• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Minuteman Child Killer Wins Execution

Don't worry Americans....in time your society may join more advanced societies that no longer practice Judicial killings.
 
Last edited:
Meanwhile, back closer to the topic.

I have just been informed a few days ago by my nephew who is currently working in one of those southern states bordering Mexico (won't say which one) that these heavily armed and apparently police-supported private vigilante groups driving unmarked SUVs are in the habit of heavily monstering and physically attacking tourists, brandishing and discharging heavy-duty automatic firearms near them to scare them, and then tailing them aggressively back to their hotels (in the city) in their trucks.

Why? Because they stopped to admire the scenery on "the wrong road" even though it was completely public, and they did not speak with an American accent nor have US drivers licenses. The excuse for this assault was the vigilantes were "looking for drug deals". Not wetbacks, drug deals.

These are the sort of groups this woman headed up, and if this action my nephew endured was typical of them, I'm hardly surprised at what she did.
 
dtugg said:
That there was hope so forcing them to stay in a horrible place until they died on their own was somehow better than killing them.
Click to expand...

For the record , if i am ever convicted of a crime i didn't commit i would rather be imprisoned forever than killed.

Not that i am weighing in on the death penalty ( i have actually backed myself into a moral conundrum due to some good posts in the thread.) , but any situation in which i am not dead, is better than a situation in which i am, in my opinion.
 
dtugg said:
What if the problem isn't fixed and an innocent man spends the rest of his life in prison?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Mister Earl said:
Whoa... that'd be an excellent sci-fi book. Mind if I thief that idea?
Click to expand...
I think it's been done; I remember a CoC scenario that had human sacrifice to power time travel and there was a short story (in Sideways in Crime?) that has condemned prisoners used for the purpose.
ETA: It was John Meaney's “Via Vortex” and they were used to power a teleportation device.
 
Last edited:
The Fool said:
Don't worry Americans....in time your society may join more advanced societies that no longer practice Judicial killings.
Click to expand...
They once did, however Americans seem to have been moving mostly backwards over the past decades.
 
In order to approve of killing people who you think deserve it, you have to have an excuse to conflict with the basic idea that killing is wrong. That feeling you get that makes killing feel like it's wrong happens to keep carrying over for some people in all cases.

I don't think it's wrong to kill people who supposedly deserve it because I pity the killer or want their crime excused. I think killing is wrong, it's that simple. I think satisfaction from killing someone is repugnant but see the attraction. I think the idea of a society is an ideal, and it's a suspension of that ideal to allow for the killing of people who are deemed to deserve it. I want my society and my justice system to be above the base desires I am prone to being a victim of. I have to resist the urge and desire for the death of these people in some senses, when I imagine myself in the same situation for instance. But I have the luxury of not being emotionally involved, outside looking in. Someday we will hopefully catch up with the western societies of Europe who see this as far too similar to revenge to allow. One must make sacrifices to live in a society. You have to resist the urge to mate with whomever you can overpower, you have to resist bashing in the skull of someone who threatens you, and this is no different.

When it comes down to it, the entire notion of people "deserving" anything is nothing but a psychological construct, but this presents quite a dilemma when you turn this logic around on basic human rights.
 
Halfcentaur said:
In order to approve of killing people who you think deserve it, you have to have an excuse to conflict with the basic idea that killing is wrong. That feeling you get that makes killing feel like it's wrong happens to keep carrying over for some people in all cases.

I don't think it's wrong to kill people who supposedly deserve it because I pity the killer or want their crime excused. I think killing is wrong, it's that simple. I think satisfaction from killing someone is repugnant but see the attraction. I think the idea of a society is an ideal, and it's a suspension of that ideal to allow for the killing of people who are deemed to deserve it. I want my society and my justice system to be above the base desires I am prone to being a victim of. I have to resist the urge and desire for the death of these people in some senses, when I imagine myself in the same situation for instance. But I have the luxury of not being emotionally involved, outside looking in. Someday we will hopefully catch up with the western societies of Europe who see this as far too similar to revenge to allow. One must make sacrifices to live in a society. You have to resist the urge to mate with whomever you can overpower, you have to resist bashing in the skull of someone who threatens you, and this is no different.

When it comes down to it, the entire notion of people "deserving" anything is nothing but a psychological construct, but this presents quite a dilemma when you turn this logic around on basic human rights.
Click to expand...

So if someone is trying to kill me, it would be wrong of me to kill him first? Or maybe it isn't that simple?
 
pipelineaudio said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder...ged_involvement_of_Minutemen_American_Defense

"Minutemen American Defense is a militant nativist splinter group founded in the late 2000s by Forde after she was expelled[citation needed] from the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps. "

Ahh, I see what you did there

So, not the minutemen
Click to expand...

I personally consider her actions to be heinous, and a little chemical cocktail to be way too kind.

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.

Sometimes I just want to puke. If it wasn't for the grandkids I would have left here a while ago.

V.
 
Verde said:
I personally consider her actions to be heinous, and a little chemical cocktail to be way too kind.

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.

Sometimes I just want to puke. If it wasn't for the grandkids I would have left here a while ago.

V.
Click to expand...

Evidence?
 
dtugg said:
So if someone is trying to kill me, it would be wrong of me to kill him first? Or maybe it isn't that simple?
Click to expand...

I think it was pretty clear that Halfcentaur was referencing situations in which someone is being held in captivity, not self defense.
 
I Am The Scum said:
I think it was pretty clear that Halfcentaur was referencing situations in which someone is being held in captivity, not self defense.
Click to expand...

Possible. I'll let him clear it up. In that case, though, it is not "killing is wrong," it is "killing is sometimes wrong." We just disagree when it is wrong.
 
Last edited:
dtugg said:
Possible. I'll let him clear it up. In that case, though, it is not "killing is wrong," it is "killing is sometimes wrong." We just disagree when it is wrong.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't stop so soon. I can justify my stance. Killing is acceptable if it is necessary to end an immediate threat. What's your justification?
 
I Am The Scum said:
If you would bother to compose this into an actual argument, it would be obvious how laughable this reasoning is.

Don't throw out talking points. Make a case.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know you cannot refute the fact that dead people can't hurt anyone, why didn't you just say so?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom