DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Chauvin Trial

But then wouldn't the executioner have to be executed and so on and so on, until there is only 1 left standing?

No. Don't be silly.

No.

The man with the rifle goes home after participating in the firing squad. So does the man who throws the switch and the man who administers the hot shot.

State sanctioned executions enjoy a different status than cold-blooded murder.

I argued a similar argument with my 7th grade principal. I got him to admit that the last day of school is kind of a waste. So then I argued that the last day should be the day before… all the way down to us not having a school year. He found humor in my logic… but told me to get to class.

Ahh, the biblical solution up until mankind sets qualifiers.

For the record, I knew what you meant Clem, was just adding a little satirical humor to the thread.

Nice,, but you did indeed imply it.

No, not implying either. It's an honest (perhaps scientific) question. In terms of punishment, what's the difference between 20 and 30 years... to the criminal but also to the victim? Are there victims that say "he only got 20 years so justice wasn't served, had he gotten 30 then that would be different"? IMO, that doesn't make sense, especially when you're talking about crimes at the level of murder.

I'll be honest, I don't have the insight into either role in this debate (criminal or victim), so if someone who does have that says there is a difference, then I'll defer to them.

In your example, why should a person convicted of murder serve more time than a person who is convicted of shoplifting? I mean why have sentencing guidelines at all? Why should mitigating circumstances be considered at all?

I mean would 30 years bring the message home to the criminal than say 5 years?

There is a reason why there are sentencing guidelines. There are reasons why mitigating circumstances add to a sentence. It's because the severity of the crime is reflected in the sentence. I still find it odd that I've never seen this point of view reflected before on this board. Not until a white cop was convicted of killing a black man. Then all of a sudden it's an issue.

Odd how that worked out.

You read what you want to read.

So when has it ever been brought up before about the length of murder convictions being too long or a longer sentence for murder serving no purpose?

Maybe it's you who refuses to look at the circumstances surrounding when it was brought up.

I have long felt that long prison terms serve no real purpose.

Nobody but you started talking about 5 years or something like that.

The question was asked if we felt justice was served? I said yes. 22 years is a long time.

If you don't agree, cool, but I feel no need to explain myself to you or anybody else.

If you don't like it, go out on some march or protest.

I'm free to post my opinion and my questions right here, any time. I certainly don't take orders from you.

I'll say it again. I never saw any such thing posted on this board until a white cop was convicted of murdering a black man. And I haven't. I know that seems to upset you because it's a fact that doesn't align with what you want to hear.

I was making the point that if there is no difference between 22 years and 30 years, what's the difference between 5 years and 30 years?

At what point is a sentence long enough that adding time to it makes no difference? I know you won't answer and I know you'll refuse to own up to the fact nothing like this was posted until a white cop was convicted of killing a black man because that fact is outside of your comfort zone.

You see, I don't think people take such a stand strongly enough to post it on this board in a purposeful way. I don't think it's a sign of racism at all. I think it's a part of the human condition. It's very hard as human beings to put ourselves in the shoes of someone we can't relate to. Someone we pretty much have nothing in common with.

But when it suddenly impacts someone we can identify with, someone who we may have friends like or know, it creates a situation where we think more deeply about an issue. It tends to have a greater impact on us. We tend to sometimes change our opinions, or in your case speak out about your opinion.

It wasn't intended as a knock against you. We all share that as human beings.

1. Your murder vs shoplifting point is utterly ridiculous. Nobody suggested anything like that; you think by implying that's what we're getting at makes your point look better. Then when someone calls you out, you cite your right to post your opinion.

2. Your playing the race card there is disgusting. You insinuate racism to peen, and then finish your post with "wasn't intended as a knock against you." If that's going to be one of your tactics for arguing, then go ahead and have your last word. I'm done. God forbid posters want to try to add differing/parallel views to a conversation.

My original post was to point out that AFTER A CERTAIN POINT additional years probably don't hit as hard. IMO, I think sentencing guidelines don't take this into account. The max he could've gotten was 30, I believe. I didn't make this clear from the beginning, but I thought 20 years for murdering someone was light, especially considering he's an officer (should be held to a higher standard). Then it was mentioned that the max was 30. IMO, there's not much difference between 20 and 30 like there is between 10-and-20 and 5-and-10.

