Carjacker shoots baby in face!

[Challenger78]

I'd say charge him with manslaughter. that and the carjacking crime. If we let ourselves be consumed by mob violence. Its not justice. Its barbarism.
Also, Yes, the baby's death was unfortunate, So were those of the mayan peoples, Aboriginies, Palestinians, Iraqis, and so on. If we truly cared for babies and not just used them as a propaganda tool, the western world wouldn't have done a lot of things.

 

[draqon]

thats the difference between you and I, i see ALL life as a recorce that can be harnessed. If you can cure his problems then he may well end up a productive member of sociaty. Hell he might even invent the next penicillin. While we treat crime the way we do we are doing the whole of sociaty a dis-service. I cant see my view prevailing in the forseeble future but i can help keep the death penelty out of Australia

it doesnt matter if he leaves a mark on this world. One death prevention is a step to death prevention of all.

 

[Syzygys]

If we let ourselves be consumed by mob violence. Its not justice. Its barbarism.

As I pointed out this one is an incredibly stupid argument. You and Bells obviously don't believe in equality.

I wonder what would you say if we dropped your salary by 70% from tomorrow? After all if there is no equal punishment for crime, why should be there equal pay for work???

 

[S.A.M.]

As I pointed out this one is an incredibly stupid argument. You and Bells obviously don't believe in equality.

I wonder what would you say if we dropped your salary by 70% from tomorrow? After all if there is no equal punishment for crime, why should be there equal pay for work???

People get laid off all the time, do they go on murdering sprees? Attack those who get more "equal" pay than they do?

There is no equal pay for work. Try living in a Third World country.

 

[madanthonywayne]

I'd say charge him with manslaughter. that and the carjacking crime. If we let ourselves be consumed by mob violence. Its not justice. Its barbarism.
Also, Yes, the baby's death was unfortunate, So were those of the mayan peoples, Aboriginies, Palestinians, Iraqis, and so on. If we truly cared for babies and not just used them as a propaganda tool, the western world wouldn't have done a lot of things.

That is the most ridiculous argument I've heard in my life! Because the Spaniards were mean to the Mayans (who were bloody handed savages themselves), now it's Ok to shoot babies in the face?

Shooting a baby in the face that you have just kidnapped as part of a carjacking involving shooting a woman in the stomach is most definately not "manslaughter", ITS MURDER.

Killing someone, even accidentlity, while in the act of commiting a felony, is murder. And this guy didn't shoot the baby by accident.

PS I've heard now that he shoot the baby twice. Once in the face, once in the pelvis.

 

[S.A.M.]

Babies die in Iraq and Afghanistan everyday. People support this by pretending that bombs falling on civilians can somehow deflect from babies.

20,000 children die of starvation everyday.

Whats so significant about this baby?

 

[Pandaemoni]

I wonder what would you say if we dropped your salary by 70% from tomorrow? After all if there is no equal punishment for crime, why should be there equal pay for work???

I don't think that analogy quite works. Equal pay for equal work implies that there should be equal punishments for equal crimes, not that criminals should get the same treatment they gave their victims (sometimes known as "an eye for an eye"). If all murderers under similar circumstances were given similarly equal sentences as punishment, that would satisfy the "equality" requirement even if they all got life in jail.

The closer analogy to criminals getting the same treatment they gave their victims would be...employees getting the same benefits they gave their customers while at work. So if you work at Burger King, and serve up fries all day, then someone should serve you fries. (?!) I suppose that's a species of equality too, but that analogy is not exactly a slam dunk in support of executing murderers.

In this case, as in many others, I think the big problem with the death penalty is that horrific facts do make people more motivated to kill those responsible, but it also makes them less picky about who they pin the blame on. Mistakes are made under the best of circumstances in administering the death penalty, and passion by its very nature clouds the mind, making those cases where it arises *not* the best of cases.

If there were a way to set aside human limitations and kill the perpetrator 100% for sure, I'd not have a problem with that. If there were a way to get the winning numbers for next week's lottery that cost me only $10, I'd pay the $10. Some things are just not possible.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Babies die in Iraq and Afghanistan everyday. People support this by pretending that bombs falling on civilians can somehow deflect from babies.

20,000 children die of starvation everyday.

Whats so significant about this baby?

Am I to understand that, so long as any baby anywhere has died for any reason, it's Ok to shoot other babies in the face? So long as any woman anywhere has been raped, it's Ok to rape any woman you come across? So long as anyone anywhere has been robbed, it's Ok to steal? Is that really your argument? Is that your idea of morality?

 

[S.A.M.]

Am I to understand that, so long as any baby anywhere has died for any reason, it's Ok to shoot other babies in the face? So long as any woman anywhere has been raped, it's Ok to rape any woman you come across? So long as anyone anywhere has been robbed, it's Ok to steal? Is that really your argument? Is that your idea of morality?

