Glad to know it pays to be a criminal. What does this teach our kids. What a joke, to think that taxpayer money has supported this puke for almost twenty years, and he will use this to get a stay of execution while we support him for the rest of his life at our expense.

Our homeless and poor aren't even treated that well.

I will pick a fight with you on this topic.

So, is he "a person who has committed a crime" or "is he a criminal" (with no other humanistic characteristics separate from being a criminal)?

For example, You were caught with juice. You were arrested, convicted, and served your time in jail (probation...etc). Are you are a man with many skills, interests, hopes, aspirations, goals and other attributes (that just happens to use gear). Or are you simply a drug addict or just an ex-con?

I doubt you are the latter. This is small minded thought, pushed upon normal citizens, by the Social Control Agencies.

*************
As for a death row inmate doing good for his fellow humans and being recognized for being rehabilitated (which is what punishment is supposed to do), then I am very happy. But, he is on death row and he will die. That is his punishment.

What will this teach our kids? It will teach them that no matter how badly you have screwed up and no matter how bleak your future (death), you can still turn your life around and do good.

If you murder someone, you should be executed as equally as brutal as the murder you did. Period.

You rape someone you should be raped a thousand fold.

I can tell you this, if anyone and I mean anyone kills or molests or rapes any of my kids or my girlfriend, they won't make it to court period.

I do not have sympathy for murders, rapists, child molestors and so on.

All kids see is that committing crimes pay, I get free room and board and cable tv.

If they knew that their actions would net them serious immediate results then they would think twice.

As for me, if I get caught with juice and serve my time then that is the price I pay for the game I play. But it is on a completely different level than murder or rape.

This is one area where I will not be politically correct or anything else, they should have fried him at sun up day after his conviction and sentencing. It takes on avg about 30,000 US to support a prisoner per year. Take that over 20 years that is 600,000$ tax free to the prisoner. Why can't they find other things to do with that money.

Can someone change their ways, sure, but there is a point when you have gone too far and are unreedemable no matter how nice you become or how religious, etc. Murder and Rape being too lines that come to mind.

Not a creature was stiring, just Squeaky the mouse..

As I said, he will be executed for his crime and that is a fact (although I do not believe in state sponsored murder).

It is very important not to pick and choose when a crime is wrong.According to man's law, you are just as much of a criminal as the next man. It is a label you carry with you for the rest of your life.

You say murder and rape are wrong because they are so extreme and it makes them morally wrong.

Morals have to do with the ends and not the means. This means that the circumstances of murder are not important and only the act of murder is "wrong".

This means that executing and murdering the killer (by the state) is just as wrong morally. Therefore you cannot support capitol punishment since it as morally wrong as what the criminal did.
****************

Crime pays?
Have you ever spent time in prison (while being labeled as a criminal)? I do not think so because you would not think that it is so much fun.

PERHAPS HE DESRVES THIS AWARD.WHY CONDEMN A MAN WHO REALIZES MISTAKES AND DEDICATES THE REST OF HIS LIFE TO CHANGE?

------------------
YOU CANNOT IGNORE GENIUS.

IT IS FORTUNATE FOR THOSE IN POWER,THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.-ADOLF HITLER

On a serious note, I think it great he turned his life around, but a nobel peace price? Lemme put it this way imagine homers (from the simpson, yeah I know Im an intellectual) brain trying to figure out this one:

Killed 4 People: Nobel Peace Prize

Killed 4 People: Nobel Peace Prize

Killed 4 People: Nobel Peace Prize

Killed 4 People: Nobel Peace Prize

Something just doesnt add up there.

What do we constitute as a crime (morally) Universally we and all the world consider rape and murder as morally wrong. Not so universally, the use of drugs, and other items, which some countries consider okay while others would cut your hand off.

What ever happened to an eye for an eye and tooth for tooth. If a man spills blood then his should be spilled.

I have seen the devastation that these individuals create. My supervisor was killed by one such individual. He lived like a king while my friend was buried 6 feet under and became fertilizer.

In fact this happened twice while I was on the Sheriff's dept. I have seen the effects of rape, brutal assaults and on. There are varying degrees of crime and varying degrees of punishment. If someone were to brutally murder someone and his/her sentence was to die exactly the same way and was to be carried out within a week of sentencing. You would find that to be a great deterrant. Jail is not for rehabilitation, it never was. It was and is a place of punishment. If you want to rehabilitate you need to have a change in the moral fabric of society and the way we do things.

You make an invalid comparison here, and you stray from the topic.

The comparison between Chesty getting busted for gear and this killer is inapplicable. Tookie's crimes are clearly a crime against humanity. Gear (or any drug) possession is not this.

It is true to a point that any criminal is a person with other traits. It is also true that in the commission of any intentional homicide, (murder) much of your humanity is forfeit.

The laws may or may not say this, but in taking life away from memebrs of the species, you have taken away from yourself. Such a person no longer merits consideration as much else than a criminal.

I too am opposed to state sponsored murder. State sponsored murder to me is things like genoicde and the execution of political prisoners.

The death penalty, on the other hand, is not state sponsored murder. It is the systematic removal of persons who, by their actions, have proven themselves unworthy of remaining in this realm.

My aunt(my fathers sister) was brutally raped and murdered in Missouri. Nobody, I mean nobody can tell how I felt after this happened. Imagine your children kidnapped, raped, and murdered and then tell everybody how the death penalty is wrong and that the perp deserves rehabilitation.

I appreciate the arguement against the death penalty, but those who have committed the crime of 1st degree murder deserve no mercy
in my eyes and NEVER will.

------------------
YOU CANNOT IGNORE GENIUS.

IT IS FORTUNATE FOR THOSE IN POWER,THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.-ADOLF HITLER

SOB

I don't know how the law works in America, but in Canada it is against the law for a convicted criminal to profit from their crimes. that means, if they want to write books, go ahead, but you won't make a dime. The money goes to the government to "defer" taxpayers burdens regarding the judicial system.

It is as wrong as a three dollar bill. If he has changed great, if his books help kids great, but he should not be given awards or reckognition for this. In fact it should have been part of his sentence.

As for Mandella, I never liked him or his wife and I wouldn't have been for his nomination either.

For those who still don't get it, what would you say if Hitler or Goering or Himmler to name a few had been nominated for or won the Nobel Peace Prize?

I know what WeaponX would say.

Murder and rape among some of the most heinous crimes cannot be compared to the crimes of drug use and such. It takes a pretty warped and badly wired brain to become a murderer or rapist.

Some would have us believe it is just a chemical imbalance that could be rectafied with a shot or something.

I agree he should have fried or choked a long time ago. The death penalty doesn't have the impact that it used to when you died at sun up day after conviction and sentencing.

It would be like your child doing something wrong and you wait a couple of days to punish the child. Then when you do it has little to no effect because he/she is not really sure why they are getting punished.

Re-read my post. Icovered much fo what you are saying. Despite your record, you probably have not committed any crimes against humanity.

2Thick, where's your response?

To others: anyone can be nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. This year, about 900 names were kicked around (including President Clinton) before a decision was made. the decision is fully independent of the US or any justice system.

You cannot think rationally when you are emotionally caught up in the situation. It seems that you have seen awful things but there is more to it than just your own personal experiences.

If someone were to brutally murder someone and his/her sentence was to die exactly the same way and was to be carried out within a week of sentencing. You would find that to be a great deterrant.

What if he/she was wrongfully accused? It does happen and it happens more often than you think (especially to people who do not have the money or power to defend themselves properly in court). That would be murder of an innocent.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MattTheSkywalker:
2Thick,

You make an invalid comparison here, and you stray from the topic.

The topic is about rewarding a criminal for good deeds they have done after making grave mistakes. They are not going to give him his freedom (since he will die). They are just highlighting that even humans who have committed vile crimes can do good for society. This gives hope to humanity and it is for the greater good.

The comparison between Chesty getting busted for gear and this killer is inapplicable. Tookie's crimes are clearly a crime against humanity. Gear (or any drug) possession is not this.

I was just stating that labeling Tookie as nothing but a "criminal" for murder is the same as labeling Chesty as nothing but a "criminal" for the rest of his life.

It is true to a point that any criminal is a person with other traits. It is also true that in the commission of any intentional homicide, (murder) much of your humanity is forfeit.
The laws may or may not say this, but in taking life away from memebrs of the species, you have taken away from yourself. Such a person no longer merits consideration as much else than a criminal.

By your definition all soldiers who have killed in the name of their country are criminals and do not deserve their humanity because they are murderers.

