R.I.P. Stanley Williams

Nikolas · Wed 14/12/2005 02:12:34

I think the next post belongs to Kinoko, and will go something like this:

"Hmmm... Morgan Freeman. I hate this guy! What do you think about Morgan Freeman?"

A little afterlife here:

I kinda believe that Paradise and Hell have to do with guilt. And after killing four innocent people (or one, or none sometimes), someone has guilt. And these guilts are what make a man/woman go to Hell! So according to my thinking Williams will indeed rot in Hell. If he has trully redemted himself and does not feel any guilt then he might go to Heaven. Chances are, though, that he won't. I don't see any reason in speeding up his transposition in Hell...

Traveler · Wed 14/12/2005 02:14:56

Wow. I tend to be liberal in most matters but here I fully agree with Squinky/Darth/ProgZMax/etc.: the guy got what he deserved and any more words on this is a waste of valuable network traffic. (I stand ashamed of my own actions in it.

)

The guy killed 4 people, for God's sake! Don't everyone find it a tad inappropriate that he starts writing children's books? He was an a**hole in his whole life and lo and behold: in jail he discovered the good in himself. WTF??? Where was that piece of good hiding when he shot a family of three in the head, execution-style?

I find calling mass murder a "mistake" a bit strong. A mistake is if I make a typo in my weekly meeting report, that's a mistake.

Death penalty may be a bad think (I actually don't think so, but that's another matter), but this guy was the posterboy for it. Every day he got after the initial verdict was a *gift* to him.

As for redemption: if there is a God out there, the guy now has a chance to discuss the matter with Him in person. If there isn't a God, that solves the question of redemption, too.

I think it was ProgZMax, who mentioned a good writer who never happened to commit mass-murder will be struggling to get published. Here we have a moron and mothers of three wet their panties from his "children's books". Forgive me for the foul language but I find this appalling.

PS: if someone thinks I'm worked up, I'm not.

I just have a strong opinion on people killing for fun and then saying "Oops, I'm sorry, that was an accident, really."

DGMacphee · Wed 14/12/2005 02:19:26

Just a quick add-in: you're not considering the context here. They're not just any old kids books. They're kids books with a strong anti-violence message. Don't you think they have some benefit on society?

Traveler · Wed 14/12/2005 02:24:13

DG: Sorry, but no. The way I see it, there is no place for any kind of message under the Sun from a mass-murderer. If there was, it would mean that we start relativizing murder.

Under different circumstances I'd take a different stance myself. For some crimes, I can imagine that someone actually turns a better person in jail. Not frequently, but I can imagine, even probably after a single murder. After four? No way.

As a quick test for those who think the guy should've been given another chance, think about this: imagine that you're in the middle of the desert with this guy. You also have his anti-violence book. Would you trust him with the water-bottle?

MrColossal · Wed 14/12/2005 02:36:31

What is the reason that one can murder one person and then end up being "good" but 4 is bad?

how about 2? 3? what if he shot 2 people and then broke another guy's legs? is it additive? if he breaks enough legs does it eventually equal a murder?

Traveler · Wed 14/12/2005 02:43:05

MrColossal: I definitely didn't mean 1 murder is "good". All I said was that I would probably consider it "not as bad" under different circumstances. I don't think any murder is good, but there might be some factors that may give a bit of leniency towards the one who committed it.

(When I say not as bad, I mean that I would consider 25-to-life a proper punishment for it, instead of the death penalty. Don't get me wrong, I never meant promoting a murderer to local kindergarten-manager or something silly like that.)

pcj · Wed 14/12/2005 02:44:11

Broken legs are repairable; a death cannot be "repaired".

In the views of common law, life is a "natural right" which no one has the right to take from another. It's removing someone else's freedom to kill them. A broken leg isn't a loss of freedom.

Traveler · Wed 14/12/2005 02:45:22

I'm sorry for double-posting this, but I feel this is important enough (to me, at least

) to post it so that it stands out, instead of the almost-unnoticeable edit):

As a quick test for those who think the guy should've been given another chance, think about this: imagine that you're in the middle of the desert with this guy. You also have his anti-violence book. Would you trust him with the water-bottle?

Kinoko · Wed 14/12/2005 03:08:23

Nikolas, shut the hell up

Seriously, I fecking adore Morgan Freeman. I wish he was my grandpa.

EDIT: Of course, I mean "shut the hell up" in a nice way ^_^

Nikolas · Wed 14/12/2005 03:20:39

Now you have me totally lost! Do you like actors or not? Simple as that...

Now seriously.

I don't think that 1 murder is better than 3. Or 2, or whatever.

I'm here discussing only that taking ones life is wrong. THE END!

I don't care if it is for fun, or for vengence (because after 25 years of locking up in prison, I can't believe that it is for punishment), or for punishment. I don't care if the killer is a black/white/caribean/greek/australian/morgan freeman himself guy or the goverment of the UK/USA/Greece/KOREAN. I don't care if the murdered was innocent or guilty or the guy who did whatever wrong doing.

Killing is plain wrong! From every side.

Note: Do bend all the above a little. I'm the same guy who would pull the trigger to kill a spy in a time of war (another thread from Shitar). But it is war...

Another note: I can't imagine what I would do to the guy who would hurt my family (who all of you know how much adore, and advertise in these forums

). But still after taking my vengance and killing the guy who would've hurted my family I would probably feel guilty for doing so.

Now there's an idea. I can't believe that there is no guilt in killing someone. I know, I would feel so guilty that I would probably commite suicide after murdering someone (accidently or not). I'm not sure if I would feel the same guilt while killing Hitler, for example. Maybe this is a simple measure of dealing with this simple issue. Here is the question:

You have in front of you Williams. He is tied and you have the lethal injection on your hand. Would you kill him? And if yes, would you feel any guilt for killing him? Think about that.

and about the water, you didn't tell us what is our relationship with him. If we are in the same gang, hell yes I would give him the bottle of water. If I had spent 10 years in jail with him, or if I knew him well enough again yes I would give it to him.
If we were together in the dessert, would you give me the bottle of water? I think not. You just don't know me! I know that I wouldn't trust you...

Kinoko · Wed 14/12/2005 03:22:45

Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 14/12/2005 03:20:39
Now you have me totally lost! Do you like actors or not? Simple as that...

I mean "I'm going to kill you if you don't stop spouting this nonsense" in the NICEST way

Nikolas · Wed 14/12/2005 03:27:54

Of course, I know. This is why the smiley was there...

Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 14/12/2005 03:22:45
I'll going to

?

Kinoko · Wed 14/12/2005 03:32:55

I'm a English teacher so I'll right. Everyone else are wrong!

DGMacphee · Wed 14/12/2005 03:35:36

Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 14/12/2005 03:27:54
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 14/12/2005 03:22:45
I'll going to
?

Kind of ironic when...

QuoteIf we were together in the dessert, would you give me the bottle of water?

Only if it were a tiramisu, then you can have my water.

In conclusion, everyone doesn't know how to spell or use grammar on the internet.

Also...

QuoteYou have in front of you Williams. He is tied and you have the lethal injection on your hand. Would you kill him? And if yes, would you feel any guilt for killing him? Think about that.

Okay... I'm thinking...

...

.......

...........

Okay, done! To answer the first question, "No."

And that means I don't have to answer the second question.

CASE CLOSED!

AlbinoPanther · Wed 14/12/2005 03:58:43

If you are prepared to kill you must be prepared to be killed simply as that.
EYE FOR EYE TOOTH FOR TOOTH.

We don't know anything about that man but we first think about that dead people who he killed.

AND who is this shitar guy he only post in gengen and hisd topics are allways political or something.We are here because of AGS not to argue about guilty of some killer.

MrColossal · Wed 14/12/2005 04:03:35

If you don't want to argue about the guilt or innocence of Stanley Williams, don't post in the thread or read it.

AlbinoPanther · Wed 14/12/2005 04:05:43

ok

Squinky · Wed 14/12/2005 05:12:19

QuoteWho are we to judge? We're not perfect.

Thats why (in the us) we have a jury of our peers for any major offense.

And laws that have been dictated (somewhat) by the majority, when and if the majority wishes for change, they have a say in the law making process.

I respectfully disagree on eqauting pre-meditated murder as equivalent to accidental deaths or drunk driving deaths. Not only are these treated completely different in court, but they are morally different. And this is a moral issue, regardless of your views.

Traveler · Wed 14/12/2005 05:15:35

Quote from: Nikolas on Wed 14/12/2005 03:20:39
and about the water, you didn't tell us what is our relationship with him. If we are in the same gang, hell yes I would give him the bottle of water. If I had spent 10 years in jail with him, or if I knew him well enough again yes I would give it to him.
If we were together in the dessert, would you give me the bottle of water? I think not. You just don't know me! I know that I wouldn't trust you...

I don't quite see how does it matter what would be your relationship, since we're talking about a mass murderer, after all. If I stick to your example, 10 years in prison wouldn't put you high on my trust-list.

I think you didn't really grasp my example (perhaps I wasn't clear about it.) If you get stuck in the desert even with a complete stranger, you *can* build some level of trust, simply because there is no previous ill acts by either of you.

I just don't see how one could build any (however fragile) trust with a known mass murderer. So would I trust you with the water? Not necessarily, but perhaps yes. (Then again, maybe not.) Would I trust a mass murderer with the water bottle? Absolutely, 100% no.

Venus · Wed 14/12/2005 05:36:19

I myself am totally, 100% against death-penalty. I've always been and I think I'll always be. Nevertheless, I really to try to understand other people's point of view on the subject. Humans are imperfect and since I'm human, I could always be wrong...
Funnily enough, this is one of the best reasons against death-penalty. We are all humans. None of us is almighty. Who are we to decide over the life and death of another human being?
I think, it is really sad that Stanley Williams died today, like I always think it is sad whenever someone dies. I don't know if he really commited those murders. He very possibly has. And still I am sad that someone who very likely killed four innocent people died? Yes, I am and let me explain why before you start squashing me.
I think, a question, we all have to ask ourselves, is: Why do some people become murderers? Why do people commit crimes in general? Is it something that they are born with, like a special gene or something? Could it be because of their education? Could it be because of bad influence from other people? Could it be some mental illness? Could it be because of the circumstances under which those people grew up?
I think it's a good mixture of all of the above. I don't think people are born to be murderers. I don't think people are born to be anything. Let's say humans are somewhat intelligent hard-drives. Basically, when we are born, we are brand new and empty, ready to be saving data. And that's exactly what we do throughout our whole life: we collect data. Some data is given to us by our parents or friends. We do something and receive a consequence for our action. This is saved as well (hopefully). It is what we call learning. When it comes to making decisions, we access our hard-drive and choose, based on what we have stored. If we burnt our finger once by holding it into the flame of a burning candle, we'd surely not do that again, because we have learned that that causes pain, which is usually something people try to avoid. That's why mother's need to watch over their children. They are not born knowing that it hurts to put your little finger there. They either need to find out or be told that it hurts.
Why am I explaining all this? Basically, I want to explain that I believe that something like ultimate free will does not exist. I don't know if that is really true. It is just my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe in fade or anything like that. It's just that in my opinion that we as imperfect human beings are not able to see the world objectively. It all needs to be interpretated by our brain and that's our nice little hard-drive with all the information we stored on it and that's inevitably gonna have a strong influence on how we interpretate the world around us, ourselves and our actions. Some people might be clever enough and overcome certain data on their hard-drive, but we certainly can't expect that from everyone, because sometimes the brain just doesn't have enough capacity to do that, which is certainly not the owner's fault. No-one in a healthy state of mind would simply decide on his own 'I truely learned that killing is wrong, that it causes pain not only to the person being killed, but also to his relatives etc., but anyway, I'm just bored, I'll go shoot someone.'. A person, thinking something like that is either insane or has some other priorities (like to have fun is more important than other people's life). What I'm trying to say is, that imo, these different priorities surely come from different data on the hard-drive, which simply leads to different interpretations.
I know that this is a very strong opinion and I've already had various discussions about it that all lead to nothing as well.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying that a murderer should be left running around on the streets, because he is not responsible for what has done. A murderer is either mentally ill or terribly misled by the data on his hard-drive. If he is mentally ill, there is something wrong with the hard-drive itself. Sometimes that can be fixed, sometimes it can't. If he is mislead, there is something wrong with the data on his hard-drive. Sometimes this can be changed by trying to delete the old data and replacing it with new, sometimes it can't be changed (maybe because there is simply too much wrong data, maybe because it keeps itself from being deleted etc.). In both cases, the mentally ill one and the mislead one, this person should be put into jail. Not because of punishing him, but because of protecting others. I really don't like to think of the government as a castigator. It should be a protector for the people and a teacher to the person who committed the crime (and if it is just 'if you do that again, you'll be punished.' If the person fears the punishment enough, he might not commit the crime again, though not necessarily because he then think the crime is wrong, but just because of the fear of being punished for it. That's certainly not the ideal way, but since the human hard-drive is quite complicated, maybe the only doable in most cases.) The problem is that you don't know whether the person who has commited a crime has actually learned something or is maybe just pretending. If someone was a thief, the risk of letting him proove that he learned something, is not as high as letting a muderer proove. In the case of the thief, it's "just" about money and stuff like that, in the case of the murderer it's actually a human life. I therefore think that some people, like murderers or children rapists shouldn't get a chance to proove that they have learned something and stay in prison forever, because the risk of letting them out in public again, without knowing for a 100% (and that's impossible) that they are not gonna do that again, is simply too high.
Of course, my whole believe of humans not really having free will implies that I may never be angry at anyone, no matter what they did to me. Basically that's true, but unfortunately that's impossible. I'm only human myself. I'm not able to really see things objectively, because I have data on my hard-drive as well, which is determining how I see, hear, fell etc. I totally understand that people want revenge. If someone killed my parents or my brother or a friend of mine, maybe I would want the killer to rot in hell forever, to suffer incredible pain and agony for all eternity. The government on the other hand should try to be as close to objective as possible. They should try to keep their emotions out of it as much as possible.
If you kill someone who has commited a murder, he has no chance at all to learn something from that. It also doesn't protect society from the killer better than a life-long imprisonment would. It's true that the society needs to pay for those people, but since the killer is at least to some point the result of the society itself, maybe the society should be punished for that by paying for him. That might teach them to try to prevent those things from happening in future. I know it's the old fear of the punishment method rather than replacing the wrong data, but like I said, it's complicated and maybe that's the only possible way.
After all, the government should try to give an example. If the government may kill a killer, why can't I? That's already part of the wrong data that is stored on people's hard-drives.

I am aware that all of the above, could be complete nonsense. I don't know. I'm only a human being. But unless the death-penalty is imposed by someone who is almighty and completely objective, like God for example, the data on my hard-drive does simply not allow me to agree to it and since I don't believe in the existance of God, it's gonna stay that way, unless my data is changed and that's very probably never gonna happen.

You may as well, tear me apart now, if your data doesn't allow you to just accept my opinion as being my opinion. You may as well feel the desperate need (again due to your data) to change my data and express this need by argueing how wrong I am, even though it's very unlikely to happen, as it is unlikey that my post has changed any of the pro-death-penalty-data, stored on various hard-drives of various members of this community.