# A firing squad brutal?



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Well, uh yes.......if you were innocent and wrongly sentenced to death.

But, if you killed two others and wounded another in a failed escape attempt, then I really don't see anything brutal about a firing squad.

Brother of man executed by Utah firing squad calls it brutal


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Yeah, I got a chuckle out of that one! Like what he did to his victims was a polite greeting.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

I've already stated my opinion. I think that anyone who is found guilty of first degree murder should suffer the death penalty. And my preferred method of dispatching the worthless crud is by hanging. Inexpensive, surefooted, and sends a message.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

I think if the murderers are caught on site, they should be shot on site.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> I've already stated my opinion. I think that anyone who is found guilty of first degree murder should suffer the death penalty. And my preferred method of dispatching the worthless crud is by hanging. Inexpensive, surefooted, and sends a message.


First degree murder is 'an offense against the State', with a penalty or range of penalties specified by the State. Murder (without the modifiers) is causing the death of a person. The proper punishment for that offense is determined (perhaps variously) by 'interested' elements of the community, and may or may not be satisfied by the State.

And there's the rub.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

GCBHM said:


> I think if the murderers are caught on site, they should be shot on site.


How will you (or anyone) distinguish, on-site and immediately, whether or not the killing was justified homicide, or felony murder?

It seems to work better when there is a pause for reflection and investigation, between deed and retribution.
It also seems to work better when a small group of citizens hear all of the available evidence, and then make a considered judgment.
And still, there are terrible errors made, and the wrong person punished.

It doesn't seem like much of a problem...until you are the one who is wrongfully convicted and punished.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

Compromise ,
How about after a fair trial , we bring the convicted back to the site and then kill em


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

hillman said:


> First degree murder is 'an offense against the State', with a penalty or range of penalties specified by the State. Murder (without the modifiers) is causing the death of a person. The proper punishment for that offense is determined (perhaps variously) by 'interested' elements of the community, and may or may not be satisfied by the State.
> 
> And there's the rub.


*"First degree murder is 'an offense against the State'"*
Yes it is.

*"Murder (without the modifiers) is causing the death of a person."*
It is a bit more than that. For example, someone who kills another in a justifiable or an excusable use of deadly force has committed a homicide, but not a murder.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> How will you (or anyone) distinguish, on-site and immediately, whether or not the killing was justified homicide, or felony murder?
> 
> It seems to work better when there is a pause for reflection and investigation, between deed and retribution.
> It also seems to work better when a small group of citizens hear all of the available evidence, and then make a considered judgment.
> ...


For example, the Gabby Giffords shooting or the AZ movie theater shooting. They were both caught on site, with multiple witnesses. Both should have been shot on site.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

GCBHM said:


> For example, the Gabby Giffords shooting or the AZ movie theater shooting. They were both caught on site, with multiple witnesses. Both should have been shot on site.


As much as we might like to see this happen to some human garbage, we cannot do nor allow this. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. I have a world of sympathy for someone who would love nothing better than to set the perp on fire who murdered his child (God knows I would want to do really bad things to someone who did this to one of mine), but we just cannot allow ourselves to go down that road to the abyss of anarchy.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> As much as we might like to see this happen to some human garbage, we cannot do nor allow this. We are supposed to be a nation of laws. I have a world of sympathy for someone who would love nothing better than to set the perp on fire who murdered his child (God knows I would want to do really bad things to someone who did this to one of mine), but we just cannot allow ourselves to go down that road to the abyss of anarchy.


Yeah, I hear what you're saying, but the law was clearly broken in both incidents. What could a trial possibly prove? I don't suggest we kill everyone upon arrest on suspicion of murder, but when you tackle the guy who just shot a US Congresswoman in the face, and seven other people, including an 8 year old child, what else needs to be decided in a court of law?

A big part of the problem in cases like these is that the people do it for the notoriety they get from the press coverage, and enjoy a long, drawn out process that coddles them, which only serves to show others that if you do it, you can become famous too! Meanwhile, people who get caught with a dime bag of weed goes to jail for ten years. It makes no sense.


----------



## TurboHonda (Aug 4, 2012)

Any method of execution may be considered brutal when the normally predictable results take an unexpected turn. Hanging, electrocution, firing squad, and lethal injection all have examples of going badly. The guillotine would be a more predictable and certain means, but it probably wouldn't pass the cruel and unusual test. 

The preparation for any form of execution must be traumatic. That in itself would prevent most people from risking a death sentence.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

I have a feeling that this nation of ours would rather remain PC and tolerate crime, rather than take a serious, no-nonsense approach to it, and do whatever it may take to bring it under control, in an effort to save our nation.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> *"First degree murder is 'an offense against the State'"*
> Yes it is.
> 
> *"Murder (without the modifiers) is causing the death of a person."*
> It is a bit more than that. For example, someone who kills another in a justifiable or an excusable use of deadly force has committed a homicide, but not a murder.


You are sticking with State definitions. There is no 'homicide' outside the State. "Murder" is a generic term. You could have corrected me though, in that murder requires intent to injure.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

The law is not for vengeance. Capital punishment is society's self defense. I disagree with Life in prison because there is a chance of escape or paper work mistakes which allows the person to be free in society to harm others. I believe that when a person is convicted and the judge/ jury says that person is not safe to ever be allowed to be released then that person should be executed. I also believe that it should take place in a youthful offenders prison and all the inmates should have to watch. Where they can see, hear, and smell the person dyeing as a class about what their future of criminal life will hold for them.


----------



## denner (Jun 3, 2011)

A firing squad is not a bad way to go if all executioners hit the mark. I believe the electric chair was brutal. :watching:


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

paratrooper said:


> I have a feeling that this nation of ours would rather remain PC and tolerate crime, rather than take a serious, no-nonsense approach to it, and do whatever it may take to bring it under control, in an effort to save our nation.


Unfortunately I have also believed this for many years.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

hillman said:


> You are sticking with State definitions. There is no 'homicide' outside the State. "Murder" is a generic term. You could have corrected me though, in that murder requires intent to injure.


*"There is no 'homicide' outside the State."*
Could you explain this as I don't understand your meaning here. Unless you are referring to homicide as a label placed upon the taking of a human life.

*"You could have corrected me though, in that murder requires intent to injure."*
I had thought about doing this but refrained because I didn't wish to start any arguments (have no idea where you stand on the issue).


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

GCBHM said:


> For example, the Gabby Giffords shooting or the AZ movie theater shooting. They were both caught on site, with multiple witnesses. Both should have been shot on site.


Can you imagine what a corrupt or unscrupulous police agency could do with such a rule?
Are you asking for a return to the kind of morally corrupt, police-state oligarchy that was Eastern Europe until very recently?

Is your statement compatible with your stated belief in anarchy?
(I really don't think that it is. I suggest that you rethink your position.)


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SouthernBoy said:


> Unfortunately I have also believed this for many years.


You know, I almost didn't say what I posted. I read it over several times to make sure that it said what I felt.

I was worried that it might be taken wrong by some and incite some kind of reply that would make me regret posting it.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

No. I think you hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head.


It seems to be more PC to abdicate civic responsibility, in favor of hedonism and "self-actualization," than to take social responsibility for solving society's problems.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> No. I think you hit the proverbial nail on its proverbial head.
> 
> It seems to be more PC to abdicate civic responsibility, in favor of hedonism and "*self-actualization*," than to take social responsibility for solving society's problems.


Maslow would be proud.


----------



## pic (Nov 14, 2009)

denner said:


> A firing squad is not a bad way to go if all executioners hit the mark. I believe the electric chair was brutal. :watching:


Ok, let's all aim at the big toe first,lol.

Ok everybody , now aim at the right knee cap.