Let me put it this way. When you support a military that bombs civilians including babies EVERYDAY, your concern for one isolated baby somewhere seems rather hollow.

What makes this baby more significant than any other?

 

[Orleander]

the Mom was shot 5 times, the baby twice. She was carjacked and shot while putting the baby in the car. Maybe he unloaded the gun while shooting the woman, never meaning to hit the child.

 

[wsionynw]

Let me put it this way. When you support a military that bombs civilians including babies EVERYDAY, your concern for one isolated baby somewhere seems rather hollow.

What makes this baby more significant than any other?

SAM, I don't think it's about how significant this particular baby is/was compared to other babies...it's about the sort of person that would shoot a mother and child to steal a car.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Let me put it this way. When you support a military that bombs civilians including babies EVERYDAY, your concern for one isolated baby somewhere seems rather hollow.

What makes this baby more significant than any other?

Because..............

He was American!


Is that the answer you're looking for?


Well, that's not the reason. The reason is simple. Unlike you, I do not equate unintentional deaths that occur during a war with a man intentionally shooting an infant in the face.

Is there any issue you won't attempt to turn into a bash America fest?

 

[Asguard]

Mad you ducked my question

What would make YOU do something like this?
Anyone can answer

 

[spidergoat]

How do you know the carjacker also shot the baby? Anyway, in for a penny, in for a pound.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Mad you ducked my question

What would make YOU do something like this?
Anyone can answer

I didn't mean to duck your question, I thought it was rhetorical:

Mad think about this, what would make YOU do something like that?

if your answer is nothing then that proves my point. He must have a mental illness in which case he deserves treatment

My answer was nothing, so you asked and answered your own question.

 

[francois]

"Taking any life is terrible but to shoot a child makes it worse,"

The fact that it was a child makes it worse? I don't think so. The farther back in development a person is, the less important is his life. No scientifically minded person would cringe at the sight of a terminated zygote. The termination of a born baby would elicit outrage. Everywhere in between those two points, the level of outrage should be proportional to the development of the fetus. Why should the increasing outrage stop simply because the fetus has left the womb? People should cringe when children are killed because of their instinct to protect and prevent them from getting killed. Actually, however, their lives are less valuable than adults'.

 

[Tiassa]

Mod Hat - Comments on the state of the discussion

Mod Hat — Comments on the state of the discussion

Whats so significant about this baby?

A couple of general notes about this point:

• There are some commonsense issues that answer that question.

• Generally, I resent this particular approach to the discussion in the form you've expressed it. While the point is, at its heart, valid, it should not remain so isolated. How does this consideration relate to the larger context?​

Now, as to the first, there are any number of reasons for some people to focus on this one particular incident, and no less than three are stated in the topic starter's response to an inquiry about the purpose of the discussion.

Proximity, of course, is persuasive. As MAW explained, he is originally from this town. Secondly, proportion demands attention. We went through this years ago in Tacoma, Washington. We were aware of gang problems in Los Angeles. Police were aware of gang problems in Kansas City, as well. But the issue didn't really strike people as important until it was unavoidably in our faces. A girl named Brenda Harris was driving a blue Chevy Blazer in Tacoma, apparently waved to a friend, and was immediately shot to death by Bloods who saw a black girl doing something with her hand in a blue car. Over four hundred rounds struck the vehicle. And yes, the gang problem suddenly had our attention. Some time later, the point was underscored when a couple of local kids who entered the Army came home one weekend and, during a block party, ended up trading hundreds of rounds with one of the gangs. Amazingly, nobody was killed or injured. Even though people should have already been aware of the magnitude of the problem, these incidents—being, much as MAW noted of the Indiana crime, beyond the pale—made it clear that keeping our heads in the sand or shoved up our asses simply would not make the problem go away. Shooting a baby to death is a shocking escalation of extraneity compared to what we might otherwise, perhaps strangely, call "mundane" crime. Third, MAW intends to exploit the emotional appeal of such a case to reinforce the argument in favor of state-sanctioned homicide.

Now, then: if you intend to push the discussion in the direction of a comparative assessment, I would actually suggest a specific topic on the point, because it is a valid moral comparison, e.g., Does proximity warrant increased or even disproportionate attention? In other words, why are "our" kids more important than children abroad? There is also a question of what is the purpose of increased attention? If we only ever argue about abstract issues and never see any social result, why bother with all the fuss?

More relevant to the topic at hand, you might, perhaps, choose to undertake consideration of what capital punishment could possibly have to do with this incident. If it's just about trying to feel better about the world by saying someone should be killed, or actually killing them, well, there's a substantial question to be explored there. After all, Indiana has executed seventeen murderers since reinstating the death penalty in 1977, seen one commit suicide, one killed by fellow inmates, and two executed by other states. Indiana has issued death sentences 102 times since 1977. As of July, 2006, Indiana had seventeen people on death row. These facts did nothing to deter someone from shooting a woman five times and killing a baby in order to steal a car.

