• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

James Alex Fields found guilty of killing Heather Heyer during violent Charlottesville white nationa

I have not followed this case, for I was not interested in the matter.

I agree with the President that there were good people on both sides.


Personally, I wish that the people who wanted to keep the statues had been allowed to march and that those who wanted to remove the statues had stayed away.


As for whether Mr. Fields is guilty or not guilty, I do not know. I do believe, however, that no jury in a liberal city such as Los Angeles would have acquitted him in any case.
 
Last edited:
So many folks are salty that the judge didn't buy the good people on both sides defense....

:lol:
 
So many folks are salty that the judge didn't buy the good people on both sides defense....

:lol:

Nitpicks: (1) the jury didn't buy it (sentencing on Monday) and (2) they additionally did not buy the idea that he drove there to attack people but then got scared of the people, so that he had to run them over out of fear. Hell of a defense.....

Sentencing via judge is on Monday apparently.


Aside:

The article says he faces 20 to life on the murder charge. That struck me as strange, since in a case as hopeless as his I'd rather expect someone to try to get even a year of leniency with a plea. (Out in MA, murder 1 is life without parole and murder 2 is life with a possibility of parole). Well, maybe he insisted on rolling the dice as is right whether or not he deserves it (not that that sentiment is honored with any real consistency). Stupid case to roll the dice in if you could get as low as 20 for murder, especially this case.





Tangents:

Hill told jurors that Fields "feared for his safety," and at one point was remorseful that people had gotten injured
.

He was remorseful at "one point" was he? Well, now I feel better.




And how about the main victim's last name? "Susan Bro". I have to wonder where it originated.
 
First degree. You will be very "popular" in prison big boy.

James Alex Fields found guilty of killing Heather Heyer during violent Charlottesville white nationalist rally
Fields faces 20 years to life for the first-degree murder charge, and will be sentenced at a later date.

James Alex Fields Jr. was found guilty on Friday of killing Heather Heyer when he plowed his car into a group of counterprotesters last year at a "Unite the Right" rally that quickly turned violent in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Fields, 21, was convicted on all counts, including first-degree murder in connection to Heyer's death and five counts of aggravated malicious wounding, three counts of malicious wounding and one hit and run count for injuring dozens of others with his vehicle. In addition, Fields — who a former teacher said was fascinated by Nazism and Hitler — was charged with 30 federal hate crimes. He's been on trial since November for the murder charge and still faces trial on the additional charges.​
Not sure, isn't there some kind of white supremacist gang with branch offices in prisons?

Forget the name.

They might protect him.


As ****ed up as a prison system with that kind of thing part of it is.
 
Are they? Link to the posts then.
Probably the folks telling others they're not sure he's guilty.

Lol, that's crazytown. We aren't giving it free advertisement in our posts.



Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
But, but.... there's good people on both sides!

/s
As explained countless times, not everyone protesting the statue removal were Nazi sympathizors of any kind. Some just felt that their heritage was being erased. Agree with it or not, that doesn't make them Nazi sympathizors.
 
I don't know when the last time was that they used it, but I hate seeing a young guy like this live on the taxpayer's money for another 40 years or more like Charles Manson did.
To bad he wasn't tried in Texas. In Texas if you kill someone we will kill you back.
 
You make the question so "simple" that it cannot be answered.

Strangely enough not everyone in the whole world thinks in terms of "There are ONLY '100%' and '0%' to chose from.".

