It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Sniper John Allen Muhammad executed

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 03:33 AM

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi

Originally posted by SonicInfinity
Honestly now, 9:11 pm EST when it was scheduled for 9:00 pm EST? I seriously doubt this was a mix-up.

On topic though, it's always good to see someone get executed. I'm completely for the death penalty; so much for it I think the process needs to be sped up, used more often, and have harsher methods introduced.

There are those that say "the death penalty doesn't deter crime!!!" - yeah, well, I don't see life in prison deterring crime either. When people commit crimes they usually don't intend to get caught, so that argument is irrelevant.

This guy gunned down 11 people with a sniper rifle, and all he got was a mix of chemicals that put him peacefully and permanently to sleep. Him and people like him deserve the same treatment - if not worse - than of that they gave to their victims.

If the innocent can suffer at the hands of the guilty, why can't the guilty suffer at the hands of the innocent? They made their own choices. They should now live - or in this case, die - with the consequences, not be shielded from them by a fanatically-politically correct society.

Looking at your avatar i find it pretty ironic that former soviet republic Russia has not executed the death penalty since 1997 [due to pressure from the council of Europe]. Normally i prefer the motto "why kill people to show people that killing people is wrong?"
But i must say, in serious cases of national security and extreme violence crimes against humanity and such [after a war for instance]when the case is 100% waterproof[no innocent people who get executed] the death penalty should be allowed..Most countries reinstalled it for a short period of time after WWII to punish warcriminals.
I understand your grief, good riddance...

[edit on 11-11-2009 by Foppezao]

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 06:45 AM
reply to post by Nventual

I think NovusOrdoMundi has firmly put you in your place as far as a logical argument can go. However, he can't win as you aren't arguing with logic. You are arguing with emotion, and that can't reasoned with.

If you truly hate the American death penalty, do a logical thing: become an American citizen and work the system to vote that policy down.

OR better yet, stay where you are cause obviously your side has already won that battle.

We'll do things our way, you do them your way. That's the beauty of having different countries! (As long as they last)

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:33 AM
To all who say the death penalty does not deter crime, I give you....

TahDah! The BTK Killer

From wikipedia "Kansas reinstated the death penalty in 1994. The last known BTK killing was in 1991, making all known BTK murders ineligible for the death penalty."

What a coincidence, he decided to stop killing people after 30 years when they reinstated the death penalty.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:34 AM
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
If the innocent can suffer at the hands of the guilty, why can't the guilty suffer at the hands of the innocent?

Because then the 'innocents' wouldn't be innocent any longer, but as bad as the guilty. By the way of violence and killing, the suffering won't end untill there is only one human being standing left aside the pile of bodies.

You are for death penalty. But are you also for killing innocents? Don't you think that there wouldn't be a chance to condemn innocent human for death? How do you distinct between 'innocent' and 'guilty'?

Yes, you are going to blame the system (the system of justice) that condemned innocent for death, not the death penalty itself; but how do you ensure that the system only condemns those that are guilty, not innocent? What would you personally think if you would be sentenced for a death penalty for a crime you didn't commit? I bet you would calmly accept your fate like good ol' Socrates and drink the cup of poison?

All the best,


[edit on 11-11-2009 by v01i0]

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:51 AM
Heres another post on the D.C Sniper's execution:

D.C. Sniper Set for execution on October 10th

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 07:56 AM
Bye Bye!!
Sorry we could not have give him a strychnine milkshake. Slow and miserable!!

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 08:04 AM

Originally posted by NventualIt's actually chilling what you said, since the sniper would have had the same mindset. Don't you see the pattern? Good and bad are different extremes of the same thing. No one should be executed or put to death at the hands of another human being.

These people should be locked up for the rest of their life, ensuring that they are kept from any of lifes pleasures and given plenty of time to regret their actions. To kill them allows them to escape imprisonment and not suffer for their actions.

[edit on 10/11/09 by Nventual]

Nonsense, you cannot equate a murder with the execution of said murderer carried out under the due process of law in an open society.

THat is like saying a kidnapper should not be locked up because that makes "us" as bad as the kidnapper- a totally ridiculous argument

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 10:13 AM

Originally posted by v01i0
How do you distinct between 'innocent' and 'guilty'?

As I said in an earlier post: the law. The law determines who is innocent and who is guilty. An unlawful killing is murder, thus making you guilty. A lawful killing is the death penalty, thus not making you guilty.

'blueorder' put it best in the post above this one. You people think killing a murderer makes us all guilty, but what about imprisoning a kidnapper? What about seizing the possessions of a thief?

The difference is: one is lawful and one is not. Seizing the possessions of a thief is lawful, while a thief stealing someone else's possessions is not. Imprisoning a kidnapper is lawful, while a kidnapper imprisoning someone else is not. Putting to death a murderer is lawful, while murdering someone else is not.

Whether you like it or not, this is the system we have. Call it a double standard, call it hypocrisy, call it immoral - call it what you like, but this is what we've got.

I know you all want to take the moral high ground, see the good in people, and plead to spare their lives no matter the crime, but some people just need to be removed from the face of the Earth.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 12:04 PM
I find it all very strange and quiet. Like there should of been a bigger deal made of this. Anyone else just find the atmosphere odd?

I dont' agree with the one victims brother who is whining that the media is too sympathetic to muhammeds children. They have nothing to do with the murders, they are losing a dad. And now they are forever have to be attached to what he did. They deserve sympathy.

posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 12:08 PM

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
As I said in an earlier post: the law. The law determines who is innocent and who is guilty. An unlawful killing is murder, thus making you guilty. A lawful killing is the death penalty, thus not making you guilty.

Good Morning,

You talk a lot about logic, and the rule of law, yet you don't consider that the law is fallible. In the case of the DC Sniper, I seem to remember that the authorities were under extreme pressure to find the sniper and make the world safe once again. I remember that he was found sleeping in his car, and then the pieces quickly fell together and he was convicted. To me, this seemed far too convenient, but now that he's been executed we can all sleep well knowing that "Just Us" has been served.

Originally posted by NovusOrdoMundi
In addition to this, I want to touch on your point of the man being released after 20 years in prison: don't pat yourselves on the back too hard. You wasted 20 years of that man's life because of your justice system. Simply because you can "undo" it by throwing paper money at him is no cause for celebration on your part.

Now this statement seems to be an attempt to bash any competing view. The man was WRONGLY convicted, and then released. What would you suggest we do had he been executed? Give his mom back a corpse, "Uhh sorry ma'am, here is your son?" My comment was that we know the system is fallible, evidence can be planted, convictions for the sake of political expedience do happen. I would rather live in a country that acknowledges this aspect as fact, then to assume that the law is beyond reproach.

I just can't believe that Americans who hold their Country in such high esteem would be so quick to remove life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness from another, considering you can't UNDO it if your wrong. And you can absolutely be sure that in some cases you have executed innocents. So don't pat yourself on the back at all.

As I said in my earlier post, which you completely ignored, IF the "Just Us" system were repaired, evidence stopped being planted, cops held accountable for their abuses of power, judges that refused corruption and lawyers that were held accountable when they lie, then sure a death penalty for the few that cannot be rehabilitated who have been absolutely confirmed to have committed the crime, (not by biased testimony, but by irrefutable evidence which could not have been planted) then the death penalty could be a viable choice.

The way it is today, is just another blood thirsty mob, stoning the adulterer, albeit a tad more civilized.


posted on Nov, 11 2009 @ 02:36 PM
reply to post by NovusOrdoMundi

Human beings have invented the law and it is artificially uphold. In the end there are no laws, exluding those of natural origins. I am not condemning death penalty, I am merely questioning it as well as I am questioning the law itself.

I don't recognize myself as a individual of high moral, in fact, I have no moral at all. I try my best to act according to current situation, no matter what society says about that.

Are we entitled to kill just because we are able to? Because we are able to destroy most life upon this planet, are we supposed to? Or should we, as creatures of higher consciousness, try to reach something better (what that might be, I cannot say)?

For example, let's think about dentist who removes the aching tooth. It is a temporary solution ending the pain. But in the end, whole set of teeth will start to misalign because of missing teeth, ending perhaps in serious flaws in occlusion. But if it can be repaired, and the patient could be told to be more careful and take care of his teeth in future, would that be better?

I know that teeth and serious criminals can hardly be compared; still there is a valid comparison, even if not outwardly visible from surface.

Also I recognize that this is the way how it is right now in the United States, but just saying so isn't an excuse to be lulled into comfortation. Since the juridicial system may be flawed by incompetent persons, bribing and so on - the reasons are endless, all human based though.

In conclusion, if one accepts death penalty, one has also accept the possibility of sentencing innocent (might as well be you) in accident or on purpose. Though I do hope, that you wouldn't have to witness such.



top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in