Supremes Reject Death Penalty for Child Rapists...

[Liebling:-)))]

If the self-defense was no different than death penatly, then there will be no such like self-defense. :roll:

Yes I know. :roll:

 

[Liebling:-)))]

but it is the greatest crime to humanity to release a repeated offender to public and then he ends up killing/harming another one. the most humane way to safely guard the public from harm is to humanely execute him.

Simple is make sure that they won't get out of prison rest of life.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

What??

I think I didn't explain clear... Now I am trying to explain clear.

Would you call the Judge as a murder for wrongly execute a person after learn few years later that a person is an innocent? Would the Justice system also execute or sentence a Judge long life imprisonment for execute an innocent person?

Death Penalty is no different to Self-defense.

No, Death Penalty is not a self-defense.

The State does not murder, The State puts the end of repeating crimes, save innocents in the society from being the next victim of a crime.

The death penalty is an example that killing is okay and it is moral to kill another person?

If murder is wrong then the death penalty is wrong.

As we know that some criminals are repeat offenders.

Then make sure that they won't get out of prison.

The method of execution- Lethal injection is not a violence death, It's fast and painless death.

Really?

Death By Lethal Injection..please Read - Prison Talk

You make it sounds like they are still doing hanging, firing squad and gas chamber. They are not.

Gas chamber and electric chair are still exists in some states in America.


All what I want to say is death penalty itself is an inhumane.

Now you tell me which is the worst, not killing a murder, or killing an innocent?

Here is my answer:

No matter, I still consider death penalty as murder the same because the monsters (murders/serial killer/rapist) and innocent victims are human being.

The death penalty is an indefensible. To kill is wrong.

 

[Jiro]

Simple is make sure that they won't get out of prison rest of life.

unfortunately - the law is not that simple. you have seen many times in the news that repeated offender do get out. life sentence and death penalty make no difference to me. repeated offender is a danger to society and is deemed "unrecoverable" or "un-rehabilitatable"... oh well - sucks that some people get all sensitive about "taking away the life." :roll:

it's like... you prefer sweeping the dust under the carpet while I prefer to throw the dust out to garbage. To me - I do not value his/her life any more than the value of life of bug that I'm going to step on. why? because he/she takes life away without remorse. but that's just me...

 

[Jiro]

Would you call the Judge as a murder for wrongly execute a person after learn few years later that a person is an innocent? Would the Justice system also execute or sentence a Judge long life imprisonment for execute an innocent person?

would you call Mikhail Kalashnikov a murderer for being responsible for 10000000000000000000 wrongful deaths by his gun that he designed? Would you call CEO of drug company murderer for wrongfully killing several people after learning a few years later that the drug he approved is not safe?

mistake happens on job. and yes the Justice System will execute/sentence a Judge for illegally executing an innocent person - if he knew the person was innocent but went thru it anyway because of political pressure... or to propel his career... or to further his agenda on criminal issue... I believe this is called "fixing the case"

 

[Cheri]

No, Death Penalty is not a self-defense.

Where did I say that Death penalty is Self-defense? All I said was, they are not much different from each others, because another person dies.

The death penalty is an example that killing is okay and it is moral to kill another person?

Then that would make self-defense wrong too, since you mention killing is wrong.

Then make sure that they won't get out of prison.

:roll: It's not as simple as you would like to think, Liebling.

Gas chamber and electric chair are still exists in some states in America.

Electric chair does exist, but it is rarely use, Gas chambers are not use anymore.

No matter, I still consider death penalty as murder the same because the monsters (murders/serial killer/rapist) and innocent victims are human being.

So are those who are killed in a self-defense case, after all they are humans too; aren't they? And you had not answer my question when I asked "Which one is worst".

 

[Hwy99]

Then that would make self-defense wrong too, since you mention killing is wrong.

A murder is not a target, preventing the violence is.

 

[Angel]

Wow that's a tough one because I don't know if I would ever forgive myself if I had killed someone in self-defense..

 

[Cheri]

A murder is not a target, preventing the violence is.

Violence behavior is as just being a part of life, and we are allowing violence to take place. If you want to change that, then keep those criminals off the street. It's time to stop thinking about yourself, and think about how to keep everyone safe in the society. Death penalty is the answer.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

unfortunately - the law is not that simple. you have seen many times in the news that repeated offender do get out.

Yes I has to agree with you on this but the statistic shows that repeated offender are low like what I said at other thread few days ago.

life sentence and death penalty make no difference to me.

Death penalty mean is take human's life away but life sentence doesn't. This is a difference.

repeated offender is a danger to society and is deemed "unrecoverable" or "un-rehabilitatable"... oh well - sucks that some people get all sensitive about "taking away the life." :roll:

Yes, it's possible to sentence re-offender to life if rehabiliatabale is not work on repeated offender.

it's like... you prefer sweeping the dust under the carpet while I prefer to throw the dust out to garbage. To me - I do not value his/her life any more than the value of life of bug that I'm going to step on. why? because he/she takes life away without remorse. but that's just me...

Yes, I respect your view when we have different view on death penalty issues. I don't beleive in death penalty because it teaches our children okay to kill people if they do something wrong.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

would you call Mikhail Kalashnikov a murderer for being responsible for 10000000000000000000 wrongful deaths by his gun that he designed?

It doesn't mean that he is a murderer because he designed the gun. Anyone could reject his guns but they doesn't.

Would you call CEO of drug company murderer for wrongfully killing several people after learning a few years later that the drug he approved is not safe?

I am not sure about CEO of drug company. I guess you mean they produce the drugs to sell the people without get the approval from health department. If yes, then is my answer: This is a manslaughter to law's eyes... Yes I would call it as a murderer.

mistake happens on job.

Interesting... You would call it "mistake happens on job" if they sell the drugs with health department's approval to kill the people, then health department will be responsible... I would never say "mistake happens on job"... No Way... I SUE them for the damage !!!!!!! no matter what.

and yes the Justice System will execute/sentence a Judge for illegally executing an innocent person - if he knew the person was innocent but went thru it anyway because of political pressure... or to propel his career... or to further his agenda on criminal issue... I believe this is called "fixing the case"

Same answer as above. You would say "mistake happens on job" or "fixing the case" if the judge wrongly executed a person which he/she did not know that a person is an innocent. No Way... I SUE judge for his/her wrongly execution. Yes I will call a judge as a murderer because he/she allows to execute a person.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Where did I say that Death penalty is Self-defense? All I said was, they are not much different from each others, because another person dies.

I already explained the difference accord my post #37.

Then that would make self-defense wrong too, since you mention killing is wrong.

Interesting, I didn't know that we are allow to kill the attackers because it's self-defense. I never heard about this because we were being trained to not shoot the attackers in my house/property unless he or she starts to fire at us first. We should shoot attacker's legs, not head and chest.

Anyway, I do not own/use the guns to shoot the attacker out of self-defense. :roll: I have to do what the attackers wants... It's my risk. I can hurt the attackers if they tried to kill me.

So are those who are killed in a self-defense case, after all they are humans too; aren't they? And you had not answer my question when I asked

Again, I didn't know that we are allow to kill anyone accord self-defense. I guess it could be that America and German law is different. I only know that we protect our life against harm from attackers, dangers, etc.

I would not consider it as a self-defense if anyone shoot attackers' head and chest two or more times. I questioned a police about this. A police explained that it's hard to say that it's self-defense if you shoot an intruder's head and chest two or more times when you know an intruder do not have any weapons with them... It's a self-defense if an intruder tempt kill me with his/her gun or weapon ... I have to shot .. it should be leg or arm... if I do not have any weapons then fight with an intruder... The accident could kill intruders sometimes...thru fighting... something like that... fall down from stairs to break their neck... etc...... If I want to own a gun then I have to train how to shot before get a gun liescne. It's a self-defense. It doesn't mean that I am allow to kill anyone what I want because they break in my house/property when they do not have weapons. Police told me that some intruders break in for steal the foods...

"Which one is worst".

I did answered. Here is my repeat answer:

"No matter, I still consider death penalty as murder the same because the monsters (murders/serial killer/rapist) and innocent victims are human being."

Anyway, I repeated my answer #37.

I don't own any guns for a self-defense... because I don't like gun. This is my choice to risk my life.

 

[Foxrac]

Both of Cheri and Puyo need go to Cedar Point and enjoy to debating on all day in real person, have fun for both of you. j/k

In some situation, death penalty is appreciate for serial killer, child killer, child rapist and other several types of murder, even some of them are repeating on crime and some of justice aren't good to jude on murderer or child rapist, especially in Moller's case in SC.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/06/11/2189

 

[Hwy99]

Violence behavior is as just being a part of life, and we are allowing violence to take place. If you want to change that, then keep those criminals off the street. It's time to stop thinking about yourself, and think about how to keep everyone safe in the society. Death penalty is the answer.

If it's a violence that are just a normal, then I'd rather to imagine it as killing the animals for the meat for us to eat and I'd rather to see that just like no difference as self-defense over the self-defense as no different than the death penatly, the self-defense is just like a surivival while the death penalty as punshiment, but not an surivival.

Both of Cheri and Puyo need go to Cedar Point and enjoy to debating on all day in real person, have fun for both of you. j/k

In some situation, death penalty is appreciate for serial killer, child killer, child rapist and other several types of murder, even some of them are repeating on crime and some of justice aren't good to jude on murderer or child rapist, especially in Moller's case in SC.
Box Turtle Bulletin » What Is A Young Gay Man’s Life Worth?

