LIFE in prison for arson!?!

[DiscoBiscuit]

If some guy watches little girls through the window...he is harmless...right??

Follow your own time line...

Up to this point, "some guy" is a peeping tom. We have laws against this so I would say the guy in the scenario isn't harmless.

Because he didn't "Touch" them??

It wouldn't be necessary for me to respond if I hired you to comment for me. But this isn't the case and you're already two false assumptions ahead of your premise. But thanks for forming them as questions.

Where do we draw the distinction?? When they "Touch" them...or when actual penetration takes place??
I know this is a fucked up scenario...and I hope it doesn't get deleted--

touching - child molestation? that's a punishable crime

penetration - child rape? that's a punishable crime

The only way it's a fucked up scenario is if and when your assumption applies in the wrong place.

"When" is more a matter of "if". Your analogy suggests the perp would be allowed to proceed. I'm sorry but that's a stretch.

Let's go ahead and solidify your analogy. The peeping tom in your analogy has intent. If he's arrested at the peeping tom stage... he's charged as a fuckin' peeping tom (and intent if it applies. ) If he's charged as anything worse, the DA will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.

Did you see the Tucson policeman on national tv saying he almost shot the wrong guy? He approached the murder scene and a bystander pointed to a man holding the 9mm weapon used to kill the judge and 9 year old girl, among others. The policeman didn't know the man holding the gun had wrestled it from the assassin's hand.

The cop admitted he didn't assume the man holding the gun was the assassin. The cop inquired further and discovered the facts before he reacted.

The cop didn't react as if the man holding the gun "might" shoot somebody with it. You and I know only after the fact the man holding the gun wasn't dangerous. Allowing action on assumptions would result in cases of bad judgment.

But it is pertinent to what I am saying--
They are fucking SERIAL ARSONIST'S... they will do it again, and it is not worth our while to hope they won't elevate it to Murder next time??

And they were convicted as such. Nobody wants these bastards to burn again. But if they do their time (and are still alive) they deserve release just like everybody else that does their time.

I love to grow pot...but I can still see the Darker Side of Man--

Then welcome to the bright side. If you were to have a need to knock at my door, I wouldn't apply unfounded assumptions of nefarious motive, much less act accordingly. I may appear cautious, depending on where I live and the nature of crime in my area. Even if you didn't get what you wanted, you wouldn't get unjust treatment.

I accept the fact you make no difference between victim vs victimless crime. I'm agnostic and don't hate what religion is. I often dislike what some religious peeps think but I don't hate em. And for the record I draw distinction with what happens, not hyperbole.

What Hyperbole??

No distinction to hyperbole in the post. You may equate hate and disagreement if you wish.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Hempkat, I'd also like to say in Disco's defense that he too called my opinions hateful, even though he also is not religious. If I were such a hater though, I'm probably be serving life for arson of a church.

For the record, I mentioned hate crimes, hate laws and hate rhetoric (in general.) I referenced weird's projection, not because of the fact he responded to you, Muoy.

Nevertheless, my bad for indirectly associating you with intolerance.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Ah so then from this I can extrapolate that you feel that if someone tries to kill someone with a gun but is a lousy shot and misses, then that person should not get life....seeing as how nobody was killed or hurt.

In your scenario, one could be charged with attempted murder. Life? Might that be outside respective statute?

Arson is treated so seriously because it has the potential to do so much more harm then even the arsonist intended. What if the fires they started ended up being responsible for a wildfire starting and said wildfire ended up killing people?

Depending on the jurisdiction, they could be charged with murder. Nobody suggests arson isn't serious. Equating it with something that didn't happen is a stretch.

 

[Misuseofyou]

For the record, I mentioned hate crimes, hate laws and hate rhetoric (in general.) I referenced weird's projection, not because of the fact he responded to you, Muoy.

Nevertheless, my bad for indirectly associating you with intolerance.

My mistake. Anyway I enjoyed this thread, I hope you all did too.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Well true, if someone shoots at someone and misses it is just attempted murder but there aren't seperate charges for that.

