Father kills guy attempting to rape his 4 year old daughter, won't be charged

[Terminator X]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/father-kills-man-who-sexually-abused-daughter-texas_n_1587724.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false


Sheriff's deputies in Texas won't file charges against a father who they say beat an acquaintance to death after allegedly catching him sexually abusing the man's 4-year-old daughter.

During a social gathering on Saturday, the girl went inside the family's home in Shiner while other members of the family were tending to horses outside, CNN reported.

The father caught a 47-year-old man -- with whom he was casually acquainted -- attempting to molest his daughter, Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon told the Victoria Advocate. The father then allegedly punched the man in the head until he died, Harmon reported.

I've no problem with this outcome....the cops keep their snouts out of the situation, it's settled, no paperwork, no pointless jail time (what are we "rehabilitating"? a father's desire to protect his child?)...."stateless" street justice at its finest.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Good.

In those circumstances, I would agree that the man should not be charged of a crime. He was defending his daughter.

[Prometeo liberado]

I didn't know that attempted child molestation was punishable by death by beating again. Must have missed something.

[Pretty Flaco]

i dont know how i feel about how street justice should be punished... but i have no sympathy for the dead guy.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I didn't know that attempted child molestation was punishable by death by beating again. Must have missed something.

Never said it was. I was saying that in that situation and with it's outcome the man really did not commit a crime. He was defending the innocence of his daughter against an aggressor.

[Ele'ill]

The father was reportedly "very remorseful" about the death and did not know the alleged abuser would die of his injuries.

I think this might be someone defending their daughter and either losing control emotionally for obvious or whatever reasons (first time hitting someone, past trauma related stuff etc) or just an in-control defense situation where the person getting hit died from stuff related to being hit once, twice or however many times cause we don't know how many times they were hit.

[The Douche]

A good solid blow to back of the head can definitely be fatal. I highly doubt the father intended to kill the individual. And I am not inclined to shed tears for a rapist, either way.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I've no problem with this outcome....the cops keep their snouts out of the situation, it's settled, no paperwork, no pointless jail time (what are we "rehabilitating"? a father's desire to protect his child?)...."stateless" street justice at its finest.

Could not have put it better myself.

Btw, off topic but are you sparking up a bowl in your picture?

[Terminator X]

Could not have put it better myself.

Btw, off topic but are you sparking up a bowl in your picture?

Haha, nope, it's a pic of a pipe-smoking Zapatista. :ninja:

[Althusser]

Originally Posted by jbeard
I didn't know that attempted child molestation was punishable by death by beating again. Must have missed something.


If the father found out about a molestation after it happened, and then killed the man after planning the murder, the father wouldn't have been justified. It was heat of the moment, and the man was about to molest the guy's daughter.

ANARCHO STREET JUSTICE!

[img]http://www.imfdb.org/w/images/thumb/3/3a/DW4MAC2.JPG/500px-DW4MAC2.JPG[img]

[ed miliband]

i betchya if i go over to democratic underground i'll find some american liberals crying over this and saying how it's proof of how "backwards" texans are

[Princess Luna]

I love the responses in this thread, the guy beat another person to death and no one gives a shit because the person killed has been accused (note the word accused) of attempted rape. First off what if the guy is lying? this fact seemed to fly over the head of the poster who said the cops should keep their noses out of it and then fawned over the concept of 'street justice'. Second even if the guy was guilty, this was not defense it was revenge, he most likely found out what the guy had tried to do and flew into a rage and beat him to death, I don't care how horrible the crime the deceased committed was that is at least manslaughter . But please don't let logic stand in the way of your bloodlust... What makes this even more ironic is I bet a lot of people here are opposed to the death penalty, so in essence killing with due process = bad killing without due process = good

[Terminator X]

I love the responses in this thread, the guy beat another person to death and no one gives a shit because the person killed has been accused (note the word accused) of attempted rape. First off what if the guy is lying? this fact seemed to fly over the head of the poster who said the cops should keep their noses out of it and then fawned over the concept of 'street justice'. Second even if the guy was guilty, this was not defense it was revenge, he most likely found out what the guy had tried to do and flew into a rage and beat him to death, I don't care how horrible the crime the deceased committed was that is at least manslaughter . But please don't let logic stand in the way of your bloodlust...

So a guy beats another guy to death with his bare hands for no reason, and then makes up a story about an attempted rape? Doesn't seem plausible. Also, the article states that he walked in on the act, not that he "found out what the guy had tried to do" after the fact, and then tracked him down in a maniacal rage (for which he WOULD have been charged, as a previous poster stated).

[Ocean Seal]

I love the responses in this thread, the guy beat another person to death and no one gives a shit because the person killed has been accused (note the word accused) of attempted rape. First off what if the guy is lying? this fact seemed to fly over the head of the poster who said the cops should keep their noses out of it and then fawned over the concept of 'street justice'. Second even if the guy was guilty, this was not defense it was revenge, he most likely found out what the guy had tried to do and flew into a rage and beat him to death, I don't care how horrible the crime the deceased committed was that is at least manslaughter . But please don't let logic stand in the way of your bloodlust... What makes this even more ironic is I bet a lot of people here are opposed to the death penalty, so in essence killing with due process = bad killing without due process = good

So if you killed someone in self defense who was "allegedly" mugging you, or "allegedly" chasing you with a knife then would it be wrong for you to stop them. Don't get me wrong, its a shame that the guy had to kill that man, but that man was a criminal and one of the worst kinds of criminals, and I stand by whatever it is that guy had to do, and I hope he doesn't lose any sleep over killing a rapist in the act.

[Invader Zim]

i betchya if i go over to democratic underground i'll find some american liberals crying over this and saying how it's proof of how "backwards" texans are

As opposed to people like yourself who seemingly get off on the idea that a man beat another man to death with his bare hands.

[Terminator X]

What makes this even more ironic is I bet a lot of people here are opposed to the death penalty, so in essence killing with due process = bad killing without due process = good

No, state-sanctioned premeditated murder (including of innocents) = wrong. Father defending his 4 year old daughter from 47 year old rapist using any means necessary = good. Do you seriously not see the difference?

[Princess Luna]

So if you killed someone in self defense who was "allegedly" mugging you, or "allegedly" chasing you with a knife then would it be wrong for you to stop them. Don't get me wrong, its a shame that the guy had to kill that man, but that man was a criminal and one of the worst kinds of criminals, and I stand by whatever it is that guy had to do, and I hope he doesn't lose any sleep over killing a rapist in the act.
If some guy is mugging me or chasing me with a knife he presents a clear danger to my life and I have a right to use defense, but the right to defense is void if my life is no longer in danger. If I knock the gun/knife out of the mugger's hand and the mugger starts to run away, then shooting him becomes revenge not defense.


No, state-sanctioned premeditated murder (including of innocents) = wrong. Father defending his 4 year old daughter from 47 year old rapist using any means necessary = good. Do you seriously not see the difference?
At least with a court the person has a chance to prove they are innocent, now granted the guy in this case was most likely guilty, but lets say hypothetically the guy wasn't attempting to rape the girl and it was just a misunderstanding, he has no chance to show his innocence.

[Krano]

So what should he have done? asked the guy to please stop raping my 4 year old daughter? i can't belive were really having this discussion.

[Ocean Seal]

If some guy is mugging me or chasing me with a knife he presents a clear danger to my life and I have a right to use defense, but the right to defense is void if my life is no longer in danger. If I knock the gun/knife out of the mugger's hand and the mugger starts to run away, then shooting him becomes revenge not defense.
If in the fight you kill the guy it is not revenge.
If you get mugged and then find out where this guy lives and gun him down that is revenge.

[#FF0000]

As opposed to people like yourself who seemingly get off on the idea that a man beat another man to death with his bare hands.

ah shut up.

it's hella easy to accidentally do something like this -- especially under duress. Apparently the dude's fucking distraught over this too.

[#FF0000]

If some guy is mugging me or chasing me with a knife he presents a clear danger to my life and I have a right to use defense, but the right to defense is void if my life is no longer in danger. If I knock the gun/knife out of the mugger's hand and the mugger starts to run away, then shooting him becomes revenge not defense.


At least with a court the person has a chance to prove they are innocent, now granted the guy in this case was most likely guilty, but lets say hypothetically the guy wasn't attempting to rape the girl and it was just a misunderstanding, he has no chance to show his innocence.

yo when you catch someone hurting someone close to you like this, I think it's completely understandable to go apeshit to the point of killing someone. I'm not saying it's right, but I can absolutely see someone going absolutely mad for a moment and beating someone to death when they wouldn't have done that if they were thinking clearly.

I'm not saying it's "right". I'm saying it's totally understandable and you can't hold someone responsible for acting in such an explosive manner to something like this.

[Invader Zim]

ah shut up.

it's hella easy to accidentally do something like this -- especially under duress. Apparently the dude's fucking distraught over this too.



In the same way that George Zimmerman is allegedly distraught over the death of Trayvon Martin, right?

And no, it is not easy to beat a person to death. And while being angry and out of control may well make his actions a crime of passion, and thus make this manslaughter, it does not make it OK to kill someone else.

[Terminator X]

In the same way that George Zimmerman is allegedly distraught over the death of Trayvon Martin, right?

And no, it is not easy to beat a person to death. And while being angry and out of control may well make his actions a crime of passion, and thus make this manslaughter, it does not make it OK to kill someone else.

Oh, god, I was wondering when the completely nonsensical Trayvon Martin comparisons would start. :rolleyes:

Stalking and shooting an unarmed teenager with hints of racial hatred thrown in for good measure is not the same as a father beating up a child rapist in the heat of the moment.

Please stop.

[#FF0000]

In the same way that George Zimmerman is allegedly distraught over the death of Trayvon Martin, right?

Except that Zimmerman wasn't acting the defense of a third person and actively sought confrontation with a weapon on his person!

Nor was Zimmerman under any duress (and even if he was, he started the confrontation)

Plus this dude was someone the guy had a relationship with already.

Basically stop being a dummy.


And no, it is not easy to beat a person to death.Yeah it is, dude. A punch to the back of the head or the temple -- fuck, even a hit on the nose at the right angle -- can seriously injure or kill someone.


And while being angry and out of control may well make his actions a crime of passion, and thus make this manslaughter, it does not make it OK to kill someone else.Never said it was okay, though. And duress is certainly a mitigating factor. Given the situation, I'd say it's enough to absolve this guy of blame.

[The Machine]

In the same way that George Zimmerman is allegedly distraught over the death of Trayvon Martin, right?

And no, it is not easy to beat a person to death. And while being angry and out of control may well make his actions a crime of passion, and thus make this manslaughter, it does not make it OK to kill someone else.

you realize that the guy was in the process of molesting a four year old right? i just want to make sure you read the same article as i did before i call you a horrible person.

[Deicide]

Good, he was a fucking scumbag and deserves what he got 110%.

[hatzel]

It's really very easy to accidentally kill somebody, let's just get that straight. Hell, it was only a couple of months ago there was that story in the paper about the schoolgirl who died after being hit by a rugby ball during passing practice. And if that's enough to kill somebody...well...or I could be a real joker and trip you up, but if you're the wrong person, and you crack your head on the pavement...end of story. Pretty easy. Some people are pretty fragile, for one reason or another...

[ed miliband]

In the same way that George Zimmerman is allegedly distraught over the death of Trayvon Martin, right?

And no, it is not easy to beat a person to death. And while being angry and out of control may well make his actions a crime of passion, and thus make this manslaughter, it does not make it OK to kill someone else.

so here you're kinda comparing trayvon martin to a child molester?

if this isn't trolling :blink:

[#FF0000]

Good, he was a fucking scumbag and deserves what he got 110%.

eh what he did was monstrous but, heh, I don't see how anyone can put themselves in a position where feel they can say someone deserves death.

[The Machine]

idk man tbh if i was that dude i wouldnt feel bad at all

[#FF0000]

someone could be threatening my life with a gun and I'd feel like shit for killing him.

i mean i can see why people would be like "NAH I WOULDN'T FEEL BAD" but unless you have been trained to kill people or something, taking a life is a tremendous thing that will probably affect you deeply even if you can justify it to yourself.

[Princess Luna]

After further consideration, if the guy really did walk in on his four year old daughter being raped then his action is to a degree understandable and if he shows any remorse for what he did he should be let off. That said this was not a good thing, and the guy (no matter how horrible his crime) didn't deserve to die. And I find the people who are acting like this was some kind of great justice, disgusting, this was a sad event for everybody involved, it's sad for the girl, her father, and even the rapist.

[The Machine]

maybe i dont value life like im supposed to but i basically care about like 4 people in this world and i feel like if i would be able to kill someone who threatened them pretty easily and not care.
when i was like 14 i helped jump a kid over some petty bullshit and i remember that in my head my plan was to beat him to death. we didnt even beat him that bad but i feel like if i had killed him that day i wouldnt have even thought about it until i matured and grew out of my little shithead teen aggression phase. i guess my point is that if im mentally able to kill someone, even when im in the wrong, if it was to defend my family i wouldnt think twice. like i said tho maybe im just fucked in the head.

[The Young Pioneer]

Teehee, I love Revleft.




I'm not sure of my opinion on this, but it's definitely amusing to read all of yours.

[#FF0000]

maybe i dont value life like im supposed to but i basically care about like 4 people in this world and i feel like if i would be able to kill someone who threatened them pretty easily and not care.
when i was like 14 i helped jump a kid over some petty bullshit and i remember that in my head my plan was to beat him to death. we didnt even beat him that bad but i feel like if i had killed him that day i wouldnt have even thought about it until i matured and grew out of my little shithead teen aggression phase. i guess my point is that if im mentally able to kill someone, even when im in the wrong, if it was to defend my family i wouldnt think twice. like i said tho maybe im just fucked in the head.

nah people react in different ways to different things so i mean w/e.

frankly one just doesn't know until they have to deal with that situation.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I don't think anyone who would consider raping a 4 year old is particularly deserving of life.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

maybe i dont value life like im supposed to but i basically care about like 4 people in this world and i feel like if i would be able to kill someone who threatened them pretty easily and not care.
when i was like 14 i helped jump a kid over some petty bullshit and i remember that in my head my plan was to beat him to death. we didnt even beat him that bad but i feel like if i had killed him that day i wouldnt have even thought about it until i matured and grew out of my little shithead teen aggression phase. i guess my point is that if im mentally able to kill someone, even when im in the wrong, if it was to defend my family i wouldnt think twice. like i said tho maybe im just fucked in the head.

I completely get where you're coming from, bud.

[The Machine]

nah people react in different ways to different things so i mean w/e.

frankly one just doesn't know until they have to deal with that situation.

yeah thats true.

my buddy just came back from afghanistan and he said a lot of the guys don't feel anything when they kill and then they feel guilty about not feeling anything. idk if thats because of the training or w/e but its a weird little mindfuck.

[Hermes]

To be honest, I hardly think killing someone is comparable to raping someone. At least with the latter, the person usually lives.

[#FF0000]

yeah thats true.

my buddy just came back from afghanistan and he said a lot of the guys don't feel anything when they kill and then they feel guilty about not feeling anything. idk if thats because of the training or w/e but its a weird little mindfuck.

not like i know shit about this but i'd say the training has something to do with it.

back in ww2 some crazy number of soldiers (like 40%) straight up didn't fire at the enemy or wouldn't try to hit someone.


To be honest, I hardly think killing someone is comparable to raping someone. At least with the latter, the person usually lives.

Yeah for some reason people think rape is worth than death. I don't know if that's wrong, though. You might live after being assaulted like that, but you still have to deal with what happened. I can understand that being too much for someone.

[Hermes]

not like i know shit about this but i'd say the training has something to do with it.

back in ww2 some crazy number of soldiers (like 40%) straight up didn't fire at the enemy or wouldn't try to hit someone.



Yeah for some reason people think rape is worth than death. I don't know if that's wrong, though. You might live after being assaulted like that, but you still have to deal with what happened. I can understand that being too much for someone.

I know, and I'm not saying that just because the person stays alive afterwards, it's excusable. Trauma is a terrible thing that I wouldn't wish on anyone.

However, you usually adjust to trauma.

[Welshy]

I know, and I'm not saying that just because the person stays alive afterwards, it's excusable. Trauma is a terrible thing that I wouldn't wish on anyone.

However, you usually adjust to trauma.

Not necessarily, some women commit suicide after being raped because of the trauma also the victim would have been a little girl so who knows how the trauma would affect her development.

[Hermes]

Not necessarily, some women commit suicide after being raped because of the trauma also the victim would have been a little girl so who knows how the trauma would affect her development.

Like I said, usually. Regardless, it is almost 100% more likely that someone will recover from being traumatized than someone recovering from being dead.

--

Again, I'm not saying "Woo, go rapists!". It's terrible. I just don't think reflex killing of the person is right, even if it can be justified by emotions.

[Revolution starts with U]

I feel no remorse for this guy... other than the remorse I feel when anything dies, but that's neither here nor there.

All I wonder is what other murders the police will decide not to prosecute and people will applaud their decision. I'm almost certain it won't be any bourgeois tho

[Invader Zim]

Oh, god, I was wondering when the completely nonsensical Trayvon Martin comparisons would start. :rolleyes:

Stalking and shooting an unarmed teenager with hints of racial hatred thrown in for good measure is not the same as a father beating up a child rapist in the heat of the moment.

Please stop.

Evidently I wasn't comparing the killing of Trayvon Martin, I was comparing the faux remorse shown by the killer.

Learn to read.

[Delenda Carthago]

So what should he have done? asked the guy to please stop raping my 4 year old daughter? i can't belive were really having this discussion.
This.

[ВАЛТЕР]

I can't image what it would be like to have somebody attempt to rape a family member, I doubt he would get out of it alive if I got my hands on him. Sorry, but that's the way it is.

Family is family and any threat to their well being is a direct provocation to me. When I was about 5 or 6 I remember my father beat a man to the brink of death with his pistol when he threatened my mother and me. He would have no doubt killed him had there not been people there to pull him off and calm him down.

[#FF0000]

Evidently I wasn't comparing the killing of Trayvon Martin, I was comparing the faux remorse shown by the killer.

Learn to read.

you are good @ know how people feel without ever having met them or even looked at them!

[Invader Zim]

you realize that the guy was in the process of molesting a four year old right?

1. The fact is that molesting a person, regardless of their age, is not a capitol crime.

2. No circumstances excuse bludgeoning a person to death with their bare hands.

I hope you realise those two salient points before I call you a horrible person or, at the very least, an idiot.



Except that Zimmerman wasn't acting the defense of a third person and actively sought confrontation with a weapon on his person!

Nor was Zimmerman under any duress (and even if he was, he started the confrontation)

Plus this dude was someone the guy had a relationship with already.

Basically stop being a dummy.


As I said to DJ Animosity, the comparison I made was not with the crime (though actually, they both at least ostensibly revolve around the notion of justifiable use of deadly force) but with the killer's display of alleged remorse while under the media spotlight. I don't buy either of them.


Yeah it is, dude. A punch to the back of the head or the temple -- fuck, even a hit on the nose at the right angle -- can seriously injure or kill someone.

Clearly you have been watching too many bad action films. If it were as easy as you suggest then people playing contact sports would die all the time from head injuries, the fact is that they don't.

In order to kill a person, by striking them in the back of the head or on the temple, would (even in the thinnest part of the skull) require a considerable amount of force to cause a skull fracture - which can certainly be life threatening. However, it seems unlikely.

Head injuries leading to death are more likely caused by a cerebral compression, where trauma to the head results in the swelling of the brain or a bleed, which causes pressure to build on the brain. At which point the victim will rapidly deteriorate and die unless rushed to emergency surgery. I can certainly better imagine a person accidentally killing another individual, through a beating, in this manner. But it would take a serious sustained beating.


so here you're kinda comparing trayvon martin to a child molester?

if this isn't trolling

No, I'm comparing the public show of remorse by George Zimmerman to the public show of remorse by the killer in this cause.

[Invader Zim]

you are good @ know how people feel without ever having met them or even looked at them!

Obviously not as good as yours, because you uncritically accept him at his word. Evidently, you must have great insight into his true feelings.

I, on the other hand, merely have a healthy dose of a cynicism.

[#FF0000]

Obviously not as good as yours, because you uncritically accept him at his word. Evidently, you must have great insight into his true feelings.

I, on the other hand, merely have a healthy dose of a cynicism.

'cept i ain't accepting anything. I think it's plausible that the dude feels bad but idk!

You on the other hand literally try to tell us with certainty that the guy was lying.

[#FF0000]

Clearly you have been watching too many bad action films. If it were as easy as you suggest then people playing contact sports would die all the time from head injuries, the fact is that they don't.

You are like vanguard1917 without the brains.

Fighters in contact sports pull their punches, dope, especially in bare-knuckle fights. Not to say that they don't still hit hard as hell, but they know how to hit someone hard enough to compete but not hard enough to kill them by accident.

A fight in a ring and a streetfight are totally different animals, dude, and I'd rather get pummeled by an MMA fighter than by a dude who went into a rage-induced battle trance.


Head injuries leading to death are more likely caused by a cerebral compression, where trauma to the head results in the swelling of the brain or a bleed, which causes pressure to build on the brain. At which point the victim will rapidly deteriorate and die unless rushed to emergency surgery. I can certainly better imagine a person accidentally killing another individual, through a beating, in this manner. But it would take a serious sustained beating.Not as serious as you might think -- especially if the guy fell to the floor and hit his head on the way down. Especially if a dude is on top of him, blind with rage, pummeling his skull into the ground again and again.

I'm not saying it's easy easy to kill someone with a blow to the head, but it's a lot easier than people seem to think.

And frankly I think the guy's response was entirely understandable. Not right, not rational, but entirely human, and I think there's a lot of people who'd make the same mistake if they found themselves in this situation. If it were pre-meditated, if he stalked the guy down for a week, then it'd be an entirely different thing. But he walked in on his daughter being sexually assaulted.

[Invader Zim]

You on the other hand literally try to tell us with certainty that the guy was lying.

I didn't say that at all. I suggested that both he, and George Zimmerman allege to be remorseful - and that I don't, personally, believe them:

"the comparison I made was not with the crime but with the killer's display of alleged remorse while under the media spotlight. I don't buy either of them."

I certainly never presumed to "to tell [you] with certainty that the guy was lying."

You just made that up - which is a bizarre thing to do given that we can just go back and read through the thread and see that I absolutely did no such thing.

[#FF0000]

You just made that up - which is a bizarre thing to do given that we can just go back and read through the thread and see that I absolutely did no such thing.

You called it 'faux remorse'. Pretty much stated right there 'the dude's lying'. Not "I don't think the remorse is genuine". you just said a thing where you just say "yeah it's bullshit".

which is entirely irrelevant since it's impossible to know either way but hey.

[Invader Zim]

You are like vanguard1917 without the brains.

And you construct obvious fabrications. So if I'm brainless, then what does that make you? Other, of course, than rude and petulant?


Fighters in contact pull their punches, dope, especially in bare-knuckle fights. Not to say that they don't still hit hard as hell, but they know how to hit someone hard enough to compete but not hard enough to kill them by accident.

I wasn't talking about boxing, etc. I stated contact sport, boxing is a collision sport. But I guess I should have been more clear.

I was talking about sports like football (soccer) which I follow, which see head injuries all the time, but only on extremely rare (if any?) occassions fatal head injuries. We're talking about hard mid-air collisions, hard kicks to the head, etc. Yet people simply do not die from them, at least to at all frequently enough to be anything more than an extremely rare tragedy. And that is because the skull is, even at its weakest points, a tough nut to crack.


Especially if a dude is on top of him, blind with rage, pummeling his skull into the ground again and again.

Which would be a serious sustained beating, by any definition. Not:

"A punch to the back of the head or the temple"

You are changing your tune. Not that I blame you, as i said, I have no doubt that it certainly exists within the realms of possibility that a single punch could kill in one blow - but it seems an unlikely and pretty daft thing to assert.



I'm not saying it's easy easy to kill someone with a blow to the head, but it's a lot easier than people seem to think.

Well, in my experience of patching people up on football fields (which I do twice a week) it takes a lot more than "A punch to the back of the head or the temple" to seriously fuck somone up.


And frankly I think the guy's response was entirely understandable. Not right, not rational, but entirely human, and I think there's a lot of people who'd make the same mistake if they found themselves in this situation. If it were pre-meditated, if he stalked the guy down for a week, then it'd be an entirely different thing. But he walked in on his daughter being sexually assaulted.

Which is why what he did probably isn't murder, but probably is manslaughter.


You called it 'faux remorse'. Pretty much stated right there 'the dude's lying'. Not "I don't think the remorse is genuine". you just said a thing where you just say "yeah it's bullshit".

Oh please. If you couldn't tell that I was stating an opinion, especially in the light of everything else I stated in this thread on the subject making it manifestly clear that I was indeed stating an opinion and nothing more, then you shouldn't be talking to me - instead you should be practising the art of basic comprehension.

[#FF0000]

I wasn't talking about boxing, etc. I stated contact sport, boxing is a collision sport. But I guess I should have been more clear.

Nah I registered 'contact' as 'combat' for some reason.


"A punch to the back of the head or the temple"

You are changing your tune. Not that I blame you, as i said, I have no doubt that it certainly exists within the realms of possibility that a single punch could kill in one blow - but it seems an unlikely and pretty daft thing to assert.Nah, not really. It's easier than people think to really hurt someone. And I never meant "a single punch". I should've been clearer.


Which is why what he did probably isn't murder, but probably is manslaughter.Except that it happened in defense of a third person. That pretty much excuses it. Plus, I think the extraordinary circumstances here absolve him of much of the blame anyway. The only reason a lot more people aren't in jail for this kind of thing is that they never happened upon a person sexually assaulting their children. And further, how damaging would it be to now deprive the victim of abuse of one of their parents?

I mean like I said, it wasn't right or rational, but I don't think that, in this situation, the dude was even capable of thinking rationally. It is entirely understandable for someone to walk in on this kind of thing to be so consumed by rage that they accidentally kill the person assaulting their child.

Like I said. It's not 'right' or 'rational'. But to say "nah he deserved jail he broke the law" is just so dense.


Oh please. If you couldn't tell that I was stating an opinion, especially in the light of everything else I stated in this thread on the subject making it manifestly clear that I was indeed stating an opinion and nothing more, then you shouldn't be talking to me - instead you should be practising the art of basic comprehension.Preface statements with "i think" and people won't think you're asserting something as fact, silly.

[The Douche]

Seriously, one good punch in the right spot on the back of the head can kill somebody. One punch. I have a friend who is facing manslaughter charges because a guy picked a fight with him at the bar, my friend only shoved the guy, who tripped, fell, and hit his head on the curb outside, and died.


The suggestion that anybody was "beat to death" should not be taken for granted. Acting in defense of a third party is totally acceptable and reasonable, and while any loss of life is a tragedy, will the same hell also be raised when a story about a woman shooting her rapist gets posted? Cece McDonald is in jail right now for allegedly stabbing a bigot who attacked her. Anybody wanna condemn her as well?

[ВАЛТЕР]

As someone who has been boxing for over 7 years, I can guarantee you that a punch landed in an awkward spot on a person who isn't trained both physically and psychologically to take a punch can kill someone before they hit the ground.

It all depends on the physical strength of the person throwing the punch, and the physical strength of the person receiving the punch as well as the place in which the punch lands. ESPECIALLY if you punch someone while they are on the ground since their neck cannot absorb any of the punch the energy has nowhere else to go but into the head.

[Deicide]

A person can technically die of one punch, it has happened before. It depends on the biological makeup of the person, the angle he/she is punched from, the power of the punch and the area of the face or head that is punched. I personally don't believe the father hit the rapist once, I'm more inclined to believe he flew into a murderous rage, which any sane person would do, to protect his daughter that was being molested by a piece of shit scumbag, and probably ended up hitting him several times.

Something similar happened in Lithuania not that long ago. A judge raped some mans daughter, so the man shot the judge. He was hailed as a national hero, lol.

[Invader Zim]

Nah I registered 'contact' as 'combat' for some reason.

fair enough.


Nah, not really. It's easier than people think to really hurt someone

Well, like I said, I see a lot of sport related injuries (I provide first aid cover as a patient transport attendant at community events several times a week) and in my experience, for what little that is worth, it takes a very hard blow to do someone a serious, potentially life threatening, head injury.


And I never meant "a single punch". I should've been clearer.

Ok, that makes a lot more sense. Like I said, I agree it is possible with a single punch, but it would have to be a really brutal punch - and, I would have thought very unlikely.


Except that it happened in defense of a third person. That pretty much excuses it. Plus, I think the extraordinary circumstances here absolve him of much of the blame anyway.

Explain, sure. Excuse though? As noted, this doesn't strike me as a murder and i agree that the circumstances absolve him from that. He was clearly in a rage, and wanted to hurt the guy. Hurt him badly. Did the guy go out to kill him? Probably not. Was it in the heat of the moment? Yes. But at the end of the day he apparently used far more force than necessary, or justifiable, to protect his daughter from her assailant. I hate to sound like a broken record, but he beat the guy to death with his bare hands. You are right that he is absolved from some of the blame, but he still killed a guy.


And further, how damaging would it be to now deprive the victim of abuse of one of their parents?

Well, i disagree with the entire capitalist justice system, I don't agree with prisoning people unless they are a danger to others. But neither violently killing someone in anger in the heat of the moment nor vigilantism are socially acceptable, and they require some form of social deterance and process of rehabilitation.


But to say "nah he deserved jail he broke the law" is just so dense.

Agreed. But, creating precedence for killing a person, because you are angry, irrational, or whatever, is equally dangerous. There needs to be a middle ground, that deters people from behaving in this kind of manner, but does not put people in prisons who - quite frankly - provide neither society or the killer any benefit from being there.


Preface statements with "i think" and people won't think you're asserting something as fact, silly.

Fair enough.


Seriously, one good punch in the right spot on the back of the head can kill somebody. One punch.

It exists within the realms of possibility, and doubtless if you looked you could find very rare examples of just that occuring. But, to describe it as highly unlikely doesn't even begin to go far enough.


I have a friend who is facing manslaughter charges because a guy picked a fight with him at the bar, my friend only shoved the guy, who tripped, fell, and hit his head on the curb outside, and died.

Which is very different to hitting a person. Its beena while since I did newton's laws of motion in school, but it seems pretty obvious that a person falling and striking their head against concrete is going to do far more damage than a punch.



The suggestion that anybody was "beat to death" should not be taken for granted.

And why is that? Unless we accept the extremely unlikely conclusion that this man died from a few, if not single, punches, then yes - he was beaten to death.


Acting in defense of a third party is totally acceptable and reasonable

Indeed it is. But at some point, when the attacker has been rendered inert and is no longer a danger, then the continued application of force ceases being either acceptable or reasonable.


will the same hell also be raised when a story about a woman shooting her rapist gets posted?

Well, firstly, I don't think that people should carry deadly weapons - I think one of the major causes of the USA's high murder rate (not to mention staggeringly high rate of accidental deaths) is precisely because weapons are easily obtainable. I'm very glad that I live in a society where, if I'm mugged, then the chances of my being shot for good measure are slim to none. And secondly, to take address your point at face value, the scenario is not entirely comparable - because the woman in the scenario fires here weapon purely to make the attacker harmless (perhaps by killing, though more likely by wounding). She has not applied violent force, made the attacker harmless and then continued to apply force. A better comparison would be the woman shoots the attacker, and then proceeds to shoot him in the head after he has already been made harmless by the first shot. And yes, in my view, that second use of force would be inexcusably excessive.


Cece McDonald is in jail right now for allegedly stabbing a bigot who attacked her. Anybody wanna condemn her as well?

It would depend entirely on the circumstances.


As someone who has been boxing for over 7 years, I can guarantee you that a punch landed in an awkward spot on a person who isn't trained both physically and psychologically to take a punch can kill someone before they hit the ground.

And extremely unlikely. Doubtless if you googled it you could find some examples, but they will be truly exceptional rare cases. And even then, you are far more likey, though it is still extremely rare, to find that people have have hit another person once who has then died sometime later from internal injuries or hit the ground and hit their head again on collision with the ground (which is not so much the punch which has killed them, but the mechanism of their second injury when they hit the floor). But to reiterate, we are discussing extremely rare and remarkable instances. Incalcuably more likely is that this guy, in a brutal rage, repeatedly hit the other guy.

[The Douche]

IZ, have you ever been in a fight? Like, a real, knock-down/drag-out brawl? Its totally possible to kill somebody without intending to do so. It honestly seems to me like you don't understand the dynamics of a real beating, and how fragile the average human body is.

I don't mean this to be any sort of dick measuring contest. I'm just saying, there's a reason you're not allowed to punch people in the back of the head in combat sports.

[Invader Zim]

IZ, have you ever been in a fight? Like, a real, knock-down/drag-out brawl? Its totally possible to kill somebody without intending to do so. It honestly seems to me like you don't understand the dynamics of a real beating, and how fragile the average human body is.

I don't mean this to be any sort of dick measuring contest. I'm just saying, there's a reason you're not allowed to punch people in the back of the head in combat sports.

Whatever. I can't be bothered arguing about this. Firstly, I never said it was impossible to kill a person in a fight. I said that it is highly improbable that a person will be killed from a single punch to the head - which is entirely different from suggesting that it is impossible to die from injuries sustained in a brutal brawl. Secondly, I can assure you that unless you are a medical professional you know no more about this than I do - or anybody else for that matter. As it happens, I've not been in a fight since i was a small boy. However, I've treated more people who have been in fights, fallen head first, had nasty sports injuries, etc, than I care to remember. None of them suffered horrendous blunt trauma injuries and none of the died or would have died without treatment. And I'm 99.9% sure I probably none of them I treat ever will. And if, by huge misfortune I ever do have to treat someone with catastrophic blunt trauma, I'm again certain that in all probability that won't be from a single punch. Now, that doesn't make me right or add any particular weight to my opinion on the matter. I just don't believe, based on my experiences, that this guy could have beaten this bother guy to death unless he gave him a sustained brutal beating. It is just an opinion based on my experiences. So you think whatever you like, and I'll do the same. Because this really doesn't have a great deal to do with the thread, and I'm now rather sorry I ever questioned the idea that it is anything other than stupendously unlikely that a person will be killed by a single punch.

[The Douche]

Whatever. I can't be bothered arguing about this. Firstly, I never said it was impossible to kill a person in a fight. I said that it is highly improbable that a person will be killed from a single punch to the head - which is entirely different from suggesting that it is impossible to die from injuries sustained in a brutal brawl. Secondly, I can assure you that unless you are a medical professional you know no more about this than I do - or anybody else for that matter. As it happens, I've not been in a fight since i was a small boy. However, I've treated more people who have been in fights, fallen head first, had nasty sports injuries, etc, than I care to remember. None of them suffered horrendous blunt trauma injuries and none of the died or would have died without treatment. And I'm 99.9% sure I probably none of them I treat ever will. And if, by huge misfortune I ever do have to treat someone with catastrophic blunt trauma, I'm again certain that in all probability that won't be from a single punch. Now, that doesn't make me right or add any particular weight to my opinion on the matter. I just don't believe, based on my experiences, that this guy could have beaten this bother guy to death unless he gave him a sustained brutal beating. It is just an opinion based on my experiences. So you think whatever you like, and I'll do the same. Because this really doesn't have a great deal to do with the thread, and I'm now rather sorry I ever questioned the idea that it is anything other than stupendously unlikely that a person will be killed by a single punch.

I never meant to imply that the death was caused by a single blow, only that a single blow can cause death, and that it is not outrageous that the father did not intend to kill the individual.

[Welshy]

Like I said, usually. Regardless, it is almost 100% more likely that someone will recover from being traumatized than someone recovering from being dead.

Well no fucking shit.



Again, I'm not saying "Woo, go rapists!". It's terrible. I just don't think reflex killing of the person is right, even if it can be justified by emotions.

The father didn't attack the guy with the intention of killing him. He was defending his daughter and either got carried away by his emotions or just got unlucky and hit the guy in a bad spot. Killing people with an unlucky hit is not that difficult. People here who pretending like its great the guy died are either trying to look tough on rapists/pedophiles or are letting that part of their emotions get in the way. I completely understand and I'm not as said for this guys death as I would be other people, but its still unfortunate and I think the father was almost 100% in the right.

[Hermes]

Well no fucking shit.



The father didn't attack the guy with the intention of killing him. He was defending his daughter and either got carried away by his emotions or just got unlucky and hit the guy in a bad spot. Killing people with an unlucky hit is not that difficult. People here who pretending like its great the guy died are either trying to look tough on rapists/pedophiles or are letting that part of their emotions get in the way. I completely understand and I'm not as said for this guys death as I would be other people, but its still unfortunate and I think the father was almost 100% in the right.

...the top part was making a point. I didn't expect you to contend it.

To be honest though, isn't it a bit odd that the rapist didn't have any prior criminal convictions? Also, that the father said once that he came to look fro the girl after his son had told him a man led her away, and then saw the rapist with his daughter?

However, in another, he says that he first heard the girl screaming, without any mention of his son getting him?

I realize it's a traumatic situation for the father as well, so the reports can justifiably be a little varied.

[Misanthrope]

yeah guys let's support putting a man acting out of justified rage through the bourgeois justice system, teach him a lesson for stopping sexual abuses.

It's fucking pathetic that so called communists would support bourgeois justice in such a situation as this.

[Hermes]

yeah guys let's support putting a man acting out of justified rage through the bourgeois justice system, teach him a lesson for stopping sexual abuses.

It's fucking pathetic that so called communists would support bourgeois justice in such a situation as this.

Was there anyone who supported 'bourgeois justice'? Maybe we're actually trying to determine whether indiscriminate or emotional murder is acceptable.

It's pathetic that so called communists would celebrate loss of life in uncertain circumstances.

[The Douche]

Was there anyone who supported 'bourgeois justice'? Maybe we're actually trying to determine whether indiscriminate or emotional murder is acceptable.

It's pathetic that so called communists would celebrate loss of life in uncertain circumstances.

Its not murder to act in defense of a third party.

[Hermes]

Its not murder to act in defense of a third party.

You're right, that's my mistake, I was unclear on the definition. What I probably should have said is either 'killing' or 'manslaughter', to make it clear that I meant any loss of life.

[Firebrand]

I think that protecting your familiy is more important than any abstract definitions of right and wrong, and I would have absolutely no problem killing someone to protect the people I care about. I'd probably feel bad about it afterwards, but I wouldn't hesitate to do it and I would have a very low opinion of someone who wouldn't do whatever it takes to protect their loved ones.

[Invader Zim]

Its not murder to act in defense of a third party.



No, it isn't. The issue is not whether the father had the right to act in the defence of his child- the issue is whether the continued application of force he used was justified after he had prevented the child molester from being a danger.

[Ele'ill]

No, it isn't. The issue is not whether the father had the right to act in the defence of his child- the issue is whether the continued application of force he used was justified after he had prevented the child molester from being a danger.

Can you link to where it states that there was 'continued application of force' and also where it states that upon encountering this act in progress that a 'continued application of force' wasn't perhaps necessary to continue defending himself and his daughter?

[Art Vandelay]

This is a touchy subject, but all I can say is this: If I had a daughter and caught her being raped, you can sure as hell bet that I would "continue the application of force" after my daughter was safe. Whether that is right or wrong I don't care. I walk in someone raping my little girl and its expected I act any differently?

[tachosomoza]

No sympathy for those who take advantage of the helpless. I believe that the age of consent should be lowered to around 15 or 16, an 18 year old shouldn't face charges and decades of prison time for having sex with their younger partner, but 2, 3 and 4 year old children should not be exposed to sexuality. Good on the father, anyone here would be a liar if they say they wouldn't have done the same.

[Dunk]

Good. The more rapists stopped and killed in the act, the better.

[Hermes]

I definitely agree, Dunk.

Let's take it a step further. I think that anyone, committing any crime whatsoever, should be killed immediately. By anyone who happens to witness it.

I mean, not only will that criminal never do it again, but death has always proved such a powerful deterrent to crime, hasn't it? Not to mention the fact that by killing the person, God has pretty much decided that you're in the right (or else He wouldn't have let you kill him!).

--

To add to that a bit, as I realize 'crime' is a fairly vague term, I think we should just stick with everything the bourgeoisie has defined as a crime. It definitely makes things a lot simpler and removes all of that 'science' jargon and 'reform' bullshit. Once a criminal, always a criminal.

I mean, what could possibly be wrong with taking everything we're told at face value?

[Invader Zim]

Can you link to where it states that there was 'continued application of force' and also where it states that upon encountering this act in progress that a 'continued application of force' wasn't perhaps necessary to continue defending himself and his daughter?

I don't need a link to note where the burden of proof lies. After this guy pulled the man assaulting his daughter from her, he then proceeded to beat the man over the head - repeatedly. Clearly the burden of proof is upon him, and his defenders, to show that this sustained application of force was necessary to actually defend his daughter. Basic anatomy dictates that if you hit a person often enough in the head they will rapidly display a deteriorating level of responsiveness, effectively making them a danger to no one - save perhaps, in the last degree, as a trip hazard. So, suffice to say I'm sceptical that what he did as necessary to defend his daughter - rather it seems what he did was pull the man off his daughter than brutally beat him to death in a fit of rage. Which is not an act of defence.

[Ele'ill]

I don't need a link to note where the burden of proof lies.

I dunno, so far you've told us more about what's happened than the article has.


Basic anatomy dictates that if you hit a person often enough in the head they will rapidly display a deteriorating level of responsiveness, effectively making them a danger to no one - save perhaps, in the last degree, as a trip hazard. So, suffice to say I'm sceptical that what he did as necessary to defend his daughter - rather it seems what he did was pull the man off his daughter than brutally beat him to death in a fit of rage. Which is not an act of defence.

People die from getting hit once or twice. People who get caught doing stuff will put up a fight and sometimes basic anatomy dictates that some of those individuals are larger than others. What we do know is that someone stopped their daughter from getting raped and did so by killing, intentionally or unintentionally, the attacker.

[Dunk]

Fucking wahhh for rapists. Apparently the qualifier "stopped" as in "stopped in the act" doesn't mean anything. If I come across someone raping someone else, and see it with my own eyes, perhaps I'll take pause to consider the philosophical importance of the presumption of innocence to a just criminal procedure, consider that there are no other witnesses and perhaps I'll be arrested for assault or murder if I hurt the rapist, and call the cops and move along. Maybe go get something to eat.

Or the right thing to do is to stop it by any means necessary, and if it kills the rapist, then only the rapist is to blame for their death.

We can only hope more rapists are killed in this way.

[Luc]

Hope nothing happens to the dude and the girl gets the help she needs

[Obs]

If you honestly think you would react any differently than beating the asshole to death in that situation, I don't think I'll ever be able to relate to you.

[Invader Zim]

I dunno, so far you've told us more about what's happened than the article has.

Really? And what would that be?


People die from getting hit once or twice.

In the fantasy worlds of martial arts nerds, perhaps. In reality, it is extremely rare for that to happen. And as the article notes:

"The father then allegedly punched the man in the head until he died."

Not 'killed him with one punch.'


People who get caught doing stuff will put up a fight and sometimes basic anatomy dictates that some of those individuals are larger than others.

And what evidence is there that the molester 'put up a fight'? You've just 'told us more about what's happened than the article has'. And out of all of the articles I've read (including the one in this thread) not one suggests that this guy put up any kind of fight, rather he was pulled off the girl and then beaten to death. If you can find evidence to the contrary, then please provide it.


What we do know is that someone stopped their daughter from getting raped and did so by killing, intentionally or unintentionally, the attacker.

We don't actually know that at all. We know that the father stopped the attack, we do not know that he did so by killing the perpetrator. In fact it seems highly unlikely that killing him stopped the attack, rather it seems that the father stopped the attack and then killed the guy.

"He found Flores on top of his child, pulled him off and began hitting him in the head and neck, according to the district attorney's statement."

http://nation.foxnews.com/texas-father/2012/06/18/tx-father-s-killing-daughter-s-rapist-rule-homocide

[revolt]

"stateless" street justice at its finest.while I can't say I'm bothered by this outcome, "street justice" is not an idea which should be advocated as a judicial alternative. widespread street justice is a symptom of a society heading towards barbarism, not compassion.

[Hermes]

Hope nothing happens to the dude and the girl gets the help she needs

If only we could say the same for the rapist.

[revolt]

If only we could say the same for the rapist.there is a difference between giving psychological help to rapists after they are found to have committed the crime and stopped, and treating them compassionately during the act of rape.

[Ele'ill]

Really? And what would that be?

In nearly every single one of your posts.




In the fantasy worlds of martial arts nerds, perhaps. In reality, it is extremely rare for that to happen. And as the article notes:

"The father then allegedly punched the man in the head until he died."

Not 'killed him with one punch.'

There's no incentive for the news to desensationalize a situation given the information that has been released to them and technically if the man was killed with one blow to the head he would still have been beaten to death as in beaten in the head until death. :rolleyes:




And what evidence is there that the molester 'put up a fight'? You've just 'told us more about what's happened than the article has'. And out of all of the articles I've read (including the one in this thread) not one suggests that this guy put up any kind of fight, rather he was pulled off the girl and then beaten to death. If you can find evidence to the contrary, then please provide it.

It was yourself who began creating the scenarios of what happened and I was showing the flaws in those scenarios not highlighting 'what I actually thought happened'. Please stop being so conversationally dishonest.




We don't actually know that at all. We know that the father stopped the attack, we do not know that he did so by killing the perpetrator. In fact it seems highly unlikely that killing him stopped the attack, rather it seems that the father stopped the attack and then killed the guy.



"He found Flores on top of his child, pulled him off and began hitting him in the head and neck, according to the district attorney's statement."

http://nation.foxnews.com/texas-father/2012/06/18/tx-father-s-killing-daughter-s-rapist-rule-homocide

Sounds like violence used to stop a violent attack from taking place and to stop any immediate violent counter response.

[revolt]

wow, it seems that to some people, a lot more compassion is expected to be shown for the actions of a rapist than for the actions of a man who clearly acted on impulse after witnessing his 4 year old daughter being raped.

[Princess Luna]

Once he entered the room and pulled the guy off, his daughter was no longer in danger of being raped. To say he was 'defending' his daughter, is to imply that had he not beat the rapist to death, the rapist would have just continued assaulting the daughter, which is ridiculous. But as I said before I agree the the father wasn't thinking rationally and should receive a very light punishment, if any at all.

[Hermes]

there is a difference between giving psychological help to rapists after they are found to have committed the crime and stopped, and treating them compassionately during the act of rape.

There's also a difference between protecting your daughter and beating another man to death, strangely enough.

[Le Socialiste]

If you honestly think you would react any differently than beating the asshole to death in that situation, I don't think I'll ever be able to relate to you.

So if I didn't have it in me to kill someone in a similar situation (harm/injure/incapacitate I could do), then I'm a horrible person? Fuck you. Not everyone is capable of murdering another individual, and to say that that's somehow unnatural? I can understand how someone could react the way the guy did, but not everyone will do so in a similar manner.

[Obs]

So if I didn't have it in me to kill someone in a similar situation (harm/injure/incapacitate I could do), then I'm a horrible person? Fuck you. Not everyone is capable of murdering another individual, and to say that that's somehow unnatural?
That's... really not what I said at all.

[PhoenixAsh]

So a guy beats another guy to death with his bare hands for no reason, and then makes up a story about an attempted rape? Doesn't seem plausible. Also, the article states that he walked in on the act, not that he "found out what the guy had tried to do" after the fact, and then tracked him down in a maniacal rage (for which he WOULD have been charged, as a previous poster stated).

Right...and whose word do we have for that? Exactly...the word of the guy who beat the other guy to death.

