Wilber Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 A killer is a killer is a killer...we don't need more things done in our world our of sheer spite..we have enough spite...I think it's funny that those in pro of execution are jerks that will say " I would gladly pull the switch on the bastard" - I bet nickles to donuts that those pro execution types are cowardly when it comes to defending them selves - or fending off an attacker - once they have the bad guy strapped to a gurney or chair and he or she is helpless then the cowards are full of bravado. When push comes to shove, I wonder how many people who say they would pull the switch, actually would. A lot fewer than make the claim I bet and if a person isn't really prepared to do it, they have no right to ask someone else to do it for them. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 When push comes to shove, I wonder how many people who say they would pull the switch, actually would. A lot fewer than make the claim I bet and if a person isn't really prepared to do it, they have no right to ask someone else to do it for them. I would! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Saipan Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 When push comes to shove, I wonder how many people who say they would pull the switch, actually would. Cops do all the time, anywhere. Even home owners. Quote
Wilber Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 Cops do all the time, anywhere. Even home owners. Execute people. Bullshit. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 Execute people. Bullshit. OK...justifiable homicide....better? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Wilber Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 OK...justifiable homicide....better? Big difference. A person being executed for a crime is not the same as someone being killed because they present an immediate threat to other lives. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 Big difference. A person being executed for a crime is not the same as someone being killed because they present an immediate threat to other lives. True, but he/she must still be put to death according to law when so sentenced. Somebody/something must do that. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest American Woman Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 When push comes to shove, I wonder how many people who say they would pull the switch, actually would. A lot fewer than make the claim I bet and if a person isn't really prepared to do it, they have no right to ask someone else to do it for them. There are a lot of things people aren't prepared to do themselves, but that doesn't mean there aren't others prepared to do the job. Are you prepared to be a police officer? A heart surgeon? Career military? A veterinarian who puts down ailing animals? The President/Prime Minister? I'm not prepared to do any of those things, but others choose to do it -- and whether or not I have the right to ask them to do it has nothing at all to do with it. Quote
Saipan Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 Big difference. A person being executed for a crime is not the same as someone being killed because they present an immediate threat to other lives. Very dangerous criminals are executed, shot etc. #1 priority is the safety of the public. #2 Priority - see #1. Quote
Saipan Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 Again, all of these people have been screened and had military training. Not the same as allowing any nitwit to buy the cannon of their choice and take it home. That's why National Firearm Assocation recommends stricter licencing for cops, military, civilians, guards etc. ALL the same. Just like type of driver's licences. Join the military and then remain in the reserves after you leave. I did. Now tell indians. Quote
Saipan Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 Big difference. A person being executed for a crime is not the same as someone being killed because they present an immediate threat to other lives. Hmmm, say you won't eat until you kill that cow, dress and cook it. Will you starve to death? I know some of the fat people on reserves will starve if their can opener is registered/confiscsted. Quote
PIK Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Posted February 1, 2011 Yes, and home invasion would be prevented by steel door and more locks. Mugging could be prevented by not going out after dark or "being in the wrong place at wrong time". Perhaps living in a solid bunker. I have not lock my doors in years.And in the summer , it is just the screen door.But not everybody can live in gods country where you can actually trust the people around you. Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Wilber Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 Hmmm, say you won't eat until you kill that cow, dress and cook it. Will you starve to death? I know some of the fat people on reserves will starve if their can opener is registered/confiscsted. Are you advocating cannibalism? We eat the criminals we execute? Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Saipan Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 I have not lock my doors in years.And in the summer , it is just the screen door.But not everybody can live in gods country where you can actually trust the people around you. Same here. But in my little town every household have some firearms. Only a complete moron would try home invasion here. Quote
Saipan Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 We eat the criminals we execute? No we don't. Neither do we eat coytes, foxes, weasels, martens, wolfs........ except black bears, they go to freezer. But we shoot them if need to be. But you miss the point. Bambi defenders should be allowed only the food they can harvest. Quote
PIK Posted February 1, 2011 Author Report Posted February 1, 2011 No we don't. Neither do we eat coytes, foxes, weasels, martens, wolfs........ except black bears, they go to freezer. But we shoot them if need to be. But you miss the point. Bambi defenders should be allowed only the food they can harvest. That would take care of a lot of lefty voters, a certain majority for sure. lol Quote Toronto, like a roach motel in the middle of a pretty living room.
Wilber Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 But we shoot them if need to be. Exactly, we shoot them if need be. There is no need to shoot convicted criminals, only a desire to get even. It is not me who is missing the point. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
segnosaur Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 Are you advocating cannibalism? We eat the criminals we execute? If we did that, I'd suggest bringing back the electric chair. You know... so we can execute and cook them at the same time. It'll save us a step. Quote
segnosaur Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 Exactly, we shoot them if need be. There is no need to shoot convicted criminals, only a desire to get even. It is not me who is missing the point. Please define "a desire to get even". I have no moral objection to the concept of the death penalty. I believe that some people's actions are so abhorrent that they have forfeit their right to life. I believe it is a case of letting the "punishment fit the crime". I do have an objection to the death penalty from a pragmatic point of view (in particular the chance of executing an innocent person), but that doesn't mean I'm automatically going to assume that anyone who supports the death penalty is some bloodthirsty monster who's only out for blood. Quote
Wilber Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 Please define "a desire to get even". I have no moral objection to the concept of the death penalty. I believe that some people's actions are so abhorrent that they have forfeit their right to life. I believe it is a case of letting the "punishment fit the crime". I do have an objection to the death penalty from a pragmatic point of view (in particular the chance of executing an innocent person), but that doesn't mean I'm automatically going to assume that anyone who supports the death penalty is some bloodthirsty monster who's only out for blood. Hammurabi's Code That's just it, people justify putting someone to death because of their beliefs, not because it is necessary. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
segnosaur Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 Hammurabi's Code That's just it, people justify putting someone to death because of their beliefs, not because it is necessary. Hate to sound too picky, but please define the word "necessary". It may not be "necessary" in order to prevent other innocent people from being killed. (Well, apart from any killed by escapees and/or killed in prison.) But some may feel it is necessary to ensure that adequate justice is done for crimes committed, even if I have no connection to the murderer or the victim. Quote
guyser Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 Hammurabi's Code That's just it, people justify putting someone to death because of their beliefs, not because it is necessary. Have to admit, the one about the Judge's is pretty darn good. Quote
guyser Posted February 1, 2011 Report Posted February 1, 2011 (edited) I have not lock my doors in years.And in the summer , it is just the screen door.But not everybody can live in gods country where you can actually trust the people around you. Where would that be? I live in Toronto and never lock my back door unless I'm gone for the weekend......and even then I am prone to forget....as you know, rural crime rates exceed urban crime rates.('cept for car thefts ) Edited February 1, 2011 by guyser Quote
Wilber Posted February 2, 2011 Report Posted February 2, 2011 Hate to sound too picky, but please define the word "necessary". It may not be "necessary" in order to prevent other innocent people from being killed. (Well, apart from any killed by escapees and/or killed in prison.) But some may feel it is necessary to ensure that adequate justice is done for crimes committed, even if I have no connection to the murderer or the victim. Guess I just don't subscribe to the idea that it is OK to put someone to death just because of the way I "feel". My stand on capital punishment has more to do with my own conscience than the fate of a criminal. In fact I don't have any sympathy for many of these scumbags and perhaps they don't have the right to life but that is not for me to say. Killing someone for a crime will not undo what happened. It may be a sanctioned killing but it is really just another killing. Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Saipan Posted February 2, 2011 Report Posted February 2, 2011 Exactly, we shoot them if need be. There is no need to shoot convicted criminals, only a desire to get even. It is not me who is missing the point. To get even would be beating them to death with baseball bat, slowly stab to death, run over by a car, strangle...... or whatever they did. If they killed two or more then they would be hanged lightly. Then saved by modern medicine, hanged again later .... etc. Execution is making sure they won't kill anymore innocent peole. Which is PRIORITY #1. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.