Targets can be a crude way to look at the results of “warfare,” but in reality, people are simply targets while at war. People are a portion of the infrastructure. Bridges, buildings, armaments, communication lines, and people… they are all targets from a military perspective. The United States and other NATO allies choose to separate civilians from military personnel. Our enemies however, do not. Civilian life from their perspective is just a part of the overall military target.

The enemy’s point of view concludes that civilians are at fault for paying taxes that support the war machine or they are by default born into an enemy society and therefore must pay for its transgressions against their way of life. No civilian is free from blame in their point of view. Therefore, suicide bombers who destroy civilian lives are in fact, freedom fighters in their mind. They have been taught this from birth. Their religion supports this and their history only strengthens their points of view.

From our perspective, killing innocent civilians is against our moral code. We believe the fight is with the military and the leadership, not the standard man, woman, child, and elderly person not taking up arms. From their perspective, the enemy is at fault because of their nationality or belief. They believe in killing anyone who does not believe what they believe by any means necessary.

Suicide bombers killing civilians are treated as heroes in their culture. Their families are “blessed” and they receive monetary rewards for such actions. They are in fact, the ultimate freedom fighter in their minds. How can a human being of any nationality or religion subscribe to this blatantly insane doctrine? Human nature involves sympathy for one another. We all have a mother and a father. We all experience relationships with other human beings in our lives. How can an entire culture simply lose sight of the fact that murdering innocent civilians, including women and children, is wrong no matter what you believe? Simply put, it is just morally wrong.

I believe the nations who support and promote suicide bombers as being freedom fighters have allowed their religion to be hijacked by terrorists who are using their faith against them for their own personal gain. Using their faith is the key. They are giving them the ultimate key to their spiritual safety by twisting religion into a radical “get out of jail free” card. Religion and faith is so deeply rooted within their society that they are blindly led by their maniacal leaders. They have simply lost focus on the fact that what they are doing and supporting is morally wrong.

Military action is one thing… destroying innocent civilian life, on purpose, is something insanely different. Terrorists rely upon their faith and religion to justify their actions against civilian life. How can you combat that? Generations upon generations have been led down this path and they continue to grow in size. Until the moderate and true leaders among their society come to the forefront, the radical terrorist spiritual leaders will continue to undermine their nations and the bloodshed will continue. Freedom fighter can never equal suicide bomber when civilians are the targets.

You may say there should be 0% religion in government because of the Constitution’s requirement of separation of Church and State. I say yes, the government cannot force religion upon our citizens, but our citizens can utilize religion and faith when voting and deciding policy. Taking a look at the latest statistics, 78.4% of Americans state that they are Christians. The rest is broken up into about 5% belonging to other faith traditions and 16.1% being unaffiliated with any specific religion. Our nation has always been and currently still is a Christian nation. Our forefathers and leadership during our nation’s formation were deeply rooted in their Christian faith, but they did not “shove” religion down our throats… going as far as making sure that it cannot happen.

Issue: Abortion

This may be the most divisive issue between the Conservative and Liberal Agendas. Unlike the Liberal Agenda believers, conservatives believe in Pro-Life. Many conservatives equate life with conception and not at birth. With life beginning at conception, abortion is nothing more than the murder of an innocent child. The innocence of life should be protected and not equated to a simple choice or right of the mother because it’s her “body.” What about the life of the child growing inside? Does it not have any rights?

Contradicting laws of our nation add to the volatility of this issue. Abortion is ok because the mother is “choosing” to abort because it’s her “body.” However, if a mother who is pregnant is murdered, the criminal faces two charges of murder. Or, if a pregnant mother is attacked and the baby is lost, the criminal faces a murder charge. On one hand, the child has no significance only because the mother decides that she doesn’t want the baby. On the other, the child is equivalent of a born human being, possessing all natural rights. The unborn baby either possesses all natural rights or does not. The Conservative Agenda says the unborn life possesses ALL natural rights.

Issue: Progressive Taxes

Unlike the Liberal Agenda, the Conservative Agenda does not believe in taxation to “spread the wealth.” Actually, removing the entire taxation system and replacing it with a “sales tax” is gaining momentum and traction amongst the true conservative nation. The idea here is to pay taxes upon the products you buy and not pay taxes on the amount of income you earn. Liberals utilize the broken progressive tax system to “earn” votes by “cutting” taxes for the poor and middle class… Look at your wallet and the past… when did you pay more taxes and when did you not?

Issue: Gun Control

Gun Control is another major issue dividing the liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe everyone will be safe as long as the people (not Joe Schmoe citizen) they determine should have weapons have them and nobody else does (I guess illegal weapons never cross their mind). Conservatives believe in the 2^nd Amendment and believe it is an American citizen’s right to own and bear arms. No, they are not saying we should have fully automatic weapons, tanks, and explosives. They are supporting our right to own civilian weapons if we are law abiding citizens because our Constitution and Bill of Rights says we can.

Issue: Homosexual Marriage

Like abortion, there are some religious motivations for opposing gay marriage. However, that does not mean the conservatives are forcing religion upon you. Our nation was founded upon Christian faith and ideology and the sanctity of marriage should be protected as such. Given that nearly 80% of our nation still considers itself Christian, it’s not a leap of faith to assume that the sanctity of marriage should be protected as one man, one woman. Marriage is not “just” a state recognized union, it is a Christian union.

Issue: Government Control

Conservatives profess that downsizing government is an ultimate desire. Decreasing the impact government has in our lives enhances our freedom as a nation. Conservatives believe that private enterprise produces competition and therefore we receive the benefits of better products and services. Government sponsored policies and services only add to the “fat” our government already abundantly has.

As you can see, there are night and day differences between the Liberal and Conservative Agendas. However, unlike what the media would have you believe, the conservatives are not about “shoving” religion down your throat and forcing you to abide by their beliefs. Yes, religion plays a factor in how their decisions are made regarding policy, but they are not creating legislation that forces the American citizen to abide by the Christian faith.

Citation: http://www.latimes.com/

Recently, I decided to rent the movie “The Strangers.” One of its calling cards was the “inspired by true events” label. The Strangers is a suspense driven look into two people’s lives that were terrorized by three masked intruders and eventually murdered. The movie does a great job creating and stirring your fear by drawing you into the situation as if you were there with the innocent victims. At each turn, you are left with a question of “What would you do” or “How would you react?” “Knowing” the story was inspired by true events, you are connected with the victims. You are feeling their fear, their suspense, and their dread of the unknown outside the door. In a sense, you become the victim of the event.

Feeling impressed by the movie and sitting in wonderment about the true life event, I decided to hit the internet and do some research on the actual events the movie was based upon. I wanted to know more about the victims and find out if the murderers were ever identified or caught (the movie implied they were going to victimize other innocents in the future). Expecting to find some criminal reports or similarity to a crime report, what I found was completely unexpected.

While the movie was established as being “inspired by true events,” the true events were actually fiction. The entire movie was a farce, not a single moment of truth. It turned out to be a random work of fiction from a writer who was inspired by a childhood event which was in fact, nothing like the movie. While the movie focuses upon a completely random murder event involving a couple in a remote area, the true events came from the director’s childhood. As a child, someone came to his house asking for a person that did not live there. He later found out other houses in the neighborhood had been robbed. The people were checking for empty houses to rob…

No murders, no couple, no true event here. The directory has blatantly utilized the true event tagline to drive people to his movie. While being a great marketing tool, it left me feeling a backlash of resentment towards the director. Why resort to such deceitfulness over something so trivial? The movie was good without the moniker of “inspired by true events.” It was unnecessary to throw in the inspired statement. The movie would have worked with or without it.