Actually I could understand the victim's families's feelings about the victim and the anger against the murder, but they have to know that if they do the exactly the same as murder had done, it won't solve anything, but continue the similar crime.

My uncle is a victim by an self-defense, I don't blame the self-defense at all because he stopped my uncle from being violence as best as he can, but killed a life still sucks and it's just other thing that we can lose.

 

[Reba]

Wow that's a tough one because I don't know if I would ever forgive myself if I had killed someone in self-defense..

That's a hard choice for every one who is in a self-defense situation, including police and military. No normal person enjoys killing another person. But remember this if you are every in danger--your boys need their mother. Also, if one of your boys is threatened, it is better to protect his life then let someone else take his life. You wouldn't need to forgive yourself because there would be no reason to blame yourself in the first place. Someone trying to harm you or a loved one put himself into that situation; no one else is to blame.

We all hope and pray that such a situation never happens, of course.

 

[Tousi]

Wow that's a tough one because I don't know if I would ever forgive myself if I had killed someone in self-defense..

Yes, you would, hon, because the next day you will realize the situation was either me or him/her. I'm sure you'd pick yourself. Don't be upset at yourself; be angry at the one who tried to snuff out your angelic life.

Ooops, didn't see Reba's post before I madly typed away! Lol, she said it better than I did, Mommy!

 

[Reba]

Interesting, I didn't know that we are allow to kill the attackers because it's self-defense.

Did you think that you should just let attackers kill you and your loved ones?

I never heard about this because we were being trained to not shoot the attackers in my house/property unless he or she starts to fire at us first. We should shoot attacker's legs, not head and chest.

Who trained you to do that? Um, if the attacker shoots first then you are dead and cannot shoot back. What good is that?

What good is shooting an attacker's legs? If he has a gun, he can still shoot you. If he is high on meth, he won't feel the leg pain, and will keep coming after you. (That's presuming that you are such a skilled shooter that you can aim and hit two moving legs while under stress.) Do you have that much skill, distance, time, and composure to do all that?

Whoever "trained" you to wait and shoot at legs doesn't know much about defensive shooting.

Anyway, I do not own/use the guns to shoot the attacker out of self-defense. :roll: I have to do what the attackers wants... It's my risk. I can hurt the attackers if they tried to kill me.

You have to do what the attackers want?! If the attackers want to rape, torture, and kill you and your sons you would just say, "OK"?!

Of course you can "hurt" the attackers--that's the whole point. You have to put a bigger hurt quicker on them than they can put on you. That's the only way to stop them.

Again, I didn't know that we are allow to kill anyone accord self-defense. I guess it could be that America and German law is different. I only know that we protect our life against harm from attackers, dangers, etc.

You can't possibly be saying that self-defense is not legal in Germany.

I would not consider it as a self-defense if anyone shoot attackers' head and chest two or more times. I questioned a police about this. A police explained that it's hard to say that it's self-defense if you shoot an intruder's head and chest two or more times when you know an intruder do not have any weapons with them...

How does anyone know how many shots it will take to stop an attacker? It might take several. Not every shot to the head or chest is instantly fatal.

How do you know for sure that an attacker doesn't have a weapon? Or suppose he is twice as big and strong as you--what can you do? A handgun is an equalizer for smaller, weaker people who have to defend themselves from larger, stronger bad guys.

... If I want to own a gun then I have to train how to shot before get a gun liescne.

Training is always a good idea.

It's a self-defense. It doesn't mean that I am allow to kill anyone what I want because they break in my house/property when they do not have weapons. Police told me that some intruders break in for steal the foods...

How would you know for sure that a stranger in your house doesn't have a weapon? Would you wait until he kills you? Just because an intruder breaks in for food doesn't mean he won't attack you.

 

[Tousi]

Sticking my leg out around the corner of somebody's hallway and saying, "Just shoot here (pointing to the fleshy part of my calf) and nowhere else and then open the door for me!"

 

[Reba]

Sticking my leg out around the corner of somebody's hallway and saying, "Just shoot here (pointing to the fleshy part of my calf) and nowhere else and then open the door for me!"

 

[Jiro]

Liebling - I admire your such utmost respect for preservation of life - even if your life is in danger. However... it would be stupid if you died for nothing to some lowly thug. Since you have an incredibly strong stance against killing a life - you should get a non-lethal weapon such as taser gun or a shotgun that shoots beanbag.

Mind you - assuming you are a sharpshooter and can shoot at arm/leg with ease... you do realize that he can most likely bleed to death - major artery bleed so this is more cruel and painful than shooting to kill.