You've never heard of attempted murder?

At least not that I'm aware of. My point though is that just because nobody was hurt or injured it doesn't make the crime less serious.

Can't convict injury and or murder, it wasn't committed. Nobody ever said the crime wasn't serious.

As someone pointed out that was just luck that nobody was hurt. I mean I doubt the arsonists went in the churches first and made sure nobody was inside before they set them. Perhaps that's why they did them at night but I'm betting the time was chosen more to help them get away with what they were doing without being seen.

And then they were charged, tried and convicted, based on evidence and statute, not on ethereal.

 

[MJBadger]

Another thread gone to pot .

 

[Stress_test]

Since the beginning of time a church has always been considered a sanctuary. Believers and non believers alike have recognized that a church is a place of refuge for all who enter there.

In every aspect a church is more sacred than ones own home because it is sanctuary to many.

Yeah, burn my families home, it's worth their life...

 

[ddrew]

Since the beginning of time a church has always been considered a sanctuary. Believers and non believers alike have recognized that a church is a place of refuge for all who enter there.

..

Sanctuary for all who enter, except young boys, many of whom needed a place of refuge, from the place of refuge.

 

[kmk420kali]

Follow your own time line...

Up to this point, "some guy" is a peeping tom. We have laws against this so I would say the guy in the scenario isn't harmless.

It wouldn't be necessary for me to respond if I hired you to comment for me. But this isn't the case and you're already two false assumptions ahead of your premise. But thanks for forming them as questions.

touching - child molestation? that's a punishable crime

penetration - child rape? that's a punishable crime

The only way it's a fucked up scenario is if and when your assumption applies in the wrong place.

"When" is more a matter of "if". Your analogy suggests the perp would be allowed to proceed. I'm sorry but that's a stretch.

Let's go ahead and solidify your analogy. The peeping tom in your analogy has intent. If he's arrested at the peeping tom stage... he's charged as a fuckin' peeping tom (and intent if it applies. ) If he's charged as anything worse, the DA will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.

Did you see the Tucson policeman on national tv saying he almost shot the wrong guy? He approached the murder scene and a bystander pointed to a man holding the 9mm weapon used to kill the judge and 9 year old girl, among others. The policeman didn't know the man holding the gun had wrestled it from the assassin's hand.

The cop admitted he didn't assume the man holding the gun was the assassin. The cop inquired further and discovered the facts before he reacted.

The cop didn't react as if the man holding the gun "might" shoot somebody with it. You and I know only after the fact the man holding the gun wasn't dangerous. Allowing action on assumptions would result in cases of bad judgment.

And they were convicted as such. Nobody wants these bastards to burn again. But if they do their time (and are still alive) they deserve release just like everybody else that does their time.

Then welcome to the bright side. If you were to have a need to knock at my door, I wouldn't apply unfounded assumptions of nefarious motive, much less act accordingly. I may appear cautious, depending on where I live and the nature of crime in my area. Even if you didn't get what you wanted, you wouldn't get unjust treatment.






No distinction to hyperbole in the post. You may equate hate and disagreement if you wish.

If you don't understand, that Arsonist's are "Damaged Goods"...the same as Child molesters...then I'm really not sure what to say--
I am not Hating on Churches...I don't agree with them, and they have directly been the cause of about every War in history...but whatever--
What I do stand upon...is the Fact that Serial Arsonists get their jollies from burning things...and eventually they "Might" kill someone-- But the other fact, that takes the "Might" out...is they will continue to burn things...much as child molesters will continue to diddle kids--
I have to go with Stats here--
Peace man--

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

If you don't understand, that Arsonist's are "Damaged Goods"...the same as Child molesters...then I'm really not sure what to say--

I like the word criminals. I'd have to apply context to equate the crimes.

