Colonel Russell Williams

[guyser]

I guess you are from a broken home where there was no father of father's basement - that explains the lack of good and strong male attitude.

Broken home, no mom , no dad, walked uphill 3 miles both ways to school, basement, no basements in tents doncha know?

You dont get it do you?

[Saipan]

If they arent born, they arent people.

So why is someone who killed pregnant mother charged with killing two?

The main issue remains. No one will miss someone like Russel. Why should the VICTIMS work and pay taxes to keep those creeps alive and well????

[Saipan]

No one who advocates it can be credible unless they would personally be prepared to carry out the sentence themselves and before you say you would, be honest with yourself. Would you really?

If, for example, someone broke into my house at night I'd carry the sentence right there and then.

Do you advocate police protect public? To "be credible", as you put it, you ought to be able to do that yourself.

[guyser]

So why is someone who killed pregnant mother charged with killing two?

What charge, show me the statute please and thanks.

[guyser]

If, for example, someone broke into my house at night I'd carry the sentence right there and then.

You like jail obviously.

[Wilber]

If, for example, someone broke into my house at night I'd carry the sentence right there and then.

Do you advocate police protect public? To "be credible", as you put it, you ought to be able to do that yourself.

We are speaking of capital punishment. There is a big difference between that and self defense. Even then you do not have a license to kill, only the amount of force required to defend yourself. The police are also limited to amount of force required to carry out their duties. We just ask them to put themselves in a position where lethal force may be required. We sure as hell don't ask them to execute people. Capital punishment is putting to death someone who is no immediate threat. If you are prepared to kill someone in cold blood, who you don't know and is in a position where they can be of no threat to you, fine. Otherwise, you are just asking someone else to do the dirty work you don't have the guts to do yourself.

[AngusThermopyle]

We have capital punishment ,it is called the army ,what do you think they do, kill for fun.

What an incredibly stupid post, makes absolutely no sense or point at all.

[PIK]

What an incredibly stupid post, makes absolutely no sense or point at all.

It is a great post, shows how dumb some people are in this country with the remarks made on this board, why is someone killed by the goverment, if it done by the hangman or a soldier, what is the difference? And I think the mods here should remove the word colonel from the title ,he is no longer a colonel, and to still refer to him as such is a insult .

[Wilber]

It is a great post, shows how dumb some people are in this country with the remarks made on this board, why is someone killed by the goverment, if it done by the hangman or a soldier, what is the difference? And I think the mods here should remove the word colonel from the title ,he is no longer a colonel, and to still refer to him as such is a insult .

The difference is a soldiers job is not specifically to kill people. It may require killing but that is not the object of the exercise.

[M.Dancer]

why is someone killed by the goverment, if it done by the hangman or a soldier, what is the difference?

A world of difference....a complete world away even.

1) A soldiers job is to neutralize a threat. This can mean anything from fire supression to deadly force.

2) The states role of execution is to kill, no kalf measures

3) The state must be statistfied with the guilt of the condemned.

4) The soldier is not concerned with guilt, even to the point of where soldiers of past wars have honoured the dead of their enemies

5) The execution of a condemned man falls under justice

6) The killing of an enemy falls under foreign policy

[Sir Bandelot]

7) The state executes an individual under a rule of law, and after some debate.

8) A soldier executes anonymous persons they have never seen before. There is no interview to establish credentials.

9) After a state execution, evidence can still be examined that might nullify the persons guilt.

10) In war, dead men tell no tales

[M.Dancer]

8) A soldier executes anonymous persons they have never seen before. There is no interview to establish credentials.

Soldiers if obeying the rules of war, do not execute, all though they do sometimes kill.

11) The soldier's enemies have a fighting chance

12) The condemned have a legal chance

[Wilber]

7) The state executes an individual under a rule of law, and after some debate.

8) A soldier executes anonymous persons they have never seen before. There is no interview to establish credentials.

9) After a state execution, evidence can still be examined that might nullify the persons guilt.

10) In war, dead men tell no tales

A soldier doesn't execute anyone without consequences, they do fight and often kill other people who are trying just as hard to kill them. Unfortunately you are unable to make the distinction.

[Sir Bandelot]

A soldier doesn't execute anyone without consequences, they do fight and often kill other people who are trying just as hard to kill them. Unfortunately you are unable to make the distinction.

Of course not. They never target a house with cruise missiles, without checking if there's any non-combatants in there either.

I guess you could even say, there is no "co-lateral damage".

Unfortunately you are unable to make the distinction.

As I said, dead men tell no tales. Quite fortunately, for people like you...

[Sir Bandelot]

Soldiers if obeying the rules of war, do not execute, all though they do sometimes kill.

11) The soldier's enemies have a fighting chance

12) The condemned have a legal chance

13) Civilians caught in the crossfire never had a chance.

[Wilber]

Of course not. They never target a house with cruise missiles, without checking if there's any non-combatants in there either.

I guess you could even say, there is no "co-lateral damage".

As I said, dead men tell no tales. Quite fortunately, for people like you...

Like I said, you are unable to make the distinction.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Wilber

[Saipan]

We are speaking of capital punishment.

Me too.

There is a big difference between that and self defense. Even then you do not have a license to kill, only the amount of force required to defend yourself. The police are also limited to amount of force required to carry out their duties.

So why they shoot only to kill, not to wound. Specifically trained to.

What exact "limited force" is a 70 year old homeowner allowed to use against young large (usually armed) thug? Does the law specify?

Otherwise, you are just asking someone else to do the dirty work you don't have the guts to do yourself.

You mean like city folks who are against hunting but still eat meat?

[Sir Bandelot]

Like I said, you are unable to make the distinction.

Not true Wilbur, I've made it perfectly clear that I'm talking about the killing of civilians. I don't criticize soldiers who have to kill someone who threatens them. Or neutralize, terminate, liquidate, whatever. I'm sure MDcancer can find the correct terminology for us, being the cunning linguist that he is.

However I will state that ideologically, I am totally against war as it is the most horrifically stupid and evil thing that humans do to one another.

[Wilber]

However I will state that ideologically, I am totally against war as it is the most horrifically stupid and evil thing that humans do to one another.

Who isn't but that doesn't mean it is never necessary. A soldier killing someone who is trying to destroy your country, your liberty, your way of life is not the same as some executioner committing a legally sanctioned homicide against someone who is no threat as long as they are incarcerated. To maintain other wise would be the same as sanctioning the execution of legitimate prisoners of war. A six year old could comprehend the difference.

[PIK]

why is someone killed by the goverment, if it done by the hangman or a soldier, what is the difference?

A world of difference....a complete world away even.

1) A soldiers job is to neutralize a threat. This can mean anything from fire supression to deadly force.

2) The states role of execution is to kill, no kalf measures

3) The state must be statistfied with the guilt of the condemned.

4) The soldier is not concerned with guilt, even to the point of where soldiers of past wars have honoured the dead of their enemies

5) The execution of a condemned man falls under justice

6) The killing of an enemy falls under foreign policy

# 1 , same as capital punishment, neutralize a threat.

#2- Soldiers shoot to kill.

#3-State has to be satified the guilt of who will we go to war with.

#4 In the 1st war chivary was alive and strong but that has almost died off.

#5 different words same results.

#6 Same people.

[PIK]

The difference is a soldiers job is not specifically to kill people. It may require killing but that is not the object of the exercise.

Time of war soldiers kill people, in peace time then they become snow shoveers for toronto.

[AngusThermopyle]

13) Civilians caught in the crossfire never had a chance.

And there in lies the key and telling difference,"caught in the crossfire". Not targetted as a legitimate or desirable target. In twenty years of service I never once encountered a fellow service member who wished to target civilians. Nor did I ever encounter one who would not take measures to avoid such incidents. Civilians caught in a crossfire are regretable accidents, not deliberate targets.

As for the points PIK makes...well they really are not even worth responding to. If this individual is as ignorant as their comments would appear to make them look then there is simply no point in wasting time trying to explain to them. Reminds me of Jethro Tull's "Thick As A Brick" actually.

[Wilber]

So why they shoot only to kill, not to wound. Specifically trained to.

What exact "limited force" is a 70 year old homeowner allowed to use against young large (usually armed) thug? Does the law specify?

That is what their firearms are for, a last resort. People only shoot to wound in the movies unless it is your local gangster kneecapping a competitor. You think a police officer should not shoot to kill when faced with someone who is trying their best to kill him?

The law doesn't specify, it can't. Should that 70 year old homeowner be allowed to blow an unarmed kids head off with a 12 guage?

You mean like city folks who are against hunting but still eat meat?

Are you suggesting we eat them to.

Edited November 5, 2010 by Wilber

[Saipan]

The law doesn't specify, it can't. Should that 70 year old homeowner be allowed to blow an unarmed kids head off with a 12 guage?

What the law specify?

Should that armed kid be allowed to blow an unarmed 70 year old homeowner's head off with a 12 guage?

[Saipan]

Are you suggesting we eat them to.

Duno. Do you buy fried chicken to pet them?