The alleged gunman (Roeder) is a terrorist. Let’s waterboard him to find out if he can give information about others who may be planning similar attacks. After all, it’s not torture AND even if it were (and it’s not…remember that) it will help avert similar acts of terrorism.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
The alleged gunman (Roeder) is a terrorist. Let’s waterboard him to find out if he can give information about others who may be planning similar attacks. After all, it’s not torture AND even if it were (and it’s not…remember that) it will help avert similar acts of terrorism.
[/quote]
No one has ever accused you of being clever, have they?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
“Rule of law”: Dred Scott 1857.[/quote]
Actually not - Dred Scott was the high court’s first adventure into substantive due process, which is the first advernture into judicial activism, which stands in contradiction to the rule of law. But that is a different thread.
To your point - in the instance of the abortionist’s murderer: if citizens get to unilaterally decide who to snuff based on their individual concept of “justice”, then we cease to be governed by the rule of law and have forfeited that institition and its benefits to the rule of men.
A lawless individual that imposes his own set of values outside of the written law is the same as the lawless judiciary who does the same.
The abortionist was an awful human being, no doubt - but there is no good cause in celebrating his murder.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Just wondering if it was 1858 and someone had killed a slaveowner who was known for whipping and killing his slaves, would some of you who are so so outraged be beatin’ the drum just as loudly?
[/quote]
Two different sets of hypothetical circumstances, A and B:
A) It’s 1858 and someone killed a slaveowner who was known for whipping and killing his slaves. At the time of the killing, the reasonably foreseeable result was: his remaining slaves will be less likely to be killed; there will probably be no significant backlash that will cause other slaves or other persons to be killed; and it will probably be no harder for other slaves to escape.
B) It’s 1858 and someone killed a slaveowner who was known for whipping and killing his slaves. At the time of the killing, the reasonably foreseeable result was: his remaining slaves will be inherited by his heir who is just as bad; there will probably be a significant backlash that will cause more slaves and other persons to be killed; and it will be harder for other slaves to escape.
Two different sets of circumstances; maybe two different answers as to whether or not the killing might have been justifiable.
The killer was part of a lot of militia, para-military wannabe type groups. I expect there to be some conspiracy charges (maybe not convictions) but definitely a witch hunt.
Although Kansas hasn’t executed anyone since 1976 (part of the Bicentennial Celebration), I expect the state to fully press the death penalty.
I also wouldn’t be surprised if he was tried in a federal case as a terrorist or civil rights violations or any other possible stretch of the imagination.
BTW, the guy should not have been murdered.
“I’m so pro-life I’m gonna kill you!”
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
“Rule of law”: Dred Scott 1857.
Actually not - Dred Scott was the high court’s first adventure into substantive due process, which is the first advernture into judicial activism, which stands in contradiction to the rule of law. But that is a different thread.
To your point - in the instance of the abortionist’s murderer: if citizens get to unilaterally decide who to snuff based on their individual concept of “justice”, then we cease to be governed by the rule of law and have forfeited that institition and its benefits to the rule of men.
A lawless individual that imposes his own set of values outside of the written law is the same as the lawless judiciary who does the same.
The abortionist was an awful human being, no doubt - but there is no good cause in celebrating his murder.
[/quote]
So if he died in a car accident, it would be ok?
[quote]Fergy wrote:
“I’m so pro-life I’m gonna kill you!”[/quote]
i don’t think you have the brains to pull it off. you’re going to need help.
Is it just me or does Tiller look like a serial killer in that picture?
And he was a scumbag. I’m vindictive enough to wish him the worst in his grave.
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Is it just me or does Tiller look like a serial killer in that picture?
[/quote]
Yeah, BTK
We are going after this guy hard and rightfully so. But what about the American soldier who was killed on our soil after 9 weeks at boot camp. Why is the media not condemning a turned radical Islam, yet here they are blasting a man who killed a man who murdered babies without remorse.
More should be focused on the radical Islam, who may I say obama is about to go apologize to them for our faults and liberating them.
[quote]jre67t wrote:
We are going after this guy hard and rightfully so. But what about the American soldier who was killed on our soil after 9 weeks at boot camp. Why is the media not condemning a turned radical Islam, yet here they are blasting a man who killed a man who murdered babies without remorse.
More should be focused on the radical Islam, who may I say obama is about to go apologize to them for our faults and liberating them. [/quote]
Agree 100% what a scumbag, we have had tons of media here in LR but obviously nobody is talking about his Islamic ties.
[quote]jre67t wrote:
More should be focused on the radical Islam, who may I say obama is about to go apologize to them for our faults and liberating them. [/quote]
While I agree totally with what you have said, there’s people on here who would and do apologize for them.
And by them, I mean the radical muslims (including the one who killed on American soil).