- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Chemical company considers action against Louisiana over misuse of products in execution
Posted on 3/22/25 at 1:01 pm
Posted on 3/22/25 at 1:01 pm
quote:
The Louisiana Department of Public Safety & Corrections may have used compressed gas from a Pennsylvania company in the March 18 state execution of Jessie Hoffman, despite the fact that the company prohibits the use of its products for the purpose of killing people.
The office of Gov. Jeff Landry, an avid supporter of the death penalty, directed a request for comment by Gambit to the Department Public Safety & Corrections. Under a public records law passed last year, the department does not reveal information which could identify people or companies involved in executions. The department did not respond to a request for information about its procurement process.
However, photographs of the equipment used in Hoffman’s execution, which was done with the use of nitrogen gas, appear to show cylinders of compressed gas produced by Airgas may have been used.
LINK
9
Posted on 3/22/25 at 1:03 pm to 4cubbies
first downvote !
Posted on 3/22/25 at 1:05 pm to 4cubbies
There are strong arguments that you can't prohibit someone from using your product how they see fit once they legally purchase it
The right to repair argument and first sale doctrine both highlight this and I am sure there are several others
ETA: restrictions would be infringing on patents and copyrights which doesnt apply here
The right to repair argument and first sale doctrine both highlight this and I am sure there are several others
ETA: restrictions would be infringing on patents and copyrights which doesnt apply here
This post was edited on 3/22/25 at 1:10 pm
Posted on 3/22/25 at 1:26 pm to stout
quote:
There are strong arguments that you can't prohibit someone from using your product how they see fit once they legally purchase it
Every buffet-goer knows this
Posted on 3/22/25 at 1:32 pm to 4cubbies
Why aren't we just using fentanyl for this? Every junkie can find it and it is effective on all humans except George Floyd.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 1:34 pm to tiger789
Liberals just never give up, credit where it’s due.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 1:38 pm to chryso
quote:
Why aren't we just using fentanyl for this? Every junkie can find it and it is effective on all humans except George Floyd.
Or propofol. Count backwards from 100 and you're gone before you get to 95.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 1:40 pm to 4cubbies
Easiest way to put these people down is with confiscated fentanyl. The cartels are not going to sue anyone over their use.
Give the condemned a little bump to make them sleepy, then give them 10x a lethal dose.
Problem solved.
Give the condemned a little bump to make them sleepy, then give them 10x a lethal dose.
Problem solved.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 2:17 pm to alphaandomega
maybe some IV KCL [ potassium chloride } after the fentanyl as a coup de grâce
Posted on 3/22/25 at 2:27 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
despite the fact that the company prohibits the use of its products for the purpose of killing people.
Once the sale is transacted, it’s no longer their property and they don’t get to make that decision.
They can always shut down the company and/or stop selling the product in question.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 2:29 pm to stout
Gun company sues murderer for misusing product.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 2:41 pm to stout
quote:
There are strong arguments that you can't prohibit someone from using your product how they see fit once they legally purchase it
If companies can refuse to sell drugs for lethal injection cocktails to the state then an argument can probably be made that the company would have refused the sale had the state been up front about its intended use, particularly if the terms of use say that the chemicals cannot be used to o kill someone.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 2:50 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
If companies can refuse to sell drugs for lethal injection cocktails to the state then an
But won’t stop selling and using fentanyl and other opioids.
Glad big pharma has found some morals by not selling these same drugs to prisons.
But lethal injection under a bridge is cool.
And I’m glad they can refuse to do things they don’t want, unlike Catholics when it comes to abortions. Or Christians baking cakes.
This post was edited on 3/22/25 at 2:54 pm
Posted on 3/22/25 at 2:54 pm to stout
AirGas bottles are rentals, would that have any bearing?
Posted on 3/22/25 at 3:00 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
then an argument can probably be made that the company would have refused the sale had the state been up front about its intended use,
Only if they are making it a normal practice to ask every buyer the intended use of the product. If they aren't doing that they really have no argument.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 3:34 pm to DLauw
quote:
AirGas bottles are rentals, would that have any bearing?
Not really considering they are not technically creating nitrogen. They are just separating the oxygen, h20 and co2 of common air.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 4:00 pm to 4cubbies
What a retarded post.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 4:02 pm to stout
quote:
Only if they are making it a normal practice to ask every buyer the intended use of the product. If they aren't doing that they really have no argument.
Even if they did, they still wouldn’t have a cause of action to sue. Once you purchase a product, generally speaking, you can do what you want with it.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 7:20 pm to mtntiger
quote:I feel so good after being administered it before different surgical procedures. Wish there was a safe way to use this at home for a really nice 8 hours of sleep, but don't want to be Michael Jacksoned.
Or propofol. Count backwards from 100 and you're gone before you get to 95.
Posted on 3/22/25 at 8:10 pm to stout
quote:
Only if they are making it a normal practice to ask every buyer the intended use of the product. If they aren't doing that they really have no argument.
If there use a label that says “not for use to kill anyone” there is presumed agreement when someone purchases it.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News