Death by Firing Squad Returns to South Carolina
Due to a lack of access to lethal injection drugs, Richard Moore had to choose between the electric chair and getting shot through the heart.

South Carolina death row inmate Richard Moore is scheduled to be executed next week by firing squad, the first U.S. execution in that manner in more than a decade.
The state's prison officials had been struggling to get their hands on the drugs used for lethal injection. So in 2021, lawmakers passed a bill to change the state's method of execution to the electric chair—but inmates are also given the option of the firing squad if they would prefer it.
Moore, while acknowledging he'd prefer not to be executed at all, has chosen the firing squad. In a statement, Moore declared that both methods of killing him would be unconstitutional but he finds the prospect of being electrocuted worse.
Moore, now 57, was sentenced to death 21 years ago, after a convenience store robbery in Spartanburg County in 1999 went wrong. Moore was unarmed when he started his attempt to rob the shop to get money to buy cocaine. The clerk, James Mahoney, was the one with a gun. But they got into a tussle when Mahoney defended himself, and the gun went off, killing Mahoney. Moore then shot at a bystander with Mahoney's gun, missed, and fled the scene before surrendering to police.
Moore didn't dispute his guilt. Jurors took just two hours of deliberation to convict him and one hour to sentence him to death. But his attorney has been arguing that the 2021 execution law cannot be retroactively applied to him. Since state officials can't get the proper lethal injection drugs, the end result of this argument would presumably be that Moore would avoid execution should judges agree.
The case could make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, but that doesn't necessarily bode well for Moore. Most of the court's current justices have been reluctant to intervene in executions so far, other than a ruling in March that death row inmates have a right to have religious or spiritual advisors on hand and praying over them as they are killed.
Moore is scheduled to die on April 29. Should South Carolina follow through, Moore will be the fourth prisoner executed by firing squad since 1976—the year that the Supreme Court allowed executions to resume following a halt in 1972. Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Utah are the only other states that allow for a firing squad as a method of execution.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Fuck Joe Biden
Fuck Joe Biden
Lets Go Brandon
Start now earning every week more than $5,000 by doing very simple and easy home based job online. Last month I have made $30,000 by doing this online job just in my part (re54) time for only 2 hrs. a day using my laptop. This job is just awesome and easy to do in part time. Everybody can now get this and start earning more dollars online just by:-
.
CLICK HERE:>>> https://dollarscash12.blogspot.com/
As a Koch / Soros / Reason soft-on-crime libertarian, I don't believe anybody should face the death penalty. In fact I believe there are virtually no crimes that justify a prison sentence longer than 2 months.
(The HEAVILY ARMED INSURRECTIONISTS of 1 / 6 are, of course, the exception — lock them away forever.)
#FreeTheCriminals
#EmptyThePrisons
#CheapLaborAboveAll
The "Broken Windows" fallacy of policing is thoroughly disproven. also, those broken windows and the people who break them are increasing economic activity and adding to the USA's GDP.
Lots (almost an infinite variety) of ways to execute someone. Some crimes cry out for execution of the malefactor. The only reasonable quibble should be whether the verdict was justified by real evidence and whether the penalty of death is applied unequally. A guilty verdict plus a death sentence should result only when there is no doubt - no "reasonable doubt" as to guilt. But then we come to methods . . .
Electrocution is terrifying in its nature, but when it works it should be completely painless as the brain - the center for pain perception - should be depolarized and non-functional immediately. A method less subject to mechanical failure is cage drowning or a 9 mm JHP to the occiput, the latter being quicker and ?more merciful? In any case, every society should have an accepted method for dispatching its worst members until and unless a majority of the citizens call out to release the malefactors and periodically just kill an innocent selected by lot.
As a Koch / Soros / Reason soft-on-crime libertarian, I don't believe anybody should face the death penalty. In fact I believe there are virtually no crimes that justify a prison sentence longer than 2 months.
Ok, but what are your pronouns? Mine are he/her
Mine is God
When I drink, mine are St. Jerome/St. Jerome
I’m much more humble.
Mine is Master.
my nouns have only acquired amateur status.
Mine are: I consent to sex/please don't stop
Mine are she/his, except on Wednesdays when they are he/hers.
He/He
Mine are He/Haw
Ours are we/us.
no state should have the power to execute.
