tiny dancer wrote:

"Bo Raxo" wrote in message
ups.com...

tiny dancer wrote:

snipped

Machain said he was standing in the kitchen of the main cabin when
Deleon and Kennedy overpowered Thomas Hawks in a lower area of the

boat

near a bedroom. The commotion caused Jackie Hawks to try to move past
Machain, he said, and she screamed, "What's going on?"

With Jackie Hawks cornered in the kitchen, Machain said, he pulled out
his stun gun. "I knew I had to act. I had to overpower Mrs. Hawks. I
struggled with her. She was fighting me."

Eventually he got her handcuffed, he said, and took her down to the
bedroom, where her husband was already handcuffed on the bed. That's
when she asked Deleon, "How could you do this to us? You brought your
wife and kids here. We trusted you."

Machain helped Deleon cover the couple's eyes and mouths with duct

tape

as Jackie Hawks cried, saying she didn't want to die and that she
wanted to see her new grandchild. The Hawkses were then taken up to

the

main cabin one at a time to sign and fingerprint title transfer
documents. Jackie Hawks was told that if she cooperated she would be
released. "She was shaking uncontrollably," Machain recalled. When it
was her husband's turn, Deleon told him that if he tried anything

funny

he would be struck with a Magnum flashlight. Thomas Hawks responded
that he wouldn't try anything, according to Machain.

The couple were brought back to the bedroom while Deleon and Kennedy
prepared the anchor on the aft deck, Machain said. Left to "baby-sit"
them, he watched as Thomas Hawks tried to console his wife.

She was still crying and asking, in a muffled voice through the tape,
why their captors were doing this to them.

"I could see Mr. Hawks trying to reach over and hold her hand and
comfort her," Machain said.

On the deck, the couple were tied together standing, her back to her
husband's chest with their hands still cuffed behind them.

Realizing what was happening, Thomas Hawks kicked Deleon as he tried

to

fasten the couple to the anchor, sending him back into a deck chair,
Machain said.

Kennedy responded with a "hard swing" to the husband's right temple.
"It was a pretty hard blow" that left him staggering and making
"slurring noises," Machain said.

He would have fallen to his knees but "Mrs. Hawks was holding him up,"
all the time "screaming, yelling, asking, 'What's going on?' " he
recalled.

Deleon lifted the anchor and threw it overboard as Kennedy pushed the
couple overboard, Machain said.

Deleon then turned the yacht around and the men collected cash,

jewelry

and other valuables, Machain said. Kennedy cracked open a beer,

grabbed

a fishing rod and fished all the way back to the harbor, he said.



Thanks for the update on this one. Another one of those cases where the
death penalty should be *streamlined*. Once they are found guilty and
sentenced to die, give 'em one appeal and then stick the needle in 'em.
Just *my* opinion, of course.


Yeah, that'll bring the Hawks back to life, right? And make the
streets safer than if Skylar Deleon spends the rest of his life in
prison.

And there is no chance whatsoever that a 25 year old could grow and
change over the next two or three decades, doing good by working with
fellow inmates or convincing young people to not make the mistakes he
did. Like *some* other inmates who committed heinous crimes in their
youth have managed to do.

Nope, you say we might as well throw that life away as garbage. Must
be great to be able to see in to the future and know with such
certainty whether a person will ever be able to change and ever be able
to do any good for his fellow man. I don't know where one finds such
certainty about human nature and the future, but somehow I think it
comes from a place to which I wouldn't want to go.


Bo Raxo



You have your *opinions* and I have mine. Some crimes are so atrocious, so
hideous, committed by sociopaths. You just don't get it bo. Who gives a
flying **** about 'doing good for their fellow man'? Criminals like
Deleon, Joseph Duncan, Charles Ng, gave up their right to a *future* when
they cold bloodedly killed totally and completely INNOCENT VICTIMS. The
Hawks never got to see their grandchild. Remember him? The one they were
selling their boat so they could spend time with the new grandchild. Shasta
Groene will NEVER get back her innocence lost. She will NEVER get back her
brother/s or her mom. The *victims* had no choice in the matter. Those who
perpetrated the crimes/killings did.


td




Well said.

tiny dancer wrote:
"Bo Raxo" wrote in message
ups.com...

tiny dancer wrote:
snipped

Thanks for the update on this one. Another one of those cases where the
death penalty should be *streamlined*. Once they are found guilty and
sentenced to die, give 'em one appeal and then stick the needle in 'em.
Just *my* opinion, of course.


Yeah, that'll bring the Hawks back to life, right? And make the
streets safer than if Skylar Deleon spends the rest of his life in
prison.

And there is no chance whatsoever that a 25 year old could grow and
change over the next two or three decades, doing good by working with
fellow inmates or convincing young people to not make the mistakes he
did. Like *some* other inmates who committed heinous crimes in their
youth have managed to do.

Nope, you say we might as well throw that life away as garbage. Must
be great to be able to see in to the future and know with such
certainty whether a person will ever be able to change and ever be able
to do any good for his fellow man. I don't know where one finds such
certainty about human nature and the future, but somehow I think it
comes from a place to which I wouldn't want to go.


Bo Raxo


You have your *opinions* and I have mine.

But there are open-minded folks out there (one or two) who might be
swayed by my arguments.

Or yours.

Some crimes are so atrocious, so
hideous, committed by sociopaths.

Exactly how hideous does it have to be to let you play God? Or a
person in a black robe? Or 12 people off the street?

You just don't get it bo.

So much for the "you have your opinion" approach.

Who gives a
flying **** about 'doing good for their fellow man'?

I do, obviously. Just because *you* don't, it isn't fair to say
*nobody* does. Obviously, *somebody* does. Or do you think I'm the
only person who is opposed to the death penalty?

Criminals like
Deleon, Joseph Duncan, Charles Ng, gave up their right to a *future* when
they cold bloodedly killed totally and completely INNOCENT VICTIMS.

I don't think life is a right that can be forfeited. It is inalienable
and irrevocable, in my opinion.

The
Hawks never got to see their grandchild. Remember him? The one they were
selling their boat so they could spend time with the new grandchild. Shasta
Groene will NEVER get back her innocence lost. She will NEVER get back her
brother/s or her mom. The *victims* had no choice in the matter. Those who
perpetrated the crimes/killings did.

That justifies a severe punishment, it doesn't justify killing them.

And you live in a fantasy world. In your fantasy land, governments are
fair and wise, prosecutors restrained, everyone gets a fair trial and
nobody gets framed by crooked cops and ambitious d.a.s In your
fantasy, the death penalty is only used when it is absoloutely certain
the person did the crime. Heck, why not add that if they make a
mistake, the court will bring the dead man back to life, since you're
in a fantasy world anyway.

Out here in the real world the court system is adversarial and d.a.'s
run in elections. They go for the strongest penalties they can get
when the crime is heinous because the public demands it.

Now read that carefully: not "when guilt is unquestionable", but "when
the crime is heinous". That's a reality. That will never change. You
MUST judge the death penalty with that unchangeable fact in mind,
because if you don't, you're waving your magic wand and making the real
world disappear for fantasy land.


Bo Raxo

Bo Raxo wrote:


I don't think life is a right that can be forfeited. It is inalienable
and irrevocable, in my opinion.


Thats right! The Hawks lives were inalienable, and irrevocable in my
opinion too

That justifies a severe punishment, it doesn't justify killing them.

It does to me.


Now read that carefully: not "when guilt is unquestionable", but "when
the crime is heinous". That's a reality. That will never change. You
MUST judge the death penalty with that unchangeable fact in mind,
because if you don't, you're waving your magic wand and making the real
world disappear for fantasy land.

I have, and I support it. BTW, I dont' ahve a magic wand.

"Bo Raxo" wrote in message
ps.com...

tiny dancer wrote:
"Bo Raxo" wrote in message
ups.com...

tiny dancer wrote:
snipped

Thanks for the update on this one. Another one of those cases where
the
death penalty should be *streamlined*. Once they are found guilty
and
sentenced to die, give 'em one appeal and then stick the needle in
'em.
Just *my* opinion, of course.


Yeah, that'll bring the Hawks back to life, right? And make the
streets safer than if Skylar Deleon spends the rest of his life in
prison.

And there is no chance whatsoever that a 25 year old could grow and
change over the next two or three decades, doing good by working with
fellow inmates or convincing young people to not make the mistakes he
did. Like *some* other inmates who committed heinous crimes in their
youth have managed to do.

Nope, you say we might as well throw that life away as garbage. Must
be great to be able to see in to the future and know with such
certainty whether a person will ever be able to change and ever be
able
to do any good for his fellow man. I don't know where one finds such
certainty about human nature and the future, but somehow I think it
comes from a place to which I wouldn't want to go.


Bo Raxo


You have your *opinions* and I have mine.

But there are open-minded folks out there (one or two) who might be
swayed by my arguments.