[PhoenixAsh]

Seriously, one good punch in the right spot on the back of the head can kill somebody. One punch. I have a friend who is facing manslaughter charges because a guy picked a fight with him at the bar, my friend only shoved the guy, who tripped, fell, and hit his head on the curb outside, and died.


The suggestion that anybody was "beat to death" should not be taken for granted. Acting in defense of a third party is totally acceptable and reasonable, and while any loss of life is a tragedy, will the same hell also be raised when a story about a woman shooting her rapist gets posted? Cece McDonald is in jail right now for allegedly stabbing a bigot who attacked her. Anybody wanna condemn her as well?

So what about somebody who is mugged and beats the culprit half to death? What about a women who was robbed and then drives her car into the culprit crushing him to death against a tree? And what about the guy who shoots his wife when he finds her sleeping with another guy? Long time considered to be excusable because of high emotional duress.


Where do we draw the line? When is something considered to be a reasonable and forgiveable response when the life of another person is taken and when does somebody have to justify him or herself to a tribunal of some sorts?

When does somebody lose his or her rights to life? Is there an objective list when somebody commits a certain crime they are suddenly allowed to be bludgeoned to death or otherwise robbed of their lives?

Self defense or defense of the other stops immediately when the direct threat to you or that person stops. Period. If you continue beyond that point then you are culpable....and I do not care about the emotional duress and psychological factors involved.

Consider this....I am in a fight with my girlfriend....the fight gets heated. Things get said. Emotion and tension rises. She throws a plate at me...it hits me on the head. Am I now justified to beat the crap out of her because she tried to kill me??

[Ele'ill]

So what about somebody who is mugged and beats the culprit half to death? What about a women who was robbed and then drives her car into the culprit crushing him to death against a tree? And what about the guy who shoots his wife when he finds her sleeping with another guy? Long time considered to be excusable because of high emotional duress.


Where do we draw the line? When is something considered to be a reasonable and forgiveable response when the life of another person is taken and when does somebody have to justify him or herself to a tribunal of some sorts?

When does somebody lose his or her rights to life? Is there an objective list when somebody commits a certain crime they are suddenly allowed to be bludgeoned to death or otherwise robbed of their lives?

Self defense or defense of the other stops immediately when the direct threat to you or that person stops. Period. If you continue beyond that point then you are culpable....and I do not care about the emotional duress and psychological factors involved.

Consider this....I am in a fight with my girlfriend....the fight gets heated. Things get said. Emotion and tension rises. She throws a plate at me...it hits me on the head. Am I now justified to beat the crap out of her because she tried to kill me??

The guy was about to/in the process of raping a child. I find the idea of the father going "hey pal, can you knock it off, go sit over there while I call the police department" to be an absolutely absurd expectation.

[PhoenixAsh]

ANARCHO STREET JUSTICE!


This has nothing to do with anarchism...at all.

Anarchism advocates voluntary arbitration. And crime can not be seen as apart from the society in which it occurs nor apart from the induvidual situation of the perpetrator. Since we hold that rape and murder are wrong this counts in all directions...also towards the perpetraitor.

Why did he commit his act? Was he completely mentally stable? Was there something wrong with him why he came to his crime? Questions that should be asked and answered before we can punish somebody. If somebody suffers a violent psychotic episode...is he or she just as culpable as somebody who coldly calculates a murder? What if I commit murder because somebody threatened my life or my family? Am I as culpable as somebody who murders somebody for gain?




What we do not know:

* was the father speaking the truth?
* were there any direct eye witnesses?
* was there a rape in process or molestation or attempt at? And by whose judgment was that the case? On what grounds was that assessment made?
* how did the situation escalate?
* did the suspect defend himself?
* did he attack back?
* did the father strike him with his fists and how often?
* at what point did the perpetraitor stop being a threat to anybody?
* did the father continue beating after that?
* did somebody see this?
* what was the previous history between the father and the perpetraitor?
* what was the situation in the life of the perpetraitor?

All these questions need to be answered.

[revolt]

There's also a difference between protecting your daughter and beating another man to death, strangely enough.to quote myself...


wow, it seems that to some people, a lot more compassion is expected to be shown for the actions of a rapist than for the actions of a man who clearly acted on impulse after witnessing his 4 year old daughter being raped.

[Le Socialiste]

That's... really not what I said at all.

Really? Because that's what it sounded like. You said you can't relate to someone who wouldn't/couldn't find it in themselves to end the life of an individual directly threatening the wellbeing of a friend or loved one. If I've misinterpreted your post, apologies. But not everyone is going to react to the point of killing someone in that kind of situation.

I understand that people lose control in the heat of the moment, but that doesn't necessarily justify what happened. I can only speak for myself - were I in that situation I'd be able and willing to defend someone I cared for, but I'd be satisfied with ensuring the individual involved was no longer a palpable threat (as opposed to murdering them).

[Art Vandelay]

I can't even believe what the fuck I am reading.


I definitely agree, Dunk.

Let's take it a step further. I think that anyone, committing any crime whatsoever, should be killed immediately. By anyone who happens to witness it.

Yeah cause that is totally what were all advocating? :confused: Your hyperbole sucks.


I mean, not only will that criminal never do it again, but death has always proved such a powerful deterrent to crime, hasn't it? Not to mention the fact that by killing the person, God has pretty much decided that you're in the right (or else He wouldn't have let you kill him!).

Because were all religious:confused:
--


To add to that a bit, as I realize 'crime' is a fairly vague term, I think we should just stick with everything the bourgeoisie has defined as a crime. It definitely makes things a lot simpler and removes all of that 'science' jargon and 'reform' bullshit. Once a criminal, always a criminal.

Indeed since were all fond of bourgeois values.


I mean, what could possibly be wrong with taking everything we're told at face value?

Your entire post was a strawman. Congrats, this is one of the worst posts I have ever seen on here (that is really saying something).


So what about somebody who is mugged and beats the culprit half to death? What about a women who was robbed and then drives her car into the culprit crushing him to death against a tree? And what about the guy who shoots his wife when he finds her sleeping with another guy? Long time considered to be excusable because of high emotional duress.


Where do we draw the line? When is something considered to be a reasonable and forgiveable response when the life of another person is taken and when does somebody have to justify him or herself to a tribunal of some sorts?

When does somebody lose his or her rights to life? Is there an objective list when somebody commits a certain crime they are suddenly allowed to be bludgeoned to death or otherwise robbed of their lives?

Self defense or defense of the other stops immediately when the direct threat to you or that person stops. Period. If you continue beyond that point then you are culpable....and I do not care about the emotional duress and psychological factors involved.

Consider this....I am in a fight with my girlfriend....the fight gets heated. Things get said. Emotion and tension rises. She throws a plate at me...it hits me on the head. Am I now justified to beat the crap out of her because she tried to kill me??

Yawn...slippery slope fallacy.

[Le Socialiste]

to quote myself...

No one's defending the rapist for what he did. Quit trying to paint everyone opposed to his murder as being overly "compassionate." What happened to that man and his four year old girl is awful, but that doesn't mean the rapist deserved death. I'm equally sympathetic to the father's use of violence to defend his daughter, but once it was clear that the rapist was no longer a threat to the other's safety he should have stopped.

[Ele'ill]

but once it was clear that the rapist was no longer a threat to the other's safety he should have stopped.

It may have been one or two blows that killed the guy.

[Art Vandelay]

Frankly if I were in the fathers place, I would kick the shit out of the guy. I wouldn't try to kill him but I wouldn't simply get him on the ground and call the cops. People die in fights all the time, just recently someone in Canada has been on trial for a bar fight in which he one punched a man and he died.

[PhoenixAsh]

Yawn...slippery slope fallacy.


Really? Because I think that advocating the father to go scott free on his blue eyes and his word alone simply because "we" consider the act of rape and childmolestation to be dispicable is kind of like a huge slippery slope argument right there.

In fact...it is so slippery slope that I am wondering where you guys and gals draw the line...

But your argument that advocating that the seriousness of a crime allows you to summarilly beat somebody to death is a "relatively small first step" leading chain of related events culminating in some significant effect.....apprehensible....

Not to mention that you seem to misunderstand the term "slippery slope". and use it wrong. Because I can pretty much proof the chain of events.

So stop trying to wade around the argument and start answering my question: where is the line? When does it stop becomming excusable to take somebody elses life in a fit of rage?

[Art Vandelay]

Really? Because I think that advocating the father to go scott free on his blue eyes and his word alone simply because "we" consider the act of rape and childmolestation to be dispicable is kind of like a huge slippery slope argument right there.

In fact...it is so slippery slope that I am wondering where you guys and gals draw the line...

But your argument that advocating that the seriousness of a crime allows you to summarilly beat somebody to death is a "relatively small first step" leading chain of related events culminating in some significant effect.....apprehensible....

Not to mention that you seem to misunderstand the term "slippery slope". and use it wrong. Because I can pretty much proof the chain of events.

So stop trying to wade around the argument and start answering my question: where is the line? When does it stop becomming excusable to take somebody elses life in a fit of rage?

I don't think some arbitrary line can be drawn, no two cases will be exactly alike. But are you asking me under capitalism? I am not a fan of bourgeois justice and courts. Are we talking about where that line would be drawn in a socialist society?

Your argument was a textbook slippery slope fallacy.

[Ele'ill]

I'm surprised that people are focusing so much on the father's actions given the lack of information but ignoring the information we do know which is that one or two blows to the head can kill someone and that his daughter was in the process of being violently attacked.

[PhoenixAsh]

Just a little knowledge for everybody here....


It is certainly possible to kill with one punch. But this happening is extremely rare when there is not a pre existing medical condition; somebody highly trained; accidental collission with a blunt object of simple bad luck.

The lawenforcement agencies around the world do not consider a punch to be deadly force for the very reason that though it may in some rare cases lead to death it most likely will result in a vast majority of non serious injury.

Though the US has no official stratistics only a small minority of the 5.6% fist and feet related deaths (of all violence related) deaths are from one punch or one kick....the vast majority of them are from repeated blows....and in most of these cases the blows continued untill after the victim was unconsciousness or incapacitated....with the killing blow being administered after consciousness or mobility was already lost.

According to Head Injury Criterion formula a force of 1000 is needed to cause leathal injury...Olympic boxers can at most score 160 on this formula.....just to give you an idea. Leathal injury most likely comes from rotational force or from severe compression of the neurons....both can happen...but are extremely unlikely to happen to somebody who is aware of an attack unless they were significantly weaker. The likelyhood of either of these occuring is either loss of consciousness or incapacitation.

Special training can increase the likelyhood of causing one blow leathal punches...but specific targets need to be hit. And most of these are not done in a fair fight situation but are intentional killing blows in circumstances which increase their leathality.


So...that is just so you all know that it is extremely unlikely that the guy was killed after one blow.

[Terminator X]

Right...and whose word do we have for that? Exactly...the word of the guy who beat the other guy to death.

....and the 4 year old who was being molested and likely explained to the hospital staff when she was taken there for examination after the rape. I'm pretty sure medical professionals/psychologists can determine if a rape occurred or not:


Emergency crews responding to the father's 911 call found Flores' pants and underwear pulled down on his lifeless body. The girl was examined at a hospital, and authorities say forensic evidence and witness accounts corroborated the father's story that his daughter was being sexually molested.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/father-kills-molester-texas-no-charges_n_1610465.html?1340144123&icid=maing-grid7%7Cmain5%7Cdl3%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D171344

This renders your argument completely null and void.

Or did you forget about the real victim in this in your pity party for the bastard who got curbstomped?

[Le Socialiste]

It may have been one or two blows that killed the guy.

That's certainly a possibility, but we don't know how many times he hit the guy.

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't think some arbitrary line can be drawn, no two cases will be exactly alike. But are you asking me under capitalism? I am not a fan of bourgeois justice and courts. Are we talking about where that line would be drawn in a socialist society?

Your argument was a textbook slippery slope fallacy.


Really? Because you are drawing the line pretty fucking arbitrary in this case.

I also suggest you start to reade up on the meaning of a slippery slope argument.

[PhoenixAsh]

....and the 4 year old who was being molested and likely explained to the hospital staff when she was taken there for examination after the rape. I'm pretty sure medical professionals/psychologists can determine if a rape occurred or not.

Or did you forget about the real victim in this in your pity party for the bastard who got curbstomped?


I would draw your attention to several child molestation cases in the 70's and 80's in the US where psychotherapists and psychologists were not only not able to acurately get children to state what happened but we have masses of psychologists who believed what the children said when it was later blatantly disproven to be wrong and induced by parents themselves....resulting on innocent people spending years in jail and losng their jobs over false accusations because children were believed.

So no. I do not think a 4 year old who is completely dependant on daddy is a good and objective witness....nor do I think that a 4 year old can accurately describe what exactly happened.

And if you do...you obviously haven't spend a lot of time around 4 year olds.


Or to quote my four year old nephew who I just saw taking a sip of my cola and who saw me see him:

"No uncle I didn't drink the cola. It wasn't me at all. It was ***name of his little brother"

He saw me seeing him drinking the cola. He was putting the glass down while I asked him: "why did you drink the cola when you know you are not allowed to do that"

[Terminator X]

I would draw your attention to several child molestation cases in the 70's and 80's in the US where psychotherapists and psychologists were not only not able to acurately get children to state what happened but we have masses of psychologists who believed what the children said when it was later blatantly disproven to be wrong and induced by parents themselves....resulting on innocent people spending years in jail and losng their jobs over false accusations because children were believed.

So no. I do not think a 4 year old who is completely dependant on daddy is a good and objective witness....nor do I think that a 4 year old can accurately describe what exactly happened.

And if you do...you obviously haven't spend a lot of time around 4 year olds.

I have a 4 year old daughter.

And go back and read the link in my last post before you make yourself look any sillier.

[PhoenixAsh]

This renders your argument completely null and void.

Or did you forget about the real victim in this in your pity party for the bastard who got curbstomped?


Really? Because they stated she was sexually mollested...did they say by whom?

So what says that the fcather wasn't molesting his daughter. Got caugth. Killed the guy. Pulled down his pants and underwear....etc.4


And then again....what kind of abject induvidual are you to blatantly state that somebody can unilaterally decide to kill somebody because they get angry?

[PhoenixAsh]

I have a 4 year old daughter.

And go back and read the link in my last post before you make yourself look any sillier.

I am not ,looking sillier I am answering your abject insanity in arguing for sumarilly executing somebody without so much as having to justify yourself.

I think your daughter should be taken away from you. You are obviously a very dangerous induvidual given your blatant justification of killing other people just because you feel they deserve it. I do not think you are fit to being a parent at all....and I fear for the safety of your child.

[Terminator X]

I am not ,looking sillier I am answering your abject insanity in arguing for sumarilly executing somebody without so much as having to justify yourself.

I think your daughter should be taken away from you. You are obviously a very dangerous induvidual given your blatant justification of killing other people just because you feel they deserve it. I do not think you are fit to being a parent at all....and I fear for the safety of your child.

Go fuck yourself. And you bet your ass I would kill someone with my bare hands if I caught them raping my daughter. I wouldn't hit them with one blow. I would hit them repeatedly, until they died. If that makes me a dangerous individual, so be it. I'm sorry that scares you.

[Le Socialiste]

For fuck's sake, no one's defending the rapist. Are y'all incapable of understanding that, or just ignoring it? What some people are contesting is the amount and extent of the force used that resulted in the man's death, not the use of force per say.

[Terminator X]

Really? Because they stated she was sexually mollested...did they say by whom?

So what says that the fcather wasn't molesting his daughter. Got caugth. Killed the guy. Pulled down his pants and underwear....etc.4


And then again....what kind of abject induvidual are you to blatantly state that somebody can unilaterally decide to kill somebody because they get angry?

What part of "corroborated by witnesses" don't you understand? Everyone on the ranch and at the hospital is making this story up to protect the father? Your fantasy story in this post is indefensible and nothing more than the ramblings of a rape apologist.

[PhoenixAsh]

Go fuck yourself.

Really? I just arbitrarilly decided that you are a dangrous induvidual and defended your daughter against that dangerous induvidual. I didn;t use deadly force...I just maxde a verbal statement. I applied YOUR argument to a real case in point. And all of the sudden you get offended? Wauw...what a hypocracy.

