Texan 'hero' shoots and kills burglars at neighbours' - Page 34 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Traveler · #**496** (**permalink**) 03-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

I heard that France made its last execution with a guillotine as late as 1977. Talking about being brutal!

Awesome, we had only brought back our death penalty like 5 years before or something, we can't hang juve's anymore though. NJ just voted to get rid of the death penalty too, but over 75% of our states still carry the punishment.

SomeMarine · #**497** (**permalink**) 03-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scribbler1

Since they were apparently thieves and this guy killed them, how does that fit with the specific incident we're discussing? The difference between "steal and you get your hand cut off" and "steal and we blow you away" is a big one.The whole point, as addressed by some here, is that it wasn't his call to decide and administer the ultimate punishment. Seriously. what if this guy had been wrong about what they were doing?

I know one thing for sure, if this guy's neighbors fell behind in their car payments, I'd hate like hell to be the repo man.

But he wasn't wrong, was he? He knew what was going on, didn't he.

You can always what if a situation to death:

" What if, right as he shot, an endangered California Condor flew inbetween him and his targets!!!! He shouldn't have shot, because that is a possibility! Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm all for punishing criminals and them getting what they deserve, but not if the remote possibility of a condor getting hurt exists."

AdrienXII · #**498** (**permalink**) 03-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wallaroo

I heard that France made its last execution with a guillotine as late as 1977. Talking about being brutal!

It was gruesome, I agree, and probably hard for the family. But if you're going to kill someone, you might as well get some dissuasive communication mileage out of it. Was it more brutal for the condemned than the electric chair, or the gas chamber? I don't think so. It's a good system. No screw ups.

Scribbler1 · #**499** (**permalink**) 03-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

But that's the thing, if its a state defined execution (authorised and sanctioned by the goverment) doesn't it become capital rather than corporal punishment? That was always the way i thought it worked anyway....

If memory serves, corporal punishment is basically hitting someone in a non-fatal manner and capital punishment is the big one.

AdrienXII · #**500** (**permalink**) 03-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomeMarine

Because, it makes those big old ugly bruises. Plus, if it happens to a black man, it just proves how "racist" the government is, because we condone the beatings of blacks, just like slave owners used to do down on the plantation. And didn't you know, EVERY white man owned a plantation and slaves.

Plus, corporal punishment HURTS. You can't punish a criminal, you have to reform them and educate them, cuddle and coddle and understand their disadvantages. But, you definatly CANNOT punish and hurt them.

So in what way is capital punishment preferable? As you pointed out, it is the ultimate corporal punishment, barring extravagant medieval tortures...

Traveler · #**501** (**permalink**) 03-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scribbler1

Since they were apparently thieves and this guy killed them, how does that fit with the specific incident we're discussing? The difference between "steal and you get your hand cut off" and "steal and we blow you away" is a big one.The whole point, as addressed by some here, is that it wasn't his call to decide and administer the ultimate punishment. Seriously. what if this guy had been wrong about what they were doing?

But you're confusing the issue here. Horny wasn't the legal authority here and handing the state's punishment to these folks, he was taking his own actions within the scope of the law that is at his disposal as a citizen and then a home owner and then third party as a neighbor.

Quote:

I know one thing for sure, if this guy's neighbors fell behind in their car payments, I'd hate like hell to be the repo man.

Well let's look at that, a repo guy comes over, horny suspects something, calls the police, tells the guy to freezo and warns him not to move, the guy does as much, explains who he is and there's no problem. Horny did know these were bruglars, there's no "apparently" about it like you said above.

Traveler · #**502** (**permalink**) 03-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

It was gruesome, I agree, and probably hard for the family. But if you're going to kill someone, you might as well get some dissuasive communication mileage out of it. Was it more brutal for the condemned than the electric chair, or the gas chamber? I don't think so. It's a good system. No screw ups.

Wow, you guys are much more blood-thirsty than we are!!

