We’ve posted a couple of times on this ludicrous case. How can you convict someone of a crime they didn’t know was being committed simply because they were with the real killer later? That type of guilt by association sounds so Soviet Union/totalitarian/US by the the time Big Brother Bush leaves office. This may have broken the back of the Texas death machine that, thankfully, was already in decline.
Why the Texas Governor Commuted a Death Sentence
Kenneth Foster clearly did not deserve to die. His crime: driving a car used in a robbery that led to a murder he never took part in. But his case was by no means unique in Texas, and so it came as a surprise today when Gov. Rick Perry commuted his sentence. “I’m concerned about Texas law that allows capital murder defendants to be tried simultaneously,” Perry said in a statement, “and it is an issue I think the legislature should examine.” A conservative Republican wants to examine capital murder law?
Consider this: death penalty prosecutions in the nation’s execution capital, Harris County, Texas, have been in steep decline; every major newspaper in Texas has called for a moratorium on the death penalty or opposes it entirely; and in 2005 the state legislature passed a law allowing life imprisonment without parole, which has given judges and jurors a new way to be “tough on crime” without killing people.
“Ten years ago if you told people that the criminal justice system falsely convicts the innocent, you were either a communist or a nut or both,” Blackburn says. “Now, everybody gets that. Everybody has seen it fail.”
>>Soooooo, if Osama merely meant to steal the jets and his
>>henchmen got carried away
So are you saying that Kenneth only wanted to go out for a Big Kahunaburger and a tasty beverage, then his buddy got “carried away” and decided to go on a serial spree of armed robbery and murder?
If you truly don’t understand that this was an orchestrated outing of two hardened criminals on a crime rampage, then you’re truly dumber than a rock. Whether Kenny pulled the trigger or the other guy pulled the trigger makes little difference. They conspired right from the get-go to rob and kill for profit.
So, not justified to give the guy the Hot Needle, but to claim he’s “innocent”? Sweet mother of God.
#26…Mister Mustard….The Texas law isn’t the same as *felony murder*. In the 70’s the Texas legislature amended the old felony murder law and the new law was called the law of parties. Under this law, Texas basically threw out the criteria for charging a person not directly involved in a felony murder, with felony murder AND making that person eligible for the death penalty. Thats the difference.
While *felony murder* is on the books in most jurisdictions in the US, Texas is the only one with the *law of parties*. All other jurisdictions follow the principle that a person not directly involved with the felony murder can be charged with felony murder, but the death penalty is off limits.
Here is a scenario that is almost identical to the Foster case.
>>>>>>>>>Felony murder is typically the same grade of murder as premeditated murder. In many jurisdictions, felony murder is a crime for which the death penalty can be imposed, provided that the defendant himself killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill. For example, three people conspired to commit armed robbery. Two of them went in to the house and committed the robbery, and in the process killed the occupants of the house. The third person sat outside in the getaway car, and he was later convicted of felony murder. But because he himself neither killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill, he cannot be executed even though he is guilty of felony murder
Sorry…I seem to have lost my seperation arrows for the scenerio in post #34……here it is again.
***Felony murder is typically the same grade of murder as premeditated murder. In many jurisdictions, felony murder is a crime for which the death penalty can be imposed, provided that the defendant himself killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill. For example, three people conspired to commit armed robbery. Two of them went in to the house and committed the robbery, and in the process killed the occupants of the house. The third person sat outside in the getaway car, and he was later convicted of felony murder. But because he himself neither killed, attempted to kill, or intended to kill, he cannot be executed even though he is guilty of felony murder***
>>But because he himself neither killed, attempted to kill, or
>>intended to kill, he cannot be executed even though he is
>>guilty of felony murder
Sounds good to me. I’ve held all along that Kenneth shouldn’t be executed, and I guess most states in the Union would agree with me. As to Texas and their bizarre “law of parties” (even the name is stupid); well, that’s just one more in the long list of reasons not to go to Texas.
That’s still bullshit – not as far as guilt / innocence, but as to applying the DP.
“Intending to” is the problem. So the same three guys (damn, but they some busy mofos!) show up at Mustard Estates (say đ ), one stays in the car, two with guns go inside. The two inside rob the occupants, and then intend to kill them. One’s gun jams, so the other kills everyone single-handed.
The outcome – all the victims dead – is no different than if mofo #2’s didn’t jam, and he killed some of the victims.
