home

Ohio Executes Overweight Inmate

Richard Cooey was executed today in Ohio. He weighed almost 300 pounds. One of his grounds for appeal was that his weight would make it difficult for the the executioners to find his veins.

Most of the news reports I've read contain details of his last meal and last words:

You (expletive) haven't paid any attention to anything I've said in the last 22 years, why would you pay any attention to anything I said now?" Cooey said with his final words

Reporter Eric Mansfield, one of the media witnesses to the execution, reports an additional detail: [More...]

Cooey climbed onto the execution table without protest. Mansfield says Cooey did yell when the shunts were being placed in his arms and asked for his attorney, but the request was denied.

The execution took 12 minutes.

More details from witnesses:

He was on his back on a gurney, with his feet crossed, as intravenous tubes were inserted into his arms. He yelled out for his lawyer during the process.

"I want to talk to Greg Myers," he shouted. He lifted his head and yelled, "Hey, Myers." But his lawyer was in the witness room and unable to speak with him.

At 10:15, Cooey kicked his legs up and left the gurney, then walked on his own into the death chamber to climb onto another gurney. The warden and one guard stood at Cooey's head while the drugs were injected.

At 10:20, Cooey was strumming his fingers, pinky to index fingers, waiting. He exhaled heavily at 10:21, and the warden shook Cooey's shoulder to see if the sleep drug had taken effect. Cooey did not respond.

At 10:27 a.m., the guard drew a curtain around Cooey. McCreery's mother, Mary Ann Hackenburg, threw her head back and exhaled into the air. At 10:29, the curtain was drawn back, and the time of death was announced.

< Supreme Court Denies Cert for Troy Davis | Report: Alaska National Guard Mismanaged Under Palin >
  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    I oppose the death penalty only because (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by ding7777 on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:05:30 PM EST
    too many times, the Government has executed the wrong person, either through corruption, ambition, and/or human error.

    Having said that, I have absolutely no sympathy for Cooey.

    If the loved ones of his victims... (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:12:22 PM EST
    took his life I wouldn't bat an eye...I just can't stomach the state killing people.

    Times like this I advocate for street justice.

    Yup... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by oldpro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:23:38 PM EST
    that's how I ... feel, even knowing that street justice is seldom justice -- only mindless revenge.  But hey...understandable, no?

    The Innocence Project alone is reason enough to abhor the coldblooded execution of any accused by the state.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't know if I quite agree (none / 0) (#10)
    by eric on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:19:05 PM EST
    with you, but at least the loved one's actions would be understandable.  The state has the benefit of not having personal emotions involved.  And it is capable of fully incapacitating someone in prison without killing them.

    [ Parent ]
    Don't get me wrong... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:28:24 PM EST
    in a perfect world we could all turn the other cheek and forgive even the most brutal and sadictic of acts, to the benefit of nothing but our own souls.  

    That being said, if a loved one of mine was brutally murdered or raped...I tend to think I'd kill the sob.  But you never really know until it happens, sun god forbid.  

    [ Parent ]

    I understand people wanting him dead (none / 0) (#20)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:43:00 PM EST
    No one is asking anyone to forgive him, or make excuses for him.  But no one has the right to kill him either.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know ruffian.... (1.00 / 1) (#22)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    If it the crime went down as the descriptions in the comments here indicate, I think the loved ones of his victims do have the right to kill the bastard...but no one else.  Not a codified right of course, but a natural one.  Street justice and street rights.

    And if they did get street justice, they should have to face trial and take their chances with a jury...though I doubt the state could find one to convict.

    Is it perfect?  Hell no...but I say it beats state-sanctioned murder if the victims loved ones need justice beyond lwop, which should be the max the state can provide.

    [ Parent ]

    No. Vigilanteism is not the answer. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 05:04:40 PM EST
    My hometown of Honolulu was the locale of the infamous "Massie Affair" (Sept. 1931 - May 1932), which consisted of a series of escalating events that included two spectacular criminal trials, and which remains one of the most notorious cases of such "street justice" in the history of American jurisprudence.

    Thalia Massie, the aristocratic wife of U.S. Navy Lt. Thomas Massie and daughter of Bell Telephone heiress Grace Bell Fortescue, had clearly been beaten severely by person(s) unknown. However, when interviewed by Honolulu police, she accused five local boys of the deed and further, of gang-raping her.

    When the defense established a strong alibi that precluded the culpability of the defense, and a Honolulu jury failed to convict the young men, Mrs. Massie's husband and mother took matters into their own hands. They kidnapped and then lynched one of the suspects, a 22-year-old Hawaiian named Joseph Kahahawai.

