A self-defense that we can all agree on?

So, just a quick question for those that are supporting or condoning his actions. If the molester had been female, do you think the escalation to murder would be just as justified? Not trying to start anything, but I am honestly just interested if it changes ones perception on justifiable responses.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']So, just a quick question for those that are supporting or condoning his actions. If the molester had been female, do you think the escalation to murder would be just as justified? Not trying to start anything, but I am honestly just interested if it changes ones perception on justifiable responses.[/QUOTE]

My reaction would be the same.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']So, just a quick question for those that are supporting or condoning his actions. If the molester had been female, do you think the escalation to murder would be just as justified? Not trying to start anything, but I am honestly just interested if it changes ones perception on justifiable responses.[/QUOTE]

That's actually a fantastic question. That really brings in so many issues. I was always raised that you don't hit women...ever. I can't say what I would do in this situation, because thankfully I've never had to. Maybe start asking questions first...are you helping the girl go to the bathroom, why are you undressing, what's going on, then if it's apparent she's trying to molest the child, I guess forcefully detain her. Tackle her to the ground, hold her down and yell for somebody to call the cops. As graphic as it sounds, the methods of penetration that a male rapist can perform over that of a female brings in disease, more physical trauma, and perhaps more mental trauma. Dunno.

But that's a great wrinkle in the scenario. I wouldn't condemn the man for beating the woman to death, but I would be slightly less celebratory I suppose.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']So, just a quick question for those that are supporting or condoning his actions. If the molester had been female, do you think the escalation to murder would be just as justified? Not trying to start anything, but I am honestly just interested if it changes ones perception on justifiable responses.[/QUOTE]

I condone the killing and I would if it had been a female.
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']rape is not just "unwanted vaginal intercourse" and has not been viewed that way for decades.
Sexual assault and rape are usually the same thing it is just wording. The word rape is not usually used in the law though. But rape is and can apply to abuse and forced sex acts.

I like many others believe it is RAPE when it involves a child and prefer that wording as it RAPE usually carries..evokes more emotion and outrage (as it should) then some flowery word like molest. It is rape.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape
http://www.clarku.edu/offices/dos/survivorguide/definition.cfm

It is disgusting and I think most or the majority of people are all on board with the death penalty for child rape. I think most people are also fine with this guy in this case being killed and yes the guy who killed him deserves a medal.

P.S. clak is still a complete moron.
[/QUOTE]

Okay, well I was hoping nobody would catch me using words that are applicable in my future jurisdiction but not all jurisdictions. Pennsylvania retains the acknowledgment that rape is not all encompassing. Like I said earlier, rape is:
A person commits a felony of the first degree when he or
she engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant:

(1) By forcible compulsion.

(2) By threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent
resistance by a person of reasonable resolution.
....
18 Pa.C.S. 3121.

Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse provides as follows:
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits a felony of the first degree when the person engages in deviate sexual intercourse with a complainant:(1) by forcible compulsion;


(2) by threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution;
...
18 Pa.C.S. 3123.

Deviate Sexual Intercourse is defined as follows:
“Deviate sexual intercourse.” Sexual intercourse per os or per anus between human beings and any form of sexual intercourse with an animal. The term also includes penetration, however slight, of the genitals or anus of another person with a foreign object for any purpose other than good faith medical, hygienic or law enforcement procedures.
...
18 Pa.C.S. 3101

I just wanted to explain that I was using my own definitions of the crimes which so happened to be the state that I'm going to school in. I am well aware that other states don't use the same definition, hence my reason for defining my usage of the terms.
 
[quote name='berzirk']Bigdaddy, by profile name alone, seems to be a big boy, so he can defend himself, but what I read in his comment was that he was saying how could (m)any of us walk into a sexual attack on a child and legally choose if the child is being raped or "just" molested, and act accordingly based on their perpection. I don't think he was being dumb at all, and I don't think he ever said all sexual assaults were rape. Maybe I misunderstood.[/QUOTE]

Exactly. To even try to make a distinction between a child being raped and molested is pointless. A child cannot consent to sex. So, whether the guy was just touching the kid in a sexual manner or actually performing a sexual act on her, who cares? The father walked in, saw his child being hurt (and yes, being molested hurts), and flew into a blind rage. Unless you've obtained the absolute pinnacle of emotional control, you would do the same.

And yeah, no where did I say sexual assault is equal rape. All I said was if you walked in on any of the above, you'd fly off the handle in the same manner. It's not like you're gonna less be pissed if the guy is just rubbing your child in a non-kosher fashion. "Oh, sorry, my man. I thought you were raping my daughter, but now I see you were only molesting her."

Should we go around killing people for committing crimes, no matter how vile? Of course not, but this was a clear case (if things went down as the guy claims) of something happening in the heat of the moment. As you said earlier, it's a little easier to remove emotion from it when it's some stranger. But anyone who has a problem with this case, just think about your daughter or your sister being touched, molested, penetrated...what fucking ever...by some sick pervert. If the thought doesn't make you wanna punch the wall, please check your pulse now...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='KCS13']Okay, well I was hoping nobody would catch me using words that are applicable in my future jurisdiction but not all jurisdictions. Pennsylvania retains the acknowledgment that rape is not all encompassing. Like I said earlier, rape is:
A person commits a felony of the first degree when he or
she engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant:

(1) By forcible compulsion.

(2) By threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent
resistance by a person of reasonable resolution.
....
18 Pa.C.S. 3121.

Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse provides as follows:
(a) Offense defined.--A person commits a felony of the first degree when the person engages in deviate sexual intercourse with a complainant:(1) by forcible compulsion;


(2) by threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution;
...
18 Pa.C.S. 3123.

Deviate Sexual Intercourse is defined as follows:
“Deviate sexual intercourse.” Sexual intercourse per os or per anus between human beings and any form of sexual intercourse with an animal. The term also includes penetration, however slight, of the genitals or anus of another person with a foreign object for any purpose other than good faith medical, hygienic or law enforcement procedures.
...
18 Pa.C.S. 3101

I just wanted to explain that I was using my own definitions of the crimes which so happened to be the state that I'm going to school in. I am well aware that other states don't use the same definition, hence my reason for defining my usage of the terms.[/QUOTE]

The reason I responded the way I did is because you said (unwanted vaginal penetration) that alone is not what rape is, yes it can be but that is not the only thing that rape encompasses.

But what does sexual intercourse consist of? From what I have read (legally speaking in most places) it involves more then one orifice and just not left to one part of the body being used and it can also be objects.

A female can rape a female, a female can rape a man, a man can rape a female, a man can rape a male.

See how that works?

As I said it is rape and I will continue to use the word as many others do.

People can use the word they want but whatever and whoever uses it is all disgusting and this particular case I am happy the man got killed. Yes happy. If we want to turn this thread into a conversation about words then that is fine as long as it isn't in an attempt to make it sound like this was not disgusting or that the guy didn't deserve to die as all child molesters/rapists do. But as I said earlier only after some torture if at all possible.

As far as people referring to emotions.... if this doesn't make them emotional or any child rape/molestation then something is seriously wrong with them.

edit: if your state does not encompass rape as I said and as most states that see it that way and even the fed then they really need to update thier laws.
 
Last edited:
[quote name='Javery']My reaction would be the same.[/QUOTE]

what about a 12 year old boy, since you seem so intent on killing someone?
 
[quote name='Javery']My reaction would be the same.[/QUOTE]


[quote name='Pliskin101']I condone the killing and I would if it had been a female.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for the answers, gives me something to think about.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']So, just a quick question for those that are supporting or condoning his actions. If the molester had been female, do you think the escalation to murder would be just as justified? Not trying to start anything, but I am honestly just interested if it changes ones perception on justifiable responses.[/QUOTE]
My reaction would be tamer and yes, there is a double standard. It's a visceral feeling that I cannot fully explain.

Most of society probably agrees. In fact, if the molester had been female and the victim male, we probably wouldn't even be talking about this right now. I don't say that this is a good or bad thing, it's just reality. My best explanation rests on paternal feelings men usually have for women and girls. We are raised to be protectors of women.

