http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/2...enation/4221949

Basically, this guy is being put to death because he gave a ride to a murderer! He didn't know the guy was going to murder anyone. Not only that, but the murderer himself didn't even know he was going to kill anyone because it wasn't premeditated!

This disgusts me! It's heartless and cruel! How can anyone let this happen? This is just government approved murder of an innocent person!

And please... please tell me that none of you can actually agree with this man being killed! Sure, maybe some stupid law says he's supposed to be put to death, but such a law shouldn't even exist! He's innocent!

Woah that is sick and disgusting why would they do that? It just another reason to say that the people that run are country are really dumb. Well not all the people just most.. lol

Alot of southern laws in the US are very outdated, just old...
This makes no sense but then.. neither does the good ol' 3 strikes and you're out law in California (in some cases.. I mean life in prison for stealing a TV?)

The man should not be put to death as he was only an accesory. But then again, Texas will kill you if you so much as swat a fly...

Well then I think its time for texas to update some of there laws.

Er, the problem is that people want those laws in place; they're not just a mistake, unfortunately. Now, I'm leaving this debate because I know it'll get me in trouble. :p

Or its time for people to stop associating with criminals. What the Texas law does is eliminate the difference between committing the crime, and being an accomplice to the crime. Of course Ken Foster "claims" he didn't know that Brown was going to shoot LaHood...any defense lawyer who has ever made a dime would have advised him to say that. However, what the people at freekenneth.com are NOT telling you, is that Ken Foster, Maurecio Brown, and two others were busy spending that day drinking, doing drugs, and committing robberies. Kenneth Foster was not a Saint. Foster was the getaway driver for a capital crime. If you seriously believe that he had no idea that LaHood was going to be murdered, I have a tower in Paris I would like to sell you, as well as a bridge in San Francisco Bay. Kenneth Foster is an accomplice to murder, was the getaway driver...that satisfies the Texas "law of parties", the statute under which he was sentenced.

Based upon the law, it is assured that Foster had much more to do with the murder and the connected criminal activety than has been described herein.

Here is the actual statute, with key phrases in bold:

Under the law of parties, a person is criminally responsible as a party to an offense committed by the conduct of another if the person acts with an intent to promote or assist in the commission of the offense, and solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid another person to commit the offense. Tex.Pen.Code Ann. § 7.02(a)(2)(Vernon 2003). In evaluating whether a defendant is a party to an offense, the court may examine the events occurring before, during, or after the offense is committed and may rely on the defendant's actions showing an understanding and common design to commit the offense. See Marable v. State, 85 S.W.3d 287, 293 (Tex.Crim.App.2002). Mere presence at the scene of a crime does not implicate an individual as a party. However, participation in a criminal offense may be inferred from the circumstances. Beardsley v. State, 738 S.W.2d 681, 684 (Tex.Crim.App.1987). Circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to show that an individual is a party to an offense. See Miranda v. State, 813 S.W.2d 724, 732 (Tex.App. San Antonio 1991, pet. ref'd).

If he drove Brown away from the murder scene, he was "Assisting the commission of the offense. It clearly would have aided in Brown's escape, which would have been considered as being inferred from the circumstances. It should be plain as day. Based on the wording of the law, Foster clearly fits into the definition of the law. That means, you don't have to be the trigger man to be found guilty of murder. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with a getaway driver involved in a murder being executed the same as the actual gunman. Kenneth Foster drove a vehicle that was involved in multiple crimes, involving murder, he clearly wasn't ignorant of what his passengers were doing, nor did he seem to care. For that, may God have mercy on his soul, because Texas will not. He should have been more aware of the penalties in Texas for driving away from a murder scene with the murderer. Did he pull the trigger? No. He did however assist in the escape of of the gunman. He is just as much responsible as Brown, according to Texas law, and deserves his fate.

If Kenneth Foster hadn't been driving around all day, drinking, drugging, and committing robberies, he wouldn't have been in the position to act as the getaway driver for Brown. In other words, if he hadn't been already breaking the law, he wouldn't have gotten himself into this mess. His own decisions, his own choices, led him to where he finds himself. Maybe his case will act as a lesson to the Texas youth...choose your friends carefully...as you may end up dying for one. Make sure they are worth it.

The world isn't that black and white.People are snapping everywhere and at anytime. I think why some people don't get why this man doesn't deserve death.I can see maybe some years in jail..but death? It seems to me people lack empathy.I can't predict any of my friends will do if they lose their temper and I doubt many people can.

Strangely i am in agreement with Davious, lol its not a bad thing but i am also not for death panalty, just lock him up for ever and throw away the keys!

I agree with Nixie.
No matter what someone does they do not deserve to die.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

Not everyone sees ending the life of a murder is a wrong. Sometimes you have to do things that are hard for the greater good.

maybe the hard thing to do is endure Black_Barook, like fasting. and in this case tolerate a murderer. putting him away instead of taking his life.

He killed another Human being. He forfeited his own life. Why waste money, feeding him? End his life and bury the man, and pray that God has mercy on his soul when he accounts for what he did.

You don't have to agree with me if you don't want to.

But in this special case the man hasn't killed somebody else, he just drove someone around who did. That's a big difference to me.

Oh wait. I thought you were talking about the guy who did the killing. Okay my bad.

