Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Some people upset Trump demanded death penalty for NYC terrorist but not Las Vegas Shooter

Some people upset Trump demanded death penalty for NYC terrorist but not Las Vegas Shooter

Spoiler Alert: Only one of them is still alive.

Some anti-Trump folks have come up with the proof-positive that Trump is a bigot, because he demanded the death penalty for the New York Islamic terrorist Sayfullo Saipov, but didn’t demand the death penalty for Las Vegas white-guy shooter Stephen Paddock.

Ironically, it might actually create a legal problem in obtaining the death penalty for Saipov that a president has made that demand so publicly.

Regardless, there’s a *good reason* for the difference in treatment, and it has nothing to do with bias.

Saipove is still alive, so he can be executed. Paddock was killed at the scene, so executing him again seems somewhat problematic.

GQ Magazine was so excited to make it’s bias claim, it put it in the headline (h/t Ethics Alarms):

And the, oops:

Here’s a Wall Street Journal reporter making the bias claim (via Daily Caller):

“He did not react this way when a white person shot dozens of people in Las Vegas–he did not come and say well we need an immediate policy change, we need to give this guy a death penalty,” Stokols said. “He did not call for this in Charlottesville when the criminal here did the exact same thing…driving a vehicle into a crowd.”

In the honorable mention category is Think Progress editor Elham Khatami, who was upset Trump wanted Saipove sent to Gitmo, but didn’t make the demand for Paddock:

Of course, there was a reason for that:

In other news, Hillary Clinton is still not president.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


There are times when President Trump should just keep his big Tweet shut!

Maybe because the Las Vegas shooter is already dead?

Some people can’t think their way out of a wet paper bag.

Get real. New York; Land of Blue Weenies. Nobody is getting any death penalties no matter how hard they try to earn one. So it’s no loss at all for Trump to get a little mileage out of the whole sorry affair. He tosses one of his famous chopped fish, the stupid seals jump for it and make total asses of themselves. Mission accomplished, and easily done.

Advance apologies for quoting the odious Ben Rhodes, but his observations about media applies to its Millennial epigone:

“The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing.”

DouglasJBender | November 2, 2017 at 9:36 pm

I just hope the Las Vegas shooter wasn’t of Russian heritage, or Trump would really be in trouble.

OK, the stuff posted by Prof. Bill is beyond stupid. The Las Vegas killer is dead. Excellent outcome.

But T-rump needs to have his handlers take the freaking phone away before he screws up THIS prosecution like he’s done with Bergdahl.

    Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | November 2, 2017 at 10:08 pm

    How so? Even if it’s tried in federal court it’ll be a civilian prosecution, and the judicial branch is not subordinate to the president, so his opinion no more compels the outcome than mine does. Let alone if it’s tried in state court; Donald Trump is an ordinary citizen of NY, just like me, has no role in the government, and is no more influential than a TV pundit or opinion columnist.

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | November 2, 2017 at 10:22 pm

      You need to read up on the issue, Milhouse. You’re wrong.

      Why do you think the Prof. wrote: “Ironically, it might actually create a legal problem in obtaining the death penalty for Saipov that a president has made that demand so publicly.”

      The POTUS is NOT like you or me. You might want to research Patterico (a criminal prosecutor) for explication.

        redc1c4 in reply to Ragspierre. | November 3, 2017 at 2:58 am

        Patterico is a once great commentator who’s opinion was widely respected on a blog that many, to include myself, considered a mandatory daily stop… i may have not been the first commenter there, but i was around from nearly the beginning. hell, i even went to music events with him.

        however, last year he went full, unhinged #NeverTrump and has not only never looked back, but never even reconsidered his POV in light of current events.

        as such, ANY opinion he has on anything even tangentially related to President Trump is highly suspect, and not to be taken with anything less than a #1 container of salt, let alone seriously, w/o outside validation from a neutral source.


          Edward in reply to redc1c4. | November 3, 2017 at 3:21 pm

          Indeed, the headline of his piece about the Twitter cut off was “Not All Heroes Wear Capes: Twitter Employee Deletes Trump’s Account“. There are others there who suffer from TDS also.

          I won’t blame Trump for the abysmal joke of a sentence which Bergdahl received, that is on the Judge and her alone.

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | November 2, 2017 at 10:27 pm

      …the judicial branch is not subordinate to the president, so his opinion no more compels the outcome than mine does.”

      That’s a rare stupid comment, Milhouse. The JUDICIARY is not subordinate, but the PROSECUTION certainly IS. A careless POTUS can very certainly screw the pooch, and the JUDICIARY will assure that the screwing gets proper deference.

        Milhouse in reply to Ragspierre. | November 2, 2017 at 11:49 pm

        Yes, the prosecution is subordinate to the president, but that is not a problem. The prosecution (in federal cases) is not supposed to be independent of him. It represents him, and is supposed to obey his orders. So if he wants the prosecuting US Attorney to seek the death penalty he can order him to do so if he likes. It’s the judges who are supposed to be independent, and they are. His influence over them is no more than that of an opinion columnist or celebrity.

