Should these kids be put to death?

[Halbhh]

If this event occurred in OT times, which law would be applied? Or, if there was no specific law against such a beating not only would there be no punishment but it wouldn't even be a crime.......would it?

Part of "loving my neighbors" is protecting them from thugs like these.

Exodus 21, v18-19 --

18 “If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fistd and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.

That's the Old Covenant law for this kind of attack.

Yes, today, as a Christian, if you had a chance to personally intervene, you could do so under our Christian New Testament law on a personal basis, so long as you obey the actual law as now stated -- "So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you".

From this law we are now under as Christians:
1. I can act to help defend people (because I myself would want a bystander to help defend me)
2. I would also be bound in intervene obeying that same rule in relation to the attacker(s), in that I would not use more force than necessary, because precisely the rule means that also -- I would not want a defender to use more force than necessary to stop me if I were crazy or enraged enough to attack someone, but instead only the amount of force necessary to stop me. Sometimes that would be a lot of force, but other times much less, depending on the exact situation.

And.....on the day of judgement I know that all things hidden will be revealed. So that if I did use more force than I knew was necessary, that will be revealed on the day of judgement....

Hypothetical example -- if amazingly in the Nevada shooting, if I had a rifle myself and knew where the shots were coming from (not easy to do!), then under the golden rule, because that the shots are continuing and continuing to hurt people, then I could shoot to hit and disable the attacker, even if likely to kill, during that barrage of gunfire in order to prevent further loss of life.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

"Thugs like these" are also your neighbors, bro.

Not according to the parable of the good Samaritan. Someone who beats and robs me isn't my "neighbor".

.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Exodus 21, v18-19 --

18 “If people quarrel and one person hits another with a stone or with their fistd and the victim does not die but is confined to bed, 19 the one who struck the blow will not be held liable if the other can get up and walk around outside with a staff; however, the guilty party must pay the injured person for any loss of time and see that the victim is completely healed.

That's the Old Covenant law for this kind of attack.

Yes, today, as a Christian, if you had a chance to personally intervene, you could do so under our Christian New Testament law on a personal basis, so long as you obey the actual law as now stated -- "So in everything, do to others as you would have them do to you".

From this law we are now under as Christians:
1. I can act to help defend people (because I myself would want a bystander to help defend me)
2. I would also be bound in intervene obeying that same rule in relation to the attacker(s), in that I would not use more force than necessary, because precisely the rule means that also -- I would not want a defender to use more force than necessary to stop me if I were crazy or enraged enough to attack someone, but instead only the amount of force necessary to stop me. Sometimes that would be a lot of force, but other times much less, depending on the exact situation.

And.....on the day of judgement I know that all things hidden will be revealed. So that if I did use more force than I knew was necessary, that will be revealed on the day of judgement....

Hypothetical example -- if amazingly in the Nevada shooting, if I had a rifle myself and knew where the shots were coming from (not easy to do!), then under the golden rule, because that the shots are continuing and continuing to hurt people, then I could shoot to hit and disable the attacker, even if likely to kill, during that barrage of gunfire in order to prevent further loss of life.

The scripture you quoted doesn't relate in any way to this event. A helpless family was attacked by a vicious mob.

If I intervened in such an attack I would do my best to take anyone 'out' immediately by any means possible. Otherwise it's just a squabble between me and several others, which of course would have a very unfavorable outcome for me.

Under your rules you must first,

Try to shoot the gun from his hands.
Failing this,
you must try to only wound him.

Only after you have exhausted all efforts to disarm him without actually causing him grievous harm can you kill him. Of course by that time he has probably killed another dozen or two people. I would shoot to kill the first time.

 

[Halbhh]

The scripture you quoted doesn't relate in any way to this event. A helpless family was attacked by a vicious mob.

If I intervened in such an attack I would do my best to take anyone 'out' immediately that I confronted by any means possible. Otherwise it's just a squabble between me and several others, which of course would have a very unfavorable outcome for me.

Under your rules you must first,

Try to shoot the gun from his hands.
Failing this,
you must try to only wound him.

Only after you have exhausted all efforts to disarm him without actually causing him grievous harm can you kill him. Of course by that time he has probably killed another dozen or two people. I would shoot to kill the first time.

Not in my hypothetical example! Not at all.

You might not have noticed all the things I wrote there. Read carefully, and you should get more. I could shoot in a way very likely to kill immediately, without even 1 second of hesitation. Fatal shots. Immediately. Read more carefully, and you should be able to see that clearly in my hypothetical example (at the end of the post).

It's according to the exact situation.

Not one response to fit some whole range of unalike situations. Instead -- a unique response to the exact situation.

Additionally, it matters what my intent is also, because that intent will be revealed.... If my intent is to just try to stop the killing, and I even accidentally hit more than only the attacker, also hitting other innocent nearby people even, by accident, I'm excused. See? It's the intent and the precise, exact situation, that matter.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

So, it's obvious this is a thread to speak about the criminal black menace out there because we need to focus on their skin color as that is the issue here. Their skin color makes them do these terrible things. I guess we should use the same line of thinking for people like Stephen Paddock. White people mowing down groups of people is a big problem, their skin color and culture are to blame.

Black youth violence against other ethnic groups is an international problem. You can run from it but you cannot hide. But you are free to focus on white violence, which is indeed also a problem, but doesn't compare in the least to black violence.

I believe in equal justice under the law. I believe that white sentences should be increased to parity with black sentences. That would put an end to that argument.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Not in my hypothetical example! Not at all.

You might not have noticed all the things I wrote there. Read carefully, and you should get more. I could shoot in a way very likely to kill immediately, without even 1 second of hesitation. Fatal shots. Immediately. Read more carefully, and you should be able to see that clearly in my hypothetical example (at the end of the post).

It's according to the exact situation.

Not a different situation. But the exact situation.

Additionally, it matters what my intent is also, because that intent will be revealed.... If my intent is to just try to stop the killing, and I even accidentally hit more than only the attacker, also hitting other innocent nearby people even, by accident, I'm excused. See? It's the intent and the precise, exact situation, that matter.

You went to great lengths to lay out the principle of minimal force.
Why would you even consider shooting to just "disable" this particular shooter? That makes my point.

 

[Halbhh]

Why would you even consider shooting to just "disable" the shooter? That makes my point.

I wonder if my wording isn't clear enough --

To me,
"I could shoot to hit and disable the attacker, even if likely to kill" = precisely the same meaning as:
"I could immediately shoot to likely kill the Nevada attacker, as rapidly as possible, with multiple shots, meant to end his shooting as rapidly as possible, at the high likelihood of killing him, without any hesitation"

Those two are equivalent to me. It's based on the precise situation at hand. For the Nevada shooter the precise situation is he is firing off something like 9 shots per second!!

9 shots per second!

Each one perhaps able to kill a victim.

My best possible following the golden rule would be to shoot multiple shots at him as quickly and accurately as I could with my rifle from that distance of at least 100 yards or more away. My shots would be in my expectation likely to kill him. It would all happen very quickly.

Every situation is unique. See?

If in some entirely different situation, I could disable at attacker without killing him and without risking that attacker killing some victim, then because I could disable that different attacker (not at all like the Nevada attacker) without risking some other person's life, then that would be the right response.

It's like we want police officers to do ideally.

Just like we want from police officers to act towards....you or me or your kids!

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I wonder if my wording isn't clear enough --

To me,
"I could shoot to hit and disable the attacker, even if likely to kill" = precisely the same meaning as:
"I could immediately shoot to likely kill the Nevada attacker, as rapidly as possible, with multiple shots, meant to end his shooting as rapidly as possible, at the high likelihood of killing him, without any hesitation"

Those two are equivalent to me. It's based on the precise situation at hand. For the Nevada shooter the precise situation is he is firing off something like 9 shots per second!!

9 shots per second!

Each one perhaps able to kill a victim.

My best possible following the golden rule would be to shoot multiple shots at him as quickly and accurately as I could with my rifle from that distance of at least 100 yards or more away. My shots would be in my expectation likely to kill him. It would all happen very quickly.

Good. We are in agreement on that. Now how about using a two by four to disable those thugs? Are you aware of what severe, lifetime damage a single punch can cause?

 

[Halbhh]

Good. We are in agreement on that. Now how about using a two by four to disable those thugs? Are you aware of what severe, lifetime damage a single punch can cause?

Indeed. It could be you'd totally approve of my own ideal response to the group attack on that family -- I'd try to use whatever force needed to stop the attack in a way least likely to the best of my ability to result in any additional harm to anyone, especially the family being attacked. As best I could, with the means I had, in the exact, unpredictable, difficult situation in the moment. I can't aim to get revenge. Revenge is wrong. But I can aim to stop the attack to the best of my means and ability, in that moment. I cannot intentionally overdo it. I should not intentionally err on the side of protecting the attackers at the expense of the victims either.

-----------------

Sometimes (only now and then) we see a video where police appear to be clearly overdoing it -- shooting someone far more than necessary -- and this is tragic and wrong, and we need to work to train officers and watch over them, so that they act more ideally as much as possible.

We will never get to total perfection. But we can work to improve.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Indeed. It could be you'd totally approve of my own ideal response to the group attack on that family -- I'd try to use whatever force needed to stop the attack in a way least likely to the best of my ability to result in any additional harm to anyone, especially the family being attacked. As best I could, with the means I had, in the exact, unpredictable, difficult situation in the moment. I can't aim to get revenge. Revenge is wrong. But I can aim to stop the attack to the best of my means and ability, in that moment.

I would try to stop the attack without regard to the damage done to the attackers. The violence of these attacks eliminates any such thoughts. Of course this is a much younger 'me' talking. At my age I avoid being around situations where such an attack might occur. So the best I can do is advocate for stiff jail sentences for these thugs.

 

[Halbhh]

I would try to stop the attack without regard to the damage done to the attackers. The violence of these attacks eliminates any such thoughts.

We are only held to account for our intent. If our intent is good, that matters. If our intent is wrong, that matters.

Fortunately for all of us, we are forgiven if we do wrongs when we truly repent (from our hearts, in truth). Real repentance does bring real change.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

We are only held to account for our intent. If our intent is good, that matters. If our intent is wrong, that matters.

Fortunately for all of us, we are forgiven though when we truly repent (from our hearts, in truth).

I'm on board with that.

 

[SummerMadness]

Use of the word "thug" is also curious, but brings to mind an old thread: What Does a Thug Look Like?

There is no such thing as "black violence" and "white violence." Trying to classify violence as related to race is by definition racism. Arguing that "white violence" should be punished the same as "black violence" is a hilarious proposition because really you're simply punishing all forms of violence equally, which is supposed to happen already.

EDIT: The real problem is talking about "black violence" like it's this very special kind of violence. Like a group of people beating up another person is less threatening if it were done by non-black people. That's simply ludicrous.

 

[Halbhh]

Use of the word "thug" is also curious, but brings to mind an old thread: What Does a Thug Look Like?

There is no such thing as "black violence" and "white violence." Trying to classify violence as related to race is by definition racism. Arguing that "white violence" should be punished the same as "black violence" is a hilarious proposition because really you're simply punishing all forms of violence equally, which is supposed to happen already.

Good points.

My own viewpoint of what to do about the problem with police prejudice leading to wrongful shooting:

Sometimes we see a video where police appear to be clearly overdoing it -- shooting someone far more than necessary, or when not necessary -- and this is tragic and wrong, and we need to work to train officers and watch over them, so that they act more ideally as much as possible. It's often also looking prejudiced against certain groups.

We will never get to total perfection. But we can work to improve.

I think we should do much as we are already doing to change this, but just more efforts of the same kinds in more places to a greater extent. Things like screening officers, training, careful investigations by independent 'internal review' and also by external to the department reviews at times. There are several more good things, like meet and greet where officers can meet socially at an event outdoors, or a cookout, etc., with members of a community.

 

[variant]

And yet crime is rampant in every part of society. The laws of today are imposed with a "get out of jail free" card for most. Plea bargaining, good behavior, overcrowding or budget related release are such 'cards'. I'm sure there are others that mitigate or lessen sentences as well. In many high security prisons the inmates rule a violent social order. Drugs are brought in by crooked staffers. Gang activity within and without continues. Some justice system. What is needed is a short rope and a tall tree.

Violent crime is actually way down over that time period, especially so in the last hundred years.

You're for a system that has never been shown to work, and would be objectively worse at organizing society.

 

[variant]

Read more about wrongful convictions and the Innocence Project and you'll be more cautious in praising modern justice. Read about modern sex trafficking and you'll be more cautious in praising modern progress. Modern life is less shiny than advertised.

I'm praising modern justice in comparison to what it replaced.

In the future I would hope we find ways to do it much better though to address the problems in inherent in the way we do things now.

 

[Halbhh]

I'm praising modern justice in comparison to what it replaced.

In the future I would hope we find ways to do it much better though to address the problems in inherent in the way we do things now.

I don't know we are that much better than a century ago, except that DNA evidence is helping to correct some wrongful convictions, and prevent some more. Video helps sometimes. Those do help at times, at least.


I'm also hopeful for more progress.

What if the U.S. had had the requirement Israel had 3500 years ago of more than one collaborating witness, back when there were so many executions, not that long ago? How many innocent men would still be alive today? I wonder how many innocent men my native state, Texas, executed....

 

[Christie insb]

This is a tough question. I k

Are you able to tell the future, or something? You can't possibly know this.

Similarly: you can't possibly know the futures of the attackers. People can change for the better.

I don't think that anyone should get the death penalty, which includes violent individuals. So I'd much rather we make an attempt to rehabilitate them.

I generally agree with you especially for younger people whose brains aren't mature yet. There is one guy that I think the death penalty is appropriate unless his one living victim didn't want him to receive it. Joseph E. Duncan III - Wikipedia

 

[Audacious]

This is a tough question. I k

I generally agree with you especially for younger people whose brains aren't mature yet. There is one guy that I think the death penalty is appropriate unless his one living victim didn't want him to receive it. Joseph E. Duncan III - Wikipedia

I don't think that the victim's opinions matter on issues like criminality and rehabilitation, because their experiences have biased them -- their ability to be objective has been obviously compromised.

 

[Christie insb]

I don't think that the victim's opinions matter on issues like criminality and rehabilitation, because their experiences have biased them -- their ability to be objective has been obviously compromised.

I agree. The girl who still lives has had so much trauma though I feel like if having that tiny bit of control could make her feel better then put that evil wretch's life in the hands of this (at the time) little girl. It may be too much for her though to have to decide. Anyway I think he's been on Death Row for 11 years or so, so.... It hardly matters. From what I know of Idaho it seems like they wouldn't have trouble executing someone who richly deserved it, but I guess these things take time. Edited to add: he got life without parole from Idaho. The death penalty stems from federal charges.