• 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!

Alabama inmate defiant before his execution for killing cop

Dittohead not!

master political analyst
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 3, 2009
Messages
52,009
Reaction score
33,942
Location
The Golden State
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
[h=1]Alabama inmate defiant before his execution for killing cop[/h]
[FONT=&quot]ATMORE, Ala. (AP) — The convicted killer of a police officer used his final moments before being put to death to curse at the state of Alabama, raising his middle fingers in defiance at the start of a lethal injection his lawyers described as inhumanely painful.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Torrey Twane McNabb, 40, was executed Thursday for the 1997 slaying of Montgomery police officer Anderson Gordon. McNabb shot Gordon five times as the officer sat in his patrol car after arriving at a traffic accident McNabb caused while fleeing a bail bondsman.[/FONT]
One final act of defiance.

52-14-5-10-11-33-16m.jpg
 
I reckon if the power of the corporate state can murder even unarmed citizens on the streets with impunity, it's bound to go the other way on occasion.
 
[h=1]Alabama inmate defiant before his execution for killing cop[/h]

ATMORE, Ala. (AP) — The convicted killer of a police officer used his final moments before being put to death to curse at the state of Alabama, raising his middle fingers in defiance at the start of a lethal injection his lawyers described as inhumanely painful. Torrey Twane McNabb, 40, was executed Thursday for the 1997 slaying of Montgomery police officer Anderson Gordon. McNabb shot Gordon five times as the officer sat in his patrol car after arriving at a traffic accident McNabb caused while fleeing a bail bondsman.

One final act of defiance.

...and your point? :confused:

I don't support the death penalty. Not because I don't think sometimes some people might deserve it, but because we have yet to reach a point of certainty that all people condemned are actually guilty of the crime accused.

However, in this case such defiance seems to be a natural reaction from a person whose disrespect for both the law and the life of another was clearly evident. So why should we care? :shrug:

I reckon if the power of the corporate state can murder even unarmed citizens on the streets with impunity, it's bound to go the other way on occasion.

As above; your point?

Apparently none, except IMO to twist any information you see into some anti-capitalist comment. :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
Maybe BLM can muster a few idiots to march for Torrey. Hell has one more person to look after.
 
Police officer Anderson Gordon who was shot 5 times by Torrey Twane McNabb

montgomery-police-officer-Anderson-Gordon.jpg







Corporal
Anderson Gordon, III
Montgomery Police Department, Alabama

End of Watch: Wednesday, September 24, 1997

Corporal Anderson Gordon was shot and killed after being ambushed.

A bail bondsman was chasing a bail-jumper when the man's car crashed at the intersection of Rosa Parks Avenue and National Avenue. Corporal Gordon happened to be driving by the scene, not knowing what was happening, when the subject opened fire on his patrol car without warning. Corporal Gordon was fatally wounded before executing his vehicle.

The man then hid nearby and shot at other responding officers before being wounded and taken into custody. The man was convicted of Corporal Gordon's murder and sentenced to death. He was executed by lethal injection on October 19th, 2017.

Corporal Gordon is survived by his two daughters and fiancée.

Corporal Anderson Gordon, III, Montgomery Police Department, Alabama
 
...and your point? :confused:

I don't support the death penalty. Not because I don't think sometimes some people might deserve it, but because we have yet to reach a point of certainty that all people condemned are actually guilty of the crime accused.

However, in this case such defiance seems to be a natural reaction from a person whose disrespect for both the law and the life of another was clearly evident. So why should we care? :shrug:



As above; your point?

Apparently none, except IMO to twist any information you see into some anti-capitalist comment. :coffeepap:

American style capitalism requires no assistance from anyone in that regard.

Privatized gains versus socialized losses for the Wall Street bankster class
Internalized profit versus externalized risk and expense for the "job creator" class
Socialism for the aristocracy versus laissez-faire capitalism for the masses

That's your system and it will eventually eat itself, just a matter of time.
 
...and your point? :confused:

I don't support the death penalty. Not because I don't think sometimes some people might deserve it, but because we have yet to reach a point of certainty that all people condemned are actually guilty of the crime accused.

However, in this case such defiance seems to be a natural reaction from a person whose disrespect for both the law and the life of another was clearly evident. So why should we care? :shrug:

My point was simply to start off a discussion of the death penalty, using an egregious example of someone who "deserved" it.
I don't support the death penalty for the reason you just gave, as well as that it gives the government too much power. Moreover, a life without parole is a more severe penalty IMO.

The cop killer should be in a supermax living out the rest of his life. Even in a case like this, a truly civilized society doesn't kill its citizens.
 
My point was simply to start off a discussion of the death penalty, using an egregious example of someone who "deserved" it.
I don't support the death penalty for the reason you just gave, as well as that it gives the government too much power. Moreover, a life without parole is a more severe penalty IMO.

The cop killer should be in a supermax living out the rest of his life. Even in a case like this, a truly civilized society doesn't kill its citizens.

I disagree. I am against the death penalty unless the standard is to a virtual certainity. I do not know if this is the case here but perhaps it is. There are some people that we should stop wasting resources on. But we better be Damm sure
 
I disagree. I am against the death penalty unless the standard is to a virtual certainity. I do not know if this is the case here but perhaps it is. There are some people that we should stop wasting resources on. But we better be Damm sure

Is "damn sure" a higher standard of proof than "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
How do we define it?
 
Is "damn sure" a higher standard of proof than "beyond a reasonable doubt"?
How do we define it?

Yes it is. Dna, several witnesses, confession, motive,...etc. lots of things can make it up. But reasonable doubt is far too low a standard as evidenced by the people we release from death row for being innocent
 
My point was simply to start off a discussion of the death penalty, using an egregious example of someone who "deserved" it.
I don't support the death penalty for the reason you just gave, as well as that it gives the government too much power. Moreover, a life without parole is a more severe penalty IMO.

The cop killer should be in a supermax living out the rest of his life. Even in a case like this, a truly civilized society doesn't kill its citizens.

Meaning anyone who disagrees is thereby admitting they are not "civilized?" A base Argumentum ad Populum claiming "all the best people believe this." :roll:

Hmmm...let's consider this. :think:

So you would prefer locking a person in a cell for the remainder of their life, a sort of "living death" lingering until they meet a natural one?

Or maybe locked up but free to associate with other "super-criminals" from time to time; either becoming a super-predator, or the prey of other inmates? And THEN death (either at the hands of an inmate, or naturally)?

Some might argue that this idea of life imprisonment rather than a swift death is uncivilized.

Now in the case of life imprisonment, society would bear the continued cost of housing, feeding, medical and other care.

Moreover, such imprisonment would allow access to the court system with interminable appeals, and possible court appearances risking escape or damage to himself or others in any attempt to do so. That all costs society too.

Then some bleeding hearts might be convinced that he has somehow "redeemed" himself, and succeed in efforts to commute his sentence, pardon him, or grant some other form of release.

Nope, I do not support the death penalty currently because too many people have died who later turned out to be innocent...at least of the crime they were sentenced to death for.

But in cases where the guilt is clearly and indisputably established? I think it is both fitting and more humane to end a life rather than imprison them for life. I think that is truly "more civilized." :coffeepap:
 
Last edited:
I'd probably flip off my executioner as well.

Bravado is just another form of fear.

People like him deserve execution, regardless of how it is carried out. I’m all for the bullet in the back of the skull at sunrise.
 
Bravado is just another form of fear.

People like him deserve execution, regardless of how it is carried out. I’m all for the bullet in the back of the skull at sunrise.

I agree that many people deserve the death penalty, but the government shouldn't have the right to carry it out. Let the victim's family take vengeance, by way of a one-on-one deathmatch in the prison yard. That would be justice.
 
I agree that many people deserve the death penalty, but the government shouldn't have the right to carry it out. Let the victim's family take vengeance, by way of a one-on-one deathmatch in the prison yard. That would be justice.

Seriously? The victims family has to fight the offender to the death until he kills everyone in the family and then what? He walks?
 
Seriously? The victims family has to fight the offender to the death until he kills everyone in the family and then what? He walks?

They don't have to fight him, but they can. I suspect most wouldn't: the modern man is a *****.
 
They don't have to fight him, but they can. I suspect most wouldn't: the modern man is a *****.

Lol... sure thing tough guy.
 
Twenty years we paid for this piece of **** to live... unnacceptable.

and executing him will cost even more. You can't make the case for the death penalty on economics, not unless you're willing to change the justice system so that even more innocent people are convicted.
 
Meaning anyone who disagrees is thereby admitting they are not "civilized?" A base Argumentum ad Populum claiming "all the best people believe this." :roll:

Hmmm...let's consider this. :think:

So you would prefer locking a person in a cell for the remainder of their life, a sort of "living death" lingering until they meet a natural one?

Or maybe locked up but free to associate with other "super-criminals" from time to time; either becoming a super-predator, or the prey of other inmates? And THEN death (either at the hands of an inmate, or naturally)?

Some might argue that this idea of life imprisonment rather than a swift death is uncivilized.

Now in the case of life imprisonment, society would bear the continued cost of housing, feeding, medical and other care.

Moreover, such imprisonment would allow access to the court system with interminable appeals, and possible court appearances risking escape or damage to himself or others in any attempt to do so. That all costs society too.

Then some bleeding hearts might be convinced that he has somehow "redeemed" himself, and succeed in efforts to commute his sentence, pardon him, or grant some other form of release.

Nope, I do not support the death penalty currently because too many people have died who later turned out to be innocent...at least of the crime they were sentenced to death for.

But in cases where the guilt is clearly and indisputably established? I think it is both fitting and more humane to end a life rather than imprison them for life. I think that is truly "more civilized." :coffeepap:

I didn't say that anyone who disagrees is uncivilized. I said that a society that puts people to death isn't a truly civilized society. You can disagree with me and still remain civilized.

And, now I'm not sure whether you disagree or not. You say you're against the death penalty, yet for it in certain cases.
 
It shouldn't have taken 20 years to execute this waste of oxygen.
 
Back
Top Bottom