I am not Hating on Churches...I don't agree with them, and they have directly been the cause of about every War in history...but whatever--

Yeah, I don't hate religious people either. If someone comes to the door to preach I'm civil. But the business add the says "god bless you" doesn't ring my bell. Religious person - no harm, no foul. Guy making a profit...

What I do stand upon...is the Fact that Serial Arsonists get their jollies from burning things...and eventually they "Might" kill someone-- But the other fact, that takes the "Might" out...is they will continue to burn things...much as child molesters will continue to diddle kids--
I have to go with Stats here--
Peace man--

Your right. Fire bugs are very often habitual.

 

[HempKat]

Like I said, my point was about belief. Not about religion, not about marijuana. Just like the gentleman who brought up "If those were grow houses instead of churches" wasn't going off-topic and wasn't talking about marijuana. You were discussing belief, and I was discussing belief. I'm sorry you can't make that connection, but maybe you should work on your reading comprehension before you start telling people they're ignoring the topic and don't understand the context of it.

Maybe you should work on sequence of events. Weird referenced religion. You hate religion so you started bashing his opinions focusing just on the religious references. I pointed out that more people see things his way then the number of folks that see things your way and I pointed out how you were taking the thread off topic. You came back with something about I think majority = right. I came back with the correction that majority doesn't equal right but in a democracy it does rule.

Point being the discussion of belief didn't come before you tried to take the thread off topic but rather afterwards. I'm not making the connection you want because that connection is a figment of your imagination that you are now using to try to justify your behavior.

You don't have to be best friends with sheep to have contact with them. They're everywhere. Acquaintances? Co-workers? Customers? The cable guy you talk to for 5 minutes? I call BS. Either you have asked every single person you've ever met whether they believe it, you have read everyone you've ever met's mind, or you're the luckiest man on the planet to have never met a stupid person.

I don't know what farm animals have to do with this. No I have not asked everyone I meet whether or not they think marijuana fries your brain. When you're trying to keep a low profile because you're a grower, you don't go around asking every person you meet what they think of marijuana. No I have not read people's minds, I'm not some looney toon who goes around imagining he has supernatural powers. Nor am I the luckiest man on the planet because I meet stupid people all the time, offline and online. Of course none of that changes the fact that none of the people I know believe that. They are either too intelligent to believe such an obvious falsehood and/or they smoke marijuana and know from first hand experience that it doesn't fry their brain. I don't know why you think it bullshit that someone who enjoys marijuana is likely to be surrounded by people that are like minded.

In other words, you think i'm screaming like a mad man with no valid points while you wax eloquent on-topic. Gotcha. Sugar coat it if you want, but that's what you're saying. You're entitled to your opinion. I think you'd rather avoid my questions than answer them, so you accuse me of not trying to have a discussion at all.

You haven't asked me any questions so why on earth would you delude yourself into thinking I would avoid them. As for what I'm saying. Wrong I said what I said, no where do I claim to be waxing eloquent and no where do I accuse you of screaming like a mad man, those are your thoughts not mine. Maybe you're used to playing word games and hiding meanings in other words? I don't play childish games like that, if I think you're a raving lunatic I'll tell you that you are a raving lunatic. It's assholes like you that go around always looking for hidden meaning in things that ruins perfectly good, intelligent discussions.

I assumed nothing. That's what asking questions is for. People who make assumptions don't need to ask questions because they assume they already know the answers.

You didn't ask me what my religious beliefs were you assumed you knew what they were but what I was saying to someone else and even though you weren't part of the discussion you came into it expressing your opinions of religion. You didn't ask what I meant in my previous post, you just assumed I was calling you a screaming mad man and praising myself for being eloquent. No questions asked, just you assuming you know what I "really meant" and accusing me of sugar coating it. You seem rather full of yourself but you are not, you are full of shit.

Happy 7 made a blanket statement, then you made a blanket statement. Then I said "Feelings and belief don't give you a leg to stand on." Then I asked a series of questions which clarified why feelings and belief don't give you a leg to stand on. Questions are a way of seeking clarification. I've asked you a bunch of questions to see if you really meant what you said. You have made a bunch of assumptions and ignored my questions.

