If Clemmons thought he was Jesus, he WAS psychotic, by the way.
In May; psychologists in October only found stress.
Investigators said he was “motivated by visions that he was Jesus Christ,” and that he thought the apocalypse was near.
If he believed that (and state investigators stated as fact that he did), then he was psychotic by definition. Psychosis is not a specific diagnosis, it’s a symptom.
The psychologists you’re referring to said he was competent to stand trial, but it’s all but impossible to get court psychologists to say anything else, no matter how crazy somebody is.
Why do so many people have a problem with the very American notion that everyone is entitled to due process, no matter how heinous the crime?
Cite?
Six months ago!
“Clemmons answered the evaluators’ questions calmly and rationally, with ‘no evidence of disturbance.’”
You are aware that the decision of competency is up to each judge, yes? And that incompetency has been on the rise?
Cite?
Like I stated, that is my opinion. If a person has received due process and is found guilty of really heinous crimes, I see nothing wrong personally with true retribution.
Yes, I know the Constitution forbids it, and I’m not advocating it. But everyone is entitled to their own opinions, and that is mine.
Even with the knowledge that lots of people found guilty and sentenced to death thgrough due process have been later proven innocent?
Like I stated, I only recommend the death penatly for serial killers, mass murderers and spree killers, not for everyone found guilty of killing. It should basically be used against those who commit murcers so hineous they should not be allowed to live. People who are judged to be not human or humane in their crimes.
And only if it is 100% certain they committed the crime(s) in question.
That’s what I’m saying. What method can be used to determine 100% certainty? I don’t have a philosphical moral objection to killing serial killers, child killers, violent sex criminals, and the like. My objection is that we don’t have a system that can ensure there won’t be error. That’s not just hypothetical either, dozens of death row inmates have been later proven innocent by DNA. Prsumably, there was no uncertainty in any of those convictions either.
Of course you don’t. You think that it is morally acceptable for vigilantes to do it.
What the fuck? What insurance is there that the vigilante will get it right? Holy shit, man. Are you serious?
Morally, not legally.
I am completely opposed to vigilante executions. What are you talking about. I thought I already made that clear.
:rolleyes:
Cite for what? That America’s consitution guarantees everyone a right to due process or that a lot of people have no apparent problem with the fact that Clemmons was denied his?
For the first, go find yourself a copy of the U.S. Constitution. Amendment V.
For the second, go reread this thread.
It’s too bad for those cops that DtC wasn’t there to beat the killer with his own gun and then shove it up his ass. DtC is tough that way, you know.
Cite?
My god you’re an annoying little shit. This is the BBQ Pit, in case your enfeebled brain has failed to percolate a thought or two. Your little shit-headed calls for cite are inappropriate, really, but certainly ignorable. However:
He was gunned down by a cop early in the morning yesterday. Absolutely sure of his guilt, people cheered. No due process. Just death.
Do you just utterly fail to read the news? Or watch it? Or pay attention to stuff your coworkers are discussing? Or pull your ugly, pustule-covered head out of the fetid hole in the sand into which it has been stuffed?
The way I hear it, Clemmons was trying to “bag cop number five”. I can’t fault the cop for trying to protect himself, if this was the case.
And judging from what little I know of the events, it’s a reasonable conclusion. He’d killed 4 cops. Why not a fifth?
Clemmons was shot in the back.
Supposedly, while reaching into his jacket or waistband for a gun. Supposedly. I wasn’t there.