Oklahoma Botched Execution - Clayton Lockett took 45 Minutes to Die

a reply to: NavyDoc

there is little difference between the God given right of self defense, where the individual employing self defense is the victim, police officer, judge, jury and executioner of the criminal in less than a few seconds, and the slow motion procedure and process of society acting to defend itself from a criminal vy employing the trial, sentencing and execution of the death penalty.

one, individual self defense takes two seconds.
two, societal self defense can take two decades.
but it is exactly the same thing.
individual self defense vs societal self defense.
society derives its self defense from the individual members right to self defense because society is only mde up of collective individuals.
society cannot possess or hold any rights except as derived from individuals making up that society.

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: NavyDoc

there is little difference between the God given right of self defense, where the individual employing self defense is the victim, police officer, judge, jury and executioner of the criminal in less than a few seconds, and the slow motion procedure and process of society acting to defend itself from a criminal vy employing the trial, sentencing and execution of the death penalty.

one, individual self defense takes two seconds.
two, societal self defense can take two decades.
but it is exactly the same thing.
individual self defense vs societal self defense.
society derives its self defense from the individual members right to self defense because society is only mde up of collective individuals.
society cannot possess or hold any rights except as derived from individuals making up that society.

But I would suggest that someone acting in immediate self defense is not acting as judge, jury, and executioner. The person acting in self defense is trying to protect himself or others from immediate threat, not determine guilt or determine a just punishment. The intent of a citizen acting in self defense is not to kill, but to protect. Sure, It is very possible that a criminal may die as a result, but that is not the primary intent of the act.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: NavyDoc

there is little difference between the God given right of self defense, where the individual employing self defense is the victim, police officer, judge, jury and executioner of the criminal in less than a few seconds, and the slow motion procedure and process of society acting to defend itself from a criminal vy employing the trial, sentencing and execution of the death penalty.

one, individual self defense takes two seconds.
two, societal self defense can take two decades.
but it is exactly the same thing.
individual self defense vs societal self defense.
society derives its self defense from the individual members right to self defense because society is only mde up of collective individuals.
society cannot possess or hold any rights except as derived from individuals making up that society.

But I would suggest that someone acting in immediate self defense is not acting as judge, jury, and executioner. The person acting in self defense is trying to protect himself or others from immediate threat, not determine guilt or determine a just punishment. The intent of a citizen acting in self defense is not to kill, but to protect. Sure, It is very possible that a criminal may die as a result, but that is not the primary intent of the act.

Very true. When I was 20 some kid tried to mug me with a knife as I walked through an underpass. I was three hours late to my girlfriend's place due to a broken down train, it was training and I was in no mood to piss about. So I kicked him in the nuts and left him in a squealing ball of his own private pain. A few minutes later the reaction kicked in and I almost threw up.

a reply to: NavyDoc

and the death penalty is society acting to protect individual members of that society.
just like homeowner is acting to protect self and others.

originally posted by: NavyDoc


But I would suggest that someone acting in immediate self defense is not acting as judge, jury, and executioner. The person acting in self defense is trying to protect himself or others from immediate threat, not determine guilt or determine a just punishment. The intent of a citizen acting in self defense is not to kill, but to protect. Sure, It is very possible that a criminal may die as a result, but that is not the primary intent of the act.

prior to a home invasion, a homeowner buys a pistol and keeps it loaded.

at 230 in the morning during a home invasion, the homeowner picks out the GUILTY human or humans
who are responsible for this intrusion, decides to inflict pain (punishment) upon those individuals, and does so with extreme prejudice.

i disagree. both individual and state are acting to protect.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

really, where does society get permission to use capitol punishment?

originally posted by: spirited75
a reply to: NavyDoc

there is little difference between the God given right of self defense, where the individual employing self defense is the victim, police officer, judge, jury and executioner of the criminal in less than a few seconds, and the slow motion procedure and process of society acting to defend itself from a criminal vy employing the trial, sentencing and execution of the death penalty.

And there completely and absolutely goes your credibility. You really can't differentiate between the usually quick decision of self defence and the long drawn out, thoroughly thought over process of trial, deliberation, and sentence?

a reply to: Mikeultra

That's what my relative was shot for back in the late 70's - his truck. He was an old man and to save money on fuel he would go to old slag heaps and strip mine sites which were all over the place in the area and scavenge pieces of coal. Probably more of a hobby than a necessity, but one day he ran into a criminal on the lam who demanded he give him his truck. He was an old man but that truck was his pride and he put up a fight. The guy blew his arm off with a shotgun and left him to bleed out in the woods. His murderer was caught and was on death row for his murder and the one he was on the run from. He didn't live till execution but died of cancer in prison.

originally posted by: kimar
a reply to: InTheLight
The death penalty does not deter crimes. A very small amount of research is needed to learn this.

It deters THAT criminal from committing any more crimes. Learning that also requires little research.

originally posted by: kimar
a reply to: InTheLight

www.deathpenaltyinfo.org...
From the above site: "The murder rate in non-death penalty states has remained consistently lower than the rate in states with the death penalty, and the gap has grown since 1990."

Criminals don't travel? Especially after they've committed a crime? The two main national interstates (I-35 and I-40) intersect in Oklahoma and we catch a lot of fleeing criminals from other states.

a reply to: kimar

do they have capital punishment in canada?

a reply to: spirited75

No, thankfully we don't.

a reply to: kimar

the death penalty deters crime.
the criminal who receives the death penalty
will not commit another crime.

it is a good thing this animal
did not rape, shoot, bury alive and murder
your sister, mother, wife or daughter.
you would be singing a different tune.

the state did not intend to subject the
condemned animal to cruel or unusual punishment.

So? Here's what he did:

He and his accomplices abducted two teenage girls (as well as a man and his baby). One of them, Stephanie Neiman, refused to say she wouldn't tell the police, so Lockett shot her with a shotgun. But she didn't die. He ordered his accomplices to bury her alive. Here's an AP summary of his crimes, in addition to first-degree murder: "conspiracy, first-degree burglary, three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, three counts of forcible oral sodomy, four counts of first-degree rape, four counts of kidnapping and two counts of robbery by force and fear."

LA Times Source

How long did it take Stephanie Neiman to die?

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: pez1975
how is it a botched he died wasnt that the end result wanted?

It was 'botched' because he wasn't knocked out and therefore, when he went through the suffocation and heart stopping process, he was awake and talking and moving ... and convulsing ... for 45 minutes instead of 5 - 10.

Sucks to be him. Did his victims have a nice peaceful exit? They didn't so why should he. They never bothered to put people asleep when they hanged, shot or electrocuted them before so why do it now?

originally posted by: schuyler
So? Here's what he did:

He and his accomplices abducted two teenage girls (as well as a man and his baby). One of them, Stephanie Neiman, refused to say she wouldn't tell the police, so Lockett shot her with a shotgun. But she didn't die. He ordered his accomplices to bury her alive. Here's an AP summary of his crimes, in addition to first-degree murder: "conspiracy, first-degree burglary, three counts of assault with a dangerous weapon, three counts of forcible oral sodomy, four counts of first-degree rape, four counts of kidnapping and two counts of robbery by force and fear."

LA Times Source

How long did it take Stephanie Neiman to die?

Please tell me that you're not saying that there should be a direct link between how long a victim took to die and how long their murderer's execution lasts.

a reply to: kimar

self defense is not a quick decision.

an individual planning and thinking about
defending themselves thinks and plans about it for years.

a reply to: spirited75

That is not necessarily the case at all man. Anybody can think and plan for any situation but until they are actually facing whatever they may or may not have planned for it cannot be said for certain what actions will be taken. Stop living in some ideal ego-driven reality and come back to the real world.

Again, the blood lust in these posts are sad and disturbing.

And I'll play your little scenario game. Let's say a loved one of mine is brutally murdered. I admit outright that I might want to see the person who committed the crime to be put to death. I would hope not, but I've thankfully never actually faced that situation so I don't know how I would actually feel. a) I would be wrong to wish death upon that person b) You are completely missing the point of the criminal justice system. Providing personal vengeance is not what the justice system is about.

originally posted by: kimar
Providing personal vengeance is not what the justice system is about.

Oklahoma does not believe or practice personal vengeance either.

Morbid question but wouldn't carbon monoxide poisoning (apparently from the news stories I've read) -be the best option for ..you know..legally "offing" folks?

-was just reading that they're gonna use electric chairs if the chems run out in certain facilities/ Some other senator guy said a firing squad was the most "humane way to end someone"

The 'ol garden hose from the exhaust into the cab seems to be the choice amongst suicidal folks, again I surmise this from what I've read in the past.

Sorry if that sounds..well..anyways.