# Thou shalt not kill?



## anotherlife

We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead.  This is true in business, as well as politics/war.  So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill?  Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing?  And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?


----------



## shadow355

If in defense of life or limb, or presented with imminent danger - I would pull the trigger twice  ( Double tap to the chest - as I have been taught ) on a bad guy.

If the situation called for it, such as a person laden with explosives, or holding a hostage.....I would shoot him in the head. ** YOU NEVER let the hostage leave the area ( kill zone ) ** ; because if you do....they are at the mercy of the hostage takers and will most likely die later anyway....probably a horrible or gruesome death......or die slowly ( Drown - bleed to death ).

If a hostage gets injured or dies......it is right there on the scene - that YOU control. Shoot the tires - engine block - take a shot on the hostage taker(s) ----> But the hostage takers do not leave the area with the hostages. If I was a hostage, I would not want to leave with my hostage takers....and die at their hands ( slow or painful ). I would want to get hurt...or killed "On scene" where I could be taken care of.....and not dumped in a ditch - lake - river - side of the road - rot in a abandoned house.

I would want my loved ones, friends and people I cared for......to die right there with me, in my arms. If something goes wrong......it goes wrong on scene. YOU control the situation......not the bad guys. Don't give them room to negotiate - do not give them room to bargain. If the hostage(s) die.....they die too.

 In the movie "SWAT" (  with Samuel L Jackson ) - the black SWAT Commander give the sniper the command ( during the bank robbery in the beginning ) "Don't let him get mobile". He was right.

I consider myself and expert marksman with a handgun, and I can accurately shoot silhouettes at 80 yards.


Shadow 355


----------



## TheOldSchool

In the U.S., "thou shall not kill" is... more or a guideline than a rule


----------



## Anonymous1977

anotherlife said:


> We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead.  This is true in business, as well as politics/war.  So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill?  Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing?  And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?



Hi anotherlife.

I am an Agnostic but some things that Christianity teach might shine some light on your question (or shine some light on an answer to it.)

Jesus says in the Bible to do unto others as you would have done unto you.  Would you want someone to kill you or your loved ones?  The answers to those questions might answer your question.

And the Apostle Paul says that "Love is the fulfillment of the law...'for Love,' thou shalt not steal, kill, etc."...that too might shine some light on an answer to your question...




-


----------



## HenryBHough

"Thou shalt not kill....."

Except to the sound of trumpets which shall be called "war".


----------



## anotherlife

Anonymous1977 said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead.  This is true in business, as well as politics/war.  So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill?  Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing?  And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi anotherlife.
> 
> I am an Agnostic but some things that Christianity teach might shine some light on your question (or shine some light on an answer to it.)
> 
> Jesus says in the Bible to do unto others as you would have done unto you.  Would you want someone to kill you or your loved ones?  The answers to those questions might answer your question.
> 
> And the Apostle Paul says that "Love is the fulfillment of the law...'for Love,' thou shalt not steal, kill, etc."...that too might shine some light on an answer to your question...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
Click to expand...



In terms of war, this interpretation would lead to a complete defeat, although exacts the heavenly promise.  Does this apply in terms of war too?  




HenryBHough said:


> "Thou shalt not kill....."
> 
> Except to the sound of trumpets which shall be called "war".



The Bible has many holly wars in it.  I wonder how that works.


----------



## Indeependent

anotherlife said:


> Anonymous1977 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead.  This is true in business, as well as politics/war.  So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill?  Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing?  And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi anotherlife.
> 
> I am an Agnostic but some things that Christianity teach might shine some light on your question (or shine some light on an answer to it.)
> 
> Jesus says in the Bible to do unto others as you would have done unto you.  Would you want someone to kill you or your loved ones?  The answers to those questions might answer your question.
> 
> And the Apostle Paul says that "Love is the fulfillment of the law...'for Love,' thou shalt not steal, kill, etc."...that too might shine some light on an answer to your question...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of war, this interpretation would lead to a complete defeat, although exacts the heavenly promise.  Does this apply in terms of war too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Thou shalt not kill....."
> 
> Except to the sound of trumpets which shall be called "war".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible has many holly wars in it.  I wonder how that works.
Click to expand...


Vey simple...
The Roman Catholic Church did not want rebellion so they purposely changed "Thou shalt not murder" to "Thou shalt not kill"; a pure abortion of the original intent.
Your life is endangered, you kill.


----------



## Anonymous1977

anotherlife said:


> Anonymous1977 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead.  This is true in business, as well as politics/war.  So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill?  Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing?  And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi anotherlife.
> 
> I am an Agnostic but some things that Christianity teach might shine some light on your question (or shine some light on an answer to it.)
> 
> Jesus says in the Bible to do unto others as you would have done unto you.  Would you want someone to kill you or your loved ones?  The answers to those questions might answer your question.
> 
> And the Apostle Paul says that "Love is the fulfillment of the law...'for Love,' thou shalt not steal, kill, etc."...that too might shine some light on an answer to your question...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of war, this interpretation would lead to a complete defeat, although exacts the heavenly promise.  Does this apply in terms of war too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Thou shalt not kill....."
> 
> Except to the sound of trumpets which shall be called "war".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Bible has many holly wars in it.  I wonder how that works.
Click to expand...


Hi anotherlife,

As I understand it, Christianity is against the use of violence but Jesus did say near the time of his crucifixion if I'm not mistaken for his disciples to "buy a sword;" I can only guess that fighting for Christians was supposed to become allowed upon the return of Jesus but you should rather ask those questions to a Christian pastor which I am not.

I am neither Christian, nor a pastor/Reverend.

A1977




-


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Are you sure of the translation from ancient Hebrew?

Or

Does the ancient Hebrew actually say "Thou shalt not murder?"

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Indeependent

The Hebrew word is "murder".


----------



## 9aces

I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.

I also taught them that's a horrible responsibility, and while should not be rushed into, must not hesitate when it's time.  He who hesitates is lost.


----------



## HenryBHough

"Thou Shalt Not Kill...."
_"Except to the sound of trumpets which shall be called 'WAR'.:_

--Voltaire


----------



## PK1

9aces said:


> I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.


---
That appears to be the MO of police departments.
Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent. 
.


----------



## 9aces

PK1 said:


> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> That appears to be the MO of police departments.
> Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
> .
Click to expand...


Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target.  I'm guessing no.

If there's a threat you put it down.


----------



## PK1

9aces said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> That appears to be the MO of police departments.
> Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target.  I'm guessing no.
> 
> If there's a threat you put it down.
Click to expand...

---
If one is a coward, then almost any situation is a "threat". Confidence from target practice should be a requirement for gun toting, so pulling the trigger_ "till you're sure they're dead" _would not be necessary in many cases.

Perhaps some intelligence is also helpful to differentiate a real threat from a minor one, especially if the policeman's target is a 12 yr-old boy with a toy gun.
.


----------



## 9aces

PK1 said:


> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> That appears to be the MO of police departments.
> Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target.  I'm guessing no.
> 
> If there's a threat you put it down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> If one is a coward, then almost any situation is a "threat". Confidence from target practice should be a requirement for gun toting, so pulling the trigger_ "till you're sure they're dead" _would not be necessary in many cases.
> 
> Perhaps some intelligence is also helpful to differentiate a real threat from a minor one, especially if the policeman's target is a 12 yr-old boy with a toy gun.
> .
Click to expand...


If you know it's a toy, yes.  If it looks real and he starts to point it in your direction, ignoring the order to stop, you put him down, center of mass, eliminate the threat.

That's intelligence.  You may be willing to risk your life in the chance you're right, that's not courage, that's stupidity.

It's really easy to Monday morning QB something like this.  It's damn hard to kill someone, for most of us it takes a lot more courage to live with that burden.

And as far as necessary in many cases, if my kids have to pull a weapon..it's necessary to make sure that threat is dead.  It's generally harder to kill someone than one shotting them.


----------



## PK1

9aces said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> That appears to be the MO of police departments.
> Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target.  I'm guessing no.
> 
> If there's a threat you put it down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> If one is a coward, then almost any situation is a "threat". Confidence from target practice should be a requirement for gun toting, so pulling the trigger_ "till you're sure they're dead" _would not be necessary in many cases.
> 
> Perhaps some intelligence is also helpful to differentiate a real threat from a minor one, especially if the policeman's target is a 12 yr-old boy with a toy gun.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know it's a toy, yes.  If it looks real and he starts to point it in your direction, ignoring the order to stop, you put him down, center of mass, eliminate the threat.
> 
> That's intelligence.  You may be willing to risk your life in the chance you're right, that's not courage, that's stupidity.
> 
> It's really easy to Monday morning QB something like this.  It's damn hard to kill someone, for most of us it takes a lot more courage to live with that burden.
> 
> And as far as necessary in many cases, if my kids have to pull a weapon..it's necessary to make sure that threat is dead.  It's generally harder to kill someone than one shotting them.
Click to expand...

---
I certainly agree that we want to keep our kids safe. All normal parents feel that way. So, if your kid or my kid has to "_make sure that threat is dead_" to survive, so be it.

However, what if your kid is considered a "threat" just by holding a gun, and is killed by a policeman that has your strict viewpoint (perceives a "threat") ... Will you be ok with that?

All i'm saying is that some *threat* assessment by professionals (police,etc) is valuable to save innocent  lives. After all, they are employed to protect citizens.
Citizen gun toters should be screened for competency too.
.


----------



## 9aces

PK1 said:


> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> I taught my kids if you ever point a gun at another human being, pull the trigger, and don't stop pulling it till you're sure they're dead.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> That appears to be the MO of police departments.
> Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target.  I'm guessing no.
> 
> If there's a threat you put it down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> If one is a coward, then almost any situation is a "threat". Confidence from target practice should be a requirement for gun toting, so pulling the trigger_ "till you're sure they're dead" _would not be necessary in many cases.
> 
> Perhaps some intelligence is also helpful to differentiate a real threat from a minor one, especially if the policeman's target is a 12 yr-old boy with a toy gun.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know it's a toy, yes.  If it looks real and he starts to point it in your direction, ignoring the order to stop, you put him down, center of mass, eliminate the threat.
> 
> That's intelligence.  You may be willing to risk your life in the chance you're right, that's not courage, that's stupidity.
> 
> It's really easy to Monday morning QB something like this.  It's damn hard to kill someone, for most of us it takes a lot more courage to live with that burden.
> 
> And as far as necessary in many cases, if my kids have to pull a weapon..it's necessary to make sure that threat is dead.  It's generally harder to kill someone than one shotting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I certainly agree that we want to keep our kids safe. All normal parents feel that way. So, if your kid or my kid has to "_make sure that threat is dead_" to survive, so be it.
> 
> However, what if your kid is considered a "threat" just by holding a gun, and is killed by a policeman that has your strict viewpoint (perceives a "threat") ... Will you be ok with that?
> 
> All i'm saying is that some *threat* assessment by professionals (police,etc) is valuable to save innocent  lives. After all, they are employed to protect citizens.
> Citizen gun toters should be screened for competency too.
> .
Click to expand...


Yes, I will be ok with that.  If a threat assessment has been performed BY said professional, then they are the person, and only they who are the correct person to decide what is the level of threat and how they should respond to it..

My kids have been trained how to react, so I don't worry about what will happen in such an instance.  If something did, that would be my fault, for not training them better, and I'd have to live with it.

I, unlike you it seems am willing to live with the occasional accident, while trying to minimize them, am not willing to demonize what are for the most part good men and women doing a thankless job.  Without them, where would you be?


----------



## PK1

9aces said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> That appears to be the MO of police departments.
> Perhaps that's justified in many cases, but it is definitely an extreme policy in other cases, where shooting to disable would be more ethical, e.g., where a distant drunk person with a knife is not as dangerous of an opponent.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target.  I'm guessing no.
> 
> If there's a threat you put it down.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> If one is a coward, then almost any situation is a "threat". Confidence from target practice should be a requirement for gun toting, so pulling the trigger_ "till you're sure they're dead" _would not be necessary in many cases.
> 
> Perhaps some intelligence is also helpful to differentiate a real threat from a minor one, especially if the policeman's target is a 12 yr-old boy with a toy gun.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know it's a toy, yes.  If it looks real and he starts to point it in your direction, ignoring the order to stop, you put him down, center of mass, eliminate the threat.
> 
> That's intelligence.  You may be willing to risk your life in the chance you're right, that's not courage, that's stupidity.
> 
> It's really easy to Monday morning QB something like this.  It's damn hard to kill someone, for most of us it takes a lot more courage to live with that burden.
> 
> And as far as necessary in many cases, if my kids have to pull a weapon..it's necessary to make sure that threat is dead.  It's generally harder to kill someone than one shotting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I certainly agree that we want to keep our kids safe. All normal parents feel that way. So, if your kid or my kid has to "_make sure that threat is dead_" to survive, so be it.
> 
> However, what if your kid is considered a "threat" just by holding a gun, and is killed by a policeman that has your strict viewpoint (perceives a "threat") ... Will you be ok with that?
> 
> All i'm saying is that some *threat* assessment by professionals (police,etc) is valuable to save innocent  lives. After all, they are employed to protect citizens.
> Citizen gun toters should be screened for competency too.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I will be ok with that.  If a threat assessment has been performed BY said professional, then they are the person, and only they who are the correct person to decide what is the level of threat and how they should respond to it..
> 
> My kids have been trained how to react, so I don't worry about what will happen in such an instance.  If something did, that would be my fault, for not training them better, and I'd have to live with it.
> 
> I, unlike you it seems am willing to live with the occasional accident, while trying to minimize them, am not willing to demonize what are for the most part good men and women doing a thankless job.  Without them, where would you be?
Click to expand...

---
A note/clarification from me ...
I do NOT demonize the difficult "thankless" jobs that are *competently* performed by 95% of the police & other safety officers. 
My concern is with the few incompetent or mentally unstable officers who are getting the negative press and forcing policy changes that should be common sense.

From what i observed in that Cleveland shooting of the 12-yr-old boy (Tamir Rice), the policeman's action AND his department's subsequent support was reprehensible.

In a San Francisco shooting of a knife-wielding young man under mental duress (Mario Woods), the logical outrage by the civilian community & illogical explanation by the police chief eventually prompted a change in that department's "*use-of-force policy*", which is a step toward a rational *balance* in protecting civilians as well as the officers who voluntarily accept their highly paid dangerous public job.
.


