Case Of Non-Triggerman Set To Die Raises Questions

Kill him and be done with it. You hang with trash like that you deserve to die with them.

The only case "similar" to this one that I am even remotely compassionate about is the one in Colorado where a woman was handcuffed in the back of a squad car when her boyfriend or whomever snapped and shot the cop dead.

There was no way for her, being handcuffed in the cop's car, to know her associate was going to do that, nor could she have prevented it.

Instances like that are rare, however, and clearly not the case in the story mentioned here.

HWC wrote:

Kill him and be done with it. You hang with trash like that you deserve to die with them.

I agree, the POS was there for the same reason the other guy was, he knew he had a gun, he knew some one could get shot, he is just as guilty and deserves the same punishment

I must be missing something, why is there any question? It's really not even worth debating so I won't. My opinion, not that any of you want it, is that this guy should cook like a Sunday Chuck Roast. Extra gravy here please.

He set the whole thing up. What is so difficult to understand! He walked around the body, he helped carry the safe out of the store, he bragged to family and friends, he partied with the money. He more than deserves his own execution! Goodbye trash.

Fry him.

EricDallas wrote:

I certainly believe in the death penalty, but I don't understand how more than one person can be convicted of murdering the same person. I mean one of them had to actually pull the trigger. One was involved, but didn't actually do the killing. Just doesn't seem right to me. Like the seven that killed the cop in Irving, all seven shouldn't get the death penalty. It isn't right. The state should have the burden to prove who actually killed the clerk, and that person should get the death penalty if that is what the jury wants not more than one person. If two people beat someone with the intention of just beating them, and as a result, that person dies, then the state need to determine which one threw the fatal blow. On echarged with murder, the other with aggrivated assult. If they can't prove which one killed the victim, then they both should get aggrivated assult charges.
We give our government too much power. It is supposed to be difficult to get thrown in jail and have your liberty taken away, not this simple throw whomever you want in jail attutude.
When you have a high crime rate, you give up rights in the name of security. This isn't right. The government answers to us, we do not answer to it. When crime is out of control, they need to determine why and how to fix it, not just make it easier to go to jail.
Benjamin Franklin's famous words, "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Gonna have to totally disagree with you. If the people involved all commited a crime, they share the responsibility for what happens as a result of that crime. The only exception, in my opinion, is the case I mentioned where the chick was already handcuffed in the car and could do nothing to stop it.

Texas should finally start to think about how unconstitutional it is to execute someone based on the Law of Parties. After all, in their 1982 ruling in the case of Enmund v. Florida, the Supreme Court found it was unconstitutional to execute the driver of a get-away car in an armed robbery. The court's rationale was that the 8th amendment forbids imposing capital punishment on someone "who aids and abets a felony in the course of which a murder is committed by others but who does not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place or that lethal force will be employed". Why can't Texas see that by using the "Law of Parties" as a justification for execution, they are not just aiding and abetting but planning and carrying out pre-meditated murders which should not be occurring -- and contributing to a cycle of violence and injustice?

NoseyMare wrote:

Texas should finally start to think about how unconstitutional it is to execute someone based on the Law of Parties. After all, in their 1982 ruling in the case of Enmund v. Florida, the Supreme Court found it was unconstitutional to execute the driver of a get-away car in an armed robbery. The court's rationale was that the 8th amendment forbids imposing capital punishment on someone "who aids and abets a felony in the course of which a murder is committed by others but who does not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place or that lethal force will be employed". Why can't Texas see that by using the "Law of Parties" as a justification for execution, they are not just aiding and abetting but planning and carrying out pre-meditated murders which should not be occurring -- and contributing to a cycle of violence and injustice?

That's not what the decision said but better luck next time.

That's not what the ENTIRE decision said but better luck next time.

Really ??

Enmund v. Florida was a 5-4 decision in which the United States Supreme Court applied its capital proportionality principle to set aside the death penalty for the driver of a getaway car in a robbery-murder of an elderly Florida couple. While Enmund sat outside in the getaway car, his accomplices Sampson and Jeanette Armstrong rang the doorbell of Thomas and Eunice Kersey, who lived at a farmhouse in central Florida. When Thomas Kersey answered, Sampson Armstrong held him at gunpoint while Jeanette took his money. Eunice came out with a gun and shot Jeanette, wounding her. Sampson shot back and killed both of the Kerseys. The Armstrongs took all the Kerseys' money, then they went back to the getaway car Enmund was driving.

Enmund and the Armstrongs were indicted for first-degree murder and robbery. The judge instructed the jury that, under Florida law, killing a human being while engaged in the perpetration or in the attempt to perpetrate a robbery is first-degree murder. Enmund and Sampson Armstrong were convicted of first-degree murder. At a separate penalty hearing, the trial judge found that the murders were committed for pecuniary gain and were especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel, and that no statutory mitigating factors applied, and then sentenced Enmund to death. On appeal the Florida Supreme Court rejected Enmund's contention that his death sentence was inappropriate because he did not kill or intend to kill the Kerseys.

Justice White ruled that the Eighth Amendment forbade Florida from imposing the death penalty on an offender such as Enmund who "aids and abets a felony in the course of which a murder is committed by others but who does not himself kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place or that lethal force will be employed

NoseyMare wrote:

On appeal the Florida Supreme Court rejected Enmund's contention that his death sentence was inappropriate because he did not kill or intend to kill the Kerseys.

This is the key part you missed. The Supreme Court REJECTED his contention that the sentence was inappropriate.(Rejected means that they denied his appeal to live.)

That means they upheld the death sentence. Perhaps one judge may have disagreed, but the court upheld the sentence.

Since your story is convulted and unclear, here's all you need to know. While it may be that the US Supreme Court ruled over the Florida Supreme court (which was an unclear distinction in your post), this should put this discussion to bed:

Under Enmund v. Florida, 458 U.S. 782 (1982), the death penalty may not be imposed on someone who did not kill, attempt to kill, or intend that a killing take place.

HOWEVER, under Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137 (1987), the death penalty may be imposed on someone who was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life.

I'd say that the getaway driver is a major player. If he wasn't in the car, one of the other two would have been, and the outcome might have been different. As it was, two two doing the shooting were able to "team up" against their victims while they were secure in the knowledge they had guy no. 3 in the getaway car.

Thus, he was a major player and should have been put down, as should the guy here in Texas.

That should be "the two," not "two two."

Instead of killing these scumbags maybe NoseyMare would likeus to ship them to her in MS. I am sure with the lova and care she would provide for them they would be rehabilitated in no time.
break out the marshmallows it is time to fire up ole sparky.

Doubts wrote:

Instead of killing these **** maybe NoseyMare would likeus to ship them to her in MS. I am sure with the lova and care she would provide for them they would be rehabilitated in no time.
break out the marshmallows it is time to fire up ole sparky.

Yeah. Like I said before, the ONLY case where I would say the non-killer got a bad rap was in Colorado where the woman was already cuffed and in the car. No way she had a clue or any control whatsoever of what was about to happen.

The rest? Put 'em down.

they should execute all white people for what they did to blacks and indians and evryone else.

Yeah, you white devils!

Sam Guthrie wrote:

<quoted text>
Gonna have to totally disagree with you. If the people involved all commited a crime, they share the responsibility for what happens as a result of that crime. The only exception, in my opinion, is the case I mentioned where the chick was already handcuffed in the car and could do nothing to stop it.

I agree with Eric, because it sseems logical to sentence the triggerman with death, and the other parties involved should get lesser (not necessarily lenient, mind you) punishment depending upon their involvement in the crime.