I explained it quite well. Yes, it was hyperbole that shoplifting should be compared to murder, but it does bring into question at what point do longer sentences make sense or do not make sense? Why would twenty years be adequate when the law plainly states that mitigating circumstances clearly call for longer sentences under such circumstances? Should someone who commits a murder in the heat of the moment receive the same sentence as someone who tortures their victim for over nine minutes? As I said, crimes are sentenced by degrees and mitigating circumstances.

I find your outrage amusing at best. I noted the circumstances surrounding the timing and case that opinion was posted about. It is 100% true. I didn't make it up. If you have decided that taking a set of facts is indicating that I was playing the race card, could you please explain where there is anything false about this statement.....



Would you in any way show me where that isn't a 100% factual statement?

You seem to be offended or upset at a set of facts, not me. But your focus is about me not that set of facts. It's also true that it's much more likely to come about such a conclusion when it involves people you can relate closely to. When you are detached from a victim or a perpetrator, it's not something one tends to focus on.

I find your faux outrage to be very misguided and not based in reality. Next time try to focus on what its actually posted rather then your perception of what was posted. I mean if you want to. It would most likely serve you better.

Well then congrats, you've caught up to my (and I believe peen's) original responses to Clem from a page or 2 ago. As for the rest of that first paragraph, I don't believe the law does clearly call for more. Guidelines are in place but it's up to people to interpret and fit sentencing to each unique case. But you touch on an interesting point, one that I was trying to get at originally. If you have 2 murderers, but one tortured his victim for 9 minutes, does slapping an extra 10 years (or in this case 7.5) mean the difference between justice being served and not? Honestly, I don't think it does. I'd rather the torturer spend the rest of his life in prison or receive the death sentence and not keep the torturer around any longer than necessary. What is gained by only keeping this guy's freedom for 7.5 additional years? Not much, IMO.

As for your noted factual circumstances... please. George Floyd had drugs in his system when he died, but when (and more importantly, how) that fact was brought up, those people were slammed. Just like pointing out that fact was irrelevant and counterproductive to the conversation regarding Floyd's death, so to were your facts about making a general statement regarding sentencing practices in the case of Chauvin. I'm not offended or upset about facts, but how they're used (which is on you... and I'm more annoyed than anything).

j/c -

1. I can understand that when you focus / talk about the convicted and what's a fair sentence and what's excessive in the way that it was brought into the conversation that it almost appears to be framing it like they are the victim (of unfair punishment). I don't think that was the intent at all - but I can see where that might be how someone took it.

2. I think there are many sentences that are harsh and punitive and don't do anything for the convicted and simply seem vindictive. Mostly for non violent crimes and things that many might consider petty but repeated offenses. Offenses that if the perpetrator had money, they'd get off "Scott Free".

3. I think if you are making the case that 30 years is no better or worse a deterrent or punishment for murder - then I think it's fair to extend that to say that execution and the death penalty are similarly no deterrent and should similarly be abolished. You can't - in my eyes - make a compelling case to limit the number of years for some murders - but then still believe that the death penalty is justified or appropriate for others. I mean I get that we'd all like a special exemption and classification for truly sick and evil people - but in reality if there is a death penalty then it is inevitable innocents will be put to death unjustly, and it will also be used and many who are not "evil and sick" will also be sentenced to death.

On Chauvin - it appears to me that the term is appropriate. I hope he does not get a ridiculously early release.

Then I think it's only proper to point out that nothing Floyd did on that day, drug use, resisting arrest or any other of his actions call for the death penalty. None of them are a mitigating factor in regards to sentencing a man for murder. Your crime is no less egregious if I happen to be using drugs. So if any of that had anything to do with the murder that was committed, I would certainly agree with you. I myself did not slam anyone for bringing it up, but considering the fact that it has nothing to do with Chauvin committing murder and the method he used to commit it, I certainly think it's an attempt at deflection and trying to make excuses for Chauvins actions. You know, "Cops good, drug use bad."

It is a typical tactic used to paint the victim in a bad light. An attempt to make criminal actions seem less egregious than they actually are. I especially despise when they do it to rape victims which is a typical defense for accused rapists.

The reason people are sentenced as they are include mitigating factors. These factors were to supposedly be a deterrent to such heinous acts. Now we can debate the effectiveness of that if we wish but that was the intent.

The thing is, and I know you may consider this racist, but once again, they are the facts. These laws were set in place for the express reason to punish what the bulk of our society considers the criminal element. Let's take driving the vehicle during a bank robbery. You never leave the car. You drive the robbers to and from the scene. So the law is that if during that robbery someone is shot and killed, you are also guilty of murder. Even if you didn't carry nor fire a gun. Simply because what "could happen, did happen" you are treated the same in a court as the person who pulled the trigger. If you're with a friend and that friend decides to shoplift, even though you may not have even known they were going to or did, You can also charged and found guilty of shoplifting. I could go on and on.

But the basis for these laws and the sentencing guidelines haven't seemed to draw any outrage. You don't see much said about these things or anyone complaining about such things as it pertains to violent offenses especially.

However, when someone sees it applied to people they don't ordinarily view as a "part of the criminal element" we do see them brought up.

When you commit crimes under certain circumstances, the law increases the sentence. So unless you consider a murder in the heat of the moment the same as what happened in the Floyd murder, then there's no problem with what you're saying IMO. If you believe torturing someone, committing such an act in front of children, abusing a position of authority or committed the crime as a part of a group makes the crime of murder more heinous and egregious, you are then left with one of two choices.

You either keep the penalties and guidelines as is or you must lessen the sentence of murders that aren't as cruel and egregious. So at that point the question becomes how much is too light of a sentence for a convicted murderer?

I was responding to Peen...not you

So? If you don't want your comments open to the board, send a private message.

Just didn't want him thinking I was speaking to him directly.. As for you, geez, you are so far off the norm... Bet you can't wait for August 15th... Right

I think our pre-season game against the Jags is the 14th, but maybe it's the 15th.

I don't look all that forward to those, but sure, why not?

Peen's and my earlier comments were pretty similar. That's why I thought you were responding to the both of us.

Be good with it that my comments are bad and yours aren't.

George Floyd mural crumbles after witnesses say lightning hit it
Mural, titled 'Take a Breath,' was created by local artist about one year ago


By Emma Colton | Fox News


A mural in remembrance of George Floyd in Toledo, Ohio, was reduced to rubble after a reported lightning strike.

Witnesses told Toledo Police that a lightning strike destroyed the mural, and doppler radar shows a strike hit at about 4:30 p.m. Tuesday near where the mural was painted.

Photos of the destruction show part of the brick wall reduced to rubble, with fragments of mural still remaining on the wall along its border.

The piece, titled "Take a Breath," was created by local artist David Ross about one year ago in honor of Floyd, who was murdered in Minneapolis last Memorial Day by police officer Derek Chauvin.



Ross said he received threats over the mural and speculated the destruction could have been caused by vandalism and not lightning.

"When I did the mural, there was stuff on the wall that I couldn’t remove and that let me know how strong that structure was," Ross told the Toledo Blade. "The lightning thing, that’s possible, but I know it didn’t just fall."



The Ohio city said it plans to replace the mural and that it is exploring different locations to house it.

One city building inspector said the destruction could have also been due to the deterioration of the wall. He added that inspectors recently found the middle of the wall, where the majority of destruction occurred, had been bowing.

"It was just age. It just came away," inspector Hugh Koogan told the Toledo Blade. "It happens to the older buildings."

The Toledo Fire and Rescue Department, however, filed the cause of the destruction as a lightning strike.

​​

Murals in remembrance of Floyd have been painted on city and private properties across the nation since his death, with many serving as a gathering point for protesters and vigils.

https://www.foxnews.com/us/george-floyd-mural-destroyed-toledo-lightning