• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should these teens be tried as adults

Should the 15 and 16 year old also be tried as adults

  • yes and throw away the key

    Votes: 72 87.8%
  • no, they deserve a second chance

    Votes: 10 12.2%

  • Total voters
    82
Not according to your own source:



It only suggested it was illegal under international law that is actually relevant to the United States in the case of minors and the death penalty.



Still an appeal to emotion, still a strawman.

Whether or not we are intelligent is irrelevant to the fact that broadly, or in regards to the US, capital punishment is not "murder".



Yes, it is. It's using "simple facts" to appeal to emotion in hopes of making one feel like we're "dumb" or we're "evil" or we're "wrong" for having the death penalty by comparing us to "bad" or "dumb" countries when that is entirely irrelevant to the notion of whether or not it's "murder". Murder is not the "dumb killing" of someone, it's not the "evil killing" or someone, it's the "illegal" killing of someone. Continually pointing out the "fact" of which countries also allow for capital punishment does nothing against my statement OTHER than attempt to pull emotional heart strings.



You prove my point precisely about your hyper emotional state.

I haven't "screamed out for blood lust". I haven't actually suggested in any way what should happen to these kids. I've not suggested it'll solve any problems. I've SIMPLY and singularly stated that your BROAD claim that capital punishment is "state sponsored murder" is incorrect. That's it. YOU are the one having a "knee jerk reaction" that is an "emotional one" to my statement. YOU are the one assuming somehow that I'm suggesting that because it's not "murder" that it's somehow mean it must be less bad, less evil, less immoral, less wrong, etc. I've said no such thing. I've simply suggested that your claim or "murder" is incorrect.



Here's a lesson for you, since you are failing MISERABLY and throwing fallacies all over the place. Ready?

Read what people actually SAY, stop imagining what they say based on your prejducies and emotions

I've made no comment about other countries "murdering" their citizens. ACTUALLY, quite to the contrary, I specifically said you would NOT find me complaining that a country is "murdering" it's citizens when it comes to the death penalty. This is REGARDLESS of how brutal I think the penalty is or how stupid I think the law is.

I may DISLIKE their methods, I may think their laws are inhumane, I might think the country is an immoral batch of filth....but none of that means I'd think their killing of someone under their laws is "murder".

This goes back to my suggestion that you're basing this fully and completely from a hyper emotional state. There is nothing inherently less immoral, evil, wrong, bad, etc about KILLING someone and MURDERING someone. It just happens that murder is a specific type of killing, the specifically unlawful kind.



I don't personally think we'll see it's abolition occur across the entire U.S. in my life time, but if we do...meh. I won't be sad over that. I think it'll be kind of foolish, becuase I think it's something that should be on the table, but I also don't have some over arching desire to desperately see it remain. Especially with how our appeals system works and how, almost counter intuitively, it seemingly costs the tax payers more to put someone to death then hold them for a life sentence. So I think it'll be a bit foolish to handcuff our options of what punishments are available if we get rid of it entirely, but it won't make me SAD in the least.



Again, you have a horrible understanding of what words mean. Your opinion is not fact, those two words mean entirely different. What you just stated is not the definition of murder

Sorry, I have to log off now. Will have to look at this later. :2wave:
 
First of all, if they were sentenced to LWOP, I would have no problem with that. They are removed from society, and not only that but they have to live with what they've done. Once you're dead, you're dead. No more problems. Not to mention, these were men, not kids.

Secondly, I must say that you seem like an angry and bitter individual. I can see that conversing with you will lead to nowhere fast, so I'm going to end this little tit for tat now. Bye-bye now pleasant lady! :2wave:

Your filibustering will not work with me.
If you are willing to post your opinions, then surely you are willing to acknowledge that others have opinions as well, and interjecting your personal insults will not hamper my viewpoint.
Why is it that when people try to present facts, those who have orated the loudest are the ones to revert to ad hominem attacks?
 
Well, obviously you are not a logical person. They are not monsters, they are stupid kids.

And you wanting to kill them or see them dead, makes you what?

Honestly, I really don't care what you think.

How in the world you ascertain if someone is logical or not based upon your mindset?
Anyone who would callously shoot an innocent stranger in the back is a monster.
If you don't care what I think then stop reading my posts.
 
