• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the Government

Should the Government have the power to take this life?

  • Yes, only if loss of life is imminent.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No.

    Votes: 19 82.6%

  • Yes, to prevent both property damage and loss of life.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No. The Government should kill the rioters. ;)

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • Total voters
    23
Excon

Excon

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2012
Messages
40,615
Reaction score
9,087
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
OscarB63 made the following comment in jest, and it got me wondering.
Kill Zimmermam NOW or there will be riots.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...attacked-zimmerman-2-a-40.html#post1060344097

Question.
If a person's death would prevent riots that would result in many more deaths and property damage; Should the Government have the power to take this life?
Yes, only if loss of life is imminent.
No.
Yes, to prevent both property damage and loss of life.
No. The Government should kill the rioters.​



Why?
Why not?
 
Last edited:
i think the the members in the media who blew this all out of proportion knowing it would cause riots should be sent to prison.

but no man deserves punishment without fair trial,what are we in 1671 where we accuse someone then burn them alive?????
 
If the government's only recourse to prevent rioting is death then the government has failed the people. A healthy society made of responsible, accountable, concerned citizens does not riot violently in the face of social disagreement.

Hell, the greatest gains in our history outside of the RW were made through largely peaceful protest and activism.
 
even only one life is more important than lots of riots
 
Not just no, HELL NO!
 
just google the la riots,this wouldnt be the first time the media and politicians blew something so out of proportion and caused riots for ratings.
 
U.S. media exploits race and religion let alone sensationalisation. Can't they play a positive role?
 
The answer is no.But if the government should kill anyone it should be the rioters.
 
beerftw said:
just google the la riots,this wouldnt be the first time the media and politicians blew something so out of proportion and caused riots for ratings.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The media is just representing long held beliefs or views and a single story becomes the focal point. Those LA riots were due to long held beliefs by populations in that area and by actions long term by LA police.

Just like the Martin shooting is based on a long held belief that justice is applied unfairly to different groups.
 
I think I am seeing a lot of knee-jerk reactions.

If the only way to prevent 1000 deaths was by taking one life?
I know which way I lean on that.
 
Medusa said:
what kind of rioters?
Click to expand...
How about the rioters in this situation.
The ones that are rioting because the Gov hasn't taken a life.
 
Excon said:
How about the rioters in this situation.
The ones that are rioting because the Gov hasn't taken a life.
Click to expand...

maybe those who riot want a real justice rather than a life and they try to attract attention of people by means of such bluff
 
Excon said:
I think I am seeing a lot of knee-jerk reactions.

If the only way to prevent 1000 deaths was by taking one life?
I know which way I lean on that.
Click to expand...

How would one have the foresight to pull this off? How would it not be abused or misapplied?

This would be a whole pile of cobblestones on the road to tyranny. We have the right to assemble, we have the right to demonstrate. Givjng the government the power to potentially intervene on these rights (to the point of preemptive executions!?!?) because they can claim there is a potential for lives to be lost if the instigators are not executed? as others have already said HELL NO!!!!!!!!

edit: Kent State comes to mind here. Do we really want a proliferation of similar events? We have Non-lethal means of suppression if things get out of hand, if the government started in on preemptive executions it would be the beginning of many very dark days in our country with escalation of conflicts and even more lives lost as a result.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
OscarB63 made the following comment in jest, and it got me wondering.
Kill Zimmermam NOW or there will be riots.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...attacked-zimmerman-2-a-40.html#post1060344097

Question.
If a person's death would prevent riots that would result in many more deaths and property damage; Should the Government have the power to take this life?
Yes, only if loss of life is imminent.
No.
Yes, to prevent both property damage and loss of life.
No. The Government should kill the rioters.​



Why?
Why not?
Click to expand...

Not without due process.
 
Medusa said:
maybe those who riot want a real justice rather than a life and they try to attract attention of people by means of such bluff
Click to expand...
Sorry.
My scenario. They wanted the persons life or they were going to riot and kill people.




marduc said:
How would one have the foresight to pull this off?
Click to expand...
Beats me. I am just asking.



marduc said:
How would it not be abused or misapplied?
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
Once given into, that's it.
Best option is to kill the protesters.



marduc said:
We have the right to assemble, we have the right to demonstrate.
Click to expand...
That right is "peaceably to assemble". Not to riot and take life.
 
Absolutely not. The government must be constrained in the force it can exert against the individual. There is no way in hell they should be allowed to arbitrarily kill a possible innocent individual without due process for something as vague as “greater good”. If others choose to riot and act out, those actions are on them; they are the ones who make that choice. The government cannot be permitted to randomly execute individuals for some “public safety”.
 
Excon said:
OscarB63 made the following comment in jest, and it got me wondering.
Kill Zimmermam NOW or there will be riots.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...attacked-zimmerman-2-a-40.html#post1060344097

Question.
If a person's death would prevent riots that would result in many more deaths and property damage; Should the Government have the power to take this life?
Yes, only if loss of life is imminent.
No.
Yes, to prevent both property damage and loss of life.
No. The Government should kill the rioters.​



Why?
Why not?
Click to expand...
What OUR government should be doing is excaping from the kill-kill-kill mania in which we are locked into and institute some real gun laws, keeping guns from the hands of me, the Zimmermans, and the Martins in our society.
The NRA be damned.
 
Excon said:
That right is "peaceably to assemble". Not to riot and take life.
Click to expand...

We have non lethal means of suppression. How often do we have riots that result in a multitude of deaths? Further even if we did have a problem with fatal rioting, how do you know in advance that there will be deaths, and how do you know who the parties to execute would be in advance to prevent this?

Your draconian preventative measures would have the opposite result and fuel more violent riots, there would be more deaths as a result.
 
earthworm said:
What OUR government should be doing is excaping from the kill-kill-kill mania in which we are locked into and institute some real gun laws, keeping guns from the hands of me, the Zimmermans, and the Martins in our society.
The NRA be damned.
Click to expand...
I think that is a horrible position.
The right to bare arms allows the individual to protect their self from such government action I speak of.
And you want to take that away?
 
Last edited:
marduc said:
We have non lethal means of suppression. How often do we have riots that result in a multitude of deaths? Further even if we did have a problem with fatal rioting, how do you know in advance that there will be deaths, and how do you know who the parties to execute would be in advance to prevent this?
Click to expand...
They vowed to kill if they didn't get this person.
Me personally would wait until they did.
 
beerftw said:
i think the the members in the media who blew this all out of proportion knowing it would cause riots should be sent to prison.

but no man deserves punishment without fair trial,what are we in 1671 where we accuse someone then burn them alive?????
Click to expand...
Apparently, yes, "1671".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom