Death Penalty

[Amazon 7]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Does that include both sides of the womb?

Until you have one.. I suggest you dont have a dog in this hunt.

[Royd 0]

Does that include both sides of the womb?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote

Until you have one.. I suggest you dont have a dog in this hunt.

You want to keep them alive after they've proven themselves to be fuckups.

I'm willing to give them a chance to become fuckups. What makes more sense?

[Amazon 7]

Do you have any idea of how many "babies" (since you want to humanize every zygote or egg and every sacred sperm) are spontaneously aborted from the womb or miscarried because they will not be viable human beings...

Every month and egg is expelled from the body.... and how many of your sacred sperm have you wasted by jerking off????.


Like I said.. till you have one.. you aint got a dog in that hunt.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

>>>>>>>>>>Either that or Supermax them all--the zero contact with the outside world confinement. NO comforts, other than food and a place to eat, sleep, and shit. No recreation, phone, visits, or mail. Fuck them-let them rot.

Yea, retribution leading to revenge..... and we wonder why we have a violent society with guys like this advocating torure.

As a civilised society we need to provide them with adequate food, shelter, hygiene and medical care. That is it. We should not have to pay for recreation or reading, nor should we ask gaurds to risk having these animals out of their cells where they could commit violent acts upon other cons or gaurds. Furthermore a murderer has permanently denied someone the opportunity to see his/her loved ones so while we should not brutally murder him in kind, the murderer should lose that right. His suggestion is perfectly reasonable

If weact as inhumanely as the so-called garbage that are incarcerated, then we are that person. That doesn't mean HBO and ESPN, it means simple things like books, basic recreation, etc.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

***>>>>>>>>>>Either that or Supermax them all--the zero contact with the outside world confinement. NO comforts, other than food and a place to eat, sleep, and shit. No recreation, phone, visits, or mail. Fuck them-let them rot.

Yea, retribution leading to revenge..... and we wonder why we have a violent society with guys like this advocating torure.

As a civilised society we need to provide them with adequate food, shelter, hygiene and medical care. That is it. We should not have to pay for recreation or reading, nor should we ask gaurds to risk having these animals out of their cells where they could commit violent acts upon other cons or gaurds. Furthermore a murderer has permanently denied someone the opportunity to see his/her loved ones so while we should not brutally murder him in kind, the murderer should lose that right. His suggestion is perfectly reasonable

If weact as inhumanely as the so-called garbage that are incarcerated, then we are that person. That doesn't mean HBO and ESPN, it means simple things like books, basic recreation, etc.

Inhumane? We would be subjecting him to cruel and unusual....boredom?

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

We should not have to pay for recreation or reading, nor should we ask gaurds to risk having these animals out of their cells where they could commit violent acts upon other cons or gaurds.

I do not see this as acting "as inhumanely as the so-called garbage." I see a difference between murdering someone and confining a person to a cell. Then again, that's just me.

Quote

Furthermore a murderer has permanently denied someone the opportunity to see his/her loved ones so while we should not brutally murder him in kind, the murderer should lose that right.

Here is where I disagree. See, it's not just the murderer who suffers here - it is the family of the murderer. That 10 year-old kid may love his daddy. Perhaps the daddy is in the can for killing the rotten SOB who harmed the 10-year old boy.

There are reasons why we allow even convicted murderers certain dignities.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[DeVoll 0]

I am not worried about landing on a redneck's farm because i don't plan on stealing from him, and that is why these two guys where shot.
We don't have anti social tendicies here, and we don't have a pathological fear of others. If you steal from me its not that i don't want to talk to you or i'm scared of you, as a matter of fact i will say something to you to get you to turn around (to see you expression) before i shoot you.
You nor I where there so maybe this guy felt his life was in danger.

[Richards 0]

Quote

Here is where I disagree. See, it's not just the murderer who suffers here - it is the family of the murderer. That 10 year-old kid may love his daddy. Perhaps the daddy is in the can for killing the rotten SOB who harmed the 10-year old boy.

There are reasons why we allow even convicted murderers certain dignities.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

You nor I where there so maybe this guy felt his life was in danger.

Nope .. was not there but the 911 recording of it sure sounds like murder to me.

And I guess it depends on the kind of Farmer McNasty you land on... in your mind... being on your property gives you the right to shoot someone... what happens when your fellow Texican feels the same way about you...

[DeVoll 0]

No if you read my post again i said if someone was stealing my stuff i would shoot them. Not if they were on my property

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Havent you heard our saying(dont mess with Texas). that dosent just aply to littering. The old testament does apply to christians to. And the guy in Texas did a good deed for all of man kind by getting two more thugs off of the streets. I would do the same. By the way me and my neighbor both have nice thinks, care to try at your luck???

Here is your post... verbatim...

Those two were trespassing.... so you would do the same....and shoot them...

