DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Stanley "Tookie" Williams.. Thoughts?
Pages:  
Showing posts 101 - 125 of 219, (reverse)
AuthorThread
12/13/2005 08:36:10 PM · #101
Hey Pano.

I accept your emotional outburst. Like most of my Liberals friends, emotional and reasoning with profanity.

But tell me this, if Mr. Gang Banger had brutally mutilated your sweet heart, mother, good buddy, or whom ever you really love or care for, what would you do? Just sit on your thumbs and cheer with your F.Y. attitude or what. Just wondering! Or would you finally come to your senses any let justice proceed to send the scum to hell. Van

12/13/2005 09:24:55 PM · #102
Originally posted by TartarFan:

This is Wrong
I am a conservative who fully supports the Death Penalty like the Majority of Americans. I think it is the right thing considering the alternatives.
However, sometimes we need to think it through to the end.
Tookie was a bad man, who did bad things, and help to start a lot of pain and suffering. But this man has been nominated for the nobel piece prize 6 times. He could have done a lot of good in the future from inside his cell.
It is too late now to do anything but say "what if", but we clearly made a mistake in this case. I hope someone can pick up his tasks and help out future generations, otherwise we will all pay for this death.


You might want to review what he has done the last 25 years in his cell before you think about what he MIGHT have done in the future.
12/13/2005 10:20:38 PM · #103
Originally posted by David Ey:

Originally posted by TartarFan:

This is Wrong
I am a conservative who fully supports the Death Penalty like the Majority of Americans. I think it is the right thing considering the alternatives.
However, sometimes we need to think it through to the end.
Tookie was a bad man, who did bad things, and help to start a lot of pain and suffering. But this man has been nominated for the nobel piece prize 6 times. He could have done a lot of good in the future from inside his cell.
It is too late now to do anything but say "what if", but we clearly made a mistake in this case. I hope someone can pick up his tasks and help out future generations, otherwise we will all pay for this death.


You might want to review what he has done the last 25 years in his cell before you think about what he MIGHT have done in the future.


Further, I haven't seen anything in the past 25 years that showed he was any different. yea, he wrote some anti-gang childrens books. but no one bought them

I've written a bunch of plays, performed and seen by about as many people that have bought his book. Where's my noble in literature nomination?

One supporter said she would prove he was innocent. She has had 24 freakin' years. If you can't prove it in that amount of time, it can't be proved.

Gotta go feed the kids. I have more. If it is not posted, I will later.
12/13/2005 11:34:10 PM · #104
Originally posted by TartarFan:

This is Wrong
I am a conservative who fully supports the Death Penalty like the Majority of Americans. I think it is the right thing considering the alternatives.
However, sometimes we need to think it through to the end.

Tookie was a bad man, who did bad things, and help to start a lot of pain and suffering. But this man has been nominated for the nobel piece prize 6 times. He could have done a lot of good in the future from inside his cell.

It is too late now to do anything but say "what if", but we clearly made a mistake in this case. I hope someone can pick up his tasks and help out future generations, otherwise we will all pay for this death.


Yep....he had 25 years MORE than the 4 people he killed so brutal they make movies about it and call it things like "Friday the 13th" or "Texas Chainsaw Massacre".

Do you know what a shotgun blast to the your back at point blank range does? Leaves a hole that even a frisbee can't cover.

Yeah, this guy deserved a Nobel Peace Prize like Charles Manson deserved father of the year or the BTK killer deserved Time Magazine's Man Of The Year....Oh thats right...Hitler won Time "Man of The Year" once didn't he...I guess people are insane enough.

Sometimes, I think people deserve the suffering they bring on themselves with the stupid shit they say.

12/14/2005 09:54:53 AM · #105
Originally posted by Flash:

Columbus had a minority view of a "round" world. Abolishonists had a minority view that slavery should be outlawed. Rosa Parks had a minority view that "blacks" should be equal. And those fighting the Revolution had a minority view that religious persecution and taxation without representation was unjust.


To: Dr. Achoo, theSaj, BearMusic and anyone else I may have missed, that found a correction necessary from the above post - thank you for your clarifications. I believe you may have interpreted my words a bit too literally, however they were my words and literal was certainly one potentially accurate interpretation. Your corrections are so noted. I perhaps should have been more diligent in thinking through my examples and will be, in the future. My intent was merely to point out that simply because something is a truism, does not qualify it as something else also - (as in the statement; being in the minority is nothing more than being in the minority). It only means that it is what it is. It could be something else also, but that requires spearate supporting evidence.

Anyway, simply wished to acknowledge that your points are received.

btw, can someone explain how to insert multiple quotes within a single response with normal text inbetween.

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 09:57:28.
12/14/2005 10:42:37 AM · #106
Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Personally, I'm against abortion, for strong gun control, and against capital punishment. Try to find a political party which represents me...


//www.cnn.com/2005/US/12/14/boston.shooting.reut/index.html

Boston has (I believe) very restrictive gun control measures. If the purpose of restricting guns is to stem violence then that is not born out in study after study including this example - (even more so by Professor Lott's conclusions, University of Chicago). A reference is made in the article to the violence of 18-21 year old "youths" and in my opinion, they are certainly capable of comprehending lawful and unlawful actions - even if they struggle to identify facial expressions.

So if it is unlawful to possess a firearm, and it is unlawful to shoot someone with it (offensively), then the solution for these troubled youngsters is - what? I think I already know the positions from the "right", just curious about the positions from the "left".
12/14/2005 11:08:31 AM · #107
Hey Flash, my apologies...as I meant no offense. Just wanted to clarify, and I did understand your analogy and noted it as a valid usage.

;)
12/14/2005 11:09:12 AM · #108
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

This example sticks in my mind, as there are case law examples of teenagers reacting or over reacting in scenarios where they mis-read the situation


I've seen ample amount of that in adults. And I've seen numerous 16 yr olds who have exhibited much more maturity than 30 yr olds.

It varies, but to say a 16 yr old does not on avera

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

If you accept this (I cannot find the reference), then maybe you would accept that a 15 year old might misread a situation where a friend looks threatened, when in fact he is dealing with someone who is confused, and over-reacts, unbeknownst to him inappropriately. Should that teenager be treated as an adult, or as a teenager with his limited facial cognition ability?


Frankly I question the realistic accuracy of the entire study you reference. And if there are mitigating factors they seldom receive the death penalty - so your point is moot. We're talking about 16 yr olds who are in gangs who are robbing, and killing people. And often the case being, that these are not their first crimes but rather after years in and out of juvie for violent crimes they get caught committing the ultimate offense.

It needs to be evaluated on an individual basis. Just as we judge sanity on an individual basis. Who is sane? Is an individual sane? and competent? then that is the responsibility of the courts. Many 16 yrs olds are fully competent to know that murder is wrong. Perhaps a few aren't. But a few 18 yrs olds, and even 30-40yr olds...in fact few seriel killers are competant in such fashion. So since a mental faculty is lacking, should we be permissive of the crime?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

How about our elected representatives?


If you have forgotten, you were the one who said that such a system of democracy (and since we are in fact talking about republics which use elected officials I applied it to that as well or your point was moot to begin with). So you're the one who said elected representatives were not enough.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


women should be solely responsible for bearing the consequences of having sex?


Never said that...just said an innoncent baby should not be the one held responsible. I believe both parties should be responsible.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


You know (or should know) that the debate is much larger than whether a foetus has different dna to its mother (of course it does).


I know that whenever people like you say a "woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body"...that you're spouting quite a load of BS, ignoring scientific facts and ignoring the fact that the "choice" was already made. And ignoring the fact that you are deciding what is done with someone else's body.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


Why put so much effort into supporting the death penalty if you think that it has no benefits over life sentencing, when it means more expense, places the US squarely in the crosshairs (as such!) of every human rights organisations, and provides no option of reversal when the US is almost certainly executing innocents


