Body of Missing Maryland Girl Found Near State Border

[Samson]

Samson, don't read stuff into my posts that isn't there. I was quite clear... beating the crap out of someone before executing them is neither necessary nor desirable. It is the 'justice system', not the 'vengence system'. We, as a society, should be better than those who hurt children. What earthly purpose does it serve society to beat the person first? That is an emotional response and the system should not about emotion - it should be about justice. What message do we send the nation's young people if we resort to beating the crap out of someone BEFORE we execute them? It's ridiculous.

So, If vigilantes don't beat anyone before they execute them, would that be OK?

Would you please answer the other question (it wasn't rehtorical):

I'm curious as to know how "low society" needs to get before you would condone the behaviour of vigilantes? Seriously: If you can tolerate a Society that allows Convicted Sex Offenders the freedom to Kill, then WHAT level of "society" is so low as to justify vigilanteism? If Convicts begin to chase people down in the streets in broad daylight and begin eating their brains, then would you be OK with vigilanteism?

I REALLY AM curious.

 

[chanel]

That sounds more like a case for the zombie patrol. Or Chuck Norris.

 

[Samson]

That sounds more like a case for the zombie patrol. Or Chuck Norris.

Well, my guess is that if Brain Eating Convicts began to Attack California, CG would discourage Chuck Norris from defending her on the grounds that he might be uncivilized and socially inappropriate.

 

[bodecea]

That sounds more like a case for the zombie patrol. Or Chuck Norris.

Well, my guess is that if Brain Eating Convicts began to Attack California, CG would discourage Chuck Norris from defending her on the grounds that he might be uncivilized and socially inappropriate.

Of course...that is the ONLY alternative besides what you suggested?

I'm with CG here. We are in the Justice business, not the barbarian revenge business.

 

[Samson]

That sounds more like a case for the zombie patrol. Or Chuck Norris.

Well, my guess is that if Brain Eating Convicts began to Attack California, CG would discourage Chuck Norris from defending her on the grounds that he might be uncivilized and socially inappropriate.

Of course...that is the ONLY alternative besides what you suggested?

I'm with CG here. We are in the Justice business, not the barbarian revenge business.

Well?

I'm asking the question: Is there ANY scenario under which you think vigilanteism is justified?

Why cannot any of you bleeding hearts answer this?

Well, I'll tell you why: because you don't want to admit that there ARE situations that call for it.

 

[California Girl]

That sounds more like a case for the zombie patrol. Or Chuck Norris.

Well, my guess is that if Brain Eating Convicts began to Attack California, CG would discourage Chuck Norris from defending her on the grounds that he might be uncivilized and socially inappropriate.

Of course...that is the ONLY alternative besides what you suggested?

I'm with CG here. We are in the Justice business, not the barbarian revenge business.

Dammit, bode! If you agree with me, then I'm gonna have to change my mind!

 

[California Girl]

Samson, don't read stuff into my posts that isn't there. I was quite clear... beating the crap out of someone before executing them is neither necessary nor desirable. It is the 'justice system', not the 'vengence system'. We, as a society, should be better than those who hurt children. What earthly purpose does it serve society to beat the person first? That is an emotional response and the system should not about emotion - it should be about justice. What message do we send the nation's young people if we resort to beating the crap out of someone BEFORE we execute them? It's ridiculous.

So, If vigilantes don't beat anyone before they execute them, would that be OK?

Would you please answer the other question (it wasn't rehtorical):

I'm curious as to know how "low society" needs to get before you would condone the behaviour of vigilantes? Seriously: If you can tolerate a Society that allows Convicted Sex Offenders the freedom to Kill, then WHAT level of "society" is so low as to justify vigilanteism? If Convicts begin to chase people down in the streets in broad daylight and begin eating their brains, then would you be OK with vigilanteism?

I REALLY AM curious.

So you see no difference between someone stepping in to help someone else - such as some attack on a train station where another person might help the person being attacked... and people beating the crap out of a convicted pedophile prior to that pedophile being executed? No wonder you don't get my point.

I have no problem with the death penalty. I have a problem with people who what to tell children that beating the crap out of someone is acceptable. It is not.

