"This hand that pulled the trigger... now m--- to the memory"

CHARDON, Ohio -- T.J. Lane will spend the rest of his life in prison for killing three students and wounding three others in the Chardon High School cafeteria Feb. 27, 2012.

Before his sentence, Lane, wearing a white T-shirt with the word "killer" written across the front, said: "This hand that pulled the trigger that killed your sons now masturbates to the memory. F--- all of you."

Gasps were heard around the courtroom at that point and some in the gallery began to cry.

When Lane was given the opportunity to make a statement to the court, he made a short statement and then stuck his middle finger up in the courtroom filled with the loved ones of the three students he gunned down.

Lane, 18, smirked and smiled as family members of his victims called him "repulsive" and hoped for him to be locked up in a cage "like an animal" for the rest of his life.

"Frankly, I wasn't prepared for this," the prosecutor said moments after Lane's gesture. He said the action was proof that Lane is a "disgusting human being."

"This is confirming what we have known all along, that this was a cold, calculated, premeditated killing," the prosecutor said.

The judge sentenced Lane to life imprisonment without parole. Lane chuckled at the sentence.

Lane killed three students during a Feb. 27, 2012 rampage at Chardon High School. Daniel Parmertor, 16, Demetrius Hewlin, 16, and Russell King Jr., 17, were all killed. When he was captured a short time later he was wearing a grey shirt with the word "killer" written on the front.

Lane's defense attorney told the court that he "strongly urged" Lane not say what he was about to the court, but Lane proceeded anyway.

Lane smiled as a mother who lost her son said she is cynical now and devastated. She wished an "extremely slow, torturous death" for him.

"You don't deserve to take another breath while my 16-year-old son Danny lies in the cold, hard ground," Daniel Parmertor's mother said.

http://www.cleveland.com/chardon-shooting/index.ssf/2013/03/tj_lane_sentenced_in_chardon_h.html

lol, does  that guy  have any idea what this can buy a grieving relative?

because if he did he would have kept his mouth shut.

All good, the survivors will have the last laugh when this scrawny kid is found dead, his ass ripped apart and stomach full of semen, courtesy of prison-house justice.

... The media should have ignored this story.. This is exactly what the guy wants, publicity.. sSubZerOo

I got into a discussion about this with my dad the other day.  He was born in 1940, myself in 1984.

Basically, it started off with him saying "Back in my day, you didn't hear about stuff like this happening" to which he automatically concluded that things like this did not happen "in his day".

I argued that things like this have always happened, you just did not hear about it because of a lack of internet, and the media was more respectable and easily controlled back then.  For example, small town murder occurs of children, mayor doesnt want word getting out, mayor pleads with local journalist (themselves a local for decades, if not since birth), story gets stifled.

Hell, even growing up and watching the news, I only heard about killings that were fairly local.  Oakland, San Francisco, etc..  I would never have heard of a killing in a small town back east.

In short, ignorance (or, at the least, lack of exposure) is bliss, sometimes a good thing.  We don't need to be told or informed of every murder of school kids that occurs, we don't need to be told our world is unsafe (especially when it is not), and more.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]... The media should have ignored this story.. This is exactly what the guy wants, publicity.. mrbojangles25

I got into a discussion about this with my dad the other day.  He was born in 1940, myself in 1984.

Basically, it started off with him saying "Back in my day, you didn't hear about stuff like this happening" to which he automatically concluded that things like this did not happen "in his day".

I argued that things like this have always happened, you just did not hear about it because of a lack of internet, and the media was more respectable and easily controlled back then.  For example, small town murder occurs of children, mayor doesnt want word getting out, mayor pleads with local journalist (themselves a local for decades, if not since birth), story gets stifled.

Hell, even growing up and watching the news, I only heard about killings that were fairly local.  Oakland, San Francisco, etc..  I would never have heard of a killing in a small town back east.

In short, ignorance (or, at the least, lack of exposure) is bliss, sometimes a good thing.  We don't need to be told or informed of every murder of school kids that occurs, we don't need to be told our world is unsafe (especially when it is not), and more.

  Oh I agree with that.. IN fact the United States is safer now then it was 40 years ago statistically when it comes to violent crimes..  But my point was more around the lines that many of shooters do this and act this way due to publicity.. Because of the media's obsession with pretty much posting the shooters faces all over the place in becoming the anti hero.. The fact of the matter is far more people could name the shooters in Columbine, but they most likely can't name a single one of the victims.. 

All good, the survivors will have the last laugh when this scrawny kid is found dead, his ass ripped apart and stomach full of semen, courtesy of prison-house justice.

mrbojangles25

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

All good, the survivors will have the last laugh when this scrawny kid is found dead, his ass ripped apart and stomach full of semen, courtesy of prison-house justice.

PannicAtack

not usually, no, but if my kid was shot by this bastard and he laughed about it, and a month later this bastard was found dead after being gangraped by prison inmates, I would definitely get a small chuckle out of it.

I suppose it is poetic justice of sorts; killer claims to get sexual arousal out of killing, killer dies at the hands of those pursuing sexual arousal.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

All good, the survivors will have the last laugh when this scrawny kid is found dead, his ass ripped apart and stomach full of semen, courtesy of prison-house justice.

PannicAtack

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

All good, the survivors will have the last laugh when this scrawny kid is found dead, his ass ripped apart and stomach full of semen, courtesy of prison-house justice.

MannyDelgado

actually, I'd warrant that this is the exception to that unfortunate double-standard, I think.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

All good, the survivors will have the last laugh when this scrawny kid is found dead, his ass ripped apart and stomach full of semen, courtesy of prison-house justice.

MannyDelgado

[QUOTE="MannyDelgado"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] You find rape funny?mrbojangles25

actually, I'd warrant that this is the exception to that unfortunate double-standard, I think.

[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

[QUOTE="MannyDelgado"]An instance of this unfortunate double-standard, I think

MannyDelgado

actually, I'd warrant that this is the exception to that unfortunate double-standard, I think.

[QUOTE="MannyDelgado"][QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]

actually, I'd warrant that this is the exception to that unfortunate double-standard, I think.

chaplainDMK

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"][QUOTE="MannyDelgado"]Oh? I doubt that you would have made that comment if the perpetrator were female.MannyDelgado

Actually it does, I would say the same thing if he was a female black jew dwarf. But he is a piece of male scum so I am refering to him as a male.

So let me put it this way:

Original story: "A female black jew dwarf said "This hand that pulled the trigger... now m--- to the memory" to the relatives of the people she killed in a shooting"

Reply: "All good, the survivors will have the last laugh when this scrawny kid is found dead, her ass ripped apart and stomach full of semen, courtesy of prison-house justice."

Ofcourse this is hard to achieve since prisons segregate sexes, but the point stands.

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"][QUOTE="MannyDelgado"]Doesn't actually contradict what I said, but OKMannyDelgado

[QUOTE="chaplainDMK"][QUOTE="MannyDelgado"]Doesn't actually contradict what I said, but OKMannyDelgado

idunno, most women I know don't like anal sex any more than a straight male does :P

My argument for legal, legitimate revenge gets stronger by the day.Rhazakna

Sometimes I share this sentiment.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]My argument for legal, legitimate revenge gets stronger by the day.airshocker

Sometimes I share this sentiment.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]My argument for legal, legitimate revenge gets stronger by the day.chessmaster1989

Sometimes I share this sentiment.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

Sometimes I share this sentiment.

Rhazakna

My argument for legal, legitimate revenge gets stronger by the day.Rhazakna

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]My argument for legal, legitimate revenge gets stronger by the day.MrPraline

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

Sometimes I share this sentiment.

