Another reason to shoot criminals

[boomerang]

http://www.click2houston.com/investigat ... etail.html

While awaiting trial on that charge, Gonzalez was arrested and charged with murdering a 16-year-old boy in March.

With both charges pending, Gonzalez was again allowed to post a $75,000 bond in May and was released from jail.

Harris County prosecutors told Local 2 Investigates they specifically asked the court not to allow Gonzalez to be granted a bond. No one has an answer as to why bond was granted.

Gonzalez has also now been charged with a second murder stemming from a shooting in January 2007. Police have not been able to find him.

[bdickens]

Hey there, stupid (that's his screen name, moderator, I'm not making a personal attack.), I don't know where people like you get the idea that the UN -- and by extension their illegitimate "World Court" -- is some kind of supra-government the umbrella of which every other sovereign nation falls under. The State of Texas was right to tell them to go pound sand.

Quite frankly, the US should get out of the UN altogether. The UN is weak and ineffective. They do nothing useful for society. If we didn't flush so much money down the toilet propping up their house of cards, it would actually be kind of funny: a bunch of murderous tyrants condemning us for our "human rights abuses!"

If it was up to me, I'd give the dirty, corrupt, child-raping lot of them 30 days to get out of the country and then I'd round them up and throw them in jail. And I'd turn their offices into affordable housing.

[jimlongley]

You are telling me that treaty signed by US (Federal) has no effect on Texas. How interesting. What's the point of signing any thing with USA who will not honor it anyway?

If that's the way you choose to take it, I guess so. Remember that the US Constitution reserves certain powers and rights for the federal government, such as regulating interstate commerce, and others go to the states and the people. The people get the right to keep and bear arms, and the states get to determine the death penalty. Until after JFK's assassination there was no Federal law against murder, which lead to an interesting debate which was never fully resolved due to Jack Ruby's killing of Lee Oswald.

The US can make treaties, but there is no real mechanism for the feds to force the individual states to go along with those treaties, unless they are under federal power, which does not include crimes at the state level. Long history of prosecutions of non-nationals in other countries shows that they are even less inclined to interfere locally based on international treaties.

I thought we were more civil and more developed. Not only have we been practically slapping everybody around the world and ordering them to do whatever we want, but also we want to drag ourselves "down" to the level of "developing" countries - oh since they tell the world court to take a hike, we will just do the same thing or worse.

Besides my own personal opinion that the "world court" has absolutely no reason to exist, I also do not believe that, granting its existence, it should be allowed to interfere in anything that does not constitute an international dispute at law, such as whether an entire nation or national government has committed "crimes against humanity" with Nazi Germany being an example - and then how would such an entity enforce its ruling? By doing what we did to Nazi Germany.

US citizens in other nations already suffer indignations well beyond the norm in the US when the are arrested, even when they are nominally innocent, trying to convince us that by not following the other countries' rules we are going to suffer awful fates is still nothing more than extortion.

Also recall that a lot of that slapping has been done at the behest of the UN, or coalitions which the US has been part of and provided most of the funding for.

Come on. Is this how a society should be built? Is this not double standard?

I don't know where building a society comes into this, are you saying you are in favor of a one world government? That's what it sounds like from my point of view. We should hold to our own standards, without regard for other nations, they always do the same for us. No "double standard" just our own, and they can have theirs.

The Monroe Doctrine was merely to tell the European to take a hike so that USA could colonize every country in America (North and South). Again, very "civilized."

Your history teachers must have been a lot different than mine, would you mind showing me just where we colonized in the Americas after the Monroe Doctrine? Louisiana was purchased, Texas, a free nation, was voluntarily annexed, Alaska was purchased. Cuba, when conquered, was given back except for one little outpost, the US Virgin Islands were acquired in a trade, the Bahamas have remained British, and the French and Spanish colonies in South America stayed the way they were until they obtained their own independence. Brevity begs the list, but there is absolutely no support for your contention.

As pointed out above, the ICJ does not have jurisdiction directly over Texas, they only have a treaty with the US, and all the US can do is what it did, attempt to influence Texas. The state did not violate any legal procedure, that would only occur if the treaty signatory did not allow consular access, and the US never tried to inject itself into the process until recently.

The thinly veiled threats issuing from the State Department, the UN, and various other entities, that US citizens arrested abroad will suffer repraisals in response denies the fact that US citizens have already been suffering such indignities for decades, and is nothing more than an attempt at extortion.

This is indeed about something more than simply putting a confessed and unrepentant rapist and murderer to death, it's also about whether the world gets to say how we conduct our business in our state. Imagine if France, Guatemala, or even Mexico were approached by the World Court due to urging from the US on a similar issue - they would laughingly suggest that the World Court peddle their goods elsewhere, and that would be no change from what has always transpired.

If we let them get away with this stuff, the next thing they will want is for us to outlaw guns . . . Oops, forgot, they already are insisting on that.

Maybe it's time to consider reimplementing the Monroe Doctrine.

[/quote]

[boomerang]

Your history teachers must have been a lot different than mine, would you mind showing me just where we colonized in the Americas after the Monroe Doctrine?

You know. All those countries in Central and South America where English is the official language.

[srothstein]

I think he was correct about the purpose of the Monroe Doctrine, or very close. It was designed to stop FURTHER colonization in this hemisphere by the Europeans. Most of the countries you mention were colonized before the Monroe Doctrine. You also conveniently ignored things like California, which was part of Mexico until the US took it. Of course, it claims to have declared independence also, but no one recognized it. Then there are big chunks of the midwest and west, like Kansas and Washington, etc. that we colonized/settled after the Monroe Doctrine.

Mention of Cuba brings forth the question of why the first battle fought in the Spanish American War was in the Phillipines, if the war was started by the blast on the Maine. And then you would have to ask yourself how we got word to the fleet to start the war there in the time between the Maine and the battle. It could be an interesting thing to look at.

But, instead of history, I was thinking we needed to renew the Monroe Doctrine now. why should we let Russia into South America through Venezuela? Let's remind them of the Monroe Doctrine and see if they really want to fight it.

[atxgun]

But really, I am very ok with the death penalty simply becuase it is reserved for those who have taken a life in a merciless way, and there are so many safeguards to make sure we have the right guy.

How many times do you read in the news about somebody that's been locked up for the majority of their life being freed based off DNA evidence that wasn't available at the time of their conviction?

That's not to imply I disagree with the death penalty, just something to think about.

[Stupid]

jimlongley, you must be kidding me about the Monroe Doctrine. Politics is dirty, don't be naive. I am not sure how you justify the expansion of a country's power beyond its border. Self defense? Go ask all the other Americas whether or not their affairs should be USA's affairs? That's gross meddling with other's internal affairs, and you wonder why we are hated? A true Monroe Doctrine would be "mind our own business within our borders!"

bdickens, now the UN. do you REALLY know why UN is so dysfunctional and "unless?" Do you really know who really controls UN? Let me remind you, it's the United States of America. The UN is powerless because .... quick, find the answer! Right, just count how many times USA vetoed UN's motions, especially issues with Israel. There is no way that USA should get out of UN because: a) UN is USA's puppet anyway; b) whenever we want, we can use UN to justify our otherwise unjustified action, which makes others "believe" that we are righteous; c) whenever we don't like it, we can just forget about its existance.

Nothing gets better than that! Politics is dirty!

However, that's not the purpose when the FDR etc. created UN.

"The United Nations (UN) is an international organization whose stated aims are to facilitate cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, social progress, human rights, and achieving world peace."

Read it and understand it. It's not a higher authority but an organization that we work out our international issues without resorting to our firearms. Now, back to the original issue, as the largest member and the founding member of the UN, we don't even respect the rules WE set out, how can we expect others to do so?

OK, if you say, next time when other countries violate the international laws etc, the United State would just shut up, I settle my argument right here and now.

Back to my point, is this the society we want our children to live in, where the largest member and the founding member of the UN doesn't even respect the rules it's set out? if that's what you want to teach your children... speechless.

[tarkus]

The first guy was in prison for over ten years. The Mexicans had plenty of time to send a consular officer.

The second guy may be in Mexico by now.

[AJSully421]

But really, I am very ok with the death penalty simply because it is reserved for those who have taken a life in a merciless way, and there are so many safeguards to make sure we have the right guy.

How many times do you read in the news about somebody that's been locked up for the majority of their life being freed based off DNA evidence that wasn't available at the time of their conviction?

That's not to imply I disagree with the death penalty, just something to think about.

that's easy, overzealous DA... not to mention that the majority of these folks who were wrongly convicted are black, and that none were up for capital crimes, and those aforementioned safeguards were not then used. also, in many of those cases, the person admitted to wrong doing, and even plead guilty (Possibly they were guilty of other, equally serious crimes)

AFAIK, there has been only one Texas execution that has been later seriously questioned... Cantu 1993 (And even in that one, a gang member was the prime witness, and now says he lied on the stand... well, i don't believe ANYTHING that a gang member says)

I don't have a problem with the state killing people... it's an example to the others, and it even keeps my mind on making sure i am engaging in a clean SD shoot.

