Author Topic: Gun Debaters, Read this and tell me what you think. (Read 1271 times)

SirLoin · « **Reply #45 on:** December 20, 2002, 09:27:24 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
Perhaps.

Perhaps a slide into vigilantism raises no eyebrows anymore.

Perhaps Michael Moore should look into this...... he could call this one "Dancing with Altar Boys".............

That would be a very disturbing movie that needs to be done...No politics...Just "exposing" the hypocrites in the Cathlic church.

Toad · « **Reply #46 on:** December 20, 2002, 09:33:53 AM »

And don't forget this little tidbit from the article:

Quote

Blackwell, 56, was called to the stand during the trial but invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and refused to answer questions. Stokes' abuse allegations are under investigation; no charges have been filed.

If I read this correctly, the normal social mechanism wasn't given time to work. The shooter took the law into his own hands BEFORE the investigation was complete and charges could have been filed.

bounder · « **Reply #47 on:** December 20, 2002, 10:12:58 AM »

If he had succeeded in killing the priest, using whatever method, then the defendant in the forthcoming abuse case (the priest) would not be available.

This is literally a case of shooting first and asking questions later, isn't it.

I think the point with it being a gun crime is analogous to locksmiths who use their skills to trespass and steal.

If you are entrusted with a responsibility that gives you special 'powers' (ability to open doors / kill people at 20 paces) for the percieved common good, then you should be punished more extremely for abusing those powers, than if you had not been a gun owner/locksmith.

I'm with Toad. We try to live in a civilised society. That means having a judicial and political system instead of the rule of the strongest/most well armed.

Even if someone murdered my child in an extreme fashion before my eyes, I could not endorse sentencing leniency if I were to exact my revenge on the perpetrator.

Although as in common with other parents on this thread, I would reservere the right to exact my revenge, but I would accept my harsh sentence with pleasure.

lazs2 · « **Reply #48 on:** December 20, 2002, 02:29:34 PM »

I know of no child mollester who has recieved the death penalty or even life in prison for his crime (if murder were not involved). The person who shot the priest knew he (the priest) was guilty and he also knew that no matter what... the sentence was not going to be harsh enough. I would agree with that.

I would also agree with bounder that I would accept whatever punishment a jury passed out on me if I commited murder in the case of a child mine being harmed. I would further say that... If I were on the jury... the guy shooting the priest woulda got off if my only recourse was guilty or not and that I couldn't decide the sentence.

micheal moore? the guy is a buffoon. I would rather someone serious and honest and dillegent do the movie. The thought of moore trying to get a laugh out of child mollesting gives me the creeps.
lazs

bounder · « **Reply #49 on:** December 20, 2002, 06:39:01 PM »

surely the jury merely finds the defendant innocent or guilty (or not proven in Scotland), it is up to the Judge (with consideration for all parties) to set the punishment?

Mw007 · « **Reply #50 on:** December 20, 2002, 06:58:06 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by H. Godwineson
Dune,

Uh...You've never tried a case in ARKANSAS, right? They tend to want the elderly and/or the illiterate.

I didn't think there was anyone else besided the 2 mentioned in Arkansas!!

Juuust kiddin

Mw007 · « **Reply #51 on:** December 20, 2002, 07:00:36 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Toad
I'm thinking you can shoot someone and walk away totally free.

But if you kill a dog, you're doing time.

Did the dog ever try to hump you???

StSanta · « **Reply #52 on:** December 21, 2002, 05:23:26 AM »

Hm, most seem to think that the shooting was somehow justified because of molestation charges.

If he was a child molester and sentenced, the state carries through the sentence. Him being a child molester does not give a victim a right to kill or attempt to kill him.

Vigiliantism must not be allowed, simply because it is a woefully inadequate way to attempt to get justice. During this nations many years of existence it has taken place and many innocent people have been killed because of it.

You need to have faith in your judicial system, and the only way you can have that is if a man convicted of child molestation goes to jail AND if a man convicted of SHOOTING someone goes to jail.

You chaps do not find it curious that you can shoot someone and walk free, yet get two extra years in jail because you killed a dog (never mind the circumstances)?

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #53 on:** December 21, 2002, 09:15:53 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by H. Godwineson
If he just wanted an apology, why did he carry the pistol with him?

"Say your sorry or die."... Powerful persuasion

Quote

Originally posted by Toad Why do we have a higher gun homicide rate than other industrialized countries? [/B]

The US rate of homicide from blow guns with poison dart frog tipped ammo is fairly low.

Quote

Originally posted by Toad The message is human life is worth less than a dog's. [/B]

\

Agreed... epecially when the particular human life is.... sub human. When was the last time you threw a stick and had a child molesting priest bring it back?

lazs2 · « **Reply #54 on:** December 21, 2002, 09:22:37 AM »

well... I kinda believe that if they are going to let child molesters out onthe streets then the mollester should have a big CM tattooed on his forehead... the mollester loses all rights as a human and if he dies it is not investigated. It would put a stop to needless expense and tragedy.
lazs