After 22 years on death row, Paul House has now been cleared of murder charges with Tennessee state prosecutors asking for all charges to be dropped against him. He had been sentenced to die in 1986 and his case is already being used by opponents of the death penalty as an example why states should move to life without parole as the ultimate punishment in this country.
House would have been executed next month but will now be freed.
He was convicted in the 1985 murder of Carolyn Muncey, but there were a great number of problems in the trial and the evidence.
Muncey disappeared of Luttrell, Tennessee was dead after being badly beaten and raped. House was a friend of Muncey’s husband. Police found discrepancies in his alibi and noted that he had unexplained cuts and bruises. Most importantly, they submitted evidence that Muncey’s blood had been found on his jeans. It was later discovered that those samples were contaminated and unreliable. Moreover, later DNA found it was her husband’s semen found on the body. Blood under her fingernails and cigarette butts also did not match House.
In 2006, in House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006), the Supreme Court ruled that he was entitled to a new trial with Justice Kennedy saying that the evidence could point to a different individual.
There is great speculation that Muncey was actually killed by her husband, here.
I don’t understand the overwhelming support for the death penalty in this country. First of all, we could always be wrong. Our legal system is not perfect. It seems to be a regular occurrence that someone on death row is exonerated. Secondly, and I’m not sure if this is 100% true but I’ve heard it repeated many times, it costs more money and resources to go through all of the mandatory appeals than it would to just lock someone up in a cell for the rest of their life. I think our criminal justice system overall needs a massive overhaul, starting with the elimination of the death penalty.
This is another example of what we were discussing on the Texas killing thread yesterday. God only knows how many innocent people have been wrongfully executed over the years.
“Paul House has now been cleared of murder charges with Tennessee state prosecutors asking for all charges to be dropped against him.”
*********
That might be a bit of an overstatement. It appears the case has holes in it, but one thing appears certain and that is victim’s blood is on the House’s jeans. How it got there doesn’t seem too controversial, and coupled with the witnesses statement that he saw House coming from the site of the dumping of the dead body with his missing black shirt in hand would have given me reason to uphold that conviction. I acknowledge the flaws, but given House’s demonstrated proclivity for rape and violence and even in spite of his current illness, I am not so sure this is cause to strike up the band.
As a Christian, my take on it is….let God sort them out. Whether or not you agree with me, that’s what I truly believe.
In the end, we all have to answer for our actions here on earth.
Although, I can’t lie about this, sick crimes against children (I’m talking rape and murder here) make me think that a bullet to the head is a much better answer to a trial and prison time. But that might just be the mother bear in me. And it still would not be right the action in God’s eyes, even if I say that I did it to protect others.
get information on everyone from friends, celebrities to the president himself via http://www.trackle.com
Sally, I appreciate your honesty. I realize that I am no better than anyone else, and I cannot say that under the right circumstances I wouldn’t react viciously and violently. But perfectly human responses can be wrong, and one of the functions of the law is to reduce the influence of emotion on judgment.
Whatever happened to “let he who is without sin cast the first stone?”
Mespo, I think you’re putting too much faith in the eyewitness’ claim of seeing House that next day. I certainly don’t have much faith in eyewitness accounts. Especially in light of all the evidence pointing away from House. As for the blood on his jeans, the lab itself has acknowledged that they spilled some of her blood and there’s almost an entire vial of her blood unaccounted for.
As for his “proclivity” for rape, his one rape conviction is not evidence. We don’t convict people based on their propensity to commit a certain type of crime.
I think this is a perfect case to demonstrate how even cases that once seemed air-tight can fall apart over time and to show that it really is nearly impossible to know what happened in some cases with any degree of certainty.
Sally…
Let god sort it out? You must mean as an alternative to the collection of evidence, a trial and the rule of law? Did I get that right? Just shoot everyone in the head and wait for god to pass sentence at some future date?
Hmmm. One wonders how you might feel should one of your offspring be a likely or unlikely suspect in a violent crime. Would you want to be the one to shoot him in the head ( I am assuming you have a son…. if not could you please imagine for the sake of taking your argument to its natural conclusion?) or would you want someone else? Maybe we could hire executioners for this specific purpose. How would you feel if said executioners were not a christian such as yourself.
Are you really guided into this position by your religious beliefs? Or is it the blood-thirty animal in you? I believe you invoked the mother bear in the instance of crimes against children. Oh, excuse me, sick crimes, as opposed to what? Healthy crimes?
Somehow I don’t really think you want to wait for god to sort anything, you seem to be equipped to act as god in your example. May I ask one other question? How do you know what is right in god’s eyes and what is not? Even if you think that the bullet in the head might not be god’s first choice you seem to have your defense all ready to go: you did/will do some heinous crime of your own to possibly protect others.
How shall we protect ourselves from you and from others like you?
As a Christian, my take on it is….let God sort them out. Whether or not you agree with me, that’s what I truly believe.
—
Sally admits to reacting emotionally, ie not based on the law,
to crimes against children.
Watch out though, her weapons include some well-seasoned cast iron frying pans! And some of ‘em are HOT.
We see this…
Patty
How could I disagree with your assessment that Sally reacts emotionally? Of course she does.
This is the thing I find most disturbing, and it isn’t like she is not entitled to her opinion, it is that people without adequate education vote based on emotion and/or religious beliefs and sometimes when guided by those beliefs tend to act impulsively leaving the consequences of their behavior to an imaginary deity absolving themselves of any responsibility. Should Sally or others who think like her ever really act with bullets or frying pans I should think she/they could expect to be prosecuted according to the law and not according to her/their religious beliefs.
Again, my question was whether Sally is truly guided by her religious beliefs and do those beliefs really contain a provision for executions outside the law allowing for one god or another to sort it out later.
Your response to me was a joke, wasn’t it?
My response to Sally was not a joke.
How shall we protect ourselves from those who have given themselves the right to act as judge and jury on behalf of god? Does Sally really know what god wants and does she really believe that she is equipped to carry out god’s justice?
Out of the frying pan and into the fire. eh…?
I don’t think you really want to go down this particular road of reasoning.
Besides being a parent, Sally is ex-military. If she was fit to serve, she’s certainly fit to vote – regardless of her education.
You might ask our resident ‘voter-rights activist’ who posts here, ad nauseum, how, pray tell, did anyone considered her informed enough to instruct others in their exercise to vote when she wasn’t properly registered for at least three previous elections, herself – up to and including the weekend before this past one!
Not a joke…;)
Mespo,
If there was enough doubt to get the Tennessee prosecutors to drop the charges, that is good enough for me. Doing that in the context of a State like Tennessee indicates that there is much wrong with the case. Eyewitness evidence is always problemmatic at best, especially not knowing the context of how the police first got the eyewitness statements.
What this does show is that there was in the original trial, that without valid appeals would have led to this man’s death, was that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard was not met. The Death Penalty, given the iffy nature of our jurisprudence can not be a justifiable outcome.
Sally:
“As a Christian, my take on it is….let God sort them out. Whether or not you agree with me, that’s what I truly believe.”
*************
So what? How does that statement add to the dialogue. I believe sincerely the moon is made of green cheese. Will that make it so? Will it convince one who has studied it or been there? Sincerely held beliefs are fine, but without support of manifest facts or reason tested evidence, they are self-deluding gossamer–and we are not in the gossamer business around here.
Sarah:
Bear in mind we are talking about a verdict rendered by a jury and confirmed by a trial judge who also heard it. It has greater weight than an initial factual issue before a trier of fact. None of us were privy to the nonverbal ques and information the jury observed. I am willing to trust their judgment as to the credibility of witnesses. Why is your take any better that the 12 folks who heard it fresh? Cases have to end sometime, and I would uphold the jury verdict on the appellate level if there was evidence to support their verdict which in my view there exists in abundance. The Appellate Courts are not in the second guessing the jury business.
And lest you think this fellow’s propensity for violence against women is irrelevant, I ask you, would you accept him in your home with your teenage daughter around? That answer makes it relevant to me given the violent struggle that obviously occurred. Your argument in mitigation that he only did it once is preposterous on its face, by the way.
mespo, I like it when you growl.
How’s that trial schedule?
Patty
You wrote:
**Out of the frying pan and into the fire. eh…?
I don’t think you really want to go down this particular road of reasoning.
Besides being a parent, Sally is ex-military. If she was fit to serve, she’s certainly fit to vote – regardless of her education. **
Did you mean me? That I was out of some sort of frying pan and into some kind of fire, both clearly of your own imagination?
Is there a road that I ought to avoid? Is it also one of your making? How will I know when I get there? You gonna point it out for me?
Besides being a parent Sally is ex-military and this grants her what exactly? The right as a christian parent and christian ex-military to pull out a revolver and put a bullet in someone’s head so that she gets to feel better about herself and was able to do a little something special for the other gals down at the bowling alley? Heck, she has god to sort things out for and does not need to pay any attention to the actual rule of law which says something, I think, about taking that law into one’s own hands. I think that there is something about this I read once.
Seems to me Sally doesn’t need god to judge her actions she has already convinced god to do that for her in advance ( did this come with her honorable discharge?) and you appear to have spoken not only in her defense but in her absence.
Of course, Sally has the right to vote. Just like everyone else who calls into American Idol. I don’t know if you and Sally are the kinds of folks that the Framers were wary of when they decided not to grant the vote to all citizens. Maybe you are and maybe you are not. I don’t like to make things like this personal, so lets do this…. lets say that you and I have the same reasoning ability (we don’t) and that Sally can speak for herself.
How ’bout that?
Mike
You wrote: What this does show is that there was in the original trial, that without valid appeals would have led to this man’s death, was that the beyond a reasonable doubt standard was not met. The Death Penalty, given the iffy nature of our jurisprudence can not be a justifiable outcome.
For me, and I do not speak for anyone else, capital punishment is cruel and unusual. It seems to have been handed down from a time in history when we were clearly more barbaric and I’d like to think that humankind has become, well, more elevated than we wee during the time of say, The French Revolution or the Khmer Rouge or the 3rd Reich.
The violence we do to each other in the name of justice is not just. It is revenge and it ought to be beneath us as a civilization.
Our laws ought to reflect that and the allowance of reasonable doubt is meant to provide that safety net yet, still, I am sickened by the great numbers of african american men doing serious time for offenses that white men are able to avoid (crack vs. powder cocaine for instance) and that we our need to find a criminal to pay for every violent crime to a white child is unequal to that for non-white children.
Sally may have a point… just give the good christian ex-military moms guns and let them become our public executioners.
Not interested…
Patty
You are not interested in responding to my post? Or in further self-examination?
Either way, it’s fine with me.
GWLawMom
Let’s get some things straight here. I don’t have any sons, I’ve got 2 daughters. And yes, I served in the military, something you apparently could never accomplish yourself.
Don’t you dare call me a person who lacks adequate education.
So what if I’m a mom who is currently in school studying respiratory therapy and not law? Do you think that does not entitle me to an opinion?
You can mock me for my belief in God all you want, you’re a stranger and your opinion about my beliefs is meaningless.
I base my belief on “letting God sort them out” on
Romans 12:19-21
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good
Since God is going to take up your cause and see to it that justice is done, you can lay it down. You don’t have to carry anger and bitterness and resentment and revenge. Indeed you dare not. Jesus warned that an unforgiving heart will destroy you in the end (Matthew 6:15; 18:35).
I said that I cannot lie about the fact that I would want to take revenge in my own hands, but I would choose not to.
Hemingways ‘Death in the Afternoon’ cocktail?
Have one on me.
mespo727272, Can we argue for the integrety of the process on the one hand as reason to uphold a verdict
(“None of us were privy to the nonverbal ques and information the jury observed. I am willing to trust their judgment as to the credibility of witnesses.”)
but ignore flaws, serious flaws in the same process
(from CNN.com article “Forensic evidence found Muncey’s blood on House’s jeans, but questions were later raised whether the samples were contaminated en route to an FBI lab for analysis.
Subsequent state-of-the art DNA testing conducted after the conviction showed that semen on the victim belonged to her husband, not House. Blood under her fingernails and cigarette butts discovered near the wooded crime scene also did not match the accused.”)
in making that argument? What we needed is a new, proper investigation and a new trial to actually find what approximates truth.
Patty if you’re offering one to me, I’ll gladly take it!
lottakatz:
“mespo727272, Can we argue for the integrety of the process on the one hand as reason to uphold a verdict
(”None of us were privy to the nonverbal ques and information the jury observed. I am willing to trust their judgment as to the credibility of witnesses.”)
but ignore flaws, serious flaws in the same process ”
*********
Here’s a shocker: all verdicts are in some sense flawed because imperfect people render them and imperfect judges confirm them. The point is that the accused deserves due process not perfect process. No one wants the factually innocent to suffer but the system has to render the best justice it can render at the time. Rarely is the evidence in tried cases consistent to a moral certitude. Here the point is debatable but the decision has been made to the satisfaction of the affected citizenry. To overturn it and re institute the process after all this time insured that the prosecution would have to relent given the deterioration of the evidence. I have no problem with presentation of evidence of factual innocence long after the decision — like DNA results– but here DNA does not exonerate our mischievous friend. This is just a second guess of the jury’s verdict based on notions of reasonable doubt. That notion, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder (since reasonable people can differ in judgments) and this picture has already been painted and signed.
Patty C:
Growl I must. We are in day two –count them– of the neuropsychologist’s deposition having already stopped once for a motion hearing. We plod along on the endless trek of personality tests and interpretative data.
Mike:
I ‘m not a death penalty guy either given what we both know about the justice system and its propensity to buy emotion over reason in high profile cases (California v. OJ as the most egregious that comes to mind). Even so, I accept the judgment of my fellows who overwhelmingly favor the death penalty in all horrific murder cases excepting only those on which they are asked to serve as jurors. My point was about appellate review and universally applicable. I don’t want some half-witted Bill O’Reilly-type taking up a cause for every convicted felon under the guise of justice but really on account of publicity, and twisting every inconsistency to force an appeal based on manufactured after-discovered evidence.
Mespo:
how do you ask questions in a deposition? If you ask too many or the wrong ones dosent the other side get a pretty good idea about what you are thinking and how you are going to try your case. Or is it all out in the open no secrets or hidden strategies.
Very elemental question I know.
Bron98:
Not really an elemental question. First we generally know the answer before we start, having talked to our own experts, but we are seeking to either “square the box” on the opinion and thus pin it down, or make points about the assumptions which are usually the weakest part of any opinion. We try not to fight with the expert on his level of expertise, say for example arguing wave mechanics with a physicist, but we can attack the testing process, the witness’ bias or prejudice, and his methodology as compared to generally accepted methodology within his field of specialty.
Sometimes we have some fun like the time my law partner asked a medical doctor about his experience testifying in medical malpractice cases for defendants. In that case, the good defense doctor was asked about how many other cases he had testified on behalf of the defendant physician. He proudly answered that he was no “paid whore” and that he only got involved in these cases where an injustice was occurring and that he had done so only once before this one about five years ago when a colleague was charged with performing an improper C-section.” My law partner replied, “Why doctor there must be some mistake because I think the record shows you were asked to testified twice in cases like this before?” “Preposterous,” replied this fine man of medicine, “I don’t do that sort of thing as a living.” Well, replied my law partner, “You weren’t paid for the second testimony because that time it was a case where you were sued for malpractice and the jury awarded the plaintiff two million dollars. Does that refresh your memory?” That case settled shortly thereafter.
