Send to death, but no crime committed!!

[Matteo Martini]

It seems that in Texas, you can get executed even if you did not commit any crime and even if the jury acknoledges that you did not commit any crime!!
This is the story of Kenneth Foster, an African-American, who, was standing 80 feet away from the place where the crime of Michael LaHood Jr. took place, without taking part in it.
Now, according to the Texas` " Law of Parties ", you can be sent to death, even if you did not kill a fly, if you can have " the intention " of taking part in a crime.

Foster was sentenced to death in May 1997 for driving a car from which Mauriceo Brown got out and shot Michael LaHood Jr. Brown got out of the car, allegedly attempted to commit a robbery, though he claimed that no robbery was intended, and said that he wanted to talk to a woman who was with LaHood. Complications arose and Brown shot LaHood while Foster and two others stayed in the car nearly 80 feet away with the windows up and the radio on. ( link: http://www.workers.org/2007/us/kenneth-foster-0621/ )

Under the law of parties, a person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense committed by the conduct of another if the person acts with an intent to promote or assist in the commission of the offense, and solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid another person to commit the offense. Tex.Pen.Code Ann. § 7.02(a)(2)(Vernon 2003) ( link: http://www.tjpc.state.tx.us/publications/reviews/98/98-1-12.htm )

This is the site of Kenneth Foster: http://www.freekenneth.com/

[gnome]

Hangon a sec... is he opposed to the law of parties (which to me is just a restatement of standard accessory laws)... or is he saying that his actions are not crimes under that law? He seems to be speaking against the law itself in the workers.org column.

[Matteo Martini]

If he is oppsed or not, to the " Law of Parties ", that is not the point, in my opinion.
The point is that he will be executed, for a crime he did not commit, as he was stainding in a car, with another person, with radio at high volume, 80 feet away from the place where the white guy got murdered.
That is the point.

[WildCat]

Not that I don't trust the communist newspaper to get all the facts correct, but is there a transcript of the trial available anywhere?

[Just thinking]

If he is oppsed or not, to the " Law of Parties ", that is not the point, in my opinion.
The point is that he will be executed, for a crime he did not commit, as he was stainding in a car, with another person, with radio at high volume, 80 feet away from the place where the white guy got murdered.
That is the point.

Sounds like the definition you supplied makes him part of a party in which one person committed murder. BTW ... are you serious in using the supplied link as an unbiased source?

[Just thinking]

Not that I don't trust the communist newspaper to get all the facts correct, but is there a transcript of the trial available anywhere?

That's what we really need here ... but, God -- how lengthy can that be?

From the article ...I have dedicated my life for 10 years now. I will not walk head down. In my own right I have left a legacy—for my family, for my child, for fellow strugglers. ...

10 Years??? One might think that in all that time if there was a strong link to innocence in this case it would have netted something by now.

[Matteo Martini]

The case was reported exactly as in the link provided, by the Italian leading newspaper, " Il Corriere della Sera ", but the link is in Italian, alas.
The most authoritative article in the net, is maybe the one from Amnesty: http://blogs.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/archive/2007/05/06/what-do-you-know-about-the-case-of-kenneth-foster.htm
The American newspapers give no attention to the case ( maybe, because it is no news, in Texas? ).

This is the link to the Texas state official site:
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/fosterk.jpg

[Just thinking]

This is the link to the Texas state official site:
http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/fosterk.jpg

The police summary strongly conflicts with the article.

[Matteo Martini]

The police summary strongly conflicts with the article.


Nope.

They both say that:

1) he killed nobody;
2) he was driving the car, in what the police says it was an attempted armed robbery, while Foster denies that;
3) he was not even close to the murdered, when the murder happened;
4) in the site, we also read that the car had the stereo on, at high volume.

Even assuming that Foster knew it was an armed attempted robbery, do you get death penalty for being the driver in an armed attempted robbery, in Texas?

[WildCat]

The case was reported exactly as in the link provided, by the Italian leading newspaper, " Il Corriere della Sera ", but the link is in Italian, alas.
The most authoritative article in the net, is maybe the one from Amnesty: http://blogs.amnestyusa.org/death-penalty/archive/2007/05/06/what-do-you-know-about-the-case-of-kenneth-foster.htm
The American newspapers give no attention to the case ( maybe, because it is no news, in Texas? ).
You're quoting exclusively from anti-death penalty sources. There's that whole bias thing and all, which is why I'd like to see an actual trial transcript. Convicts always claim they didn't do nothin'. And if the facts show that he drove the shooter to the victim knowing that there will at least be a robbery attempt, he is indeed guilty as charged.

[WildCat]

Even assuming that Foster knew it was an armed attempted robbery, do you get death penalty for being the driver in an armed attempted robbery, in Texas?
Once a murder occurs, you are no longer an accomplice to robbery, but an accomplice to murder. This is true in every state as far as I know, and rightly so IMHO.

[Matteo Martini]

Your quoting exclusively from anti-death penalty sources. .

Nope.
I have included the police trnscript and official record, as well.


There's that whole bias thing and all, which is why I'd like to see an actual trial transcript. .

I have posted that


Convicts always claim they didn't do nothin'. And if the facts show that he drove the shooter to the victim knowing that there will at least be a robbery attempt, he is indeed guilty as charged.

He denies that.
But, even assuming that he drove the shooter, in a robbery attempt, do you get death penalty for that??

[Just thinking]

But, even assuming that he drove the shooter, in a robbery attempt, do you get death penalty for that??

ABSOLUTELY !!!

[Texas]

Nope.

They both say that:

1) he killed nobody;
2) he was driving the car, in what the police says it was an attempted armed robbery, while Foster denies that;
3) he was not even close to the murdered, when the murder happened;
4) in the site, we also read that the car had the stereo on, at high volume.

Even assuming that Foster knew it was an armed attempted robbery, do you get death penalty for being the driver in an armed attempted robbery, in Texas?
Yes. The death of any person resulting from committing another felony is capital murder. He was already involved in the felony of armed robbery and that sealed his fate regardless of the fact that he pulled the trigger.

[WildCat]

Nope.
I have included the police trnscript and official record, as well.
No, that was just a very short summary.

I have posted that
No, you haven't.

He denies that.
Of course he does. But the jury or judge that tried him didn't buy his story. A transcript would be helpful here.

[Matteo Martini]

Once a murder occurs, you are no longer an accomplice to robbery, but an accomplice to murder. This is true in every state as far as I know, and rightly so IMHO.

Well, that is questionable.
I think he can hardly be proven, that he knew, it was going to become a murder.
Also, the police stated that it was an attempted robbery, which turn out into a murder.
So, even if you agree with the police` s version, you can hardly deny, that he is got sentenced to death, for being the driver of an attempted robbery which turned out murder.

[WildCat]

Well, that is questionable.
I think he can hardly be proven, that he knew, it was going to become a murder.
Also, the police stated that it was an attempted robbery, which turn out into a murder.
So, even if you agree with the police` s version, you can hardly deny, that he is got sentenced to death, for being the driver of an attempted robbery which turned out murder.
He got sentenced to death for being an accomplice in a murder. It matters little whether or not he actually pulled the trigger.

[Just thinking]

Nope.

They both say that:

1) he killed nobody;

Strawman -- accomplices are just as guilty in many cases.

2) he was driving the car, in what the police says it was an attempted armed robbery, while Foster denies that;

Ahhh ... that qualifies as a conflict.

3) he was not even close to the murdered, when the murder happened;

Close ... please supply evidence for actual distances and definition of close

4) in the site, we also read that the car had the stereo on, at high volume.

No mention in the police report -- evidence to support this???

[Matteo Martini]

No, that was just a very short summary.


Well, I do not know where to find the complete transcript of the process.
I do not even know if it is posted on the web.
But the main points I have stressed, can be easily verified from the link to the State Police I gave you.

[Texas]

Well, that is questionable.
I think he can hardly be proven, that he knew, it was going to become a murder.
Also, the police stated that it was an attempted robbery, which turn out into a murder.
So, even if you agree with the police` s version, you can hardly deny, that he is got sentenced to death, for being the driver of an attempted robbery which turned out murder.
That makes absolutely no difference. Had he not been driving the get away car the shooter would not have been in place to shoot the other guy.

[Matteo Martini]

He got sentenced to death for being an accomplice in a murder. It matters little whether or not he actually pulled the trigger.

It matters a lot, as, it was not a murder, but an attempted robbery, which turned out to be a murder.
How can you think and know, that he knew it was going to become a murder?
In the police transcript, there is cleary written that the guys were asking for money and the keys of the car, so, I would rather say it was not a premeditate murder, just a robbery which turned out to be a murder.
How can you state, that this guy, which was in the car, had any part in the murder itself?

[Matteo Martini]

That makes absolutely no difference. Had he not been driving the get away car the shooter would not have been in place to shoot the other guy.

Had not the Germans voted for Adolf Hitler in 1933, there would have been no concentration lagers.
Let` s kill all the Germans.
Oops!!
Too late..

[Matteo Martini]

Strawman -- accomplices are just as guilty in many cases.


Even if sticking to the police` s version, we was accomplice of attempted armed robbery, quite a difference from direct, cold blood homicide.


Ahhh ... that qualifies as a conflict.


I have written, " even if sticking to the police` s version " in the last few posts.
Let` s stick to the police` s version.


Close ... please supply evidence for actual distances and definition of close


80 feet is not close


No mention in the police report -- evidence to support this???

Would it make such a huge difference, if the volume of the stereo was at low volume?

[Texas]

It matters a lot, as, it was not a murder, but an attempted robbery, which turned out to be a murder.
How can you think and know, that he knew it was going to become a murder?
In the police transcript, there is cleary written that the guys were asking for money and the keys of the car, so, I would rather say it was not a premeditate murder, just a robbery which turned out to be a murder.
How can you state, that this guy, which was in the car, had any part in the murder itself?Capital Punishment in Texas is dealt out for the following reasons, Multiple murder victims, single murder involving sexual crime such as rape or child molesting, and single murder committed in the act of another felony such as armed robbery etc. It makes no difference who pulled the trigger, all parties involved in the predicate felony that ends in the subsequent murder are equally culpable under the law. This guy has probably 5 more years of appeals available to him. He is getting due process while the other guy is long dead.

[Just thinking]

It matters a lot, as, it was not a murder, but an attempted robbery, which turned out to be a murder.
How can you think and know, that he knew it was going to become a murder?
In the police transcript, there is cleary written that the guys were asking for money and the keys of the car, so, I would rather say it was not a premeditate murder, just a robbery which turned out to be a murder.
How can you state, that this guy, which was in the car, had any part in the murder itself?

Because when you become part and parcel of a criminal offense, you become just as guilty of any and all offenses that transpire, regardless of who did what in your party. Too bad if things worked out a little differently than planned. You took part of your own free will to commit a crime. Now, if you can prove that no crime was intended ... but that's not what we have here.

[WildCat]

You know, I was going to post if this was a campaign similar to the "Free Mumia" crap that has been going on for years, then I found this article searching for a transcript: Death and Texas: The Kenneth Foster case (http://www.sfbayview.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=203&Itemid=21). Authored by... (drum roll please)... Mumia Abu-Jamal! :eek:

[Matteo Martini]

ABSOLUTELY !!!

Then, all I can say is that I completely disagree with you..

[Matteo Martini]

Because when you become part and parcel of a criminal offense, you become just as guilty of any and all offenses that transpire, regardless of who did what in your party. Too bad if things worked out a little differently than planned. You took part of your own free will to commit a crime.

The crime he took part, in free will, to commit, was attempted armed robbery.
There is no evidence, even in the police records, that he could know it was going to be a murder.
He should be processed for what he did, if we stick to the police version, which was attempted armed robbery, not muder.
And, you should not get capital punishment for that.
The guy who pulled the trigger, he should get punished for muder


Now, if you can prove that no crime was intended ... but that's not what we have here.

There are different kind of crimes.
You can not put, on the same level, the guy who pulled the trigger, with the guy who was driving the car and, presumably, had no idea that it was going to become a murder.

[Just thinking]

Even if sticking to the police` s version, we was accomplice of attempted armed robbery, quite a difference from direct, cold blood homicide.

You don't seem to understand what a strawman is, do you?

I have written, " even if sticking to the police` s version " in the last few posts.
Let` s stick to the police` s version.

In order to show conflicts, we must use BOTH versions ... otherwise we only have one side. Do you really believe one side will conflict with itself? Well, maybe here ...

80 feet is not close

Is the Moon close to the Earth? This is known as subjective evaluation -- where do we see distances in the police version? And where is any of the evidence I have requested?

Would it make such a huge difference, if the volume of the stereo was at low volume?

Again, where is any of the EVIDENCE to support any of this blather?

[Just thinking]

The crime he took part, in free will, to commit, was attempted armed robbery.

Yes ... and in that CRIME murder was committed. It makes no difference that he didn't commit it! Please re-read that last sentence to yourself over and over until you fully understand it ... otherwise this will go on forever with you getting nowhere.

[Just thinking]

Then, all I can say is that I completely disagree with you..

And the law ... in all 50 states.

[Matteo Martini]

Capital Punishment in Texas is dealt out for the following reasons, Multiple murder victims, single murder involving sexual crime such as rape or child molesting, and single murder committed in the act of another felony such as armed robbery etc. .

Kenneth did not commit any of the above

It makes no difference who pulled the trigger, all parties involved in the predicate felony that ends in the subsequent murder are equally culpable under the law.

According to the law of Texas, of course.
Which is highly inhuman, IMHO.
Not to the Italian, French and German law.
Fortunately.

This guy has probably 5 more years of appeals available to him. .

He is schedule to be executed in less than 60 days.



He is getting due process while the other guy is long dead.

And the dead guy, was not shot dead by this Kenneth.
I assume that, the fact that the white guy is the son of a very rich white lawyer, while the black guy is the son of a prostitute, has something to do, with the fact that he will be executed quite soon.

[Matteo Martini]

And the law ... in all 50 states.

Are you sure that, the " Law of Parties " is a law in all the 50 states of the U. S.?
In the Italian article, there is written that this law, is only valid in Texas.

[Texas]

Kenneth did not commit any of the above



According to the law of Texas, of course.
Which is highly inhuman, IMHO.
Not to the Italian, French and German law.
Fortunately.



He is schedule to be executed in less than 60 days.




And the dead guy, was not shot dead by this Kenneth.
I assume that, the fact that the white guy is the son of a very rich white lawyer, while the black guy is the son of a prostitute, has something to do, with the fact that he will be executed quite soon. Well I would advise other get away drivers to stay of of Texas then. BTW it is DEAD white guy. His money does him no good now.

[Matteo Martini]

Yes ... and in that CRIME murder was committed. It makes no difference that he didn't commit it!

In my opinion, there is a huge difference that he did not commit it, and, that he was not aware that an homicide was going to happen ( as far as I can understand from the police transcript )


Please re-read that last sentence to yourself over and over until you fully understand it ... otherwise this will go on forever with you getting nowhere.


There is no point in re-reading it, as I fully disagree with your sentence " It makes no difference that he didn't commit it! "

[Just thinking]

Are you sure that, the " Law of Parties " is a law in all the 50 states of the U. S.?
In the Italian article, there is written that this law, is only valid in Texas.

It has variations to be sure ... but basically if you take part in a criminal offense (and that's the key issue here -- criminal offense) then you become subject to prosecution to any and all offenses that occur as a result.

[Texas]

Kenneth did not commit any of the above






He is schedule to be executed in less than 60 days.




. Then that means he has exhausted his appeals. Too bad for him.

[Elizabeth I]

Well, that is questionable.
I think he can hardly be proven, that he knew, it was going to become a murder.
Also, the police stated that it was an attempted robbery, which turn out into a murder.
So, even if you agree with the police's version, you can hardly deny, that he is got sentenced to death, for being the driver of an attempted robbery which turned out murder.

The law says it DOESN'T MATTER if he "knew" it would turn into a murder. If the facts are as you have stated, he was participating in a crime - armed robbery - which resulted in murder. His complicity in the first crime makes him an accomplice in the murder. This particular principle doesn't seem to me to be hard to understand.

There's also the point that he might reasonably have assumed that an armed robbery stood a good chance of turning into a murder, so that even in he didn't "know" it, he could have a strong supposition of it.