Your filibustering will not work with me.
If you are willing to post your opinions, then surely you are willing to acknowledge that others have opinions as well, and interjecting your personal insults will not hamper my viewpoint.
Why is it that when people try to present facts, those who have orated the loudest are the ones to revert to ad hominem attacks?
Just an FYI, calling three teenagers "monsters" isn't presenting facts.
 
Just an FYI, calling three teenagers "monsters" isn't presenting facts.

The facts have been presented. They shot an innocent stranger IN THE BACK for no apparent reason other than ....
How would you define the three?
 
The facts have been presented. They shot an innocent stranger IN THE BACK for no apparent reason other than ....
How would you define the three?
As what they are of course, stupid kids who killed someone because they were apparently bored.
 
According to the UN, it is cruel and unusual punishment.

yeah.... :laughat: according to the guys who turn a blind eye to their own running underage brothels. forgive me if I don't put much faith in the moral judgement of the UN :laughat:

When you kill someone who is not an immediate threat to you, that's murder. Sorry if you don't like it, but that's a fact.

sorry, but your OPINION is not fact...and that is a FACT.
 
yeah.... :laughat: according to the guys who turn a blind eye to their own running underage brothels. forgive me if I don't put much faith in the moral judgement of the UN :laughat:

Well it isn't just the UN. It's actually considered a human rights issue.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/Oxfordpaper.pdf

sorry, but your OPINION is not fact...and that is a FACT.

It is fact. Just because the United States wants to call it something else, doesn't make it so. Read the link I posted please.
 
Your filibustering will not work with me.
If you are willing to post your opinions, then surely you are willing to acknowledge that others have opinions as well, and interjecting your personal insults will not hamper my viewpoint.
Why is it that when people try to present facts, those who have orated the loudest are the ones to revert to ad hominem attacks?

No, sorry but you are obviously overly emotional regarding this issue, referring to the suspects as "monsters" is a clear give away. I acknowledge that others' have opinions, but that doesn't mean I have to give them any kind of serious consideration.

You have yet to present any facts.
 
Sorry, no way. 15-16yo know murder is wrong. This wasn't in the heat of anger, or sort-kinda-by-accident, or negligence, or even in response to some insult or offense.... this was entirely malum-in-se with no mitigating circumstances. There are some things for which "they're just kids" is no longer an excuse for people past puberty. This was one.

I joined the British army when I was 16. **** these pricks.
 
Not according to your own source:



It only suggested it was illegal under international law that is actually relevant to the United States in the case of minors and the death penalty.

It's tolerated only because the United States HAS made important adjustments to our death penalty sentencing, such as no longer executing minors. If you read the new link I posted above, it tells you all about the plans to eventually abolish the death penalty worldwide as cruel and unusual punishment.



Still an appeal to emotion, still a strawman.

I disagree. A lot of the countries who abolished the death penalty did so because it goes against human rights.

Whether or not we are intelligent is irrelevant to the fact that broadly, or in regards to the US, capital punishment is not "murder".

Okay fine. I'll use the word "killing" instead. Better? :mrgreen: But really, this is nothing more than semantics. Just because the death penalty isn't "illegal" it's still as bad as murder. They lock a person up, put them on death row for years (because they have to) and then they kill them. What would happen if I killed a person who I believed killed one of my loved ones? I would be charged with murder. Why is it okay for the state to do this?

Yes, it is. It's using "simple facts" to appeal to emotion in hopes of making one feel like we're "dumb" or we're "evil" or we're "wrong" for having the death penalty by comparing us to "bad" or "dumb" countries when that is entirely irrelevant to the notion of whether or not it's "murder". Murder is not the "dumb killing" of someone, it's not the "evil killing" or someone, it's the "illegal" killing of someone. Continually pointing out the "fact" of which countries also allow for capital punishment does nothing against my statement OTHER than attempt to pull emotional heart strings.

No, it's the opposite. It's an appeal to logic. The death penalty is just not logical anymore in our modern times. It is also unnecessary. That tells me that the people who support it are basing it off an emotion that they want an eye for an eye. That is based in emotion and not logic in any way.



You prove my point precisely about your hyper emotional state.

I haven't "screamed out for blood lust". I haven't actually suggested in any way what should happen to these kids. I've not suggested it'll solve any problems. I've SIMPLY and singularly stated that your BROAD claim that capital punishment is "state sponsored murder" is incorrect. That's it. YOU are the one having a "knee jerk reaction" that is an "emotional one" to my statement. YOU are the one assuming somehow that I'm suggesting that because it's not "murder" that it's somehow mean it must be less bad, less evil, less immoral, less wrong, etc. I've said no such thing. I've simply suggested that your claim or "murder" is incorrect.

