serial killer identified

[realthog]

If anyone can tell me the difference between Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, and Ted Bundy, I'd be really glad to hear it.

A few years back, it was shown that Cameron Todd Willingham, stupid enough to have been born in Texas, had been convicted of a crime that didn't exist: he'd been railroaded to a death sentence by forensics testimony indicating the fire that had killed his kids was arson. Later forensics evidence showed the stuff presented in court had been a mixture of superstition and pseudoscience (and I'm being charitable): there was no reason to believe the fire had been anything other than an accident caused by bad wiring.

Worried his psychopathic pig-ignorant electorate might punish him for being "soft on crime" should he pardon an innocent man, Perry insisted the killing of Willingham go ahead. When a State of Texas legal committee tried to stop this murder, Perry rejigged its membership to fill it with his cronies.

Killing for gain? That's murder, isn't it?

And now he's played a similar jolly little trick on Humberto Leal Garcia, a Mexican convicted on likewise dodgy (quite possibly concocted) forensics; further, Garcia's conviction was invalid under international law, since as a Mexican citizen he should have had access to his consulate, access effectively denied by the State of Texas's failure to inform any of the relevant parties. Even President Obama, who doesn't mind bombing the shit out of innocent Afghan civilians, was worried enough about the welter of human-rights cases building up in the International Court against Democracy's Champion to try to intervene on Garcia's behalf; no reaction from Perry, keen to court the votes of the most vicious, ignorant and racist people in Texas.

I have no idea how many other innocent people Perry has killed to advance his political career. A writer like Rodney Balko might know. Go google.

There's a word for people who put personal gain ahead of the lives of other human beings. Perry's one of them. There's also a term for people who are so rejective of basic science that they'd rather pursue the dictates of their reality-divorced ideology than accept basic, easily comprehensible facts placed in front of them; Perry's one of those, too.

The history books are, obviously, going to list the guy as a serial killer; isn't it about time we all of us started calling him out on this before he kills another innocent?

Comments

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

I wish I could say that Perry is an exception, but he isn't. He's on the same page with most DAs, who won't reverse convictions when post trial evidence surfaces that proves the defendants' innocence. Only recently has DNA evidence been effective in releasing people who've been sitting on death row for years.

It's for this reason, and this reason only, that I don't support the death penalty. And yet, when evidence is incontrovertible in the heinous murders of children, I want to see the S.O.B. hang. I can't help it.

But because I believe that not a single innocent should ever suffer the torture of death row, I argue against the death penalty. As for Texas, we'd actually considered retiring there, near the Blanco River. But more and more I'm thinking I'll go elsewhere. Maybe St. Ives in Cornwall. Yeah, I can see myself in Cornwall.

Did you know that Afghanistan has one of the largest iridium deposits in the world, discovered about ten, fifteen years ago?

[realthog.livejournal.com]

Me, I think the death penalty is vile because:

(a) I think it is wrong to kill people, full stop -- for me this is not debatable;

(b) I think it is wrong for nations to kill their citizens -- the difference between nations that use capital punishment and Nazi Germany is one of quantity, not morality (and, yep, I'm aware of all the braindead rightwingers who'll accuse me of using the "Nazi" insult indiscriminately);

(c) study after study has shown that, far from decreasing the rate of murder/violent crime, the death penalty actually increases it.

So, if the death penalty is both irrational and immoral, and if it frequently kills the innocent (as it indubitably does), what else is left in its favor?

Why, dammit, it can be used to further the political careers of humanity-deficient scumbags like Rick Perry, that's what!

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

There isn't much of anything in its favor, when the law kills the innocent.

If I may pose a question, Paul, since we're on the subject of "killing": If given a situation where you had to kill someone (use deadly force) to stop him from killing you or a loved one, would you kill that person? I'm not talking guns or warfare here, but simply creating a hypothetical situation in which a violent man busts down your door and grabs your loved one, with the intention of doing her serious harm, and there's no time for negotiating the behavior or talking him down, would you use deadly force to stop him? And if killing him were the only way to stop him, would you do it?

I have no doubt in my mind that I am capable of homicide, in this situation. I would use deadly force if this were to happen in my home, especially if it were one of my children threatened. I wouldn't want to merely clock his head to knock him out. I'd want to make sure that fellow was not going to get up again and try to harm my loved one.

I'm not making a comparison here to capital punishment, or Nazi Germany, or America's penal system. I'm simply asking if you could kill someone, in this particular situation.

