Posted on 12/29/2004 8:13:07 PM PST by CHARLITE
In the weeks leading up to the Scott Peterson death sentence, I revisited my debate with liberals about the fundamentally controversial topic of capital punishment. There are a handful of issues in the American culture war that I believe can act as an instrument in portraying a person’s logical outlook on life; this is one of those issues and some people just don’t get it.
Across the nation from Scott Peterson’s California trial, a 911 call came from the night club Alrosa Villa in Columbus, Ohio. On December 8, 2004, twenty-five-year-old Nathan Gale had walked on stage where the band Damageplan was giving a concert and shot heavy metal guitarist Darrell Abbott – formerly of Pantera – multiple times at point-blank range. Clutching a hostage, Gale then fired his weapon into the packed crowd, murdering fans.
According to reports, police officer James D. Niggemeyer was patrolling nearby and responded to the night club shooting within minutes. Officer Niggemeyer reportedly entered club alone, walked backstage as Gale held his hostage at gunpoint and strategically gunned down Gale. The hostage was not hurt and no one will ever know how many lives Niggemeyer saved.
On Monday, December 13, 2004, Scott Peterson’s jury sentenced him to death at the hand of the state of California for the murder of his wife Laci and their unborn son Conner. Death by the state is not a sentence handed down lightly, especially in liberal state of California. According to the California Department of Corrections, only 11 men have been executed at the hand of the state since 1978.
The illogical mindset that equates killing and murdering never ceases to amaze me. This mindset is an epidemic on the left, but not limited to liberals. I also debate with those who consider themselves on the right – such as some of my Christian friends – who equate killing and murdering just as most leftists and secularists do. This is not just a problem sponsored by liberalism; however it is a much more pervasive illogic on the left.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the term kill as “to deprive of life.” The term ‘murder’ has a much different definition. To murder is “the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought.” Now, maybe it’s just me – but there is a distinct difference in these definitions. Apparently the liberal-left dictionary ignores this difference.
Somehow our culture has blended killing and murdering into the same act, when it is clear that there is a vast difference. Notice murder is defined as unlawful, whereas killing is not. Those opposed to capital punishment seem utterly ignorant of this distinction. To illustrate this confusion, the all too common misinterpretation of the sixth commandment is a clear example.
The Hebrew language is similar to the English language in the sense that it distinguishes between killing and murdering. Despite attempts of those on the left to shove “Thou shalt not kill” down the throats of the pro-death penalty crowd, the fact remains that they are not quoting scripture. No matter how you cut the cake, the Hebrew term used is lo tirtzach – murder. The term liberals and death-penalty-confused conservatives replace it with is lo taharog – kill.
Liberals sarcastically insist that my fellow conservatives and I narcissistically proclaim to be the only humans who can interpret what God intended to say. What they fail to recognize is that this is not what God intended to say, this is what God said in the sixth commandment. The terminology is clear, apparently too clear for liberals to understand.
Once you have recognized the fact that killing and murder are separate entities, we can finally move on to the death penalty.
In the two cases I described in the beginning of this article, it is painfully obvious that Scott committed a crime and was convicted of murder. Officer Niggemeyer committed no crime when he killed a murderer.
I can’t think of a better example illustrating the reason and validity behind the use of capital punishment than the one presented by these two cases. When officer Niggemeyer killed Nathan Gale, he was doing so to protect the lives of those who could not protect themselves. Niggemeyer acted on behalf of the innocent fans as well as those murdered in Gale’s rampage. His actions were just and necessary.
If the state of California follows through on the judgment of Scott Peterson’s jury and puts him to death, it will act as Niggemeyer did – in defense of Laci and her unborn son Conner. No logical human being questions that the officer did the right thing in killing Gale. Why is it then that liberals feel the compulsive need to denounce the method by which the state essentially conducts itself in the same manner as officer Niggemeyer?
The state has every right to act in defense of those who were or are unable to defend themselves by the use of the death penalty. This principle should not be foreign. Officer Niggemeyer intervened and defended the murdered and those who might possibly be murdered. The state of California – despite liberal opponents – has the chance to do the same in the case of Scott Peterson.
In an interview following the incident, Nathan Gale’s mother Mary Clark said that Officer Niggemeyer had no choice. 'I give that man credit,' Clark said. 'You'll never know how many lives he saved.'
I couldn’t agree more.
About the Writer: Mark Glesne is the Marketing/Communications Specialist for a software corporation in Southern California, a free lance writer, and a United States Marine Corps reservist. He receives email at
markglesne@hotmail.com
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.