As i've stated, but you, just as always, will never address the points I made with any rational thought:

a) because we do not have life sentencing in the U.S.
b) I believe the system needs major reform, so that innoncents cannot be executed.
c) I have commented on the need of a "Death Penalty - Sustained" in the U.S. It means you earned the death penalty but we are not invoking it but you are a dead man and never to be released.
d) Death Penalty does NOT cost more than Life Sentence. (We have legal battles trying to show that the death penalty is not acceptable. And much of the cost is involved in constant appeals. In fact, much of our costs of everything is due to litigation. Reform would solve that.
e) Those receiving the death penalty should have absolute proof (caught on film, DNA evidence, guilty confession, etc)
f) Those who receive the death penalty should be executed with 2 yrs.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Forty-five states (plus the District of Columbia) presently employ a life sentence in which there is no possibility of parole for at least 25 years.


FUNNY....25 yrs doesn't seem like a life-sentence to me. Case in point. The problem, is the life-sentence was supposed to be that. Then we had life sentence without parole and people were still released. Over time it changes. And people don't trust such anymore...

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


and the dramatic downturn in crime experienced in those states contrary to all expectations


While the NAZI's were in power and executing millions, crime was also reduced. So should we have let their reign continue on the basis of a reduction of crime?

12/14/2005 11:11:46 AM · #109
Regarding the death of others by the "state", what are the positions (for and against) of this action.

//www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10464849/

Is it correct, proper, acceptable, or any other "positive" term to terminate other humans when those other humans are intent upon doing you and/or yours harm? I suspect that these targeted militants were likely younger, certainly capable of understanding their action to be harmful to their intended victims should they have been successful. So what is the proper reaction? Is this self defense? Justice? Execution? or maybe Murder? As written, it is defined as a military action.

When we discuss death of humans, and one takes the position that any death is abhorent, then they must explain, in my opinion, how to deal with circumstances, that are very much a part of the "real" world.
12/14/2005 12:05:28 PM · #110
I'm curious if anyone knows on what basis Tookie was nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize? As has been pointed out, if its because he wrote his books, well, they weren't widely read, so how does that count? I would presume that the intent of the prize is to highlight individuals who actually have an impact, not just make an effort.

Also, the fact that he was nominated is always brought up, but what about the fact that he was never given the award? How seriously was his nomination received? I'm not familiar with the award process, but I would assume there's some winnowing and voting involved - did he ever get any serious consideration?

Just curious. All you ever get is the sound bites and talking points. The press hardly ever substantiates what they regurgitate.
12/14/2005 12:17:01 PM · #111
Originally posted by Flash:

So if it is unlawful to possess a firearm, and it is unlawful to shoot someone with it (offensively), then the solution for these troubled youngsters is - what? I think I already know the positions from the "right", just curious about the positions from the "left".


If they are 18+ they are generally treated as adults - my comments were directed at people who suggested that execution of people who committed crimes as a minor was acceptable: I would argue (and am supported by all but two or three regimes in the world) that it is generally abhorrent to treat minors as having the same culpability as adults who are mentally more developed.

If they were minors, they should not be eligible for execution. They should be prosecuted, and a detailed account of their maturity should be taken into account. They should be committed to an institution that is appropriate to their age (which may be a young offenders' institution rather than an adult prison) until they are old enough to be transferred safely. The length of their imprisonment would depend on the degree to which they were culpable. Broadly, youths should be given the possibility of parole at an earlier stage, if they can be shown to have reformed appropriately.

A UK example are the Jamie Bulger murderers: two 10 year olds killed a 3 year old in cruel circumstances. They were sentenced for 20 years in 1993. They were released in 2000 after a European Court of Human Rights hearing, because their trial was not fair (broadly, it treated them as adults, not children, with few or none of the protections normally built into the juvenile trial system). This caused much controversy, but (IMO) was the only sound solution that would preserve the integrity of the judicial system: children cannot be judged or treated in criminal cases using the same standards as adults.
12/14/2005 12:27:30 PM · #112
legalbeagle,

I truly respect your positions along with your abilities to reason and articulate your arguments. I do not always agree with your positions, however your abilities are without question, in my opinion. I take from your above post, that if the murderer(s) in the boston case are over 18, then their treatment as an adult within the judicial system would be fair. If they are found to be under 18, (15-17) then your belief is that they should be tried as juveniles and accorded any applicable early release considerations due to their age at the time of these murders.

sp edit

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 12:29:11.
12/14/2005 12:30:00 PM · #113
The term "children' is what is at the heart of the debate.

Is a 10 year old a child? By most peoples perception around the world I think so.

Is a 12 year old? A 14 year old? A 17 year old?

This discussion about "children" and accountability has been a topic around my circles the last week or more.

I will say this. When I was 14..going into highschool..I damn well knew what murder was and could distinguish between right and wrong beyond just the "My parents might find out" mentality. I had self awareness and personal accountability for my actions.

I didn't have especially perceptive parents, my friends were typical, yeah..my IQ is a few ticks higher than normal...but I think expectations were higher on kids then and most kids had a sense of future.

If someone is under 18 that does not mean they should automatically be treated like a child. People who are held accountable for making decisions (judges, social workers, psychiatrists etc ) about a persons mental capabilities should be involved in the decision. Just like deciding if a person is sane enough to stand trial or dealing with the mentally handicapped.

But to simply say that someone, due to age, is not as accountable as someone a year or more older is not serving society or the victims of crimes very well.

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 12:32:14.
12/14/2005 12:55:26 PM · #114
We allow 16 yrs olds to work jobs. I am curious, if before 18 there is not competency. Shouldn't we forbid them working? Shouldn't we also forbid them from driving?

Hell, elderly often have similar problems. Facial recognition, and more. Should elderly after 65 yrs of age also be excluded from the death penalty.

Furthermore, it is very common to utilize "youths" in both gang killings and honor killings because of this very reason.

I believe a 16 yr old in most cases is competent for the charges of murder. But I believe each case needs to be independently reviewed.

If 16 yr olds are as incompetent as you make them out to be. Then I don't think we should allow them to hold jobs, or hold the steering wheel. It's obvious they can't judge matters properly or judicially.

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 12:55:39.
12/14/2005 01:17:40 PM · #115
Originally posted by theSaj:

I've seen ample amount of that in adults. And I've seen numerous 16 yr olds who have exhibited much more maturity than 30 yr olds.

It varies, but to say a 16 yr old does not on avera


End of statement missing. But you appear to be trying to say that a 16 year old (incidentally an age that in some jurisdictions is the age of majority) is fully developed mentally. Not something that I have ever heard seriously argued before. Note that my argument is not that they do not know "right from wrong", but there is a fundamental risk that gets greater in respect of younger youths, that they are not fully developed mentally, and that this can impact on their culpability in many circustances (mis-recognition of facial expression being one example). There is a fundamental uncertainty as to the mental component of any crime that should prevent them being subject to a certain death.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


Frankly I question the realistic accuracy of the entire study you reference.
And your anecdotal impressions are more reliable?

Originally posted by "theSaj":

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

How about our elected representatives?


If you have forgotten, you were the one who said that such a system of democracy (and since we are in fact talking about republics which use elected officials I applied it to that as well or your point was moot to begin with). So you're the one who said elected representatives were not enough.


No - I said that one way to govern against democratic deficit of opression of the minority is to have an representative democracy (per the UK and the US): you elect a representative who will represent you, not necessarily your policies. This means that the governing body has the right to ignore a desire of the majority where those governing take a more enlightened/rational decision that is not based on mob-rule.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I believe both parties should be responsible.
Responsible when? In avoiding unwanted contraception or in giving birth. I believe that it is generally the woman who will be responsible for giving birth and, where there is no man standing by her, to raise the baby alone.

Originally posted by theSaj:

I know that whenever people like you say a "woman should have the right to choose what to do with her body"...that you're spouting quite a load of BS, ignoring scientific facts and ignoring the fact that the "choice" was already made. And ignoring the fact that you are deciding what is done with someone else's body.


I am not sure why my opinion (representing a majority view in many places) is BS and based in ignorance, whereas your minority view is so righteous or based on more rigorous scientific data. You prize the sanctity of life which you (I guess) consider to arise early in foetal development, and (I guess) to a certain extent in the context of your religion. I consider the life of the mother more important until foetal development shows more significant signs of life than cell multiplication and becomes viable. It is a valid difference of opinion - not BS.

An important contrasting factor is that my opinion does not prevent you from leading your life in accordance with your principles, but your viewpoint prevents me from leading my life in accordance with mine. There is no settled scientific conclusion, but there is evidence that prohibiting abortion has undesirable social consequences.
Additionally, to the extent your argument is influenced by religious principles, it becomes an article of faith and loses some authority.
Originally posted by theSaj:

As i've stated, but you, just as always, will never address the points I made with any rational thought:
I will address each point
Originally posted by theSaj:

a) because we do not have life sentencing in the U.S.
you do in 25 states - read the sentence after the one you quoted about 25 years without parole in 33 states
Originally posted by theSaj:

b) I believe the system needs major reform, so that innoncents cannot be executed.
this is impossible - innocents will be killed, as there is always a fundamental uncertainty
Originally posted by theSaj:

c) I have commented on the need of a "Death Penalty - Sustained" in the U.S. It means you earned the death penalty but we are not invoking it but you are a dead man and never to be released.
otherwise known as life without parole - you have it in 25 states already, campaign to have it installed in the remainder
Originally posted by theSaj:

d) Death Penalty does NOT cost more than Life Sentence. (We have legal battles trying to show that the death penalty is not acceptable. And much of the cost is involved in constant appeals. In fact, much of our costs of everything is due to litigation. Reform would solve that.
This is directly limked to the already strong requirement that a higher degree of certainty of guilt is obtained where the penalty is not reversable - this argument directly contradicts your statement that greater efforts should be made to prevent the execution of innocents
Originally posted by theSaj:

e) Those receiving the death penalty should have absolute proof (caught on film, DNA evidence, guilty confession, etc)
all of these can be tampered with, faked, accidentally mixed, forced from a suspect, go missing as a consequence of sloppy defence etc - there is no such thing as incontrovertible evidence, but the belief in it has convicted what we now know to be innocent men. The evidence you mention does not deal with the critical mental component requisite in many crimes.
Originally posted by theSaj:

f) Those who receive the death penalty should be executed with 2 yrs.
How are you going to stop innocents being killed in difficult cases in a busy judicial system? See arguments on cost v accuracy above. You have to choose either speed and low cost, or accuracy. Thankfully not even GWB has gone down this route.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":


While the NAZI's were in power and executing millions, crime was also reduced. So should we have let their reign continue on the basis of a reduction of crime?


I pointed out that the analysis I quoted provides no moral justification, but it is an interesting correlation. I do not use it as an argument either way.

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 13:21:23.
12/14/2005 01:29:01 PM · #116
Well..I think the bottom line on age is simple.

16 year olds know very well that murder (or any crime for that matter) is what it is. The difference is influences.

Many youth are driven more by passion than reason. By peer pressure more than personal accountability.

I am sorry to say this but neither of these reasons are good enough to excuse personal responsibilty.

I know many adults that suffer from misguided passionate behaviour, peer pressure induced behaviour, ignorance to life experience, mental instability and any other myriad of personal maladies.

Just watch any daytime talk show or reality show to witness the parade of human stupidity without regard to age.

No....I think you are seeing a pendulum swing to more people under 18 being held accountable for their actions and I am glad of it.

Hell, why is it that 100 years ago we had under 18 year olds being held MORE ACCOUNTABLE. Apprenticeships were 7-13 years old, 16 years was marrying age.

Now, 100 years later, people are LESS MATURE? I am not buying it.
12/14/2005 01:31:39 PM · #117
Originally posted by Flash:

btw, can someone explain how to insert multiple quotes within a single response with normal text inbetween.

12/14/2005 01:34:54 PM · #118
To the Saj, Flash and Hokie: I am not arguing that someone under the age of 18 does not know when they have committed a crime. But there must be a point at which one says: this person is young and not fully mentally matured, and because of that we will treat him in a juvenile process, not an adult one.

There are few people (I thought) in the world who would say that it is permissible to treat someone in a juvenile process in the same way as an adult. This stretches from mode of trial all the way to penalty. An allowance has to be made. Of course the extent of any punishment or culpability will depend on the nature of the crime, its seriousness, the people involved and all of the other facts - too many variables to discuss more than the principle.

The ages at which most societies make the distinction between juvenile and adult are 16-18. Whether it should be 16 or 18 is irrelevant: the principle is, I think, sound. None of us (I would guess) can comment with any authority on general mental development, other than to point at studies (me: full mental maturity tends to arrive at about 20-21) or say anecdotally "they look clever enough to me, so they must be sufficiently developed" (others).

12/14/2005 01:35:16 PM · #119
Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by Flash:

btw, can someone explain how to insert multiple quotes within a single response with normal text inbetween.
check your mail - I pmed you a few hours ago
12/14/2005 01:56:24 PM · #120
Originally posted by legalbeagle:


The ages at which most societies make the distinction between juvenile and adult are 16-18. Whether it should be 16 or 18 is irrelevant: the principle is, I think, sound. None of us (I would guess) can comment with any authority on general mental development, other than to point at studies (me: full mental maturity tends to arrive at about 20-21) or say anecdotally "they look clever enough to me, so they must be sufficiently developed" (others).


My argument is not that people under the age of 18 should not have some special process they go through to determine legal responsibility.

My argument is that there is no magic age # that you say "O.K....this person is 15 years, 9 months and 29 days...he is too young to be tried as an adult..If only he had reached the magic 15 years and 10 months barrier".

Arbitrary numbers, whoever picks them, are not a clear representation of the persons ability to comprehend their actions. There is by the very nature of human developement..a gray area that occurs in mental developement that will need to be examined by professionals on a case by case basis.

As a postscript, I would agree that say..under 18 years old would be the trigger to bring in specialists to determine mental developement..and I think that is what we do now in many cases in the U.S.

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 14:00:43.
12/14/2005 02:10:35 PM · #121
I see all this discussion but no detailed information about him being posted; people should actually read about him.. Stanley Tookie Williams - Wikipedia
12/14/2005 02:14:45 PM · #122
Originally posted by legalbeagle:

To the Saj, Flash and Hokie: I am not arguing that someone under the age of 18 does not know when they have committed a crime. But there must be a point at which one says: this person is young and not fully mentally matured, and because of that we will treat him in a juvenile process, not an adult one.


I believe that I understand your point.

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

The ages at which most societies make the distinction between juvenile and adult are 16-18. Whether it should be 16 or 18 is irrelevant: the principle is, I think, sound. None of us (I would guess) can comment with any authority on general mental development,


agreed

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

check your mail - I pmed you a few hours ago


got it - thanks

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 14:37:02.
12/14/2005 02:17:57 PM · #123
Originally posted by hokie:

Arbitrary numbers, whoever picks them, are not a clear representation of the persons ability to comprehend their actions. There is by the very nature of human developement..a gray area that occurs in mental developement that will need to be examined by professionals on a case by case basis.


There is an expense associated with a subjective approach. It does not address how the procedure should be initiated: surely easier to have an objective test as to whether someone is prosecuted under juvenile or adult procedure. Plus, this removes an unnecessary subjective element that would be subject to expensive appeal ("the subjective decision was wrong and he should have been tried under the other process...").

A subjective analysis of mental capacity is probably used in most places already on determining culpability for sentencing. Given the need for near-absolute certainty in execution cases, it is (IMO) reasonable to rule out that penalty for juvenile offenders on the basis that there is a fundamental risk of justice not being served in relation to a class of people who are unlikely to be fully mentally developed.

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 14:18:58.
12/14/2005 02:19:57 PM · #124
Originally posted by ScottK:

Also, the fact that he was nominated is always brought up, but what about the fact that he was never given the award? How seriously was his nomination received? I'm not familiar with the award process, but I would assume there's some winnowing and voting involved - did he ever get any serious consideration?


Just to back you up on this, Nobel nominations aren't made public until fifty years after the year of the nomination.

