Originally posted by Adam_PoE
In other words, there is nothing wrong with murder so long as one only murders the "right" people.To you, sexual predators are the "right" people. To others, homosexuals are the "right" people. To the Nazis, the Jews are the "right" people.
If this is your view, then you are in good company.
🙄
No, this not my view, there is a lot of difference between that.
But I just think that it is a big hypocrisy.
I think there is so many ways to kill indirectly, we kill animals just for luxury, we kill people by denying medical assistance, we kill by not taking action against crime, we can kill sometimes just by gossip...
The state also kills people, there is a death sentence.
Killing is easier and more common than we can think.
You don´t need to be classified as a criminal to kill, there are so many situations in where we can contribute with killing without knowing so we will not feel guilty. Many people has their "right" people to kill, they just don´t want to know that they are murderers.
He did not have the right to take justice in his own hands in this kind of extremity, but I do understand his motivation. Every day there are people, and often children, being preyed upon by criminals and sickos, having their lives ruined if they even survive.
Law-enforcement fails to prevent or even apprehend criminals on short notice, and when they get cought, they are often faced with laughable punishments.
No wonder some people freak out as they see they next child-molester getting away with a 3 year sentence, just to do it again when they are out of jail.
Re: Murderer of two sex offenders sentenced to 44 years
Originally posted by Makedde
If the law won't stand up for the public, and protect our children against sex offenders, who will?
Im sure now the whole world is safer, some moron decided he was above the law.
Originally posted by Zebina
"You put yourself above the law, and by doing so in some sense you put yourself above the rights of every citizen in the state of Washington."
This is a key sentence. He isn't above the law, no matter how big that martyr sign above his head is.
Well, as liberal as I tend to look at things, if those sex offenders hadn't done what they did, would they not still be alive...?
And the guy may have taken the law into his own hands, but I dont think this automatically makes a man a moron though...
There would be a fine line between civic mindedness and moronic behavior then it seems..... hope he feels the 40 odd yrs is worth it though...
Originally posted by Bardock42Quite a cowardly thing in my opinion. First kill two people and then wanting the fast way out.
That's your opinion. I doubt the guy is pissed because they aren't throwing the book at him. I think in his mind he could care less what happened to him. The difference is now he will have 44 years to think about what he did. Will he regret it? I doubt it.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
He not killed them like that, he even let one escape when he showed remorse.
Yeah, very noble of him.
It wasn't even his place to be involved in any way at all, let alone to 'show remorse'.
That's what makes this whole thing too ridiculous for words. While I think murder is never excusable, it is certainly understandable in some cases. For example if an affected parent felt that it was something they needed to do. Even then, for molestation that is many steps too far.
For someone who has literally zero connection to the original incidents, it is craziness.
Originally posted by Syren
He got a harsher sentence than the sex offenders I'll bet 😬
Probably because he committed murder.
Murder being a more serious offense than being a sex offender.
Originally posted by Makedde
If the law won't stand up for the public, and protect our children against sex offenders, who will?
Parents? Might be a good start. Maybe that's a new thing parents can try. Not relying wholly on the law and, you know, doing some protective parenting.
-AC
You I read almost everyone's opinions here and noticed the use of the words, 'Kill' and 'Murder' in many forms. There is a big difference in the two words.
Killing is a natural part of life. Animals kill in self-defense, the need to feed, and sometimes during mating season. Humans kill in self-defense, the need to feed, and so forth. I don't nessecarily agree with all of the things humans do.
Murder is what happens when small-minded bigots get Arrogant and think that it is the only way to change things. Examples of Murders are seen all throughout history. The Nazi's, The KKK, Homophobes, Stalin, and too many others. Murder also happens to be an unnatural part of nature. When someone has not done anything that is considered a direct threat to you and you kill him/her that is murder.
Murder is what Mullen did in this instance. He entered the Victims' home on false pretenses, made them get on their knees, and Shot them in the back of the head. If you don't think that that is a cold-blooded execution-style murder then something is wrong with you. Who was this guy that he felt qualified to be the judge, jury, and executioner for these two men?
Originally posted by Zebina
Mullen, a petty criminal with alcohol and drug problems, turned himself in a week after the deaths.
This man deserved a life sentance. Death would have been the easy way out.
At any rate all three men will be judged by the only being qualified to judge humankind's actions.
People have the stupid kneejerk reaction of "Killed a paedophile/sex offender though, good." As if the man has done a good deed.
If you say what PVS did for example, that you won't complain he did it, but he deserves to do the time for the crime then fair enough. I might not agree, but at least there's a level of seeing that a crime was committed also.
I don't get these people who think the man should have no sentance just because he killed people who did something you don't like.
-AC
He was wrong in his actions (however I can't help having some admiration for his motivation and strategy) and he should be punished. But in his judgement the background of his crimes should be noted, at-least he had something of a reason. A 44 year sentence is to much punishment, especially in a justice-system in which rapists and 'ordinay' killers get away with less then 12 years.
Originally posted by Pandemoniac
He was wrong in his actions (however I can't help having some admiration for his motivation and strategy) and he should be punished. But in his judgement the background of his crimes should be noted, at-least he had something of a reason. A 44 year sentence is to much punishment, especially in a justice-system in which rapists and 'ordinay' killers get away with less then 12 years.
If this person got out soon he would want to do the same thing again.
Originally posted by Victor Von Doom
If this person got out soon he would want to do the same thing again.
And that would be exterminating more dangerous people. While the law releases the killers of innocents back in society within a few years.
I do not approve of his final methods, but he is by far the largest danger we need to fear.
Originally posted by Pandemoniac
And that would be exterminating more dangerous people.
He is a dangerous person. The reason we don't allow this type of thing is because people are idiots, and people can't be trusted to look after their own children, let alone going round doing things like this.
In fact, I don't know why I'm even arguing about this, it's idiotic.
Originally posted by Pandemoniac
While the law releases the killers of innocents back in society within a few years.
Mere tabloid hysteria.
Originally posted by PandemoniacI do not approve of his final methods, but he is by far the largest danger we need to fear.
Couldn't have said it better.
Originally posted by Makedde
Parents can't be expected to guard their children 24/7.
Yes, they can. That's their job. If you can't handle your kids, don't have kids. You are being stupid...again.
Wasn't it you who said that women and men should deal with the consequences of their sexual actions, responsibly? Yes it was. If you can't guard your children, don't have any.
Originally posted by Pandemoniac
A 44 year sentence is to much punishment, especially in a justice-system in which rapists and 'ordinay' killers get away with less then 12 years.
Let me get this straight.
You are moaning that killers of innocents don't get ENOUGH time, then you're saying they should get LESS time because people who commit sex offenses may sometimes get out less than a decade? Yes, perfect solution. Let's say that a 44 year imprisonment for taking multiple lives is TOO much, purely because someone who didn't kill anyone, but committed a crime to which idiots have a kneejerk reaction got let out of prison after less than a decade.
What in hell's name is wrong with you? Where is your rationale?
-AC