In other words, here's the sex crime hierarchy from most repulsive to least repulsive.

-Male offender and female victim
-Male offender and male victim
-Female offender and female victim
-Female offender and male victim

Having said all that, I support equal punishments for male and female offenders. I'm only talking about my emotional reaction to such stories.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='berzirk']That's the part that I don't think many in this thread understand. There is an emotional change in a person when they become a (involved) father. You become protective of your child, your instincts to defend a person from harm are heightened. It's very animalistic.[/QUOTE]

I understand this concept, but what you describe here is often what underlies violent criminal offenses, not defense. The idea that satisfying a fit of emotional rage (whether or not its reasonable) is "justice" bothers me. Justice is largely dispassionate, which is something I think many people overlook. What is right over the law is not always right by you, and is not always what makes you feel better.

This seems to be a justifiable homicide, and it's fine that he won't be charged with anything criminally. But I respect his perspective on the situation, and am puzzled/bothered by those of you who are cheering him on from the sidelines, figuratively foaming at the mouth at the opportunity to kill someone yourselves.

That mentality is not justice, friends.
 
[quote name='usickenme']what about a 12 year old boy, since you seem so intent on killing someone?[/QUOTE]

That is a tougher call and I probably wouldn't have the same reaction but I honestly don't know. I'm not intent on killing someone, I just know that if it happened to me (objectively speaking as in I witness this happening to my real non-hypothetical kid), I would beat the ever living shit out of that person and if he/she died as a result then so be it.
 
Yeah being molested isn't traumatizing enough, let your kid see you beat someone to death with your bare hands, that should help.

Sigh, I'm done with all this.
 
[quote name='Spokker']In other words, here's the sex crime hierarchy from most repulsive to least repulsive.

-Male offender and female victim
-Male offender and male victim
-Female offender and female victim
-Female offender and male victim

Having said all that, I support equal punishments for male and female offenders. I'm only talking about my emotional reaction to such stories.[/QUOTE]

How about a female adult and a boy?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I understand this concept, but what you describe here is often what underlies violent criminal offenses, not defense. The idea that satisfying a fit of emotional rage (whether or not its reasonable) is "justice" bothers me. Justice is largely dispassionate, which is something I think many people overlook. What is right over the law is not always right by you, and is not always what makes you feel better.

This seems to be a justifiable homicide, and it's fine that he won't be charged with anything criminally. But I respect his perspective on the situation, and am puzzled/bothered by those of you who are cheering him on from the sidelines, figuratively foaming at the mouth at the opportunity to kill someone yourselves.

That mentality is not justice, friends.[/QUOTE]

That's fine. We can have different views of justice, as clearly one can look at an issue and say it's just, while another would disagree. Take the OBL killing. Was it just to raid his home and kill him? IMO, yah, probably. But others would say why in the hell are you in a foreign land, raiding a home in a country without any notice, and going floor by floor shooting people? There is subjectivity to justice.

What's just also brings in cultural considerations many times. So that's my beef with words like "fair" and "just". There isn't an international standard on those things, and you can have two people in the same room who believe the polar opposite to be true.

And saying that those of us who strongly support his actions couldn't wait to do the same is utter insanity. As I've mentioned before, even the most vigilante of us would need to hope that their child was being molested in order to fulfill that bizarro fantasy. I've held the position all along that I wish pedophilia didn't exist. Then this guy would still be alive, he wouldn't be running around trying to fuck kids, and the daughter wouldn't have the trauma of this creep trying to feel her up, or see her daddy beat someone to death. But since pedophilia does exist, and this guy did catch a man preparing or currently molesting his kid, I'm happy as hell the fuckface got beaten to death.

To me, sexually abusing a child should be an automatic death penalty. So IMO, the outcome was 100% just. I don't mind you disagreeing, just as I assume you wish I agreed with you, but don't personally mind that I disagree. What I'm trying to suggest is that justice to one person is not always justice to another. That's why we have laws to guide us, which lawmakers can apply to choose between right and wrong, because purely measuring by fair or just is subjective.

Also, we've been discussing the legal principles of self defense of a third party, so this isn't some celebretory dance for enraged parents. It's quite possibly a self-defense issue (thus my choice of wording for the thread title). But in cases of self-defense, that's to be determined by authorities or the legal system. It appears the authorities feel it was justifiable self defense, and we'll see if the legal system agrees. Will that outcome retroactively make the father's actions just or injust?

OJ Simpson is found innocent. Justice has been served!
OJ Simpson was a double murderer and he's free. What an injustice!
 
[quote name='Clak']Yeah being molested isn't traumatizing enough, let your kid see you beat someone to death with your bare hands, that should help.

Sigh, I'm done with all this.[/QUOTE]

With all due respect, I think you were done with all of this after your first post. Like I said...not one of your best efforts.

*As a teenage girl, she sits down on the couch and has a flashback of her father defending her by killing a sex criminal.

*As a teenage girl, she sits down on the couch and has a flashback of her father interrupting a molestation and telling the molester he should get lost and letting the guy wander off.

One of those scenarios would sit better with a victim than the other. If the pedophile wasn't trying to fuck a kid, none of it would have happened. Blame him, not the dad. The situation was forced on the dad.
 
[quote name='berzirk']That's fine. We can have different views of justice, as clearly one can look at an issue and say it's just, while another would disagree. Take the OBL killing. Was it just to raid his home and kill him? IMO, yah, probably. But others would say why in the hell are you in a foreign land, raiding a home in a country without any notice, and going floor by floor shooting people? There is subjectivity to justice.

What's just also brings in cultural considerations many times. So that's my beef with words like "fair" and "just". There isn't an international standard on those things, and you can have two people in the same room who believe the polar opposite to be true.

And saying that those of us who strongly support his actions couldn't wait to do the same is utter insanity. As I've mentioned before, even the most vigilante of us would need to hope that their child was being molested in order to fulfill that bizarro fantasy. I've held the position all along that I wish pedophilia didn't exist. Then this guy would still be alive, he wouldn't be running around trying to fuck kids, and the daughter wouldn't have the trauma of this creep trying to feel her up, or see her daddy beat someone to death. But since pedophilia does exist, and this guy did catch a man preparing or currently molesting his kid, I'm happy as hell the fuckface got beaten to death.

To me, sexually abusing a child should be an automatic death penalty. So IMO, the outcome was 100% just. I don't mind you disagreeing, just as I assume you wish I agreed with you, but don't personally mind that I disagree. What I'm trying to suggest is that justice to one person is not always justice to another. That's why we have laws to guide us, which lawmakers can apply to choose between right and wrong, because purely measuring by fair or just is subjective.

Also, we've been discussing the legal principles of self defense of a third party, so this isn't some celebretory dance for enraged parents. It's quite possibly a self-defense issue (thus my choice of wording for the thread title). But in cases of self-defense, that's to be determined by authorities or the legal system. It appears the authorities feel it was justifiable self defense, and we'll see if the legal system agrees. Will that outcome retroactively make the father's actions just or injust?

OJ Simpson is found innocent. Justice has been served!
OJ Simpson was a double murderer and he's free. What an injustice![/QUOTE]

Let me rephrase.

Justice that satisfies a visceral, emotional desire for unbridled acts of violence upon another human being is not justice based upon Constitutional standards.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I understand this concept, but what you describe here is often what underlies violent criminal offenses, not defense. The idea that satisfying a fit of emotional rage (whether or not its reasonable) is "justice" bothers me. Justice is largely dispassionate, which is something I think many people overlook. What is right over the law is not always right by you, and is not always what makes you feel better.

This seems to be a justifiable homicide, and it's fine that he won't be charged with anything criminally. But I respect his perspective on the situation, and am puzzled/bothered by those of you who are cheering him on from the sidelines, figuratively foaming at the mouth at the opportunity to kill someone yourselves.