But now, knowing that I’ve been “duped” by this movie maker, I feel a bit used by him. I know that Hollywood takes liberties when dealing with true story events and they often fictionalize them up in an effort to add entertainment value, but this was blatant disregard for the event in itself. There was zero true event reality with this story. It’s fine to make a movie, but to try and “Blair Witch” the public is a coward’s way out in an effort to make some money.

The Strangers was a very good movie, but know this, it’s a fiction story inspired by a screenwriter trying to make a buck.

Canadian police were able to apprehend the criminal and he and his victim have both been identified. The criminal had zero criminal history and the people who knew him could not provide any evidence as to his being capable of committing such a crime. The victim was also stated to be an upstanding young man with no issues that would cause such an action against him. But, here we are, an insane criminal act by a seemingly “good” citizen against a “good” and innocent young man. How does this happen? What stopped working inside the “Lecterish” criminal’s mind? Was there something that set him off in the minutes before re-boarding the bus? Did the victim do anything to instigate or antagonize the criminal? Hopefully, the Canadian justice system will eventually find a conclusion to this crime and make sure the criminal is kept safely away from society.

This is where we begin to discuss murder and punishment. It’s a clear cut case of murder, no question. However, as with most countries, there is a distinction between first and second degree murder. First is primarily reserved for criminals who plan out and carry through with the murder of their victim. Second degree catches the rest, murders without premeditation. There are various other systems, but for the most part, that’s the general version of determining murder charges. Canada has charged the man in this crime with second degree murder. Based on their initial evidence review, they do not have enough for a first degree charge. While I agree, the man may not have “planned” the execution of his seat-mate, but should that matter in this circumstance? In the end, in my mind, murder is murder, planned or not. If what you do because of your criminal action results in the death of someone, you pay the maximum penalty for murder. There is no need to determine if there is premeditation or not. The victim has been murdered either way.

Under Canadian law, first and second degree murder charges carry maximum penalties of 25 years in prison. Criminals convicted of first degree murder receive a 25 year sentence with no parole (unless rarely receiving a parole only allowed after serving 15 years). Criminals convicted of second degree murder receive 25 years with the possibility of parole after 10 years. Oh, but wait, if you have committed murder in the past, you must serve 25 years, no parole for you. 25 years for murder? Life expectancy is near 80 these days, 25 years for the worst crime you can commit as a human just doesn’t seem to be enough. The criminal in this case is 40 years old, if he is convicted of second degree murder, he must serve at least 10 years, which puts him at 50. If the Canadian parole board at that time believes he has been “rehabilitated,” they will release this man onto the public streets. We can only hope the Canadian justice system has a backdoor which keeps this man from ever seeing the public light of day again.

Now that we have talked about Canada, how does the United States murder and punishment laws compare? Similar in the nature of first and second degree murder distinction, the United States allows Capital Punishment at each state’s discretion. First degree murder, you face potential death and if not death, potential life in prison without parole, ever. Second degree murder, you face life in prison with the possibility of parole. United States law is quite a bit stricter in the area of murder when compared to Canada, by far. But, even though on paper it sounds like we are tougher, are we?

Statistics show that murderers who have been convicted in the United States on average, serve 15-20 years before paroled (criminals usually serve half of sentenced time before parole on average according to the latest information). Even though our laws are tough at first glance, in practice, our criminals are in similar waters as their Canadian counterparts. How can this be? Why do we have laws on our books which state that a criminal must serve a life sentence for his crime only to allow him to roam free in half the time? Yes, I’ve heard all the cries about prison overcrowding and prisoners being rehabilitated, yadda, yadda, yadda. I believe that if you commit the crime, you must serve your penalty. Consequences for your actions, there is nothing remotely fairer than that. Criminals have long since known they can “beat” the system. In the United States, the death penalty is the main deterrent against committing murder, but our lawyers and our highly paid CSI wannabe defenders have almost negated the ability to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a premeditated, first degree murder took place. They can create doubt out of thin air and “save” their client from the chair, chamber, or injection.

Murder should be treated as the most heinous crime that can be committed. As such, it should carry with it the most unbending sentences. Murder has been watered down to a simple logic issue. What can you prove? Hardly anything these days it seems. Prosecutors continually take the easy way out, looking for closure and some semblance of retribution against those who murder innocents. But even then, are we doing any good? The system Canada and the United States are utilizing remind me of a couple who are unwilling to talk through issues. There will be an issue, but they can’t confront one another about it, so they choose to “deal with it” by placing it in a closet within their mind and heart. Eventually, the issue cannot be withheld forever and will burst forth as some sort of volcanic eruption of emotion and hostility. This is how we deal with murderers. We put them away for a while so we can deal with reality and eventually, we try and forget what happened in the first place. But, when the criminal is released back upon society, a potential eruption stands to take place as we are once again confronted by the same issue we tried to hide from in the first place.

Deal with the issue today and we won’t have to deal with the issue later. Put away our murderers for good and we won’t ever have to worry about them infecting the minds of others or harming more innocent bystanders. If you’re capable of murder, guess what, I don’t want you near me, “rehabilitated” or not. Convicted of murder, guess what, you should be living your life in prison because you ENDED someone’s life and that means you threw every right you had to freedom away. Our laws are too easy. Charging this man with second degree murder and thus opening the possibility that he may only serve 10 years? That’s as insane as the crime he has committed.

Citation: http://www.cnn.com/

For those who don’t know, I live in the state of Missouri. A few years ago, our efforts supporting a concealed weapon law finally came to a conclusion. Our state’s governing body passed and our governor signed into law our state concealed weapon law. It was a very long and hard fought battle but it wasn’t over even on that day. Appeals and quite a few lawyer and judge meetings later, the final law was stamped with complete approval. During the times leading up to and after the signing of the law, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (a notorious liberalistic newspaper) printed articles ranging from we are now “entering the wild, wild west” to “the streets are going to turn red with blood.” Article after article supporting fear appeared. No longer were we going to live in a society of civilized people. We were going to live in the days of Wild Bill and Wyatt Earp. We were told to expect innocent citizens being shot indiscriminately because of heated arguments, road rage incidents ending in shootings, or your average gunfight at the OK Corral because the Hatfields and McCoys were now “armed to the teeth.”

What this “newspaper” did not do was to actually read or understand our laws currently in effect or the newly signed concealed carry law. There were articles talking about how we were going to see bombs readily being brought into public arenas, grenades being carried into school, and crazy people carrying sawed off shotguns under their cloaks. Needless to say, every single statement they made was uninformed and a simple case of writing from fear. Our national, state, and local guns and weapon laws prohibit and invoke penalties to make sure that things of the above nature “should” not happen. I say “should” because, if you read yesterday’s article, you will always have bad people that laws do not affect. Our concealed carry law is very strict in what is allowed and if they had read it, their article would not have made it past the first draft because it was simply not true.

After a few years of our carry law in this state and many years of carry laws across our nation, do you see rivers of blood flowing down your street because of concealed weapons? Of course you do not. The crime you do see is the same crime that you saw before the law (well, let me restate that, crime is LOWER after concealed weapon laws are passed). No longer are the citizens an easy target for the preying criminal. The generic criminal must now pass through a barrier before succeeding in his criminal action. He must determine if potentially getting shot and having his life end is worth his venture. Without the self defense our concealed carry laws offer, we are at the mercy of the average criminal and police protection is our only recourse. Personally, I want the ability to defend myself without having to wait for the police to show up.

Enough of that, let’s focus on where we are going in the future. Since we passed the laws to support the right to concealed carry, they can also be revoked. We must still focus on keeping our rights and not get complacent and allow all the hard work to unwind. What is the current political climate? The media cannot get enough of our country’s new impending savior, Barack Obama. Everywhere you turn, more Obama. Now, I’m not going to turn this into a Presidential politics article and I have resigned myself to the fact that Obama will in fact be our next President, but I am going to show you how he “supports” our gun laws and right to concealed carry. If you know anything about what’s going on in politics, you know Obama is of course a senator from Illinois. Wait, weren’t they one of the states that don’t support the right to concealed carry? Yes, you would be right. That in itself isn’t a major issue, he is just a senator from that state and he’s only been in office for roughly 10 years.

Wait, he’s only been in a political office for 10 years and he’s going to be our next President? More than likely so, but that isn’t the point. The point is he does have a track record concerning guns. Let’s look at a few. Once again, let me remind you, these points are not dredged up from his distant past and his views have changed, these are recent and valid. I’m just going to quote a few here:

“I am not in favor of concealed weapons,” Obama said. “I think that creates a potential atmosphere where more innocent people could (get shot during) altercations.”

On the 2nd Amendment: “But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right…”

Question: 35. Do you support state legislation to:  a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Obama answers:  Yes.

Q: When you were in the state senate, you talked about licensing and registering gun owners. Would you do that as president?  A: I don’t think that we can get that done.

Obama supports banning the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.

Obama voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

As you can clearly see, he is not a gun supporter by any means. The future of our gun laws are going to be at stake during his Presidency. You may say he’s only one person, he can’t undo all that has been accomplished over the last 20 years in support of our 2^nd amendment. Yes, that is true, but however, both the House and the Senate are under Democratic control and with the current political climate of “hate the Republicans,” he will have the power to do whatever is opposite just because it’s not what the Republicans would do.

So, we must go forward but we must not allow our current rights to be removed by the impending government. Make sure that you vote and support those who support your rights. Follow the news and look for the winds of change. Exercise your rights or they will be taken from you! Our rights are not given to use by the government but are to be protected by it. Remember that.

Citation: http://www.ontheissues.org/

Citation: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/

I’m pretty sure that you have a pretty good idea where I stand on this issue if you know me or have read my articles. I am definitely not a gun fanatic by any means, but I do believe we have a right to own and carry them. Am I some kind of “NRA gun nut?” Not in any way, shape, or form. While I support the NRA, there are extremists in the group that tend to make people shy away from finding out about its true goals. The NRA is about protecting one of our most important rights, the 2^nd amendment in our Bill of Rights protected by the United States Constitution. “The right to keep and bear arms.” Our forefathers thought enough of this “right” that it is placed directly after freedom of speech. They believed it was a very important issue and created protection against the removal of it from our citizens.

After these first couple of paragraphs, I’m sure there are those of you out there already forming opinions and potentially fuming about reading another “gun loving” article. That’s not what this is about. I want everyone to take a step back, truly think about the situation, and then form a rational opinion. Our world is an unjust one. People, since the dawn of time, have been tempted and eventually have fallen into doing things they would not normally do. Criminal action isn’t the goal of people’s lives, but it is just a fact of human existence. There will always be bad people, criminals, murderers, rapists, and other people doing horrible acts against society. Yes, we have a justice system and laws to protect our society. Yes, we have police and military protection to help keep the majority of people in line. Is that enough? You may think so. I think not. If police and military protection were enough even combined with the penalties of law, we should have a crime rate of zero. We should have a murder rate of zero. We should have no need for locks on our doors, car alarms, or even vaults to house our money.

Yes, it can be taken that far. The argument against guns revolves around a simple idea. With them, people can hurt each other. Without them, they cannot. Don’t create the weapon and it can’t hurt you. Don’t own the weapon (or allow to be sold) and it can’t hurt you. I will agree that is a true statement. But, where does the argument stop? The gun is the article in question here so let’s remove it. So now we have no armed criminal action, great. That will still not cure criminal activity. Criminals exist and will choose another product to succeed in their unlawful pursuits. Remove the gun, and there are many other “weapons” that can be utilized. In the end, you can remove every single product that can be utilized as a weapon and still not succeed in “protecting” the human race. Fists, feet, and knees can be used along with your head. How do we remove that? It’s a long path to take to get from a gun to a person’s own hands, but that’s the basic fact of the matter.