What about the gunpowder to execute?
He was given two options.
Good one.
+
Fortunately no state does.
The jury chooses the punishment. Not the state.
if the jury foreman was also the executioner I would change my stance on the death penalty.
And held to accountability for a wrongful conviction.
yes.
I tend to agree. Though, I think that generally and as someone who thinks we're rich enough that the we can afford to be better.
I also think that if we ARE going to kill someone, something like Firing Squad or Guillotine is probably more humane. It also does away with something that I think is truly caustic: the scientification of brutal procedures. Lethal injection is something we do to try to distance ourselves from the simple fact of a death sentence. Same with euthanasia in countries that allow it. Same with the complicated systems of the Holocaust.
Bring back the axeman. Whether we should or should not kill any person, we should have to grapple directly with that fact. Euphemism is a great scourge of our modern era.
your posts are always much more thoughtful than my one-liners. agreed.
I try to inform people of this whenever I can. Helium inhalation is cheap, painless and effective. How come the only people who have heard of it are some advocates of euthanasia? Maybe I'll go write my congressmen.
no, wait, it's a state law, I guess. I'll send a note to the governor.
Good Choice. Fill them with helium and parade them around on Thanksgiving.
or nitrogen.
Nitrogen, preferably. Cheaper, and has the virtue of being less immediately obvious.
With inert gas asphyxiation, the person scarcely has time to realize that they're dying, it's so fast, and since the feeling of suffocation is actually caused by CO2 buildup rather than lack of oxygen, it's not even all that apparent; You take a couple of breaths, blood lacking Oxygen hits your brain, and you're out. And your autonomic systems keep you breathing until there isn't enough oxygen to operate your muscles.
If you use Helium, the squeaky voice will tip them off, they might hold their breath and actually suffer a bit.
But they should have the power to build luxury condominiums in which to house killers, thieves and rapists for their entire natural lives, with full-time, state-paid medical personnel, psychologists, chefs, IT professionals and guards, lest they should work a nerve, die from disease, miss a meal, or become bored. Stealing tens of billions of dollars from law abiding taxpayers to make sure killers, thieves and rapists are humanely rehabilitated and released periodically to commit the same crimes over and over and over again is the true role of libertarian government.
I can't even tell you how much I hope you get to watch someone you love be raped and murdered in the most disgusting, grotesque way imaginable.
rapists should be castrated after the first offense.
also be nicer what the fuck is that last sentence, cowboy?
Hey, choices, amirite?
You have to admit that standing and facing the executioner is a much more manly way to go.
I hope he gets a smoke and a blindfold
Legal weed! Can you get more libertarian than that?
As long as I have some confidence in the skills of the firing squad, I think I'd go for that option.
It could all be mechanized. The rifles could be pre-aimed and wired to fire simultaneously at the push of a button.
Same. Lethal injection is humane in the sense that it seems to make those doing it and watching it feel less bad. Not so much for the sake of the dying, but for the executioner.
Last words of Robert Erskine Childers; spoken to his firing squad.
"Take a step forward lads - it'll be easier that way."
Von Stauffenberg:
"Long live sacred Germany!"
Harry "Breaker" Morant: "Take this thing off" (the blindfold). "Shoot straight, you bastards, don't make a mess of it." (Allegedly)
and the gun went off
I don't know how guns just keep doing this! We really need to stop all these defective guns that just keep going off.
I'd have more respect if Shackford could just admit the guy is guilty of murder and thus is subject to the state's murder laws. I'm fine with the anti-death penalty position. I hate the lying and omitting facts to make that case.
While I think the death penalty is necessary in certain circumstances I also could be persuaded that this isn't one of those instances. The bullshit framing and legal contortions do nothing to make this case.
We've been mocking passive language in shootings for years. They've learned to call it when police say this BS-I don't know how they can write it about about a murderer without it feeling like nails on a chalkboard.
It's easy when you're an unprincipled charlatan and professional liar. You are approaching the issue from the perspective of a moral human being.
Reason started going hard into lying and omitting information about 8 or 9 years ago. They used to be very upfront about the facts of the case then argue from there. The have gradually declined into a Solon style omission of facts. It's really distasteful, and why reason has been on the decline
Damn, do I actually agree with the Kuck?