I did not make a blanket statement. I said "You might have a leg to stand on if anything more then an infintesimal minority felt the same way about it as you. Alas that is not the case. By far the vast majority believe in religion as a good positive force." That's not a blanket statment according to surveys and the census and things like that 83% Americans claim to belong to a religion, 40% claim they attend religious services weekly and 59% claim to pray weekly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_States

The question you asked was "How many people believe that your brain fries like an egg when you smoke cannabis?"hich I did answer but you're not willing to accept my answer because you seem to think the world needs to conform to how you see things, it does not.

You should have just stuck with your only on topic comment of "For the record, I believe the arsonists got what they should have expected to get and if not, they should have spent less money on flammables and more on attorneys. Also, they have caused millions of dollars in damages which they can't repay." But no you apparently fancy yourself some sort of psychologist and felt the need to diagnose Haapy 7 with "I also believe happy 7 needs to be hugged several times a day by a mother - figure and told he's loved."

Do I need to cut and paste a definition of "proof" too or can we agree that proof is a matter of right and wrong?

No proof in and of itself isn't a matter of right or wrong. If something is proof then it's already been established it's accurate or right. If it hasn't been established that it's right or accurate then it is just speculation. Happy7 made a false claim. I pointed out his claim might be correct if the majority of the population felt the same as he did. Then I pointed out the majority in fact see things very differently then he does. Now is it right or wrong that the majority of Americans believe in religion? I don't know, it's not my place to judge that but I do know that more then 3/4ths of Americans believe in religion. That's the proof that supports my comment, it's not right, it's not wrong, it just is, now get over it.

It doesn't matter if you were talking to me or somebody else. It doesn't matter the context in which you said it. Can this sentence be true in some cases and false in others? It's words from your mouth. If you meant them, then you mean to equate majority/minority with right and wrong. If you didn't mean them, then just say so.

No I meant to state a fact, and that fact is that 83% believe in religion as a positive force in their lives. It has absolutely nothing to do with right or wrong. The point I was making is that in a democracy majority rules. Often times that majority is wrong like in the case of marijuana prohibition but because majority rules the rest of us have to deal with how the majority rules it. I meant what I said, it's just that you keep trying to tell me that what I meant is different then what I say I meant. So here let me honor your request here, No I did not mean what you think I meant, I meant what I said.

Everybody goes off topic, including you. Big deal. Report me to the moderators if it bothers you that much. Otherwise, stop hiding behind it. Stop bringing it up.

Sorry asshole, you don't get to dictate to me or anyone else here what they can or can't do. I'm not hiding behind jack shit, what do I have to hide from? You? I'm not talking about going off topic briefly with an example or something that grows out of an on topic discussion. I'm talking about you coming in here and going off topic with your first post. I'm not going to report you to a mod I'm not some pussy that needs others to stand up for him. I'll call you out right here in the court of public opinion.

Everybody has biases. Everything in nature has a bias. It means nothing in the context you are using it in.

I never said you were the only one with a bias I just pointed out it's your bias towards religion that is behind your posting here. I also meant it exactly according to one of the dictionary definitions for bias, in the contest in which I used it.

a : bent, tendency b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : prejudice c : an instance of such prejudice

http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bias

Ok, I didn't ask you to expand on anything. I haven't made any points. I'm trying to incite a riot. If you say so.

Please show me were I said you tried to incite a riot? It would be nice if we could get posts from you without you having to be such a meladramatic drama queen.

You say "it felt like you were going out of your way to argue" so stop acting like you don't know enough to have feelings about me.

Dude are you really as freaking stupid as this comment makes you seem? I expressed a feeling about something you posted are you really so stupid that you can't recognize that having a feeling about what someone posts is not the same thing as having a feeling about the person who posted it. You came into a thread whose topic was arson and it's punishments and began expressing your disdain for religion. In other words you came into a thread that you didn't have to come into and made comments that any moron would recognize as controversial and would likely lead to an arguement. That in my book is going out of your way to be argumentative.

