Pages: 1 2
Which is why we need capital punishment. Killing can be good, just don't leave it open to the individual, it leaves so much more room for screwing it up and putting people who are basically good in jail.Turquoise wrote:
Sometimes, murder is justified IMHO. All that really matters in the end is that it looks as if you did it legally.
Granted, I don't think he really has to worry about going to jail over this. Most juries (probably even in Russia) just let people off for this kind of stuff.
NO ONE is level-headed if the call the police THEN kill someone.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.
All the more reason he should be let off.rdx-fx wrote:
A boxer in reasonably good shape, with a bit of adrenaline going, NOT wearing boxing gloves.. yeah, one or two head punches and the target would be in a world of hurt.
Call it muscle memory. A boxer is used to hitting a certain way, with a certain amount of force. Take off the thick padded gloves, add an overdose of adrenaline, substitute some out-of-shape 20 year old college student for a pro-boxer. Guess what happens next?
Excellent, kill your daughters attacker, who is no longer actually attacking her, so you won't be there to defend her for the rest of her life and she gets to tell prospective mates her father is in jail.rdx-fx wrote:
I'd count myself amongst those fathers.daddyofdeath wrote:
Fathers protect their children. /End of story.
My girls will be protected. Whatever happens to me as a result of that is of secondary importance.
I guess that's something that only a parent would understand;
My life for my childs life? no doubt, no question - I'd trade mine for hers in a moment.
(and I suppose only a former soldier would think of it like that before they really had to)Point I was trying to make there.TimmmmaaaaH wrote:
All the more reason he should be let off.rdx-fx wrote:
A boxer in reasonably good shape, with a bit of adrenaline going, NOT wearing boxing gloves.. yeah, one or two head punches and the target would be in a world of hurt.
Call it muscle memory. A boxer is used to hitting a certain way, with a certain amount of force. Take off the thick padded gloves, add an overdose of adrenaline, substitute some out-of-shape 20 year old college student for a pro-boxer. Guess what happens next?
Guess I was 'clear as mud'
Very well said.rdx-fx wrote:
Your hypothetical scenario is of your own making there. My response was exactly what I said, and in reference to exactly what I quoted.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Excellent, kill your daughters attacker, who is no longer actually attacking her, so you won't be there to defend her for the rest of her life and she gets to tell prospective mates her father is in jail.
You misunderstand what I wrote. Whatever happens to me as a result of that is of secondary importance. NOT of no importance.
Nice of you to put words in my mouth, manufacture vile scenarios out of context, and generally grossly misinterpret what I wrote. From a Mod, no less. Wonderful. Thanks.
The point I was speaking to (and I believe daddyofdeath was talking about as well) is the realization that, once you become a parent, your child's life means more to you than your own life.
It's not about raging out and stomping on the first little boy that gives your little girl a valentine.. it's about quietly doing whatever is necessary to safeguard your kids.
Changing shitty diapers.. reading Goodnight Moon for the millionth time, and liking it.. operating on 2 hours of sleep a day, for however long you need to.. biting your tongue when your teenage daughter starts dating.. and (if it ever needs be) putting your own ass on the line to protect your child.. all of this a real father will do with a smile on his face and the knowledge that this is the best job in the world.
Your own temper, ego, and pride get stuffed into a distant back corner - and you do whatever is necessary to raise a happy, healthy, moral, smart adult from a tiny, helpless infant.
gruesome and poetic revenge fantasies do not enter into things.
raging out and beating on people just to make yourself feel better - is not an option.
Protect the kids, get them safe, and whatever else happens after that is secondary.
He's not a vigilante because he didn't actively go out looking for criminals to slay.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.
Last edited by GroeFaZErdi (2008-02-07 09:29:26)
FM, I do realize this is generally speaking not correct. But let's put yourself in that scenario for a second as an ex boxer etc. Your boy of 8 is underneath a guy with his pants down, he took them apart and when he really realized what was happening he went berserk. I think EVERY single person in here would go berserk, yes you too. Beat the living crap out of the guy. Now in the boxer's case he beat him so hard that in a couple of punches it was all over.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Excellent, kill your daughters attacker, who is no longer actually attacking her, so you won't be there to defend her for the rest of her life and she gets to tell prospective mates her father is in jail.rdx-fx wrote:
I'd count myself amongst those fathers.daddyofdeath wrote:
Fathers protect their children. /End of story.
My girls will be protected. Whatever happens to me as a result of that is of secondary importance.
I guess that's something that only a parent would understand;
My life for my childs life? no doubt, no question - I'd trade mine for hers in a moment.
(and I suppose only a former soldier would think of it like that before they really had to)Point I was trying to make there.TimmmmaaaaH wrote:
All the more reason he should be let off.
Guess I was 'clear as mud'
shortly put, exactly.HudsonFalcon wrote:
The only variable that makes this case different than any other is the father was a boxer trained to deliver the most damage from his punches. However, any father in this same situation would no doubt be trying to kill the attacker, the boxer just knew how.
You were rationalizing the boxer's actions, I take that to mean you agree with them.rdx-fx wrote:
Your hypothetical scenario is of your own making there. My response was exactly what I said, and in reference to exactly what I quoted.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Excellent, kill your daughters attacker, who is no longer actually attacking her, so you won't be there to defend her for the rest of her life and she gets to tell prospective mates her father is in jail.
You misunderstand what I wrote. Whatever happens to me as a result of that is of secondary importance. NOT of no importance.
Nice of you to put words in my mouth, manufacture vile scenarios out of context, and generally grossly misinterpret what I wrote. From a Mod, no less. Wonderful. Thanks.
The point I was speaking to (and I believe daddyofdeath was talking about as well) is the realization that, once you become a parent, your child's life means more to you than your own life.
It's not about raging out and stomping on the first little boy that gives your little girl a valentine.. it's about quietly doing whatever is necessary to safeguard your kids.
Changing shitty diapers.. reading Goodnight Moon for the millionth time, and liking it.. operating on 2 hours of sleep a day, for however long you need to.. biting your tongue when your teenage daughter starts dating.. and (if it ever needs be) putting your own ass on the line to protect your child.. all of this a real father will do with a smile on his face and the knowledge that this is the best job in the world.
Your own temper, ego, and pride get stuffed into a distant back corner - and you do whatever is necessary to raise a happy, healthy, moral, smart adult from a tiny, helpless infant.
gruesome and poetic revenge fantasies do not enter into things.
raging out and beating on people just to make yourself feel better - is not an option.
Protect the kids, get them safe, and whatever else happens after that is secondary.
Which is why once the police were called and his son was out of harm's way, he had no reason to hunt the perp down.rdx-fx wrote:
raging out and beating on people just to make yourself feel better - is not an option.
He took the law into his own hands.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
He's not a vigilante because he didn't actively go out looking for criminals to slay.
Yeah I wish that is what happened. I wish the guy came up on the two, beat the piece of shit until he was dead, then called the police. Then we wouldn't have to be discussing how this guy took the law into his own hands. Too bad that isn't what really happened.dayarath wrote:
FM, I do realize this is generally speaking not correct. But let's put yourself in that scenario for a second as an ex boxer etc. Your boy of 8 is underneath a guy with his pants down, he took them apart and when he really realized what was happening he went berserk. I think EVERY single person in here would go berserk, yes you too. Beat the living crap out of the guy. Now in the boxer's case he beat him so hard that in a couple of punches it was all over.
I feel it's understandable, ofcourse not correct but hell, once something like that occurs you just can't stop, you just go insane.
I thought you didn't like the death penalty.Braddock wrote:
I'd do the same thing. I don't blame him.
Pages: 1 2