Stanley "Tookie" Williams

Originally posted by PVS
yet you fail to acknowledge you were dead wrong.

KD pretty much supported the execution of tookie.
but i can see how you missed that tidbit.
its hard to hear the voices of others when you're busy flapping
your gums just to hear the sound of your own voice.

You say I'm wrong because that's your personal opinion, not KD's.
What I said to KD was a generalized statement and not an expose of what made him right or wrong.

Oh and you act as if YOU were never wrong? Yeah right, blame me for the whole thing. As far as flapping gums, you've done your fair share here, so what's your point? Oh let me guess, YOUR points were valid ones. I gotcha. PVS is the only one whose right here at KM. And he's the only one allowed to accuse others of bias because of his little personally endorsed 110 point check system that meets his criteria for such.

Funny since you're the only one using your own system. I guess that makes it official.

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
Dude, this whole thing hinges on your inability to realize that despite your opinions on why America should give all our guns up, [B]and your opinions on why we should have let Tookie live,... [/B]

post from when there was still a topic:

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I am not a huge fan of the death penealty, however, that was his sentence, and it's not like he earned it having killed on person execution-style and a family of three innicent people.

The problem is(as I see it) if he is granted clemency, then that will be seen as a victory by all the wrong people. Further emboldening them to continue a violent lifestyle that's main thrust is the victimization of others..

all too easy

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
You say I'm wrong because that's your personal opinion, not KD's.
What I said to KD was a generalized statement and not an expose of what made him right or wrong.

No he's saying you're wrong because you are claiming that I said something that I did not. That would be wrong.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
No he's saying you're wrong because you are claiming that I said something that I did not. That would be wrong.

Oh you mean the same thing you've been dpoing to ME this whole time?

Well touche' boys and girls...oh and for YOUR info, doing that to ME too is also wrong.

please quote where someone put words in your mouth.
then quote the actual post to show that they in fact twisted your words.
(see my last post where you are exposed as a misquoting liar for example)

ill be waiting.....

quote: (post)
Originally posted by KharmaDog
I am not a huge fan of the death penealty, however, that was his sentence, and it's not like he earned it[/]

Don't you mean it's not like he DIDN'T earn it? That could have been where the mess up was. It's MY fault he dosen't know how to spell or put it right so that it makes sense?

quote: (post)
Originally posted by KharmaDog

[i]The problem is(as I see it) if he is granted clemency, then that will be seen as a victory by all the wrong people. Further emboldening them to continue a violent lifestyle that's main thrust is the victimization of others..

WORD. That was my point as to why he shouldn't be let go. You let him go, and every gang banger would gloat and tout some victory over the system. And this would give them the idea that they can continue their attacks with the notion that reform and a few books on the subject is their way out.

I never disagreed with him on this.

no, you just refused to read his post, and now you lean on his superficial grammatical error as an excuse for your folly. its plain to see from that post that he was for the death penalty in the case of tookie, or rather enforcing the given sentence.

now, as i requested, back up your previous claim that i was misquoting you. im still waiting...or were you just talking yet more shit?

o.k. I said

I am not a huge fan of the death penealty, however, that was his sentence, and it's not like he earned it having killed on person execution-style and a family of three innicent people.

The problem is(as I see it) if he is granted clemency, then that will be seen as a victory by all the wrong people. Further emboldening them to continue a violent lifestyle that's main thrust is the victimization of others..

I should have said:

I am not a huge fan of the death penealty, however, that was his sentence, and it's not like he didn't earn it having killed one person execution-style and a family of three innocent people.

The problem is(as I see it) if he is granted clemency, then that will be seen as a victory by all the wrong people. Further emboldening them to continue a violent lifestyle that's main thrust is the victimization of others..

I thought that was apparent, guess it wasn't.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I find that a little odd also, it must be a cultural thing.

Some people argue that if someone was intent on killing someone, they'd do so with or without a gun, and that is not so much true. To kill with a knife or similar instument, that must be used in such close proximity, is a very personal act. You must be physically close to the victim and take a more active part with the weapon. That is a line that few people, even enraged ones, are willing to cross. However, a gun is a much less personal weapon, it can be done at a distance with no contact or even awareness of the victim. The thought of it being so 'clean' makes it an easier act to carry out than the instance preeviously mentioned.

