Saying the quiet part out loud
(media.scored.co)
Comments (57)
sorted by:
smear the queer?
Wow what a blast from the past. Simpler times.
That's quite a mask off moment even by the standards of the alphabet pedos. We should take this at face value and make being a TQ+ pervert a capital offense in and of itself instead of waiting for them to rape children.
That’s why leftists hate the “groomer” label. They recognize that it’s an accurate description of alphabet people. Same reason that they got ass-mad over the “NPC” label.
I've seen a dozen or so versions of this exact tweet. Would be nice if some normies started to realize how entrenched child rape is in the LGBTQ community.
When you read these quotesyou quickly come to understand that pedophilia has always been a core part of the LGBT movement.
I'm afraid of interacting with kids and teens. All it takes is one misunderstanding, one malicious lie, and I could be branded with a segregation mark to be hated for and have my opportunities crippled. I don't want to be put to death on top of it all if it happens.
I don't like death sentences.
Just be avoidant and aloof around them like I do. I don't even know how to interact with kids, so it's easy for me. I worked security at a large building open to the public a while back and a lost child situation is the one incident I would have refused to deal with for reasons you describe, and we dealt with batshit insane homeless people on a regular basis. At most I would have gotten a female coworker or supervisor to handle it.
The problem is that death penalty opponents lie to get on juries then vote against imposing it no matter what instead of considering aggravation/mitigation in good faith. The dick who torpedoed the death penalty for Nicolas Cruz was the catalyst for this law. As usual leftist dirty tricks make less than ideal solutions necessary.
In order to get the death penalty, you still have to be convicted of a crime that qualifies for the death penalty by a unanimous jury.
I see no reason why a convicted criminal of a violent crime by unanimous jury deserves the right to another unanimous jury before being put to death. Giving them a sentencing jury at all seems generous since they have already been convicted by one.
The conviction should be "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and execution "beyond all doubt".
There's cases where you're sure they did it from the evidence presented, but still the possibility that of crime lab lie/mistake or some new exculpatory evidence showing up later. Other cases where there's not even possibility of new evidence or mistakes.
A supermajority to execute where some jurors have doubts is a lower standard than the conviction where no jurors have doubts and it should be a higher standard.
That's not true. Because a prerequisite of that supermajority is a unanimous jury that the crime occurred beyond a reasonable doubt. 1 unanimous jury + 1 supermajority > just 1 unanimous jury
That is an impossible standard.
It's not math. They don't add together. It's the same evaluation of guilt, different question of what punishment is warranted.
For example, three people who are convinced of guilt with possibility of future exoneration and nine people who are absolutely convinced. The three may vote guilty, but would not vote to execute. If they vote guilty then they've effectively voted for execution under a supermajority scheme.
They'd have to game-theory vote not-guilty even despite believing in the guilt in order to not vote for execution, lowering their evaluation of guilt to less than it should be because of a standard for execution that is lower than of guilt.
"Impossible" is not a mathematical impossibility. In law there's often the implicit "if you're not a moron or an aspie".
These people should not vote guilty, even in the current system. If they do, then they are not convinced of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sure, but they know that. Which only adds to my previous statement that they shouldn't vote guilty if they aren't sure he's guilty. Voting guilty relying on future exoneration if further evidence comes out is not how juries should work. Hopefully this law forces jurors deciding innocent or guilty to vote more appropriately, knowing that there may not be a possibility of future exoneration.
Let's think about this. I described a scenario where jurors were sure the defendant was guilty, but also thought new evidence could change their mind.
And your response is then "they are not convinced of guilt".
This scenario proves your views wrong so you deny that it could even be possible, though you can search "exonerated new evidence" and find hundreds of such cases in reality.
Maybe it would be useful to you to lay out what your minimum standard of evidence would be to convict, come up with new evidence that would change your mind, then imagine different facts where that evidence wouldn't change your mind. You discount that's possible, but do this exercise yourself with your own standard of proof and see that it is.