I'm not necessarily referring to you. There have been plenty others on this thread who say "kill them!" Put them in gen pop and let them get raped! Come on!!! That IS an overly emotional knee jerk reaction. You are trying to turn it around on me and try to say that I'm the one being emotional, but I am actually fighting the emotional side of my brain which agrees sometimes that it wants to see a killer suffer. I have to fight against that to get to the logical side where I realize that the death penalty is really quite useless.

Here's a lesson for you, since you are failing MISERABLY and throwing fallacies all over the place. Ready?

Read what people actually SAY, stop imagining what they say based on your prejducies and emotions

Um yeah, you just said I was being overly emotional even though I tell you no I am not. I am fighting against that to try to be logical. People who want to kill somebody are the ones who are emotional. I can't even believe this. . . :roll: It's really obvious who is basing their opinions on emotion, and it certainly isn't me. Like I've stated multiple times now, there are times when I myself would like to see a person get the DP, and I fight it.


I've made no comment about other countries "murdering" their citizens. ACTUALLY, quite to the contrary, I specifically said you would NOT find me complaining that a country is "murdering" it's citizens when it comes to the death penalty. This is REGARDLESS of how brutal I think the penalty is or how stupid I think the law is.

No you haven't, so then you're okay with stoning, beheading, hanging. What about strangulation? Would that be okay too?

I may DISLIKE their methods, I may think their laws are inhumane, I might think the country is an immoral batch of filth....but none of that means I'd think their killing of someone under their laws is "murder".

I think it is. No one should allow the state the power to kill it's people. This can be easily abused and is when innocent people are at risk, and this is a risk you take EVERY TIME you employ the DP.


This goes back to my suggestion that you're basing this fully and completely from a hyper emotional state. There is nothing inherently less immoral, evil, wrong, bad, etc about KILLING someone and MURDERING someone. It just happens that murder is a specific type of killing, the specifically unlawful kind.

Absolutely not based on emotion. Just the opposite.


I don't personally think we'll see it's abolition occur across the entire U.S. in my life time, but if we do...meh. I won't be sad over that. I think it'll be kind of foolish, becuase I think it's something that should be on the table, but I also don't have some over arching desire to desperately see it remain. Especially with how our appeals system works and how, almost counter intuitively, it seemingly costs the tax payers more to put someone to death then hold them for a life sentence. So I think it'll be a bit foolish to handcuff our options of what punishments are available if we get rid of it entirely, but it won't make me SAD in the least.

I wouldn't mind in the least if the death penalty was abolished. Again, we should never give the government that kind of power.



Again, you have a horrible understanding of what words mean. Your opinion is not fact, those two words mean entirely different. What you just stated is not the definition of murder

I use that because it really is. The government makes the laws. They say it's not "illegal" because they are the ones doing the killing and prefer to call it an execution or a punishment for a crime, but in reality they are killing an essentially helpless person who is not an immediate threat to them. If you are willing to accept that from our government, then fine, but I am not.

PS: This is the longest I've been able to stay on line since 4:56 p.m. Woot!!!! :)
 
It's tolerated only because the United States HAS made important adjustments to our death penalty sentencing, such as no longer executing minors. If you read the new link I posted above, it tells you all about the plans to eventually abolish the death penalty worldwide as cruel and unusual punishment.

Plans to and what it currently is are two different things. People have “plans” to do many things that never actually come to fruition.

I disagree. A lot of the countries who abolished the death penalty did so because it goes against human rights.

Human Rights are a subjective concept and irrelevant in this fashion to the notion of what is or isn’t murder…so again, no reason to include it other than an appeal to emotion.

Okay fine. I'll use the word "killing" instead. Better?

Pretty much, yes. You’ll note my first response to you did nothing but comment about your attempt to label it as murder. Nothing else. Everything subsequent has been you assuming that meant I was condoning the notion of the death penalty in general o on these kids or trying to say that “yes it is murder”.

But really, this is nothing more than semantics.

Again, this is just you going “I want to use words for their emotional triggers rather than because they’re actually accurate and I’m pissy that someone called me on it”.

Just because the death penalty isn't "illegal" it's still as bad as murder.

