Ok, if anyone is re reading through what I wrote, replace innocent with "not that guilty - much".
I rather think he missed the point where I proved the death penalty was wrong, even.
A man got a new hunting dog, and went out to shoot ducks. He shoots a duck, and it falls in a lake. His dog walks across the water, retrieves the duck, and brings it back to him. Shocked that his dog can walk on water, he shoots another duck, and again, the dog walks across the lake to retrieve it.
The next day, he asks a buddy to go hunting with him, wanting him to see what his dog can do. Shortly after arriving near the lake, he shoots a duck. The dog walks across the waters of the lake, and retrieves the duck. He shoots several more ducks, and several more times the dog walks across water to retrieve them. The buddy never says a thing about this dog.
Finally able to stand it no longer, the man asks his friend, "Don't you think there is something unusual about my dog?"
The friend replies, "Sure do. He can't swim."
No, the fact that one needs to use "The State" as a defence, means that they're a coward.
They're the worst type of human being, one consumed by evil.