[Matteo Martini]

Well I would advise other get away drivers to stay of of Texas then. BTW it is DEAD white guy. His money does him no good now.

But, maybe the money were very useful to get the black driver, complice in attempted armed robbery guy, to get sentenced to that.

[Just thinking]

In my opinion, there is a huge difference that he did not commit it, and, that he was not aware that an homicide was going to happen ( as far as I can understand from the police transcript )

One would have to be a complete and total jackass not to think that armed robbery might result in murder, even by accident -- hell, you're using a loaded gun for chrissake. Sorry ... no dice.

There is no point in re-reading it, as I fully disagree with your sentence " It makes no difference that he didn't commit it! "

Disagreement does not equate with innocence.

[Texas]

But, maybe the money were very useful to get the black driver, complice in attempted armed robbery guy, to get sentenced to that. The guy just did his crime in the wrong state. I won't lose any sleep over it.

[Matteo Martini]

The law says it DOESN'T MATTER if he "knew" it would turn into a murder. If the facts are as you have stated, he was participating in a crime - armed robbery - which resulted in murder. His complicity in the first crime makes him an accomplice in the murder. This particular principle doesn't seem to me to be hard to understand.

I understand it very well.
The point I am trying to make, is that this law is hilarious, or tragic.
Again, do not write me that the law is the law.
The law ( in Texas, only, as far as I understood ) is questionable.

There's also the point that he might reasonably have assumed that an armed robbery stood a good chance of turning into a murder, so that even in he didn't "know" it, he could have a strong supposition of it.

Now it is my turn to ask you..
Do you have any evidence for that?
Do you have any evidence that he even knew, that the other guys had a gun?
Or, was he thinking he was just taking part in a robbery?
Again, let me remember you, that I am stiking to the police` s version, as far as the details are available.

[kerikiwi]

You can not put, on the same level, the guy who pulled the trigger, with the guy who was driving the car and, presumably, had no idea that it was going to become a murder.

Yes you can. The person who drove the car is called an accomplice.
The crime was murder. Being unaware that was to be the outcome is no defence. The person who pulled the trigger may have been equally unaware that was to be the outcome. The dead person is equally dead.
This is not to be confused with the appropriateness of the death penalty, or the biased way it is applied. The same principles apply if the sentence is imprisonment.

[Matteo Martini]

One would have to be a complete and total jackass not to think that armed robbery might result in murder, even by accident -- hell, you're using a loaded gun for chrissake. Sorry ... no dice.

First, we have no proof that he knew it was an armed robbery.
And, even in that case, it seems tragic ( I do not know which word to use ), to equate guy who pulls the trigger, with the guy, standing in the car, and ( according to the police record ), thinking it was taking part in an armed robbery.
Again, just my opinion


Disagreement does not equate with innocence.

Never said that he was completely innocent

[Metullus]

Even if sticking to the police` s version, we was accomplice of attempted armed robbery, quite a difference from direct, cold blood homicide.He was an accomplice to an attempted armed robbery that turned into a cold blooded murder. He was thus an accomplice to murder.

I do not understand your difficulty in comprehending the point being made: he committed the crime for which he was convicted. You might disagree with the law but I do not see how you can deny that he is guilty of having broken that law.

Another point to ponder. Nowhere do you deny that he was a willing participant in an armed robbery attempt. Explicit in any armed robbery is the threat that if the victim does not satisfy the demands of the robber the robber will assault the victim. When the weapon being brandished is a gun the threat is that the victim will be shot and perhaps killed. Murder is not, therefore, an unlikely or unforeseeable outcome of such an undertaking; indeed, the willingness (or the perception of willingness) of the perpetrator to commit murder is what makes armed robbery work. Foster was to a significant degree instrumental in putting the gun in the face of the victim; Foster is now facing the consequences of his choice.

[Matteo Martini]

Yes you can. The person who drove the car is called an accomplice.
The crime was murder.

An attempted robbery which turned out to be a murder

Being unaware that was to be the outcome is no defence.

What?
Now, being unaware that you are part of a murder is no defence??


The person who pulled the trigger may have been equally unaware that was to be the outcome.

No, that guy, who pulled the trigger, was aware.
If you pull the trigger of a gun, in front of another person, you do it for kill.
If you are standing in the car, 80 feet away from the crime scene, maybe not.
This is the point I am trying to make

The dead person is equally dead.

Who killed him?


This is not to be confused with the appropriateness of the death penalty, or the biased way it is applied.

Never talked about the appropriateness of the death penalty, here


The same principles apply if the sentence is imprisonment.

Well, sending a person to death, because he drove a car, in an attempted armed robbery, which turned out to become a murder, this is completely tragic, in my opinion.

[jsfisher]

In my opinion, there is a huge difference that he did not commit it, and, that he was not aware that an homicide was going to happen ( as far as I can understand from the police transcript )


You have repeated this sentiment several times, but it does not matter one twit if he was aware that a homicide was going to happen. Zero, nada, zip.

He was an accomplice to a robbery. You seem to accept that. The law (in all 50 states, not just inhumane Texas), is that an accomplice to a felony (robbery, in this case) becomes a party to *all* else that transpires during the commission of that crime.

If a death occurs during a robbery (even an accidental death), it is murder, and all participants in the robbery become responsible. What he knew, expected, hoped for, dreamed about, or listened to on the radio makes no difference.

[Texas]

First, we have no proof that he knew it was an armed robbery.
And, even in that case, it seems tragic ( I do not know which word to use ), to equate guy who pulls the trigger, with the guy, standing in the car, and ( according to the police record ), thinking it was taking part in an armed robbery.
Again, just my opinion



Never said that he was completely innocent If there had never been a predicate felony ie armed robbery, there would have been no grounds for the death penalty in Texas. The prosecutor had to prove the armed robbery before he could seek the death penalty. It is obvious from the sentence that the prosecution proved its case to the satisfaction of the jury and subsequent appeals.

[WildCat]

Are you sure that, the " Law of Parties " is a law in all the 50 states of the U. S.?
In the Italian article, there is written that this law, is only valid in Texas.
It may be called by different names, but every state has similar laws. Here's a very recent case in Missouri, which you will probably find even more odd: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/0C4BEA8683BAB5C8862572EC00142964?OpenDocument
In this case, the victim of the theft opens fire at an accomplice of the thief, killing him. Now both the victim and the thief may face murder charges!

[Just thinking]

First, we have no proof that he knew it was an armed robbery.

That's right out of the police records ... where is the evidence or proof to show otherwise?

And, even in that case, it seems tragic ( I do not know which word to use ), to equate guy who pulls the trigger, with the guy, standing in the car, and ( according to the police record ), thinking it was taking part in an armed robbery.
Again, just my opinion

One greatly out numbered .. at least here. Note, a good deal of what you are stating (accepting?) as fact is NOT in the police report. May I suggest you supply evidence (which I have requested over and over) that supports any of this? The 80 feet distance. Being in the car at the time of the murder. Having the stereo on loud. Not knowing there was a crime intended.

Never said that he was completely innocent

Of MURDER. Yes .. you have. Repeatedly.

[Matteo Martini]

He was an accomplice to an attempted armed robbery that turned into a cold blooded murder. He was thus an accomplice to murder.

I completely disagree with this point.
If you are an accomplice of an attempted armed robbery ( even if, we assumed we knew ), you are accomplice of an attempted armed robbery.
This is something different from killing a person.


I do not understand your difficulty in comprehending the point being made: he committed the crime for which he was convicted..

I completely understand the point.
But, my point is, pleaase read above, that being an accomplice of an attempted armed robbery is something different from killing a person


You might disagree with the law but I do not see how you can deny that he is guilty of having broken that law.

I never denied that he did not break the law, which apparently is such only in Texas ( wew!! ).
Also, people who throw away trash in the streets, do something against the law.


Another point to ponder. Nowhere do you deny that he was a willing participant in an armed robbery attempt.

He denies that, but, let` s stick to the most unfavourable version ( for the black guy )


Explicit in any armed robbery is the threat that if the victim does not satisfy the demands of the robber the robber will assault the victim.

That is questionable.
In many cases, robberies are perpetuated with guns, knifes, etc. with the only intent to scare the victim, not to kill him.
So, we can nowhere assume, that, even if the Kenneth knew it was an armed robbery, we could have been told by his " mates ", that the gun would have been used oly to scare the guy, not to kill him.
Again, even if you stick to the most unfavourable version for the black guy, there is still quite a difference between his ( culpable ) behaviour, and an homicide.


Foster was to a significant degree instrumental in putting the gun in the face of the victim;

This is competely non-sense, in my opinion.
Even the gas station guy, who filled the tan of the car used by the attempted robbery, was " instumental putting the gun in the face of the victim ".
This guy, Kenneth, should pay for what he did, that is, being the driver in an attempted armed robbery, not for what he did not do, that is, homicide.

[WildCat]

I never denied that he did not break the law, which apparently is such only in Texas ( wew!! ).
No, it's not. Every state has such laws, read the link in my last post. In that case, the robbers weren't even armed!

[Matteo Martini]

You have repeated this sentiment several times, but it does not matter one twit if he was aware that a homicide was going to happen. Zero, nada, zip.

He was an accomplice to a robbery. You seem to accept that. The law (in all 50 states, not just inhumane Texas), is that an accomplice to a felony (robbery, in this case) becomes a party to *all* else that transpires during the commission of that crime.

If a death occurs during a robbery (even an accidental death), it is murder, and all participants in the robbery become responsible. What he knew, expected, hoped for, dreamed about, or listened to on the radio makes no difference.

What I can say, is that I completely disagree with you, as, as I have stated, he should be held responsible for being the driver in an attempted armed robbery.
That closes the discussion.

[Matteo Martini]

It may be called by different names, but every state has similar laws. Here's a very recent case in Missouri, which you will probably find even more odd: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/0C4BEA8683BAB5C8862572EC00142964?OpenDocument
In this case, the victim of the theft opens fire at an accomplice of the thief, killing him. Now both the victim and the thief may face murder charges!

What I can say, is this is completely madness.
But, again, jsut my opinion

[shuize]

I have not read all the details, but from what has been presented in this thread it sounds like a straightforward example the felony murder rule.

Briefly: If you participate in the commission of a felony and someone dies during the course of the crime, you are on the hook for murder even if you didn't pull the trigger.

[Just thinking]

This is competely non-sense, in my opinion.
Even the gas station guy, who filled the tan of the car used by the attempted robbery, was " instumental putting the gun in the face of the victim ".

Ah HA! The proof we have all been waiting for. The proof that you do not in fact understand what we have been arguing.

A gas station attendant is not in the act of committing a crime simply by pumping gas into a car. Hence, your argument is invalid. Taking part in an armed robbery IS a criminal offense, and thus opens you up to prosecution of all that happens in that act.

Do we have a troll here?

[strathmeyer]

Well, sending a person to death, because he drove a car, in an attempted armed robbery, which turned out to become a murder, this is completely tragic, in my opinion.

I'm sorry, but I feel that someone being shot in the face while being robbed is more tragic. Which would you rather happen to you?

[Texas]

What I can say, is this is completely madness.
But, again, jsut my opinion
Let's look at an Italian case;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3792761.stm

'Political prisoner'

Lioce is still under investigation for her alleged role in the two assassinations.

Although she did not fire any shots in the encounter that led to her arrest on the train, the court ruled she was guilty of attempted murder and of being an accomplice to murder.

It handed her a life sentence and ordered her to pay damages of $500,000 to the family of the murdered policeman, Emanuele Petri.

[WildCat]

What I can say, is that I completely disagree with you, as, as I have stated, he should be held responsible for being the driver in an attempted armed robbery.
That closes the discussion.
Apparently, Italy has similar laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3792761.stm):
An Italian court has given a life sentence to a woman linked to resurgent left-wing guerrillas the Red Brigades.

...Although she did not fire any shots in the encounter that led to her arrest on the train, the court ruled she was guilty of attempted murder and of being an accomplice to murder.

eta: damn you Texas! Beat me to it. ;)

[jsfisher]

What I can say, is that I completely disagree with you, as, as I have stated, he should be held responsible for being the driver in an attempted armed robbery.
That closes the discussion.


So, which is it: Are we discussing the merits of the case (for which the law is clear in this case) or the merits of the law, itself?

Pick one.

[Texas]

Apparently, Italy has similar laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3792761.stm):


eta: damn you Texas! Beat me to it. ;)
GMTA. LOL

[Matteo Martini]

That's right out of the police records ... where is the evidence or proof to show otherwise?


I have read the police record.
There is written that he is " serving for aggraveted assault with deadly weapon ".
There is not written that, being the driver of a car, he knew that the other guys actually had deadly weapons.


One greatly out numbered .. at least here.


300 years ago, if you spoke against witch burning, you would have been greatly outnumbered too.

Note, a good deal of what you are stating (accepting?) as fact is NOT in the police report. May I suggest you supply evidence (which I have requested over and over) that supports any of this? The 80 feet distance. Being in the car at the time of the murder. Having the stereo on loud. Not knowing there was a crime intended.

There is written in the police record that he was the driver of the car.
There is not written, if, at the time of the murder, he was standing at 20-feet, 40-feet or 200-feet away.
The other information, I got them from the Italian newspaper.
But, sticking to the police record, we can deduct nowhere, that he had any involvement with the homicide, if not the fact that he drove the car.
So, he got death penalty, for driving the car used by the shooter.



Of MURDER. Yes .. you have. Repeatedly.

Well, if you consider as " murder " the action of driving a car, in which you have a potential shooter, then, he was guilty of murder.

[Texas]

I have read the police record.
There is written that he is " serving for aggraveted assault with deadly weapon ".
There is not written that, being the driver of a car, he knew that the other guys actually had deadly weapons.



300 years ago, if you spoke against witch burning, you would have been greatly outnumbered too.



There is written in the police record that he was the driver of the car.
There is not written, if, at the time of the murder, he was standing at 20-feet, 40-feet or 200-feet away.
The other information, I got them from the Italian newspaper.
But, sticking to the police record, we can deduct nowhere, that he had any involvement with the homicide, if not the fact that he drove the car.
So, he got death penalty, for driving the car used by the shooter.




Well, if you consider as " murder " the action of driving a car, in which you have a potential shooter, then, he was guilty of murder.Maybe instead of telling Texas how barbaric it is you should look in your own back yard. It has now been shown that Italy has the same type of accomplice law that we have here. Or is that somehow different? By your logic, the Italian lady cited above was just guilty of riding a train.

[Matteo Martini]

Apparently, Italy has similar laws (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/3792761.stm)

Life imprisonment, now partly condonated, quite different from capital punishment, uh?

By the way, there is a strong debate, in Italy, to abolish even that ( life imprisonment )

[Matteo Martini]

I'm sorry, but I feel that someone being shot in the face while being robbed is more tragic. Which would you rather happen to you?

Two bad things, do not make one good thing.
That is summing the death of a guy, to the death of the driver, who brought the potential ( and, later, actual ) shooter in place, does not make justice.
Again, my opinion

[Texas]

Life imprisonment, now partly condonated, quite different from capital punishment, uh?

By the way, there is a strong debate, in Italy, to abolish even that ( life imprisonment )Way to move the goalposts.

[Matteo Martini]

No, it's not. Every state has such laws, read the link in my last post. In that case, the robbers weren't even armed!

Even if the " law of parties ", were valid from Alaska to California, it does not make any difference, in my opinion.
Anyway, as far as it is stated in the newspaper, it is a law valid only in Texas.

[Texas]

Even if the " law of parties ", were valid from Alaska to California, it does not make any difference, in my opinion.
Anyway, as far as it is stated in the newspaper, it is a law valid only in Texas.You are reduced to arguing semantics. I think you have ran out of arguments.

[WildCat]

Way to move the goalposts.
Seconded.

So Matteo, you are now OK with the murder charge but are against the death penalty?

[Matteo Martini]

Way to move the goalposts.

Absolutely not.
This is the main point.
If that guy ( Kenneth ) were sent to jail for 20-30 years, I would not think it as unreasonable.
I think that, being legally killed, even if he did not kill anyone ( driving a potential shooter to place, is not killing, in my opinion ), is completely wrong.

[Texas]

Life imprisonment, now partly condonated, quite different from capital punishment, uh?