Okay, that’s how you feel. Good for you. Has zero to do with any point I made. As is the entire rest of this paragraph.

No, it's the opposite. It's an appeal to logic.

No, it’s not. Bringing up how “bad” the death penalty is not an “appeal to logic” to counter my argument that it’s not “murder” because how “Bad” something is is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to whether or not it’s murder. So the ONLY appeal it’s doing is to emotion…in trying to make me feel guilty or bad for saying it’s not murder because it’s so horrible and wrong.

That’s not logic…unless again we’re basically saying the definition of words don’t matter and logic suddenly means something entirely different.

I'm not necessarily referring to you.

And yet you typed it directly in relation and in attempt to counter MY point and MY argument.

What others have done or said is irrelevant to my argument. If others want people put in “gen pop and raped” that affects my statement that Capital Punishment, in a broad sense or in the US sense, is not murder in zero ways.

Um yeah, you just said I was being overly emotional even though I tell you no I am not.

Saying your arguments are being based off you being emotional is not an example of me not reading what you SAY…it’s an example of me taking what you say and suggesting WHY I think you’re saying it.

This is difference to where I SPECIFICALLY said that I would NOT do something and you responded in a way that would indicate that I stated I WOULD do something.

I specifically stated I would not complain about Iran or any other country “MURDERING” their citizens under their legal system. You then made a post stating that I “see other countries as bad for murdering their citizens”. Something I SPECIFICALLY said the opposite of.

What you referenced is an example of me stating my opinion about the motives behind your statements as a whole. What I referenced is an example of you claiming I said something 180 degrees different than what I actually said.

I am fighting against that to try to be logical.

Let me perhaps break this down a bit simpler since you’re seemingly confused…

I was not suggesting your stance that THESE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS should not get the death penalty is an emotional based argument.

I was not suggesting your stance that the death penalty is bad in some fashion is an emotional based argument.

I was suggesting that your continued attempt to proclaim it as “MURDER”, and to claim I was wrong for saying it wasn’t, was an emotional based argument.

No you haven't, so then you're okay with stoning, beheading, hanging. What about strangulation? Would that be okay too?

Whether or not I’m “okay” with them is IRRELEVANT to my point. You continue to attempt to throw a strawman up there to attempt to get me to veer off the point because you can’t actually counter it…sorry, not playing that game.

I think it is. No one should allow the state the power to kill it's people. This can be easily abused and is when innocent people are at risk, and this is a risk you take EVERY TIME you employ the DP.

And you’re absolutely free to have that opinion. That opinion doesn’t make capital punishment murder.

I use that because it really is.

No, it’s not. By the very definition of the word in the context you’re speaking, it unequivocally is not.
 
No, sorry but you are obviously overly emotional regarding this issue, referring to the suspects as "monsters" is a clear give away. I acknowledge that others' have opinions, but that doesn't mean I have to give them any kind of serious consideration.

You have yet to present any facts.

Your feeble attempt to assess my feelings is borderline narcissistic on your part.
Is there a specific quota of facts that you require?
Three teens, Chancey Allen Luna, James Francis Edwards, and Michael DeWayne Jones, were following Chris Lane, an Australian baseball player while he jogged alongside a road when Edwards aimed a gun at Lane and shot him IN THE BACK.
Surveillance video from SEVERAL BUSINESSES captured images of the suspects vehicle, and after they were arrested, Edwards CONFESSED that his motive was "Were going to kill somebody." They defended themselves from being bored.
Edwards had prior run-ins with the law, and he also tweeted "With my n*****s when it's time to start taken life's and 90% of white people are nasty #Hate them."
What would you call someone who shoots an innocent stranger IN THE BACK for no apparent reason.
If they are innocent and naïve, why were they running?
 
Your feeble attempt to assess my feelings is borderline narcissistic on your part.
Is there a specific quota of facts that you require?

Lol! Well, referring to the teens as "monsters" kind of gives it away. :mrgreen:


Three teens, Chancey Allen Luna, James Francis Edwards, and Michael DeWayne Jones, were following Chris Lane, an Australian baseball player while he jogged alongside a road when Edwards aimed a gun at Lane and shot him IN THE BACK.

Surveillance video from SEVERAL BUSINESSES captured images of the suspects vehicle, and after they were arrested, Edwards CONFESSED that his motive was "Were going to kill somebody." They defended themselves from being bored.
Edwards had prior run-ins with the law, and he also tweeted "With my n*****s when it's time to start taken life's and 90% of white people are nasty #Hate them."