You might want to think about re-formulating your question along the lines of

Which comes closer to your belief about the death penalty:

  1. It should always be applied in every case wherein one person kills another.
  2. It should always be applied in every case wherein one person kills another PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  3. It should always be applied in every case wherein one person kills another with intent to do so.\
  4. It should always be applied in every case wherein one person kills another with intent to do so PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence.
  5. It should always be applied in every case wherein one person kills another regardless of intent if the death was reasonably foreseeable.
  6. It should always be applied in every case wherein one person kills another regardless of intent if the death was reasonably foreseeable PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence.
  7. It should almost always be applied in every case wherein one person kills another.
  8. add PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  9. It should almost always be applied in every case wherein one person kills another with intent to do so.
  10. add PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  11. It should almost always be applied in every case wherein one person kills another regardless of intent if the death was reasonably foreseeable.
  12. add PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  13. It should sometimes be applied in every case wherein one person kills another.
  14. add PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  15. It should sometimes be applied in every case wherein one person kills another with intent to do so.
  16. add PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  17. It should sometimes be applied in every case wherein one person kills another regardless of intent if the death was reasonably foreseeable.
  18. add PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  19. It should occasionally be applied in every case wherein one person kills another.
  20. add PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  21. It should occasionally be applied in every case wherein one person kills another with intent to do so.
  22. add PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  23. It should occasionally be applied in every case wherein one person kills another regardless of intent if the death was reasonably foreseeable.
  24. add PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  25. It should never be applied




The death penalty should never be applied.

I base this on my understanding that long-held bedrocks of crime investigation have been proven false, and multiple persons sentenced to death were freed as a result.

I frankly do not trust the current system to provide 100% proof of a crime I might consider worthy of the death penalty.

There's also some degree of concern that allowing the government to have that power might lead to it's misuse at some point.
 
As explained countless times, not everyone protesting the statue removal were Nazi sympathizors of any kind. Some just felt that their heritage was being erased. Agree with it or not, that doesn't make them Nazi sympathizors.
Good people don't march with nazis.

Do they?

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Good people don't march with nazis.

Do they?

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

Who said that they were marching with them? Charlotteville was basically swamped with protests throughout that part of the city. Some of the protestors held there own protest. Some of them disagreed with the neo nazis but thought they can agree with this one issue. To put it another way, if the neo nazis were having a "we love cake" rally, and some people (who aren't nazis) who also like cake decided that on this issue to rally with them, doesn't make them a nazi sympathizer.
 
Who said that they were marching with them? Charlotteville was basically swamped with protests throughout that part of the city. Some of the protestors held there own protest. Some of them disagreed with the neo nazis but thought they can agree with this one issue. To put it another way, if the neo nazis were having a "we love cake" rally, and some people (who aren't nazis) who also like cake decided that on this issue to rally with them, doesn't make them a nazi sympathizer.
There was the Unite the Rich rally, that was it. There was a counter protest. That was it. Fields went from one to the other. He is now marching to prison.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
You make the question so "simple" that it cannot be answered.

Strangely enough not everyone in the whole world thinks in terms of "There are ONLY '100%' and '0%' to chose from.".

You might want to think about re-formulating your question along the lines of

Which comes closer to your belief about the death penalty:

  1. It should always be applied in every case wherein one person kills another.
  2. It should always be applied in every case wherein one person kills another PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  3. It should always be applied in every case wherein one person kills another with intent to do so.\
  4. It should always be applied in every case wherein one person kills another with intent to do so PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence.
  5. It should always be applied in every case wherein one person kills another regardless of intent if the death was reasonably foreseeable.
  6. It should always be applied in every case wherein one person kills another regardless of intent if the death was reasonably foreseeable PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence.
  7. It should almost always be applied in every case wherein one person kills another.
  8. add PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  9. It should almost always be applied in every case wherein one person kills another with intent to do so.
  10. add PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  11. It should almost always be applied in every case wherein one person kills another regardless of intent if the death was reasonably foreseeable.
  12. add PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  13. It should sometimes be applied in every case wherein one person kills another.
  14. add PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  15. It should sometimes be applied in every case wherein one person kills another with intent to do so.
  16. add PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  17. It should sometimes be applied in every case wherein one person kills another regardless of intent if the death was reasonably foreseeable.
  18. add PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  19. It should occasionally be applied in every case wherein one person kills another.
  20. add PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  21. It should occasionally be applied in every case wherein one person kills another with intent to do so.
  22. add PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  23. It should occasionally be applied in every case wherein one person kills another regardless of intent if the death was reasonably foreseeable.
  24. add PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence
  25. It should never be applied





if they are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, then there is no doubt. lol (laugh out loud)
 
There was the Unite the Rich rally, that was it.

No, it wasn't just them. There were also the Oathkeepers and sparce smaller rallies going on at the time.

There was a counter protest. That was it. Fields went from one to the other. He is now marching to prison.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.

Like I said, I'm prison he's heading to prison.
 
The death penalty should never be applied.

I base this on my understanding that long-held bedrocks of crime investigation have been proven false, and multiple persons sentenced to death were freed as a result.

I frankly do not trust the current system to provide 100% proof of a crime I might consider worthy of the death penalty.

While I respect your opinion, I can't go any further than "It should occasionally be applied in every case wherein one person kills another regardless of intent if the death was reasonably foreseeable - PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence.".

I have in mind a particular case where a man admitted kidnapping (as I recall it the number was) 13 children and torturing them to death after committing homosexual rape on them, and bolstered his confession by taking the police to the places where he had hidden the children's bodies. In that case there was ZERO doubt of the man's guilt and the likelihood of "rehabilitation" was so close to zero that it wasn't even worth considering. In fact, the man has consistently been denied any form of release because he has not exhibited any signs of acknowledging that there was anything wrong with his actions (well, other than that they got him sent to jail so he can't rape, torture, and kill any more children). In this particular case, and under these particular facts, I wouldn't have any qualms about allowing that person to "go to the head of the line" to "receive God's Direct Judgment" - would you?

There's also some degree of concern that allowing the government to have that power might lead to it's misuse at some point.

True. Of course there's also some degree of concern that allowing the government to have ANY power MIGHT lead to it's misuse at some point - isn't there?

Isn't it the duty of the conscientious citizen to ensure that they don't select a government that will misuse its power?

If the citizenry selects a government that misuses its power, whose fault is that - the fault of the selected ones or the fault of the ones doing the selecting?
 
Last edited:
if they are convicted beyond a reasonable doubt, then there is no doubt.

And exactly where did you see me saying that that was the case?

Mind you, when someone is convicted because the trier of fact had ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT, they would also have been convicted because the trier of fact found that "beyond a reasonable doubt" they were guilty.

You have to remember that "If A or B then C" does not imply "If C then A".
 
And exactly where did you see me saying that that was the case?

Mind you, when someone is convicted because the trier of fact had ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT, they would also have been convicted because the trier of fact found that "beyond a reasonable doubt" they were guilty.

You have to remember that "If A or B then C" does not imply "If C then A".

if they are convicted for murder, its beyond a reasonable doubt. not beyond "absolutely no doubt". thats not a law. you just made that up
 
While I respect your opinion, I can't go any further than "It should occasionally be applied in every case wherein one person kills another regardless of intent if the death was reasonably foreseeable - PROVIDED that there is ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT - regardless of how small - about innocence.".

I have in mind a particular case where a man admitted kidnapping (as I recall it the number was) 13 children and torturing them to death after committing homosexual rape on them, and bolstered his confession by taking the police to the places where he had hidden the children's bodies. In that case there was ZERO doubt of the man's guilt and the likelihood of "rehabilitation" was so close to zero that it wasn't even worth considering. In fact, the man has consistently been denied any form of release because he has not exhibited any signs of acknowledging that there was anything wrong with his actions (well, other than that they got him sent to jail so he can't rape, torture, and kill any more children). In this particular case, and under these particular facts, I wouldn't have any qualms about allowing that person to "go to the head of the line" to "receive God's Direct Judgment" - would you?



True. Of course there's also some degree of concern that allowing the government to have ANY power MIGHT lead to it's misuse at some point - isn't there?

Isn't it the duty of the conscientious citizen to ensure that they don't select a government that will misuse its power?

If the citizenry selects a government that misuses its power, whose fault is that - the fault of the selected ones or the fault of the ones doing the selecting?
There's no such thing as homosexual rape, it's just rape.

It isn't any worse or better if it's the same sex.


But I agree that I also at times want a serial rapist the death penalty, which oddly I'm less inclined towards when it's a serial murderer.
 
if they are convicted for murder, its beyond a reasonable doubt. not beyond "absolutely no doubt". thats not a law. you just made that up

I never said that it was a "law", but I do recognize the difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond ANY doubt". Not only that but I recognize that if the evidence suffices to prove BEYOND ANY DOUBT to the trier of fact that the accused did the deed, then that same evidence ALSO suffices to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT to the trier of fact that the accused did the deed.

Let me explain it in terms that you can understand.

  1. A glass will hold 10oz of beer if filled to the brim.
  2. At law a glass is defined as "Full" if it contains 8 oz of beer.
  3. You tell the waiter that you want a full glass of beer.
  4. The waiter brings you a glass that contains 9 oz of beer.
  5. You say that the glass is not full because it contains more than 8 oz of beer and sue.
  6. The court laughs your sorry butt out of the room.

I suggest that you look up "more than enough" to see if "more than enough" is an insufficiency to satisfy a requirement.
 
I never said that it was a "law", but I do recognize the difference between "beyond a reasonable doubt" and "beyond ANY doubt". Not only that but I recognize that if the evidence suffices to prove BEYOND ANY DOUBT to the trier of fact that the accused did the deed, then that same evidence ALSO suffices to prove BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT to the trier of fact that the accused did the deed.

Let me explain it in terms that you can understand.

  1. A glass will hold 10oz of beer if filled to the brim.
  2. At law a glass is defined as "Full" if it contains 8 oz of beer.
  3. You tell the waiter that you want a full glass of beer.
  4. The waiter brings you a glass that contains 9 oz of beer.
  5. You say that the glass is not full because it contains more than 8 oz of beer and sue.
  6. The court laughs your sorry butt out of the room.

I suggest that you look up "more than enough" to see if "more than enough" is an insufficiency to satisfy a requirement.

the law doesnt recognize "beyond all doubt" because there is no such thing.

youre now making your own conspiracy theory.
 
There's no such thing as homosexual rape, it's just rape.

I agree. However on the facts of the particular case I was referring to, both the perpetrator and all of the victims were male.

It isn't any worse or better if it's the same sex.

I agree. I didn't say it was either one or the other either. I was just describing facts.

But I agree that I also at times want a serial rapist the death penalty, which oddly I'm less inclined towards when it's a serial murderer.

If you consider that the average "rape" (to use a loose term) is more an act of degradation, oppression and victimization that (the average) murder is I can see your point.

Not being an expert in the field, I have no idea if EITHER a serial (for clarity read that as "more than one occurrence in reasonably close time sequence" [incidents spaced out decades apart may well not qualify as "serial"]) rapist or a serial murderer can ever be successfully rehabilitated.

On my bad days, I simply don't care if they can be rehabilitated any more than I care if a rabid wolf can be cured of rabies. On my good days, I might be willing to think that the expenditure of time, effort, and money is worth it.
 
I agree. However on the facts of the particular case I was referring to, both the perpetrator and all of the victims were male.



I agree. I didn't say it was either one or the other either. I was just describing facts.



If you consider that the average "rape" (to use a loose term) is more an act of degradation, oppression and victimization that (the average) murder is I can see your point.

Not being an expert in the field, I have no idea if EITHER a serial (for clarity read that as "more than one occurrence in reasonably close time sequence" [incidents spaced out decades apart may well not qualify as "serial"]) rapist or a serial murderer can ever be successfully rehabilitated.

On my bad days, I simply don't care if they can be rehabilitated any more than I care if a rabid wolf can be cured of rabies. On my good days, I might be willing to think that the expenditure of time, effort, and money is worth it.
Our prison systems have long since left behind any real attempt at rehabilitation.
You have to look at prisons in places like Norway for that kind of thing.

Our prisons are for containment and captive labor.

And private prisons exacerbate the issue.
 
Back
Top Bottom