Hell you dont even know me yet you invite me to try my luck tresspass so you can shoot me... I think what we got here.. is another member of the 101st Airborne Keyboard detachment.

[DeVoll 0]

No he shot two guys (with stolen stuff in there hands) and i said whould do the same. I said me and my neighbor both have nice things want to try your luck (taking our thing that is). You should try reading the whole statement. Dont pull your liberal crap with me (changing my words around to prove your incorrect point)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I said me and my neighbor both have nice things want to try your luck (taking our thing that is). You should try reading the whole statement. Dont pull your liberal crap with me (changing my words around to prove your incorrect point)

YO ./.. BUBBA.. you are the one who keeps adding points to clarify your tenuous position of why you would muder someone... so take your Right Wing fascist words and cram em where the sun dont shine....I hear the right wing is good at that sort of thing... Foley.... the foot tapper.. and the unmarried Texican.... Mr Rove.

[shropshire 0]

Stealing is NOT a Capital Crime in any civilised community. So the shooting was at very best, just plain wrong.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Stealing is NOT a Capital Crime in any civilised community. So the shooting was at very best, just plain wrong.

In (obviously) your opinion.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[shropshire 0]

Is stealing a Capital Crime on American statute books?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

Is stealing a Capital Crime on American statute books?

Apparently, in Texas it is. But the execution has to be carried on on the spot so that it can be called "self defense".
Cheers,

Vale

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Is stealing a Capital Crime on American statute books?

I know that it *can* be in Texas - I'm not sure of other states.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Is stealing a Capital Crime on American statute books?

Apparently, in Texas it is. But the execution has to be carried on on the spot so that it can be called "self defense".
Cheers,

Vale

Incorrect - as are most of your posts on the subject.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[shropshire 0]

Thanks Mike.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[vpozzoli 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Is stealing a Capital Crime on American statute books?

Apparently, in Texas it is. But the execution has to be carried on on the spot so that it can be called "self defense".
Cheers,

Vale

Incorrect - as are most of your posts on the subject.

Wow, I only made one post on the subject, and already you're making quantitative assessments on their (its) quality.
BTW, I couldn't care less what you think of them.

Vale

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Thanks Mike.

You're welcome, Tony - here's the statute on it (personal property).

Quote

§ 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is
justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or
tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the
other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the
deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the
nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing
immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated
robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the
property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or
recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to
protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or
another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

As you can see, there's legal requirements that have to be met for it to be a defense - you can't just blast away at anyone that comes by, as shown in the following:

Quote

§ 9.43. PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY. A person
is justified in using force or deadly force against another to
protect land or tangible, movable property of a third person if,
under the circumstances as he reasonably believes them to be, the
actor would be justified under Section 9.41 or 9.42 in using force
or deadly force to protect his own land or property and:
(1) the actor reasonably believes the unlawful
interference constitutes attempted or consummated theft of or
criminal mischief to the tangible, movable property; or
(2) the actor reasonably believes that:
(A) the third person has requested his protection
of the land or property;
(B) he has a legal duty to protect the third
person's land or property; or
(C) the third person whose land or property he
uses force or deadly force to protect is the actor's spouse, parent,
or child, resides with the actor, or is under the actor's care.

Now - with the case of the gent in Texas, my (non-legal) opinion is that it *could* be a defense against prosecution under this statute IF the neighbor requested the man protect his (the neighbor's) property. I do not know what form that request has to take or the verbiage required in the request.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[popsjumper 2]

Quote

...IF the neighbor requested the man protect his (the neighbor's) property. I do not know what form that request has to take or the verbiage required in the request.

Knowing U.S. beauracracy, the neighbor would have had to fill out a form in triplicate with all the i's dotted and t's crossed, have it notorized and submit it for prior approval.

In some states you can't use deadly force to protect property at all.

I like the idea of eye-for-an-eye. Those countries who employ that philosophy seem to have a much lower crime rate as far as I can tell.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[Amazon 7]

Quote

I like the idea of eye-for-an-eye. Those countries who employ that philosophy seem to have a much lower crime rate as far as I can tell.

I hear Saudi Arabia.. is a great place... why not move there then... they also whip women mercilessly for being gang raped..... wonder if you will find a nice litttle dropzone there .. out in the sand dunes.

I would prefer to keep that kind of "law" in the islamo fascists states where it belongs....if you dig that sort of thing.. for GODS Sake move and take all of the OTHER barbarians with you

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

I like the idea of eye-for-an-eye. Those countries who employ that philosophy seem to have a much lower crime rate as far as I can tell.

Countries that fit that description (eye-for-an-eye/ lower crime rate than US) do exist.
As a control for your implied hypothesis (causality) why don't you see if you can think of some countries that fit the null hypothesis (non-eye-for-an-eye/ lower crime rate than US). Here, I'll get you started: Canada, UK, France, Belgium, Netherlands,...
See which list is longer.