In a country so fond of the death penalty, this is more a procedural issue.
Making it a substantive issue is perilous. The Japanese student looking for the Halloween party in Louisiana and the drunken Scots tourist in Texas did not "need killin'." Some of us are a bit reluctant to submit the question to a jury of one, and a jury of 12 is only a marginal improvement. Of course, I deal myself out of the question by opposing the death penalty. I don't oppose self-defense, but the use of deadly force needs some bright lines around it and there is a consistent tendency on this list to blur them. Steve Russell -----Original Message----- At 8:59 PM +1000 3/28/04, Tim Lambert wrote: >Here we go again. Just like in the Tony Martin case, the version of >the story propgated by pro-gunners omits the facts that show that the >killing was not done in self defence. Lindsay stabbed Swindells FOUR >TIMES in the back while Swindells was fleeing. In any event, as they teach Frontier Utilitarianism in Southwestern Philosophy, the real question is whether the world is a better place minus Swindells, or as one of the great minds in the field phrased the test, "Did he need killin'?" -- _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof _______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
