DIYbanter - View Single Post

Jim Yanik

(Doug Miller) wrote in
et:

In article , Mark Lloyd
wrote:
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 17:10:30 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
* Execution of prisoner under a lawful warrant

There's a lot of people who say they support that. I wonder how many
would change their opinion if the had to admit it was KILLING.

Probably none, or nearly none -- most people over the age of about ten
are well aware that execution of a prisoner means killing him, and in
my experience, nearly all adults who support capital punishment do so
precisely because they understand that *very* clearly.

BTW, I suppose you know that "execute" is really the wrong word here.
It applies to the sentence not the prisoner.

"execute ... 6. To subject to capital punishment"
"execution ... 4. A putting or being put to death as a legal penalty."
"executioner. 1. One who adminsters capital punishemnt. 2. One who
puts another to death."

[American Heritage Dictionary]

Also, "lawful" is another one of those words lacking in real meaning.

Nonsense. The word has a clearly defined and easily understood
meaning: within, or allowed by, law.

Laws can (and do) change in ways that don't correspond to changes in
reality.

Whether the law does, or does not, correspond to reality (or your
perception of reality) is of course completely irrelevant to the
question of whether any particular act is, or is not, within the law.

well,for liberals,the law means different things at different
times,according to popular opinion at the time.
"people" in one Amendment does not necessarily mean the same in another
Amendment,according to liberals/"progressives".
To them,the Constitution is a "living,breathing document" whose meaning
changes with the times.
That's why they want judges to decide on everything.
(liberal judges,of course)

Of course,judges are not responsible to anyone,generally,in power for life.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net