Rhazakna

Understandable but still a terrible idea.chessmaster1989

Some people just deserve to die, that's all I'm getting at.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]Understandable but still a terrible idea.airshocker

Some people just deserve to die, that's all I'm getting at.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="dude_brahmski"] Emotional conditions of a victim's family affecting decision-making as judge, jury and executioner, for starters. Lack of access to resources to effectively narrow down those responsible (some will have both the patience and resources ($$$), but most won't, and be more prone to blaming the wrong guy). Finally, a complete lack of consideration for things like whether or not said actions weren't outright premeditated murder, such as self-defense and involuntary manslaughter. Then there's retaliatory escalation.dude_brahmski

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] I'm not advocating the victim's families being judge and jury, only executioner. Legitimate revenge would apply to only the worst criminals, like the guy in the article, and there would have to be a high standard of evidence in order for that action to be taken. If some victim's father killed someone he thought was the killer, before the trial, that would still be murder whether or not he was actually guilty.Rhazakna

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"] Legitimate revenge is just an individualistic approach to execution. It would massively reduce costs, be a far greater deterrent and it would be a much more cathartic experience for the victim's families. Some people aren't worth keeping around, but I don't want to pay for a massive bureaucracy that's in charge of execution. If someone wants a heinous criminal dead, it should fall on the individual who desires it, and their lust for vengeance should not be subsidized by society. Rhazakna

The expenses of state executions are in the legal process, not the execution itself. So saying that the family gets to pull the trigger (so to speak) instead of the state doesn't really do anything to reduce costs. It isn't bureaucracy that's causing the costs here. You'll end up saving more taxpayer dollars to "subsidize" the kid's life than you would in executing him, whether or not the state's the one that pulls the trigger. And that argument doesn't work that well anyway, since you "subsidize" plenty of criminals, but you can't just execute everyone who commits a crime. Alternatively, you can think of these "subsidies" as the price of keeping criminals locked up and as a source of deterrent to other criminals (which is closer to the truth).

And, I don't find it any more (morally) acceptable for an individual to execute someone than I do for the state to.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

[QUOTE="dude_brahmski"] so, in states that do the capital punishment thing, aside from switching the role of executioner from the state administering lethal cocktails to some guy with a baseball bat, making the family feel better or something like that, how does this change anything?dude_brahmski

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"] It only cuts costs because it circumvents the legal process, which is itself a large problem. I'm also opposed to the death penalty (which naturally extends to "individual" executions).chessmaster1989

The expenses of state executions are in the legal process, not the execution itself. So saying that the family gets to pull the trigger (so to speak) instead of the state doesn't really do anything to reduce costs. It isn't bureaucracy that's causing the costs here. You'll end up saving more taxpayer dollars to "subsidize" the kid's life than you would in executing him, whether or not the state's the one that pulls the trigger. And that argument doesn't work that well anyway, since you "subsidize" plenty of criminals, but you can't just execute everyone who commits a crime. Alternatively, you can think of these "subsidies" as the price of keeping criminals locked up and as a source of deterrent to other criminals (which is closer to the truth).

And, I don't find it any more (morally) acceptable for an individual to execute someone than I do for the state to.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] It wouldn't circumvent the legal process, legitimate revenge would have to have a high standard of evidence, and would only apply to the worst criminals. It would also cut costs because execution would no longer be handled by a massive bureaucracy. I don't see any reason why I or anyone else should be forced by the State to subsidize the life of someone like this piece pf sh*t kid. I also don't think anyone should be forced to pay for their death by the hands of the state, though. Legal revenge would solve this problem.Rhazakna

The expenses of state executions are in the legal process, not the execution itself. So saying that the family gets to pull the trigger (so to speak) instead of the state doesn't really do anything to reduce costs. It isn't bureaucracy that's causing the costs here. You'll end up saving more taxpayer dollars to "subsidize" the kid's life than you would in executing him, whether or not the state's the one that pulls the trigger. And that argument doesn't work that well anyway, since you "subsidize" plenty of criminals, but you can't just execute everyone who commits a crime. Alternatively, you can think of these "subsidies" as the price of keeping criminals locked up and as a source of deterrent to other criminals (which is closer to the truth).

And, I don't find it any more (morally) acceptable for an individual to execute someone than I do for the state to.

Costs from executions come from trial costs, appeal costs, incarceration costs, and execution costs. It's the appeal costs where the main difference in costs is, since the appeals process tends to be much longer in the case of death penalty cases. This is the main place where the cost difference comes in, and won't be changed by switching to private executions. And if you're advocating allowing torture with that bolded comment, then you're a despicable human being.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] It wouldn't circumvent the legal process, legitimate revenge would have to have a high standard of evidence, and would only apply to the worst criminals. It would also cut costs because execution would no longer be handled by a massive bureaucracy. I don't see any reason why I or anyone else should be forced by the State to subsidize the life of someone like this piece pf sh*t kid. I also don't think anyone should be forced to pay for their death by the hands of the state, though. Legal revenge would solve this problem.Rhazakna

The expenses of state executions are in the legal process, not the execution itself. So saying that the family gets to pull the trigger (so to speak) instead of the state doesn't really do anything to reduce costs. It isn't bureaucracy that's causing the costs here. You'll end up saving more taxpayer dollars to "subsidize" the kid's life than you would in executing him, whether or not the state's the one that pulls the trigger. And that argument doesn't work that well anyway, since you "subsidize" plenty of criminals, but you can't just execute everyone who commits a crime. Alternatively, you can think of these "subsidies" as the price of keeping criminals locked up and as a source of deterrent to other criminals (which is closer to the truth).

And, I don't find it any more (morally) acceptable for an individual to execute someone than I do for the state to.

Doubt it. Punishment, be it death, torture, imprisonment or whatever is not a deterrent unless the threat is immediate. In the comission of a crime most people do not think beyond that moment, so thoughts of punishment never enter their minds until after the fact.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

The expenses of state executions are in the legal process, not the execution itself. So saying that the family gets to pull the trigger (so to speak) instead of the state doesn't really do anything to reduce costs. It isn't bureaucracy that's causing the costs here. You'll end up saving more taxpayer dollars to "subsidize" the kid's life than you would in executing him, whether or not the state's the one that pulls the trigger. And that argument doesn't work that well anyway, since you "subsidize" plenty of criminals, but you can't just execute everyone who commits a crime. Alternatively, you can think of these "subsidies" as the price of keeping criminals locked up and as a source of deterrent to other criminals (which is closer to the truth).

And, I don't find it any more (morally) acceptable for an individual to execute someone than I do for the state to.

chessmaster1989

Costs from executions come from trial costs, appeal costs, incarceration costs, and execution costs. It's the appeal costs where the main difference in costs is, since the appeals process tends to be much longer in the case of death penalty cases. This is the main place where the cost difference comes in, and won't be changed by switching to private executions. And if you're advocating allowing torture with that bolded comment, then you're a despicable human being.

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

The expenses of state executions are in the legal process, not the execution itself. So saying that the family gets to pull the trigger (so to speak) instead of the state doesn't really do anything to reduce costs. It isn't bureaucracy that's causing the costs here. You'll end up saving more taxpayer dollars to "subsidize" the kid's life than you would in executing him, whether or not the state's the one that pulls the trigger. And that argument doesn't work that well anyway, since you "subsidize" plenty of criminals, but you can't just execute everyone who commits a crime. Alternatively, you can think of these "subsidies" as the price of keeping criminals locked up and as a source of deterrent to other criminals (which is closer to the truth).

And, I don't find it any more (morally) acceptable for an individual to execute someone than I do for the state to.

worlock77

Doubt it. Punishment, be it death, torture, imprisonment or whatever is not a deterrent unless the threat is immediate. In the comission of a crime most people do not think beyond that moment, so thoughts of punishment never enter their minds until after the fact.

[QUOTE="chessmaster1989"]

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"] It isn't just the legal process. The legal process happens whether people are sentenced to death or not, and it's still more expensive to execute someone. Bureaucracy may not be the bulk of the cost, but it certainly increases it somewhat, so taking execution out of the hands of the bureaucracy would reduce costs because of the nature of bureaucratic allocation of resources. Life imprisonment is not a deterrent and neither is the death penalty. Knowing that the father of the victim will have a few hours alone with you on the other hand might be a different. As a nihilist, I don't argue morals. That's a debate that is inherently impossible to settle.Rhazakna

Costs from executions come from trial costs, appeal costs, incarceration costs, and execution costs. It's the appeal costs where the main difference in costs is, since the appeals process tends to be much longer in the case of death penalty cases. This is the main place where the cost difference comes in, and won't be changed by switching to private executions. And if you're advocating allowing torture with that bolded comment, then you're a despicable human being.