The execution of a Georgia man who murdered a cop on the side of the road in 1998 has been scheduled - Polidicks

Theirs so many factors that could of led to him doing this its hard to say if some kind of PTSD that could of led him to doing it or if he had some kind of kind of aggressive personality. I've met some hardcore Vietnam vets when I was just happening to stay at a hotel where they were having their regiment reunion. Some saw of the worst combat in Vietnam and they were some of the nicest guys I met and one of them invited me to dinner since he lived down the road from me. Should he be executed or not? I don't know and I'm not qualified to give an answer. But doing it to "save taxpayer money" is a pretty heartless excuse.

[QUOTE=Killergam;46855945]Saving the american tax payer money. Alot of money. If your locked up with no chance of parole, your as good as dead, you will never contribute anything to society again as you are a danger to it.[/QUOTE] I think it's cheaper to lock someone away for life than to execute someone with the current system. At least in most states.

-snip-

Oh fuck. its THIS guy. That video is the only video on the internet that i cant watch anymore. Too many screams. Thats a heinous murder and I have no problem with this man losing his life.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;46855960]I think it's cheaper to lock someone away for life than to execute someone with the current system. At least in most states.[/QUOTE] They should just mount a gun to a chair, aim it to the side of the persons head and then, in a controlled fashion, have a computer that pulls the trigger once activated. Quick, painless and cost-effective. Very humane way to go.

[QUOTE=Killergam;46855993]They should just mount a gun to a chair, aim it to the side of the persons head and then, in a controlled fashion, have a computer that pulls the trigger once activated. Quick, painless and cost-effective. Very humane way to go.[/QUOTE] Certainly more humane than a mishap with a lethal injection.

[QUOTE=Killergam;46855993]They should just mount a gun to a chair, aim it to the side of the persons head and then, in a controlled fashion, have a computer that pulls the trigger once activated. Quick, painless and cost-effective. Very humane way to go.[/QUOTE] Someone still has to set the computer up. Someone still has to maintain it. etc. Also gunshots aren't humane lmao. They aren't 100% effective methods of killing a person. How about you just don't kill them? It's not the execution where costs are made, it's the process to ensure you don't kill an innocent (everybody is entitled to this, no matter who they are), and even then they still fuck it up and kill the wrong person.

[QUOTE=Killergam;46855993]They should just mount a gun to a chair, aim it to the side of the persons head and then, in a controlled fashion, have a computer that pulls the trigger once activated. Quick, painless and cost-effective. Very humane way to go.[/QUOTE] Also that would reduce the cost of execution to the point where it's not worth not doing it :v:

Sad that the good cops are the ones that get shot. Should've been that asshole who tazed and made that one girl brain dead.

[QUOTE=Explosions;46853404]What the fuck is this going to accomplish? Now there will be two dead people as a result of the incident.[/QUOTE] Yeah, we should just let him rot in a cell right? Because caging a human being like an animal for decades is so much more humane than just killing them. It's an ethical dilemma as to whether or not anyone should have control over his life. Thing is, what gave him the right to have control over the officers life? It's not so much an eye for an eye as it's, "this person has forfeited their right to live with their actions" than anything.

[QUOTE=BANNED USER;46856148]Yeah, we should just let him rot in a cell right? Because caging a human being like an animal for decades is so much more humane than just killing them.[/QUOTE] Its so we can rehabilitate them for healthy societal living in the afterlife.

[QUOTE=SGTSpartans;46856159]Its so we can rehabilitate them for healthy societal living in the afterlife.[/QUOTE] Satan hates it when people have their elbows on the table, it's no surprise really.

[QUOTE=Proj3ct_ZeRo;46853492]Whats the point of locking him away to rot in a cell, effectively tortured to death by confinement at the expense of tax payers? He committed a crime from which there is no return he murdered a police officer in cold blood its not about "eye for an eye" justice, its about what is reasonable.[/QUOTE] The death penalty costs extraordinarily more than being put away for life FYI.

Snip

[QUOTE=Jaspers;46855773]Because he murdered a police officer who was simply [I]doing his job.[/I] This guy doesn't even deserve the privilege of rotting away in prison.[/QUOTE] And the punishment is the removal of his liberty. Executing him costs more money and is nothing more than revenge. Justice and revenge aren't the same thing. Execution is something done out of anger, not because it prevents further murders.

Murdering someone for murdering someone because murder is bad. [editline]4th January 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=ForgottenKane;46856450]The death penalty costs extraordinarily more than being put away for life FYI.[/QUOTE] Also true [quote]A 2003 legislative audit in Kansas found that the estimated cost of a death penalty case was 70% more than the cost of a comparable non-death penalty case. Death penalty case costs were counted through to execution (median cost $1.26 million). Non-death penalty case costs were counted through to the end of incarceration (median cost $740,000). (December 2003 Survey by the Kansas Legislative Post Audit) In Tennessee, death penalty trials cost an average of 48% more than the average cost of trials in which prosecutors seek life imprisonment. (2004 Report from Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury Office of Research) In Maryland death penalty cases cost 3 times more than non-death penalty cases, or $3 million for a single case. (Urban Institute, The Cost of the Death Penalty in Maryland, March 2008) In California the current sytem costs $137 million per year; it would cost $11.5 million for a system without the death penalty. (California Commission for the Fair Administration of Justice, July 2008)[/quote] [url]http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-work/issues/death-penalty/us-death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost[/url]

I'm not effected but why whether he lives or dies, but I still think he should live. We already removed the danger, he's locked up away from society and isn't getting out, maybe one day he'll accept what he did and the fact that he deserves to be there. That's what prison is for, not to fulfill revenge fantasies of killing someone and it being ok. Only immediate dangers like gun/knife wielding lunatics and terrorists should be killed since they still pose threats.

[QUOTE=Saza;46855886]I usually am against the death penalty unless it is an extreme case. This is one of those cases. That is my opinion, and that is what he was sentenced to.[/QUOTE] Why is it that I hear this said every single time there is a thread about the death penalty? These "non-extreme cases" don't seem to exist at all. And why should the "severity" of a crime be used as a determinant of punishment anyway? What does "extreme" even mean and how do you decide it? If Brannan had simply shot the cop and left him alive, and the cop died later, would that be a less extreme case? If he had eaten the cop's brain after the killing, would that be more extreme? Why would either of these things matter? This is simply a throwaway line used to justify the vindictive cognitive dissonance in people's head when they want to see bloodshed. [QUOTE=Killergam;46855945]Saving the american tax payer money. Alot of money. If your locked up with no chance of parole, your as good as dead, you will never contribute anything to society again as you are a danger to it.[/QUOTE] What's with the fixation on "the American taxpayer"? Fist off, who exactly lives in the US and doesn't pay tax, other than small children? Second, why is paying taxes a determinant on whether or not your opinion should matter? Should an impoverished American's opinion on the death penalty be ignored because he doesn't pay income or property tax? And this focus on how much money this costs has sinister implications. There are millions of people in the US who don't or can't "contribute anything to society" but we support them through various social programs. Perhaps you don't support welfare or medicaid or other programs. But if you do, how can you say something like that and not have it apply to other non-prisoners? Is it because people in jail are the ones responsible for their situation? Well there are plenty of people who receive disability assistance who are responsible for their situation as well. If I ride a motorcycle without a helmet and I get brain damage from an accident, should I not be supported by the state because it was my fault that I can't work now? Once again, this "taxpayer" nonsense is just a canard used to quickly and stupidly defend executing people you don't like. [QUOTE=BANNED USER;46856148]Yeah, we should just let him rot in a cell right? Because caging a human being like an animal for decades is so much more humane than just killing them.[/quote] Why in your mind are there only two possibilities: execution or "rot in a cell"? Seriously, this is another post that always shows up in death penalty threads with this stupid dichotomy in people's heads. It basically is an easy but fallacious way to justify executions. If you dumb it down to two possibilities, execution or a mythically horrible life in prison, then you can badger your way into showing execution as a more positive outcome for both the prisoner and everyone else. But let's exit this fantasy and look at a different situation: Norway. Now, who in their right mind would say "we either execute him or leave him to rot in a cell" if he is incarcerated in Norway? The prisoner wouldn't be "rotting" anywhere because Norway actually has a respectable prison system that works to solve problems. Even if the prisoner was serving life in a Norwegian prison with no chance of ever getting out, how could you say he would be better of executed? Even if we go back to the US with its mostly abysmal prison conditions, how can you say that a prisoner would be better off dead than alive in the prison? How do you know what the prisoner experiences while living in jail? Maybe he has come to terms with his situation and lives in prison as comfortably as he possibly can. Maybe he doesn't consider himself a "caged animal" (prisoners, even on death row, do more than just sit inside a small cell for 24 hours a day). The inhumane quality of prisons only exists in your mind so that you can justify killing people instead. And even if the current system in America was as terrible as you seem to think, why could that situation not be changed to something more respectable and less horrible for the prisoner? [quote]It's an ethical dilemma as to whether or not anyone should have control over his life. Thing is, what gave him the right to have control over the officers life? It's not so much an eye for an eye as it's, "this person has forfeited their right to live with their actions" than anything.[/QUOTE] The outcome is exactly the same as and eye for an eye, so I don't see what this accomplishes.

