Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sirhan Sirhan Denied Parole Again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sirhan Sirhan Denied Parole Again

    SAN DIEGO For the 15th time, officials denied parole for Sirhan Sirhan, the assassin of Sen. Robert F. Kennedy, after hearing Wednesday from another person who was shot that night and called for Sirhan's release.
    The decision came after Sirhan answered questions from the California parole panel for about three hours in a small, windowless conference room.
    Commissioners concluded Sirhan did not show adequate remorse or understand the enormity of his crime.
    "This crime impacted the nation, and I daresay it impacted the world," commissioner Brian Roberts said. "It was a political assassination of a viable Democratic presidential candidate."
    During the hearing, the 71-year-old Sirhan stuck to his previous account that he did not remember the shooting in 1968 at the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles after Kennedy won the Democratic presidential primary in California.
    http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/02/10...15th-time.html

  • #2
    I'm not sure I see a point in having parole hearings for him. I would have thought that he would have gotten life. It wasn't ever really covered in history class, and happened years before my parents even met. Was there always the second shooter theory that they mentioned in the story?

    Comment


    • #3
      He won't be let out. He might remember who drove him there to shoot RFK
      Last edited by copenhagen; 12 Feb 16, 06:30.

      Comment


      • #4
        He will die in prison.
        War is less costly than servitude

        Comment


        • #5
          The quote from the Parole Commissioner is kind of odd. Sounds like he'd have been paroled years ago if it had been the Republican Candidate that got shot.
          Tacitos, Satrap of Kyrene

          Comment


          • #6
            There are people close to me that think that he did us all a favor.
            Trying hard to be the Man, that my Dog believes I am!

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Biscuit View Post
              I'm not sure I see a point in having parole hearings for him. I would have thought that he would have gotten life. It wasn't ever really covered in history class, and happened years before my parents even met. Was there always the second shooter theory that they mentioned in the story?
              "Life" usually equals twenty years in many states, after which the inmate is eligible for a parole hearing. Colorado is that way, BTW. "Life" here, with time off for "good behavior" equates to about fifteen years tops.

              "Life without parole" is a different sentence altogether and means no parole hearings, period.

              Legally, if an inmate is eligible for parole, he has to be given hearing at set intervals. Charles Manson routinely has one and is just as routinely denied every time.

              Sirhan's claim that he "doesn't remember anything" is utter nonsense, as there were many witnesses right alongside RK when it happened who wrestled him to the ground and took the gun out of his hand, which was the gun that killed RK.

              I posted this as a reminder that political assassins like Sirhan Sirhan is still with us.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                There are people close to me that think that he did us all a favor.


                What is really funny is that Malcom X's killers have all ben paroled for years.

                Both men were killed within a couple years of each other, but only Sirhan is still inside.
                Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                  There are people close to me that think that he did us all a favor.
                  Seriously? Do you advocate assassinating Obama, as well? What if someone doesn't like you? Would that still be "a good thing"?

                  No matter how you feel about politicians, no one deserves to be shot down in public in cold blood, leaving behind his loved ones. Thar road leads to total anarchy.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post


                    What is really funny is that Malcom X's killers have all ben paroled for years.

                    Both men were killed within a couple years of each other, but only Sirhan is still inside.
                    Malcom X was never a presidential candidate, unless you are hinting at racial discrimination again.

                    Looks like we're going to need a racial equivalent to Godwin's Law. Any thoughts on what we should call it?

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Trung Si View Post
                      There are people close to me that think that he did us all a favor.
                      In a democracy the killing of anyone for their political views can never be acceptable.
                      War is less costly than servitude

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Kendrick View Post
                        In a democracy the killing of anyone for their political views can never be acceptable.
                        That's absurd.

                        What do you think democracies have done in every single war they have fought?

                        Killing people for their political views is far better than killing people because they are annoying, or because you enjoy it, or because the voices tell you, over for $20.
                        Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Arnold J Rimmer View Post
                          That's absurd.

                          What do you think democracies have done in every single war they have fought?

                          Killing people for their political views is far better than killing people because they are annoying, or because you enjoy it, or because the voices tell you, over for $20.
                          Oh I am not talking about killing the enemy in time of war that is clearly not what I am saying, I am talking about the killing of a candidate standing for an election in a modern western democracy who never advocated the destruction of that democracy, just because you disagree with their views.
                          War is less costly than servitude

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                            No matter how you feel about politicians, no one deserves to be shot down in public in cold blood, leaving behind his loved ones. Thar road leads to total anarchy.

                            I dunno, I can't think of a few dictators who died that way that totally had it coming.

                            Originally posted by Kendrick View Post
                            Oh I am not talking about killing the enemy in time of war that is clearly not what I am saying, I am talking about the killing of a candidate standing for an election in a modern western democracy who never advocated the destruction of that democracy, just because you disagree with their views.
                            Even if some of them are advocating things that would destroy democracy.
                            "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Kendrick View Post
                              Oh I am not talking about killing the enemy in time of war that is clearly not what I am saying, I am talking about the killing of a candidate standing for an election in a modern western democracy who never advocated the destruction of that democracy, just because you disagree with their views.
                              People kill people because they disagree with their views every day. Why do politicians get a pass?

                              If being a politician was dangerous, we might see a higher standard of ideals therein.
                              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X