"Can the dr. Please See if he is still alive?" "HE'S STILL ALIVE"

Ok men lets shoot out the left knee cap.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Can you imagine what a corrupt or unscrupulous police agency could do with such a rule?
> Are you asking for a return to the kind of morally corrupt, police-state oligarchy that was Eastern Europe until very recently?
> 
> Is your statement compatible with your stated belief in anarchy?
> (I really don't think that it is. I suggest that you rethink your position.)


What would you suggest as a more efficient way of dealing with these behaviors?


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> *"There is no 'homicide' outside the State."*
> Could you explain this as I don't understand your meaning here. Unless you are referring to homicide as a label placed upon the taking of a human life.
> 
> *"You could have corrected me though, in that murder requires intent to injure."*
> I had thought about doing this but refrained because I didn't wish to start any arguments (have no idea where you stand on the issue).


Re 'homicide', you have my definition right; it's an artificial label.

My 'stand' is that the State gets first crack at 'doing the right thing'. If/when the State doesn't get it right - in the _hearts_ of those directly concerned, not necessarily their minds - there is a reaction.

I am not speaking of the Ferguson mess. There was a big accumulation of tinder there for the spark to ignite, so the mess is really civil unrest erupting into disorder.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

hillman said:


> Re 'homicide', you have my definition right; it's an artificial label.
> 
> My 'stand' is that the State gets first crack at 'doing the right thing'. If/when the State doesn't get it right - in the _hearts_ of those directly concerned, not necessarily their minds - there is a reaction.
> 
> I am not speaking of the Ferguson mess. There was a big accumulation of tinder there for the spark to ignite, so the mess is really civil unrest erupting into disorder.


Thank you.


----------



## Lee Hunter (May 25, 2011)

GCBHM said:


> I think if the murderers are caught on site, they should be shot on site.


Everyone, regardless of how heinous the crime(s) they allegedly committed, is entitled to due process.

Believe me, if this were not the American way to real justice, I would have been wrongfully murdered due to an emotion charged crime I was charged with years ago. But due to the actions of a very good LEO, and a logical judge, I was found innocent... Also, if I had demanded a jury trial, I would most assuredly have been found guilty.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Lee Hunter said:


> Everyone, regardless of how heinous the crime(s) they allegedly committed, is entitled to due process.


There are convicted murderers on death row still waiting for "due process". Some have been waiting for years and years.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> There are convicted murderers on death row still waiting for "due process". Some have been waiting for years and years.


And innocent people have been released after nearly 30 years on death row.....


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SailDesign said:


> And innocent people have been released after nearly 30 years on death row.....


Don't try muddying the waters by throwing facts and logic into it.

Can't you see that I'm emotionally charged right now?


----------



## Lee Hunter (May 25, 2011)

paratrooper said:


> There are convicted murderers on death row still waiting for "due process". Some have been waiting for years and years.


I certainly don't condone this nonsense. If reasonable doubt existed at the time a convicted individual reaches the sentencing stage, they should definitely not be put on death row. Only those who are actually proven beyond a shadow of doubt to have committed a grievous crime should ever be promptly put to death. And even DNA evidence can be tainted or tampered with.

It is rumored that a Texas State representative once callously stated that even if every tenth executed death row inmate was actually innocent, at least nine weren't. If this is true, it is truly disdainful.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> Don't try muddying the waters by throwing facts and logic into it.
> 
> Can't you see that I'm emotionally charged right now?


You don't look any different from where i'm sitting....


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

SailDesign said:


> You don't look any different from where i'm sitting....


I had nothing to do with sentencing and stuff.

My job was to apprehend. That's not to say that I didn't want to sentence some on the spot though.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

GCBHM said:


> What would you suggest as a more efficient way of dealing with these behaviors?


I suggest that our usual due-process procedures are working pretty well, nowadays.
I see no good reason to change the basic process, even though some inmates and their lawyers abuse the system.
I'd rather err on the side of caution and restraint.

One change I'd like to see:
If you "get off" with a plea of insanity, then when you are finally released from psychiatric therapy and confinement you must begin serving the normal in-prison sentence for the crime you committed while temporarily insane.

