A Texas man who said his death sentence was based on false and unscientific expert testimony was executed Thursday evening for killing a man during a robbery decades ago.

Brent Ray Brewer, 53, received a lethal injection at the state penitentiary in Huntsville for the April 1990 death of Robert Laminack. The inmate was pronounced dead at 6:39 p.m. local time, 15 minutes after the chemicals began flowing.

Prosecutors had said Laminack, 66, gave Brewer and his girlfriend a ride to a Salvation Army location in Amarillo when he was stabbed in the neck and robbed of $140.

Brewer’s execution came hours after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to step in over the inmate’s claims that prosecutors had relied on false and discredited expert testimony at his 2009 resentencing trial.

  • logicbomb@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Congratulations. You’ve managed to read the first sentence without reading anything else. Let me TL;DR it for you. The “shitty logic” you’re referring to is actually pro-choicers giving pro-lifers the best possible interpretation of their own logic. But on the other hand, there is no way to do the same thing to the pro-choice side, because the pro-choicers already believe in the best version of their argument.

    • Arthur_Leywin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      To be fair, I wouldn’t read a post that starts with “let me spell it out for you” even if you’re completely right.

        • Arthur_Leywin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s more like if that’s the tone of your first sentence, I wouldn’t want to be subjected to more condescension.

          • logicbomb@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            No, you only like to dish out condescension with phrases like, “I wouldn’t read a post that starts with ‘let me spell it out for you’ even if you’re completely right.”

            • Arthur_Leywin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Sorry for the confusion but I’m not the guy you were talking with. I’m completely on your side I was just critiquing the messaging.

              • logicbomb@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                There’s no confusion. I quoted YOU. How strange is it to suggest that I was confused about who I was talking to when essentially the entire comment was quoting the person I was talking to. I’m being generous and assuming that you didn’t just get confused because you’re trying to utilize multiple accounts that you own, and that you forgot which account you used to make which comment.

                And my point was that you used a condescending tone when it suited your argument, which puts us in exactly the same boat. The main difference seems to be that I was originally condescending to a person who used an embarrassingly poor argument, which was worthy of condescension.

                  • logicbomb@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Ok nvm you’re also insane lol

                    I randomly happened to notice how you downvoted that comment a rather long time ago, like at least 20 minutes. So presumably, you spent quite a long time writing your reply. I’m guessing, you tried writing an actual response first, and realized that you couldn’t find a way to make yourself look good, so you resorted to this… thing.

    • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      Congratulations. You’ve managed to read the first sentence without reading anything else. Let me TL;DR it for you.

      Thanks - being brigaded by libs means I’m kinda skimming responses at this point.

      I’m saying maybe use the interpretation of their argument that they use and not the one you wish to shoe-horn onto it. Whenever I’ve listened to pro-lifers (at least the better versed ones) they clearly only intend to stop what they view as “actively killing an unborn child.” Their logic, taken from that POV (and assuming a BUNCH of their premises are true) seems to be reasonably consistent and would have no bearing on the death of a convicted murderer.

      • logicbomb@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        they clearly only intend to stop what they view as “actively killing an unborn child.”

        It doesn’t matter where they intend to stop.

        If I say, “one apple plus one apple is two apples,” and my stated justification is “1+1=2”. And then later, I say, “one orange plus one orange is three oranges,” you would be right to say, “Your justification 1+1=2 also works for oranges, so somewhere in your arguments you’re incorrect.” But here, you’re saying that I can respond, “I only intend to stop at apples,” and that this is “reasonably consistent.”

        This is some sort of cognitive dissonance sophistry that simply doesn’t work. It’s not reasonably consistent.

        • atzanteol@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          It doesn’t matter where they intend to stop.

          It’s their argument - so yes it does?

          Do you believe people should be free? Well how about criminals? Does it matter now “where you intend to stop”?