Ronnie Lee Gardner to die by firing squad.

In Utah, of course. Fucking mormons.

Ronnie Lee Gardner faces death by firing squad in Utah unless courts grant stay of execution



http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...ant_stay_.html

Time's ticking for a convicted killer under the gun unless the courts grant him a stay of execution. Ronnie Lee Gardner will die by firing squad at a Utah prison Friday morning if his death sentence isn't scrapped. The 49-year-old murderer would be the first American killed by a firing squad in 14 years. Chances Gardner, self-described as a “nasty little bugger," will escape death are slim unless the 10th Circuit of Appeals or the Supreme Court intervene. In his defense, Gardner says a horrendous childhood turned him into a cold-blooded killer. "It would have been a miracle if I didn't end up here," Gardner has said. At age 2, Gardner was found wandering alone in his diaper. By 6, he was sniffing gasoline and glue, followed by LSD and heroin at 10. Stays at a mental hospital and in an abusive foster home came later. In 1985 when he was 23, Gardner shot and killed a bartender. Six months later, he killed an attorney during his attempt to escape a courthouse. His plea to stay alive stems from his desire to help other troubled youths. "There's no better example in this state of what not to do," Gardner told the parole board.

The article fails to mention that he was offered a choice of lethal injection and requested the firing squad.

So,.. he killed two people an is getting the firing squad? What is so special about the way the two were killed that merits that? I'm not saying he shouldn't die.. or rot in prison, either way is fine. Just wondering how he gets the honors.

In Utah, the firing squad consisted of five volunteer police officers from the county in which the conviction of the offender took place.[citation needed] A law passed on March 15, 2004, banned execution by firing squad in Utah, but since that specific law was not retroactive,[26] four inmates (one, Roberto Arguelles died of natural causes on death row, leaving only three) on Utah's death row could still have their last requests granted. Thereof, on April 21, 2010, Ronnie Lee Gardner requested a firing squad execution which has been scheduled for June 18, 2010. A Utah judge signed a death warrant Friday, April 23, 2010, affirming Utah's sentence for the execution of Gardner. Gardner's lawyer said he planned to file an appeal, which could change the execution date. Gardner was sentenced to die in 1985 for a botched escape attempt on April 2, 1985, during which he shot and killed Michael Burdell, a defense attorney, and injured court bailiff George "Nick" Kirk. Gardner, in court on charges stemming from the 1984 robbery and shooting death of Melvyn John Otterstrom, used a gun that had been smuggled into the old Salt Lake County Courthouse by his girlfriend. As of 2009, Oklahoma is the only other state in which execution by firing squad is legally available (as a backup method only; the state uses lethal injection as its primary method of execution).[26]. On April 1, 2009,[27] a bill to eliminate firing squad as a method of execution in Idaho was enacted, and took effect July 1, 2009.

Should explain it pretty well. TL;DR, he requested it himself. Death by firing squad is banned in Utah as of 2004, but the ban isn't retroactive, so he and a couple other dudes still get the choice.

He got grandfathered in being that the death penalty was given to him before the law was changed. And you're right, he did choose the firing squad, but was it to try and weasel out of the death penalty by sending it to Federal Court? Absolutely!

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/17...r-stay/?hpt=T2

Hours away from his scheduled execution by firing squad, Utah death-row inmate Ronnie Lee Gardner has asked Gov. Gary Herbert for a temporary stay, according to the state Department of Corrections. The three-page letter was delivered to Herbert shortly before 10 a.m., the department said in a statement on its website. It was signed by Gardner's attorneys and asks the governor to "issue a respite or reprieve pursuant to your executive power under the Utah Constitution."

I still don't agree with this. I think the death penalty is contradictory, but that's another issue; however, if it were available on pay-per-view, I would probably order it over UFC at any time.

Would you order this on Pay-Per-View given the chance?

No point - it'll be free on one of the many video sites of the Internet (you know, the ones that don't seem to care what's posted) within a few days.

Would you order this on Pay-Per-View given the chance?

I believe it's constitutional, so sure. It'd give me a reason to start watching T.V. again.

This is quite amusing - the judge is announcing the execution updates via Twitter!

http://twitter.com/MarkShurtleff

No rejection from this Supreme Court!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/18/....html?iref=NS1

I still do not believe the death penalty is right. It's like when a stupid parent in Wal-mart is screaming at thier child at the top of their lungs to stop being so loud, it's absolutely stupid.

I am of the opinion that if we're going to have a "death penalty," the punishment should truly match the crime. If you drown someone, we drown you. If you burn someone alive, we burn you alive. I don't think it should be considered "cruel and unusual punishment" when the crime was exactly that. Proponents of the death penalty claim it's all about "an eye for an eye." I say be true to the statement.

However, I'm generally against the death penalty.

I could agree with an eye for an eye; however, there are thousands of cases that would be nearly impossible to recreate. What about drunk driving? What about other freak accidents where somebody is at fault? What if a doctor messes up in surgery and you die as a consequence?

I don't think we generally execute doctors for malpractice, but you're right that recreating every murder would be pretty difficult. Either way, it would never happen in our country anyway.

That, and the fact that murdering somebody for murdering somebody else is complete contradictory.

Any videos leaked yet of this execution? I'm sure Zelarites would like to watch.

I'm not really against the penalty, really. I mean, that guy looks like a demonic cone head alien. If I was him, I'd be asking if they could speed things up.
Eitherway

His plea to stay alive stems from his desire to help other troubled youths.

As if anyone's going to let this guy near kids?

That, and the fact that murdering somebody for murdering somebody else is complete contradictory.

It's not one person murdering another, it's the people of that state saying that individual cannot cope with normal society, and whose crime was bad enough and the evidence strong enough that the individual was sentenced the death penalty. The death penalty is generally not ordered by a judge in a case unless there is virtually 100% certainty of the verdict. On top of all that, your taxes pay for that individual to be kept alive in prison... although I did watch something that was saying it is more expensive on the taxpayer to sentence someone to death than it is to sentence them to life in prison, which seems like a bunch of bureaucratic bullshit to me. I guess when the cost is just a few bullets, he at least saved them money in the materials department of the execution cost. Besides, who wants to be lethally injected like a bitch? Kudos to him for going out like a man.

It's like the adult yelling at their kid in Wal-mart for yelling in the store. It's contradictory. As is saying you cannot function in society since you murdered somebody, thereforth we will kill you. The way you worded it makes no difference. I agree it's a waste of money to hold somebody in prison for years and years to go through legal paramaters that don't necessairily matter, but then again what is the success rate of prison? The entire infastructure is a broken system, founded by the greedy, and kept malnourished by the politicians you and I keep electing into office to keep the corruption cycle alive. Down with the man.

It's not one person murdering another, it's the people of that state saying that individual cannot cope with normal society, and whose crime was bad enough and the evidence strong enough that the individual was sentenced the death penalty.

The death penalty absolutely is murder. You take an unarmed man, and kill him. You may add whatever rituals, procedures, and slick word-games you want to try and rationalize this, but you are killing someone in cold blood. This to me is a state-sanctioned murder, no matter how detestable the victim of the death penalty may be.

The death penalty is generally not ordered by a judge in a case unless there is virtually 100% certainty of the verdict.

Virtually one-hundred percent? Virtually? That is unacceptable. If one innocent person has died because of the death penalty, then it is a monstrosity. Over the last decade there have been on average 5.5 exonerations per year for death row inmates. The death penalty is cruel, unusual, heinous, and based on these numbers gross negligence on the part of our government.

The death penalty absolutely is murder. You take an unarmed man, and kill him.

Well I'm sure not gonna give him a gun, then kill him. I can actually see where S2 AM is coming from. Plus, seriously, that guy looks like a demonic thumb.

Virtually one-hundred percent? Virtually? That is unacceptable. If one innocent person has died because of the death penalty, then it is a monstrosity. Over the last decade there have been on average 5.5 exonerations per year for death row inmates. The death penalty is cruel, unusual, heinous, and based on these numbers gross negligence on the part of our government.

I actually recall hearing about the fact that one of our southern states exonerates just as many people on death row as they execute. That's a pretty alarming statistic.

It's like the adult yelling at their kid in Wal-mart for yelling in the store. It's contradictory.

I forgot to explicitly say this in my last post, and you didn't seem to reason it yourself. It's not so much the punishment, as it is the threat of punishment. If that kid in wal-mart were mouthing off and bitching about a toy they want, then they see another kid getting spanked nearby for the same thing, they may at least think twice. The argument is flawed, however, due to the fact that most kids are not logically developed at such an age. Moreover, like most young animals(yes humans are animals Demosthenes, as much as you may want to detach yourself from the human condition), they respond to physical discipline long before they learn underlying reasons for the things they should not do.

:EDIT:
If the penalty for murder were simply 5 years in prison, how many more murders would occur in this country do you wager? By contrast, if the penalty for driving drunk were suddenly change to death by firing squad, then I can guarantee that there would be a VERY sharp decline in the amount of DUIs. Fortunately, this is not the case, and we have punishments that [at least try to] fit the crime.
:EDIT:

Virtually one-hundred percent? Virtually? That is unacceptable. If one innocent person has died because of the death penalty, then it is a monstrosity.

You should try enrolling in a statistics class and learning about type I and type II errors - if you haven't already. Fact: any decision is always made with a certain degree of uncertainty. As for the small uncertainties of our judicial system being monstrosities I must disagree. The holocaust was a monstrosity, these errors are just general uncertainty in a given system. It is regrettable, but really nothing more. Judges try to reduce the severity of a type I error by varying degree of punishment. As I've said, people are only sentenced to the death penalty when there is an indubitable amount of evidence against them. The layman would call it 100% certain, or "beyond a reasonable doubt." The statistician would say that one is 99.9999% sure. You really should try googling some of the cases and seeing for yourself, I'm sure you wouldn't feel any remorse for the 'victim.' [To clarify, when I say victim I don't mean the victim in the case, but instead I am sarcastically referring to the person on trial, whom I take to understand you see as being 'victimized' by society when they are sentenced to the death penalty]