Shooting at SC Church During Bible Study - Suspect still at large

[Arthur Brain]

Evolutionists have used before the fact of where I am as if it had some relevance to the truth of what I say. It is as irrational now as it was then.

He is a murderer. Justice demands that he be executed. The longer that waits, the longer justice is denied.

Wake us up when you have something rational to contribute. :up:

Wow, reduced to the 'evolutionist' mantra (irrational in itself) and alluding to TH not contributing rationality. You really are becoming a tedious parody of yourself Stripe. Get some new material man...

 

[Town Heretic]

Evolutionists have used before the fact of where I am as if it had some relevance to the truth of what I say. It is as irrational now as it was then.

Atheists have approached me as hostile and mistaken before. It was as big a waste of time for them.

He is a murderer.

He took lives. The question remains as to whether or not he had the capacity to understand the nature of his actions. It looks as though the answer to that is yes and if it's yes then the delay for certainty's sake won't alter the outcome.

Justice demands that he be executed.

No, you demand it. Justice will or won't, depending.

The longer that waits, the longer justice is denied.

Justice delayed? I'd rather have it than have injustice through hurrying.

Wake us up when you have something rational to contribute. :up:

You wouldn't see it. You already haven't.

 

[Town Heretic]

Please tell me your not serious.

Present a case, don't present a case, but Lincoln was opposed to slavery. Lincoln was also a product of his time and, a bit like Kennedy later, had fish he considered larger ones until history moved and focused him. Jefferson Davis shared my opinion of Lincoln. So did most of the states that left the Union in their declarations on why.

 

[Stripe]

The question remains as to whether or not he had the capacity to understand the nature of his actions. It looks as though the answer to that is yes and if it's yes then the delay for certainty's sake won't alter the outcome.

First, "understanding" should be no protection from justice. Second, the delay is a delay of justice — if justice is ever going to be served.

And if we do see justice, it will not be for years.

Justice delayed? I'd rather have it than have injustice through hurrying.

False dichotomies are just as irrational as pretending that where I am has some impact on the truth of what I say.

You wouldn't see it. You already haven't.

 

[Granite]

Present a case, don't present a case, but Lincoln was opposed to slavery. Lincoln was also a product of his time and, a bit like Kennedy later, had fish he considered larger ones until history moved and focused him. Jefferson Davis shared my opinion of Lincoln. So did most of the states that left the Union in their declarations on why.

You'd think the fact that they all specified "slavery" as their reason for taking a walk might mean something to people who are bending over backwards to defend their right to go.

 

[Town Heretic]

First, "understanding" should be no protection from justice.

Yes, it is. The law is subject to mitigation, which is why all killing isn't murder. Some killing is justified and some is, by mental defect, a process without a rational intent. Putting someone to death who doesn't understand the nature of his actions isn't justice, it's vengeance.

Second, the delay is a delay of justice — if justice is ever going to be served.

That's a version of a legal maxim misunderstood by nearly everyone who uses it. It relates to the right to a speedy trial, to prevent the government from abusing its power and holding those indefinitely that it cannot try and punish as it would.

It was never a call to grab a guy on the street that a few of you are sure was the killer and stringing him up then and there.

And if we do see justice, it will not be for years.

That's possible.

False dichotomies

Presenting more than one outcome isn't a false dichotomy.

are just as irrational as pretending that where I am has some impact on the truth of what I say.

I'm going to help you broaden your understanding of at least what I meant by that...the distance I'm speaking to is mostly concerned with your lack of familiarity with our compacts system of law. I know, I know, you don't care about that, but it impacts your criticism regardless. The literal distance is just a play on the nosy neighbor. There's nothing irrational in it and I literally take on what you see as the truth of what you say, so the notice doesn't prevent or distort argument, it only provides a bit of context for our contention.

You wouldn't see it. You already haven't.

Flattery isn't going to get you anywhere either...you and extremes.

 

[Town Heretic]

You'd think the fact that they all specified "slavery" as their reason for taking a walk might mean something to people who are bending over backwards to defend their right to go.

Apparently not though, eh? I think there are three sorts of voices raised in defense. The first came up with a different understanding and a distorted view of history. Tom Petty had that going on and lived to regret it. The second is just your garden variety redneck and racist. The third is the sort wrapping it around the mechanism of withdraw to make the old state's right argument, which is the modern middle finger extension of the older "government is too big and too pervasive" line, which mostly reduces to anger over taxes and a feeling by much of the middle class that people stopped listening to it years ago while continuing to tap it for its resources.

Of course what the middle class doesn't realize is that the truly wealthy and empowered stopped needing them a while back and function internationally, that if they pushed hard enough all they'd do is hasten the day when their children enjoyed full third world status. We're past the day of demand and rapidly approaching the point of no return for negotiation.

 

[Stripe]

Yes, it is. The law is subject to mitigation, which is why all killing isn't murder. Some killing is justified and some is, by mental defect, a process without a rational intent. Putting someone to death who doesn't understand the nature of his actions isn't justice, it's vengeance.

Unfortunately, this just creates a situation where people are guessing about a man's mental state. To be on the safe side, any intentional killing of an innocent person should be called murder and the perpetrator should — generally speaking — be executed within a week of the event.

That's a version of a legal maxim misunderstood by nearly everyone who uses it. It relates to the right to a speedy trial, to prevent the government from abusing its power and holding those indefinitely that it cannot try and punish as it would.

I did not use any legal maxim. :idunno:

A delay in the trial and execution to figure out a man's mental state after he has shot up a church is a delay of justice.

It was never a call to grab a guy on the street that a few of you are sure was the killer and stringing him up then and there.

What? :AMR:

Presenting more than one outcome isn't a false dichotomy.

It is when you present it as if they are the only two options and when there are clearly more.

I'm going to help you broaden your understanding of at least what I meant by that...the distance I'm speaking to is mostly concerned with your lack of familiarity with our compacts system of law. I know, I know, you don't care about that, but it impacts your criticism regardless. The literal distance is just a play on the nosy neighbor. There's nothing irrational in it and I literally take on what you see as the truth of what you say, so the notice doesn't prevent or distort argument, it only provides a bit of context for our contention.

I'm talking justice. This concept is universal. Your compact does not serve justice.

Flattery isn't going to get you anywhere either...you and extremes.

To be fair, all I did was delete a closing tag.

 

[Town Heretic]

Unfortunately, this just creates a situation where people are guessing about a man's mental state.

Us, surely. But the people who will be examining him are doing better than guessing.

To be on the safe side, any intentional killing of an innocent person should be called murder and the perpetrator should — generally speaking — be executed within a week of the event.

The problem is that's not on anything like a safe side. It invites miscarriage of justice. A week is just an arbitrary figure. If it doesn't bear a relation to the likelihood of getting it right then it's worse than arbitrary, it's irresponsible.

I did not use any legal maxim. :idunno:

You did, you just didn't realize it. Google, "Justice delayed is justice denied" and see what comes up.

A delay in the trial and execution to figure out a man's mental state after he has shot up a church is a delay of justice.

No, but I imagine that people who don't understand how our laws work the standards to be met and have a mistrust of the discipline relating to mental health might think so.

Again, delay relates to justice more than time. If we rush and invite a greater likelihood of not doing actual justice then we work an injustice. If we delay to avoid justice or to punish unjustly understanding that we cannot win the prosecution then we work an injustice. It's really a balancing of interests with the principle interest in punishing the guilty and not the innocent or those incapable of understanding their own actions.

What? :AMR:

I was illustrating that all acts of justice are delayed and that rushing to the nearest point for "justice" isn't necessarily a good idea, even if a few people empowering themselves as instruments of it think so.

It is when you present it as if they are the only two options and when there are clearly more.

Which I didn't. What I did was broaden your context in the way that should concern us if we value a) seeing justice served and b) preserving the right and life of those who might otherwise be unjustly convicted and suffer injustice in our rush.

To be fair, all I did was delete a closing tag.

Still a step forward for you.

 

[Stripe]

Us, surely. But the people who will be examining him are doing better than guessing.

Nope. All anyone can do is guess at a person's mental state. Not that it matters; a man who shoots up unarmed people is a murderer regardless of his "understanding."

The problem is that's not on anything like a safe side.

Actually, it is on the safe side.

If murderers were executed shortly after a swiftly staged trial, it would make a much safer society.

It invites miscarriage of justice.

Nope. Executing murderers is justice. Not executing them is injustice.

