TexasCHLforum.com

Going back to the original subject for a minute, shooting criminals in the act avoids the whole problem of false convictions. When someone is raping or trying to rape a woman and she or someone else shoots him, there's no mistaken identity. Killing them in the act is the ultimate in speedy justice.

Sangiovese wrote:

Venus Pax wrote:

Sangiovese wrote:I believe the issue that they are raising is that he was never informed that he had the right to contact the consulate.

The two girls that he raped, tortured, and murdered were not given the opportunity to contact an advocate either.

Woah... you've got the wrong guy! I'm on your side.

I think that he got what he deserved (well, as much of what he deserved as our legal system allows...)

What I was trying to say is that people are making it out like he asked for access to his consulate and we denied it to him (in violation of the treaty)... and that is not the case. He never asked for it. (Until after he was sentenced to death.) I think that saying we violated some treaty because we didn't hold his hand and make sure he knew about it is absurd.

I wasn't trying to slam you. I realize that you were just summing up the DP opponents' argument. I was simply stating that we're hearing a lot about the measure of access he had to Mexican representation (when at any other time he would probably assert his rights as an American since he has been here since he was a toddler), while the world court fails to observe the enormity of the crime he bragged about to police.

I'm disgusted with the U.N. and it's world court. Brutal rapes and murders are committed against large numbers of women in other continents and they give it a token sympathy statement. When it happens to two young ladies here and we use our justice system to deal with it, they throw themselves behind the offenders' cause.

Again, I was not attacking you. I apologize if my post appeared that way.

Luggo1 wrote:I hesitate to weigh in here but why not...

I'm glad you wrote what you did. It is definitely something we need to consider; it's wise advice.

Just so you know, many gun owners were very unhappy (and vocally so) regarding what happened to Randy Weaver and his family, even though he's not our cup of sunshine.

Regarding the topic, I think many of us are frustrated that the U.N. has any dealings with how we carry out justice, and we see a double standard with the causes they choose to pursue.

Again, your post was informative and wise. I appreciate your posting. (There's no need to hide in a hole here.) :)

[quote]Regarding the topic, I think many of us are frustrated that the U.N. has any dealings with how we carry out justice, and we see a double standard with the causes they choose to pursue.[quote]

I don't disagree with this at all.

Luggo1 wrote:I hesitate to weigh in here but why not...

I have first-hand understanding of exactly what you mean. And, as VenusPax posted, it was wise advice.

The boogieman used to be people who had "The Anarchist Cookbook" (anybody with half-a-brain and basic understanding of science would understand that most of the "formulas" in that book are more dangerous to the idiot attempting to create those concotions than anything else).

Then it became drug addicts, then the boogieman became people who were into child porn, gun owners could be next. Being demonized as "rogue militiamen" and "armed groups" and cast in a light as people who are "mentally unstable" or are wound up in "survivalism" etc.

So keeping in mind that not everything in the media is as accurate as portrayed, or everything that the "justice" system should and must proceed have always been followed, tkae it with a grain of salt and double-check the facts before you jump on the bandwagon.