BabyRider wrote:
Do you believe my husand guilty of 2nd degreee murder for shooting at a crark-dealing piece of human excrement who shot at him first guilty of murder?
If the “crark-dealing piece of human excrement†was intending or appeared to be intending to fire again then no, it would be self defence.
If, on the other hand he was NOT was intending or appeared to be intending to fire again then, then sorry, BabyRider, the answer is yes.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
golem wrote: If the “crark-dealing piece of human excrement†was intending or appeared to be intending to fire again then no, it would be self defence.
If, on the other hand he was NOT was intending or appeared to be intending to fire again then, then sorry, BabyRider, the answer is yes.
Golem, this dude with his .38 was intent on killing everyone in that car. If my husband had not shot him first, there would be 3 DOA's as opposed to one and one of them would be my husband.
This is the problem with the average JQ Public. They really don't get the whole story even having been given all the facts by lawyers. They don't get to see my man as a non-violent person, they don't get to see him as a hard-working, upstanding, fully legal part of human society. Why??? Why don't they see him as that? How many lives were ruined because of the stupidity of this jury? Mine, Matt's his children, my childs, My mom and my dad, my step-father and his kids....so many lives were ruined by the elimination of one crack dealer. How can anyone ever justify that????
If, on the other hand he was NOT was intending or appeared to be intending to fire again then, then sorry, BabyRider, the answer is yes.
Golem, this dude with his .38 was intent on killing everyone in that car. If my husband had not shot him first, there would be 3 DOA's as opposed to one and one of them would be my husband.
This is the problem with the average JQ Public. They really don't get the whole story even having been given all the facts by lawyers. They don't get to see my man as a non-violent person, they don't get to see him as a hard-working, upstanding, fully legal part of human society. Why??? Why don't they see him as that? How many lives were ruined because of the stupidity of this jury? Mine, Matt's his children, my childs, My mom and my dad, my step-father and his kids....so many lives were ruined by the elimination of one crack dealer. How can anyone ever justify that????
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Captain Ray wrote: Actually.. that is not correct. Once you are found guilty.. you are guilty.
Raymond
In my country, only murderers murder. The justice system executes those who were found guilty of a heinous crime. Any examples you can find that prove a man who was convicted of a capital crime who was exonerated.. or more likely his sentence was commuted, are only proof that the system works.
At least you concede that the jury system is flawed and mistakes do get made. Juries can only decide on what they know. The system works but what you seem to be suggesting is that all the rights of appeal be taken away and execution follow straight away. Correct me if I have misunderstood.
If you allow that then you leave the door open to oppression. Tweak the system but don't throw it away. The reason we have a jury system in this country and later in yours was not to protect the criminal but to prevent the king or those in authority imprisoning who he wanted for no good reason or just because they said somethimng they didn't like. It's a balance against the power of the authorities by removing their power to imprison people. Same with habeous corpus-either produce the body or put the person on trial. Those who argue you don't need such basic rights as the right of appeal against conviction and that mistakes are never made I think rather miss the point.
It's a flawed system but if you take away the right of appeal you take away the basic tenet that everyone is entitled to a fair trial regardless of who or what they are. If the trial is not fair, for whatever reason, and you have no recourse to appeal where is the justice in that? More to the point if the judgement is wrong because of flawed evidence the real killer gets away with it.
Currently if someone is found not guilty they cannot be retried-again it was to stop vindictive persecution. On the other hand if someone can be retried and found innocent on new DNA evence perhaps we should should allow the retrial of those found not guilty because of flawed evidence or a jury prejudiced in their favour.
I'm still against the death penalty but life should mean life not seven years and then release to do it again.
posted by golem
It’s time the “pendulum†of punishment swung back towards sanity and away from do-gooder liberals and their stupid and irrelevant principles
So you think freedom and individual liberty are irrelevant principles on modern society? Maybe you have more in common with islamic fundamentalists than you think. They also believe individual freedom and liberty are irrlelevant values as well and that only they can judge what is right and wrong with no dissent allowed. In which case maybe you should join forces and impose your demented religious ideology on the rest of the world.
Raymond
In my country, only murderers murder. The justice system executes those who were found guilty of a heinous crime. Any examples you can find that prove a man who was convicted of a capital crime who was exonerated.. or more likely his sentence was commuted, are only proof that the system works.
At least you concede that the jury system is flawed and mistakes do get made. Juries can only decide on what they know. The system works but what you seem to be suggesting is that all the rights of appeal be taken away and execution follow straight away. Correct me if I have misunderstood.
If you allow that then you leave the door open to oppression. Tweak the system but don't throw it away. The reason we have a jury system in this country and later in yours was not to protect the criminal but to prevent the king or those in authority imprisoning who he wanted for no good reason or just because they said somethimng they didn't like. It's a balance against the power of the authorities by removing their power to imprison people. Same with habeous corpus-either produce the body or put the person on trial. Those who argue you don't need such basic rights as the right of appeal against conviction and that mistakes are never made I think rather miss the point.
It's a flawed system but if you take away the right of appeal you take away the basic tenet that everyone is entitled to a fair trial regardless of who or what they are. If the trial is not fair, for whatever reason, and you have no recourse to appeal where is the justice in that? More to the point if the judgement is wrong because of flawed evidence the real killer gets away with it.
Currently if someone is found not guilty they cannot be retried-again it was to stop vindictive persecution. On the other hand if someone can be retried and found innocent on new DNA evence perhaps we should should allow the retrial of those found not guilty because of flawed evidence or a jury prejudiced in their favour.
I'm still against the death penalty but life should mean life not seven years and then release to do it again.
posted by golem
It’s time the “pendulum†of punishment swung back towards sanity and away from do-gooder liberals and their stupid and irrelevant principles
So you think freedom and individual liberty are irrelevant principles on modern society? Maybe you have more in common with islamic fundamentalists than you think. They also believe individual freedom and liberty are irrlelevant values as well and that only they can judge what is right and wrong with no dissent allowed. In which case maybe you should join forces and impose your demented religious ideology on the rest of the world.
-
Captain Ray
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
GMC wrote: Juries can only decide on what they know. The system works but what you seem to be suggesting is that all the rights of appeal be taken away and execution follow straight away. Correct me if I have misunderstood.
You have misunderstood. People who are convicted of capital crimes are automatically given the opportunity to appeal. Given the gravity of the sentence, this seems to be reasonable... where I differ.. is that endless appeals which delay justice un-reasonably should not be allowed.
I do agree that the system is not perfect... thats why we give death row prisoners such a huge amount of consideration when determining if there trial was fair, and/or evidence that would have exonerated them was allowed to be presented. But.. after finding that their trial was fair, and that the evidence for which they were convicted was substantial and accurate.. it's time to go to sleep sweet prince.
Raymond
You have misunderstood. People who are convicted of capital crimes are automatically given the opportunity to appeal. Given the gravity of the sentence, this seems to be reasonable... where I differ.. is that endless appeals which delay justice un-reasonably should not be allowed.
I do agree that the system is not perfect... thats why we give death row prisoners such a huge amount of consideration when determining if there trial was fair, and/or evidence that would have exonerated them was allowed to be presented. But.. after finding that their trial was fair, and that the evidence for which they were convicted was substantial and accurate.. it's time to go to sleep sweet prince.
Raymond
-
Captain Ray
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Yes.. I know what appelate courts look at. They look to see if the process was fair, and in accordance with the established rules of law.
That is the system.
I do get your guys' point.. you think that the chance that an innocent person might be executed is great because you distrust the system. I don't. There are examples of a person having been charged with a capital crime who was later found innocent.. that to me is proof that the system does work. The only flaw in the system that I see, is that the guilty are not being executed in a timely fashion.
Raymond
That is the system.
I do get your guys' point.. you think that the chance that an innocent person might be executed is great because you distrust the system. I don't. There are examples of a person having been charged with a capital crime who was later found innocent.. that to me is proof that the system does work. The only flaw in the system that I see, is that the guilty are not being executed in a timely fashion.
Raymond
-
Captain Ray
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Well.. at least we don't send all of our criminals to Australian penal colonies!! That would be unfair!! LOL!!
*pokes*
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Raymond
*pokes*
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Raymond
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Killing someone in "Self-Defense" that was trying to kill you first, is just that, "self defense", that is really not mudering someone. In these cases, no jail time should be rendered. If for some reason it is unjustly ruled that jail time is required, then an all out appeals must be fervently persued, to re-state the facts to an appeals jury to review the facts again. In cases where someone murders another person in "cold blood", and that "someone" was convicted by a jury, by prosecutor using DNA evidence, several "eye witness" testimonies, victim's blood on the perp, or any other concrete evidence that convicts beyond any doubt, then that is murder, and "no" appeals are needed, & or should be granted. Cold Blooded Murderer's should be put to sleep at once.
Cars 
-
Captain Ray
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
cars wrote: Killing someone in "Self-Defense" that was trying to kill you first, is just that, "self defense", that is really not mudering someone. In these cases, no jail time should be rendered. If for some reason it is unjustly ruled that jail time is required, then an all out appeals must be fervently persued, to re-state the facts to an appeals jury to review the facts again. In cases where someone murders another person in "cold blood", and that "someone" was convicted by a jury, by prosecutor using DNA evidence, several "eye witness" testimonies, victim's blood on the perp, or any other concrete evidence that convicts beyond any doubt, then that is murder, and "no" appeals are needed, & or should be granted. Cold Blooded Murderer's should be put to sleep at once.
Agreed!
Raymonx
Agreed!
Raymonx
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
I find this a facinating subject, not in a morbid way, but because it always throws up a good debate as well as some thought provoking ideas.
Firstly, I believe that no human has the right to take the life of another. Does that not make us as bad as them?
Secondly, with all that we here and read about appeals, miscarriages of justice etc, surely that implies that we are not entirely sure if a person actually committed the crime they were found guilty of, therefore are we not executing people based on what we think happened, or what we know based on facts?
Thirdly, if it is not considered normal to kill someone, surely that implies that the person who commited the act of killing someone is ill, therfore, surely it is not right to kill them for that?
I'm not saying that we should treat these people untill we THINK they are better, and then release them, we should sentence these people to life without parole, which atleast gets rid of the horrible possibilty of wrongly executing someone for a crime they did not commit.
Fourthly, is there not enough killing in this world allready? I always like think that the human race is evolving and has an improving sense of morality, surely it is wrong to take the life of another, no matter for what reason?
I do think killing people is wrong, but I know that if anyone was to kill my son or anyone I loved, I would want them dead. It's a real quandry, I just feel as though it is not as clear cut an argument as people make out.
Just some thoughts, don't mean to offend.
Firstly, I believe that no human has the right to take the life of another. Does that not make us as bad as them?
Secondly, with all that we here and read about appeals, miscarriages of justice etc, surely that implies that we are not entirely sure if a person actually committed the crime they were found guilty of, therefore are we not executing people based on what we think happened, or what we know based on facts?
Thirdly, if it is not considered normal to kill someone, surely that implies that the person who commited the act of killing someone is ill, therfore, surely it is not right to kill them for that?
I'm not saying that we should treat these people untill we THINK they are better, and then release them, we should sentence these people to life without parole, which atleast gets rid of the horrible possibilty of wrongly executing someone for a crime they did not commit.
Fourthly, is there not enough killing in this world allready? I always like think that the human race is evolving and has an improving sense of morality, surely it is wrong to take the life of another, no matter for what reason?
I do think killing people is wrong, but I know that if anyone was to kill my son or anyone I loved, I would want them dead. It's a real quandry, I just feel as though it is not as clear cut an argument as people make out.
Just some thoughts, don't mean to offend.
Behaviour breeds behaviour - treat people how you would like to be treated yourself
-
Captain Ray
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
woppy wrote: I'm not saying that we should treat these people until we THINK they are better, and then release them, we should sentence these people to life without parole, which atleast gets rid of the horrible possibilty of wrongly executing someone for a crime they did not commit.
That's kind of interesting.. If you (meaning the group, not you personally Woppy) have such doubt that the justice system can adequately find the guilt or innocence in a person... how is putting them in a little jail cell for life any more humane that putting them down? Surely you don't want innocent people rotting in jail.. but to hear it from some around here, that's exactly what is happening.
For those of you who doubt the Courts ability to dispense justice, what is left? Anarchy?
Raymond
That's kind of interesting.. If you (meaning the group, not you personally Woppy) have such doubt that the justice system can adequately find the guilt or innocence in a person... how is putting them in a little jail cell for life any more humane that putting them down? Surely you don't want innocent people rotting in jail.. but to hear it from some around here, that's exactly what is happening.
For those of you who doubt the Courts ability to dispense justice, what is left? Anarchy?
Raymond
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
If a person has by his or her conduct demonstrated that they must never be released into society again what’s the point in keeping them alive for the rest of their natural lives?
I can see the sense in keeping them locked up for a period of punishment if their crime has been particularly horrendous, or if they are terrorists and exposing them to a harsh regime for a while before euthanizing them but for others simply put them down.
Apart from making good financial sense it’s probably more humane than leaving them locked up for the rest of their lives. If they are not going to e released then “put them to sleep†like the animals that they are.
And make no mistake, I REALLY mean that.
I can see the sense in keeping them locked up for a period of punishment if their crime has been particularly horrendous, or if they are terrorists and exposing them to a harsh regime for a while before euthanizing them but for others simply put them down.
Apart from making good financial sense it’s probably more humane than leaving them locked up for the rest of their lives. If they are not going to e released then “put them to sleep†like the animals that they are.
And make no mistake, I REALLY mean that.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Captain Ray wrote: That's kind of interesting.. If you (meaning the group, not you personally Woppy) have such doubt that the justice system can adequately find the guilt or innocence in a person... how is putting them in a little jail cell for life any more humane that putting them down? Surely you don't want innocent people rotting in jail.. but to hear it from some around here, that's exactly what is happening.
For those of you who doubt the Courts ability to dispense justice, what is left? Anarchy?
Raymond
Not doubt, the certanty as proven by many cases over many years, that the justice system cannot guarantee to find the guilt or innocence in a person.
Whilst I do not *want* an innocent person in jail, I recognise that it is inevitable given the imperfections in the justice system.
What I will not accept is the state murder of an innocent person.
Jail without parole takes the guilty out of society without murdering the innocent - how is this anarchy?
For those of you who doubt the Courts ability to dispense justice, what is left? Anarchy?
Raymond
Not doubt, the certanty as proven by many cases over many years, that the justice system cannot guarantee to find the guilt or innocence in a person.
Whilst I do not *want* an innocent person in jail, I recognise that it is inevitable given the imperfections in the justice system.
What I will not accept is the state murder of an innocent person.
Jail without parole takes the guilty out of society without murdering the innocent - how is this anarchy?
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Forget about "cruel and unusual". These scum should be killed in the same way they killed others. Or, throw 'em in a concrete cell all together and let them stay there until they die.
Scr** em.
Scr** em.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
The issue is the ratio of guilty to innocent who get convicted, especially with the new forms of evidence that can be used and by that I mean mostly DNA though the ability to trace links in various ways is particularly applicable in cases of terrorism has changed the ground rules of the detection of crime.
In industry there is a measure, the Acceptable Quality Level. (AQL). This is the acceptable defect rate in a process or product yield.
Then there is the definition of quality. Quality is in fact compliance with requirements.
In a police and justice system the requirements include the detection of crime and the delivering of an appropriate punishment.
Many people stop short of accepting capital punishment because of the “innocent man found guilty†argument. Others because they cant understand the need to both take out the trash and provide vengeance for the victims and their families. Personally I do not have a moments time for the latter group.
So what should the AQL of a justice system be? To expect 100% accuracy is both misguided, wrong, and doesn’t serve the needs that the justice service should meet as by shooting for the stars in such a way results in far too many ‘rejects’, i.e. guilty being walking free.
To accept that the police delivering a suspect to trial (Via the DA office or in the case of the UK the Crown Prosecution Service) means that the person is presumed guilty is also wrong. Too few innocent people would walk free.
In either case such a justice system is not of a high quality as it would miss the requirement that it should comply with the requirements that people have of it.
What is needed is the acceptance that some errors will be made ad live with it. The advantages both financially as well as morally in accepting that a small percentage (and evidence shows that it really WOULD be a small percentage) of innocent people would be found guilty are overwhelming and the occasional process failure is a price well worth paying to help cleanse the gene pool.
We can ever be 100% right in the findings of a court but with diligent pre-trial investigation, with the right charges being made, and with a bit of common sense in the courts the return of the death sentence as a sentenceing option for certain crimes and offences is much to be desired.
In industry there is a measure, the Acceptable Quality Level. (AQL). This is the acceptable defect rate in a process or product yield.
Then there is the definition of quality. Quality is in fact compliance with requirements.
In a police and justice system the requirements include the detection of crime and the delivering of an appropriate punishment.
Many people stop short of accepting capital punishment because of the “innocent man found guilty†argument. Others because they cant understand the need to both take out the trash and provide vengeance for the victims and their families. Personally I do not have a moments time for the latter group.
So what should the AQL of a justice system be? To expect 100% accuracy is both misguided, wrong, and doesn’t serve the needs that the justice service should meet as by shooting for the stars in such a way results in far too many ‘rejects’, i.e. guilty being walking free.
To accept that the police delivering a suspect to trial (Via the DA office or in the case of the UK the Crown Prosecution Service) means that the person is presumed guilty is also wrong. Too few innocent people would walk free.
In either case such a justice system is not of a high quality as it would miss the requirement that it should comply with the requirements that people have of it.
What is needed is the acceptance that some errors will be made ad live with it. The advantages both financially as well as morally in accepting that a small percentage (and evidence shows that it really WOULD be a small percentage) of innocent people would be found guilty are overwhelming and the occasional process failure is a price well worth paying to help cleanse the gene pool.
We can ever be 100% right in the findings of a court but with diligent pre-trial investigation, with the right charges being made, and with a bit of common sense in the courts the return of the death sentence as a sentenceing option for certain crimes and offences is much to be desired.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
golem wrote: The issue is the ratio of guilty to innocent who get convicted, especially with the new forms of evidence that can be used and by that I mean mostly DNA though the ability to trace links in various ways is particularly applicable in cases of terrorism has changed the ground rules of the detection of crime.
In industry there is a measure, the Acceptable Quality Level. (AQL). This is the acceptable defect rate in a process or product yield.
Then there is the definition of quality. Quality is in fact compliance with requirements.
In a police and justice system the requirements include the detection of crime and the delivering of an appropriate punishment.
Many people stop short of accepting capital punishment because of the “innocent man found guilty†argument. Others because they cant understand the need to both take out the trash and provide vengeance for the victims and their families. Personally I do not have a moments time for the latter group.
So what should the AQL of a justice system be? To expect 100% accuracy is both misguided, wrong, and doesn’t serve the needs that the justice service should meet as by shooting for the stars in such a way results in far too many ‘rejects’, i.e. guilty being walking free.
Firstly, in what way is it misguided and wrong? We all know that yuou are heavy on the vengeance but, in terms of acceptable quality, what is misguided about not accepting that an innocent person should be killed.
Also, in what way do you have too many rejects with a system of life without parole - when do the guilty walk free?
Do a comparison between the murder rates in those countries with the death penalty (lets take the USA as the figures are readilly available) and those countries without (take the UK for similat reasons). How must of a deterant is the death penalty in real life and what percentage reduction is seen? Now justify it.
golem wrote: To accept that the police delivering a suspect to trial (Via the DA office or in the case of the UK the Crown Prosecution Service) means that the person is presumed guilty is also wrong. Too few innocent people would walk free.
In either case such a justice system is not of a high quality as it would miss the requirement that it should comply with the requirements that people have of it.
Could you please explain this a bit?
golem wrote: What is needed is the acceptance that some errors will be made ad live with it. The advantages both financially as well as morally in accepting that a small percentage (and evidence shows that it really WOULD be a small percentage) of innocent people would be found guilty are overwhelming and the occasional process failure is a price well worth paying to help cleanse the gene pool.
We can ever be 100% right in the findings of a court but with diligent pre-trial investigation, with the right charges being made, and with a bit of common sense in the courts the return of the death sentence as a sentenceing option for certain crimes and offences is much to be desired.
Too little diligence, too little common sense and too many errors. We do not have the death penalty, do not want it and do not need it.
I do not accept the the price is worth paying and, if you want to cleanse the gene pool then you're going to have to sentence all of the children of your condemned murderer to death also - what price liberty then.
In industry there is a measure, the Acceptable Quality Level. (AQL). This is the acceptable defect rate in a process or product yield.
Then there is the definition of quality. Quality is in fact compliance with requirements.
In a police and justice system the requirements include the detection of crime and the delivering of an appropriate punishment.
Many people stop short of accepting capital punishment because of the “innocent man found guilty†argument. Others because they cant understand the need to both take out the trash and provide vengeance for the victims and their families. Personally I do not have a moments time for the latter group.
So what should the AQL of a justice system be? To expect 100% accuracy is both misguided, wrong, and doesn’t serve the needs that the justice service should meet as by shooting for the stars in such a way results in far too many ‘rejects’, i.e. guilty being walking free.
Firstly, in what way is it misguided and wrong? We all know that yuou are heavy on the vengeance but, in terms of acceptable quality, what is misguided about not accepting that an innocent person should be killed.
Also, in what way do you have too many rejects with a system of life without parole - when do the guilty walk free?
Do a comparison between the murder rates in those countries with the death penalty (lets take the USA as the figures are readilly available) and those countries without (take the UK for similat reasons). How must of a deterant is the death penalty in real life and what percentage reduction is seen? Now justify it.
golem wrote: To accept that the police delivering a suspect to trial (Via the DA office or in the case of the UK the Crown Prosecution Service) means that the person is presumed guilty is also wrong. Too few innocent people would walk free.
In either case such a justice system is not of a high quality as it would miss the requirement that it should comply with the requirements that people have of it.
Could you please explain this a bit?
golem wrote: What is needed is the acceptance that some errors will be made ad live with it. The advantages both financially as well as morally in accepting that a small percentage (and evidence shows that it really WOULD be a small percentage) of innocent people would be found guilty are overwhelming and the occasional process failure is a price well worth paying to help cleanse the gene pool.
We can ever be 100% right in the findings of a court but with diligent pre-trial investigation, with the right charges being made, and with a bit of common sense in the courts the return of the death sentence as a sentenceing option for certain crimes and offences is much to be desired.
Too little diligence, too little common sense and too many errors. We do not have the death penalty, do not want it and do not need it.
I do not accept the the price is worth paying and, if you want to cleanse the gene pool then you're going to have to sentence all of the children of your condemned murderer to death also - what price liberty then.
-
Captain Ray
- Posts: 278
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 2:04 pm
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Yeah.. I'll do it.. what the heck.. free health care, cable t.v. three meals a day, my own private gym, all the books and magazines I can read, marriage proposals daily, in a gated community for the next 30 years!? Doesn't sound so bad.. and death by injection sounds better than liver failure.
Raymond
Raymond
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Captain, with all the appeals you'd be entitled to, you'd probably outlive us all...and you might even have your Doctorate by the time they decide that keeping you on death row so long is "cruel and unusual" and set you free.
Should a life sentence mean LIFE.
Captain Ray wrote: Yeah.. I'll do it.. what the heck.. free health care, cable t.v. three meals a day, my own private gym, all the books and magazines I can read, marriage proposals daily, in a gated community for the next 30 years!? Doesn't sound so bad.. and death by injection sounds better than liver failure.
Raymond
I agree with you Captain. These people IF YOU CAN CALL THEM PEOPLE are looked after better than our senior citizens
Raymond
I agree with you Captain. These people IF YOU CAN CALL THEM PEOPLE are looked after better than our senior citizens