If you choose not to answer, I'll understand. ;) ♥

[mastadge.livejournal.com]

Not Paul, but to answer your question, I think there's a big difference between deadly force and intent to kill. In your hypothetical situation, I would, yes, use any means necessary to save the loved one. I would not do so with the intent of killing the intruder, but if the intruder ended up dead I (hope I) wouldn't lose too much sleep over it. And if what I did badly wounded the intruder, once my loved one was safe I hope I'd be able to then save the intruder from (for instance) bleeding to death, too. (Though the law would probably suggest otherwise, since if he dies it was simply self defense (or something like it, defense of a loved one, whatever), but if he lives he can sue me for use of excessive force or some nonsense like that.)

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

Nathan, you echoed my sentiment perfectly, and quite eloquently, I might add.

I would not move against the assailant with conscious intent to kill; but my reaction would be physical force necessary to disable and restrain. As you said, if in the process he were to die, I would not lose sleep over his death. I would sleep all the better knowing my family is safer for my quick decision and actions.

I understand your frustration about the laws in some states that give criminals the right to sue you, when they are injured on your property during the commission of a crime, which they themselves are committing against you. This is just plain stoopid. But the world is getting crazier and more corrupt with each passing year, so nothing surprises me these days. It's one big Mad Hatter's tea party, and those of us who favor logic are hard pressed to maintain our own sanity in the face all this madness.

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

I'm opposed to capital punishment, myself, but I can see deadly force in self-defence as legitimate.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

If given a situation where you had to kill someone (use deadly force) to stop him from killing you or a loved one, would you kill that person?

Nathan's answer to this is more or less the same as my own: I'd do everything I could not to kill the intruder, but if that proved not to be an option then, yes, I'd choose to save the life of the loved one. (If it were to save my own life, I'm not so sure.) The prime difference between me and the two of you is that I would lose sleep over it!

A far more interesting question, though, especially in the context of death-penalty considerations, is surely this: If the intruder had already killed the loved one and presented no immediate further danger, would you kill him?

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

(If it were to save my own life, I'm not so sure.) The prime difference between me and the two of you is that I would lose sleep over it!

I would kill someone trying to kill me. I'd fight to the death, preferably his.

A far more interesting question, though, especially in the context of death-penalty considerations, is surely this: If the intruder had already killed the loved one and presented no immediate further danger, would you kill him?

Excellent question. Let us say that my husband and I are seated at the dinner table together and a madman bursts through the back door, assaults my husband with a knife and kills him. My first move would be to grab my sidearm, which I usually keep in the bed stand (our house is small). If the assailant does not pursue me, but instead remains in the dining area, appearing disoriented and confused, I'd get a bead on him while calling 911. I'd order him to the floor. If he is unresponsive I'd know this is someone experiencing a psychotic break; and if he exited the house, I'd follow him while remaining in touch with 911 and emergency responders the entire time. If the assailant, however, were to suddenly charge me, I'd aim for his chest and drop him. End of story.

Now, if I didn't have time to run for my gun I would then pick up my chair and smash him with it. People juiced up on madness are similar to angel dust maniacs, and quite resistant to attack. So I would hope to knock him out long enough to get my gun and shoot out his kneecaps.

The thing is, Paul, all of the men who have committed crimes against me, and my home, have been quite lucid and non-psychotic at the time of the crimes. Home invasion criminals are a lousy, rotten bunch of sociopaths who kill people, who rape and brutalize women and children, before murdering them, and in general they destroy people's lives. They deserve to be killed on the spot during the commission of their crimes.

We have a terrible crime problem in Vegas, and gang members number in the thousands.

If you talk to anyone who has ever been a victim, or who has lived in a high crime area, they will echo my words with enthusiasm. I'm not alone in feeling this way.

A man or woman who preys upon and murders children, against whom the state has clear evidence of such crimes, needs to be permanently removed from society, and quite frankly I don't care how it's done. I don't like sexual sadists and predators who get a nut torturing and murdering people, especially those who murder children. I'm a bear on the subject. I'm glad Ted Bundy got fried, or gassed, or whatever it was the state used to put down that monster.

If you had a chance to save Hitler's life, would you do it? What if Hitler had killed your family and your were next, but you had a chance to drop him on the spot, using deadly force. Would you kill him?

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

For some reason, I've had thoughts of Cornwall myself. My best beloved keeps whispering 'Florida'.

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

Florida is no Cornwall. It's hot and humid, buggy, full of gators, and has a woefully backward social and judicial system. Only if you're loaded to the eye teeth with money and can afford South Beach, Boca Raton, or the Keys, would I suggest retiring there. The beaches are nice, though, when it's not hurricane season.

My heart's in Cornwall. But I'll never make it over there.

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

I lived for fourteen years in Jamaica. Your description of Florida fits. I do not like cold weather much, and my wife is really, really getting tired of Georgia's winters.

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

Then Florida is perfect for you and your wife. I prefer the Atlantic side, and the Jupiter area is nice, affordable, too. I think Juno Beach is wonderful, and would live there, if I could.

There are parts of Georgia that are lovely. You must be in the Piedmont area, if the winters are cold. I've never been to Georgia, would love to see it someday. Actually, I prefer a cold climate, can't tolerate heat. The irony is, I've lived my entire life in the southwest, and have suffered summers as hot as 125 degrees F. One experiences brain damage at those temps.

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

I'm in Atlanta. This past winter was actually pretty awful -- at least one week in January was. I'm not at all sure Gail could take the mild winters in the southwest of England.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

Well, I lived for many years in Devon, which is just up the road from Cornwall . . . and it gets less infested by grockles during the summer months.

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

But is it warm year round?

[realthog.livejournal.com]

But is it warm year round?

About the same as Cornwall. And you don't have to eat bloody Cornish pasties the whole time.

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

What's a Cornish pasty? Pasties over here imply something entirely different, and from what I've heard, there have been several attempts by inebriated men to eat these pasties, directly off the vendor's display rack.

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

I have nothing against Cornish pasties, once every three months or so.

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

All right. Now I must ask: "What's a grockle?"

[fledgist.livejournal.com]

See here: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=grockle

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

Well, with any luck, I might one day be a grockle.

[mastadge.livejournal.com]

I remember being incensed when reading about the Willingham situation, and, well, I'm still incensed. This is why the death penalty needs to be abolished.

Actually, our whole penal system needs to be radically restructured from the ground up. On top of the many questionable executions, the whole thing is a huge, huge shame. With 5% of the world's population, we've got 1/4 of its prisoners. We have the highest percentage of minorities imprisoned of any nation in the world, I believe. We have tens of thousands of innocent people imprisoned because they plea bargained rather than facing ridiculous mandatory minimum sentencing after being loaded with charges and given inadequate, if any, legal representation. Recidivism rates are extremely high; it seems our prison system does more to create criminals than to reform them, and it certainly does nothing to help them rejoin mainstream society once they've served their time. The Supreme Court has time and again quashed anything that demonstrates the unjustness of it all and therefore might necessitate reform rather than more of the same -- the whole thing is so out of control that even our highest court can't even allow themselves to admit the injustice of it for fear of actually having to do something about it, because they know that any steps to clean up this terrible mess would have to be large and radical. And politicians feel they have no choice but to shriek "hard on crime" and join the madness. It's insane and awful all around.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

Actually, our whole penal system needs to be radically restructured from the ground up.

Nathan, I couldn't agree more with every word you say . . . except that, dammit, you've put it all better than I ever possibly could.

Right now, the US struts around the world stage proclaiming itself as a champion of freedom. I'm in touch with people from a lot of other countries (artists, authors, etc.; it's my job) and, believe me, they're perfectly well aware of the relative size of the US prison population and the racist disparities of conviction levels; until the kind of rebuilding you mention is started, the US will be the subject of international derision . . . and worse.

What amazes me is how tolerant people overseas are of Americans, as opposed to US governments. The first time we went to the UK after Bush's illegal and bloody invasion of Iraq, I was worried that Pam's US accent might draw thugs; quite the contrary, we had people come up to us in the street sympathizing that we had to live under the rule of the Il Buce junta. It was an amazing lesson in humanity for both of us.

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

Is the icon a Tibetan mastiff?

[realthog.livejournal.com]

Is the icon a Tibetan mastiff?

Oo, you'll have offended Nathan now.

[sarcobatus.livejournal.com]

Whatever for? If he has a dog icon, he's obviously a dog lover, unless, of course, the photo is of someone else . . .

[ericadawn16.livejournal.com]

And he was still proud of his state's death penalty at the debates last night...

He makes my skin crawl every time he opens his mouth.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

He makes my skin crawl every time he opens his mouth.

Too damn' right. I'd say he's scum, but why should I libel scum? As far as I'm concerned, he's right at the bottom of the human barrel -- someone who's quite happy to cause the death of others in order to advance his own aspirations. Add in a scummy coating of hypocrisy -- all the Christian stuff -- and no normal gorge could fail to rise.

'Course, he's not doing so well with the current wildfires. First of all, it seems an unequivocal response from God to Perry's State Declaration of Emergency Prayer to stop the drought. Second, the situation is exacerbated by the fact that Perry recently cut the funding of the Fire Squads by 75% in order to send yet more middle-class money to the Texas super-rich.

[ericadawn16.livejournal.com]

Yep, I unfortunately read about it in the paper. Those firefighters deserve so much better. Lesser people would have just quit under those horrible conditions but they actually care about their neighbors.

[realthog.livejournal.com]

Those firefighters deserve so much better.

Agreed. Yet so many Republican governors seem at the moment intent on casting them as welfare queens, or thereabouts.