comment: >
  
  Which is still MUCH less than the cost of the appeals process for someone sentenced to the death penalty.
context: But he can still be tried by state of Texas which has death penalty. >
  
  He is gonna be tried by Texas. And they will give him the death penalty. If they don't put him down, oh well, the other inmates will. Even if he's protected by the Aryan Brotherhood, they'll get him sooner or later. >
  
  The current hubbub in El Paso is over the DA screwing up the prosecution of the shooter. I believe she was even forced to resign after all the backlash. El Pasoans want his head, and the local DA wasnt competent enough. >
  
  I'm not a lawyer and somehow I think I could try this case competently. 
  How do you manage to fuck up something as simple as breathing and walking at the same time like this? >
  
  
  How do you manage to fuck up something as simple as breathing and walking at the same time like this?
  
  You think trying a capital murder case is as easy as walking and breathing? That's pretty ignorant. >
  
  On video...with multiple victims...caught with the murder weapon. 
  Damn, real head scratcher as to how to convince a jury this person killed anyone. >
  
  It’s getting that evidence in front of jury that’s mainly important at that point. Sure it sounds outrageous but it is possible to fuck that up, via a multitude of ways requiring severe incompetence but absolutely possible. >
  
  Holy crap I hate that it's so fucking common here I don't even remember this happening. >
  
  It's the one where the gunman orphaned a baby and Trump showed up for a thumbs up photo op with the baby. >
  
  What in the actual fuck is this?! This can’t be real… >
  
  Good. Let the fucker rot for the rest of his life. Always looking over your shoulder. No privacy. Shitty food. >
  
  I’m on the fence. This POS cannot be rehabilitated. Death row costs a shit ton of money. He’s a fucking POS. If anyone is deserving of the death penalty… >
  
  On the one hand, I agree with you. On the other hand, I’m vehemently opposed to the death penalty given how many death row inmates are exonerated by organizations like the Innocence Project… >
  
  Also, giving the government the power to off you is fucking crazy. >
  
  Yup. Legally I don't think the state should have the right to decide who lives or dies. Morally I don't care what happens to this white nationalist filth. >
  
  Considering that mass shooters are just homicidal suicides, that's probably the correct choice. >
  
  They.... actually are? In some cases they definitely see other mass shootings and some definitely get thrills out of seeing the attention that they will get.
  That awful FedEx shooting is one. Had been looking up multiple mass shootings, was found out, but nothing got done. >
  
  This is the right decision. The death penalty should be abolished. Ignoring the whole moral argument around state sponsored killings of guilty people,  we know for a fact that innocent people are killed by the death penalty. The death penalty doesn't prevent crime and it doesn't reverse crimes or suffering that already occured. All it does is ensure innocent people will be executed while awful people continue to do awful things undeterred.
  I know it doesn't feel good but it's the right thing to do. >
  
  this guy is not innocent so your point is moot >
  
  No its still valid... we shouldn't have a death penalty, its not effective >
  
  then why do countries like Singapore have crime rate of 0.21 per 1000 compared to USA 6+ per thousand? >
  
  Incredibly invasive CCTV, strong civic duty without a cultural boner for violence, individualism and celebrity criminals, very hands on families... >
  
  and harsh penalty for crime >
  
  Then all the states where it exists would support you instead of a minority of examples that have hugely conflating factors.
  Most people who go down for crime would be going down if it was a fine or an execution because they're desperate or because they're entitled idiots who can't reflect on how their actions will come back on them. >
  
  isn't it obvious that the stronger the punishment the less the crime?
  for example, if there was NO punishment, then there would be much more crime. >
  
  You're completely wrong here. There's a ton of information online that shows how the death penalty in America does nothing to deter crime in states that support the death penalty. It's a cultural thing, not a cause/effect issue. Correlation does not equal causation. >
  
  Fates worse than death. >
  
  Tbh life in prison is probably worse especially for a skinny twink like him >
  
  Have fun in your cold cell you rat fuck, no easy way out this time. Suffer >
  
  Good. There shouldn't be a death penalty. >
  
  For someone that confessed to killing 23 innocent people just because of their race?
  I agree most of the time if there's a sliver of doubt, the death penalty should be off the table. But if it's tens of people dead and they catch him red handed AND he confessed? Well... >
  
  You're either against capital punishment or you're not. There's no "well, in this case..." exception >
  
  *...against capital punishment or you're not..."
  Why does it have to be either/or?  
  Who made the rules?
  If there's ANY doubt = NO,     
  If there's NO doubt = yes.  
  What good to society is a rabid murderer? Keep him locked up in a cage like an animal? Or dispose the animal and be done with it? >
  
  The problem is, no doubt can and has turned into some doubt years down the line. At least 190 people on death row in the last half century have been exonerated. Source >
  
  I know about the innocent people killed.
  What I'm saying: NO doubt:  
  Multiple eye witnesses,      
  Caught in the act by multiple people,     
  Murder weapon in hand, covered in victims blood,   
  Caught on clear, crisp video.
  NO doubt. None.
  If there's a sliver of doubt: NO.    
  Lock him up for life or whatever is reasonable. >
  
  I hate to break it to you but eye witnesses are unreliable. Emergencies happen fast and no one knows how they'll react until they're in one.
  Example: a couple months ago I fell down the stairs and landed flat on my back at the bottom but even I myself can't be certain if I rolled once or twice on my down.
  The world isn't black and white and the risk of innocents being executed should be enough to abolish the death penalty. >
  
  Ok, so you're saying he didn't do it? >
  
  You are either arguing in flagrant bad faith or have literally zero intellectual capacity to understand basic rhetoric. >
  
  But we're talking about this guy, right? Who's the article about? You might be talking about "basic rhetoric", but the article and the conversation, my conversation, is about this one guy in the article. Right? >
  
  Phantom Zone it is! Guilty! >
  
  These dudes always look the same. >
  
  Spending his entire life in a cage with no hope of release is not a bad idea. >
  
  That's good, capital punishment is barbaric, it doesn't deter anyone, and costs more due to the lengthy automatic appeals process than LWOP costs. >
  
  it does deter people. this is common sense and supported by evidence.
  if you could kill someone and:
  - get no punishment
  - get mild punishment
  - get severe punishment
  ​
  obviously the harsher the punishment, the less people will commit the crime. >
  
  At a certain level of punishment it doesn’t make any difference, the really frothing murderers don’t care about 20 years or 50 or death. >
  
  I hope there's a civil suit to make sure he doesn't see a penny from any fundraising and donations. 
  Sad that everyone knows he'd have donations from racists among us. >
  
  He did this and for what? He accomplished nothing. He furthered none of his goals. Whatever his aims were, this did not further them. And people are dead. Others are wounded. Many more are scarred. And himself, he will never know another day of freedom.  What a stupid price to pay for anger.
  Edit. No. Hate. A price to pay for hate. >
  
  On top of what you said, he stated he did it because of the "latino invasion of Texas".  I wonder how he's going to feel when he learns the white man stole Texas and the surrounding states from Mexico.  He'll probably be sitting in jail when he learns this.
  SMH sheesh! >
  
  Put him in General Population. Never segregated, he needs to...ah.....learn to get along with others.. 
  Yeah... that's what he needs. An education. >
  
  Death penalty for and against debate will never end.
  An alternative to death penalty to mass murderer caught red handed.  Life time imprisonment and enhanced punishment of not allowed to intermingle with other prisoners, locked in solitary 23 hours a day, one hour to exercise alone, no TV, no amenity except essentials.  Basically same treatment given to the worse offenders locked up at Super Max State Prison.
  It can become quite a pain if you lose social contact and that is the point.  It is meant as punishment. >
  
  That would never stand up because it would be considered cruel or unusual punishment. >
  
  Cruel and unusual punishment?  Say that to the surviving members of victims since you don't seem to care about them. >
  
  I care about them, it's still a cruel and unusual punishment lol... >
  
  He's the wrong skin color to get the death penalty, isn't he?
  for the record, I'm opposed to it in all cases; just trying to call out the possible hypocrisy. >
  
  This is the federal government, he still has to contend with the state. And the state is Texas, so... >
  
  Even if there are some merits to the death penalty, I say this country has forfeited any kind of moral standing there because the death penalty has been used disproportionately against minorities. We’ve screwed it up enough. >
  
  The death penalty is bad because the country has used it to disproportionately kill minorities. That is why now that we have this white guy that is charged with specifically targeting and killing minorities we shouldn't give him the death penalty. >
  
  It's cheaper to just let another prisoner kill him. >
  
  Got a backhoe and a 9mm cartridge? We can save a WHOLE lot of money real quick >
  
  Tax payers will now have to pay to feed him, provide shelter, medical expenses......