| Subject: Re: The Death Penalty – the most controversial of subjects |
Author:
Chuckie
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 12:55:02 06/11/01 Mon
In reply to:
kat
's message, "Re: The Death Penalty – the most controversial of subjects" on 10:13:52 06/11/01 Mon
>>What happened at Waco was a horrible disaster. Of
>>course, no one points a finger at the insane man who
>>set the whole thing in motion - David Koresh.
kat:
>He was convinced that the state was going to kill him.
>Whatever gave him that idea? How off the mark!!!
What gave him that idea? He was delusional and deranged.
Does this give him the right to refuse a warrant? I see the scenario now:
Cop 1: Ah, damn! He's delusional.
Cop 2: Oh, man. He thinks we're gonna kill him, doesn't he.
Cop 1: Yep. Guess we'll just forget it.
>>The thing that bothers me the most about people who
>>say it's always the evil government's fault when this
>>happens is they (conveniently?) forget about the law.
>
>Ok re-read this sentence: "where women and children
>died as a result of government action." This happened.
Yes, it did happen. And as I said, it was a horrible thing. I disagree that it was entirely the fault of the government's actions.
>No mention of "evil government" - that is your spin on
>my words. What is undeniable is that officers from the
>government criminally mishandled the situation to the
>point where innocent people (children) died. Has
>anyone been brought to account for their incompetence,
>their negligence?
Not that I'm aware of. I think it's arguable whether or not the government mishandled it in a criminal way. Mishandled? Sure. Though I think that whatever they would have done would have been censured by the people who believe that the government is always wrong and criminals should be given a choice as to whether they submit to the law or not. Criminal? I can't say for sure. My personal opinion is, no. I wasn't there, I don't entirely trust the media or the government to tell me all of what went on (no matter how it may seem as if I do) - I base my opinions on observations of human actions/interactions and on history.
Children did die. Who put them in the dangerous situation?
Again, were the officers of the law supposed to just pack up and leave when Koresh didn't submit to a warrent?
>>If a deputy of the law serves you with a warrent, is
>>it your right as a citizen to tell that deputy to take
>>a hike? "Get lost, cop. I don't have to go with you
>>if I don't want to." -- like that?
>
>No one is above the law... Unless you are paranoid and
>convinced that the state is going to kill you, at
>which point officers attacking your home with tanks
>and guns and explosives might convince you that you
>are about to die.
So, if you're paranoid, the warrant is void? I'll be sure to get an Officially Paraniod card and put it in my wallet.
I don't agree that the ATF agents should have shown up at Koresh's doorstep with a warrant and a smile and asked him to please step outside and be arrested. The man was known to be dangerous. Where the first mistake was made was underestimating what Koresh's response would be to swat teams and tanks. Doing your job badly is not always the same thing as being criminal.
>All I am saying is that it should have been better
>handled.
Agreed. I get the feeling from a lot of people - not just you - that not handling it at all was the best way to go. That, I do not agree with.
>The people who were in charge of the Waco
>operation handled it with the same sensitivity as
>taking a sledgehammer to a landmine. They were
>criminally irresponsible.
Being insensitive is illegal? I can't agree. Badly coordinating amoung law enforcement agencies to the point of bungling the serving of a warrant is illegal? I'm not sure about that, either. But I do agree they blew it.
>>I just don't agree that anarchy is a better choice.
>
>Neither do I! I have not advocated anarchy in any of
>my posts.
Disallowing the right of officers of the law to serve arrest warrants on people seems fairly anarchic to me.
>>>Of course not. Although some of the agencies
>>>responsible for Waco were based in that building.
>>>Interestingly, very few of them turned up to work on
>>>the day of the bombing. Nor did they warn their
>>>fellow office workers that a very real threat to the
>>>building existed.
>>
>>Mmmm. And I've heard the Easter Bunny was involved in
>>Kennedy's assignation.
>
>Yes, that's it - everything the government tells you
>is true IS true and anyone who thinks that it is
>comprised of self-serving, fallible politicians more
>concerned with the way things appear than the truth,
>is a wacky free-thinker not to be taken seriously.
Reacting in a knee-jerk, "me-too" way to accusations of the government being a pack of criminals strikes me as just as ignorant.
What can I say? I tend to look at both sides of an argument, even if that means I don't agree with the "nothing is the bad guy's fault" party line.
I felt you were saying that the ATF employees in Oklahoma knew something was up and they got out while leaving everyone else in danger. A statement like that really strikes me as irrational.
>Hmm... Ever heard of the Macarthy hearings...
>Watergate?
Yes, actually. What about them?
>>These are regular people you're slandering - accusing
>>them of collusion with murderers - not evil comic book
>>creatures.
>
>These are people who, en masse, did not turn up for
>work that day.
Were there warnings issued to the rest of the building's inhabitants? I don't know if there were or not. Do you know if there were? Or are you assuming that they skipped out without telling anyone else because they're government employees? Do you even know for sure that they skipped "en masse", or did you hear it from someone who thinks the Waco ATF agents were a "goon squad"?
>I'm not slandering them, just stating
>a fact. I have accused them of nothing.
You have accused them of colluding (secret agreement or cooperation esp. for an illegal or deceitful purpose) with Timothy McVeigh - who blew up a building full of people who were not involved with the Waco disaster and then refered to the dead babies as "collateral damage". That's an ugly line no matter who utters it, be they Air Force officers or "patriots" (she says with a great, sarcastic sneer in her voice) like McVeigh.
That seems rather slanderous to me, and a bit farfetched.
>But their
>are questions both about Waco and the Oklahoma bombing
>that have not been adequately answered. They are less
>likely to be addressed with Timothy McVeigh's death.
Waco was a huge mess, with everyone pointing the finger of blame and no one willing to accept full responsibility. My personal opinion is that there was no full responsibility to be placed in any one spot, and that Koresh seems to be conveniently forgotten in the finger pointing. In a case like that, there's no way questions are going to be "adequately answered", because no matter what "answers" are put forth, there will be an instant and loud refrain of "LIARS!"
The best a person can do in such a case is think for themselves - if they're capable of it - and decide what they think happened and understand that no one will ever truly know.
>>I agree with you that there needs to be a better way
>>to solve this problem. But I disagree with your use
>>of the phrase "state murder". Murder is an
>> illegal act of one person killing another.
>
>Yes it is. I happen to think that the state does not
>have that right either. It just becomes murder by
>consensus and that does not make it right.
The state has the right to do a lot of unpleasant things. It has the right to arrest a man who beats the crap out of his wife. It has the right to tax the money we make in order to pay for the stuff we take for granted. It has the right to exact justice by means of putting someone to death.
If you feel it's wrong for the state to have that right, that's your opinion, but you are incorrect to say the state does not have the right to do what it does.
(In order: 1. I'm sure the man who beats the crap out of his wife feels it isn't fair (not "right") for the cops to arrest him for it. 2. A lot of people who complain about lack of safety also complain about paying taxes to pay for cops. 3. A lot of people are angry that the government has the right to put people to death.)
>>Until y'all come over here and change our laws to suit
>>you, it's still a legal execution we're talking about.
>
>This debate has never been about criticising America,
>Americans or you, Chuckie. For me, debate is about
>trying to look at how to understand, learn about and
>improve the world we live in.
>
>kat
I'm an American. Americans been called a few uncomplimentary names on this board. That makes it personal. I would expect anyone else to feel the same if they were called barbarian for being the citizen of whatever country they live in.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 