At 12:31 PM 8/26/97 PDT,"John Smith" wrote: |"William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@amaranth.com>: | |>>You stole from me. |>>*BANG* |> |>yep |> |>>You raped my sister |>>*BANG* |> |>yep |> |>As is the first two cases the "criminal" has violated my property & |>family. Such crimes are worthy of immediate death. You steal, you |>assault |>or threaten me or my family you have committed suicide. |> |>It is a quite simple and effective philosophy: |> |>"You fuck with me, my family, or my property you die. You leave me |>alone |>and I leave you alone." |> |>Even someone like you can understand such a philosophy. | |Well, I can't. It's very confusing. Are there judges in your |philosophy, or do you just decide for yourself who to shoot? | |"You walked on my property." BANG. | |"Your music kept me awake all night." BANG. | |"I warned you to cut that tree down, and now it fell on my house." |BANG. | | |Or how about escalation: | |"You raped my daughter" | |"No way, she wanted it as much as I did" | |"That's not what she tells me. You die." BANG. | | |"You shot my son" | |"Bullshit, he had it coming after what he did to my daughter." | |"Bullshit yourself." BANG. | | |"You shot my pa" | |"He shot my son" | |"You're gonna die." "I'm taking you with me then." BANG. BANG. | |BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. BANG. | | |You know, there's a reason people started using judges to help |settle disputes. There's a reason the common law evolved with the |idea of proportionate response and restitution. This kind of |shoot-everybody-I-think-harmed-me approach just doesn't work. |Nobody knows what someone else will consider harm worth shooting |over. If somebody disagrees that a shooting was justified, they'll |shoot back, and feuds begin. | |The current system stinks, but your idea is no better. | |"John Dear John, BANG! BangMonger