M72, Thanks,
Bron, for asking.
mESPO:
Thank you and that was a very humerous story. I bet that doc had a fit over that.
How do you keep from screwing with people like that on a regular basis?
I suppose if one is a lawyer it is better not to be a provocateur.
mespo727272: …”but here DNA does not exonerate our mischievous friend. This is just a second guess of the jury’s verdict based on notions of reasonable doubt. That notion, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder …”
I see the notion of reasonable doubt as quantifiable. If the DNA doesn’t convict due to procedural failings in the CoC or outright admitted errors and that evidence was in large part persuasive to the jury then the jury was misled regarding the weight of the evidence. It may well have tainted the decision making process. I think our system errs on the side of caution when this kind of error (with the objective evidence) is found and considering the stakes I find that conservative approach appropriate.
Sally you wrote:
I base my belief on “letting God sort them out” on
Romans 12:19-21
Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” 20 To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good
Clearly, you don’t like me very much. That’s okay.
That I never served in the military is not a matter of whether or not I could. I never chose to serve because I would not care to shoot and kill people. and last time I checked military service was voluntary which means that like many other choices women are permitted to make military service is but one. What qualifications did you need other than the ability to sign your name on the recruitment form? So you were in the military. Does this grant you any special rights with regard to hunting down people who commit crimes that you don’t like? I did not think that this came with an honorable discharge.
You did not really answer my questions, like for instance, whether you believe you are above the law and if you granted yourself this via your religious beliefs. Are you above the law? Is being able to shoot straight your main qualification in deciding who deserves a bullet through the head and who does not? Try to keep in mind that this was your remedy to certain crimes. I prefer to trust the law.
Congratulations on your course of study. Nowhere is it written that you must study law. Respiratory therapy is a decent way to make a living even if it is kind of limiting. A lack of education is not pejorative if it is accurate and if you are going to visit a political blog, one where some knowledge of and fondness for law is sort of expected there are just going to be times when purposeful ignorance of law will not get you the response you may be seeking.
I believe that you ae entitled to your opinions, as I wrote in my original response to you and again to Patty. Did you not read that part? Additionally, you opinions are exactly as valuable to you as mine are to me. No more, no less. I do find your ideas humorous if not entirely laughable and kind of dangerous. You seem to find my ideas pretty worthless, which is your right.
As for your bible quote, this pretty much says that it is not up to you to take vengeance, and if you did put a bullet in someone’s head, it would not please god very much at all. your notion that you are blessed with the ability to shoot straight does not mean you should. If only god has the ability to judge then maybe you should find a nice church blog. In this country we uphold the rule of law when considering how to act. So feeding your hungry enemy is encouraged. Where does your bible tell you to shoot and kill the enemy you believe (you– not a jury or judge) to be guilty of some crime? Does your bible give you the right to do this?
I have an idea. Why don’t we refrain from making our discussion here about who is the better person. Clearly, compared to you i am not the better person at all and am most likely going to hell according to your beliefs.
GWMom
I’m not arguing with you. I have nothing to prove to some random woman in America that I will never ever meet.
Think what you want of me.
But frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn!!
God bless you!!
Bron98:
“How do you keep from screwing with people like that on a regular basis?
I suppose if one is a lawyer it is better not to be a provocateur.”
***********
Because when it’s all said and done, “screwing with people,” is the mark of the lesser man. We’re supposed to be about a lot more than that–but it is fun to tweak the pompous once in a while.
The subtext to a statement like ‘kill ‘em all etc.’ is the subtext that informs all religion IMO, At some point the blindfold will be lifted and Lady Justices scales will balance. Generally after death and generally irrelevant of human action, so sins of omission and commission like a failure of empathy, charity, compassion have no consequences in the moment.
Neither do the more ugly impulses like indifference and ambivalence which taken to the extreme and diffused throughout an entire country, leads to the ovens. Or the torture chambers or a public policy that kills legally innocent people now and then.
Consequently, IMO, many religious persons use this subtext as an excuse for not making informed or considered decisions. They evade responsibility for their opinions and actions (as well as their government’s) because it’ll all shake out in the end and everything will be set right that was wrong in life. I call this the Dress Rehearsal Philosophy of Life.
Just sayin’.
lottakatz:
“Dress Rehearsal Philosophy of Life.”
*************
You plagiarist you. That’s the subtitle for the Christian Bible!
It is very hard to have much faith in our justice system when you hear about things like this time and time again.
So he spent 22 years in prison and did not scream about it?
MARK MY WORDS: If I was an innocent man and if I was accused of raping and murdering my neighbor and put into a death row cell, I would protest my innocence EVERY second of my waking moments and then I would scream till my throat burst and I would crush my own head against the cell walls. THAT is how I would protest my innocence; not shutting up and trying to get the bulls*** legal system to free me and losing 22 years of my life.
No offense but this moron spent an incredible 22 YEARS in death row and didn\’t rave about it? UNBELIEVABLE. I blame the justice system but I blame this idiot as well.
If this is the case with the many other innocent men who like sheep actually went to their deaths (murders) by the justice system, then they fully deserve it…not for their innocence, but for their gulliable stupidity.
