• Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I don’t call it a win. That murderer deserved to be tried and convicted for their crime and serve decades behind bars. They gave him the easy way out.

    • Wahots@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 year ago

      From another article (The Sun is owned by Murdoch iirc), they suggested that the murderer did not want to get arrested and was aggressive. It’s sad that people get so hateful that they would rather die hating people than just going about life.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        1 year ago

        Do they ever want to get arrested? That sounds like a poor excuse not to hit him with a bunch of taser darts and take him down that way. Sure, that might kill him too, but at least there would be a chance. Easier for the cop to reach for their gun and “solve” the problem.

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      My cognitive dissonance is thinking both you and the guy you replied to are correct.

      • WiildFiire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        As much as I will defend my stance that I’m glad the shooter is dead, I still do agree with Flying Squid to an extent. Immediately murdering the aggressor goes against the whole of the system of law, I suppose a fair trial should still be taken place, but I’d be the happiest if they got the death penalty. Keeping him behind bars just keeps the hate alive

    • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      You should know it is a win. Justice is dealt swiftly, there’s no bullshit trials or wasting anyone’s time on this murdering asshole. Time or money.

      Sure, he “suffers less” getting a quick death, but let’s price this out for fun. This is in CA, Jesus, those idiots spent on average $64K per inmate annually as of 2015. Let’s not forget we’re in the era of Magic Biden Bucks™; according to Google we have experienced roughly 26% inflation since 2015. That $64K becomes $80K. Averages are just that, average, let’s be very generous & assume this guy is nothing special. Costing the taxpayer $70K per year incarcerated. Nice, even numbers. :-)

      That’s at least $700K per decade, not accounting for any future inflation. You want decades, so this revenge/justice venture will cost at minimum $1.4M. Versus 10 mins & $10 in bullets.

      I don’t really seek vengeance in the form of life sentences. The end result is the same; death is death & he got his. Justice has been served accurately with zero delay, a modern day miracle.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh yeah, police just shooting who they feel like is a modern day miracle! Nothing bad can come from that! Totally won’t end with a police officer kneeling on a man’s neck and slowly choking him to death for being black!

        • pinkdrunkenelephants
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          You erroneously framing a self defense situation which the cops were actually in for once as some 90’s revenge movie cliche is only hurting us.

          This is not about you.

          • rbhfd@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            They’re replying to the comment celebrating the fact the suspect was given a quick and cheap death by the police.

            Maybe the police actions in this case were warranted because of self defense, but that’s not what the comment was saying at all.

            • pinkdrunkenelephants
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              I don’t care. They can think how they want and you do not have the moral authority to tell them they can’t. Go find something better to do with your free time than exploiting a tragedy to bully other people into adopting your way of thinking.

              • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Don’t participate in a discussion thread if you don’t want to talk about that topic. It’s not complicated.

                • pinkdrunkenelephants
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  You ought to listen to yourself there. I am not gonna be quiet because you don’t want me to speak the truth, and the truth is he HAS no moral authority to dictate anything to anyone. He’s just some schmuck like the rest of us, and so are you.

                  • masterspace@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Lol I didn’t tell you not to say what you want, I said not to shut others down. Maybe drink less or ask a human to type for you before posting.

              • rbhfd@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The moral authority to tell someone that their stance that police can shoot anyone they want without due process because it’s cheaper that way is morally wrong?

                Yeah, everyone has that.

                I’m not trying to make light of the tragedy that happened to the original victim, nor am I saying it’s sad that the killer got killed himself. But if someone is arguing to eliminate due process because of this case, I’ll argue against that. And so should anyone else.

                • pinkdrunkenelephants
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  Yes. You have no authority to tell them any moral stance is wrong, especially telling people they can’t kill obvious hateful cultists who are a threat to the community and have proven it by killing actually innocent people. You have NO business saying that in a modern society AT ALL.

                  No one has the authority to tell someone that. Not even you. And if you claim it I will pit you right back in your place, far below actual decent people, where you belong. You will get what you give and you won’t like it.

                  I’m not trying to make light of the tragedy that happened to the original victim,

                  Well you are, and you make light of countless tragedies both violent and nonviolent across this nation and across this planet when you open your stupid fucking mouth and insinuate something so evil. And until you stop, my stance won’t change.

                  But if someone is arguing to eliminate due process because of this case

                  The only one who took away his right to due process was him, and he did it of his own volition by being dumb enough to fire at cops. When you shoot at ANYONE unprovoked, you have to accept the very high risk of being killed for your trouble and therefore never seeing a trial because that is how reality works.

                  Self-defense is a fundamental human right that supercedes any right you claim an aggressor to have.

                  Get over it you don’t like it.

                  And stop making me defend pigs

                  • rbhfd@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Final reply, because I feel this not going anywhere.

                    I, or the person I was defending, was not talking about this specific situation. Of course they have the right to self defense. I explicitly mentioned that before two comments ago.

                    I’m also not trying to defend the killer or feel sad at all he got killed by the police.

                    All my replies were aimed at the comment from CoffeeJunkie who apparently was advocating for the police to be judge, jury and executioner because that’s cheaper. That’s a major simplification and I’m sure that’s not what they meant, but that’s how I, and probably others, interpreted it and why I chose to go against it.

                    Again, I’m done arguing with you. You’re resorting to ad hominem attacks because you’re misunderstanding what I’m saying.

        • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          That isn’t at all what I said, and this isn’t a case of “shooting who they feel like”. 🤨 This was a case of a killer, a true murderer, getting killed. No one will be prosecuted for fatally shooting this murderer. Stop making false equivalence arguments.

        • CoffeeJunkie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          We’re in agreement on that. But when in pursuit of an armed & dangerous individual, armed with a gun, I do believe lethal response in self-defense or pursuit of neutralizing the threat is authorized. If the killer is killed in an armed standoff with police, while not the goal, I’m going to call that a bonus.

          I think it is a lapse in moral judgment to command others to act in ways that we wouldn’t act ourselves…I think most people, pursuing an armed & dangerous killer, would want a gun & permission to use it when their lives are threatened. Tasers, stun weapons, and other non-lethal forms of detainment require getting uncomfortably close to the armed & dangerous person.