----------



## 9aces

PK1 said:


> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever bothered to take 3 seconds to think about how hard it is to hit a small target, and a disabling shot is a very small, always moving target.  I'm guessing no.
> 
> If there's a threat you put it down.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> If one is a coward, then almost any situation is a "threat". Confidence from target practice should be a requirement for gun toting, so pulling the trigger_ "till you're sure they're dead" _would not be necessary in many cases.
> 
> Perhaps some intelligence is also helpful to differentiate a real threat from a minor one, especially if the policeman's target is a 12 yr-old boy with a toy gun.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you know it's a toy, yes.  If it looks real and he starts to point it in your direction, ignoring the order to stop, you put him down, center of mass, eliminate the threat.
> 
> That's intelligence.  You may be willing to risk your life in the chance you're right, that's not courage, that's stupidity.
> 
> It's really easy to Monday morning QB something like this.  It's damn hard to kill someone, for most of us it takes a lot more courage to live with that burden.
> 
> And as far as necessary in many cases, if my kids have to pull a weapon..it's necessary to make sure that threat is dead.  It's generally harder to kill someone than one shotting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I certainly agree that we want to keep our kids safe. All normal parents feel that way. So, if your kid or my kid has to "_make sure that threat is dead_" to survive, so be it.
> 
> However, what if your kid is considered a "threat" just by holding a gun, and is killed by a policeman that has your strict viewpoint (perceives a "threat") ... Will you be ok with that?
> 
> All i'm saying is that some *threat* assessment by professionals (police,etc) is valuable to save innocent  lives. After all, they are employed to protect citizens.
> Citizen gun toters should be screened for competency too.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I will be ok with that.  If a threat assessment has been performed BY said professional, then they are the person, and only they who are the correct person to decide what is the level of threat and how they should respond to it..
> 
> My kids have been trained how to react, so I don't worry about what will happen in such an instance.  If something did, that would be my fault, for not training them better, and I'd have to live with it.
> 
> I, unlike you it seems am willing to live with the occasional accident, while trying to minimize them, am not willing to demonize what are for the most part good men and women doing a thankless job.  Without them, where would you be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> A note/clarification from me ...
> I do NOT demonize the difficult "thankless" jobs that are *competently* performed by 95% of the police & other safety officers.
> My concern is with the few incompetent or mentally unstable officers who are getting the negative press and forcing policy changes that should be common sense.
> 
> From what i observed in that Cleveland shooting of the 12-yr-old boy (Tamir Rice), the policeman's action AND his department's subsequent support was reprehensible.
> 
> In a San Francisco shooting of a knife-wielding young man under mental duress (Mario Woods), the logical outrage by the civilian community & illogical explanation by the police chief eventually prompted a change in that department's "*use-of-force policy*", which is a step toward a rational *balance* in protecting civilians as well as the officers who voluntarily accept their highly paid dangerous public job.
> .
Click to expand...


You mean the case where the boy pointed a gun at an officer?  Turns out it was a toy gun, but have you actually bothered to look at it?  Amazingly realistic looking toy, which the officer would have no way to know.  Threat....put down threat.

Knife...threat.  Put down the threat.

Stupidity has it's own price.  Sometimes the price is death, as it should be.


----------



## PK1

9aces said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> If one is a coward, then almost any situation is a "threat". Confidence from target practice should be a requirement for gun toting, so pulling the trigger_ "till you're sure they're dead" _would not be necessary in many cases.
> 
> Perhaps some intelligence is also helpful to differentiate a real threat from a minor one, especially if the policeman's target is a 12 yr-old boy with a toy gun.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you know it's a toy, yes.  If it looks real and he starts to point it in your direction, ignoring the order to stop, you put him down, center of mass, eliminate the threat.
> 
> That's intelligence.  You may be willing to risk your life in the chance you're right, that's not courage, that's stupidity.
> 
> It's really easy to Monday morning QB something like this.  It's damn hard to kill someone, for most of us it takes a lot more courage to live with that burden.
> 
> And as far as necessary in many cases, if my kids have to pull a weapon..it's necessary to make sure that threat is dead.  It's generally harder to kill someone than one shotting them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> I certainly agree that we want to keep our kids safe. All normal parents feel that way. So, if your kid or my kid has to "_make sure that threat is dead_" to survive, so be it.
> 
> However, what if your kid is considered a "threat" just by holding a gun, and is killed by a policeman that has your strict viewpoint (perceives a "threat") ... Will you be ok with that?
> 
> All i'm saying is that some *threat* assessment by professionals (police,etc) is valuable to save innocent  lives. After all, they are employed to protect citizens.
> Citizen gun toters should be screened for competency too.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I will be ok with that.  If a threat assessment has been performed BY said professional, then they are the person, and only they who are the correct person to decide what is the level of threat and how they should respond to it..
> 
> My kids have been trained how to react, so I don't worry about what will happen in such an instance.  If something did, that would be my fault, for not training them better, and I'd have to live with it.
> 
> I, unlike you it seems am willing to live with the occasional accident, while trying to minimize them, am not willing to demonize what are for the most part good men and women doing a thankless job.  Without them, where would you be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> A note/clarification from me ...
> I do NOT demonize the difficult "thankless" jobs that are *competently* performed by 95% of the police & other safety officers.
> My concern is with the few incompetent or mentally unstable officers who are getting the negative press and forcing policy changes that should be common sense.
> 
> From what i observed in that Cleveland shooting of the 12-yr-old boy (Tamir Rice), the policeman's action AND his department's subsequent support was reprehensible.
> 
> In a San Francisco shooting of a knife-wielding young man under mental duress (Mario Woods), the logical outrage by the civilian community & illogical explanation by the police chief eventually prompted a change in that department's "*use-of-force policy*", which is a step toward a rational *balance* in protecting civilians as well as the officers who voluntarily accept their highly paid dangerous public job.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the case where the boy pointed a gun at an officer?  Turns out it was a toy gun, but have you actually bothered to look at it?  Amazingly realistic looking toy, which the officer would have no way to know.  Threat....put down threat.
> 
> Knife...threat.  Put down the threat.
> 
> Stupidity has it's own price.  Sometimes the price is death, as it should be.
Click to expand...

