SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
SoylentNews
"At some point as a country, we have to reckon with what happens. It's not enough to express sympathy. You don't see this kind of murder, on this scale, with this kind of frequency in other advanced countries on earth." - President Obama.
Discuss.
- A Hectic Day at Church, and Then a Hellish Visitor
- Charleston relatives 'forgive' shooting suspect in court
- Latest on church shooting: Black, white pastors get together
- Terrorism v hate crime: How US courts decide: After the murder of nine black Americans at a church in Charleston, South Carolina by a white man, advocates and commentators are calling for suspect Dylann Roof to be described as a terrorist.
- Why we shouldn't call Dylann Roof a terrorist
- We Asked a Lawyer if Dylann Roof Could Face Terrorism Charges
- As Media Labels Roof 'Troubled Loner,' Justice Department Moves Forward With Domestic Terrorism Charges
- Was the South Carolina shooting a hate crime or a terrorist attack?
- Terrorism in Charleston demands the government act like black lives matter
- Criminal Justice Professor Discusses Charleston Shooting Suspect Dylann Roof
- Dylann Roof's friend: 'He never said anything racist': Christon Scriven, 21, told the BBC's Rajini Vaidyanathan that Mr Roof "wanted to shoot that school up - UCA university of Charleston - it's 3 miles up the street from that church."
- Mitt Romney Calls on South Carolina to Remove Confederate Flag at Capitol
- Dylann Storm Roof Photos Found on Website [manifesto archive]
- Here's What Appears to Be Dylann Roof's Racist Manifesto
- Photos Of Dylann Roof, Racist Manifesto Surface On Website
- BBC: The collection of photographs found on a website also show 21-year-old Dylann Roof burning the US flag and visiting a former slave plantation.
- Possible manifesto of Dylann Roof draws from hate group's text, expert says
- Police: Charleston church shooting suspect Dylann Roof is on suicide watch
- Charleston Church Shooter Dylann Roof Was Loner Caught in 'Internet Evil': Family
- The Mainstream Media Is Showing Its Bias In Charleston Massacre. And It's Ugly.
- Rick Perry: Charleston massacre was an 'accident' caused by drugs — not guns
- Suboxone: What is the drug linked to Charleston shooting suspect?
Original Submission
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Your love life will be happy and harmonious.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:43AM
The killer is going to be tried by a jury and put to death to the cheers of almost everyone.
Except to people who don't support unlimited government, which is one thing you have to accept before you can support the death penalty.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:28AM
Nonsense. Small communities can support and enforce the death penalty. It has happened often enough in history. Individual human beings are capable of enforcing the death penalty, small groups and small communities - it happened long before "big government" was created. Or, "unlimited government", as you say.
We're gonna be able to vacation in Gaza, Cuba, Venezuela, Iran and maybe Minnesota soon. Incredible times.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @02:40AM
Nonsense. Small communities can support and enforce the death penalty.
Not without unlimited government. A government that can murder captured people is one with too much power.
Unlimited government can be local.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 21 2015, @04:50AM
Not without unlimited government.
[...]
Unlimited government can be local.
No it can't. For "local" is a constraint. And by definition, unlimited government doesn't have any constraints.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @01:05PM
No it can't. For "local" is a constraint.
Why not just say that no government is technically unlimited, then? Big, unlimited... whatever you want to call it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday June 21 2015, @08:25PM
Why not just say that no government is technically unlimited, then?
Because it's not true? Just because a government can kill people under certain legal situations doesn't mean that it can arbitrarily kill people. For example, is a government "technically unlimited" because its law enforcement can kill in self-defense?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2015, @01:34AM
Because it's not true? Just because a government can kill people under certain legal situations doesn't mean that it can arbitrarily kill people.
Defending yourself or others from imminent (not hypothetical) physical harm is the only situation I can see where killing is acceptable. Deciding that someone should die after they've already been captured is an example of big government, if you prefer that term.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 22 2015, @02:09AM
Deciding that someone should die after they've already been captured is an example of big government, if you prefer that term.
That term is inappropriate too, because small governments can exercise that sort of power too. And it still depends on what sort of constraints legal and otherwise exist on the government officials.
(Score: 2) by BK on Sunday June 21 2015, @06:54PM
I did say _almost everyone.
I think "differently limited" would be a fairer description. The government of South Carolina in this case is limited... Though not in the particular way you want. There are laws it cannot pass and huge areas of policy that they cannot make. Examples include immigration and foreign policy...
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 21 2015, @09:27PM
I think a better argument would be that a government must own the individuals' bodies, taking their self-sovereignty, before they can institute a death penalty. A government which literally owns people would also be a government that condones slavery. Self-sovereignty is one of the few fundamental rights that should have no limits and few if any exceptions - one should not lose ownership of their own body, not because they got pregnant, not because they committed a crime, never. This means suicide is a fundamental right as well; the only possible exception would be if one is literally incapable of tending to themselves, eg, comatose / vegetative state or extreme delirium.