Or yours.

Some crimes are so atrocious, so
hideous, committed by sociopaths.

Exactly how hideous does it have to be to let you play God?


IIRC, it was Deleon who *played god*. It was he who decided he wanted what
the Hawks had and decided to kill 'em for it. Now, he could have gone about
it the way the Hawks did. Work hard, for many many years. Save wisely, and
buy themselves their *dream boat*. But no, he chose not to go that route.
He CHOSE to kill 'em and take theirs instead. He CHOSE the time, place and
method of two peoples' deaths.

Now, were I going to *choose* my own death, lets see, would I choose to be
beaten up, handcuffed to my spouse, weighted down with an anchor, and be
dropped alive into the ocean? Probably not, just not my idea of a *neato*
way to die. Oh yeah, I forgot the amount of time where I'm tied up, have
duct tape over my eyes and mouth, ANTICIPATING my FINAL FATE. Probably an
hour or so.

IIRC, Mrs. Hawks was crying, pleading to see her grandchild. Nope, still
don't think it would be at the top of my 'ways to die' list.


Or a
person in a black robe? Or 12 people off the street?


See above.



You just don't get it bo.

So much for the "you have your opinion" approach.

Who gives a
flying **** about 'doing good for their fellow man'?

I do, obviously. Just because *you* don't, it isn't fair to say
*nobody* does. Obviously, *somebody* does. Or do you think I'm the
only person who is opposed to the death penalty?


Take a vote. How many people here, right here and now, on this case, think
Deleon should get the death penalty for the cold-blooded, premeditated,
particularly heinous and callous murders of two completely innocent people
who just happened to have what he wanted?



Criminals like
Deleon, Joseph Duncan, Charles Ng, gave up their right to a *future*
when
they cold bloodedly killed totally and completely INNOCENT VICTIMS.

I don't think life is a right that can be forfeited. It is inalienable
and irrevocable, in my opinion.


As were the lives of the victims, weren't they? Once they are GONE, you
seem to forget about 'em pretty damn fast. Deleon has killed before IIRC.
Just how many lives does he get to *forfeit*?



The
Hawks never got to see their grandchild. Remember him? The one they
were
selling their boat so they could spend time with the new grandchild.
Shasta
Groene will NEVER get back her innocence lost. She will NEVER get back
her
brother/s or her mom. The *victims* had no choice in the matter. Those
who
perpetrated the crimes/killings did.

That justifies a severe punishment, it doesn't justify killing them.


The *punishment* as prescribed is death, or at least it is a possibility. A
known possibility. Deleon KNEW he could get death. Do you think, on the
way back to shore, when he and his *buds* were eating the Hawks food and
fishing with their gear, they expressed any REMORSE for the killings of two
people? Do you suppose maybe they, oh say, said a couple Hail Mary's for
them?



And you live in a fantasy world.

And you sir, live in a cold and sterile world. One that negates the victims
the moment they are gone/dead. For just a second there, Paul Simons words
rang in my mind. I am a rock.

Deleon brought on his own misery. And he spread that misery to many MANY
unsuspecting victims, probably too countless to imagine. All the friends,
family, acquaintances of the Hawks. And probably many of the 'rec boats
talk' people who are posting or reading this. Deleon spread a bit of *fear*
I'd guess, among those who read about this crime. Recognizing that there
are such evil people in this world.


In your fantasy land, governments are
fair and wise, prosecutors restrained, everyone gets a fair trial and
nobody gets framed by crooked cops and ambitious d.a.s In your
fantasy, the death penalty is only used when it is absoloutely certain
the person did the crime. Heck, why not add that if they make a
mistake, the court will bring the dead man back to life, since you're
in a fantasy world anyway.

Out here in the real world the court system is adversarial and d.a.'s
run in elections. They go for the strongest penalties they can get
when the crime is heinous because the public demands it.

Now read that carefully: not "when guilt is unquestionable", but "when
the crime is heinous". That's a reality. That will never change. You
MUST judge the death penalty with that unchangeable fact in mind,
because if you don't, you're waving your magic wand and making the real
world disappear for fantasy land.


Bo Raxo


Yeah, right. In the real world, all the cases we've followed here on true
crime, most every one of them has been decided by a thoughtful jury who gave
the evidence significant weight in the process. You can mourn all your
sympathy to the dregs of society. Me, I like to save mine for the real
victims here. The innocent people who were merely going about their routine
lives, and ended up 'bumping into' the Deleons of the world.


td

wrote:
Bo Raxo wrote:


I don't think life is a right that can be forfeited. It is inalienable
and irrevocable, in my opinion.


Thats right! The Hawks lives were inalienable, and irrevocable in my
opinion too

Okay, ,we agree so far. So if it's wrong to take a human life (except
in self defense), then it's wrong whether the life belongs to a couple
of retirees or a couple of cold-blooded killers.

After all, wrong is wrong. And two wrongs don't make a right.


Bo Raxo

tiny dancer wrote:
"Bo Raxo" wrote in message
ps.com...

tiny dancer wrote:
"Bo Raxo" wrote in message
ups.com...

tiny dancer wrote:
snipped

Thanks for the update on this one. Another one of those cases where
the
death penalty should be *streamlined*. Once they are found guilty
and
sentenced to die, give 'em one appeal and then stick the needle in
'em.
Just *my* opinion, of course.


Yeah, that'll bring the Hawks back to life, right? And make the
streets safer than if Skylar Deleon spends the rest of his life in
prison.

And there is no chance whatsoever that a 25 year old could grow and
change over the next two or three decades, doing good by working with
fellow inmates or convincing young people to not make the mistakes he
did. Like *some* other inmates who committed heinous crimes in their
youth have managed to do.

Nope, you say we might as well throw that life away as garbage. Must
be great to be able to see in to the future and know with such
certainty whether a person will ever be able to change and ever be
able
to do any good for his fellow man. I don't know where one finds such
certainty about human nature and the future, but somehow I think it
comes from a place to which I wouldn't want to go.


Bo Raxo


You have your *opinions* and I have mine.

But there are open-minded folks out there (one or two) who might be
swayed by my arguments.

Or yours.

Some crimes are so atrocious, so
hideous, committed by sociopaths.

Exactly how hideous does it have to be to let you play God?


IIRC, it was Deleon who *played god*. It was he who decided he wanted what
the Hawks had and decided to kill 'em for it.

Yes, and he was wrong to do so. That doesn't magically mean that makes
it right for you to do so.

Let's put it another way: If someone is a rapist, that doesn't make it
alright for us to sentence him or her to be raped. Because, you see,
it is wrong to rape a human being (or an animal, I'll add).

Wrong. Always wrong.

Same thing with killing.



You just don't get it bo.

So much for the "you have your opinion" approach.

Who gives a
flying **** about 'doing good for their fellow man'?

I do, obviously. Just because *you* don't, it isn't fair to say
*nobody* does. Obviously, *somebody* does. Or do you think I'm the
only person who is opposed to the death penalty?


Take a vote. How many people here, right here and now, on this case, think
Deleon should get the death penalty for the cold-blooded, premeditated,
particularly heinous and callous murders of two completely innocent people
who just happened to have what he wanted?


You said "nobody cares". You were wrong. Now you say "not many people
care".

Oh, well, that's different: you have a mob on your side. I'll play
that game: Do you know how many countries that are remotely stable,
non-third world democracies, have the death penalty? You want to take
a vote, let every free country in the world vote. You'll lose.



Criminals like
Deleon, Joseph Duncan, Charles Ng, gave up their right to a *future*
when
they cold bloodedly killed totally and completely INNOCENT VICTIMS.

I don't think life is a right that can be forfeited. It is inalienable
and irrevocable, in my opinion.


As were the lives of the victims, weren't they? Once they are GONE, you
seem to forget about 'em pretty damn fast.

Oh yeah, I'm forgetting them, I want to give the three killers LWOP for
polliting the ocean. Sheesh! Any other silly straw man arguments?

Deleon has killed before IIRC.

I don't. And that still doesn't make the death penalty right.

Just how many lives does he get to *forfeit*?


So if they kill nice people, people with grandchildren, they die. If
they'd killed some criminal with a long rap sheet, would that get them
a lesser punishment, then? The lives of people like the Hawks are
worth more than human beings who are criminals, is that it?

HERE'S THE QUESTION: If Mrs. Deleon had taken the boat out after Skyler
stole it, stun gunned her husband, and threw him overboard, would you
give her the death penalty for that?

I guess not: she isn't one of those good people. Her life is worth
less. And we're going to let the government, in your world, decide
which human lives are worth more, and which less.

Yeah, great moral position. Can't see any danger there - sheeeesh.


Bo Raxo

tiny dancer wrote:

And you sir, live in a cold and sterile world.

You want to kill people. I don't, I think human life is precious.
Which one of us lives in a cold world?

One that negates the victims
the moment they are gone/dead.

I want to put the killers in prison, just not kill them. That negates
the victims? If I imprison a rapist, instead of raping him, have I
negated the rape victim?

For just a second there, Paul Simons words
rang in my mind. I am a rock.


Yeah, you're a killer. Deleon does it for money, you do it to "get
even". The only difference is there is a chance Deleon could have
gotten what he was killing for, you won't: You can tie an anchor to all
three killers and toss them in the ocean, and it won't change the
victims' suffering one bit, not give then one more microsecond of the
lives that were stolen from them.


Bo Raxo

Bo Raxo wrote:
snip


Nope, you say we might as well throw that life away as garbage. Must
be great to be able to see in to the future and know with such
certainty whether a person will ever be able to change and ever be able
to do any good for his fellow man. I don't know where one finds such
certainty about human nature and the future, but somehow I think it
comes from a place to which I wouldn't want to go.


Bo Raxo

I am normally anti-death penalty, but I have one name for you. Timothy
Buss. Google it.

-L.

"Bo Raxo" wrote in message
oups.com...

tiny dancer wrote:

And you sir, live in a cold and sterile world.

You want to kill people. I don't, I think human life is precious.
Which one of us lives in a cold world?

One that negates the victims
the moment they are gone/dead.

I want to put the killers in prison, just not kill them. That negates
the victims? If I imprison a rapist, instead of raping him, have I
negated the rape victim?

For just a second there, Paul Simons words
rang in my mind. I am a rock.


Yeah, you're a killer. Deleon does it for money, you do it to "get
even". The only difference is there is a chance Deleon could have
gotten what he was killing for, you won't: You can tie an anchor to all
three killers and toss them in the ocean, and it won't change the
victims' suffering one bit, not give then one more microsecond of the
lives that were stolen from them.


Bo Raxo


Tell that to all the victims of REPEAT OFFENDERS. Tell that to the kid that
Joseph Duncan raped and tried to strangle when he was 17. Tell that to the
women Richard Allen Davis kidnapped and raped prior to Polly Klass. Tell
that to the victim prior to Carlie Brucia, tell it to the victims that came
before Jessica Lunsford, etc. You say 'they will never get out again'. I
say, look at history. Life may mean *life* now. Wait 20 or 30 years, until
the prisons are more over-crowded and parole boards need to do a little
thinning out again. Think Kenneth MacDuff. I wonder how many lives he
destroyed after his first *kills*? When it was thought 'he'd never see the
light of day again.' IIRC, there were at least five more dead women, five
more sets of families, friends, children who lost their mothers. Now that
he's finally gotten the death penalty, we know for sure *he* won't have any
more *kills* to his credit.


td

tiny dancer wrote:


Tell that to all the victims of REPEAT OFFENDERS. Tell that to the kid that
Joseph Duncan raped and tried to strangle when he was 17.

He was not sentenced to LWOP. I guess you're arguing a rapist should be
sentenced to death, because then there will be no more victims. But
LWOP makes that happen just as surely as a death penalty.

Oh, you can argue that we will never, ever execute the wrong person,
only the clearly guilty.. But I can't argue we will never, ever
release a LWOP prisoner.

Uh huh.

Tell that to the
women Richard Allen Davis kidnapped and raped prior to Polly Klass.

Also wasn't given LWOP. If he had been, there would have been no more
victims. Didn't require the death penalty So the example proves
nothing.


Tell
that to the victim prior to Carlie Brucia,

That guy also wasn't given LWOP. If he had been, there would have been
no more victims. Didn't require the death penalty So the example
proves nothing.



tell it to the victims that came
before Jessica Lunsford, etc.



That guy also wasn't given LWOP. If he had been, there would have been
no more victims. Didn't require the death penalty So the example
proves nothing.

You say 'they will never get out again'. I
say, look at history. Life may mean *life* now. Wait 20 or 30 years, until
the prisons are more over-crowded and parole boards need to do a little
thinning out again.

Oh sure, I can just see some governor approving that...get real!!! You
think the system is good enough to never execute an innocent person,
but lousy enough to let the worst killers to free if they aren't
executed. C'mon, that's contradictory.


Think Kenneth MacDuff.

He got a plea bargain, that's how he got out. You want to outlaw plea
bargains? Has nothing to do with death penalty versus life without
parole.

The system is good enough that we'd only kill those clearly guilty, but
lousy enough that we can't possibly consider LWOP a real alternative.

Makes no sense.


Bo Raxo