IGX

LOCKETT & LOAD
May 7, 2014


The next time liberals get indignant when we say they care more about criminals than the victims of crime, remember their hysterical weeping over Clayton Lockett. I refer, of course, to the vile rapist-murderer, whose execution last week is getting more press than Chris Christie's bridge scandal.

This week we will review some facts about the case that The New York Times edited out of its capacious articles on Lockett. This is the information that was not fit to print. Next week, we'll discuss the death penalty, with particular reference to Clayton Lockett.

The main category of facts you won't read about Lockett in the Times, or elsewhere in the NFM (Non-Fox Media), is what he did to his victims -- which is to say, his last four victims. It may surprise you to learn that Locket had a long felony record.

In 1999, Lockett and two confederates broke into Bobby Bornt's house to rob him. Bornt recognized Lockett as the man he had hired a few weeks earlier to cover a tattoo.

Lockett savagely beat Bornt for 15 minutes with a shotgun, as Bornt's 9-month old son wailed in the next room. The three men bound Bornt's hands together with duct tape and set about searching his home for something to steal. Indeed, Lockett pushed Bornt off the couch, complaining that he was bleeding too much into what he called "my couch."

About that time, Bornt's friend, Summer Hair, showed up to invite him to a party. The thieves pulled her inside, threw her against a wall and hit her, holding a gun to her head until she called her friend waiting in the truck outside, to tell her to come inside. That was Stephanie Neiman.

Stephanie walked in, and she, too, was beaten until she relinquished the keys to her truck. All three victims were locked in the bedroom with Bornt's infant child, while Lockett and Co. ransacked the home, pausing only to pull Hair out and gang-rape her. One of Lockett's crew orally sodomized her, then vaginally raped her. Lockett raped her vaginally, anally and orally.


Lockett directed one of his conspirators to steal a shovel from Bornt, loaded them all up in Bornt and Neiman's trucks and drove to a remote area. Lockett took Hair from one of the trucks and again raped her vaginally and orally. He returned her to the truck, where the third man forced her to perform oral sex on him.

(Let's pause here to reflect on The New York Times' hysteria over hazy date rape allegations by drunk coeds on college campuses.)

Lockett demanded that his victims promise not to tell the police what he had done. Bornt and Hair promised, but Stephanie would not, so he yanked her out of the truck and directed one of his confederates to start digging a grave.

(He later told the police that he wanted to kill all three adult victims so that his parole officer wouldn't find out he had left the county.)

Stephanie stood by the grave being dug for her for 20 minutes. Lockett shot her, but his gun jammed. So he walked back to the truck to fix it, listening to Stephanie cry, "Oh God! Please! Please!" The three men laughed at her.

Then he returned and shot her again. But Stephanie was still breathing -- so Lockett told the others to bury her anyway. She coughed as dirt was heaped on her face. She was buried alive.

Lockett warned Bornt and Hair that they'd be murdered, too, if they went to the police, then drove them back to Bornt's house. Bornt and Hair reported the rapes, kidnapping and murder the next day. One of Lockett's accomplices quickly confessed and brought the cops to Stephanie's body.

These facts are not contested by Lockett, who, as he wrote in a letter from prison, "told that fool" -- the district attorney -- "I did shoot that bitch."

All four adults who lived through the evening with Lockett "snitched" on him -- his two co-conspirators, as well as the two victims. (For this, he strove mightily from prison to orchestrate hits on all four of them -- letters that came in handy during his clemency appeal!)

A jury sentenced Lockett to death, but he lived for another 15 years after committing these savage crimes, during which time he was fed, housed and given medical treatment by the generous people of Oklahoma.

In addition to plotting hits against the four witnesses against him, while in prison, Lockett repeatedly threatened guards, was caught with homemade weapons, destroyed prison property, and threw feces and urine at officers bringing him food.

When called to account for his attack on one prison guard, he explained, "F-ck this kangaroo court, next time it will be a knife." Four days later, he was caught with an 11-inch shank and 23-inch club in his cell.

Another time, when a homemade shiv was found on Lockett, he told the officer, "You know that I could have stuck this in your f-cking heart."

Lockett was so violent that other prisoners refused to be housed in the same cell with him, even though they could be punished for their refusal.

In letters from prison, Lockett said that he planned to "put a bullet in" Bornt. He wrote to his aunt -- the mother of one of his accomplices -- warning her that his "homeboys" in prison are "waiting on him."

Lockett also planned to kill his ex-girlfriend, of whom he said, "She was gone" (going to) "get done real, real bad! And she still is. Her ass better get the fucc out of Perry" (Oklahoma) "cause my little brother coming down here from San Diego and niggaz think I was crazy then wait till cuzz get here! He already on the run from New Orleans for murder."

New York Times editors may not have slept well after Lockett's execution, but Bornt, Hair and about a dozen other specific individuals surely did.

In letters to the under-sheriff, Lockett bragged about his gang affiliations, his previous crimes and his intention to murder Bornt and Hair. "Cuzz Im a California Hoover Crip!" he says. "We don't get down at all like these Hooverz from Oklahoma. Why you think so many niggaz beat cases out that way? Cause Im an assassin -- point blank!"

This is the murderer whose recent execution has thrown liberals into deep despair.

nafod wrote:The whole argument surrounding Lockett is not about Lockett.

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:The whole argument surrounding Lockett is not about Lockett.

Of coarse not-- he is the victim of our unequal society and shouldn't be held accountable for his actions.

nafod wrote:The whole argument surrounding Lockett is not about Lockett.

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:The whole argument surrounding Lockett is not about Lockett.

This is the guy whose hour of pain (while sedated) caused such a stir among the sensitive media. It is appropriate to consider the pain he caused.

There are several arguments about capital punishment. One is the certainty of the verdict, another is the "cruelty" of the execution.

Personally, if we have certainty, I am MUCH less concerned about the "cruelty" aspect.

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:The whole argument surrounding Lockett is not about Lockett.

This is the guy whose hour of pain (while sedated) caused such a stir among the sensitive media. It is appropriate to consider the pain he caused.

There are several arguments about capital punishment. One is the certainty of the verdict, another is the "cruelty" of the execution.

Personally, if we have certainty, I am MUCH less concerned about the "cruelty" aspect.

dead man walking wrote:

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:The whole argument surrounding Lockett is not about Lockett.

This is the guy whose hour of pain (while sedated) caused such a stir among the sensitive media. It is appropriate to consider the pain he caused.

There are several arguments about capital punishment. One is the certainty of the verdict, another is the "cruelty" of the execution.

Personally, if we have certainty, I am MUCH less concerned about the "cruelty" aspect.

so in the case of this particular execution your are willing to fiddle with the constitution. which by extension means you are willing to fiddle with the constitution generally, which means you are willing to set rules about gun ownership.

or are you truly a person who is a strict constructionist, and cruel punishment is simply not okays?

you can't have it both ways.

dead man walking wrote:

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:The whole argument surrounding Lockett is not about Lockett.

This is the guy whose hour of pain (while sedated) caused such a stir among the sensitive media. It is appropriate to consider the pain he caused.

There are several arguments about capital punishment. One is the certainty of the verdict, another is the "cruelty" of the execution.

Personally, if we have certainty, I am MUCH less concerned about the "cruelty" aspect.

so in the case of this particular execution your are willing to fiddle with the constitution. which by extension means you are willing to fiddle with the constitution generally, which means you are willing to set rules about gun ownership.

or are you truly a person who is a strict constructionist, and cruel punishment is simply not okays?

you can't have it both ways.

Blaidd Drwg wrote: I'd pay real American dollars to have Ann Coulter drawn and quartered.

Turdacious wrote:

dead man walking wrote:

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:The whole argument surrounding Lockett is not about Lockett.

This is the guy whose hour of pain (while sedated) caused such a stir among the sensitive media. It is appropriate to consider the pain he caused.

There are several arguments about capital punishment. One is the certainty of the verdict, another is the "cruelty" of the execution.

Personally, if we have certainty, I am MUCH less concerned about the "cruelty" aspect.

so in the case of this particular execution your are willing to fiddle with the constitution. which by extension means you are willing to fiddle with the constitution generally, which means you are willing to set rules about gun ownership.

or are you truly a person who is a strict constructionist, and cruel punishment is simply not okays?

you can't have it both ways.

Would this be fine if electricity from renewable sources were used?

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:The whole argument surrounding Lockett is not about Lockett.

This is the guy whose hour of pain (while sedated) caused such a stir among the sensitive media. It is appropriate to consider the pain he caused.

There are several arguments about capital punishment. One is the certainty of the verdict, another is the "cruelty" of the execution.

Personally, if we have certainty, I am MUCH less concerned about the "cruelty" aspect.

johno wrote:

Blaidd Drwg wrote: I'd pay real American dollars to have Ann Coulter drawn and quartered.

Ann has big balls. If you doubt that, read "Mugged," where she draws & quarters the racial injustice industry. She is a national treasure, along with Camille Paglia and Ayan Hirsi Ali. Three brave chicks.

nafod wrote:

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:The whole argument surrounding Lockett is not about Lockett.

This is the guy whose hour of pain (while sedated) caused such a stir among the sensitive media. It is appropriate to consider the pain he caused.

There are several arguments about capital punishment. One is the certainty of the verdict, another is the "cruelty" of the execution.

Personally, if we have certainty, I am MUCH less concerned about the "cruelty" aspect.

Argument is about us. I think if a person has it inside him to painfully put to death another human and get some enjoyment from it, they've closed the distance between themselves and Lockett. It's merely ironic that Lockett has two roles in this play.

Blaidd Drwg wrote: I expected much more of you johno.

nafod wrote:

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:The whole argument surrounding Lockett is not about Lockett.

This is the guy whose hour of pain (while sedated) caused such a stir among the sensitive media. It is appropriate to consider the pain he caused.

There are several arguments about capital punishment. One is the certainty of the verdict, another is the "cruelty" of the execution.

Personally, if we have certainty, I am MUCH less concerned about the "cruelty" aspect.

Argument is about us. I think if a person has it inside him to painfully put to death another human and get some enjoyment from it, they've closed the distance between themselves and Lockett. It's merely ironic that Lockett has two roles in this play.

Put all this together and it’s clear that the reason lethal injection has become more gruesome and violent in recent years is at least partly a result of opposition to the death penalty. Lethal injection was supposed to be the humane alternative to firing squads and hangings. But as American physicians sideline themselves and European pharmaceutical firms (and American ones with global ties) decline to supply the most known and efficacious lethal injection drugs, corrections officials have been pushed to use inferior methods and substandard providers. In other words—and painful though it is to admit—the real culprit in the death of Clayton Lockett is opposition to the death penalty. In pushing for outright abolition of capital punishment, we have undermined the counterveiling effort to make it as clean and painless as possible. The perfect has become the enemy of the good-enough execution.

Turdacious wrote:

Put all this together and it’s clear that the reason lethal injection has become more gruesome and violent in recent years is at least partly a result of opposition to the death penalty. Lethal injection was supposed to be the humane alternative to firing squads and hangings. But as American physicians sideline themselves and European pharmaceutical firms (and American ones with global ties) decline to supply the most known and efficacious lethal injection drugs, corrections officials have been pushed to use inferior methods and substandard providers. In other words—and painful though it is to admit—the real culprit in the death of Clayton Lockett is opposition to the death penalty. In pushing for outright abolition of capital punishment, we have undermined the counterveiling effort to make it as clean and painless as possible. The perfect has become the enemy of the good-enough execution.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... t_has.html

Turdacious wrote:

Put all this together and it’s clear that the reason lethal injection has become more gruesome and violent in recent years is at least partly a result of opposition to the death penalty. Lethal injection was supposed to be the humane alternative to firing squads and hangings. But as American physicians sideline themselves and European pharmaceutical firms (and American ones with global ties) decline to supply the most known and efficacious lethal injection drugs, corrections officials have been pushed to use inferior methods and substandard providers. In other words—and painful though it is to admit—the real culprit in the death of Clayton Lockett is opposition to the death penalty. In pushing for outright abolition of capital punishment, we have undermined the counterveiling effort to make it as clean and painless as possible. The perfect has become the enemy of the good-enough execution.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_ ... t_has.html

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

johno wrote:

nafod wrote:The whole argument surrounding Lockett is not about Lockett.

This is the guy whose hour of pain (while sedated) caused such a stir among the sensitive media. It is appropriate to consider the pain he caused.

There are several arguments about capital punishment. One is the certainty of the verdict, another is the "cruelty" of the execution.

Personally, if we have certainty, I am MUCH less concerned about the "cruelty" aspect.

Argument is about us. I think if a person has it inside him to painfully put to death another human and get some enjoyment from it, they've closed the distance between themselves and Lockett. It's merely ironic that Lockett has two roles in this play.

Whether or not the person enjoys killing someone else is irrelevant, as long as they play by the rules. This is true whether it refers to legal execution, military or police action, or self defense.

The first question to ask, in the case of the death penalty, is whether Lockett can be rehabilitated and again become a member of society. A sentence of death assumes that he cannot, or that society is not willing to take that chance that the rehabilitation won't take.

The New Republic is publishing for the first time photographs of the injuries Diaz sustained from the lethal injection. I discovered the photographs in the case file of Ian Lightbourne, a Florida death-row inmate whose lawyers submitted them as evidence that lethal injection poses an unconstitutional risk of cruel and unusual punishment.

In Diaz’s case, the execution team member—Florida never disclosed this person’s name or qualifications—did not struggle to locate veins in both forearms. However, this person, either unknowingly or wantonly, pushed the catheters through both veins and into subcutaneous soft tissue—an error that is known in medicine as “infiltration.” As a result, the drugs flowed between layers of soft tissue in Diaz’s arms rather than into his bloodstream.

Mark Heath, an anesthesiologist at Columbia University who has studied lethal injection and testified extensively about the procedure, called the gray skin on Diaz's arms "hallmark discoloration from sodium thiopental"—the first drug in the three-drug protocol that was used to kill Diaz. The thiopental needs to be dissolved in a caustic alkaline solution before it’s administered: The solution will be diluted when it enters the bloodstream, but it can burn when it infiltrates living muscle or the fat of the arm.

Fat Cat wrote:Go back to hanging or firing squad. End of story.

Or pay me $5 gas money and give me a bullet and I will kindly fertilize the prison yard. I can't believe that taking out society's trash has become such a cause of note.