My style of debate is dishonest and jibberish, so I'll make it a point not to ask you any more questions ever. You have answered some of my questions indirectly though, so I have closure.

It was nice meeting you. Have a long, safe, happy life.

Dishonesty and jibberish have nothing to do with debate but if that's your style and it means you'll never speak to me again then that's cool. I wish I could say meeting you was nice but then I'd be employing your style of debate.

 

[HempKat]

(old quote)



I invite weird (and you) to justify your comments.

I ' l l t y p e r e a l s l o w . . .

What's your justification? Weird couldn't/wouldn't answer and neither will you, apparently.

Well if you're going to invite people to justify their comments you kind of need to let them know which comments exactly you want justification for. I'm really not clear on what you want because the way you post this request for justification it looks like you're talking about when I copy and pasted the Texas statute that clearly says you can sentence arson as First degree if it involves a place of worship or assembly. So those aren't my words to justify, those are the words of the statute that applies and since you say you don't have a problem with it if it's in the statute you really shouldn't need further justification.

Perhaps you mean the bullet in the skull comment since you quted that just above your request. I do trust you realize that was in response to someone else pointing out how some clergy of certain churches have molested children. In my opinion anyone molesting a child needs to be taken out back and have a bullet placed inside their skull. IF you got a problem with that, too fucking bad.

Let's break it down again...

*OP - Texas looks like an arcane, knee jerk... whatever

*Since then, statue has been acknowledged

*Yet weird and you toss arcane, knee jerk... whatever

So you're invited to tell us how you come up with that kind of stuff.

Repeat after me - There were no victims, there were no victims....

This is more like hyperbole.

Well first of all in order to break it down you have to be correct which you are not. I haven't tossed any arcane knee jerk stuff to the topic. I have pointed out repeatedly that the statute does spell out the punishment and only because you keep acting like you think this was just some arbitrary decision made by some judge.

The fact is these people were charge with multiple counts and for each one they got life. Now if Texas wanted to be the real hardasses everyone thinks they are, they would have let the sentences run back to back aka consecutive. However they probably thought it silly to keep someone in jail for longer then a normal human lifespan and so they let the sentences run all at the same time aka concurrent. When presented with that info you wrongly assumed that it was the multiple counts that got them a life sentence. That is incorrect. Each charge individually got life sentences.

The fact that there were no victims is irrelevent, the statue does not depend on victims for it's sentencing guidelines. You obviously don't like that but that's the way it is. If you want to do something about it then you'll likely be more successful if you move to Texas and petition the state representative to amend the laws on the books. Coming here and going on and on and on and on about there being no victims is a pointless waste of everyone's time.

 

[HempKat]

There's more to it than buggaring a few altar boys. Priests don't work, they sit around and lecture people. They tell people how to live their lives, that they're sinners, etc. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to be a dandy boy in flowing robes.. but some do. That's the type of person that wishes to become a priest imo, and when we put that together with a steady stream of altar boys, you know what we get.

Here's a generalization for you: Cope are pieces of shit. I believe that, as do many others. Does that mean there aren't some good ones? Of course not. That doesn't make the generalization wrong, it means there's exceptions to it, as with any other.

Until we eliminate the parasites from our society, and get everyone working towards the common good, we'll go nowhere. Personally I gave up on trying to change anything a long time ago, and just concentrate on the happiness of me and mine. That's enough off topic talk I suppose.

Yeah and that's why mankind is likely doomed, we've become too good at differentiating ourselves from everyone else, 9 ways to sunday and then use that to rationalize why it's okay to just worry about taking care of our own needs and to hell with everyone else.

 

[HempKat]

Sure there is reason to modify - you want to take them out back.

Lol

If you're going to participate in other people's conversations the onus is on you to have a clue as to what's being said. I don't want arsonists taken out back and shot you idiot, I want child molesters taken out back and shot.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

finally, it's still knee jerk

 

[HempKat]

Ok just a bit more OT discussion lol.