[jimlongley]

. . . Most of the countries you mention were colonized before the Monroe Doctrine. You also conveniently ignored things like California, which was part of Mexico until the US took it. Of course, it claims to have declared independence also, but no one recognized it. Then there are big chunks of the midwest and west, like Kansas and Washington, etc. that we colonized/settled after the Monroe Doctrine.

Mention of Cuba brings forth the question of why the first battle fought in the Spanish American War was in the Phillipines, if the war was started by the blast on the Maine. And then you would have to ask yourself how we got word to the fleet to start the war there in the time between the Maine and the battle. It could be an interesting thing to look at.

But, instead of history, I was thinking we needed to renew the Monroe Doctrine now. why should we let Russia into South America through Venezuela? Let's remind them of the Monroe Doctrine and see if they really want to fight it.

Yes, actually, the Lousiana Purchase was earlier than the Monroe Doctrine, so I was probably mistaken in mentioning it, but I should also point out that it included Kansas. Washington State was acquired as part of the Oregon Territory treaty negotiated by Secretary of State James Buchanan and Britain's Ambassador to the US Richard Packenham, in 1846, but was a resolution to a long standing dispute and could hardly be considered colonialism in light of the Monroe Doctrine.

I would argue with the language that we took California, it was ceded to the US after Mexico lost the Mexican American War, it sure wasn't really invaded and colonized. If it was not for the gold rush, it might not have gotten much more interest anyway, most of the rest of the nation knew it was there, but were not much interested in going there.

Dewey received messages via telegraph and messenger, on or before May 1st, when the battle took place, more than a week having elapsed between the various declarations of war and two and a half months after the Maine blew up. Dewey had plenty of time to put himself on a war footing.

[Sangiovese]

I believe the issue that they are raising is that he was never informed that he had the right to contact the consulate.

Personally, I don't think it is our responsibility to inform him of any rights that he may or may not have due to international treaty.

If he had asked for access to his consulate, and had it denied to him then I would have a problem. From everything I have read though, that's not the case.

[Venus Pax]

I believe the issue that they are raising is that he was never informed that he had the right to contact the consulate.

The two girls that he raped, tortured, and murdered were not given the opportunity to contact an advocate either.

[Venus Pax]

The thinly veiled threats issuing from the State Department, the UN, and various other entities, that US citizens arrested abroad will suffer repraisals in response denies the fact that US citizens have already been suffering such indignities for decades, and is nothing more than an attempt at extortion.

This reminds me of a man from Orange County (Texas) that was caught in Mexico with a box of ammunition. (I think it was 9mm, but that's beside the point.) He had no guns, just ammunition. Apparently he was a gun dealer in Orange County. He made it a point to remove all guns and ammunition before crossing the border, but apparently missed one box.

It took AGES for this man to get back to the United States. His family had to bribe guards in Mexico for him to have minor comforts. Part of the negotiations that got him back to the states said that he would be listed as a felon in this country. Being a felon means that you cannot be a gun dealer. If spending time in a Mexican prison (and I hear they aren't the posh accommodations we offer here), and then spending thousands to be returned to your homeland isn't enough punishment for having a box of ammo (but no guns) in your vehicle, this gun dealer also lost his livelihood.

Funny. I don't recall the world court stepping in on his behalf.

[Sangiovese]

I believe the issue that they are raising is that he was never informed that he had the right to contact the consulate.

The two girls that he raped, tortured, and murdered were not given the opportunity to contact an advocate either.

Woah... you've got the wrong guy! I'm on your side.

I think that he got what he deserved (well, as much of what he deserved as our legal system allows...)

What I was trying to say is that people are making it out like he asked for access to his consulate and we denied it to him (in violation of the treaty)... and that is not the case. He never asked for it. (Until after he was sentenced to death.) I think that saying we violated some treaty because we didn't hold his hand and make sure he knew about it is absurd.

[Luggo1]

I hesitate to weigh in here but why not...

My legal practice consists entirely of defending individuals charged with capital murder, where the State of Texas is seeking the death penalty. I hate to do it but to address the obvious questions, I'm not an ACLU'er, bleeding heart leftist, obviously I'm here, a gun owner, shooter and strong 2nd A supporter. I'm a death penalty supporter and fully believe it is a just punishment for some crimes. In a prior life I was a starchy insurance defense lawyer on a mission to stamp out what I considered to be frivolous lawsuits. I can fairly well check off the "conservative" position on practically any political issue out there. I'm viewed with suspicion by some of my leftist colleagues who aren't sure what to make of someone with gun stuff and an autographed Scalia picture on the wall. Maybe "very conservative libertarian evangelical" is the label that best fits.

I generally pass by the threads like this on most gun forums, but today felt the need to pop my head up out of my hole and say something. I'll return to the hole, as I doubt this will be popular.