Actually, most shootings take place relatively up close; the distance between shooters in most 'gunfights' averages around 21 feet, which isn't very far at all. Also, bullets aren't as clean as one might think. An extreme example would be the shotgun. But there's something to be said about the ease of pulling a trigger over having the strength to shove a blade in someone's body.

To stay on topic, however, the gun control issue is moot: Tookie Williams said he murdered those people because he wanted to leave no witnesses behind, which means he probably would have killed them had he a gun or no. If we want an actual gun control discussion, we should probably start another thread.

Originally posted by Wanderer259
Actually, most shootings take place relatively up close; the distance between shooters in most 'gunfights' averages around 21 feet, which isn't very far at all. Also, bullets aren't as clean as one might think. An extreme example would be the shotgun. But there's something to be said about the ease of pulling a trigger over having the strength to shove a blade in someone's body.

So you are saying that pulling the trigger to kill someone is not as mentally detached as personally laying your hands on them for the average person to contemplate?

Originally posted by Wanderer259
To stay on topic, however, the gun control issue is moot: Tookie Williams said he murdered those people because he wanted to leave no witnesses behind, which means he probably would have killed them had he a gun or no. If we want an actual gun control discussion, we should probably start another thread.

Yes gun control is not the issue of this thread, as for Tookie, I believe that, at the time, he would have just as soon as beat them to death with his bare hands. But that's just speculation on my part, and he was far from what would be considered the average american.

Originally posted by Inspectah Deck
The founder of the infamous Crips gang is gonna be excecuted on Dec, 13. Plus Snoops gonna be there blue_bandana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_Tookie_Williams

Originally posted by KharmaDog
So you are saying that pulling the trigger to kill someone is not as mentally detached as personally laying your hands on them for the average person to contemplate?

No I never said that. But either way, you miss the fact that the act
itself requires mental detachment and the will to see your opponent as a target that needs to be destroyed regardless of what weapon is used.

You said earlier that you didn't believe that people would find another way to kill someone in the absene of a gun because of the up close and personal nature of some of the methods (knife, club, whatever.)

Here it is:

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Some people argue that if someone was intent on killing someone, they'd do so with or without a gun, and that is not so much true.

And then you say:
Originally posted by KharmaDog
as for Tookie, I believe that, at the time, he would have just as soon as beat them to death with his bare hands. But that's just speculation on my part, and he was far from what would be considered the average American.

So first you say that it's not true that killing w\o a gun would happen,then turn around and admit that either way Tookie would or MIGHT kill them, including beating them. Why the sudden turnaround?

quote: (post)
Originally posted by Wanderer259
To stay on topic, however, the gun control issue is moot: Tookie Williams said he murdered those people because he wanted to leave no witnesses behind, which means he probably would have killed them had he a gun or no.[/i]

I rest my case.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
So you are saying that pulling the trigger to kill someone is not as mentally detached as personally laying your hands on them for the average person to contemplate?

Not at all. However, I don't believe that having a gun in hand automatically negates all feelings on the matter. If it did, police officers/military combat personnel would not need psychological therapy.

Originally posted by Wanderer259
Not at all. However, I don't believe that having a gun in hand automatically negates all feelings on the matter. If it did, police officers/military combat personnel would not need psychological therapy.

I agree. My point was that murder by shooting a person is a little easier (because of the detactchment) to act upon than by physical attack.

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
No I never said that. But either way, you miss the fact that the act
itself requires mental detachment and the will to see your opponent as a target that needs to be destroyed regardless of what weapon is used.

Do you understand the basic function of the quote system here.

I was talking to Wanderer when I said:

So you are saying that pulling the trigger to kill someone is not as mentally detached as personally laying your hands on them for the average person to contemplate?

That should have been glaringly apparent as it direclty followed this quote:

Originally posted by Wanderer259
Actually, most shootings take place relatively up close; the distance between shooters in most 'gunfights' averages around 21 feet, which isn't very far at all. Also, bullets aren't as clean as one might think. An extreme example would be the shotgun. But there's something to be said about the ease of pulling a trigger over having the strength to shove a blade in someone's body.

