Why Isn't This A Death Penalty?

[Luddly Neddite]

What is with the adds on this site? It's as if they are trying to set someone up when clicking on them or something to that affect... On this thread I am looking at an add right now at the bottom of the thread that says " Click here to view your arrest record now"...LOL.. I don't have no arrest record, and hope nobody else does either, but isn't it odd the type of adds that end up on these threads that are at or near the bottom ??? Ok back to the fun upon these boards... B )

Look at the thread/post content.

 

[earlycuyler]

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT SUCKER PUNCHES TEACHER KNOCKING HIM UNCONSCIOUS! - YouTube




1. "PITTSBURGH (AP) -- A teenager who sucker punched a schoolteacher in a downtown alley - an attack caught on surveillance video - apparently picked the victim at random, police and school officials said.

2. The attack happened last Thursday at about 3:30 p.m. The surveillance video, which Pittsburgh police used to make an arrest Tuesday,...

3. ....the 15-year-old suspect walking with several other youths past 50-year-old James Addlespurger.




4. Addlespurger, who teaches English at an arts high school, was walking in the other direction and did not appear to interact with the youths in any way.

5. The suspect suddenly approached Addlespurger and punched him in the head. The teacher fell hard onto a curb as the teen and the others continued walking.

6. ...there's something very terrifying about it," said Pittsburgh Councilman R. Daniel Lavelle, whose district includes downtown. "In the video it appears


he was laughing afterwards,


which is very disturbing."

7. ... taken to a juvenile detention center on a charge of simple assault but was not identified ...




8. City schools spokeswoman Ebony Pugh said the school system can't take any formal action against the suspect because the attack happened off school grounds and after the school day had ended.


9. The suspect attends a school for troubled youths ... there's no evidence the suspect, or his friends, knew Addlespurger or exchanged words with him."
News from The Associated Press




I see no reason for this thug to be allowed to walk the earth.

This country needs to introduce painful and humiliating punishments again. You take this little bastard and tie him to the flag pole and cane him I guarantee that shit will slow down pretty fast. Tie a drink driver to that same flag pole and give him 100 lashes I bet drunk driving stats go down. Cut off the thumbs of a first time rapist or child molester and I bet that go's down to. As it stands, this worm will try this on an armed citizen and get retroactively aborted for the good of mankind.

Are you a conservative or a liberal?

Free thinker. I dont need the herd to know what direction I am going.

 

[catzmeow]

OMG! You disagree with me???

Shocker.


But...as you bring up the age....why not add a physical description?
Could said thug be a six footer, upwards of 200 pounds....

And would that make him more of a threat?

So, big 15 year old boys are inherently dangerous? I'll let the boys on my son's wrestling team know. They'll probably be flattered.

 

[earlycuyler]

OMG! You disagree with me???

Shocker.


But...as you bring up the age....why not add a physical description?
Could said thug be a six footer, upwards of 200 pounds....

And would that make him more of a threat?

So, big 15 year old boys are inherently dangerous? I'll let the boys on my son's wrestling team know. They'll probably be flattered.

I remember watching a wrestling match in high school. It was a good one to, everyone was on the edge of their seats. Then one boy pulled the other boys shoulder out of its socket. It was one of the most horrible things i have ever seen.

 

[PoliticalChic]

OMG! You disagree with me???

Shocker.


But...as you bring up the age....why not add a physical description?
Could said thug be a six footer, upwards of 200 pounds....

And would that make him more of a threat?

So, big 15 year old boys are inherently dangerous? I'll let the boys on my son's wrestling team know. They'll probably be flattered.

As you've added "the boys on my son's wrestling team," you are suggesting that the behavior witnessed in the OP vid is the same that said "boys on my son's wrestling team" engage in?
No?
Then it really makes no sense to bring them up, does it.

Rather than using what is less than an amusing bon mot attempt....

....consider the actual suggestion that age may be less important in this connection than size.

Steven Hawking, attempting to behave as the thug did would not bring up the same question, would it.

 

[LAfrique]

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT SUCKER PUNCHES TEACHER KNOCKING HIM UNCONSCIOUS! - YouTube




1. "PITTSBURGH (AP) -- A teenager who sucker punched a schoolteacher in a downtown alley - an attack caught on surveillance video - apparently picked the victim at random, police and school officials said.

2. The attack happened last Thursday at about 3:30 p.m. The surveillance video, which Pittsburgh police used to make an arrest Tuesday,...

3. ....the 15-year-old suspect walking with several other youths past 50-year-old James Addlespurger.




4. Addlespurger, who teaches English at an arts high school, was walking in the other direction and did not appear to interact with the youths in any way.

5. The suspect suddenly approached Addlespurger and punched him in the head. The teacher fell hard onto a curb as the teen and the others continued walking.

6. ...there's something very terrifying about it," said Pittsburgh Councilman R. Daniel Lavelle, whose district includes downtown. "In the video it appears


he was laughing afterwards,


which is very disturbing."

7. ... taken to a juvenile detention center on a charge of simple assault but was not identified ...




8. City schools spokeswoman Ebony Pugh said the school system can't take any formal action against the suspect because the attack happened off school grounds and after the school day had ended.


9. The suspect attends a school for troubled youths ... there's no evidence the suspect, or his friends, knew Addlespurger or exchanged words with him."
News from The Associated Press




I see no reason for this thug to be allowed to walk the earth.

Did or has James Addlespurger died? The death penalty is reserved for murders or death the direct result of a crime. Please, we just do not go about killing people for something wrong that they did that annoys us.

You see, this is what bothers me about most republicans: Because you do not like someone or do not like something he/she did that was not the crime of murder, does not give you the right to wipe him/her off the face of Planet Earth -

I fail to understand how people purporting to be of godly ideas (and historically not!) are always so quick to condone or advocate murder. So strange.

Tying to make this a political statement as you just did against Republicans, negates your statement, attitude and worth in the discussion (imho)..

It is a political statement: Most republicans (ironically purporting to be godly), tend to have no mercy on people, and often for the most minute offense. But of course, republicans are known to be the first to justify the most heinous crimes by one of theirs. I have never figured why republicans never seem to understand that Holy texts (they allege to abide by) advocate applying same rules to all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Did or has James Addlespurger died? The death penalty is reserved for murders or death the direct result of a crime. Please, we just do not go about killing people for something wrong that they did that annoys us.

You see, this is what bothers me about most republicans: Because you do not like someone or do not like something he/she did that was not the crime of murder, does not give you the right to wipe him/her off the face of Planet Earth -

I fail to understand how people purporting to be of godly ideas (and historically not!) are always so quick to condone or advocate murder. So strange.

Tying to make this a political statement as you just did against Republicans, negates your statement, attitude and worth in the discussion (imho)..

It is a political statement: Most republicans (ironically purporting to be godly), tend to have no mercy on people, and often for the most minute offense. But of course, republicans are known to be the first to justify the most heinous crimes by one of theirs. I have never figured why republicans never seem to understand that Holy texts (they allege to abide by) advocate applying same rules to all.

What an absurdly false string of statements.

1. "Most republicans (ironically purporting to be godly), tend to have no mercy on people, ,..."
Within the context of this thread, you are saying 'no mercy' on those who randomly attack innocents and attempt to murder them.
On that basis, you come across as an imbecile.


2. "...often for the most minute offense."
In light of the video?
Imbecile.


3. " I have never figured why republicans never seem to understand that Holy texts (they allege to abide by) advocate applying same rules to all."
Evidence of your statement is sorely lacking


4. "...Holy texts (they allege to abide by)..."
This nation is not directed by said texts.
If it were, the following would be the law of the land:

Genesis 9:6 prescribed the death penalty for murder when it said that if a man “shed the blood” of another man, by man must his blood be shed. The only law repeated in all five of the books of the old testament. The death penalty is a value, values are eternal, as opposed to customs or traditions, such as stoning for adultery.

Exodus 21:12-14
Leviticus 24:17 and 21
Numbers 35:16-18 and Numbers 35:31
Deuteronomy 19:11-13



5. So, you see, you have been correct about exactly nothing.


In order to re-establish your credibility, you should change your avi to the appellation that I have assigned to you.