Referencing a book really means nothing. First of all, the bible was not written in English, and is slightly different depending on which version you have. Second, 10 people can read something and give you 10 different answers as to what it means.
Third, there are things taught by Christianity that are not in the bible, such as original sin. What a novel idea, a newborn baby is already a sinner and will go to hell without the intervention of the church. Yep, god loves us so much he wants us to go to hell unless we pay tithe and homage to the priests.. right. Fourth and perhaps most importantly, there are portions that were removed from the bible, because it didn't mesh with the Church's view of things. I'll also point out that if Christ existed, those that wrote about him were not eye witnesses to his 'miracles'.

You don't know for certain what did or didn't happen 2000+ years ago, any better then anyone else. Anyway as to you points.
1) It's irrelevent what language a holy book is written in. I'm not saying that it being a holy book means anything I was just pointing out that clergy usually don't just arbitrarily preach their personal opinions (other then their religious beliefs) and agendas. The bible could be in it's ancient dialect from when it was various scrools in the collection of dead sea scrolls and the priest reading it in that language and it wouldn't change the point I was making.
2) I wasn't trying to say that Clergy get it right just that they don't arbitrarily start preaching to people about whatever they feel like. A better comparrison would be a teacher with a teacher's version of a text book teaching a class. The clergy being the teacher, the bible being the teachers version of a textbook and the congregation is the class. The teacher/clergy teaches/preaches to the class/congregation from the teacher edition of a textbook/bible.
3)Hmmm, well first of all Christianity isn't the only religion out there, the bible isn't the only holy book and not all Christianity follow the same beliefs. As far as I understand it the only ones believing in original sin are the Catholics. True the bible doesn't teach it but given what the bible does say about sin I can see were people might feel the bible teaches original sin.
4) I know the Bible is flawed it's the fact that books have been taken out and added back in and that there a several dozen variations of the bible all slightly different one from the other and that it was put into it current form by a member of the ruling class (King James) as to why I don't believe in the Christian religions. I never meant to imply that because it's a holy book that somehow it above lies or distortions or evil. I'm just acknowledging that religions have their books they go by and it's these books that tell the clergy what to preach.

As far as I'm concerned that's the only kind of religion there is. Mormons have a book too you know, it was written by Joseph Smith. That ol' horndog started his own religion just to legitimize polygamy, if you ask me. But his followers are devout. On what criteria do we judge the various religions to separate them from your average cult? Is it the amount of followers? Their overall message? Who really has the right to say? Fuck it, worship a brass donkey if you want, but leave me out of it and don't tell me I'm going to hell if I don't polish him.

Well if you know the History of Joseph Smith and the Mormons then you know that polygomy never entered the picture until after the book of Mormon was translated. Also it's not the book of Mormon that teaches polygomy but rather in the Doctrine and Covenants which is a seperate book containing just revelations supposedly From God to the prophet who is the head of the church. It's unlikely that Joseph Smith wrote the book of Mormon to justify polygomy. Keep in mind he was considered a living prophet who recieved visitations and revelations directly with and from God. If he wanted to do something he didn't need to write a book all he had to do was tell the congregation that God commanded him.

 

[HempKat]

does this have a religious bent?













Your opinion.
Evenly? Is that like fair and balanced?

Read his posts yourself, Hemp. He complains about the same thing he was doing. I pointed out the hyp and asked him to explain his knee jerk approach to sentencing.

You know all this.

F & b. I referenced ignorance bashing and religious bashing posts as "drive byes". Shares is your opinion, my religious status isn't clannish. I don't care about religious and or ignorance squabbles. IMO, weird's comments are arcane because he draws no distinction. But at least he wasn't an amoeba.

Read his post, judge for yourself. If he projects I'll point it out. Make all the ignorance and or religious slights you wish. I won't respond. But if you do it AND cry about it, I'll point it out.

wordy

judgement [sp] is your word...