In considering your own stated point of view, I ask that you think about the lynchings of Black men in the south, at least one having been the result of having done nothing worse than whistling at a pretty White woman.
Blacks were also lynched for killing White people who weren't dead, for refusing to act deferentially toward Whites, and for killing Blacks and Whites who were actually killed by other (usually White) people, and all of these hangings (and worse) were carried out at the hands of a mob, without any recourse to law or due process.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> I suggest that our usual due-process procedures are working pretty well, nowadays.
> I see no good reason to change the basic process, even though some inmates and their lawyers abuse the system.
> I'd rather err on the side of caution and restraint.
> 
> ...


I don't see how anyone can compare what I stated with lynching. In both examples I gave, there were multiple victims, multiple eye-witnesses, concrete evidence of guilt, and the perp was caught on site. These are the only circumstances that I have ever suggested the perpetrator be dealt with on the spot, and if these conditions are in any way different, then there is no other course of action that can be be taken than the system we have now. The criteria for this is no different than what must be met in a court of law.

It does not matter why someone does something like the Giffords or Aurora, AZ movie theater shooting, the message has to be that if you do something like that you will be dealt with accordingly. Now, let's say the guy who shot up the theater had gotten away, and police tracked him down later. Then, under those conditions, there is room for reasonable doubt, and guilt would have to be proven in a court of law, but when someone walks up and shoots eight people in broad daylight in front of several eye witnesses, and is tackled to the ground, gun in hand, what question of guilt is there? None.

Deal with them then and there, and I promise you those types of attacks will stop.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

GCBHM said:


> I don't see how anyone can compare what I stated with lynching. In both examples I gave, there were multiple victims, multiple eye-witnesses, concrete evidence of guilt, and the perp was caught on site. These are the only circumstances that I have ever suggested the perpetrator be dealt with on the spot, and if these conditions are in any way different, then there is no other course of action that can be be taken than the system we have now. The criteria for this is no different than what must be met in a court of law.
> 
> It does not matter why someone does something like the Giffords or Aurora, AZ movie theater shooting, the message has to be that if you do something like that you will be dealt with accordingly. Now, let's say the guy who shot up the theater had gotten away, and police tracked him down later. Then, under those conditions, there is room for reasonable doubt, and guilt would have to be proven in a court of law, *but when someone walks up and shoots eight people in broad daylight in front of several eye witnesses, and is tackled to the ground, gun in hand, what question of guilt is there?* None.
> 
> Deal with them then and there, and I promise you those types of attacks will stop.


Actually there are times when retribution does take place right away. We read about it frequently. A home invasion results in the death of one or more perps. Robbers in a store are shot by an owner and/or employees when they decided to open fire. Mass murderers killed in churches by civilians. Shopping centers, schools, and a host of other places. I am all in favor of this. Yes we can call it self defense. But we could just as easily call it retribution. In reality, it falls under the definition of stopping a perp's actions quickly and decisively. This is a very good thing.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

GCBHM said:


> I don't see how anyone can compare what I stated with lynching. In both examples I gave, there were multiple victims, multiple eye-witnesses, concrete evidence of guilt, and the perp was caught on site. These are the only circumstances that I have ever suggested the perpetrator be dealt with on the spot...


Um, you have just outlined the very definition of _lynching_: "...dealt with on the spot."
My big Random House dictionary says: "To put to death, especially by hanging, by mob action, and without legal authority." For clarity, one may omit "especially by hanging."

Considering the historical record in the southern United States, I will add that it has also happened _with_ what might be called "legal authority," since some of those in attendance were, on occasion, the Sheriff and his deputies. Indeed, the Sheriff and his deputies-or some other local police agency-have occasionally been the instigators, and even the prime movers.
Three Examples:
1. Emmett Till
2. James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, and Michael Schwerner
3. Medgar Evers


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

I still think hanging is the best form of execution for our country. It fits within the framework of the Eighth Amendment, is efficient and the cost is low, and it instills fear and apprehension in the mind of the condemned. It also helps to send a message to other potential murderers that a rope is waiting for them if convicted.

The problem with our modern justice system is that it lacks balls. The willingness to execute bad people who do bad things. The idea that some maggot escapes the death penalty because he confessed is abhorrent to me as a husband and a father. Were someone to kill one of mine and they wound up breathing air for the rest of their lives while my loved one rotted in some grave.... well, that just doesn't sit well with me.

I'd want them dead; period. And the only way I would accept life in prison is if they spent the rest of their miserable days in some tiny cell. No out-of-cell exercise time, no TV, no radio, no books or magazines, no medical or dental attention, no nothing. Same food every day, two showers a week, and never leave that cell.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

We need to get very serious about crime & punishment. Until we do, things are going to remain the same. 

We know how well the status quo is working out for us. Not so well. What's to lose by trying the other?


----------



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

With a firing squad, death occurs when the brain runs out of oxygen, if you have ever taken CPR "permanent, irreversible brain damage occurs as soon as 4-6 minutes. " Not to say that the pain/shock of the impacts of the bullet won't make them pass out, not to ever wake up again. Nor that they would remain conscious for the full 4-6 minutes. bullet(s) thru the heart will interrupt the transport of glucose and oxygen to the brain, resulting in 'brain death' as well as body death.

With Hanging, the Rope snaps the neck at C-2 (hangman's fracture) disrupting the nerve impulses that carry direction to the lungs and diaphragm for breathing. The heart has a built in rate control, so the heart will keep beating until it runs out of oxygen/glucose. Again, the pain of the neck snapping may be enough to cause them to lose consciousness and not regain it again.. with the rope around the broken neck, not much blood flow will reach the brain, and where they're not breathing, what blood flow does reach the brain, won't have enough oxygen to keep it going. http://physther.net/content/88/1/98/F2.expansion.html


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Um, you have just outlined the very definition of _lynching_: "...dealt with on the spot."
> My big Random House dictionary says: "To put to death, especially by hanging, by mob action, and without legal authority." For clarity, one may omit "especially by hanging."
> 
> Considering the historical record in the southern United States, I will add that it has also happened _with_ what might be called "legal authority," since some of those in attendance were, on occasion, the Sheriff and his deputies. Indeed, the Sheriff and his deputies-or some other local police agency-have occasionally been the instigators, and even the prime movers.
> ...


Lynching isn't always being dealt with on the spot, and it wasn't always used within very specific defined parameters. Nevertheless, it isn't worth arguing b/c it will never happen. I just do not see the point in wasting taxpayers time/money when the cases are literally cut/dry.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> Um, you have just outlined the very definition of _lynching_: "...dealt with on the spot."
> My big Random House dictionary says: "To put to death, especially by hanging, by mob action, and without legal authority." For clarity, one may omit "especially by hanging."
> 
> Considering the historical record in the southern United States, I will add that it has also happened _with_ what might be called "legal authority," since some of those in attendance were, on occasion, the Sheriff and his deputies. Indeed, the Sheriff and his deputies-or some other local police agency-have occasionally been the instigators, and even the prime movers.
> ...


This didn't happen just in the South. Unfortunately for us, that is where the Klan sprung up but they also operated in other parts of the nation.

And you're right about lynching. That is death by mob and not necessarily hanging.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

BackyardCowboy said:


> With a firing squad, death occurs when the brain runs out of oxygen, if you have ever taken CPR "permanent, irreversible brain damage occurs as soon as 4-6 minutes. " Not to say that the pain/shock of the impacts of the bullet won't make them pass out, not to ever wake up again. Nor that they would remain conscious for the full 4-6 minutes. bullet(s) thru the heart will interrupt the transport of glucose and oxygen to the brain, resulting in 'brain death' as well as body death.
> 
> With Hanging, the Rope snaps the neck at C-2 (hangman's fracture) disrupting the nerve impulses that carry direction to the lungs and diaphragm for breathing. The heart has a built in rate control, so the heart will keep beating until it runs out of oxygen/glucose. Again, the pain of the neck snapping may be enough to cause them to lose consciousness and not regain it again.. with the rope around the broken neck, not much blood flow will reach the brain, and where they're not breathing, what blood flow does reach the brain, won't have enough oxygen to keep it going. Undetected Hangman's Fracture in a Patient Referred for Physical Therapy for the Treatment of Neck Pain Following Trauma


One can remain alive after being hung for up to 20 minutes. I remember an execution by hanging where one of the two convicts lived for 19 minutes. That doesn't bother me in the slightest. These two killers deserved what they got and its just too bad they didn't suffer longer, if they suffered at all. I would have been quite happy to see they burned alive.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

A quirk in the forum's program sometimes forbids me from editing one of my own posts, so the following afterthought was left out of my "lynching" post:

Killing an attacker in the process of stopping his attack upon you-or upon another-is not the same as "lynching," because it is done in the heat of the moment and while mortal danger immediately threatens. It is a save-your-life, _direct_ response.

A "lynching" always happens later, after the fact. It is an _indirect_ response. However, "after the fact" may involve merely a few seconds of time.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> A quirk in the forum's program sometimes forbids me from editing one of my own posts, so the following afterthought was left out of my "lynching" post:
> 
> Killing an attacker in the process of stopping his attack upon you-or upon another-is not the same as "lynching," because it is done in the heat of the moment and while mortal danger immediately threatens. It is a save-your-life, _direct_ response.
> 
> A "lynching" always happens later, after the fact. It is an _indirect_ response. However, "after the fact" may involve merely a few seconds of time.


It may. But tell me. When you have multiple eye witnesses, multiple victims all of whom can testify on the spot that the man police have in custody, who was tackled to the ground by normal citizens who saw him shoot people, what more do you need to convict?

I'm not talking about some idiot racist driving 90 miles to shoot a man he didn't like b/c of the color of his skin and the work he was doing. There is a very definite difference, and I think you know it. At least, I think you do.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

GCBHM said:


> ...When you have multiple eye witnesses, multiple victims all of whom can testify on the spot that the man police have in custody, who was tackled to the ground by normal citizens who saw him shoot people, what more do you need to convict?...


The problem is not, "What more do you need to convict?" in a given, specific case.
The problem is, "What abuse of the system could be foreseen, and how do we do our best to avoid abuses?"

From the Most Recent to Almost 100 Years Ago:
• Think of Argentina, and the "Disappeared Ones," under The Colonels.
• Think of Eastern Europe, under the thrall of the USSR.
• Think of Argentina, under Peron.
• Think of Nazi Germany.
• Think of Spain, under Franco.
• Think of "Communist" Russia.

All of these regimes gave their police the exact power you advocate.
Some of these regimes also gave their "politically loyal" private citizens the same power.
All of these regimes quickly became murderously abusive. All.

A functioning court system, and the courts' constraints upon the police and upon private citizens, is the best tool for avoiding and correcting abuse that we've ever found.

If you study history, you will note that idealism is always suborned, and quickly perverted, by people who are unscrupulously avid for power and control.

(Think, for instance, of Mr. Obama, who started his Presidency as a starry-eyed idealist, but who now has descended into unconstitutional and extra-legal usurpations of power. He is doing this for what he sees as "all the right reasons," in order to accomplish a social-reform agenda which he is certain that we all need. But it is nonetheless an unconstitutional usurpation, and an immoral abuse of power, for all that.)


----------



## borris (Oct 28, 2012)

"Don't Do The Crime" If You "Can't Do The Time" Or "Punishment" If Caught Red Handed Pay Your Bill ! 
:numbchuck:


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> *A quirk in the forum's program sometimes forbids me from editing one of my own posts*, so the following afterthought was left out of my "lynching" post:
> 
> Killing an attacker in the process of stopping his attack upon you-or upon another-is not the same as "lynching," because it is done in the heat of the moment and while mortal danger immediately threatens. It is a save-your-life, _direct_ response.
> 
> A "lynching" always happens later, after the fact. It is an _indirect_ response. However, "after the fact" may involve merely a few seconds of time.


This has happened to me several times on this site and it is frustrating.

*"Killing an attacker in the process of stopping his attack upon you-or upon another-is not the same as "lynching," because it is done in the heat of the moment and while mortal danger immediately threatens. It is a save-your-life, direct response."*
This is true but perhaps I should have been more clear. My point was that some consider this to be a form of retribution. I certainly don't.. not even if it is immediately after the act (I do think there are exceptions which make this acceptable). But there are those who believe that any sort of violence returned upon someone who puts you in serious danger is, in fact, revenge, retribution, and/or vengeance. I am not one of those people.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> The problem is not, "What more do you need to convict?" in a given, specific case.
> The problem is, "What abuse of the system could be foreseen, and how do we do our best to avoid abuses?"
> 
> From the Most Recent to Almost 100 Years Ago:
> ...


I love the statement which I bolded and underlined.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> The problem is not, "What more do you need to convict?" in a given, specific case.
> The problem is, "What abuse of the system could be foreseen, and how do we do our best to avoid abuses?"
> 
> From the Most Recent to Almost 100 Years Ago:
> ...


As if the current legal system in America isn't corrupt.

Listen, I understand what you're saying, but let's just be real. All this works fine in the confines of a sterile gun forum, but in real life, it's really just BS. Our legal system, while well intended, is as corrupt as any has ever been. If you really believe that it isn't, well, I really don't need to finish that.

The truth is that lynchings still happen today. Just look to Ferguson. Darren Wilson did his job to the letter, and he was lynched by the whole world, tried and convicted in the court of public opinion before the first question was really officially asked. Now somebody says that he wasn't killed, but I beg to differ. Do you think he will ever be able to do what he loves again? He loved being a cop, but thanks to the lynch mob mentality in this country, that dream was killed.

This president isn't the only one to abuse power or side-step the constitution. Nearly every president in my lifetime has. Reagan and the Contras, for example, was one of the most heinous of all, yet we still regard him as among the best presidents ever. Let there be no doubt, there are lynchings in modern day America. Let there be no doubt the legal system is as corrupt as it has ever been, maybe even more so.

It is all a matter of what is accepted and what isn't. The truth is there are just some stories too true to tell. We just simply don't want to hear it b/c it shatters our little illusions and delusional lives.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

GCBHM said:


> As if the current legal system in America isn't corrupt.
> 
> Listen, I understand what you're saying, but let's just be real. All this works fine in the confines of a sterile gun forum, but in real life, it's really just BS. Our legal system, while well intended, is as corrupt as any has ever been. If you really believe that it isn't, well, I really don't need to finish that.
> 
> ...


I would have to disagree with this assertion.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> I would have to disagree with this assertion.


I would have too, until I watched a movie last night that dealt with it. It was rather interesting.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

GCBHM said:


> I would have too, until I watched a movie last night that dealt with it. It was rather interesting.


Ah yes, movies. And who makes movies? Did they go into Ted Kennedy's trip to Nicaragua to meet with Noriega? Did they explain the Kennedy-Boland bill (hope I got that right)?


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> Ah yes, movies. And who makes movies? Did they go into Ted Kennedy's trip to Nicaragua to meet with Noriega? Did they explain the Kennedy-Boland bill (hope I got that right)?


Yes, granted, movies must be taken with a grain of salt...some perhaps a truck load, but it was an interesting one. It addressed a lot of things, and begs the question "what really did happen". There were enough questions to have led to the CIA director stepping down and the CIA admitting to being involved with the alleged activity.

It's called "Kill the Messenger".


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

SouthernBoy:


> Did they go into Ted Kennedy's trip to Nicaragua to meet with Noriega?


