|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 5, 2024 18:16:50 GMT
|
|
sokpupet
Legend
Go Dark Brandon!
Posts: 6,239
|
Post by sokpupet on Sept 6, 2024 2:18:50 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 6, 2024 2:25:42 GMT
No sane person seeks or supports capital punishment |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 6, 2024 2:35:48 GMT
No sane person seeks or supports capital punishment It's tough to call a country where the state has power of life and death over its citizenry a democracy imo. Queshank |
|
sokpupet
Legend
Go Dark Brandon!
Posts: 6,239
|
Post by sokpupet on Sept 6, 2024 3:24:13 GMT
If I lost my teenager to a grown man who’s sick idea of fun/profit by torturing my child to the point of his taking his own life I would be insane and wanting my pound of flesh. I think the death penalty should be reserved for the absolute worst of the worst and they not be allowed to sit in DR for decades. I see that as torture for the family and loved ones of the inmate. I believe the law could use some revamping.
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 6, 2024 13:32:36 GMT
If I lost my teenager to a grown man who’s sick idea of fun/profit by torturing my child to the point of his taking his own life I would be insane and wanting my pound of flesh. I think the death penalty should be reserved for the absolute worst of the worst and they not be allowed to sit in DR for decades. I see that as torture for the family and loved ones of the inmate. I believe the law could use some revamping. That's precisely why the victim isn't permitted by society to exact revenge. |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 7, 2024 2:22:38 GMT
If I lost my teenager to a grown man who’s sick idea of fun/profit by torturing my child to the point of his taking his own life I would be insane and wanting my pound of flesh. I think the death penalty should be reserved for the absolute worst of the worst and they not be allowed to sit in DR for decades. I see that as torture for the family and loved ones of the inmate. I believe the law could use some revamping.
I'd rather 10 ... Hannibal Lectors ... spend their lives on death row than one innocent person be executed by the state.
If the state got to the killer of one of my children before I did, I would relish as a second place runner up, the scumbag spending his entire life in a cell.
Queshank
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,036
|
Post by petep on Sept 7, 2024 14:31:24 GMT
If I lost my teenager to a grown man who’s sick idea of fun/profit by torturing my child to the point of his taking his own life I would be insane and wanting my pound of flesh. I think the death penalty should be reserved for the absolute worst of the worst and they not be allowed to sit in DR for decades. I see that as torture for the family and loved ones of the inmate. I believe the law could use some revamping.
I'd rather 10 ... Hannibal Lectors ... spend their lives on death row than one innocent person be executed by the state.
If the state got to the killer of one of my children before I did, I would relish as a second place runner up, the scumbag spending his entire life in a cell.
Queshank
Just curious. If someone were to break into your home, assuming you were armed, would you shoot to kill or shoot to injure or try to get him to surrender at gunpoint. assuming you were a good enough shot to make those decisions. I know lots of hypotheticals but what would be your knee jerk answer. Be the judge jury and executioner. Or stop the situation just enough to be safe but let a jury decide? |
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 7, 2024 15:24:20 GMT
I'd rather 10 ... Hannibal Lectors ... spend their lives on death row than one innocent person be executed by the state.
If the state got to the killer of one of my children before I did, I would relish as a second place runner up, the scumbag spending his entire life in a cell.
Queshank
Just curious. If someone were to break into your home, assuming you were armed, would you shoot to kill or shoot to injure or try to get him to surrender at gunpoint. assuming you were a good enough shot to make those decisions. I know lots of hypotheticals but what would be your knee jerk answer. Be the judge jury and executioner. Or stop the situation just enough to be safe but let a jury decide? US, like UK, law has the concept of "reasonable force". That differs in each case. If you reasonably believe your life, or someone else's, to be in imminent threat, lethal force is accepted. If not, not. Personally I'd hope to be rational enough that I'd distinguish between, say, a weedy bag-head teen going through my home office for IT stuff, & some muscled up psycho with a machete heading for my wife. |
|
|
|
Post by RinsePrius on Sept 7, 2024 15:46:09 GMT
I'd rather 10 ... Hannibal Lectors ... spend their lives on death row than one innocent person be executed by the state.
If the state got to the killer of one of my children before I did, I would relish as a second place runner up, the scumbag spending his entire life in a cell.
Queshank
Just curious. If someone were to break into your home, assuming you were armed, would you shoot to kill or shoot to injure or try to get him to surrender at gunpoint. assuming you were a good enough shot to make those decisions. I know lots of hypotheticals but what would be your knee jerk answer. Be the judge jury and executioner. Or stop the situation just enough to be safe but let a jury decide? Its best to not shoot to injure because a jury might say you didn't really fear for your life and it's also not a good idea, in terms of legal strategy, to leave the person alive so they can come back to sue you. |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 7, 2024 17:51:28 GMT
I'd rather 10 ... Hannibal Lectors ... spend their lives on death row than one innocent person be executed by the state.
If the state got to the killer of one of my children before I did, I would relish as a second place runner up, the scumbag spending his entire life in a cell.
Queshank
Just curious. If someone were to break into your home, assuming you were armed, would you shoot to kill or shoot to injure or try to get him to surrender at gunpoint. assuming you were a good enough shot to make those decisions. I know lots of hypotheticals but what would be your knee jerk answer. Be the judge jury and executioner. Or stop the situation just enough to be safe but let a jury decide?
If the state got to the killer of one of my children before I did, I would relish as a second place runner up
Don't be a board leftist petep.  Comprehend what you're responding to.
Queshank
|
|
petep
Legend
Posts: 26,036
|
Post by petep on Sept 7, 2024 23:43:36 GMT
Just curious. If someone were to break into your home, assuming you were armed, would you shoot to kill or shoot to injure or try to get him to surrender at gunpoint. assuming you were a good enough shot to make those decisions. I know lots of hypotheticals but what would be your knee jerk answer. Be the judge jury and executioner. Or stop the situation just enough to be safe but let a jury decide?
If the state got to the killer of one of my children before I did, I would relish as a second place runner up
Don't be a board leftist petep. Comprehend what you're responding to.
Queshank
I posed a simple hypothetical situation. Provide an answer or not or what you would be inclined to do Or be a douchebag as you are now with your idiotic response. You seem to keep sinking each day. What’s ur problem. You used to at least provide insightful responses. Stop being like wads. |
|
|
|
Post by Monster Man on Sept 7, 2024 23:55:15 GMT
I'd rather 10 ... Hannibal Lectors ... spend their lives on death row than one innocent person be executed by the state.
If the state got to the killer of one of my children before I did, I would relish as a second place runner up, the scumbag spending his entire life in a cell.
Queshank
Just curious. If someone were to break into your home, assuming you were armed, would you shoot to kill or shoot to injure or try to get him to surrender at gunpoint. assuming you were a good enough shot to make those decisions. I know lots of hypotheticals but what would be your knee jerk answer. Be the judge jury and executioner. Or stop the situation just enough to be safe but let a jury decide? Shooting someone is lethal force. Period. You ONLY shoot someone if you need to stop someone posing a deadly threat or a threat of severe bodily harm. If you can shoot to wound them, then you don't need to shoot them at all. |
|
|
|
Post by queshank on Sept 8, 2024 1:20:09 GMT
If the state got to the killer of one of my children before I did, I would relish as a second place runner up
Don't be a board leftist petep. Comprehend what you're responding to.
Queshank
I posed a simple hypothetical situation. Provide an answer or not or what you would be inclined to do Or be a douchebag as you are now with your idiotic response. You seem to keep sinking each day. What’s ur problem. You used to at least provide insightful responses. Stop being like wads.
Your hypothetical is stupid.
Am I defending my life? Or my property?
If my life or the lives of my family members I already answered.
If property what other response would there be beyond holding him for a jury trial? The only idiotic thing in this conversation is the suggestion that something else should transpire.
Queshank
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 8, 2024 2:05:17 GMT
Just curious. If someone were to break into your home, assuming you were armed, would you shoot to kill or shoot to injure or try to get him to surrender at gunpoint. assuming you were a good enough shot to make those decisions. I know lots of hypotheticals but what would be your knee jerk answer. Be the judge jury and executioner. Or stop the situation just enough to be safe but let a jury decide? Shooting someone is lethal force. Period. You ONLY shoot someone if you need to stop someone posing a deadly threat or a threat of severe bodily harm. If you can shoot to wound them, then you don't need to shoot them at all. This kind of thing, MM, is why you, post-Revolution*, will only get 20 years in the re-education camp while Stu gets 25. Petep gets 20, too, 'cos I owe him a beer. *Communist People's Party or Libertarian Alliance |
|
Odysseus
Legend
Trump = Disaster
Posts: 41,115
|
Post by Odysseus on Sept 8, 2024 2:42:18 GMT
Shooting someone is lethal force. Period. You ONLY shoot someone if you need to stop someone posing a deadly threat or a threat of severe bodily harm. If you can shoot to wound them, then you don't need to shoot them at all. This kind of thing, MM, is why you, post-Revolution*, will only get 20 years in the re-education camp while Stu gets 25. Petep gets 20, too, 'cos I owe him a beer. *Communist People's Party or Libertarian Alliance
Interesting compilation of political groups...
|
|
|
|
Post by limey² on Sept 8, 2024 16:12:58 GMT
This kind of thing, MM, is why you, post-Revolution*, will only get 20 years in the re-education camp while Stu gets 25. Petep gets 20, too, 'cos I owe him a beer. *Communist People's Party or Libertarian Alliance
Interesting compilation of political groups...
Neither would be good, but catastrophic in different ways. I have friends in both camps. Insurance.... |
|
Comprehend what you're responding to.