By the way, there is a strong debate, in Italy, to abolish even that ( life imprisonment )
Do you think that is some kind of badge of honor? In your opinion what should the penalty be for cold blooded murder?

[Matteo Martini]

Ah HA! The proof we have all been waiting for. The proof that you do not in fact understand what we have been arguing.



A gas station attendant is not in the act of committing a crime simply by pumping gas into a car. Hence, your argument is invalid. Taking part in an armed robbery IS a criminal offense, and thus opens you up to prosecution of all that happens in that act.



There is crime and crime.
Again, even assuming that the legal version is the only one to consider, he can be held responsible ( please read carefully ), of having been the driver of a potential shooter to place.
So, that is a crime, but this is not homicide.


Do we have a troll here?

I see, this is the way you deal with people who do not think like you.
You accuse them to troll?

[Matteo Martini]

You are reduced to arguing semantics. I think you have ran out of arguments.

Nope.
As far as I know, Texas has the stricter laws in people to death, and it should be the state with the higher number of people sent to death.
Still, I am not an expert in U. S. criminal laws.
You can forgive me for that.

[Marquis de Carabas]

Even if the " law of parties ", were valid from Alaska to California, it does not make any difference, in my opinion.
He's got a good point here. If the law of parties was valid from Alaska to California, then it would not apply at all in this case, unless somebody moved Texas to the Pacific Ocean while my back was turned.

[Matteo Martini]

Seconded.

So Matteo, you are now OK with the murder charge but are against the death penalty?

No.
I think that, if it is proven that he actually knew that his " mates " were bringing guns with them, he should be charged for what he did, that is, being the driver of guys performing an attempted armed robbery.
Which, again, in my opinion, should not involve death sentence.

[Darth Rotor]

It seems that in Texas, you can get executed even if you did not commit any crime and even if the jury acknoledges that you did not commit any crime!!
Tell ya what, amico. You go back to Italy, and you stay the hell out of Texas, and you won't ever have to worry about any of this.

Capisce?

The following is completely irrelevant:

According to the law of Texas, of course.
Which is highly inhuman, IMHO.
Not to the Italian, French and German law.

Who gives a crap? The crime was committed in Texas, so Italy, France and Germany have jack spit to do with any of this.

DR

[Matteo Martini]

Do you think that is some kind of badge of honor?

Yes


In your opinion what should the penalty be for cold blooded murder?

Life imprisonment.
But, we are now going off topic, as, the point I was making, is not if death penalty is a just penalty for muder, but, that that Kenneth, is not actually responsible of homicide.

[Texas]

Nope.
As far as I know, Texas has the stricter laws in people to death, and it should be the state with the higher number of people sent to death.
Still, I am not an expert in U. S. criminal laws.
You can forgive me for that. I could if you didn't brush off all explanations of Texas or US law that did not fit your preconceived views. It is actually very difficult to be charged with a capital crime in Texas. The law is very clear as to what murders are eligible for the death penalty. In Texas it is the juries, not the judge or prosecutor, that set the punishment in capital cases and there are many cases that the death penalty is not given but asses the penalty as life without parole.

[Matteo Martini]

He's got a good point here. If the law of parties was valid from Alaska to California, then it would not apply at all in this case, unless somebody moved Texas to the Pacific Ocean while my back was turned.

I do not get your point here.

Anyway, I just found out that, being the state with the highest number of people sent to death, has not helped Texas a lot, since is the state number 2 for homicides per inhabitant:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html

Quite strange, is not it?

Sems that death penalty does not work, as deterrent

[Matteo Martini]

Capisce?


In Italian, you should say " capisci? "..

[Darth Rotor]

I do not get your point here.
Gee, there's a shocker.
Anyway, I just found out that, being the state with the highest number of people sent to death, has not helped Texas a lot,

It helps a lot. Useless pieces of crap who rape and murder are put to death now and again in Texas. That's a good thing, all by itself.

The deterrent matter is irrelevant. The real problem is the 10-15 years of appeals. That needs to be shortened up a bit.

DR

[Tricky]

As a thirty-year resident of Texas and a supporter of the death penalty, I have to say that Texas is about the most bloodthirsty state in the US when it comes to executing people. While there is little or no doubt that the man on death row is a criminal, I find it highly questionable as to whether his crime deserves the death penalty. It cannot be shown that the murder was premeditated or that the driver knew it would happen.

In my mind, the only thing that justifies the death penalty is showing that the person would be an overwhelming danger to society if released.

But that being said, I didn't write the Texas Laws, and while I disagree with them, they are the laws.

[Matteo Martini]

I could if you didn't brush off all explanations of Texas or US law that did not fit your preconceived views. It is actually very difficult to be charged with a capital crime in Texas.

Not so much, since TExas, is, by far, the State which has authorized the highest of executions, in the last 30 years: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/data/exest.csv

The law is very clear as to what murders are eligible for the death penalty. .

I do not contest the fact, that the death sentence was legal.
I contest that the law does not appear to have much sense ( to me )

[Darth Rotor]

While there is little or no doubt that the man on death row is a criminal, I find it highly questionable as to whether his crime deserves the death penalty. It cannot be shown that the murder was premeditated or that the driver knew it would happen.

Good point. I wonder why the DA went for that.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

N
I do not contest the fact, that the death sentence was legal.
I contest that the law does not appear to have much sense ( to me )
That's fine. Your avatar says you are in Japan, so you are safe from that law.

Will that knowledge help you sleep better tonight?

DR

[Texas]

As a thirty-year resident of Texas and a supporter of the death penalty, I have to say that Texas is about the most bloodthirsty state in the US when it comes to executing people. While there is little or no doubt that the man on death row is a criminal, I find it highly questionable as to whether his crime deserves the death penalty. It cannot be shown that the murder was premeditated or that the driver knew it would happen.

In my mind, the only thing that justifies the death penalty is showing that the person would be an overwhelming danger to society if released.

But that being said, I didn't write the Texas Laws, and while I disagree with them, they are the laws.Well the defendants could always go with a bench trial and bypass the juries that set the punishment.

[Texas]

Not so much, since TExas, is, by far, the State which has authorized the highest of executions, in the last 30 years: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/data/exest.csv



I do not contest the fact, that the death sentence was legal.
I contest that the law does not appear to have much sense ( to me ) The law is clear in Texas. If you come here and kill us we kill you back. If this guy had not decided it would be cool to rob a guy with a psycho as his partner he would have done 5 years and been out. It is what it is. How do you know that "Kenneth" hadn't been the shooter in some other armed robbery gone bad? I find it precious that you refer to him by first name.

[Matteo Martini]

As a thirty-year resident of Texas and a supporter of the death penalty, I have to say that Texas is about the most bloodthirsty state in the US when it comes to executing people. While there is little or no doubt that the man on death row is a criminal, I find it highly questionable as to whether his crime deserves the death penalty. It cannot be shown that the murder was premeditated or that the driver knew it would happen.

In my mind, the only thing that justifies the death penalty is showing that the person would be an overwhelming danger to society if released.

I almost agree with you, but I think that, in any case, life-emprisonment should be enough, for that purpose.
But, I think ( that was my point ), that you should charge for homicide the guy who pulls the trigger, not the guy who drives the car.
And, I see no point in executing this Kenneth, as I think that, after having served 20-30 years in jail, he will not be willing to try an armed attempted robbery again

But that being said, I didn't write the Texas Laws, and while I disagree with them, they are the laws.

By the way, I forgot to mention that, this Kenneth, does not seem to have commit any other crime, is his past, except for this " chaffeur work ".
So, at 21 years-old, he get sentenced to death, for having stupidly driven a potential shooter to a robbery

[Darth Rotor]

So, at 21 years-old, he get sentenced to death, for having stupidly driven a potential shooter to a robbery
Yep. Used to be we hanged horse thieves, Texas has gotten soft lately.

If that young fool had not chosen to be involved in crime, perhaps I'd empathize with him. As it is, good riddance, except that Tricky raises a good point about the case not being premeditated murder.

DR

[Matteo Martini]

The law is clear in Texas. If you come here and kill us we kill you back.

If a person drives a car, with a potential shooter in, you also kill him back, apparently.


If this guy had not decided it would be cool to rob a guy with a psycho as his partner he would have done 5 years and been out. It is what it is.

I would say that, maybe 10-20 years is a deterrent for anybody, who thinks to get some money and a car, and escape.
If you are a real psycho, then not even death penalty is a deterrent


How do you know that "Kenneth" hadn't been the shooter in some other armed robbery gone bad? .

It seems that he did not commit any crime, as from the police record


I find it precious that you refer to him by first name.

He is not any of my relatives, trust me

[Darth Rotor]

It seems that he did not commit any crime, as from the police record
I don't think you understand. To be an accessory to a crime is a criminal act, and is thus the comission of a crime.

This has been pointed out to you numerous times in this thread.

Try to keep up.
He is not any of my relatives, trust me
Good. :)

DR

[Tricky]

The law is clear in Texas. If you come here and kill us we kill you back.
No it's not clear. Lots of people who kill don't get killed back. Most of them, in fact. There were 24 executions in Texas in 2006. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=186) I strongly suspect that is nowhere near the number of people convicted of killing someone. Besides, there is no evidence he killed anybody.

If this guy had not decided it would be cool to rob a guy with a psycho as his partner he would have done 5 years and been out.
Still, the decision, regardless of how bad, hardly deserves the death penalty.

How do you know that "Kenneth" hadn't been the shooter in some other armed robbery gone bad?
You don't know, therefore it is immaterial, legally. How do we know you haven't murdered somebody? We don't.

I find it precious that you refer to him by first name.
Isn't that special.

[Schneibster]

But, even assuming that he drove the shooter, in a robbery attempt, do you get death penalty for that??If someone dies during the commission of a felony, as a result of the commission of that felony, it is first degree murder. It doesn't matter whether you intended to kill them or not. If you are accessory to the felony, you are accessory to the murder. None of this is in any way surprising. If he had started the car and driven away when he realized a felony was occurring, he might have an argument. If he had refused to drive the car in the first place, he would not have been tried. Having done neither of those things, he is accessory- and someone having been killed, he is accessory to murder.

I don't necessarily agree with the imposition of capital punishment- and I disagree strongly with its use on an accessory. But hey, welcome to Texas- that's how they do it down there. If I were going to be involved in a crime, Texas is the last place I'd pick.

[Just thinking]

There is crime and crime.
Again, even assuming that the legal version is the only one to consider, he can be held responsible ( please read carefully ), of having been the driver of a potential shooter to place.
So, that is a crime, but this is not homicide.

You are wrong ... and it is as simple as that. He can (and has been) held accountable for the murder which occurred during the act of his criminal involvement. (And it's not just Texas, or the entire USA -- it's in other counties as well.) If you disagree with this, you might as well disagree with 2 + 2 = 4. Both are equally straightforward.

I see, this is the way you deal with people who do not think like you.
You accuse them to troll?

Not at all ... you have been explained repeatedly as to where your fault lies and what the law is. (And it's not just me ... scroll back and show me another who believes as you.) One who simply refuses to accept that is one that I question as a troll.

[Kevin_Lowe]

I'm not sure Matteo has put the best possible version of the case against the sentence under discussion. Here's my take on it.

There's no real question that the laws as written have been correctly applied. The only real question is whether the laws as written can be morally justified, and I see two reasons why justifying those laws is going to be difficult.

Firstly, it's usually the rule in criminal law with good reason that to find someone guilty of murder you need to show that they intended to commit that murder. There is no evidence that the guy sentenced to death intended that a murder be committed.

Morally speaking his crime is much more akin to culpable negligence or manslaughter than murder. The death was an unintended and unpredicted outcome of his bad behaviour, not a sought-after goal, and he was at least one step removed from the decision to pull the trigger.

This "law of parties" business might be the law but morally speaking it seems to unjustifiably place the full moral burden of premeditated murder on people who were not present, never intended any murder to take place, and who took no action which immediately caused or facilitated the death of another person.

A second problem which this "law of parties" shares with a few other laws is the problem of criminalising bad luck to a much greater extent than evil intentions successfully carried out. If acting as driver for a robbery justifies the death penalty then all robbery drivers should die, not just the ones who have the bad luck to drive people to a robbery where someone is killed. Yes, by the same logic the punishment should be the same for drink-driving whether or not you happen to hit someone, and for negligence which puts other people's lives at great risk whether or not someone actually dies as a result of that negligence. Cases like this particular one just highlight the capriciousness inherent in punishing people for being unlucky more so than for taking evil, dangerous or stupid actions.

[Matteo Martini]

[QUOTE=Schneibster;2728690]If someone dies during the commission of a felony, as a result of the commission of that felony, it is first degree murder. It doesn't matter whether you intended to kill them or not. If you are accessory to the felony, you are accessory to the murder. None of this is in any way surprising. If he had started the car and driven away when he realized a felony was occurring, he might have an argument. If he had refused to drive the car in the first place, he would not have been tried. Having done neither of those things, he is accessory- and someone having been killed, he is accessory to murder [QUOTE=Texas;2728669]

At first, please remember that we are sticking to the police version of the affair, his version is totally different.
In any case, I am not saying that he has been convicred with death sentence against the law.
I am saying that the ( Texas ) law is wrong ( immoral? injust? does not produce the effect? hilarious? .. )

[Texas]

If a person drives a car, with a potential shooter in, you also kill him back, apparently.



I would say that, maybe 10-20 years is a deterrent for anybody, who thinks to get some money and a car, and escape.
If you are a real psycho, then not even death penalty is a deterrent



It seems that he did not commit any crime, as from the police record



He is not any of my relatives, trust meLook I have done some research. From what I can find he has lost all of his appeals through the state courts. He lost his appeal to the 5th Circuit federal appeals court. I can't find anything about an attempt to go the the Supreme court but his appellate lawyers may be holding that one as a last ditch effort. It appears that his conviction has stood up through the appeals process. It looks like he is probably out of luck but he does seem to have a lot of Internet support both moral and financial. He appears to have had and has competent legal representation. His partner has already been executed. Texas has the death penalty and it uses it. Everyone knows this world wide. It would be far better to go to another state or country to engage in activities that lead to capital murder. Texas is very serious when it comes to that crime.

[Matteo Martini]

If someone dies during the commission of a felony, as a result of the commission of that felony, it is first degree murder. It doesn't matter whether you intended to kill them or not. If you are accessory to the felony, you are accessory to the murder. None of this is in any way surprising. If he had started the car and driven away when he realized a felony was occurring, he might have an argument. If he had refused to drive the car in the first place, he would not have been tried. Having done neither of those things, he is accessory- and someone having been killed, he is accessory to murder.
.

I have not questioned the existence of a ( Texas ) law, according to which, if you are driving a car, in which there is a potential shooter, you can convicted to death.
I have questioned the senseness of such a law.


I don't necessarily agree with the imposition of capital punishment- and I disagree strongly with its use on an accessory. But hey, welcome to Texas- that's how they do it down there. If I were going to be involved in a crime, Texas is the last place I'd pick.

Strange enough, Texas is the second state in the U. S. for homicides..

[Texas]

I'm not sure Matteo has put the best possible version of the case against the sentence under discussion. Here's my take on it.

There's no real question that the laws as written have been correctly applied. The only real question is whether the laws as written can be morally justified, and I see two reasons why justifying those laws is going to be difficult.

Firstly, it's usually the rule in criminal law with good reason that to find someone guilty of murder you need to show that they intended to commit that murder. There is no evidence that the guy sentenced to death intended that a murder be committed.

Morally speaking his crime is much more akin to culpable negligence or manslaughter than murder. The death was an unintended and unpredicted outcome of his bad behaviour, not a sought-after goal, and he was at least one step removed from the decision to pull the trigger.

This "law of parties" business might be the law but morally speaking it seems to unjustifiable place the full moral burden of premeditated murder on people who were not present, never intended any murder to take place, and who took no action which immediately caused or facilitated the death of another person.

