Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Capital Punishment?

Page 7 of 7 [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Previous topic | Next topic

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

13 Feb 2012, 6:36 pm

OliveOilMom wrote:
Shrox, I've got to ask (I know this is off topic) is that Kato Kalen in your avatar? Because he looks familiar. If it's you, then you look like somebody who looks familiar to me.


No. it's me from about 3 years ago. My hair is longer now. Lost that cool shirt though...



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

13 Feb 2012, 7:32 pm

YippySkippy wrote:
I am against the death penalty.
I believe killing can only be justified for self-defense. Therefore, killing a prisoner who is no longer a threat to society is an evil act.
Further, I feel that sanctioned killing devalues all human life, including that of the victims of violent crimes.
If we want to show that our society truly abhors murder, then it must NEVER be legal.


Agreed completely.

I also think killing in self-defense is justified only in rare circumstances. If someone is on your property without permission, it's not automatic permission to execute them. They have to show a threat that a person can not quell with non-lethal force.

Of course sometimes people kill in self defense when they only intended to injure/disable them. I think if the intent was specifically to kill, than a person who kills in self defense should be convicted of manslaughter but not murder. Probably shouldn't go to jail though, maybe just a minor sentence of some kind?



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

13 Feb 2012, 7:36 pm

How about this, and it really happens in riots.

You're sitting at a light, then suddenly a group surrounds your car, begins beating it and rocking it like they want to flip it. Would you hit the gas, too bad if the rioters in front don't get out of the way? Or sit and hope for, I don't know, the best?

Should you be charged if you choose option #1?



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

13 Feb 2012, 7:38 pm

shrox wrote:
How about this, and it really happens in riots.

You're sitting at a light, then suddenly a group surrounds your car, begins beating it and rocking it like they want to flip it. Would you hit the gas, too bad if the rioters in front don't get out of the way? Or sit and hope for, I don't know, the best?

Should you be charged if you choose option #1?


Not if you can leave the car, no.



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

13 Feb 2012, 7:45 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
shrox wrote:
How about this, and it really happens in riots.

You're sitting at a light, then suddenly a group surrounds your car, begins beating it and rocking it like they want to flip it. Would you hit the gas, too bad if the rioters in front don't get out of the way? Or sit and hope for, I don't know, the best?

Should you be charged if you choose option #1?


Not if you can leave the car, no.


You can't leave the car, it's very scary too.



donnie_darko
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,981

13 Feb 2012, 7:50 pm

shrox wrote:

You can't leave the car, it's very scary too.


I wouldn't convict them if I were on a jury personally. But personally I would try to reason with them or flee, before I would kill them. I don't expect everyone else to make the same decision though.



shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

13 Feb 2012, 8:02 pm

donnie_darko wrote:
shrox wrote:

You can't leave the car, it's very scary too.


I wouldn't convict them if I were on a jury personally. But personally I would try to reason with them or flee, before I would kill them. I don't expect everyone else to make the same decision though.


Umm, it's a riot. Reason has disappeared, like after a sports game. Just do a google search for "car flipped in riot" videos.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

13 Feb 2012, 8:04 pm

donnie_darko wrote:

Quote:
I also think killing in self-defense is justified only in rare circumstances. If someone is on your property without permission, it's not automatic permission to execute them. They have to show a threat that a person can not quell with non-lethal force.
Of course sometimes people kill in self defense when they only intended to injure/disable them. I think if the intent was specifically to kill, than a person who kills in self defense should be convicted of manslaughter but not murder. Probably shouldn't go to jail though, maybe just a minor sentence of some kind?


In self defense you attempt to neutralize but not necessarily kill the threat by the quickest means on hand. If they do end up dead then so be it. They take the risk of life and limb upon themselves when they threaten or assault you with a deadly weapon. Same applies to breaking in to someone’s home.

shrox wrote:
Quote:
How about this, and it really happens in riots.

You're sitting at a light, then suddenly a group surrounds your car, begins beating it and rocking it like they want to flip it. Would you hit the gas, too bad if the rioters in front don't get out of the way? Or sit and hope for, I don't know, the best?

Should you be charged if you choose option #1?


donnie_darko wrote:
Quote:
Not if you can leave the car, no.


Stay in the car and run the risk of being dragged out and pounded.
Leave the car and definitely get pounded.
Push them out of the way with your car because that is probably going to be your best and only way out. If it means running a few of them over then that would be self defense and there should be no issues with the law in that case.
Definitely don't wait for the cops to show up because they won't.



abacacus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Apr 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,380

13 Feb 2012, 8:19 pm

The world is ending, for I agree with Raptor.

If someone is being threatened, they should use whatever force is required to remove the threat.


_________________
A shot gun blast into the face of deceit
You'll gain your just reward.
We'll not rest until the purge is complete
You will reap what you've sown.


hanyo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2011
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,302

14 Feb 2012, 3:40 am

shrox wrote:
You're sitting at a light, then suddenly a group surrounds your car, begins beating it and rocking it like they want to flip it. Would you hit the gas, too bad if the rioters in front don't get out of the way? Or sit and hope for, I don't know, the best?


I'd say run them over, get the hell out of there, and take your chances in court.

I remember when this happened. I'd be expecting the same to happen to me if I just sat there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reginald_Denny_incident



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

14 Feb 2012, 7:25 am

ruveyn wrote:
YippySkippy wrote:
I am against the death penalty.
I believe killing can only be justified for self-defense. Therefore, killing a prisoner who is no longer a threat to society is an evil act.
Further, I feel that sanctioned killing devalues all human life, including that of the victims of violent crimes.
If we want to show that our society truly abhors murder, then it must NEVER be legal.


If we do not execute murderers then we have to cage them and feed them. Which means taxpayers are sentenced to forgo some of their income and their time to maintain a person who did not give a damn about his victim's time. Do you think that is just?

ruveyn


If you break something, you pay for it.

There are human populations with little to no crime (Bushmen, Mennonite / Amish etc.), which means that crime is the product of our socio-economic system. This is also supported by the fact that countries with higher levels of poverty have higher crime rates. So if we break people, we pay the price. Killing them only adds insult to injury.



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

14 Feb 2012, 7:33 am

donnie_darko wrote:
YippySkippy wrote:
I am against the death penalty.
I believe killing can only be justified for self-defense. Therefore, killing a prisoner who is no longer a threat to society is an evil act.
Further, I feel that sanctioned killing devalues all human life, including that of the victims of violent crimes.
If we want to show that our society truly abhors murder, then it must NEVER be legal.


Agreed completely.

I also think killing in self-defense is justified only in rare circumstances. If someone is on your property without permission, it's not automatic permission to execute them. They have to show a threat that a person can not quell with non-lethal force.

Of course sometimes people kill in self defense when they only intended to injure/disable them. I think if the intent was specifically to kill, than a person who kills in self defense should be convicted of manslaughter but not murder. Probably shouldn't go to jail though, maybe just a minor sentence of some kind?


^^ This.

Btw, I once had a razor blade at my throat in the streets of Amsterdam. I disposed of this threat by handing over my wallet. A small price to pay for avoiding violence and injury, imho.

Another time a drunk person grabbed my jacket, pushed me against a wall and threatened to beat me up. I asked him if he knew where the toilet was, because I too had drunk too much and felt really sick. He let me down and pointed me in the right direction, afraid that I might throw up on him :)

Other than that, I've never been physically threatened by anybody. It rarely ever happens in countries with strict weapon regulations.



Last edited by CrazyCatLord on 14 Feb 2012, 7:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

shrox
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Aug 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,295
Location: OK let's go.

14 Feb 2012, 7:34 am

CrazyCatLord wrote:
...Killing them only adds insult to injury.


Besides, if you kill all those you conquer, who will you rule over?



CrazyCatLord
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Oct 2011
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,177

14 Feb 2012, 7:35 am

shrox wrote:
CrazyCatLord wrote:
...Killing them only adds insult to injury.


Besides, if you kill all those you conquer, who will you rule over?


Good point :)



peebo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Mar 2006
Age: 49
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624
Location: scotland

16 Feb 2012, 1:45 pm

CrazyCatLord wrote:

There are human populations with little to no crime (Bushmen, Mennonite / Amish etc.), which means that crime is the product of our socio-economic system. This is also supported by the fact that countries with higher levels of poverty have higher crime rates. So if we break people, we pay the price. Killing them only adds insult to injury.



very sensible reply. 1 + 1 = 2


_________________
?Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all.?

Adam Smith


ArrantPariah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2012
Age: 120
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,972

30 Jan 2013, 10:02 pm

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDO6HV6xTmI[/youtube]