The World as I See It! 'Brandon's Execution Is a Stain'

By Rich Kozlovich

First off, let me start by saying I've come to have issues with the death penalty, and the biggest driving force for that is the Duke University Soccer team rape case and the despicable actions of the prosecutor:

Michael Byron Nifong (born September 14, 1950) is a disbarred North Carolina attorney. He served as the district attorney for Durham County, North Carolina until he was removed, disbarred and jailed following court findings concerning his conduct in the Duke lacrosse case, primarily his conspiring with the DNA lab director to withhold exculpatory DNA evidence that could have acquitted the defendants.

He wanted to assure his election one more time before he was to retire, and so he wanted to appease his black constituents, and since this was a race issue, and the boys were white and from well off families, he thought he would sacrifice them to assure his "comfortable" retirement.  It's become clear to me we can't really trust prosecutors with that kind of power, and I've looked askance at prosecutors ever since. 

Now we come to the execution of Brandon Bernard. 

In the article, which is clearly attempting to support the position he shouldn't have been executed, they highlighted the support against his execution from "Rep. Ayana Pressley and Rev. Jesse Jackson, calling for all federal executions to be halted, while others, including Kim Kardashian West and other activists and celebrities, specifically spoke up for Bernard".  

And why? Do they think he's innocent? No, they want to end executions, which goes right along with this Critical Race Theory clabber they support and their insane

They, along with and 23 prosecutors, which when you consider the Los Angeles Country prosecutor isn't planning on prosecuting just about anyone, and since his ilk are becoming an epidemic, those views don't carry much weight any longer.

Their bone of contention is he was a youngster when it occurred (he was 20) so he, now 40, is too young to die.  And there was "newly discovered evidence, which was withheld by prosecutors and not presented at his 2000 trial, diminished his role in the crime", and so that justifies stopping the execution according to them.  

Newly discovered evidence?  Like what?  That he didn't do the crime?  Well, he did do the crime!  As for his youth, so-called children, especially black "children", can be deadly, ask the family of 13 month old Antonio Santiago, and all the other people these black "children" brutalized. 

So, before we go on, let's see what his crime was.

He and "four other gang members abducted, robbed, and ultimately killed" Stacie and Pastor Todd Bagley, "in 1999 as they were on their way home from a church service in Killeen, Texas."

Here's the story:

The mastermind of this vicious crime was Christopher Andre Vialva, who was 19 a the time, "spent about six hours driving around Bell County with the young couple locked in the trunk while their abductors took turns trying to use the Bagley’s ATM cards.Eventually Vialva drove the car to a secluded area of Fort Hood, opened the trunk and after Stacie Bagley told him God loved him, he cursed at her and shot her in the head with a .40 caliber Glock semi-automatic pistol.

But she didn’t die.  Todd Bagley died of a gunshot, but his wife Stacy, who also had been shot, died of smoke inhalation, which means she was alive in the trunk of the couple’s car when Bernard, in an effort to hide evidence, set the vehicle on fire.....  Bernard was found guilty for the murder of Stacie.  

Why weren't they too young to be murdered?

Arguments against executing Vialva?  There was no evidence; it was done because he was black; there was only one black juror.   His whine to save himself:  "No one should be executed for a mistake they made as a juvenile."  Excuse me, 19 is no longer a juvenile.  Being 19 makes you an adult.  As for this being a mistake: Adding two and two and getting twenty two is a mistake.  Kidnapping, robbing and murdering two people are choices and those choices are crimes.

Now, we need to know this for sure if we're to make an honest decision.  Was either of them innocent?  Well, no, neither were innocent, and the evidence against him wasn't superficial, the police caught them with the car and the dead bodies. They did it! Bernard admitted it!

The article goes on to state:

"During his three-minute last words, he apologized to the families of Stacie and Todd Bagley, the youth ministers"........ [saying]......."I wish I could take it all back, but I can't."...... The 40-year-old also apologized to his own family for the pain he had caused." 

While I can certainly feel sympathy for the fact he was young, stupid, hung around with a bad crowd, and he really does feel regret, it doesn't change the fact he really did do it.  How much he participated, which was substantial, is immaterial!  He was part of that vicious and murderous team. 

If these thugs were white would we be having this conversation? Not from me.  If these were white thugs, and if they  had done this horrible crime, I wouldn't waste one iota of concern at their demise or one erg of energy in their defense.  But, then again, this isn't about right and wrong, and we all know it.

We can really be stupid when we're young, it's part of growing up, we all certainly have our share of it.  But the questions we should be asking has nothing to do with whether or not he should be executed, no matter how much he may have improved as a human being.   

The question that's not asked and not answered in this piece, or probably any piece about him is what was his home like.  Was he part of the 70% illegitimacy rate of the black community?  Was he indoctrinated with the "we hate whitey" mantra that's epidemic in black America?  He apologized for the pain he caused his family.  Maybe if we looked into his family, we'd find they should have apologized to him.

I don't know the answers to any of that, but there's one thing I do know.  

He committed the crime.