 

[California Girl]

Samson, don't read stuff into my posts that isn't there. I was quite clear... beating the crap out of someone before executing them is neither necessary nor desirable. It is the 'justice system', not the 'vengence system'. We, as a society, should be better than those who hurt children. What earthly purpose does it serve society to beat the person first? That is an emotional response and the system should not about emotion - it should be about justice. What message do we send the nation's young people if we resort to beating the crap out of someone BEFORE we execute them? It's ridiculous.

So, If vigilantes don't beat anyone before they execute them, would that be OK?

Would you please answer the other question (it wasn't rehtorical):

I'm curious as to know how "low society" needs to get before you would condone the behaviour of vigilantes? Seriously: If you can tolerate a Society that allows Convicted Sex Offenders the freedom to Kill, then WHAT level of "society" is so low as to justify vigilanteism? If Convicts begin to chase people down in the streets in broad daylight and begin eating their brains, then would you be OK with vigilanteism?

I REALLY AM curious.

So you see no difference between someone stepping in to help someone else - such as some attack on a train station where another person might help the person being attacked... and people beating the crap out of a convicted pedophile prior to that pedophile being executed? No wonder you don't get my point.

I have no problem with the death penalty. I have a problem with people who what to tell children that beating the crap out of someone is acceptable. It is not.

 

[Samson]

Samson, don't read stuff into my posts that isn't there. I was quite clear... beating the crap out of someone before executing them is neither necessary nor desirable. It is the 'justice system', not the 'vengence system'. We, as a society, should be better than those who hurt children. What earthly purpose does it serve society to beat the person first? That is an emotional response and the system should not about emotion - it should be about justice. What message do we send the nation's young people if we resort to beating the crap out of someone BEFORE we execute them? It's ridiculous.

So, If vigilantes don't beat anyone before they execute them, would that be OK?

Would you please answer the other question (it wasn't rehtorical):

I'm curious as to know how "low society" needs to get before you would condone the behaviour of vigilantes? Seriously: If you can tolerate a Society that allows Convicted Sex Offenders the freedom to Kill, then WHAT level of "society" is so low as to justify vigilanteism? If Convicts begin to chase people down in the streets in broad daylight and begin eating their brains, then would you be OK with vigilanteism?

I REALLY AM curious.

So you see no difference between someone stepping in to help someone else - such as some attack on a train station where another person might help the person being attacked... and people beating the crap out of a convicted pedophile prior to that pedophile being executed? No wonder you don't get my point.

I have no problem with the death penalty. I have a problem with people who what to tell children that beating the crap out of someone is acceptable. It is not.

OK, I'll try ONE More Time, before I disengage myself in a huff, and assume that you are being Purposefully Evasive in a way only Hawt Wimmin can Perfect:

I'm curious as to know how "low society" needs to get before you would condone the behaviour of vigilantes? Seriously: If you can tolerate a Society that allows Convicted Sex Offenders the freedom to Kill, then WHAT level of "society" is so low as to justify vigilanteism? If Convicts begin to chase people down in the streets in broad daylight and begin eating their brains, then would you be OK with vigilanteism?

 

[California Girl]

So, If vigilantes don't beat anyone before they execute them, would that be OK?

Would you please answer the other question (it wasn't rehtorical):



I REALLY AM curious.

So you see no difference between someone stepping in to help someone else - such as some attack on a train station where another person might help the person being attacked... and people beating the crap out of a convicted pedophile prior to that pedophile being executed? No wonder you don't get my point.

I have no problem with the death penalty. I have a problem with people who what to tell children that beating the crap out of someone is acceptable. It is not.

OK, I'll try ONE More Time, before I disengage myself in a huff, and assume that you are being Purposefully Evasive in a way only Hawt Wimmin can Perfect:

I'm curious as to know how "low society" needs to get before you would condone the behaviour of vigilantes? Seriously: If you can tolerate a Society that allows Convicted Sex Offenders the freedom to Kill, then WHAT level of "society" is so low as to justify vigilanteism? If Convicts begin to chase people down in the streets in broad daylight and begin eating their brains, then would you be OK with vigilanteism?

What I am talking about is not vigilantes. Certain posters on here said they would beat the perp before executing him. That is not acceptable to me. Is it to you?

