"You are one man who will not be missed by many, and by agreeing with this random act of murder you are also a violent man that the world could do without. Therefore I would be correct in killing you... whatever."

It wasn't random.

"Most of us are not condoning his murder, even those of us who aren't surprised and don't feel particularly bad that a criminal who openly ignored the law was the victim of a crime. "

Yeah it is like when Paul Castellano got whacked in a city street or John Gotti died of cancer.  I regret that somebody other than George Tiller is gonna do 20 years.  Tiller was an organized criminal with political pull to keep killing for money.

What is NOT being bemoaned, interestingly, is that a looney-tune mad bomber gets freed because the cops who found the bomb violated "his" civil rights, and he later goes on to shoot down a guy outside a church.  I suppose that's because letting guilty people to go out and kill is part of those "core values" Bush trampled.

No I chose to argue it with japanese anime of elephants, it just came out that I told you it wasn't random when I changed a rtf file into a word file.

Yes I think it would be a better country under judge lynch.

>>So where was the trial, judge and jury?<<

Because the governor and state AG ignored the law there were no charges, no trial, no judge, no jury. You propose that when the law is ignored by those charged with upholding it... the law ceases to matter? The officials ignoring the law are vigilantes too, which makes the vigilante status of the offender in this case questionable, because he is in fact punishing an infraction of the law which authorities were failing to punish--only the gravity of the punishment he gave is in question. But in this case with the lack of a functioning law enforcement or judicial system, how are we qualified to judge his vigilantism? The AG, prosecutor, judge, and jury who would normally be charged with this determination are absent as a result of corruption, so how can we compare what this vigilante did to what they should have done? Perhaps he was too lenient? How are we to know? How can you accuse him of acting lawlessly in response to another acting lawlessly? When you ignore the law for one everything breaks down. You're a hypocrite if you find fault in one who ignores the law in response to another ignoring the law who you found no fault with.

I doubt many of the idiots who post here all full of themselves did so much as read the news to know that he's been charged for his illegal political contributions in the past, Chris_Balsz. But they'll post about justice in the face of this fatass, corrupt, child-killing pig's murder.

That one believes a certain act horrendous and prevention of said act justified does not make one as guilty as he who commits said act. You cannot accuse Chris of a parallel wrong without the ability to evaluate the morality of the act he has evaluated as evil and requiring prevention for the sake of justice. That you disagree with whether or not Tiller's act had the horrendous attribute does not necessarily make Chris's desire to prevent said possibly horrendous act "as horrendous."

"I just said it was not ok to take the law into your own hands"

ok, so you walk into a bank, there are 20 people bound and gagged; theres a man with a gun standing over one of them, he shoots one in the back of the head then moves to teh 2nd. as he does this, you notice a gun on the floor right by you, you pick it up, tell him to stop or you will shoot, he ignores you shoots the 2nd person and moves to the third person, he doesnt think you have the balls to do it. it is in a rural area so it is unlikely that you could possibly reach any lawmen before he killed the rest. its not ok to kill him?

this whole thing is humorous from a certain stand point:
on one hand you got so called Christians, killing so called, baby killers, and becoming a living contradiction to they're beliefs.
and on the other you got the real Christians that understand that what the bible says is going to happen is going to happen, and we are not to try to stop it or we are afoul of gods prophecy.
only the ones who try to fight the prophecy of god, are the ones that are part of the evil that has consumed this planet.
going to church doesn't make you a christian, understanding faith, forgiveness, and benevolence makes you even able to be one... so start with those and work your way to being a true christian.

think people, if you live in the getto, and know you will never have a dime nor pot to piss in... how the hell are you going to do anything but bring a child into total hell itself?
and think about this, the bulk of the abortions are from people that can't even afford to have a computer to read this message.

Funny thing is,both that guy and his killer will rot in hell together for eternity.

I either am on here with my blackberry and that skips a lot or I'm at work and its been too hectic lately

I need home internet

"hahahha I can't stop laughing at your BS comparison. Absolute BS avo."

it wasnt a comparison. you said its not ok to take the law into your own hands. and i provided an example to disprove your statement, now either defend the statement or admit its faulty.

Through a moral system which exists in every human at birth and which some go on to lose in later life.

"It is wrong to take the law into your own hands. You would be charged if you shot that bank robber."

so you associate wrong with anything breaking the law? so if the law told you to kill a Jew, it would be wrong not to?

"To remind you, it went something like: "If friggen sucks arse to tell me that you need God to tell you what is "good" or "evil" when (1) people who wrote about God say it's ok to keep slaves, you should stone people to don't believe in him etc etc (2) treat people how you like to be treated. You have a very very poor opinion of people if you think no one can figure this out for themselves"

You are a F'n idiot if you need to be reminded of this every time this conversation comes up. Providing a "lol" in response to my statement that 'I don't need God to determine good/evil' is one of the most screwed up responses ever."

you are so fail. you ignore the question, and just make offensive accusations instead. please explain the thought process for how to determine what is good and what is evil.

why didn't he?

cuz your face would split open by the sheer awesomeness of his voice. that kinda puts a damper on how many followers you will be able to keep

""(2) treat people how you like to be treated." That is a pretty simple way to determine what is reasonable, or what is a 'good' or 'bad' course of action. Did you forget that from our last thread? Were you not able to read it in my last post here? You fail at reading. An imaginary guy chose to use Jesus to send his message about what is good and what is evil. Why didn't he just tell us all personnaly so that there is no misunderstanding; he could do that you know. I think the thing you said in our other thread was "why should he?" indeed, why should he even send Jesus. If he was going to do it at all, at least he could choose a more effective method of communication, like talking from the clouds or in our minds or an email or something."

sigh, that isnt any figuring. sure, you might beleive thats a good guide, but why do you think its a good guide. you fail, you dont even understand the difference between a belief and the lines of thought that leads to a belief. i dont know why i even bother with you, you cant reason for shit.

"In answer to your first question, I have made the basic assumption that we don't live in Nazi Germany or Afghanistan (some of their newly made laws are really bad). This took place in the US, where the law says don't kill anyone."

ok, so you think laws should only be followed if they have your morals? but you, yourself said that you would shoot the person in the scenario i gave you; because you said you would shoot the person, you must beleive that is the right coarse of option, which means if the law is against you, the law isnt moral, and you have stated its against the law, so you believe the law in the US is immoral, but you claim that it is wrong to break the law in the US which you claim is immoral. you sir are contradicting yourself.