Woman sues US prison over son's 86-minute execution

[Mags 112]

if the "mother" of the person is claiming to get money then shouldnt the familiies of his victims sue her for the exact same reason?

There was only one murder. He killed his victim with a single gunshot wound whilst robbing a garage for $60. She WAS his mother, there are no "" needed. I actually think she suing the prison because they didn't carry out the execution properly and caused extended pain and suffering to her son. She doesn't want compensation for any other reason. In fact, if she was money grabbing she would have asked for much more. I have a sneaky suspicion she is just doing this to get publicity for the terrible way her son died.

Ironically, because his victim at the gas station more than likely died instantly, her son suffered for far longer than his victim, who probably had no idea what hit him. Kind of puts it into perspective for me.

But this case has a few mitigating circumstances. I do believe the extremely low iq should have been a bigger factor here & this man shouldn't have been executed.

I can understand the impracticalities of not being able to find a vein....I don't think it was intentionally cruel and unusual in that respect, but at the same time, I can't imagine the mother's heartbreak. Yes, the man was a murderer....but his mother wasn't. And to sit and watch this go on for over 80 minutes seems heartbreaking to me.

I agree. I also agree with an earlier point made here (can't remember whom by - sorry) that the prison should have been well aware of his scarred arms. They should have made other arrangements, perhaps using his legs, or feet maybe for the needle entrance point.

[Rings 10]

There was only one murder. He killed his victim with a single gunshot wound whilst robbing a garage for $60. She WAS his mother, there are no "" needed. I actually think she suing the prison because they didn't carry out the execution properly and caused extended pain and suffering to her son. She doesn't want compensation for any other reason. In fact, if she was money grabbing she would have asked for much more. I have a sneaky suspicion she is just doing this to get publicity for the terrible way her son died.

Ironically, because his victim at the gas station more than likely died instantly, her son suffered for far longer than his victim, who probably had no idea what hit him. Kind of puts it into perspective for me.

I agree she could have asked for a lot more and if she had asked for more she would likely get it. Murder and death aside, they broke a written law and therefore she has the right to sue them for it. We have humane laws regarding death by lethal injection and those laws matter like any other broken law would matter.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

The fact remains that by agreeing with murder, you are condoning murder and therefore no better than a murderer...

maybe, maybe not. life is a choice. choose one.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Hind sight 20/20! Doesnt matter, he is DEAD! Just like his victim. Cut and dry. Even Steven. Its over. Now they want money? go figure. Would you expect anything less?

Edited July 5, 2007 by CarolsMarc

[Rings 10]

The fact remains that by agreeing with murder, you are condoning murder and therefore no better than a murderer...

maybe, maybe not. life is a choice. choose one.

What is your point here? Life is a choice so choose to own a gun so you can kill someone or else you are going to be killed because you are a victim? So you agree with murder and therefore are still not better than a murderer. You are thinking like a murderer no? If you think someone should die, then you are thinking in the same fashion as a murderer. You think that what you have posted is a good response to what I said? Ellaborate as to why because you are doing exactly what my posts mentions. You are merely showing my words to be true in every sense of the way that I posted them.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Your just tryin to take the high road! The road your on leads to nowhere.

Edited July 5, 2007 by CarolsMarc

[Anais Nin 0]

Since he was put to death, he obviously killed an individual or individuals.

Flawed reasoning. You failed LOGIC in school, didn't you?

Are you aware of how many innocents have been executed on death row? Barbarism.

The advent of DNA testing has freed many inmates from death row.

Check out the documentary, "Murder on a Sunday morning"

I don't agree with the death penalty at all. For any reason. I think that executing criminals is murder, and I think murder is wrong. Period. There are too many flaws in our criminal "justice" system as it is, but the idea of the govt. murdering innocent people is apalling.

Currently, over 115 people in 25 states have been released from death row because of innocence since 1973. http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.ph...=412&scid=6

There are 12 US states that don't have the death penalty, and the murder rate in those states hasn't risen unproportionally. I do believe in Ghandi's quote that "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind...."

Force begets force.

Thank you.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

The fact remains that by agreeing with murder, you are condoning murder and therefore no better than a murderer...

maybe, maybe not. life is a choice. choose one.

What is your point here? Life is a choice so choose to own a gun so you can kill someone or else you are going to be killed because you are a victim? So you agree with murder and therefore are still not better than a murderer. You are thinking like a murderer no? If you think someone should die, then you are thinking in the same fashion as a murderer. You think that what you have posted is a good response to what I said? Ellaborate as to why because you are doing exactly what my posts mentions. You are merely showing my words to be true in every sense of the way that I posted them.

figures you took that the wrong way and made a liberal mountain out of it. this story is nothing more than a law abiding citizen killed by some druggie. if the law abiding citizen was armed, exercising his right to keep and bear arms, there are better odds that he'd be alive now rather than in a grave. and that, dearie, is what the pic is about

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The fact remains that by agreeing with murder, you are condoning murder and therefore no better than a murderer...

maybe, maybe not. life is a choice. choose one.

What is your point here? Life is a choice so choose to own a gun so you can kill someone or else you are going to be killed because you are a victim? So you agree with murder and therefore are still not better than a murderer. You are thinking like a murderer no? If you think someone should die, then you are thinking in the same fashion as a murderer. You think that what you have posted is a good response to what I said? Ellaborate as to why because you are doing exactly what my posts mentions. You are merely showing my words to be true in every sense of the way that I posted them.

figures you took that the wrong way and made a liberal mountain out of it. this story is nothing more than a law abiding citizen killed by some druggie. if the law abiding citizen was armed, exercising his right to keep and bear arms, there are better odds that he'd be alive now rather than in a grave. and that, dearie, is what the pic is about

What if the law-abiding citizen (i.e. the store clerk) didn't want to own/carry a gun?

Not sure how we can make assumptions about the guy when when he's mentioned rather impersonally in these articles. Doesn't seem worth it to politicise it in that way IMO, which is all that bringing the gun argument into the mix really does...

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

What if the law-abiding citizen (i.e. the store clerk) didn't want to own/carry a gun?

Not sure how we can make assumptions about the guy when when he's mentioned rather impersonally in these articles. Doesn't seem worth it to politicise it in that way IMO, which is all that bringing the gun argument into the mix really does...

pssst, erekose: the criminals are armed. if you want to be a few cards short at that poker game, feel free.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its irrelevant to this thread - unless you think that the victim 'deserved' what he got. As I said it doesn't seem worth it (to me) to politicise it - because you know next to nothing about the victim. Regardless of any 'intent' here its hard to read those kind of statements without a certain amount of 'blame' being implied.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Its irrelevant to this thread - unless you think that the victim 'deserved' what he got. As I said it doesn't seem worth it (to me) to politicise it - because you know next to nothing about the victim. Regardless of any 'intent' here its hard to read those kind of statements without a certain amount of 'blame' being implied.

didn't say that the victim deserved such. and i doubt you know much about the victim either

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Never said I did. Just making the point that you're using this case to make a political point to justify your stance on gun control - an argument that (in this case) relies heavily on a lack of details related to the original crime.

Perhaps the guy had a gun but couldn't get to it in time.

Perhaps the guy didn't have a gun or didn't want one.

Key word here is 'perhaps'.

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

Never said I did. Just making the point that you're using this case to make a political point to justify your stance on gun control - an argument that (in this case) relies heavily on a lack of details related to the original crime.

Perhaps the guy had a gun but couldn't get to it in time.

Perhaps the guy didn't have a gun or didn't want one.

Key word here is 'perhaps'.

and perhaps you left out the possibility that maybe he just couldn't have one?

April 25, 2007 07:44 AM CDT

TOLEDO -- Beginning Wednesday, Toledo's gun laws will be ineffective. They'll be replaced by a new state law.

A new round of state gun laws means fewer restrictions for carrying a concealed weapon in Toledo. Gun owner and NRA instructor Tom Urbanski prepares other gun owners for their concealed carry weapon license.

He says current Toledo laws are too restrictrive to follow.

link

link

Monday, February 25, 2002

Plan would trump local gun laws

By Brian Clark

Enquirer Columbus Bureau

COLUMBUS — Some legislators say a patchwork quilt of local laws that ban different types of guns from one community to another are confusing and should be eliminated.

link

in summary, when you take away the ability of law abiding citizens to protect and defend themselves, this tragedy is what can result

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

As I said if you want to politicise a crime that took place in 1984 with the current state of gun control legislation go right ahead. But that's not the issue in this thread, and you know it

This is about the mother of the perpetrator whose son had been on death row for 22 years - suing for cruel treatment in the administration of the execution.