Last updated on 2014.07.17
Against my advice, Judge Bradley Zell sentenced confessed killer Eric Robert to death yesterday. South Dakota is thus doing exactly what the killer wants: succumbing to the fear and anger he uses to control others.
[Judge Zell] said Robert's positive qualities, including academic and professional success throughout his life, were outweighed by the anger and controlling behavior he has shown, particularly in recent years.
...a longtime girlfriend testified to his controlling nature and years of abuse during hearings this week... [John Hult, "Judge to Eric Robert: 'May God Have Mercy on Your Soul'," that Sioux Falls paper, 2011.10.27].
Judge Zell elaborates in his eleven-page justification for killing a prisoner:
Two threads, however, have been consistently woven through Robert's life leading him to where he is now. One thread is of an obsessive compulsive controlling behavior. This served Robert well with school, work and financially. Robert did well in school and very well in his employment. Robert was so obsessed with money that he was able to accumulate a rather large sum. The controlling part of Robert's behavior, however, ultimately destroyed any meaningful relationships he had.
The other thread woven through Robert's life is one of anger; [sic] the origin of which the Court could not find. Coupled with his obessive controlling, Robert's anger would culminate in his physically abusive and assualtive behavior towards the ones he loved. Add alcohol and drug use to the mix and any inhibitions Robert had were gone. During the periods of time when alcohol and drug abuse were absent Robert's relationships were good and no criminal activity took place in his life.
When Robert could no longer control his environment, this anger grew into a "war" as Robert has described it. Upon his incarceration in the SDSP in 2006, the internal struggle with losing control over his own life began. Other than the incident regarding conduct involving cutting the lock which resulted in his classification as a maximum security risk, (which the Court notes Robert has always vehemently denied) Robert's period of incarceration was essentially uneventful. Robert's war was held in check while focusing obsessively on seeking a sentence reduction before Judge Johnson for his kidnapping conviction which had resulted in an eighty year sentence. Without a reduction of his sentence, Robert would not be eligible for parole until he was 83 years of age. When the motion to modify was denied in 2009, Robert's war began to rage. He was depressed by the fact that he would probably die in prison. He was depressed by the fact that he would never have the opportunity to spend the rest of his life with the most important person in his life; [sic] his mother. He was depressed by the fact that his request to be transferred to a facility closer to where his mother lived in Wisconsin was denied. Based upon all of these realizations Robert made indications at the SDSP that he would rather die than live the rest of his life this way. As in any war, there are innocent victims. On April 12, 2011, RJ [Officer Johnson] was not a person to Robert but one of his oppressors. On April 12, 2011, RJ became a victim to Robert's war. As Robert has stated in Court, anyone who would have stood in his way as an oppressor would have died on that day.
Robert's internal "war", while being held in check at the moment, makes Robert a very dangerous person to the rest of society. The two threads woven through him, obsessive compulsive controlling behavior and anger will never change. Robert acknowledges the same [Judge Bradley Zell, State of South Dakota vs. Eric Donald Robert, pre-sentence hearing verdict, 2011.10.27].
Perhaps we ought to be alarmed that Judge Zell incorporates words like depressed and obsessive compulsive in his verdict without citing any psychiatric analysis. Perhaps we ought to be alarmed by the implication of mental disorder alongside the order to kill a man perhaps so suffering.
But I'm not going there. I'll take Robert's anger and controlling behavior at face value. He wants control of his life. He can't stand living in the penitentiary where he has no control. He thus tries to regain control of his life by winning a death penalty.
And South Dakota obliges. Judge Zell submits to Robert's control by adopting Robert's language of "war" and "oppressors." In that language, in that verdict, and in the fear that language and verdict encapsulate, Robert wins. South Dakota loses.
I have no fear or anger when I acknowledge that the judge made the right decision in this case. Society deserves the justice that Mr. Roberts forced this state to provide in the ruthless murder of Mr. Ron Johnson.
Mr. Roberts is responsible for the crimes he committed and the fate his crimes warrant.
Perfect metaphor describing the Eric Robert story:
http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2011/10/28/zombie-brain-psychiatrist
Rep. Nelson:
I'm not sure who accused you of fear or anger but I don't.
Let me change your response to reflect my different view:
I DISAGREE that the judge made the right decision in this case. Society deserves PROTECTION FROM Mr. Roberts. NOBODY forced this state to KILL HIM FOR the ruthless murder of Mr. Ron Johnson. WE ARE CHOOSING TO KILL HIM.
Mr. Roberts is responsible for the crimes he committed. WE ARE CHOOSING AS PUNISHMENT FOR his crimes TO TREAT HIM AS HE TREATED RON JOHNSON.
We do not have to give him his controling wish. We could lock him in solitary confinement so he can not control anything. If life is to much punishment for Page and Robert then so be it. We do not have to administer the lesser punishment of death.
Mr. Jones,
Again, the reality that rest of us have long understood in our lives, not everything is about you. Please read Mr. Heidelburger's article for the references he makes to the issue of fear and anger.
I reject your claims that "we" are killing Mr. Roberts. Mr. Roberts knowingly chose the death penalty when he committed his crimes. He is responsible for his own death, which he has forced the good people of this state to undertake in the name of justice and to preserve the inalienable rights of society.
Your claim that Robert's rightful sanitary peaceful death sentence, where he gets to live on death row for years, make peace with his maker, and say good bye to anyone he choses, is the same way he treated Mr. Ron Johnson is offensive.
"The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice" — Martin Luther King
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/rel16j.pdf
Cory, do you believe citizens of the chemical toilet could field an initiative to put ending the death penalty on the ballot in 2012?
No, Stace, Robert is not killing himself. As Troy says, we are entirely responsible. We are pulling the trigger/plunging the syringe. We could choose other punishments. Numerous other judges, states, and nations do.
Fear: Stace is right, Troy. I accuse him and the State of South Dakota of succumbing to fear and anger. Mr. Robert has used fear and anger to persuade us to do something immoral. In a perverse way, we are satisfying his lust for blood and for control. We are making the wrong choice.
