Someone at The Atlantic sure didn't cotton to the Association's Twitter commentary.

See the lambast here.

Hmmm. If you disagree with a columnist's opinion, it's "galling." That's reasoned discourse.

Let's see- He murdered two people, shot a third, laughed about it...... He had severely beaten a former girlfriend on a regular basis, and was a convicted drug dealer. Even the dissent of Ct.Cr.App. cites mitigating evidence which was presented - though not the tale he now tells.

I know too many people who have much more horrid backgrounds, found themselves in the gutter with drugs and alcohol, who sobered up and cleaned up. Not one committed an act of violence.

Sometimes, we forget the chances most are given to clean up their acts. Were I on the jury, I may have had some compassion for the wretch, but my sympathies would have been with the dead and wounded, even if I heard everything that he says he had to offer.

The offending remarks were, apparently, statistically based, and prompted by the defense witness. I don't think any reasonable juror would have done much more than the witness, and say that it is unfortunate. The fact is, the defense espert testified that Buck was low risk. The nature of the crimes and associated character evidence, as well as his criminal history, were more than enough for a reasonable jury to believe that he posed a future risk.

I agree with the Association's tweets. Duane Buck isn't being executed because he is black. He is being executed for being a cold blooded killer. (I looked at some other article, wherein it is falsely stated that the prosecution put the damning witness on the stand)

Whether you are pro or anti death penalty - your rants should be based on fact. The Atlantic's was not.