And? What is your point?

What would you call someone who shoots an innocent stranger IN THE BACK for no apparent reason.
If they are innocent and naïve, why were they running?

Did I ever say they were innocent? Please show where exactly I stated that. I said they haven't been tried and convicted by a court of law. You can't argue with that because it's true.

Please tell me what the defense has said about the boys and the case, tell me about their lives, their upbringing, how they did in school, what are their prior crimes if any. Since you seem to know so much, this shouldn't be a problem for you.
 
Plans to and what it currently is are two different things. People have “plans” to do many things that never actually come to fruition.



Human Rights are a subjective concept and irrelevant in this fashion to the notion of what is or isn’t murder…so again, no reason to include it other than an appeal to emotion.

The rest of the international community would disagree with you. MOST countries have abolished the death penalty. There is obvious consensus among most of the world that the death penalty is wrong and against human rights. Just because we want to stick to our own definitions doesn't make us right.

Pretty much, yes. You’ll note my first response to you did nothing but comment about your attempt to label it as murder. Nothing else. Everything subsequent has been you assuming that meant I was condoning the notion of the death penalty in general o on these kids or trying to say that “yes it is murder”.

To me, it state-sponsored murder. You can keep arguing with me about ALL DAY, and you are NOT going to change my mind about that. The United States wants to look at it as a "legal" killing. That's the only difference. Once we outlaw it and in states in which it is outlawed, it would most certainly constitute murder.

Again, this is just you going “I want to use words for their emotional triggers rather than because they’re actually accurate and I’m pissy that someone called me on it”.

Absolutely not. I am not viewing it as an emotional trigger at all. In my view, that is exactly what it is. I call them as I see them.

Okay, that’s how you feel. Good for you. Has zero to do with any point I made. As is the entire rest of this paragraph.

No, it’s not. Bringing up how “bad” the death penalty is not an “appeal to logic” to counter my argument that it’s not “murder” because how “Bad” something is is ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT to whether or not it’s murder. So the ONLY appeal it’s doing is to emotion…in trying to make me feel guilty or bad for saying it’s not murder because it’s so horrible and wrong.

That’s not logic…unless again we’re basically saying the definition of words don’t matter and logic suddenly means something entirely different.



And yet you typed it directly in relation and in attempt to counter MY point and MY argument.

What others have done or said is irrelevant to my argument. If others want people put in “gen pop and raped” that affects my statement that Capital Punishment, in a broad sense or in the US sense, is not murder in zero ways.



Saying your arguments are being based off you being emotional is not an example of me not reading what you SAY…it’s an example of me taking what you say and suggesting WHY I think you’re saying it.

This is difference to where I SPECIFICALLY said that I would NOT do something and you responded in a way that would indicate that I stated I WOULD do something.

I specifically stated I would not complain about Iran or any other country “MURDERING” their citizens under their legal system. You then made a post stating that I “see other countries as bad for murdering their citizens”. Something I SPECIFICALLY said the opposite of.

What you referenced is an example of me stating my opinion about the motives behind your statements as a whole. What I referenced is an example of you claiming I said something 180 degrees different than what I actually said.



Let me perhaps break this down a bit simpler since you’re seemingly confused…

I was not suggesting your stance that THESE PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS should not get the death penalty is an emotional based argument.

I was not suggesting your stance that the death penalty is bad in some fashion is an emotional based argument.

I was suggesting that your continued attempt to proclaim it as “MURDER”, and to claim I was wrong for saying it wasn’t, was an emotional based argument.



Whether or not I’m “okay” with them is IRRELEVANT to my point. You continue to attempt to throw a strawman up there to attempt to get me to veer off the point because you can’t actually counter it…sorry, not playing that game.



And you’re absolutely free to have that opinion. That opinion doesn’t make capital punishment murder.



No, it’s not. By the very definition of the word in the context you’re speaking, it unequivocally is not.

Since all of the rest of this post seems to be arguing the definition of murder, I refer you to the above comments.
 
The rest of the international community would disagree with you. MOST countries have abolished the death penalty. There is obvious consensus among most of the world that the death penalty is wrong and against human rights. Just because we want to stick to our own definitions doesn't make us right.

I'm not sticking to "our own definition", I'm sticking to the standard definition for the word "murder". The state killing someone through capital punishment in a country where it's illegal WOULD be murder. The state killing someone through capital punishment in a country where it's legal would not. One countries laws don't relate to another countries laws in regards to how you'd term it for THAT particular country, and the fact it's not universally against the law means broadly claiming it as "murder" in all instances is also incorrect.

To me, it state-sponsored murder. You can keep arguing with me about ALL DAY, and you are NOT going to change my mind about that.

That's fine. If you'd like to continue to use a word erroniously and ignore reality that's your choice. Don't expect me not to state you're wrong when I see you do it though. You choosing to be wrong doesn't mean everyone has to just agree with you or not highlight your error.

The United States wants to look at it as a "legal" killing. That's the only difference. Once we outlaw it and in states in which it is outlawed, it would most certainly constitute murder.

It would THEN. And if rainbows shot out my ass and I turned into a horse I'd be a my little pony. Neither are relevant to the present day.
 
Lol! Well, referring to the teens as "monsters" kind of gives it away. :mrgreen:




And? What is your point?



Did I ever say they were innocent? Please show where exactly I stated that. I said they haven't been tried and convicted by a court of law. You can't argue with that because it's true.

Please tell me what the defense has said about the boys and the case, tell me about their lives, their upbringing, how they did in school, what are their prior crimes if any. Since you seem to know so much, this shouldn't be a problem for you.

Please stop making everything about you.
You asked for facts and they were given.
I, along with millions of others, don't give a mink's ass about upbringing of the teens. Shooting an innocent stranger in the back for no apparent reason cannot be justified by you or anyone else and calling them monsters is mild in comparison to what they did.
Stop making a fool of yourself!
 
Please stop making everything about you.
You asked for facts and they were given.

What's wrong with you? I didn't say anything about me. :lamo

I, along with millions of others, don't give a mink's ass about upbringing of the teens. Shooting an innocent stranger in the back for no apparent reason cannot be justified by you or anyone else and calling them monsters is mild in comparison to what they did.
Stop making a fool of yourself!

Look lady, obviously you have no idea what a fact is. Here is the definition of fact for you.

fact
fakt
noun
1.
a thing that is indisputably the case.
synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty; More

Now stop making a fool out of yourself.
 
I'm not sticking to "our own definition", I'm sticking to the standard definition for the word "murder". The state killing someone through capital punishment in a country where it's illegal WOULD be murder. The state killing someone through capital punishment in a country where it's legal would not. One countries laws don't relate to another countries laws in regards to how you'd term it for THAT particular country, and the fact it's not universally against the law means broadly claiming it as "murder" in all instances is also incorrect.

In most places in the world, capital punishment is murder. That is the way the CIVILIZED world is going. :shrug: There are states in this country, including my own, where capital punishment IS illegal. Therefore I suppose I CAN call it murder since it is illegal killing in MY state. :)

That's fine. If you'd like to continue to use a word erroniously and ignore reality that's your choice. Don't expect me not to state you're wrong when I see you do it though. You choosing to be wrong doesn't mean everyone has to just agree with you or not highlight your error.

It's not an error. It's illegal in my state of Massachusetts.

It would THEN. And if rainbows shot out my ass and I turned into a horse I'd be a my little pony. Neither are relevant to the present day.

I'd like to see that. :lol: Of course it's relevant since it IS illegal in many states in the US.
 
What's wrong with you? I didn't say anything about me. :lamo



Look lady, obviously you have no idea what a fact is. Here is the definition of fact for you.

fact
fakt
noun
1.
a thing that is indisputably the case.
synonyms: reality, actuality, certainty; More

Now stop making a fool out of yourself.

OMG! Please go away
 
Let's hear you grovel for Steven Hayes and Joshua Komisarjevsky, who not only robbed the Petit family home, but raped the mother, the 17 year-old and 11 year-old daughter before typing them to their beds and dousing them with gasoline and setting fire to them.
They received the death penalty, but the Petit father, who was nearly beaten to death and had the witness his daughters being raped, will have to live with the nightmare for the rest of his life.
Do you think the monsters received a fair trial?

Right here, you challenged me first. Sorry if you're just not very good at debating the issues and sticking to facts. :mrgreen:
 
Lol! Nope. I'm going to keep posting here. If you can't handle it, YOU go away.

More like logical fallacy on your part. Nothing really to handle as it's like water off a duck's back.
 
Back
Top Bottom