Larry, I'd love to see a death penalty repeal on the ballot. Unfortunately, the deadline for 2012 initiatives is next week.
Cory, the prison officers will not let Robert or any other prisoner kill himself. They have a fiduciary and moral obligation to protect them, even from themselves.
Stace's argument is embarrassing, irrational, and non-sensical.
Further, it doesn't matter if you are nice or nasty when you intentionally murder somebody, or whether you let them pray or not pray first.
Premeditated murder is premeditated murder.
Bill, murder is the unlawful taking of a life. In that Mr. Robert's sentence is lawful, it is not murder.
Your lack of class in losing an arguement is embrarrassing, irrational, and non-sensical... as exhibted by your second to the last sentence.
I'll stand by my assertions, Mr. Nelson, your objections notwithstanding.
Mr. Fleming, should that not read the facts notwithstanding?
So, Cory: what chance do citizens have bringing the issue before the earth haters and misanthropes that make up the legislature?
I was hoping Roberts would get life, cause obviously he wants to die. He knew he'd die in prison and wanted to get out of that, let him suffer in prison like he didn't want to.
You get it, Ellen!
Larry, I think my neighbor Gerry Lange took a swing at repealing teh death penalty when he served in Pierre. There are some South Dakotans who are happy to carry the anti-death-penalty message to their legislators. But I suspect that (1) we don't have many legislators who are open to that message and (2) we would have even fewer who would be willing to take the political hit of spending political capital on a likely losing measure that would give opponents easy fall ammo.
But then in a Legislature where Dems are too small in numbers to make their political capital worth much, what's there too lose in leading a strong moral conversation? Who knows, a brave Dem taking a firm stand on abolishing the death penalty might win surprising support (and dare I say respect?) from conservatives like Troy Jones.
Nelson, what are the fact you assert are indisputable, besides your lack of understanding what inalienable means?
It's actually a natural Republican issue, Cory. Perhaps the best way you and I could help advance the cause is to stop talking about so much (at least publicly). Let the GOP own the idea. Let them be the ones to argue with Mr. Nelson.
Troy has the best grasp of it of anyone I've ever met, and he knows how to frame it for the conservative ear.
Let's face it man, not all great ideas are Democratic ideas.
The old guard Repubs have some great ones too.
Jones, you appear to have a hard time following along. Not sure where you came upon the idea that it is my job to wet nurse you.
I have no problem understanding inalienable. It is the same as the salvation the Good Lord gives us.. If you drive your car into a state concrete support of a bypass you are not promised immortality by the Good Lord. When you murder and rape with full knowledge that the appropriate punishment is death, you should not be surprised when such is the case.
Jones, Interrogatory, do you mean fact or facts? You seem to have a hard time following anything that does not reference you? Mr Fleming claimed that Mr Roberts sentence was premeditated murder. Murder by our statutes and God's is the unlawful taking of another's life. Fact is that Mr Roberts sentence and future punishment is lawful there for it is not murder.
I do understand inalienable; however, not in the context that you and your liberal counterparts place the rights of the offender over the rights of the innocents.
Inalienable has a clear meaning: in capable of being taken away, surrendered or transferred.
Universal means applies to all without conditions.
If you believe the right to life is not inalienable or not universal, I get that. Just say it. There is no "context" when using words that are absolute. Either it is or isn't (unless you think it depends on what the definition if "is" is).
If the right to life is inalienable and universal, you, me or the government cant justly deny another his life without it being necessary to protect another's proportionate right (can't kill to protect another's right lower on the right heirarchy as there is inalienable rights (highest level), enumerated rights (second level, and inferred rights (lowest level as they flow from the higher level rights).
And, maybe this is the essence of our disagreement. You keep saying I am placing the rights of the guilty over the rights of the innocent. There is some truth to that but it is not wholly accurate.
Let me give an example. I believe the right to life is inalienable meaning I can only take another's life to protect an inalienable right. I also have the enumerated right to assemble. If someone attempts to deny me my right to assemble, I can protect that right proportionately to the right. In other words, I cant shoot someone who tries to deny my right to assemble. But if that someone tries to kill me, I can protect myself using lethal means.
So the question is, what right of the innocent is denied if Eric Robert isnt killed? If it is proportional to the inalienable right to life, killing Eric Robert is just and should be lawful. If it is not proportional to an inalienable right, it would not be just.
If one presents a rationale for a right being denied proportional to the right to life, I will change my mind.
Until then it is my contention, in the US we have the ability in a max security setting to protect society and their guards from Eric Robert until he dies a natural death. Thus, killing Eric Robert isnt necessary. If it isnt necessary, I believe it to be unjust and thus murder.
A secular statist would assert "if it is legal, it is just and lawful." I reject that with regard to abortion and I reject it here.
If there was no need to change the law as times and needs change and every law was just, we wouldnt need elections and a legislature. Unfortunately that is not the case.
Troy explains a number of issues well. On the need for laws to change: perhaps we should forward that argument to Rep. Noem. She grumbles about "uncertainty", yet there must always be uncertainty about the law, in that we must always be open to the possibility that the laws we have on the books are unjust, ineffective, or inappropriate for new circumstances.
It occurs to me that the penitentiary guards on the job on April 12 might disagree with Stace's prescription for dealing with dangerous inmates. They faced the situation Troy describes as allowing the use of lethal force: Robert was climbing that wall, reaching for that gun. They threatened lethal force, but they held their fire. Even in that intense situation, the guards did not feel justified in killing to protect their right to live.
Were those guards less threatened at that moment than all penitentiary guards are currently as Robert sits in his cell plotting further escape?
I doubt if Mr. Nelson can satisfactorily address that question, Cory. I predict he will instead insult you for asking it. Virtually all of Mr. Nelson's comments on this topic have been the product of a lazy intellect.
Cory, you three sit here in the safety of affluent luxury never having had to deal with the carnage that these murders bring to a community, a family, or the law enforcement community. You three are literally modern day Marie Antoinette giving an edict that all is fine because this murder is behind bars, let the world eat cake. In your security, you presume that these crimes are all better once the criminal is in jail. What about the threat these violent murders pose to the families, victims, & law enforcement for as long as they draw a breath?
Neither of you are so naive as to think that the rest of society are all blessed with the pristine safe environments as you?
Of course you three do not want the argument to interlace with abortion, who would want that ugly mirror reflecting back the naked ugly truths you attempt to dress up. Contorting for one while having to contort the opposite direction for the other. Better stock up on Ben Gay.
Bill, ahhh the wonderful arrogance of the liberal mind; however, maybe the insult is justified. What idiot would ever presume to think that reality would ever sway the liberal mind? Carry on gentlemen, you are correct, the moon is made of green cheese. Your edict that they eat cake has made the world safe.
Troy, Mr. Nelson fails to make a distinction that you (and the Founding Fathers) do not.
Inalienable rights are accrued by Natural Law which exist a priori to legal statute, and indeed (as per the Bill of Rights) inform it.
They are thus axiomatic (self-evident) natural laws.
As you point out, just because a civil law exists "on the books" doesn't mean it is just or in keeping with natural law.
It is therefore perfectly and semantically correct to consider capital punishment to be murder, even by Mr. Nelson's own definition.
One simply has to appreciate the legal code being referenced when using the word "unlawful."
And your argument does that extremely well.
Thank you for it.
...more troglodite, foam at the mouth, belligerent abuse from our colleague Mr. Nelson I see. And right on schedule. At least he is prompt and predictable.
I get the sense that Rep. Nelson is no longer capable of sex for whatever reason so mental masturbation has become his obsession. Is that how you found jesus in your foxhole, Stace?
"The purpose of this twelve-week indoctrination is to produce the most efficient, disciplined, and gallant, killing machine. The drill instructors do this, said the recruiter, by removing my undesirable civilian traits, such as individuality and the inhibition against killing other human beings, and inserting Marine Corps traits, such as anti-individuality for the sake of a team work ethic, and, most importantly, the ability and even desire, to kill other human beings."
http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/07/13/the-bedrock-of-marine-corps-indoctrination/
Think about it, fellers: Marines are effectively tortured under a christian rubric to accept the mantra.
Stace, wait a minute: I just tried to get the argument away from my comfortable position on my luxurious couch (and, all hard words here notwithstanding, you are still welcome to visit sometime and judge that luxury yourself) by asking about the immediate threat to life that the guards faced on April 12. Faced with an advancing convict with murder in his eyes, the guards did not take Robert's life. Why not? What moral framework allowed them to let Robert live?
And no, I am under no delusion that my judgment gives Mrs. Johnson and her children and grandchildren any comfort. Nor am I under the illusion that we should comfort them by killing anyone else.
Heavy stuff, Larry. It has more than once occurred to me that Mr. Nelson should perhaps seek counseling and deprogramming instead of political office.
...except our Founding Fathers engaged in a campaign to exterminate the inalienable right to life of every Red Coat & mercenary that would not leave the continent. Ooops. Goes back to the whole personal responsibility thing. Tough concept to understand as it is not a fave in the liberal community.
Good to see old Idiocy Personified is in rare form.
Carry on, I am enjoying my cake.
Cory, I'm going to guess again that Mr. Nelson will not be able to field your question satisfactorily. My hunch is that the prison guard's restraint is an unfathomable anathema to Stace. He would have shot Robert on the spot. Right between the eyeballs.
Stace, you're avoiding the question and misrepresenting history. I do not recall any such order from General Washington for the unconditional extermination of British soldiers or sympathizers. The surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown seemed quite civilized.
Bill, Regardless of whether you know my history or not, your comment is one of the most idiotic statements you have ever made, and you have made some real whoppers. I have been in the position to use deadly force hundreds of times, gun drawn finger on trigger. I have been injured on numerous occasions during apprehensions with the most major comprising 3 blown out discs and multiple injuries that will haunt me till I die; however, never fear, I am still your huckleberry Billy Boy. Now scurry off.
Cory, Reread what I said "not leave the continent." You also evade the issue of if our Founding Fathers intended inalienable to be read as such by you, Troy, & Billy Boy, then how dare they deprive those loving Red Coats of their inalienable rights?
Get out and get some exercise, Stace; maybe you will be able to see your penis again someday.
Good to see you out there representing the liberal cause, Larry.
You need not concern yourself with my equipment, and no your concern is not touching..
can't drive a spike with a tack hammer, right?
It will be interesting to see whether the State Supreme Court will uphold the death sentence for a man who is clearly mentally ill, however.
Good to know, Stace. Maybe there's hope for you after all... huckleberry.
p.s. They didn't "leave the continent" Nelson. They founded the nation of Canada.
@Larry You are obsessing about my equipment a little too much. If you must know, I am the proud daddy of 6 beautiful children, 4 grown and on on their own. All 6 have the same backbone of steel their dad has. My grandson has also shown that he has a healthy dose of his grandpa in him.
@Bill Meant country and should have put country, you are correct in my erroneous use of continent.
So, your progeny has the genetic predisposition for violence, then?
should have been: enhanced predisposition for violence....
Stace, I still don't buy the equation. Please show me the order from General Washington or the Continental Congress declaring a policy of total extermination against British soldiers on the continent. To even consider applying the analogy here, you would have to show me that General Washington ordered the killing of British prisoners as potential and uncontainable security risks to American soldiers.
Out of the country... so if the analogy does hold, could I argue that we should follow General Washington's moral example and deport all prisoners instead of executing them?
And I still haven't heard Stace address the prison guards' restraint on April 12. What morals stopped them from firing? Were they wrong?
This is the part where Nelson always folds like a lawn chair, Cory. Notice though that he always does it with a lot of ruckus and clatter so at to create an emotional distraction, diverting attention from his lack of sound rational argument. Kind of a "shock and awe" thing. Hey, that works on some people, you know? Especially over at the War College. Hook. Line. Stinker.
Cory, I respect those guards decision more than the domesticated minds herein. The issue is the morality of the death penalty vs the morality expressed here of an inherent entitlement of a person to be taken care of for life regardless of the crime they committed, the inalienable rights of others that they stole. These rights that you folks advocate giving these murders while sacrificing the inalienable rights of those that must pay for and care for these convicted threats to society.
I argue for society's rights to be free from the imposition, you argue to enslave society for entitlements that you would contrive for these villains.
Let the people eat cake though, right boys?
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind, Stace. If the worst among us aren't protected by the law, none of us are.
(Clearly Mr. Nelson, in his delusional act of psychological projection, fails to realize that it is he himself who is making the smug, elitist, condescending, self-righteous argument.)
No Billy, Mr Nelson just knows that it is wrong to rob from the taxpayer (violate their inalienable rights) so that liberals can concoct another entitlement where one should not exist.
Please, explain great champions of inalienable rights for the violent convicted criminals, how do you justify stealing law abiding Americans inalienable rights to create this entitlement for convicted murders?
If you will put that into the form of a syllogism Stace, you will immediately see the fallacy in your reasoning. (Or do those of us who understand how to use formal logic have to do it for you?)
But that's just my point, Stace. I'm trying mightily to get this argument away from the discussion of how what unworthy wienies Bill and I and perhaps Troy are and investigate the moral choice made by the prison guards in the name of whose safety you justify this death sentence. They faced the exact moral situation we are discussing in much more immediate, absolutely not abstract terms. Their safety and innocent lives were at immediate risk. They had the tools, the training, and quite possibly legal justification to kill Robert. Yet they made the same moral choice as Bill, Troy, and I advocate now: to "entitle" Robert to live. Are you saying, Stace, that prison guards are free to make whatever moral choice they want, and that we cannot generalize any moral principles from their actions?
Cancer rates due to environmental degradation are ravaging the chemical toilet. Rep. Nelson: how can you purportedly defend the inalienable rights of your purported constituency (including those in utero who are most at risk) yet defy EPA's mandate to defend your childrens' inalienable rights to clean water and air?
You own it Bill. Run but the stink follows. The liberal mindset is that someone is entitled to be taken care of by the government in all things regardless of the heinous crimes they commit.
You claim you are defending inalienable rights; however, you knowingly do so by subverting innocent Americans inalienable rights.
No logic there, just hogwash liberalism at its finest.
So are we really supposed to believe mr. roberts. If he had the choice of grabbing a rifle and shooting as many guards as possible as he said he would or making a run for it, I think he would have ran fast. But if he can bully a judge, his controling behavior got a last laugh in.
You are correct about one thing, Stace. There is no logic in any of your last two comments. None whatsoever.
Yet Bill, take away the garnish and that is the ugly dish you serve and expect the taxpayers to pay for.
Roger, Mr. Roberts is obviously a liar. If he really wanted to be executed, he would have behaved in such a way as to force the guard to kill him. He is a coward and a manipulator.
And he will likely not be executed for a long, long time.
If and when he finally is, it will no doubt end up costing the State far more than it would have to keep him in solitary confinement for the rest of his days.
So much for the Nelson economy argument.
Logically speaking, you have nothing, Nelson. But by all means, keep scrambling. Maybe the lights will go on for you one of these days.
Larry, with that clean air comment, you might have just made a relevant point! ;-)
But I'm still waiting to hear Stace's judgment on the guards. They let Robert live, and they're fine. I let Robert live, and I epitomize the scourge of the liberal mindset. What's the difference, Stace?
Not only that, Cory, but to follow Nelson's "logic" (if you can stand to call it that) how wasteful of the guards to let Robert live. Think of the money it's cost us so far. The nerve of them! They must be tax and spend, bleeding heart liberals.
Since you are railing that the death penalty violates Robert's inalienable rights, are you advocating also for his, and others like him, release? Does he not have inalienable liberties?
It is okay for us to pour tax payer monies (their life, liberty, and happiness) into the entitlement you give Robert to be taken care of at taxpayer's inalienable rights expense; however, then you gnash your teeth and wail when there is not enough monies for the children's education. Your answer? Take more of the public's inalienable rights to give to the Roberts of the world.
The Founding Fathers grew cannabis under an inalienable right yet its cultivation today in the US is unlawful while abortion is legal under federal law.
Disconnect, Rep. Nelson?
Fact is: Eric Robert's anger might have been slaked had cannabis been legal.
From Cory's archive:
http://madvilletimes.blogspot.com/2010/01/donald-moeller-shows-death-penalty.html
Troy has already addressed your other question. You might want to stop writing and start reading... and thinking. The prisoners rights are constrained, not eliminated, and by and large, only to the extent necessary to protect the rights of others. i.e. prisoners still retain numerous inalienable rights while incarcerated.
Thank you, Bill, for answering Stace's question for me. Stace, I am arguing strictly against the death penalty, not incarceration or other forms of punishment. The right to life and the right to money are two very different rights. If we took your mingling of taxation into this argument seriously, we might be forced to conclude that we should not allow prisoners any rights whatsoever at the expense of the rest of society. We would not spend any of our hard-earned money on prisons or even courts; we would limit our expenses to bullets for policemen's guns.
So to review, Stace, the answers to your questions:
--No, I do not advocate releasing Robert.
--Yes, Robert has certain inalienable rights, such as life, but not the liberty to walk the streets.
--Yes, it is more than o.k., it is our duty to pour taxpayer money into maintaining a criminal justice system to provides due process and protects the rights of prisoners even as it punishes (and when possible, rehabilitates) prisoners.
Now, Stace, I have answered your questions. Answer mine: tell me what the difference is between the guards' choice to let Robert live on April 12 and the choice I would make were I judge or Governor to let him live now.
Cory, the guards situational decision and the legal obligation of the judge are clearly different and easily understood for such an intelligent man as yourself. The guard's obligation was immediate to himself, the judge's responsability is to the community.
Clearly money does equate in the inalienable rights of Americnas to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness! For the lack of the dollar we took from a taxpayer to support the entitlement you claim for Mr Roberts, a man/woman could not eat, they could not get an education, they could not feed or cloth their child, they could not afford health insurance, lives are lost and ruined when you deprive one American of their inalienable rights in order to create the entitlement for Mr Roberts.
Our duty is to protect law abiding innocent American's inalienable rights from those that would deprive them of such, not to assist criminals such as Roberts in doing so.
I do want to thank you all for availing yourself in this discussion. I am more than prepared in the event this matter surfaces in session.
Don't forget to take your Oxycontin suppositories, Stace.
Mr. Nelson,
Nothing I have said negates the justness of the Revolutionary War or incarcerating Eric Robert or any other justly convicted criminal. In fact, my discussion of the heirarchy of rights and concept of careful denial is consistent with the justification for the Rev. War (England's denial of colonists inalienable right to choose their social contract), Lincoln's freeing of the slaves (slaves right to freedom supercedes the plantation owner's property rights) and as well as why rhe unborn's inalinable right to life transcends a women's inferred right to privacy.
Whether you know it or not but your continued use of the word "inalienable" that you are willing to deny to a criminal means the right isn't inalienable to you but a discretionary right which places your view of rights intellectually directly opposite of Jefferson and Madison and quite close to Lenin and Stalin.
Also, your continued attempt to denigrate my words with your Marie Antoinette comparison is so goofy, I am truly at a loss of words which seldom happens to me. I congratulate you for making me speechless in this regard.
(Oh no: Troy just called Stace a Communist....)
Stace, you've still missed the point. The guards had the same obligation to innocent life (their own and their colleagues') as the judge and we do. The guards faced a much more clear and present threat than we do. The guards made the same moral choice as I would as judge; don't kill the prisoner. But you condemn me but not the guards. Whispering "situational" doesn't absolve you of contradiction here; it might worsen your stance.
And your argument about taking food out of children's mouths and denying other social benefits for the sake of paying to incarcerate a bad man is an elephant gun blowing a hole in the entire penal system rather than the pea-shooter you need to pierce my very specific and limited argument. Yours is the argument that leads to a sweeping rejection of rights, as your argument justifies killing or exiling every prisoner to save the expense of maintaining prisons. I said at the beginning that making the moral choice on the death penalty is harder. It requires that we set aside our emotions and agree to spend money to feed and house even the most evil people.
Your best bet, should there be a debate on this topic next session, Stace would be to sit quietly at your desk, crinlke yor eyes knowingly, nod and shake your head (subtly) a (very) few times, and hope no one call on you to opine.
Should that happen, rise up to your full height, draw the deepest possible breath, let your eyes roll back into your head and collapse on the floor.
Later, tell the press you were so overcome with emotion, you had a mild stroke and will recap your thoughts on the matter for them when you're feeling a little more clear minded and less light headed.
You will thus become a South Dakota legislative legend.
People will talk about you for decades and make up things you "said" which will be far more wise than any thing you yourself would ever have come up with.
Jones,
While you whine that I am depriving Roberts of his inalienable rights, you ignore the principles that Conservatives believe, that he is responsible for his actions, not society the victim. While he deprives himself of his inalienable rights, you and your liberal ilk are more than happy to deprive law abiding Americans of their inalienable rights in in order to give Roberts an entitlement to be taken carfe of for life!
While Roberts deprived himself of his rights through his actions, YOU and your liberal bretheran happily rob law abiding Americans their inalienable rights to satisfy your arrogant ideas that you are wise and benevolant.
Now go drop some names and shake some hands so you can tell yourself you are a Conservative.
Feel free to whime to everyone some more about how you were so poorly treated by me after you have done so much for the Republican party.
Before you do, take a look at the SD GOP platform and get a clue.
Make sure you tell the 100 people you know in my new district that I wouldn't put up with your arrogant self bloated impression of yourself. If folks know you, it will garner me ten times that number in support.
Bill, don't you have a draft to dodge, someone to threatent to beat up online, and some support for abortion to gin up?
I accept your concession of loss.
I just got done whipping someones ass on line, Stace. Yours.
Sure you did Bill, sure you did. That's why you through the hissy fit. Just make sure if you are going to threaten to beat me up too, please do it in person so I can enjoy the laugh.
threw :-D
No fit here, Stace. I'm laughing my butt off. You are simply pathetic.
You're not winning, Bill, I am.
...and i'm Idiocy Personified....
He's all your, Kurtz. Be sure to kiss him first.
eeeeuuuuwwww.....
Bob Ellis, maybe....
Mr Nelson,
Definition of inalienable: Unable to be taken away, surrendered or transferred.
Thus, your statement "While Roberts deprived himself of his rights by his actions" means:
1) You don't understand the definition.
2) You intentionally are misusing the word like Saul Alinsky.
You don't believe the right to life is inalienable.
P.S. I have said many times Eric Robert is solely responsible for the death of Ron Johnson. In fact, I dont think he is mentally ill as you said somewhere, which legally is a mitigating circumstance that could prevent his execution under the law.
By the way, while I do hold some positions not traditionally held by many conservatives(two come to mind), I am not sure a single liberal who pays attention to my comments and especially my rationale would like me in their camp and I accept not being in their camp for they abhor nearly every other of my positions. But if in your eyes my strict application of the inalienable right to life which I believe is a gift from God, the perfect "Right-giver" makes me a liberal, so be it.
Troy, I did mention the mental-illness language that Judge Zell played with in his verdict, but I do not think Robert is mentally ill.
I also labor no illusion that you are a liberal, Troy... but if a death-penalty repeal comes to the floor of the Legislature, I'll be happy to camp with you.
Mr Jones, you use a word to defend that which is indefensible. Clearly their are limits and due punishment for the illegal acts one would under take to deprive an innocent of their inalienable rights.
You find great relish in hiding behind semantics all the while running from a noble cause of defending the rights of those that are the most vulnerable and innocent who are admittedly under attack with this group.
It is asinine to assert that we most advocate and protect the criminal deprivation of the innocent's inalienable rights.
You also ignore the fact that your asinine argument indicts society as the criminal for holding these actual criminals responsible for their crimes.
It is Also not lost on me that you save your vehemence for me and not the criminal who murdered the innocent
Senior Correction Officer Ron Johnson. To you, it is more of a crime for me to not to show you the deference that your stuffed shirt, name dropping ego, craves.
It was real clear in your comments about my efforts to make votes visible that Pres Reagan did not rub off on you via your claimed hand shake as much as you would desire folks to think.
Stace, I haven't yet decided whether you are brave or foolish in taking on Troy, Bill and Cory in the manner and (what I think is logic) you have chosen, but I'm sure that most will decide for themselves.
What I find remarkable is your lack of respect you show people given your military background and current position as a lawmaker for all of the people of South Dakota. I can understand disagreements in philosophies and politics, what I can't understand is how diminishing and bullying a person strengthens an argument.
It also seems that you might flatter yourself that Troy has channeled his vehemence to you and is ambivalent to the actions of a murderer. You accuse him of hiding behind semantics. Since when is having a command of the English language hiding behind semantics.
I'm also guessing that there's a few here that might get a special chuckle out of Ed Koch's admonition to a reporter that "I can explain this to you, but I can't comprehend it for you."
Should anyone ever accuse you of being a statesman, I will argue vehemently on your behalf.
Bill said Roger, Mr. Roberts is obviously a liar. If he really wanted to be executed, he would have behaved in such a way as to force the guard to kill him. He is a coward and a manipulator.
I realize that I am getting in on this conversation a little late, But Bill could you please clafiy this statement. Prison guards do not carry weapons, so how could he force the gaurd to kill him?
Jana, respect is earned. If you wish your rights to be subverted in order to give a vicious murderer entitlements for life, support the fine liberals herein.
Me? This has been a brief sparring match to observe how the liberals will broach such a topic to in debt society to those that would happily destroy it. I am okay with takibg the punches as I am all the more prepared for thr issue on the floor.
The difference between me and them, you can always be assured you will get a straight answer AND I strive to serve the best interests of those I serve.
Tim, Roberts was trying to get the rifle of a guard on the lookout.
Sounds like they had weapons to me.
http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/58326/
Stace, I'm not convinced I've received a straight answer on the question of the moral framework that allows the guards to let Robert live on April 12 and not incur the same criticism you give my argument here.
Stace, after re-reading your posts I'm not sure you have given a straight answer yet. Maybe it's my own inability to understand the way you connect the dots. Or maybe it's not being able to understand some of your writing and what it means...like in your last post:
"This has been a brief sparring match to observe how the liberals will broach such a topic to in debt society to those that would happily destroy it."
I'm not sure that large, loud and loquacious is conducive to productive discussions.
I am sure of one thing though, you are willing to stand with your opinion no matter what.
I stand corrected, but guards that mix with the general prison population are not armed.
@Cory The guard was entrusted with the immediate situational of containing Roberts. The judge was entrused with ensuring justice is served, and the public is protected.
@Jana The difference between myself and these others? Their thoughts on the morality of government having lethal force authority to protect the innocent public is hypothetical musings from the comfortable safety and security provided by those that have already struggled with the morality and reality of the issue.
Yes Jana, despite Stace's assertion that he will always give you a "straight answer" his answers are oftentimes linguistically and logically incomprehensible.
Other times he creates the appearance of reason by using non-sequiturs. I'm not sure he is aware of the fact that he does these things, and so will give him the benefit of at least attempting to be honest.
In any case, he is right to want to be challenged by people who truly do know how to reason, since he obviously needs the practice.
As to this topic, if Nelson has a rational point to make to support his emotional position, he has not, to my mind, Troy's or Cory's yet made it.
I get that you must be feeling approximately the same way.
Got it Tim. Don't know if you are right or not (haven't been in prison), but I guess it makes sense. It would perhaps be too tempting and too easy to overwhelm a few guards and take their weapons, I suppose.
Stace, when it comes to this issue, there IS no difference between you, me, Troy, Cory, the prisoners, or any other person. We all have inalienable human rights.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."
What we are discussing here is the "consent of the goverened."
It is an open discussion, and every opinion carries equal weight.
Do you get it yet?
I posted the following on the SDWC blog this morning. I will repost it here for Mr. Nelson's convenience, should he prefer this forum to that of his GOP fellows. I'm guessing he doesn't get much of a workout over there.
___________________________
Summation of Mr. Nelson’s position:
1. He does not believe human rights are inalienable (unalienable).
2. He does not believe prisons can be made safe enough to protect prison guards, other prisoners or society in general.
3. He believes prisoners sentenced to death have sentenced themselves and holds “We the People†via the Judicial system harmless.
4. He believes that anyone who disagrees with him on these points is not a good, red-blooded American like he is.
5. He believes the way to win a reasoned argument is by emotional intimidation.
There are more. But lets begin by having him rebut those. One by one. In clear, rational, reasonable language. And as an ordinary citizen, without reference to his experience as a law enforcement officer in the military.
Stace: "The guard was entrusted with the immediate situational of containing Roberts. The judge was entrused with ensuring justice is served, and the public is protected."
It would be interesting to compare the two oaths of office and the two job descriptions. Can you present such evidence for your position, Mr. Nelson? Or are you just spitballing here?
I'll argu that both were sworn to uphold the US Constitution, and that both were "entrusted with the immediate situational of containing Roberts."
These are precisely the types of arguments Nelson repeatedly throws out, hoping someone (other than himself) will believe they actually make sense.
@Bill "That to SECURE these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…†Are you getting it yet Bill? Thus the oath to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Thus the ability to wage war to secure those rights en masse & the death penalty to do so situationally.
#2 & #3 Yes, the rest is Bills whiny temper tantrum loss of the argument hogwash as usual.
You are clearly intelligent enough to understand that the prison guard & judge's duties are different simply from common knowledge of their positions. I have neither the time nor patience to humor another one of your distractions. If it is so foreign to you, do a little reading.
If capital punishment were illegal, as it is in other states, the judge would have no authority to impose it. Conversely, the guard, under attack could more easily justify killing Roberts in self defense in any state because he, at that moment (situation) would have been defending (securing) his own inalienable rights as well as others in the immediate vicinity.
You can cede the argument if you wish, Nelson. I would if I were you. You lose more and more credibility every time you write something. You should probably retreat, refresh, and regroup.
Have a splendid Sunday
To summarize, Bill & Troy claim the morale high ground in defending convicted murderer Eric Robert's inalienable rights over those of innocent Americans and claim WE the people are wrong to have a death penalty to secure the innocents' inalienable rights.
They demand that we pour more tax monies into our corrections system to house these convicted murderers for a life of comfort all the while depriving innocent prison guards of their inalienable rights by making them put their lives at risk to care for these murderers. Via the deprivation of the much needed tax monies to care for these threats to society, they also demand that we further deprive taxpayer and tax revenue users of their inalienable rights that those monies provide for.
While no vehemence for Eric Roberts, plenty for someone who would dare question their faulty liberal logic of depriving the innocent masses of their inalienable rights in order to give them to a proven threat to society that the government is obliged to protect the innocent public from.
Stace, I really hate it when the loud minority uses WE the people when it isn't meant to represent anyone other than those you agree with. That is a direct affront to the document's writers. You might think that it is an expression of your supreme patriotism, but it is just the opposite.
Your framing of the subject as "...defending convicted murderer Eric Robert’s inalienable rights over those of innocent Americans" is a false choice argument and you know it.
"Bill & Troy claim the morale high ground in defending convicted murderer Eric Robert’s inalienable rights over those of innocent Americans and claim WE the people are wrong to have a death penalty to secure the innocents’ inalienable rights."
False. We claim no such thing. Fallacy: False dichotomy. The constitution defends the rights of all, both guilty and innocent.
"They demand that we pour more tax monies into our corrections system to house these convicted murderers for a life of comfort all the while depriving innocent prison guards of their inalienable rights by making them put their lives at risk to care for these murderers."
False. Prisons must be made safe for both inmates and prison workers. Another false dichotomy. (Seems to be Nelson's favorite fallacy.)
"While no vehemence for Eric Roberts, plenty for someone who would dare question their faulty liberal logic..."
False on all counts. The only one vehement here is Mr. Nelson. Irrationally so. Emotional arguments appear to be only kind he knows how to make.
Every point he has attempted to make here is designed to emotionally inflame rather than to intellectually enlighten the reader.
Three strikes and your out, Nelson. Better luck next time.
Wish y'all would realize that Rep. Nelson has entered this maelstrom amply buoyed by his own amusement with the intent to leave you spinning by yourselves.
Jana: "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." — Samuel Johnson.
As if you need me to bring the bad news: in the unlikely event this issue reaches the floor of the Capitol, the earth haters that glut the legislature will add provisions will further eviscerate reproductive rights for half of South Dakota's population.
Be very afraid.
Jana, you are aware that the death penalty is the law of the land in 34 states & with our federal government. Also, they claim the government is wrong for enforcing the death penalty, excuse me for using the conventional understanding that WE the people are the government.
In regards to your other critique, these criminals are not taken care of, nor the expenses to do so, by magic beans. We deprive prison guards of their rights to make them take care of these criminals and we deprive the tax payers of their safety, security, & monies to do so. How is that a false argument.
Yes, you enlightened people are right on all issues. I cannot believe that more societys were not founded on the brilliant enlightened ideas of killing the unborn while forcing society to deprive itself of their inalienable rights in order to preserve those that are a proven threat to society.
My sincere apologies for my service which appears to be a constant irritant to you and Bill.
May I suggest you and Bill to take up such service in my stead.
Patriotism is the first thing attacked by the scoundrel who has none. - Stace Nelson
Cut your losses, Liberals and Mr. Jones: abandon this line of questioning and focus on restoring full civil rights to the women of South Dakota.
"Jana, you are aware that the death penalty is the law of the land in 34 states & with our federal government. "
Yes Stace, I am aware of that.
Are you aware that Afghanistan, Communist China, Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea, Palestinian Authority (Hamas), Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Syria Uganda and Yemen also allow the death penalty? As a matter of fact, most modern countries have outlawed the death penalty.
You will notice that we are joining many Islamic and communist countries in advocating the death penalty.
May the Goddesses bless you, Jana: but I implore you to cease wasting your time.
Instead, go here and paper the people who in fact might listen:
http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011s/MemberMenu.aspx
Jana, I will take that as your classy concession that I was proper in my use of "WE the people.
Good to see you compare this great country, that goes to Herculean efforts to give the accused fair justice, to such as those that don't.
Reflection on you and your patriotism perhaps?
Thank you, Rep. Nelson, for driving traffic away from the War Toilet to Madville Times where those 685,000 clicks at the bottom of the page represent the additional resources to sink your fat ass.
Jana, be aware that Rep. Nelson's election campaign is financed in part by corporations to overcrowd the Penitentiary beyond its capacity in a very real assault on civil rights in South Dakota. Witness the aggressive techniques being employed on I-90 by the same well-financed law enforcement personnel that enable Governor Daugaard to seize Native children from their families.
Bet me that additional funding will be requested for the Department of Corrections to bolster 'security' at the Penitentiary and jails in the chemical toilet at the expense of children, women, the elderly, and minorities:
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/South_Dakota_state_budget
Hmm... so far Stace has been recognized as having the self-same arguments as Communist dictators and the Islamic religious extremists.
And still he persists in his assertion that we who disagree with him are somehow less philosophically American than he, questioning our patriotism as he hides behind his.
I'm starting to think he may be a charlatan, or perhaps even a mountebank.
(Love that word, mountebank.)
Stace, the link here has a map at the bottom of the article. Clearly you are literary challenged, so you don't have to read the article of you don't want to (although it might be good practice). But for illustrative purposes, vis a vis, Jana's assertion, it should suffice to illustrate her point.
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/map-which-countries-use-the-death-penalty/241490/
Mr. Fleming, must you self-flagellate?
According to the legend on the link Bill, more countries use/can use the death penalty than those that do not.
Corey 122 responses and counting. Is this a record for Madville?
[Tim! 123 is pretty high... but the champ so far is my post on the Filipino church buying Scenic. 272... and there would have been more if I hadn't deleted some anons and then shut down the discussion out of fatigue from broken English and, more importantly, broken logic and theology. Scroll down to the bottom of the page to see the "most commented" posts this year.]
Yes, I know, Tim. It's a work in progress. The US will abolish it in the next generation, I predict. The current generation abhors it. We need one more evolutionary iteration.
Bill do you ever get tired of your own yammering and spouting of dishonesty? I bet you were one of those little kids that tipped over the board game everytime they played because they couldn't win fair and square.
You and Jena brought up my service yet again in the same tired fashion as always, not I.
My position is the same as what the Founding Fathers were on the death penalty and the defense of this nation. Thus the provisions within the US Constitution; however, I don't expect little facts to keep you from your normal dishonest blather.
Carry on Billy, don't rest until you have slimed every truth known to man and anyone who disagrees with you.. :-D
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/national-polls-and-studies
The only liar here has been you Stace.
That combined with poor logic skills is a bad formula for leadership.
The main reason people brought up your military service is because you always do, and we just want to make it clear that it is irrelevant in the context of this discussion.
This is the people's business and your involvement in the discussion is as an equal. If you insist on it being as a military member then you lower your status to "employee."
Which, come to think of it, is your status as a legislator as well.
Better to just put on your everyday citizen hat and pay attention to what your neighbors are telling you.
There went the board game again! :-D
Temper, temper Billy. No lies here, just your distaste for the truth.
Yes, Bill... Your logic of killing the unborn and preserving threats to innocent citizens at their on cost could have been the cornerstone of great societys.. Or maybe not.
No Billy, you always reference it or someone like you as my service rankles you and Jana and you use any excuse to rail about it.
Your next statement shows you projecting your own insecurities yet again and a concession that you lost the argument yet again. Your ego will not allow you to admit defeat so you claim unfair advantage by your opponent.
My everyday citizen hat is what got me elected and is what rankles you. You could NEVER be elected running as who you are and what you believe in. So, your projected anger at me.
Thank you for the insights, if this issue comes up, I am ready.
Where are you at on slavery, Stace? The Founding Fathers stole a continent under the inalienable right to own slaves. The Emancipation Proclamation came as a executive order. Would you accept a proclamation from the President ending capital punishment as the law of the land?
I don't ever want to be elected to anything, Stace.
It's the very last thing I would ever consider doing.
Run Billy Run! South Dakotans would LOVE your lectures to them that they are violating Eric Roberts' inalienable rights!
Why don't ou give them Stace. Hopefully you have them memorized by now. I don't run for office. I help other people run for office if I agree with their politics.
Bill, you are a successful businessman, Stace is a lifelong public leech.
Careful what you say, Larry: I've worked for (leeched from?) the public sector all my life. Just like Stace, every major paycheck I've earned in the United States has been signed by taxpayers. (Interestingly, my major employment in the private sector took place in Russia and Canada... ironic observations on socialism are welcome.)
You have never killed or beaten someone for pure joy, Cory.
Sadism is not an inalienable right either.
Copied and pasted from the War Toilet, Troy nails it:
Troy JonesOctober 30, 2011 at 8:27 pm | Permalink
1) Is Ollie Northa liberal or am I just an Ollie North conservative.
2) Since I want a strict interpretation of the Declaration and the concept of inalienable rights, are those who like Mr. Nelson judicial activists who want to distort our founding documents to serve their own agenda?
3) Since Mr Nelson thinks incarcerating people is advocating putting people on welfare, is he advocating we quit punishing convict with jail, kill or release them? IHe did say being a prison guard is a violation of their inalienable rights. Who is going to guard all these criminals?
4) Does anyone wonder why there is this growing list of conservatives deciding to oppose the death penalty?
The only difference between Stace Nelson and Eric Robert is that Stace did it legally and as a career.
Both are mentally ill: one is incarcerated, one is not.
Stace said: I will take that as your classy concession that I was proper in my use of "WE the people."
Not a chance pal...
So Stace, I asked a question.
Were you aware that you share the same philosophy regarding the death penalty with communists, Islamic extremists and dictatorships?
Why do you suppose that the US has the same policy as these countries?
Can't wait for the straight answers we'll get here!
Jana,
Agreed, no class there at all.
Actually, I share the same philosophy as that of our Founding Fathers who provided for capitol punishment within our Constitution.
Good to see though that you compare this great country, that goes to Herculean efforts to give the accused fair justice, to such as those that don't. Thus the USA does not have the same policy; however, don't let facts get in your way.
Reflection on you and your patriotism or the lack thereof, perhaps?
Larry, below contempt as usual.
Jana, what Rep. Nelson does here and at DWC is nothing short of cyber bullying. His anger and controlling personality is pathological; a contraindication of the effects of the power drug he uses to fog the world that doesn't conform to his delusions. He shoves his creation superstitions down the throats of his captives and crams virtual patriotism hoses into any orifice that his victims leave unprotected.
The fact that he has been a CASA representative should frighten every social worker to the core lest he taint the very clients he purports to advocate. How a man who models an unhealthy body image and who has any contact with rudderless young people frankly scares me beyond terror.
and yet it is you that keeps getting banned from DWC. Dr Fraud, heal thyself.
Someone has to stand up to the earth haters, Nelson.
Say good night Stace.
good night Stace.