BUT – he still didn’t kill anyone. He wanted to, he intended to, he even tried to – but there is still no one dead at his hand… That is a line not crossed, a line so bright you need dark glasses to look at it.
The DP needs to apply ONLY to those who voluntarily, personally, directly and physically bring about the death of another. Anything short of that resulting in death – life without parole. But if we keep the DP for only those who bear direct personal responsibility for murder, not ‘intending’ to, not ordering, or suggesting, or paying someone else to commit the deed, but only the actor, with physical evidence… then the demands of fairness are met as well as making the execution of a factually innocent person as improble as possible.
Two guys.
1st scenario. B says to A, “Drive me by my friend V’s house, I’m gonna pick up some money.” A drives B to V’s house. B goes in and unknown to A, robs and kills V. They leave.
What’s A’s level of guilt?
2nd. B says to A, “Take me by that sorry muthafucka V’s crib. I’m gonna bust a cap in that mofo’s sorry ass.” A just thinks B is talking shit, not that he’s actually gonna kill anyone. He doesn’t know B has a gun. A drives B to V’s, B goes in and, as he said, kills V. A sees and hears nothing. B comes back out and they leave.
What’s A’s level of guilt now?
3rd. B tells A, “Drive me to V’s”. When they arrive, B says to A, “Gimme your nine.” A hands over a loaded gun. B goes in and kills V.
What’s A’s level of guilt now?
4th. A picks up B, who is afraid of / owes money to / is subordinate to A. A takes B to V’s, and tells B, “Take this and go shoot that mofo.” B complies.
What’s A’s level of guilt now?
5th. A and B go to V’s. Both have guns. They go in and A tries to shoot V. His gun jams. B shoots V and kills him.
What’s A’s level of guilt now?
6th. Same as last. This time, A puts his gun on B, who never intended to kill anyone. A tells B to kill V, or A’ll kill HIM. B kills V.
What’s A’s level of guilt now?
At what point does A become personally, directly responsible for V’s death?
I say that, in accordance with the time-honored principle of erring on the side of leniency, and not imposing an irrevocable punishment when any doubt exists about ultimate responsibility for a criminal act, since there can be no clear-cut, definable agreement as to at what point suggesting / ordering / coercing someone else to commit a crime transfers responsibility for the act from the actor to the person at whose behest the act is committed, we cannot impose the DP on such persons fairly and equitably. It’s too murky.
So I still maintain that the DP should only ever apply to the actual actor – and even then, only if the act was voluntary, intentional and uncoerced.
All that “he should die because he was an accomplice to murder” shit is just that – shit. Because it’s impossible to draw an acceptable, agreed-upon line that delineates what constitutes being an “accomplice.” Few here would agree on between which scenarios above the line should be drawn. And others would extend that to include the gun manufacturer as an “accomplice” since the crime could not’ve been committed had someone not made the gun in the first place.
⢠⢠⢠⢠⢠⢠⢠⢠â˘
#19 – nightstar
“Because itâs the law doesnât make that law just.”
Thank you. Actually, there’s plenty of grossly unjust laws on the books as it is. We hardly need more of ’em.
⢠⢠⢠⢠⢠â˘
#8 – Billabong
“…choose death and the blood of thousands of innocent people are on your hands.”
Thousands of innocents? You wanna run that one by me again?
You are cordially invited to name each and every factually, demonstrably innocent person executed since, say WWII. Not the ones freed, the ones that were executed.
In fact, name me one.
One mo’ time; making sure that the death sentence is only given in cases with physical evidence that directly connects the accused to the crime – NOT eyewitnesses or circumstances – would’ve effectively addressed the issue of executing an innocent person.
We can still reform the DP without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, by legislating a ban on executing those convicted on only eyewitness and circumstantial evidence.
The rest can be exterminated with the virtual certainty that no truly innocent person would be included in their number.
And cleaning out Death Row would save the lives of dozens, possibly hundreds of REALLY innocent people who will inevitably die at the hands of Death Row inmates whose murders only completely stop with their departure from existence.
If every Death Row in America were gassed tomorrow, far fewer innocent people – by a couple orders of magntude – would die than if we commuted all their sentences to life – or even if the status quo continues.
