Should the looters be shot site if caught in the act of looting?

[getinvolved]

I would call it a deterant after a few examples are made,instead of barbarism.
If you shoot a few looters in the head as they are caught in the act of looting it will deter anyone else from looting when word spreads and therefore the peace will be kept.

Come on now. Is this your first few months in the country? You want to shoot people in the head for looting...because they are break the law. But, then again you want to shoot someone in the head for looting -- wouldn't that be somewhat against the law?

Shoot someone in the head for stealing a TV, teach blue collar crimianals a crime...and other bright ideas sheriff??

 

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by galenrox
no, moreso it's not big enough of a deal to justify killing the culprits.

You make it seem as though people are still going to continue to loot after a few
dozen people have been made examples out of.You make it seem as no is going think "hey looting will get me shot on site,perhaps it is not a good idea to loot".

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002
So people value material possesions more than life? Hmmmmmm, This must be Clinton's fault somehow. Certainly pro-life christians wouldn't vote yes

I am prolife when it comes to the innocent and the law abiding.

 

[jallman]

You make it seem as though people are still going to continue to loot after a few
dozen people have been made examples out of.You make it seem as no is going think "hey looting will get me shot on site,perhaps it is not a good idea to loot".



I am prolife when it comes to the innocent and the law abiding.

And you make it seem as though a dozen or so people's lives are trivial. There is far too much to take into account to make such a blanket action against such a non-violent crime. A policeman acting as judge jury and executioner is not how our legal system works, even in the face of a natural disaster. That you would even advocate such barbarism says much for your limited comprehension of our philosophy of law here in America.

 

[jamesrage]

And you make it seem as though a dozen or so people's lives are trivial. There is far too much to take into account to make such a blanket action against such a non-violent crime.

When people decide to become scumbags they forfit that right to be seen as decent citizens and therefor their lives are trivial.

That you would even advocate such barbarism says much for your limited comprehension of our philosophy of law here in America.

Thanks to all the liberals judges the one thing I understand is that if you are clever enough anything can become legal reguardless of how obscene it is.

 

[jallman]

When people decide to become scumbags they forfit that right to be seen as decent citizens and therefor their lives are trivial.

Thanks to all the liberals judges the one thing I understand is that if you are clever enough anything can become legal reguardless of how obscene it is.

I agree, their lives do become trivial to a point...but certainly not unto the point of death. Penalty for a crime should match the crime and opportunistic theft is certainly not criminal enough to be punished by death. There are just too many variable involved to make such a harsh punishment fair. Its simply not acceptable.

And I find it humorous when one speaks of liberal judges making legal what is not legal. This is a fairy tale...the law does not make concession for liberal or conservative. The law is logical and reasonable unto the point of blindness. Nice try though.

 

[Thorgasm]

It's called "due process", those liberal founding fathers came up with that idea!

You might be happier in a dictatorship where you don't have to worry about liberal judges or any civil rights whatsoever. I believe the Taliban was for execution at the scene of the crime.

Who thinks that bigots should be shot on sight? They choose to be scumbags.

 

[jamesrage]

And I find it humorous when one speaks of liberal judges making legal what is not legal. This is a fairy tale...the law does not make concession for liberal or conservative. The law is logical and reasonable unto the point of blindness. Nice try though.

Not that is a total crock of **** statement to make when everybody is talking about activist judges.

 

[jamesrage]

Who thinks that bigots should be shot on sight? They choose to be scumbags.

I think maybe you chould change your user name to race parasite2002.You can use a nazi or Jesse Jackson as your avatar.This issue is not about race.Are you trying to imply something?

 

[TJS0110]

I can see where your comeing from, but Its ridiculous to make life and death descisions over a few posetions. Also, is the example we want to set as Americans "O well lets hold ourselves to one set of standards when it suits us, and another when that suits us"?

 

[TJS0110]

Who thinks that bigots should be shot on sight? They choose to be scumbags.

For once I'm gonna agree with jamsrage, not on the issue but only on what he said. This isn't a matter of shooting black or white looters, its a matter of shooting looters. I would love to shoot raceists, but see that would be sinking to their level. Look at it this way, you are shooting someone becuase of there beliefs and customs, isn't that raceist in and of itself?

 

[Thorgasm]

I think maybe you chould change your user name to race parasite2002.You can use a nazi or Jesse Jackson as your avatar.This issue is not about race.Are you trying to imply something?

Bigotry isn't exclusive to race. BTW, I wasn't calling anyone a bigot. I was just using another socially unacceptable person as an example.

Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/bigot

 

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by TJS0110
I can see where your comeing from, but Its ridiculous to make life and death descisions over a few posetions. Also, is the example we want to set as Americans "O well lets hold ourselves to one set of standards when it suits us, and another when that suits us"?

The example I want to for the world is that criminal behavior during a time of crises will not be tolerated.

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002
Bigotry isn't exclusive to race. BTW, I wasn't calling anyone a bigot. I was just using another socially unacceptable person as an example.

Usually when people try to slap the bigot lable on someone it is tactic to lable someone as a racist and alienate them.When most people call someone a bigot they are not calling them stuborn or set in there ways.

 

[Thorgasm]

The example I want to for the world is that criminal behavior during a time of crises will not be tolerated.



Usually when people try to slap the bigot lable on someone it is tactic to lable someone as a racist and alienate them.When most people call someone a bigot they are not calling them stuborn or set in there ways.

Who had the bigot label "slapped" on them?

 

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002
Who had the bigot label "slapped" on them?

What were you trying to imply here.



independent_thinker2002 said:

Who thinks that bigots should be shot on sight? They choose to be scumbags.

 

[jallman]

Not that is a total crock of **** statement to make when everybody is talking about activist judges.

activist judge is a term coined to describe a judge who did not rule the way either the right or the left wanted them to rule. it is a farce and completely ridiculous when you think what kind of confirmations judges must go through to join the supreme court bench.

no matter what clever rhetoric is applied, it is still just a sour grapes mentality on the part of the side that was ruled against.

 

[Thorgasm]

What were you trying to imply here.



independent_thinker2002 said:

Who thinks that bigots should be shot on sight? They choose to be scumbags.

I explained that already.

Teachers note: James participates in class. He just has a reading comprehension problem.

 

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by jallman
activist judge is a term coined to describe a judge who did not rule the way either the right or the left wanted them to rule. it is a farce and completely ridiculous when you think what kind of confirmations judges must go through to join the supreme court bench.

If that was true then why is it democrats get in a uproar over Bush's nominations?Is it because they are worried the judges that Bush wants in office will interpret the constitution the way Bush wants it?

 

[jamesrage]

Originally Posted by independent_thinker2002
I explained that already.

Teachers note: James participates in class. He just has a reading comprehension problem.

Let me show a example of the type of statement you made.

"I think liberals claiming to be independant thinkers should have the balls to act like real men and be open about the fact that they are a liberal."

Here is the statement you made.

independent_thinker2002 said:

Who thinks that bigots should be shot on sight? They choose to be scumbags.

 

[Thorgasm]

Let me show a example of the type of statement you made.

"I think liberals claiming to be independant thinkers should have the balls to act like real men and be open about the fact that they are a liberal."

Here is the statement you made.

independent_thinker2002 said:

Who thinks that bigots should be shot on sight? They choose to be scumbags.

Quote from "Cool Hand Luke": "Some people you just can't reach...."