So.. SF has decided not to enforce law against Cop Killer?

[Mick Knox]

A guy mows down two cops in SF with an AK47 - killing one, and no death penalty?
I'm sorry but that is just plain wrong. CA has the death penalty for exactly these types and I hope Sen Feinstein is successful in getting the DA to recuse herself and the case turned over to AG Lockyer. This case is not City of SF vs. TheKiller it is the People of CA vs TheKiller. The SF Prosecutor is putting her own views above the laws of CA and the will of the people of CA and should step aside IMO.

Edit: Links (oops)

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/04/25/BAGF66AQ3117.DTL

http://www.gainesvillesun.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040421/APN/404211240

[wysimdnwyg]

1. I must disagree

Capital punishment is wrong. I don't care who it is, or what they have done. Killing someone for any reason is wrong. A lifetime of incarceration will be a worse punishment for the perpetrator, anyway.

[Mick Knox]

2. Do the people have any say in that?

CA has the law. If the law is to be changed, it can be done democratically; CA supports this and SF DA's personal feelings does not trump that. It is a crime against the people of CA- not SF.

[wysimdnwyg]

7. Sure, the people have a say...

in the overall matter of whether or not to allow capital punishment, but it's up to the DA's office to determine the level of punishment they will seek for each crime. Just because this DA decided not to seek the DP for this particular crime does not mean the people have no say. And maybe there's something else to this than has been reported that would make the DA not want to seek the DP.

As for me, though, I think the DP should be abolished, and if this DA is using this trial to make a statement, I applaud her.

[AP]

12. Prosecutorial discretion is also the law.

Why do you feel that one law trumps the other?

[Nailzberg]

3. I always disagree with the death penalty.

Life without the possibility of parole. Lock em up, throw away the key. The justice system does not exist to satisfy our desire for vengance. It exists to deal with criminals.

[Demobrat]

4. The new DA, Kamala Harris, ran and was elected

on an anti-death penalty platform, not an anti-death penalty unless the victim is a cop platform. The dead cop's life is not more important than that of any other murder victim.

[Jim Sagle]

6. And the DA's feelings are not more important than her oath of office.

[Demobrat]

64. She took an oath to put people to death?

I guess I missed that part.

[AP]

15. If she ran on that platform, that's her contract with the people...

...and she has to keep it.

And because prosecutorial discretion is also the law -- and I presume she's operating withing the law that gives her the power to exercise discretion -- then I'm not sure what the problem is.

This is a straight up political decision, and that's how democracy works when it's working the best.

This is how the people of SF get their voice heard. They elect politicians who do what they want them to do within the parameters of the law.

That's exactly what's happening here.

[vpigrad]

41. The protected blue class

> The dead cop's life is not more important than that of any other murder victim.

Exactly! The repubs are ramming their society of classes down our throats. Exactly why do cops deserve more protection than the rest of us? Fight the trend towards a feudal society. This country was founded on doing away with classes, and those idiots are bringing them back.

[LeftCoast]

5. This is a SF case with an SF D.A.

The majority of the people of San Francisco (who will have to PAY for the case) do not support the death penalty. The DA has the OPTION to seek the death penalty, not an obligation.

[Mick Knox]

8. SF Has no Say in this; this is a state crime

My Senator is working against this and I emailed her support today. I hope she yanks that case from that DA. She is not upholding her oath of office or fullfilling her duties. If she doesnt want to seek the death penalty for parking tickets in SF; I applaud her. Murdering a cop with a banned rifle and shooting another = Death Penalty worthy crime.

[noiretextatique]

11. doesn't the DA still have discretion in terms of seeking the death penalty

or is it mandatory in this type of case?

[Tempest]

14. There is no mandatory death penalty in California

It's is up to the DA's office.

[noiretextatique]

17. thank you...and i agree with you about emotions

which is why i don't like the "cop killer" laws. one...they don't deter people who will kill cops anyway, and two, they create a distinction that fuels a lot of heat and emotion.
meanwhile...a lot of resources get used on these cases, while other murders barely warrant investigation.

[Tempest]

13. You're letting your emotions get the best of you

It was a City of San Francisco cop, not a State Trooper or Highway Patrol.

The only time the state would get involved is if there were a conflict of interest with the city DA's office.

[Sinistrous]

22. What, in your mind, is a "state" crime, and what makes this crime such?

Please remember that all criminal prosecutions are "the people vs. xxxx".

[ParanoidPat]

66. Just because you say something over and over and over again.....

....doesn't make it true. :) It's just your opinion, not the law.

"Murdering a cop with a banned rifle and shooting another = Death Penalty worthy crime." You should always add "IMHO" (In My Humble Opinion) because after all that's all it is.

Here's the California Penal Code, Section 187-199 Start at 190.0 and show us anything that backs up your opinion as legal fact.

[Mick Knox]

69. Its redundant to post opinion and IMHO after every

opinion posted on an opinion board.

I noticed your opinion "Just because you say something over and over and over again....."
....doesn't make it true. :) It's just your opinion, not the law.

Was not followed by IMHO...

It is in fact a Death Penalty worthy Crime:

a) The penalty for a defendant who is found guilty of
murder in the first degree is death or imprisonment in the state
prison for life without the possibility of parole if one or more of
the following special circumstances has been found under Section
190.4 to be true:


(7) The victim was a peace officer..........................

[ParanoidPat]

70. That's NOT an opinion, that's just a fact. Repetition does not = Truth.

What exactly is your point? You keep asserting that she's not enforcing the law. I and many others have proved she is enforcing the law.

We all know that the victim was a police officer. We also know that there are TWO possible sentences that may be legally applied at the discretion of the DA prosecuting the case. It's your opinion that the death penalty should be applied. It's the DA's opinion that the penalty that will be sought, should the defendant be convicted, will be life without possibility of parole. For her to seek that punishment is in every way LEGAL under the law. It's up to HER DISCRETION to ask for what punishment should be sought not YOURS. She may not be enforcing the law to your liking but she is enforcing it in line with the will of the majority of the people she represents. That son is a FACT not an OPINION.

When you run for the office of DA and win it with a 'pro death penalty for cop killers' platform in SF, then you can seek the death penalty at YOUR discretion.

Good luck with that in San Francisco! :)

[Mick Knox]

71. First, I'm not your son

Second, I doubt you are old enough to be my father.

Third, I agree with this:

--------------------------

It's up to HER DISCRETION to ask for what punishment should be sought not YOURS. She may not be enforcing the law to your liking but she is enforcing it in line with the will of the majority of the people she represents

----------------------------

I'm not sure the proceedure for yanking this case from the DA. She is unqualified to handle death penalty cases by her own admission due to her personnal bias and placating to whatever special interest she is beholden to.

If the only way is for her be off this case that she is unable to handle is to recuse herself; that is unfortunate and perhaps the legislature needs to work on a new law dealing with DA's who cannot handle their obligations to the PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CA... as opposed to her own political agenda.

Got that daughter?

[Demobrat]

76. The special interest she is beholden to is me.

I am a San Francisco voter. I voted for her because I liked her positions. She works for me. Got a problem with that?

[Mick Knox]

73. not only that .. I did put IMO in my original post..

you people who lack reading comprehension skills should get a clue.

[Demobrat]

9. The DA has an obligation to keep her campaign promises.

She promised that she would not seek the death penalty. Case closed.

[Tempest]

10. The will of the people in California is against the death penalty

http://www.commondreams.org/views/102200-101.htm

A poll in 2002 found the numbers to be almost exactly the same.

[foreigncorrespondent]

16. Funny!

I thought Bush* and the whole GOP were putting their personal views above the law, in relation to same sex marriage, as well. Funny how that works, huh?

[Mick Knox]

19. So the "Two wrongs make a right argument"???

Sorry; this has nothing to do with gay marriage or the repukes - as far as I can Tell; anyway. Sen Feinstein and Bill Lockyer = Democratic Party.

:shrug:

[foreigncorrespondent]

20. It doesn't matter how they are does it?

You will always see injustices, and I will always see injustices, just they may not always be in the same places, huh?