So he spent 22 years in prison and did not scream about it?
MARK MY WORDS: If I was an innocent man and if I was accused of raping and murdering my neighbor and put into a death row cell, I would protest my innocence EVERY second of my waking moments and then I would scream till my throat burst and I would crush my own head against the cell walls. THAT is how I would protest my innocence; not shutting up and trying to get the bulls*** legal system to free me and losing 22 years of my life.
No offense but this moron spent an incredible 22 YEARS in death row and didn’t rave about it? UNBELIEVABLE. I blame the justice system but I blame this idiot as well.
If this is the case with the many other innocent men who like sheep actually went to their deaths (murders) by the justice system, then they fully deserve it…not for their innocence, but for their gulliable stupidity.
Sally,
No absinthe DIA’s for you…
I think you are more of an Ouzo shot/beer chaser kinda gal, but
you might enjoy Blue Agave Margaritas or Black Cherry Martinis
this summer.
Cheers
DAMN ANGRY CITIZEN
If an innocent man on death row protests his innocence and there’s not an Appeals Court to hear it does he actually make a sound?
One might imagine that much of that time on DR was spent in appeals and probably because of appeals to various courts that he was innocent.
Actually Patty,
I’m a wine kind of girl. My father worked in France for the past few years, where he met his second wife and helped me stock my wine cellar with some excellent wines.
He even snuck me a bottle of absinthe, with a green naked lady on the front while he was in Switzerland. I haven’t opened my bottle yet, though!!
When it comes to beer, I have no taste for it. I’ve heard it’s one of those things that you either love or hate.
But I do like martini’s, although I’ve never had a black cherry one.
Cheers to you little lady
Damn Angry Citizen:
“If I was an innocent man and if I was accused of raping and murdering my neighbor and put into a death row cell, I would protest my innocence EVERY second of my waking moments and then I would scream till my throat burst and I would crush my own head against the cell walls.”
**************
No you wouldn’t.
“The worst-tempered people I’ve ever met were people who knew they were wrong.”
~Wilson Mizner
Sally:
good on you, a very restrained response to some pretty harsh treatment.
And I thought your initial comment meant that in the end only God can judge a persons life. I guess I am not as smart as GWLawmom, I would never had guessed that all of that was engendered in that statement.
Thanks Bron, much appreciated!!
It’s clear that House had something to do with the rape and murder, it’s just that the evidence was contaminated. So, in all reality he should have been found guilty of taking part in her murder. He still may have been the one who committed it, as indicated by her blood on his clothing. But he spent 22 years, and that’s probably as much as a lot of rapists and murderers spend in prison these days.
French food is mostly peasant food, the sauces concocted to mask the taste of spoiled food. And wine? Much less complex than beer and easier to make-a few grapes, yeast some oak barrels a little time. France is a country that took the best aspects of every civilization they encountered or that controlled them early on and made it their own. France is nothing more than a marketing creation. With the exception of Victor Hugo (the French intellectuals even gave him a hard time).
California makes better wines and Vermont and Wisconsin have better cheese and certainly Oklahoma, Missouri and Texas have better looking women.
“…and certainly Oklahoma, Missouri and Texas have better looking women.”
______________
And with much less body hair…
I’m orginally from Georgia and the county I’m from has a winery, Habersham Winery; the wine is rather good!! I’m especially fond of one called Cherokee Rose.
And as we all know, the best looking women always come from the South. It is a well known fact to be honest!!
However, we also all know that Georgia peaches are fuzzy…hence peach fuzz.
You guys don’t anything about French cuisine much less French wines.
Most of what is done in California, mimics the French (and Italians) because they set the standard long ago. Washington State and Oregon happen to be my preference for comparable, less expensive French style wines grown in the US because of the climates.
California produces some tasty wines, but they are not exactly
AOC – ‘Appellation d’origine Controllee’.
I swear Patty, I think you are my former culinary arts teacher’s sister. That or your her!!!
Well of course, we don’t know what you know Patty C and we must confer deference to Ms PC for docter ‘n lawyer, ‘n Indian Chief,’n candlestick maker, ‘n vetarnarhean, and food and all kinds of stuff…*such as*.
Tell us PC, all about the world cuisine and fine wines ’cause we know you have been there and have done that.
And I must know about the vineyards *you* developed in Iceland, the Arctic, and Antarctica.
I am being very serious here. I have so much to learn from your vast knowledge of everthang ‘n ‘everwhar’.
“Although, I can’t lie about this, sick crimes against children (I’m talking rape and murder here) make me think that a bullet to the head is a much better answer to a trial and prison time. But that might just be the mother bear in me. And it still would not be right the action in God’s eyes, even if I say that I did it to protect others.” Sally original
1. “Just shoot everyone in the head and wait for god to pass sentence at some future date?” GWLSM interpretation.
2. “Are you really guided into this position by your religious beliefs? Or is it the blood-thirty animal in you?” GWLSM characterization of Sally.
3. “How shall we protect ourselves from you and from others like you?” GWLSM further characterization
4. “It is that people without adequate education vote based on emotion and/or religious beliefs” GWLSM unfounded remark.
GWLSM,
I awoke this morning to find a tempest of flaming going on.
I had to read back through all to see what was going on. I must say that you did not distinguish yourself in this.
1. Sally’s original quote did not say she would act, but that the idea occurred to her. Her last statement clarified that by her moral/religious code she couldn’t pull the trigger. As a Deist Jew (don’t ask)I am clearly not a Christian, but I too would think about killing anyone who thus harmed my offspring. I would definitely kill to protect my family if I was there and they were threatened. Now considering that I spent my entire career as Psychiatric social Worker, Psychotherapist and a designer/operator of Social Services Programs, you might see this as a dichotomy and while that is your right, I don’t agree. I have not been in a physical altercation since high school and those who know me consistently think of me as even tempered or laid back. Perhaps though, what you would perceive of as my bloodthirstiness is just the Poppa Bear in me.
2. In your second quotation above you strongly implied she was a blood thirsty animal, which was not only a vicious attack, but also not a conclusion logically drawn from her comment.
3. Your third quote was also off the charts given the comment you were replying to.
4. now your fourth quote, again without evidence characterizes Sally as being uneducated. Why because she disagrees with you? You want to talk education? Doubly orphaned by age 18, I obtained a full tuition scholarship (academically not hardship based) and worked my way through
college totally supporting myself. At age 22 I joined the NYC Human Resources Administration (22,000)as an entry-level caseworker. When I retired as Deputy Director for Program and Fiscal Integrity 32 years later my retirement party was attended by the elite of the Agency. During that time I obtained my Masters, on a full tuition scholarship from an Ivy League School, trained at a Psychotherapy Institute, maintained a psychotherapeutic private practice and raised a family along with my wife who worked as an Executive in private industry. I have a Mensa IQ, but think the organization is ridiculous. So I’ve got bona fides and you know what, I’ve been at times in my life just as much a schmuck as anyone else.
My father dropped out of High School in the 9th grade and yet read Camus in the 50′s. He is still the smartest man I’ve ever known and I’ve known quite a few. My big brother barely finished high school, but is a very intelligent, well-read man. I began to realize that I was becoming wise in my old age when I realized how ignorant I really was. The world is too wondrous a place and there is far more to know than any one person can absorb. Your attack on peoples lack of education, particularly Sally’s was brutal and uncalled for, by the remarks that evoked them. In it you showed your own propensity for pre-judgment, which I would suggest is an area of self awareness you should work on. What is funny about all this is that Sally and I are of much different political persuasions and have often tangled in the past. She has never though resorted towards name calling or mis-characterization of me in her ripostes.
Sally, I started cooking for my family when I was young because my mother wasn’t able to be home before ’6 o’clock’ because of her then new job at Duke. My sister did it before me.
I’ve been at it for a long long long-long time! I’ve also met a lot of people along the way with various refined tastes, as well.
Our friends all have that in common with us and we all still enjoy blowing each other away and are managing to do it even less expensively in some ways, too.
Bon Appetit!
Thank you very much Mike for knowing exactly what I was saying. I was beginning to wonder where in my post had I portrayed myself as a blood thirsty animal.
I think you’ve done rather well for yourself, given your brief overview of your life to us.
And even though we’ve agreed to disagree, I still think you’re a very smart man.
“For me, and I do not speak for anyone else, capital punishment is cruel and unusual. It seems to have been handed down from a time in history when we were clearly more barbaric and I’d like to think that humankind has become, well, more elevated than we wee during the time of say, The French Revolution or the Khmer Rouge or the 3rd Reich.”
“I am sickened by the great numbers of african american men doing serious time for offenses that white men are able to avoid (crack vs. powder cocaine for instance) and that we our need to find a criminal to pay for every violent crime to a white child is unequal to that for non-white children.”
GWLSM,
I have opposed Capital Punishment since the execution of the Rosenberg’s in the early 50′s and my view was influenced by my father’s indignation since I was only 8. That father, incidentally, was the same 9th grade dropout that I referenced in my previous posting. As a teenager this distaste for the death penalty coalesced around the execution of Caryl Chessman. It is indeed cruel and barbaric.
However, since simplicity is the essence of elegance the argument I put forth is the one that has the greatest chance of success. Capital Punishment is no good if even one innocent dies wrongly and our system is such that it can’t guarantee that won’t happen. This argument enfolds both those who agree it is evil and those who don’t believe it is evil, but do understand the fallibility of the judicial system.
Sadly, as much as I’d like it to be, I see no evidence that mankind has become more elevated recently, though I wish that wasn’t the case. The Nazi’s were 7 decades ago, Stalin died 6 decades past, the Khmer Rouge four decades. The Iraq war is ongoing. Many countries in this world treat women as chattel and violently oppress them. Genocide is ongoing in Africa. In Europe Fascist thugs and Xenophobia are on the rise in reaction to the massive immigration problems. The human race has changed little and while I believe the battle for growth and enlightenment must be fought, i also realize that i’m just a soldier in a long fight that will last far past my lifetime.
Now as far as the second quote of yours that I list I find it strange. Not because of its War on Drugs reference, which many of my comments here will show I am strongly against and I do believe is racist. I find it strange because it seems to be a characterization of people who disagree with you, rather than an argument. This is not an issue of the rape of white vs. black babies. By the way don’t even begin to question my racial feelings, not only because I’ve got 5 years of age on you so I’ve been in the battle longer, but because I’ve got a long, documentable history of being on the right side and acting on it, sometimes to my own detriment. This is an issue of the Death Penalty and why it is wrong, that it has overwhelmingly negatively affected black lives is incontrovertible, but even if it didn’t it is wrong. Yet assumptions of particular peoples racism, beyond your surmises is also intolerable.
You write well and you are no doubt a very intelligent and commendable person, however, let me say that you also expose a tendency towards assumption and pre-judgment that weakens the points you are making.
I really hate it when I forget to sign in and show off my little photo
Mike
In your lengthy post to me you wrote that I did not distinguish myself in my response to Sally.
Here is what Sally wrote:
**Although, I can’t lie about this, sick crimes against children (I’m talking rape and murder here) make me think that a bullet to the head is a much better answer to a trial and prison time. But that might just be the mother bear in me. And it still would not be right the action in God’s eyes, even if I say that I did it to protect others.**
She believes in administering a swift bullet to the head and letting god sort it out. She compared herself to a mother bear. She never said she would not pull the trigger, only that doing it to protect others would make her right in her action even if it might not please god, she’s willing to make her case to god at some future date. She’s already working on her defense.
yes. this did provoke a certain response from me.
bears are not cute and cuddly creatures that make your wash come out softer when you use the product with their picture on it. They are predators who attack without provocation and omnivores that will eat anything that appeals to them or is available. mother bears are extremely dangerous and will attack anything that they perceive a a threat to their cubs, which is just about anything.
While I am not an outdoors woman of any particular note, I do know something about bears and I’ve seen them close up in any number of national parks where humans routinely get themselves mauled and killed because they think that bears are cute and cuddly and that the rangers don’t know what they are talking about.
so. when I read that someone feels strongly enough about child molesters or whatever Sally was writing about I react. I want to know more about what guides this sensibility — the shoot first and ask questions later thing.
From what part of divine scripture did she get her inspiration to go mama bear and let god sort out the rest?
I don’t care what people use to make themselves feel better. drugs. alcohol. religion. psychotherapy. the internet. while some may be more useful than others and more benign than others far be it for me to judge their beliefs. Whatever brings them joy and hope is for them to choose.
That said, I do find it curious that the “shoot first” crowd seems to come from the religious right. Maybe I’m wrong, but that’s just what I’ve noticed.
I do believe that there are those among us who are guided by their emotions or what they hear from the pulpits they worship at as opposed to other ways of learning. My original point was that without regard for the law and without some measure of trust for the legal system we devolve into an angry mob with pitchforks and flaming torches. The framers did not trust the average man with the vote. They believed that only men like them, wealthy landowners with formal education were suited to make decisions for the populace. Even Winston Churchill made disparaging remarks about the average voter. I don’t compare myself to Churchill but do admit that spending lots of time in the Ivory Tower does not tend to make one a populist. YOu only have to listen to the remarks made by some of our elected officials to know that being elected to office doesn’t mean you are not also a bigot or an a**h***
Not everyone who avails themselves of the legal system walks away with the verdict that they would have chosen. Surely there are many defendants who do not get adequate representation or who do get biased juries and are wrongly convicted.
Shouldn’t our attention be turned to addressing that and not making statements about killing now and allowing an imaginary deity the power to sort it our later?
There is no “later” to the victim of vigilantism.
So I picked at Sally because I think its wrong to allow our legal system to be guided by one set of religious beliefs or another. Then Patty jumped in and suddenly there is something wrong with me for never having served in the military.
I can certainly appreciate that you are guided by your own experiences, as we all are. Personally for me, I don’t think I could kill anyone and do not want to be tested. I am anti war. all war. for any reason. I don’t own guns and I will never own a gun. I don’t understand those who think that owning guns protects them from crime. I would never interfere in their right to own a gun, unless a vote on the subject came my way, but I still don’t get it.
I have no idea what I’d do if someone I loved were threatened with bodily harm. I don’t. I think it is a waste of my time to try to imagine this because in truth, none of us know until we are faced with harm.
Mike
You wrote:
**Now as far as the second quote of yours that I list I find it strange. Not because of its War on Drugs reference, which many of my comments here will show I am strongly against and I do believe is racist. I find it strange because it seems to be a characterization of people who disagree with you, rather than an argument. This is not an issue of the rape of white vs. black babies. By the way don’t even begin to question my racial feelings, not only because I’ve got 5 years of age on you so I’ve been in the battle longer, but because I’ve got a long, documentable history of being on the right side and acting on it, sometimes to my own detriment. This is an issue of the Death Penalty and why it is wrong, that it has overwhelmingly negatively affected black lives is incontrovertible, but even if it didn’t it is wrong. Yet assumptions of particular peoples racism, beyond your surmises is also intolerable.
You write well and you are no doubt a very intelligent and commendable person, however, let me say that you also expose a tendency towards assumption and pre-judgment that weakens the points you are making.**
I used that example out of convenience and also because it is one I thought might be obvious. I never considered asking you to defend your feelings or thoughts about race. My comments come from stuff that I’ve noticed, from my own experiences.