That mentality is not justice, friends.[/QUOTE]

I am not attacking you here but what bothers me is what you are saying bothers you. Why is it bothersome to you that a justifiable and reasonable emotion and act occurred? Shouldn't you be more bothered by the monster the real monster that couldn't control his urges that are not natural, reasonable or justified?

You are confusing acceptable with unacceptable. You are confusing natural and unnatural. You are confusing monsters acts that are in no way reasonable or justifiable with humans needs/rights to protect and care about themselves and others. Some monster who gets mad at his wife for burning his dinner and then beats her to death is not the same mindset as the mindset you are confusing this with.
It is natural (this case here) and justifiable and reasonable.... they are/it is different very different.

Maybe it is in your wording "satisfying". Is that what bothers you? Don't get this wrong it is sad in many ways. First that a mutation or defect made a monster... that is disturbing... that there are monsters like the pedophile that are not human and do not react/act reasonably or justifiably. It is sad that there are defective monsters. Second it is sad that these monsters have innocent victims and in this case and this type of monster... child victims. It is sad that a father had to walk in and see his world being attacked by a monster. It is sad that a normal person had to defend and be brought to a level of having to kill a monster and that he had to go through that.
It is satisfying that he had every right and can possibly sleep at night knowing he protected his and he didn't kill a human being as we see human being but he killed a monster.
It is satisfying that the monster was stopped forever, It is satisfying that the monster will not be able to continue his sickness on more victims and cause suffering in many and in many different ways.

You see it isn't a celebration of death of a human being it is the celebration of the death of a monster that can no longer terrorize and victimize people especially children of the village (so to speak). That there is one less monster and we can all sleep a little easier knowing our children and fellow villagers are safer because a monster is dead. It is a clebration of true human spirit of the father to love protect and defend against true evil and true monsters. He not only reacted correctly his actions saved more from being victims, that is celebrated.

The world is a harsh place with very real monsters and harsh actions are needed to survive, protect/defend, and flourish The fact that this simple fact of the world escapes you bothers me. That some others aren't on board bothers me. But that is alright at least there are people like this father who will do what is needed to be done.

Don't be UPSET by emotion (LOL)...it is a normal thing and most people have normal natural reasonable emotions and justifiable reasonable natural responses to them.
Don't let it confuse you. As I said earlier if this doesn't make someone emotional then there is something wrong with them. Which brings me to a side note those who lack emotion scare the crap out me of if not more so.
 
[quote name='berzirk']With all due respect, I think you were done with all of this after your first post. Like I said...not one of your best efforts.

*As a teenage girl, she sits down on the couch and has a flashback of her father defending her by killing a sex criminal.

*As a teenage girl, she sits down on the couch and has a flashback of her father interrupting a molestation and telling the molester he should get lost and letting the guy wander off.

One of those scenarios would sit better with a victim than the other. If the pedophile wasn't trying to fuck a kid, none of it would have happened. Blame him, not the dad. The situation was forced on the dad.[/QUOTE]
I'm going to reply to this and then you're on the ignore list. I don't have time for those who can't read.

I never said to let the guy "wander off", if you can point to where I did I'll concede it. I said he should have thrown the guy out and then called the police. Dad knew the guy, the police would have caught him and he would have been prosecuted, end of story. It's no different than the Martin/Zimmerman case. In both situations neither killer did what they should have done, ie the responsible thing. They took matters into their own hands, and two people ended up dead because of it.

You and the rest of the sociopaths think it's fine that the guy was beaten to death just to satisfy some sort of blood lust. You all need to sit back, think things through rationally, and try to evolve a bit. We have a justice system for a reason, so things aren't settled like this, with someone laying dead on the ground because Superdad couldn't control himself.
 
Well, I certainly don't lack in emotion - but I know when it is and is not appropriate. Emotion is great to use when I go to a sports event - cheer the home team, boo the pittsburgh penguins. I get that. I participate in that.

Victims have rights indeed (they even have their own office in the DOJ).

But what is justice - from a legal perspective - is far too frequently unrelated or antithetical to the demand for vengeance that comes from a victim. I was a victim of a hit and run a few hours ago. Car backed up into mine (while I was at the gym), driver got out, looked at the dent she caused, and drove off. Thankfully an employee pointed it out to me, and we'll have paperwork filed. I'm not mad. It stinks, but that's life. I don't demand vengeance, or claim that my desire to trash her car with a sledgehammer has anything to do with "justice." Even if I do feel that way.

I've been a victim of more crimes in my life than you have - I know that for a fact. And I agree that, when I am a victim, I desire to see people hurt. I want the person who stole my iPhone to die. I'll admit that. I want the persons who ditched my overdosing friend in a park in the middle of the night, rather than take him to a hospital - I want them to die. I want them to suffer in agony.

But I also know that's not justice. That's not the justice system.

Your use of hyperbole - referring to "monsters," to "natural" feelings, to "terror" or "victimization" - shows that you can't have a dispassionate view of justice. You aren't the kind of person who would be a good or fair juror, you are the kind of person who would let your biases get in the way of thinking through things fairly. You're the kind of person who sees justice as satisfying some macabre, non-empirical, unconstitutional desire for blood and pain and vengeance. That's not crime control, that's not justice. That's "Die Hard."

Don't tell me I don't have emotion, because that's a red herring argument. I have emotion just as much as you. But I am able to control it, which appears to be the big difference between us.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm going to reply to this and then you're on the ignore list. I don't have time for those who can't read.

I never said to let the guy "wander off", if you can point to where I did I'll concede it. I said he should have thrown the guy out and then called the police. Dad knew the guy, the police would have caught him and he would have been prosecuted, end of story. It's no different than the Martin/Zimmerman case. In both situations neither killer did what they should have done, ie the responsible thing. They took matters into their own hands, and two people ended up dead because of it.

You and the rest of the sociopaths think it's fine that the guy was beaten to death just to satisfy some sort of blood lust. You all need to sit back, think things through rationally, and try to evolve a bit. We have a justice system for a reason, so things aren't settled like this, with someone laying dead on the ground because Superdad couldn't control himself.[/QUOTE]

Haa haa. Fair enough. Throw attacks then block me. Classy ;)

Hugs and kisses,

Berzirk
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Let me rephrase.

Justice that satisfies a visceral, emotional desire for unbridled acts of violence upon another human being is not justice based upon Constitutional standards.[/QUOTE]

I hear ya, but we're not talking exclusively of emotions. A law student here has already tried to paint the legal picture for self-defense of a third person as the legal justification for starting to beat the pedophile. The dad says he didn't mean to kill the man, he's sorry it happened. If that is true, and if it was legal for him to physically attack the man in defense of his daughter and to eliminate a reasonable threat, then the events were legal.

I'll be the first to admit that being a parent, and having the emotional response to reading this story guides my point of view, and that I hold a unique and illegal view that all pedophiles should be killed, but even from the first post in the thread, it's been a self defense issue for me.
 
Exactly, we've all had things done to us, and afterward we'd all like to give a beating to whomever wronged us. This is what happens when we do, however. Because as pissed off as the father was, he is obviously able to now look back and reflect, and feel remorse over what he did. That's what happens when you fly off in the heat of the moment and lose control of yourself, you often times end up regretting it later.
 
Okay fine....." justice" "the legal system? Isn't it that system that said the father was in his LEGAL RIGHTS? Legal get it. If you and others don't understand why it is LEGAL but keep using the excuse that he should have taken the man through the legal system... that bothers me. How does that make any sense?
It was legal and it was justice based on that legal system you all keep using for your stances but you are using it incorrectly. Why...well maybe it has to do with the truth in that some of you don't like that justice and the legal system worked so fast in this case. That it didn't have the outcome you want or wanted. But bottom line it was legal and it was justice by that same system.

Because you can't see the difference in this case from others is a problem.

Legal matters and justice are tricky things and not always done by a court and not the same in ALL cases.

When a cop kills someone it is determined if it is legal by the circumstances same goes for a citizen. It doesn't always need to go to court because the evidence and the circumstances. Not all deaths need to go through the court system.

