I think we all have actions which we feel strongly about the government not performing in our name, and I can respect your position on that, although I disagree with you on specifics- and I believe that “cruel and unusual” can be subjective.
The fact is that we allow the use of deadly force by police under certain circumstances, we train an extensive military, our secret agencies support coups, assassinations, and wars in other countries. Ayn Rand argued that government’s sole right was the “measured application of force”, that such power not lie in the hands of a mob, while the far left wants to ban private gun ownership because they feel that power should lie with the police and military instead of untrained civilians- The far left and far right actually agree about something!
But by my own morals and reasoning, I would rather the governmnent take a human life by lawful execution than by war- Both are done in the interest of protecting the citizenry, but an execution targets an individual and is subject to an extremely high burden of proof, while war is chaotic and always leads to civilian deaths.
There are things that I too feel strongly about the government doing in my name. As a pluralistic society, we’re going to have these disagreements over where the line gets drawn- Under what circumstances may a police officer open fire on a suspect? Only if the suspect is armed? If they are strongly believed to be armed? Only if actually fired upon? In the defense of innocents? If they are visibly carrying something that may be used as a weapon? If they are in danger of escaping? If the suspect is armed, how many attempts are needed to resolve the situation before shooting?
I just happen to feel more comfortable with killing someone who has been proven guilty through due process than I do with killing someone in a war I may or may not support.
