Search results

You are the one who decided to characterize, that is, mischaracterize me. I find it laughable you NOW decide to refrain from answering a statement in someone else's post. Probably a first. You don't even know my position, yet you chose to mischaracterize it. This is definitely not a first .

Sorry wrong answer. I'll take it as a capitulation on your part.

Nothing is stopping you from addressing it right now. The sentence was 'l see both sides of this'. How does that statement square with your assertion that you made of me?

I see you avoided addressing my post # 40, where I said something like ' I see both sides of this'. 'This' being the capital punishment issue and both sides of the argument.

I think Cruz definitely does. I like Gowdy so far too.

Yep, the statists should be scared of these two.

Bloodlust and thirst for vengeance? Now that's a definite Wow moment. Again you let your emotions spew out in a venomous post. Please refer back to my post# 40. Check out the last sentence. Something like :' I see both sides of this.' Doesn't sound like a thirst for vengeance does it? Yes or...

Those weren't 100 percent guilty cases. You've entirely missed the point. They were convictions beyond a reasonable doubt. They weren't convictions beyond a shadow of any doubt. I was merely speaking of those murders and hypothetically.

Fingerprints would be small evidence compared to 20 witnesses and a clear video of the crime, confession, motive etc.

There are No instances where a murder is 100 percent sure? Yes or no ?

All are important questions that need to be answered. Gowdy and Cruz are the right people to get to the bottom of this.

Most of this thread has been about the death penalty and why it is opposed. Another poster mentioned that we couldn't be CERTAIN (ex:100% guilty) of a persons guilt. I merely mentioned there are instances where that can be determined.

If one had a sound mind to boggle.

Wow yourself Scott. Why don't you contribute more to the conversation than just a ....

These cases aren't examples of 100 percent guilty. They also aren't examples, at least in maybe some of them, of an innocent person being executed.

Yes it preferable to murder, but a little confused by Ragman's argument that he is ok with having them in solitary confinement and throw away the key. His whole argument is that an innocent man might be put to death, however is ok with putting a person in a vegetative state in some dark cell for...

Regarding those cases where they were set free because 'they didn't do it'. It might be true in some cases. It also might be true in many of those cases where the convicted person STILL COMMITTED THE CRIME, but was overturned for a variety of reasons.

If he wasn't 100 percent guilty then he wouldn't get the death penalty,

Right, and there would be no reason to put them in solitary confinement and 'throw away the key' , because they may be innocent. If there is a video of the murder and also had witnesses,wouldn't that be 100 percent guilty?

Ok fine. Even with cases with 100 percent proof of guilt, you are against. I see both sides on this.