[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.

[MontanaBeth]

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.

Good point.

[MineralMan]

"I don't understand. He dies at your hand before he does physical harm. "

---

Again, I have no problem with killing in defense of self or others in an immediate situation. A knife at someone's throat is an immediate situation. I would shoot such a person at once. The act is not necessary for self defense, only the intention.

But, the situation must be immediate and plausible. Someone holding a gun to someone's head, a knife at their throat or actively attacking another person with intent to kill presents an immediate situation which justifies defensive action.

Preserving my own life and that of others is my only concern in an immediate situation. In all other situations, I may have other choices. An execution has nothing to do with immediacy. Therein likes my objection to the practice.

[Carolinamom]

Gov. Barber of Georgia handled his announcement re a prisoner scheduled for execution in a very statesman-like and more dignified way IMO. He issued a written statement saying that he had reviewed all the transcripts of the trials and verdicts and did not feel that he should over-ride the decisions of the many courts.

Why is Arnold going on TV to make his own announcement instead of handling it the Barber way? This more visible announcement dramatizes Tookie's legal fate.

[Tennessee_Bob]

Thanks for posting it that way, Doug - I have someone here at work I'm going to try it on at my next break.

[daviscupper]

Oh, that is easy to answer. I was raised in Commie_fornia and all of my teachers from kindergarten to Grad school were friggin' communists. However, they did not like the pejorative term and referred to themselves as Progressives of one stripe or another -- usually DemocRATS but occasionally a few would call themselves Socialists etc.

At any rate one of my high school English teachers during one of his rants said the following: "It is better for a 100,000 rapists and murderers to go free than for the State to kill one innocent man."

I am not saying I understand the rationality there and I definitely do not agree with it but that mentality is coded into all liberals/leftists DNA. For them the worst horror in the world is to have to contemplate the possibility of one innocent man being executed by the State. Therefore, the laws constructed by liberals have consistently hamstrung police attempts to enforce laws against criminals, prosecutors from convicting criminals and judges from sentencing criminals.

Notice, the liberal mind is not concerned about what those 100,000 rapists and murders will do to free innocent victims! When I asked my teacher about that problem, he said we should not be concerned. That is a law enforcement problem. Nobody is forcing anyone to become a policeman!!

[grace522]

Excellent. I will use that with your permission. Cheers!