As for

Originally posted by Dagons Blade
So first you say that it's not true that killing w\o a gun would happen,then turn around and admit that either way Tookie would or MIGHT kill them, including beating them. Why the sudden turnaround?

Once again, I did not state that Tookie's state of mind or actions are representative of the general population's conduct or limits. I was speaking of him in particular, and his case is far from average. Stop trying to make something out of nothing.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
I agree. My point was that murder by shooting a person is a little easier (because of the detactchment) to act upon than by physical attack.

It may be easier, but my point is that it is not entirely negated - the feeling is still there. I doubt anyone decides to commit murder because "If I use a gun, it won't feel as bad." I can see why someone would select a gun over something else, but I have a hard time seeing someone deciding it's alright to commit murder because there's a gun around (now I won't have to knife them).

Then again, I'm not screwed up in a way someone has to be to commit murder anyway.

Originally posted by Wanderer259
It may be easier, but my point is that it is not entirely negated - the feeling is still there. I doubt anyone decides to commit murder because "If I use a gun, it won't feel as bad." I can see why someone would select a gun over something else, but I have a hard time seeing someone deciding it's alright to commit murder because there's a gun around (now I won't have to knife them).

Then again, I'm not screwed up in a way someone has to be to commit murder anyway.

Is the concept of mental detachment from one's own actions so hard to concieve here? By pulling a trigger 'in the moment', it does not feel as 'real' as physically attacking someone.

Also, that second in which pulling the trigger is made is instant and often irrevocable. It may be recgretted immediatley but is too late. Whereas the level of intensity which often leads to physical confrontation is not so instant.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Is the concept of mental detachment from one's own actions so hard to concieve here? By pulling a trigger 'in the moment', it does not feel as 'real' as physically attacking someone.

Also, that second in which pulling the trigger is made is instant and often irrevocable. It may be recgretted immediatley but is too late. Whereas the level of intensity which often leads to physical confrontation is not so instant.

Of course I understand it. However, the above doesn't apply to premeditated instances. Also, if someone is "in the heat of the moment", why won't they also go for a knife or use their own hands? Nothing is 'real', be it shooting or physical assault. It happens often.

I do agree, however, that a shooting may take place before someone is beaten to death - that it's possible that someone with a gun may be more inclined to pull the trigger in an instance before someone without one feels ready to strangle someone.

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Is the concept of mental detachment from one's own actions so hard to concieve here? By pulling a trigger 'in the moment', it does not feel as 'real' as physically attacking someone.

Is the concept that not ALL gun owners are latent psychopaths waiting to shoot someone over a parking space at Wal-Mart so hard to concieve here, and that NO decent law abiding citizen should suffer because of the actions of a few bad apples?

Originally posted by KharmaDog
Also, that second in which pulling the trigger is made is instant and often irrevocable. It may be recgretted immediatley but is too late. Whereas the level of intensity which often leads to physical confrontation is not so instant.

People who stab and beat their victims with NON firearm weapons also make decisions that are instant, and often irrevocable as they too, cause damage, if you haven't noticed. It too may be regretted, but it's also too late once it's done regardless of what weapon is used. And people also die from other weapons besides guns if you haven't noticed. It's just easier to blame guns because of the notion of "impersonality" you percieve as it leads to a feeling of might upon the user.

ANY weapon infers confidence on someone wielding it, esp. if the victim has none, It's not just limited to guns.

Originally posted by Wanderer259
Of course I understand it. However, the above doesn't apply to premeditated instances. Also, if someone is "in the heat of the moment", why won't they also go for a knife or use their own hands? Nothing is 'real', be it shooting or physical assault. It happens often.

I do agree, however, that a shooting may take place before someone is beaten to death - that it's possible that someone with a gun may be more inclined to pull the trigger in an instance before someone without one feels ready to strangle someone.

I understand what he means too, honestly. But killing is killing, no matter how it takes place..if someone dies from a gun they still die, if someone dies from a knife, they still die.