Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And there is the problem. We do not have a justice system, we have a system of laws and negotiations twisted by convenience and bleeding hearts, where undeserved compassion has removed the blindfold which once guaranteed equality of outcome.
You're one of those bleeding heart libs who would listen to sad stories how what a terrible upbringing this little sh*t had and believe he deserves less than a full measure of justice for his brutal and uncaring attack on an innocent human being.
All live have equal value only until the holder of a given life shows how little his is worth by his actions towards others. The kid (and I'm presuming he's under 18 here) has shown how little regard he has for others and thus the same disregard should be shown for him in meting out punishment. He is, and will remain a threat, and threats should be stopped. The best way to stop is by elimination. He's never going to be of any use to himself nor to society, and nor should the rest of us be obligated to store him until old age.
So...do you support The Constitution of The United States of America, or are you advocating that we adopt Sharia Law in this country, or are you an adherent of the principles of Germany's National Socialist party of the 1930s-1940s?
I would prefer to retain the protections contained in our Constitution, but apparently you feel differently.
Please clarify which legal code you favor.
So...do you support The Constitution of The United States of America, or are you advocating that we adopt Sharia Law in this country, or are you an adherent of the principles of Germany's National Socialist party of the 1930s-1940s?
I would prefer to retain the protections contained in our Constitution, but apparently you feel differently.
Please clarify which legal code you favor.
I would prefer that justice be carried out, not hindered by legal gamesmanship, nor convenience, nor misplaced compassion driven by sad stories and ridiculous excuses. This *could* happen under our present system, but rarely does. A balancing of the scales is justice.
You seem so concerned with the "rights" of the criminal over the rights of the victim. This case, with video evidence clearly showing what happened, demonstrates the guilt. Once that guilt is proven, swift justice should be carried out, and the punishment should fit the crime. Perhaps a severe beating would be appropriate. And whatever any long term problems may occur are his to deal with, with no mitigations whatsoever from any external source.
. Once that guilt is proven, swift justice should be carried out, and the punishment should fit the crime. Perhaps a severe beating would be appropriate.
I don't think that any reasonable person would disagree that swift justice should be carried out, with the offender receiving the maximum legally permissible punishment for his crime, following conviction.
Where we apparently differ is in our belief that the Eighth Amendment to our Constitution would make it legally impossible to carry out "severe beating" as a punishment. Any judge who would enact that type of punishment would simply be setting-up the governmental entity that carried out that punishment for an incredibly easy win by the offender when he subsequently filed suit for having been subjected to an "unusual" punishment, which is clearly prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
The Constitution of The United States of America is not a salad bar where one gets to selectively choose which parts to uphold.
Either you support our Constitution, or you do not.
I don't think that any reasonable person would disagree that swift justice should be carried out, with the offender receiving the maximum legally permissible punishment for his crime, following conviction.
Where we apparently differ is in our belief that the Eighth Amendment to our Constitution would make it legally impossible to carry out "severe beating" as a punishment. Any judge who would enact that type of punishment would simply be setting-up the governmental entity that carried out that punishment for an incredibly easy win by the offender when he subsequently filed suit for having been subjected to an "unusual" punishment, which is clearly prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
Then we need a clarification of the 8th Amendment to make sure punishments fit the crimes. Words like "cruel" and "unusual" are very subjective. And that those subject to it's consequences are stripped of game-playing legal recourse which would hinder it's proper use.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retriever
The Constitution of The United States of America is not a salad bar where one gets to selectively choose which parts to uphold.
Either you support our Constitution, or you do not.
You might want to address such issues to the Pretender in Chief and his goons who set the example of how the system works.
I am not a "Lib". I personally am disgusted by supporters of both parties who treat our elections as if they are a sports event. Blindly backing their chosen party and insulting those of the other without understanding or caring about the real issues.
Insulting people is not a substitute for intelligence. You tried to insult me because you are ignorant of what you are speaking about. To me that is admitting that you are wrong.
And there is the problem. We do not have a justice system, we have a system of laws and negotiations twisted by convenience and bleeding hearts, where undeserved compassion has removed the blindfold which once guaranteed equality of outcome.
Emotional response..nothing sensible here...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workin_Hard
you're one of those bleeding heart libs who would listen to sad stories how what a terrible upbringing this little sh*t had and believe he deserves less than a full measure of justice for his brutal and uncaring attack on an innocent human being.
Another person with comprehension issues. Where in any of my response did I say a crime wasn't committed? And that the kid shouldn't be charged? Confused souls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workin_Hard
All live have equal value only until the holder of a given life shows how little his is worth by his actions towards others. The kid (and I'm presuming he's under 18 here) has shown how little regard he has for others and thus the same disregard should be shown for him in meting out punishment. He is, and will remain a threat, and threats should be stopped. The best way to stop is by elimination. He's never going to be of any use to himself nor to society, and nor should the rest of us be obligated to store him until old age.
I hear you loud and clear: sharia law, sharia law. That is what you lot are advocating. All lives have equal value unless of course you are a "thug" get lost.
Location: Free State of Florida, Support our police
5,859 posts, read 3,296,750 times
Reputation: 9146
Quote:
Originally Posted by Percentage
Emotional response..nothing sensible here...
Another person with comprehension issues. Where in any of my response did I say a crime wasn't committed? And that the kid shouldn't be charged? Confused souls.
I hear you loud and clear: sharia law, sharia law. That is what you lot are advocating. All lives have equal value unless of course you are a "thug" get lost.
Yes if you are a thug I feel that your life holds zero value. I feel that the world is a better place without thugs. He could have easily killed this old man. He is the type of kid that will kill someone. After he serves a couple of years in prison for what he did I have little doubt that he will continue a life full of crime!!
Yes if you are a thug I feel that your life holds zero value. I feel that the world is a better place without thugs. He could have easily killed this old man. He is the type of kid that will kill someone. After he serves a couple of years in prison for what he did I have little doubt that he will continue a life full of crime!!
It baffles me that somebody thinks it's okay to walk up to another human being and punch them with the intention of knocking them out. It's sadder to me when it's an old man or woman, but awful regardless. Just baffles me to the point I can't even think about it too hard because then I get ANGRY - where are the morals? Where is the guidance? Where are the parents?... Prison? On drugs? Out assaulting people themselves? Baffles me.
I could not imagine walking up to some random old guy and punching him so he is knocked out cold on the ground. I just can't imagine it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Confused souls. 