Thank you for showing me the hypocracy of your arguments.

[Hermes]

I can't even believe what the fuck I am reading.



Yeah cause that is totally what were all advocating? :confused: Your hyperbole sucks.



Because were all religious:confused:
--



Indeed since were all fond of bourgeois values.



Your entire post was a strawman. Congrats, this is one of the worst posts I have ever seen on here (that is really saying something).



Yawn...slippery slope fallacy.

If you say so, Arbiter!

Indeed, it is exactly what he was advocating. The person who feels he has been wronged is correct in killing another man.

Of course we are, and that's totally what I was implying. Or I could have been stating ways that violence such as this has been justified in the past. Take your pick.

Sure, aren't we? I mean, if we're going to completely disregard the fact that killing someone is in every case worse than raping someone, and the chance that the rapist could have been rehabilitated, then we're not relying on reason or logic.

I am pleased to have granted you the ability to read the worst post ever written, it is truly an honor.

[Luc]

edit: fuck it nvm sorry guys for spam

[PhoenixAsh]

What part of "corroborated by witnesses" don't you understand? Everyone on the ranch and at the hospital is making this story up to protect the father? Your fantasy story in this post is indefensible and nothing more than the ramblings of a rape apologist.

Legal history is full of such examples. But that isn't the point of my arguments....a point which in your homicidal psychological pathology you failed to understand....my point is that deadly force is never justified as soon as the threat is over.

And the threat was over when the guy was pulled of his daugher. What happened after that was purely venting rage. And that venting of rage is what did lead to the mans dead and was completely unnecessary. Or didn't you read your own link??


the father pulled Flores off his child and "inflicted several blows to the man's head and neck area," investigators said.

Now...

why is it that if I get angry in a fight and punch somebody to death or even cause bodilly harm EVEN after they struck me first or even after they threw something at my which could have killed me....I am still responsible for the effects of my actions....but somehow this guy should be excempt from responsibility for the death of this person because we find the crime reprehensible enough because a child was involved???

You are blatantly apologizing for the death of an induvidual.

And what is more you reprehensibly try to accuse me of rape apology. You are an abject person.

[Art Vandelay]

Really? I just arbitrarilly decided that you are a dangrous induvidual and defended your daughter against that dangerous induvidual. I didn;t use deadly force...I just maxde a verbal statement. I applied YOUR argument to a real case in point. And all of the sudden you get offended? Wauw...what a hypocracy.

Thank you for showing me the hypocracy of your arguments.

You told someone, that you have had limited experience with over a message board, that they should have their child taken away from them and that they are an unfit parent. I agree with him, go fuck yourself. That's bullshit coming from a mod.

Also maybe you should read up on what the slippery slope fallacy is, cause clearly you don't know what you are talking about.

[Art Vandelay]

why is it that if I get angry in a fight and punch somebody to death or even cause bodilly harm EVEN after they struck me first or even after they threw something at my which could have killed me....I am still responsible for the effects of my actions....but somehow this guy should be excempt from responsibility for the death of this person because we find the crime reprehensible enough because a child was involved???

Because getting punched in a fight isn't the same fucking thing as having your daughter raped in front of your eyes.

[Ele'ill]

Now...

why is it that if I get angry in a fight and punch somebody to death or even cause bodilly harm EVEN after they struck me first or even after they threw something at my which could have killed me....I am still responsible for the effects of my actions....but somehow this guy should be excempt from responsibility for the death of this person because we find the crime reprehensible enough because a child was involved???

You are blatantly apologizing for the death of an induvidual.


It wasn't a fist fight at recess and I think you're exerting way too much energy visiting the specifics of the situation that we don't know about to condemn a father protecting his daughter.

[Ele'ill]

Also I think we can discuss this without it becoming some over dramatized internet forum battle scene or something.

[PhoenixAsh]

You told someone, that you have had limited experience with over a message board, that they should have their child taken away from them and that they are an unfit parent. I agree with him, go fuck yourself. That's bullshit coming from a mod.

Really? Beacuse it seems to me I can say whatever the hell I please as long as it is within the rules of the message board. And seeing that we are clearly dealing with somebody who is having homicidal tendencies and thinks it is perfectly fine to beat somebody to death if you think they have done something to deserve it in his mind...I think we can safely say that this might very well affect his child. In any case....I just arbitrarilly decided that he is an unfit parent. And instead of forcibly taking the child from him in order to protect her well being and to defend her from this obviously dangerous induvidual or just...you know...beat him to death...I simply made a statement. I seem to remember that it was perfectly fine to beat somebody to death because he or she poses a threat to a child...and I simply made a statement. And all of the sudden you apologists for applying arbitratry justice seem to be o so offended. How ironic.


Also maybe you should read up on what the slippery slope fallacy is, cause clearly you don't know what you are talking about.

Well I pretty much stated what a slippery slope is to you. But I would like to give you a full description:

In debate or rhetoric, a slippery slope (also known as thin end of the wedge - or sometimes "edge" in US English - or the camel's nose) is a classic form of argument, arguably an informal fallacy. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.[1] The strength of such an argument depends on the warrant, i.e. whether or not one can demonstrate a process which leads to the significant effect. The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.

First: your argument of beating somebody to death because you feel like it....has severe legal implications and holds deep repercussions for the status of the right to live. I hardly thinks it qualifies as a "small event"

Furthermore I can prove the chain of effects in related area's based on the arguments of protection, self defense, defense of others and the argument of subjectivity of psychological duress....so again...the chain of events are falsifiable and can not only be proven but are based on a logical application of the same arguments used in similar events.

Nor is there a continuum fallacy. Because all of the cases I mentioned in the post you dismissed happened irl....except for me beating the shit out of my girlfriend...but according to your own arguments I would be completely justified to use force in order to protect myself...up to and including causing injury or death. And they are very similar...and in all these cases severe psychological duress was claimed as a mode of defence. Yet unlike this case...in all these cases the one killing the other needed to justify their actions to a legal body.

[PhoenixAsh]

Because getting punched in a fight isn't the same fucking thing as having your daughter raped in front of your eyes.

Really? So now you are qualified to state what the psychological effects are of an event on somebody?

[PhoenixAsh]

It wasn't a fist fight at recess and I think you're exerting way too much energy visiting the specifics of the situation that we don't know about to condemn a father protecting his daughter.

What we know about is that he continued beating after the threat to his daughter was gone. The psychology of rage states that the emotion is the same in all events and has significant subjective impact....the father beat the guy out of rage. We can all agree on this.

So why is his rage different from any other type of rage?

Well....simply because a child was involved. Or simply because we find the crime the other guy committed disgusting.

There is no other reason than subjective like or dislike that makes us qualify this situation different from the rage of a poor guy whose cat just got killed by his neighbor and then in a fit of rage about the loss of his only life companion kicked the neighbor to death.

Why is his rage different from the guy or girl who walks in on their partner fucking somebody else? Emtional duress is emotional duress. So I think it is a very legitimate question to ask...which I did in the first place...what emotional duress entitles me to kick or beat somebody to death and what does not and why.

The fact remains that somebodies life was taken away...and some people here seem to be totally fine with that and think that response is all nice and well....

[Art Vandelay]

Really? So now you are qualified to state what the psychological effects are of an event on somebody?

Never claimed to be qualified, but are you seriously likening a fist fight to child molestation? I dated a a girl who had been raped as a minor. I know the effects that it had on her and continues to have on her life.

[Art Vandelay]

Nor is there a continuum fallacy. Because all of the cases I mentioned in the post you dismissed happened irl....except for me beating the shit out of my girlfriend...but according to your own arguments I would be completely justified to use force in order to protect myself...up to and including causing injury or death. And they are very similar...and in all these cases severe psychological duress was claimed as a mode of defence. Yet unlike this case...in all these cases the one killing the other needed to justify their actions to a legal body.

I am not condoning murdering anyone who causes you emotional or physical harm, where are you even getting this?

I said I understood and would have done the same if I had been in the fathers shoes (Not intentionally kill him, but kick the shit out of him; which is what the father was most likely attempting to do).

[Ele'ill]

What we know about is that he continued beating after the threat to his daughter was gone.

Can you link to an article stating this or numerous articles stating this I think it would be a decent first step in this discussion. Mainly the continued beating and the after the threat to his daughter parts. And better yet if you can find a source stating that the threat to himself was gone as well.



The psychology of rage states that the emotion is the same in all events and has significant subjective impact....the father beat the guy out of rage. We can all agree on this.

Not necessarily and I don't know that 'rage' would be the correct word either. I think it's kind of loaded.

[PhoenixAsh]

Never claimed to be qualified, but are you seriously likening a fist fight to child molestation? I dated a a girl who had been raped as a minor. I know the effects that it had on her and continues to have on her life.

What I am saying is that the emotional impact of an event on an induvidual is highly subjective. And what you consider to be traumatizing isn't traumatizing for somebody else. And what you consider to be miniscule can be a huge deal for yet another person.

I know a lot of people who got raped. I have counciled rape victims...I also councilled victims of violence and high school bullying...including what you call somebody who got beaten in the school yard once....and I can tell you...there is surprisingly little difference in the trauma these two cause and what the effect of that trauma is on somebody.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Finally, some actual justice. Harming children should carry a death warrant, you're not only hurting them physically but harming them psychologically, usually permanently.

I would have done the same thing, even if it wasn't my child; it's the fucking principle of the matter, shit makes me sick.

[Art Vandelay]

What I am saying is that the emotional impact of an event on an induvidual is highly subjective. And what you consider to be traumatizing isn't traumatizing for somebody else. And what you consider to be miniscule can be a huge deal for yet another person.

I know a lot of people who got raped. I have counciled rape victims...I also councilled victims of violence and high school bullying...including what you call somebody who got beaten in the school yard once....and I can tell you...there is surprisingly little difference in the trauma these two cause and what the effect of that trauma is on somebody.

I don't know if I quite buy that a highschool beating and being molested as a child will cause the same amount of trauma; perhaps they could in certain cases, but I think that would be the exception and not the rule.

[PhoenixAsh]

Can you link to an article stating this or numerous articles stating this I think it would be a decent first step in this discussion. Mainly the continued beating and the after the threat to his daughter parts. And better yet if you can find a source stating that the threat to himself was gone as well.


The link that was posted stated a specific occurance of events:

The guy pulled the guy of his daughter. Then gave him several blows to his neck and his head.


So this linguistical statement from the police as corroborated as Djanimosity so ademantly stated...says several things

1) the guy was pulled of his daughter...end of threat to his daughter
2) the guy was beaten in his neck...meaning that he was not capable of defending himself otherwise he would have been hit in the throat. The neck means he had his back turned towards the father or was in a submissive position.

Then there is further evidence.,..

The guy was supposedly found with his pants and underpants pulled down. Which makes him uncapable of effectively posing a threat after he was pulled of the daughter.

The father has reportedly no injury at all. There is no mention of him needing treatment. Again...this means...the man did not put up a fight.


So all in all that does not speak of somebody who continued to pose a threat.




Not necessarily and I don't know that 'rage' would be the correct word either. I think it's kind of loaded.

I think beating somebody to death is kind of loaded....don't you think. What would you call it of not rage?

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't know if I quite buy that a highschool beating and being molested as a child will cause the same amount of trauma; perhaps they could in certain cases, but I think that would be the exception and not the rule.

People who get beaten up in grade school often need extensive psychological councilling in later life because of the repression and the psychological damage it has caused them. Including failed marriages, low self esteem problems, trust issues, anxiety, self blame, anger management problems, isolationism, depression, eating disorders.

Basically the same as with rape victims or victims of violent trauma, psychological or physical abuse.....

[Ele'ill]

1) the guy was pulled of his daughter...end of threat to his daughter

There is absolutely no way to know this at all. Someone getting pulled or pushed from one location to another means absolutely nothing.




2) the guy was beaten in his neck...meaning that he was not capable of defending himself otherwise he would have been hit in the throat. The neck means he had his back turned towards the father or was in a submissive position.

This literally means a blow struck his neck and that's pretty much it given the circumstances perhaps a blow to the neck when he was pushed from the child.


Then there is further evidence.,..

The guy was supposedly found with his pants and underpants pulled down. Which makes him uncapable of effectively posing a threat after he was pulled of the daughter.

The father has reportedly no injury at all. There is no mention of him needing treatment. Again...this means...the man did not put up a fight. So all in all that does not speak of somebody who continued to pose a threat.

Someone close to me was in a situation where they were going to be sexually assaulted and probably hurt pretty bad given who the other person was but they defended themselves and when the cops got there the guy allegedly had scrapes on his face and had his shirt ripped so she ended up spending the night in jail.

[Le Socialiste]

I would have done the same thing, even if it wasn't my child; it's the fucking principle of the matter, shit makes me sick.

So you would arbitrarily decide someone deserves death because it's the "principle of the matter?" I don't give a fuck what your principles are, you don't singlehandedly decide someone else's life like that. Beat the shit out of them, sure, but taking another life into your own hands? Can't say I agree with that. What that man did was despicable, but not deserving of death.

[PhoenixAsh]

There is absolutely no way to know this at all. Someone getting pulled or pushed from one location to another means absolutely nothing.



Yes it does within the context.




This literally means a blow struck his neck and that's pretty much it given the circumstances perhaps a blow to the neck when he was pushed from the child.


No...it means several blows to his neck and head. Several being the key word here. And they were administered as per official statement after he pulled the guy from his daughter....since they specifically state the pulling first then the beating occured.



Someone close to me was in a situation where they were going to be sexually assaulted and probably hurt pretty bad given who the other person was but they defended themselves and when the cops got there the guy allegedly had scrapes on his face and had his shirt ripped so she ended up spending the night in jail.

Very unfortunate...this happens a lot in patriarchy.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

So you would arbitrarily decide someone deserves death because it's the "principle of the matter?" I don't give a fuck what your principles are, you don't singlehandedly decide someone else's life like that. Beat the shit out of them, sure, but taking another life into your own hands? Can't say I agree with that. What that man did was despicable, but not deserving of death.

Fuck that, you don't fucking rape a fucking child, how the fuck are you trying to rationalize that? That is probably one of, if not the worst crimes you could commit. It's very simple, if you don't want to die, then don't fucking rape a child, don't fucking molest a child, don't fucking do anything to harm them in any way, shape or form. There is absolutely no possible excuse one could give and I honest could care less about the lives of sick perpetrators whom do this. We can sit around talking about revolutionary terror but taking the life of someone whom rapes or molests children? No, out of the question.

There is nothing arbitrarily about it, said crimes essentially murders the child, they will suffer from this for the rest of their lives, daily.

[Hermes]

Fuck that, you don't fucking rape a fucking child, how the fuck are you trying to rationalize that? That is probably one of, if not the worst crimes you could commit. It's very simple, if you don't want to die, then don't fucking rape a child, don't fucking molest a child, don't fucking do anything to harm them in any way, shape or form. There is absolutely no possible excuse one could give and I honest could careless about the sick perpetrators whom do this. We can sit around talking about revolutionary terror but taking the life of someone whom rapes or molests children? No, out of the question.

Death really hasn't been shown to deter crime, just so you know.

Further, I would say that 'revolutionary terror' is more an act of reasoned self-defense rather than the impassioned killing of a criminal.

--

Also, there's a lot of difference between essentially killing someone and killing someone.

[PhoenixAsh]

Fuck that, you don't fucking rape a fucking child, how the fuck are you trying to rationalize that? That is probably one of, if not the worst crimes you could commit. It's very simple, if you don't want to die, then don't fucking rape a child, don't fucking molest a child, don't fucking do anything to harm them in any way, shape or form. There is absolutely no possible excuse one could give and I honest could care less about the lives of sick perpetrators whom do this. We can sit around talking about revolutionary terror but taking the life of someone whom rapes or molests children? No, out of the question.

There is nothing arbitrarily about it, said crimes essentially murders the child, they will suffer from this for the rest of their lives, daily.

think very little people on this site are talking about revolutionary terror.

So what other crimes do you deem worthy of lynching?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Death really hasn't been shown to deter crime, just so you know.