---
Gee, you seem to be a cold-hearted bastard. You have no problem killing a 12 yr-old boy for his innocent "stupidity"? What about your stupidity?
Are you willing to consider facts & interpret them (threat assessment), or simply act emotionally without applying intelligence to objectivity?

Did you bother to look beyond the boy-club excuses of the Cleveland police department? Obviously not. The boy did *not*_ "pointed a gun at an officer"_.
Here are some inconsistencies in the police account:
. 1) Police said that Rice was seated at a table with other people. The video showed that Rice was alone.
.  2) Police said that as they pulled up, they saw Rice grab the pellet gun and put it in his waistband. This is not supported by the video. Judge Adrine said the video does not show the pellet gun in Rice's hands in the moments immediately before as the zone car approaches.
.  3) Police said that Rice then reached into his waistband and pulled out the pellet gun, and was then shot and killed by Officer Timothy Loehmann. The video shows that *Rice did not pull out the pellet gun*. In the video, Rice is using both hands to hold his shirt up and expose the pellet gun to view just before he falls to the ground.
.  4) Police described the pellet gun as looking real and later explained that the neon tip of the pellet gun was missing. However the *police never saw Rice brandish or point the pistol at them* to determine if the orange cap was actually missing or not.
.


----------



## 9aces

PK1 said:


> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you know it's a toy, yes.  If it looks real and he starts to point it in your direction, ignoring the order to stop, you put him down, center of mass, eliminate the threat.
> 
> That's intelligence.  You may be willing to risk your life in the chance you're right, that's not courage, that's stupidity.
> 
> It's really easy to Monday morning QB something like this.  It's damn hard to kill someone, for most of us it takes a lot more courage to live with that burden.
> 
> And as far as necessary in many cases, if my kids have to pull a weapon..it's necessary to make sure that threat is dead.  It's generally harder to kill someone than one shotting them.
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I certainly agree that we want to keep our kids safe. All normal parents feel that way. So, if your kid or my kid has to "_make sure that threat is dead_" to survive, so be it.
> 
> However, what if your kid is considered a "threat" just by holding a gun, and is killed by a policeman that has your strict viewpoint (perceives a "threat") ... Will you be ok with that?
> 
> All i'm saying is that some *threat* assessment by professionals (police,etc) is valuable to save innocent  lives. After all, they are employed to protect citizens.
> Citizen gun toters should be screened for competency too.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, I will be ok with that.  If a threat assessment has been performed BY said professional, then they are the person, and only they who are the correct person to decide what is the level of threat and how they should respond to it..
> 
> My kids have been trained how to react, so I don't worry about what will happen in such an instance.  If something did, that would be my fault, for not training them better, and I'd have to live with it.
> 
> I, unlike you it seems am willing to live with the occasional accident, while trying to minimize them, am not willing to demonize what are for the most part good men and women doing a thankless job.  Without them, where would you be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> A note/clarification from me ...
> I do NOT demonize the difficult "thankless" jobs that are *competently* performed by 95% of the police & other safety officers.
> My concern is with the few incompetent or mentally unstable officers who are getting the negative press and forcing policy changes that should be common sense.
> 
> From what i observed in that Cleveland shooting of the 12-yr-old boy (Tamir Rice), the policeman's action AND his department's subsequent support was reprehensible.
> 
> In a San Francisco shooting of a knife-wielding young man under mental duress (Mario Woods), the logical outrage by the civilian community & illogical explanation by the police chief eventually prompted a change in that department's "*use-of-force policy*", which is a step toward a rational *balance* in protecting civilians as well as the officers who voluntarily accept their highly paid dangerous public job.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the case where the boy pointed a gun at an officer?  Turns out it was a toy gun, but have you actually bothered to look at it?  Amazingly realistic looking toy, which the officer would have no way to know.  Threat....put down threat.
> 
> Knife...threat.  Put down the threat.
> 
> Stupidity has it's own price.  Sometimes the price is death, as it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Gee, you seem to be a cold-hearted bastard. You have no problem killing a 12 yr-old boy for his innocent "stupidity"? What about your stupidity?
> Are you willing to consider facts & interpret them (threat assessment), or simply act emotionally without applying intelligence to objectivity?
> 
> Did you bother to look beyond the boy-club excuses of the Cleveland police department? Obviously not. The boy did *not*_ "pointed a gun at an officer"_.
> Here are some inconsistencies in the police account:
> . 1) Police said that Rice was seated at a table with other people. The video showed that Rice was alone.
> .  2) Police said that as they pulled up, they saw Rice grab the pellet gun and put it in his waistband. This is not supported by the video. Judge Adrine said the video does not show the pellet gun in Rice's hands in the moments immediately before as the zone car approaches.
> .  3) Police said that Rice then reached into his waistband and pulled out the pellet gun, and was then shot and killed by Officer Timothy Loehmann. The video shows that *Rice did not pull out the pellet gun*. In the video, Rice is using both hands to hold his shirt up and expose the pellet gun to view just before he falls to the ground.
> .  4) Police described the pellet gun as looking real and later explained that the neon tip of the pellet gun was missing. However the *police never saw Rice brandish or point the pistol at them* to determine if the orange cap was actually missing or not.
> .
Click to expand...


