This is serious. There is a current post asking about whether one should use deadly force to prevent a person from setting a dog on fire. No threat to human life present.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251659
The addition of a cuddly animal drew responses far beyond that expected for someone setting fire to his neighbor's woodpile or fence. Waht was amazing was how truly shrill some of the responses became with one individual exclaiming in post #80
There are obviously people here who believe they are justified in meeting out justice as they see fit and I find that reprehensible. We have laws in this society. Specifically we have laws that allow for the use of deadly force and in no jurisdiction that I know of is your deeming a person a "demented bastard" grounds for the use of lethal force. The animal part of the argument certainly got blood boiling. Would people feel the same about shooting a Rabbi overseeing the non-painless slaying of animals as required by Kosher laws? Because one considers them Demented Bastards are we justified in shooting them?
The specific question though is this...
Do you approve of the lethal force in manners beyond that allowed by law based on an individuals assesment of another's worth? Yes or No please.
EDIT: This assumes we are living in the USA in 2007. It is not a fascist state where the CoTUS and BoR have been thrown out the window and the rule of law as we know it no longer exists. This is not about burning a dog (that is another thread). This simply asks, Yes or No, do you agree with and support the use of lethal force inside the USA in a situation not allowed by law? Just like a coin toss has only heads or tails there is no "maybee" here. Either you are an advocate for the use of lethal force beyond that allowed by law or you are not.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=251659
The addition of a cuddly animal drew responses far beyond that expected for someone setting fire to his neighbor's woodpile or fence. Waht was amazing was how truly shrill some of the responses became with one individual exclaiming in post #80
It's not about "defense of an animal", it's about ridding our society of a sick demented bastard who gets his jollys by hurting defensless animals.
There are obviously people here who believe they are justified in meeting out justice as they see fit and I find that reprehensible. We have laws in this society. Specifically we have laws that allow for the use of deadly force and in no jurisdiction that I know of is your deeming a person a "demented bastard" grounds for the use of lethal force. The animal part of the argument certainly got blood boiling. Would people feel the same about shooting a Rabbi overseeing the non-painless slaying of animals as required by Kosher laws? Because one considers them Demented Bastards are we justified in shooting them?
The specific question though is this...
Do you approve of the lethal force in manners beyond that allowed by law based on an individuals assesment of another's worth? Yes or No please.
EDIT: This assumes we are living in the USA in 2007. It is not a fascist state where the CoTUS and BoR have been thrown out the window and the rule of law as we know it no longer exists. This is not about burning a dog (that is another thread). This simply asks, Yes or No, do you agree with and support the use of lethal force inside the USA in a situation not allowed by law? Just like a coin toss has only heads or tails there is no "maybee" here. Either you are an advocate for the use of lethal force beyond that allowed by law or you are not.
Last edited: