web analytics

Kneel for the cop killers…..

By Patrick Van Roy On November 20th, 2020

23 Responses to “Kneel for the cop killers…..”

  1. No cause is too sick for the Marxist left to promote.

    I see that the feds have just executed someone. He kidnapped a 16 year old girl, took part in the gang-rape she suffered, doused her in petrol, beat her with a shovel then buried her alive.

    The usual suspects complain, but it was a righteous execution.

  2. “The feds”

    Yo Yankee Pete 😉

  3. I’ve always been down with colonial patois.

  4. “but it was a righteous execution”

    There is no such thing. Ironic that the small government conservatives who believe the government can’t save your life through healthcare but believe that the state should be allowed to kill you.

  5. Execution is a just punishment for certain crimes.

  6. “Execution is a just punishment for certain crimes.”

    No it is the cold blooded killing of someone who cannot fight back. It is vengance, not justice, a desire to sate a bloodlust, and an un-Christian act that should have no place in any civilised society.

    But again it does show that your support for “unalienable” rights is a fiction. Or at least you support your “unalienable” rights as long as you are allowed to take those rights away from other people.

  7. Execution is not a policy the State shoul have. It is murder. It is also not even the strongest punishment. The moment a criminal is executed, all his discomfort frustration and suffering ends. A genuine life sentence continues those things until the man dies a natural death.

  8. //No it is the cold blooded killing of someone who cannot fight back. It is vengance, not justice, //

    Who says it isn’t justice? There is no such thing as a priority justice in human affairs. Societies develop a sense of justice as they evolve, and that sense naturally differs from time to time and from place to place.
    There are no objective criteria for deciding the issue. And of course, killing someone who cruelly killed someone else for selfish reasons has been recognised as just for by far the longest period of human history and in every part of the world at some time.

    It could also be argued that society is right to kill this man for the practically unbearable sadism of his murder of the unfortunate girl – it could perhaps promote greater social health, in that people feel a sense of satisfaction that the wretch got his just deserts, and anything else would lead to greater neurosis in society. etc.

    It could also be seen as society’s affirmation of its greatest value – human life. There’s no paradox here. By killing her killer, society is saying: we value this girl’s life as an absolute good such that we impose the ultimate penalty (short of torturing the bastard) on anyone who destroys it. It’s putting the focus on and enhancing the value of the victim.

    I’ve generally always been against the death penalty (I used to be secretary of a branch of amnesty international), but I know fellow advocates of a DP ban are not above lying and massive distortion to advance their cause. Propaganda almost always has that effect on me – it makes the opposite argument seem more attractive.
    But the more you think about it, the more you see there are valid arguments on both sides, and they don’t cancel each other out.

  9. too often its the wrong man hung , too often in societies like Saudi and USA
    Its the poor who get the death penalty, whilst the rich get off
    Justice is just a game on planet earth, because we are just so fucking corrupt
    I’m against it on those grounds !

  10. “Who says it isn’t justice?”

    I do.

    And yes society develop things as they go along and for much of human history the death penalty was acceptable. There are many things that have been acceptable for much of human history that are now seen as abhorent.

    “It could also be argued that society is right to kill this man for the practically unbearable sadism of his murder of the unfortunate girl – it could perhaps promote greater social health, in that people feel a sense of satisfaction that the wretch got his just deserts, and anything else would lead to greater neurosis in society. etc.”

    Hence my argument that it is about vengeance and bloodlust, not justice. Killing someone to make people feel better seems almost serial killer type territory (who regular kill for that release of endorphins that the act gives them). Not a quality that I think is good for society.

    “It could also be seen as society’s affirmation of its greatest value – human life. There’s no paradox here. By killing her killer, society is saying: we value this girl’s life as an absolute good such that we impose the ultimate penalty (short of torturing the bastard) on anyone who destroys it. It’s putting the focus on and enhancing the value of the victim.”

    Except it doesn’t place value on human life. Two people dead is more of an affront on the dignity of human life than one person dead and one person imprisoned. And it does nothing to enhance the value of the victim. She’s dead. Killing her murderer will not bring her back. It will not undo the crime that was committed against. In fact it will make society commit the same crime as her killer. Not only will it make society commit the same crime as her killer but it will make society commit the same crime as her killer in her name. In service to her society will become a murderer. It is, in my opinion, an affront to the victim, not a service to her.

  11. //Not only will it make society commit the same crime as her killer but it will make society commit the same crime as her killer in her name. In service to her society will become a murderer//

    Seamus, if you can’t see the massive difference between

    on the one hand, an execution by law after years of legal redress being argued, with evidence and witnesses and experts being heard for the accused, and then his killing being done in the most humane way possible and without any prior violence or discomfort to the murderer
    and
    a thug kidnapping a completely innocent young girl, beating her, subjecting her to multiple rape, dousing her with petrol and setting her alight, beating her with a shovel and then burying her alive,

    it sort of puts your other arguments in an interesting perspective.

    They seem to be motivated more by moral vanity than moral clarity. Why should anyone have an ear for YOUR sense of justice when it’s obviously self-indulgent? The fact that many things that used to be acceptable are now considered abhorrent shows only that all those things like “justice” and “morality”, and the ubiquitous twins “right ‘n wrong”, are in constant flux. We abhor what folks used to do the same as future generations will abhor (and I presume have a good laugh at) what we feel is just and our current moral trends.

  12. Colm. Seamus and Kurt, all excellent points, many of which I agree with.

    I suppose it boils down to whether you think that taking someone elses life for committing a crime is a just punishment or vengeance.
    That’s putting aside the fact that many people were and are executed for crime state didn’t commit.

  13. “Seamus, if you can’t see the massive difference between”

    I think there is a difference. But it is still the killing of a defenceless person in cold blood. The differences don’t make one acceptable and one unacceptable. Just because one is worse than the other doesn’t mean that the less bad of them isn’t bad.

    “They seem to be motivated more by moral vanity than moral clarity. Why should anyone have an ear for YOUR sense of justice when it’s obviously self-indulgent? The fact that many things that used to be acceptable are now considered abhorrent shows only that all those things like “justice” and “morality”, and the ubiquitous twins “right ‘n wrong”, are in constant flux. We abhor what folks used to do the same as future generations will abhor (and I presume have a good laugh at) what we feel is just and our current moral trends.”

    Except it isn’t moral vanity. It is abundantly clear. In my opinion one should not take a life of another human being outside of the most extreme of circumstances. And tying a defenceless person down onto a table and injecting them with drugs so that they drown themselves in their own pulmonary edema doesn’t meet that standard. There are alternatives, reasonable alternatives, to the death penalty. And killing someone when there are obvious alternatives to not killing them cannot, in my opinion, be justified.

    “That’s putting aside the fact that many people were and are executed for crime state didn’t commit.”

    Exactly. Obviously one of the major problems with the death penalty is that innocent people are executed by it as well as guilty people. And that there is a racism aspect to it as well in the United States (with people of colour more likely to be sentenced to death per capita). But even if every single person executed was 100% guilty then in my opinion it wouldn’t be justified.

  14. Most , if not all murders are committed as a form of punishment. Either a personal act of revenge , jealousy, hatred or in the case of random killings a form of retribution for personal misery ( bitter sexually frustrated man blames and kills women) . The law rightly says there is no moral justification for anyone to kill another person. It cannot then say it is alright for the State to do so.

  15. Monsters walk among us.

    People who put infants in the microwave, people that chop other people up and eat them, people that kidnap rape and then murder their victim.

    The horror that these monsters commit are horrors that they should justifiably lose THEIR lives for.

    These animals have forfeited their lives and we should not have to house and feed them for 20 years.

    Grow up and face the reality that there are Monsters and Monsters should be put down.

  16. Who decides what killers are ‘monsters’ and what killers are not ? And what is the criteria ?

  17. Are we now stating that only those who kill in a particular way deserve to have their lives extinguished rather than those who murder in an acceptable way? oesn’t that then suggest that we kill people because the method of murder is more offensive than the end product?

    In terms of self indulgence, quite a few of your recent comments seem to be wallowing in it.

    I know fellow advocates of a DP ban are not above lying and massive distortion to advance their cause

    Good luck with that Noel. If your benchmark of support or condemnation of a particular issue is based on people lying about it then I fear you’ll find it impossible to form a definitie position on any given subject.

    They seem to be motivated more by moral vanity than moral clarity. Why should anyone have an ear for YOUR sense of justice when it’s obviously self-indulgent?

    Because, as you state above law, (as opposed to justice), is subjectively reflective of society at any given time and society comprises of individuals with disparate and differing opinions.

  18. “The horror that these monsters commit are horrors that they should justifiably lose THEIR lives for.”

    So much for unalienable rights.

  19. Colm,

    Who decides what killers are ‘monsters’ and what killers are not ? And what is the criteria ?

    Exactly Colm. Many of the most horrific serial killers have been declared insane. So do we stop locking them up in lunatic asylums, and execute them instead?

  20. The crimes decide who are monsters and who aren’t.

    Some murderers are just animals, others are monsters.

  21. So there’s a hierarchy now. How many levels ? Ordinary murderers, progressing to animals, then up to monsters, and I f they work harder they become fiends and then the ultimate accolade, becoming a savage! 😉

  22. crime of passion, robbery or drug transaction, premeditation & serial killers.

  23. Colm check your email

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.