[David__77]

18. That is incorrect.

If this were a state case, then Bill Lockyer would be in charge and not Harris. Sorry, if she's the prosecutor, then it's her call and no one else's. The only thing that would change this is if state charges were filed, in which case Harris would not be in question.

[Mick Knox]

21. Wrong

The case will be titled "The People of the State of California vs David Hill. The crime is a State Crime.

Unless SF wants to charge him with a SF Crime against murder - keep this guy in their city jail for life.. it is a peoples case.

She should just follow the law; the jury would doubtless only go for life anyway.

Well.. hopefully the AG takes this case out of her hands; she is unable to enforce the laws of CA. She does fine for SF; no good when the people are involved.

[noiretextatique]

24. she is following the law...she doesn't HAVE TO seek the death penalty

as someone else mentioned, you seem to be very selective about which laws you think this prosecutor should follow.

[Tempest]

25. No, you're wrong

All criminal cases are labeled "The people of xxxx state vs." regardless of whether they are state or local cases.

Only civil cases are labeled "The people of xxx county (or city) vs."

Calm down, you're not helping yourself by getting all wound up about this.

You're only coming out with easily refuted statements.

[Mick Knox]

28. You MADE my point for me..

It's not a crime against the people of SF.. it is a crime against the PEOPLE.

That's my point.

Thank you.

[Tempest]

39. You completely ignored my post

Bottom line: You are wrong in your assertions.

Admit it, move on and find another windmill to swing at.

[DrWeird]

23. So people who kill cops should automatically get the DP?

What if it's in self defense?

Or manslaughter?

Or second degree murder?

[Mick Knox]

26. No they should be tried to the FULLEST extent of the law

In the words of the Public Defender:

Former San Francisco Public Defender Jeff Brown supported Harris' decision but he said she could have taken more time to build up her case.

"It looks more like a reflection of a philosophical animus to the death penalty rather than an individualized exercise in discretion," he said.


In the words of Sen. Feinstein:
"This is not only the definition of tragedy, it's the special circumstance called for by the death penalty law,'' Feinstein said.




In the words of the Police Officers Union:
The San Francisco Police Officers Association called on Harris to recuse herself and her office from the case and to turn it over to California's attorney general. The move followed a two-hour meeting Wednesday that the union organized after angry rank-and-file officers started circulating a petition urging Harris to reconsider and planned a march on her office.

"The murder of Officer Isaac Espinoza has taken our members to a new level of frustration, emotion, anger, and I think at this point what we are asking is that the district attorney of San Francisco do her job," union president Gary Delegnas said, surrounded by about 200 grim-faced officers, those in uniform still wearing black mourning bands over their badges.

[Tempest]

31. Your definition of "fullest extent" is subjective

According to the California state law, life in prison without parole is also considered the "fullest extent" of the law.

And naturally the Police Officers Assoc. will want him to get the death penalty. Cops are well-known for not only protecting their own, but also at times breaking the law in doing so. The recent San Franciso case of the cops beating up some guys for their food proves this out.

Just why are you so wound up about this anyway?

[Tempest]

29. Here's a good reason why cop killers should not automatically get the DP

In Bakersfield, CA there was a guy who killed a cop.

At the trial, the prosecution withheld evidence that the cop was an aggressive bully who had a record of being disciplined for escalating situations.

The State Supreme court ruled that the evidence should have been given to the defense and called for a new trial after the guy had been in prison for several years.

www.msnbc.com/local/kget/M339689.asp?cp1=1

[Mick Knox]

30. Thats a good reason why They SHOULD

The system worked.

The DA should follow the law.

I'm not talking about dragging him out and executing him. I'm talking about a trial and all due process; btw.

[Tempest]

32. You are NOT talking about a trial and due process

You started this off by ranting because the DA wasn't going for the death penalty.

You didn't give a damn about a trial and due process until you started having your ass handed to you.

Now you've gone into dishonesty.

Just why are you wound up about this?

[Mick Knox]

35. You think I was advocating no trial?

That's just inventing stuff..