I never said it would deter the crime, more, that I feel it's the most just form of punishment for said crime.

What I'm saying is, it's my opinion that if you commit this crime, this is what you deserve and should get.


Further, I would say that 'revolutionary terror' is more an act of reasoned self-defense rather than the impassioned killing of a criminal.


Why are you injecting this notion of killing a child rapist inherently being "impassioned," as if to dismiss it?


Also, there's a lot of difference between essentially killing someone and killing someone.

I was speaking figuratively.


think very little people on this site are talking about revolutionary terror.

The discussion board is called Revleft, as in, those whom advocate the revolutionary overthrow of capital. Revolution is inherently violent, I don't why, when it comes to that, it's fine, but child rapists? Oh no, it's impassioned lynching by the frenzied mob.


So what other crimes do you deem worthy of lynching?

Honestly, if these are the type of responses I will be receiving I will stop responding in this thread because this subject makes me beyond livid.

I don't get you people, I really don't. "Class enemies," sure thing, hang em high, child rapists? No, what the fuck kind of shit is that?

[Bostana]

I think it's funny how they say he "allegedly punched the man" Allegedly? Really? I don't that the Father would hesitate to kick the shit out of a pedophile

[PhoenixAsh]

I never said it would deter the crime, more, that I feel it's the most just form of punishment for said crime.

What I'm saying is, it's my opinion that if you commit this crime, this is what you deserve and should get.

Why are you injecting this notion of killing a child rapist inherently being "impassioned," as if to dismiss it?


Because we probably find the killing of an individual rather apprehensive.



The discussion board is called Revleft, as in, those whom advocate the revolutionary overthrow of capital. Revolution is inherently violent, I don't why, when it comes to that, it's fine, but child rapists? Oh no, it's impassioned lynching by the frenzied mob.

Yes...it basically is. You are all seething at the teeth and think arbitratry execution is the way to go....so it is indeed frenzied.

Revolutionary overthrow =/ revolutionary terror.



Honestly, if these are the type of responses I will be receiving I will stop responding in this thread because this subject makes me beyond livid.

Hence the frenzied....

Teh responses we are giving are of logic: "people should not act as jury and executioner just because they feel like it or because they are angry".

People have a responsibility towards others and one such responsibility is not to take away the autonomy of another by killing them. Punishment is not decided on a subjective induvidual level but dealt out by the collective on the basis of preexisting norms and after weighing all the facts. INstead of extrajudicial "justice"

So the question still stands...what other crimes can we lynch somebody for in your opinion?



I don't get you people, I really don't. "Class enemies," sure thing, hang em high, child rapists? No, what the fuck kind of shit is that?


I do not agree with this statement at all.

[Ele'ill]

Yes it does within the context.

no it doesn't




No...it means several blows to his neck and head. Several being the key word here. And they were administered as per official statement after he pulled the guy from his daughter....since they specifically state the pulling first then the beating occured.

Several is vague and can mean anything more than like two and we don't know how the attacker reacted when the father walked in on the rape taking place.





Very unfortunate...this happens a lot in patriarchy.

And I'm sure we all know what it's called.

[PhoenixAsh]

no it doesn't

Yes it does since they stated he was found with his pants down....and the father having no need for medical attention.



Several is vague and can mean anything more than like two and we don't know how the attacker reacted when the father walked in on the rape taking place.

We pretty much do know. He was beaten in his neck...meaning he was no facing the father. He was found with his pants down. Meaning he was unable to get up...which is also indicatd by the father pulling him off the girl. Also several means more than two and less than many. Meaning that there were at least three blows....


But seeing that all these questions arise....seems to testify in the favor of the argument that killing somebody should at the very least be judged over and somebody needs to take responsibility for their actions and explain them to a council.




And I'm sure we all know what it's called.

And I am very unsure what your reason was for bringing it up.

[Le Socialiste]

Fuck that, you don't fucking rape a fucking child, how the fuck are you trying to rationalize that? That is probably one of, if not the worst crimes you could commit. It's very simple, if you don't want to die, then don't fucking rape a child, don't fucking molest a child, don't fucking do anything to harm them in any way, shape or form. There is absolutely no possible excuse one could give and I honest could care less about the lives of sick perpetrators whom do this. We can sit around talking about revolutionary terror but taking the life of someone whom rapes or molests children? No, out of the question.

There is nothing arbitrarily about it, said crimes essentially murders the child, they will suffer from this for the rest of their lives, daily.

Please cite an example where I tried to rationalize the rape of children. Please do, and I'll back off. You'll be hard pressed to find any form of rationalization in my posts, but go ahead. If you can somehow deduce from my comments any trace of defense concerning the rapist's actions, I'll leave this thread. :rolleyes:

Christ, how many times do I have to repeat this: no one is defending this man's actions, nor is anyone saying he didn't deserve the initial reaction from the daughter's father. What some are saying is that the father's response exceeded what was necessary (removing the threat of molestation/rape), resulting in the aggressor's death. To go further, he arbitrarily placed the fate of that man's life in his hands - something which was not within his power to do. If in a similar situation, it is not wholly necessary to murder someone who poses a direct threat to you and/or a loved one. I can support violently/physically subduing said threat to the point that they're no longer endangering others, but cannot support someone being another person's judge, jury, and executioner. It's not up to us by ourselves.

What that father did is more than understandable; his initial reaction was a reasonable one. I can't get behind the end result, however, and for you to say you or anyone else is justified in taking similar action on your own is ridiculous, not to mention shortsighted. You don't get to decide someone else's life like that, not on your own. You can't arbitrarily choose who lives and dies, because not everyone's going to share your "principles." The traumatizing effect that man's actions must have had (and will continue to have) on that young girl is unimaginable. She was forced into something she probably wasn't even conscious of, by an individual acting on his own inner impulses. He should have been placed in a mental health facility or incarcerated for the duration of his life, not executed.

I realize this is a difficult topic to talk about (this thread more than shows that), but cooler heads should prevail here if we're to have an actual conversation about this - as opposed to several different groups screaming that their conclusion is the right one.

[Invader Zim]

In nearly every single one of your posts.

Yet funnily enough, you haven't provided any examples. Funny that. Maybe you're being 'conversationally dishonest'? But, to be honest, I don't really know what that made up term actually means. Perhaps you are using it as a substitute for intellectually dishonest? Either way, it seems like you are manufactoring a reason to justify your strawman arguments and non-sequiturs by passing the buck.



There's no incentive for the news to desensationalize a situation given the information that has been released to them and technically if the man was killed with one blow to the head he would still have been beaten to death as in beaten in the head until death.

Wait. So you criticise me [wrongly] for not sticking to the facts as presented in the article, but here you are doing the exact same thing and when that is pointed out you contend that it isn't your fault for making shit up, but rather it is the fault of 'the news' for not reporting the facts to suit your wild hypothesis involving a bloke killing a paedophile stone dead in one (or two) herculean punch(es).

I'm not sure if that is 'conversational dishonesty' (lol), but it is bending the facts to suit your preconceived hypothesis and then plain ignoring them, and complaining about the source, when you can't continue to bend them.


It was yourself who began creating the scenarios of what happened and I was showing the flaws in those scenarios not highlighting 'what I actually thought happened'. Please stop being so conversationally dishonest.

Except, I did not make up a scenario. My claim that the father pulled the pedophile from his daughter and then gave him a sustained beating that killed him, is exactly the scenario that has been reported in the press. Your bullshit about one or two punches, and killing him being necessary to save his daughter, is (on the other hand) pulled straight from your imagination. The only alternative scenario to the one purported in the media that I have proposed has been to cast a cynical eye on the killer's remorse.


Sounds like violence used to stop a violent attack from taking place and to stop any immediate violent counter response.

And it sounds to me like you are having trouble reading and comprehending the statement as it actually is - as opposed to what you want it to be. Becauseyour hypothesis isn't at all implicitly, let alone explicitly, stated within that quote. In fact it suggests something very different, as I see Hindsight has patiently explained to you point by point.

[PhoenixAsh]

What I find really disgusting in this thread is the way people dismiss counter arguments as rape apology in order to evade the debate about extrajudicial killing.

Somehow in their minds saying that somebody should not simply get away with such a killing based on the subjective interpretation of the cops or the DA and without having to explain their actions for evaluation to and their actions scrutinized by a legal council of some sorts....is defending the act of rape.

This is an asinine position and completely ignores the fact that they themselves are justifying the extrajudcial killing based on subjective interpretation and are arguing the loss of all rights based on how apprehensible they think the crime that person alledgedly committed is.

So then you would assume their arguments for their position are very strong. I have taken the liberty to collect the argumenst given in this thread by the several members who seem to be arguing the induvidual appropriation of being allowed to exact lethal punishment on others. I will note them below including the repercussions these arguments hold if applied and the questions the arguments raise.

1). He deserved it

"Deserve" is very subjective. Who decides what is deserved? And on what grounds?

See the fun part of such an argument is that it is applicable on many situations almost all of them subjective. Now...this argument can offcourse not stand in and off itself. It needs a precursor...

So raping a child makes you deserving of being beaten to death? I think a lot of people would seriously agree with this statement. Because they think that raping a child is the most abject thing there is.

So "deserved" is a derivitate of what is considered a proper punishment for the crime. And this assessment is, in the eyes, of those who use it in this debate...based on a subjective classification of the crime.

But there is a problem with this. A huge one. Because if "deserve" is a derivative of the assessment of the crime...then who assesses the crime? An induvidual? Society? A group within society?

And is this based on pre-existing societal or communal agreements? And if so....this holds a huge amount of implications.

For instance...if a community decides that it is seriously abject to cheat on your husband and that that warrants being stoned to death....this punishment is considered richly deserved by that community. Yet another community may look upon it as being seriously wrong.

Based on the principles behind the argument: subjective classification of a crime or offense....both are right. And the stoning to death of cheating women is perfectly fine as long as it is considered "deserved" and based on a subjective interpretation of justice. After all....the community considers it a deserved punishment.

Yet we do not see it that way here on revleft. Apparantly and logically it is NOT fine to stone a cheating woman to death. Why not? Because she has rights. Because it is mysogenist. Because she is warranted protection from that kind of lynch mob mentality. Ok...so wht if ALL cheating people are stoned to death? Society suddenly decides that cheating is the most abject crime somebody can commit.

Based on the definition of "deserved" that would entitle that society to stone every cheating bastard to death.....without any sort of consequence....sinmply because the crime is all of the sudden deemed so abject that it is deserving of death.

We do not have to bother with a trial...we can simply do this on an ad hoc basis. And after our deed is done...we do not need to explain.

Now in a less extreme example...the term deserved is highly subjective....and `she/he deserved it` is habitually used in plenty of cases involving rape and abuse. A mother thinks it is perfectly ok to beat her 5 year old disobedient daughter with a clothes hanger because being disobedient is seen by her as deserving of corporal punishment (and yes..this happened to an ex of mine....and yes this is exactly the argumment the mother used). So why the hell is she wrong?

Point is....what is deserved and what is not should not be subject to the induvidual or outside the boundraries of agreed upon rules of conduct and should be metted out by a council. Not on a subjective individual ad hoc basis.


2). The crime was very apprehensible

I think we covered that in the above point. I agree that rape is apprehensible and abject. I do not however agree that it warrants extrajudicial killing without having to explain yourself and have your actions be scrutinized and tested on the existing legal agreements.


3). Losing emotional control/crime of passion

This means that your actions are excusable as long as the emotional duress caused by a specific act is considered to be high enough to excuse the reaction. In otherwords....as long as you succesfully argue that something had a profound psychological impact everything you do after that is excusable.

So...a husband who comes home and finds his wife in bed with another person could be so emotionally and psychologically distraught that he...in an act of sudden rage....kills either one or both of them....and could get away with it. As long as he argues that he was distraught enough.

If I come home and find my boyfriend in bed with another man and this, as I argue, mentally crushes me and renders me incapable of rational acts excuses everything I do to them.

Weird and unthinkable? No...not at all.

In fact this was part of the legal code in France until 1970. It is still active in some states in the US and in the UK and Ireland as "temporary insanity".

Now...make no mistake....temporary insanity is different from a plea of innocence by reason of insanity. Because in the latter you usually get convicted to being institutionalized. Not so in the case of temporary insanity.

But it means exactly what I say it does: your emotional duress is high enough to make your behaviour irrational and makes a person do crazy stuff they normally wouldn't do.

It is widely applicable....but is most commonly used in cases of rape, abuse, deaths and severy injury....in other words: violent acts.

Before such an argument could be valid there are some precautions in the US and UK. You still need to explain yoruself to a judge and jury and you need to be assessed for a prolonged period of time by mental health experts.

So there are security measures implemented in order to assess to the extend possible to find if somebody isn't trying to circumvent the rules/law. And still the majority of cases in which this plea is used do not end in complete acquittal because the crime of passion and crime of emotional duress is considered within the context of the crime and the consequences the actions had...and therefore is seen mostly as mittigating at best.

But again....it needs to be evaluated.

4). Self defense and defense of others

This is a serious argument....one that is in my opinion applicable in this case. The man acted in defense of his daughter. This is a huge mittigating circumstance. But once again....it is one that should be scrutinized under the law/agreed rules.

Because when does the right to defend end? Does this right entitle you to kill anybody you subjectively deem to pose a threat to you or others? Was the means of defense warranted in the situation? Or did you go to far?

These questions should not be adressed by the police nor the DA they should be adressed by a legal council which evaluates the actions within the context and by evaluating all the evidence based on legal interpretations.

If my argument with my girlfriend gets heated...and she starts to throw heavy objects at me in a fit of anger and ech of these objects have the ability to strike a lethal or severely injuring blow to me...incuding plates and an iron (and ow...yes...I have been in such fights) ....my life is obviously in danger. Am I now entitled to use any force necessary to subdue her including injurying her or killing her? Obviously I am using force to avert a potential lethal outcome for me...which would entitle me to self defense.

Different situation...a guy gets into a fight with my girlfriend. He strikes her. I see this. I subjectively think that the situation poses a danger to my girlfriends safety. I intervene by dragging the guy away and then beating him....his death ensues as a direct result of the beating. Well...hey...tough luck...I was defending my girlfriends safety.

Yet another example. Some guy gets mad at me in a bar for no reason. He punches me. I punch back. He falls and hits his head against a table. He dies. Am I culpable? What if he doesn't hit his head but I continue to beat him and kill him? Am I culpable?
After all I was defending myself.

....now...you might argue that these situations might not immediately pose a life threatening situation.

Consider this....in the US trying to grab a gun is considered enough of a reason for the cops to shoot a person to death. Wether you do this to disarm or not is inconsequential. The simple fact that the cop has no way of telling what you desire to do once you have the gun is considered to pose a lethal threat simply because somebody has no way of telling if you would or would not shoot. The same is argued with succes in courtcases in cops acting against people who are walking down the street holding a knife. They can not tell wether or not that person is contemplating violence.

But a cop shooting a person who does not have a gun or who throws away his weapon or who desists in resisting will be legally culpable if they continue to beat somebody to death.

For self defense to be appropriate there must be an immediate danger to the life and safety of you or somebody else. But as soon as that danger does not exist anymore the actions should be adjusted appropriately. In other words....everybody has the right to defend themselves, their property and their family against violence and harm but the actions must be reasonable (English common law).

Self defence becomes excessive when disproportion between the means of defense used and the gravity of the attack defended against exists (English common law and French penal law). Germany makes a distinction between excessive selfdefence out of fear and out of anger. Where acting out of fear is not punishable even in cases of disproportion those out of anger are.

But all of these have one commonality....they need to be decided upon by a legal council. NOT by the cops or the DA.

The question is not wether or not somebody has the right to defend oneself or loved ones or even property...but wether or not the response was legally justified...not based on subjective ad hoc reasoning.

I can perfectly rationalize beating my girlfriend to death out of self defense because she threw a plate at my head. That does not mean that I am right. Nor does that mean that I do not have the explain my actions to a legal council. Nor does it mean that eventhough a life threatening situation existed I could not have chosen other options.

5). Child involved.

