Minuteman Child Killer Wins Execution

[I Am The Scum]

Yes, I know you cannot refute the fact that dead people can't hurt anyone, why didn't you just say so?

I'm not disputing the fact that dead people can't hurt anyone.

Let me ask you this: Why should I not kill my next door neighbor? After he's dead, he won't be able to hurt anyone. This is good, right?

 

[pipelineaudio]

What distresses me is that there is a chunk of the AZ population (a minority, but a vocal one) that supports her actions.

Anything to get rid of the brown-skins.

You mean the black population?

I'm pretty sure theres about exactly as many racists in Arizona as anywhere else. The trouble comes when people call those who want to get rid of the criminals "racists"

 

[dtugg]

I'm not disputing the fact that dead people can't hurt anyone.

Let me ask you this: Why should I not kill my next door neighbor? After he's dead, he won't be able to hurt anyone. This is good, right?

I am pretty sure your next door neighbor has not proved that he is willing to committ murder.

 

[quixotecoyote]

I am pretty sure your next door neighbor has not proved that he is willing to committ murder.

Baby step by baby step, you're putting up sentences that may one day join together and create an argument.

 

[dtugg]

Baby step by baby step, you're putting up sentences that may one day join together and create an argument.

It is pretty simple. It is hardly my problem if some people are unable to follow.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I am pretty sure your next door neighbor has not proved that he is willing to committ murder.

But that wasn't your original point. Initially you stated that it was a matter of preventing one from causing harm. So now you have conceded that "preventing harm" is insufficient. We're on the right track.

Now you're saying that it is also a matter of whether or not one has committed murder in the past. I understand that this is your argument, however, I am asking for you to support your argument.

I could just as easily state that we should break the jaws of those who chew with their mouths open. That way, they will be unable to chew with their mouths open again. Now, that last point is inarguable, but it doesn't make a case for fracturing anyone's bones. I could point out that there is a clear division between those who have chewed with their mouth open, and those who have not, but that's still not making a case. There's a clear divide between left- and right-handed individuals, as well. All red herrings.

 

[Finn McR]

Oh, puh-leez. Not the same ignorance about what an automatic firearm is? For the un-informed:
Automatic means that the weapon will fire continuously when the trigger is depressed (or some small multiple of times, usually 3, when called "selective autofire").
Semi-automatic means that either 1) after cocking the weapon the first time, or 2) after a long initial trigger pull (with a loaded chamber) the weapon will fire one round *per trigger pull*, no other input is required from the firer.

The plain fact is that most handguns are semi-automatic. Hunting rifles are (almost certainly, I've not done a survey) not semi-automatic (think of bolt-action rifles, wherein the user has to manually cycle the bolt). Sporting (target-shooting) rifles can be semi-automatic, but are *generally* more accurate if not.

The lie that automatic weapons are commonly available in the USA is pervasive. Hopefully it is due to the ignorance of the media, not due to an agenda.

For any potential bleeding hearts out there that think that semi-auto is as "bad" as auto-fire I have a requirement prior to bitching: go to a range and put rounds on-target on a timed course.

 

[Arisia]

...

I'm pretty sure theres about exactly as many racists in Arizona as anywhere else. The trouble comes when people call those who want to get rid of the criminals "racists"

Well, if 'those who want to get rid of the criminals' only look at particular groups of people (usually of a fairly dark complexion, strangely enough) as potential criminals, then they are "racists".

 

[Rasmus]

Well, if 'those who want to get rid of the criminals' only look at particular groups of people (usually of a fairly dark complexion, strangely enough) as potential criminals, then they are "racists".

uh ... no, not necessarily.

One can chose to concentrate on a particular crime - say, illegal immigration - for all sorts of reasons without being racist. The crime is not defined by the race of those committing it, after all.

 

[Mycroft]

If ever the death penalty is to act as a deterrent, this is it. We have groups of vigilantes running around, some apparently with the approval of the local police. At the very least this sends them the message that they are not above the law.