Guns are not the issue here, people are the issue. The majority of our society consists of rational people. We focus on being lawful citizens and we know the consequences for doing something wrong. The consequences are usually enough of a deterrent to keep us in line if our moral and ethical makeup is not enough. Prison or jail time is a pretty strong deterrent for a rational human being. Since this is not a perfect world and we live with people without strong moral and ethical codes who are insane and irrational, there must be something to protect us on a personal level. You may believe non-lethal weaponry is the answer. Possibly, but we are falling back on a rational thinking level here for criminals. Even the criminal fears death (outside a few of the seriously insane). If you remove the one “rational” consequence of crime from their decision making, do you really think they focus much on the possibility of getting knocked out in their pursuits? Bullets hurt and carry with them the distinct possibility of death. That’s the only protection we have as individuals unless you happen to have a police officer living with you. Laws, non-lethal weaponry, and rationale will never cure the issue of bad people and the criminal action they pursue.

Our forefathers had another important reason for including the right to bear arms. By protecting our right to own weapons, each and every citizen within our society can at a moment’s notice, be part of the militia to protect our country from any potential enemy. Our country does not only rely upon our military to protect our borders, but it depends on the citizens within to help. If we remove the right to own guns, we are removing one of our most basic defenses against enemy attack and invasion. You may say the war game has changed. Man to man fighting isn’t how it will be. Possibly, nuclear war could end the argument in a split second. However, as far as I can see it, standard military warfare is still in effect and invading countries will use tactical nuclear warfare to avoid complete destruction of the country’s vast resources. We must not allow our last line of defense to be removed because we are scared of “bad” people.

Our world is not a garden of roses. We have bad people that carry with them only bad intentions. We cannot depend on our laws, police, or military to protect us. Our personal first line of defense is our own self. If we do not have the means of protection to deter the criminal, we will become nothing more than another crime statistic. Weapons, guns to be specific, are our only true self defense to those wishing harm upon us. I’m not supporting the ownership of military grade weapons by the average citizen. What exactly is military grade? I include automatic weapons (not semi-automatic), explosives, armor piercing rounds, and your standard array of artillery. Citizens don’t need those weapons for protection. We do need handguns and rifles however. If you support removal of guns from society, then I say go the extra step and remove all the locks from your house and car, remove your money from the bank and place all your cash on your table in your dining room and trust society. It’s not the gun that is the problem, it’s the people. I say to those who support gun removal the following: “Stop trying to fix the “gun problem” by hurting the lawful people and focus on the issue at the root of the problem, people.”

Rwanda has since stabilized. The country’s justice system punished the leaders and orchestrators of the murders of between 800,000 and 1 million innocent people. According to the article, the lower level killers were required to confess their deeds and apologize to the families and victims. The man who killed this woman’s family was one of those low level killers. He did spend 7 years in prison however. How would you react in this situation? If there were thousands of known killers in our midst that only had to apologize and confess to the public what they did, do you think they would be accepted back within our society? Unlikely so and I would guess we would see quite a bit of “vigilante justice.” In Rwanda though, they did not do this. They have chosen to “reject revenge.” Their current President has done a remarkable job in leading his people to an existence together in peace.

The story of this woman not only epitomizes how much hard work has been done within this war-torn country, but it also shows how a person of considerable faith can accomplish anything. Forgiving the murderer of your family, could you do it? Maybe, if the person was behind bars or on death row. Maybe, if the person was on the other side of the world and you never saw or heard from him again. Maybe, and that’s a very small maybe for most. But, could you forgive this person if they are free? What if you were friends with his wife, could you trust her? What is you had dinner with him? What if you carried on conversations with him? Could you have the inner strength to do so without reaching across the table and ending his life for justice? I don’t know if I could, it’s nice to think that we can be the better man at all times, but sometimes, circumstances are just so unbelievable you just cannot be 100% sure of your actions unless you are in the situation.