You judge a man by the company he keeps. He kept murderers in his company, drove them around, drove them away from murder scenes. Foster is not an innocent bystander, he was the getaway driver. Being the getaway driver makes him an accomplice. Texas says there is no difference between being a murderer and being an accomplice to murder. Therefore, he is eligible for the death penalty. I repeat, perhaps he should have been more aware of Texas law regarding murder. His actions, his decisions, his choices, led to his problems. He doesn't go cruising around breaking law, he isn't in position to be the getaway driver for a murderer. Personal responsibility is something too many people want to completely forget about.

You judge a man by his own merit and actions, not the actions of the company he keeps. This is just plain wrong. Prison would have been better because he did not physically murder the victim, therefore he should take the punishment for something he didn't do.

So killing someone justifies them being killed?
And how is that not murder?
Wether it was a "legal" killing or an "illegal" killing it's still murder.

There is no situation (in my belief) where someone should be killed for what they've done.

and his actions lead him to assist the actual murderer to get away from the scene of the crime. His actions put him driving the car that was used to escape a murder scene. His actions caused him to be out drinking, doing drugs, and committing robberies that day. His actions made him a criminal, driving around 3 other criminals, one of whom was a murderer. Also, by your logic, we need to immediately free Charles Manson. He didn't technically kill anyone either, he just influenced others into doing it.

Texas law is Texas law. In a different State, prison is probably where he would have ended up. However, he committed the crime in Texas, a State that EVERYONE knows is really tough on crime penalties. Texas is allowed to have its own laws, is it not?

The Charles Manson case is very different from this case.
The man in question here has not made anyone kill a person, like Manson did. What Manson did was far worse then what this man here did, and Manson is still alive, because he was "lucky" to live in a different state.

I think that Texas law needs to be changed, it's just wrong. Actually you could be sentenced to death just because you were at a place at the wrong time

That's one thing I am unclear about... I was not able to find anything that said he did drive Brown away from the murder scene. About the only thing I could find was that he let Brown back in the vehicle.

If you have any sources that say he did, or if I missed something on Freekenneth, please post.

Welcome to the South. In some places, including Texas and Louisiana, 'He needed killing' is still a valid defense that often gets not guilty verdicts returned.

The South is, in a lot of ways, stuck in a time warp. The Old South is still very much in power, the 'good ol' boys' system is very much in existence.

The law, as I'm reading the article's interpretation, states that if the prosecution can prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were aware of the other person's participation in the commission of a capital offense, you are equally as accountable as the the person committing the offense. Also reading the article, the federal court ruled that Foster had no intent, and as a result was not culpable for the crime itself. However, the State determined that yes, he was, and the sentence stands. What the article does not say is whether or not Foster witnessed the crime. Without that knowledge, I cannot say that the sentence is right or wrong. Where, you might ask, does the Supreme Court stand on this? According to freekenneth.com, this type of involvement is not considered a capital offense. To have major involvement is a capital offense.

However, keep in mind two things:
1) In order to achieve a conviction, a prosecutor MUST convince 12 people beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. Or at least a portion of them.
2) In Texas, a death sentence MUST be unanimous. This means that the burden again lies with the prosecution to prove to 12 people that this person deserves to die.

With those two things in mind, the law is not at total fault here. The fault also lies with 12 people who convicted Foster, and who sentenced him to die. Remember, a death sentence must be unanimous before it can be imposed. Apparently 12 people thought Foster was guilty enough to die.

Do I think he deserves to die? Not if he was not there. If he was there, he knew what went on and the sentence can legally stand up. Texans' blood lust is better served for true murderers, those who murder children, rapists, and those who rape children.

I don't know where you heard that saying of judging a man by the company he keeps but that doesn't apply to a lot of people .I have a variety of friends and most people do with different beliefs and ideas.No one is saying he deserves to be walking around free but he doesn't deserve to be put to death.

Modest, its Ralph Waldo Emerson, the noted poet who first coined the phrase...but, its meaning should be clear. If you hang out with thugs, people will think you are a thug too. If you hang out with smart nerdy people, other people will think you are smart and nerdy. Basically, if you hang out with good people, you will be inspired to be good, if you choose to hang out with criminals, you are far more likely to be a criminal yourself. Friends who commit crimes are more likely to encourage me to commit crimes, friends who don't commit crimes are more likely to talk me out of committing a crime. Sometimes peer pressure can work in your favor, instead of against it. Its basically the same saying as "birds of a feather, flock together".

Chelleypie, if the decision must be unanimous, doesn't that tell you that there was enough evidence to fulfill Texas law regarding the death penalty? If its unanimous, that means everyone on the jury believed him guilty of what he was accused of, and the jury followed Texas law in its sentencing.

That's what I was trying to say, really - if a jury was unanimous in finding him worthy of death, then not all the fault lies with the system. Some of it lies with the jury. That does not mean I personally agree with the sentence. I think it's extreme. Legally, however, it can and will stand on appeal.

Basically I personally disagree, but as a sometime law scholar (haha) I know that legally it is just and fair by the standard set, and as a result agree with it on a legal level but not a personal one.

It already has stood. It went to the US Supreme Court, and they refused to hear the case, effectively ending the possibility of any more appeals, other than to the Governor of Texas. Legally, he is out of options.