Planetarion Forums - Stanley "Tookie" Williams (hey dda!)

JonnyBGood · 15 Dec 2005, 19:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by QazokRouge5

Tell me how a 51 year old man murdered in the 80's was a vietnam vet? Maybe WW2 dumbass.

He fought in the vietnam war aged 35-40?

Seeing as he would have been 16 when WWII ended I really doubt it was that one. Maybe the korean war dumbass?

Blastoderm · 15 Dec 2005, 19:41

I'd be dead scared if I ever saw Tookie approaching me with a menacing look.

Stew · 15 Dec 2005, 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blastoderm

I'd be dead scared if I ever saw Tookie approaching me with a menacing look.

It's a shame he's been executed, or Tomkat could have asked him how he got arms like those.

QazokRouge5 · 16 Dec 2005, 00:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBGood

He fought in the vietnam war aged 35-40?

Seeing as he would have been 16 when WWII ended I really doubt it was that one. Maybe the korean war dumbass?

Goto Google, and ask for a calculator, and the ages that you can serve in the American army.

JonnyBGood · 16 Dec 2005, 00:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by QazokRouge5

Goto Google, and ask for a calculator, and the ages that you can serve in the American army.

Those are enlistment ages though? I'm pretty sure most of those generals are 35 and upwards dude. Stop trying to back out of the fact you called someone an idiot while you were doing the internet equivalent of punching yourself in the groin.

1-X · 16 Dec 2005, 00:56

Owens was actually 26 when he was murdered in February 1979.

JonnyBGood · 16 Dec 2005, 00:57

And the hilarity continues.

_Kila_ · 16 Dec 2005, 01:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1-X

Owens was actually 26 when he was murdered in February 1979.

26, 51, whats the difference?

Ste · 16 Dec 2005, 01:10

is qazokrouge shown to be completely wrong AGAIN in this thread?
yes. yes he is.

JonnyBGood · 16 Dec 2005, 01:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Kila_

26, 51, whats the difference?

Well, he sure was mighty young when he fought in that second world war in that case!

Radical Edward · 16 Dec 2005, 10:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Blastoderm

I'd be dead scared if I ever saw Tookie approaching me with a menacing look.

that is one mean Afro. He should have kept it.

Radical Edward · 16 Dec 2005, 10:37

while on the topic of lethal injections though, is there any particular reason why the states that use it, continue to use a mix of three injections, one a short lived anaesthetic normally only used in pre anaesthesia, (so if the patient has to be awoken rapidly before the operation, it can be done), one a paralysing agent (stops breathing) and Potassium Chloride? It seems somewhat senseless, especially since something like 43 out of 49 cases investigated in the Lancet showed that the amount of anaesthetic in the blood was lower than required for surgery - in other words the subjects were probably conscious as their breathing and heart shut down. You can't even do that to dogs and cats - the Veterinary rules state that a high dose of a long acting barbituate must be used.

Is there any real logic behind these three injections being used, rather than just one massive overdose of something that will definitely kill them humanely? and why is there no monitoring?

mist · 16 Dec 2005, 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by tacticus

More useful to whom? Who gets to decide which inmates on death row are useful and which are not? And by what standard?

one assumes arnie does?
i'm not quite sure what the point of a clemency plea is really... i'm hoping the legal case was pretty sewn up after 25 years.

qazok: i'm genuinly curious... why do you assume that people don't think veterans are worthy of respect? while the us governement's had its soldiers do some fairly stupid things i'd expect most of the soldiers thought they were doing the right thing - at least initially. on the flipside, why don't you respect everyone else? is a vet more worthy of respect than, say, a teacher?

mist · 16 Dec 2005, 11:16

what's the potassium chloride for in the injections? isn't that what they put in 'low salt salt'?

that asside, i'm assuming that vets are more worried about being sued for malpractice than deathchambers are.

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2005, 13:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by QazokRouge5

Goto Google, and ask for a calculator, and the ages that you can serve in the American army.

You are like a delightful fairy of comedy.

furball · 16 Dec 2005, 14:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by mist

what's the potassium chloride for in the injections? isn't that what they put in 'low salt salt'?

that asside, i'm assuming that vets are more worried about being sued for malpractice than deathchambers are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

[Potassium Chloride] can be used as a salt substitute for food, but due to its weak, bitter, unsalty flavor, it is usually mixed with regular salt, sodium chloride, for this purpose to improve the taste.

Orally it is toxic in excess; the LD50 is around 2500 mg/kg (meaning that a 150-lb person would have to consume about six ounces; regular salt is about as toxic). Intravenously this is reduced to just over 100 mg/kg but of more concern are its severe effects on cardiac muscles; high doses can cause cardiac arrest and rapid death. Indeed, a massive overdose of intravenous potassium chloride is used to stop the heart in execution by lethal injection.

As for lethal injection not killing people properly (insufficient anasthetic, etc), it's kept pretty hush hush. And the prisoners don't get up off the table after the first attempt to sue their asses. There's also few indications that the anasthetic isn't working to an outsider due to the paralytic agent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lethal_...on#Controversy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Legal challenges, however, have to date been unsuccessful, and United States federal courts have employed a range of procedural obstacles to avoid reaching the merits of the complaints, likely to avoid the temporary moratorium that would occur while states moved to alter their respective execution protocol.

Oh, but to live in the land of the free!

Radical Edward · 16 Dec 2005, 15:20

I am suprised that nobody has brought up the lancet report in a death penalty case along with the constitution which if I remember, says something about no cruel and unusual punishments. If there is a significant chance (and there appears to be) of the death being extraordainarily painful - and according to the evidence, there is - then that seems pretty cruel to me.

MrL_JaKiri · 16 Dec 2005, 15:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

I am suprised that nobody has brought up the lancet report in a death penalty case along with the constitution which if I remember, says something about no cruel and unusual punishments. If there is a significant chance (and there appears to be) of the death being extraordainarily painful - and according to the evidence, there is - then that seems pretty cruel to me.

And if it's only 1000 people in 20 years, then it's pretty unusual!

TO THE PEDANTRYMOBILE!