        It’s very different in a military trial, because the judges are under the president’s command, and therefore his words could improperly influence them. That’s why Trump could say whatever he liked about Bergdahl before he became president, but it was a big mistake for him to speak again on the topic recently.

          MarkSmith in reply to Milhouse. | November 3, 2017 at 12:16 am

          Milhouse, don’t worry your pretty little head over this. Considering what happen to Omar Abdel-Rahman, it really does not matter what the President says. If trying to blow up the World Trade Center can’t get you the death penalty, why would a few bicyclist do it?

      Ragspierre in reply to Milhouse. | November 3, 2017 at 7:30 am

      You can inform yourself, based on the words of actual attorneys, including the Prof., or you can heed the jackassery here.

      Up to you.

      And we’ll see…

I wonder why nobody asked these same questions of David Koresh ?

Well, there is historical precedent for hanging dead people. Oliver Cromwell had been 8 years in the grave when they dug him up and hanged him.

“In other news, Hillary Clinton is still not president.”

This truth represents a YUGE dividend in perpetuity.

“Edit: An earlier version of this article used a headline noting that Trump had publicly called for the death penalty in the New York attack, but not the Las Vegas shooting in particular. That discrepancy is probably related to the fact that the Las Vegas shooter is dead. We regret the error.”

They have added this to the bottom of the article..HILARIOUS!

You see that? People hate Trump more than they hate this terrorist and it colours their views, like these idiot so called reporters.

As it’s been saud before, Trump should tweet about paedophiles so we can see these same idiots contort themselves into supporting paedophilia!!

Surely Trump could have ordered that the Las Vegas shooter be hung, drawn, and quartered. You don’t have to be alive to do either.

What a slacker.

He would be more Presidential if he focused on the Religion of peace.
And stating terrorists can’t be Muslim. But we must give him a Koran and prayer rug.

Our President needs to give his opinions he is in a political position. If the prosecutors don’t believe he deserves the death penalty, I’ll be surprised. But our Alice in wonderland legal beagles are horrified an ISIS terrorist must be executed.
Does the constitution say the president can’t opine on court cases, or is it progressive case law?

“Spoiler Alert: Only one of them is still alive.”

That was my first thought as well. It’s really not complicated. These people are just plain stupid, bless their hearts.

G. de La Hoya | November 3, 2017 at 7:51 am

Personally, I like the idea of telling the “crazies” of the world that one way or another, you will die here for doing your crazy sh*t here. 🙂

Trump gets blamed for over eating to alcoholism to even athlete’s foot.

If he has such magical powers I wish he would help me lose weight and help stop my male pattern baldness.

I laughed out loud when I saw that GQ correction!

This illustrates the problem in this country brilliantly.

Here we have a human being who maliciously and with premeditation ran over a large group of innocent people, killing at least eight of them. He has shown no remorse. It was not done in a moment of anguish or rage. There are exactly ZERO mitigating circumstances. Unless he is proven to be legally insane, he is a prime candidate for the death penalty, either federal or state. So, what ANYONE has to say about imposing the death penalty has exactly ZERO importance to the blind application of justice.

Yet, here we are expressing a concern that because the President of the United States expressed the opinion that this man should be sentenced to death will somehow cause Justice to lift her blindfold and decide not to allow the imposition of that penalty. This is simply incredible and flies in the face of everything this nation stands for with regard to jurisprudence. This man maliciously killed a number of people in a premeditated manner and people are already attempting to work out a plea bargain. INCREDIBLE.

Look, the only reason for the imposition of the death penalty is to make absolutely certain that a given individual will never return to society, by any means, and harm members of that society. And, that should be the criteria for imposition. So, when sentencing a person convicted of a crime, for which death is a potential sentence, it becomes incumbent upon the sentencing officer to take that into consideration.

Our criminal court system is set up to have two distinct and separate phases. The first is the determination of guilt or innocence. In this phase, the trier of fact is supposed to determine, by the evidence presented if a person is guilty [in the case of criminal trials beyond a reasonable doubt]. The second phase is the sentencing phase, if the defendant is found guilty of violating the law. In this phase the trier of fact is expected to look closely at the crime, the circumstances involved in the criminal act and the personal circumstances of the defendant. Once all of this is taken into consideration, the trier of fact makes an informed decision as to which penalty is appropriate. This decision is supposed to be made impartially.

We have a marvelous system, when it works impartially, as it supposed to do. So, let’s see if this man is convicted and then his “supporters” can argue against imposition of the death penalty. That is how the system is supposed to work.

    lgbmiel in reply to Mac45. | November 4, 2017 at 10:26 am

    Excellent comment.

    I have always felt one reason for the death penalty is that the crime committed was so horrendous that the only just penalty is death. Not solely to prevent the perpetrator from committing new crimes, but that justice demands his death to balance the scales.

Remember the old Rickie Lee Jones song, “Chuck E’s In Love?”

Let’s never forget Chuck S (Schumer) is also in love – with screwing America, and Schumer is responsible for this terrorist attack (and future attacks coming) as much as the lunatics he is responsible for letting into our country:

The terrorist came into our country through what is called the “Diversity Visa Lottery Program,” a Charles Schumer beauty. I want merit based.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 1, 2017