Help Sister Prejean Save Big Humans!

[n david]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

For one... we don't know *for sure* that these are innocent human beings... but we do know FOR SURE that babies are innocent and have committed no crime worthy of death.

For two... what did Jesus do for the woman being accused of a crime (whether false or not, we don't know) ?

It's disgusting that JD equates innocent unborn children to convicted murderers.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

So you post false information and when it's pointed out, your response is to bash Christians?

smh

And, btw, it was a religious lady who fought for this woman's release.

Catholics usually are liberals. Do you think this lady is a member of the "religious right" in America?

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

For one... we don't know *for sure* that these are innocent human beings... but we do know FOR SURE that babies are innocent and have committed no crime worthy of death.

For two... what did Jesus do for the woman being accused of a crime (whether false or not, we don't know) ?

For one, she IS innocent.

For two, bring up your WWJD response to the crowd of religious right Republicans who demonize women who choose to sin.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by n david

It's disgusting that JD equates innocent unborn children to convicted murderers.

Yes, agreed. I still can't get over his using the term "pulsating blob". Sad, very sad.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

For one, she IS innocent.

For two, bring up your WWJD response to the crowd of religious right Republicans who demonize women who choose to sin.

No human being is truly "innocent". Unborn babies are. Big difference.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

For one, she IS innocent.

Partially correct. While she's innocent of the capital murder charge, she was guilty in 1999 of hiring a hitman to kill her husband, and was sentenced to 16 years in prison.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

Partially correct. While she's innocent of the capital murder charge, she was guilty in 1999 of hiring a hitman to kill her husband, and was sentenced to 16 years in prison.

So if she hired a hitman but he never did what she paid him to do, can she sue to get her money back?


Seriously, her son admitted to the killing, long before the trial. The fact that she was convicted of anything is an injustice.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Yes, agreed. I still can't get over his using the term "pulsating blob". Sad, very sad.

Fact of the matter is, while some people can't get over that terminology, those same people are fine with the reality of our flawed justice system murdering innocent people from time to time.

The religious right, many political Christians, seem oblivious to the plight, the struggles, THE LIVES of big humans and when innocent BIG humans are killed, well you know...










they find reasons to justify and defend the human system that carried out their deaths.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Jermyn Davidson

So if she hired a hitman but he never did what she paid him to do, can she sue to get her money back?


Seriously, her son admitted to the killing, long before the trial. The fact that she was convicted of anything is an injustice.

JD, there are two separate incidents. In 1999 she pled "no contest" to a charge of hiring a hitman to kill her husband. By pleading "no contest," she admitted to the facts of the charge against her. She was found guilty of that charge and sentenced to 20 years in prison, minus 4 years.

Later, when her husband was murdered, she was charged for his murder, convicted by a jury and sentenced to death. Obviously, as has been detailed by Prejean, evidence was supressed and withheld which would have cleared her of this charge.

So she was RIGHTLY convicted and sentenced for hiring a hitman. It doesn't matter that he didn't follow through. The point is she did it, and pled no contest to the charge.

Then she was WRONGLY convicted and sentenced for capital murder.

Two separate issues. She was NOT completely innocent. She's a monster, and a terrible human being for trying to hire someone to murder a man with whom she exchanged vows.

I wouldn't be defending this woman.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by n david

JD, there are two separate incidents. In 1999 she pled "no contest" to a charge of hiring a hitman to kill her husband. By pleading "no contest," she admitted to the facts of the charge against her. She was found guilty of that charge and sentenced to 20 years in prison, minus 4 years.

Later, when her husband was murdered, she was charged for his murder, convicted by a jury and sentenced to death. Obviously, as has been detailed by Prejean, evidence was supressed and withheld which would have cleared her of this charge.

So she was RIGHTLY convicted and sentenced for hiring a hitman. It doesn't matter that he didn't follow through. The point is she did it, and pled no contest to the charge.

Then she was WRONGLY convicted and sentenced for capital murder.

Two separate issues. She was NOT completely innocent. She's a monster, and a terrible human being for trying to hire someone to murder a man with whom she exchanged vows.

I wouldn't be defending this woman.

Is she a monster, or is she a victim?

If we are going to use the Old Testament to defend the death penalty, then shall we use the Old Testament to defend the actions of this woman?

Why did she choose to hire a hitman? If there ever is "a time to kill", would it be in her situation?