I've been reading for a bit over 12 years now. It used to be that the majority of writers were generally neutral on the left-right partisan divide or at least that they balanced out. We now have a libertarian rag that denounces Ron Paul regularly and attacks all the libertarian leaning politicians that lean right. It's become just another Vox, Huffpo, etc.
^^^
Well, not quite, because they're still libertarian on issues where the left doesn't demand they fall in line, which you can't say of those rags.
Normally I'm with you there. But in this situation it sounds like the two men were fighting for control of the gun and it is unclear who actually pulled the trigger. So "the gun went off" seems to accurately reflect the ambiguity of the situation.
I don't think that makes it not murder. But it's possible the clerk accidentally shot himself (which is still the robber's fault).
It doesn't seem to be accurate as I've read more about the case. There was a bit of struggle and Moore took the gun off the clerk, fired at a bystander. Clerk grabbed a second pistol, fired at Moore a few times, winged him, and Moore used the first gun to fire back and shoot him through the heart. There were two guns being fired here, one of them being the first pistol that Moore took off the clerk before he was able to produce another.
Ah, OK. If that's the case, then it was a lousy description of the events.
Which is always my problem with these stories. If the point is to make a principled objection to the death penalty or the application of it, then just give us the facts instead of trying to conceal them. Hiding facts is almost an admission, like saying, "Well if people knew the full story, they wouldn't agree with me."
I strongly dislike the need to sacrifice full, factual reporting for the sake of a narrative. I'd love it if I could occasionally just get some straight-shooting facts without having to spend 30 minutes or an hour hunting around for the case files so I can get the real story. That seems like the job of journalists, not people in comment sections.
I have to agree. Given the situation, I think the neutral statement is the best description. In fact, I will say that this is one of the best written death penalty articles that anyone at Reason has written that I can remember. It presents the facts and makes no major omissions that I can see.
An honest and straightforward report of the situation is reasonable, and we can judge for ourselves the relative merits. I will state that I find the lack of condemnation of the activists frustrating. People should not subvert the law by mandating a method of execution and then actively preventing their mandate from occurring.
Update from reading other comments, I must correct myself. After wresting the gun and trying to kill a witness, he deliberately murdered the clerk. That's a very different situation from what the article implied.
The killer committed strong arm robbery and used the weapon to murder its owner. Shackford is a fucking liar.
I despise governments murdering people. But jeez, pick someone with a little bit better case.
Guns don't just "go off". Someone pulled the trigger. And then this guy pulled the trigger again, at some innocent bystander.
And then he wants to quibble about which law justifies State execution.
>>Someone pulled the trigger.
maybe Mahoney the first time?
Just so we're clear; Are you arguing the felony murder rule, in which case, Moore's and Mahoney's fate is immaterial or are you asserting that your notion of justice is to argue that Mahoney committed suicide in the middle of a robbery?
literally only saying "maybe Mahoney's finger was on the trigger of Mahoney's gun and that's why it went off during the struggle"
If you point a gun someone is holding at themselves while they are trying to shoot you, then you are shooting them. Moore shot someone to death during the commission of crime in pursuit of another crime. Then he shot at another person.
The motherfucker can eat lead.
I don't think anyone is disagreeing that Moore is responsible for the death. But it is possible that the finger that pulled the trigger was Mahoney's. That's all. Doesn't make Moor not a murderer.
Which makes one wonder why you keep autistically harping on it as if it somehow mitigates the circumstances of the crime.
(It's also a lie, but that's immaterial; you like like most of us breathe oxygen)
OK, so Moore shot Mahoney with Mahoney's finger on the trigger. Felony murder. Guilty. Case closed. Right?
If there is a legitimate use case for the felony murder rule, this case is it.
sure. still don't sanction South Carolina killing him. mho.
They aren't killing him. They're just legally wrestling him with a gun that could go off at any minute.
lol if a gun accidentally went off and a death row inmate fell on the bullet I would be out of arguments.
Exactly. Next time, try not robbing the convenience store. And if the owner pulls a gun on you, leave as fast as you can.
And make the case against the death penalty... quit bitching about the method of execution.
