• @CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31 year ago

    You should know it is a win. Justice is dealt swiftly, there’s no bullshit trials or wasting anyone’s time on this murdering asshole. Time or money.

    Sure, he “suffers less” getting a quick death, but let’s price this out for fun. This is in CA, Jesus, those idiots spent on average $64K per inmate annually as of 2015. Let’s not forget we’re in the era of Magic Biden Bucks™; according to Google we have experienced roughly 26% inflation since 2015. That $64K becomes $80K. Averages are just that, average, let’s be very generous & assume this guy is nothing special. Costing the taxpayer $70K per year incarcerated. Nice, even numbers. :-)

    That’s at least $700K per decade, not accounting for any future inflation. You want decades, so this revenge/justice venture will cost at minimum $1.4M. Versus 10 mins & $10 in bullets.

    I don’t really seek vengeance in the form of life sentences. The end result is the same; death is death & he got his. Justice has been served accurately with zero delay, a modern day miracle.

    • @masterspace@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      Oh yeah, police just shooting who they feel like is a modern day miracle! Nothing bad can come from that! Totally won’t end with a police officer kneeling on a man’s neck and slowly choking him to death for being black!

      • You erroneously framing a self defense situation which the cops were actually in for once as some 90’s revenge movie cliche is only hurting us.

        This is not about you.

        • @rbhfd@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          51 year ago

          They’re replying to the comment celebrating the fact the suspect was given a quick and cheap death by the police.

          Maybe the police actions in this case were warranted because of self defense, but that’s not what the comment was saying at all.

          • I don’t care. They can think how they want and you do not have the moral authority to tell them they can’t. Go find something better to do with your free time than exploiting a tragedy to bully other people into adopting your way of thinking.

            • @masterspace@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              31 year ago

              Don’t participate in a discussion thread if you don’t want to talk about that topic. It’s not complicated.

              • @pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                3
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                You ought to listen to yourself there. I am not gonna be quiet because you don’t want me to speak the truth, and the truth is he HAS no moral authority to dictate anything to anyone. He’s just some schmuck like the rest of us, and so are you.

                • @masterspace@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  21 year ago

                  Lol I didn’t tell you not to say what you want, I said not to shut others down. Maybe drink less or ask a human to type for you before posting.

            • @rbhfd@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              The moral authority to tell someone that their stance that police can shoot anyone they want without due process because it’s cheaper that way is morally wrong?

              Yeah, everyone has that.

              I’m not trying to make light of the tragedy that happened to the original victim, nor am I saying it’s sad that the killer got killed himself. But if someone is arguing to eliminate due process because of this case, I’ll argue against that. And so should anyone else.

              • @pinkdrunkenelephants@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                2
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yes. You have no authority to tell them any moral stance is wrong, especially telling people they can’t kill obvious hateful cultists who are a threat to the community and have proven it by killing actually innocent people. You have NO business saying that in a modern society AT ALL.

                No one has the authority to tell someone that. Not even you. And if you claim it I will pit you right back in your place, far below actual decent people, where you belong. You will get what you give and you won’t like it.

                I’m not trying to make light of the tragedy that happened to the original victim,

                Well you are, and you make light of countless tragedies both violent and nonviolent across this nation and across this planet when you open your stupid fucking mouth and insinuate something so evil. And until you stop, my stance won’t change.

                But if someone is arguing to eliminate due process because of this case

                The only one who took away his right to due process was him, and he did it of his own volition by being dumb enough to fire at cops. When you shoot at ANYONE unprovoked, you have to accept the very high risk of being killed for your trouble and therefore never seeing a trial because that is how reality works.

                Self-defense is a fundamental human right that supercedes any right you claim an aggressor to have.

                Get over it you don’t like it.

                And stop making me defend pigs

                • @rbhfd@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  Final reply, because I feel this not going anywhere.

                  I, or the person I was defending, was not talking about this specific situation. Of course they have the right to self defense. I explicitly mentioned that before two comments ago.

                  I’m also not trying to defend the killer or feel sad at all he got killed by the police.

                  All my replies were aimed at the comment from CoffeeJunkie who apparently was advocating for the police to be judge, jury and executioner because that’s cheaper. That’s a major simplification and I’m sure that’s not what they meant, but that’s how I, and probably others, interpreted it and why I chose to go against it.

                  Again, I’m done arguing with you. You’re resorting to ad hominem attacks because you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying.

      • @CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        That isn’t at all what I said, and this isn’t a case of “shooting who they feel like”. 🤨 This was a case of a killer, a true murderer, getting killed. No one will be prosecuted for fatally shooting this murderer. Stop making false equivalence arguments.

      • @CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        We’re in agreement on that. But when in pursuit of an armed & dangerous individual, armed with a gun, I do believe lethal response in self-defense or pursuit of neutralizing the threat is authorized. If the killer is killed in an armed standoff with police, while not the goal, I’m going to call that a bonus.

        I think it is a lapse in moral judgment to command others to act in ways that we wouldn’t act ourselves…I think most people, pursuing an armed & dangerous killer, would want a gun & permission to use it when their lives are threatened. Tasers, stun weapons, and other non-lethal forms of detainment require getting uncomfortably close to the armed & dangerous person.