Fine. So why does this matter? Because it seems to me that this actually should be stated as: person who can not effectively defend her or him self. Why are children special? Why do they get special treatment as opposed to the physically less able and the elderly? Are crimes committed against children somehow special or are they special people who deserve special treatment? For what reason would we consider rape or assault of a minor different from the rape or assault on anybody else?

The only reason I can think about is that a child is not capable of defending themselve. But so are a lot of other groups within society. And wether or not somebody can effectively defend themself is totally dependend as well on who the attacker is.

Sure...there are situations in which the consideration if a child is capable of certain decisions is extremely relevant. But NOT the situation if somebody is more entitled to beat a child rapist to death than beating a rapist of an 80 year old man to death.

All rhyme and reason seems to go out the window when children are involved.

Childporn? Fine; lets ban all privacy rules!
Child abuse? Fine; lets all dispense with due process and legal rights!

In fact....it doesn't matter if it is a child, a teenager, an adult or a geriatric person....rape is rape.

So now what? The argument that it is a crime against a child somehow entitles the culprit being beaten to death. Fine....so what if the culprit is an older child? So what if the culprit is a woman? (I am mentioning this one because there is a huge difference in how society views the crime based on the gender of the victim and the culprit). And at what age of the child are we no longer allowed to beat a culprit to death when we fathers catch them molesting our daughters or sons?

6). The innocence of his daughter

Wauw...just wauw.

7). What else should/could he have done?

Really? You have to ask? Well....at least one person said in this thread that we could not expect him to politely ask the rapist to stop what he is doing. Nice. THere seems to be no middle gound. It is either beating somebody to death or politely asking him to stop what he/she is doing....

So the dragging somebody away and subduing him or her is not an option anymore?
Instead we repeatedly beat somebody?

"Yeah....but dude....he didn't mean to kill him"


7). Did not intent to kill and He is very sorry

O good....well as long as you didn't mean to kill him it is perfectly ok that you beat him to death.

`Sorry officer I didn´t mean to kill my wife! I was simply venting my anger and I am so very sorry that I accidentally beat her to death. `

Unfortunately being sorry and your intentions do not excuse the eventual outcome perse. The jails are full of people who did not intent to do something )most of all getting caught) and who are sorry (most of all for being caught). But that just doesn´t cut it as an argument.

`I did not intent the eye drops to cause cardiac failure....I intended to cause diarrhea.`

`I did not intend the fire I set to the building to kill the night janitor. I didn´t know he/she was there.`

There you go. Not a valid argument.

7). Eveybody would have done the same thing.

Really? I don't think so. And if they would....well...that simply doesn't excuse it... now does it?

"But officer those other cars also ran the red light!!!"

Just because everybody else is doing it to does not excuse you from breaking the law or rules of society.

8). Cops are not involved. & State is not involved

Great!! So now the cops are not involved? Seems to me they are. In fact THEY made the decision not to press charges based on their evaluation of the crime.

Seems to me they are definately involved.

And the state is definately involved as well seeing as the state in the person of the DA decided to not press charges either.

The only ones who are not involved is the legal system and the community.

Now....all of the sudden the decision of the cops not involving themselves is a good thing. Then again....what if the culprit was black? Then we would all be arguing that the non-involvement of the cops and the refusal of prosecution by the DA was evidence of the racism inherrited in the system. What if the victim was black? Then we would again clamour at the gates of the inherrited racism of the system.

So you see....cops are involved...the state is involved. They made the decision not to do anything with this situation. So this argument is void.

Neither one of these should be able to make such a decision...this should be left to a court of indepenent legal council. The DA is an elected position. His decisions are based on what is the most popular decision to get reelected....not on what is right or wrong. And cops are an investigative body which should not be involved in decision wether or not to press charges at all. Because I assume they are local cops...acting on wether or not somebody is likeable or fits in the community. See where I am going there? So if somebody is respectable, influential and rich enough...they have more cloud over the decisions made by the police.

The only ones deciding wether or not somebody should be prosecuted should be legal councils in whatever form society elects to have them.

9). Anarchist street justice.

Yes...but only if you define Anarchism as random lawless and barbarian. Street justice does not feature in revolutionary Anarchist philosophy. In fact the death penalty and taking somebodies life are heavilly disputed within Anarchist philosophy because Anarchism rejects the notions of anybody having authority to take away the life of another person.

It is true that Anarchism also rejects the monopolisation of violence by the state. But that is not transplanted with "do as you fucking please" and individually act as vigilantes becomming each your own judge, jury and executioner.

And what is more...when the police next time decide that the response is warranted...you know....like shooting an unarmed black man because they think he is reaching for the gun and decide that this was completely appropriate....would we argue that they still have the right to decide that?

And when the DA pushes for execution of a person because it is demanded and would get him reelected? Is he justified as well?

*****

This basically covers all the arguments given.

So now lets see the counter arguments of my responses:

1). We do not know what happened

Exactly our point. We do not know what happened. Yet the police and the DA decided not to press charges based not on legal procedures and applying the rules of society by based on ad hoc decisions.

2). Slippery slope arguments

Only when the causality is not evident. And the fun thing with legal decisions is that
they function as legal precedent. Not to mention that laws are to be applied to all people in the same circumstances equally and not arbitrarilly.

It also assumes that beating somebody to death is a minor event. Which is usually the basis of a slippery slope argument to use as the basis of a chain of related events to create some huge effect elsewhere that can not be proven. But it can be proven.

So there goes the argument of slippery slope.


3). You are excusing rape!

Really? Where have we done that? Did we say the guy should not be punished? Did we argue that rape was somehow allowed? Or did we argue that the suspect has rights? And did we argue that the police and DA should not be the ones deciding wether or not to prosecute a case? Or did we argue that somebody who takes the life of another person needs to have their actions scrutinized by a legal council?

Did we say the father SHOULD get punished? No...we argued that we think that it is not up to the police or DA to decide.

We argued that when the taking of life is involved something should be judged over by legal councils instead of being decided by local policemen and the DA.

We argued that we find the cheers of lynch mob mentality and extrajudicial executions where the rights of the culrpit seem to be somehow nul and void is abhorrent.

We do NOT argue that this culprit is innnocent. We do NOT excuse the acts of the culprit. We do NOT state that rape is somehow excusable.

What we do argue is that the response of the father seems to be excessive....and needs to be evaluated and judged by a legal council. NOT by cops...NOT by the DA.

Your argument of rape apologism is vile, ungrounded and only seems to be used to sate your bloodlust and justify it by dodging the debate and preventing yourself from having to answer the very poignant and relevant repercussions of your clammoring for lynch mob mentality.

[Ele'ill]

*noise*


I've literally addressed all of the stuff you're talking about in that latest post of yours and am still awaiting your reply. :rolleyes:

[Invader Zim]

I've literally addressed all of the stuff you're talking about in that latest post of yours and am still awaiting your reply. :rolleyes:


1. You didn't raise a fucking thing. Make a point and we can talk about it.

2. You haven't addressed shit. You just postulated some unsourced bullshit (ironic given you accused me of the same thing) and then whined about 'teh mediaz'.)

3. Your post is wilfully dishonest. A step up from intellectual ignorance.

[Obs]

Really? Because that's what it sounded like. You said you can't relate to someone who wouldn't/couldn't find it in themselves to end the life of an individual directly threatening the wellbeing of a friend or loved one.
Yes. Literally, in fact. What I did not say was this:

if I didn't have it in me to kill someone in a similar situation (harm/injure/incapacitate I could do), then I'm a horrible person?

Point being, I, personally, have a lot of trouble finding my way around this debate because I honestly just have to wrap my head around how anyone could consider this situation and not think "great, that was the best possible outcome of that situation." There's no malice intended whatsoever.

It might just be me - I do have a pretty ticklish temper and have seriously injured people for (obviously) much less (and am not at all proud of it), and as such, trying to imagine how I'd react in that situation is absurd. The only possible scenario I can imagine would take place looks a lot like what happened in this case.

[Le Socialiste]

Yes. Literally, in fact. What I did not say was this:

Point being, I, personally, have a lot of trouble finding my way around this debate because I honestly just have to wrap my head around how anyone could consider this situation and not think "great, that was the best possible outcome of that situation." There's no malice intended whatsoever.

It might just be me - I do have a pretty ticklish temper and have seriously injured people for (obviously) much less (and am not at all proud of it), and as such, trying to imagine how I'd react in that situation is absurd. The only possible scenario I can imagine would take place looks a lot like what happened in this case.

My apologies then, I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I can understand how some people would agree with what you yourself said above, but knowing me I don't think murder would ever be seriously entertained in a similar situation. I'd be more concerned with ensuring the threat posed is neutralized - hopefully without any loss of life. But that's just me. What I can't stand are the people who say any different outcome where the rapist isn't killed amounts to sympathy or (in)direct support for his actions. That isn't the case at all. I can only speak for myself and say I don't think I'd have it in me to end another person's life like that.

[PhoenixAsh]

I everybody simply ignorinbg this:



Sheriff's deputies in Texas won't file charges against a father who they say beat an acquaintance to death after allegedly catching him sexually abusing the man's 4-year-old daughter.

So now we think that the police should be the ones deciding who to charge and who not to charge? Because we find the act of rape of a child apprehensible we suddenly cheer this decision?

But when the very same police decide not to charge a guy with rape because a woman was dressed provocatively....or she said no during the act....or because she was a prostitute....then we suddenly boo the police?

Well I have news for you people....cheering one such decision made by the police is agreeing with their power to decide legal matters in which they should have no say. You legitimise the decision power of the police in all their decisions because you agree with them having that power....simply because you agree with their decision based on your subjective interpretation of how heinous you find a crime.

So now we all of the sudden think the police is the arbiter in legal matters which should be decided by a legal council? Nice shift in position.

[Ele'ill]

I everybody simply ignorinbg this:



So now we think that the police should be the ones deciding who to charge and who not to charge? Because we find the act of rape of a child apprehensible we suddenly cheer this decision?

But when the very same police decide not to charge a guy with rape because a woman was dressed provocatively....or she said no during the act....or because she was a prostitute....then we suddenly boo the police?

Well I have news for you people....cheering one such decision made by the police is agreeing with their power to decide legal matters in which they should have no say. You legitimise the decision power of the police in all their decisions because you agree with them having that power....simply because you agree with their decision based on your subjective interpretation of how heinous you find a crime.

So now we all of the sudden think the police is the arbiter in legal matters which should be decided by a legal council? Nice shift in position.

I don't think the cops or the current legal system should but this isn't a trial this is called community discussion and it's the opposite of the bourgeois legal system and police.

[PhoenixAsh]

I don't think the cops or the current legal system should but this isn't a trial this is called community discussion and it's the opposite of the bourgeois legal system and police.

I do not hold much truck with community discussions to assess somebodies culpability or guilt either. Judging from this community and the opinions expressed I wouldn't trust the vast majority of this board to be able to make an assessment based on anything else than emotional arguments and subjectivity.

There are plenty of examples what community discussions do to and make of justice. I have mentioned a few in an earlier post.

What I do trust is ageed upon rules and principles to which actions of induviduals are tested by a body of people who could be considered experts on them and which can't be influenced because of elective considerations.

Since that is not available to us there is only the current burgeoisie legal system...which...for all its flaws is still the closest thing we currently have to some measure of protection.

[Ele'ill]

I do not hold much truck with community discussions to assess somebodies culpability or guilt either. Judging from this community and the opinions expressed I wouldn't trust the vast majority of this board to be able to make an assessment based on anything else than emotional arguments and subjectivity.

There are plenty of examples what community discussions do to and make of justice. I have mentioned a few in an earlier post.

What I do trust is ageed upon rules and principles to which actions of induviduals are tested by a body of people who could be considered experts on them and which can't be influenced because of elective considerations.

Since that is not available to us there is only the current burgeoisie legal system...which...for all its flaws is still the closest thing we currently have to some measure of protection.

But this isn't a trial it is a discussion and critique which doesn't necessitate the support of any elements of the State.

[Invader Zim]

But this isn't a trial it is a discussion and critique which doesn't necessitate the support of any elements of the State.

Except it is a discussion regarding whether you do, or do not, agree with the actions of the police (and the wider bourgeois 'justice' system) - who want to let a killer off the hook because they have obscenely right wing notions regarding crime, punishment and 'defense', all of which are intellectually and ethically unsustainable. I find it bizarre that supposed 'leftists' are so quick to take a wholly rightwing view of 'justifiable force' and punishment of paedophiles. Been reading the Daily Mail and watching too much Fox News recently? It has clearly rubbed off.

[PhoenixAsh]

But this isn't a trial it is a discussion and critique which doesn't necessitate the support of any elements of the State.

you are talking about this specific debate?

[khad]

Just to clarify. This case did go to a grand jury.

http://www.wlox.com/story/18831574/dad-wont-face-charges-in-alleged-attackers-death


In declining to indict the 23-year-old father in the June 9 killing of Jesus Mora Flores, a Lavaca County grand jury reached the same conclusion as investigators and many of the father's neighbors: He was authorized to use deadly force to protect his daughter.

[#FF0000]

Wah Wah Wah

[Hermes]

I'd have to agree with hindsight on a number of issues, particularly


According to one admin:

“I really think we need to make Devil's Advocacy a bannable offense. Seriously.

As for this pack of idiots, infract every one of them for every post that sympathizes with the rapist. If they get five or more of them, then immediately suspend them and start a poll. “

Instead of a marxist/socialist debate on crime and criminal acts we have admins who substitute this for populism, emotionalism and hyper correction. Something which should not take place on a radical leftwing board. This kind of imputation of arguments creates an environment of witchhunting rather than legitimate community discussion.

I find this to be worrying and disgusting and that it spits in the face of legitimate revolutionary positions. I also find that I can no longer function as a mod within a team which constitutes of people who hold such a position because I simply refuse to take such people serious. That means that either they should go or I should go...and since I kind of doubt that they will I am drawing my conclusion.


However, I wish he hadn't found it necessary to ban himself. I find myself disagreeing with members here incredibly frequently, but that doesn't mean we don't share the same goal, or at least I hope it doesn't. I understand that I don't have nearly the responsibility he had, and so take nearly none of the blame or guilt, but I think it would have been better had he stayed.

[#FF0000]

You people take this shit too seriously. Look at your life and look at your choices.

that text wall of shame. Jesus

[Hermes]

You people take this shit too seriously. Look at your life and look at your choices.

that text wall of shame. Jesus

Maybe he takes his beliefs seriously, and finds them incompatible with those here. I think it's appalling that serious discussion regarding controversial topics is limited to the extreme, to the extent that some threads are closed only a couple days after their creation, solely based on the topic.

[Ele'ill]

That post was a repetitive post and was removed in case others are wondering what these above responses are about

[Hermes]

Could you define repetitive?

[Ele'ill]

Could you define repetitive?

There were numerous identical posts/threads around the forum.

[Hermes]

Unless you've deleted them as well, there seems to only have been one thread made by him with the same response, which has been closed and moved to the trashcan.

Regardless, I feel that since that thread has been taken care of, his post was of relevance in this thread, as it concerned the topic at hand.

Of course, I don't really have any authority, as I'm not a mod or admin.

[Lynx]

A Grand Jury made its ruling, so that is the end of it.
Would defending a rapist in a trial be considered rape apology?

[coda]

<<,Would defending a rapist in a trial be considered rape apology?<<

Yup!

[Hit The North]

^^^ So someone who is accused of rape should not be entitled to a defense? This must be one of those rare cases when socialist morality does not come up to the higher standards of bourgeois morality :blink:

[coda]

<<So someone who is accused of rape should not be entitled to a defense?>>

hee! faulty conclusion....

Sure, They are entitled the chance to try to weasel their way out....

But the US Legal system is equally faulty handling justice....

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

I read, a few years ago, about a guy in London who begins to sexually abuse his own kids. He is caught and incarcerated, during which time he begins to complain about headaches. Upon further examination it is found that he has a tumor in the part of the brain that control sexual impulse. The tumor is removed, the sexual impulses pass, the guy is released. A few years later the headaches return, the tumor returns, the impluse to sexual abuse children returns. Again, he is caught and incarcerated.