Yep. All the silly deflections just piss me off. Fwiw, his case looks bad but I could be persuaded that the death penalty is wrong for him. Realistically, while firing squad is the more violent method it is also probably the more humane method with a higher rate of success over lethal injection. The inability of the state to use its preferred execution method does not make the execution order illegal
Yes, agreed. Make the moral case against the death penalty. It applies whether or not the murderer is sympathetic. And change the laws, don't play stupid process games.
Make the chemicals harder to get, then bitch about the new method!
Yeah, I agree 100%. It's particularly grotesque because there's some evidence that it has made the process worse for the executed overall. As much as I disagree with the firing squad as a concept, it's a pretty fast method.
I'm against the death penalty in general, but if we are going to have it, it should be ugly and brutal, let's not try to delude ourselves that it can be humane.
If we are going to have an arms race over execution methods:
Vacuum chamber
Explosive decompression.
While I appreciate the clear inhumanity position, I'd be content to just stop moving the goalposts.
Or, like the ancient Romans, entertaining.
let's not try to delude ourselves that it can be humane.
But it could be humane. It's the anti-death penalty activists who have seen to it that it isn't.
"But it could be humane."
It shouldn't be. I'd rather we not have the death penalty at all, but if it is to be allowed, it should be as rare as possible, reserved for truly extreme cases where guilt is nearly certain.
A jury deciding on whether or not to impose the death penalty should be face to face with the reality of what they are deciding not thinking of it like putting a beloved pet "to sleep".
Being shot through the heart is pretty humane. Very quick. Not painless, but then you kind of forfeited the moral high ground on that one when you disingenuously got all lethal injection drugs including barbiturates banned from the United States. Don't pretend you give a fuck now.
"but then you kind of forfeited the moral high ground on that one when you disingenuously got all lethal injection drugs including barbiturates banned from the United States."
Sorry, no, not my kind. While I oppose the death penalty in general, I am also opposed to allowing challenges to individual execution protocols.
Do you also despise governments kidnapping (i.e., arresting and imprisoning) people?
Paths of Gory
I honestly don't see how "We're just going to sit him in front of a gun that may or may not go off." isn't the *perfect* libertarian answer here.
As usual, I get that there may be a case to be had that he didn't get evidence presented or got a crooked, but Reason isn't making that argument. And they've thoroughly demonstrated that they would abjectly fabricate it whether they thought they could or not.
Really, this case is a crystallization of the epistemological notion that some libertarians are exceptionally or even radically zealous, not that the state shouldn't execute people but that literally some kinds of people shouldn't die ever. And, of course, "some kinds of people" is a byzantine imaginary social construct that doesn't include anyone who hasn't passed through the birth canal, anyone who's been on the wrong side of the velvet ropes at the capitol building, or teenagers from IL who's parent lives in WI.
Whoops, thread fail. Meant in reply to A Thinking Mind, above.
I'm not sure that I'd rate killing one person during a struggle for a gun, even during the commission of another crime, is enough to warrant a death sentence. Death sentences should be limited to crimes so horrific they speak to a mental state that makes the perpetrator unlikely to be rehabilitable.
This guy shouldn't even die in prison, much less be killed by the state.
How about picking up the gun off the guy you just killed and then firing it toward an innocent third party?
You want to mitigate the fact that you didn't intend to kill someone? Hang around and try to render first aid, call 911, and turn yourself in. "Sure, I was robbing the place, but I didn't want anyone to die." You've got actions to show that perhaps you're not a piece of shit that doesn't deserve to live in society.
So charge him with 2nd dergree murder and attempted murder.
I'm fine with this result. It's shockingly easy to not commit felony murder during one's lifetime, if you really try.
Fine by me. Both are death penalty offenses under the Constitution's original public meaning, so hang the bastard for the murder, than hang him again for the attempted murder.
So if they fix the gun pointed at his chest, zip tie his finger in the trigger guard and then smack him around until the gun goes off it's not an execution in your mind, right?
That's kind of silly. The question of whether it should be 1st degree murder is about what his intent was at that moment, no?
