|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 22, 2012 11:46:46 GMT
okay. how about giving me just one LEGITIMATE reason that the father should not have killed the piece of shyt. don't come off with something abjectly stupid such as it is a human being Because it is not for private citizen's to decide guilt and carry out the death penalty. It is for the courts to decide that, and to carry it out. And if someone does deserve death for what they did, let it least be done 'properly' via lethal injection or similar, rather than in a prolonged torturous way. so, you think a piece of shyt who brutally rapes and tortures a five year old child to death is somehow entitled to a nice, easy death. incredible
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 22, 2012 11:49:31 GMT
obviously, the law is able to determine the difference. How could it? In both cases you have a dead person being stood over by another person who says that they killed because of an attempt to steal their pen. Not particularly, and don't see what that affects. Fine, I believe you. so, you hear somebody breaking into your house, and call the cops. since response time to an emergency is around five minutes, you crawl under the bed and whimper until the cops get there, if they ever get there. cool, i guess, until the burglar blows you away
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 22, 2012 11:52:01 GMT
same question for you hon. what difference does it make whether or not the rapist stopped? how does that change the fact that it was raping his daughter? raping his daughter is MORE than adequate justification for killing it No, we don't give the death penalty for rape..in a court/legally. I'm just questioning why pulling the guy off and calling the cops isn't the thing to do; why give people all these excuses to kill? Beating the guy until he's subdued and calling the cops should be enough. Saying we can kill him is beyond what is necessary. of course, kennedy was one of the more imbecilic decisions of the supreme court, and inherently wrong. i have already explained that the cops do NOT have ANY duty to protect you. what does necessary have to do with anything?
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jun 22, 2012 12:05:01 GMT
No, we don't give the death penalty for rape..in a court/legally. I'm just questioning why pulling the guy off and calling the cops isn't the thing to do; why give people all these excuses to kill? Beating the guy until he's subdued and calling the cops should be enough. Saying we can kill him is beyond what is necessary. of course, kennedy was one of the more imbecilic decisions of the supreme court, and inherently wrong. i have already explained that the cops do NOT have ANY duty to protect you. what does necessary have to do with anything? Necessary means what is necessary to arrest the man. Beyond whatever it takes to get him subdued and detained until the cops can come is unnecessary. It's shocking and inconsistent for the state to tell us killing is wrong, but then tell us we can kill under numerous circumstances, even when killing isn't required to achieve the needed objective (arrest and detain until the police arrive).
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 22, 2012 15:04:57 GMT
you are right that it is illegal to go kill a piece of shyt after the fact. you have to catch it in the act in order to legally kill it. i find it incredible that so many people choose to defend rapists and murderers. that is insane I think some people here believe that once the assault has been stopped then that is after the fact. If it is right to pull a rapist off and continue to kill them anyway even when it clearly isn't a case of needed lethal force to make them stop, what moral difference would be made by waiting an hour or a day?
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 22, 2012 15:09:02 GMT
No idea who that is but I would not advocate that anyone should have to stand around and let someone be murdered. that's exactly what you have been saying. okay, if you saw someone being raped or murdered, would you kill the assailant? there is ONLY a yes or no answer Only if it was required to make them stop OR it was a case of diminished responsibility on my part. I'd like to think that it would not get to a situation where the assault has ceased yet I nevertheless consciously decide to kill the person anyway. And if it is right for me to make that conscious decision after the fact, why should it matter whether I do it straight away or wait a bit.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 22, 2012 15:11:26 GMT
so, you think a piece of shyt who brutally rapes and tortures a five year old child to death is somehow entitled to a nice, easy death. incredible Actually I wouldn't even advocate the death penalty as I am against irreversible methods of punishment on principle. Well, perhaps until the time comes where they could absolutely 100% guarantee that no miscarriage of justice would ever occur, which is likely to be a long, long way off.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 22, 2012 15:13:12 GMT
so, you hear somebody breaking into your house, and call the cops. since response time to an emergency is around five minutes, you crawl under the bed and whimper until the cops get there, if they ever get there. cool, i guess, until the burglar blows you away I am allowed to defend my life when there is a clear immediate danger to it.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 23, 2012 10:45:58 GMT
so, you hear somebody breaking into your house, and call the cops. since response time to an emergency is around five minutes, you crawl under the bed and whimper until the cops get there, if they ever get there. cool, i guess, until the burglar blows you away I am allowed to defend my life when there is a clear immediate danger to it. yes, indeed, as well as when there is the remotest possibility of ANY kind of danger to your life, your property, etc etc etc
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 23, 2012 10:48:02 GMT
that's exactly what you have been saying. okay, if you saw someone being raped or murdered, would you kill the assailant? there is ONLY a yes or no answer Only if it was required to make them stop OR it was a case of diminished responsibility on my part. I'd like to think that it would not get to a situation where the assault has ceased yet I nevertheless consciously decide to kill the person anyway. And if it is right for me to make that conscious decision after the fact, why should it matter whether I do it straight away or wait a bit. that's truly sad. obviously, you should NOT wait until the assault has ceased to decide to kill the punk. that should be the FIRST thought that comes to your mind
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 23, 2012 17:59:38 GMT
that's truly sad. obviously, you should NOT wait until the assault has ceased to decide to kill the punk. that should be the FIRST thought that comes to your mind Better late than never, if I decide to kill the perp a day later. The only reason I can see for insisting that I consciously decide to kill him at the time is so we can pretend that my punishment killing was 'defence'. But why bother with this pretence.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 24, 2012 9:19:39 GMT
that's truly sad. obviously, you should NOT wait until the assault has ceased to decide to kill the punk. that should be the FIRST thought that comes to your mind Better late than never, if I decide to kill the perp a day later. The only reason I can see for insisting that I consciously decide to kill him at the time is so we can pretend that my punishment killing was 'defence'. But why bother with this pretence. there is no pretense. ANYTHING that is done during the commission IS defense
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 24, 2012 12:16:58 GMT
However when people have said that they would only do what is necessary to make it stop, you have said that this was sad and that beating the perp to death should be the first thing on their minds.
If your concern is defence why are you not satisfied with a non-lethal defence and say that it is sad?
As I say, if you want the perp to be beaten to death as punishment let it be done after the fact without pretending that it is defence.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 24, 2012 13:23:12 GMT
However when people have said that they would only do what is necessary to make it stop, you have said that this was sad and that beating the perp to death should be the first thing on their minds. If your concern is defence why are you not satisfied with a non-lethal defence and say that it is sad? As I say, if you want the perp to be beaten to death as punishment let it be done after the fact without pretending that it is defence. the ONLY thought that should be in your mind at that time is to kill it
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 24, 2012 15:28:42 GMT
If defence really is the goal then defence should be the only thing in my mind. And if I successfully complete a defence without lethal force this shouldn't matter to you as the goal of defence has been satisfied.
If however you find it sad that I didn't kill the perp then as I keep asking, why the pretence that the goal is defence? I completed that goal. If your goal is a punishment/revenge death be honest and say so, and dispense with the requirement that the punishment/revenge killing has to occur at the time.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 25, 2012 10:02:31 GMT
If defence really is the goal then defence should be the only thing in my mind. And if I successfully complete a defence without lethal force this shouldn't matter to you as the goal of defence has been satisfied. If however you find it sad that I didn't kill the perp then as I keep asking, why the pretence that the goal is defence? I completed that goal. If your goal is a punishment/revenge death be honest and say so, and dispense with the requirement that the punishment/revenge killing has to occur at the time. simple REALITY. you can ONLY kill trash at the time it is asking to die. if you are so chicken shyt that you allow it to get away, instead of killing it, you cannot go do it the next day
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 25, 2012 11:46:47 GMT
simple REALITY. you can ONLY kill trash at the time it is asking to die. if you are so chicken shyt that you allow it to get away, instead of killing it, you cannot go do it the next day Yes but why should that be the case? What is the explanation for the requirement that it be done at the time?
|
|
♫anna♫
Global Moderator
Aug 18 2017 - Always In Our Hearts
The Federal Reserve Act is the Betrayal of the American Revolution!
e x a l t | s m i t e
karma:
Posts: 11,769
|
Post by ♫anna♫ on Jun 25, 2012 16:22:07 GMT
The "judical justification" of killing a violent predator, who was sexually attacking a child, lies in reasonable assumption that a criminal of this nature would likely use lethal force to complete it's crime and eliminate witnesses if not stopped by the lethal force of someone defending the child!
|
|