How 'bout Ted Kennedy's trip off of **** Bridge at Chappaquiddick?


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

GCBHM:


> Let there be no doubt the legal system is as corrupt as it has ever been, maybe even more so.


Indeed it is!. He who has the best "liar for hire" wins.


----------



## BackyardCowboy (Aug 27, 2014)

desertman said:


> SouthernBoy:
> 
> How 'bout Ted Kennedy's trip off of **** Bridge in Chappaquiddick?


Now, now, now..... you KNOW that was just the "Kennedy Ferry Tale"


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> Ah yes, movies. And who makes movies? Did they go into Ted Kennedy's trip to Nicaragua to meet with Noriega? Did they explain the Kennedy-Boland bill (hope I got that right)?


Here's a little bit on it, but you have to know there is a lot more to it than what is covered here.

CIA and Contras cocaine trafficking in the US - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

BackyardCowboy:
I heard that he tried to save Mary Jo by driving out of the drink. But the car wouldn't start because the carburetor was flooded.


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

GCBHM said:


> As if the current legal system in America isn't corrupt.
> 
> Listen, I understand what you're saying, but let's just be real. All this works fine in the confines of a sterile gun forum, but in real life, it's really just BS. Our legal system, while well intended, is as corrupt as any has ever been. If you really believe that it isn't, well, I really don't need to finish that.
> 
> ...


Um, OK...
So what do you advocate be done, to repair the cracks in our system and return it to working order?

It's one thing to complain, and quite another thing to actually create a plan that is workable, and that is acceptable to a vast majority of those it affects. (Maybe 66%?)
Anybody can grouse.
But I want to see some creative critical thinking.


----------



## desertman (Aug 29, 2013)

> I heard that he tried to save Mary Jo by driving out of the drink. But the *car wouldn't start* because the *carburetor* was flooded.


Sorry guys, what I meant to say was "*cah wouldn't stat*" because the "*cabaratah*" was flooded . No offense to anyone from Massachusetts except maybe "Uncle Ted".


----------



## TurboHonda (Aug 4, 2012)

The story I heard was she confronted Teddy a few days before about the possibility of being pregnant. He told her not to worry. "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it."


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

desertman said:


> SouthernBoy:
> 
> How 'bout Ted Kennedy's trip off of **** Bridge at Chappaquiddick?


I used to know a girl back then who had worked for Robert Kennedy's campaign along with Mary Jo. When RFK was killed, they both went to work for Teddy. The girl I knew was pretty close to Mary Jo.

Ted Kennedy was scum in my opinion and what he did at Chappaquiddick just made him worse scum. In 1968 I liked RFK and was probably going to vote for him. After he died, I learned some not so warm and friendly things about him.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SouthernBoy said:


> I used to know a girl back then who had worked for Robert Kennedy's campaign along with Mary Jo. When RFK was killed, they both went to work for Teddy. The girl I knew was pretty close to Mary Jo.
> 
> Ted Kennedy was scum in my opinion and what he did at Chappaquiddick just made him worse scum. In 1968 I liked RFK and was probably going to vote for him. After he died, I learned some not so warm and friendly things about him.


My, ah, problem with TK was with what he _didn't_ do at Chappaquidick. What he _did_ do as a Very Important Democrat just piled on. His non-actions at Chappaquidick seemed (and still seem) do be fairly simply related to the mental/societal attitudes that the generic Kennedy Compound Concept feeds. Plutocracy is inherently dehumanizing.


----------



## SouthernBoy (Jun 27, 2007)

hillman said:


> *My, ah, problem with TK was with what he didn't do at Chappaquidick.* What he _did_ do as a Very Important Democrat just piled on. His non-actions at Chappaquidick seemed (and still seem) do be fairly simply related to the mental/societal attitudes that the generic Kennedy Compound Concept feeds. Plutocracy is inherently dehumanizing.


I understand and am familiar with what he didn't do and did do at that bridge on that night.


----------