I advocated turning it over to Lockyer.

How is that not advocating a trial?

You are being dishonest.

[Tempest]

42. You lost track of your own thread

You got so angry about this you saw red and lost your senses.

No where in your original post did you mention a trial or due process.

Your only point was that the DA was not seeking the death penalty.

So who's being dishonest?

[Mick Knox]

44. Really now? It's still there.. you can read right?

From my ORIGINAL Post:

CA has the death penalty for exactly these types and I hope Sen Feinstein is successful in getting the DA to recuse herself and the case turned over to AG Lockyer.

[Tempest]

48. Again, where do you say anything about a trial or due process?

You are only talking about the end result.

You've already tried and convicted the accused, and now want him executed.

We still live in America, where you are innocent until proven guilty.

You're welcome to move to Iran if you want to dispense of the rights guaranteed in our Constitution.

[Mick Knox]

49. Nice try grasping at straws

How pathetic.

Turning something over to the AG of CA is CLEARLY wanting due process.

You should move to the white house, you have a knack for BS.

[Tempest]

51. Once again, you prove me right

Turning over the case to the AG is clearly not wanting due process since the ONLY STATED reason you want the case turned over is that the S.F. DA has declined to request the death penalty.

You're way in over your head, son.

[Mick Knox]

53. Last time I checked; Bill Lockyer has never executed anyone

You have mastered the condescending tone and art of strawman arguments; but you miss the boat on logic. Give it up.

[Tempest]

58. Last time I checked, Bill Lockyer hasn't tried a case

The AG doesn't try cases, genius.

You're not very good at this.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tempest]

63. Ignore: The last act of a coward

Trust me, you won't be missed.

[Tempest]

34. The system worked???!!!

Didn't you read a single thing I said, or the article I posted???

THE SYSTEM DIDN'T WORK!!!

The police and Prosecuting Office WITHHELD evidence which would have helped the Defense's client.

Now you've gone into the absurd.

[Mick Knox]

37. I didnt read it because

I get an error when I tried open it.

If the court ruled he got a new trial, the appeal process worked. That is what it is for.

[Tempest]

43. Beep, Beep, Beep

That's the sound of you backing up over your own posts.

Time for me to move on, Don Quixote.

[Mick Knox]

40. hmmmmmmmmm.. now it opened..

New trial because a cop cussed?

That is an old story; wonder how it turned out. The name Bruce Sons brings up too many links.

[Forkboy]

27. The DP is wrong

It's revenge motivated red meat for the bloodthirsty masses.

[AP]

33. But, she breaks her promise to the citizens of SF, then she loses the next

election, and another left-leaning politician bites the dust.

How are we ever going to make progress on issues like this one if our liberal politicians don't show back bone in a situation like this.

And if any RW'ers see red meat, they need to know that this is democracy -- she was elected on this issue and is following both the law and the will of the people who voted for her.

Ask the bloodthirsty masses if they stopped believing in Democracy? Tell them if they don't like this, they should move to conservative communities where the same principles will apply which will allow them to elect DAs who ALWAYS persue the DP even when the law allows them discretion not to.

[Forkboy]

55. So she should want this guy dead

to win the next election? Am I understanding you correctly?

[Tempest]

57. He's saying just the opposite

The DA won her office, in part, by running on an anti-death penalty platform.

She's *horrors* living up to one of her campaign promises.

[Forkboy]

59. Ok,thanks

I had to just re-read that post to get it.I'm friggin really slow sometimes :)

[AP]

60. No, you're not.

She ran on the platform of being against the DP, and that's her contract with the voters.

[Forkboy]

67. Sorry AP

I totally missed your point.I can't watch the news and read at the same time apparently.I'm having troubles chewing gum and walking at the same time too :)

[Tempest]

36. Very true

And that's one reason Bush used it so much.

And why he had to go to war in Iraq.

[MadHound]

38. Good for her! It is about time somebody in law enforcement

Came out and stood against the abomination known as the death penalty. It is a punishment whose time has come and gone. Sad to say though, there are many many bloodthirsty people who will always want revenge.