A 12 year old can kill someone as easily as anyone else.  Threat...put down the threat.  If that makes me a cold-hearted bastard, wouldn't be the worst thing I've ever been called.  One thing they call me though...consistent.

A 12 year old acted stupidly, and got killed for it.  The person you should blame for it should be his parents, of course that's assuming he's not from a single mother home, like the vast majority of the black population these days.  It's pretty easy to monday morning QB this stuff, especially in slow motion.  The officer in question doesn't get that luxury, he's got to do it fast, and he's got to be aware of his surroundings at the same time.

I've seen some blatant violations of justice by officers who made poor decisions.  Based on the situation and the information they had, I wouldn't call this a bad decision.


----------



## PK1

9aces said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 9aces said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> I certainly agree that we want to keep our kids safe. All normal parents feel that way. So, if your kid or my kid has to "_make sure that threat is dead_" to survive, so be it.
> 
> However, what if your kid is considered a "threat" just by holding a gun, and is killed by a policeman that has your strict viewpoint (perceives a "threat") ... Will you be ok with that?
> 
> All i'm saying is that some *threat* assessment by professionals (police,etc) is valuable to save innocent  lives. After all, they are employed to protect citizens.
> Citizen gun toters should be screened for competency too.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I will be ok with that.  If a threat assessment has been performed BY said professional, then they are the person, and only they who are the correct person to decide what is the level of threat and how they should respond to it..
> 
> My kids have been trained how to react, so I don't worry about what will happen in such an instance.  If something did, that would be my fault, for not training them better, and I'd have to live with it.
> 
> I, unlike you it seems am willing to live with the occasional accident, while trying to minimize them, am not willing to demonize what are for the most part good men and women doing a thankless job.  Without them, where would you be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> A note/clarification from me ...
> I do NOT demonize the difficult "thankless" jobs that are *competently* performed by 95% of the police & other safety officers.
> My concern is with the few incompetent or mentally unstable officers who are getting the negative press and forcing policy changes that should be common sense.
> 
> From what i observed in that Cleveland shooting of the 12-yr-old boy (Tamir Rice), the policeman's action AND his department's subsequent support was reprehensible.
> 
> In a San Francisco shooting of a knife-wielding young man under mental duress (Mario Woods), the logical outrage by the civilian community & illogical explanation by the police chief eventually prompted a change in that department's "*use-of-force policy*", which is a step toward a rational *balance* in protecting civilians as well as the officers who voluntarily accept their highly paid dangerous public job.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean the case where the boy pointed a gun at an officer?  Turns out it was a toy gun, but have you actually bothered to look at it?  Amazingly realistic looking toy, which the officer would have no way to know.  Threat....put down threat.
> 
> Knife...threat.  Put down the threat.
> 
> Stupidity has it's own price.  Sometimes the price is death, as it should be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Gee, you seem to be a cold-hearted bastard. You have no problem killing a 12 yr-old boy for his innocent "stupidity"? What about your stupidity?
> Are you willing to consider facts & interpret them (threat assessment), or simply act emotionally without applying intelligence to objectivity?
> 
> Did you bother to look beyond the boy-club excuses of the Cleveland police department? Obviously not. The boy did *not*_ "pointed a gun at an officer"_.
> Here are some inconsistencies in the police account:
> . 1) Police said that Rice was seated at a table with other people. The video showed that Rice was alone.
> .  2) Police said that as they pulled up, they saw Rice grab the pellet gun and put it in his waistband. This is not supported by the video. Judge Adrine said the video does not show the pellet gun in Rice's hands in the moments immediately before as the zone car approaches.
> .  3) Police said that Rice then reached into his waistband and pulled out the pellet gun, and was then shot and killed by Officer Timothy Loehmann. The video shows that *Rice did not pull out the pellet gun*. In the video, Rice is using both hands to hold his shirt up and expose the pellet gun to view just before he falls to the ground.
> .  4) Police described the pellet gun as looking real and later explained that the neon tip of the pellet gun was missing. However the *police never saw Rice brandish or point the pistol at them* to determine if the orange cap was actually missing or not.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A 12 year old can kill someone as easily as anyone else.  Threat...put down the threat.  If that makes me a cold-hearted bastard, wouldn't be the worst thing I've ever been called.  One thing they call me though...consistent.
> 
> A 12 year old acted stupidly, and got killed for it.  The person you should blame for it should be his parents, of course that's assuming he's not from a single mother home, like the vast majority of the black population these days.  It's pretty easy to monday morning QB this stuff, especially in slow motion.  The officer in question doesn't get that luxury, he's got to do it fast, and he's got to be aware of his surroundings at the same time.
> 
> I've seen some blatant violations of justice by officers who made poor decisions.  Based on the situation and the information they had, I wouldn't call this a bad decision.
Click to expand...

---
Yes, you are consistent, even in the face of evidence which contradicts your premature/immature assumptions.
Please explain your logic for *why it was the 12-yr-olds fault for getting killed *when he was playing with a toy gun prior to police arrival, and had the toy in his waistband when the police car drove up to him and shot him twice within 2 seconds, and during those 2 seconds the toy remained in his waistband*?*

And *how was it his parent's fault *... when they did not know their son had the toy gun, which was given to the boy earlier that day by a friend*?*
.


----------



## ipaps

anotherlife said:


> We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead.  This is true in business, as well as politics/war.  So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill?  Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing?  And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?



I think there're rules that people come to agree that's best for all. Being killed is the single biggest threat in life everyone must defend from, no work around. We cannot live a productive life worrying about our lives all day, so I think that rule is sound.

But not everyone obeys common rules, some people create their own rules. I think self defense is a good cause to kill because the lives of those being attacked are important too. I don't think I would defend the life of those who break the rule of not to kill.

I don't understand the government part. The government are not really allowed to kill at will, do they? A Totalitarian government doesn't really obey thou shalt not kill principle, It defend itself by it's my sovereignty no one should intervene argument. When a country is attacked by totalitarian government, of course it can fight back. When a totalitarian government is killing it's own people, it's people can fight back.

When it comes to intervening the killing of it's people by a totalitarian government, I'm not really sure what's the right thing to do.


----------



## PK1

ipaps said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead.  This is true in business, as well as politics/war.  So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill?  Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing?  And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?
> 
> 
> 
> ... I think self defense is a good cause to kill because the lives of those being attacked are important too. I don't think I would defend the life of those who break the rule of not to kill.
> ...
> When it comes to intervening the killing of it's people by a totalitarian government, I'm not really sure what's the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

---
Sometimes killing is practical & "moral". For example, i would applaud the "removal" of Ramzan Kadyrov (aka Рамза́н Кады́ров), the head of the Chechen Republic since 2007.
Since Putin put Kadyrov into power and continues to support him, neutralizing Putin (removing him from power) would be beneficial to humanity too.

I am for the death penalty, if it's fair & saves lives.
That is ethical, in my mind.
.


----------



## PK1

PK1 said:


> ipaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead.  This is true in business, as well as politics/war.  So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill?  Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing?  And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?
> 
> 
> 
> ... I think self defense is a good cause to kill because the lives of those being attacked are important too. I don't think I would defend the life of those who break the rule of not to kill.
> ...
> When it comes to intervening the killing of it's people by a totalitarian government, I'm not really sure what's the right thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Sometimes killing is practical & "moral". For example, i would applaud the "removal" of Ramzan Kadyrov (aka Рамза́н Кады́ров), the head of the Chechen Republic since 2007.
> Since Putin put Kadyrov into power and continues to support him, neutralizing Putin would be beneficial to humanity too.
> 
> I am for the death penalty, if it's fair & saves lives.
> That is ethical, in my mind.
> .
Click to expand...

---
BTW, i don't take killing lightly.
For most of you not familiar with Kadyrov ...

He has been personally implicated in several instances of torture and murder. A number of Chechens opposed to Kadyrov have been assassinated abroad, and several witnesses report the existence of a 300-name "Murder List".

Also, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe has my contempt, but he's 91 now & hopefully will pass soon.
.


----------



## PK1

PK1 said:


> ipaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead.  This is true in business, as well as politics/war.  So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill?  Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing?  And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?
> 
> 
> 
> ... I think self defense is a good cause to kill because the lives of those being attacked are important too. I don't think I would defend the life of those who break the rule of not to kill.
> ...
> When it comes to intervening the killing of it's people by a totalitarian government, I'm not really sure what's the right thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Sometimes killing is practical & "moral". For example, i would applaud the "removal" of Ramzan Kadyrov (aka Рамза́н Кады́ров), the head of the Chechen Republic since 2007.
> Since Putin put Kadyrov into power and continues to support him, neutralizing Putin (removing him from power) would be beneficial to humanity too.
> 
> I am for the death penalty, if it's fair & saves lives.
> That is ethical, in my mind.
> .
Click to expand...

---
BTW, i want to make clear that i do *not* advocate anyone's killing (capital punishment) until *convicted* in a court of law with a fair trial. This includes Kadyrov, as well as Putin.
.


----------



## anotherlife

PK1 said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ipaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead.  This is true in business, as well as politics/war.  So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill?  Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing?  And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?
> 
> 
> 
> ... I think self defense is a good cause to kill because the lives of those being attacked are important too. I don't think I would defend the life of those who break the rule of not to kill.
> ...
> When it comes to intervening the killing of it's people by a totalitarian government, I'm not really sure what's the right thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Sometimes killing is practical & "moral". For example, i would applaud the "removal" of Ramzan Kadyrov (aka Рамза́н Кады́ров), the head of the Chechen Republic since 2007.
> Since Putin put Kadyrov into power and continues to support him, neutralizing Putin (removing him from power) would be beneficial to humanity too.
> 
> I am for the death penalty, if it's fair & saves lives.
> That is ethical, in my mind.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> BTW, i want to make clear that i do *not* advocate anyone's killing (capital punishment) until *convicted* in a court of law with a fair trial. This includes Kadyrov, as well as Putin.
> .
Click to expand...