And stop with the 'bleeding heart' shit, just because I disagree with a condemned prisoner being beaten before he's executed does not make me a 'bleeding heart', it makes me a decent human being who prefers for society to be civilized and not behave like thugs. Your stupidity button must have been accidentally turned on if you think I am fine with convicts running around killing people and people should not fight back. If that's what you read into my posts then FUCKING WELL LEARN TO READ.

 

[Samson]

So you see no difference between someone stepping in to help someone else - such as some attack on a train station where another person might help the person being attacked... and people beating the crap out of a convicted pedophile prior to that pedophile being executed? No wonder you don't get my point.

I have no problem with the death penalty. I have a problem with people who what to tell children that beating the crap out of someone is acceptable. It is not.

OK, I'll try ONE More Time, before I disengage myself in a huff, and assume that you are being Purposefully Evasive in a way only Hawt Wimmin can Perfect:

I'm curious as to know how "low society" needs to get before you would condone the behaviour of vigilantes? Seriously: If you can tolerate a Society that allows Convicted Sex Offenders the freedom to Kill, then WHAT level of "society" is so low as to justify vigilanteism? If Convicts begin to chase people down in the streets in broad daylight and begin eating their brains, then would you be OK with vigilanteism?

What I am talking about is not vigilantes. Certain posters on here said they would beat the perp before executing him. That is not acceptable to me. Is it to you?

And stop with the 'bleeding heart' shit, just because I disagree with a condemned prisoner being beaten before he's executed does not make me a 'bleeding heart', it makes me a decent human being who prefers for society to be civilized and not behave like thugs. Your stupidity button must have been accidentally turned on if you think I am fine with convicts running around killing people and people should not fight back. If that's what you read into my posts then FUCKING WELL LEARN TO READ.

Finally, a half-assed response to my simple question:

Q: Seriously: If you can tolerate a Society that allows Convicted Sex Offenders the freedom to Kill, then WHAT level of "society" is so low as to justify vigilanteism?

A: What I am talking about is not vigilantes.


Why don't you just respond with something a tad less nonsensical like "It depends on the definition of "is?"

 

[California Girl]

OK, I'll try ONE More Time, before I disengage myself in a huff, and assume that you are being Purposefully Evasive in a way only Hawt Wimmin can Perfect:

I'm curious as to know how "low society" needs to get before you would condone the behaviour of vigilantes? Seriously: If you can tolerate a Society that allows Convicted Sex Offenders the freedom to Kill, then WHAT level of "society" is so low as to justify vigilanteism? If Convicts begin to chase people down in the streets in broad daylight and begin eating their brains, then would you be OK with vigilanteism?

What I am talking about is not vigilantes. Certain posters on here said they would beat the perp before executing him. That is not acceptable to me. Is it to you?

And stop with the 'bleeding heart' shit, just because I disagree with a condemned prisoner being beaten before he's executed does not make me a 'bleeding heart', it makes me a decent human being who prefers for society to be civilized and not behave like thugs. Your stupidity button must have been accidentally turned on if you think I am fine with convicts running around killing people and people should not fight back. If that's what you read into my posts then FUCKING WELL LEARN TO READ.

Finally, a half-assed response to my simple question:

Q: Seriously: If you can tolerate a Society that allows Convicted Sex Offenders the freedom to Kill, then WHAT level of "society" is so low as to justify vigilanteism?

A: What I am talking about is not vigilantes.


Why don't you just respond with something a tad less nonsensical like "It depends on the definition of "is?"

Why is it that you cannot understand quite simple English? A convicted sex offender - on death row - should not be tortured as some espouse. He should be executed. Simple.

You do know that 'Convicted Sex Offenders' can include a 22 year old having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend, don't you? Now, while I think that behavior is not appropriate, it most certainly does not make him a valid target for anyone who thinks it's ok to kill a 'Sex Offender'.

Your stupid scenario about sex offenders running around killing people is just laughable so forgive me if I don't take it seriously enough to respond to.

You seem to want to put words into my mouth that don't belong to me. I resent that.

 

[Samson]

What I am talking about is not vigilantes. Certain posters on here said they would beat the perp before executing him. That is not acceptable to me. Is it to you?

And stop with the 'bleeding heart' shit, just because I disagree with a condemned prisoner being beaten before he's executed does not make me a 'bleeding heart', it makes me a decent human being who prefers for society to be civilized and not behave like thugs. Your stupidity button must have been accidentally turned on if you think I am fine with convicts running around killing people and people should not fight back. If that's what you read into my posts then FUCKING WELL LEARN TO READ.

Finally, a half-assed response to my simple question:

Q: Seriously: If you can tolerate a Society that allows Convicted Sex Offenders the freedom to Kill, then WHAT level of "society" is so low as to justify vigilanteism?

A: What I am talking about is not vigilantes.


Why don't you just respond with something a tad less nonsensical like "It depends on the definition of "is?"

Why is it that you cannot understand quite simple English? A convicted sex offender - on death row - should not be tortured as some espouse. He should be executed. Simple.

You do know that 'Convicted Sex Offenders' can include a 22 year old having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend, don't you? Now, while I think that behavior is not appropriate, it most certainly does not make him a valid target for anyone who thinks it's ok to kill a 'Sex Offender'.

Your stupid scenario about sex offenders running around killing people is just laughable so forgive me if I don't take it seriously enough to respond to.

You seem to want to put words into my mouth that don't belong to me. I resent that.

Yes, my Evul Plan is to Rule The World by Putting Words in the Mouth of California Girl!!!

Nothing in this thread has EVER mentioned a Convicted Killer on Death Row.

For christssakes, pay the fuck attention, you Hard-Headed Shrew!: The thread is about a Convicted Pediophile, that was FREE, and killed an 11 yo girl.

My contention is that the State did Nothing to Protect Society.

My solution is that INDIVIDUALS need to protect themselves when the State is not effective. This is called VIGILANTEISM or Culture of Honor.

One can contrast cultures of honour with cultures of law. In a culture of law there is a body of laws which must be obeyed by all, with punishments for transgressors. This requires a society with the structures required to enact and enforce laws. A culture of law incorporates an unwritten social contract: members of society agree to give up most of their rights to defend themselves and retaliate for injuries, on the understanding that transgressors will be apprehended and punished by society.

 

[California Girl]

Finally, a half-assed response to my simple question:

Q: Seriously: If you can tolerate a Society that allows Convicted Sex Offenders the freedom to Kill, then WHAT level of "society" is so low as to justify vigilanteism?

A: What I am talking about is not vigilantes.


Why don't you just respond with something a tad less nonsensical like "It depends on the definition of "is?"

Why is it that you cannot understand quite simple English? A convicted sex offender - on death row - should not be tortured as some espouse. He should be executed. Simple.

You do know that 'Convicted Sex Offenders' can include a 22 year old having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend, don't you? Now, while I think that behavior is not appropriate, it most certainly does not make him a valid target for anyone who thinks it's ok to kill a 'Sex Offender'.

Your stupid scenario about sex offenders running around killing people is just laughable so forgive me if I don't take it seriously enough to respond to.

You seem to want to put words into my mouth that don't belong to me. I resent that.

Yes, my Evul Plan is to Rule The World by Putting Words in the Mouth of California Girl!!!

Nothing in this thread has EVER mentioned a Convicted Killer on Death Row.

For christssakes, pay the fuck attention, you Hard-Headed Shrew!: The thread is about a Convicted Pediophile, that was FREE, and killed an 11 yo girl.

My contention is that the State did Nothing to Protect Society.

My solution is that INDIVIDUALS need to protect themselves when the State is not effective. This is called VIGILANTEISM or Culture of Honor.

One can contrast cultures of honour with cultures of law. In a culture of law there is a body of laws which must be obeyed by all, with punishments for transgressors. This requires a society with the structures required to enact and enforce laws. A culture of law incorporates an unwritten social contract: members of society agree to give up most of their rights to defend themselves and retaliate for injuries, on the understanding that transgressors will be apprehended and punished by society.

Don't call me a hard headed shrew you fucking asshole. If you can't be civil then this conversation is over.

 

[Samson]

Why is it that you cannot understand quite simple English? A convicted sex offender - on death row - should not be tortured as some espouse. He should be executed. Simple.

You do know that 'Convicted Sex Offenders' can include a 22 year old having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend, don't you? Now, while I think that behavior is not appropriate, it most certainly does not make him a valid target for anyone who thinks it's ok to kill a 'Sex Offender'.

