Why not? What should society do with the irredeemable? Serial killers… Islamic terrorism on domestic soil… Repeat child molesters who show no remorse and try to justify their wrongdoing. Like I saw one or two states are looking at physically castrating this demographic… You can still inject testosterone if castrated… You can still take StErOiDs!
Should we not set examples in really serious cases of treason or espionage?
First off, as I said, this isn’t a political question but a moral one.
Second, my issue isn’t with the morality of killing a murderer but giving the state the power to make that decision. They can tax us, imprison us, take our kids away, send us to war, take our property… you have to draw a line somewhere. They already get away with murder, Ruby Ridge for example, or more recently Ashley Babbit.
Oh wow. That genuinely surprised me coming from you.
Thats an interesting angle. If I were going to plant myself in the “no death penalty” camp, this would be the reason why.
Metastatic
I think “state” and “market” are the better terms to use. It is a scale going from total economic freedom (anarchy) to comprehensive state control of the economy (i.e. Soviet Union).
“Right wing” as it is commonly used is, as I stated above, a long-term propaganda effort to conflate National Socialism with core American ideas about government, personal liberty, and our rights as citizens.
The Nazis were not believers in the free market, not in the least. You could make money as long as your business was aligned with the state, and even then Nazi central economic planning meant you lacked a lot of freedom in what you could spend or invest any surplus funds on.
Hitler also wrote extensively about his wish to socialize nearly everything once autarky was achieved through the acquisition of Lebensraum. From taking power to losing the war, they were in a very reactionary, sometimes week-by-week process of financially manipulating everything within their control to prop up their economy and not inflate the Deutschmark. We’re talking massive levels of state economic intervention unheard of in the USA.
Hugo Junkers is a very telling example of how much freedom business owners had in Nazi Germany.
And here we are today, with people who have a race-based social justice worldview favoring massive state economic intervention calling everyone who doesn’t agree with them “far-right”, “fascist”, and “Nazis”.
100% agree.
Far right is definitely used as a political term, so it’s often misused as a accusation tool.
The ”far right” movements in Europe, are actually authoritarian/neoconservative right.
So economically they’re definitely liberal, but otherwise they’re demand heavy state control over matters and represent conservative values.
But the left is a mixed bag too. Hardcore socialism is pretty much dead, and even the most leftist parties (significant ones) believe in free market. And liberal left is not always so liberal…
These definitions. Hahah.
I believe she wasn’t the smartest person out there and she may have had some emotional and/or mental health issues. She did something stupid but that doesn’t mean she should have been killed. From a purely use of lethal force perspective it was a bad shooting. But because of the political climate and who was in power, it was not persued with the same energy as Chauvin, Zimmerman or the cop that shot the big dummy Mike Brown.
Yeah. I think that was what gave a lot of drive to people wanting to believe it was an InSurEctiOn!!!
Terrible judgement.
If the cop who shot her really believed she was a deadly threat, he’s a horrible cop, and anyone who bought that excuse is even worse. But, and this gets to my point, he got away with it.
By the rules of “Felony Murder,” it was the rioters, not the police who were responsible for her death.
That sounds like a Kamala legal argument.
Are you sure about that? Who was charged? Or did the government just decide to not charge anyone with the most serious crime of the day?
No, no one was charged.
Progressive types don’t like the felony murder statute.
It’s used more often by strong “law and order” guys.
Even if they were, you have 2 large hurdles to clear here in the federal system and how felony murder works.
From Federal District Court Judge, Jed Rakoff, felony murder requires not only complicity in the underlying felony but also knowledge of “a genuine (and not just fanciful or remote) risk that someone would be killed.”
Felony murder really has a poor chance here even if people were charged.
Wouldn’t those charges, had they been brought, result in a more thorough analysis regarding the legitimacy of the use of deadly force? I’m assuming the defense could make the cop testify in court.
It would have I’m sure.
Which is another reason I’m sure they did not pursue it.
! Good luck proving that!
I had two great attorneys once walk a magistrate and assistant DA through what constitutes a conspiracy and why that charge needed dropped in my case.
Thats what this quoted part reminds me of. That ADA was so freakin pissed off, his face turned purple and he started actually swearing- called my one buddy/other defendant a bastard and a few other things.