongers then you fire off a hasty and moronic reply. You probably aren't even reading this now. I could call you a total fuckwit and you probably wouldn't even know it would you, you fuckwit, because you can't even be bothered to read this far.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I abhor killing and violence but at the same time I am pragmatic enough to realize that sometimes it is necessary for the greater good of society.

So how exactly does the death penalty serve the greater good of society? It's more expensive, and it's not shown to be a deterrent. How is society served again?

Why do we put down vicious dogs rather than keeping them locked up in the dog pound until they die naturally? Answer that question and I think you'll have your answer. I never made any argument for it being a deterrent so I don't know where you're getting that from. As for it being more expensive. . .that's only because we drag the process out so long and keep people on death row for so many years before actually carrying out the sentence I suspect but do you have any proof or evidence to back your claim or are we supposed to just believe what you say when you say it's more expensive because "everyone knows this" or something?
We should have the option to simply get rid of people who are convicted of the most heinous and premeditated and barbaric acts of human depravity and murder simply because they have no more worth to society than a dog who bites the mailman. For surely if we can take a life of a creature simply for biting the mailman we are within our rights to take the life of a person who brutally, randomly, and intentionally murders another human being in the most grotesque and nightmarish of ways. Not out of revenge, not out of justice, not for any reason other than to simply be rid of them forever. You see, I don't place any special significance on the fact that it's a human being as opposed to a vicious dog that we're disposing of if the act that the person committed was deemed heinous enough. . .like say, breaking into some random person's house in the middle of the night and hacking them up with a machete in their sleep for NO apparent reason whatsoever. If the perpetrator is found guilty and convicted of this act, how is society served by keeping somebody like this around is what you should be asking. I think you have the burden of proof backwards here. I simply do not share the misguided belief that ALL human life should be held sacred regardless of how harmful they are to society. Sometimes you just have to cull the herd, throw out the trash so to speak. The only difference between disposing of somebody like this and putting down a vicious dog is that I'm more likely to feel remorse for the dog because. . .well. . .he's a dog doing what dogs are naturally prone to do. And don't think that I would relish the chance to see these murderers publicly executed or anything like that. I believe it should be done as I said before, quickly, quietly, painlessly, and privately with little to no publicity. The same way we put down vicious dogs. Normally when I hear in the news that some child raping murderer has been given lethal injection my reaction is not to say, "Good. Fucking scum got what he deserved. Good riddance." Though sadly that is the reaction most people probably have. My reaction is more along the lines of, "What needed doing is done. So be it." But I take no perverse joy in the news as many people probably do. But nor do I feel sorrow.

 

[fallout man]

Whenever I come across stories like this, I'm very torn between the two polar opposites which exist in me.

On one hand, the pacifist in me feels that the rule of law is able and should apply appropriate punishment to people who commit such vicious crimes--and that this punishment will be enough.

On the other hand, I'm fully in resonance with the folks here saying "a bullet to the head (or worse)." In my opinion, there are no mitigating circumstances here. These four monsters went out to hurt and kill, and they did. Much like internet poster "ahurtt," I think that vicious dogs walking on two legs must also be put down. This scum will contribute nothing less than more pain and devastation to those around them. They are morally crippled. They've forfeited their humanity.

I don't give a shit about their upbringing--at some point, faced with a circumstance in which they found themselves that Sunday morning, a human deserving of life would not have done what they did. Horrible shit happens in every corner of the world, every second. One can always claim that "I don't understand," and that "I haven't walked a day in their shoes." When I read this story, I'm seeing myself walking in the shoes of the father who had to rush home when he heard that his wife was hacked to death and that his daughter was mangled. It makes me want to Hulk SMASH.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: ch33zw1z

Originally posted by: MotF Bane
Cut the fuckers up with a machete. Let the punishment suit the crime.

this, eye for an eye...that's not a religious reference, it's just my personal belief.

An eye for an eye is a practice founded in anger and the base desire for revenge and should not be the reason to carry out death sentences. Justification for carrying out death sentences should be rooted in pragmatism as it relates to what is more beneficial for society as a whole. The death penalty does not bring back the murdered. It does not really act as a deterrent to others who would murder in the future. It does, however, deter at least one person from ever murdering again and that person is the sentenced. So yes, let the punishment (death) fit the crime (murder) but let not the motives behind the two stem from the same twisted black seed of hatred and anger.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I abhor killing and violence but at the same time I am pragmatic enough to realize that sometimes it is necessary for the greater good of society.

So how exactly does the death penalty serve the greater good of society? It's more expensive, and it's not shown to be a deterrent. How is society served again?

Actually, now that I think on it, the death penalty is a deterrent. I can think of several people offhand that I'd have personally probably fucking murdered long ago if it weren't for fear of the death penalty.

I kid. . .I kid. . .LOL




. . .sort of. . .

 

[NeoV]

the death penalty could be a deterrent if used properly

Take these 4 morons, and take the morons that beat that kid to death in Chicago last week - kill them all on public TV with a firing squad - that might scare some of these 'I'm tougher than the world' morons running around

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: NeoV
the death penalty could be a deterrent if used properly

Take these 4 morons, and take the morons that beat that kid to death in Chicago last week - kill them all on public TV with a firing squad - that might scare some of these 'I'm tougher than the world' morons running around

No it wouldn't. Kids like these don't stop and think of the consequences. they're gonna do what they do no matter if ther is a death penelty or not. they are too immature to stop and think.

 

[Wheezer]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Svnla

Originally posted by: Ausm

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Ausm
Since when is capital punishment a deterrent?

Not supposed to be in this case.

Dead people don't take lives.

So in your infinite wisdom if someone is incarcerated for life they will eventually escape to murder again?

Why should the taxpayers have to take care of these scums for years (with huge costs) in prison with meals and free healthcare? and no, I do not want to be in prison because I was taught to respect others and their properties.

Guilty = e-chair.

Better yet. These scums should be hack to death by the victim(s) relatives and then the execution should be on Youtube with the title "Don't commit crimes, kids or you will end up like this"...just my 2 cents.

Isn't the death penalty more expensive than life in prison?

yes, because they stretch it out too damn long.


I am quite sure you could find someone fully capable of carrying out executions for $1000 a pop including the cost of materials....I would....hell in cases like this I'd do the bastards for a Klondike Bar.

 

[Skitzer]

Originally posted by: daishi5
I know it is not much, but probably only one of them was actually a psychopath. Apparently psychopaths are very good at getting people to go along with their ideas, and they are very manipulative. Like the kids at columbine, one was actually psychotic and he tried to get several friends to help him. Most people don't actually go along with it, but the true psychopath is so good at manipulation that they fool them into thinking it was a joke, and they are often so good that they fool professionals. So most likely we have one true sicko, and 3 other kids who he has also ruined.

Umm ...... I'm sure they were all psychopaths.
This is exactly why I have a loaded 12 gauge leaning behind my bedroom door.

 

[JKing106]

Isn't ironic that you have a thread full of people eager to murder a group of murderers for murdering someone?

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: ahurtt
I abhor killing and violence but at the same time I am pragmatic enough to realize that sometimes it is necessary for the greater good of society.

So how exactly does the death penalty serve the greater good of society? It's more expensive, and it's not shown to be a deterrent. How is society served again?

Why do we put down vicious dogs rather than keeping them locked up in the dog pound until they die naturally? Answer that question and I think you'll have your answer. I never made any argument for it being a deterrent so I don't know where you're getting that from. As for it being more expensive. . .that's only because we drag the process out so long and keep people on death row for so many years before actually carrying out the sentence I suspect but do you have any proof or evidence to back your claim or are we supposed to just believe what you say when you say it's more expensive because "everyone knows this" or something?
We should have the option to simply get rid of people who are convicted of the most heinous and premeditated and barbaric acts of human depravity and murder simply because they have no more worth to society than a dog who bites the mailman. For surely if we can take a life of a creature simply for biting the mailman we are within our rights to take the life of a person who brutally, randomly, and intentionally murders another human being in the most grotesque and nightmarish of ways. Not out of revenge, not out of justice, not for any reason other than to simply be rid of them forever. You see, I don't place any special significance on the fact that it's a human being as opposed to a vicious dog that we're disposing of if the act that the person committed was deemed heinous enough. . .like say, breaking into some random person's house in the middle of the night and hacking them up with a machete in their sleep for NO apparent reason whatsoever. If the perpetrator is found guilty and convicted of this act, how is society served by keeping somebody like this around is what you should be asking. I think you have the burden of proof backwards here. I simply do not share the misguided belief that ALL human life should be held sacred regardless of how harmful they are to society. Sometimes you just have to cull the herd, throw out the trash so to speak. The only difference between disposing of somebody like this and putting down a vicious dog is that I'm more likely to feel remorse for the dog because. . .well. . .he's a dog doing what dogs are naturally prone to do. And don't think that I would relish the chance to see these murderers publicly executed or anything like that. I believe it should be done as I said before, quickly, quietly, painlessly, and privately with little to no publicity. The same way we put down vicious dogs. Normally when I hear in the news that some child raping murderer has been given lethal injection my reaction is not to say, "Good. Fucking scum got what he deserved. Good riddance." Though sadly that is the reaction most people probably have. My reaction is more along the lines of, "What needed doing is done. So be it." But I take no perverse joy in the news as many people probably do. But nor do I feel sorrow.

Sorry, people aren't dogs. Additionally, the process is slow and expensive because we have to get it right - there's no reversing death. The mere fact several people on death row have been exonerated should tell you that mistakes can and are made at the trial phase. Heck, Texas has already killed at least one innocent man - how many more do you want to kill to feed your bloodlust?
I agree that society can and should be protected from those who've proven themselves unworthy to dwell amongst us, but a life sentence without parole accomplishs that same goal well enough.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: NeoV
the death penalty could be a deterrent if used properly

Take these 4 morons, and take the morons that beat that kid to death in Chicago last week - kill them all on public TV with a firing squad - that might scare some of these 'I'm tougher than the world' morons running around

You give people far too much credit. We all know now the dangers of smoking, but we still have millions of smokers. Where's the deterence?

 

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: JKing106
Isn't ironic that you have a thread full of people eager to murder a group of murderers for murdering someone?

Never underestimate a rabble.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: NeoV
the death penalty could be a deterrent if used properly

Take these 4 morons, and take the morons that beat that kid to death in Chicago last week - kill them all on public TV with a firing squad - that might scare some of these 'I'm tougher than the world' morons running around

You give people far too much credit. We all know now the dangers of smoking, but we still have millions of smokers. Where's the deterence?

You don't really know. You only know that it has NOT deterred the people who do in fact smoke. But this falls into the realm of "you can't prove a negative." The people who do NOT smoke may be non smokers for any given number of reasons, one of which may or may not be fear of dying from cancer. I can say that personally I don't smoke precisely because of that very fear. I used to but I quit and it was because of being made so very aware of the negative consequences that can come from smoking. So for me it IS a deterrent. But obviously it isn't for everybody. But the point is that among non-smokers you don't really KNOW why they choose not to smoke without an exhaustive survey/study to find out their reasons. For people who DO smoke it's pretty obvious that fear of cancer is not deterring them. You can only conclude that they are either incredibly somehow still ignorant about the health ramifications smoking poses or that they do know but just don't care or don't think it will happen to them or something. Sure we have millions of smokers but we probably have far more non-smokers in the world today. You'll never know how many more people would be smoking if it weren't a well known proven fact that cigarette smoking can lead to cancer just like you'll never know how many people would have killed another person at some point in their life if they knew there was no chance that they could be put to death themselves. So I just don't buy the argument that the death remedy is not a deterrent because you can't prove a negative. But if even one person in the course of human history has ever stayed their hand and decided not to take the life of another human being for fear of losing their own life as a consequence then I'd say there's your deterrence. So now all we need is somebody to go around and survey every person on the planet in every nation that practices the death remedy and ask them if they've ever considered murdering somebody but then didn't do it because they didn't want to die themselves. But your argument that it is NOT a deterrent is on extremely thin ice because all it takes is one person to say "Yes I would have killed so and so if it wasn't for the fact that I'd probably get the gas chamber" and your argument is shot.

Cliffs: Evidence for people the death remedy did NOT deter is readily available whereas evidence for the number of people who were deterred is undetermined.