police dead in fl

http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/25/spate-of-police-shootings-not-normal-official-says/?ncid=webmail

check this link.


i personally say execute the mother f*ckers. even if they go to jail, our taxes pay for them to get get beds, clothes, 3 meals a day, and a roof over their head. its more of a vacation for them than an actual punishment. leathal force should be authorized when the person their checking in on has a record before it actually gets to the point were their caught off guard. none of that "restraint" crap. this is what happens when the police have to much red tape in the way to do their job properly with out them risking their lives more than they already do.

but thats my opinion.

todo's saben que son los ......o's.

my spanish is a bit rusty, everyone knows that you are?

One of the officers went to my high school (south west senior high) we had a moment of silence on the PA in the morning announcements. that's effed up and i agree that the bastards should be executed, ive always felt that the USA is weak when it comes to punishing criminals. they get off too easy and deserve worse. since it is a police officer im sure they'll get executed though....you know how the media influences and how they give cop murderers more time in prison than someone that wasn't a cop as if they're life meant more than the average joe.

Execute them, ill teach the public who is boss, maybe they'll stop...

edit: now if there were no gun restrictions and almost everyone carried a concealed gun, no crime would happen....think about it, might get a bit wield the first few decades, but eventually our country would be super stable...

i think thats ridiculous, there would be power abuse. it's like saying every country should have nukes. there would be a nuclear holocaust.

thats COMPLETELY different,

countries are SEPARATE PEOPLE, with different cultures, traditions, etc

my point is simpler than what you think it is, and i dont mean it the way you think i do, but i dont whant to argue, jsut think about it..... large % of the population caring a "small" hand gun conceled,


would you rob a house? a man on a ally?

also, the government has to be scared of the people (even though i made a comment earlier for the man to be executed to SCARE the people, well its that kind of relationship....)

im sounding stupid now, and this is off topic... lets leave it there, answer if you want....

i see your where your going but lets stop before we get into a flame discussion xD

hitgen wrote:

i think thats ridiculous, there would be power abuse. it's like saying every country should have nukes. there would be a nuclear holocaust.

Actually that couldnt be farther from the truth. The fact that multiple nations have nuclear weapons is the only thing holding the world back from nuclear holocaust. Since nations such as the US, russia, france, pakistan and others have nucler weapons causes deterrence, due to the idea of mutually assured destruction. If only one nation had nukes, a problem would exist if this nation were to get radical ideas or suffer a revolution, since the user of wmds would have a consequence relarively small compared to the destruction caused by an atomic, biological, or chemical weapon. That is why there is only 1 occurence of the use of wmds during wartime as an offensie weapon, and that was the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki. Only one nation had a wmd, and that was the US.

GioZ00 wrote:

hitgen wrote:

i think thats ridiculous, there would be power abuse. it's like saying every country should have nukes. there would be a nuclear holocaust.

Actually that couldnt be farther from the truth. The fact that multiple nations have nuclear weapons is the only thing holding the world back from nuclear holocaust. Since nations such as the US, russia, france, pakistan and others have nucler weapons causes deterrence, due to the idea of mutually assured destruction. If only one nation had nukes, a problem would exist if this nation were to get radical ideas or suffer a revolution, since the user of wmds would have a consequence relarively small compared to the destruction caused by an atomic, biological, or chemical weapon. That is why there is only 1 occurence of the use of wmds during wartime as an offensie weapon, and that was the bombing of hiroshima and nagasaki. Only one nation had a wmd, and that was the US.

you have a valid point but i meant that in the sense that all you would need would be one person to abuse power what would start a chain of events where nations would be seeking vengeance. this day will come, it might not be soon but it will come.
"Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind" -JFK

im stopping here i don't want to change the whole point of this topic

i say king solomon had the right idea. an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. a killer should be killed. and if he killed multiple people, torture him for a few days then kill him

spook wrote:

i say king solomon had the right idea. an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. a killer should be killed. and if he killed multiple people, torture him for a few days then kill him

Agreed. If we have laws like these thieves get thier hands chopped off and rapists get their dicks chopped off i guarantee lower crime rates

spook wrote:

i say king solomon had the right idea. an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. a killer should be killed. and if he killed multiple people, torture him for a few days then kill him

thats Hammurabi (the code of Hammurabi)

LOL it is!

but i kind of find the execution idea a bit pointless unless he gets tourtured a bit before

but then it will be a way to put him out of his misery,