I too am opposed to state sponsored murder. State sponsored murder to me is things like genoicde and the execution of political prisoners.

You cannot pick and choose when you believe killing is murder. Either all intentional killing is murder or it is not. You cannot sit the fence on this issue.

The death penalty, on the other hand, is not state sponsored murder. It is the systematic removal of persons who, by their actions, have proven themselves unworthy of remaining in this realm.

Who gets to choose who is worth living and who is to die? This is not the power I will give to another man. Why should someone else choose if I am worthy to live?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by thefantom1:
... 2thick.. I am shocked at your response..I have always respected your thoughts and opinions (still do) but on this topic I think you are way off...

---

By defending the rights of the most vile, evil, and harmful people in society, we guarantee freedom for the masses.

Our freedom is taken away from us through the sections of society that we despise most. That way we do not notice it when our freedom is taken away.

Why do you think the ACLU defends such awful people? They are defended in order to prevent any legal precedent for politicians to argue when try they take away our rights.

For example, the ACLU defends the rights of racists to state their opinion in order to preserve free speech for the rest of society. Once one type of speech is banned, we are sliding down a very slippery slope. The real question is: Once hate speech is banned, then what is next (and who gets to choose it)?

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Ghost:
Chesty, I can assure you that 2Thick would rethink his defense of this POS had it been someone he loved that Tookie killed.

I would certainly have a jaded view of the situation, but I am human (and therefore not perfect). But what about the rest of the 299,999,999 people in America that were not affected by Tookie's actions? Should they all swear vengeance and eternal hate? I think not. This is an issue that spans further than any microcosm of a person's life. It has to do with society as a whole so bringing emotional feeling into the argument will not solve anything.

In addition, making a comparison between a drug user and a murderer is insane 2Thick. ...but one is most certainly different from another.

Who are we to choose what crime is worse than the other is? I hope that you do not want people to make decisions on how you should think, because that is what you are trying to do.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty:

For those who still don't get it, what would you say if Hitler ...had been nominated for or won the Nobel Peace Prize?

Big difference. Killing Millions of people over a long period of time is different than 4 people in a drive-by shooting (or the like).

BTW- Don't forget about Stalin and the 20 million to 30 million people that he killed around the same period.

Murder and rape among some of the most heinous crimes cannot be compared to the crimes of drug use and such.

Once again soldiers would also be included in your definition. They have done more than their share of murdering and raping.

It takes a pretty warped and badly wired brain to become a murderer or rapist.

This line of though is outdated and was popular around the 1930s-1950s. This has been disproved mainly through research done of identical twins separated at birth who have grown up do be totally opposite even though they are almost identical in every way.

It is an affinity coupled with environmental factors that lead to criminal activity. Hence, the high number of criminal (that are caught) from the inner cities.

---

Yes, sometimes innocent people will be punished. It happens. But we can do everything we can to minimize or eliminate this. The only way to eliminate is to no longer punish people, since that will not happen we are left with our current court system. While not perfect it is the best around.

Rich criminals get themselves off the hook as well, just look at OJ Simpson.

Killing in combat is much different than murder. In combat you are defending your country and your way of life, protecting your family and friends from enemy aggression that would seek to destroy you and yours. Even in war it is capable to committ murder. You just can't shoot people because you want to.

Fighting in a war is much different than killing your homie cause he was bangin' your girl.

Society sets the moral standards based on the collective morals of individuals. That is why we can say one crime is more heinous than another.

I may be jaded about the fuck who killed my friends, but then again, when I see any cop killed or hear about it hurts me inside and all I want is to catch the mother fucker and torture his ass till he dies. I don't rape and committ murder because it is morally, ethically wrong. But I believe in just punishment and the more heinous the crime the more potent should be the punishment.

I would agree that environmental conditions play a part on a persons development, but I also believe it is the parents who ultimately shape the child regardless of their living conditions.

I have seen families where they were having kids for the sole purpose of teaching them to hate cops and kill them. I have seen families who beat their kids and show them no love and are very well off. It is more than environment, it is a combination of many factors including bad wiring.

Something inside you has to tell you that certain actions are wrong. If that does not happen, something is very wrong with a person.