The only thing graphic about the video I noticed was the screaming. I think the guy who shot him clearly has mental health issues that should be addressed. Also, to the above people, don't you think it's kinda wierd to argue the death penalty because of cost? It's a pragmatic reason, but from a moral perspective it's kinda fucked up.

[QUOTE=Explosions;46856965]Why is it that I hear this said every single time there is a thread about the death penalty? These "non-extreme cases" don't seem to exist at all. And why should the "severity" of a crime be used as a determinant of punishment anyway? What does "extreme" even mean and how do you decide it? If Brannan had simply shot the cop and left him alive, and the cop died later, would that be a less extreme case? If he had eaten the cop's brain after the killing, would that be more extreme? Why would either of these things matter? [/QUOTE] I think there is a huge difference in 'severity' of crimes when someone, for example, is charged with a life sentence or potentially death sentence for something, say, accidental discharge of a firearm or cases where it isn't as clear as this. There is [i]video evidence[/i] of Brannan doing this [i]willingly[/i]. I don't think this case could really be 'non-extreme' simply because of the nature of what Brannan did. I don't like seeing people killed, regardless of what they did and choosing to pin people supporting the death sentence as 'vindictive' and 'bloodthirsty' is a stupid assumption. I don't think this man could fit back into society, and I would not wish anyone a life in jail cell confined to that cell, or that jail for the rest of their living days, especially when some people can be locked in solitary for [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angola_Three]years[/url] for [url=http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/06/17212442-man-left-in-solitary-confinement-for-2-years-gets-155-million-settlement?lite]potentially less 'extreme[/url] cases. Do I think that would happen often? No, but it's easily possible and like I said, I would much rather die than spend the rest of my days in a prison. as for who defines it? that's up to the judge/jury taking note of the crimes involved

lol you can't just say "i'm against capital punishment but this guy is really nasty!!1!"

[QUOTE=EcksDee;46855023]Yeah see, I'd rather not torture a man like that. OF COURSE IT SHOULD BE UP TO HIM, but the option should be open[/QUOTE] He shouldn't have the option to hop out of his sentence.

[QUOTE=RobbL;46857154]lol you can't just say "i'm against capital punishment but this guy is really nasty!!1!"[/QUOTE] I'm not 100% against it but ok

[QUOTE=Saza;46857161]I'm not 100% against it but ok[/QUOTE] tis a general comment

[QUOTE=Saza;46857119]choosing to pin people supporting the death sentence as 'vindictive' and 'bloodthirsty' is a stupid assumption.[/QUOTE] I can't think of any other reason people would support it. [QUOTE=Saza;46857119]I would much rather die than spend the rest of my days in a prison.[/QUOTE] I think prisoners should be given the the option. I personally believe everyone has the right to die, and I think it's just as inhumane to force someone to stay alive as it is to kill them. However, I don't think that saying "let's kill him because I personally wouldn't want to live in jail forever" is a good reason to execute him. [QUOTE=Saza;46857119]I don't think this case could really be 'non-extreme' simply because of the nature of what Brannan did.[/QUOTE] I think what Brannan did was wrong, but I also think he was not sane and motivated by fear. Notice in the video how he tells the officer he doesn't want to die in the video. He evidently felt his life was in grave danger for some reason, and reacted accordingly. If I was placed in a situation where I was scared and felt my life was about to be taken, I think I would react in a similar fashion. Perhaps he was experiencing some Rambo-esque flashback as a result of the officer's actions? I think he might have pulled his gun off camera, which could have led to it.

Seen that video. I have a strong stomach but even I can't rewatch that video. It kills me. Go on with the execution please, the man is beyond deserving of it.

The reason I said I wish we could study and experiment with this guy is because it's a productive alternative to killing him. I'm not saying let's go Nazi on this guy - I'm not saying that at all. Get some psychologists in there, and have them study them for the better of psychology.

Well... The execution is scheduled on my birthday.

[QUOTE=Careld;46853575]That fucker deserves that sentence, have you seen that video?[/QUOTE] Because emotion is why we should do these things, right?

[QUOTE=sasherz;46857191] I think what Brannan did was wrong, but I also think he was not sane and motivated by fear. Notice in the video how he tells the officer he doesn't want to die in the video. He evidently felt his life was in grave danger for some reason, and reacted accordingly. If I was placed in a situation where I was scared and felt my life was about to be taken, I think I would react in a similar fashion. Perhaps he was experiencing some Rambo-esque flashback as a result of the officer's actions? I think he might have pulled his gun off camera, which could have led to it.[/QUOTE] Perhaps I didn't word my post so well (as often I do). I'm more referring to the execution rather than the firefight itself. I can't imagine how that really could ever be acceptable in a flashback or not (as in, how would it be acceptable in a flashback?). I'm not Brannan so I can't say for sure what he was really experiencing, but I still support the decision to put him to death.