IMO, the ex-boxer did the right thing. I'm being completely levelheaded right now without any rage whatsoever, and I still probably would've done the same thing he did.
Good on him.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Ex-Boxer kills man after finding him sexually assaulting his stepson
IMO, the ex-boxer did the right thing. I'm being completely levelheaded right now without any rage whatsoever, and I still probably would've done the same thing he did.
Good on him.
can't blame him.
ja.Reciprocity wrote:
can't blame him.
That's pretty tough. I can totally see why. But laws are there for a reason.
"blind rage" may be a defense of temporary insanity. I know i'd do the same damn thing. There really is no self control in mashing the guys face in for something as sick as that.
"blind rage" may be a defense of temporary insanity. I know i'd do the same damn thing. There really is no self control in mashing the guys face in for something as sick as that.
Seems like a decent guy, probably wouldn't do it if he didn't have to.
Can't blame him, but I don't think he should've or had the right to kill him. However, he shouldn't go to jail or anything, probably pay a fine or something, but nothing too heavy.
(IMO, I'm not a big fan of vigilantes)
(IMO, I'm not a big fan of vigilantes)
This is great, I love the way Russians think. Don't stop hittin till the fucker stops movin.
Last edited by _j5689_ (2008-02-02 19:52:29)
I hope he doesn't get i too much crap, it may be wrong but he can't really be accountable for his actions in that circumstance. They should take into account his personal demeanour when he is normal.
I think vigilantes do it out of a sense of moral obligation where this guy just wanted to kill the guy who caused immediate harm to the person he was protecting.mtb0minime wrote:
(IMO, I'm not a big fan of vigilantes)
How is this guy not a vigilante? His stepson was in no immediate danger, he should have gone to the police, he obviously knew exactly who it was anyways. Let him rot in jail instead of getting the quick way out.lavadisk wrote:
I think vigilantes do it out of a sense of moral obligation where this guy just wanted to kill the guy who caused immediate harm to the person he was protecting.mtb0minime wrote:
(IMO, I'm not a big fan of vigilantes)
In any case he set himself up nicely for a temporary insanity defense.
That's true. I don't like the vigilantes that are like, "I'm going to get justice and revenge!" (the vigilante with vengeance)lavadisk wrote:
I think vigilantes do it out of a sense of moral obligation where this guy just wanted to kill the guy who caused immediate harm to the person he was protecting.mtb0minime wrote:
(IMO, I'm not a big fan of vigilantes)
But if it came down to police not doing their job, then I think vigilantism would be necessary for the protection of everyone (the vigilante with morals)
He seems like a respectable guy who kicked some ass when needed.
I only wish, for his sake, that he didnt kill the guy, just beat the shit out of him.
I only wish, for his sake, that he didnt kill the guy, just beat the shit out of him.
15 more years! 15 more years!
Wait, what? How was his stepson in no immediate danger? He had a guy on top of him with his pants down...?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
How is this guy not a vigilante? His stepson was in no immediate danger, he should have gone to the police, he obviously knew exactly who it was anyways. Let him rot in jail instead of getting the quick way out.lavadisk wrote:
I think vigilantes do it out of a sense of moral obligation where this guy just wanted to kill the guy who caused immediate harm to the person he was protecting.mtb0minime wrote:
(IMO, I'm not a big fan of vigilantes)
In any case he set himself up nicely for a temporary insanity defense.
Reciprocity wrote:
can't blame him.
Danger schmanger! I think it's pretty obvious what he should've done. Politely wait for the guy and stepson to finish their business, nevermind the stepson getting scarred for life and will eventually grow up to be demented / perverted / pedophilic or have some sort of psychological disorder/trauma.ThomasMorgan wrote:
Wait, what? How was his stepson in no immediate danger? He had a guy on top of him with his pants down...?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
How is this guy not a vigilante? His stepson was in no immediate danger, he should have gone to the police, he obviously knew exactly who it was anyways. Let him rot in jail instead of getting the quick way out.lavadisk wrote:
I think vigilantes do it out of a sense of moral obligation where this guy just wanted to kill the guy who caused immediate harm to the person he was protecting.
In any case he set himself up nicely for a temporary insanity defense.
"He was a student at one of our colleges.....he had no social life."
lol
lol
I think he means "no danger" as in after he got the kid away, then came back for the guy.ThomasMorgan wrote:
Wait, what? How was his stepson in no immediate danger? He had a guy on top of him with his pants down...?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
How is this guy not a vigilante? His stepson was in no immediate danger, he should have gone to the police, he obviously knew exactly who it was anyways. Let him rot in jail instead of getting the quick way out.lavadisk wrote:
I think vigilantes do it out of a sense of moral obligation where this guy just wanted to kill the guy who caused immediate harm to the person he was protecting.
In any case he set himself up nicely for a temporary insanity defense.
Still, not a vigilante. Vigilante is someone wanting to exact revenge by thier own means, but in a calculated, semi- level headed way.
This was just pure rage. He didnt want his own brand of justice. He just wanted to mangle bones to appease the sheer amount of uncontrolled adrenaline in his body.
If I was on the jury, I'd let this guy off.
*sigh* Why didn't he break his legs first?
I think the proper punishment for this would be to snap that pervert's boner in half
He won't be sexually assaulting young boys for loooooooong time.
He won't be sexually assaulting young boys for loooooooong time.
If he killed him while the guy was still on his kid, good on him. However, if he got them separated, then called the police, then killed him, it was just personal retribution. A reasonable feeling of course, but it really doesn't excuse it.ThomasMorgan wrote:
Wait, what? How was his stepson in no immediate danger? He had a guy on top of him with his pants down...?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
How is this guy not a vigilante? His stepson was in no immediate danger, he should have gone to the police, he obviously knew exactly who it was anyways. Let him rot in jail instead of getting the quick way out.lavadisk wrote:
I think vigilantes do it out of a sense of moral obligation where this guy just wanted to kill the guy who caused immediate harm to the person he was protecting.mtb0minime wrote:
(IMO, I'm not a big fan of vigilantes)
In any case he set himself up nicely for a temporary insanity defense.
Apparently he was level-headed enough to call the authorities. He should have been level-headed enough to manage to avoid killing him.RoosterCantrell wrote:
I think he means "no danger" as in after he got the kid away, then came back for the guy.ThomasMorgan wrote:
Wait, what? How was his stepson in no immediate danger? He had a guy on top of him with his pants down...?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
How is this guy not a vigilante? His stepson was in no immediate danger, he should have gone to the police, he obviously knew exactly who it was anyways. Let him rot in jail instead of getting the quick way out.
In any case he set himself up nicely for a temporary insanity defense.
Still, not a vigilante. Vigilante is someone wanting to exact revenge by thier own means, but in a calculated, semi- level headed way.
This was just pure rage. He didnt want his own brand of justice. He just wanted to mangle bones to appease the sheer amount of uncontrolled adrenaline in his body.
Yeah. you do have a point.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If he killed him while the guy was still on his kid, good on him. However, if he got them separated, then called the police, then killed him, it was just personal retribution. A reasonable feeling of course, but it really doesn't excuse it.ThomasMorgan wrote:
Wait, what? How was his stepson in no immediate danger? He had a guy on top of him with his pants down...?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
How is this guy not a vigilante? His stepson was in no immediate danger, he should have gone to the police, he obviously knew exactly who it was anyways. Let him rot in jail instead of getting the quick way out.lavadisk wrote:
I think vigilantes do it out of a sense of moral obligation where this guy just wanted to kill the guy who caused immediate harm to the person he was protecting.mtb0minime wrote:
(IMO, I'm not a big fan of vigilantes)
In any case he set himself up nicely for a temporary insanity defense.Apparently he was level-headed enough to call the authorities. He should have been level-headed enough to manage to avoid killing him.RoosterCantrell wrote:
I think he means "no danger" as in after he got the kid away, then came back for the guy.ThomasMorgan wrote:
Wait, what? How was his stepson in no immediate danger? He had a guy on top of him with his pants down...?
Still, not a vigilante. Vigilante is someone wanting to exact revenge by thier own means, but in a calculated, semi- level headed way.
This was just pure rage. He didnt want his own brand of justice. He just wanted to mangle bones to appease the sheer amount of uncontrolled adrenaline in his body.
If he was truly levelheaded, he could've found a way to make it look like he killed the man in self-defense.
lol, I'm not saying it was pre-meditated, I'm saying that partway through the beating he should have thought, "Hey, this guy is beaten into a bloody pulp and probably won't be going anywhere until the police arrive. I think I can stop now."Turquoise wrote:
If he was truly levelheaded, he could've found a way to make it look like he killed the man in self-defense.
maybe he was a pussy.. He did go after a little boy.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
lol, I'm not saying it was pre-meditated, I'm saying that partway through the beating he should have thought, "Hey, this guy is beaten into a bloody pulp and probably won't be going anywhere until the police arrive. I think I can stop now."Turquoise wrote:
If he was truly levelheaded, he could've found a way to make it look like he killed the man in self-defense.
Pages: 1 2
- Index »
- Community »
- Debate and Serious Talk »
- Ex-Boxer kills man after finding him sexually assaulting his stepson