I have to say that this woman has an indescribable amount of courage and strength. What she has been able to accomplish by truly forgiving her family’s murderer is beyond what any “revenge justice” could have offered. She has chosen to release her pain, her anger, and her need for revenge. From the story she says: “I am a Christian and I pray a lot.” She even says: “reconciliation would not have happened unless she had decided to open her heart and accept his pleas.” I have faith and I am a Christian, but still, I don’t know if I could follow in this woman’s footsteps. Could I reject revenge against the murderer of my family? I just don’t know. Could I spend time with the murderer of my family? I can’t even fathom the idea. How can she? How can she possibly deal with this? The answer is prayer and faith and the decision to open her heart according to her story.

Does she have more faith than me? I don’t think so. I think her prayers have been answered. I think through her faith, she has been able to forgive and reach peace within herself. You cannot harbor hatred forever or it will turn you into hate. You cannot believe in faith and yet choose not to forgive someone. In the end, we are not the judge of others. It is not our responsibility to judge the deeds of others. Through faith, this woman has achieved something unimaginable. She has allowed the deaths of her family to become the past and not define her future. She has forgiven the man involved in their deaths because her faith and dedication have allowed her heart to open.

Given all of this, could I do what she has done? I still don’t know. I sit here and I like to think that I have the ability to open my heart wide enough that I can allow my faith and prayer make me a better man. But, I’m not in the situation. I know how much love I have within me for my family and I know how much hatred I would have for their removal from my life in such a manner. My love is unconditional for my family. My hatred for their murderer would be limitless. How could I resolve myself to forgive such a person? How could I spend time with him? If this lady can reach this point through her faith, then I have hope, no, I KNOW, I could also. There is not one thing we are faced with that we do not have the resources to deal with. Each of us have issues we have to deal with, some are minor compared to others, but who’s to judge? What I take from this story is that no matter what you are dealt in this life, you can always rely on the fact that your faith and belief as a Christian will give you the strength to be a better person.

Life is hard, it always will be. Nobody ever said living was easy. However, we must face our trials and tribulations. But, we are not alone. Open your heart. Open my heart. Open our hearts. We can choose to be better people.

Citation: http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/05/15/amanpour.rwanda/index.html

It is a sad and heart breaking story. What I have a problem with is the word for this article’s title, premeditation. Here is the breakdown of the event that ended in the untimely death of Sean Taylor. A group of young men were intent on robbing the player and they were under the impression that he would not be home when they were going to enact their plan. They expected nobody to be home. However, an injury kept Taylor from playing and he was spending his time off at his home, with his girlfriend, and daughter. So what happened? The group of 4 reached his house and proceeded to break in. While breaking in, they made noise and Taylor and his girlfriend were startled. Taylor proceeded to try and protect his family. The burglars were startled to find out someone was home and one of the younger criminals fired his weapon after breaking through the door Taylor was behind. He fired 2 shots, one missed, the other hit Taylor in the leg, damaging his femoral artery.

Taylor was airlifted to the hospital alive, but in a very fragile state. He experienced significant blood loss and potential brain damage. He passed away the next day. The police captured the 4 burglars and were able to get confessions from the individuals. Now that we have the situation down and the criminals caught along with confessions, where does this story go? Today, the story I ran across reports that the individuals will not be facing a penalty with possibility of death. Why? Did they not murder someone while in the process of a criminal act? Did they not plan on breaking and entering another person’s home? Did they not know they were doing something wrong? As you can probably guess, I’m a supporter of Capital Punishment. It’s not about revenge, it’s not about an “eye for an eye,” and it’s not about giving people “what’s good for them.” What it is about is a punishment necessary to deter other people from committing the crime of murder. Yes, we can get into a philosophical debate of this issue and I may write an article just on it, but we’ll leave that for another time.

