"SlackJaw" wrote in :

Lawrence Glickman wrote:

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 12:09:37 -0800, "Bob" wrote:


"Lawrence Glickman" wrote in message
This is really more simple to answer than one might expect. Let's
use an example.

Would The State of California have been justified in using Deadly
Force to STOP Stanley Tookie Williams from killing his victims?
Had they the opportunity? Were they on-scene, and he was
brandishing a firearm threatening to murder, in cold blood, his
hostages/victims?
If you answer this question with a YES, then you cannot be against
the Death Penalty,
.

You must be a republican if you think this makes any sense. As any
rational thinker knows, there are many reasons one can be against
the death penalty.

Bob

You must be a jackass if you think trying to stereotype me resolves
your cognizant dissonance with my presentation.

You will please point out where the irrationality in my presentation
is?


Heaven forbid I agree with a (half-witted, vulgar) liberal, but while
you made an excellent case, I disagree with your logic.

In the first case, given that shooting Tookie as he was just about to
kill an innocent person, there's no doubt that it's the correct thing
to do. You would save an innocent life.

But executing him later would not save a victim that's already dead -
and there's the rub.

Ah,but it certainly could save other people's lives,like other
inmates,prison guards,and prevent any possible escape that would threaten
ODC's lives on the outside.People have been killed by escaped prisoners.
It might make prisons less violent,too.

(ODC=ordinary decent citizen)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net