NationStates Jolt Archive

HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) - Governor Rick Perry says he'll spare Kenneth Foster from his scheduled execution tonight and commute his sentence to life.

In doing so, Perry accepts a recommendation from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, which voted 6-1 today to urge the commutation.

Foster's had faced execution tonight in Huntsville for being the getaway driver in the 1996 attempted robbery and murder of Michael LaHood in San Antonio.

Perry didn't have to accept the highly unusual recommendation from the board, whose members he appoints.

But in a statement issued today, Perry said he believes "the right and just decision is to commute Foster's sentence from the death penalty to life imprisonment."

Records show 1 of Foster's passenger, Mauriceo Brown, demanded LaHood's wallet and car keys -- then opened fire when the victim couldn't produce them. Foster was tried with Brown and received the same sentence. Brown was executed last year.

In his statement, Perry said he's "concerned about Texas law that allowed capital murder defendants to be tried simultaneously." He says he thinks the Legislature should examine that issue.


On the Net:

Execution schedule: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/scheduledexecutions.htm

Kenneth Foster: http://www.freekenneth.com

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=7006064

I can't believe it, a Republican governor of death central commuted a sentence. I must see my doc about adjusting my meds.

I wonder if Perry will get a hard time about this from the law and order bunch. He's actually done two sensible things since he's been head honcho. First trying to add the HPV vaccine to the required ones, and now this.

Yeah, life is any better. No chance of parole, I bet.

Date with a needle or looking forward to 30 or 40 years in an 8x6 room?


Yeah, I'd take the needle.

Well, it's a step in the right direction...it's not a huge one, but it is a step...

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :)

Even a broken clock is right twice a day. :)

Unless it is broke in the sense that it has no hands to tell the time! :eek:

What the hell? The aliens have taken over Texas? :eek:

This I would never have believed!

Oh my God! They spared Kenny!
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/bastards.jpg
You... uhm... Well, that's good!

Good.

good news, now all they need to do is get rid of the stupid law they convicted him with and have it apply retroactively and justice will almost be done.

yay!!!

Thank God.

This spate of sanity from that country is just an aberration. Your regularly scheduled lunacy will commence shortly, no doubt.

Oh my God! They spared Kenny!
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/bastards.jpg
You... uhm... Well, that's good!
:D
This spate of sanity from that country is just an aberration. Your regularly scheduled lunacy will commence shortly, no doubt.

No doubt :(

This spate of sanity from that country is just an aberration. Your regularly scheduled lunacy will commence shortly, no doubt.

¬_¬

good news, now all they need to do is get rid of the stupid law they convicted him with and have it apply retroactively and justice will almost be done.I agree 100% .

¬_¬

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's me.

Aye, it is "you, but what are "you" exactly?

The harbinger of your miffedness.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's me.

Aye, it is "you, but what are "you" exactly?

This is even more surprising if you know what a dick Rick Perry is.

But let's not forget that Foster will still spend the rest of his life in jail because of a bad law.

with his other two friends and partners and thus, can get parolled after spending time for those armed robberies and what ever other felony he caused. a better and properly fitting punishment than death for his crimes. so your point?

he didn't commit a crime beyond being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This is even more surprising if you know what a dick Rick Perry is.

But let's not forget that Foster will still spend the rest of his life in jail because of a bad law.

with his other two friends and partners and thus, can get parolled after spending time for those armed robberies and what ever other felony he caused. a better and properly fitting punishment than death for his crimes. so your point?

Date with a needle or looking forward to 30 or 40 years in an 8x6 room?


Yeah, I'd take the needle.

Foster's expressed that he very much would rather take the 30-40 years. And so would I.

Looks like I jumped the gun changing my sig to "Resurrect Kenneth Foster."

Guess even Texas is willing to listen to popular opinion. Well, they aren't as far gone as I thought they were.

with his other two friends and partners and thus, can get parolled after spending time for those armed robberies and what ever other felony he caused. a better and properly fitting punishment than death for his crimes. so your point?

My point is that it's better, but still not exactly good.

Good news for once. Thank you for listening to reason, Governor Perry.

A man is still going to spend his life in jail for stopping and starting a car in the wrong place, but it's a step in the right direction. Especially if it focuses lasting attention on how ridiculous that law is.

My point is that it's better, but still not exactly good.

I have to agree. Time served would be fitting for just the robberies. I don't think Foster was responsible for the man's death, so he shouldn't be serving life for it.

Foster's expressed that he very much would rather take the 30-40 years. And so would I.

His call I suppose. Not a life I would want to inflict on anyone.

It's a step in the right direction. Now, with any luck, Texas will repeal the Law of Parties.

The harbinger of your miffedness.

Hmm...yes, that explains that..."unpleasant" feeling I get whenever you leave a post.

...Or is it the chicken I had a few hours ago...?

...Hmm...

I'm getting increasingly suspicious that you and the chicken are collaborating to piss me off.

Yay! The only good news today!!
Just hope that no other innocents die by it before they finally consider junking it.

he didn't commit a crime beyond being in the wrong place at the wrong time.I believe he also helped plan and commit several armed robberies earlier that night. if you read the articles, all four of them had to be in agreement before they held someone up and robbed them.

My point is that it's better, but still not exactly good. I believe he now is serving the same sentence as his other two partners in crime. better, yes. and more fitting. without knowing exactly what the charges were, and their prior criminal history (and it was noted in other articles that Foster does have a long criminal history... just nothing near murder) we cannot judge if Life is 'good' or not.

The Article about his change in sentense doesn't state Life w/o Parole. so I'm assuming it's Life w/ chance for parole.

It's a step in the right direction. Now, with any luck, Texas will repeal the Law of Parties. oh I hope so... that Law of Parties needs to go.

good news, now all they need to do is get rid of the stupid law they convicted him with and have it apply retroactively and justice will almost be done.
I couldn't disagree more. Applying any legal change retroactively harms the prescriptive force of all law within that jurisdiction.

Given the law, Foster probably should be executed.

This spate of sanity from that country is just an aberration. Your regularly scheduled lunacy will commence shortly, no doubt.

Nope, we've been taking our meds today.

6-1? You know that one was sitting there in a cowboy hat, leather boots, and holsters trying a hangman's noose.

6-1? You know that one was sitting there in a cowboy hat, leather boots, and holsters trying a hangman's noose.

>.>

*coughs*

<.<

HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) - Governor Rick Perry says he'll spare Kenneth Foster from his scheduled execution tonight and commute his sentence to life.

In doing so, Perry accepts a recommendation from the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, which voted 6-1 today to urge the commutation.

Foster's had faced execution tonight in Huntsville for being the getaway driver in the 1996 attempted robbery and murder of Michael LaHood in San Antonio.

Perry didn't have to accept the highly unusual recommendation from the board, whose members he appoints.

But in a statement issued today, Perry said he believes "the right and just decision is to commute Foster's sentence from the death penalty to life imprisonment."

Records show 1 of Foster's passenger, Mauriceo Brown, demanded LaHood's wallet and car keys -- then opened fire when the victim couldn't produce them. Foster was tried with Brown and received the same sentence. Brown was executed last year.

In his statement, Perry said he's "concerned about Texas law that allowed capital murder defendants to be tried simultaneously." He says he thinks the Legislature should examine that issue.


On the Net:

Execution schedule: http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/scheduledexecutions.htm

Kenneth Foster: http://www.freekenneth.com

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S=7006064

YES!!!!!!!!!!! WE WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lies. None is spared before my Death Note.

HUNTSVILLE, Texas (AP) - Governor Rick Perry says he'll spare Kenneth Foster from his scheduled execution tonight and commute his sentence to life.

Foster's had faced execution tonight in Huntsville for being the getaway driver in the 1996 attempted robbery and murder of Michael LaHood in San Antonio.



Wait the way I'm interpreting this is that Foster actually knew the crime was going on and helped the criminals escape. But I seem to remember from an earlier thread that he had no idea what was happening and only drove the men to the scene. Now I'm confused. Not that it changes the goodness of the fact that someone was saved from death row.

I couldn't disagree more. Applying any legal change retroactively harms the prescriptive force of all law within that jurisdiction.

