Duterte Threw Criminals Out Of Helicopter

MI2AZ

Active Member
Now it's death by helicopter. Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte has already boasted he has killed three criminals himself, Time reports. Now the man nicknamed "Duterte Harry" is warning corrupt officials he will toss them from his helicopter—and he says he's already done it. "If you are corrupt, I will fetch you with a helicopter and I will throw you out on the way to Manila," Duterte said on Tuesday, per the Philippine Star. "I have done that before, why should I not do it again?" Duterte even furnished details about how high the pilot had to fly so "the body's splatter wouldn't cause a commotion," per the Star. Speaking in the northern town of Camarines Sur after touring areas devastated by a Christmas Day typhoon, it didn't take long for the strongman to turn the topic to one of his favorite topics, execution of drug dealers and other criminals.

Earlier this month Duterte said that as mayor of Davao he hunted down criminals on motorbike to show the police "that if I can do it, why can't you." He once threatened to kill his children if they used drugs. In his latest speech, he stressed his campaign against drugs and corruption will remain the centerpiece of his six-year term. Human rights groups have railed against Duterte's extrajudicial war that has left more than 5,000 dead since he took office in June. While some 2,000 deaths resulted from anti-drug operations, many of the executions have been carried out by hit squads and unidentified assailants, per the Guardian.

.
 

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
So what's the problem? There are too many people in the world, no need to put up with criminals. Just get rid of them.

Although Greg better watch out, using that cannabis oil and all... don't get in any helicopters G!! :eek:
 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
I never understood the American way of dealing with "real" criminals in a humane way. Did the rapist consider the humane way to destroy the victims life? Did the murderer consider the humane way of killing his/her victim/s or the impact those actions would have on the families? Yet, they go to prison and must be treated humanely and be protected under the law. Fuck that shit. Drop theose fuckers in a wal mart parking lot and have Les Nessman to the color commentary.
 

radioactive

Member
Ah hell Greg, lets just get right down to it.... pay a couple grand and use um for target practice! Or better yet, however they killed their victims that is how they die!.
 

Greg T.

The Jizz Slinger
Ah hell Greg, lets just get right down to it.... pay a couple grand and use um for target practice! Or better yet, however they killed their victims that is how they die!.
No argument from me. But we may be able to get some use out of them if use them for drug testing.
 

9andaWiggle

Addicted Member
Ah hell Greg, lets just get right down to it.... pay a couple grand and use um for target practice! Or better yet, however they killed their victims that is how they die!.
I actually like the idea of letting the family of the victim(s) decide how they are disposed of. Give them the option to carry it out personally as well, if they wish to do so.

I like that idea for other crime too. Like thieves. On a small scale, not deserving of death. But if Greg steals my tv, and is convicted, then I should get to take something of Greg's that I want. But no limit to the value. So he steals my tv. I get to take his house. If he has no possessions, then the judge should give me a range of punishments that I get to assign to him. Instead of the judge deciding, for instance, how much jail time or community service he gets, I (the victim) choose.

On a large scale, such as those crooked investment swindlers that ruin the lives of retirees - or large banks whose corruption crashes the economy of an entire nation, those guys should lose everything they have (taken from family if assets transferred as well with no safe havens for their ill gotten gains) THEN be put to a horrible, painful death.
 

livespive

Well-Known Member
Exactly, if the family forgives them then so be it.

I actually like the idea of letting the family of the victim(s) decide how they are disposed of. Give them the option to carry it out personally as well, if they wish to do so.

I like that idea for other crime too. Like thieves. On a small scale, not deserving of death. But if Greg steals my tv, and is convicted, then I should get to take something of Greg's that I want. But no limit to the value. So he steals my tv. I get to take his house. If he has no possessions, then the judge should give me a range of punishments that I get to assign to him. Instead of the judge deciding, for instance, how much jail time or community service he gets, I (the victim) choose.

On a large scale, such as those crooked investment swindlers that ruin the lives of retirees - or large banks whose corruption crashes the economy of an entire nation, those guys should lose everything they have (taken from family if assets transferred as well with no safe havens for their ill gotten gains) THEN be put to a horrible, painful death.
 
Top