In article , Mark Lloyd wrote:
On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 12:00:49 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

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"

Common usage. Not the actual meaning of the word.

LOL -- what do you mean, "not the actual meaning of the word"?? That's
straight out of a dictionary.

But I guess you know more about the "actual meaning" than the people that put
the dictionary together. Riiiiiiiiight.

"execution ... 4. A putting or being put to death as a legal penalty."

A very SPECIFIC definition.

"executioner. 1. One who adminsters capital punishemnt. 2. One who puts
another to death."

By executing (carrying out) the death sentence.

By executing the prisoner.

[American Heritage Dictionary]

Realize that dictionaries follow common use, not necessarily correct
use. "execute" means "do".

It *also* means "to subject to capital punishment" (cited above).

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.

THAT is nonsense. You've just defined one thing 'lawful" in terms of
an equally vague and inconsistently defined thing.

More nonsense. Law may be many things, but "vague" and "inconsistently
defined" are not among them.

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.

If IS relevant to something having an actual meaning or not.

Like that sentence? ROTFLMAO!

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.