Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,272
- Location
- Woking
It went out of fashion with pig iron chastity belts and racks.
Botched execution in the US
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
It went out of fashion with pig iron chastity belts and racks.
Didn't you know, unless you bay for blood like a neanderthal you are a softie, lefty, do-gooder, liberal, socialist, communist, hippy.
I think the problem is, it involves significantly more effort & time to educate yourself on the myriad of different causal factors which lead up-to crime than it is to have a view which is "kill da crimz for being evilz!".
It's intellectual laziness at it's worse.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
No, it doesn't. You live in a society which is reaping the economic benefits of these conflicts, making you complicit in them. Anything less than active protest is complicity.
No it's not, because your side of the argument reduced the debate to 'killing is wrong'. Evidently killing is NOT wrong in some circumstances as some posters seem to accept you can kill in self-defence.
If killing is acceptable in some circumstances, then their claim that 'killing is wrong' is clearly false, and the ball is back in their court to explain why killing those who commit the most horrific crimes is wrong.
Then dont execute anyone where there is a shadow of doubt.. So exactly like now except the 2 in the article would be dead years ago..
In the cold light of day, killing is ALWAYS wrong unless nothing can be done to avoid it. Capital punishment is, quite obviously, avoidable.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
So if someone were brutally raping and torturing your partner, would you use deadly force to protect them? You cannot be sure that your partner would die, so your using deadly force would surely be the bigger crime?
Are you a Christian by any chance? I cannot fathom why a non-religious person would hold such a position.
Someone rapes and tortures your GF but does not manage to kill her as you kill him 1st so you are worst than he is?
WTF is with todays society?
And you would have killed him not murdered him and I would say even the UK courts would side with you it was your right to do so.
You would not be a murderer but I guess a killer as you killed someone.
WTF is with todays society?
And you would have killed him not murdered him and I would say even the UK courts would side with you it was your right to do so.
You would not be a murderer but I guess a killer as you killed someone.
Last edited:
In such an example, the force used would reflect that the act would simply HAVE to be stopped. It wouldn't be the aim to use deadly force (the aim simply to prevent the event), and if killing was a by-product, then so be it. It doesn't make it right to actively aim to kill someone even in that extreme circumstance.
In the cold light of day, killing that person deliberately would have been the wrong choice if it were avoidable.
I am not religious.
(it's not that I wouldn't WANT to kill such a person in that circumstance - I'm sure I would, and it would be understandable -but it would still be wrong)
Last edited:
Why are you attempting to compare execution with self-defence or the defence of others?.
One has an immediate danger associated with it, the other is after the fact retribution.
Does your mind only work in binary?, as you seem to be arguing that because a person may have to kill in self-defence, or if a government the population has no control over kills people - we are all complicit in murder & therefore executions are fine?.
What angle are you going for here as your argument is all over the place.
Indeed, why is that so hard for some people to comprehend.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 May 2004
- Posts
- 4,488
- Location
- Tall building nearby
Force used in that respect is for the greater good and even then the force used should be viewed as proportional to the situation. If a life is taken in the above situation it can be viewed in two respects only, accident in the heat of the moment or excessive force after the the assailant has been subdued. In either respect it is not an execution, one is an accident and the other maybe called murder dependent on the context.
I think anyone would use the force they needed to stop and subdue the assailant, there would be no time to clearly think of any objective including weather you were going to use deadly force.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
Why would it be wrong? He's doing serious harm to your partner and there is no guarantee that anything short of death would stop him. Why would it be wrong to take his life and ensure the security of you and your partner?
I am not suggesting my scenario is analogous to execution, they are clearly very different circumstances.
I am exploring the idea that killing is wrong in all circumstances. If a person truly believes this, then further debate seems pointless. If however they concede there are circumstances where killing is acceptable, then we can return to where we were a few pages back, before people were flatly claiming killing is wrong in all circumstances: we'd have established it wasn't and could then explore the merits of execution.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,272
- Location
- Woking
Why would you kill someone "just in case?"
If it were avoidable then it would be wrong, because you would have gone beyond what it would take to secure safety.
It probably wouldn't be illegal, since the "reasonable force" ceiling would be set high. But Capital punishment isn't illegal either (where carried out) - it's still wrong.
If killing them is not avoidable to assure safety then, well, that's what I said in the first place when I said;
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 29 May 2004
- Posts
- 4,488
- Location
- Tall building nearby
Killing intentionally is wrong (except, see 2nd sentence), killing by accident/in the heat of the moment to achieve the greater good self-defence/defence of another is a different circumstance.
Killing intentionally can only be seen as right in specific circumstances, say a sniper taking out a hostage taker who appears to be about to murder a hostage. Secondly a person in a situation where the only way that seems to be available to subdue an assailant and prevent innocents being killed/hurt is taking an action that could quite possibly be fatal.
- Joined
- 14 Jun 2004
- Posts
- 17,535
- Location
- Newcastle U/T
End outcome the same *shrug*
Maybe he shouldn't have put himself into the original circumstances that this resulted from?
Maybe he shouldn't have put himself into the original circumstances that this resulted from?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 5,298
- Location
- Ipswich
You even contradict yourself above, and move goalposts proving killing is not the same as murder.
If a burglar enter a home and the owner kills him he is not a murderer.
You do not rehabilitate a child rapist/murdered.
Oh and you are an authority on what goes on in USA or not?
Killing a person who enters your home with the intention to possibly harm you is self defence.
Killing a defenceless person because they have committed a horrible crime to keep them from being a danger to society is NOT self defence.
Keep them incarcerated, rehabilitate them so they can learn and understand what they did was wrong but do not release them.
Killing them in there defenceless state is not self defence as they present no harm once they are already incarcerated. At that point it becomes legally sanctioned murder imo and if we are to believe we are a civilised society then this is wrong.
Come on Freefaller anyone try and explain this to this man.
Pfft some of you people disgust me! Also as much as I despise any person who can commit crimes like this, violence does not cure violence.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 5,298
- Location
- Ipswich
Sometimes multiple opinions can give a better overview of what someone is trying to say. It is not called crying for help I would just like someone else to maybe explain it better as maybe I was not doing so well.
In either case its nice to see you drop to the level of insulting me because my opinion does not slide alongside yours. I was just trying to provide a different viewpoint on things but I see you are quite militant
Thank the all spark that you are not in charge of the world.
and the same thing happens in the uk, they get put up in whats the same as a B&B with a PS4 , tvs and plenty of sport related things to do. oh and then hell be given a house in 10 years when he gets out.
theres a film were somebody kills there kid, so they then kidnap them and do insane things to them, when they die they bring them back alive so they can continue to give more punishment, id of took this root for the child pedo.
theres a film were somebody kills there kid, so they then kidnap them and do insane things to them, when they die they bring them back alive so they can continue to give more punishment, id of took this root for the child pedo.
I only repeated your words so you were the one to start the insults.
Thank God you and your likes are not in charge as pedos/rapists/murders etc would all be walking around Scot free to commit crimes again.
I am done with you period (now ignored).
Thank God you and your likes are not in charge as pedos/rapists/murders etc would all be walking around Scot free to commit crimes again.
I am done with you period (now ignored).
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 5,298
- Location
- Ipswich
While there are some low security prisons which do not seem much like prisons that is not true across the board.
The Prison system in the UK/US is woefully inadequate to rehabilitate convicted criminals. If we was ever to move to truly trying to rehabilitate people the entire system would need to change.