I've used the "he needed 'killin'" defense many times before without a sleepless night.

 

Murder does not bother me in some instances. For instance, if you rape my wife or my daughter, I am going to find you and I am going to kill you. I will wipe my blade on your cold, dead carcass and leave it for the wolves to eat, while I unwind by enjoying a steak and martini. I will not apologize, not shed a tear, and I am not even sure if a jury would convict me. In that case, I'm not guilty of murder because a jury has not convicted me of such. If they do convict me, I will serve my jail time.

 

I don't know anything about this case. Was the person who killed him the husband or boyfriend of a woman whom he had convinced to abort a child? Who knows what story there may be here. If it turns out to be some distant religious zealot, then if I'm sitting on the jury I'm probably going to convict him of murder. Like me, the zealot will probably happily serve his jail time. But neither of us will probably shed a tear over the death of a monster, and it won't upset my steak or martini regimen, either.

 

Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered in jail. Child molesters become sex toys for other prisoners. Other bad men have gotten just desserts, though the manner in which dessert was served broke the law.

 

Habib is correct that the public cause of the pro-life movement took a hit.

 

 

Your logic says that I should be able to kill the guy at the state pen that pushes the switch or gives the lethal dose because I'm against the D.P.

The person that did this is no better than the mob guy who does a hit .

 

I disagree. It depends upon the purpose of the mob hit. If the mobster was avenging a prior mob hit on a member of his family, I can reconcile it. If the mobster was rubbing out a business competitor, I have no sympathy.

 

There are degrees, in my opinion.

Your logic says that I should be able to kill the guy at the state pen that pushes the switch or gives the lethal dose because I'm against the D.P.

 

No, you missed the forest for the trees. There is no logic to any of this. It has nothing at all to do with "should be able to" do. You can DO whatever you like. Whether you will be found guilty of murder, and whether anyone sheds a tear for the deceased, are different things.

The point of all of this is that all Wyrostek said is "reactions will be varied."

 

The thread itself proves that.

 

Some of you act as if we should all be outraged at the actions of the killer, agree that it is murder, and be sad for the death.

 

Habib's reaction implied a politically-motivated killing, and a surmise of its effect upon the pro-life pro-choice disputes.

 

Several on here expressed disdain for the retaliatory killing, and implied noone should be murdered for their views.

 

Several more on here merely agreed that a crminal offense was killing, but shed no tear over the death, perhaps even privately revel in it, and implying that the world is a better place as a result.

 

I am adding another "varied reaction," in that I don't have the first clue what happened. Maybe he was killed by a jealous lover, and the fact of his abortionism is a mere coincidence. Maybe he was killed by an aforementioned scorned husband, boyfriend, or even brother, making it a personal case. Or, perhaps the retaliatory killing. Plus, I add the side of it that in the eyes of the jury, many killings are justified. Don't know if this is one or not. Plus, I added the "not many sleepless nights" refrain.

 

Either way, Wyrostek's statement was simple, and true, and the attack upon him for it is nothing more than certain malevolent spite for a poster whose very right wing views several of you disagree with.

Either way, Wyrostek's statement was simple, and true, and the attack upon him for it is nothing more than certain malevolent spite for a poster whose very right wing views several of you disagree with.

Did I miss something? Who "attacked" his statement?

 

Clyde questioned it. I commented on it. Nowhere did I read anything constituting an attack.

Did I miss something? Who "attacked" his statement?

 

Clyde questioned it. I commented on it. Nowhere did I read anything constituting an attack.

 

"Challenged," would be a better term. Clyde said he would shed a tear for Tiller. Both you and Clyde either outright said or strongly implied that there is only one way of thinking about this. "Attack" was a poor word choice and I retract it.

"Challenged," would be a better term. ... "Attack" was a poor word choice and I retract it.

No problem.

Both you and Clyde either outright said or strongly implied that there is only one way of thinking about this.

When someone gets murdered in cold blood for doing something that is legal under the law of the land ... well, yeah, I think there is only one way to feel about it.

 

That is assuming, of course, that the above assertion is true. Otherwise, it's just another murder.

No problem.

When someone gets murdered in cold blood for doing something that is legal under the law of the land ... well, yeah, I think there is only one way to feel about it.

 

That is assuming, of course, that the above assertion is true. Otherwise, it's just another murder.

 

But, do you "shed a tear" for his death, as Clyde does?

Here's a fun read from Slate:

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2219537/

Aren't "reactions varied" for all issues? Do we need to stay adding that to all of our threads about things that happen?

I've used the "he needed 'killin'" defense many times before without a sleepless night.

 

Murder does not bother me in some instances. For instance, if you rape my wife or my daughter, I am going to find you and I am going to kill you. I will wipe my blade on your cold, dead carcass and leave it for the wolves to eat, while I unwind by enjoying a steak and martini. I will not apologize, not shed a tear, and I am not even sure if a jury would convict me. In that case, I'm not guilty of murder because a jury has not convicted me of such. If they do convict me, I will serve my jail time.

 

I don't know anything about this case. Was the person who killed him the husband or boyfriend of a woman whom he had convinced to abort a child? Who knows what story there may be here. If it turns out to be some distant religious zealot, then if I'm sitting on the jury I'm probably going to convict him of murder. Like me, the zealot will probably happily serve his jail time. But neither of us will probably shed a tear over the death of a monster, and it won't upset my steak or martini regimen, either.

 

Jeffrey Dahmer was murdered in jail. Child molesters become sex toys for other prisoners. Other bad men have gotten just desserts, though the manner in which dessert was served broke the law.

 

Habib is correct that the public cause of the pro-life movement took a hit.

 

I agree with you somewhat. I wrote a paper in college about capital punishment and in the paper reference other types of killing such as abortions. The purpose of the paper was to show that I disagreed with killing. Because of my belief in God and what his word says about how I should live my life makes me feel strongly that God is the only being that has the right to take someones life, With that being said, I had to defend my paper by asking questions and one of the questions I was asked was

"what would you do if someone was trying to harm your family"? My response was I would kill them. Another question was, "you were a U.S. Marine, what would you have done if you had to go to war" my answer was , I would have killed as many of my countries enemies as I could have. I don't believe in killing but in some situations I think God understands the decision to kill. Remember, I said kill not murder. Either way, Jesus Christ died for my sins and because I have been saved by his blood, God will forgive me of my sins. We sin everyday. If you think about having sexual relations with a woman in Gods eyes you have already had sex with her and I am sure it is the same about killing. I had 3 friends die in the bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beruit in 85 and I wanted to kill as many of those people as I could. I am sure in Gods eyes I had already killed them. If this doctor aborted my child I would have wanted to kill him too. That is my problem with pro-choice, it is the womans choice that matters when that child is every much the fathers child as it is the mothers, but that's another thread. With all that said, is there a time that someone needs killed? IMO yes. Just because they are in need of killing does it make it right for someone to kill them? IMO no. However, I don't think it is a sin in God's eyes in some circumstances and I too could kill someone who had rapped my wife or daughter and still be able to eat a big T-bone and drink a good cold budwiser and sleep like a baby. The only difference is I would probably pull out all of the persons finger and toe nails, break all of his fingers and toes, then cut them off, finally I would casterate him and I would then feed him his testicles before I cut his vertabrae in two at the base of his neck so he would die slowly by suffercation because his brain would not be able to tell his lungs to breath. But that is just me! :thumb:

But, do you "shed a tear" for his death, as Clyde does?

I don't believe the man deserved to be murdered, if that is what you're asking. I'm sure the man has family and friends that are shedding plenty of tears over his violent death.

Does it bother anyone "where" this murder was committed?

 

Speaking for me alone, I have had the greatest rage over the place. This man, probably feeling that he was acting for God, violates the sanctuary of God and commits the sin of taking life (and even worse, taking life in "God's name" if he is what Hearsay described as a "zealot.").

 

The violation of the sanctuary in this way, (whether it is this killing, Wedgewood in Dallas, or the Illinois Church a few weeks ago) is as horrific in my eyes as the action itself.

Anyone that rationalizes this murder away as "he got it because someone thinks he is committing murder against innocents" has to also rationalize away the murders that took place in Arkansas at the military recruiting station. IF the murderer says "the military is killing innocents in Iraq" how can they not get the same reaction as the Tiller murderer?

Anyone that rationalizes this murder away as "he got it because someone thinks he is committing murder against innocents" has to also rationalize away the murders that took place in Arkansas at the military recruiting station. IF the murderer says "the military is killing innocents in Iraq" how can they not get the same reaction as the Tiller murderer?

 

That's why war is always bad, innocent people always get killed in war. However, I have always said that the American Soldier is a special breed, they can have aggression toward their enemy and still have compassion for the innocent people of that country most other counties have soldiers who kill everyone women, children and the elderly but not the American Soldier, they are a special breed.