    Lt. Massie and Mrs. Fortescue were indicted by a Honolulu grand jury for murder, and the Bell family retained legendary criminal defense attorney Clarence Darrow to handle their defense, in what proved to be his last case.

    Nevertheless, and despite public opinion on the mainland being solidly in their corner, Lt. Massie and Mrs. Fortescue were subsequently convicted of manslaughter. However, Hawaii's territorial governor, acting upon the direct orders of President Herbert Hoover -- it should be noted that territorial governors were presidential appointees, and not elected -- immediately commuted their mandatory ten-year prison sentences to one hour.

    Lt. Massie and Mrs. Fortescue literally got away with murder.

    What made this sordid episode all the more tragic was that it was later determined by the Pinkerton National Detective Agency in an officially commissioned investigation that Thalia Massie had lied to Honolulu and Navy authorities about having been beanten and raped by Kahahawai and his friends.

    Rather, Honolulu Police Department investigators, speaking off the record, had long suspected that Mrs. Massie had instead been conducting an extra-marital affair with another naval officer who was the prominent son of an Alabama congressman, and that she was beaten by that officer when she threatened to expose him upon his attempt to break off the relationship.

    As I said, vigilanteism is not the answer. In that regard, we would be wise to always heed the words of former Hawaii Gov. Wallace Farrington, who wrote contemporaneously to the Massie Affair in March 1932:

    "The question that at present confronts [the citizens of Honolulu] -- a question fraught with tremendous consequences -- must now be answered. Some shallow-minded people will doubtless find superficial grounds for condoning [the murder of Kahahawai], but what will the answer of the community be?  We are now called upon to decide is whether we are for or against the disgrace of lynch law. ... If one person is to have the privilege of redressing his own wrongs others must, of course, be accorded the same privilege."


    [ Parent ]
    There is no answer Don.... (none / 0) (#40)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 07:50:59 PM EST
    didn't mean to imply there was one...the most brutal crimes raise questions with no answers.

    My only point is some people do deserve to die, and the state should not kill.  So whatta ya do?

    [ Parent ]

    I think that we, as a state (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by eric on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:14:40 PM EST
    should be better than this guy.  To me, that means not killing him, no matter what his crimes.  Opposing the death penalty in this case has nothing to do with sympathy for the killer or failing to recognize the victims.  It is opposing state sanctioned murder.

    You're right, death penalty opponents don't score many points opposing this particular person's execution.  The fact that I still do oppose it, even in this terrible case, helps me know that my convictions are genuine and not conditional.

    If it is (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by eric on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:29:02 PM EST
    incapacitation that you are after, then there is no question Cooey could have been locked up securely for life.

    Fair point, unfortunately, (none / 0) (#19)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:41:14 PM EST
    while I'm sure we could, we in fact do not lock up murderers securely for life.

    Convicted murderers get released and too often murder again.

    Convicted murderers have escaped and murdered again.

    Convicted murderers have killed fellow inmates, guards and other prison personnel.

    [ Parent ]

    This then is where our efforts can be (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Montague on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:39:06 PM EST
    spent.  On changing laws to make life without parole really happen.  To stop filling prisons with nonviolent offenders like marijuana possessors.  To make prisons more secure.

    [ Parent ]
    Done deal. (none / 0) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:52:24 PM EST
    Absolutely 100% secure LWOP systems would be the right thing to do.

    What do we do about the convicted murderers who are released after serving their time and then murder again? No parole ever for convicted murderers?

    [ Parent ]

    Not that simple (none / 0) (#30)
    by Montague on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:17:05 PM EST
    There are different degrees of murder, and different degrees of danger posed to society. Where I live, a 60-year-old woman in the midst of an ugly divorce from her husband (similar age but having an affair with a younger women) stuck a kitchen knife in his chest during an altercation.  That was a heat-of-the-moment thing and I think she really had no intention of killing him, just of harming him.  He died on the operating table.  She served many years in jail.  I don't believe she is a danger to society and need not spend her entire life in jail.

    This, of course, is something for our society to decide and to implement via our system of justice.

    [ Parent ]

    of murder, and they should be dealt with differently.

    [ Parent ]
    Where I live (none / 0) (#33)
    by eric on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:52:00 PM EST
    its mandatory life (no parole) for all first degree murders.  No questions asked.  You get one automatic appeal whether you want it or not, then it's all over.

    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#34)
    by eric on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:54:11 PM EST
    seeing how we are talking about a substitute for capital punishment, yes, anyone who would otherwise get executed would get life without parole.

    The other people who might be less culpable, wouldn't be candidates for execution, anyway.

    [ Parent ]

    Sounds good to me, (none / 0) (#36)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 04:42:51 PM EST
    let's get 100% secure LWOP systems set up.

    [ Parent ]
    State sponsored murder: (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by pluege on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:59:25 PM EST
    a) is as much about the executioner as it is the executed. There are plenty of people, both caught and uncaught that are heinous enough that they deserve to be dead, but no human, no group of humans has the right to play God and take a life - period, no exceptions. Killing for non-survival purposes is not an inalienable right, its an abomination and heinous act unto itself, regardless of purpose.

    b) there is no, and can never be any evidence ever anywhere that state sponsored murder works as a deterrent (show me the person that says that they would have murdered in cold blood except for the threat of execution and I'll show you a liar). State sponsored murder is 100% about revenge and sadism.  


    Death penalty is impractical (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by coigue on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 01:52:45 PM EST
    and hard on victim and society.

    I am anti-death penalty, but I cry no tears for this horrid ma.

    I have zero sympathy for Cooey (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Montague on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:31:09 PM EST
    I feel deeply horrified at what his victims suffered, and what the loved ones of his victims still continue to go through.  If we talk of what he deserves, then IMO he deserves to die in a way similar to what he put his victims through.  And yet society cannot take that role or we become ugly, too.  Not as ugly as Cooey, but still ugly.

    I do not believe any death row inmate should be excused from the punishment because he/she "found God," is too fat, has repented, etc., etc.  Instead, I believe there should be no death penalty, but just life without parole.

    Sick (none / 0) (#1)
    by eric on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:28:13 AM EST
    just sick.  Yet I read it because it is like gawking at a car wreck.

    I suppose we have to keep reading about this because it helps many of us realize what we are so much against.  Still, I feel sick.

    Never fails.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 11:50:44 AM EST
    to give me the creeps, I hear that.  "We the people" sticking poison needles in human beings arms...sick is right.

    It's weird and difficult to expolain...I can deal with and understand a person killing a person, as sick as that is...but I just can't deal with a faceless collective killing a person.

    [ Parent ]

    The trial and conviction... (none / 0) (#6)
    by prose on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:03:12 PM EST
    is the time for recognizing the crimes and the victims.  Murdering the criminal is a time for being appalled at a system that is as unjust and cruel as the folks it tries to punish.

    So, what's the answer? (none / 0) (#11)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:22:03 PM EST
    Abortion proponents premise their "pro choice" position by stating "we have to do all we can to reduce the need for abortions, but until then......."

    State induced death advocates (I guess ) feel it's o.k. kill convicted persons, as long as we try to reduce the number of innocents killed along the way.


    False comparison. (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by oldpro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:26:13 PM EST
    You may not equate what I decide to do with my body to what the state decides to do with yours.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by eric on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:32:55 PM EST
    it isn't a good comparison, at all, for a lot of reasons, not the least of which are the rights of the mother.  Furthermore, abortion involves an action by a person.  Execution involves an action by the state.  If the state were going around ordering abortions, I would not agree with that, either.

    [ Parent ]
    It's not (none / 0) (#31)
    by NYShooter on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 03:17:07 PM EST
    YOUR body that dies.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, it sometimes is. (none / 0) (#39)
    by oldpro on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 07:28:04 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Best last words ever (none / 0) (#18)
    by ruffian on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 12:40:29 PM EST
    RIP Mr. Cooey. No one had the right to kill you, no matter what you did.

    Yes, that is true (none / 0) (#26)
    by Montague on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 02:23:36 PM EST
    I don't object to Cooey being dead.  I believe he doesn't deserve to live after doing something like that.  

    HOWEVER, my reasons for being against the death penalty are four-fold:

    1.  Might kill an innocent person.  

    2.  Death penalty is disproportionately applied to racial minorities.  

    3.  Death penalty is not shown to deter murderers.

    And my top reason:

    4.  Allowing society to put someone to death makes us all ugly.

    Nowhere in my reasons do I mention sanctity of life or rehabilitation or anything like that.  There are indeed people who do not deserve to live.  And yet who am I to make that judgement?  Who are you?  Who is society?  We should not take that role.

    Life imprisonment without parole is a pretty severe punishment.

    Horrible story. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Tue Oct 14, 2008 at 04:09:51 PM EST
    That said, I still oppose capital punishment on moral grounds. "An eye for an eye" merely blinds all parties.

    Better that we just drop scoundrels such as these into a cell and ensure that he never sees the outside of a prison in this lifetime, than to subjectively apply the ultimate punishment, seemingly at random.