There were two cases of child abduction in my community in the past 5 years that got national attention. both children were pretty, blond girls. During the time that those children were abducted, 2 children of color, from impoverished neighborhoods were abducted. One from a very very large park adjacent to a zoo and the other from a neighborhood playground. There was virtually no press, certainly no national press and no abductor was ever found. In one case the child’s body was never recovered. Both abductors of the petty white blond girls were found. One is now on death row. Why? Is the life of a pretty white girl with blond hair more valuable to the press? to this community? I don’t know. I only know that it seems so. Are white families better organized? Are they better at making posters and sticking them up in grocery stores and better at giving tv interviews?
I don’t think that this was pointed at any one person in particular. Neither do I think that it comes from pre-judgement. and I would never dream of judging your feeling about race mainly because I don’t know you and don’t know what your thoughts on that subject are and while your 5 years on me might have some meaning to you, it has little meaning to me except that there are somethings you recall that I do not. If it were 20 ears I’d me more impressed.
There are few things I believe in more and want to trust in more than equal protection under law. I want all victims of violent crime to have their day in court and I want all perpetrators of crimes against children to be prosecuted. I want to believe that if someone is sentenced to life without possibility of parole it is an appropriate sentence to a horrible crime and not because they were caught with a joint in their pocket for the 3rd time.
I am a good writer. I think words matter. I like to use the ones that convey my point of view most accurately. I do not always succeed. I’m not sure how intelligent I am. I can only compare myself to those around me and sometimes it isn’t in my best interests to be the smartest girl in the class. I don’t know what you mean by commendable — or if I totally agree, but thank you.
You will notice that I don’t disclose much personal stuff about myself. I don’t mind hearing from people who do. It might make me seem more authentic if I did, as you do, but it’s not really my style.
“She believes in administering a swift bullet to the head and letting god sort it out.”
“I am a good writer. I think words matter.”
GWLSM,
Here’s the problem words do matter and the point of my first long post was that you mis-characterized what she clearly said and from that you made certain assumptions about her that weren’t commensurate with her remarks. That is where I took issue with you. I suspect that politically, perhaps sociologically we share similar viewpoints. Why then you might ask didn’t I let your remarks pass, even though Sally and I come from a different place politically?
My experience in the 60′s Movement was that sometimes no matter how pure our motives we acted at times like those we decried. That was the lesson I drew from all that “sturm und drang.” If ever those of us who believe in the need to change the way humanity creates its own hell on Earth, then we must carefully examine our own behavior, before casting aspersions on others.
In that vein yes I am very open about myself and my wife of three decades hates it, but perhaps I have other charms for her. It is who I am and I have no expectations that others should join me. Nor do I think it diminishes authenticity to not act similarly. I am honest enough to admit that a part of this easy disclosure is vanity and certainly I think I see myself clearly enough to see the many contradictions and ironies of my personality. Much of my own amusement is at the expense of my own foibles.
You remember of course how you were originally misconstrued as a troll, by those who didn’t take the time to understand your thoughts. I suggest that in this instance you did Sally a disservice in a similar manner.
Mike
You wrote:
**GWLSM,
Here’s the problem words do matter and the point of my first long post was that you mis-characterized what she clearly said and from that you made certain assumptions about her that weren’t commensurate with her remarks. That is where I took issue with you. I suspect that politically, perhaps sociologically we share similar viewpoints. Why then you might ask didn’t I let your remarks pass, even though Sally and I come from a different place politically?**
I guess, then that you get to take issue with me. Sally compared herself to a mama bear. She wrote that she felt like putting a bullet through someone’s head was the expedient way to go, if that person might have committed a crime that she thought would merit that. I simply took those statements and sort of, well, ran with them. The things people say/write does kind of give one a sort of permission to extrapolate other things about them, but if you go back to her original post and my response you will see that I did not fabricate anything. Does she keep a loaded .45 next to her pillow? I don’t know. Did she beat her children and then have them all pray together as a family afterwards? I have no way of knowing that either. Please note I accused her of none of these things and if I take pause with people who rely on scripture rather than the law, which is their right as long as they behave lawfully, I am also given permission to comment on that. Sometimes I might cross some imaginary line that was placed in my way. Take exception or not.
Whether you let my remarks pass or not,is up to you. I would think less of you if you only thought well of folks whose political views dovetail most perfectly with your own.
Is this the pat where I am supposed to apologize for calling someone who thinks of herself as a mama bear as exactly just that?
Mike
was I originally thought of as a troll? funny I don’t remember that.
GWLSM,
Look back at the exchange when you first posted.
Hey you 2. You are both making my verbosity look bad…
House wasn’r cleared of the murder. The prosecutor decided he could not move forward with the case, which happens in many cases, but, most certainly does not mean House was “leared”
This is much like the “exonerated” and “innocent” released from death row. Anti death penalty folks just created new definitions for those words and shoehorned a bunch of cases – now 133 – into those definitions. Maybe around 25 of those 133 have solid evidence for actual innocence.
Being clear and accurate matters.
When it time to try somebody in some cases anybody will do. The public outrage that someone must be guilty, they have no alibi, so they must be guilty, is BULL SHIT.
Can anybody honestly tell the cops what you were doing the Tuesday after the first Monday that the murder occurred? I guess you are as good as a suspect as we have, so you’ll have to do.