 

[emilynghiem]

It is a political statement: Most republicans (ironically purporting to be godly), tend to have no mercy on people, and often for the most minute offense. But of course, republicans are known to be the first to justify the most heinous crimes by one of theirs. I have never figured why republicans never seem to understand that Holy texts (they allege to abide by) advocate applying same rules to all.

Honey, I have as many friends including my own bf who say the same or similar
about liberal Democrats. They are conditioned and biased toward forgiving their own
because of the way parties are set up to compete in the media and can't retract errrors.

I am a member of the Democrat Party and have worked and struggled to work with Democrats. I experience just as much if not MORE problems with denial and hypocrisy
among fellow Democrats and liberals, and totally sympathize with what is causing the negative stereotypes of liberal Democrats because of the messes I've had to deal with.

The Republicans and prolife people I work with are at least consistent when I defend arguments based on the Constitution. So you could argue the Democrats don't think the Constitution applies to them when they run govt. Just like you said with GOP and the Bible.
I've had better success holding conservative to the Bible than Democrats to the Constitution.
The ones who feel completely without control or power seem to depend on the Party to defend interests rather than depending on the Constitution. So that causes false reliance.

Sorry to be so honest, but I've fought and struggled with this mess for years, and just about gave up. The only reason I don't bail, is that I am committed to helping the Democrats who are sincere in serving, to win this uphill battle, where much of the defeat is self-imposed, I hate to say. If you are going to teach people to live by and enforce the Constitution, you have to teach that within the group that needs it, and not criticize from the outside which doesn't help or change anything.

Both parties are hypocrites when it comes to blaming the others more than correcting themselves.
But the Republicans are far more open and honest when it comes to flagging down each other for fouls and penalties, while the Democrats are not encouraged but discouraged from criticizing their own leaders for the sake of party unity.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

It is a political statement: Most republicans (ironically purporting to be godly), tend to have no mercy on people, and often for the most minute offense. But of course, republicans are known to be the first to justify the most heinous crimes by one of theirs. I have never figured why republicans never seem to understand that Holy texts (they allege to abide by) advocate applying same rules to all.

Honey, I have as many friends including my own bf who say the same or similar
about liberal Democrats. They are conditioned and biased toward forgiving their own
because of the way parties are set up to compete in the media and can't retract errrors.

I am a member of the Democrat Party and have worked and struggled to work with Democrats. I experience just as much if not MORE problems with denial and hypocrisy
among fellow Democrats and liberals, and totally sympathize with what is causing the negative stereotypes of liberal Democrats because of the messes I've had to deal with.

The Republicans and prolife people I work with are at least consistent when I defend arguments based on the Constitution. So you could argue the Democrats don't think the Constitution applies to them when they run govt. Just like you said with GOP and the Bible.
I've had better success holding conservative to the Bible than Democrats to the Constitution.
The ones who feel completely without control or power seem to depend on the Party to defend interests rather than depending on the Constitution. So that causes false reliance.

Sorry to be so honest, but I've fought and struggled with this mess for years, and just about gave up. The only reason I don't bail, is that I am committed to helping the Democrats who are sincere in serving, to win this uphill battle, where much of the defeat is self-imposed, I hate to say. If you are going to teach people to live by and enforce the Constitution, you have to teach that within the group that needs it, and not criticize from the outside which doesn't help or change anything.

Both parties are hypocrites when it comes to blaming the others more than correcting themselves.
But the Republicans are far more open and honest when it comes to flagging down each other for fouls and penalties, while the Democrats are not encouraged but discouraged from criticizing their own leaders for the sake of party unity.

Interesting. You language mirrors in many ways my experiences as a Republican. I am a Republican, but I can tell you that most of them hate my guts. I remain one because fundamentally I cannot escape being one. In many ways I find it far more productive to challenge my fellow Republicans, for many of the same reasons you find for challenging your fellow Democrats.

I think ultimately it comes down to progress. The derisiveness and division of our country is going to kill us, for all the same reasons Abraham Lincoln believed that a house divided against itself cannot stand. This is as appropriate now as it was then because the political and cultural polarization of the U.S. now is every bit as extreme as it was during the Civil War, arguably more so. For me to challenge Democrats only drives the wedge deeper, while to challenge Republicans may actually encourage some level of cooperation, even if I fail miserably most of the time.

Perhaps I am simply a moderate who refuses to admit it. That's possible. Be that as it may, I see no need to turn in my Republican badge, even if many within the party despise me.

Sorry to contribute to what seems to be a rather big diversion from the OP. Please carry on.

 

[catzmeow]

OMG! You disagree with me???

Shocker.


But...as you bring up the age....why not add a physical description?
Could said thug be a six footer, upwards of 200 pounds....

And would that make him more of a threat?

So, big 15 year old boys are inherently dangerous? I'll let the boys on my son's wrestling team know. They'll probably be flattered.

I remember watching a wrestling match in high school. It was a good one to, everyone was on the edge of their seats. Then one boy pulled the other boys shoulder out of its socket. It was one of the most horrible things i have ever seen.

All sports have their risks. My son was previously an inline speed skater. I watched a kid puncture his spleen when he fell during a race and almost die. That was pretty horrifying. Dislocated shoulders are fixable.

I look at it like this....wrestling forces the kids to develop discipline and to overall body strength...and the odds of a head injury (like in football) are slight.

 

[catzmeow]

As you've added "the boys on my son's wrestling team," you are suggesting that the behavior witnessed in the OP vid is the same that said "boys on my son's wrestling team" engage in?
No?
Then it really makes no sense to bring them up, does it.

Rather than using what is less than an amusing bon mot attempt....

....consider the actual suggestion that age may be less important in this connection than size.

Steven Hawking, attempting to behave as the thug did would not bring up the same question, would it.

I think your vilification of some teenage boys--who clearly need an ass kicking--but in your purview should be killed, is pretty interesting. And by interesting, I mean in the psychologically fucked up/needs a clinical diagnosis sense.

Death is a pretty permanent solution, but apparently, in PC world, we ought to model our criminal justice system after Iran's.

 

[PoliticalChic]

As you've added "the boys on my son's wrestling team," you are suggesting that the behavior witnessed in the OP vid is the same that said "boys on my son's wrestling team" engage in?
No?
Then it really makes no sense to bring them up, does it.

Rather than using what is less than an amusing bon mot attempt....

....consider the actual suggestion that age may be less important in this connection than size.

Steven Hawking, attempting to behave as the thug did would not bring up the same question, would it.

I think your vilification of some teenage boys--who clearly need an ass kicking--but in your purview should be killed, is pretty interesting. And by interesting, I mean in the psychologically fucked up/needs a clinical diagnosis sense.

Death is a pretty permanent solution, but apparently, in PC world, we ought to model our criminal justice system after Iran's.

I'm certain that you won't see the humor, but, once again, the Left exposes how quickly they leap to the ad hominem when they find that someone doesn't agree with them.


“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
― William F. Buckley Jr.



The false belief that claiming another is "psychologically fucked up/needs a clinical diagnosis" supports, in any way, one's argument, is the sure sign of a loser.

Don't you agree?



Let's review.

1. We are all witness to the violent, gratuitous attack on an innocent individual....the savagery amplified by the casual way the thug walks on, unconcerned with the damage caused

2.We now know that the individual has a history leading to placement and earning the label of 'emotionally troubled.'

a. He has put society on notice.

3. While the primary role of government is to protect its (innocent) citizens, a certain political view has decided that the perpetrator deserves the higher priority in consideration, and we can sacrifice innocents to the 'theory.'
Raise your hand.


4. Further, I have advanced the idea, possibly an original one, that the physical ability to cause injury by the perpetrator should be taken into consideration.

a. Not really a strange idea, as various weaponry is regularly taken into consideration.

Your response to the idea: that I should be remanded to a mental hospital. I'd suggest that your response if far from intelligent, and designed to marginalize rather than respond.


You are beginning to come off as a petulant biddy.
If, rather than ideas, you'd like to take this down a more personal road, you could probably convince me to do so.

 

[George Costanza]

As you've added "the boys on my son's wrestling team," you are suggesting that the behavior witnessed in the OP vid is the same that said "boys on my son's wrestling team" engage in?
No?
Then it really makes no sense to bring them up, does it.

Rather than using what is less than an amusing bon mot attempt....

....consider the actual suggestion that age may be less important in this connection than size.

Steven Hawking, attempting to behave as the thug did would not bring up the same question, would it.

I think your vilification of some teenage boys--who clearly need an ass kicking--but in your purview should be killed, is pretty interesting. And by interesting, I mean in the psychologically fucked up/needs a clinical diagnosis sense.

Death is a pretty permanent solution, but apparently, in PC world, we ought to model our criminal justice system after Iran's.

I'm certain that you won't see the humor, but, once again, the Left exposes how quickly they leap to the ad hominem when they find that someone doesn't agree with them.


“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
― William F. Buckley Jr.



The false belief that claiming another is "psychologically fucked up/needs a clinical diagnosis" supports, in any way, one's argument, is the sure sign of a loser.

Don't you agree?



Let's review.

1. We are all witness to the violent, gratuitous attack on an innocent individual....the savagery amplified by the casual way the thug walks on, unconcerned with the damage caused

2.We now know that the individual has a history leading to placement and earning the label of 'emotionally troubled.'

a. He has put society on notice.

3. While the primary role of government is to protect its (innocent) citizens, a certain political view has decided that the perpetrator deserves the higher priority in consideration, and we can sacrifice innocents to the 'theory.'
Raise your hand.


4. Further, I have advanced the idea, possibly an original one, that the physical ability to cause injury by the perpetrator should be taken into consideration.

a. Not really a strange idea, as various weaponry is regularly taken into consideration.

Your response to the idea: that I should be remanded to a mental hospital. I'd suggest that your response if far from intelligent, and designed to marginalize rather than respond.


You are beginning to come off as a petulant biddy.
If, rather than ideas, you'd like to take this down a more personal road, you could probably convince me to do so.

When someone is espousing a position that is totally removed from reality, about the only thing that can be said is that the person is flat crazy. You certainly can't reason with such a person.

I doubt that anyone here thinks you are mentally ill or "crazy" if you prefer. But your view on this particular topic is, well, crazy - no other word for it. And you have demonstrated over and over again on this (and other) thread(s) that you cannot be reasoned with.

It's not an ad hominem, PC - it's just an expression of exasperation.

 

[earlycuyler]

So, big 15 year old boys are inherently dangerous? I'll let the boys on my son's wrestling team know. They'll probably be flattered.

I remember watching a wrestling match in high school. It was a good one to, everyone was on the edge of their seats. Then one boy pulled the other boys shoulder out of its socket. It was one of the most horrible things i have ever seen.

All sports have their risks. My son was previously an inline speed skater. I watched a kid puncture his spleen when he fell during a race and almost die. That was pretty horrifying. Dislocated shoulders are fixable.

I look at it like this....wrestling forces the kids to develop discipline and to overall body strength...and the odds of a head injury (like in football) are slight.

Oh I agree 100%. The thing is it was not done swiftly, it was done slowly and you could hear it happening. Thing is, the kid who was hurt never knew it was happening.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think your vilification of some teenage boys--who clearly need an ass kicking--but in your purview should be killed, is pretty interesting. And by interesting, I mean in the psychologically fucked up/needs a clinical diagnosis sense.

Death is a pretty permanent solution, but apparently, in PC world, we ought to model our criminal justice system after Iran's.

I'm certain that you won't see the humor, but, once again, the Left exposes how quickly they leap to the ad hominem when they find that someone doesn't agree with them.


“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
― William F. Buckley Jr.



The false belief that claiming another is "psychologically fucked up/needs a clinical diagnosis" supports, in any way, one's argument, is the sure sign of a loser.

Don't you agree?



Let's review.

1. We are all witness to the violent, gratuitous attack on an innocent individual....the savagery amplified by the casual way the thug walks on, unconcerned with the damage caused

2.We now know that the individual has a history leading to placement and earning the label of 'emotionally troubled.'

a. He has put society on notice.

3. While the primary role of government is to protect its (innocent) citizens, a certain political view has decided that the perpetrator deserves the higher priority in consideration, and we can sacrifice innocents to the 'theory.'
Raise your hand.


4. Further, I have advanced the idea, possibly an original one, that the physical ability to cause injury by the perpetrator should be taken into consideration.

a. Not really a strange idea, as various weaponry is regularly taken into consideration.

Your response to the idea: that I should be remanded to a mental hospital. I'd suggest that your response if far from intelligent, and designed to marginalize rather than respond.


You are beginning to come off as a petulant biddy.
If, rather than ideas, you'd like to take this down a more personal road, you could probably convince me to do so.

When someone is espousing a position that is totally removed from reality, about the only thing that can be said is that the person is flat crazy. You certainly can't reason with such a person.

I doubt that anyone here thinks you are mentally ill or "crazy" if you prefer. But your view on this particular topic is, well, crazy - no other word for it. And you have demonstrated over and over again on this (and other) thread(s) that you cannot be reasoned with.

It's not an ad hominem, PC - it's just an expression of exasperation.

1. "When someone is espousing a position that is totally removed from reality,..."

Of course, my position is not as you suggest....and your post is simply a variation of the previous poster's inability to deal with a different perspective.



2. '...you cannot be reasoned with."
As you have descended to the level of a typical Liberal, it would be useless to point out that you have not 'reasoned,' but merely suggested 'this is the way it is now....and that is the way it should continue to be done.'

3. The fact is, the effect of the Liberal education system has produced individuals who have no way of viewing any alternative to the status quo.

"Let me give you a little tip: if you want liberalism to continue in this country, you have to realize that liberal students are being let down by their professors! They have liberal school teachers, and read the liberal press! Because of this weak preparation, they are unable to argue, to think beyond the first knee-jerk impulse. They can’t put together a logical thought. Now, compare that to a college Republican…"
Coulter


4. "...on this particular topic is, well, crazy - no other word for it."
Well, then you certainly have a limited vocabulary.


5. My view is that once an individual has self-identified as a threat to society, they should be dealt with in a more severe manner than one of your perspective allows.

Crazy?
Hardly.

a. I don't think you are crazy, but certainly limited in ability to see other perspectives. And, severe damage has been done by the Liberal brainwashing you've been subject to.


6. Now...follow this closely:
"It's not an ad hominem, PC - it's just an expression of exasperation."
Because you are 'exasperated,' unable to convince me....

....that must mean that I am 'crazy'?

In a more rational moment, you might see the absurdity of your position, and it reflects on you, rather than on me.



Perhaps it would help to re-view the video in the OP, and imagine you were the victim rather than the perpetrator.

 

[catzmeow]

Let's review.

1. We are all witness to the violent, gratuitous attack on an innocent individual....the savagery amplified by the casual way the thug walks on, unconcerned with the damage caused

2.We now know that the individual has a history leading to placement and earning the label of 'emotionally troubled.'

a. He has put society on notice.

3. While the primary role of government is to protect its (innocent) citizens, a certain political view has decided that the perpetrator deserves the higher priority in consideration, and we can sacrifice innocents to the 'theory.'
Raise your hand.

4. Further, I have advanced the idea, possibly an original one, that the physical ability to cause injury by the perpetrator should be taken into consideration.

a. Not really a strange idea, as various weaponry is regularly taken into consideration.

Your response to the idea: that I should be remanded to a mental hospital. I'd suggest that your response if far from intelligent, and designed to marginalize rather than respond.

You've suggested that the state begin murdering teenagers for crimes that don't even meet the death penalty threshold for adult offenses. That's simply ridiculous, and doesn't deserve a serious response.

A 15-year-old is still, essentially, a child. His brain is still developing, his personality is still forming. There is zero evidence that a child who commits a violent offense at age 15 will remain violent for the rest of his life, and tons of evidence that the majority of juveniles are capable of change.

Your position is so absurd and out of touch with reality that it's simply nuts.

You are beginning to come off as a petulant biddy.

Rabid unconscious stupidity is annoying over time.

If, rather than ideas, you'd like to take this down a more personal road, you could probably convince me to do so.

O, snap. Bring it, internet badass.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's review.

1. We are all witness to the violent, gratuitous attack on an innocent individual....the savagery amplified by the casual way the thug walks on, unconcerned with the damage caused

2.We now know that the individual has a history leading to placement and earning the label of 'emotionally troubled.'

a. He has put society on notice.

3. While the primary role of government is to protect its (innocent) citizens, a certain political view has decided that the perpetrator deserves the higher priority in consideration, and we can sacrifice innocents to the 'theory.'
Raise your hand.

4. Further, I have advanced the idea, possibly an original one, that the physical ability to cause injury by the perpetrator should be taken into consideration.

a. Not really a strange idea, as various weaponry is regularly taken into consideration.

Your response to the idea: that I should be remanded to a mental hospital. I'd suggest that your response if far from intelligent, and designed to marginalize rather than respond.

You've suggested that the state begin murdering teenagers for crimes that don't even meet the death penalty threshold for adult offenses. That's simply ridiculous, and doesn't deserve a serious response.

A 15-year-old is still, essentially, a child. His brain is still developing, his personality is still forming. There is zero evidence that a child who commits a violent offense at age 15 will remain violent for the rest of his life, and tons of evidence that the majority of juveniles are capable of change.

Your position is so absurd and out of touch with reality that it's simply nuts.

You are beginning to come off as a petulant biddy.

Rabid unconscious stupidity is annoying over time.

If, rather than ideas, you'd like to take this down a more personal road, you could probably convince me to do so.

O, snap. Bring it, internet badass.

1. "You've suggested that the state begin murdering..."
Possibly you haven't noticed, but I use words with precision.
The same would be a positive improvement for your posts.

mur·der/ˈmərdər/
Noun:
The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.

This is, what...the third time I've had to teach you correct usage?

What does that usually indicate when one is reduced to untruths?



2. "...teenagers for crimes that don't even meet the death penalty threshold for adult offenses."

Essentially, the OP is designed to have folks consider changing the law.
Nor have I suggested that the change be for teenagers....but rather for threats to society.


3. "...doesn't deserve a serious response."
And that explains the level of your posts.
You could have saved time and effort by admitting at the start that you had no serious response.


4. "A 15-year-old is still, essentially, a child. His brain is still developing, his personality is still forming."
See that.....a serious response! I knew you could do it!
And...I can see that as a reasonable argument.
Up to a point....


5. "There is zero evidence that a child who commits a violent offense at age 15 will remain violent for the rest of his life,..."

Zero: Having no measurable or otherwise determinable value.

Are you certain that that is what you mean?


6. "Your position is so absurd and out of touch with reality that it's simply nuts."
Back to your default position???
And you were starting to do so well....


7. "Rabid unconscious stupidity is annoying over time."
Now, stop this at once!
I just cannot go on teaching you the meaning of terms!



8. "O, snap. Bring it, internet badass."
And just what do you think I've been doing?

 

[IanC]

I wish PoliticalChic's position was an exaggeration but I fear it is not. how many other equally heinous acts happen every day but go unnoticed because they are not captured on video and put on the web.

blacks seem to have turned attacking innocents into a game that they find entertaining.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I wish PoliticalChic's position was an exaggeration but I fear it is not. how many other equally heinous acts happen every day but go unnoticed because they are not captured on video and put on the web.

blacks seem to have turned attacking innocents into a game that they find entertaining.

1. "equally heinous acts happen every day but go unnoticed..."
Well....let's notice 'em.



2. "blacks seem to have turned attacking innocents into a game..."

“After controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared.”
Progressive Policy Institute, 1990, quoted by David Blankenhorn, “Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem,” New York, Harper Perennial, 1996, p.31

Blame the people and factors that resulted in single motherhood.

 

[IanC]

I wish PoliticalChic's position was an exaggeration but I fear it is not. how many other equally heinous acts happen every day but go unnoticed because they are not captured on video and put on the web.

blacks seem to have turned attacking innocents into a game that they find entertaining.

1. "equally heinous acts happen every day but go unnoticed..."
Well....let's notice 'em.



2. "blacks seem to have turned attacking innocents into a game..."

“After controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared.”
Progressive Policy Institute, 1990, quoted by David Blankenhorn, “Fatherless America: Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem,” New York, Harper Perennial, 1996, p.31

Blame the people and factors that resulted in single motherhood.

sorry PC but the strong correlation between single motherhood and crime from 1960-1995 has weakened considerably as the out of wedlock birth rate has exploded while the violent crime rate has gone down.