A week is just an arbitrary figure. If it doesn't bear a relation to the likelihood of getting it right then it's worse than arbitrary, it's irresponsible.

The guy shot up a church. Exactly how difficult do you think this decision is?

You did, you just didn't realize it. Google, "Justice delayed is justice denied" and see what comes up.

Nope. You're trying to tie words I've used to a concept I did not endorse. Read what I say instead of pretending I mean something else.

No, but I imagine that people who don't understand how our laws work the standards to be met and have a mistrust of the discipline relating to mental health might think so.

Nope. Your laws have no part to play in what I say about justice.

Again, delay relates to justice more than time. If we rush and invite a greater likelihood of not doing actual justice then we work an injustice. If we delay to avoid justice or to punish unjustly understanding that we cannot win the prosecution then we work an injustice. It's really a balancing of interests with the principle interest in punishing the guilty and not the innocent or those incapable of understanding their own actionsI was illustrating that all acts of justice are delayed and that rushing to the nearest point for "justice" isn't necessarily a good idea, even if a few people empowering themselves as instruments of it think so.

The guy shot up a church. How difficult could it be? :idunno:

Which I didn't. What I did was broaden your context in the way that should concern us if we value a) seeing justice served and b) preserving the right and life of those who might otherwise be unjustly convicted and suffer injustice in our rush.

There is no need to rush anything. It took less than a day to catch him. It would take less than a day for a judge to make the correct ruling and less than a day to throw enough stones at him so he could meet his maker. No rush, just justice.

 

[rainee]

I guess Fort Sumter doesn't count for anything.:yawn:

That was referred to (albeit indirectly) in point number 2...Just sayin'. lain:

Just not accurately.

In any event rainee seems beyond all kind of reasoning, anyway. Maybe another 150 years from now more people will finally be talking sense.

Well....According to the Confederate version of events it is (But I guess that's what the argument is about). :chuckle:
I wouldn't count on it. lain:

Tomo, please don't give that G-head one inch of agreement with what he is trying to say!!
The events went the way they went. To borrow a term, "They were what they were." Just as today it is what it is...yes?


The Colony/ State of SouthCarolina was much much older than the "new nation" it became part of and it had no laws against it seceding.
But everybody from the President on down of the federal government did quickly see this was a huge problem. So they wanted the northern soldiers to stay in a fort that existed on S.C. Land.

Here, see? Just as I told you. The Northern soldiers were hunkered down in a fort on Sovereign State land... Why do you think they did that?

So the history books teach across the board that not one union soldier was shot but simply run off...oh no what am I thinking - who tells the truth!?

No what they teach is this, yes this: This is what started the Civil War that killed so many sons, brothers, and fathers. This...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

The resupply of Fort Sumter became the first crisis of the administration of U.S. President Abraham Lincoln.

He notified the Governor of South Carolina, Francis W. Pickens, that he was sending supply ships, which resulted in an ultimatum from the Confederate government: evacuate Fort Sumter immediately.

Major Anderson refused to surrender.

Beginning at 4:30 a.m. on April 12, the Confederates bombarded the fort from artillery batteries surrounding the harbor.

Although the Union garrison returned fire, they were significantly outgunned and, after 34 hours, Major Anderson agreed to evacuate.

There were no deaths on either side as a direct result of this engagement, although a gun explosion during the surrender ceremonies on April 14 caused two Union deaths.

 

[TomO]

Tomo, please don't give that G-head one inch of agreement with what he is trying to say!!
The events went the way they went. To borrow a term, "They were what they were." Just as today it is what it is...yes?


The Colony/ State of SouthCarolina was much much older than the "new nation" it became part of and it had no laws against it seceding.
But everybody from the President on down of the federal government did quickly see this was a huge problem. So they wanted the northern soldiers to stay in a fort that existed on S.C. Land.

Here, see? Just as I told you. The Northern soldiers were hunkered down in a fort on Sovereign State land... Why do you think they did that?

So the history books teach across the board that not one union soldier was shot but simply run off...oh no what am I thinking - who tells the truth!?

No what they teach is this, yes this: This is what started the Civil War that killed so many sons brothers fathers, this...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

I'm pretty well versed in the history and events...As well as the different Constitutional arguments surrounding the right to succession....Thanks for the Wiki link though. :e4e:

 

[rainee]

You'd think the fact that they all specified "slavery" as their reason for taking a walk might mean something to people who are bending over backwards to defend their right to go.

I wish you would quit with that. The north would put people in zoos long after slavery was abolished, for pity sake. People were kept in Zoos.
The general populace accepted it seems almost intellectually that natives from tribal areas were missing links and/or evidence of evolution... And therefore lesser than themselves. Some paid to look at them on display, some watched one group from the Philippines kill dogs, dress them, cook and eat them.

Let's change our focus, Granite, please? Another weak angry young loser has just shot, killed and been killed...

Does it matter if any of these are poor angry blacks, racist angry whites or angry Arabic Muslims?

 

[Town Heretic]

Nope. All anyone can do is guess at a person's mental state.

No, but even when guessing there's the educated guess and the less qualified one. Closer to say few things are 100% certain, but there are tests and markers, things that indicate a particular mental condition that precludes understanding the consequence of your actions.

Here's a link to a serious treatment of the subject for anyone interested.

Not that it matters; a man who shoots up unarmed people is a murderer regardless of his "understanding."

No, he isn't. Say your murderer is a ten year old boy with a 410 and the man coming at him is six four and two hundred pounds, with a decidedly lethal and apparent intent. You wouldn't call the boys act in defending himself murder. A man, sleep walking, fires a gun that kills another man passing by his house. He's culpable for the death, but he isn't a murderer.

We recognize circumstance can mitigate the context of how we judge an act. Competency is such a context.

Actually, it is on the safe side.

If murderers were executed shortly after a swiftly staged trial, it would make a much safer society.

No, it isn't safe because a rush to that judgement invites a preventable or reducible chance that the innocent will be wrongfully convicted and killed.

The guy shot up a church. Exactly how difficult do you think this decision is?

It depends on whether or not he's crazy. If you kill him without regard for that you aren't an instrument of justice. You are, instead and again, an instrument of vengeance.

Nope. Your laws have no part to play in what I say about justice.

I don't really care about whether or not you accept the laws that actually govern the matter being considered. But I'm going to speak to that context because it's the rational thing to do. You, I expect, will keep doing whatever it is you believe you are.

There is no need to rush anything. It took less than a day to catch him. It would take less than a day for a judge to make the correct ruling and less than a day to throw enough stones at him so he could meet his maker. No rush, just justice.

Good luck with that wherever you live. But it takes longer than that to arrive at an understanding of whether or not we'd be killing someone who shouldn't be or some evil twit who should be within the scope of the law, supra.

 

[IMJerusha]

No, there was no genocidal plan to exterminate the Native American, there was only a horrific indifference to their plight coupled with enormous greed and acts of perfidy.

No genocidal plan, eh? Wounded Knee? Soldiers received the Medal of Honor for murdering women and children in cold blood.
Do you know who John Chivington was, Town? He was a Union officer, an abolitionist and a Methodist minister and under the American flag of 1864, at Sand Creek, he turned your statement that there was no genocidal plan into utter falsehood and ignorance.

Anyone who calls for and approves the digging up of Forrest and his wife as well as the removal and banning of the Confederate flag had better be pushing also for the removal and banning of the Betsy Ross flag of the 13 colonies which approved of slavery and the American flag of 1864 which sanctioned American Indian slaughter or be branded the hypocrites that they are!

 

[Stripe]

No, but even when guessing there's the educated guess and the less qualified one. Closer to say few things are 100% certain, but there are tests and markers, things that indicate a particular mental condition that precludes understanding the consequence of your actions.

"Understanding" is not a defense.

No, he isn't. Say your murderer is a ten year old boy with a 410 and the man coming at him is six four and two hundred pounds, with a decidedly lethal and apparent intent. You wouldn't call the boys act in defending himself murder. A man, sleep walking, fires a gun that kills another man passing by his house. He's culpable for the death, but he isn't a murderer.

We are talking about a murderer who killed nine unarmed people in a church. Quit muddying the waters.

We recognize circumstance can mitigate the context of how we judge an act. Competency is such a context.

Nope. Circumstances change the judgement, not how we judge. It's either murder or it's not.

No, it isn't safe because a rush to that judgement invites a preventable or reducible chance that the innocent will be wrongfully convicted and killed.

Again with the lies? It's not a rush to judgement.

It depends on whether or not he's crazy. If you kill him without regard for that you aren't an instrument of justice. You are, instead and again, an instrument of vengeance.

Because you say so? Justice says we are not to show mercy.

I don't really care about whether or not you accept the laws that actually govern the matter being considered. But I'm going to speak to that context because it's the rational thing to do. You, I expect, will keep doing whatever it is you believe you are.

Justice. We know you do not care.

 

[IMJerusha]

Let's just pull all the flags down, considering what they could be symbolic of.

Doesn't work that way. Shouldn't. Our flag is a symbol of our nation. It's a nation with a great principle in play, flawed as we might be from time to time, established to forge among men a free people and a Republic of laws where all men find equality. That concept was too advanced even for the men who framed it.

In spite of the American flag and a white flag flying over the Cheyenne and Arapaho camp near Ft. Lyon at Sand Creek, American troops attacked, killing and mutilating about 200 of the American Indians, two-thirds of whom were women and children. And they weren't just killed, they were mutilated. Chivington was really proud of that as he publicly displayed the scalps of the murdered men, women and children.

Now let's talk about the 237 black people who were murdered in 1919 in Phillips County, Arkansas under the American flag of that time and not a single person in the deputized lynch mob was brought to justice. Yeah, ours is "a nation of great principle." It's more like ours is a nation of great hypocrisy. This situation with the Confederate flag is a ploy for the purpose of implementing a Liberal agenda. And when that Liberal agenda turns against Christians in America in a more physical way, as it has the unborn, what will you have to say about our nation's great principle while you're turning your back on Yeshua much the same way as you've turned your back on Southerners who consider themselves sons and daughters of the Confederacy as well as the Native American?

 

[Granite]

Tomo, please don't give that G-head one inch of agreement with what he is trying to say!!
The events went the way they went. To borrow a term, "They were what they were." Just as today it is what it is...yes?


The Colony/ State of SouthCarolina was much much older than the "new nation" it became part of and it had no laws against it seceding.
But everybody from the President on down of the federal government did quickly see this was a huge problem. So they wanted the northern soldiers to stay in a fort that existed on S.C. Land.

Here, see? Just as I told you. The Northern soldiers were hunkered down in a fort on Sovereign State land... Why do you think they did that?

So the history books teach across the board that not one union soldier was shot but simply run off...oh no what am I thinking - who tells the truth!?

No what they teach is this, yes this: This is what started the Civil War that killed so many sons, brothers, and fathers. This...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter

You can try to justify treason all you like. Doesn't change the facts.

 

[bybee]

In spite of the American flag and a white flag flying over the Cheyenne and Arapaho camp near Ft. Lyon at Sand Creek, American troops attacked, killing and mutilating about 200 of the American Indians, two-thirds of whom were women and children. And they weren't just killed, they were mutilated. Chivington was really proud of that as he publicly displayed the scalps of the murdered men, women and children.

Now let's talk about the 237 black people who were murdered in 1919 in Phillips County, Arkansas under the American flag of that time and not a single person in the deputized lynch mob was brought to justice. Yeah, ours is "a nation of great principle." It's more like ours is a nation of great hypocrisy. This situation with the Confederate flag is a ploy for the purpose of implementing a Liberal agenda. And when that Liberal agenda turns against Christians in America in a more physical way, as it has the unborn, what will you have to say about our nation's great principle while you're turning your back on Yeshua much the same way as you've turned your back on Southerners who consider themselves sons and daughters of the Confederacy as well as the Native American?

Here I thought the ignominy of slavery was the issue? Flags as symbols are another issue.
The very idea that one person believes it is right to own another person must be fought with every breath.

 

[rainee]

I'm pretty well versed in the history and events...As well as the different Constitutional arguments surrounding the right to succession....Thanks for the Wiki link though. :e4e:

Yes I figured you knew there was conflict regarding the presentation of our history. I just hoped to fortify your position into uhm well the more honest human position?
I can never, and hope I never, appear to support bad actions -- but to see liberals or any across the board right now in this country willing to puff up themselves by totally vilifying the old South as if the times don't show people all over the world were on the verge of being forced to wrestle with our common humanity for all and their lack of grasping this.

I could say the whole civilized world was about to learn how very foolish we all were. And popular science would make it worse before it made it better with so much evolution nonsense, yes?

Or maybe no?
May I ask how you look at this?