4 Officers shot near Lakewood WA

[Osteomata]

RabidPony 4 PREZ!

Or in this case, Autocrat. Call me crazy but I withhold my endorsement of granting the government the power to summary execution. I find it disconcerting when people in one breath complain about the government's use of their taxes, and in the next grant the the most extraordinary power.

[Osteomata]

No, you absolutely do not support our legal system. You support an imagined caricatur of it more suited for a dceveloping world or an authoritarian state. The existance of less than moral people has little to do with providing a very careful process before we allow the state to kill them. Your sense of victimhood is palpable, and overblown. This system, which you so decry for supposedly providing more rights to criminals than you, has now resulted in a country with the highest percentage of our population in jail in the world. Higher than the Soviet gulag period even. There are lots and lots of things that I don't want to pay taxes to support, legal due process is not one I begrudge the government paying for.

You so easily conflate anger at the person who did this crime with justification for removing core principles of our legal system. Fine, but recognize it as an emotional response to tragedy, not a reasonable policy proposal. And I agree, his death at the hands of the officers was justified: he shot, the returned fire, he was wounded and died. Justified. How in the world is this relevant to the belief that we should remove due process for death penalty cases?

I do support our legal system, however, I also realize that it is far from perfect. It is a very unfortunate fact that there are thousands of less than moral members of the legal community out there that have so twisted our legal system that it has come to the point where it sometime seems that the criminals are more protected and have more rights than a good, law abiding citizen. That, I feel, is a shame. I do not advocate death squads or any facsimile there of, I do, however, feel that it is unfair and unjust that someone who murders another person live out their life to it's natural end, incarcerated or not. I should not have to pay to support someone who is a bane to society with the taxes taken from my hard earned money. I can think of much better things to spend the money on. Better pay, training, and equipment for law enforcement for example.

I do mourn the loss of those officers and my sympathies go out to their families in their time of mourning. But that does not mean I will put aside my anger and frustration with the person that committed the heinous act. He did it, there were witnesses who identified him. There was no question as to his guilt. In my eyes, his death at the hands of that officer was justified and only served to save the taxpayers of that city and state the time, effort, and valuable taxpayer money that would have been expended on his trial and incarceration.

[RabidPony]

I'm not questioning the legal system. I'm questioning the people behind it. The greatest, most philanthropic idea in the world with always fail, not because of the ideal, but because of people. The ideals that our legal system and our laws (most of them) embody are good, and at the risk of sounding cliche again, just. But the people we trust to carry them out as they were intended, are not always as good and just. Lawyers, judges, politicians, and sadly even officers themselves do not always have the best interests of the people in mind when carrying out the letter of the law. Some of them take these good ideals and twist them and bend them to their own benefit and often to the detriment of the very people that they swore to serve and protect. Please do not confuse my disdain for these corrupt officials for a disregard of our justice system. Instead, see it as a desire to see the system run as it was meant to be, by people as good and just as the laws they are sworn to uphold.

As far as me believing that criminals should be disposed of rather than coddled, yes, it's harsh. It is a rather extreme idea and frankly one that even I would not put forth as evan a proposed policy. I do feel though that it is unfair to force hard working people who work for their money and pay their taxes to pay to care for these criminals. Even if we only took the worst of the worst, career criminals who have been convicted again and again, people who know nothing but violence, killers who have no chance of redemption and not even the faintest illusion of innocence. Even if we took only those and did away with them once and for all. It would free up a lot of resources that could be much better used. Don't even get me started on these people who sit on death row for 20, 30, 40, plus years and never receive their punishment.

Take my words for what they are. My beliefs and opinions. Nothing more, nothing less. Though they may differ from yours I would ask that you respect them as such as I do yours. Now, let's let this thread get back to what it was intended for and if you wish to discuss this further then feel free to PM me. I came here to learn about my VehiCROSS, not publicly air my political views.

Or in this case, Autocrat. Call me crazy but I withhold my endorsement of granting the government the power to summary execution. I find it disconcerting when people in one breath complain about the government's use of their taxes, and in the next grant the the most extraordinary power.

And in regards to this, I have no desire or aspirations what-so-ever to any position of power and I certainly don't advocate anyone, let alone the government, having the power of summary execution. I just feel that if someone is beyond redemption, why wast the time, effort, and resources to lock them in a cell and let them live out their life? You get convicted, you get one appeal, then you serve your sentence. If it's a death sentence, they are put to death and not put in jail for another 20 plus years before the sentence is carried out. And I think a life sentence, especially life without parole, is just counterproductive. Do away with the life without parole option and just make it a bit more difficult to attain the death penalty. Just if the death penalty is still called for after the appeal is settled, actually carry it out.

[Osteomata]

Wait, are you seriously saying that we should let this thread return to the original topic, and then you go back ten minutes later and edit your response to ADD another parapraph in defense of your opinions? Seriously?

I ask again, who will determine which of these criminals is "beyond redemption" and therefore should be subject to execution? Might it be the same flawed judges, lawyers and law enforcement officers that you mentioned in a previous post?

Your 20 year example is silly. Of course you pick the most extreme examples and highlight them as if they are the norm. The overwhelming majority of executed prisoners die at the hands of the state WELL before your arbitrary 20 year mark.

And if we do away with the life without parole and simply make the death penalty "a bit more difficult", doesn't the "a bit more difficult" part of that statement directly imply a bit more protection from abuse, i.e., more due process protection? Or should we proceed directly from trial to execution ala your original argument?

And in regards to this, I have no desire or aspirations what-so-ever to any position of power and I certainly don't advocate anyone, let alone the government, having the power of summary execution. I just feel that if someone is beyond redemption, why wast the time, effort, and resources to lock them in a cell and let them live out their life? You get convicted, you get one appeal, then you serve your sentence. If it's a death sentence, they are put to death and not put in jail for another 20 plus years before the sentence is carried out. And I think a life sentence, especially life without parole, is just counterproductive. Do away with the life without parole option and just make it a bit more difficult to attain the death penalty. Just if the death penalty is still called for after the appeal is settled, actually carry it out.

[don moore]

were is HOT WASBI JUNKY when you need him.

[circmand]

Wait, are you seriously saying that we should let this thread return to the original topic, and then you go back ten minutes later and edit your response to ADD another parapraph in defense of your opinions? Seriously?

I ask again, who will determine which of these criminals is "beyond redemption" and therefore should be subject to execution? Might it be the same flawed judges, lawyers and law enforcement officers that you mentioned in a previous post?

Your 20 year example is silly. Of course you pick the most extreme examples and highlight them as if they are the norm. The overwhelming majority of executed prisoners die at the hands of the state WELL before your arbitrary 20 year mark.

And if we do away with the life without parole and simply make the death penalty "a bit more difficult", doesn't the "a bit more difficult" part of that statement directly imply a bit more protection from abuse, i.e., more due process protection? Or should we proceed directly from trial to execution ala your original argument?

Very few state do a quick death penalty, some states do not do it at all and then 1 idiot governor can pardon murders, see this case, and see Wisconsin I beleive where he took everyone off death row so that even though the state and its process allow it 1 person corrupted it. Those people the system condemned to death now no longer face their rightful penalty and cannot have it reimposed unless they kill again. This idiot was given life in prison and then a few people say oh thats to harsh and parole him and what happens 4 more dead.

[Osteomata]

If you are so concerned about hijacking this thread and letting it get back to being about vehicross, then why respond? Strikes me as mighty convenient. "I shall now provide a three paragraph last word, but you should not reply because that would be dragging this out." The very strange part is that I agree with nearly every word of your first paragraph. What I don't understand is how you reconcile a perfectly rational recognition of the human frailties in our judges, lawyers, law enforcement officers etc, and simultaniously support granting them greater power, and removal of the protections built in to prevent abuses by just these people.

Why must there be only a choice between "disposed of" (nice euphemism) and "coddled"? That is a false dichotomy. Coddled in the cases of capital crimes means spending many years on death row while the judicial system follows the careful procedures of review required by our system.

And yes, your solution does indeed sound "harsh". The summary execution of all career criminals sounds a little more than just harsh. And whom do you grant the authority to decide which of them is the "worst of the worst"? Would it be the same flawed judges lawyers and police that are subject to all too human pressures that might have little to do with justice? Who decides, and how, which of those in our prisons have "no chance at redemption"?

Like I said, there are a lot of things I don't want my taxes spent on. Due process for our citizens, particularly those with the least ability or means to defend themselves, is not one I oppose.

[pbkid]

here we go again eh?

[Osteomata]

circmand,
Wisconsin has not had the death penalty for 150 years. I'm not sure what you are talking about.

And yes, the duly elected governor of a state can, in accordance with that state's constitution, pardon someone, though I know of no death row inmate awaiting execution that has ever been pardoned. What I am familiar with is governors granting stays of execution for evidentiary or procedural issues, or possibly commuting a sentence, say from death to life in prison. So again, I am not sure which governor execution pardons you are thinking of.

[circmand]

circmand,
Wisconsin has not had the death penalty for 150 years. I'm not sure what you are talking about.

And yes, the duly elected governor of a state can, in accordance with that state's constitution, pardon someone, though I know of no death row inmate awaiting execution that has ever been pardoned. What I am familiar with is governors granting stays of execution for evidentiary or procedural issues, or possibly commuting a sentence, say from death to life in prison. So again, I am not sure which governor execution pardons you are thinking of.

It was Illinois where 1 governor stopped the legally instituted death penalty for all on death row. As for Wisconsin after 150 years they are looking to make it legal again. But what I am saying is you can not trust the legal system if one person a governor who knows nothing about a case except a brief can over rule what a judge and jury decided was appropriate. This guy who murdered 4 cops was legally found guilty and sent to jail for life. Huckabee said thats too harsh let him out and now 4 cops are dead. In Illinois dozens were legally found guilty and one person the governor decided the legal system was wrong and commited their death penalty sentence. Remember Willie Horton a vicious murdered set free by the governor Mike Dukakis who was out for a short time and murdered again. I may be more willing to give up the death penalty if these people who get life sentences actually never got out but it seems they end up being paroled in a few short years and kill again. One thing is sure no one who was ever given the death penalty ever murdered again while many who got life sentences have.

[Osteomata]

Well at least you have your state right now. Illinois Governor Ryan placed, in effect, a moratorium on executions via a commution order after 18 death row inmates were exonerated. I want to say that again: later evidence exonerated 18 death row inmates. A mixture of perjured testimony, often jail house informants trading false testimony for preferential treatment by wardens and prosecutors, or prosecutorial or law enforcement tunnel vision, or evidence errors, lead 18 people to death row in Illinois alone, by mistake, including a former Chicago cop. This situation caused the governor to believe that the system in his state, as currently constructed, was deeply flawed. He took what he believed to be the most prudent and moral action, effectively suspending the death penalty until such a time as the Illinois legislature and law enforcment community fixed the system that allowed them to put 18 people on death row by mistake.

Yes, it turns out Huckabee's decision had terrible consequences. Circmand, do you even know what he was convicted of and how much of a sentence he received that Huckabee chose to commute? It was burglery and assault (fist, no weapon). The sentence was 108 years. It was his first incarceration. He was 17. Are you telling me that all underage burglers should receive life sentences? Or just the ones that your perfect knowledge of the future allows you to see will turn into cop killers? Because the rest of us, including governors, are not blessed with such phenominal powers of future vision.

[circmand]

Well at least you have your state right now. Illinois Governor Ryan placed, in effect, a moratorium on executions via a commution order after 18 death row inmates were exonerated. I want to say that again: later evidence exonerated 18 death row inmates. A mixture of perjured testimony, often jail house informants trading false testimony for preferential treatment by wardens and prosecutors, or prosecutorial or law enforcement tunnel vision, or evidence errors, lead 18 people to death row in Illinois alone, by mistake, including a former Chicago cop. This situation caused the governor to believe that the system in his state, as currently constructed, was deeply flawed. He took what he believed to be the most prudent and moral action, effectively suspending the death penalty until such a time as the Illinois legislature and law enforcment community fixed the system that allowed them to put 18 people on death row by mistake.

Yes, it turns out Huckabee's decision had terrible consequences. Circmand, do you even know what he was convicted of and how much of a sentence he received that Huckabee chose to commute? It was burglery and assault (fist, no weapon). The sentence was 108 years. It was his first incarceration. He was 17. Are you telling me that all underage burglers should receive life sentences? Or just the ones that your perfect knowledge of the future allows you to see will turn into cop killers? Because the rest of us, including governors, are not blessed with such phenominal powers of future vision.

