China teen seen as hero for killing local official

[Icekommander]

I know it is Communist China, and I know that many officials would love to turn in another corrupt official for more power. He should have either gone to them or do what the other thousands of angry farmers did, and not put his family and friends at risk

Do what other farmers did in let him beat their wives and kids, take their money and steal their land? You honestly believe this?

It was their choice to make their lives hell, if he steals land and no one had the power to fight him, then they should've just let him take the land. It's better than making an enemy to an offical of Communist China.

... I guess so. Given that your of the opinion that it is better to let corrupt officials trample all over you than to fight back, I guess thats as far as this arguement can go.

 

[JohnRM]

Do we pay the executioner money to off him?

An executioner doesn't murder someone for money.

 

[Icekommander]

We kill people to show that killing other people is wrong. He gets paid to kill people, does it make a difference if people approve? If it does, why is the executioner in the moral right, and the kid who murdered the corrupt offical is in the wrong?

 

[JohnRM]

We kill people to show that killing other people is wrong. He gets paid to kill people, does it make a difference if people approve? If it does, why is the executioner in the moral right, and the kid who murdered the corrupt offical is in the wrong?

Wrong.

We kill people to show that murdering other people is wrong.

The executioner is in the moral right, because a judge orders the death of a convict. That is due process of law. When the subject is put to death, it is not murder. It is a sanctioned execution. The kid who murdered this Chinese official did not do it to be a hero or in self-defense. He did it, because he got paid. If the official in question had been a good guy rather than bad, the kid probably would still have killed him, because he was interested in money, not justice.

 

[Berzerker]

He was a hired assassin. He murdered someone for money. People like that ought to be executed.

or join the army first

if the guy he killed really was an abusive thug, this was justified - the kid's justification comes from the victims of the bureaucrat.

The executioner is in the moral right, because a judge orders the death of a convict. That is due process of law. When the subject is put to death, it is not murder. It is a sanctioned execution. The kid who murdered this Chinese official did not do it to be a hero or in self-defense. He did it, because he got paid. If the official in question had been a good guy rather than bad, the kid probably would still have killed him, because he was interested in money, not justice.

The executioner's moral authority comes from the victim... And money and motive aint relevant. The guy had it coming...

 

[JohnRM]

Okay, so you release him. Then a car dealer pays him to kill another competing car dealer, again for money. Then you want to put him away. I hope the family comes and beats the crap out of you for letting him go the first time.

 

[bhsup]

You realized that reporting to higher levels would have done absolutely nothing.

Um, no. THis is the people's republic we're talking about here. Worker's paradise, remember? I am sure swift action would have come from the main politburo in Beijing if they had learned of his behavior prior to his murder.

 

[Berzerker]

Okay, so you release him. Then a car dealer pays him to kill another competing car dealer, again for money. Then you want to put him away. I hope the family comes and beats the crap out of you for letting him go the first time.

Drama queen, your opinion of him is not shared by the people who know him, imagine that. Should I hope the victims of this bureaucrat beat you up for defending the thug and condemning their sword of vengeance?

 

[Icekommander]

Wrong.

We kill people to show that murdering other people is wrong.

The executioner is in the moral right, because a judge orders the death of a convict. That is due process of law. When the subject is put to death, it is not murder. It is a sanctioned execution. The kid who murdered this Chinese official did not do it to be a hero or in self-defense. He did it, because he got paid. If the official in question had been a good guy rather than bad, the kid probably would still have killed him, because he was interested in money, not justice.

So the due process of the law is that the murderer dies. But in China, the due process of the law wasn't being followed anyway. the up to the eyesballs of corruption of the official wasn't legal, neither was the stealing of the property. So really, wasn't the kid picking up for where the law failed? I don't know what the official penalty for this official should have been, but I imagine that if it wasn't death it would be suitably uncomfortable for the official in question.

Secondly, we don't know the kid did it just for the money. It is true that he got paid yes, but the kid pretty much have to have been a local. This means that he would have been subject to the tyranny going on in the area as well. So if the official had been good, he may have refused to kill him. (This is, of course ignoring the fact that if the official had been good, none of this would have happened anyway). Certainly the 20,000 locals who showed up to support the kid though he had done the deed as a good deed. We don't know for sure, but saying that the kid would have killed the official if he was a good guy is a pretty ballsy statement.

Finally what if the law is wrong? (Insert Judge Dredd joke here) What if the executioner kills someone who is innocent? Are we supposed to just shrug it off as mistake? And what is the difference between killing an official who was essentially avoiding the law, and being killed as due course of the law? Isn't the officials death like a criminal being killed in the pursuit of justice in a cop shootout? What if the law is corrupt?

 

[aelf]

If somebody wants to deal with oppression then they need power to back themselves up. If they don't have any power then they would just be throwing their lives and the lives of others away.

And I'm from the USA.

So when will the people have power?

Certainly not when they never choose to act, if you ask me.

Um, no. THis is the people's republic we're talking about here. Worker's paradise, remember? I am sure swift action would have come from the main politburo in Beijing if they had learned of his behavior prior to his murder.

Maybe you're just willfully ignoring the facts, as do many Americans who talk about Socialism/Communism, but does it look like a worker's paradise to you? Is the CCP Communist simply by virtue of its name? Do you decide what people are based on their professed identities rather than what they really turn out to be?

Read Animal Farm some time. It's a pretty good book.

 

[Narz]

If I have a shotgun and you don't have one

You better bring it to battle cause I got lyrics you ain't got none!

 

[Narz]

An executioner doesn't murder someone for money.

Executioners are all volunteers & don't collect salaries?

 

[holy king]

i think its ok to merder people if alot of people dont leik them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannicide ?

 

[Cheetah]

Wrong.

We kill people to show that murdering other people is wrong.

The executioner is in the moral right, because a judge orders the death of a convict. That is due process of law. When the subject is put to death, it is not murder. It is a sanctioned execution. The kid who murdered this Chinese official did not do it to be a hero or in self-defense. He did it, because he got paid. If the official in question had been a good guy rather than bad, the kid probably would still have killed him, because he was interested in money, not justice.

To kill someone without a just cause is murder. On this we agree.

Killing a defenseless prisoner, even if he has murdered someone, is not something I consider a just cause. While you apparently do.

In other words, I consider all the people who have taken part in executions, that be prison guards, judges, prosecutors, and executioners, to be murderers. And you don't.

----------

As for this case, I consider the assassin to be justified in killing. He will of course be found guilt and executed, because he (and his supporters) are not powerful enough to do something about it.

But if this becomes a more prevalent occurrence, then there is a good chance that the message will sink in, and either the local officials start to act better, or the real top dogs (Jintao and the other top party people) will start to act in fear of having a general revolt.

 

[Snorrius]

The murder trial has again cast a harsh light on abuses of power by communist cadres and the frustration many ordinary Chinese feel with a one-party system that sometimes allows officials to run their districts like personal fiefdoms.

I like that piece of American propaganda. Like having two-party system would ease frustration because of abuses of power .

 

[Newbunkle]

Most likely he wouldn't take the risk because he had to support his family, and after the farmer gave him the money he knew they would be ok if he got caught. Good kid, I wish there were more of them willing to stand up to corrupt officials.

 

[bender19]

Obviously its murder and should be treated as much. I have sympathy for the villagers, the Chinese system isn't one I'd prefer to live under.

 

[Cynovolans]

So when will the people have power?

Certainly not when they never choose to act, if you ask me.

The people can have power when the people actually work to get it. An old man paying a kid to kill a guy isn't going to give the people power. If more people had tried to get rid of this official then I would support them and say their doing something righteous. But not an idiot trying to get his family killed.

Do what other farmers did in let him beat their wives and kids, take their money and steal their land? You honestly believe this?



... I guess so. Given that your of the opinion that it is better to let corrupt officials trample all over you than to fight back, I guess thats as far as this arguement can go.

Like I said, it was just luck the guy assassination attempt succeeded. Had it not, it wouldn't be just a teenager and an old man executed. Anyone around the old man would be a target for this corrupt official. Any brothers or sons this guy had would probably ended up in the death row, wives or daughters would just be raped, and the entire community around them would suffer from thugs cracking down harder on the people. Is that what you support? Stupid plans, where unless you're lucky the outcome results in death, rape, and suffering?

 

[aelf]

The people can have power when the people actually work to get it. An old man paying a kid to kill a guy isn't going to give the people power. If more people had tried to get rid of this official then I would support them and say their doing something righteous. But not an idiot trying to get his family killed.

So you think there is little room for individual action?

What do you make of individual actions that have the potential to spark off bigger movements or that signal a less visible but existent mass movement?

 

[Cynovolans]

So you think there is little room for individual action?

What do you make of individual actions that have the potential to spark off bigger movements or that signal a less visible but existent mass movement?

What about mass movements? A man shouldn't put his family at risk just because of the potential for bigger movements. They happen, but it still doesn't give a man the right to put his family in danger.