I'm not saying it's going to bring them back or make it "ok" for those families. What I'm saying is what if... just imagine for a min, lets say he all of a sudden found a way to breakup every violent gang out there right now and set all those misguided people on a better path. Theres a TON of violence that would be prevented. TONS. I can't even imagine how much that would help our society.

I'm not saying he didn't do bad things. I'm not saying it'll bring people back from the dead. I'm just asking, how much good (it'll be diffrent for everyone) does someone have to do before they can be forgiven?

I think people change and can be forgiven for what they have done. Sure those families of the victims may never see it that way, but I do.

I'm not saying that he's done his time and let him go. In my eye's, there comes a point when good done by someone, can outweight the bad.

 

So it takes a convicted murderer and gang founder for people to realize that gang violence is stupid and ignorant? People have been ranting and raving this for YEARS and nobody has listened. Sure this is ironic that he's trying to stop it, but who HASNT tried to stop gang violence? And thats a huge hypothetical question to ask. Lets be real and look at facts. He's on death row for a reason. He's not there because of who he has become or what he can do for the future.

MAIN POINT: He killed/executed/took life from 4 people. Plain and simple. He could create a cure for AIDS or invent a time machine for all I care. He is in prison because he MURDERED human beings. Im sure he's sorry for it now. The past is history, it happened. The future holds so much room for others to stop violence. Why is this man any different from any other convict accused of killing someone? He's not. He is a convicted murderer. He stole other peoples dreams, futures, souls, families. He ruined countless people lives. He killed more than those people, he destroyed things which cannot be replaced. So fuck him.

 

he shouldve been executed long ago. too much b.s. w/snoop and jamie foxx and everyone running around like this guys a saint. he still refuses to reveal any information he has concerning the crips gang. he tries to justify the murders by saying racism played a role in his sentencing, which it may have, but he didnt necessarily have to go out and form a violent gang and run around gang-banging. i have no sympathy. and since when did writing childrens books get you nominated for a nobel peace prize.. :ugh: once a murderer, always a murderer. theres no reform for that and mercy/clemency should not be an option.

 

big :werd:

 

Umm you are not understanding the weight of the mans words in this situation. He was a founding member of one of the most dominant gangs in LA (and acrosss the country now) so his words carry a different weight to it than some dipshit politician crying about violence in the street.

Why is he different? If you read a little you would understand what makes his words so different.

The guys who dropped the Atomic bomb came back and later on spoke out against the horrendous results and how it is the worst weapon ever created. Even the scientists who made the bomb spoke against it...their words carried more weight than people who were completely removed from the situation. Are we seeing the picture a bit clearer here yet?

 

You obviously haven't seen or read the books and seen the subject they deal with.

 

does it take a murderer to tell me that murder is bad?!

 

and im sure theyre completely factual and not skewed to his vantage point by his supporters. nothing is going to tell me he did not kill anyone.

 

The books are not saying murder is bad the books are bringing out that the violence that comes with gang life is bad as well as the other aspects of the lifestyle. It carries a whole different credibility with it because he is as OG as you can get and he is speaking against the very thing he started back in the 70s.

No..it doesn't take back all the bad things he or anyone else has done but if it slows it down in the present and future and possibly ends it then that is for the better.

 

Where did I imply he didn't kill anyone? Where is it implied he skewed anything? I have read the childrens books he wrote a few years back. Your implication is that he wrote a skewed story to show that murder is ok and got it past the Nobel selection comitee though some ultimatley deviant method. so basically you are saying the Nobel selection judges are morons and don't understand what they are reading.