I will say one thing, i do agree about being decisive about it, don't fuck it up and give it a good voltage or use a good few rounds on a firing squad's time, if you mess it up the civil repurcussions are enormous.

Wallaroo · #**503** (**permalink**) 03-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by SomeMarine

Plus, corporal punishment HURTS. You can't punish a criminal, you have to reform them and educate them, cuddle and coddle and understand their disadvantages. But, you definatly CANNOT punish and hurt them.

You cant hurt them officially, but most american prisons are houses of pain anyway. Wouldnt you rather get 30 whiplashes on your back instead of being locked up for 23 hours a day in a little cell with nothing to do? I sure as shit would!

Si modo · #**504** (**permalink**) 03-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Everyone knows that the troops don't own their GI weapons but there's no rule that says they can't own personal weapons.

Read the post again and then us all know where I said anything about that "rule", K?

Traveler · #**505** (**permalink**) 03-08-2008

Quote:

You cant hurt them officially, but most american prisons are houses of pain anyway. Wouldnt you rather get 30 whiplashes on your back instead of being locked up for 23 hours a day in a little cell with nothing to do? I sure as shit would!

Well have you ever been lashed? Anyway the common sense approach and answer would be to live within the boundries of the law...don't wind up in trouble with the law.

Traveler · #**506** (**permalink**) 03-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

So in what way is capital punishment preferable? As you pointed out, it is the ultimate corporal punishment, barring extravagant medieval tortures...

Well would you be in favor of having both? Punishment fitting crime and all?

AdrienXII · #**507** (**permalink**) 03-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Well have you ever been lashed? Anyway the common sense approach and answer would be to live within the boundries of the law...don't wind up in trouble with the law.

Like, who does? Not your politicians, that's for sure...

pramjockey · #**508** (**permalink**) 03-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by EricOKC

You can view it that way, or you could be less of a condescending judgmental ass and consider a different perspective. It is not that the property is more important - it is what that property represents.

I value life on a varying scale. The lives of my loved ones are more important than my own. Then comes my life. Then comes everyone else. Frankly I do not understand the mentality which would place the life of someone who wished to hurt me or my loved ones on the same plane of my own.

It seems to me that you take the position that the lives of all human beings are equal. That raises the question in my mind of how you would react if you had the choice to save the life of your child, for example, by taking the life of someone who is attempting to harm him. In my view, there is no question as to the outcome of that situation. Your stated position indicates you would do nothing and simply let your child die rather than harm another. I find that to be beneath contempt. Even animals defend their young.

It all comes down to respect. A criminal who will violate my home and property has demonstrated that I am not worthy of HIS respect, so frankly I see no reason to respect him.

Gee, more personal attacks. What a surprise.

You make some very interestin ASSumptions. And, as usual, you're dead wrong. To me the lives of my family and loved ones are more important than my own. I would gladly die to save the life of my wife or a good friend. And, yes, I would take a life to save a life - I would shoot an aggressor who was threatening another's life if there were no other way to stop the act. However, I can't think of a single piece of property that I own that is worth murdering another human being for. Would I confront someone trying to steal/damage my property? Clearly. Would I shoot him/her in the back? No.

Wallaroo · #**509** (**permalink**) 03-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by AdrienXII

It was gruesome, I agree, and probably hard for the family. But if you're going to kill someone, you might as well get some dissuasive communication mileage out of it. Was it more brutal for the condemned than the electric chair, or the gas chamber? I don't think so. It's a good system. No screw ups.

Propably not, but still incredibly ugly!

Getting hit by a 320 km/h TGV train must be the least painful.

AdrienXII · #**510** (**permalink**) 03-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Traveler

Well would you be in favor of having both? Punishment fitting crime and all?

I'd be in favor of having neither. This said, if you're going to keep the death penalty, I see no reason at all to dispense with corporal punishment. It allows you to have a graduated response.