Then that is not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, so those jurors should not be voting guilty.
I didn't deny that. Jurors vote poorly all of the time. But they also aren't currently told explicitly to not convict unless they are positive that no new evidence could come out that would overturn the conviction.
Yes, and those juries all fucked up by voting guilty when they weren't sure beyond a reasonable doubt.
There are also examples of people who were sentenced to the death penalty by a unanimous jury who were later found out to be not guilty with new evidence. It happens.
Guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Simple. The exact same standard I would apply to a death penalty sentencing.
That's my point here. Perhaps the disconnect is that I hold a higher standard for sentencing than you do. In my mind, the second jury for sentencing death penalty is completely superfluous.
I think you're under the impression that convictions and death sentences are handed out like free samples.
Very few crimes qualify for the death sentence, the instances of those crimes have to be pretty heinous, and even those crimes can be plead down as to avoid the possibility of a death sentence. Even if you manage to overcome all those hurdles, you still need a jury to vote on the death sentence. And then there's the appeals, that could push the date of the execution years past the original date.
It's not that difficult.
Don't diddle kids.
Sexually victimizing a child being a punishable offense is offensive to these people?
I miss when queer and gay meant happy, now it just means misery, trauma and regret
Queer never meant happy. It meant (and still means) weird.
More literally it means you put your penis wherever you want or let anyone into your vagina. most people who stoop that low tend to be very depraved.
Even more literally, queer means the systematic destruction of every evolved western societal norm.
LET'S IMPALE THEM BY THE THOUSANDS!!!!!!
oh wait. Zion Ron Desantis pledges allegiance to israel which is full of pedophiles and bans boycotting of israeli transgender hormone drugs. oops wrong hero.
It’s proposing the POSSIBILITY of capital punishment for sexual battery on a victim under 12, with two aggravating factors present (list includes repeat offender, used a firearm in the commission of the offense, created real risk of death… shit like that). If you think that sounds like the typical “queer,” that’ll either be a problem with you or, if you’re right, a problem with queers. Certainly not a problem with the law.
Edit: Looking further in the replies to the link, there are people who think that the law will be used to execute “gay people who kiss within a football field’s length of a child.” This is the problem with headline-reading outrage culture. These people have no idea what the law says and they are all but proud of it, because they are addicted to outrage. Fuck them.
They aren’t addicted to outrage. They are weaponizing lies in order to destroy political and cultural enemies. The “outrage” is just a strategy.
That’s true of the leaders, I’ll grant you. The average keyboard warrior foot soldiers who spread the lies and make them go viral are absolutely outrage addicts. I mean, they do the work for no money, they have to be getting something. That something is their outrage hit for the moment.
They are concerned about disproportionate numbers of gays getting caught.
okay, can somebody explain something to me; is the jury vote on the death penalty separate from the innocent or guilty vote?
because the alarm bells going off in my head are fucking deafening on this one, and I'm trying to figure the angle...
Yes. Once found guilty, the jury votes on whether to issue the death penalty. This is all assuming the death sentence is even on the table.
alwayshasbeen.jpg
its also antisemitic reeee
Talk about letting your mask slip, geez.
that creature is still alive?
They're gathering at Disney...
Peace in our time!
What's the point? They'd never live long enough to reach their official execution.
In which case, why does it matter to you?
The money spent on keeping the piece of trash alive.
Remember, the only thing preventing people from hunting pedophiles for sport is the government.
Equally so, the government is what makes executions so unreasonably expensive. There's no need for it to be that expensive other than government ineptitude.
Death sentence for word of mouth testimony?
I can't see a problem with that. And neither would that prostitute my Father refused to pay. And neither will the Mafia's extortion racketeers.
This is all just a great idea! Why one out of ten living witness will agree! As for the other nine? The dead have little to testify. As they were silenced.
https://nitter.nl/ashleylynch/status/1647296328781926400
https://archive.is/a3Lf6
Archive link in case it wises up and DFEs.