Well, that only answers part the question. Equally important is determining who should be the executioner. Anyone with a weapon? Also, what standard of proof do these vigilantes need? Personal knowledge? Reliable witnesses? Even from a moral standpoint, it seems a bit sticky. Isn’t it the more moral thing to do to rely on an impartial justice system, flawed as it is, instead of just letting people make these decisions on their own?
Even granting that, it doesn’t explain why their punishment should be left up to anyone who feels like carrying it out.
Well then, wouldn’t a reasonable response be “Because they so seldom are?” Alternately, how do you know the victims at Columbine didn’t have it coming? Or the Virginia Tech massacre? The people at Fort Hood? They might have deserved it as well.
Hell, for that matter, the rape victims might have had it coming. Or the 911 victims. As a matter of fact, I’ll bet that we both know of people who would mount a moral argument that they in fact *did *have it coming.
When a spokesperson says ‘non-random’, a reasonable person would conclude that the shooting was non-random because the person was specifically out to shoot cops, as opposed to people who may or may not be cops.
A non-reasonable person would conclude that out of the population of cops, these four were not randomly selected and so there is reason to believe that they were dirty.
Do such people believe that cops are fair targets, and the only way for their assasinations to be ‘non-random’ is if they’re dirty?
It’s only been a town for a few years. When I was growing up, it was an unincorporated part of Pierce County, with law enforcement done by the county sheriff’s office.
Crime-ridden and violent, I never had that impression where I lived. Is that new, or was I just not paying attention?
There’s no reason to believe any particular motive for the shootings. It could be anything from being pissed off about being arrested by one of the victims or it could be as nefarious as one of the cops being dirty.
So yeah, anyone reaching any particular conclusion isn’t being reasonable.
I’d hope not, because that would be the result of a case of terminal stupidity.
No, it may be true. It’s hard to look with unbiased eyes at the place where I grew up. I do remember one of the early seasons of Cops was filmed around there, and I saw places I recognized.
No, a reasonable person would conclude that they were specifically targeted as individuals. Targeting them simply because they’re cops would still be random.
No, “such people” believe that criminal involvement is one possibility. It’s not unreasonable to ask the question.
Nobody. There shouldn’t be an executioner. We have no reasonable choice but to operate within a system that sometimes does not allow us to give some people what they morally deserve.
I never said that it should be.
Crooked cops are not rare. Targeted assassinations of specific cops is.
Not if the cops are randomly selected. To me, “non-random” means specifically targeted individuals. Maybe law enforcment should have chosen better words.
We left crooked a ways back. We’re at lying murdering scumbag child pornographers now, per your very own self. And I submit that cops rarely are lying murdering scumbag child pornographers, and there is no particular reason to speculate that they might be.
However, there are people who disregard common sense and jump to Conspiracy Theory. They might believe that cops are generally corrupt, and think that killing cops isn’t random because the ‘deserve it’.
If someone were to make such claims, on a message board, say, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that they hold such views?
Yeah, I have to agree. There was a time I thought DtC was just a huge, raging asshole sometimes and not really someone trolling around on these boards.
I’m starting to think otherwise. It’s getting harder and harder not to think it.