Cop Killer, Eric Frein Pleads Not Guilty

I live in Pennsylvania. I also was around the area where he murdered the cops. If he isn't guilty, who is? The insanity plea? Really? Those policeman had families and lives too. People who do these crimes never stop to think about anyone but themselves, and the ripples they'll leave. If the cop had kids, they'll grow up with no dad and then they'll probably turn to bad things too. It's a cycle that repeats itself eternity throughout history.

Man, people these days are nutbar whackjobs.
 
I don't agree with the death penalty and I say, if he wants to plead non-guilty and have a trial, then he should be within his rights to get one and try it. I mean, I don't believe he's not guilty, but so many others are (cops included) and they don't all get the population screaming to murder them.

Hope they can get justice to carry out deserved sentences though.
 
It isn't just speculation or right to a fair trial or anything. He should be imprisoned immediately with no chance of parole, until he can be deemed insane or not and then held at an asylum the rest of his life. He's messed up. He quit doing what he was doing, went off the grid, and hid killing more cops. Some of which he held no connection with. He was just a loony.
 
Shimus said:
It isn't just speculation or right to a fair trial or anything. He should be imprisoned immediately with no chance of parole, until he can be deemed insane or not and then held at an asylum the rest of his life. He's messed up. He quit doing what he was doing, went off the grid, and hid killing more cops. Some of which he held no connection with. He was just a loony.
Click to expand...

Then it should be a short trial, and the verdict will be unanimous.
I mean, okay, I get that there is no doubt or anything, I think I'm just a bit peeved that we hear about cops killing innocent people and getting away with it even when there are witnesses and footage, not even losing their jobs or anything, and not having to be on trial or anything, but the moment one of them gets killed, people scream for death penalty and no trial at all. This, to me, is a big double-standard.
 
mrsbright said:
Then it should be a short trial, and the verdict will be unanimous.
I mean, okay, I get that there is no doubt or anything, I think I'm just a bit peeved that we hear about cops killing innocent people and getting away with it even when there are witnesses and footage, not even losing their jobs or anything, and not having to be on trial or anything, but the moment one of them gets killed, people scream for death penalty and no trial at all. This, to me, is a big double-standard.
Click to expand...

This is not the same situation as Michael Brown or the state of Ferguson, any other police brutality where the cop is wrong and the person was being abused and/or murdered. You cannot use this situation itself as an example to say "Double-standard" - it's obvious you are a bit hazy or behind on this story and just decided to make a call based on what you read in the thread. This dude, Eric Frein, is not right in the head and mentally disturbed. He thought himself to be a 'Rambo' (from the movies) and was taking cops out in ambushes, smearing paint pain and mud on himself

This situation being entirely different is in no way similar and thus CAN be called for immediately. I think it's only safe to discuss this as a double-standard when the problem at hand matches the the content of the base generalization. I can understand what you mean, and I even agree with it myself - believe it or not. However, in cases like this - he should be mentally incarcerated (insane asylum) if he's classified loony, or given life in jail with no chance of parole. At least, in my opinion. This is a cut and dry case, not like the he-said she-said of Ferguson.
 
Shimus said:
This is not the same situation as Michael Brown or the state of Ferguson, any other police brutality where the cop is wrong and the person was being abused and/or murdered. You cannot use this situation itself as an example to say "Double-standard" - it's obvious you are a bit hazy or behind on this story and just decided to make a call based on what you read in the thread. This dude, Eric Frein, is not right in the head and mentally disturbed. He thought himself to be a 'Rambo' (from the movies) and was taking cops out in ambushes, smearing paint pain and mud on himself

This situation being entirely different is in no way similar and thus CAN be called for immediately. I think it's only safe to discuss this as a double-standard when the problem at hand matches the the content of the base generalization. I can understand what you mean, and I even agree with it myself - believe it or not. However, in cases like this - he should be mentally incarcerated (insane asylum) if he's classified loony, or given life in jail with no chance of parole. At least, in my opinion. This is a cut and dry case, not like the he-said she-said of Ferguson.
Click to expand...

People who have mental issues should get treatment. It may not be the same case, but it's clear that people are directing a lot of hate and murderous wishes on this person, and I don't think that's quite right. And I think that the US has a very high punitive mentality (seen by the number of jails and of incarceration by capita and also this silly death penalty thing) and I agree that this guy should be cut away from the regular population.

I just think that it's a bit annoying how many people don't even want to imagine that cops can be criminals and do bad things because "if they do they surely have a good reason for it and whoever they attacked deserved it anyway!" but that anyone else gets a radical "KILL THE BASTARD" screamed at them. This general mentality (probably to make believe that we live in a fair world with good on one side and evil on the other) is what annoys me most, probably because it's the easiest to see on the internet, so this is what I'm referring to mostly.