Given the law, Foster probably should be executed.


GTFO.

GTFO.

He's entitled to his own opinion.

Wait the way I'm interpreting this is that Foster actually knew the crime was going on and helped the criminals escape. But I seem to remember from an earlier thread that he had no idea what was happening and only drove the men to the scene. Now I'm confused. Not that it changes the goodness of the fact that someone was saved from death row.Foster and the other two were driving around robbing people at gunpoint. at the time they ran into LaHood, they had 'agreed' to stop for the night. wazizname, the triggerman, saw LaHood's girfriend and told the others that he just wanted her phone number, so Foster stopped and the triggerman grabbed the gun and went to talk to her.

LaHood came out and it turned into a Robbery attempt and ended up with LaHood being shot. so yeah, Foster was the getaway driver for a number of robberies that night but for that murder, he and his other two friends didn't know it was going to happen.

I couldn't disagree more. Applying any legal change retroactively harms the prescriptive force of all law within that jurisdiction.

Given the law, Foster probably should be executed.

This is clearly an illegitimate law, since it punishes people equally for the actions of others by merit of being in association. To put it bluntly, just because I drove someone to the scene of a murder doesn't mean I am equally complicit in the murder, especially if I had no idea that it would occur.

This is clearly an illegitimate law, since it punishes people equally for the actions of others by merit of being in association. To put it bluntly, just because I drove someone to the scene of a murder doesn't mean I am equally complicit in the murder, especially if I had no idea that it would occur.
Regardless of whether anyone thinks the law makes any sense or is a good or bad, all laws need to be enforced without exception in all cases. To do otherwise allows for the possibility that this could happen with any law, and thus the presence of the law and the promise to punishment then loses the power to deter bad acts.

If that happens, the law generally becomes pointless.

This is clearly an illegitimate law, since it punishes people equally for the actions of others by merit of being in association. To put it bluntly, just because I drove someone to the scene of a murder doesn't mean I am equally complicit in the murder, especially if I had no idea that it would occur.

I have a friend in jail for felony murder, he is in for life, he was just riding in the car, it sucks, but it's the law, and until they get rid of the law, it has to be enforced equally.

Regardless of whether anyone thinks the law makes any sense or is a good or bad, all laws need to be enforced without exception in all cases. To do otherwise allows for the possibility that this could happen with any law, and thus the presence of the law and the promise to punishment then loses the power to deter bad acts.

If that happens, the law generally becomes pointless.

So, if the law stated that if you get pulled over for speeding, the punishment is execution, and later that law were struck down, all people on death row for speeding would remain on death row?

That's the same logic.

In reality, when laws are repealed, often times those sentenced before the law were repealed are released, if it works retroactively. For various reasons.

A person shouldn't be punished for a crime that no longer exists, basically.

At least, that's how I'm reading your statement.

So, if the law stated that if you get pulled over for speeding, the punishment is execution, and later that law were struck down, all people on death row for speeding would remain on death row?

That's the same logic.

In reality, when laws are repealed, often times those sentenced before the law were repealed are released, if it works retroactively. For various reasons.

A person shouldn't be punished for a crime that no longer exists, basically.

At least, that's how I'm reading your statement.(Bolding on my part.) Often times, not always.

yes, their cases would be re-examined and if the case would fall within the parameters of the change, then they would have the change apply.

and those changes MAY NOT result in release, but a change in sentence. so for your example, Speeding is punishable by Death. the law is changed to 2 yrs per 5 mph over the speed limit.

Of those where Speeding was the ONLY offence, if they served their altered time, then they would be released under "Time Served". but if they didn't then they would serve out their sentence.

So, if the law stated that if you get pulled over for speeding, the punishment is execution, and later that law were struck down, all people on death row for speeding would remain on death row?
Yes.
That's the same logic.
Yes it is. Thanks for noticing.
In reality, when laws are repealed, often times those sentenced before the law were repealed are released, if it works retroactively. For various reasons.
All bad reasons.
A person shouldn't be punished for a crime that no longer exists, basically.
They should if the crime existed when they committed it.

The opint of the law is to influence people's behaviour. When you're about to act, you examine the law to see if what you're about to do carries any legal consecuences. You then base your decision whether to act on what those consecuences might be. This is how deterrence works.

If those consecuences might change (and you're advocating that hey should whenever the law changes) then people about to break the law have less cause to fear puinishment, because the punishment might lessen or go away before it gets to them. Alternately, making punishments worse after the fact denies the actor the chance to make an informed decision.

The law needs to be applied in every case as it was written at the time of the commission of the act.
At least, that's how I'm reading your statement.
You're reading it correctly.

Regardless of whether anyone thinks the law makes any sense or is a good or bad, all laws need to be enforced without exception in all cases.

Yay for injustice!

To do otherwise allows for the possibility that this could happen with any law, and thus the presence of the law and the promise to punishment then loses the power to deter bad acts.

Hardly, it simply recognizes the reason for changing the law. If a law or sentencing guideline is found to be unjust, it never should have been applied to anyone. It never should be applied to anyone. It would be a travesty of justice to apply it just because someone thinks that the law, no matter how unjust, is more important than actual justice.

i have very little compassion for a man who is a self-admitted accessory to murder


the texas law of parties attempts to deter murderous behavior by putting responsibility under the law not just on the person who pulled the trigger, but the on anyone who knowingly and willingly helped supply the said murderer with the means to do so

there are inherent flaws within the law, as there are in any law, but the intent of this particular law cannot be seriously criticized since it is attempting to punish murderers and those who provide them with opportunity

Kenneth Foster was spared, but now he gets life in prison for committing a couple of robberies? Land of the free indeed.

Kenneth Foster was spared, but now he gets life in prison for committing a couple of robberies? Land of the free indeed.

ARMED robberies


he put innocent people's lives in danger all for a few luxury items


plus, he has a long past history of armed robbery and other criminal activity, so clearly he is not fit to remain amongst innocent, law abiding citizens

ARMED robberies


he put innocent people's lives in danger all for a few luxury items


plus, he has a long past history of armed robbery and other criminal activity, so clearly he is not fit to remain amongst innocent, law abiding citizens


This from the guy who thinks your a school shooter if you draw a picture of a gun. Shut the fuck up.

Yay for injustice!
You call it injustice. I call it legal consistency.
Hardly, it simply recognizes the reason for changing the law. If a law or sentencing guideline is found to be unjust, it never should have been applied to anyone. It never should be applied to anyone. It would be a travesty of justice to apply it just because someone thinks that the law, no matter how unjust, is more important than actual justice.
But since the future changes to the law are unknown (since they happen in the future), the possibility that they could occur influeces the cost/benefit analysis associated with the action.

And, if you're willing to change the law retroactively to lessen or remove penalties, are you also willing to change the law retroactively to add or increase penalities (as the Nuremburg war crimes trials did)?

You call it injustice. I call it legal consistency.

Legal consistency for the sake of legal consistency is useless. If the only purpose of the law is to be the law, then the law should be done away with. If the law becomes more of a danger to the citizens than a protection, the law should be done away with.

But since the future changes to the law are unknown (since they happen in the future), the possibility that they could occur influeces the cost/benefit analysis associated with the action.

Oh noes! Seriously, no one is thinking that the sentencing for murder is suddenly going to change to "You get fluffy bunnies and ice cream."

And, if you're willing to change the law retroactively to lessen or remove penalties, are you also willing to change the law retroactively to add or increase penalities (as the Nuremburg war crimes trials did)?

No.

Also, for everyone who's crying over poor Kenneth Foster serving life in prison, here's a brief criminal history of this poor, poor man, victimized by the mean mean state of texas


"Foster is concurrently serving two additional ten year sentences for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

According to the evidence at his trial, Foster was the driver in at least three other aggravated robberies, committed shortly before the capital murder.

Foster shot at three people in a moving car on October 17, 1994, for no discernable reason. For this crime, Foster plead guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and received deferred adjudication, ten years probation.

On May 8, 1994, Foster was arrested after a police officer saw crack cocaine on the floorboard of his car. The officer also found marijuana in the car. On May 4, 1995, an undercover officer purchased a quarter-pound of marijuana from Foster."


The information was released by the Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

To view the article yourself, click here (http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48729941_texas_death_texas_kenneth_foster_scheduled_execution)

This from the guy who thinks your a school shooter if you draw a picture of a gun. Shut the fuck up.

you are a fucking idiot, stop misrepresenting me


oh, and nice rebuttal, "shut up" is a very mature, well informed argument to make

Also, for everyone who's crying over poor Kenneth Foster serving life in prison, here's a brief criminal history of this poor, poor man, victimized by the mean mean state of texas


"Foster is concurrently serving two additional ten year sentences for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

According to the evidence at his trial, Foster was the driver in at least three other aggravated robberies, committed shortly before the capital murder.

Foster shot at three people in a moving car on October 17, 1994, for no discernable reason. For this crime, Foster plead guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and received deferred adjudication, ten years probation.

On May 8, 1994, Foster was arrested after a police officer saw crack cocaine on the floorboard of his car. The officer also found marijuana in the car. On May 4, 1995, an undercover officer purchased a quarter-pound of marijuana from Foster."


The information was released by the Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

To view the article yourself, click here (http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48729941_texas_death_texas_kenneth_foster_scheduled_execution)



And do you know why he shot at those people? No? Maybe they were insulting him or something. You need to look outside the box OWA.

Lets just be honest about this sholl we? This isnt about the law this is about the colour of Foster's skin.

This from the guy who thinks your a school shooter if you draw a picture of a gun. Shut the fuck up.

no, it's from the articles covering the case.

Multiple (as in more than a couple) of ARMED ROBBERIES that night (not counting the other nights he and his friends would go out and commit crimes)

and FYI, they did this often enough that they had a SOP set in place.

And do you know why he shot at those people? No? Maybe they were insulting him or something. You need to look outside the box OWA.

Lets just be honest about this sholl we? This isnt about the law this is about the colour of Foser's skin.

wait wait wait, lemme get this right

you are DEFENDING him for shooting at someone because they may have called him names?

so, shooting at someone and potentially killing them is okay if they call you a name? That's not thinking outside of the box, that's being an idiot just for the sake of arguing

i mean, really? what's your point? it doesn't matter WHAT happened, he SHOT at UNARMED people!


also, if you want more in depth facts about his criminal history, by all means you are most welcome to research it, but given this mans criminal history that we already know of, I don't take lightly his wielding of deadly weapons


and i am not denying that he was punished so severly because of his skin, did you not read in my previous post where i said there are inherent flaws in this law?

but the argument of "he was punished because he's black" is really more of a critique about the justice system, not the intent of the law of parties

I hate black people.


Fixed.

wait wait wait, lemme get this right

you are DEFENDING him for shooting at someone because they may have called him names?

Yes, he is.

And do you know why he shot at those people? No? Maybe they were insulting him or something. You need to look outside the box OWA.

Lets just be honest about this sholl we? This isnt about the law this is about the colour of Foster's skin.

oh, they insulted him or something... that makes it ok to shoot at them then in your mind?

and I guess the color of his skin got him 10 yrs probation instead of jail time.

Guess it was the color of his skin that made him sell Crack Cocaine to that undercover cop also...

or maybe, just maybe, Foster is not the Innocent, Law Abiding citizen you want to think he is.

Fixed.

wait, let me get THIS one straight too


so, naming a person's FACTUAL CRIMINAL HISTORY now makes them racist?

wait wait wait, lemme get this right

you are DEFENDING him for shooting at someone because they may have called him names?

so, shooting at someone and potentially killing them is okay if they call you a name?

I never said that. It would still be wrong if he shot and/or killed them. But they would have started it.


That's not thinking outside of the box, that's being an idiot just for the sake of arguing

I'm ony using the same method you did.

i mean, really? what's your point? it doesn't matter WHAT happened, he SHOT at UNARMED people!

See above.


also, if you want more in depth facts about his criminal history, by all means you are most welcome to research it, but given this mans criminal history that we already know of, I don't take lightly his wielding of deadly weapons

So, you assume that this guy is a criminal based on what you read in the article? Who's to say they are not lieing?


and i am not denying that he was punished so severly because of his skin, did you not read in my previous post where i said there are inherent flaws in this law?

but the argument of "he was punished because he's black" is really more of a critique about the justice system, not the intent of the law of parties


Criminal or not, it's still a stupid law

wait, let me get THIS one straight too


so, naming a person's FACTUAL CRIMINAL HISTORY now makes them racist?

Apparently to New Tacoma it does. Do all morons live in Tacoma?

I like to flame members who disagree with me.

Fixed.

I'm married to my sister!


Fixed.

Fixed.

You think he's a flamer? *dies of laughter*

Criminal or not, it's still a stupid law

okay, really

saying that the name callers "started it" in response to this man shooting at them is, well, it's appalling, and it really shows your level of immaturity

and i like how you are preparing to refute documented, judicial rulings concerning Kenneth Foster's criminal background

or perhaps even the fact that he has ADMITTED to these crimes, including the one where he is now currently serving life

I guess he's lying too?

Oh no, he couldn't do that, because he's black which makes him perfect and he can do no wrong

Seriously, quit turning this into a racial issue and deal with the facts at hand

I'll simplify it for you:

He did bad things, and now he's paying for them


see? not that hard to understand

Legal consistency for the sake of legal consistency is useless. If the only purpose of the law is to be the law, then the law should be done away with. If the law becomes more of a danger to the citizens than a protection, the law should be done away with.


[quote]Oh noes! Seriously, no one is thinking that the sentencing for murder is suddenly going to change to "You get fluffy bunnies and ice cream."
The difference between 10 and 40 years imprisonment might make a difference to someone. Or solitary confinement versus a standard supermax prison.

And we're not just talking about murder, here. What if we make a change to the legal defintion of racketeering and that means the thing I did last year wasn't technically illegal? Should I now not be charged for that behaviour, even though when I did it I knew it was against the law? The result then would be that I found a law, I broke it, and I faced no legal consequence. Now will someone else look at laws again fraud with a bit less certainty?

Potential criminals need to know with certainty what laws will apply to them based on their current behaviour. To do otherwise fails any test of fairness.
No.
Why not? Wouldn't you fixing an unjust law there, too?

What's the difference?

Fixed.

I dub thee an 11 yr old troll.

Thanks for playing, but it's time for the Grown ups to continue talking.

okay, really

saying that the name callers "started it" in response to this man shooting at them is, well, it's appalling, and it really shows your level of immaturity

It would have been wrong if foster had shot at the people for calling him names thut the fact remains- They starteded it.

and i like how you are preparing to refute documented, judicial rulings concerning Kenneth Foster's criminal background

I never refuted them, its just that these people a jumping on the banwagon saying that because foster was an unsavoury character then this unjust law should be upheld.

or perhaps even the fact that he has ADMITTED to these crimes, including the one where he is now currently serving life

I guess he's lying too?

I was making fun of you.

Oh no, he couldn't do that, because he's black which makes him perfect and he can do no wrong

I never said being black makes someone perfect.

Seriously, quit turning this into a racial issue and deal with the facts at hand

I'll simplify it for you:

He did bad things, and now he's paying for them


see? not that hard to understand

More like:
He did bad things- he is black- so now he is paying for them alot more than he would have done if he were white.

LOL

I agree, I'm just going to ignore him, he clearly is only doing this to try and get attention


What is that called? Being a puppet or something? I think NS has an official title for that, but whatever, it really doesn't matter

The word you are looking for is troll.

I dub thee an 11 yr old troll.

Thanks for playing, but it's time for the Grown ups to continue talking.

LOL

I agree, I'm just going to ignore him, he clearly is only doing this to try and get attention


What is that called? Being a puppet or something? I think NS has an official title for that, but whatever, it really doesn't matter

Anyone who doesnt agree with me is a troll.

Fixed.

You think he's a flamer? *dies of laughter*

his post 67 was particually humorous.

The word you are looking for is troll.

Yes, if someone has a different opinion than you then clearly they are an evil troll!!!!!!:eek:

Yes, if someone has a different opinion than you then clearly they are an evil troll!!!!!!:eek:

Actually....no. The way you are posting makes you a troll by changing what other people have said because it disagrees with you. Instead of debating rationally as the others were doing, you choose to change things and insult them. That makes u a troll.

The word you are looking for is troll.

Actually....no. The way you are posting makes you a troll by changing what other people have said because it disagrees with you. Instead of debating rationally as the others were doing, you choose to change things and insult them. That makes u a troll.


A racist bigot thinks I'm a troll? Oh, woe is me!:(

A racist bigot thinks I'm a troll? Oh, woe is me!:(

And who are you calling a racist bigot?

Actually....no. The way you are posting makes you a troll by changing what other people have said because it disagrees with you. Instead of debating rationally as the others were doing, you choose to change things and insult them. That makes u a troll.

seriously, i wouldn't even give him the time of day if i were you

he's obviously looking to upset people by being immature, and nothing any rational person can say will make him stop

seriously, i wouldn't even give him the time of day if i were you

he's obviously looking to upset people by being immature, and nothing any rational person can say will make him stop

ITs his biggest failing but my nature is to educate the immature into being mature beings online. Sadly, I know I will fail but its a burden that I am willing to shoulder.

(v.) (1) To deliberately post derogatory or inflammatory comments to a community forum, chat room, newsgroup and/or a blog in order to bait other users into responding.
(2) To surf the Internet.

(3) To hang around a chat room reading the posts instead of contributing to the chat.

(n.) One who performs any of the above actions

http://webopedia.com/TERM/T/troll.html

ITs his biggest failing but my nature is to educate the immature into being mature beings online. Sadly, I know I will fail but its a burden that I am willing to shoulder.

yeah, i know what you mean


but i think he's doing this intentionally, without any real intention of learning anything

like you said, he's just being a troll and the more we respond to him, the more he'll keep doing it

yeah, i know what you mean


but i think he's doing this intentionally, without any real intention of learning anything

like you said, he's just being a troll and the more we respond to him, the more he'll keep doing it

You, know, all I want is some answers. But you and Corni are all ganging up on me and calling me names because I disagree with you. Anyways I've reported your posts to the Admins.

You, know, all I want is some answers. But you and Corni are all ganging up on me and calling me names because I disagree with you. Anyways I've reported your posts to the Admins.

Sure go ahead. I know I have not violated any rules. Also, I have been ganged upon several times and not once reported it to the mods.

Well, I guess life for commiting crimes with a murderer is a little better than death. Law Of Parties: A new term for guilt by association.

You, know, all I want is some answers. But you and Corni are all ganging up on me and calling me names because I disagree with you. Anyways I've reported your posts to the Admins.

If you want answers you should ask questions, not call people racists and claim they're married to their sister.

Sure go ahead. I know I have not violated any rules. Also, I have been ganged upon several times and not once reported it to the mods.

actually, as I recall, HE was the one who first attacked my post and then told me to shut the fuck up


sooooooo


i don't think the admins are going to have much sympathy for him

I guess he reported it on IRC because there is no thread in moderation :D

If you want answers you should ask questions, not call people racists and claim they're married to their sister.

actually what's ironic is that he was calling us names and using immature tactics in response to our answers

I guess he reported it on IRC because there is no thread in moderation :D

i wish he would report us to the mods so they could shut him down

i wish he would report us to the mods so they could shut him down

You, know, all I want is some answers. But you and Corni are all ganging up on me and calling me names because I disagree with you. Anyways I've reported your posts to the Admins.

As I said. Either a) he's bluffing or b) reported it on IRC

what's IRC?

A chat program. It is call mIRC. You can download it at www.mirc.com

As I said. Either a) he's bluffing or b) reported it on IRC

what's IRC?

I guess he reported it on IRC because there is no thread in moderation :D

As I said. Either a) he's bluffing or b) reported it on IRC

He could have used that "Report this post" button, I guess.

He could have used that "Report this post" button, I guess.

Oh yea...I forgot about that button. Thanks for the reminder :)

He could have used that "Report this post" button, I guess.

... but doesn't that button go to the Jolt Admins and not the Nationstates Mod team?

I think he'll be waiting a Loooooooong time for a reply...

New Tacoma is right. Foster did not commit armed robberies. He drove a car. And where is his "long history of armed robbery and other criminal activity"? I guess any black person who smokes a joint labeled like that?

What is it with the god damned race card with people today? It really is getting annoying.

ARMED robberies


he put innocent people's lives in danger all for a few luxury items


plus, he has a long past history of armed robbery and other criminal activity, so clearly he is not fit to remain amongst innocent, law abiding citizens

New Tacoma is right. Foster did not commit armed robberies. He drove a car. And where is his "long history of armed robbery and other criminal activity"? I guess any black person who smokes a joint labeled like that?

Apparently, Foster is also serving 2 additional 10 yr sentences for those aggrivated assaults he did a while back.

I could be (just speculation) that the two counts of aggrivated assault with a deadly weapon may have been also considered for the Death Penalty sentencing. (referring to the lack of public safty/concern bit.)

Yes.

Yes it is. Thanks for noticing.

All bad reasons.

They should if the crime existed when they committed it.

The opint of the law is to influence people's behaviour. When you're about to act, you examine the law to see if what you're about to do carries any legal consecuences. You then base your decision whether to act on what those consecuences might be. This is how deterrence works.

If those consecuences might change (and you're advocating that hey should whenever the law changes) then people about to break the law have less cause to fear puinishment, because the punishment might lessen or go away before it gets to them. Alternately, making punishments worse after the fact denies the actor the chance to make an informed decision.

The law needs to be applied in every case as it was written at the time of the commission of the act.

You're reading it correctly.

Alright, new tactic:

If there existed a law which banned people from wearing red shirts on Tuesdays between 3 P.M. to 6 P.M., and it was punishable by death, would you support the execution of those who were arrested for breaking such a law? As well, if such a law were struck down, would you support retaining executions for those who broke said law before it was revoked?

What you are advocating is that the law must be followed to the "T", without exception, regardless of how asinine it is. Just because something is against the law does not make the law right, or just, nor does forcing people to serve a sentence for a crime that no longer exists(As it was asinine). Granted, as Junii pointed out, there are other circumstances involved, such as commuted sentences, however you are advocating instead retaining the original sentence for a crime that does not exist.

New Tacoma is right. Foster did not commit armed robberies. He drove a car. And where is his "long history of armed robbery and other criminal activity"? I guess any black person who smokes a joint labeled like that?

two points.

1) he gained from those actions. the money gotten from those 3-4 prior robberies were split between all FOUR men, including Foster. so he did commit those crimes and he assisted.


http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48729941_texas_death_texas_kenneth_foster_scheduled_execution
On the night of August 14, 1996, Kenneth Foster and three other men rode around San Antonio, looking for someone to rob. The four men committed four robberies and split the proceeds from each encounter.

At one point, the men followed Mary Patrick and Michael LaHood, Jr., who were driving in separate vehicles, to the home of Lahood’s parents. As Patrick and LaHood started walking to the entrance of the house, a man with a gun and a dark bandana around his face walked up the driveway.

LaHood told Patrick to go inside the house but, as she began running, she tripped and fell. Patrick looked back and saw the man point the gun directly in LaHood’s face and demand his keys, wallet and money. She heard LaHood say, “She has got the keys ... She has got them,” and then a loud bang.

Patrick waited until the assailants left in a car and then ran to the 25-year-old LaHood, who had been shot in the face. He died in the driveway. The assailants were caught in their car, a short time later.

PUNISHMENT PHASE

Evidence showed that a day or two before the murder of Michael LaHood, Foster and the three other men robbed another man, taking his Mercedes and his wallet at gunpoint. The robbery victim’s cell phone was found in the trunk of Foster’s car when he was arrested for the LaHood murder.

Evidence showed that Foster had been involved in another shooting on October 17, 1994. Three people were riding in a truck, around 2 a.m., when they noticed a car behind them switching from lane to lane. The car pulled in front of the truck; Foster leaned out of the passenger side window and fired at the truck, striking two of the passengers. Both victims, neither of whom knew Foster, survived the attack.

On May 8, 1994, Foster was arrested after a police officer saw crack cocaine on the floorboard of his car. The officer also found marijuana in the car. On May 4, 1995, an undercover officer purchased a quarter-pound of marijuana from Foster.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Foster and co-defendant Maurice Mashawn Brown were convicted and sentenced to death in May 1997, for the capital murder of Michael LaHood Jr. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed Foster’s conviction. The conviction and sentence became final on April 3, 2000, when the U.S. Supreme Court denied Foster’s petition for writ of certiorari.

While his direct appeal was pending, Foster filed a state application for writ of habeas corpus on April 28, 1999. An evidentiary hearing was held in state court, after which the trial judge entered findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that relief be denied. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied relief on March 6, 2002. The Supreme Court denied Foster’s petition for writ of certiorari on October 2, 2002.

Foster filed his federal petition for writ of habeas corpus in the federal district court on January 3, 2003. The district court conditionally granted the writ on March 3, 2005, granting habeas relief on three punishment-phase issues, but denying relief on all others. The State appealed the conditional grant of habeas relief to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard oral argument on May 17, 2006. The 5th Circuit Court vacated the district court’s grant of habeas relief and denied all relief on October 2, 2006. Foster also cross-appealed to the 5th Circuit Court, seeking a certificate of appealability on two guilt-innocence phase issues and later amended his appeal to include a claim of actual innocence. However, the 5th Circuit Court denied COA on March 13, 2006.

The Supreme Court denied certiorari review of the COA issues on October 2, 2006, and denied certiorari review of the Fifth Circuit Court's reversal of the district court’s grant of habeas relief on April 23, 2007.

Foster filed a subsequent application for writ of habeas corpus in the state court, which was dismissed as an abuse of the writ on August 7, 2007, by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.

PRIOR CRIMINAL HISTORY

Foster is concurrently serving two additional ten year sentences for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

According to the evidence at his trial, Foster was the driver in at least three other aggravated robberies, committed shortly before the capital murder.

Foster shot at three people in a moving car on October 17, 1994, for no discernable reason. For this crime, Foster plead guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and received deferred adjudication, ten years probation.

On May 8, 1994, Foster was arrested after a police officer saw crack cocaine on the floorboard of his car. The officer also found marijuana in the car. On May 4, 1995, an undercover officer purchased a quarter-pound of marijuana from Foster. It appears these charges were ultimately dismissed.


2) So he was on probation when he committed those robberies. a violation of that probation.

again, I agree that his actions did not merit a Death Penalty and his new sentence is more fitting. It allows him at least a chance for parole (I didn't read anything yet that he is on Life w/o parole.)

New Tacoma is right. Foster did not commit armed robberies. He drove a car. And where is his "long history of armed robbery and other criminal activity"? I guess any black person who smokes a joint labeled like that?

you're wrong, he did commit armed robberies himself


check out the link i posted a few pages back, it'll tell you aaaaall about his criminal history

and, as you'll see, it will have NOTHING to do with him being black, and EVERYTHING to do with the facts

whether we like it or not, it's a cold hard fact that yes, sometimes even our black citizens commit crimes too you know. Admitting that fact won't make you a racist, it'll make you a realist.

two points.

1) he gained from those actions. the money gotten from those 3-4 prior robberies were split between all FOUR men, including Foster. so he did commit those crimes and he assisted.


http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48729941_texas_death_texas_kenneth_foster_scheduled_execution



2) So he was on probation when he committed those robberies. a violation of that probation.

again, I agree that his actions did not merit a Death Penalty and his new sentence is more fitting. It allows him at least a chance for parole (I didn't read anything yet that he is on Life w/o parole.)

*bows and hands JuNii a box of favorite cookies*

two points.

1) he gained from those actions. the money gotten from those 3-4 prior robberies were split between all FOUR men, including Foster. so he did commit those crimes and he assisted.


http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/48729941_texas_death_texas_kenneth_foster_scheduled_execution



2) So he was on probation when he committed those robberies. a violation of that probation.

again, I agree that his actions did not merit a Death Penalty and his new sentence is more fitting. It allows him at least a chance for parole (I didn't read anything yet that he is on Life w/o parole.)

So "evidence showed" that he committed these shootings? I'd like to see the facts, or at the very least this "evidence."

Secondly, as I said before, he was the getaway man. I didn't dispute that he was in the robbery.

Anyways, you'll have to excuse me for not trusting a website called "AllAmericanPatriots.com."

So "evidence showed" that he committed these shootings? I'd like to see the facts, or at the very least this "evidence."

Secondly, as I said before, he was the getaway man. I didn't dispute that he was in the robbery.

Anyways, you'll have to excuse me for not trusting a website called "AllAmericanPatriots.com."

Only if you excuse us for dealing with the actual facts.

So "evidence showed" that he committed these shootings? I'd like to see the facts, or at the very least this "evidence."

Secondly, as I said before, he was the getaway man. I didn't dispute that he was in the robbery.

Anyways, you'll have to excuse me for not trusting a website called "AllAmericanPatriots.com."

what evidence would you accept?

testimony from his partners that he drove them to their robbery victims?
the fact that a robbery won't be committed untill all FOUR men were in agreement?
the fact that he supplied the car, drove it around, and even called it a night due to the fact that the car was needed elsewhere?

check the other foster thread. articles from better sources all mention those facts.

So "evidence showed" that he committed these shootings? I'd like to see the facts, or at the very least this "evidence."

Secondly, as I said before, he was the getaway man. I didn't dispute that he was in the robbery.

Anyways, you'll have to excuse me for not trusting a website called "AllAmericanPatriots.com."

it doesn't matter what on what news forum the information was posted, it's reliable information that was released by the Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott.

I mean seriously, if you really don't believe the info you just read, research it for yourself instead of crying FOUL like a little baby. You'll find the same facts no matter where you go.

it's a fact that this man, whether he be black or white or fucking purple, has a long criminal history, and is not in any condition to be allowed to return amongst society with the rest of us civilized, law abiding citizens. That's the whole point of the justice system, to protect the innocent by restraining the guilty. And again, it's regardless of his race. It's all due to his OWN ADMITTED and CONVICTED behavior.

it's a fact that this man, whether he be black or white or fucking purple, has a long criminal history, and is not in any condition to be allowed to return amongst society with the rest of us civilized, law abiding citizens. That's the whole point of the justice system, to protect the innocent by restraining the guilty. And again, it's regardless of his race. It's all due to his OWN ADMITTED and CONVICTED behavior.

So, if the murder had never happened and they were still caught, do you tihnk he would still be facing life in prison for his involvement in the robberies?

what evidence would you accept?

testimony from his partners that he drove them to their robbery victims?
the fact that a robbery won't be committed untill all FOUR men were in agreement?
the fact that he supplied the car, drove it around, and even called it a night due to the fact that the car was needed elsewhere?

check the other foster thread. articles from better sources all mention those facts.

Nobody is disputing this. What's your point?

So, if the murder had never happened and they were still caught, do you tihnk he would still be facing life in prison for his involvement in the robberies?

i'm not sure, that's hard to say


but i do know that we won't get anywhere if we divert all our time and energy entertaining all possible "what ifs" theories


The facts are the facts. This man premeditated, preplanned, preconceived, and then executed a cold plan to rob people at gunpoint. Any claim that they did not expect to harm people is refutted by the mere fact that they put bullets in the gun. Clearly, they had planned that if someone resisted, or didn't do as they ordered (which became the case), then they would result to deadlier measures.

He was more than just an accessory to murder, he was one of the architects. He wasn't merely at the wrong place at the wrong time, he PLANNED this with his fellow thugs.

And our society needs to have laws in place to punish people like that severely, because as I've stated before, they are knowingly and willingly providing opportunities for murder, and that is simply unacceptable.

So "evidence showed" that he committed these shootings? I'd like to see the facts, or at the very least this "evidence."

Secondly, as I said before, he was the getaway man. I didn't dispute that he was in the robbery.

Anyways, you'll have to excuse me for not trusting a website called "AllAmericanPatriots.com."

what evidence would you accept?

testimony from his partners that he drove them to their robbery victims?
the fact that a robbery won't be committed untill all FOUR men were in agreement?
the fact that he supplied the car, drove it around, and even called it a night due to the fact that the car was needed elsewhere?

check the other foster thread. articles from better sources all mention those facts.

Nobody is disputing this. What's your point?

I smell a backtrack.

Nobody is disputing this. What's your point?

"So "evidence showed" that he committed these shootings? I'd like to see the facts, or at the very least this "evidence."

"Anyways, you'll have to excuse me for not trusting a website called "AllAmericanPatriots.com."

That's a direct quote from you, which directly implies that you do not trust the website where the info was gathered, therefore you question the very info itself because of the supposed "questionable" nature of the host page. You also said that you do not see any "evidence" yourself, but the twelve jurors did, and the script of the trial is also for you to review if you wish (you would have to find it though). Quite simply, it amazes me that if this was a white man, you wouldn't think anything of it, everything would be okay, and you would believe the information that the freakin TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL released for public disclosure. But because the guy is black, you all of the sudden don't believe the same source where you get all your other information?

It just really doesn't make much sense to me. Quit with the race card. Read the facts. Learn something.

it's a fact that this man, whether he be black or white or fucking purple, has a long criminal history, and is not in any condition to be allowed to return amongst society with the rest of us civilized, law abiding citizens. That's the whole point of the justice system, to protect the innocent by restraining the guilty. And again, it's regardless of his race. It's all due to his OWN ADMITTED and CONVICTED behavior.

I'm still trying to research this thing myself. Perhaps I'm particularly incompetent, but I can't find his actual criminal record.

Now as to your funny little opinion. You honestly think that for the offences committed (robbery, marijuana) he should go to life in prison? I don't think there's much I can say except to laugh. I suppose we should toss anyone who could be a threat to society behind bars for life too, right? Good thing you don't make decisions in that field.

That's a direct quote from you, which directly implies that you do not trust the website where the info was gathered, therefore you question the very info itself because of the supposed "questionable" nature of the host page. You also said that you do not see any "evidence" yourself, but the twelve jurors did, and the script of the trial is also for you to review if you wish (you would have to find it though). Quite simply, it amazes me that if this was a white man, you wouldn't think anything of it, everything would be okay, and you would believe the information that the freakin TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL released for public disclosure. But because the guy is black, you all of the sudden don't believe the same source where you get all your other information?

It just really doesn't make much sense to me. Quit with the race card. Read the facts. Learn something.

5 bucks says that if Kenneth Foster were white, he would have gotten a quiet little sentence like he deserves, and there would be no fuss. That's the "race card"; you can whine all you like about it, but people use it for a reason: it's true.

5 bucks says that if Kenneth Foster were white, he would have gotten a quiet little sentence like he deserves, and there would be no fuss. That's the "race card"; you can whine all you like about it, but people use it for a reason: it's true.

Not in this case.

I smell a backtrack.

You are mistaken. The first and second quotes are referring to different things.

I'm still trying to research this thing myself. Perhaps I'm particularly incompetent, but I can't find his actual criminal record.

Now as to your funny little opinion. You honestly think that for the offences committed (robbery, marijuana) he should go to life in prison? I don't think there's much I can say except to laugh. I suppose we should toss anyone who could be a threat to society behind bars for life too, right? Good thing you don't make decisions in that field.

Sigh

How can you be so thick skulled?


BECAUSE OF HIS CRIMINAL BACKGROUND, INCLUDING AGGREVATED ASSUALT AND ASSAULT WITH A DEADLY WEAPON, REACHING ALL THE WAY BACK TO 1993, AND BECAUSE HE IS CONTINUALLY BEING SENT TO PRISON AND RELEASED, OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND BECAUSE HE DOESN'T SEEM TO BE LEARNING HIS LESSON, AND BECAUSE THIS TIME HIS ACTIONS LED TO THE DEATH OF AN INNOCENT PERSON, YES I THINK LIFE IN PRISON IS A FAIR SENTENCE.

you got all that?

You are mistaken. The first and second quotes are referring to different things.

I call bullshit.

You are mistaken. The first and second quotes are referring to different things.

Dude, come on, i mean seriously

We're not idiots


Those quotes were not referring to different things, it was all in relation to the evidence as brought forth in the article, and you disputed it, and then you backtracked and said, "so what, what's your point?"


Just accept it and move on.


Seriously.

I'm still trying to research this thing myself. Perhaps I'm particularly incompetent, but I can't find his actual criminal record.

Now as to your funny little opinion. You honestly think that for the offences committed (robbery, marijuana) he should go to life in prison? I don't think there's much I can say except to laugh. I suppose we should toss anyone who could be a threat to society behind bars for life too, right? Good thing you don't make decisions in that field.

Try Google Kenneth Foster news criminal history. you gotta search through all the latest news stuff but you'll find it.


So "evidence showed" that he committed these shootings? I'd like to see the facts, or at the very least this "evidence."

Secondly, as I said before, he was the getaway man. I didn't dispute that he was in the robbery.

Anyways, you'll have to excuse me for not trusting a website called "AllAmericanPatriots.com."what evidence would you accept?

testimony from his partners that he drove them to their robbery victims?
the fact that a robbery won't be committed untill all FOUR men were in agreement?
the fact that he supplied the car, drove it around, and even called it a night due to the fact that the car was needed elsewhere?

check the other foster thread. articles from better sources all mention those facts.Nobody is disputing this. What's your point?

I smell a backtrack.
yep...

oh and here.

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=2149

From the office of the Attorney General.

On the night of August 14, 1996, Kenneth Foster and three other men rode around San Antonio, looking for someone to rob. The four men committed four robberies and split the proceeds from each encounter.

...

Evidence showed that a day or two before the murder of Michael LaHood, Foster and the three other men robbed another man, taking his Mercedes and his wallet at gunpoint. The robbery victim’s cell phone was found in the trunk of Foster’s car when he was arrested for the LaHood murder.

Evidence showed that Foster had been involved in another shooting on October 17, 1994. Three people were riding in a truck, around 2 a.m., when they noticed a car behind them switching from lane to lane. The car pulled in front of the truck; Foster leaned out of the passenger side window and fired at the truck, striking two of the passengers. Both victims, neither of whom knew Foster, survived the attack.

On May 8, 1994, Foster was arrested after a police officer saw crack cocaine on the floorboard of his car. The officer also found marijuana in the car. On May 4, 1995, an undercover officer purchased a quarter-pound of marijuana from Foster.

and at the bottom...

Foster is concurrently serving two additional ten year sentences for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

According to the evidence at his trial, Foster was the driver in at least three other aggravated robberies, committed shortly before the capital murder.

Foster shot at three people in a moving car on October 17, 1994, for no discernable reason. For this crime, Foster plead guilty to aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and received deferred adjudication, ten years probation.

On May 8, 1994, Foster was arrested after a police officer saw crack cocaine on the floorboard of his car. The officer also found marijuana in the car. On May 4, 1995, an undercover officer purchased a quarter-pound of marijuana from Foster. It appears these charges were ultimately dismissed.

So for those aggrivated robberies, he was the getaway driver with full knowledge of what they were doing.

added to the fact that on the night of the murder, he helped commit three more robberies while on PROBATION for the assault with deadly.

His other two friends were also sentenced to life. yet, I don't see anyone arguing for their release... funny huh?

Dude, come on, i mean seriously

We're not idiots


Those quotes were not referring to different things, it was all in relation to the evidence as brought forth in the article, and you disputed it, and then you backtracked and said, "so what, what's your point?"


Just accept it and move on.


Seriously.

Then stop acting like idiots. The first quote was about his allegedly shooting at some guy. The second was on his armed robbery. All you people yelling at me combined can't figure that out? Sad.

Try Google Kenneth Foster news criminal history. you gotta search through all the latest news stuff but you'll find it.





yep...

oh and here.

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=2149

From the office of the Attorney General.



and at the bottom...



So for those aggrivated robberies, he was the getaway driver with full knowledge of what they were doing.

added to the fact that on the night of the murder, he helped commit three more robberies while on PROBATION for the assault with deadly.

His other two friends were also sentenced to life. yet, I don't see anyone arguing for their release... funny huh?

Yea it is very very funny :D

Then stop acting like idiots. The first quote was about his allegedly shooting at some guy. The second was on his armed robbery. All you people yelling at me combined can't figure that out? Sad.

check out my above post. Oct 17, 1994 he shot at three people in a truck. sentence was 10 yr probation after he pleaded guilty.

yep...

oh and here.

http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=2149

From the office of the Attorney General.



and at the bottom...



So for those aggrivated robberies, he was the getaway driver with full knowledge of what they were doing.

added to the fact that on the night of the murder, he helped commit three more robberies while on PROBATION for the assault with deadly.

His other two friends were also sentenced to life. yet, I don't see anyone arguing for their release... funny huh?

Sure I will. Aggravated robbery is not worth life in prison.

As for the rest of his record, yes, thanks for the link. The assault with a weapon got Foster 10 years probation, and now robbery gets him life in prison without parole? The problem here seems to be that you think I'm saying he should be whisked away scot-free of any charges. You seem to think that anyone arguing for Foster thinks his actions were fine. All I've been trying to say is that he should not be getting anything near the punishment he is.

Sure I will. Aggravated robbery is not worth life in prison.

As for the rest of his record, yes, thanks for the link. The assault with a weapon got Foster 10 years probation, and now robbery gets him life in prison without parole? The problem here seems to be that you think I'm saying he should be whisked away scot-free of any charges. You seem to think that anyone arguing for Foster thinks his actions were fine. All I've been trying to say is that he should not be getting anything near the punishment he is.

is it life w/o parole?

and remember, it's multiple aggrivated Robberies.

I only found references to Life (which does not mean w/o parole.)

and there are others on this thread saying he should be freed. if you're not one of em, sorry for catching you in the argument.

Then stop acting like idiots. The first quote was about his allegedly shooting at some guy. The second was on his armed robbery. All you people yelling at me combined can't figure that out? Sad.


That's irrelevant, you were doubting all of the information, period. Don't split hairs in a futile attempt to turn the tables.


And then you backtracked. But it's okay, everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone can admit them i guess.

That's irrelevant, you were doubting all of the information, period. Don't split hairs in a futile attempt to turn the tables.


And then you backtracked. But it's okay, everyone makes mistakes, but not everyone can admit them i guess.

I'm getting tired of this nonsense. Are you really so desperate to get me on something that you are resorting to this? The website quoted said that "evidence showed this, evidence showed that." This was on the subject of his PAST criminal record. Then, when Junii went on about how he committed robberies, split the money, et cetera, I said that nobody was disputing this. You stop splitting hairs.

is it life w/o parole?

and remember, it's multiple aggrivated Robberies.

I only found references to Life (which does not mean w/o parole.)

and there are others on this thread saying he should be freed. if you're not one of em, sorry for catching you in the argument.

My bad. Foster will be eligible for parole starting 2036. http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3541391&page=1

And no. Nowhere did I support Foster being freed.

i'm not sure, that's hard to say


but i do know that we won't get anywhere if we divert all our time and energy entertaining all possible "what ifs" theories


The facts are the facts. This man premeditated, preplanned, preconceived, and then executed a cold plan to rob people at gunpoint. Any claim that they did not expect to harm people is refutted by the mere fact that they put bullets in the gun. Clearly, they had planned that if someone resisted, or didn't do as they ordered (which became the case), then they would result to deadlier measures.

He was more than just an accessory to murder, he was one of the architects. He wasn't merely at the wrong place at the wrong time, he PLANNED this with his fellow thugs.

And our society needs to have laws in place to punish people like that severely, because as I've stated before, they are knowingly and willingly providing opportunities for murder, and that is simply unacceptable.

He planned to rob people. Not to murder anyone.

Also, by continuing to live you are providing people with the opportunity to murder you.

come on now, that's absurd


there's a difference between KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY providing an opportunity, not by just EXISTING, but by PROVIDING tools (weapons, vehicles, etc)


there is clearly a difference. And as I said, if they didn't plan to murder people, then they wouldn't have put bullets in the gun. Clearly, they had a CONTINGENCY PLAN regarding if someone resisted. So yes, they did plan to murder people if they didn't cooperate.

So you think the murder was intentional? That before setting out, they had planned on murdering someone?

He planned to rob people. Not to murder anyone.

Also, by continuing to live you are providing people with the opportunity to murder you.

come on now, that's absurd


there's a difference between KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY providing an opportunity, not by just EXISTING, but by PROVIDING tools (weapons, vehicles, etc)


there is clearly a difference. And as I said, if they didn't plan to murder people, then they wouldn't have put bullets in the gun. Clearly, they had a CONTINGENCY PLAN regarding if someone resisted. So yes, they did plan to murder people if they didn't cooperate.

So, if the murder had never happened and they were still caught, do you tihnk he would still be facing life in prison for his involvement in the robberies? possibly, only because of the probation violations added on. add to that the fact that Texas is a place where people can carry concealed weapons... they may be stricter on crimes involving weapons as a whole in Texas.

And no. Nowhere did I support Foster being freed.then I tender my Apologies for thinking that.

So you think the murder was intentional? That before setting out, they had planned on murdering someone?

what part of my post are you not understanding?


Yes, the murder was intentional, the person failed to give them what they asked for, so they shot the person. That is a textbook example of an intentional murder.


Secondly, my point is that they had planned to murder someone if they resisted, which is exactly what they did. And you can piece that together by the mere fact that they loaded their gun with bullets. If they really weren't planning on harming anyone, then why would they put bullets in the gun?

You are making the mistake of assuming that a group of men, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, who had preplanned and executed a plot of armed robbery, LOADED their gun with bullets, had no intention of shooting anyone.

I guess that's where they draw the line huh? What's that saying, no honor among thieves? As the evidence exhibits, they had every intention of murdering someone if they resisted, and that is exactly what happened.

So did they have a particular person that they were going to murder? No.

But did they plan to murder someone if their plans failed? Yes.

what part of my post are you not understanding?


Yes, the murder was intentional, the person failed to give them what they asked for, so they shot the person. That is a textbook example of an intentional murder.


Secondly, my point is that they had planned to murder someone if they resisted, which is exactly what they did. And you can piece that together by the mere fact that they loaded their gun with bullets. If they really weren't planning on harming anyone, then why would they put bullets in the gun?

You are making the mistake of assuming that a group of men, under the influence of alcohol and drugs, who had preplanned and executed a plot of armed robbery, LOADED their gun with bullets, had no intention of shooting anyone.

I guess that's where they draw the line huh? What's that saying, no honor among thieves? As the evidence exhibits, they had every intention of murdering someone if they resisted, and that is exactly what happened.

So did they have a particular person that they were going to murder? No.

But did they plan to murder someone if their plans failed? Yes.


Sorry One World... but could you provide a link stating where the men involved had such "contingency plans".

Sorry One World... but could you provide a link stating where the men involved had such "contingency plans".

it's implied in that they loaded their gun with bullets

it's implied in that they loaded their gun with bullets

... it can also be implied that they were taking steps incase their victim was also 'armed'. thus not a case to commit murder but self defense (in a wacked out way.)

and it also depends on the weapon. a revolver will show the chambers empty. an automatic locks up if empty (or so I believe). so loading the gun does not mean they were actually planning on using it.

then I tender my Apologies for thinking that.

Don't sweat it.

And to One World Alliance.

If you're really going to rob someone with a gun, you'd be a complete fool not to load it. That's common sense, not intent to kill.

... it can also be implied that they were taking steps incase their victim was also 'armed'. thus not a case to commit murder but self defense (in a wacked out way.)

and it also depends on the weapon. a revolver will show the chambers empty. an automatic locks up if empty (or so I believe). so loading the gun does not mean they were actually planning on using it.

hmmmm, i do see your point

however :D


it's not self defense if you're robbing someone at gunpoint and they pull a gun on you.


Also, if they needed a bullet to make the gun look normal, then why was the gun safety off?

There is just no way to reasonably conclude that they had no intention of harming anyone

Don't sweat it.

And to One World Alliance.

If you're really going to rob someone with a gun, you'd be a complete fool not to load it. That's common sense, not intent to kill.

and why would you load the gun?


think about it

hmmmm, i do see your point

however :D


it's not self defense if you're robbing someone at gunpoint and they pull a gun on you.


Also, if they needed a bullet to make the gun look normal, then why was the gun safety off?

There is just no way to reasonably conclude that they had no intention of harming anyone
note the "in a wacked out way." so yes, the robbery vic pulls out a gun, then they shoot. that won't be cold blooded murder for both sides are armed. (won't make it right, but it won't make it murder.)

2) how do you know the safety was off all the time and that it wasn't taken off just before the shooting? as far as I know, for Automatics, its a simple lever that the thumb can flip.

3) would you be scared of a robber holding a gun that you could see was not loaded?

they may have been prepared to hurt someone, hence "aggrivated" robberies, but to say they planned to murder someone is a stretch.

and why would you load the gun?


think about it

Oh, I see. Anyone who loads a gun has intent to kill with it. Makes perfect sense.

Oh, I see. Anyone who loads a gun has intent to kill with it. Makes perfect sense.

for the purpose of armed robbery, yes it does make sense

note the "in a wacked out way." so yes, the robbery vic pulls out a gun, then they shoot. that won't be cold blooded murder for both sides are armed. (won't make it right, but it won't make it murder.)

2) how do you know the safety was off all the time and that it wasn't taken off just before the shooting? as far as I know, for Automatics, its a simple lever that the thumb can flip.

3) would you be scared of a robber holding a gun that you could see was not loaded?

they may have been prepared to hurt someone, hence "aggrivated" robberies, but to say they planned to murder someone is a stretch.


well, i really do see your point, but it's not really that far of a stretch to consider that if they were robbing people at gunpoint with a loaded gun, and then ended up shooting someone, i don't think it's too far off to believe that they had intended to do so

well, i really do see your point, but it's not really that far of a stretch to consider that if they were robbing people at gunpoint with a loaded gun, and then ended up shooting someone, i don't think it's too far off to believe that they had intended to do so

but in the eyes of the law, they can't look at what is implied or what could be. but what happened.

everyone, including the shooter, said that no one, outside the shooter himself, knew he was planning a robbery/murder. Now if it was testified that they were prepared to shoot someone if they refused, then that would be different.

still not Death Worthy for Foster IMHO.

I do believe his actions would have fallen under conspiracy to commit man slaughter?

but in the eyes of the law, they can't look at what is implied or what could be. but what happened.

everyone, including the shooter, said that no one, outside the shooter himself, knew he was planning a robbery/murder. Now if it was testified that they were prepared to shoot someone if they refused, then that would be different.

still not Death Worthy for Foster IMHO.

well i think the very fact that they shot someone proves that they had planned to do so

but i do agree with you, i don't think the death penalty should have been issued

Alright, new tactic:

If there existed a law which banned people from wearing red shirts on Tuesdays between 3 P.M. to 6 P.M., and it was punishable by death, would you support the execution of those who were arrested for breaking such a law? As well, if such a law were struck down, would you support retaining executions for those who broke said law before it was revoked?
Yes I would.

Not only for the reasons I've mentioned (relaxing the punishment for those who wilfully broke the law damages the law's prescriptive force), but also because that discourages the existence of asinine laws.
What you are advocating is that the law must be followed to the "T", without exception, regardless of how asinine it is.
Exactly.
Just because something is against the law does not make the law right, or just
I never said it did. Whether the law is right or just is completely irrelevant. The nature of law requires that laws be enforced consistently.
nor does forcing people to serve a sentence for a crime that no longer exists(As it was asinine). Granted, as Junii pointed out, there are other circumstances involved, such as commuted sentences, however you are advocating instead retaining the original sentence for a crime that does not exist.
But it did exist at the time the act took place. If I'm making a decision about how to act, all the information I have regarding the laws that goern my action is the laws that currently govern my action. Future laws aren't knowable, but you're creating the possibility that the laws won't exist by the time it comes to sentence me, so I have less cause to pay them any heed. And If I'm not paying the laws any heed, then the laws are failing at their primary function (to influence my behaviour).

for the purpose of armed robbery, yes it does make sense

No it does not. The purpose of armed robbery is to rob something. Putting bullets in your gun is common sense; believe it or not, some people don't appreciate being robbed. Show me where they had intent to kill someone.

No it does not. The purpose of armed robbery is to rob something. Putting bullets in your gun is common sense; believe it or not, some people don't appreciate being robbed. Show me where they had intent to kill someone.

uhm, i would assume (by deductive reasoning, see if you can follow) that since they had planned to rob people, by gunpoint, and then proceeded to load the gun, and then actually SHOT AND KILLED SOMEONE, that yes, that was intent to kill someone


you mention that people don't appreciate being robbed, so what does that imply? that they would need the bullets to..........what? Perhaps, what, neutralize a threat? And they would do that by shooting and killing the threat? Why, by george, that's intent to kill!

No it does not. The purpose of armed robbery is to rob something. Putting bullets in your gun is common sense; believe it or not, some people don't appreciate being robbed. Show me where they had intent to kill someone.
The way US law is usually written, it doesn't matter if you intended to kill someone. It matters if you intended to commit a crime, and he clearly did. In the commission of his crime (robbery), if someone dies as a result of his crime, that's murder.

If I burn down a house I think is empty, but it isn't, I'm guilty of murder as well as arson, even though I never intended to kill anyone.

uhm, i would assume (by deductive reasoning, see if you can follow) that since they had planned to rob people, by gunpoint, and then proceeded to load the gun, and then actually SHOT AND KILLED SOMEONE, that yes, that was intent to kill someone


you mention that people don't appreciate being robbed, so what does that imply? that they would need the bullets to..........what? Perhaps, what, neutralize a threat? And they would do that by shooting and killing the threat? Why, by george, that's intent to kill!

:p

Edit: Since I probably shouldn't just post an extremely expressive little smiley thing.
I think there is some sort of rule of thumb.. "Never point a gun at something unless you are prepared to destroy it." So, them having a gun, and robbing people, pretty much is intent to kill. No one is involved in an armed robbery and has no idea that they might use their 'arms'. Frankly, if you rob someone at gunpoint, you probably are prepared to use it and kill them, even if you don't pull the trigger.

It's crap like this that makes me believe there might be a benevolent god somewhere. Then I finger through a recent list of human atrocities and remember otherwise.

Fixed.

Ah, so you're incapable of argumentation without resorting to petty strawman and ad hominem.

Thanks for clearing that up, sport.

The way US law is usually written, it doesn't matter if you intended to kill someone. It matters if you intended to commit a crime, and he clearly did. In the commission of his crime (robbery), if someone dies as a result of his crime, that's murder.

If I burn down a house I think is empty, but it isn't, I'm guilty of murder as well as arson, even though I never intended to kill anyone.

You didn't understand. He was trying to say they had intent to kill. But they didn't; they were out to rob people, not kill them. And yes, it does matter. In your arson case, you would get a charge for third degree murder, arson, possibly reckless endangerment. If you burn the house down knowing someone is inside, it becomes second or first degree murder.

The way US law is usually written, it doesn't matter if you intended to kill someone. It matters if you intended to commit a crime, and he clearly did. In the commission of his crime (robbery), if someone dies as a result of his crime, that's murder.

If I burn down a house I think is empty, but it isn't, I'm guilty of murder as well as arson, even though I never intended to kill anyone.

as Aggicificicerous said, it does.

The difference between Murder and manslaughter is intent.

the Laws are written that you have to PROVE intent. and carrying a loaded gun in a State that allows CCW's is not intent for murder.

as Aggicificicerous said, it does.

The difference between Murder and manslaughter is intent.

the Laws are written that you have to PROVE intent. and carrying a loaded gun in a State that allows CCW's is not intent for murder.

You have to have a license to carry a concealed handgun, and these men did not have that. Therefore, yes, intent can definitely be proved, especially since they did not have the weapon for any purpose of self defense (as proved by their ARMED ROBBERY actions)