Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Nikki Haley Wants Death Penalty for Dylann Roof

Nikki Haley Wants Death Penalty for Dylann Roof

“A person filled with hate.”

As the families of victims in the Charleston shootings show amazing strength and faith, some people on the left are already exploiting the incident for political gain.

Meanwhile, South Carolina governor Nikki Haley is calling for the harshest punishment for the shooter.

Nick Gass of Politico:

Nikki Haley: Charleston shooter deserves death penalty

A little more than a day after the shooting at a historic black church in Charleston, South Carolina, the state’s political figures are still coming to grips with an attack that killed nine people.

Accused Charleston shooter Dylann Roof should get the death penalty, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said Friday.

“We will absolutely want him to have the death penalty,” Haley told NBC News’ Savannah Guthrie on “Today,” adding that there is only one person to blame for the shooting at Emanuel AME Church on Wednesday night. “A person filled with hate,” she added.

Here’s the related video report:

Here are some recent tweets from Haley as well:

Featured image via Politico video.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

No death penalty.
True punishment: Life w/o parole in prison.
This would be mercy and recoil.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to jennifer a johnson. | June 21, 2015 at 11:24 am

    Three hots and a cot on the taxpayer’s dime for the next 60 years. Great. If prisons were still mostly self-sustaining, growing their own food and making their own clothing and shoes I’d support your idea. Not how it is now.

Richard Aubrey | June 20, 2015 at 5:12 pm

A couple of guys no longer at Dannemora had LWOP, as I recall.
And libs are already agitating against LWOP as inhumane. As somebody said of LWOP in New England, it’s life until the next dem governor commutes it.

    LWOP parole is humane regardless of simpletons who say otherwise.

      Ragspierre in reply to jennifer a johnson. | June 20, 2015 at 5:29 pm

      The death penalty is humane…and rational…regardless of simpletons who say otherwise.

      For one reason, that psychopaths are taken out of the population, ending their predations on others who often are forced into congress with them.

      Duh.

        “Duh” is a hubristic inane response and not worthy of you.

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 20, 2015 at 8:17 pm

        I thought it entirely fitting in light of your preemptive “simpletons” slam against people with differing opinions.

        Who are rational…

          “And libs are already agitating against LWOP as inhumane.”

          That is the context Mr. Call People Derogatory Names when you are done castigating them for having a different opinion than yours.

          Unless you are a closet liberal I would suspect that you would agree with me-liberals are often “simpletons” who use ad hominem attacks instead of making rational counter points. Wait! Where have I seen this before?

        “Rational” has no connection whatsoever with the death penalty unless by “rational” you mean cold-blooded pragmatism as in “Off with his head so society doesn’t have to deal with him anymore!” If so, then abortion would fit your rationale.

      The problem with LWOP is it too often isn’t. Fix that first, and then come back and make your case.

      JackRussellTerrierist in reply to jennifer a johnson. | June 20, 2015 at 9:25 pm

      In reality, LWOP is just another legal construct and will remain so as long as there are lawyers, judges, political activists and politicians.

      Charlie Manson has been up for parole 12 times. One of his followers was granted parole, but that was rescinded before he got out. Even though Charlie’s sentence was converted to life in prison after the DP was abolished in the state, later to return as it stands now, he has had the theoretical ability to be paroled. He’d never get parole, but the fact that such as exercise is even available is absurd.

      The point is, sentences are almost as fungible as cash. Until they’re dead and gone, people like Roof are an extreme menace. I don’t think you ever want to see a sentence of LWOP converted to life in his case. As long as he’s alive and breathing, it can happen. And if Roof was ever paroled, and he encountered you or your family member when he’s got his senseless rage going on in his head, well, not a pretty sight but one that must be considered as inevitable for some poor soul until the threat is permanently removed.

      It is an unhappy thing that there are people so overcome with evil that we, as vulnerable human beings, have to put them down like rabid animals to preserve our safety, but it is a fact.