 

[pipelineaudio]

Well, if 'those who want to get rid of the criminals' only look at particular groups of people (usually of a fairly dark complexion, strangely enough) as potential criminals, then they are "racists".

And if they did what you and your ilk so often claim, they'd only be looking at themselves. Contrary to the popular media characature, arizona is not this population of pastey toned whiteys circling the wagons against a horde of brownies. Arizona is instead a melting pot of white, red, brown and black.

BTW the majority of mexicans aren't any darker than anyone else. As a hawaiian I am far far darker than most of them. Add to this the number of pastey whiteys who identify themselves culturally as "mexican" and you can see why we get so confused about the media myths and stereotypes we so often hear repeated.

 

[shecky]

And if they did what you and your ilk so often claim, they'd only be looking at themselves. Contrary to the popular media characature, arizona is not this population of pastey toned whiteys circling the wagons against a horde of brownies. Arizona is instead a melting pot of white, red, brown and black.

BTW the majority of mexicans aren't any darker than anyone else. As a hawaiian I am far far darker than most of them. Add to this the number of pastey whiteys who identify themselves culturally as "mexican" and you can see why we get so confused about the media myths and stereotypes we so often hear repeated.

Are you saying the average Arizonan has trouble identifying Mexicans?

 

[pipelineaudio]

Are you saying the average Arizonan has trouble identifying Mexicans?

Im saying the average arizonan IS a mexican

What does a mexican look like exactly?

 

[Travis]

Like if, and this is purely imaginary, two lawyers know their client did a murder and an innocent man is being tried for it but jusdicial "ethics" in their imaginary country says they get punished by losing their lawyer stuff if they tell the truth to the court trying him so he is found guilty and jailed. A long time later their client dies and eventually they get around to telling. After the innocent man has been in jail a long time. He does get out but can't even sue the slimy bastards because they are protected under Judicial "ethics". They are some of that trash that needs to be thrown out.


Oh, the imaginary country is the US and the case came out about 3 years ago. And lawyers wonder why innocent people do not like them.

You think that attorneys should be able to rat out their clients?

 

[Varanid]

I value children very much. As school ads sometimes say "Children are our future." I want a good one for them.

*Pounds head against wall.*
Forget the children already. I vote we eat the children. Or at least feed them to a Kraken or something. No one ever wants to talk about how annoying kids are. No one is ever going to forget about he precious, spoiled, over indulged, children any time soon. /hyperbolic semi-serious rant.

Those outraged have a right to their outrage. I just say I hope they never have a situation where it is their child (or a friend's, neighbor's, co-worker's.................). One that makes them realize their outrage is misdirected - too late.

Jokes aside, doesn't that illustrate that this position (pro death penalty in this case) at the very least, has a strong emotional basis?

 

[Varanid]

I don't really know how I feel about the death penalty as a policy.

On the one hand, I completely understand the reasons why putting criminals of arbitrarily violent level X to death, make sense. Arguments would involve protecting citizens, resource savings, and deterrence among others. I don't agree with those positions, but do see valid logic in these positions.

On the other hand, which I find myself leaning towards, the State should not have the right to take your life. Period. In my view, the only thing that you ever truly have ownership of is, is your life/body. It is not the property of the State.

Here is the problem: I don't feel that incarceration is a right that the state should have. Of course I do think it is the state's duty to protect citizens, however it does not necessarily follow, that the means it accomplishes this by, is to incarcerate others.

Sending you to prison for 50 years is about *this much* (holds fingers really close together) better than the death penalty in my view. Depending upon how long it has been since I have seen Shawshank, I may argue the Death Penalty was more humane.

I have no problem with having rules for societal participation, and I would agree that quarantining violent criminals from the populace is an appropriate strategy. But, we would (in this philosophical utopia that I am discussing) be better served by "deportation". Obviously, this isn't possible, but it is the natural arithmetic of my personal world view.

All of that aside, the simple fact that mistakes can be made makes me very hesitant to side on the pro-death penalty side. Not that it is possible to give back time people have served, but killing them wrongly is certainly worse.