Let’s get back to premeditation. The prosecutors are not going to seek the death penalty in this case because they do not believe they have the issue of premeditation satisfied. They have confessions of the people involved stating that they were going to rob an empty house. They thought nobody would be home. The death was an accident. They didn’t mean to kill anyone. They didn’t PLAN on killing Taylor. Well, that sounds all well and true according to released information, but I tend to disagree. What I disagree with is that once you have entered a criminal act, you have entered the realm of no accidental occurrences. What you do after this particular DECISION doesn’t warrant a new thought process. If you are willing to break into someone’s house, you should not have levels of crime for what happens after the fact. You premeditated a felony, you engaged in this act, and then you murdered someone in the process. You PREMEDITATED to commit this felony. While you were in the process of this felony, you heard a sound. At that instant, you DECIDED to aim your weapon. You DECIDED to break through the door. You DECIDED to fire, not once, but twice at an individual inside the house. DECISIONS! Deciding on actions is the simplest form of premeditation.

What exactly determines premeditation anyway? Do you have to plan something for a few days, months, years? Do you have to plan something for a few minutes, hours, or seconds? Who determines this, lawyers? I sure hope not. Premeditation can be in an instant. The criminals in this case heard someone in the house and broke through a door and then fired a weapon two times at someone. There are MANY steps in this process where they have DECIDED to pursue killing someone. The lawyers in this case have taken the easy way out and are happy with a life conviction since the criminals “didn’t intend to shoot anyone.” They should have a quick and easy conviction considering they have confessions. It’s a slam dunk case for the prosecuting attorney and local law enforcement. Sure, I know they have to pick and choose their battles and focus on cases they have enough evidence to pursue. But, where do we draw the line here? Are we content with putting the message out to future criminals that if you break into a house, but don’t “plan” on killing anyone and confess as so, but kill the people inside, you don’t face the risk of death as punishment. Some people say life in prison is worse than death. Nope. Not a chance. Death is absolute. Final. Gone. No chance at redemption, nothing. Finality.

Living the rest of your life behind bars is just that, living. You are paying a price, but what price have the innocent paid? These criminals took the life of a young person with a family. They will never have him back. His daughter will never know her father. How can that crime be quantified? I believe the criminals in this case have utilized the situation to help their cause. They have confessed for the “payment” of not having to face the death penalty. The prosecutors are looking for a win in a high profile case with an “acceptable” penalty imposed. The family is looking for closure, the community is looking for justice, and the lawyers are looking for a case win to add to their resume. It’s so easy to pursue the solution without obstacles. But, where does this leave us?

If we send out the message that taking someone’s life and the penalty of death can be mitigated away with lawyer speak, it’s the wrong one. Potential criminals must have consequences they are afraid of to deter them. Criminals are not usually the most rational people, sorry to say, so the consequences have to be severe to make an impact. You and I do not partake in criminal acts for a variety of reasons, and rational behavior is one of them. Take rational behavior out of the equation and potential punishment doesn’t play as much of a part in decision making. However, if the punishment is severe, even the most irrational individual will have to weigh the cost/benefits of the proposed action. “Most” insane people even pay attention to death.

So, here we are, near the end of the proceedings for Taylor’s untimely death and the criminals are going to pay a price (assuming they are convicted which should happen by all accounts) of living life behind bars. But, by taking the easy way out and dropping the pursuit of the death penalty, we are sending the wrong message to future, potential criminals. Premeditation, it’s just a word to create doubt within the legal realm. Did I premeditate this article? No, I did not wake up this morning planning on writing it. But when I opened my word processor, I had decided. Did they mean to kill someone when they entered the house? No, but when they broke through the door and fired the weapon, they had decided. They decided and took someone’s life.

Citation: http://www.espn.com/ Various articles within.