Moore was born on February 20, 1965, and grew up in Michigan.[1] He struggled with drug addiction and turned to robbery to support his drug habit.[3] In the 1980s, he was convicted of burglary and weapons charges. In 1991, he moved with his partner, Lynda Byrd, from Michigan to Spartanburg, South Carolina. The two later had two children together.[4]
In 1991, Moore punched Michelle Crowder in the neck while trying to steal her purse in Spartanburg, then kicked her repeatedly in the head and back after she fell on the purse. When Crowder's fiancé came to help her, Moore beat the man so severely that he had to be hospitalized. Crowder would later testify at the sentencing phase of Moore's murder trial.[4]
Another Spartanburg resident, Valerie Wisniewski, said that Moore robbed her as she was working in a shoe store. In 1997, Moore also pleaded guilty to assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature for attacking a woman.[4]
Which moment?
You know what I mean, you aren't stupid.
You know what I mean, you aren't stupid.
You misunderstand. I am. I fell for this when Reason did it last time. They will literally and unequivocally lie to you to get the response they want, facts be damned.
He beat a woman for her purse and then put her fiancè in the hospital for, uh, kicks. After getting 'rehabilitated' he winds up assaulting someone with a deadly weapon for, uh, kicks again I guess and killing another for money.
So, as a libertarian, how much do you really want intent to matter and, more importantly, does Reason's intent to deceive you play any part?
There was a time when people used to feel shame for being intentionally misleading like this. I think we've come so far that people think they can just bury facts, or play misleading games with them, and feel no shame if they're pushing for "noble" causes. Shame is a powerful tool for a culture to promote good behavior, we really need to keep it around.
He may not be, but you certainly are. What intent did he have the moment he drew a gun and pointed it at a store clerk, then drew and fired the gun at an unarmed bystander, then drew and fired his gun at the store clerk, killing him? Which part of that was unintentional?
The state's prison officials had been struggling to get their hands on the drugs used for lethal injection.
Why?
Followup question: Why can't the state just buy a bunch of those suicide pods they're releasing in Switzerland?
Depends; how many rounds can the state buy for the cost of one of those devices?
But the method is humane, and that's the primary bitch here, is it not?
Yes. The death penalty opponents want executions to be ugly and painful. They are succeeding. Killing someone peacefully and painlessly is very easy. There are a number of ways to do it.
Oklahoma was the first state to authorize nitrogen asphyxiation as a method of execution. Other states have followed suit. You will likely be utterly unsurprised to find that death penalty concern trolls have a problem with that method as well.
No way to know. From all I read, drugs are easy to get in prison.
Good point, have they tried trading smokes for the drugs?
Because the anti-death-penalty advocates have, among other tactics, demonized the production and sale of those drugs to the point that the FDA-approved manufacturers are opting out of the market. (And yes, the FDA's approval process acts as a functional block against new suppliers entering the market - including those who supply the exact same products overseas.)
Now, you could wonder why an agency charged with ensuring a drug's safety would be allowed an opinion over a drug that's intended to kill. I wonder why we allow government agencies to create artificial barriers to entry in lots of situations, not just that one.
"Moore declared that both methods of killing him would be unconstitutional but he finds the prospect of being electrocuted worse."
Unconstitutional? Behold the text from those old white guys - - - -
" . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . "
With due process of law, you can be deprived of life as well as liberty (prison) and/or property (fines).
His argument is not that he can't be put to death - as you say, he received his due process. His argument as I understand it is that the two available means cross the ambiguous and ever-changing "cruel and unusual" line in the 8th amendment.
Personally, I would agree that electrocution counts as "cruel" regardless of whether it is unusual. Firing squad, on the other hand, is no more cruel than the way the other guy died.
And to the pedants among us, yes, English is ambiguous. I read the 8th Amendment's prohibition to be a ban on cruel punishments and a ban on unusual punishments, not merely a ban on punishments that are simultaneously "cruel and unusual". Consider the sentence "I like vanilla and chocolate ice cream." Natural language would interpret that as "I would like vanilla OR chocolate" and not as "I will only accept ice cream that is a vanilla-chocolate mix".
You're also being exceedingly generous that the contextual allows/forbid issue folded into the 5th/8th/10th/14th layer cake is well sorted out before getting to the inclusive/exclusive and.
Language is ambiguous. Some interpretation is not.
Most of the "ambiguity" and all of the "ever-changing" is deliberately contrived by modern jurists usurping the right of the people to legislate through their representatives.