Hemp, check the definition of agnostic. I pointed out weird's projection, not his religious status. Nice of you to quote me above, it points out what I'm after.

So how do you feel, Hemp? Do you think there's a religious bent to the knee jerk reactions here? I recognize this might be a personal question so feel free to say nunya.

But it's a stretch for you to spend this much time suggesting judgment and legalese. I'm curious why you draw no distinction between this non-violent vs violent crime.

You comment much about potential but you refuse to look at the fact nobody was hurt or killed. IMO, one would infer there's no difference. Instead I get post after post of word battle. Apparently I struck your religious sensitivities by pointing out weird's projection. Thanks for clearing that up.


Would anybody else care to offer some insight so we may avoid the round and round?

No you got post after post because you play games and are either unable or unwilling to admit you were wrong. The only other option is you are too stupid to see you were wrong. I know you aren't stupid.

The whole violent crime vs non violent crime issue is irrelevent. In Texas they have the death penalty so there you go, a harsher punishment for violent crimes as opposed to just a life sentence for non violent crimes. The couple of brief comments I made about potentials was in reference to the laws on the books. I was suggesting they made the laws as harsh as they were because of the potential for the crime of arson to cause more harm then just destruction of property. That's just a guess, the bottomline though is the law on the books does make certain distinctions and has different punishments accordingly.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

No you got post after post because you play games and are either unable or unwilling to admit you were wrong. The only other option is you are too stupid to see you were wrong. I know you aren't stupid.

Nah, you just toss words like stupid and idiot because you have knee jerk reactions to crime. I asked you personally because I'm curious whether you have a religious aspect to your reaction. I've said it repeatedly. You seem to advocate life for non-violent church arson and taking clergy out back and shooting them in the head.

The whole violent crime vs non violent crime issue is irrelevent.

Then why is your remedy for child molesters a bullet to the head? Or is it just clergy child molesters?

In Texas they have the death penalty so there you go, a harsher punishment for violent crimes as opposed to just a life sentence for non violent crimes.

That's the best you've done with the op. You know what I'm asking.

The couple of brief comments I made about potentials was in reference to the laws on the books. I was suggesting they made the laws as harsh as they were because of the potential for the crime of arson to cause more harm then just destruction of property. That's just a guess, the bottomline though is the law on the books does make certain distinctions and has different punishments accordingly.

Even better than the last one. But I'm not asking about Texas.

 

[HempKat]

I'm on page, Hemp. Bang a gong or something.

It's weird how you justify a legal opinion AND knee jerk, all in the same thread. All the fluff is a ruse.

All what fluff? The statute on the Texas law books?

I've already read your legal opinion. I'm curious of your knee jerk comment(s).

That's not my opinion though you moron it's the laws on the books in Texas.

Well, I've humored your interests but you dodge the same thing weird did. Such is life. As for the knee jerk reaction what are you blabbering about now? The quote you made near that is where I point out I was in the thread before you when you accused me of coming in late to the discussion. Sorry man that's fact not knee jerk, just go back and look. My first post was post #19 on the second page. Your first post was #53 on the forth page and was made 2 days after my first post.

BTW, apply your legal expertise to the case record, not just the statute. Without the particular case, you don't know the details of the verdict. It's kind of silly you'd dismiss the serial aspect and embrace "potential" of violence, especially shooting them.

Kind of violent there, Hemp.

Silly boy, the comments I'm making about the serial aspect aren't coming from the statue but rather from the details greensub posted. You know, the same one where you mistakenly think it's the number of arson's that netted the life sentence. As for the shooting I was talking about the child molesters someone else mentioned while going off topic. I have no problem with getting extremely violent with child molesters, rapists and women beaters. Like I said before if you're going to get involved in someone else's conversation then it's you're responsibility to understand what's being said before you comment.

 

[HempKat]

The only way it's a fucked up scenario is if and when your assumption applies in the wrong place.

You should practice what you preach.