AL CHL holder who killed LEO sentenced to death

[Lambda Force]

Fry him. Do they need any volunteers to flip the switch?

I think they should wire him in parallel with the guy who murdered Erik Scott and kill two birds with one stone.

[VMI77]

he had stopped at McDonald's, bought a Coke and poured rum in it, according to Golden.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/05/doc ... t_way.html

Alcohol is the devil's drink. I once had a police officer told me that 99% of all rape cases somehow involve alcohol. If there were no alcohol, she'd be out of a job. Just like how some cops get careless with a gun's muzzle at a gun shop, some pharmacists get careless with drugs and alcohol. This is the sad result. I think that if he gets treated for drug addiction, he would not be a threat to society any longer, so the death penalty would be too harsh. Killing the pharmacist won't bring the cop back to life. The death penalty is a waste of two lives, that of the victim and that of the killer. I think that the killer should work to pay restitution to the cop's family and return from work to jail (not home) and wear an electronic anklet. No parole. Ever. You take a life, you should pay for that with your life, but not with the death penalty.

I used to support the death penalty until I learned that 2% of death row inmates were found to be innocent when they invented DNA testing. That 2% is just probably the tip of the iceberg of innocents put to death.

Sort of a meaningless statistic without more details. "Somehow" involve alcohol? In the first place it's meaningless because, for instance, one beer doesn't turn anyone into a raving rapist, but in such circumstances, a rape would "involve" alcohol. Alcohol could be "involved" if the victim was attacked in a liquor store parking lot after buying a bottle of Vodka, even if neither perp or victim had drunk alcohol. Alcohol could be involved if the victim met the perp in a bar without either of them drinking. But I suspect that more often than not, the involvement of alcohol means that the rapist took advantage of a woman who had been drinking, rather than a rape occurring because the rapist was drinking.

Also, I find your moral evaluation rather appalling. Essentially you're saying the perp isn't fully responsible for his behavior because he was addicted to drugs. So, in your words, if someone "gets careless" with drugs and alcohol and then kills my son who, performing his duties as a LEO stops a perps vehicle for violating the law, the perp should get a second chance. So in your moral universe, my son, who makes the right choices and lives responsibly gets death, but the jerk who gets careless with drugs and alcohol gets to go on with his life after "treatment."

I also reject your notion that the death penalty has anything to do with any supposed future threat to society.....the death penalty is punishment, pure and simple. He killed without justification so his punishment is his own death. "Treatment" for people who choose to do bad things and then kill other people encourages more irresponsible behavior. A lack of personal responsibility and accountability is one of the factors destroying this country. I also reject your belief that "treatment" for drug and alcohol abuse is going to eliminate any future threat....whether from a statistical or psychological perspective. It is especially misplaced in this case, since the perp's flagrant and persistent violation of the law suggests a damaged moral compass.

[VoiceofReason]

he had stopped at McDonald's, bought a Coke and poured rum in it, according to Golden.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/05/doc ... t_way.html

Alcohol is the devil's drink. I once had a police officer told me that 99% of all rape cases somehow involve alcohol. If there were no alcohol, she'd be out of a job. Just like how some cops get careless with a gun's muzzle at a gun shop, some pharmacists get careless with drugs and alcohol. This is the sad result. I think that if he gets treated for drug addiction, he would not be a threat to society any longer, so the death penalty would be too harsh. Killing the pharmacist won't bring the cop back to life. The death penalty is a waste of two lives, that of the victim and that of the killer. I think that the killer should work to pay restitution to the cop's family and return from work to jail (not home) and wear an electronic anklet. No parole. Ever. You take a life, you should pay for that with your life, but not with the death penalty.

I used to support the death penalty until I learned that 2% of death row inmates were found to be innocent when they invented DNA testing. That 2% is just probably the tip of the iceberg of innocents put to death.

Sort of a meaningless statistic without more details. "Somehow" involve alcohol? In the first place it's meaningless because, for instance, one beer doesn't turn anyone into a raving rapist, but in such circumstances, a rape would "involve" alcohol. Alcohol could be "involved" if the victim was attacked in a liquor store parking lot after buying a bottle of Vodka, even if neither perp or victim had drunk alcohol. Alcohol could be involved if the victim met the perp in a bar without either of them drinking. But I suspect that more often than not, the involvement of alcohol means that the rapist took advantage of a woman who had been drinking, rather than a rape occurring because the rapist was drinking.

Also, I find your moral evaluation rather appalling. Essentially you're saying the perp isn't fully responsible for his behavior because he was addicted to drugs. So, in your words, if someone "gets careless" with drugs and alcohol and then kills my son who, performing his duties as a LEO stops a perps vehicle for violating the law, the perp should get a second chance. So in your moral universe, my son, who makes the right choices and lives responsibly gets death, but the jerk who gets careless with drugs and alcohol gets to go on with his life after "treatment."

I also reject your notion that the death penalty has anything to do with any supposed future threat to society.....the death penalty is punishment, pure and simple. He killed without justification so his punishment is his own death. "Treatment" for people who choose to do bad things and then kill other people encourages more irresponsible behavior. A lack of personal responsibility and accountability is one of the factors destroying this country. I also reject your belief that "treatment" for drug and alcohol abuse is going to eliminate any future threat....whether from a statistical or psychological perspective. It is especially misplaced in this case, since the perp's flagrant and persistent violation of the law suggests a damaged moral compass.

100%

[drjoker]

I actually feel the same way you do. Remember, I did used to support the death penalty. However, if you put the perp to death, then who the heck is going to pay for the cop's two kids to go to college? Who's going to make the mortgage payments? Put these killers/vermin to work so they can pay the family of the deceased. No, financial restitution won't bring him back, but it will make it possible for the officer's family achieve the goals he had for them.

Most life insurance programs either have a lump sum or a half pay option. The lump sum will probably pay off the mortgage, but not the kids' college eduations. The half paychecks will put the family in poverty and they'll probably have to move to a house half as nice, go to community college instead of a University, etc. I would love nothing more than to put these cretins to death, but revenge won't pay the bills (just being practical here).

he had stopped at McDonald's, bought a Coke and poured rum in it, according to Golden.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/05/doc ... t_way.html

Alcohol is the devil's drink. I once had a police officer told me that 99% of all rape cases somehow involve alcohol. If there were no alcohol, she'd be out of a job. Just like how some cops get careless with a gun's muzzle at a gun shop, some pharmacists get careless with drugs and alcohol. This is the sad result. I think that if he gets treated for drug addiction, he would not be a threat to society any longer, so the death penalty would be too harsh. Killing the pharmacist won't bring the cop back to life. The death penalty is a waste of two lives, that of the victim and that of the killer. I think that the killer should work to pay restitution to the cop's family and return from work to jail (not home) and wear an electronic anklet. No parole. Ever. You take a life, you should pay for that with your life, but not with the death penalty.

I used to support the death penalty until I learned that 2% of death row inmates were found to be innocent when they invented DNA testing. That 2% is just probably the tip of the iceberg of innocents put to death.

Sort of a meaningless statistic without more details. "Somehow" involve alcohol? In the first place it's meaningless because, for instance, one beer doesn't turn anyone into a raving rapist, but in such circumstances, a rape would "involve" alcohol. Alcohol could be "involved" if the victim was attacked in a liquor store parking lot after buying a bottle of Vodka, even if neither perp or victim had drunk alcohol. Alcohol could be involved if the victim met the perp in a bar without either of them drinking. But I suspect that more often than not, the involvement of alcohol means that the rapist took advantage of a woman who had been drinking, rather than a rape occurring because the rapist was drinking.

Also, I find your moral evaluation rather appalling. Essentially you're saying the perp isn't fully responsible for his behavior because he was addicted to drugs. So, in your words, if someone "gets careless" with drugs and alcohol and then kills my son who, performing his duties as a LEO stops a perps vehicle for violating the law, the perp should get a second chance. So in your moral universe, my son, who makes the right choices and lives responsibly gets death, but the jerk who gets careless with drugs and alcohol gets to go on with his life after "treatment."

I also reject your notion that the death penalty has anything to do with any supposed future threat to society.....the death penalty is punishment, pure and simple. He killed without justification so his punishment is his own death. "Treatment" for people who choose to do bad things and then kill other people encourages more irresponsible behavior. A lack of personal responsibility and accountability is one of the factors destroying this country. I also reject your belief that "treatment" for drug and alcohol abuse is going to eliminate any future threat....whether from a statistical or psychological perspective. It is especially misplaced in this case, since the perp's flagrant and persistent violation of the law suggests a damaged moral compass.

[VMI77]

I actually feel the same way you do. Remember, I did used to support the death penalty. However, if you put the perp to death, then who the heck is going to pay for the cop's two kids to go to college? Who's going to make the mortgage payments? Put these killers/vermin to work so they can pay the family of the deceased. No, financial restitution won't bring him back, but it will make it possible for the officer's family achieve the goals he had for them.

Most life insurance programs either have a lump sum or a half pay option. The lump sum will probably pay off the mortgage, but not the kids' college eduations. The half paychecks will put the family in poverty and they'll probably have to move to a house half as nice, go to community college instead of a University, etc. I would love nothing more than to put these cretins to death, but revenge won't pay the bills (just being practical here).

he had stopped at McDonald's, bought a Coke and poured rum in it, according to Golden.

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2011/05/doc ... t_way.html

Alcohol is the devil's drink. I once had a police officer told me that 99% of all rape cases somehow involve alcohol. If there were no alcohol, she'd be out of a job. Just like how some cops get careless with a gun's muzzle at a gun shop, some pharmacists get careless with drugs and alcohol. This is the sad result. I think that if he gets treated for drug addiction, he would not be a threat to society any longer, so the death penalty would be too harsh. Killing the pharmacist won't bring the cop back to life. The death penalty is a waste of two lives, that of the victim and that of the killer. I think that the killer should work to pay restitution to the cop's family and return from work to jail (not home) and wear an electronic anklet. No parole. Ever. You take a life, you should pay for that with your life, but not with the death penalty.

I used to support the death penalty until I learned that 2% of death row inmates were found to be innocent when they invented DNA testing. That 2% is just probably the tip of the iceberg of innocents put to death.

Sort of a meaningless statistic without more details. "Somehow" involve alcohol? In the first place it's meaningless because, for instance, one beer doesn't turn anyone into a raving rapist, but in such circumstances, a rape would "involve" alcohol. Alcohol could be "involved" if the victim was attacked in a liquor store parking lot after buying a bottle of Vodka, even if neither perp or victim had drunk alcohol. Alcohol could be involved if the victim met the perp in a bar without either of them drinking. But I suspect that more often than not, the involvement of alcohol means that the rapist took advantage of a woman who had been drinking, rather than a rape occurring because the rapist was drinking.

Also, I find your moral evaluation rather appalling. Essentially you're saying the perp isn't fully responsible for his behavior because he was addicted to drugs. So, in your words, if someone "gets careless" with drugs and alcohol and then kills my son who, performing his duties as a LEO stops a perps vehicle for violating the law, the perp should get a second chance. So in your moral universe, my son, who makes the right choices and lives responsibly gets death, but the jerk who gets careless with drugs and alcohol gets to go on with his life after "treatment."

I also reject your notion that the death penalty has anything to do with any supposed future threat to society.....the death penalty is punishment, pure and simple. He killed without justification so his punishment is his own death. "Treatment" for people who choose to do bad things and then kill other people encourages more irresponsible behavior. A lack of personal responsibility and accountability is one of the factors destroying this country. I also reject your belief that "treatment" for drug and alcohol abuse is going to eliminate any future threat....whether from a statistical or psychological perspective. It is especially misplaced in this case, since the perp's flagrant and persistent violation of the law suggests a damaged moral compass.

That may be a good theoretical solution in this particular case, but I see a lot of practical problems with it: 1) in most cases, the perp is too stupid or too degenerate to earn the kind of money necessary to do something like send a victim's kids to college; 2) in this case the guy is a pharmacist --how is he going to earn money now that he's a murderer? who's going to pay him? if he's working anywhere but in the prison context he's living a life he's not entitled to; 3) if he can't be executed he doesn't have much to lose, so why should he work?; 4) if he's alive and working, he's subject to appeals by bleeding hearts, and will eventually be released to live a life he should have entirely forfeited; 5) if he's unrepentant and can't be executed then he's a threat to everyone he comes into contact with; 6) if he's working from inside the prison system he's not going to make market wages, and if people are working for below market wages in prison they're unfairly competing with people on the outside who did nothing wrong; and 6) the bleeding hearts will call it slavery and the system will never allow it ---the system doesn't even allow pedophiles and violent rapists to be chemically castrated, there's no way it's going to allow "slavery."

[Hoosier Daddy]

Most prisoners cost the taxpayers money. That doesn't help the victim or their family, especially if they pay taxes.