Beat them to death
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
I have no idea what your asking you posed no question.
The op in this entire thread was these people should be beat to death, nothing about if the law didn't handle it simply that should be the punishment.
Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.
I USED to be able to walk down the street at night and not worry about being mugged. I USED to be able to leave my doors unlocked at night and not worry about being robbed. Old men USED to be respected and did not have to worry about being stomped to death for no reason.
Lot's has changed.
Lot's has changed.
Was the man that used his handgun to stop a beating a vigilante or a good citizen?I carry often, most of the time when I am home. Had I came upon a scene like that I would have used my weapon to stop it. Would you be willing to use deadly force to stop an innocent person from being slaughtered? I contend that anyone who would not, who saw this taking place and did not act, is an accomplice to the crime.
It is 100% obvious that the law did NOT protect this man, nor did they prevent the crime. I contend that it is also very likely due to a "lax" justice system that these thugs got to the point in there lives where thrill killing is fine. I doubt very much this is their first illegal act.
I also doubt very much that they will get what they deserve in this case, assuming it took place as written. They should be shot like all rabid animals are.
You are right there. Again, most of the drug problem is due to government corruption in my opinion.
I have no way of answering that question without being in the scenario. I kinda doubt that you can either.
Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.
Well Xiggi, let's look at it this way. In the 1920's we had prohibition on booze. Even passed an amendment to the Constitution. Did it solve the drinking problem? NOPE, it made everything worse. Crime was rampant. MANY elected officials were "on the take" in cities like Chicago and Detroit. Thousands were murdered. Entire criminal enterprises sprang up to sell illegal booze. If you like I can take you out on the "River" and show you on of Al Capon's houses, on the west shore of Grosse Isle, where his "rum runner" boats used to bring in Canadian booze. He did not even try to hide it, it is a Pink Pagoda. It has boat garages to make it easier. The first boat I ever drove as a kid, a 32' CrisCraft was a former "rum runner" had neat concealed compartments all over it.
Fast forward to today, I see EXACTLY the same thing taking place.
Prohibition did not work in the '20's and it is NOT working now and, as always, is causing far more problems than it ever might have been able to stop.
Go back into the history of why pot was made illegal and see how it was a racial thing as well.
Just call it as I see it.
Well Xiggi, it is very clear in my mind. I have no question at all. Had a citizen stopped that crime with the use of deadly force I would have bought him a box of shells to replace what he used. I have NO problem when force is used in a legal, morally correct way. There is no good in allowing an innocent man to be beaten to death if one has the means to end that beating. That is how I see it and that is my belief.
RLENT
Veteran Expediter
Ragman's are funnier.
Some people don't commit crimes because they are good people and would never commit a crime.
Some people don't commit crimes because even though they aren't good people they fear the consequences and that fear stops them from committing crimes.
Some people commit crimes because they fear the consequences less than they desire the result of the crime.
Those are the three types of people. You want less crime? You need greater fear. There will always be some level of crime because there will always be some number of people who are sociopaths and have no fear of consequences. For the rest, the worse the consequence the more numerically that will fear it and refrain from the crime.
Want fewer murders? Make all first degree murder with irrefutable evidence a capital crime and make the punishment death by the same means used in the killing. There will be less first degree murder.
Want fewer other crimes? Make extremely harsh consequences and there will be fewer.
Some people don't commit crimes because even though they aren't good people they fear the consequences and that fear stops them from committing crimes.
Some people commit crimes because they fear the consequences less than they desire the result of the crime.
Those are the three types of people. You want less crime? You need greater fear. There will always be some level of crime because there will always be some number of people who are sociopaths and have no fear of consequences. For the rest, the worse the consequence the more numerically that will fear it and refrain from the crime.
Want fewer murders? Make all first degree murder with irrefutable evidence a capital crime and make the punishment death by the same means used in the killing. There will be less first degree murder.
Want fewer other crimes? Make extremely harsh consequences and there will be fewer.
It was only OK. You, without a doubt, could come up with better. I mean, it is a WIDE open field here! Corrupt Chicago politician involved in illegal drug, er, booze trade!
Well, that might happen if the evidence was "refutable", that's why it has to be irrefutable.
Use dungeons instead.
Use dungeons instead. OR, better yet, "The Moon is a harsh Mistress".