--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Archer" <r...@...> wrote:
>
> From: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:fairfieldl...@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of lurkernomore20002000
> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2010 1:13 PM
> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Fwd: She Shot Him 6 Times
>
>
> What am I missing here? Let's assume the story is true. (i think
someone
> posted something to say it wasn't, but let's say it's true) You've go
99% of
> the people in the world applauding this women, who doesn't want
someone to
> her steal her hard earned money, and is willing to risk her life to
that
> end, and then you've got an unlikely alliance of Barry, Judy, and Rick
> twisting this around to make Dixon appear as though he is advocating
> arbitrary "culling" of those he deems undesireable.
> His words: "I have no problem *culling* society of those that live on
the
> edge, endangering the rest of us for their lack of intelligence or
> compassion." Such a compassionate statement, huh?
> Yes, this guy IS undesireable, and the risk he takes when he violates
> someone else's rights is that he can also lose his own life, or get
harmed.
> And aren't we all better for it? Hell yea, we are.
> The implication of the fictitious story is that execution is an
appropriate
> sentence for purse snatching, and that all citizens should be
authorized to
> play judge, jury, and executioner on the spot. It might be argued that
she
> would have been justified in firing one shot to disable the guy, but
her
> intent in firing six or more was obviously to kill him. Why should
someone be allowed to take the property another person worked hard to
obtain. What is the appropiate penalty for that. A waitress at a bus
stop with her pay check and maybe some money and personal poccessions
and someone comes by a takes it from her by force. If they get shot and
injured or shot and die- not many are going to have sympathy. I am not.
But you may just be a more compassionate person than I And then "Bill
> Hicks" took it to the next logical step by saying that we should be
able to
> shoot people who take two parking places. I didn't get that import
The story has no inherent worth.
> It merely panders to the murderous tendencies in those who find it
> inspiring. And I doubt that shooting a purse snatcher or two would
stop many
> purse snatchers. It would probably just incline the more hardened
criminals
> to shoot first and then take the purse. They probably have that
mindset already
> I find it ironic that probably many of those who get their ya-ya's
from this
> story consider themselves Christians, yet the mentality the story
portrays
> is the polar opposite of what Christ taught. Yes, I do marvel at that
disconnect between what Christ taught, and how many, followers believe
they are following his word, especially having just finished a book
about Jesus. But such hypocrisy is par for
> the course with fundamentalist Christians, and with the right wing in
> general. A pretty broad statement
>