        MouseTheLuckyDog in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | June 21, 2015 at 5:22 am

        Charlie Manson has been up for parole 12 times. One of his followers was granted parole, but that was rescinded before he got out. Even though Charlie’s sentence was converted to life in prison after the DP was abolished in the state, later to return as it stands now, he has had the theoretical ability to be paroled. He’d never get parole, but the fact that such as exercise is even available is absurd.

        It’s California, he could get out. Especially if he pulls a Morgan Freeman.

        “Charlie Manson has been up for parole 12 times. One of his followers was granted parole, but that was rescinded before he got out. Even though Charlie’s sentence was converted to life in prison after the DP was abolished in the state, later to return as it stands now, he has had the theoretical ability to be paroled. He’d never get parole, but the fact that such as exercise is even available is absurd.”

        IANAL, but could someone who is explain why the DP wasn’t reinstated for Manson when California got it back?

        Was it because of differences in the DP law — like specific jury instructions that are now mandatory, but hadn’t been dreamed up then? Or is it just some application of double jeopardy or bills of attainder or such??

          Sammy Finkelman in reply to clintack. | June 21, 2015 at 11:54 am

          IANAL, but could someone who is explain why the DP wasn’t reinstated for Manson when California got it back?

          Was it because of differences in the DP law — like specific jury instructions that are now mandatory, but hadn’t been dreamed up then? Or is it just some application of double jeopardy or bills of attainder or such??

          Yes, and yes. Not double jeopardy or bills of attainder but ex- post facto law.

          The new death penalty law was passed after his crime.

          Possibly also something connected with finality.

      I am, in principle, opposed to the death penalty as well. But I wouldn’t dismiss all those who support it as “simpletons”, because I do have to concede that they have a valid point: too often, “Life” in prison doesn’t guarantee that they’ll never get out of prison alive. I still get a sick feeling in my stomach when I know that as I go to bed, my State is going to kill someone in my name, in the name of “the people of Florida”, before I wake up. But I also get a sick feeling every time I hear that a monster allegedly put away “for life” is up for parole.

        Estragon in reply to Amy in FL. | June 21, 2015 at 10:22 pm

        A woman who lives nearby lost her husband, a deputy sheriff, over 20 years ago – a man shot him as he turned to leave the scene of a domestic violence call, everyone thought peace had been restored. But the perp pleaded guilty to avoid the death penalty, at the time there was no “without parole” here. So the woman and her children have had to pass around petitions every two years, and drive 100 miles to the hearing, to make sure he stays behind bars.

        Some said at the time the solicitor should not have offered a plea. It was a cold-blooded killing with a dozen witnesses.

It would be nice to wait for a legal system to finish its function before the highest authority comments.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to 49erDweet. | June 20, 2015 at 9:33 pm

    I tend to agree with you. At the very least, she should have waited until the confession was made public and/or admitted into evidence. This just feels too political to me. A better gesture would have been a private meeting with the families. Walk the walk. Haley’s public statements have hit the right note until this one, imo.

    It probably won’t matter much in the long run, though.

    I agree. I didn’t like it when our Governor was seeming to “accept” that George Zimmerman was a murderer, and this really isn’t appropriate either.

    Skookum in reply to 49erDweet. | June 21, 2015 at 5:35 am

    There is a narcissistic need to make one’s disgust of the crime publically known. The bail hearing magistrate had to voice his inappropriate opinion. News casters seem to be in a contest to see who can use the most pejorative adjectives to describe the crime and murderer. Libs have already attacked the governor, so she probably felt she had to say something. Unfortunately, confident and principled leaders are virtually nonexistent today.

      Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Skookum. | June 22, 2015 at 1:55 pm

      The key word – “narcissistic” – the most important key word…as in narcissistic Nimrata Nikki Randhawa – Democrat wannabe……

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to 49erDweet. | June 22, 2015 at 1:53 pm

    Yeah, who does Obama think he is?

    Nimrata Nikki Randhawa – some Democrat wannabe?????

Phillep Harding | June 20, 2015 at 5:46 pm

So, is she going to support reversing that “No guns in churches” law NC is saddled with?

    Phillep Harding in reply to Phillep Harding. | June 20, 2015 at 5:47 pm

    (growl) “South Carolina”, not “North…”

    Estragon in reply to Phillep Harding. | June 21, 2015 at 10:27 pm

    SC law says you cannot carry concealed in a church without express permission. It obviously only applies to holders of concealed carry permits, since anyone else is already breaking the law by concealing.

    The law was passed because of demand from churches. Is it your position a CCW holder should be able to carry in a church or business without their assent? The only difference here is the business must assert their own ban, in a church you must have permission.

      The law was passed because of demand from churches.

      So churches in SC were happy to lobby the State to make laws controlling what their parishioners can and cannot do, in this case in regard to the exercise of their Constitutional rights?

      If I were a church leader, I’d be angling for less State control over my church; not more. Inviting the camel to put his nose under the tent might make it harder to expel said camel when he decides he wants to come fully in and take over.

      If you’ve set a precedent that you want the State to make and enforce laws abridging your parishioners’ second amendment rights on your premises, what’s going to be your argument if they want to expand that to controlling their on-site first amendment rights as well?

Richard Aubrey | June 20, 2015 at 7:56 pm

Did Hailey poison the well for the appeal? Government figure, all that, highly public statement.

It should be noted that he told a friend that he might shoot up a college, but he chose a church and both are gun free zones. He had a problem at a mall but it was not a gun free zone, someone might shoot back.

Can anyone help me understand why this guy got a $1 million bail set? How does someone who is accused of nine murders, topped off by the fact that he obviously would do it again if released before trial, ever get any bail at all?

Is holding a suspect without bail illegal in SC or something?

    Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | June 20, 2015 at 8:12 pm

    You didn’t read, assoNY.

    The million dollar bail was for a WEAPONS charge, not for the murders, for which bail was withheld entirely.

    He could make a $10,000 bail, in any event.

      anoNY in reply to Ragspierre. | June 21, 2015 at 7:37 am

      Thanks asshole, but I did read. I just expected a national newspaper like the WAPO to get it right.

      Another Ed in reply to Ragspierre. | June 24, 2015 at 2:52 am

      If the U.S Constitution applies to the states, would not the Eighth Amendment come into play?

      “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.”

      How many millions before the bail is excessive?

    Ragspierre in reply to anoNY. | June 20, 2015 at 8:18 pm

    “He couldn’t make…”

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to anoNY. | June 21, 2015 at 11:57 am

    Reading more closely, it wasn’tt necesssarily that no bail s possible for the murder charge, but that that judge didn’t have any authority to rule on that, but only a different court could.

JackRussellTerrierist | June 20, 2015 at 8:58 pm

They can fry him right up if that’s what the people of SC want, but Haley is just hopping on the bandwagon for political purposes, imo. Has she ever publicly stated she wanted the DP for a black that murdered an innocent white person? If not, then she’s just adding fuel to the growing racial fire. I would be surprised if there are no pending cases in SC which have not been sensationalized due to the race of the defendant but in which he (or she) is equally as deserving of the DP.

And justice for all.

“We will absolutely want him to have the death penalty,” Haley told NBC News’ Savannah Guthrie on “Today,” adding that there is only one person to blame for the shooting … “A person filled with hate.”

When did Nikki Haley join the Progressive thought-control bandwagon?

The crime here is murder, not hate.

Thoughts are not a crime.

Only a tyrant would dream of criminalizing thoughts.

    Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | June 20, 2015 at 11:13 pm

    Poor tom. You are SUCH an engineer!

