• 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!

Fort Hood suspect will face death penalty

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
This is a good thing.


Fort Hood suspect will face death penalty - Washington Times
FORT HOOD, Texas — The Army psychiatrist charged in the deadly Fort Hood rampage will be tried in a military court and face the death penalty if convicted, the commanding general for the Texas military post announced Wednesday.
 
I wish they could sentence him to being shot once by each surviving victim and twice by the immediate next of kin for every dead victim.
 
This is another case that too much money will be spent on. If I had my way we would limit the case to one day for prosecution, one day for defense, one day for findings, then carry out the death penality. There should be no "not guilty" by reason of insantity, but an option of guilty by reason of insanity. Even if sound insane, he still made a choice, he is guilty and should quit wasting air.
 
This is another case that too much money will be spent on. If I had my way we would limit the case to one day for prosecution, one day for defense, one day for findings, then carry out the death penality. There should be no "not guilty" by reason of insantity, but an option of guilty by reason of insanity. Even if sound insane, he still made a choice, he is guilty and should quit wasting air.

Even a POS like this guy has a right to a fair trial. Rights are not privileges that can be withdrawn.
 
I really think this guy should be put to death after that horrible crime he has committed.
 
You think shooting someone to death that is in the process of KILLING lots of people is an infringement on his rights??? LOL, THAT'S funny!
 
You think shooting someone to death that is in the process of KILLING lots of people is an infringement on his rights??? LOL, THAT'S funny!

So I guess the fact that he was actually arrested and detained without being killed was a miracle then. Imagine, they didn't use excessive force when they arrested him. What a concept.
 
What other rights would you strip from us?

I would say that when you go nuts and kill as many people as this Terrorist did you have the right to remain silent for by God ever.

Why should this Radical be any better than O.B.L. or Gaddafi.

Not answering for krickett just adding to the sentiment I like.
 
I would say that when you go nuts and kill as many people as this Terrorist did you have the right to remain silent for by God ever.

Why should this Radical be any better than O.B.L. or Gaddafi.

Not answering for krickett just adding to the sentiment I like.

Was God there with a loaded gun or are you presuming to speak for him?

When we are willing to toss our civil rights out the window, even in a horrible case such as this, then we are sealing our own doom. Once surrendered, a right is no longer a right.
 
Was God there with a loaded gun or are you presuming to speak for him?

When we are willing to toss our civil rights out the window, even in a horrible case such as this, then we are sealing our own doom. Once surrendered, a right is no longer a right.

That's a bit dramatic. Saying the guy should have been shot dead in the process of committing mass murder is hardly an infringement upon his or anybody else's rights.
 
That's a bit dramatic. Saying the guy should have been shot dead in the process of committing mass murder is hardly an infringement upon his or anybody else's rights.

If it had been the only way to stop him I would agree. Evidently it wasn't the only way to stop him, now was it?
 
If I ever go on a shooting rampage and kill a bunch of people on a MILITARY base I give anyone permission to kill me on the spot, since it is obviously a suicide mission any way and I would deserve to be shot dead.
 
If it had been the only way to stop him I would agree. Evidently it wasn't the only way to stop him, now was it?

The fact that he didn't die probably has more to do with the fact that the woman shooting at him was also injured during the shoot-out. The man is paralyzed from the waist down..they put in an honest effort to kill him.

And let's be honest...he didn't expect to get out of there alive. He wouldn't have opened fire in a room full of military personell if he thought he stood a chance of getting out.
 
If it had been the only way to stop him I would agree. Evidently it wasn't the only way to stop him, now was it?

He didn't die by sheer luck, he's paralyzed for life, suffered multiple gunshots. They WERE shooting to kill. Just a shame in some ways he lived.
 
The fact that he didn't die probably has more to do with the fact that the woman shooting at him was also injured during the shoot-out. The man is paralyzed from the waist down..they put in an honest effort to kill him.

And let's be honest...he didn't expect to get out of there alive. He wouldn't have opened fire in a room full of military personell if he thought he stood a chance of getting out.

Yet he did get out, and will face justice. I fail to see where the system failed in this case.

The thing about frontier justice is while it sure sounds nice and would wrap things in a hurry, it leads to anarchy. If we are to remain a civilized nation, then we must first be a nation of laws and rights. Those who are charged with maintaining those laws and rights should also be held to a higher standard.

Yes, there are times indeed where defending themselves is required and should be done. There are times when the powers they hold are abused, there are times when the duties are discharged perfectly.

In the case of this man, if he is mentally competent, then I agree with the death penalty due to the overwhelming evidence against him. According to the law, not according to frontier justice.
 
Even a POS like this guy has a right to a fair trial. Rights are not privileges that can be withdrawn.

I don't disagree. Fair trial doesn't have to mean spending millions of dollars. What is up to debate is should it take that much for a "fair" trail, when its pretty conclusive he did it.
 
So I guess the fact that he was actually arrested and detained without being killed was a miracle then. Imagine, they didn't use excessive force when they arrested him. What a concept.

When someone is in the act of killing people, there is no such thing as excessive force.
 
Yet he did get out, and will face justice. I fail to see where the system failed in this case.

The thing about frontier justice is while it sure sounds nice and would wrap things in a hurry, it leads to anarchy. If we are to remain a civilized nation, then we must first be a nation of laws and rights. Those who are charged with maintaining those laws and rights should also be held to a higher standard.

Yes, there are times indeed where defending themselves is required and should be done. There are times when the powers they hold are abused, there are times when the duties are discharged perfectly.

In the case of this man, if he is mentally competent, then I agree with the death penalty due to the overwhelming evidence against him. According to the law, not according to frontier justice.

I don't think anybody (at least I didn't) said that the system has failed.
 
This is another case that too much money will be spent on. If I had my way we would limit the case to one day for prosecution, one day for defense, one day for findings, then carry out the death penality. There should be no "not guilty" by reason of insantity, but an option of guilty by reason of insanity. Even if sound insane, he still made a choice, he is guilty and should quit wasting air.

If he didn't have some bledding heart, hand wringing, anti-death penalty lawyer, he could plead guilty and get on with the show.
 
If he didn't have some bledding heart, hand wringing, anti-death penalty lawyer, he could plead guilty and get on with the show.

Isn't this being tried in a Military Court Martial?
 
What other rights would you strip from us?

How many rights were stripped away from the people that he murdered?

And, there's absolutely no doubt that he murdered them.
 
How many rights were stripped away from the people that he murdered?

And, there's absolutely no doubt that he murdered them.

Two wrongs make things right? Is there ant doubt he will pay for his crime?
 
Back
Top Bottom