This is a problem, because courts of law work for whoever pays them.  For example, nobody from the ww2 entente alliance went to court for genocide, not even the Serbian communist Chetniks who ran their ethnic cleansing campaign in voivodina in 1946, in the same time as nazis were standing trial for the same in Nuremberg.  But 50 years later, the same Serbian government party, no longer with the entente, was convicted for Kosovo in The Hague tribunal.


----------



## PK1

anotherlife said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ipaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead.  This is true in business, as well as politics/war.  So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill?  Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing?  And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?
> 
> 
> 
> ... I think self defense is a good cause to kill because the lives of those being attacked are important too. I don't think I would defend the life of those who break the rule of not to kill.
> ...
> When it comes to intervening the killing of it's people by a totalitarian government, I'm not really sure what's the right thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Sometimes killing is practical & "moral". For example, i would applaud the "removal" of Ramzan Kadyrov (aka Рамза́н Кады́ров), the head of the Chechen Republic since 2007.
> Since Putin put Kadyrov into power and continues to support him, neutralizing Putin (removing him from power) would be beneficial to humanity too.
> 
> I am for the death penalty, if it's fair & saves lives.
> That is ethical, in my mind.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> BTW, i want to make clear that i do *not* advocate anyone's killing (capital punishment) until *convicted* in a court of law with a fair trial. This includes Kadyrov, as well as Putin.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a problem, because courts of law work for whoever pays them.  For example, nobody from the ww2 entente alliance went to court for genocide, not even the Serbian communist Chetniks who ran their ethnic cleansing campaign in voivodina in 1946, in the same time as nazis were standing trial for the same in Nuremberg.  But 50 years later, the same Serbian government party, no longer with the entente, was convicted for Kosovo in The Hague tribunal.
Click to expand...

---
Yes, a big problem i agree.
Law, gov leaders, rich businessmen, time/resources, justice, ethics all play on separate sides of the same cube.
Getting a *fair trial* may not be easy in corrupt countries like Putin's Russia and esp underdeveloped countries.  I'm more confident about fairness in EU countries & USA (& Australia, NZ, etc ).

What is worse ethically?
Convicting an innocent person to death or not giving justice to a murderer?
.


----------



## anotherlife

PK1 said:


> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ipaps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> anotherlife said:
> 
> 
> 
> We know that every competition in life is undecided, until all but the last contestant are dead.  This is true in business, as well as politics/war.  So, why do we carry this imposition that thou shalt not kill?  Is it because governments are very cleverly reserving the right to be the last guy standing?  And if so, then have we already accepted the fact of totalitarian government that is omnipotent and all controlling, by signing up to the thou shalt not kill principle?
> 
> 
> 
> ... I think self defense is a good cause to kill because the lives of those being attacked are important too. I don't think I would defend the life of those who break the rule of not to kill.
> ...
> When it comes to intervening the killing of it's people by a totalitarian government, I'm not really sure what's the right thing to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Sometimes killing is practical & "moral". For example, i would applaud the "removal" of Ramzan Kadyrov (aka Рамза́н Кады́ров), the head of the Chechen Republic since 2007.
> Since Putin put Kadyrov into power and continues to support him, neutralizing Putin (removing him from power) would be beneficial to humanity too.
> 
> I am for the death penalty, if it's fair & saves lives.
> That is ethical, in my mind.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> BTW, i want to make clear that i do *not* advocate anyone's killing (capital punishment) until *convicted* in a court of law with a fair trial. This includes Kadyrov, as well as Putin.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a problem, because courts of law work for whoever pays them.  For example, nobody from the ww2 entente alliance went to court for genocide, not even the Serbian communist Chetniks who ran their ethnic cleansing campaign in voivodina in 1946, in the same time as nazis were standing trial for the same in Nuremberg.  But 50 years later, the same Serbian government party, no longer with the entente, was convicted for Kosovo in The Hague tribunal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ---
> Yes, a big problem i agree.
> Law, gov leaders, rich businessmen, time/resources, justice, ethics all play on separate sides of the same cube.
> Getting a *fair trial* may not be easy in corrupt countries like Putin's Russia and esp underdeveloped countries.  I'm more confident about fairness in EU countries & USA (& Australia, NZ, etc ).
> 
> What is worse ethically?
> Convicting an innocent person to death or not giving justice to a murderer?
> .
Click to expand...

I think history records, that every democratic society has its roots in genocide.  Even the first declared democracy, Athens, is known to have started with deporting and selling those residents that had no verifiable connection to an active political group.  
The current European Union governance organizational structures too are formally set up such, that the bigger member nations have more power, and is advertised as such.  A well engineered genocide like those in recent East Europe are made a taboo in the Western European Union, probably for the very purpose of keeping this national imbalance.  The cleansing out of Ukrainians from Krimea and Donetsk is a EU exercise to test what kind of genocide can be engineered in the 21st century.  I think it is an interesting question why most 20th and 21st century genocides can be traced back to the French government.


----------

