Boy Executed For Stealing Snacks

Walter, I will ALWAYS bow to your superior knowledge
of the German language.
I do not speak German, and I only spelled it from memory.
You have my most abject apologies.

I am entirely confident that this error in spelling deserves
the most concentrated and focused attention of all members of this forum.
It must be subjected to the highest and most intense levels of scrutiny
after the most meticulously incisive analysis. We must get to the bottom of this.
No effort shoud be spared.






I learned the word from a Jewish school teacher in a NYC public school.
I guess he just did not know what he was talking about.





David

Killing s boy for stealing a snack is too much! He could have inflicted the least injury ever to prevent him from escaping but certainly not to kill him.

I believe that using a weapon to protect one's person and one's home is morally correct. Saying that, and not knowing the full extent of the incident, one thing strikes me. If the boy were shot in the back, that says to me that he was fleeing the scene. Therefore, the man was no longer at risk. In that scenario, that man should NOT have shot, and should be tried for murder.

What if the boy was stealing money? Does it make a difference to you?

.

Absolutely. It does not sound like the shooter was in any physical danger. He should have called the cops.

Execution is so much for a punishment. You can't execute someone, let alone a young boy, for stealing a snack!

He did not execute him; he shot him.
That can HAPPEN to burglars.
David

In the back. While he was already fleeing.

What was it Jesus said? Turn the other cheek? No, a little further. Yeah, that's it. Bang!