Monday, February 16, 2009
Brownlee's Foray into New Media
Earlier today I received a Facebook message from Patrick Murphrey with the John Brownlee for Attorney General campaign to inform me of candidate John Brownlee's foray into new media.
Brownlee is seeking the Republican Party of Virginia's nomination for Attorney General of Virginia. Also seeking the GOP nod are Dave Foster and Ken Cuccinelli.
Right off the bat, let me say that I generally support the death penalty, even though as a Roman Catholic and faithful citizen, I realize that I should oppose it. Either way, it's not my top issue.
One of Brownlee's more odious pieces is a video, "John Brownlee Discusses Virginia's Triggerman Rule", which has been uploaded into his YouTube channel. In this video, Brownlee speaks to an audience -- perhaps at a campaign breakfast, Rotary Club meeting, etc., about the "triggerman rule" -- a rule that judging from a Google search is Virginia-centric, if not Virginia-specific.
Thrice describing the triggerman rule as "anti-justice" in his video, Brownlee says:
Brownlee then goes on to bemoan a situation by which an accomplice to a murderer couldn't receive the death penalty in Virginia because he isn't the "triggerman" (hence the term). Presumably, the accomplice should be able to receive the death penalty, too, because he was every bit as intent on killing as the triggerman, argues Brownlee.
In my judgement, Brownlee's argument makes little to no sense. Accomplices aren't murderers because they didn't do the tangible killing. So they shouldn't receive the death penalty. This is why there are lengthy prison sentences.
Brownlee points out that the triggerman rule made is difficult to convict (and sentence to death) John Allen Muhammad of the Beltway shootings. But by Brownlee's own admission, Muhammad was successfully convicted and sentenced to death due to terrorism statutes. This makes it sound like the triggerman rule was not an impediment for the prosecution, as other statutes exist.
Maybe this is just a difference of opinion. I can't exactly lay my finger on it, but with all due respect to John Brownlee, I feel there's something about this guy that's just not right.
Brownlee is seeking the Republican Party of Virginia's nomination for Attorney General of Virginia. Also seeking the GOP nod are Dave Foster and Ken Cuccinelli.
Right off the bat, let me say that I generally support the death penalty, even though as a Roman Catholic and faithful citizen, I realize that I should oppose it. Either way, it's not my top issue.
One of Brownlee's more odious pieces is a video, "John Brownlee Discusses Virginia's Triggerman Rule", which has been uploaded into his YouTube channel. In this video, Brownlee speaks to an audience -- perhaps at a campaign breakfast, Rotary Club meeting, etc., about the "triggerman rule" -- a rule that judging from a Google search is Virginia-centric, if not Virginia-specific.
Thrice describing the triggerman rule as "anti-justice" in his video, Brownlee says:
We have a rule in Virginia, it's called the triggerman rule, and it is an anti-justice rule. It's an anti-justice rule. And what it means is that only the person who literally pulls the trigger or plunges in the knife can be subjected to capital punishment in Virginia.
Brownlee then goes on to bemoan a situation by which an accomplice to a murderer couldn't receive the death penalty in Virginia because he isn't the "triggerman" (hence the term). Presumably, the accomplice should be able to receive the death penalty, too, because he was every bit as intent on killing as the triggerman, argues Brownlee.
In my judgement, Brownlee's argument makes little to no sense. Accomplices aren't murderers because they didn't do the tangible killing. So they shouldn't receive the death penalty. This is why there are lengthy prison sentences.
Brownlee points out that the triggerman rule made is difficult to convict (and sentence to death) John Allen Muhammad of the Beltway shootings. But by Brownlee's own admission, Muhammad was successfully convicted and sentenced to death due to terrorism statutes. This makes it sound like the triggerman rule was not an impediment for the prosecution, as other statutes exist.
Maybe this is just a difference of opinion. I can't exactly lay my finger on it, but with all due respect to John Brownlee, I feel there's something about this guy that's just not right.
# posted by Steven Latimer : 9:07 PM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
