Actually, it really makes no difference. If the death sentence is brought down,
he will still spend probably over 20 years of appeals and have a nice cozy cell
all to his self with cable TV. I would rather see life without
possibility of parole with hard labor and no TV. I'm sure we could find
some rocks for him to break up or pot holes to fill. I would suggest a ball and
chain and striped clothing though.
This case is an interesting intersection of gun ownership rights, poor treatment
of veterans for things like PTSD and post-war employment, and the militarization
of the police force.1) Gun debates lately focus a lot on defending
your home from invaders. Here you have an armed and trained war veteran
who's door was busted open in the middle of the night with a no-knock
warrant.2) Here you have a veteran who had a crappy job (Walmart)
and was self medicating with marijuana because he had PTSD.3) The
police work by Ogden PD is notoriously poor. Just recently they busted in the
wrong house, scaring the crap out of some poor innocent lady. Why couldn't
they search his house when they knew he was at work, and simultaneously arrest
him there when they knew he'd be unlikely to be armed? The tactics used
were more likely to result in violence.As for his Constitutional
argument, it's interesting. I doubt a judge will want to rule in their
To Mukkake:It's fine for the government to engage in warfare to
protect our land, families, and freedoms from tyrants. You're mixing apples
and oranges here.
Kellie:[To Mukkake: Yes, it's fine for the government to kill people
who intentionally murder others. Got it?]Got it. Lemme just fetch
all the veterans. Many of whom were party to the "intentional murder of
others", including civilians, children, government agents, and
democratically elected politicians.Oh, but that's right, its
all arbitrary and relative. No, please, continue on with you self-righteousness.
There are several safety measures that Utah Law has now and has recently added
re: appeals etc. for the death penalty, but the death penalty has been used from
the time of Noah, predating the Law of Moses, and it appropriate in some cases.
He is accused of killing one police officer and wounding five
others. If proven guilty of aggravated murder he should be executed. If that is
all the defense has to offer.
To Mukkake: Yes, it's fine for the government to kill people who
intentionally murder others. Got it?
It's also wrong for this loser to kill a government representative, ie.
Officer Francom, or is it not? Would it have been different if it had just been
a citizen? Or how about a family member? You must be a member of the ACLU.
These killers aren't in the wrong, right? We're infringing on their
Civil Liberties -- those same ones they chose to take away from someone else.
If the death penalty fits, sure, let's go for it, and in this case
it's totally justified in my opinion. I'll bet you would be saying
something completely different if this had been your son who was killed. The
mistake the police made that day was they let him live to pull all this crap.
Re: "Matthew David Stewart's attorneys want judge to declare death
penalty unconstitutional"No doubt. And, their argument is a
novel one, at least. Amounting to a demand for equal treatment of all accused
murderers, regardless of the nature and quality of their crime, their victim, or
their past record.Which, itself, would be a violation of case
law.But better minds will examine and reject it. And, if prosecutors
don't chicken out, as they did recently in another high-profile case, this
cynical miscreant should end up where he so richly deserves to be -- on death
Sorry, guys, that is just another delaying tactic. The Supremes have repeatedly
upheld the death penalty, and cop killers certainly are within the acceptable
winners of the ultimate penalty for their crimes.Let's quit the
stalling and get on with justice.
Now lets here all the comments that support the death penalty, most likely from
the same people that complain about violence in media and big government.Remember, its wrong for the government to get involved in our lives and
wrong for Tarantino to make violent movies, but its fine for the government to