They always claim that..... even when they shoot someone in the back.

In case you forgot what that looks like.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video-cited-pol...d=30137525

(January 20, 2016 at 6:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If the cop is acting on immediate self defense, or defense of another person, the killing is justified.

Min made a thread that's basically a long list of times when lethal force should not have been needed in that situation.

(January 20, 2016 at 6:02 pm)Minimalist Wrote: They always claim that..... even when they shoot someone in the back.

In case you forgot what that looks like.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/video-cited-pol...d=30137525

I'm not saying there are times when the killing is not justified. Just pointing out that sometimes they could be.

(January 20, 2016 at 6:08 pm)Chad32 Wrote:

(January 20, 2016 at 6:00 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: If the cop is acting on immediate self defense, or defense of another person, the killing is justified.

Min made a thread that's basically a long list of times when lethal force should not have been needed in that situation.

My comment said "IF  the cop is acting on immediate self defense, or defense of another person, the killing is justified." 

I never said that it was always the case.

Yeah, unfortunately that's pretty big if.

(January 20, 2016 at 7:24 am)Jehanne Wrote: Would you, as an atheist, support it?  As for me, I would not, for the following reasons:

1)  Alternatives exist, namely, prison, and in that respect, "Death by Prison" seems a completely humane alternative.

2)  Death is cruel; telling someone that "on such and such" a day "at such and such" a time, you will cease to exist seems, to me, cruel.

3)  Innocent people, of course, are going to get executed -- "improbable, but not impossible."

4)  Free will seems illusory at best; Stephen Hawking likens the brain to a computer, wetware, and if so, an absolute moral accountability seems at least somewhat illusory.

5)  The families of the condemned suffer, as do the families of the victims, as death sentences in the United States and Japan often take many years to carry out.

Thoughts?

Absolutely nucking fot, expesially in Emurica - becaws justis is nevur mor reliable than my typing!

(January 20, 2016 at 1:07 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: My entirely personal, and emotional opinion on the matter is that those who lack empathy, and who demonstrate a cruel disregard for human life at the expense of the innocent (I.e. People who rape, torture, murder) forfeit their own right to be treated with humanity and respect for their dignity.  Now, I'm not saying that all rapists and child abusers be executed, but I do think it is perfectly just to sentence the Ted Bundy's and Jeffrey Dahmer's of the world to death.  Instances where people are deemed clinically insane, not able to discern right from wrong, and/or those who are not capable of controlling their actions would be my only exceptions.  

For the record, I was adamantly AGAINST the death penalty back in my theistic days, because I believed that God would be doling out his punishments when the time was right.

Would you be willing to carry out the death sentence yourself ("pull the lever," "push the button," etc.)?  What if the condemned person were screaming, hollering, fighting for life, etc., as they were dragged kicking and screaming to the execution chamber?  As for me, I could not do that; I would walk away.  And, then, there's the question of botched executions, where the individual is left gasping, struggling for air, etc.

I understand that you favor the death penalty, but would you be willing to carry it out?

(January 20, 2016 at 5:45 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: So basically, the death penalty is only ok if that is the ONLY way to keep society safe from a killer. But if we are able to lock someone up for life, we no longer need to use the death penalty. Nowadays, we have the means of doing this, so a death sentence is no longer necessary and should not be used.

Yet another instance where the Catholic Church has changed its/her tune, one that I, of course, applaud.

Considering my occupation I always get jumped on when I say this.

I support the death penalty for truly vile crimes and only if there's absolutely no doubt.

Saying that: I'm a strong believer that a "life" sentence should mean just that: Life, not released after 10-20 years. If you've deliberately taken someone's life then you should end up in jail until they carry you out in a box.

(January 20, 2016 at 8:19 am)Vic Wrote: Nope. Never.

More expensive than life sentence due to appeals, does not deter crime, focuses on punishment instead of resocialization, poses the very real risk of wrongly executing innocents, and most of all, it's fucking barbaric.

There's me without a need to elaborate.