Subject:
|
Re: Tony Martin case: You can't {make up} better criticism of Liberals!
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Jul 2003 03:17:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
403 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Mike Petrucelli wrote:
| |
| |
Life is choices, and learning from past mistakes, and hopefully, as I
probably don’t have to mention to you, redemption.
If yer dead, how can you work at that.
I’m not an opponent to the death penalty, I am an opponent to
‘vigilanty-ism’. As soon as we take the laws into our own hands, we become
the criminals. What’s the point of having a legal system if no one gets
there to use it?
|
A persons guilt is not in question when they are caught in the act. The legal
system pertains to persons who are charged after the fact.
| |
There can be no ‘civil’ society if we all take the law into our own hands.
|
If imprisoning someone who kills a person that broke into their home is your
idea of a ‘civil’ society then you can keep it.
| |
My friend was suitably ‘convinced’ that B&E was the wrong thing to do.
Either thru his brief court experience or the whumping he got from his dad
at home, he was suitably punished for his deed. And here’s a concept--the
punishment should suit the crime. Losing a life over a television set isn’t
it.
Yes sometimes the legal system sucks. But there are ways of fixing that
within the system. And if it takes a while, then that’s the inherent safety
net that y’all love to talk about where your Constitution is concerned.
So either believe in the system or don’t believe in the system. Just don’t
stand on your hypocritical soap box saying “Look at us with our awesome
setup we got going on here” and in the next breath, break your own rules
‘cause y’all don’t like ‘em due to their inconvenience. Shooting someone
who hasn’t specifically threatened you because he *may* threaten you is
breaking your own rules.
|
Not when they have broken into my house. The very act of breaking into my
house is a threat to my life as far as I am concerned.
|
Why? Do all smokers eventually do ‘hard drugs’? Do all people who view erotica
end up being Charles Manson? Justify please.
| |
| |
Self defense doesn’t apply unless you are being personally
attacked. Someone pilfering off with your television is not an attack on
you.
|
Do not rape, do not murder, do not steal, these are rules by which persons of
any religion can follow. All acts of evil stem from breaking these three
rules. If one does not follow them, then they should expect that their death
is a potential consequence of their actions.
|
And this is civilized? Jaywalking warrants the death penalty?
| |
If someone breaks into my house I am not going to risk my life to determine
whether they are there to rape, murder, or steal. I am simply going to make
sure they are not a threat to myself or anyone else ever again. Any sane
person would do the same thing.
-Mike Petrucelli
|
And if someone steals my cloak, I’ll offer him my shirt. Oh wait, that’s just
the teachings of no one terribly important.
Shooting someone who hasn’t specifically threatened you is manslaughter, or
worse, murder. Again, stealing a television is not a direct threat to you.
Justice must be served, but Justice must be proportional to the crime committed.
Anything else is insane, and your idea ‘shoot first’ is insane. At least you
can then cop that plea and get off on a lighter sentence.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
73 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