Your stupid scenario about sex offenders running around killing people is just laughable so forgive me if I don't take it seriously enough to respond to.

You seem to want to put words into my mouth that don't belong to me. I resent that.

Yes, my Evul Plan is to Rule The World by Putting Words in the Mouth of California Girl!!!

Nothing in this thread has EVER mentioned a Convicted Killer on Death Row.

For christssakes, pay the fuck attention, you Hard-Headed Shrew!: The thread is about a Convicted Pediophile, that was FREE, and killed an 11 yo girl.

My contention is that the State did Nothing to Protect Society.

My solution is that INDIVIDUALS need to protect themselves when the State is not effective. This is called VIGILANTEISM or Culture of Honor.

One can contrast cultures of honour with cultures of law. In a culture of law there is a body of laws which must be obeyed by all, with punishments for transgressors. This requires a society with the structures required to enact and enforce laws. A culture of law incorporates an unwritten social contract: members of society agree to give up most of their rights to defend themselves and retaliate for injuries, on the understanding that transgressors will be apprehended and punished by society.

Don't call me a hard headed shrew you fucking asshole. If you can't be civil then this conversation is over.

 

[judyd]

The Daily Times reported this morning that the body was badly burned when they found her. I assume he had dumped her in this deserted area, torched the body and probably expected it to be a pile of ashes that they would never find. We have had a lot of windy and wet weather down here and evidently his plan didn't work.

The aunt/guardian had apparently only dated him for about a month before he just stopped calling her. Unfortunately, in that month he did meet the children and did know that she kept an extra key under a pot on the front porch.

Again, single women, especially mothers/guardians, need to investigate men that they date. Unless you have known them for several years, and know their family and friends, it is always a risk, and you shouldn't let casual dates meet your children. Keep them away from your home. This type of tragedy is repeated so often by boyfriends, stepfathers, etc.--women need to smarten up.

 

[Claudette]

More tragedy, but highly predictable. The guy needs a single bullet to the head. Use a .22 short in the right spot to save money. The people who enabled this guy to commit this horrendous crime need to be brought to justice.

That's to quick and painless. Douchebags like this need to suffer long and hard before death.

Yea, let's behave like savages. That will achieve much for society.

I agree with xs, trial, verdict, execution - without the hysterics.

Couldnt' agree more. These dirtbags are not going to be rehabilitated so execute em.

I'm sure the ACLU would be right there to defend these assholes. After all. Whats the life of a little girl or boy in comparisson to the Civil Rights of a convicted pedophile????

 

[Emma]

That's to quick and painless. Douchebags like this need to suffer long and hard before death.

Yea, let's behave like savages. That will achieve much for society.

I agree with xs, trial, verdict, execution - without the hysterics.

Couldnt' agree more. These dirtbags are not going to be rehabilitated so execute em.

I'm sure the ACLU would be right there to defend these assholes. After all. Whats the life of a little girl or boy in comparisson to the Civil Rights of a convicted pedophile????

The ACLU doesn't do criminal defense...

 

[Samson]

Yea, let's behave like savages. That will achieve much for society.

I agree with xs, trial, verdict, execution - without the hysterics.

Couldnt' agree more. These dirtbags are not going to be rehabilitated so execute em.

I'm sure the ACLU would be right there to defend these assholes. After all. Whats the life of a little girl or boy in comparisson to the Civil Rights of a convicted pedophile????

The ACLU doesn't do criminal defense...

Oh PLEASE!

Could you be more obtuse? You know very well that we're not talking about the criminal defense, but the civil defense of pediophiles against what ALCU dick-headed lawyers feel is "cruel and unusual punishment."

 

[Emma]

Couldnt' agree more. These dirtbags are not going to be rehabilitated so execute em.

I'm sure the ACLU would be right there to defend these assholes. After all. Whats the life of a little girl or boy in comparisson to the Civil Rights of a convicted pedophile????

The ACLU doesn't do criminal defense...

Oh PLEASE!

Could you be more obtuse? You know very well that we're not talking about the criminal defense, but the civil defense of pediophiles against what ALCU dick-headed lawyers feel is "cruel and unusual punishment."

Only thing I've seen them address is regarding the sex registries.

So tell me how that applies to a charge of murder?