If a person is beaten to a pulp - they are reduced to a soft, moist, shapeless mass of matter. Would any human being still be recognisable as a human being in that state? Would any human being after being reduced to such a state have any semblance of life left in them? The answer, I think, to both questions is no.
Who was going to "drag" the parents behind the shelter shed?
One person? I thought it would take more than one person.
Ok - I stand corrected. It may be just one person - or it may be an angry mob. Whatever, to beat someone into a soft, moist, shapeless mass of matter suggests a frenzy of physical attack. Or, even worse, the deliberate, calculated act of a cold blooded sadistic killer. Hardly the mark of a civilised human being.
And I presumed if that one person beat the other person/s to a pulp - then that person had the intention to deprive another of their life. To take such matters into one's own hands is simply unlawful.
Yes - it is how I see it. I see that as advocating murder.
I think you had better wear it as I cannot see how anybody can interpret that any other way.
The only out you have is to rely solely on the original words which did not use the word "murder".
But how else can it be interpreted?
I think you are trying to avoid the implications of your statements.
However, given the shift in the tone of your posting, I think you are starting to realise the seriousness of your original suggestion and are beginning to see that it may not be the way a civilised society carries out justice - no matter what the crime may be. Most civilised societies now no longer have the death penalty. There are some notable exceptions. (One of the claims that China is guilty of human rights abuses is based on the perception that the numbers of executions carried out are excessively high.)
In this case, it is still to be determined by the justice system that a crime has been committed.
But that apparently does not deter some people from declaring that summary justice be dispensed with without resort to the justice system designed to protect the rights of citizens and to punish the guilty.
How else can one interpret "taken behind the shelter shed" - but the dispensing of summary justice outside the established justice system.
It is the justice system which will decide if the person is guilty of a crime and what is the appropriate penalty. Until such process is undertaken, then I believe that the suggestion of a person being beaten to a pulp without resort to the justice system (how else can one interpret "being taken behind the shelter shed) is simply OBSCENE. I use that term in its broadest sense.
Personally, your suggestion that they be taken behind a shelter shed and beaten to a pulp makes me sick to the stomach.
