Remembering Carla Faye Tucker and the Death Penalty

[canadyjd]

An intruder who poses an immediate lethal threat to your family, you will kill. A murderer who ended the life of a stranger, you will not support the death penalty to be imposed upon them.

You are correct

Peace to you

 

[Ascetic X]

You are correct

Peace to you

Do you understand what you admitted to?

Try to murder my family, you die. Murder people I do not know, you should not die.

So one type of murder deserves the death penalty imposed by you, but the other type of murder does not deserve the death penalty imposed by the state.

Thus you do support the death penalty if the situation is personal, but not if it is not personal. You express that you only care about your family. You do not care about others.

 

[JonC]

The reason for the death penalty is to provide justice and honor the sanctity of the lives of fellow humans before God first of all.

I understand that idea, although it is false.

The death penalty in the United States is not to provide justice before God. The judicial system is not designed that way either. The judicial system is designed as a type of "game", with two sides offering arguments to prove their own position. Innocence is never found. Only a decision of guilty or not guilty based on arguments and evidence.

Even if the goal of our secular judicial system was to sanctified human life primarily to God, the problem that doing so in disobedience to God is not necessarily adequate to form a religious justification.

 

[canadyjd]

Do you understand what you admitted to?

Yes, there is a difference between defending your family from an immediate threat and state sponsored execution. The former, I would be involved in. The latter I would not. I believe the difference is obvious to most people.

Try to murder my family, you die. Murder people I do not know, you should not die.

That is not my position. I did not say they shouldn’t die. I said Christians should take no part in supporting their death. BTW, we should all die for our sins against God, but He demonstrated mercy toward us instead.

So one type of murder deserves the death penalty imposed by you, but the other type of murder does not deserve the death penalty imposed by the state.

That is not my position. I would not be imposing a death penalty, I would be defending my family from an immediate threat .

Thus you do support the death penalty if the situation is personal, but not if it is not personal. You express that you only care about your family. You do not care about others.

That is simply not accurate. It is slanderous t claim I don’t care about others. Shame on you for the personal attacks. If another family were being attacked and I were able to defend them with lethal force, I would not hesitate to do so.

If my family were attacked, I would use whatever force was necessary to protect them. That is not an execution.

If I shoot the intruder and somehow maim him to where he is no longer a threat, (not likely as I am a pretty good shot, but possible) or, if he sees I have a weapon and surrenders, then I do not execute him.

Please refrain from personal attacks. You are misrepresenting my position and attempting to paint my motives in the most unfavorable way.

The bottom line, you have not addressed the teachings of our Lord in 1 Timothy 1:15, that God demonstrated mercy toward Paul (a murderer) as an example we should follow.

Explain why you disregard the Word of God instead of accusing me of not caring about others.

Peace to you

 

[JonC]

An intruder who poses an immediate lethal threat to your family, you will kill. A murderer who ended the life of a stranger, you will not support the death penalty to be imposed upon them.

Today people like to view the position as one of two positions - typically the most extreme to make the preferred one look the most reasonable.

For example, many use "pacifist" as an attempt to mean "non-action" in situations that by default demand a type of action for responsibility.

This is where the "defending your family" argument comes in.

But what if biblical "pacifism" is action rather than inaction? It is love in action. This is why you have "pacifists" who seek non-violence but will defend their families if responsibility demands (love for others). Yet they will object to the death penalty or many instances used to justify going to war.

 

[canadyjd]

Today people like to view the position as one of two positions - typically the most extreme to make the preferred one look the most reasonable.

For example, many use "pacifist" as an attempt to mean "non-action" in situations that by default demand a type of action for responsibility.

This is where the "defending your family" argument comes in.

But what if biblical "pacifism" is action rather than inaction? It is love in action. This is why you have "pacifists" who seek non-violence but will defend their families if responsibility demands (love for others). Yet they will object to the death penalty or many instances used to justify going to war.

Well stated

Peace to you

 

[kyredneck]

You will kill the first one, but will not support the death penalty execution of the second one.

Well, the first one is asking to be killed, IMO.

 

[Ben1445]

Well, the first one is asking to be killed, IMO.

The second one is just in line for a slow answer for their asking.

 

[Salty]

I was watching a TV episode of "Tour of Duty" A medic who did not believe in killing anyone - found himself in the position of a Viet Cong was ready to shoot a GI. This medic picked up a M-16 but was unable to kill the enemy. Then the Viet Cong killed one of his buddies.

On most episodes (if not all) there is a quote at the beginning o the show indicating facts from the was -- which was the plot of the show.
I am trying to find the actual episode to see what the opening quote was.
It is very possible that scene actually happened in Nam.