If many of you DP opponents had any concept of the foul, literally Satanically inhuman horrors that most of these people have caused others, you wouldn’t be nearly so opposed to removing them from society. But you live sheltered lives, with the horrors sanitized by the media. You judge the animals on the PG13 or at best soft-R-rated accounts the TV and papers tell, not the realities, that can turn the stomachs of hard-core slasher-movie fans… Research the details of the crimes that put most of these “people” on Death Row… I guarantee you, you will fervently wish you hadn’t. Once you get the images out of your head. But you never will.
Then come back and tell me all about how “they’re human beings, just like you and me.”
No they’re not.
>>No theyâre not.
The guilty ones are not. How about the innocents?
Like I said – name one. One that hasn’t been convicted on circumstantial evidence or eyewitness ID alone. Those are the ones I say should not be sentenced to death. The rest are guilty, to a man.
Go find me one that isn’t. đ
>>name one. One that hasnât been convicted on circumstantial
>>evidence or eyewitness ID alone.
Unfortunately, Fish Finger, I don’t have an office full of clerks to search the Archives of Death (AoD) to look up Death Row inmates on the basis of how they were convicted.
However, the ACLU web site lists 124 Death Row inmates who have been found INNOCENT and released within the last 30 years (http://www.aclu.org/capital/). Note this includes only the ones who were FOUND TO BE INNOCENT, not all of those who actually are.
If the giftie would gie us some special powers, it would be interesting to know how many innocent people have been murdered over the years because of false convictions. And how many more will be murdered. Kind of disgusting, for a supposedly “civilized” nation.
I guess your role as gigolo par excellence, Sunday-morning coffee drinker, and single-stock daytrader leaves no possibliity that depriving people of the ultimate civil right, often wrongly, might not be a good thing.
Tsk tsk.
#33
>>If you truly donât understand that this was an orchestrated outing of two >>hardened criminals on a crime rampage, then youâre truly dumber than >>a rock.
Please Mister Mustard, don’t take this personally. I had no idea you were Kenneth’s confidant(or are you his lawyer). I don’t pretend to know the intentions of people I’ve never met and thus I hesitate to speculate about such.
Your analogy is poor, plain and simple.
>>So, not justified to give the guy the Hot Needle, but to claim heâs >>âinnocentâ? Sweet mother of God.
I never claimed Kenneth was innocent. Where in the world did you get this idea? I did claim that the law was unjust. There is a lot of distance between the two.
Mr Mustard, I generally share your views from what I can tell from your comments. You seem like a clever and rational fellow. Please drop the 9/11 analogy and refrain from attributing to me sentiments I never expressed or suggested.
>>I had no idea you were Kennethâs confidant(or are you his lawyer)
I’m not, and I’m not.
>>I donât pretend to know the intentions of people Iâve never met
Well, I guess I have bigger balls than you do, compadre. When somebody goes out for a fun and exciting day of armed robbery with his buddy/ partner-in-crime, participating successfully in the first two, I feel empowered to infer that the person knew very well what was going to happen in the third armed robbery, even if he could not predict whether or not the trigger would be pulled, or only threatened, as during the first two armed robberies.
So. I guess we agree. The guy is guilty as sin, he was complicit in the robberies and the murder, and in any normal state would have been charged with and convicted of “felony murder”. But he should not, himself, be murdered in retribution.
See? Rodney King’s dream comes true yet again. We CAN all just get along!
#37, Lauren,
You made some very compelling arguments. Two comments though.
Asking someone to name every âinnocentâ person executed is wrong. That is asking to prove a negative. After the execution there is no longer any need to prove anything and thus it all becomes moot, along with the presumed / proven guilt.
Eye witness evidence must be kept in perspective, not banned outright. For example, if I know and watched the murderer, then my testimony should be accepted. If the eye witness testimony can be augmented by circumstantial evidence such as someone caught fleeing the scene in the victims, or mine, car.
Again, I like your arguments, but I would prefer to NOT have things so black and white.
Eyewitness testimony can definitely be, as it’s said in law, ‘of probative value,’ but it’s also definitively the most error-prone, tied as it is to the vagaries of human perceptions and emotions.
Same for circumstantial, but to a lesser degree. People are generally quite poor at estimating probabilities, both how improbable some things are that they think are likely and how likely some things are that they totally discount the possibility of.
Even taken together, they have more than enough room for human error and / or malice to lead to wrongful conclusions, and you will find that those freed from Death Row invariably have been convicted on the bases of those two forms of fallible evidence.
That’s why I propose giving the benefit of the doubt to those individuals and phohibiting the death sentence in those cases.
That would eliminate virtually all chance of executing a factually – not technically – innocent person, and remove the basis for many people’s sole objection to the DP, which, if justly applied, permanently removes from our midst those subhuman filth who can, and will, and do, kill again, despite all “assurances” to the contrary.
Lauren,
We can still reform the DP without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, by legislating a ban on executing those convicted on only eyewitness and circumstantial evidence.
Perhaps, but why should we? The problems with it are tremendous. Why is life without parole not good enough? It saves money. It’s just as effective. I’ve read a few reports actually suggesting that it may even be a stronger crime deterrent. What is your reason for your love of the death penalty?
Oh, and did you read the report from the ACLU on the subject? Are you really OK with making a statement that some human lives are more valuable than others? With severe racial, sexual, and socioeconomic inequities, that is the statement being made. Your strongest statement thus far has been that you seek vengeance against the killers. All killers? Or, mostly just low income male killers of white victims?
What about the effects noted by the ACLU about world opinion of us? What about the effect it has when one of our troop members is captured?
#45, Scott,
What about the effects noted by the ACLU about world opinion of us?
On a subject like this I am less concerned about world opinion than I am about attitudes. When other countries can justify no death penalty then it is time for us to also examine it. If, however, another country, culture, religion, or whatever thinks America is bad because we cook our fish first, prefer that women shave their armpits, or execute murderers than that is too bad for them.
>>What is your reason for your love of the death penalty?
I think El Pescadito has been watching too much Law & Order. He figures Brisco and Green round up the perps, Jack McCoy convicts them, they get the Hot Needle, and Bob’s your uncle.
He would prefer not to be confronted with the ugly realities of false convictions, prosecutorial misconduct, lying police officers, unbalanced application of the law, the greater cost of the death penalty, the lack of effectiveness as a deterrent, and the way it makes us look like Geico cavemen in the eyes of the rest of the world.
#44, Lauren,
Good answers and I respect the thought you put into them. I would still rather not go with the death penalty though.
>>Well, I guess I have bigger balls than you do
We’ll never know without calipers. đ But your definitely more willing to speculate about that which you do not know.
#46 opinions form attitudes, domestic or foreign. What’s your opinion on Sharia law? get my drift?
>>But your definitely more willing to speculate about that which
>>you do not know.
Ah, but in this case I’m speculating about that which I do know. And about which anybody who read the story would know. It’s quite simple, actually: When two criminals go out on an armed robbery spree, threatening to (and in one case carrying through on the threat) kill people, then they are both, in the immortal words of Larry Craig, nasty naughty boys.
#40 – MM
“Unfortunately, Fish Finger, I donât have an office full of clerks to search the Archives of Death (AoD) to look up Death Row inmates on the basis of how they were convicted.”
Nice sidestep, but that’s not necessary.
If there actually was such a person, don’t think for a minute that you would have to expend much time or effort in hearing about his plight. DP opponents are anything but silent or obscure.
That’s exactly why I asked if you or anyone could point out someone who’s been executed who has been exonerated. You can’t, because the ones that may actually BE innocent are the ones who manage to hold up their executions until they can be exonerated.
I would MUCH rather it not reach that point – by not sentencing them to death in the first place, for the reasons I’ve outlined. Notice how even scumbag Rick Perry knew this Foster didn’t pull the trigger.
But you keep speculating about how many innocents might have been executed – and I say ‘show me one’, because you can be assured that there are anti-DP fanatics who have put great and ceaseless efforts into trying to find JUST ONE – because such a person would make the perfect poster child for their cause.
The reason you can’t readily find that innocent who’s been mistakenly executed is not from lack of trying to find one, but because there very likely isn’t one.
And you know what? Even if there was one – or ten – that would be unfortunate. But the fact that they were among others who were executed, and who subsequently never murdered another innocent, the number of innocent lives saved is still many times greater than if we didn’t have the DP.
>>But the fact that they were among others who were executed,
>>and who subsequently never murdered another innocent,
>>the number of innocent lives saved
Can you point me towards one, just ONE person who received life without parole, who later went on to murder “another innocent”?
>>Notice how even scumbag Rick Perry knew this Foster didnât
>>pull the trigger.
That he didn’t pull the trigger is not something that’s being debated. What scumbag Perry DID know (and what everbody else knows) is that Kenneth went on an armed robbery spree with his partner in crime, and in one of the armed robberies things went bad, so the arms had to be used, and someone was murdered. Whether Kenneth actually pulled the trigger or not doesn’t matter a flying fuck. He was complicit in a series of armed robberies in which someone was killed.
I have already stated that I don’t think Kenneth should be killed in retribution; but then again, I don’t think anyone should be killed in retribution. Killing people is not a business our government should be involved in. It does no good (unless you can provide evidence of the LWoP felons who were released and went on to kill), it has no deterrent value, it’s MUCH more expensive than just putting ’em in jail for life (without parole), it allows for the government to say “woops, sorry about that” and release the falsely accused when the guy turns out to be innocent after all. There’s just no reason for a civilized society to continue to murder in the name of “justice”.
You’re spending too much time up there with your moccachino lattĂŠs and your single-stock daytrading shenannigans, gasping terrified at the evil, Charles Manson-like diabolical monsters that inhabit death row. You should get a grip on the real world.
#51 – Fishy,
Thatâs exactly why I asked if you or anyone could point out someone whoâs been executed who has been exonerated. You canât, because the ones that may actually BE innocent are the ones who manage to hold up their executions until they can be exonerated.
But, if that were true, there wouldn’t be the huge racial, sexual, and socioeconomic inequities involved. Clearly some have tremendous advantage over others either at avoiding conviction, getting the conviction overturned, or both. Are you really OK with lives not being equal under the law?
#46 – Mr Fusion,
If, however, another country, culture, religion, or whatever thinks America is bad because we cook our fish first, prefer that women shave their armpits, or execute murderers than that is too bad for them.
Well, actually, when they point to the death penalty in the U.S. and use it as an excuse to execute people in their country, that is bad. When they begin using it as an excuse to execute our troops as POWs, or our new reporters, then it becomes too bad for us as well.
#49 – nightstar,
Assuming you were actually directing that at my post, rather than Mr. Fusions, obviously I’m highly opposed to sharia law. That should have been an easy guess. My point is though that we can set an example for humane treatment rather than setting an example for people to point to saying, “well, you execute people for crimes in your country, why is that different than us executing people for committing crimes in our country?” How will we make the point that killing women for being raped is different than killing murderers? The former is likely the more serious crime in some countries (countries still living in the dark ages, IMNSHO, of course).
#52 – MM,
moccachino lattĂŠs??!!? These are two different drinks. And, the traders on the desk don’t drink either one, IME.
>>And, the traders on the desk donât drink either one, IME.
I wasn’t referring to “traders on the desk”. I was referring to Lauren the Fish, the one-hit wonder. As to the moccachino lattĂŠs, they may be two different drinks for most people, but if you pay the “barista” at Starbucks enough, I’m sure he or she will mix the two together (in an upscale form of “supersizing”), and voilĂ ….. you’ve got a moccachino lattĂŠ.
One of the points quite a few of you make is in reference to Kenneth’s being on an armed robbery spree. When you actually read the case files, you discover that, yes, they had committed 2 previous armed robberies earlier. But in the incident that the murder was convicted it seems the boys had been chatting up a girl and the victim arrived on the scene going to the same party that the girl was going to and basically told the riff raff to **bugger off**……the girl then headed up the hill towards the party and so did the victim, at this point the REAL shooter got out of the car and headed up the hill towards the party and according to his testimony got into an arguement with the victim and shot him. He wasn’t planning on robbing the victim or shooting him, it happened as a result of the arguement. Foster and the other 2 guys in the car were completely unaware of what the real shooter did until they heard the shot.
So even though they all 4 had been involved in armed robberies earlier, this wasn’t an armed robbery attempt…..from what most witnesses say, this was a shooting because of an arguement between the shooter and the victim. If this scenerio is true, then Foster and the other 2 men aren’t guilty of **law of parties* or even felony murder since they were unaware of the shooters intentions or inteneded to harm the victim. This alone means that Foster should at worst got life without parole.
>>This alone means that Foster should at worst got life without parole.
That works for me.
#53 – M. Scott
“But, if that were true, there wouldnât be the huge racial, sexual, and socioeconomic inequities involved. Clearly some have tremendous advantage over others either at avoiding conviction, getting the conviction overturned, or both. Are you really OK with lives not being equal under the law?”