A second problem which this "law of parties" shares with a few other laws is the problem of criminalising bad luck to a much greater extent than evil intentions successfully carried out. If acting as driver for a robbery justifies the death penalty then all robbery drivers should die, not just the ones who have the bad luck to drive people to a robbery where someone is killed. Yes, by the same logic the punishment should be the same for drink-driving whether or not you happen to hit someone, and for negligence which puts other people's lives at great risk whether or not someone actually dies as a result of that negligence. Cases like this particular one just highlight the capriciousness inherent in punishing people for being unlucky more so than for taking evil, dangerous or stupid actions.
You are forgetting one real world problem with your argument. It makes it VERY easy for each defendant to claim that the other was the real shooter. In a he said/he said confrontation in court it would be almost impossible to convict one or the other of a capital crime.

[Matteo Martini]

You are wrong ... and it is as simple as that. He can (and has been) held accountable for the murder which occurred during the act of his criminal involvement. (And it's not just Texas, or the entire USA -- it's in other counties as well.) If you disagree with this, you might as well disagree with 2 + 2 = 4. Both are equally straightforward.


If I question what?
The fact that you should be held accountable for muder, even if you are driving a car, in which a guy is going to do an armed robbery, later turned into a murder?
I DO question that.
And, I remind you, that, at least in Europe, I do not know of any country in which such a mis-behaviour would lead to death sentence.


Not at all ... you have been explained repeatedly as to where your fault lies and what the law is. (And it's not just me ... scroll back and show me another who believes as you.) One who simply refuses to accept that is one that I question as a troll.

Where you think my fault is..
Not where my fault is..
Anyway, if you think I am a troll, stop writing, it is so easy..

[Texas]

I have not questioned the existence of a ( Texas ) law, according to which, if you are driving a car, in which there is a potential shooter, you can convicted to death.
I have questioned the senseness of such a law.



Strange enough, Texas is the second state in the U. S. for homicides..Why is that strange? Texas is also the second largest state by population in the US.

[Just thinking]

Quite strange, is not it?

Sems that death penalty does not work, as deterrent

I personally guarantee that those who murdered and are sent to death do not commit more murders -- however, past unsolved murders may pop up with the deceased being found guilty.

[Matteo Martini]

Ehy is that strange? Texas is also the second largest state by population in the US.

Well..
Homicides per 100000 inhabitants.
Texas is number 12 out of 50 for violent crime in violent crime for 100000 inhabintants.
Seems that you laws, which send to death mob drivers, are not very effective.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html

[Texas]

No it's not clear. Lots of people who kill don't get killed back. Most of them, in fact. There were 24 executions in Texas in 2006. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=8&did=186) I strongly suspect that is nowhere near the number of people convicted of killing someone. Besides, there is no evidence he killed anybody.


Still, the decision, regardless of how bad, hardly deserves the death penalty.


You don't know, therefore it is immaterial, legally. How do we know you haven't murdered somebody? We don't.


Isn't that special.
Yes, it is very hard to get the death penalty even in Texas. I thought I had made that clear earlier. Yes it deserves the death penalty since his participation in armed robbery led to the murder of the robbery victim. He met all the requirements for a capital murder conviction both in Texas and most of the rest of the country. Charlie Manson didn't kill a single person but he was sentenced to death along with his groupies.

[Matteo Martini]

Look I have done some research. From what I can find he has lost all of his appeals through the state courts. He lost his appeal to the 5th Circuit federal appeals court. I can't find anything about an attempt to go the the Supreme court but his appellate lawyers may be holding that one as a last ditch effort. It appears that his conviction has stood up through the appeals process.

The whole process was ( probably ) legal, this is not what I am talking about.


It looks like he is probably out of luck but he does seem to have a lot of Internet support both moral and financial.

I would question that, by internet, you can get a lot of financial support.


He appears to have had and has competent legal representation. His partner has already been executed.

The one who pulled the trigger..


Texas has the death penalty and it uses it. Everyone knows this world wide. It would be far better to go to another state or country to engage in activities that lead to capital murder. Texas is very serious when it comes to that crime.

But, it does not seem , that is very effective in preventing violent crime

[Texas]

Well..
Homicides per 100000 inhabitants.
Texas is number 12 out of 50 for violent crime in violent crime for 100000 inhabintants.
Seems that you laws, which send to death mob drivers, are not very effective.
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.htmlWhat do crime statistics and the death penalty have to do with each other. It is an iron clad guarantee that the ones executed will not kill anyone else. There are thousands of violent crimes with only a small percentage resulting in murder and an even smaller percentage that end in a death sentence.

[Matteo Martini]

I personally guarantee that those who murdered and are sent to death do not commit more murders -- however, past unsolved murders may pop up with the deceases being found guilty.


Or past muders, may turn out, to have been perpetrated and done, by another person other the one executed for that crime.
Also, that might happen, as human justice is not always 100% correct

[Just thinking]

If I question what?
The fact that you should be held accountable for muder, even if you are driving a car, in which a guy is going to do an armed robbery, later turned into a murder?
I DO question that.
And, I remind you, that, at least in Europe, I do not know of any country in which such a mis-behaviour would lead to death sentence.

No ... for the nth time, it's being part of a felony that resulted in someone's death. That's all there is to it. As you yourself admitted, there is no proof as to where the defendant was at the time of the murder -- so don't automatically put him in the car. That's his version.

Where you think my fault is..
Not where my fault is..
Anyway, if you think I am a troll, stop writing, it is so easy..

You also do not seem to know the difference between questioning and accusing.

[Matteo Martini]

You are forgetting one real world problem with your argument. It makes it VERY easy for each defendant to claim that the other was the real shooter. In a he said/he said confrontation in court it would be almost impossible to convict one or the other of a capital crime.

As for murder per 100000 people, Texas is ranked number 17 out of 50, in the States.
Also I forgot to tell you that, in the United States, you have one of the highest number of homicide rates in the world!!
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_ove_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop

[Just thinking]

Or past muders, may turn out, to have been perpetrated and done, by another person other the one executed for that crime.
Also, that might happen, as human justice is not always 100% correct

Strawman -- what did I say that was either incorrect or irrelevant to your comment?

[Texas]

As for murder, Texas is ranked number 17 out of 50, in the States.
Also I forgot to tell you that, in the United States, you have one of the highest number of homicide rates in the world!!
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_gun_vio_hom_ove_hom_rat_per_100_pop-rate-per-100-000-pop Wow the second largest state in the union and it is still 17th out of 50 states. You are defeating your own argument.

[Tricky]

But hey, welcome to Texas- that's how they do it down there. If I were going to be involved in a crime, Texas is the last place I'd pick.
Maybe, but it seems to be a popular place. You have to do some math with this site (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/), but adjusted for population, Texas has a much higher murder rate (in 2005) than New York, Ohio or Massachusetts. Oddly, California has them all beat.

So it doesn't look like murderers are particularly avoiding Texas or that having a draconian death penalty law is reducing murders.

***
ETA. I looked at that site Matteo linked, but I couldn't get specific stats. Mine is better, though, as I say, requires some math to normalize for population.

[Matteo Martini]

No ... for the nth time, it's being part of a felony that resulted in someone's death.

I understood that!!
I understood that this is the law, at least in Texas!!
I understood that, you agree with that law.
I do not agree with the law.

[Schneibster]

I have not questioned the existence of a ( Texas ) law, according to which, if you are driving a car, in which there is a potential shooter, you can convicted to death.
I have questioned the senseness of such a law. By precisely such obfuscations has the current US administration avoided numerous attempts by the Congress to pursue their duty of oversight.

The crime was not that he drove him there- it was that he drove him away.

Strange enough, Texas is the second state in the U. S. for homicides..<shrug> then maybe they got good reason for havin the death penalty. Not my problem, got no intention of livin in Texas.

[Matteo Martini]

By precisely such obfuscations has the current US administration avoided numerous attempts by the Congress to pursue their duty of oversight.

The crime was not that he drove him there- it was that he drove him away.


Did you have any evidence for that?
And, even if, it remains the point that he did not pull the trigger.


<shrug> then maybe they got good reason for havin the death penalty. Not my problem, got no intention of livin in Texas.

If death penalty decreases the homicide rate, the homicide rate in Texas should be zero ( or lower than in other places )

[Texas]

Maybe, but it seems to be a popular place. You have to do some math with this site (http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/), but adjusted for population, Texas has a much higher murder rate (in 2005) than New York, Ohio or Massachusetts. Oddly, California has them all beat.

So it doesn't look like murderers are particularly avoiding Texas or that having a draconian death penalty law is reducing murders.

***
ETA. I looked at that site Matteo linked, but I couldn't get specific stats. Mine is better, though, as I say, requires some math to normalize for population.
Laws are only draconian when it comes to Capital Murder as clearly outlined in the Texas criminal code. It takes a hell of a lot to get the needle in Texas. You have to kill a cop or fireman, a child under 6, 2 or more victims, murder while committing robbery, burglary, rape, or arson or murder for hire. Passion killings or bar room fights will not get you on death row.

[Texas]

.



If death penalty decreases the homicide rate, the homicide rate in Texas should be zero ( or lower than in other places )Oh baloney.

[Matteo Martini]

It takes a hell of a lot to get the needle in Texas.

No, if compared with any other of the states of the U.S.

[Fredrik]

Do we know for a fact that this guy knew that his buddy was planning a robbery? How does the court handle that issue? Does his lawyer have to prove that he didn't, or does the prosecutor have to prove that he did?

What if the killer had taken the bus? Would the bus driver have been executed? ;)

[Matteo Martini]

Oh baloney.


If death penalty makes people not to do homicides, Texas, which has the greatest number ( by far ) of executions, should have the least number of homicides pro-capita.
Which is not.

[Texas]

Do we know for a fact that this guy knew that his buddy was planning a robbery? How does the court handle that issue? Does his lawyer have to prove that he didn't, or does the prosecutor have to prove that he did?

What if the killer had taken the bus? Would the bus driver have been executed? ;)The prosecutor has to prove that there was a lessor felony in addition to the subsequent murder to even seek the death sentence. It is obvious given the sentence that he met that burden and the Jury assessed the death penalty based on that.

[Just thinking]

The crime was not that he drove him there- it was that he drove him away.

The report (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/fosterk.jpg) also claims he walked up to the victim. This places a bit more involvement than merely driving the car.

PS: Read the entire report (it's short) -- this guy ain't no angel.

[Matteo Martini]

I will stop here.
Thanks you all guys for the interesting discussion ( really, no irony here ).
Even to the ones who disagreed with my points ( the majority ).
Gotta go to work!!

[Texas]

Do we know for a fact that this guy knew that his buddy was planning a robbery? How does the court handle that issue? Does his lawyer have to prove that he didn't, or does the prosecutor have to prove that he did?

What if the killer had taken the bus? Would the bus driver have been executed? ;)
Here is Texas law on Capital Crimes

http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/vlibrary/outlines/deathpenprint.html

[Matteo Martini]

What if the killer had taken the bus? Would the bus driver have been executed? ;)

That is also not the point, in my opinion.
The bus driver would have had any responsibility in driving a killer to his place.
That Kenneth, at least, according to the police, knew he was going to do a robbery ( armed or not )

[Matteo Martini]

The report also claims he walked up to the victim. This places a bit more involvement than merely driving the car.

Which report?

[Tricky]

Laws are only draconian when it comes to Capital Murder as clearly outlined in the Texas criminal code. It takes a hell of a lot to get the needle in Texas. You have to kill a cop or fireman, a child under 6, 2 or more victims, murder while committing robbery, burglary, rape, or arson or murder for hire. Passion killings or bar room fights will not get you on death row.
Yeah, Texas is an odd place. They have no trust that the legal system will be able to let the punishment fit the crime. They require that everything be codified. This is one reason why the Texas Constitution has nearly 400 amendments. I can't say that this is a particulary good plan.

[Texas]

Yeah, Texas is an odd place. They have no trust that the legal system will be able to let the punishment fit the crime. They require that everything be codified. This is one reason why the Texas Constitution has nearly 400 amendments. I can't say that this is a particulary good plan. Well we limp along in our ignorance.

[Just thinking]

Which report?

The one I linked to ... this one (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/fosterk.jpg).

[Matteo Martini]

The report (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/fosterk.jpg) also claims he walked up to the victim. This places a bit more involvement than merely driving the car.

PS: Read the entire report (it's short) -- this guy ain't no angel.

The report does not state that he was anywhere near the victim, when the shooting happened.
The report does not state that he drove away the shooter.
Never said that the guy is an angel

[Matteo Martini]

The one I linked to ... this one (http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/fosterk.jpg).

There is not written that he was close to the victim, when the shooting happened.
In the Italian newspaper, there is written that he was in the car, when the shooting happened

[Texas]

There is not written that he was close to the victim, when the shooting happened.
In the Italian newspaper, there is written that he was in the car, when the shooting happenedLOL! So the Italian paper is more accurate than the official police report?

[Just thinking]

The report does not state that he was anywhere near the victim, when the shooting happened.
The report does not state that he drove away the shooter.
Never said that the guy is an angel

It says he approached the victim ... hence he was NOT just in the car; and that he drove the assailants. Schneibster emphasized the "drove away" part. In this case, it is not at all unreasonable to consider the shooter one of the assailants.

And just where do you suppose the Italian newspaper got the information on Foster's whereabouts at the time of the shooting? I'll take a guess -- FOSTER!

[Texas]

There is not written that he was close to the victim, when the shooting happened.
In the Italian newspaper, there is written that he was in the car, when the shooting happenedThe report states that he was a member of the "Black Disciples" street gang. If you want to do some research then start here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Disciples

[Texas]

I do not get your point here.

Anyway, I just found out that, being the state with the highest number of people sent to death, has not helped Texas a lot, since is the state number 2 for homicides per inhabitant:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/US_States_Rate_Ranking.html

Quite strange, is not it?

Sems that death penalty does not work, as deterrent From your link


In the year 2000 Texas had an estimated population of 20,851,820 which ranked the state 2nd in population. For that year the State of Texas had a total Crime Index of 4,955.5 reported incidents per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 8th highest total Crime Index. For Violent Crime Texas had a reported incident rate of 545.1 per 100,000 people. This ranked the state as having the 13th highest occurrence for Violent Crime among the states. For crimes against Property, the state had a reported incident rate of 4,410.4 per 100,000 people, which ranked as the state 10th highest. Also in the year 2000 Texas had 5.9 Murders per 100,000 people, ranking the state as having the 17th highest rate for Murder. Texas’s 37.7 reported Forced Rapes per 100,000 people, ranked the state 17th highest. For Robbery, per 100,000 people, Texas’s rate was 145.1 which ranked the state as having the 16th highest for Robbery. The state also had 356.3 Aggravated Assaults for every 100,000 people, which indexed the state as having the 13th highest position for this crime among the states. For every 100,000 people there were 906.3 Burglaries, which ranks Texas as having the 12th highest standing among the states. Larceny - Theft were reported 3,057.4 times per hundred thousand people in Texas which standing is the 10th highest among the states. Vehicle Theft occurred 446.8 times per 100,000 people, which fixed the state as having the 13th highest for vehicle theft among the states Where are you getting you 2nd in the nation number?

[Just thinking]

The report states that he was a member of the "Black Disciples" street gang. If you want to do some research then start here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Disciples

You know, Tex ... the more I read into this the more I'm starting to think that Foster is fabricating the whole thing up, and was right there next to the victim when the shot was fired. Wanna bet? If I'm right, the next time I'm out your way you can buy me a nice 24 oz. prime rib dinner -- and if I'm wrong, the next time you're out here in Jersey I'll treat you to ... to ... damn, just what the hell is great out here?

[Texas]

You know, Tex ... the more I read into this the more I'm starting to think that Foster is fabricating the whole thing up, and was right there next to the victim when the shot was fired. Wanna bet? If I'm right, the next time I'm out your way you can buy me a nice 24 oz. prime rib dinner -- and if I'm wrong, the next time you're out here in Jersey I'll treat you to ... to ... damn, just what the hell is great out here?I am wondering if it was a drug buy gone bad.
I hear you have killer Italian food.

[Just thinking]

I am wondering if it was a drug buy gone bad.
I hear you have killer Italian food.

You're on! Problem is ... we can both be right on this one. ;)

Nighty night.

[Texas]

You're on! Problem is ... we can both be right on this one. ;)

Nighty night.
Good night.

[Kevin_Lowe]

You are forgetting one real world problem with your argument. It makes it VERY easy for each defendant to claim that the other was the real shooter. In a he said/he said confrontation in court it would be almost impossible to convict one or the other of a capital crime.