You would let him out here is some of his record

Clemmons has a violent, erratic past, and authorities in Washington state and Arkansas — where then-Gov. Mike Huckabee in 2000 commuted his 108-year prison sentence for armed robbery and other offenses — are facing tough questions about why an apparently violent and deranged man was out on the street.

On Sunday, six days after posting bail in Washington on charges of raping a child, Clemmons walked into the coffee shop in Parkland, Wash., a suburb a few miles south of Tacoma, and killed four uniformed Lakewood police officers as they caught up on paperwork on their laptops, police said.

Armed robbery that is weapons not fist
Raping a child hey no big deal

Yeah he should have been locked up for life after raping a child and armed robbery not walking the street murdering cops.

[Osteomata]

circmand,
I had hoped to tone down my response to you and keep it on a more conversational level, but seeing as how you have effectively accused me of siding with child rape, I find it difficult. Let's see what I can do.

I think you are knowingly and intentionally distorting what I wrote, and most certainly what I meant. A key portion of this distortion is the timeline.

What I actually wrote, as opposed to your emotional distortion of it: At the time that Hucakabee recieved the commutation request Clemmons had served 11 years in prison, was only convicted of a home burglery and an assault during the course of a purse snatching, and that he was 17 at the time of those incidents, and had been given a sentence of 108 years do to some odd idiosynchrasies in the way Arkansas law counts sentencing guidelines. Hucakabee commuted, which made Clemmons eligible for parole. The Parole Board then voted 5-0 to parole.

AFTER these incidents, and this is the key that you seem to be willfully ignoring, after these incidents, Clemmons got it more robbery related trouble, and several Arkansas and Washington State law enforcement organizations, for reasons that I strongly hope are under investigation, failed to adequetly pursue revocation of his parole. Between 2004 and 2009, for a five year period, he seemed to be clean. Then in May of this year, he went completely nuts. As in "I am the Messiah, everybody needs to get naked now" nuts. Completely off his rocker. He spiraled into violent craziness which lead, along the way to our current tragedy, to charges of child molestation.

I hope you will note the timeline here. The child rape you reference came well after Huckabee's involvement. Does this make it less tragic? Certainly not. All I have argued is that given the clemency case Hucakabee was presented, and lacking the ability to predict the future, a skill reserved mainly to you I guess, Huckabee made a decision that seemed pretty reasonable. I don't care for Huckabee much, but I have trouble blaming him for this decision.

As to his law breaking in 2001 and his later spiral into of violence: I agree, it should have resulted in revocation of his parole and further charges. His bail hearing should have examined his history. He should, indeed, have been locked up. But all of these things came later, after he had served 11 years for burglary and weaponless assault, after Huckabee granted clemency.

Now let me come back to some of the things you have implied about me:
1. You stated that I would "let him out" after he committed a slew of violent acts including child rape.
2. By extension, you implied that I don't think child rape is serious, or that I side with Clemmons in light of his later violence. "Raping a child hey no big deal"
I hope you understand, from what I have written above, that this is not at all what I believe. And I want you to know that I find your suggestion, your implication, that I believe these things disgusting. I just want you to know that.

[circmand]

circmand,
I had hoped to tone down my response to you and keep it on a more conversational level, but seeing as how you have effectively accused me of siding with child rape, I find it difficult. Let's see what I can do.

I think you are knowingly and intentionally distorting what I wrote, and most certainly what I meant. A key portion of this distortion is the timeline.

What I actually wrote, as opposed to your emotional distortion of it: At the time that Hucakabee recieved the commutation request Clemmons had served 11 years in prison, was only convicted of a home burglery and an assault during the course of a purse snatching, and that he was 17 at the time of those incidents, and had been given a sentence of 108 years do to some odd idiosynchrasies in the way Arkansas law counts sentencing guidelines. Hucakabee commuted, which made Clemmons eligible for parole. The Parole Board then voted 5-0 to parole.

AFTER these incidents, and this is the key that you seem to be willfully ignoring, after these incidents, Clemmons got it more robbery related trouble, and several Arkansas and Washington State law enforcement organizations, for reasons that I strongly hope are under investigation, failed to adequetly pursue revocation of his parole. Between 2004 and 2009, for a five year period, he seemed to be clean. Then in May of this year, he went completely nuts. As in "I am the Messiah, everybody needs to get naked now" nuts. Completely off his rocker. He spiraled into violent craziness which lead, along the way to our current tragedy, to charges of child molestation.

I hope you will note the timeline here. The child rape you reference came well after Huckabee's involvement. Does this make it less tragic? Certainly not. All I have argued is that given the clemency case Hucakabee was presented, and lacking the ability to predict the future, a skill reserved mainly to you I guess, Huckabee made a decision that seemed pretty reasonable. I don't care for Huckabee much, but I have trouble blaming him for this decision.

As to his law breaking in 2001 and his later spiral into of violence: I agree, it should have resulted in revocation of his parole and further charges. His bail hearing should have examined his history. He should, indeed, have been locked up. But all of these things came later, after he had served 11 years for burglary and weaponless assault, after Huckabee granted clemency.

Now let me come back to some of the things you have implied about me:
1. You stated that I would "let him out" after he committed a slew of violent acts including child rape.
2. By extension, you implied that I don't think child rape is serious, or that I side with Clemmons in light of his later violence. "Raping a child hey no big deal"
I hope you understand, from what I have written above, that this is not at all what I believe. And I want you to know that I find your suggestion, your implication, that I believe these things disgusting. I just want you to know that.

you wrote "Circmand, do you even know what he was convicted of and how much of a sentence he received that Huckabee chose to commute? It was burglery and assault (fist, no weapon). " you did not tone it down you insinuated that I did not know what his crime was and then stated that the crime was a purse snatching. That was wrong.

I did not put words in your mouth.

I did say you were wrong according to you his only crime at the time of his sentence was assault with his fist. His actual crimes were

To clarify matters, here's what state Correction Department spokesman Dina Tyler says the state record shows for a criminal past for Maurice Clemmons (shown in LRPD mugshot), who's being sought for questioning in the slaying of four Washington police officers. (UPDATE on earlier: Clemmons turned out not to be inside a house that officers had surrounded most of the night.)

* Sentenced to 5 years for robbery in Pulaski County, Aug. 3, 1989.

* Sentenced to 8 years for burglary, theft and probation revocation in Pulaski County, Sept. 9, 1989

* Sentenced to an indeterminate amount for aggravated robbery and theft in Pulaski County, Nov. 15, 1989

* Sentenced to 20 years each for burglary and theft of property in Pulaski County, Feb. 23, 1990.

* Sentenced to 6 years for firearm possession in Pulaski County, Nov. 19, 1990.

Tyler said some sentences were concurrent and some consecutive. But the total effect of all these sentences was a sentence of 108 years.

This is what he orginally was charged with. After his gift he got parole and raped a child while on that parole and then the people in the system allowed him bail. This is why people prefer the death penalty because the system constantly puts these guys out on the street to murder and rape again and again. If they get the death penalty and it is carried out it is a guarantee they at least will not commit another crime.

[Osteomata]

Circmand,
I did write that sentence, and it was in THAT post that I wanted to tone it, hoped to tone it down, but after readig your insinuation about my tolerance of child rape, I was unable to completely do so.

As to the crimes, I was largely correct. The crimes you list are exactly those I referred to. My failure was perhaps being loose with specific categories of crime, i.e., theft/burglery/robbery. The assault was committed with his fist, not a weapon. I did make on error, and I apologize for it, he did have a illegal firearm conviction in there too, but he did not use it in the assault.

And yes, they were all sentenced at once. 108 years for burglary and theft and assault with a fist and a seperate possession charge.

What I don't understand is why you think burglary and theft and assault committed by a juvenile should be punished by execution.

What I really don't understand is where you get your imagined powers of future vision. Because the entirety of my argument has been that given the information Huckabee had to work with, which at the time was only the crimes committed in 1989 and 1990, I have trouble faulting his decision because no one really has magical predictive powers. YOU argued against.

At no time did I suggest that the later crimes, like those committed in 2001 or the sexual assault committed this year, should be treated lightly. At no time. This did not stop you from directly implying that I did.