The key to understanding the Eighth Amendment is that it was not a new formulation invented by Congress in 1789. The Eighth Amendment
was a simple repeat of the language of the English Bill of Rights of 1689
No one involved in the writing and ratification thought they were introducing any innovation when they adopted the language, they were simply repeating an existing legal rule with a meaning already established by a century of use.
It's likely fair to say that both cruel.and unusual.is.proscribed. But other than disliking, say, electrocution, what makes it cruel? And given its frequent use until recently it can't honestly said to be unusual. In the context of the original words there is nothing of either method which should be held unconstitutional. Personally I'd prefer executions be conducted with carbon monoxide, or nitrogen, and just let them pass out and die. But if my idea isn't adopted it can't make executions illegal otherwise.
In my view, electrocutions are cruel because :
1. They are frequently botched, resulting in terrible burns and/or brain damage but not death.
2. Based on the reports of those who have been electrocuted and lived (both in failed executions and industrial accidents), it is an incredibly painful experience.
Adherents of electrocution as a means of execution argued that the electrical current "scrambles the brain" and makes it impossible to feel the pain. We now know that is not true. It is a horrible, grisly way to die.
From a moral standpoint, my view is that the means of execution should be no worse than the means by which the criminal hurt his/her victim. Executions can be lawful while simultaneously saying that executions by torture are not.
Evidently he did not begin the robbery with the intention of using lethal force, and according to the article, he later surrendered to the police. When I then read that it took the jury only an hour to decide on the DP, I predicted that Richard Moore would be African-American. And sure enough...
Meanwhile we can expect at least a 6-3 at SCOTUS in favour of the execution proceeding, with a separate concurrence by Justice Thomas where he spends two pages describing the murder in detail in order to support his wonted consequentialism.
Your first sentence is beyond stupid. Intent can be formed in a nano second. Since this was being published at Reson, I knew immediately facts were going to be left out. I was right. Moore overpowered the clerk and held him at bay with the clerk's gun. Another customer heard the scuffle and walked over and Moore shot at him intending to kill. The customer fell down and pretended to be dead. Moore than turned to the clerk and shot him at close range - right through the heart - so he thought he killed two, not one 'witnesses'. Honestly when you read the facts, one wonders why they took 60 minutes, instead of 5, to return the DP. A 6 to 3 decision vs. 9 to 0 by the Court would be an insult to to the family of the victim. PS Murders like are ALWAYS described in detail - that's how you prove premeditated intent to kill; liberals NEVER want to talk about the details because they understand how important such details are.
You miss the point, unsurprisingly. The point is that there was enough room to argue that he should be spared the DP that when it takes the jury so little time to pass it, the immediate suspicion is that the defendant was black. This is a long tradition in the South, in case you were not aware of it.
"S Murders like are ALWAYS described in detail" Not at SCOTUS they're not, when the *facts* of the case are not the issue. Here the issue is purely legal/constitutional. It is however true that whenever a murderer appeals to SCOTUS on procedural or legal grounds, as almost all appeals will be, Thomas will describe the crime in detail to argue implicitly that the murderer deserves to be executed or at least not retried even if the actual law indicates that he shouldn't be executed or that he should get a retrial. It's dishonest. But then, what would one expect from him?
Is there anything else about which you'd care to demonstrate your laughable ignorance?
HE WUZ A GUD BOY! HE DIDN'T DO NUFFIN!
Stuff your racialist horse shit up your gaping faggot ass. Don't want to get convicted by a jury of your peers and sentenced to death? Maybe don't premeditatedly murder one person and attempt to murder another.
Oh also, you're not disguising what you're thinking you racist cunt. Go ahead and call Thomas a nigger. You can do it.
Evidenced by what? The fact that he brought a gun, the fact that he tried to shoot an unarmed bystander, or the fact that he shot and killed the clerk who drew on him?
Evidently you did not begin your DINDU defense with a thought in your skull.
The operative phrase here is '...21 years...' ... and counting. This is like taking 21 years to decide where to sit Uncle Joe at your kid's wedding.
I'm not letting sleepy Uncle Joe near any of my kids.
