Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A couple of points from a legal perspective, if I may:
-This is a military matter and this shooter will face justice under the UCMJ, which includes the possibility of execution. Texas law has nothing to do with it.
-The military's death penalty is unique in that the President actually has to sign the warrant. Assuming this man is found guilty and sentenced to death, it'll be interesting to see how the sitting President at the time handles the case.
-Yes, his lawyer will use the insanity defense. Our legal system mandates that lawyers argue zealously for their clients. If there is any shred of evidence of mental instability, this will be brought up. If it isn't, it will be made an issue on appeal and the lawyer could ultimately face disbarment.
-Most jurisdictions use the M'Naughton standard for insanity. It is extremely hard to successfully use this defense. Something like less than 1% are actually found not guilty by reason of insanity and it is argued all the time. This standard requires the defendant to show that they, at the time of the crime, could not understand what they were doing was wrong.
-Since it appears that this man will be charged under UCMJ, he will be defended by Army JAG. He can, at his own expense, receive the counsel of a civilian attorney. I'm curious to know if he is talking to an Army lawyer or a civilian attorney.
-Just because this appears to be an open-and-shut case does not mean that we ignore that piece of scratch paper known as the Constitution. I hesitate to think what other Constitutional guarantees some people are willing to waive.
Indeed it will be very interesting if this president will sign it, IMO he won't...just look how he handled the cop/Havard case compaired to this..."we shouldn't jump to conclusions and let the investigation run it self"...wow!
Again a person who is caught red handed and much tax payers money will be thrown away for this guys trial.
I believe in people having the right for a trial, but to come up with the mental case defensein cases that are so clear when the man is caught right handed!
To me this guy and the guy in Orlando have waved all their rights in our society!
Last edited by bentlebee; 11-10-2009 at 08:43 AM..
Indeed it will be very interesting if this president will sign it, IMO he won't...just look how he handled the cop/Havard case compaired to this..."we shouldn't jump to conclusions and let the investigation run it self"...wow!
Again a person who is caught right handed and much tax payers money will be thrown away for this guys trial.
I believe in people having the right for a trial, but to come up with the mental case defensein cases that are so clear when the man is caught right handed!
To me this guy and the guy in Orlando have waved all their rights in our society!
Right-handed????
I think you meant "red-handed".
And "red-handed" surely isn't just an American saying, is it?
I've never understood this argument or sentiment. We constitutionally guarantee the right to counsel and as a matter of legal tradition require attorneys to do everything under the law to present arguments in an attempt to prove their clients innocence or diminished capacity. For an attorney to do otherwise would be a violation of their professional canon of ethics, so why do we castigate the very individuals appointed to carry out this very important role which goes to the heart of our legal system?
Excellent post. The reason is pretty straightforward: many people do not really believe in our system of justice. They are not interested in having an impartial judiciary that will consider all the facts, including any potentially exculpatory or mitigating facts, they just want to see punishment imposed as quickly and severely as possible.
What these people are overlooking is that every defendant is innocent until proven guilty, and that even these critics of the rights of defendants could find themselves wrongly accused of a crime. You can bet that they would be crying out for the best lawyer they could obtain if that happened.
I happen to believe that the overwhelming majority of criminal defendants are guilty of the crimes they are charged with, or a closely related, lesser included offense. It is a credit to our country that we are willing to restrain ourselves from the punitive impulse until the evidence is subjected to the most demanding challenge, and we are confident that only the guilty are punished.
Good Lord, we have a lot of sadistic people here...
No, just creative and interested in true justice rather than the circus which will no doubt take place at our taxpayer-funded expanse.
I'd say feed him to some very large and hungry pigs. They'll eat people, given the chance. Oink-Oink!
If you think that's too cruel, I'll go along with a firing squad. Only one shooter, and he has to use .22 bullets. .22 shorts... a lot of them... over a long time... with breaks for lunch and dinner.
Thanks...I learned something new.......we don't have the expression in our language we mean the same but say it different.
I believe it was originally a Scottish saying, and referred to poachers being caught with the blood of the killed animals still on their hands.
But there is a more colorful Irish origin, that during a boat race where the winner would be declared as whomever first laid their hand on soil, one of the competitors cut off his hand and threw it to shore to secure victory. And thus won, red-handed.
Nope, no firing squad. The military uses lethal injection. In all likelihood, it won't be Obama signing this man's death warrant. Capitol cases take a long time, and yes cost a lot of money. There is the judicial phase and then the sentencing phase, both of which could take months.
Furthermore, the military, and to a large extent the Federal government, is wary is actually executing people. Depending on the age of the inmate, they have a better chance of dying in prison than actually being executed. The military hasn't executed anyone since the 1960s; and yes, there are people on the military's death row.
Like I said, I believe that this man will be found guilty and likely sentenced to death. It will be very interesting to see how the President handles it since military executions are one of a very few decisions that fall totally on the President, not the Supreme Court or Congress.
And what is most ironic is that they are by in large the very same people who claim that the government is taking away their freedoms!
You betcha! But hey, due process isn't for everyone.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
....we don't have the expression in our language we mean the same but say it different.
No, just creative and interested in true justice rather than the circus which will no doubt take place at our taxpayer-funded expanse.
