Thursday, August 9, 2012

Yet, strangely,

We shoot rabid dogs.
And we consider that a good thing to protect society. Never yet met a dog that was evil, some are just misunderstood or poorly socialized....


But this sleazeball we are gonna feed, clothe, and house, for the rest of his natural life.

Myself, I think we should hang him, in the town square, after reading the sentence and offering him any last words.

And televise it.

Then bury his body in an unmarked grave. 

But then again, I am so soft with criminals it is disgusting.

(alternatively, a firing squad with the same disposal of his remains.)

7 comments:

Aaron said...

Why shouldn't we clothe, feed, and house him for the rest of his natural life? Do we want to stoop to his level? In jail, he's no longer a threat.

If a man broke into your house at night and stole your stuff, would you shoot him in the back while he was running out the door? No--because he's not a threat.

It's one thing to defend yourself from an imminent threat (too bad no one in the crowd had a gun to use in defense of their fellow citizens), it's something entirely different to go out of your way to kill someone who is not a threat to you. It's murder.

Mr.B said...

We disagree.

Why kill the dog who i not, at that time, threatening you?

because he IS a threat if not restrained.

Same with this character. He is a destructive, imminent danger to the rest of us if not incarcerated.

We should not be forced to feed, clothe and house him at our expense. By your logic, every dangerous dog should be kept in a shelter rather than killed.

If this man is dangerous (and he has proven that he is) then he is a threat, and should be treated the same as that rabid dog.

Incarceration is too good for him. He is a mass murderer.

Aaron said...

With all due respect, there is a huge difference between a man and a dog.

While I by no means think it's OK to just shoot dogs randomly, there is a difference between putting down a dog that bites a human and ending the life of a man.

Like I said, the time for shooting the sleeze bag was when he opened fire on a bunch of people. Too bad most people don't carry firearms, so they couldn't stop him.

But once someone is in custody AND you think he's guilty, you appear to be implying that it's ok to murder him. Well--in that vein, why not torture him to death? The answer is because it is wrong. It's beneath a civilized and moral (and biblical) human being to torture, murder, or seek vengeance.

RichD said...

How can you consider someone human that goes into an unarmed crowd and kills strangers for no reason. He should have been shot at the scene and saved tax payers the trouble of trying him in the first place. If they insist on keeping him alive, put him in a six by six cell with nothing but a couple scant meals of bread and water a day and nothing else. It would be more than the curr deserves. The dog was sick, the human (using the term very loosely) chose to do this to other humans. Killing him saves money and should send a message of no tollerance to others. It would send a stronger message if it were carried out swiftly instead of dragged out for decades. May cut down on the copycat killers.

Mr.B said...

"It's beneath a civilized and moral (and biblical) human being to torture, murder, or seek vengeance."

Is it?

You see things differently than I do.

You define "civilized" and "moral" differently than I as well.

Methinks you are a beta male.

Aaron said...

@RichD

What would you call them? A dog? Once you start dehumanizing people, it makes it easier to do bad and immoral things to them--like put them to death. Just because we do it in a nice white room with a bunch of spectators, paralyze them first with drugs, and then stop their heart doesn't make it any more 'right' or any better than those who dehumanized and shoveled others into ovens.

The only reason 'killing him saves money' is because prison guards and their unions cost waaay too much money. Build a 25x25 cell, plumb it for water and sweage, provide a slot where food and books can be delivered, then bolt the damn door shut. No more guards getting in fights with prisoners, no more riots, no more extortionate costs, no more jail breaks.

I certainly prefer locking suspected or convicted murderers away to murdering innocent people. Do you know the number of innocent people put to death or incarcerated every year because of misconduct by the government judge and government prosecutors? Or how about all the false reports filed by the corrupt government police?

Lastly, why do you think a dog can be 'sick' mentally (which causes them to attack), but a human can not be sick 'mentally'? If you can rehabilitate a dog, can't you also rehabilitate a human?


@Mr.B
That's fine--you can define the terms 'civilized' and 'moral' however you wish. I think murder is uncivilized. The dictionary defines murder as "The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."

How is it not murder when a group of government officials decides to end someone's life?

Let's look at this another way:

For the moment, pretend I like to smoke pot. You come over to my house, see that I am smoking pot, decide it's wrong, pull out your gun and shoot me. That's murder.

In a slightly different situation, you come over to my house, see that I am smoking pot, call up your buddy and you both show up and come to the conclusion that smoking pot is wring and beat me to death. Murder yet again.

Slightly different yet again--you come over to my house, see that I am smoking pot, call up a bunch of your friends, and you all show up at my house, decide that smoking pot is wrong and stone me to death. That's called a gang, and it's still murder.

Lastly, you see me smoking pot again, and instead of calling up your friends, you call the government--they send a gang of guys over who attack me and in the process end up shooting me...and suddenly it's nor murder and morally OK because they wear the badge of the government?

Yeah--I'm using an extreme example. But people are murdered by the government for drugs.

Sounds like your definition of 'moral' and 'civilized' is flexible.

Lastly, I am not making the case that you as an individual should never be allowed to defend yourself or your family. It boils down to being confronted with an imminent threat. Imminent threats must be dealt with in a much different way than an unarmed person locked away from harming you.

And nice job with the 'beta male' remark--resorting to name calling instead of using logic and reason to show your point. That makes a poor argument. You and I apparently have different views on when you need to be alpha. I will stand up for God, family, and country--not blood lust against someone unarmed and no longer a danger to my family.

Anyways--I doubt we'll see eye-to-eye on this, so I'll respectfully bow out and stop polluting your comments section.

Take care,

-A

Mr.B said...

Sorry dude, you need to wake up.

Killing people who break laws has been around for a very long time. It works to keep others from breaking the law, and the recidivism rate is nearly zero.

Had the Jews not practiced crucifixion, much of your belief system would not exist.

ANd for some reason you feel that killing a human is bad but a dog less so. I see them as being ewual. THe human being gets no special treatment here. He/she is no more supreme a being than a dog or cat, or horse cow deer whatever. They are all sentient beings. A mans life is no more sacred than any other animals, at least not in my world.

Don't like being called a beta male? Stop acting like one.