[Tempest]

45. What I find the most interesting thing about the original poster

Is that he hasn't said just why he is so emotionally attached to this case, even after I've asked him several times.

Methinks he is one of the bloodthirsty masses, hell-bent upon revenge.

[Mick Knox]

46. I'm too busy fending off your lies

about me. You should do the right thing and apologize for asserting something I clearly did not say.

[Tempest]

50. My lies?

How come no one else has said anything about "my lies"?

BTW, you continue to prove me right so exactly what would I apologize for?

[ParanoidPat]

68. Will you acknowledge that you were wrong about the DA not upholding

THE LAW? You've slandered her and accused her of not following THE LAW so don't you feel an apology is in order? :shrug:
You should do the right thing and apologize for asserting something she did not do. :)

[Duncan Grant]

47. Here's what the DA, Kamila Harris, said:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/04/23/EDGKS68PGO1.DTL

<snip>
The flaws of the death penalty are so deep, in fact, that when police chiefs were asked to rank the factors that reduce violent crime, they mention curbing drug use, putting more officers on the street, longer sentences and gun control. They ranked the death penalty as least effective. I am bound by oath and law to make decisions about what charges to bring -- not based on emotion, anger or politics -- within 48 hours of a suspect's arrest. Instead, I must use my long experience as a prosecutor combined with a review of the facts and the law in each case.
<snip> (emphasis mine)

I wanted to include this link in the interest of an informed exchange of ideas.

Personally, I'm against the death penalty (for many of the same reasons cited by Kamila Harris in the article above). As a resident of San Francisco, my request is that people read up on the death penalty as a deterrent to crime and then give careful consideration to what constitutes justice and vengeance.

[Mick Knox]

52. We agree a convicted cop killer is not to be rehabilitated correct?

Unless you believe she is advocating "healing" a convicted cop killer; then it is about punishment and justice - or vengeance if you want to use that word. Putting someone is jail for life is equally not a deterrent as putting someone to death. They are equal in their lack of deterrence effect.

[MadHound]

54. You obviously haven't been in prison have you

Oh sure, you may have done some juvi or country time, but you haven't done time in a state pen, otherwise you wouldn't be dismissing a life sentence as "not a deterrent."

How would you like spending the rest of your life in an eight by eight? And being a cop killer, this guy will probably get lots of solitairy time, beaten on by the guards on the side, oh and then there is the daily reality of rape. Sorry, but to my mind, a life sentence with the criminal having to deal with the hell hole that is prison on a day by day basis is a hell of lot more punishment that a death sentence.

Think about it friend, a death sentence is easy. You get lots of media attention, a nice meal or two, and then easily drift off to that permanent sleep. Whereas with life without parol, you ARE going to die in prison, but everyday between now and the time you die is going to be spent in mental, physical or spiritual torture, very oftern all three at the same time. By the time death comes around, you will welcome it with open arms.

[Tempest]

61. There have been many rehabilitated death row inmates

I guess you never heard of the "Scared Straight" program and how those death row imates were used to successfully rehabilitate juvenile offenders.

What you probably mean is that to you once someone is given life without parole you should just forget about them as if they don't exist. They're not worth trying to get through to.

BTW, the death sentence as a deterrent to crime has been proven to be a fallacy for years now.

[neverborn]

56. Go Kamila!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

75. Didn't you get a letter wrong there? (nt)

[neverborn]

77. err.. Go Kamala!

[RBHam]

65. Bush is a cop killer AND a soldier killer

When does he fry?

[MrSlayer]

72. That is disgusting.

This fuck should be killed. There is no redeeming value in keeping him alive.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

74. Is the DP mandatory in the books for cases like this?

If not, I can't see what law was "decided not to be enforced". It's the same thing with jail sentences that have ranges. People don't go complaining "law was not enforced" when a prosecutor seeks, or a judge sentences, with a penalty lower than the maximum but in the mandated range.

Now, you may disagree with the prosecutor's discretion, which is an entirely different position. Implying something illegal happened is, well, untrue.