Tracy, I'm not arguing that you are wrong. What I am arguing is that the law would call it murder, and I don't understand why the law should be allowed to call it a just killing if the system does it, and murder if you do it. If it's murder, for you, then it's murder for the system. In fact, in the case of the system, it is even more reprehensible as far as I'm concerned, since once in the prison system, the legal system should be able to render any such threats meaningless.

>Verbal threats get little action from the law. I know of a couple of examples where individuals were threatened (and knew the threats would be carried out) but the law could take no action until the person who voiced the threat actually did something. The most that can be done is a restraining order and we all know how successful those are. I would risk it with myself, but not my child.
>
>
>
>
>>So getting the police involved and seeing that the law deals with the situation is not a proper response? I thought this was part of why we have laws and police forces and call ourselves civilised. Granted that the law isn't always as helpful as one might like, I still think that in a civilised society, it should be the first call.
>>
>>But that is still a bit beside the point. The law will call it murder. Why then is the legal system exempt from the same set of rules? Why isn't hauling a defenseless person into a room, tying him down, and killing him, not murder?
>>
>>>That is a situation where one's actions I think will be judged by the laws here and by God. The same situation in the home of single person compared to the home with a family can alter one's view:
>>>
>>>1. Single Person
>>>
>>> A person breaks in and threatens you with bodily harm. You subdue to the person and in the process the person vows to return and tear you limb from limb (or any unspeakable horror).
>>>
>>>2. Family
>>>
>>> A person breaks in and threatens you with bodily harm. You subdue to the person and in the process the person vows to return and tear your children limb from limb (or any unspeakable horror).
>>>
>>>In number 1 above, I would probably assume lethal force was uncalled for and find the homeowner guilty of murder. I don't know if I could vote for the death penalty in a court of law as a juror though.
>>>
>>>In number 2 above, the same as far as the homeowner's guilt, but I do think that I would in fact sentence a person to death immediately (if I were the homeowner) in the situation of #2 above and be willing to suffer the consequences (in this life and the next or even the afterlife).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>Justice too often is about revenge rather than anything else..
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The death penalty is babaric regardless of the form. In that sense the US is totally backward to any other western country.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>"Thy shall not kill"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>It's actually "Thy shall not murder".
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If you're talking of the 10 commandments it's actually "Thou shalt not kill". "Thy" means "your" as in "belonging to you, singular".
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. I stand corrected.
>>>>>But the the word "kill" comes from a Hebrew word "ratsach", which means "... killing without just cause...". So more accurately the modern day scriptures are translated to say "Thou shalt not murder".
>>>>
>>>>It's still an arguable point though as to what constitutes killing with or without cause. If someone breaks into your house and threatens your family, the law allows that you might kill the intruder to end the threat. However, if you were to end the threat by overpowering the person, and then while he is laying on the ground, shoot him through the head, the law would take a very dim view indeed. In other words, once the threat is neutralized, the further act of killing becomes, in the eyes of the law, murder.
>>>>
>>>>So; when a killer is captured and put into prison, always assuming the prison is properly run, and the legal system is properly run, is the threat then not neutralized? Why would the law consider that you are a murder if you kill a defenseless person once he is neutralized, but the law itself is not a murderer having committed essentially the same act?