It is my firm belief and nearly 100% life experience that we shooters/gun owners/hunters are the best of the best. Setting aside whether or not a consular notification treaty is good or bad, and setting aside how much it matters, I hope that we the shooting community would be especially mindful of how the criminal justice system operates. I generally share the sentiments expressed in threads like this, though I disagree or quibble with some specifics. You certainly don't have to take my word for it, and I am certain most will not, but there are some things done in the system, particularly the death penalty system, that would shock you or hopefully at least give you pause to think about what things you want done in your name. If you have ever been treated rudely or been given a heavy dose of the "only ones" attitude on a traffic stop when you produced a CHL, had your pistol unloaded, not given the ammo back, detained longer than you should have been etc...you have had a taste. If Ruby Ridge pisses you off, you get the idea. We in the gun community know a lot about Ruby Ridge, what isn't as well known is the lengths the FBI went to, along with the ATF to fabricate evidence and downright lie in an effort to get Weaver. I doubt anyone here would pass off any of this behavior as trivial. I don't particularly like being viewed as a gun nut, right wing wacko, militiaman or whatever other label the gun grabbers put on us. It pisses me off to be denied my 2nd A rights and have to watch much worse go on in say the People's Republic of Chicago, just to name one.

All of that said, I hope that the gun owning community I'm proud to be a part of will stand for the higher ideals even when they aren't particularly popular in pop culture. Last week, I spent Wed and Thurs in Livingston, TX at the Polunksy Unit, which houses death row. I was visiting a client who was granted a new trial as to the punishment portion of his case by the US Supreme Court in '07. He was tried and convicted, in 1988. He was represented by a wholly incompetent lawyer (though this issue mattered not a whit to any court in Texas and this is not the basis for the new trial) and was fundamentally denied due process at trial. It took 20 years of appeals to remedy what should have been obvious. The courts in our own state are capable of amazing gymnastics to avoid the obvious. If he is given the death penalty in his trial that I handle, so be it. It is my job to see that it is a fair trial and not a mockery of whatever your concept of justice is. I am not asking you to feel a shred of sympathy for my client or others similarly situated, sympathy is rightly with the family of the victims. However I would hope that when the State of Texas sticks a needle in someone's arm and kills them in my name and yours, that the State has worn the white hat, followed the law. I'm not asking you to think the DP is wrong, I don't. However executing someone is the ultimate imposition of government power on a citizen (sometimes not a citizen). I don't care if it is the Feds or the State. Such an awesome power should not be exercised lightly in the minds of those in power or the citizens they say they represent. We would justly be outraged if LEO's wrongfully smashed in our doors in the middle of the night and killed or injured our family, snatched our property, slammed you against a wall etc... Only to find later they had the wrong house. When they strap 'em down at the Walls Unit and kill them, I need to know they have done it correctly, made every effort to have done it right...wear the white hat. I need to know that the government was put to their proof, the defendant's lawyer wasn't stoned, sleeping or had never tried so much as a misdemeanor case in his career. I think we as gun owners should be acutely aware of what goes on and be vigilant, not merely cheering for every execution. Occasionally when it comes to executions we as a society have had the wrong house. Most of the time not.

I hope that when you are a juror you take your oath to heart, I hope you force the government to prove the guy before you guilty beyond a reasonable doubt not just because you figure he must have done something or he wouldn't be where he is, and I hope you consider the evidence fairly when determining a just punishment. If you get mad that because you have X thousand rounds of ammo at your house, then "you must be up to no good" you should understand. If you sit in that jury box and hooorah the government on and accept whatever they say because it's "just some drug dealer", remember it may one day be you. I hope that we the gun owning community are the ones standing in the gap, doing the right thing. I hope you are the one that as a juror tosses out the illegally seized evidence at trial because you believe the 4th A really means something. The 2nd A really means something, well so does the 4th A. If we don't, the sheeple never will. They will blindly accept whatever the authority tells them. I'd like this community, one that prides itself on our independence, stands vigilant guard over our rights to do the same elsewhere. In no way am I saying we have a bad system, bad prosecutors, bad judges, bad LEO's, we don't. You can however find some bad ones in each of those categories and they ought not to be ignored. If you don't think the innocent are in prison and executed, you are wrong. If you don't believe there is a false confession you are wrong. If you don't think people lie, hide exculpatory evidence, re-write reports, beat "confessions" out of people, fudge the field sobriety test, stop your car for a pretext and so on you are wrong.

Are all these bad things rare? I think so, but rarity is not a justification, nor an excuse for people not to be vigilant and stamp out such behavior. Many if not all of you may be just the type of good guy I hope for, this is no indictment of anyone posting here. I just felt like I needed to say something...

I'll retreat to my hole now...