So I think a trial is in order. Not because I think this guy should deserve a chance to be out and free, but I think that if the population calls for a death sentence, he should have the chance to be defended and get a right to mental treatment rather than just be executed.
 
We don't have the death sentence in a few of the states here, mine not included. Which is where he is. So a trial would just put him in jail for awhile and he wouldn't get his help answered, would end up taking time and money we shouldn't fund into his stay (where he went) just to kill him in the end.

I feel (unfairly too) that he may even be judged to have no chance at an insanity plea (which, obviously is the case - who does this type of stuff) and instead will be thrown to the dogs in a jail that will end up killing him (with homemade instruments, no less). So even a non-death penalty is still a death-penalty.. in the long run.

He needs a padded room and a straitjacket.
 
As long as he is isolated from society we are better off really because he is a danger to society and for me it makes no sense to give him the possibility to kill again.
 
Shimus said:
We don't have the death sentence in a few of the states here, mine not included. Which is where he is. So a trial would just put him in jail for awhile and he wouldn't get his help answered, would end up taking time and money we shouldn't fund into his stay (where he went) just to kill him in the end.

I feel (unfairly too) that he may even be judged to have no chance at an insanity plea (which, obviously is the case - who does this type of stuff) and instead will be thrown to the dogs in a jail that will end up killing him (with homemade instruments, no less). So even a non-death penalty is still a death-penalty.. in the long run.

He needs a padded room and a straitjacket.
Click to expand...


Oh. Reading the article, with the number of people who asked for the death penalty -- both as a legal recourse in the text of the article, and as a general outcry in the comments, that it would be one of these States were the death penalty still exists. I clearly misjudged that one, thanks for your clarification.

And about the "padded room and a straitjacket", I do believe that there are more humane ways to deal with insanity, ways that instead of just punishing can help fix someone. The worse thing would be a normal high security jail, where he could harm others and get killed, but maybe he just needs appropriate medication and treatment to become a sane human being again. Of course, I cannot be sure about this, but I'd say it's still a possibility. But even if it were, I think a lot of people would not want this -- would prefer that instead of a man regaining his mind, to have a man going even more insane in isolation as a way to punish him for the rest of his life, and they'd feel that it is still too good for him.

As long as the criminals are locked away, I'm not sure what everyone has against treating them at least a bit like human beings.
 
I'm glad to hear the prosecutors are seeking the death penalty on this one. When a person deliberately takes something he can't give back such as a life, then his life should be taken too.
 
Generally because they did something defining to make them not worthy of being treated like a human. They have to re-earn that right and if they do they can be released I don't care. But it's not something you just freely give after they did something to make you put them in there to begin with. Not saying people aren't able to be rehabilitated or anything of that nature; I believe in redemption as much as the next guy. But if you are in jail you deserve to be there. This guy needs proper care, however.

And my comment was more a less on the play of "He's crazy" rather than the actual room and straitjacket, just a bit of clarification ;)
 
Shimus said:
Generally because they did something defining to make them not worthy of being treated like a human. They have to re-earn that right and if they do they can be released I don't care. But it's not something you just freely give after they did something to make you put them in there to begin with. Not saying people aren't able to be rehabilitated or anything of that nature; I believe in redemption as much as the next guy. But if you are in jail you deserve to be there. This guy needs proper care, however.

And my comment was more a less on the play of "He's crazy" rather than the actual room and straitjacket, just a bit of clarification ;)
Click to expand...

I was going to say, "Hard to re-earn such a right in solitary confinement!" but since you actually clarified that you did not literally mean that, then I think we actually do agree on the point.

My point is not that they be treated with respect and as good human beings, but that they still be treated like human beings -- that is, punished to jail, but not without the chance of mental treatment and without a chance to actually grow (books in prisons and work can be done and all). After that, if they are still dangerous for the rest of their life, I have no problem saying let them die there and rot there, really. I just mean that we should not forget that just because someone does something horrible, it does not give us the ethical right to act inhumane (read, torture, and read, keeping people locked in abysmal conditions). I know a lot of people do wish for things like this, though, for criminals to get it back a hundredfold and to spit on what's left of them with a good, "Served you right".

But even if it did serve them right, I don't think we, as human beings, should become so cruel and inhumane as to carry out such a sentence.

That's pretty much that.

I really agree with locking the guy up as long as it takes, forever if need be. I really don't like it when criminals get released and to know that the people they harmed sit in fear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top