Perhaps you might have exploited the route taken by some of your fellow members, to question how and why a carjacking escalated to the murder of a baby. After all, there is a valid question of whether or not it is ethical to exploit such a case for a death-penalty argument instead of focusing on understanding what is wrong in Gary, Indiana. DEA statistics don't suggest a huge problem; Indiana ranks 29th nationally in the violent crime rate. What does such a perverse escalation suggest? Is this a ghastly effect of cocaine or methamphetamine abuse? Is it a deviation? Is there a specific mental health issue here? One could suggest that making a death-penalty argument out of this story overlooks issues of considerably greater importance while utterly failing to contribute anything useful to the general murmur rippling among the people. After all, we're almost assuredly not the only ones discussing it. Will our discussion actually be of any use, or is this just a psychological circle-jerk?

What I'm getting after is that there are a number of routes you might have chosen. Some of them would suggest independent topics that are, indeed, perfectly welcome in EM&J. Others are specifically relevant to the discussion at hand. I urge you to pick and follow one of those routes, because standing in the public square and preaching so abstractly simply isn't helping anything.

• • •​

Am I to understand that, so long as any baby anywhere has died for any reason, it's Ok to shoot other babies in the face? So long as any woman anywhere has been raped, it's Ok to rape any woman you come across? So long as anyone anywhere has been robbed, it's Ok to steal? Is that really your argument? Is that your idea of morality?

For your part, sir, you could have spent fewer words simply pointing back to your earlier response about the purpose of this topic. This particular answer to the inquiry, however, doesn't help. In fact, it only encourages the digression while wallowing in fallacy.

He was American!


Is that the answer you're looking for?


Well, that's not the reason. The reason is simple. Unlike you, I do not equate unintentional deaths that occur during a war with a man intentionally shooting an infant in the face.

Is there any issue you won't attempt to turn into a bash America fest?

Nor does this help the situation. You were able to leave Frud11's post to itself. Why bother with S.A.M.? There are plenty of assumptions I could make about your motivation. Maybe her ethnic heritage? She's not white, Christian, and conservative enough for you, so you're more willing to lash out at her than other people you don't know enough about to hate for such superficial reasons? Or maybe you're just sensitive to the point because you think it has some legitimacy, and you're trying to escape that discussion because you suffer some exposure in your presentation of the topic? My point being that whatever your actual reasons for acknowledging S.A.M.'s point, you're not actually doing anything to help the situation. Remember that for all people complain about digressions in topics, there are plenty of others willing to entertain those alleged digressions. So if you'd like this to be a knock-down, drag-out with S.A.M., I'm perfectly happy to lock down and redirect. And I won't hear any complaint about how evil S.A.M. caused another topic to be closed, because you are just as capable and equally welcome to treat her posts with the same disregard you showed Frud11.

• • •​

Everybody got it? And I do mean everybody.

Good.

There are plenty of useful facets about this discussion. Let's stick with them.

Thank you.

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM, I don't think it's about how significant this particular baby is/was compared to other babies...it's about the sort of person that would shoot a mother and child to steal a car.

Yes, but I wonder why it should be an issue for madant. Surely, as someone that does not believe in restricting access to weapons, providing healthcare (including mental healthcare) to the less fortunate if they don't (as he tells us he did) buck up and make their fortunes, as someone who accepts violence as a means to justify national aims whether it is war on terror or war on oil and the gas prices - surely for such a person, a man who considers a baby as collateral damages en route to his personal pursuit of happyness, such a death, as that of countless others, should be just a statistic. Is there any surprise that a carjacker in such a society does not value human life over personal gratification? Why would he expect otherwise?

Because..............
He was American!


Is that the answer you're looking for?


Well, that's not the reason. The reason is simple. Unlike you, I do not equate unintentional deaths that occur during a war with a man intentionally shooting an infant in the face.

He did not intend to shoot the baby either, he probably did not even know it was there. It was collateral damages while liberating the car.

 

[cosmictraveler]

People who think that punishment should be LESS than the crime are fucking morons...

Or very liberal thinking people. Liberals are always trying to oppose the death penalty in case some "innocent" person gets the chair inadvertently.

 

[Asguard]

maybe its more than that cosmic. That is a good reason to throw at the right wing nutjobs but the real reasons go ALOT further. Another simple reason is that the DP is banned under the international convention of civil and political rights.

The real reason is that it is wrong. Infact the whole "justice" system is wrong in MY opinon but not everyone would take it as far as i would. I would abolish the criminal justice system compleatly and pump all that money into social services and mental health. That is the way to REALLY abolish crime