Your logic is flawed, lad. The demagogues and Marxist promoters of PC have been very successful in shutting down meaningful public dialogue on these issues. But unfortunately, for whatever reasons, which we certainly don’t have time to go into here, those ‘inequities’ you keep bringing up are not the result of racism in the justice system. In the U.S., blacks commit violent crimes, particularly armed robbery, forcible rape and premeditated murder at a rate extremely disproportionate to their presence in the population.
When a murder is committed, if you are like most people, you will automatically assume that the murderer is a male.
Is this because you hate men? That you are a sheet-wearing sexist, who thinks that men are inferior? Is the entire criminal justice system overrun by women who will stop at nothing to impose their sexist bigotry on innocent males, when it’s obvious that, since men and women are “equal”, that men only commit 50% of all murders?
Or is it because, like it or not, the fact is that 9 out of ten murders are committed by males, not females?
ABsurd, isn’t it, to pretend that men and women MUST commit murder in proprtion to their percentage of the population – since, as we all know, men and women – or any other pairing of human groups – cannot possibly do anything bad any more than the other group.
This is the very carefully unspoken so-called “logic” used by those who claim that blacks are charged, convicted, imprisoned and executed nore often than Hispanics or whites because of “racism”, rather than because of the tragic fact that they commit that much more violence on other people.
Truth be told, it is a demonstrable fact that, due to this very same racial demagoguery, denial and loud, endless screeching of “RACISM!!!!”, that if you murder someone in cold blood and are sentenced to die – you better hope you’re black, because whites are considerably more likely to be executed than blacks, again, far out of their percentage of the pool of offenders.
You, Scott, have, as so many others, drunk the Kool-Aid of those who make a living trying to drive wedges between whites and blacks, who will stop at nothing to keep the lie alive, instead of making whites and blacks alike face the fact that the problem continues to get worse on a daily basis, and blaming whitey for the actions of violent black criminals takes everyone farther from a solution, not closer.
Lumping realists seeking dialogue and solutions in with irrationally prejudiced idiots and calling them all “racists” is a time-honored tactic of demagogues and propagandists whose careers, fame, money, power and influence would dry up without their fanning the flames of hatred and racial division – they’re by far the worst practicioners of the very bigotry that they hypocritically accuse everyone else of being.
Were you asleep during Tawana Brawley? During the Duke fiasco? Do you mean to say you didn’t see, in front of your very eyes, the instantaneous assumption that white people were the wrongdoers, and the “victims” were automatically peresumed to be truthful and virtuous, despite their blatantly unlikely stories – just because their skin was black?
THAT is racism. And that kind of racism is what you’ve been programmed into. A prejudice so irrational that you’re blinded to the inescapable facts that these Death Row inmates committed horrendous crimes; they were hunted down, arrested, charged, tried, convicted, appealled, affirmed and placed on Death Row by, not a bunch of fat, sweaty, middle-aged Southern white bigots with a racist “agenda” – but by police, prosecutors, attorneys, judges and jurors who were and are male / female / white / black / Hispanic / Asian / straight / gay / disabled / young / old – in other words, your much-vaunted multicultural America is who put those scum there.
Quit parroting Al Sharpton-approved distortions, lies and other forms of anti-white propaganda. You’ve been sold a bill of goods, son. You and your kind are the ones who have truly taken up where the Klan left off – only, this time, it’s OK to be a bigot, as long as those you discriminate against are the same skin color of the racists of the past.
Bullshit.
#52 – MM
“Youâre spending too much time up there with your moccachino lattĂŠs and your single-stock daytrading shenannigans, gasping terrified at the evil, Charles Manson-like diabolical monsters that inhabit death row. You should get a grip on the real world.”
My grip is just fine, Musty. I’ve not only paid my dues on the mean streets, I’ve got receipts to prove it. I’ve lived in a Federal townhouse around the corner from Henry Kissinger, and I’ve lived on a bench across the street from the Enron building. I’ve enjoyed Piper Brut Divin on board a private G-IV and I’ve sat behind Dumpsters, smokin’ spliffs with Rastas and drinking Colt 45.
So what I’m telling you, sport, is that that snarky hat doesn’t fit. Better go a size or two smaller. Don’t you worry about me, I’ve been around the block once or twice. đ