MANUEL GARZA, JR., Convicted in the 2001 slaying of a San Antonio police officer after a foot chase in which the men struggled and Mr. Garza grabbed the officer's gun, then shot him, according to court documents. His trial attorneys said he acted in self defense. Appellate lawyers said his trial attorneys failed to properly question jurors about their opinions on the death penalty, didn't submit enough mitigating evidence and failed to include complaints of excessive use of force that had been filed against the officer.
For more information about Mr. Garza's case, click here.
For more information about Mr. Garza's case, click here.
RADIO SHOW PREVIEW
EXECUTION WATCH
Unless a stay is issued, Execution Watch will broadcast live:
Wednesday, April 15, 6-7 PM Central Time
3 comments:
Paul,
I have always had difficulty understanding the law and the state in these types of cases. If a persons violence kills one victim the occupation of that victim is the determining factor of whether or not it will be a capital case. Killing a priest, physician, accountant, teacher, butcher, chef, janitor or other example civilian job will not result in the death penalty but woe to you whom kill a cop. The message that the state is sending out with this distinction is that there are essentially 2 classes of citizens determined by occupation. Murder of any members of the second class citizenry (priest, physician, accountant, teacher, butcher, chef, janitor or other example civilian) is more tolerable. Hell will be a paradise compared to what the state's wrath will be if you kill one of its first class citizens (anyone in law enforcement). This distinction not only undermines that jargon of all life being created equal but also creates an additional barrier that continues to erode the relationship between civilians and police. A human life lost to the violence of murder is equally appalling as the next and ones occupation should not be relevant. By this logic we could create a third class of citizens that include more despised occupations (drug dealers, prostitutes) and consider their murders punishable by only 10 years of prison.
A further thought...
According to the rules of conflict targets that are foo limits includes churches, schools, shopping malls, grocery stores and civilian targets. Targets that are more acceptable are the police stations, and state or military targets (White house, FBI Hoover Building) because they have weapons and the ability to fight back. There are always 2 fighter jets flying over the Whitehouse and armed law enforcement or military personnel ready to go. I would consider by this logic that the murder of a civilian is far worse than that of a police officer because the civilian does not have the same means of defense that law enforcement does. When one attacks law enforcement they at least have weapons, assume the occupation knowing the risks, and have the chance to defend themselves.
Paul, Thoughts?
Nicely said Lee , the worst criminals are the ones in power. If I were to steal over 50$ I would serve more time than a( 1st class citizen) that embezzled millions , pretty weak....so on and so forth....
Post a Comment