Is Aaron Hernandez the worst person in U.S. sports history? | Page 2 | Syracusefan.com

Is Aaron Hernandez the worst person in U.S. sports history?

Yet he was convicted of murder, then granted a new trial, and died of complications from lung cancer before the proceedings began. And in that case, it was arguments over the right to a fair trial and trying to reexamine the severity of the crime in order to lessen the charges.
"reexamine the severity of the crime in order to lesson the charges"? He shot a man handcuffed to a policeman in police headquarters. The entire country saw him do it. This is the perfect example of a death penalty candidate. There was no doubt of his guilt.
 
orange79 said:
OJ? Or are we counting the number of murders to determine 'worst'?

Except he was innocent.



BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
 
i think you just proved others' point with this.
I don't think I have. I'm just confirming that the appeals process makes decisions that people think are unnecessary and do not like.

"reexamine the severity of the crime in order to lesson the charges"? He shot a man handcuffed to a policeman in police headquarters. The entire country saw him do it. This is the perfect example of a death penalty candidate. There was no doubt of his guilt.
No one was claiming Ruby was innocent. In that case, it was a debate over murder with or without malice, whether Ruby was legally insane, and whether he had a fair trial.

In a more modern context, the debate often comes down to whether or not the murder was premeditated. A murder is committed, but that does not mean it is a capital offense. That's where the death penalty comes in to play.

If you think it shouldn't be that complex, that's fine. After all, Leon Czolgosz was electrocuted for the murder of William McKinley just two months after the act. And that includes a trial. But that's not the legal climate any moroe. Our legal system is set up to check itself and to make sure everyone gets their constitutionally-guaranteed right to a fair trial. If that means years and years of appeals, so be it.
 
I don't think I have. I'm just confirming that the appeals process makes decisions that people think are unnecessary and do not like.

while wasting a lot of unnecessary money


No one was claiming Ruby was innocent. In that case, it was a debate over murder with or without malice, whether Ruby was legally insane, and whether he had a fair trial.

In a more modern context, the debate often comes down to whether or not the murder was premeditated. A murder is committed, but that does not mean it is a capital offense. That's where the death penalty comes in to play.

If you think it shouldn't be that complex, that's fine. After all, Leon Czolgosz was electrocuted for the murder of William McKinley just two months after the act. And that includes a trial. But that's not the legal climate any moroe. Our legal system is set up to check itself and to make sure everyone gets their constitutionally-guaranteed right to a fair trial. If that means years and years of appeals, so be it.

Dude, I'm not for putting innocent people to death in any way shape or form. I would MUCH rather let 99 guilty people free than put ONE innocent man to death.

But you are proving the point that the pointless technicalities are the reason the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison.

you just exemplified the reason lawyers (especially criminal lawyers) are hated so much. No offense to the lawyers out there.
 
With Ruby and with all the conspiratorial theories, there was one side that wanted him dead quick and others that wanted him alive. Both sides looked at the other with great suspicion and the underlying reasons had nothing to do with their belief in his innocence...
 
I don't think I have. I'm just confirming that the appeals process makes decisions that people think are unnecessary and do not like.


No one was claiming Ruby was innocent. In that case, it was a debate over murder with or without malice, whether Ruby was legally insane, and whether he had a fair trial.

In a more modern context, the debate often comes down to whether or not the murder was premeditated. A murder is committed, but that does not mean it is a capital offense. That's where the death penalty comes in to play.

If you think it shouldn't be that complex, that's fine. After all, Leon Czolgosz was electrocuted for the murder of William McKinley just two months after the act. And that includes a trial. But that's not the legal climate any moroe. Our legal system is set up to check itself and to make sure everyone gets their constitutionally-guaranteed right to a fair trial. If that means years and years of appeals, so be it.
murder with or without malice really makes me chuckle. It didn't matter to Oswald one way or another did it? And while it matters whether the murder it premeditated, I don't believe that that alone should be the deciding factor. Maybe Ruby just became enraged seeing LHO marched down the corridor. Who cares. He took a gun and gunned him down. It was an intentional act. Good enough for me. I can't think of a mitigating circumstance in his favor. And I believe that FDR's attempted murderer, the man that did shoot and kill Mayor Cermak also was executed within months.
 
With Ruby and with all the conspiratorial theories, there was one side that wanted him dead quick and others that wanted him alive. Both sides looked at the other with great suspicion and the underlying reasons had nothing to do with their belief in his innocence...


You nailed it. Ruby's guilt was NEVER in question.
 
The people who Hernandez hung around with were low-lifers like him. They may have ended up victims, but they were also involved in the same stuff that he was.

Sandusky preyed on kids. He gets my vote.
 
from hernandez to jack ruby.

that...my friends, is called a thread highjack.
why don't you mind your own business and go back to hating syracuse players!! And now I know what lot you are in!
 
why don't you mind your own business and go back to hating syracuse players!! And now I know what lot you are in!
tommy kane anyone??
 
I know murder is worse than rape, but part of me feels like Sandusky is the worst.

Yeah, I'm not sure there's much since in trying to rank these guys but decades of systematic child abuse/sexual assault and apparently then running a whole child sex ring seems worse somehow.
 
I know murder is worse than rape, but part of me feels like Sandusky is the worst.

That might be true, but I think child rape is on an entirely different plane of reprehensibility.

I'm not sure that murder is worse than child rape.
 
I know murder is worse than rape, but part of me feels like Sandusky is the worst.

I think he's the worst. It's a disturbing contest to judge, but the pattern and volume of abuse and the innocence of the victims just makes him the bottom of the barrel in my eyes.
 
His actions are unfathomable and as heinous as Sandusky's.

I know murder is as bad as it gets , but in my books sandusky is a bigger monster
 
Last edited:
Quite a few characters missing from that list ... but did you notice the University of Tennessee hands down had more on that list than any other school?
There's a reason it's called the Fulmer Cup.
 
Florida fans will get to look at Hernandez all month long, starting today...

BrYXrEcIYAAYCV3.jpg
 

Similar threads

Replies
0
Views
664
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Monday for Football
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
710
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Tuesday for Football
Replies
1
Views
770
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Friday for Football
Replies
5
Views
654

Forum statistics

Threads
170,325
Messages
4,885,061
Members
5,991
Latest member
CStalks14

Online statistics

Members online
31
Guests online
777
Total visitors
808


...
Top Bottom