    A man who kills his unfaithful wife…who he loves, indeed…

    and the man who kills a dozen toddlers by bashing their brains out against a tree because they are (_____________)

    violate the same criminal statute.

    But I hope even your poor engineer’s brain can allow they are not the same crime.

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to tom swift. | June 22, 2015 at 2:01 pm

    Tom, see my comment right above yours.

    ….. “some Democrat wannabe”…

I too would like to see the case tried, and adjudicated, before politicians bless us with their golden orations.

This case looks pretty open & shut; so I reckon there ought to be a fast, fair trial, followed soon after by a fast, fair hangin’; the order is important.

Personally I reckon putting a man in jail for the rest of his life, with no possibility of getting out, is the absolutely lowest and worse thing that could be done to him. It demeans and lowers both the man and his jailors. It takes away the dignity of a man and makes him a beast; just the same as the beasts that do it to him.

The merciful thing to do is to end his life. It’s the only right choice in a matter like this.

May God have mercy on his soul.

    genes in reply to Eskyman. | June 21, 2015 at 1:54 pm

    Probably myth of what a Sheriff once said to a lynch mob: “Ain’t gonna be no lynchins in my town. He’s gonna get a fair trial ‘fore we hang him.”

    Not A Member of Any Organized Political in reply to Eskyman. | June 22, 2015 at 2:02 pm

    Yeah, enough of these politicians’ golden showers down upon us!

So does everyone.

A Massachusetts jury unanimously gave death to Tsarnaev — much easier to oppose the DP in generalities than in specific cases.

But … but … there’s not a “hate crimes” law, is there? If you labeled something a “hate crime,” surely you would reduce its occurrence. If you merely punish that act with the death penalty, you’re as good as complicit in the crime.

Anyway, that seems to be the reasoning of leftists and grievance-mongers.

    Radegunda in reply to Radegunda. | June 21, 2015 at 1:22 pm

    And besides, the death penalty is eeeevil, but if you don’t label someone a “hate criminal” when you lock him up for 25-to-life, you haven’t punished him nearly enough.

    Again, that’s the leftist reasoning, as far as I can figure it out.

There seems to be a trust issue about LWOP among the commenters. Maybe that is because of the lawlessnes prescribed by the Obama courtiers.

If LWOP is as stated then I would seek that in every murder one guilty case.

I am in Chicago, home of John Wayne Gacy. I know evil exists and must stand trial. The death penalty is the easy way out for the chronically evil.

    I support the DP for extraordinary crimes. Mass murders are among those.

    This little punk, like so many of the other cowards shooting innocent strangers, had intended to end by killing himself or suicide by cop, but chickened out after killing the others.

My thoughts on the Death Penalty-

No, putting someone to death does not bring their victims back to life or undo the evil they have committed. But I don’t think that is relevant at all to the subject. No one who supports the Death Penalty believes the person’s death will make everything alright. It is about Justice, not Vengeance. “Vengeance is Mine,” sayeth the Lord. Only God can exact vengeance upon a person’s soul. We can not.

But there is something we can do. We can say “With these actions you have forfeited your right to live among us and no length of incarceration will satisfy your debt. It is either too dangerous to allow you to live or your actions are so heinous that you no longer deserve to live out the remainder of your life.

And so, we cast you out of this world and send you on to the next. This will satisfy your debt to society but only God can decide upon your debt to Him. When you stand before Him, He will pass judgment upon you. May God have mercy on your everlasting soul.”

As to the Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” I believe the KJV Bible is misunderstood. The KJV Bible was published in 1610 and English language has changed much since that time. A better translation for modern times would be, “Thou shalt not murder.” The word ‘kill’ in 1610 meant ‘murder’ and this was how it was understood by everyone. Nowadays we use ‘kill’ to mean the taking of any life and ‘murder’ to mean the taking of innocent life. It is not murder to kill in legitimate self-defense, to kill in battle, or to kill the wicked.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend