Posted on 04/03/2018 4:07:13 AM PDT by MarvinStinson
The Tale of Two Schools was instructive this week. In Parkland, FL, 17 are dead but the murderer still lives. In St. Mary’s County Maryland, two are dead, one is the murderer along with his former girlfriend, while another student was injured in the leg and has been released from the hospital.
In Maryland, if the murderer had lived, he would have never faced the death penalty; while Florida still executes murderers.
What is the significant difference between these two shootings?
In Maryland, you had a good guy with a gun that took out the perpetrator within one minute of the first bullet fired. He prevented mass murder. In Florida, you had four deputy sheriffs who were armed but for undisclosed reasons would not enter the building to fire at the murderers inside the school. You could say they were preserving the school as a gun free zone; or more accurately, an open shooting gallery for murderers.
The main lessoned learned here is that a good man with a gun prevents murder, and that gun free zones are only safe for murderers. But given yesterday’s rally in Washington, D.C., I don’t think this lesson was learned.
One big lie that we are being told about yesterday’s D.C. rally is that it was entirely student initiated, student planned, and student led. However, the truth was leaked in a YouTube video this week, revealing that the real organization leading the rally is the anti-gun Giffords Foundation. The audio is of a Tuesday evening pre-rally meeting and features Broward County school teacher Debbie Miller coaching students on every aspect of the march they are supposedly leading. She even reminds them to “have your talking points ready.” thenewamerican.com
Every detail of this supposed student-led rally was carefully scripted by the Giffords Foundation as Debbie Miller reveals. Even every media contact with those students from Marjory Stoneman High School had to be handled and approved by the Giffords Foundation. It was clear the students were not to talk to any media outside of a strictly controlled process whereby the Gifford talking points are the only thing to be regurgitated. It is clear then that the students were not in charge, the students were not leading, planning, or organizing anything about the rally. These unsuspecting and unknowledgeable students who are the victims of a tragic illusion, became a battering ram for those tyrants who aim at the same goal every tyrant has: disarm the people before enslaving and/or killing them. Before you can tyrannize you must disarm.
Just ask, Stalin, Mao or Hitler, because it successfully worked for each of them. We must not forget that gun control does not mean gun elimination, but rather the consolidation of dangerous weapons in the hands of the most dangerous organization in all of human history – human civil government. Remember, the one who has all the guns will always become tyrannical.
A gun is a tool – nothing more, nothing less. When you take away guns, murderers will use any other tool to commit murder. In 22 states and the District of Columbia there is no death penalty, so the murderer never faces true justice for the crimes he/she has committed.
Reason 1 - It guarantees that the bad guy will not do anthing else.
Reason 2 - It serves as a lesson to people who might be tempted to follow the acts of the bad guy.
“Gun Free Zone” = “Free Fire Zone” = “Safe Space for Murderers”
No offense, but I don't need the Bible to tell me why a person who has been executed is not able to commit future acts of violence.
This is the weaker of the two arguments, as it provides a way to commit suicide by cop while taking out as many others as possible.
Don't get me wrong--I'm all for the death penalty, if not just taking them out on the scene.
Seems like an obviousness that is pretty glaring.
“DEATH PENALTY PREVENTS FUTURE ACTS OF VIOLENCE”............
ONLY if said “penalty” is enforced. USE IT WHEN/WHERE NEEDED.
The death penalty probably is a weak deterrent to others committing murder but prevents murders that would be perpetrated by some of the executed killers were they not executed, in prison and out when they is pardoned or given parole or such. To deter other killers something a bit more excruciating is required, crucifixion or Hanging, Drawing, and Quartering, perhaps. Even that would likely provide only marginal deterrence
From that particular person, true, and it may be a deterrent for some others. Either way it is the just thing to do when you know without a shadow of a doubt you have the right person. If the evidence is circumstantial only then the death penalty should not be applied.
DEATH PENALTY PREVENTS FUTURE ACTS OF VIOLENCE: THE BIBLICAL REASON WHY
Or as Ron White says, “Here in Texas,
if you kill us, we kill you back.”
Amen to that.
I’d like to see executions televised. They only recently have been put behind closed doors. If the death penalty is too gruesome for the public to watch, maybe the public’s representatives shouldn’t be doing it. Man up, snowflakes, the next murder you prevent could be your own.
The following is a summary of these points presented on his radio program (Capital Punishment — Another Argument for It). It is worthy of serious consideration.
Over the years I have offered many arguments for capital punishment for murder:
1. It is a cosmic injustice to allow a murderer to keep his life.
2. Killing murderers is society’s only way to teach how terrible murder is. The only real way a society can express its revulsion at any criminal behavior is through the punishment it metes out. If murderers all got 10 years in prison and thieves all got 20 years in prison, that would be society’s way of saying that thievery is worse than murder. A society that kills murderers is saying that murder is more heinous a crime than a society that keeps all its murderers alive.
3. It can, if widely enacted, deter some murders. Though I regard this as a less important argument than the first two, there is no doubt that it is true. Everyone acknowledges that punishments can deter all other crimes — why wouldn’t capital punishment deter some murders? Is murder the only crime unaffected by punishment?
The great thinker Ernest van den Haag brilliantly made the case for execution as deterrence: Imagine if a state announced that murders committed Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays would be punishable by execution and murders committed the other days of the week would be punishable by imprisonment. Would murder rates remain the same as they are now on all the days of the week? I doubt it.
The most common objection opponents offer against capital punishment is that innocents may be executed.
My answer has always been that this is so rare (I do not know of a proved case of mistaken execution in America in the last 50 years) that society must be prepared to pay that terrible price. Why? Among other reasons, because more innocents will be killed by murderers who are not executed (in prison, or once released or if they escape) than will be killed by the state in erroneous executions.
So, yes, I acknowledge the possibility of an innocent being killed by the state because of a mistaken murder conviction. But we often have the tragedy of innocents dying because of a social policy. I support higher speed limits even when shown that they lead to more traffic fatalities. I support the right of people to drink alcohol even though the amount of violence directly emanating from alcohol consumption — from drunk drivers to spousal and child abuse — is so high.
And now I have an additional argument. Regarding murder, it is not only those of us who support capital punishment who support a policy that can lead to the killing of innocents. So do almost all those opposed to capital punishment. Nearly all opponents of capital punishment (and many supporters of capital punishment) believe that if the police obtained evidence illegally, the conviction of a murderer should be overturned.
Take this Illinois story.
In 1982, James Ealy was convicted of the strangulation murders of a family — including a mother and her two children. It took the jury just four hours to render the guilty verdict, and Ealy was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. However, his lawyers argued that the police had improperly obtained evidence, and an Illinois Appellate Court, whose justices acknowledged Ealy was guilty of the murders, vacated the ruling. But without that improperly obtained evidence, Ealy could not be retried successfully, and he was released from prison.
On Nov. 27, 2006, Ealy strangled to death Mary Hutchison, a 45-year-old manager of a Burger King in Lindenhurst, Ill.
That woman was killed because many Americans believe that it is better to let a murderer go free than to convict one with evidence improperly obtained.
Whether that position is right or wrong is not relevant here. What is relevant is this: The people who believe in this policy do so knowing that it will lead to the murder of innocent people like Mary Hutchison, just as I believe in capital punishment knowing that it might lead to the killing of an innocent person. So those who still wish to argue for keeping all murderers alive will need to argue something other than “an innocent may be killed.” They already support a policy that ensures innocents will be killed.
As a side note, I know a guy who was arrested back in July of 2016 for impersonating a federal agent (His second offense, the first one resulted in 3 years in prison) He never went to trial until early this past December.......a year and a half after he was arrested......
The threat of the death penalty to life is a good sword-over-the-head plea bargain in trade for the perp to tell a family where their beloved is dumped/buried.
Fact: The rate of recidivism among those who have received capital punishment is 0.0000000000000000000000000%.
Thanks for that.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.