And everyone else’s point is that you don’t know that until you have a trial. And even then, the defendants deserve a trial because there’s more to a trial than just determining innocence and guilt. Either way, the police are certainly not the ones who should be determining pentalties.
So to summarize, your idea is antithetical to our system of justice, impractical, and morally bankrupt. Got anything else?
You’re missing the forest for the trees.
Pray tell, what group is the “trees” here? Maybe I am missing something.
Yes, that much is clear.
And how do you decide? Let’s say you’re in charge of deciding who gets a trial and who gets executed without a trial. They bring in a man who was just arrested on a charge of murder and ask you how they should handle him. What’s the basis for your decision as to whether or not the guy deserves a trial?
Remember, you’re not allowed to use anything that comes out at the trial. You’re deciding if the guy gets a trial. If you say no, they take him out and shoot him. No trial, no evidence. So you can’t shoot Manson because a lawyer talked about the Beatles at his trial. The decision, according to you, should be made before the trial began. You’re only allowed to decide based on what’s known at the time of arrest.
Use some common sense, maybe?
Common Sense says don’t be making decisions until the facts are in, and don’t be making decisions you don’t have the authority to make lest you become the next to be accused.
That’s because he was a good boy.
To the OP, I say that anyone arrested for a crime, whether they’re actually guilty or not, should be afforded the same due process that you would personally want if you were the one charged.
I quote the vastly underrated movie From the Hip:
Because he’s NOT Judge Judy and executioner!
What does that mean?
You’re the one arguing some people should be shot when they’re arrested. You should be able to come up with some kind of suggestions for figuring out which people should be shot.
IMO his attitude is pretty clear: Which arrestees should be shot? All of them. The rest is just a fig leaf.
The USA could be a real good country if we’d just get the authoritarians who hate the Constitution to move elsewhere. I propose the Philippines. Government there is to their liking: authoritarian and arbitrary and therefore utterly corrupt.
We don’t follow the Rule of Law, observe due process and treat prisoners humanely because murderers are not monsters. We do those things because we’re not monsters.
Well, he says to use “common sense” in deciding whom to kill. Soooo … the ones who really look guilty? Maybe we could just start with all the non-white ones? That kind of sense is pretty common.
According to your profile, you’re an attorney. How do you reconcile that with your seemingly “pro-extra judicial violence” viewpoint? Doesn’t a call for unlawful assaults and/or killings violate any ethics clauses you’re bound by?
My ethics code doesn’t bar me from having an opinion. It bars me from acting on it.
Well, he’s mentioned Manson a lot. So I’m guessing scruffiness is a bad sign.
“Take him out back and shoot him, boys. He’s got the uncombed hair of a killer.”
“Actually, Chief, we arrested this guy for driving with a lapsed registration. That guy over there is the one we arrested for murder.”
“What? Use your common sense! That man is wearing a suit and tie! Clearly he’s no murderer. Apologize to him and let him go. Then kill the first guy and tell the DA we closed the case but the suspect was shot during his arrest. I just thank God I was here to stop you guys from screwing up.”