You can't sentence someone to death for assault either. If he had just assaulted the child that heinously without the rape, he'd still not be able to be executed.

Irreparable harm isn't the current criteria. Murder seems to be the requirement.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

I support a parent, neighbor, cousin being able to shoot someone caught physically assaulting someone they know too. In fact I support many instances of an individual taking the law into their own hands to protect those that are important or related to them, but as far as the law being able to execute people, I'm not that liberal minded.

There you go combining opinions that you think I have without knowing the facts. Why don't you stick with dealing with YOUR opinions and let me express mine?

Because I also support this incident.. Where a citizen rightly stopped this a__hole before he could continue his rampage.
Slain Carjacking Victim Mourned - News Story - WSB Atlanta

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

Oh, wait, by that do you mean that those societies are justified by the mere fact that they deem homosexuality worthy of death? There is no consensus in the real, civilized world for that. Go to Europe, go most of Asia, and most of North America and Africa....gay people exist and thrive, without fear of death for "being".
You want to liken that to a physical act of violence brought upon a child, sometimes, infants, which has no justification, anywhere, and is summarily rejected by all civilized peoples, as debased and inhumane. In your book, it can be reduced to the "lowest common denominator": homosexuality=bad and rape=good. Well, I'm sure most on this board, and in the "real world", would vehemently "disagree".
Leave it to you, to project on us the depth of your contempt for gays...that you, obviously, wish that they could be killed for their "crimes"....because you think that you are, somehow, "better", and imagine yourself a "standard-bearer", and like some moralistic Genghis Khan, seek to advance your hoard of a philosophy across this board, and into the minds of ordinary people to take up your fight. Your fight against homosexuality. Say it with me.....your fight. You sir, are the emperor, with no clothes on. And it offends, profoundly.

No, only that some societies have that opinion. They feel that homosexuality is heinous enough to be punished by death. That's all I was saying. Merely pointing out differing criteria for the death penalty. Dude you need to get a grip.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

And why was it necessary to bring that point up? As if to somehow link it to your assertion that rape of a child didn't warrant death, yet "being homosexual", somehow, "does". You need "more than a grip".
We all got what you were saying, what you were "trying to say", and what you said. We don't have problems with comprehension. The pathology, present, is quite clear, and apparent. I recommend "not" getting on anybody's corner, or soapbox, tooting "that" particular "horn'.....some "crazed" ghetto mother, whose child had just been raped, might decide to "take you out"....for a whole 'nother "differing criteria". She might get "a party".

Aaron, you brought that subject up.

Or did you make a mistake?

Come on dude. Let Foundit handle this and just sit in a corner somewhere. You're not up to it here. This is the big boys table.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)

You're nothing to handle....I can "put you away", as summarily as Foundit has done, and "have", on numerous occasions. In fact, I already did.

I have to agree with the court this time around.While this crime is particularly heinous the child still lives. Let nature take it's course,the perpetrator should not be afforded the safe harbor of isolation while in prison,he should be placed in general population.

So if individuals get the chance, they should go for it.
Take the law into their own hands if they so please.
And make it quick, cause you only have the opportunity after the crime to make it happen. And make sure you're killing the right guy, cause otherwise you'll probably go to jail.

Cops on the scene? 911 told you not to?
Don't worry about it. IGNORE the LEGAL authority and take your shot.
< end sarcasm >


I can't help but notice that you don't even try to refute my point.
If you can correct what I said about your opinions, then do so.
Otherwise, don't try to claim I was inaccurate without actually showing how I was supposedly inaccurate.


Over and over again you try to justify these things by harping on how bad the assailant was. That shouldn't be a justification for shooting somebody in the back.
The fact that you use it as a justification PROVES that we're talking about VIGILANTISM.

Good. I hope you stick with that... Aaron. Consider me put away. In small font though.
Oh wait my bad...Aarronssongs. I apologize.

__________________
Even if you hold the minority opinion, stick to your guns and go against the flow if that's what you truly believe. (CnRedd)