BeachBumDeac
Cheap Date
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2011
- Messages
- 27,789
- Reaction score
- 15,483
Wood and Debbie Dietz had a tumultuous relationship during which he repeatedly assaulted her. She tried to end their relationship and got an order of protection against Wood.
On the day of the shooting, Wood went to the auto shop and waited for Gene Dietz, who disapproved of his daughter's relationship with Wood, to get off the phone. Once the father hung up, Wood pulled out a revolver, shot him in the chest and then smiled.
Wood then turned his attention toward Debbie Dietz, who was trying to telephone for help. Wood grabbed her by the neck and put his gun to her chest. She pleaded with him to spare her life. An employee heard Wood say, "I told you I was going to do it. I have to kill you." He then called her an expletive and fired two shots in her chest.
If your objection is a procedural one, the guillotine would solve that.
Ms. Dietz might have benefitted from an NRA self defense course to supplement her reliance on a government order of protection and quick dialing fingers:
in all seriousness, I am 100% in favor of bringing back the guillotine. It's fast, cheap, essentially painless for the condemned, it doesn't require any physicians to be party to homicide, and best of all, it might eventually force Americans to realize that executing people is a barbaric practice unworthy of a 21st century state that claims to be civilized - not a medical procedure.
in all seriousness, I am 100% in favor of bringing back the guillotine. It's fast, cheap, essentially painless for the condemned, it doesn't require any physicians to be party to homicide, and best of all, it might eventually force Americans to realize that executing people is a barbaric practice unworthy of a 21st century state that claims to be civilized - not a medical procedure.
In all seriousness, I'm in favor as well, at least for the first 3 reasons you state. I also tend to think executions should be carried out in the public square. I have a hunch that watching a head or two roll would tend to increase the deterrent value of the death penalty.
In all seriousness, I'm in favor as well, at least for the first 3 reasons you state. I also tend to think executions should be carried out in the public square. I have a hunch that watching a head or two roll would tend to increase the deterrent value of the death penalty.
Would the possibility of death by guillotine stop you from killing someone in a way the possibility of death by lethal injection would not?
Would the possibility of death by guillotine stop you from killing someone in a way the possibility of death by lethal injection would not?
Hard to put myself in those shoes, but I suspect that violent public executions would cause the possibility of the death penalty to be more at the forefront of a would-be murderer's thought process.
Because you asked about me personally, I do have an anecdote that may or may not be relevant: I'm a visual learner, like most of us. I can't remember why, but I have seen videos of what happens when a nose is punched upwards into the brain. Obviously, bad things happen. I was jumped on the street a few years back, and when I was thinking about what to do, the images from that video flashed through my mind. I didn't punch the guy in the face because of my fear I'd kill him and have to deal with the fallout on my conscience and career. I may have had the same response had I not seen the video, but the image of what could happened was seared into my memory and, thus, my ongoing thought process.
I think watching heads roll could have a similar impact.