Originally Posted by jwp475
Originally Posted by Gene L
There was about 80 years difference in Wyatt Earp's time than in Charles Askins time. Second, so far as is known, Earp didn't kill people for pleasure. Revenge, maybe, after his brother was killed and another was crippled, but not for sport.

Charlie wasn't much different from Jeff Dahmer, for that matter. It's a matter of what's acceptable in the view of history that's important. Wyatt Earp passed the test, Charles Askins apparently has not.
Killing people for sport has never been widely acceptable in a relatively civilized society.



Niether Earp nor Askins were ever convicted of murder or manslaughter. Dahmer was a canibla Askins was not, bad comparison. I am not sure were you get the Killing Men for sport.
I am not defending Askins, but let's not assume what we do not know


Being GUILTY and being convicted are two different things. Ask OJ.

Agree with Gene's previous post 100%. The degree of crime since Roman law has often hinged on motivation. Revenge, while not a Christian ideal, is completely different from pleasure or killing indiscriminately. Thus killing in War is different than murder although the actual act may have been the same - killing.

The truth angers those whom it does not convince