As per Reason's usual:
I think the most headspinning, vomit-inducing aspect of this whole story is that Wikipedia is the most objective source on the topic.
https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/South_Carolina_State_Supreme_Court/2001-021895/The_State_v._Richard_Bernard_Moore/
You can read the full case transcript from charging, with jury selection, jury swearing, motion hearings, literally everything, right here. I was just skimming through it and got a bit of the opening statements to get the full picture.
The first shot fired was by Moore when he was in sole possession of the gun and shooting at a customer in the store. There was no "scuffle" over the gun when it just went off, either.
HE WUZ A GUD BOY HE DIDN'T DO NUFFIN!
I read some more about this case. Here's the play-by-play.
Moore, the killer, tries to strong arm the clerk, who produces a gun. Moore takes the gun off of him and then points it at an innocent third party in the store, firing. That shot misses but the man drops down to play dead. Moore ends up dropping the .45 in the scuffle, and then the clerk produces a second gun, a .44, and got a few shots off, hitting Moore in the arm. Moore manages to retrieve the .45 off the floor and then shoots the clerk through the heart.
The gun did not "just go off."
Yeah, just found that and similar.
First strike, with conviction and 'rehabilitation' after putting someone in the hospital. Second strike robbing a woman. Third strike for felony murder.
Admittedly, not the most disgusting case of 'the state should rehabilitate, not execute' but, not the most disgusting case of 'the state should rehabilitate, not execute'.
The application of capital punishment in this country seems remarkably arbitrary.
You're just saying that because you want Roof to escape the chair or, apparently, firing squad.
Bigot.
They need a special chair?
Pro-criminal advocates: THE 3-DRUG COCKTAIL IS CRUEL AND UNUSUAL! BAN BARBITURATES AND POTASSIUM CHLORIDE!
States: *ban barbiturates and potassium chloride, depriving assisted suicide patients of the only effective means of assisted suicide and persistent insomniacs of relief*
Also pro-criminal advocates: EVERY OTHER METHOD OF EXECUTIONS IS ALSO CRUEL AND UNUSUAL!
It's almost like you disingenuous pieces of shit don't give a fuck about the method and were just making excuses to chip away at the death penalty entirely.
I can see why Shackford the pedophilia enthusiast would have an extremely vested interest in making sure that pieces of shit like Charles Warner who raped and murdered an 11 month old girl should be released without charges. Let that be a lesson to you, kiddie fucker. You wanted to get rid of effective death penalty drugs? Good. Your kiddie fucker compadre died screaming "MY BODY IS ON FIRE!" because you decided we couldn't use cheap, easy and effective drugs to kill him painlessly. Don't want to die like the child-fucking piece of dog shit you are? Don't bitch about cheap, easy and effective drugs. Otherwise, be prepared to eat the bullet. I'll be more than happy to supply it.
This article shows why Reason is not trustworthy as a news source -- they don't even tell the complete story of the crime. Instead, they cut the story short, presumably to make Moore seem less culpable. Here is a segment from the Richard Moore Wikipedia article:
"On September 16, 1999, in the early hours, Moore entered Nikki's convenience store in Spartanburg. He was unarmed and was intending to rob the store to support his cocaine addiction. Inside the store was the clerk, 42-year-old James Mahoney, and an eyewitness to the crime, Terry Hadden. As Hadden played on a video poker machine, he saw Moore walk toward the cooler inside the store. He then heard Mahoney shout at Moore and ask him what he was doing. Hadden turned to see Moore and Mahoney in a brawl, with Moore holding both of Mahoney's hands with just one of his. Mahoney had pulled a gun on Moore and the two got into a scuffle, with Moore taking hold of the weapon with his other hand. Moore turned his attention to Hadden and pointed the gun at him, telling him not to move.[5]
Moore then tried to shoot Hadden, but missed. Hadden fell to the floor, pretending to be dead. Mahoney then pulled out a second gun and several more shots were fired. Mahoney shot Moore in the arm while Moore shot Mahoney in the chest. After Moore paced around the store leaving a trail of blood behind him, he fled the store and drove off in his pickup truck. Hadden then got up and saw Mahoney lying face down on the floor, with a gun lying near his hand. Hadden called the police but Mahoney died minutes later from the gunshot wound to the chest. Moore stole nearly 1,500 dollars from the store.[5]"
BGMI Scrims Registration on Game Pass Tournaments app and daily unlimited TDM tournaments to earn money every match.