January 10, 2011
Father of slain 9-year-old in Tucson calling for execution of shooter
As detailed in this New York Post article, which is headlined "Father of child killed in Giffords rampage wants death penalty," at least one victim of the shooting rampage this weekend in Arizona is already calling for the ultimate punishment for the offender:
Devastated by the death of his only daughter in the bloody ambush on Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, John Green — son of former Mets manager Dallas Green — today lashed out at the crackpot killer. "I think they should execute him," said a broken-hearted John Green, whose 9-year-old child Christina Taylor was fatally shot when crazed gunman Jared Loughner, 22, opened fire at a political meet-and-greet hosted by Giffords yesterday.
Giffords was critically wounded in the attack; Christina and five others at the event were killed....
The devastation has been overwhelming, John Green told The Post, unable to hold back tears. "She was born on 9/11, so when you look at the bookends of her life, they were pretty tragic," he said. "But everything in the middle was the best."...
The grieving dad [said] his daughter loved baseball, dancing, swimming and horseback riding. He feels nothing but disgust for the shooter who ended her life. "It would be a waste of millions of dollars" to keep him alive, he said. "They should use the money to help kids in school instead of some idiot."
As this long article in the Politico details, John Green's wish may get fulfilled. The piece is headlined "Federal charges could carry death penalty."
January 10, 2011 at 08:52 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Father of slain 9-year-old in Tucson calling for execution of shooter:
Nor should this execution be delayed by the lawyer's need to generate jobs. These delays are a type of fraud to make money, and pretextual appeals should not be rewarded with delays. Any judge that delays the process for legal pretexts should be removed from the case by the administrative judge, or impeached by the legislature. The latter should enact statutes for fast track impeachments not based on misconduct but on improper decisions, which are far bigger and harmful crimes than any bribery, conflict of interest or drunken behavior. The charge should be "threat to the public safety," and the impeachment vote should be allowed to take place in as short a time as 24 hours. The judge should be able to testify to justify his pretextual decision. These judges are out of control parallel government with self dealt immunities from accountability, and the superior branch, the legislature must reassert its authority over their incompetence, bias, pro-criminal devastation of the nation.
While paranoid schizophrenics kill 2000 people a year, the overwhelming majority of them commit no crimes, not even of violence or delusional self-defense. They commit fewer crimes as a group than people with antisocial personality disorder, the lawyer clients. It is not an excuse. The Congress must also overturn the Supreme Court decision requiring that harm have been done before a hearing to commit can take place. It must return the situation back to a need for treatment, before any harm can take place. Remember V Tech. Pro-criminal, know nothing judges are loosing ultra-violent mental patients to roam our streets attacking random people. Why are judges and lawyers so pro-criminal, even conservative ones such as Scalia? The criminal generates lawyer jobs. The victim generates nothing and may rot. How can anyone not be biased in favor of the person who got the lawyer his job?
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 10, 2011 10:15:10 AM
"They should use the money to help kids in school instead of some idiot." My dear friend, I understand your grief. However, the money will not be spent on the idiot. It will be spent on government workers, judges, and lawyers in their cushy government sinecures. It is these heartless blood suckers who will profit from your family's tragedy, not the idiot.
Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Jan 10, 2011 10:19:08 AM
This sort of thing is good tabloid material, but unsure why it's cited here. Grieved family member emotionally commenting. Notable, how? Point of clarification. Now or in the past, did (or will) we get an account of those in victim families against the death penalty for their family members' murderers? Is the implication that their wishes should in either case be taken into consideration?
Posted by: Joe | Jan 10, 2011 2:23:13 PM
Dear Joe, couldn't agree with you more. Of course the child's father is en-raged and out-raged - any relative would be. However, I thought we were here to speak of Law and Law is there to prohibit such emotions from entering into consideration - at this stage.
Posted by: Tim Rudisill | Jan 11, 2011 12:58:13 PM
Actually, the family's position on the DP is one of the internal DOJ factors that the US attorney and the Capital Crimes committee at Main Justice must take into account in recommending that the Attorney General approve or not approve the DP.
Posted by: AUSA | Jan 11, 2011 2:05:06 PM
Hello, I am Brian, the paralegal student. I am really grieved by the all of a sudden death of this little Christina. This merciless criminal should be hanged to death.
Posted by: George Allen | Jan 13, 2011 4:48:49 AM