If you all have a problem with this being legal and justified then maybe you should work to change that. Good luck (not really) you are going to need it because you don't have a snowball's chance in hell.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
I've been a victim of more crimes in my life than you have - I know that for a fact[/QUOTE]

Then who? Are you talking to a personal acquaintance on here?

As far as the other stories outrageous to even put them in the same boat. I knew you were confused.
 
[quote name='Pliskin101']Okay fine....." justice" "the legal system? Isn't it that system that said the father was in his LEGAL RIGHTS? Legal get it.[/quote]

I didn't say he wasn't in his legal rights, I never said anything against the man. In fact, I have high praise for the way he reacted as well as how he acted (contrite) afterwards. It is the gung-ho armchair "man, I'd relish every minute I got to beat the last breath out of him" attitude that bothers me. It's not at all what actually happened, but the celebratory, John Wayne extrapolation made by so many people here. Including yourself.

If you and others don't understand why it is LEGAL but keep using the excuse that he should have taken the man through the legal system
Click to expand...

?

Are you literate?

[quote name='berzirk']I'll be the first to admit that being a parent, and having the emotional response to reading this story guides my point of view, and that I hold a unique and illegal view that all pedophiles should be killed, but even from the first post in the thread, it's been a self defense issue for me.[/QUOTE]

It's the celebratory aspect that I find so bothersome. Whether or not I agree that the man should have died (that's moot, as he's dead anyway), I find justice to be something factual and largely separable from emotion. I want a justice system that works to reduce crime, to reduce incarceration, that works to make people less safe - and sometimes that means practices and policies that might not sit right with me (capital punishment) or might not sit right with you (modifying felony disclosure requirements for job applications).

(not saying you're that way, but the last thing is the sort of issue that a punitive public tends to be against.)
 
[quote name='mykevermin']

(not saying you're that way, but the last thing is the sort of issue that a punitive public tends to be against.)[/QUOTE]

I agree with regards to the idea of justice being politicized for sure. There are many absolute truths, along with many shades of grey...oh God, Gilbert Gottfried...shades of grey. I love you Internet.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
Are you literate?
[/QUOTE]

Are you sane? You scare me. You are all over the place.
 
I can see it now clak being outraged and going to the place this happened and holding up a sign that says "justice for insert the child molester's name" or "I am insert the child molester's name".

To say those cases are no different is just disturbing.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
I've been a victim of more crimes in my life than you have - I know that for a fact[/QUOTE]

Then who? Are you talking to a personal acquaintance on here?
..............................................................................................

mykevermin...you didn't answer my question. If it was directed at me (as it looked that way)and you say it is fact....then the question again applies...are you sane?
 
I said he should have done the responsible thing and let him be prosecuted. As sad as it is, if it's legal it's legal. I will say that I don't think it should be legal, but that's beside the point. What Zimmerman did may end up being ruled legal as well, doesn't mean it's right. It doesn't mean that what was done should have happened, or that there wasn't a more rational, responsible way of dealing with the situation. In this case the law lets people take justice into their own hands, yay? Should I be happy about that? I'm not happy that someone can get beaten to death because someone lost control of themselves. I'd be happy if the child molester was behind bars where he belongs, not dead.

I mean for crying out loud, If I beat everyone whoever pissed me off there would be a trail of dead people a mile long behind me. I don't know an easier way of putting this, so excuse me if it sounds childish, but two wrongs don't make a right. Beating a child molester to death won't help the child who was molested, if she witnessed the beating right in front of her, it may have even made things worse. And for that matter, what if others would have gotten involved? What if a gun was pulled by someone defending the molester? What the dad did was irresponsible, regarldess of legality.

The only reason it isn't murder is because it's seen as him defending his child. If the dad had hunted the guy down after the fact and killed him, that would be murder. Yet how many of you would blame the guy for doing it? Would you have the same attitude you have in this case? Why would the fact that the dad waited change anything? His child was still molested, sure she's not in any immediate danger anymore, but hey dad is still pissed and in a rage about it. A child molester was killed, it's still justice, isn't it? This is why the excuse of "he was raging" is no excuse at all, cause it could be applied to any number of scenarios.
 
[quote name='Clak']The only reason it isn't murder is because it's seen as him defending his child. If the dad had hunted the guy down after the fact and killed him, that would be murder. Yet how many of you would blame the guy for doing it? Would you have the same attitude you have in this case?[/QUOTE]

I wouldn't blame the guy one bit for hunting down someone who molested his child, but it's still a crime, and I would not have an issue with him being arrested and tried. Now, if a jury found him not guilty, I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep, either.
 
[quote name='berzirk']
I'll be the first to admit that being a parent, and having the emotional response to reading this story guides my point of view, and that I hold a unique and illegal view that all pedophiles should be killed, but even from the first post in the thread, it's been a self defense issue for me.[/QUOTE]

It is not an illegal view it is a view and is permitted. ;) Also it is not unique.
 
[quote name='Clak']I always thought the definition of defense was to do whatever was needed to defend yourself from harm. Disarm a person, disable them, whatever it takes to remove the threat. Flying into a rage and beating someone to death doesn't equal defense in my opinion. I know the guy was raging, and given the circumstances I can understand why he would be, but that's his problem. We can't have people using "I just flew into a fit of rage" as justification for killing people. He should have done the responsible thing and thrown the guy out, then called the police.The guy should have been locked up for molesting the kid, that's what our justice system does to sex offenders. Of course this is Texas we're talking about, the father will probably get a parade.[/QUOTE]


I haven't read the entire thread yet (I just discovered it) and i don't know where you live BUT in Maine the man committing the molestation would have gotten no more then a 1-4 year sentence. Child molestors for whatever fucked up reason get extremely light sentences. In fact you are almost better off (as far as sentencing guidelines) to get found molesting a child then growing weed.
 
[quote name='GBAstar']I haven't read the entire thread yet (I just discovered it) and i don't know where you live BUT in Maine the man committing the molestation would have gotten no more then a 1-4 year sentence. Child molestors for whatever fucked up reason get extremely light sentences. In fact you are almost better off (as far as sentencing guidelines) to get found molesting a child then growing weed.[/QUOTE]

What do people get for intoxicated manslaughter there? Personally, I can't decide if murder of any kind is worse than child molestation or not.
 
[quote name='elessar123']What do people get for intoxicated manslaughter there? Personally, I can't decide if murder of any kind is worse than child molestation or not.[/QUOTE]


You mean like due to an OUI/DUI?

In all honestly it looks like those are finally getting stiffer sentences but unless it is a habitual OUI/DUI offender or they are also OAS (operating after suspension) I think most of them serve less then four or five years (if that) after time is suspended
 
[quote name='DurbanBrown']haha but he did. and thats just fine with me...[/QUOTE]

To bring some brevity to it, I enjoy Ron White's bit about how a guy in Texas who killed a mother, a daughter and a grandmother, then a group on his behalf protested the death penalty sentence saying he was too crazy to know we're killing him. "Then what are we arguing about? If he doesn't know the difference, and it makes me feel better..." *shrugs shoulders.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgQRgT15f9U
 
"I need an ambulance. This guy was raping my daughter and I beat him up," the father said.

http://www.kmov.com/home/Dad-who-killed-daughters-molester-wont-face-charges--159736525.html
Dad who killed daughter's molester won't face charges


"Under the law in the State of Texas, deadly force is justified in order to stop and aggravated sexual assault or a sexual assault," said Lavaca County District Attorney Heather McMinn. "All of the evidence that was presented showed that, that was in fact what was occurring when the victim’s father arrived at the scene."

"Many Shiner residents rallied around the father.
"I don’t think he should be arrested for it. I don’t think any charges should be filed," one resident said.
"Everybody’s been talking about the same thing, and they would’ve did the same thing," another said.
"He got what he well deserved," another resident said of the dead man.
The family’s attorney says it’s been an incredibly difficult 10 days for their family.
"He is a peaceable soul and he had no intention of killing anybody on that day but he has to live with that ," said V’Anne Huser.

The case is now closed."
.....................................................

Justified and closed :applause:
.
.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top