[MineralMan]

"If you have kids, I feel badly for them. Their dad would not kill someone breaking in their home to protect them? Do they know that? If they did, I doubt that they would feel very secure at night."

---

As I have said, I spoke too briefly. I consider immediate self-defense or defense of others to be justification for killing. I apologize for my overly brief statement, which was really only about capital punishment by the state.

I retain my objection to capital punishment by the state. I do not believe that the state has that right. Sorry, but that's my belief.

[doug from upland]

Okay, I understand. But I have never had a good answer to this scenario. Maybe you could give it a try.

A man breaks into your home and has a knife at your child's throat. He has done no physical harm yet. Any father or mother, at the right opportunity, would shoot him to save the child. So, you would shoot and kill him before he did any physical harm. No judge, no jury, no appeal process. But if he killed your child, thus doing the ultimate physical harm, you would not want him put to death. With a judge, with a jury, with an appeal process.

I don't understand. He dies at your hand before he does physical harm. That's okay. But he won't die at the state's hand after he commits murder. Sorry, but I just don't get it. He has more due process with the state after murdering than you gave him before he murdered.

[PhatBack]

So let me get this straight. If someone breaks into your house and points a gun at your child, you are all for blowing them away. However, if the guy pulls the trigger before you do and kills your child. Then death for the perp is now out of the question?!?

I'm sorry, but if I were one of the victim's relatives, not only would I be in favor of this guy being put to death, I would be begging them to let me take HIS shotgun he used in the murders and turn his head into a soup-bowl!!