I’m generally not supportive of the death penalty but when the evidence is this clear and the murderer is a LEO, given the power of life and death over the rest of us, then he needs to be executed, just like he executed Renee Good.
This is why I get a bit pissed at opponents to the death penalty.
Yes, I think they make a good case for uncertainty of guilt. If the defendant in any way still protests the evidence or there could be any room for jury bias or any “UNreasonable doubts” over the murder, especially when it was only a single person, yes, I think it’s safer to avoid the Death Penalty.
But in cases where it was overt, repeated, caught on video, clearly intentional, and/or took advantage of a position held to a higher standard, I think yes; certain bad people really should die.
And look at how many evil people wanted him freed; if he was simply given a life sentence, the campaign to release him for “just doing his job” would be perpetually huge.
Meanwhile, the campaign to release Charlie Kirk from prison has gone quiet.
The death penalty is a law enforcement weapon. Unless you think you will personally be able to make the laws to serve your interests, you should oppose the death penalty just from a strategic standpoint. The death penalty will be used to execute enemies of the state when the state is unjust.
Death as harm reduction is often good. Killing soldiers from an invading army is good, killing cops is good. But death is only harm reduction if you don’t have better options. A community fighting a state often doesn’t, but anything capable of arranging a death penalty likely does.
Death as punishment is kind of dumb. The person will stop existing so they will stop suffering for their crimes, and everybody who has ever done something similar now knows they should fight to the death to resist you.
Death as an ideological suppressant is even dumber. The people that want people who have done wrong freed won’t go away if you execute the people who have done wrong. Most Nazi leaders died pretty quick but neo-nazis worshipped them anyway. Martyrdom is a real factor, and the dead can’t ruin their own reputation by being embarrassing or changing their minds. In fact people whose heroes are martyred tend to radicalize.
Ross is not the problem here. No amount of punishment for him will change the fact that 90 million people voted for Project 2025 and the US government is becoming fascist. Death is part of the answer, but not for him.
I don’t support death as punishment, but sometimes the only tool someone has to protect others is murder. Right now the system gives people no option to defend themselves from law enforcement officers other than through civil war, so it is just that law enforcement officers are murdered in (community) self-defense.
If there is a succesful revolution, old regime law enforcement prisoners of war are no longer in a position of power supported by the state. Killing them would no longer be clear-cut harm reduction when house arrest and rehabilitation are on the table. At that point, why kill him?
If he’s alive you can put him on house arrest and give him some craft tools and let him make stuff that others can use. It wouldn’t be forced labor; as every “give people free money and see what they do” experiment has shown, people will just make stuff if you let them.
I prefer effective purgatory. It’s a drain, but I’d like knowing he’s rotting in a cell forever with no contact outside of a therapist and no possibility of parole. Then he can have a nice long think about his actions, and how he is now simply a drain on society. Let him sit with that, forever.
One side of the death penalty is that innocent people can (and have) been executed. As another poster pointed out, the other side is that people who are initially jailed for life can later be released much earlier than they should be by governments who don’t view things like Ross did as a big deal.
He needs to be put in prison.
He needs to be put under the prison.
Best we can do is make him a millionaire.
Ugh, fucking bummer
I’m generally not supportive of the death penalty but when the evidence is this clear and the murderer is a LEO, given the power of life and death over the rest of us, then he needs to be executed, just like he executed Renee Good.
This is why I get a bit pissed at opponents to the death penalty.
Yes, I think they make a good case for uncertainty of guilt. If the defendant in any way still protests the evidence or there could be any room for jury bias or any “UNreasonable doubts” over the murder, especially when it was only a single person, yes, I think it’s safer to avoid the Death Penalty.
But in cases where it was overt, repeated, caught on video, clearly intentional, and/or took advantage of a position held to a higher standard, I think yes; certain bad people really should die.
And look at how many evil people wanted him freed; if he was simply given a life sentence, the campaign to release him for “just doing his job” would be perpetually huge.
Meanwhile, the campaign to release Charlie Kirk from prison has gone quiet.
The death penalty is a law enforcement weapon. Unless you think you will personally be able to make the laws to serve your interests, you should oppose the death penalty just from a strategic standpoint. The death penalty will be used to execute enemies of the state when the state is unjust.
Death as harm reduction is often good. Killing soldiers from an invading army is good, killing cops is good. But death is only harm reduction if you don’t have better options. A community fighting a state often doesn’t, but anything capable of arranging a death penalty likely does.
Death as punishment is kind of dumb. The person will stop existing so they will stop suffering for their crimes, and everybody who has ever done something similar now knows they should fight to the death to resist you.
Death as an ideological suppressant is even dumber. The people that want people who have done wrong freed won’t go away if you execute the people who have done wrong. Most Nazi leaders died pretty quick but neo-nazis worshipped them anyway. Martyrdom is a real factor, and the dead can’t ruin their own reputation by being embarrassing or changing their minds. In fact people whose heroes are martyred tend to radicalize.
Ross is not the problem here. No amount of punishment for him will change the fact that 90 million people voted for Project 2025 and the US government is becoming fascist. Death is part of the answer, but not for him.
Nothing you do to a pig is ever wrong.
I don’t support death as punishment, but sometimes the only tool someone has to protect others is murder. Right now the system gives people no option to defend themselves from law enforcement officers other than through civil war, so it is just that law enforcement officers are murdered in (community) self-defense.
If there is a succesful revolution, old regime law enforcement prisoners of war are no longer in a position of power supported by the state. Killing them would no longer be clear-cut harm reduction when house arrest and rehabilitation are on the table. At that point, why kill him?
If he’s alive you can put him on house arrest and give him some craft tools and let him make stuff that others can use. It wouldn’t be forced labor; as every “give people free money and see what they do” experiment has shown, people will just make stuff if you let them.
Nah. Gut the pig.
I prefer effective purgatory. It’s a drain, but I’d like knowing he’s rotting in a cell forever with no contact outside of a therapist and no possibility of parole. Then he can have a nice long think about his actions, and how he is now simply a drain on society. Let him sit with that, forever.
One side of the death penalty is that innocent people can (and have) been executed. As another poster pointed out, the other side is that people who are initially jailed for life can later be released much earlier than they should be by governments who don’t view things like Ross did as a big deal.