Is he evil, or just unlucky?

We are all at the whims of our biology.

For the record I think that, in the case of the guy who beat his daughters attacker to death, it would be morally wrong to give him any kind of lengthy custodial sentence... or any custodial sentence of any kind, especially given the reported circumstances. As I understand it, he didn't kill the guy and then call the police. He called the police halfway through the attack and was, apparently, "distraught" at the condition the rapist was in. If this is legitimately true, then I think there are extenuating circumstances. At worst this was manslaughter, not murder.

Maybe an anger management course of some kind? Learn to take deep breaths. "Tapping" is supposed to be very good.

[Hit The North]

<<So someone who is accused of rape should not be entitled to a defense?>>

hee! faulty conclusion....

Sure, They are entitled the chance to try to weasel their way out....

But the US Legal system is equally faulty handling justice....

So you are operating on the assumption that everyone who is accused of rape is by default guilty. That if they are found 'not guilty' then it is because they have 'weaseled their way out' of it?

You are probably a moron.

[#FF0000]

Maybe an anger management course of some kind? Learn to take deep breaths. "Tapping" is supposed to be very good.

what kind of anger management course in this universe could prepare someone for what this dude saw

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

what kind of anger management course in this universe could prepare someone for what this dude saw

Listen, I'm not saying he doesn't have a right to be angry. He should have a word, certainly, but at the same time he must learn to appeal to reason - learn to conduct a civilised discourse:


"I say, fellow, I must insist you cease from attempting to dump your muck up my daughter. It really is beyond the beyond, and you really must learn that it is not the type of behaviour becoming a fellow of any kind of standing in this world. I mean, really!"

I think it would be morally wrong to give the guy a prison sentence. He's not a danger to the public.

[Invader Zim]

I read, a few years ago, about a guy in London who begins to sexually abuse his own kids. He is caught and incarcerated, during which time he begins to complain about headaches. Upon further examination it is found that he has a tumor in the part of the brain that control sexual impulse. The tumor is removed, the sexual impulses pass, the guy is released. A few years later the headaches return, the tumor returns, the impluse to sexual abuse children returns. Again, he is caught and incarcerated.

Is he evil, or just unlucky?

We are all at the whims of our biology.

For the record I think that, in the case of the guy who beat his daughters attacker to death, it would be morally wrong to give him any kind of lengthy custodial sentence... or any custodial sentence of any kind, especially given the reported circumstances. As I understand it, he didn't kill the guy and then call the police. He called the police halfway through the attack and was, apparently, "distraught" at the condition the rapist was in. If this is legitimately true, then I think there are extenuating circumstances. At worst this was manslaughter, not murder.

Maybe an anger management course of some kind? Learn to take deep breaths. "Tapping" is supposed to be very good.

I dont know about the value of an anger management course, but I entirely agree that this was at most manslaughter. I dont think anyone was saying that this was murder. Though it us all academic now. But I stand by the view that at some point defence ends and something else occurs.

[coda]

<<So you are operating on the assumption that everyone who is accused of rape is by default guilty. That if they are found 'not guilty' then it is because they have 'weaseled their way out' of it? You are probably a moron>>

I'm referring to 'the' guilty ones-- the ones who are accused of rape and DiD rape, per conclusive DNA evidence and sit for long drawn out trials in the hopes of having a smart ass like yourself on the jury.

[#FF0000]

I'm referring to 'the' guilty ones-- the ones who are accused of rape and DiD rape, per conclusive DNA evidence and sit for long drawn out trials in the hopes of having a smart ass like yourself on the jury.

yeah dogg before you take shots at anyone else you should know you were unclear as all hell in that statement prole art threat took issue with. instead of being a dick acknowledge the misunderstand and try to be civil especially when it's your fault.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think the important thing here is that, per Hindsight's request, the BA officially stated that protecting a potential molestor's right to a trial is a bannable offense...

[#FF0000]

I think the important thing here is that, per Hindsight's request, the BA officially stated that protecting a potential molestor's right to a trial is a bannable offense...

lol fuckin what no it didn't are you serious. banned per user request, son.

[coda]

<<yeah dogg before you take shots at anyone else you should know you were unclear as all hell in that statement prole art threat took issue with. instead of being a dick acknowledge the misunderstand and try to be civil especially when it's your fault. >>

I'm being a dick? Sweet!!!

I was unclear? there's not much ambiguity with variations of "Yes" such as "yup". Which was my reply to the question "is defending a rapist in a trial rape apology."

From that your bff distorted my comment so far from the original context, charging me with saying that I don't think accused people are entitled to trials! really? you get that from "yup"!

After explaining he's drawn the wrong conclusion... he continues on most arrogantly telling me what 'assumptions I'm operating under which is that I think all people who are accused of rape are guilty by default' ----and thus proceeds to tell me that I'm a moron! Good stuff...

Now YoU say, *I* should acknowledge the misunderstanding and try to be civil because It's My fault??!!!! Rich!

GFY

Edit:
That would be GFY = Go Fuck Yourself...
is that civil enough for ya?

[#FF0000]

From that your bff distorted my comment so far from the original context, charging me with saying that I don't think accused people are entitled to trials! really? you get that from "yup"!

if someone says something like 'ppl should be assumed guilty before trial' then i would definitely ask them 'woah did you just say ppl should be assumed guilty before trial!?!?'

no need to get all bent out of shape over it like you're being attacked. just be like 'what no calm down dummy here is what i meant' and then it is all cool.

play nice.

edit: i was really proud of myself for figuring out what gfy meant all by myself.

[Lynx]

I think the important thing here is that, per Hindsight's request, the BA officially stated that protecting a potential molestor's right to a trial is a bannable offense...
I'll have to be banned too, then.

[#FF0000]

just chill guys

[#FF0000]

I'll have to be banned too, then.

No, no, no. stop that isn'y why hindsight was banned

the BA is pretty shitty sometimes but hindsight was literally carrying on like a baby and that is why he was banned. because he cried hard and said "I'M LEAVIN BAN MY ACCOUNT" and the admins said 'okay'

[Revolution starts with U]

lol fuckin what no it didn't are you serious. banned per user request, son.

No


No, no, no. stop that isn'y why hindsight was banned

the BA is pretty shitty sometimes but hindsight was literally carrying on like a baby and that is why he was banned. because he cried hard and said "I'M LEAVIN BAN MY ACCOUNT" and the admins said 'okay'

No, what Hindsight said was "if my position is rape apology than ban me, if not leave my account open and apologize for the accusation." He was banned. The BA considers his position rape apology, or have a severe lack of reading comprehension.

[#FF0000]

no. he pm'd an admin and requested it, dude.

christ guys get a grip.

[Ele'ill]

the BA officially stated that protecting a potential molestor's right to a trial is a bannable offense...

There was nothing officially stated by anybody.



The BA considers his position rape apology, or have a severe lack of reading comprehension.

None of this is true.

[#FF0000]

how wrong does one have to be to get me to defend the BA on revleft jesus christ

[coda]

<<if someone says something like 'ppl should be assumed guilty before trial' then i would definitely ask them 'woah did you just say ppl should be assumed guilty before trial!?!?'>>.

yeah, but that's not what happened is it? As nothing like that was said on my end nor was that implied.

<<no need to get all bent out of shape over it like you're being attacked. just be like 'what no calm down dummy here is what i meant' and then it is all cool.
play nice.>>

Oh WeLLLL.. never had much patience for A-holes like you! (And that's one of my better traits!)

edit: i was really proud of myself for figuring out what gfy meant all by myself.

good figure this one out: DDIMFGOOMF

[#FF0000]

and i'm stumped

[Revolution starts with U]

There was nothing officially stated by anybody.




None of this is true.

I'm just sayin...


no. he pm'd an admin and requested it, dude.

christ guys get a grip.

If he PM'ed someone I didn't know that. I was working off his goodbye post. So, if he did in fact request it, my apologies for not knowing the whole story.

[Hit The North]

I was unclear? there's not much ambiguity with variations of "Yes" such as "yup". Which was my reply to the question "is defending a rapist in a trial rape apology."


Ok, let's do a 'uses of English' 101. If you argue that defending a rapist in a trial is rape apology, then this obviously refers to the attorney who is the only one able to conduct a defense during a trial. Now, the trial is also the process through which guilt of otherwise is established. Therefore, until this guilt is established we can only refer to an alleged rapist.* So according to you, the act of defending the alleged rapist "in a trial" is also rape apology. In fact, you even go so far as to argue that even if the alleged rapist is found not guilty, this is because he has "weaseled" his way out of it. So either your description of your position is ambiguously stated, or you believe that the mere accusation of rape is enough to condemn someone.

And, for the record, I haven't distorted what you wrote, I merely quoted it and gave the most reasonable interpretation.

However, I guess there's always the possibility that you are simply arguing that to defend someone who has already been proved to be rapist is rape apology, and this would be true. But who, in this thread, has argued that rape is okay? No one as far as I can see.

Btw, what does 'bbf' stand for?


* This is the crux of the issue here: that the father's evidence that he killed the man because he found him attempting to rape his daughter will not be tested in a court of law, meaning that the dead man's guilt has not been established and the motive of the murderous attack upon him has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Everyone in this thread who is defending the father is doing so on the basis of a hypothetical case as there are no grounds for establishing its factual basis - thanks to the police. So the problem here is that there are potentially two crimes that have been committed and the police have decided that neither should be open to the scrutiny of the wider community.

[Invader Zim]

There was nothing officially stated by anybody.




None of this is true.

Then perhaps you could provide one. How much of what Hindsight stated in his PMs was true? Are you guys accusing a member of being a rape apologist? If so perhaps you should do it here, out in the open, so we can all see whether that charge has basis? Because, I can't see any rape apologism in this thread. What we have is a debate about the ethical/legal extend of 'defence'. And that has been framed within realistic parametres, i.e. nobody has suggested that a murder took place and that there were not extenuating circumstances. Secondly, nobody has suggested that what the paedophile did was acceptable or anyhting other than criminal in nature.

Is it true that you were applying a double standard, accusing a member you don't like of this while not applying the same reasoning to those you do like within this thread who made the same arguments?

[#FF0000]

oh there wasn't a pm or anything.

i heard "he requested a ban" and it registered as "he pmd an admin to be banned". welp.

But yeah hindsight wasn't banned for doing anything wrong. he literally said BAN ME

[#FF0000]

* This is the crux of the issue here: that the father's evidence that he killed the man because he found him attempting to rape his daughter will not be tested in a court of law, meaning that the dead man's guilt has not been established and the motive of the murderous attack upon him has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. Everyone in this thread who is defending the father is doing so on the basis of a hypothetical case as there are no grounds for establishing its factual basis - thanks to the police. So the problem here is that there are potentially two crimes that have been committed and the police have decided that neither should be open to the scrutiny of the wider community.

Didn't they have a bunch of witnesses and didn't they bring the kid to the hospital to get her checked out?

[The Jay]

I've been away from the site for a few weeks due to internet provider issues and come back to see this. I only read the first page of this thread but that was enough. I'm fairly disgusted.

Sure, it would have been socially preferable if the father would have subdued and restrained the rapist - the one who he caught in the act - and it would have been more in accordance with the law; however, to claim that since he was not able to control himself, i.e. lost to his rage, he is immoral and deserving punishment is ridiculous. The circumstances he was in were surely enough to push anyone past the point of reasonable control and protect them from being placed into the category of criminal.

Was the man perfect - no. Was his action not in perfect accordance with the law - yes. Was he immoral - no.

He did not kill in cold blood. He came to kill in an effort to protect his child. He is not, judging solely from this case, a threat to society, nor is he a bad citizen - he was merely human.

[Hermes]

Didn't they have a bunch of witnesses and didn't they bring the kid to the hospital to get her checked out?


The only thing that seems kind of odd to me is that, at least in the articles I read, they were incredibly vague about what the results of the test actually were, and also that the father was the only person to actually see his daughter get raped.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

The only thing that seems kind of odd to me is that, at least in the articles I read, they were incredibly vague about what the results of the test actually were, and also that the father was the only person to actually see his daughter get raped.

Well it's not like somebody is going to rape a child in a crowded place, so the dad being the only witness isn't unlikely at all.

[Hermes]

Well it's not like somebody is going to rape a child in a crowded place, so the dad being the only witness isn't unlikely at all.

I know, I was just responding to #FF0000's post. The only reason I included it under the category of things that were odd is because the reports of how he actually found his daughter seem to conflict.

[coda]

<<< Ok, let's do a 'uses of English' 101. If you argue that defending a rapist in a trial is rape apology, then this obviously refers to the attorney who is the only one able to conduct a defense during a trial. Now, the trial is also the process through which guilt of otherwise is established. Therefore, until this guilt is established we can only refer to an alleged rapist.* So according to you, the act of defending the alleged rapist "in a trial" is also rape apology. In fact, you even go so far as to argue that even if the alleged rapist is found not guilty, this is because he has "weaseled" his way out of it. So either your description of your position is ambiguously stated, or you believe that the mere accusation of rape is enough to condemn someone.
And, for the record, I haven't distorted what you wrote, I merely quoted it and gave the most reasonable interpretation.
However, I guess there's always the possibility that you are simply arguing that to defend someone who has already been proved to be rapist is rape apology, and this would be true. But who, in this thread, has argued that rape is okay? No one as far as I can see.>>>


Wow.. you are hyper-anal to the extreme.

Here's some English 101. My style of writing is called brevity. If I mention position "A" without having shored up positions "B,C and D".. it's because I'm only referring to "A". I expect the smart ones to get this kind of shorthand. I seriously don't have time to write extensive essays with footnotes and addendum on supplemental opinion.

Yes, I was referring to the attorneys who defend the rapist where it's a given per DNA evidence that the person did rape, according to the common definition of rape.


"alleged rapist", "the trial is the process by which guilt is established"....

those to me, (an anarchist, I might add) are terms and institutions of the State and the means and mechanisms of which I strongly disagree and of course, not the least unbiased.

so, in the same respect, what you're trying to accuse me of --which I think is 'assuming people are guilty before due process' than by the same token,by you having such a respect and faith for the system.. then those that are deemed guilty by the process are whether they are or not.

The legal system is not 100%, as I mentioned previously. Juries make mistakes all the time and are just as biased as I am, for or against the system and the people brought forth for trials.

To be clear --- I think the guilty ones are those that have conclusive evidence to prove that they are indeed guilty, regardless of the show trial that takes place... and therefore, those still defending them, (though they have the right to plead their case) are rape apologists.

in the case of the father, Khad linked to an article that showed there was a witness to the daughter's abduction and that the daughter was checked by a medical facility and it showed she had been sexually violated by the rapist.

[Revolution starts with U]

oh there wasn't a pm or anything.

i heard "he requested a ban" and it registered as "he pmd an admin to be banned". welp.

But yeah hindsight wasn't banned for doing anything wrong. he literally said BAN ME

If we're going off his goodbye post he said "ban me if you think I was being a rape apologist. If not, don't ban me and apologize." He was banned. So; IF there was no PM, either the BA just banned him for the f of it, or they didn't read his post, or they think defending an alleged rapist is rape apology.

I'm going to go ahead and say they do it for the same reason they always do it; for the f of it, because they can. Private property and all that :thumbup1:

[Lynx]

Heidi Klum banned him :lol:

[#FF0000]

yo son if someone is going to write up a 7 page tear-soaked goodbye angrypost then they should be banned on principle.

[Lynx]

yo son if someone is going to write up a 7 page tear-soaked goodbye angrypost then they should be banned on principle.
It was only one page on my monitor. Swan songs are good for closure. Most people I know prefer closure.

[Ele'ill]

If we're going off his goodbye post he said "ban me if you think I was being a rape apologist.

I just double checked his original post and this isn't what he said. This aside, he requested a ban after spamming the forum with these posts. This is at least the second time in this thread that you've lied about stuff and you should just stop cause you're terrible at it.




Seeing how the real life events this thread was made to discuss have reached a conclusion and the conversation about it has tapered off into discussion about a user's requested ban I'm going to go ahead and close this thread.

Thread closed.