Executions
-
wrote on 7 Apr 2020, 21:40 last edited by
just another reason to not like this asshole.
KILL! KILL! KILL!
fuck that.
-
wrote on 7 Apr 2020, 21:55 last edited by
@mark said in Executions:
just another reason to not like this asshole.
KILL! KILL! KILL!
fuck that.
Daniel Lee tortured a man, his wife and their eight year-old daughter, before dumping their bodies in a swamp. The reason he came up on Federal charges was because guns were stolen during the murders and transported across state lines.
I wouldn't even put a needle in his arm, just drag him out in the prison yard and put a bullet in his ear.
As somebody who abhors government waste, think of it as a simply elegant thirty cent solution.
-
wrote on 7 Apr 2020, 22:31 last edited by
@mark said in Executions:
KILL! KILL! KILL!
If he ever says that he will lose my support.
Really. He shouldn't say that.
-
wrote on 7 Apr 2020, 23:28 last edited by
And he hasn’t. I’m all for doing away with the death penalty, but I don’t like to see it circumvented by tortured, baseless legal opinions like the one that was overturned.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2020, 01:15 last edited by
@mark said in Executions:
just another reason to not like this asshole.
KILL! KILL! KILL!
fuck that.
Says the man who was ready to put a .45 slug center mass on a fellow human, just this week.
And I wouldn't have blamed you a bit.
You see, there's illegal killing and legal killing. After a fair trial, if a man is guilty of torturing and killing an eight year-old girl, I figure his execution transcends legal. I reckon it could be classified as righteous.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2020, 01:30 last edited by
There is a difference to immediate self-defense and killing long after the fact. See, I would be prosecuted for taking a life if I was not in IMMEDIATE DANGER. After the fact, I am no longer in immediate danger. Locking someone up for life, removes the immediate danger, without giving the government the power to kill its citizens.
-
There is a difference to immediate self-defense and killing long after the fact. See, I would be prosecuted for taking a life if I was not in IMMEDIATE DANGER. After the fact, I am no longer in immediate danger. Locking someone up for life, removes the immediate danger, without giving the government the power to kill its citizens.
wrote on 8 Apr 2020, 01:36 last edited by@mark said in Executions:
There is a difference to immediate self-defense and killing long after the fact. See, I would be prosecuted for taking a life if I was not in IMMEDIATE DANGER. After the fact, I am no longer in immediate danger. Locking someone up for life, removes the immediate danger, without giving the government the power to kill its citizens.
It's all about justice, my friend.
Are you the kind of person who likes to keep an animal in a cage, and as you occasionally walk by poke the animal with a stick to add to his misery?
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2020, 01:44 last edited by
Or injustice. As are the many instances that governments have put innocent people to death.
I am not willing to give that power of retribution killing to the government.
-
Or injustice. As are the many instances that governments have put innocent people to death.
I am not willing to give that power of retribution killing to the government.
wrote on 8 Apr 2020, 01:45 last edited by@mark said in Executions:
Or injustice. As are the many instances that governments have put innocent people to death.
I am not willing to give that power of retribution killing to the government.
But you like to poke animals in cages?
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2020, 01:46 last edited by
I have no idea what you are getting at here.
-
@mark said in Executions:
KILL! KILL! KILL!
If he ever says that he will lose my support.
Really. He shouldn't say that.
wrote on 8 Apr 2020, 01:52 last edited by@Copper said in Executions:
@mark said in Executions:
KILL! KILL! KILL!
If he ever says that he will lose my support.
No he wouldn’t. You’d justify it in the moment.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2020, 01:57 last edited by Larry 4 Aug 2020, 01:57
All I will say is this - if someone hurts my wife or my mother, he better hope the cops kill him. Because anything they do to kill him will be quicker and more humane than the hell I would unleash on him.
-
wrote on 8 Apr 2020, 02:04 last edited by Jolly 4 Aug 2020, 02:06
@mark said in Executions:
I have no idea what you are getting at here.
When you were a kid, and your mama cooked pork chops or a beef pot roast for dinner, where did it come from? Maybe y'all got yours from the grocery store. We got ours from the freezer.
It came from a hog or a beef we raised. It was my job to feed , before and after school. And then usually on one Saturday morning, we got up, walked out to the pen and killed the animal. I've shot my fair share, although my daddy was partial to a hammer.
But you know, we never tortured animals. We tried to make their lives as good as they could be, before they served their purpose.
Prison is an awful place, filled with people that range from non-violent offenders to the worst of the worst. The despair can be palpable as you walk the cell blocks.
So if a man is guilty of the most heinous of crimes, why would you lock him up in a cage and make sure he never breathed free air again? You want to go by and poke him with a stick, so you can punish him more or make yourself feel morally superior because you won't commit to the justice of a legal killing?
He's never getting out. He's taking money out of the budget that could be used for better things. He serves no useful purpose to society. His victims demand justice, and it seems best for all involved to engage in legal execution.
Prove his guilt beyond any doubt, and let him serve his ultimate penalty. Don't set him in a cage to rot and die in a most cruel manner.
-
@Copper said in Executions:
@mark said in Executions:
KILL! KILL! KILL!
If he ever says that he will lose my support.
No he wouldn’t. You’d justify it in the moment.
wrote on 8 Apr 2020, 02:08 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Executions:
@Copper said in Executions:
@mark said in Executions:
KILL! KILL! KILL!
If he ever says that he will lose my support.
No he wouldn’t. You’d justify it in the moment.
You're right
In the correct context KILL! KILL! KILL! could be prudent.