I don't see that as a sufficiently compelling reason to execute someone who may well have had no intention to kill anybody, and who undertook no actions which immediately killed anybody.

Our first priority should be to frame the rules so that innocent people are not unfairly punished even if it sometimes means guilty people escape with less punishment than they deserve. Not to frame the rules so that guilty people are executed every time, even if we have to execute some less-guilty people too in order to make sure we get no false negatives.

Thanks for the reply though Texas. Everyone else seems to think it's more important to bash Matteo's misstatements than it is to engage with the best available version of the opposing argument.

[Matteo Martini]

LOL! So the Italian paper is more accurate than the official police report?

No, that Italian paper does not contradicts the police report.
Just adds more info.

[Matteo Martini]

It says he approached the victim ... hence he was NOT just in the car;

It seems that he was in the car, at the moment of the shooting..


and that he drove the assailants. Schneibster emphasized the "drove away" part.

Where is there written that he drove away, the shooter?


And just where do you suppose the Italian newspaper got the information on Foster's whereabouts at the time of the shooting? I'll take a guess -- FOSTER!

I do not suppose anything..
Now, here, you are the one who supposes..

[Matteo Martini]

ranking the state as having the 17th highest rate for Murder.

17th out of 50 states.
That is, in the upper half.
Strange, that a state, which has by far, the highest number of executions, is in the upper half for homicides per 100000 people..
Ina country, where the number of homicides per 100000 is the 14th highest in the world..

[Matteo Martini]

The report states that he was a member of the "Black Disciples" street gang. If you want to do some research then start here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Disciples

Never said that the guy is an angel.

[Schneibster]

Do we know for a fact that this guy knew that his buddy was planning a robbery? How does the court handle that issue? Does his lawyer have to prove that he didn't, or does the prosecutor have to prove that he did?Prosecutor's got to prove he did. Burden of proof is always on the prosecution.

What if the killer had taken the bus? Would the bus driver have been executed? ;)Heh, well, it WAS in Texas...

Sorry, just couldn't resist.

[Schneibster]

Everyone else seems to think it's more important to bash Matteo's misstatements than it is to engage with the best available version of the opposing argument.Well, perhaps not everyone. ;)

On the other hand, it is, after all, Matteo's thread.

I agree, BTW, that the priority should be on the protection of the innocent. I'm actually not much on the death penalty in the first place- at least if you imprison someone and find you made a mistake, you can compensate them. It's a bit difficult to fix it if you killed them. Given recent events in the Department of Justice and the Duke lacrosse team case, not to mention the whole thing in Illinois, I don't think there's much question whether we should be executing people.

[Darth Rotor]

In Italian, you should say " capisci? "..

That's what I get for being exposed to the dialect in Naples. :p

Thanks for the correction.

DR

[Darth Rotor]

I don't see that as a sufficiently compelling reason to execute someone who may well have had no intention to kill anybody, and who undertook no actions which immediately killed anybody.
As a spectator, your point of view is appreciated, and noted. It is also irrelevant. Your skepticism of the person who told his side of the story to an Italian rag is suspect.

Your moral argument is interesting, though "the law is the law" and the DA is well within his charter to pursue a murder to the fullest extent of the law. That is often done to try and prop up confidence in the legal system, with the message to the population being "at least some of the crooks aren't getting away with it."

Our first priority should be to frame the rules so that innocent people are not unfairly punished even if it sometimes means guilty people escape with less punishment than they deserve.
Who is thie "we," paleface, and how is it "our" priority, Kevin from Tasmania? You aren't a Texan, and it's not your problem, though your insights and opinions are lucidly presented. Our first priority is to frame the laws so that crime is punished, and that confidence in fairness and justness of laws remains at least moderate among the population at large, though high is better.

I agree that a high priority is a filtering process to weed out baseless charges.

I will again agree with Tricky, and it seem's your position, on the face of this event from what I have read so far. The law's latitude for death penalty sentences for a murder which may be indirectly committed seems harsh indeed. Given that this guy is a known gang banger, I'll defer to the old Texas saw, some people need killin', and not lose a wink of sleep over his demise. Too bad it may take another 10 years to render this crook into plant food.

When you look at the vagaries of Texas justice, Andrea Yates drowned her own five kids, one by one, by hand, and is still breathing air.

That's not just either.

DR

[Kevin_Lowe]

As a spectator, your point of view is appreciated, and noted. It is also irrelevant. Your skepticism of the person who told his side of the story to an Italian rag is suspect.

Did you miss the part where I said that the law as written appeared to be applied correctly in this case? I have not commented on the contradictions between the Italian narrative and the police report, so I'm unsure how you can judge my skepticism with regard to either.


Your moral argument is interesting, though "the law is the law" and the DA is well within his charter to pursue a murder to the fullest extent of the law. That is often done to try and prop up confidence in the legal system, with the message to the population being "at least some of the crooks aren't getting away with it."

"Sending a message" is one of the most pernicious memes in modern politics in my opinion. Politicians use it to pretend to address serious problems, while taking no actions that would actually lead to solutions. It's much easier to "send a message" than it is to solve a problem.

It's also morally inappropriate in the case of a prosecutor. They should be attempting to see that each case is brought to a just conclusion, not attempting to bring about the harshest punishment possible in order to "send a message".


Who is thie "we," paleface, and how is it "our" priority, Kevin from Tasmania? You aren't a Texan, and it's not your problem, though your insights and opinions are lucidly presented. Our first priority is to frame the laws so that crime is punished, and that confidence in fairness and justness of laws remains at least moderate among the population at large, though high is better.

Like it or not Texas' legal system shares a common legal tradition with the UK and Australia, which in the normal course of affairs demands that punishments not be disproportionate to the crime committed.

There is nothing the condemned has actually done that is so heinous that death is a proportionate penalty.

The "law of parties" in this case seems to me to be an end-run around the normal rules of mens rea and proportionality.


I will again agree with Tricky, and it seem's your position, on the face of this event from what I have read so far. The law's latitude for death penalty sentences for a murder which may be indirectly committed seems harsh indeed.


I am not familiar with the law involved, but if it's the way people seem to think it is, then in Texas literally any felony involving an accomplice is potentially a death penalty offence. All it takes is for the accomplice to kill someone, for whatever unforeseen or even unforeseeable reason, and you can be on death row.

I'm not sure how that can possibly be justified, but it's likely there are wrinkles to the relevant law we have not explored in this thread yet.


Given that this guy is a known gang banger, I'll defer to the old Texas saw, some people need killin', and not lose a wink of sleep over his demise. Too bad it may take another 10 years to render this crook into plant food.


I'm not convinced by the available evidence he's such a danger to society that killing him is justifiable, but we do not have much information to go on. In any case, to be honest I'm more interested in the general legal principle he has been condemned under than in the details of his particular case. Like I said, the law seems to have been applied as it was written and intended. My contention is that the law as it is written cannot be defended on moral grounds.

[Beerina]

Nope.

They both say that:

1) he killed nobody;

Mincing words, if he was knowingly partaking in a crime that could end in someone's murder.

2) he was driving the car, in what the police says it was an attempted armed robbery, while Foster denies that;

Most criminals do deny it. That's why there's a jury system with the government required to convincingly demonstrate guilt to more than one non-governmental person.

3) he was not even close to the murdered, when the murder happened;

Mincing words again. I don't care if he was hanging out in Paris because he had taken a teleporter there.

4) in the site, we also read that the car had the stereo on, at high volume.

Again, irrelevant.

Even assuming that Foster knew it was an armed attempted robbery, do you get death penalty for being the driver in an armed attempted robbery, in Texas?

In many places, yes. And you should. You know you might kill someone, so that counts as murder, even if you're just the getaway car driver.

[Just thinking]

Mincing words again. I don't care if he was hanging out in Paris because he had taken a teleporter there.

I'm still awaiting some type of evidence from MM to support this statement.

In many places, yes. And you should. You know you might kill someone, so that counts as murder, even if you're just the getaway car driver.

This may be a variation to reckless endangerment -- when one partakes in criminal actions that may result in someone's death. Armed robbery has a way of sometimes doing just that. If someone should die as a result -- you're guilty of homicide ... just how far it goes depends on the prosecutor and the criminal. And yes ... if you by chance don't kill someone you will likely get off with a lesser punishment -- but that's the way it goes. You do the dance, you pay the piper.

[Just thinking]

It seems that he was in the car, at the moment of the shooting..

Evidence?? ... proof?? ... source?? ... logical conclusion??

Can you please back this statement up with something?

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Not that I don't trust the communist newspaper to get all the facts correct, but is there a transcript of the trial available anywhere?

"WORKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE"...

http://www.workers.org/images/wwlogoleft.png


Haaaaaa....Haaaaaa....

[Matteo Martini]

Mincing words, if he was knowingly partaking in a crime that could end in someone's murder.


For the 100th time, killing somebody and knowingly partaking in a crime that could end in someone's murder, are two separate things.
If you consider them equally culpable, that is your opinion, not mine


Most criminals do deny it. That's why there's a jury system with the government required to convincingly demonstrate guilt to more than one non-governmental person.

I did not read anywhere, in the police report, that whis Kenneth, was anywhere close to the victim, when he died..


Mincing words again. I don't care if he was hanging out in Paris because he had taken a teleporter there.

So, let` s convict someone of a murder, when at the time, he is in your own house, drinking beer. What are you talking about??


Again, irrelevant.


I start to understand, why black people always speak abou racism, in the U.S...


In many places, yes. And you should. You know you might kill someone, so that counts as murder, even if you're just the getaway car driver.

I can just say that I am happy to think differently..

[Texas]

For the 100th time, killing somebody and knowingly partaking in a crime that could end in someone's murder, are two separate things.
If you consider them equally culpable, that is your opinion, not mine



I did not read anywhere, in the police report, that whis Kenneth, was anywhere close to the victim, when he died..



So, let` s convict someone of a murder, when at the time, he is in your own house, drinking beer. What are you talking about??



I start to understand, why black people always speak abou racism, in the U.S...



I can just say that I am happy to think differently.. I am going to really blow your mind. Here is an article from Florida. It involves 2 young men that tried to rob a 71 year old former Marine at gunpoint in a Subway sandwich shop. When they told him to go with them to the women's restroom he decided that he was in mortal danger. He had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. When one of the armed men became distracted he pulled his gun and killed one of them and critically wounded the other. The wounded gunman now faces capital murder charges for the death of his partner in crime. The Former Marine faces no charges.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-flbsubway0629sbjun29,0,4065858.story?coll=sfla-news-broward
Lovell, 71, of Plantation, has a valid concealed weapons permit and is not expected to be charged in the shooting, said police spokesman Detective Robert Rettig. Gadson, however, faces multiple felony charges that could include murder, he said. Under Florida law, anyone who commits a felony such as armed robbery resulting in a death can be held accountable for the capital offense.

[Matteo Martini]

I'm still awaiting some type of evidence from MM to support this statement.

As I said, it was it was written in the newspaper.
Even if you do not consider that, you should read the police repoirt, where it is nowhere stated, that he was close to the victim at the moment of the shooting.
So, since, even in Texas, you should assume that somebody is innocent if not proven guilty, you have no right to assume that he was close to the victim, at the moment of the shooting


This may be a variation to reckless endangerment -- when one partakes in criminal actions that may result in someone's death. Armed robbery has a way of sometimes doing just that. If someone should die as a result -- you're guilty of homicide ... just how far it goes depends on the prosecutor and the criminal. And yes ... if you by chance don't kill someone you will likely get off with a lesser punishment -- but that's the way it goes. You do the dance, you pay the piper.

Well, from the information we have, we can rightly assume that, this black guy, did the following:

1) some friend of his, told him, let` s go to steal that rich, white guy;
2) he may not have known, that the friends were armed;
3) if he knew, he might have been told, that the guns would have been used, only to scare the guy, not to kill him;
4) scaring the guy, might as well have been the intention of the guy who, afterwards, pulled the trigger;
5) he drove the other three " friends " to the place;
6) the guys approach the white rich son of the lawyer, asking for the money;
7) he ( the white guy ) refuses;
8) the guy with the gun, loses his head, for any reason, and kills the white guy;
9) this Kenneth, gets culpable of homicide

[Matteo Martini]

Evidence?? ... proof?? ... source?? ... logical conclusion??

Can you please back this statement up with something?

http://www.corriere.it/Primo_Piano/Cronache/2007/06_Giugno/28/giovane_nero_innocente_condannato_a_morte.shtml

A un certo punto uno di loro, Brown, scese fuori e si allontanò di una ventina di metri mentre gli altri rimanevano seduti nell'auto. Non molto tempo dopo fu udito uno sparo. Al processo la pubblica accusa asserì che Brown aveva voluto portare a termine una rapina progettata insieme agli amici. L'unica testimone oculare era Mary Patrick, la fidanzata della vittima, che in aula cambiò più volte la deposizione. Foster fu processato con Brown, anche se non c'erano dubbi che fosse stato quest'ultimo a sparare il colpo mentre l'amico era rimasto seduto nell'auto durante l'intero svolgimento dei fatti, senza sapere nulla di ciò che il killer stesse facendo.

Sorry for my bad English translation.

At a certain point, one of them, Brown, got out of the car, and went of about twenty meters from the car, while the others were sitting ( in the car ).
Not a long after, they heard a shot. At the process, the accusation sais that Brown wanted to make a robbery, together with the other three friends. The only witness was mary Patrick, the victim` s fiancee, which changed her deposition, many times. Foster was charged together ith Brown, even if there were no doubts that it has been Brown to shoot, while the friend [ Kenneth ] was in the car during the whole happening of the shooting, without knowing anything about what the killer was doing

[Comrade Ogilvy]

John Lovell had just finished dinner at about 11:15 p.m. Wednesday when, Plantation police say, two men armed with guns rushed inside a Subway shop and demanded cash. After robbing the store, the men turned to Lovell. They wanted his money, police said.




But like his attackers, Lovell was armed.

The retired military man opened fire, shooting dead Donicio Arrindell, 22, of North Lauderdale, and critically injuring Fredrick Gadson, 21, of Fort Lauderdale.

GET SOME!!!!! HOUUUU..HAAAAA!

[Texas]

As I said, it was it was written in the newspaper.
Even if you do not consider that, you should read the police repoirt, where it is nowhere stated, that he was close to the victim at the moment of the shooting.
So, since, even in Texas, you should assume that somebody is innocent if not proven guilty, you have no right to assume that he was close to the victim, at the moment of the shooting



Well, from the information we have, we can rightly assume that, this black guy, did the following:

1) some friend of his, told him, let` s go to steal that rich, white guy;
2) he may not have known, that the friends were armed;
3) if he knew, he might have been told, that the guns would have been used, only to scare the guy, not to kill him;
4) scaring the guy, might as well have been the intention of the guy who, afterwards, pulled the trigger;
5) he drove the other three " friends " to the place;
6) the guys approach the white rich son of the lawyer, asking for the money;
7) he ( the white guy ) refuses;
8) the guy with the gun, loses his head, for any reason, and kills the white guy;
9) this Kenneth, gets culpable of homicidePure speculation not based on any evidence at all. It is just as likely that "Kenneth" was the ring leader. That he chose the victim and that he told the shooter not to leave a witness. "Kenneth" was a gang banger. He was not just a dupe caught up with bad company. He was bad company.

[Texas]

GET SOME!!!!! HOWWWW..HAAAAA!
That guy is just a couple of years older than me. I have about 30 seconds of good fight left in me. The picked on the wrong geezer.

[Matteo Martini]

I am going to really blow your mind.

??


Here is an article from Florida. It involves 2 young men that tried to rob a 71 year old former Marine at gunpoint in a Subway sandwich shop. When they told him to go with them to the women's restroom he decided that he was in mortal danger. He had a permit to carry a concealed weapon. When one of the armed men became distracted he pulled his gun and killed one of them and critically wounded the other. The wounded gunman now faces capital murder charges for the death of his partner in crime. The Former Marine faces no charges.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-flbsubway0629sbjun29,0,4065858.story?coll=sfla-news-broward
Lovell, 71, of Plantation, has a valid concealed weapons permit and is not expected to be charged in the shooting, said police spokesman Detective Robert Rettig. Gadson, however, faces multiple felony charges that could include murder, he said. Under Florida law, anyone who commits a felony such as armed robbery resulting in a death can be held accountable for the capital offense.

What do you want to prove here?
They charged the companion of the robber with homicide, when it had the Marine to shoot him?
That is also complete non-sense, in my opinion.
But, that is a different story, uh?
This ( our ) story, is even worse.
This Kenneth, is now to be executed, and he was not even close to the shooting scene, and, we do not know if he was aware, that is was going to be an armed robbery, as it is not even written in the police report

[Texas]

??



What do you want to prove here?
They charged the companion of the robber with homicide, when it had the Marine to shoot him?
That is also complete non-sense, in my opinion.
But, that is a different story, uh?
This ( our ) story, is even worse.
This Kenneth, is now to be executed, and he was not even close to the shooting scene, and, we do not know if he was aware, that is was going to be an armed robbery, as it is not even written in the police report"Kenneth" was in the same situation. He was a part of the murder. He will be executed.

[Matteo Martini]

Not that I don't trust the communist newspaper to get all the facts correct

Communist newspaper??

[Metullus]

For the 100th time, killing somebody and knowingly partaking in a crime that could end in someone's murder, are two separate things.
If you consider them equally culpable, that is your opinion, not mineHe was not found guilty of "knowingly partaking in a crime that could end in someone's murder". He was found guilty of knowingly partaking in a crime that resulted in someone's murder. There is a difference, even if you do not see it.

I did not read anywhere, in the police report, that whis Kenneth, was anywhere close to the victim, when he died..
"Lahood was standing near his vehicle on a San Antonio Street (107 Palo Duro) when he was approached by Foster and three accomplices. Accomplice Mauricio Brown pulled a pistol and demanded Lahood's money and car keys. When Lahood refused to comply he was shot in the face."

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/fosterk.jpg

This would indicate that Foster was not "in the car 80 feet away." Do you know of any evidence that he was in his car 80 feet away? Is that in the police report?

So, let` s convict someone of a murder, when at the time, he is in your own house, drinking beer. What are you talking about??What are you talking about?


I start to understand, why black people always speak abou racism, in the U.S... What has racism got to do with this? What makes you think that any other person would not be charged and convicted under the same circumstances?

You started this thread by asserting that Foster was sentenced to death having committed no crime. It was shown to you that he did in fact commit a crime.

You then changed the argument to one of the injustice of such a law, insisting that such laws only existed in Texas. When shown that in the US every state had similar statutes you changed tune once again.

Your new position was that other countries, particularly your own Italy, would have no such law. Once again you were shown to be mistaken, that Italy does in fact have similar laws.

You then tried to change this into a discussion of capitol punishment. that having met a dead end you now try to make this an argument over racism.

This is known in these parts as "moving the goal posts". One wonders were it is that you will be going next.

[Matteo Martini]

Pure speculation not based on any evidence at all. It is just as likely that "Kenneth" was the ring leader.

I do not know if it is only speculation, as it is written in the newspaper.
But, when you lack of evidence, supporting that he knew it was an armed robbery, that we was close to the victim, at the moment of the shooting, etc., you should assume that he did not know it was an armed robbery, and he was not close to the victim, when the shooting happened.
You are innocent, before being proven giulty, also in Texas, right?


That he chose the victim and that he told the shooter not to leave a witness.

The guy` s GF, was alive and has not been shot dead.


"Kenneth" was a gang banger. He was not just a dupe caught up with bad company. He was bad company.

So, you can be charged with capital punishment, for being part of a gang..

[WildCat]

Communist newspaper??
Should I have said "Maoist" instead?

[Texas]

I do not know if it is only speculation, as it is written in the newspaper.
But, when you lack of evidence, supporting that he knew it was an armed robbery, that we was close to the victim, at the moment of the shooting, etc., you should assume that he did not know it was an armed robbery, and he was not close to the victim, when the shooting happened.
You are innocent, before being proven giulty, also in Texas, right?



The guy` s GF, was alive and has not been shot dead.



So, you can be charged with capital punishment, for being part of a gang..
No you can be given the death penalty for being involved in a murder. Try to keep up.

[shuize]

??
What do you want to prove here?
They charged the companion of the robber with homicide, when it had the Marine to shoot him?
That is also complete non-sense, in my opinion.

It's just another example of the felony murder rule at work. If you commit a felony and someone dies during the act, you're on the hook for murder. Even if you did not intend for the death to occur. Even if the person killed was your partner in crime. It's very old law and, as noted above, really not that unusual. But the nice thing is it's really easy to avoid: Don't commit felonies.

[Metullus]

Communist newspaper??

Yup. (http://www.workers.org/wwp/)

[Texas]

I do not know if it is only speculation, as it is written in the newspaper.
But, when you lack of evidence, supporting that he knew it was an armed robbery, that we was close to the victim, at the moment of the shooting, etc., you should assume that he did not know it was an armed robbery, and he was not close to the victim, when the shooting happened.
You are innocent, before being proven giulty, also in Texas, right?



..

He was proven guilty by a Texas Jury and that conviction has been upheld by State and Federal appeals courts.

[Matteo Martini]

"Kenneth" was in the same situation. He was a part of the murder. He will be executed.

Quite a over-semplification, in my opinion.
Anyway, the law seem pretty strict, for some guys, in Texas.
I wonder, if it had been the other way around, the white rich guy, son of a rich lawyer, to " be part of a murder " of a black ( economically ) poor guy, son of a prostitute, would the white guy get the needle?
I have my doubts..

[WildCat]

You are innocent, before being proven giulty, also in Texas, right?
Yes, and he was proved guilty in a court of law.

So, you can be charged with capital punishment, for being part of a gang..
No, it is not a crime to merely be a member of a criminal gang.

[shuize]

What has racism got to do with this? What makes you think that any other person would not be charged and convicted under the same circumstances?

You started this thread by asserting that Foster was sentenced to death having committed no crime. It was shown to you that he did in fact commit a crime.

You then changed the argument to one of the injustice of such a law, insisting that such laws only existed in Texas. When shown that in the US every state had similar statutes you changed tune once again.

Your new position was that other countries, particularly your own Italy, would have no such law. Once again you were shown to be mistaken, that Italy does in fact have similar laws.

You then tried to change this into a discussion of capitol punishment. that having met a dead end you now try to make this an argument over racism.

This is known in these parts as "moving the goal posts". One wonders were it is that you will be going next.

Nice summary.

[Matteo Martini]

He was proven guilty by a Texas Jury and that conviction has been upheld by State and Federal appeals courts.

That does not mean that the law, by which, he has been convicted, is " right " for any moral standard.
If I remember well, in Texas, some 50-100 years ago, there were many racist laws, that, today, are condemned as " immoral ".

[WildCat]

That does not mean that the law, by which, he has been convicted, is " right " for any moral standard.
If I remember well, in Texas, some 50-100 years ago, there were many racist laws, that, today, are condemned as " immoral ".
Would you like to compare/contrast to Italy's laws under Mussolini in the same time period? Now look up "strawman".

[Matteo Martini]

Yes, and he was proved guilty in a court of law.


A law, that exists ( quite ) only in Texas, nowhere in Europe, Japan and South America, for example, and has not been proven effective in preventing crime.
You know, not all the laws are " just ".


No, it is not a crime to merely be a member of a criminal gang.

OK.

[Texas]

Quite a over-semplification, in my opinion.
Anyway, the law seem pretty strict, for some guys, in Texas.
I wonder, if it had been the other way around, the white rich guy, son of a rich lawyer, to " be part of a murder " of a black ( economically ) poor guy, son of a prostitute, would the white guy get the needle?
I have my doubts..
Surprisingly there are few cases of whites robbing and killing blacks in Texas or the rest of the country for that matter. Texas did give the death penalty to the White supremacists that dragged the Black man to death a few years ago. There are now 113 white men on Texas death row and 142 black men on death row, that number fluctuates, the rest are either Hispanic or other races.

[Matteo Martini]

Would you like to compare/contrast to Italy's laws under Mussolini in the same time period? Now look up "strawman".

Did I ever said, that the laws under Mussolini were good??
Please, quote where I would have written that, thanks.

[Just thinking]

As I said, it was it was written in the newspaper.
Even if you do not consider that, you should read the police repoirt, where it is nowhere stated, that he was close to the victim at the moment of the shooting.
So, since, even in Texas, you should assume that somebody is innocent if not proven guilty, you have no right to assume that he was close to the victim, at the moment of the shooting.

But the report did mention that Foster approached the victim. Now, why would he do that? Remember, this was an attempted armed robbery. What is Foster's explanation for approaching the victim? If you do not know, then please, don't speak for him.

Well, from the information we have, we can rightly assume that, this black guy, did the following:

1) some friend of his, told him, let` s go to steal that rich, white guy;

Participation now makes him a felon and party to all criminal actions by said party.

2) he may not have known, that the friends were armed;

Irrelevant -- the victim may have been armed, and an attempt on his person could result in serious consequences.

3) if he knew, he might have been told, that the guns would have been used, only to scare the guy, not to kill him;

See No. 2's response.

4) scaring the guy, might as well have been the intention of the guy who, afterwords, pulled the trigger;

Pulling a trigger is too serious a threat to be considered merely a scare. Just showing a gun is usually sufficient.

5) he drove the other three " friends " to the place;

See no. 1's response.

6) the guys approach the white rich son of the lawyer, asking for the money;

In what manner?

7) he ( the white guy ) refuses;

Nothing unusual here.

8) the guy with the gun, loses his head commits murder in cold blood, for any reason, and kills the white guy;

Fixed it for you. Thank me very much.

9) this Kenneth, gets culpable of homicide

See no. 7's response.

[WildCat]

A law, that exists ( quite ) only in Texas, nowhere in Europe, Japan and South America, for example, and has not been proven effective in preventing crime.
You know, not all the laws are " just ".
You were shown proof of a similar law in Italy earlier in this thread.

[WildCat]

Did I ever said, that the laws under Mussolini were good??
Please, quote where I would have written that, thanks.
You said it in the same place where others said the racist laws in Texas 100 years ago were good.

[Texas]

A law, that exists ( quite ) only in Texas, nowhere in Europe, Japan and South America, for example, and has not been proven effective in preventing crime.
You know, not all the laws are " just ".



OK.
What law exists only in Texas?

[shuize]

A law, that exists ( quite ) only in Texas, nowhere in Europe, Japan and South America, for example, and has not been proven effective in preventing crime.
You know, not all the laws are " just ".

Excuse me for asking, but what the hell are you talking about? What is your argument? Other than "Texas is, like, really bad, Man"?

Jury trials? Not unique to Texas.

Accomplice liability? Not unique to Texas.

Felony murder laws? Not unique to Texas.

The death penalty? Again, not unique to Texas.

[Matteo Martini]

He was not found guilty of "knowingly partaking in a crime that could end in someone's murder". He was found guilty of knowingly partaking in a crime that resulted in someone's murder. There is a difference, even if you do not see it.

The result of the robbery in an homicide, was not direct consequence of this Kenneth` s actions.
As he was not ( presumably ) planning to carry out any homicide, just a armed robbery.
Therefore, he can not be held accountable for homicide, just for armed robbery.


"Lahood was standing near his vehicle on a San Antonio Street (107 Palo Duro) when he was approached by Foster and three accomplices. Accomplice Mauricio Brown pulled a pistol and demanded Lahood's money and car keys. When Lahood refused to comply he was shot in the face."

http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/statistics/deathrow/drowlist/fosterk.jpg

Is there written that he was close to the victim, when the shooting happened?


This would indicate that Foster was not "in the car 80 feet away." Do you know of any evidence that he was in his car 80 feet away? Is that in the police report?


No, but, in the police report, there is not even written that, this Kenneth, was close to the victim, when the shooting happened


What are you talking about?


Just replying to Beerina, who said " I don't care if he was hanging out in Paris because he had taken a teleporter there. "


What has racism got to do with this? What makes you think that any other person would not be charged and convicted under the same circumstances?


Just a suspect.
I just wonder what would have happened, had it been the rich white guy, to take part in an accident which resulted in an homicide, of a black poor guy.
Would the white guy be sent to death?
Just a question..


You started this thread by asserting that Foster was sentenced to death having committed no crime. It was shown to you that he did in fact commit a crime.


I could not write, in the title of the thread " Send to death, but no direct homicide committed, because was propably, according also to the police report, not close to the victim, when the shooting happened ", as it would have taken quite a while, just to rad the title of the thread.
Now, you can read the title of the thread, as " Send to death, but killed nobody ", if you prefer.


You then changed the argument to one of the injustice of such a law, insisting that such laws only existed in Texas. When shown that in the US every state had similar statutes you changed tune once again.

No, even if this law existed in every single country of the world, it would still be injust, at least, in my opinion.
Fortunately, a part from part of the U.S., China, Africa, and the Arab World, it seems that laws in other parts of the world are quite different.
The point, as I am stressing from the beginning, is that this guy is going to pay for an homicide he did not commit, and had, from what we may presume from the police record, no intention to commit


Your new position was that other countries, particularly your own Italy, would have no such law. Once again you were shown to be mistaken, that Italy does in fact have similar laws.

Nope.
In Italy you can not send anyone to death. Fullstop.
Even if somebody kills 1000 children having raped them, he can not be sent him to death.
But, again, I am not talking about laws, my point, from the beginning, is the one above


You then tried to change this into a discussion of capitol punishment. that having met a dead end you now try to make this an argument over racism.


No.
My point is the same, from the beginning.
I just suspect, that the fact that this Kenneth is a poor black, while the victim, was a white, " son-of-rich-dad " as something to do, with the fact that the black guy was sent to death.
But, even in the remote case, in which you see a rich white guy condemned to death, for " taking part in " an accident, resulting in a killing of a black chap, it would be exactly the same injustice.

This is known in these parts as "moving the goal posts". One wonders were it is that you will be going next.

[Matteo Martini]

Surprisingly there are few cases of whites robbing and killing blacks in Texas or the rest of the country for that matter. Texas did give the death penalty to the White supremacists that dragged the Black man to death a few years ago. There are now 113 white men on Texas death row and 142 black men on death row, that number fluctuates, the rest are either Hispanic or other races.

Considering the percentage of blacks, in the total of the population, it seems that black guys are sent to capital punishment quite often, if compared with white guys..

[gnome]

I would just say that being an accessory to felony murder would qualify in law (and in my own personal agreement) with being charged (along with the actual perpetrator) with capital murder. That does not mean to me that the person should necessarily receive the same penalty. As a juror, it would matter to me how much involvement and knowledge the person had. I might vote the death penalty for the shooter and life for the accessory.

[Matteo Martini]

You said it in the same place where others said the racist laws in Texas 100 years ago were good.

Please, quote me the passage where I said that laws under Mussolini were goods.
Quite strange..
Somebody here accuses me to quote a " Communist newspaper ", another guy, tells me that I wrote that " laws under Mussolini were good "

[Matteo Martini]

Should I have said "Maoist" instead?

Please, explain by which reason you consider the first Italian newspaper, a " Maoist " newspaper..
I am curious..
Just waiting for your evidence.

[Matteo Martini]

What law exists only in Texas?

I wrote quite only in Texas.
And I was making the point, that, in many other countries of the world ( as far as I know, the majority of Europe, Japan, South America, .. ) they do not have such laws.

[Texas]

I would just say that being an accessory to felony murder would qualify in law (and in my own personal agreement) with being charged (along with the actual perpetrator) with capital murder. That does not mean to me that the person should necessarily receive the same penalty. As a juror, it would matter to me how much involvement and knowledge the person had. I might vote the death penalty for the shooter and life for the accessory.
That is what happens in most cases. No one can find the details of what was brought out in the trial so it is a bit hard to determine exactly what this guy's actual involvement was. There is no cry from his defenders that an all white jury convicted him so it is my assumption that the jury was of mixed race. The guy was a member of a very bad national street gang that is not shy when it comes to offing people. I suspect that actual trial evidence tied him closer to the victim than his supporters care to admit.

[Texas]

I wrote quite only in Texas.
And I was making the point, that, in many other countries of the world ( as far as I know, the majority of Europe, Japan, South America, .. ) they do not have such laws.
I showed you last night that Italy has an almost identical law. I have done the research yet but I will bet you a beer right now that the UK, France and
Germany have similar laws. The only difference being the Death Penalty and that is just a function of punishment it has nothing to do with the laws themselves.

[Matteo Martini]

I would just say that being an accessory to felony murder would qualify in law (and in my own personal agreement) with being charged (along with the actual perpetrator) with capital murder.

" Being accessory " to a felony murder has a broad meaning.
You can " be accessory " to a murder, materially keeping the victim, while the shooter kills the vistim, or you can be accessory, driving the shooter to the place, without knowing anything about the homicide ( I am not talking specifically about our case, here ).
I do not think that owth cases should be treated at the same level.

That does not mean to me that the person should necessarily receive the same penalty. As a juror, it would matter to me how much involvement and knowledge the person had. I might vote the death penalty for the shooter and life for the accessory.

That is, more or less, also my point..

[Just thinking]

And remember folks ... all this is being argued without 1 line of transcript from the court case.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

That is what happens in most cases. No one can find the details of what was brought out in the trial so it is a bit hard to determine exactly what this guy's actual involvement was


It also helps a great deal to quote an obscure communist propaganda site in the first place!

[Matteo Martini]

Excuse me for asking, but what the hell are you talking about? What is your argument? Other than "Texas is, like, really bad, Man"?

Jury trials? Not unique to Texas.

Accomplice liability? Not unique to Texas.

Felony murder laws? Not unique to Texas.

The death penalty? Again, not unique to Texas.

Yes, but death penalty, for being the driver in an attempted robbery, which turned in homicide ( and the driver did not materially pull the trigger ), is quite unique, in Texas, also some other states of the U.S., I think.

[Texas]

Considering the percentage of blacks, in the total of the population, it seems that black guys are sent to capital punishment quite often, if compared with white guys..Look if you are trying to make this racial then I have no option but to point out that Blacks are 12% of the population and account for 57% of violent crimes in the country. Google FBI crime statistics and you will find they list offenders by race and gender. I hate this race crap but Blacks over achieve when it comes to crime in this country. That is the last point on race that I will raise with you.

[Just thinking]

... I might vote the death penalty for the shooter and life for the accessory.Then again you might give them both the death penalty ... we need transcripts for this, to be sure.

[Matteo Martini]

And remember folks ... all this is being argued without 1 line of transcript from the court case.

We discuss, with the documentation that we have, inclusind the police record.
If you have the full transcript of the Court, please, post the link.

[Texas]

Yes, but death penalty, for being the driver in an attempted robbery, which turned in homicide ( and the driver did not materially pull the trigger ), is quite unique, in Texas, also some other states of the U.S., I think.
No it is quite common the the United States.

[Just thinking]

Look if you are trying to make this racial then I have no option but to point out that Blacks are 12% of the population and account for 57% of violent crimes in the country.

And most of it is black on black.

[Elizabeth I]

Considering the percentage of blacks, in the total of the population, it seems that black guys are sent to capital punishment quite often, if compared with white guys..

Do your homework - most violent crime against black people is committed by other black people:

"While African Americans comprise 12% of the U.S. population, 45% of all murder victims in 2002 were African American, 91% of whom were killed by African Americans. Nationally, homicide is the leading cause of death for black men and second leading cause of death for black women ages 15-24."
- http://www.hhscenter.org/bonbstat.html

Matteo, it looks as if your actual objection is to the death penalty. If you wanted to make an argument against the death penalty, I am sure you would find many people to agree with you.

However, when you start off with "sentenced to death but didn't commit a crime," then when it is pointed out to you that he DID commit a crime to say that the conviction was only under a law that exists no place besides that wicked, evil, barbarian, vile Texas, then when it was demonstrated to you that in fact all fifty states in the U.S. have such a law to say that no European country would ever have such a law, then completely ignore having it confirmed that in fact Italy does have exactly that law, then say, "Well, I'm really against the death penalty," that is, to say the least, disingenuous.

[Matteo Martini]

That is what happens in most cases. No one can find the details of what was brought out in the trial so it is a bit hard to determine exactly what this guy's actual involvement was.


Too bad.
Really ( no irony ).


There is no cry from his defenders that an all white jury convicted him so it is my assumption that the jury was of mixed race.

But it is stated that the father of the white guy is very rich, while the black guy, had a prostitute as mother.


The guy was a member of a very bad national street gang that is not shy when it comes to offing people. I suspect that actual trial evidence tied him closer to the victim than his supporters care to admit.

Again, for the 100th time, being part of a dangerous street gang, does not make him a saint, but, does not make him an homicide either.

[shuize]

I wrote quite only in Texas.
And I was making the point, that, in many other countries of the world ( as far as I know, the majority of Europe, Japan, South America, .. ) they do not have such laws.
Again, what laws are you talking about?

The death penalty? Japan has it. Japan also has accomplice liability. As already noted, so does Italy.

Jury trials are not unique to Texas. The U.K. has them and Japan is about to reintroduce a modified version of them. I understand that many countries in Europe have some system of lay-assessors.

Felony murder? It is an old common law rule still used throughout the United States and, as posted above, in Australia as well. It is a form of accomplice liability. You don't like it. Got it. But your assertions notwithstanding, it is not unusual.

[Matteo Martini]

Please, quote me the passage where I said that laws under Mussolini were goods.
Quite strange..
Somebody here accuses me to quote a " Communist newspaper ", another guy, tells me that I wrote that " laws under Mussolini were good "

Just to explain better.
Communists, and Fascists ( Mussolini ) have not got along quite well, historically.
So, it is quite strange that I have been accused to say that Fascist laws are good, and that I quote Communists newspapers.

[Just thinking]

We discuss, with the documentation that we have, inclusind the police record.
If you have the full transcript of the Court, please, post the link.

My point is that some of us here are assuming innocence even after a court trial has proven Foster guilty -- with an additional 10+ years of appeals. And he's still on death row. Are we not just dismissing the case but the appeals system as well? That's quite a heavy load without any transcripts.

[Matteo Martini]

It also helps a great deal to quote an obscure communist propaganda site in the first place!

Is the site of the leading Italian newspaper, a " obscure communist propaganda site "?

[Matteo Martini]

I showed you last night that Italy has an almost identical law.

For the 100th time, Italy has no death penalty.


I have done the research yet but I will bet you a beer right now that the UK, France and Germany have similar laws.

Do the above countries, have death penalty, in first place?


The only difference being the Death Penalty and that is just a function of punishment it has nothing to do with the laws themselves.

Death Penalty, is the issue I am talking from the beginning.
If the Kenneth, was sent to jail for 10 or 20 years, and if it were proven that he knew it was an armed robbery, I would consider that a correct punishment

[Texas]

Just to explain better.
Communists, and Fascists ( Mussolini ) have not got along quite well, historically.
So, it is quite strange that I have been accused to say that Fascist laws are good, and that I quote Communists newspapers.You were not accused of that. It was just pointed out after you made the statement that 100 years ago Texas had very racist laws, during the time of Mussolini Italy was no choir boy either. You are getting a bit annoying with your strawman arguments.

[Elizabeth I]

Is the site of the leading Italian newspaper, a " obscure communist propaganda site "?

Your first citation was http://www.workers.org/2007/us/kenneth-foster-0621/ ). I'm not going to say that it's the web site of a communist organization, but I think it's unlikely that it's the leading Italian newspaper.

[Matteo Martini]

Again, what laws are you talking about?

The death penalty? Japan has it. Japan also has accomplice liability. As already noted, so does Italy.


Not in Japan, nor in Italy, you can be charged with death penalty for being part of an attempted robbery which turned into homicide.
In Italy, you can not be charged with death penalty at all.
In Japan, there have been very few cases, in the recent past, of death penalty


Jury trials are not unique to Texas. The U.K. has them and Japan is about to reintroduce a modified version of them. I understand that many countries in Europe have some system of lay-assessors.


Jury trial is not the point, here


Felony murder? It is an old common law rule still used throughout the United States and, as posted above, in Australia as well. It is a form of accomplice liability. You don't like it. Got it. But your assertions notwithstanding, it is not unusual.

How many people sent to death in Australia?

Officially, Australia has a long-standing principled opposition to capital punishment.
http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/death_penalty/aust_policy.php

[Matteo Martini]

Your first citation was http://www.workers.org/2007/us/kenneth-foster-0621/ ). I'm not going to say that it's the web site of a communist organization, but I think it's unlikely that it's the leading Italian newspaper.

All the elements, on which I have based my points, are taken directly from the police report, and, in second place, with all the cautions, from the Italian nespaper, " Il Corriere della Sera ".

[shuize]

Yes, but death penalty, for being the driver in an attempted robbery, which turned in homicide ( and the driver did not materially pull the trigger ), is quite unique, in Texas, also some other states of the U.S., I think.

This thread is moving very quickly. But as pointed out to you above, this qualifies under felony murder. It is not unique to Texas. Similar kinds of accomplice liability are in force throughout the world. Your assertions to the contrary are demonstrably false.

In Japan, there have been very few cases, in the recent past, of death penalty.

This statement is not completely accurate. (Give me a moment and I will give you numbers) As I noted a few posts above, you should not include Japan as an example of a nation that has banned it. They use it here. The method is hanging and public support for it is consistently high (the last figure I read was somewhere around 70% of the Japanese public support capital punishment).

[Just thinking]

Is the site of the leading Italian newspaper, a " obscure communist propaganda site "?

Ahhh, the leading political parties of Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_of_Italy) are Socialist/Communist. To expect their major newspaper to be much else is ... well, a stretch.

[Matteo Martini]

My point is that some of us here are assuming innocence

Innocence from homicide


even after a court trial has proven Foster guilty

Not of homicide.
At least, if you consider homicide, killing another person, physically.

[Elizabeth I]

Death Penalty, is the issue I am talking from the beginning.

NO, you started out by saying that this person had been condemned to death although he had committed no crime.

When it was demonstrated to you that he had committed a crime, you said it was a stupid law that only a stupid place like Texas would have.

When it was demonstrated that all 50 states in the Union have the same law, you said no place else in the world would have such a law.

When it was demonstrated that Italy has the same law, you ignored it.

You instanced Arab states, for God's sake, where people can still be executed for adultery and have a hand amputated for theft, as paragons of justice and fairness.

Then you said that you were really just against the death penalty all along, although, by the way, the United States in general and Texas specifically are racist.

(You have also insisted on the fact of the robbery victim's being "rich," as if that in some way makes him a suitable person to be robbed and we shouldn't worry all that much about him.)

I find myself compelled to worry about your world view.

[Texas]

For the 100th time, Italy has no death penalty.



Do the above countries, have death penalty, in first place?



Death Penalty, is the issue I am talking from the beginning.
If the Kenneth, was sent to jail for 10 or 20 years, and if it were proven that he knew it was an armed robbery, I would consider that a correct punishment No your thread started with the law under which he was convicted. I knew and probably everyone else knew that it was really about capital punishment but that is your fault for trying to be too cute by half. Most states in the US have the death penalty. Some use it more than others. The American left and all of Europe disagree with the death penalty, we get it. You don't like it but it is the punishment we have chosen for certain classes of murder. It is our right as a sovereign nation to set the punishment allowed under our constitution. The death penalty is challenged all the time in the United States, the opponents may someday win the day. They have done so in the past but in most cases it has been re-instated shortly thereafter for obvious reasons.

[Matteo Martini]

You were not accused of that. It was just pointed out after you made the statement that 100 years ago Texas had very racist laws, during the time of Mussolini Italy was no choir boy either. You are getting a bit annoying with your strawman arguments.

Two bads do not make one good.
I was making the point that laws, in particular, but not only, in Texas, are not always " just ".
And, as an example, I was quoting the racist laws in Texas.
The fact that, there were other parts of the world ( Italy, for example ), in which, also, there have been " injust " laws, this does not make the point that, the racist laws in Texas, 100 years ago, were " just " ( by modern standards ), do you agree?

[Matteo Martini]

Ahhh, the leading political parties of Italy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_of_Italy) are Socialist/Communist. To expect their major newspaper to be much else is ... well, a stretch.

The leading party ( at least, until few months ago ), in the U.S., was the Republican Party, both in the Congress and in the Senate ( with, also, a Republican President ).
You have had, for sure, only biased information from Republican point-of-view newspapers and sites, in the U.S., recently.

[Elizabeth I]

You have had, for sure, only biased information from Republican point-of-view newspapers and sites, in the U.S., recently.

And you know this how?

[Matteo Martini]

No your thread started with the law under which he was convicted. I knew and probably everyone else knew that it was really about capital punishment but that is your fault for trying to be too cute by half.

Well, I did not specify, that I meant homicide.
Do we want to make a case?
He may well have been accomplice of attempted armed robbery ( thinking at the most unfavourable point-of-view ), but, that should not lead to capital punishment, that is my point.
And does not lead to capital punishment, in most of the civilized countries of the world.


Most states in the US have the death penalty. Some use it more than others.

Texas by far the most.


The American left and all of Europe disagree with the death penalty, we get it. You don't like it but it is the punishment we have chosen for certain classes of murder.

Still, I do not qualify as " murder " being part of an armed robbery.
Murder, in my opinion, is pulling the trigger.
Being part of an armed robbery, even if it turns out into homidice, is being part of an armed robbery
The guy who killed, should be held responsible for homicides, not the others

It is our right as a sovereign nation to set the punishment allowed under our constitution. The death penalty is challenged all the time in the United States, the opponents may someday win the day. They have done so in the past but in most cases it has been re-instated shortly thereafter for obvious reasons.

OK.

[Just thinking]

Innocence from homicide

Not of homicide.
At least, if you consider homicide, killing another person, physically.

WHAT??? Are you now the divine giver of definitions and interpretations?

Foster was convicted of just that -- homicide. All the jurors were in agreement with that.

[Texas]

Two bads do not make one good.
I was making the point that laws, in particular, but not only, in Texas, are not always " just ".
And, as an example, I was quoting the racist laws in Texas.
The fact that, there were other parts of the world ( Italy, for example ), in which, also, there have been " injust " laws, this does not make the point that, the racist laws in Texas, 100 years ago, were " just " ( by modern standards ), do you agree?All laws in the United States are subject to challenge on constitutional grounds. That is what the Federal Court system is for. There is not a law on the books of any kind that cannot be challenged as a violation of the constitution all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States protects the rights of the accused more stringently than any country on earth. I take great offense at people that know NOTHING about the US justice system passing judgement on same. The United States is the most diverse country in the world. We welcome people from every nation on earth and you will find people living here from every nation on earth. That is both a blessing and sometimes a curse in that the justice system must be flexible enough to balance the needs of the diverse cultural differences with the requirement that the country be based one set of laws for all.

[shuize]

My mistake. The death penalty is even more popular in Japan than I remembered. Recent polls put public support for it around 80 percent:

Two years ago, a cabinet office survey showed that more than 80 percent of the Japanese supported the death penalty. More than half the population believed it was an effective deterrent and just retribution for any killing, according to press reports at the time. Only six percent expressed open opposition to the death penalty.


http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36732

Recent years have also seen a surge in death sentences with the number of prisoners on death row here jump from around 50 in 2002 to 100 today. I seem to recall Japan executing four or five people a year which is not so different from an average U.S. state.

Activists are bracing themselves for more executions after the last ones at Christmas. At the end of February the number of inmates awaiting execution in Japan reached 100. Last year saw a big increase in the number of death sentences -- some 21 -- as Japanese courts took a tougher stand on violent crimes.

Same link as above.

[jsfisher]

I was making the point that laws, in particular, but not only, in Texas, are not always " just ".


Perhaps your point would be made better if you didn't appear to be in a continual Texas-bashing mode.

And, as an example, I was quoting the racist laws in Texas.


Specifically, what racist laws in Texas did you quote?

[Matteo Martini]

And you know this how?

I do not understand this.
Please, explain better.

[Just thinking]

The leading party ( at least, until few months ago ), in the U.S., was the Republican Party, both in the Congress and in the Senate ( with, also, a Republican President ).
You have had, for sure, only biased information from Republican point-of-view newspapers and sites, in the U.S., recently.

Just what planet have you been on the last bunch or years? The US is pretty much 50/50 politically. The same cannot be said of Italy -- look at my post above. There are many left newspapers and news stations that are to the left (in the US) ... and many to the right. Even Italy's Republican Party is left of center.

[Elizabeth I]

I do not understand this.
Please, explain better.

You said:
You have had, for sure, only biased information from Republican point-of-view newspapers and sites, in the U.S., recently.

And I asked you how you could possibly know that.

[Matteo Martini]

NO, you started out by saying that this person had been condemned to death although he had committed no crime.

Well, I soon after specified that crime meant " homicide ".

Right from my 3rd post:
" Even assuming that Foster knew it was an armed attempted robbery, do you get death penalty for being the driver in an armed attempted robbery, in Texas? "


When it was demonstrated to you that he had committed a crime, you said it was a stupid law that only a stupid place like Texas would have.

I never said only in Texas.
I said quite only in Texas.
And, where did I use the word " stupid "??


When it was demonstrated that all 50 states in the Union have the same law, you said no place else in the world would have such a law.


The " law of parties ", is valid, as far as I know, only in Texas.
I do not know, state by state, if you can hald responsible for murder, even if you took part in an attempted robbery, which turned out to become a murder, but I assume, from the number of people sent to death in Texas ( by population ), that it is easier to get death penalty in Texas, than in many otehr states of the Union.


When it was demonstrated that Italy has the same law, you ignored it.

Italy has no death penalty.


You instanced Arab states, for God's sake, where people can still be executed for adultery and have a hand amputated for theft, as paragons of justice and fairness.


I said:
" Fortunately, a part from part of the U.S., China, Africa, and the Arab World, it seems that laws in other parts of the world are quite different. "

I did not say that the U.S. has the same lasw as the Arab States.


Then you said that you were really just against the death penalty all along, although, by the way, the United States in general and Texas specifically are racist.


I never said that the people in the U.S. are racist.
I said that, I have the suspect, that if you are a poor black, you may not have the same legal treatment, as if you are a white rich man.

(You have also insisted on the fact of the robbery victim's being "rich," as if that in some way makes him a suitable person to be robbed and we shouldn't worry all that much about him.)

I find myself compelled to worry about your world view.[/QUOTE]

[Metullus]

You have had, for sure, only biased information from Republican point-of-view newspapers and sites, in the U.S., recently.What, pray tell, leads you to this conclusion? Maybe you could point us to these "Republican point-of-view newspapers" that have a monopoly on news in the USA.

[Matteo Martini]

You said:


And I asked you how you could possibly know that.

That was in reply to Jus Thinking` s remark:
" Ahhh, the leading political parties of Italy are Socialist/Communist. To expect their major newspaper to be much else is ... well, a stretch "

If the goverment of Italy, is left sided, then the major newspaper should be " Communist ".
For the same reason, if the government of the U.S., is Republican, the major newspaper(s) of the U.S. should be staunch Republicans.

[Matteo Martini]

Perhaps your point would be made better if you didn't appear to be in a continual Texas-bashing mode.


Not bashing anyone


Specifically, what racist laws in Texas did you quote?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

[Matteo Martini]

What, pray tell, leads you to this conclusion? Maybe you could point us to these "Republican point-of-view newspapers" that have a monopoly on news in the USA.

That was in reply to Jus Thinking` s remark:
" Ahhh, the leading political parties of Italy are Socialist/Communist. To expect their major newspaper to be much else is ... well, a stretch "

If the goverment of Italy, is left sided, then the major newspaper should be " Communist ".
For the same reason, if the government of the U.S., is Republican, the major newspaper(s) of the U.S. should be staunch Republicans.

[Matteo Martini]

Just what planet have you been on the last bunch or years? The US is pretty much 50/50 politically.

I was replying to your post, when you said that, in Italy, there is a Left goverment, then the major newspaper should be " Communist ".
The same kind of reasoning, applies to the U.S.


The same cannot be said of Italy -- look at my post above.

The same can absolutely said of Italy.
The last elections were won by the Left, by 20000 votes out of 20 million voters.
I think it was 50% and something..

There are many left newspapers and news stations that are to the left (in the US) ... and many to the right.

In Italy, the Right has many newspapers and television stations.
The Italian Premier ( right ) has ( owns ) three televisions, out of 6, which are in the country.

Even Italy's Republican Party is left of center.

I did not know that.
The Center Right in Italy, is Center Left??

[Just thinking]

That was in reply to Jus Thinking` s remark:
" Ahhh, the leading political parties of Italy are Socialist/Communist. To expect their major newspaper to be much else is ... well, a stretch "

If the goverment of Italy, is left sided, then the major newspaper should be " Communist ".
For the same reason, if the government of the U.S., is Republican, the major newspaper(s) of the U.S. should be staunch Republicans.

I also said that the US is basically 50/50 -- virtually every party in Italy is Socialist/Communist. Look at the list I posted. There are papers (USA) that lean left, and ones that lean right -- why? Because each side has a good sized audience. What would be strange is to have almost everyone lean one way and the main paper not follow.

[gnome]

" Being accessory " to a felony murder has a broad meaning.
You can " be accessory " to a murder, materially keeping the victim, while the shooter kills the vistim, or you can be accessory, driving the shooter to the place, without knowing anything about the homicide ( I am not talking specifically about our case, here ).
I do not think that owth cases should be treated at the same level.

This is how I made up my mind: If I helped drive someone to a robbery...and they murdered the clerk... would it soothe my conscience any to say to myself, "well, I didn't know he was going to kill anyone."? I decided it would not. I would consider myself a murderer.

[WildCat]

All the elements, on which I have based my points, are taken directly from the police report,
That's not a police report. It's more of a "who's who on death row" summary of the case.

[Just thinking]

I did not know that.

One can learn something new (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Republican_Party) every day ... I guess.

BTW ... please state what I typed ... not what you think you see.

Me =>Even Italy's Republican Party is left of center.

Your misleading reply =>The Center Right in Italy, is Center Left??

[jsfisher]

Perhaps your point would be made better if you didn't appear to be in a continual Texas-bashing mode.

Not bashing anyone


Texas, the state, is a thing, not a one. And, yes, you have been persistently bashing it.



Specifically, what racist laws in Texas did you quote?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws


I didn't ask you to now provide examples of what may have been racist laws; I asked you what you had previously cited as such. You had said you had quoted some racist Texas laws of the past, but, in fact, you had not. Why did you lie about this?

[WildCat]

Please, quote me the passage where I said that laws under Mussolini were goods.
Quite strange..
I was pointing out to you the fallacy of your strawman argument, a point which seems to have gone right over your head.

Somebody here accuses me to quote a " Communist newspaper ",
Which it definitely was. Perhaps you noticed the anti-capitalist rants, the red star logo, the appeal to "workers" of the world? I'm at a loss to understand your denial here.

[jsfisher]

Oh, by the way, Matteo, you really need to learn the difference between:


Killing someone -- an action,
Murder -- a crime, and
Death -- as a penalty [for a crime].

[Matteo Martini]

My mistake. The death penalty is even more popular in Japan than I remembered. Recent polls put public support for it around 80 percent:




http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36732

Recent years have also seen a surge in death sentences with the number of prisoners on death row here jump from around 50 in 2002 to 100 today. I seem to recall Japan executing four or five people a year which is not so different from an average U.S. state.



Same link as above.

I did not want to make a thread about the situation about death penalty in the world, but, here is a convincing summary:

Capital punishment, also known as the death penalty, is the execution of a convicted criminal by the state as punishment for crimes known as capital crimes or capital offences. Historically, the execution of criminals and political opponents was used by nearly all societies—both to punish crime and to suppress political dissent. Among countries around the world, all European (except Belarus) and many Pacific Area states (including Australia, New Zealand and Timor Leste), and Canada have abolished capital punishment. In Latin America, most states have completely abolished the use of capital punishment, while some countries, however, like Brazil, allow for capital punishment only in exceptional situations, such as treason committed during wartime. The United States, Guatemala, most of the Caribbean and the majority of democracies in Asia (e.g. Japan and India) and Africa (e.g. Botswana and Zambia) retain it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment

So, it seems, that, in many parts of the world, death penalty is used.
In many other parts, it is not used
But, this is not the point.
The point is that, do you get death penalty, even if you do not, materially, actually, kill a fly?

[Matteo Martini]

Do your homework - most violent crime against black people is committed by other black people:

"While African Americans comprise 12% of the U.S. population, 45% of all murder victims in 2002 were African American, 91% of whom were killed by African Americans. Nationally, homicide is the leading cause of death for black men and second leading cause of death for black women ages 15-24."
- http://www.hhscenter.org/bonbstat.html

Matteo, it looks as if your actual objection is to the death penalty. If you wanted to make an argument against the death penalty, I am sure you would find many people to agree with you.


I expressely wrote, that the suspect that I have, that being poor ( and black? ) in the United States, can lead you more easily to death penatly, is, as I wrote, as suspect.
Then you can argue, that many blacks are sent to death because they commit more crimes, another one say, that black are more prone to commit more crimes, because they have less possibility to get a decent job, and, that is due to racism.
Etcetera.
Those are just opinions.
If you prefer to disregard and not take into consideration my " suspect ", because it is not based on evidence, that is also fine.


However, when you start off with "sentenced to death but didn't commit a crime,"

From my 4th post ( quite a long ago ), I stated:
" Even assuming that Foster knew it was an armed attempted robbery, do you get death penalty for being the driver in an armed attempted robbery, in Texas? "


then when it is pointed out to you that he DID commit a crime

" a crime " means a lot of things.
Also, throwing a cigarette out of the window, is, a crime.
There are crimes and crimes.


to say that the conviction was only under a law that exists no place besides that wicked, evil, barbarian, vile Texas,

Never said " evil ", " barbarian ", " vile ".
Never said only in Texas


then when it was demonstrated to you that in fact all fifty states in the U.S. have such a law

The law of parties is not common to all the 50 states of the U.S.
I do not know, but I suspect there are not so many, how many states of the U.S. have a law that allows someone to get executed, even if he did not materially kill anyone.
My suspect comes from the fact that, in Texas, you have, by far, the highest number of people sent to death


to say that no European country would ever have such a law, then completely ignore having it confirmed that in fact Italy does have exactly that law, then say, "Well, I'm really against the death penalty," that is, to say the least, disingenuous.

Again, for the 1000th, you can not send someone to get executed, even if he did not materially kill anyone, in Italy, because, in first place, there is no death penalty at all, in Italy.
So, that makes it impossible.

[Texas]

But, this is not the point.
The point is that, do you get death penalty, even if you do not, materially, actually, kill a fly?I am without words.

[Matteo Martini]

Oh, by the way, Matteo, you really need to learn the difference between:


Killing someone -- an action,
Murder -- a crime, and
Death -- as a penalty [for a crime].



I know the difference between:
1) pulling the trigger and killing someone;
2) driving a car, to an attempted armed robbery, where an homicide happens, when somebody else pulled the trigger

This the whole point of my discussion

[Matteo Martini]

Texas, the state, is a thing, not a one. And, yes, you have been persistently bashing it.


I am just quoting numbers.
Is it my fault, that Texas, by far, the highest number of people sent to death?


I didn't ask you to now provide examples of what may have been racist laws; I asked you what you had previously cited as such. You had said you had quoted some racist Texas laws of the past, but, in fact, you had not. Why did you lie about this?

When you ask for evidence, I provide it.

[Matteo Martini]

This is how I made up my mind: If I helped drive someone to a robbery...and they murdered the clerk... would it soothe my conscience any to say to myself, "well, I didn't know he was going to kill anyone."? I decided it would not. I would consider myself a murderer.

Then I beg to disagree.
I would consider myself culpable, but of an attempted robbery.
The guy who pulled the trigger, has to be held responsible for what he did, not the guy who drove the car.
Everybody, should be held responbile for his own actions.

[Metullus]

The result of the robbery in an homicide, was not direct consequence of this Kenneth` s actions.
As he was not ( presumably ) planning to carry out any homicide, just a armed robbery.
Therefore, he can not be held accountable for homicide, just for armed robbery.He undertook to commit an armed robbery. The armed robbery he undertook resulted in murder. How can he not be considered an accomplice to the murder?

The law in Texas, all fifty US states, and, at least, in Italy says that he is an accomplice to murder.

Do you not understand this?



Is there written that he was close to the victim, when the shooting happened?It can certainly be inferred from the quote I provided. More to the point, what record do you have that supports the contention that he was in his car, listening to the radio, some 80 ft away? This does not on the surface seem consistent with the police report, now does it?

No, but, in the police report, there is not even written that, this Kenneth, was close to the victim, when the shooting happened Neither does it suggest that he was elsewhere. See above comment.

Just a suspect.I see. Based om no evidence whatsoever. Nada. Nothing.

I just wonder what would have happened, had it been the rich white guy, to take part in an accident which resulted in an homicide, of a black poor guy.
Would the white guy be sent to death?
Just a question..I suspect so. Why, do you have evidence otherwise?

I could not write, in the title of the thread " Send to death, but no direct homicide committed, because was propably, according also to the police report, not close to the victim, when the shooting happened ", as it would have taken quite a while, just to rad the title of the thread.I am not addressing the thread title. I am speaking of your opening post wherein you state in no uncertain terms:
It seems that in Texas, you can get executed even if you did not commit any crime and even if the jury acknoledges that you did not commit any crime!!
This is the story of Kenneth Foster, an African-American, who, was standing 80 feet away from the place where the crime of Michael LaHood Jr. took place, without taking part in it.

Of course you could have been clear if your only objection was the death penalty. Instead you chose not to. You misrepresented the facts of the case and are now engaged in trying to resurrect your credibility.

No, even if this law existed in every single country of the world, it would still be injust, at least, in my opinion.What law is it to which you refer? Whenever we talk to you about the similar laws in effect world wide you change the discussion to one of capitol punishment. So are you talking about the murder conviction or are you talking about the sentence?

Fortunately, a part from part of the U.S., China, Africa, and the Arab World, it seems that laws in other parts of the world are quite different.Again, are you talking about the crime or are you talking about the punishment?

The point, as I am stressing from the beginning, is that this guy is going to pay for an homicide he did not commit, and had, from what we may presume from the police record, no intention to commitAccording to the laws of Texas, the fifty US states, and, in Europe, in Italy at least (and I would wager in most of the western world) he was an accomplice to murder. This is true whether or not you care to admit it or approve. It is reality.

Nope.
In Italy you can not send anyone to death. Fullstop.
Even if somebody kills 1000 children having raped them, he can not be sent him to death.So now you are talking about the sentence. Please make up your mind.

But, again, I am not talking about laws, my point, from the beginning, is the one aboveWhich one above? The one immediately above or the one above that? Please strive for clarity.


My point is the same, from the beginning.
I just suspect, that the fact that this Kenneth is a poor black, while the victim, was a white, " son-of-rich-dad " as something to do, with the fact that the black guy was sent to death.So now you say your point relates to race. I thought you were arguing against the death penalty. Or was it the unjust law that says that he was an accomplice to murder?

Your point is as changing as the breeze, and not nearly as substantial.

But, even in the remote case, in which you see a rich white guy condemned to death, for " taking part in " an accident, resulting in a killing of a black chap, it would be exactly the same injustice.Where in Ed's name did you come up with this idea that this is all about an accident? Tis is not a case of an accidental death, and Foster was not convicted of having "taken part in" an accidental death. He was convicted of having taken part in a felony (armed robbery) that resulted in a murder. Nothing accidental in that. Armed robberies not infrequently result in death. They are by their nature risky endeavors. The people who engage in the business of committing armed robberies know this. To suggest otherwise is just plain disingenuous.

[jsfisher]

I know the difference between:
1) pulling the trigger and killing someone;
2) driving a car, to an attempted armed robbery, where an homicide happens, when somebody else pulled the trigger

This the whole point of my discussion


Your point is more of a large circle.

Have you now moved your focus away from the death penalty in general back to the merits of a specific case? You posts tend to be a little discontinuous, so I'm just trying to be prepared for the next.

[jsfisher]

When you ask for evidence, I provide it.


No, you didn't. You tried to cover up a lie.

[Schneibster]

Did I ever said, that the laws under Mussolini were good??
Please, quote where I would have written that, thanks.You forgot the part about looking up "straw man."