Look at Mansen (Charles not Marylin), Bundy, Dahlmer, Son of Sam and so on. These individuals all had decent upbringing and still snapped. That is bad wiring. When you start hacking up people and freezing them for a midnight snack, you have more than a few issues.

In my college town, we had a guy who killed a lady in California, moved to AZ and kept her body in a rented freezer truck for more than a year. The only way he got caught is the power went out and she started getting ripe as you can imagine. The place he lived in was very expensive, more than I will ever afford.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty:
...we as a society (the majority) have decided what constitutes a certain level of punishment. All the way from a fine for a traffic infraction to the death penalty.

Actually the aristocratic founding father and their offspring make the laws and the punishment for deviating from those laws. The Common people never had that power to create laws (or their punishment) and they never will have the power.

The ACLU and the current court system hamper the persons ability to appeal and defend him self.

You should thank the ACLU for the rights you enjoy today.

While [our system is] not perfect it is the best around.

Very true.

Killing in combat is much different than murder. In combat you are defending your country and your way of life, protecting your family and friends from enemy aggression that would seek to destroy you and yours. Even in war it is capable to commit murder.
Fighting in a war is much different than killing your homie cause he was bangin' your girl.

You cannot pick and choose what constitutes murder. Intentional killing is the same no matter the reason for it. Either you are for it or against it.

You just can't shoot people [in war] because you want to.

It happens and it happens a lot.

Are we down with that?

I hear you and they are valid points but you have not convinced me otherwise.

---

I will agree that killing in war is intentional, but the motivation and the intent for that killing is much different. In most murders in the US for example the suspect derives some sort of pleasure from the killing, and he needs to continually satisfy that urge.

We do have a say in this country and in fact we can get a Senator or Congressman to sponsor bills in the Congress that could become law. In fact it has happened quite a lot.

Yes, murder takes place in combat, and at least when it is done by us and is discovered it is met with harsh judgement and swift punishment.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty:
Why is one murder not as significant as 20 or 30 or more? Murder is murder.

The more people that are killed, the more evil exists. The longer it occurs, the more methodical and rational it becomes. In other words, it is a scarier [more evil] person who kills rationally rather than out of temporary emotional rage.

Society sets the moral standards based on the collective morals of individuals. That is why we can say one crime is more heinous than another.

"The ideology of a nation is the ideology of the ruling class"
-Karl Marx

Normal people decide next to nothing. Only a fool would believe that our (the mass population's) thoughts shape this society.

I would agree that environmental conditions play a part on a persons development, but I also believe it is the parents who ultimately shape the child regardless of their living conditions.
...It is more than environment, it is a combination of many factors including bad wiring.

I mentioned that it also involves an affinity for crime. That is much different than bad wiring. Affinity can be fought through rational thought, whereas the person cannot control bad wiring. This explains why criminals come from all walks of life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty:
Remember I am not trying to convince you. I have learned a long time ago that it is almost impossible to change ones mind once it is made up.

I am open to new thoughts. I think much differently now than I did 2 years ago. The more I learn, the more I change.

I will agree that killing in war is intentional, but the motivation and the intent for that killing are much different. In most murders in the US for example the suspect derives some sort of pleasure from the killing, and he needs to continually satisfy that urge.

Morally speaking, the reason for intentionally killing someone does not matter. Only the end result matters and that result is homicide. Your argument lacks impartiality on this point. If you want to keep murder in a moral framework, you cannot rationally differentiate between the "good" and "bad" types of murder.

We do have a say in this country and in fact we can get a Senator or Congressman to sponsor bills in the Congress that could become law. In fact it has happened quite a lot.

"The ideology of a nation is the ideology of the ruling class"
--Karl Marx

Yes, murder takes place in combat, and at least when it is done by us and is discovered it is met with harsh judgement and swift punishment.
Ever wonder why the crime rate is so much lower for the military than the general population?

This is true but all killing in the army is intentional murder (even in self defense).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty:
I think the biggest difference is that we differ on the idea of justifiable homicide. I believe in that and therefore can make a distinction between murder and self-defense and war and so on.

I am speaking ideologically. This means that I am speaking about what I believe in even though it may not always always work in real life.

Karl Marx was talking about a socialist state.

Actually Marx was talking about all societies. This is so because he theorized that capitalist societies would be the ones to have a revolution (from the bottom) and create advanced communism (with technology). He did not foresee backward societies such as Russia and China having the revolutions instead of the advanced capitalist societies. The reason Socialist and Communist Russia did not succeed was because of the lack of technology and the refusal to allow the free flow of information necessary for technology to advance (hence the need for capitalism to preclude advanced communism).

I have even written to my senators to get legislation introduced. People against drunk driving have gotten laws enacted.

This is true. But, the behind-the-scenes dealing with huge corporations is what Marx was really talking about (and corporate tax cuts and incentives...etc).

Ask yourself this question, what do you consider justifiable homicide (self defense) If I were to attack you or you gf or child, would you be willing to kill me to save them or yourself?

There is no such thing as justifiable homicide. I would protect my family to the death but that doesn't justify murder. It is an ideology and it doesn't account for the imperfections of humans. By this I mean that if all humans would follow the same ideology, then you would not attack my family in the first place (so no murder occurs).

---

I think the biggest difference is that we differ on the idea of justifiable homicide. I believe in that and therefore can make a distinction between murder and self-defense and war and so on.

Karl Marx was talking about a socialist state. In this country we have the right to have legislation introduced for us by our statesman. This happens all the time. For example Meagans law, and others

Ask yourself this question, what do you consider justifiable homicide (self defense) If I were to attack you or you gf or child, would you be willing to kill me to save them or yourself?

who better than a convicted killer could symbolize the inherent goodness of and the strength of the human spirit to strive for peace?

As for Karl Marx, he preached socialism and socialism is bad period! No matter where it has been tried and no matter what form it has failed.

Karl even talked about a Utopian society. If you have not seen it yet you should watch Gattica. Is that really the society one would want? I would hope not.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty:
Let me ask you a question Fender. If Hitler had been captured alive do you believe that his subsequent execution would have been justified given the circumstances? How about that of Himmler or Goering? Or Stalin?

---

It is still morally wrong. Morally wrong...Ironic isn't it. His killings would be as morally wrong as his execution

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty:

As for Karl Marx, he preached socialism and socialism is bad period! No matter where it has been tried and no matter what form it has failed.

Karl even talked about a Utopian society. If you have not seen it yet you should watch Gattica. Is that really the society one would want? I would hope not.

---

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2000 to Kim Dae Jung for his work for democracy and human rights in South Korea and in East Asia in general, and for peace and reconciliation with North Korea in particular

------------------
YOU CANNOT IGNORE GENIUS.

IT IS FORTUNATE FOR THOSE IN POWER,THAT MEN DO NOT THINK.-ADOLF HITLER

-------------------------------------------
I was just stating that labeling Tookie as nothing but a "criminal" for murder is the same as labeling Chesty as nothing but a "criminal" for the rest of his life.
-------------------------------------------
This is only true by an absurdly strict definition: anyone who breaks a law is a criminal. Got a speeding ticket? Criminal! Roll through a stop sign? Criminal! That is silly. There is a clear distinction between "busted for gear" and "convicted murderer".

-------------------------------------------
By your definition all soldiers who have killed in the name of their country are criminals and do not deserve their humanity because they are murderers.
-------------------------------------------
I used the phrase ".....intentional homicide (murder)". I used the word "murder" to differentiate between the crime of murder and battlefield killings. Perhaps I should have elucidated further, but war is not part of the equation here - it is totally irrelevant to this discussion. I assumed you would stay inbounds here.

--------------------------------------------
You cannot pick and choose when you believe killing is murder. Either all intentional killing is murder or it is not. You cannot sit the fence on this issue.
--------------------------------------------
This has already been clearly delineated. Soldiers are not murderers. Killers, yes, not murderers. I am not fence sitting. The death penatly is not state sponsored murder. It is the consequence of a code of laws that a society has enacted. Executing prisoners NOT in accordance with a societally approved code is state sponsored murder. Dictators executing political prisoners is state sponsored murder. The death penatly here is part of a code that we accept. (Enough of a majority accept in order to get laws enacted).

-------------------------------------------
Who gets to choose who is worth living and who is to die? This is not the power I will give to another man. Why should someone else choose if I am worthy to live?
-------------------------------------------
An age-old argument. The fact that Tookie will die is not arbitrary. No one simply chose him to die. His punishment as a citizen of the state of California FOR HIS ACTIONS is death. This is not a question of him being "picked to die."

Therefore killing Hitler to me, and to the most Jewish people and Polish people and so on is not only morally correct by ethically sound.

Socialism and Utopian societies preach that no one gets more than that which is necessary to survive. So if I have more than you and I technically don't need it such as land or water or money, it is taken away from me and given to you. Better known as redistribution of wealth and commodities.

Why should I have to be subject to this, I busted my ass to get where I am and I'll be damned if someone is just going to redistribute my wealth and good fortune arbitrarily. This is another topic altogether though.

It seems that we have a differing philosophy on this topic.

In my opinion, murder by soldiers (and that is what it really is) is very relevant. Killing is killing no matter what the reason. What is your definition of murder? Is it to kill someone for a vile reason? So a soldier is not a murderer because he has a good reason. That is absurd. The end result is the taking of a life no matter the reason.

As for state sponsored murder, what if the reason for the execution goes against your beliefs? It is wrong (such as political prisoners...etc). But if it is an execution for something you believe (murder...etc) then it is right? This is also absurd. In both cases the person's life is taken away. That is the bottom line.

But I digress...
*******************
Okay, here is a real life example of the hypocrisy of the society:

A woman is driving with her 6 children in her car. She is tired and knows that she is falling asleep at the wheel. She also knows that the consequences of falling asleep at the wheel could lead to her death and to her children's death (along with other driver's death).

She continues and plans to stop at the next rest stop but falls asleep before reaching it.

She drives off the road into a ravine and then into a river. She saves herself and 3 children. The other 3 die. She has committed murder but she is not punished. Why is this so?

She knew she was tired and she knew the consequences of falling asleep at the wheel. This is the same as pointing a gun at someone and knowing that if you pull the trigger that the person will die. Why is she exonerated for murder? She killed 3 of her kids, and knew that it was a possibility and still continued on her course.

quote:

---

Originally posted by chesty:
Here in lies our difference Fender, I do not believe that justifiable homicide, or execution of a convicted killer by a jury of his peers is morally wrong. Whereas you seem to believe it is.

Morality lies within each of us. To each his own.

Why should I have to be subject to this, I busted my ass to get where I am and I'll be damned if someone is just going to redistribute my wealth and good fortune arbitrarily.

---

Now of course she is not guilty of capital murder which is the intentional premeditated killing of a human being or in the commission of a serious felony.

Yes we differ on a number of points. But our freedom yours and mine does not come at a cheap price, and that price is the wars we have fought. Someone had to fight them and someone had to kill and someone had to die. That is the way of things.

Maybe it is time for a revolution again, and we start over. Nah, Wallstreet wouldn't go for that!

My definition of murder is multi-pronged:

1. the intentional (intentional) taking of a life, in a condition other than the battlefield.

2. The commission of homicide during the act of another felony (also called felony murder in the US)

3. An act with such recklessness so as to cause the death of someone. (similar to depraved indifference). Yes, drunk driving would fit here, but I would raise the threshold to .20 to prove this level of recklessness.

Although these definitions seem to echo the definitions for murder in the US, I would stipulate tha only 1 and 2 carry the potential for the death penalty.

I consider battlefield killing to not be murder. There is a "kill or be killed" atmosphere that precludes much rational thought. The profession of soldiering also demands unquestioning obedience to leaders - ultimately political ones. The soldier is a pawn in something beyond his control.

Wars are fought to preserve a nation's way of life. But war is seen as the last resort to achieve a greater good, (albeit not for the loser) and this potential for a greater good serves to make the soldier something other than cold blooded butcher. Society's murderer generally kills without the "kill or be killed" environment, and without the goal of preserving a nation's way of life.
------------------------------------------

The woman in the car......hmmmmm...interesting. By my definition, she could be guilty of '3' above. However, even if my rules were law, she would never get convicted without admitting her nad decision.....were she to say "I thought I could make it", there would be no grounds for a depraved indifference type of case.

Philosophically, though - is it murder? Given her refusal to pull off and rest....I would say yes.
--------------------------------------------

Speaking of the American propoganda machine - remember the persian gulf war? The media here built up Iraq's forces into this elite combat group, but in reality they didn;t even have boots. Saddam took them.

The Scud missile became the deadliest thing there was - yet it was a piece of shit, pretty much.

The propoganda machine is real. No argument here.