Here's a list of who can nominate someone for the Nobel Peace Prize:

The Nominators – Peace
Right to submit proposals for the Nobel Peace Prize, based on the principle of competence and universality, shall by statute be enjoyed by:

1. Members of national assemblies and governments of states;
2. Members of international courts;
3. University rectors; professors of social sciences, history, philosophy, law and theology; directors of peace research institutes and foreign policy institutes;
4. Persons who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
5. Board members of organizations who have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize;
6. Active and former members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee; (proposals by members of the Committee to be submitted no later than at the first meeting of the Committee after February 1) and
7. Former advisers appointed by the Norwegian Nobel Institute.

I guess he could have been nominated by one of the above, but we won't find out for another fifty years.

ETA: Ah, I missed MadMordegon's link:

Nobel Prize nominations
Williams was reportedly nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year from 2001 to 2005; nominations came from Mario Fehr, a member of the Swiss Parliament; four times by Notre Dame de Namur University Philosophy and Religion Professor Phil Gasper; William Keach, a Brown University Professor of English Literature, nominated Williams for the Nobel Prize in Literature. Williams' critics have argued that these nominations were irrelevant to his case, as anyone can be nominated for the prize by an eligible party; there is no "pre-selection" process for the nomination.

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 14:24:50.
12/14/2005 02:29:38 PM · #125
Originally posted by MadMordegon:

I see all this discussion but no detailed information about him being posted; people should actually read about him.. Stanley Tookie Williams - Wikipedia


Why is it so important we read about this criminal?

I love this part........

..."Records show that Williams shot out a security monitor and then killed Owens, shooting him twice in the back at point blank range as he lay prone on the storage room floor."...AND... "Williams said that he “didn’t want to leave any witnesses.” Williams also said he killed Owens “because he was white and he was killing all white people.” ...

Tookie..what a charmer....it gets better.

..."Williams broke down the door that led to the private office. Inside the private office, Williams shot and killed 76 year old Yen-Yi Yang. Williams then shot and killed Yang’s wife, sixty-three year old Tsai-Shai Yang. Lastly, Williams killed Yang’s daughter, 43 year old Yee-Chen Lin, after which he emptied the cash register and fled the scene......

Oh...and this part was extremely interesting..and not found in any of Tookie's childrens books....

....."According to the forensic pathologist, Yen-Yi Yang suffered two close range shotgun wounds, one to his left arm and abdomen, and one to the lower left chest. Tsai-Shai was shot twice at close range. The pathologist explained that one shotgun wound was to the coccyx, or tailbone, and the other shotgun wound was to the anterior abdomen with the charge entering at the navel. Yee-Chen Lin was shot once in the upper left face area at a distance of a few feet.

....Witnesses testified that Williams referred to the victims in conversations with friends as "Buddha-heads", a derogatory term for Asians, particularly Japanese.".....

Also...these nobel prize nominations everyone keeps asking about....

..."Williams was reportedly nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize every year from 2001 to 2005; nominations came from Mario Fehr, a member of the Swiss Parliament [25]; four times by Notre Dame de Namur University Philosophy and Religion Professor Phil Gasper [26]; William Keach, a Brown University Professor of English Literature, nominated Williams for the Nobel Prize in Literature.[27] Williams' critics have argued that these nominations were irrelevant to his case, as anyone can be nominated for the prize by an eligible party; there is no "pre-selection" process for the nomination."....

You know...I wish people wrote and cared as much about

....Albert Lewis Owens...
....Yen-Yi Yang .......
...Tsai-Shai Yang.....
...Yee-Chen Lin....

But I guess victims without Hollywood hype or special "Street Gang Cred" don't merit too much thought. I mean, heck..all they did was get murdered by this freak...nothing special like writing childrens books (2 to be exact read by less than a 1,000 kids) or denouncing gangs they helped form and terrorize people with.

And in 25 years, 25 years more than his victims had to live, not one shred of extra evidence..not one tear shed by him for these people.

Wow..I can't believe I just wasted 10 minutes of my life even writing this about this "Man of the Year"



Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/30/2020 01:44:01 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 03/30/2020 01:44:01 PM EDT.