Just simply apprehend the guy and wait for the authorites. Hmm. I wonder how that would look? In reality... the offender would have tried to run or fight after being confronted by the father. Either scenario warrants a beatdown until submissive.
What you are suggesting amounts to the man doing nothing- hardly reasonable. If the guy had walked outside his home and used a gun to stop the offence against his family... then we could talk. This guy came out of his home and in the fairest of manners put an end to the obscenity that his family was subjected to.
well ... we don't know that ... you can put all the what ifs you like ...
i can understand that you think violence is the answer to all that ails society ... i got that from the death penalty thread ... but it does not make it right ... and in fact, it is against the law ... and again - do you believe in law and the justice system or not? ... one can't simply be allowed to choose to accept it or not whenever it pleases them ...
and i'm really not sure how you can say what i suggest is doing nothing ... having the man arrested and having the justice system deal with him is not doing nothing ...
violence begets violence ... a society that deems that violence is the answer to problems will find itself amidst a lot of violence ... see wars, mass shootings, etc..
Geezuz, man.
i can understand that you think violence is the answer to all that ails society
Where does this come from? A massive generalization that, frankly, is disrespectful. I tell you what... how about I say you are out of your mind if you think the father in this instance should have done nothing except cross his fingers and hope for the police to take the pervert away?
You might be Ghandi, but for the average joe... the situation was something that demanded some form of action. Don't give human beings too much credit. For example, look at the 'peeping tom' that you feel so sorry for.
i can understand that you think violence is the answer to all that ails society
Where does this come from? A massive generalization that, frankly, is disrespectful. I tell you what... how about I say you are out of your mind if you think the father in this instance should have done nothing except cross his fingers and hope for the police to take the pervert away?
You might be Ghandi, but for the average joe... the situation was something that demanded some form of action. Don't give human beings too much credit. For example, look at the 'peeping tom' that you feel so sorry for.
it comes from you advocating the assault on this man as a justifiable action ... it also comes from your position in the death penalty thread ... perhaps all ails of society is a stretch and for that i retract it ... but nonetheless - you do believe violence to be an answer to at least some of society ails ...
and i was wondering when someone who project that i feel sorry for the peeping tom ... nothing i've written would suggest that ...
and AGAIN, for the umpteenth time - who are you or anyone for that matter to determine what laws should be upheld and what shouldn't ...
i can understand that you think violence is the answer to all that ails society
Where does this come from? A massive generalization that, frankly, is disrespectful. I tell you what... how about I say you are out of your mind if you think the father in this instance should have done nothing except cross his fingers and hope for the police to take the pervert away?
You might be Ghandi, but for the average joe... the situation was something that demanded some form of action. Don't give human beings too much credit. For example, look at the 'peeping tom' that you feel so sorry for.
it comes from you advocating the assault on this man as a justifiable action ... it also comes from your position in the death penalty thread ... perhaps all ails of society is a stretch and for that i retract it ... but nonetheless - you do believe violence to be an answer to at least some of society ails ...
and i was wondering when someone who project that i feel sorry for the peeping tom ... nothing i've written would suggest that ...
and AGAIN, for the umpteenth time - who are you or anyone for that matter to determine what laws should be upheld and what shouldn't ...
Let's get this on the record: I deplore violence. But I am not above responding to violence in the manner befitting of the offence. As much as I can admire a Tibetan monk for their non-violent ways... this only works on the small scale.
For the umpteenth time... so read carefully... I haven't determined what laws should or shouldn't be upheld. I have determined that a man was within his right to defend his family from a crime that was occurring under his watch. For the umpteenth time... we can debate if excessive force was used... but this man did not 'break the law' attempting to defend his family from a sick pervert at his own home nonetheless.
There is no 'what if' when I attempted to illustrate simply detaining the man until the police got there is highly improbable. A fight or flight would have ensued and in either scenario... again... I contend that a beatdown was in order. And it is here when I would reassert that the real debate should occur: Was too much force used?
I contend that it would be difficult for someone to simply look at the guy's face and pool of blood and say. "Yes." On the other side of the equation, there is a father who's protective instincts kicked in and likely overrode any rational thinking at the time of the altercation. The mindset the father adopted was no fault of his- he was forced to respond in some capacity and it is us, from our safe little homes and outside the situation, weighing in on what we think.
Let's get this on the record: I deplore violence. But I am not above responding to violence in the manner befitting of the offence. As much as I can admire a Tibetan monk for their non-violent ways... this only works on the small scale.
For the umpteenth time... so read carefully... I haven't determined what laws should or shouldn't be upheld. I have determined that a man was within his right to defend his family from a crime that was occurring under his watch. For the umpteenth time... we can debate if excessive force was used... but this man did not 'break the law' attempting to defend his family from a sick pervert at his own home nonetheless.
There is no 'what if' when I attempted to illustrate simply detaining the man until the police got there is highly improbable. A fight or flight would have ensued and in either scenario... again... I contend that a beatdown was in order. And it is here when I would reassert that the real debate should occur: Was too much force used?
I contend that it would be difficult for someone to simply look at the guy's face and pool of blood and say. "Yes." On the other side of the equation, there is a father who's protective instincts kicked in and likely overrode any rational thinking at the time of the altercation. The mindset the father adopted was no fault of his- he was forced to respond in some capacity and it is us, from our safe little homes and outside the situation, weighing in on what we think.
i'm sorry but your words do not describe a man who deplores violence ... they just don't reconcile ...
yes you have ... because this man is charged with a crime ... one you don't think he committed simply because you felt his actions were justifiable ... the law clearly states that it was not ... if he did not break the law - he likely wouldn't have been charged ... what you are advocating for here is that he exempt from that law and should be let go ...
if the man escapes ... he will be caught ... that's what the police are for ...
the law doesn't allow for protective instincts as a justifiable cause ... we can't allow for subjectivity to override principles ... the justice system cannot allow for that can of worms to be open ...
Let's get this on the record: I deplore violence. But I am not above responding to violence in the manner befitting of the offence. As much as I can admire a Tibetan monk for their non-violent ways... this only works on the small scale.
For the umpteenth time... so read carefully... I haven't determined what laws should or shouldn't be upheld. I have determined that a man was within his right to defend his family from a crime that was occurring under his watch. For the umpteenth time... we can debate if excessive force was used... but this man did not 'break the law' attempting to defend his family from a sick pervert at his own home nonetheless.
There is no 'what if' when I attempted to illustrate simply detaining the man until the police got there is highly improbable. A fight or flight would have ensued and in either scenario... again... I contend that a beatdown was in order. And it is here when I would reassert that the real debate should occur: Was too much force used?
I contend that it would be difficult for someone to simply look at the guy's face and pool of blood and say. "Yes." On the other side of the equation, there is a father who's protective instincts kicked in and likely overrode any rational thinking at the time of the altercation. The mindset the father adopted was no fault of his- he was forced to respond in some capacity and it is us, from our safe little homes and outside the situation, weighing in on what we think.
i'm sorry but your words do not describe a man who deplores violence ... they just don't reconcile ...
yes you have ... because this man is charged with a crime ... one you don't think he committed simply because you felt his actions were justifiable ... the law clearly states that it was not ... if he did not break the law - he likely wouldn't have been charged ... what you are advocating for here is that he exempt from that law and should be let go ...
if the man escapes ... he will be caught ... that's what the police are for ...
the law doesn't allow for protective instincts as a justifiable cause ... we can't allow for subjectivity to override principles ... the justice system cannot allow for that can of worms to be open ...
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
He's been charged with a crime, but he might just be innocent. I'll bet you any money he walks from the charges that seem to have been erroneously laid. You talk with an air of righteousness... yet you have already sentenced the guy for the crime he has been merely charged with. Sorry... your words just don't reconcile.
I do deplore violence. But, I'm a realist. There will be violence that we need to address. Given such... we should address it. Here lies the debate as well: how to deal with the violence inflicted upon us. I love how you pass judgement on those that call for firmer discipline than yourself as incapable of deploring violence.
Are you a dad? Tell you what... if the time comes when some sick pervert is naked and outside your window leering at your innocent daughter... go share with the freak how inappropriate his actions are and that you have called the police so he should just wait until they get there so they can have a good talk with him as well. From your words... it seems as if you think that should work very well. If you mention a few really nice sounding quotations about peace and love, that might even have a greater impact. I agree with you- I'm sure the young man will no doubtedly reflect on his actions and comply with your request without the need for physical intervention.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
He's been charged with a crime, but he might just be innocent. I'll bet you any money he walks from the charges that seem to have been erroneously laid. You talk with an air of righteousness... yet you have already sentenced the guy for the crime he has been merely charged with. Sorry... your words just don't reconcile.
I do deplore violence. But, I'm a realist. There will be violence that we need to address. Given such... we should address it. Here lies the debate as well: how to deal with the violence inflicted upon us. I love how you pass judgement on those that call for firmer discipline than yourself as incapable of deploring violence.
Are you a dad? Tell you what... if the time comes when some sick pervert is naked and outside your window leering at your innocent daughter... go share with the freak how inappropriate his actions are and that you have called the police so he should just wait until they get there so they can have a good talk with him as well. From your words... it seems as if you think that should work very well. If you mention a few really nice sounding quotations about peace and love, that might even have a greater impact. I agree with you- I'm sure the young man will no doubtedly reflect on his actions and comply with your request without the need for physical intervention.
first of all ... he has been charged with a crime that you and others believe he should be absolved of ... you are not saying he isn't guilty of the crime but simply that he should be let go because you sympathize with him ... if the law and justice system sets him free due to the letter of the law - that is fine with me ... but that is not what you and others are saying ...
what you're saying is you can choose which laws you want to abide by and which ones you don't ... and in the cases of some crimes - apply a vigilante justice ...
secondly ... if you believe a pervert outside a window deserves to be beaten ... i'm not sure how you can say you deplore violence? ... i'm not saying you are a violent person per se but to say you deplore violence but yet support both the death penalty and vigilante beatings doesn't jive ...
thirdly ... your introduction of anger and emotion into these discussions isn't compelling because simply they have no place in our justice system ... it introduces a level of subjectivity that should have no bearing on the crime ... do you not realize what kind of chaos would ensue if we allowed anger into our decision making?
lastly ... i understand violence is part of the world ... but how much do you want it to consume us? ... do you not see that nations and societies that do not use violence as a means of solving problems live more peaceful existence? ...
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
He's been charged with a crime, but he might just be innocent. I'll bet you any money he walks from the charges that seem to have been erroneously laid. You talk with an air of righteousness... yet you have already sentenced the guy for the crime he has been merely charged with. Sorry... your words just don't reconcile.
I do deplore violence. But, I'm a realist. There will be violence that we need to address. Given such... we should address it. Here lies the debate as well: how to deal with the violence inflicted upon us. I love how you pass judgement on those that call for firmer discipline than yourself as incapable of deploring violence.
Are you a dad? Tell you what... if the time comes when some sick pervert is naked and outside your window leering at your innocent daughter... go share with the freak how inappropriate his actions are and that you have called the police so he should just wait until they get there so they can have a good talk with him as well. From your words... it seems as if you think that should work very well. If you mention a few really nice sounding quotations about peace and love, that might even have a greater impact. I agree with you- I'm sure the young man will no doubtedly reflect on his actions and comply with your request without the need for physical intervention.
first of all ... he has been charged with a crime that you and others believe he should be absolved of ... you are not saying he isn't guilty of the crime but simply that he should be let go because you sympathize with him ... if the law and justice system sets him free due to the letter of the law - that is fine with me ... but that is not what you and others are saying ...
what you're saying is you can choose which laws you want to abide by and which ones you don't ... and in the cases of some crimes - apply a vigilante justice ...
secondly ... if you believe a pervert outside a window deserves to be beaten ... i'm not sure how you can say you deplore violence? ... i'm not saying you are a violent person per se but to say you deplore violence but yet support both the death penalty and vigilante beatings doesn't jive ...
thirdly ... your introduction of anger and emotion into these discussions isn't compelling because simply they have no place in our justice system ... it introduces a level of subjectivity that should have no bearing on the crime ... do you not realize what kind of chaos would ensue if we allowed anger into our decision making?
lastly ... i understand violence is part of the world ... but how much do you want it to consume us? ... do you not see that nations and societies that do not use violence as a means of solving problems live more peaceful existence? ...
This conversation is getting messy.
Quit with the you're saying which laws should be obeyed and which ones shouldn't garbage. Nobody is saying this. Read the next passage very carefully.
I think he has been charged with a crime in error. The reason I believe this is because he was within his rights to defend his home and his daughter which was what he did. He acted within his rights... but used a lot of force. Saying this... it is difficult to gauge how much force he should have used being as he was in full 'fight' instinctive mode to what would have been a very distressing incident. Getting the upper hand... perhaps he feared that if he relented on the beating... the creep was going to rise and trouble would begin anew. Who knows what was inside his head as he was forced to defend his child? Suggesting he should have just sat in his home and waited for the authorities to arrive 20/30/40 minutes later is unreasonable.
I do deplore violence, but simply denouncing it doesn't make it go away and in certain situations... it is necessary given the hand one is forced to play. If I was assured that a creep outside my daughter's window would stop his lewd act and wait for police to come without any incident... I would choose that method to save an altercation. But I'm a sensible man- that is not going to happen and if I place myself and, more importantly, my family at risk... I'm going to do what I feel necessary to contain the threat. If I step outside and get my ass kicked... perhaps the pervert strolls in through the front door, goes up the stairs, and pays a visit to my daughter. That wouldn't be so great, eh?
I feel anger and outrage actually has its place in our justice system. These emotions should not be allowed to rule the gamut, but ignoring them minimizes the damage some loser has done. Why would we wish to do that?
Lastly, if I had my way... there would be no need for a discussion of this sort. People would play nicely with each other and we would leave our kids alone. I can't help it I am forced to respond in some way for the brutality we are continually besieged with. I don't make judgements on your preferred method of dealing with these acts and they are different than mine. I understand that you are not the problem.
The guy invoked some strong parental instincts. The father wasn't wishing to beat the guy down... he was placed in a position where he was forced to react. The DA doesn't like how he reacted. They would prefer he had done nothing. Unreasonable. Completely freaking unreasonable.
the crux of our conversation has always been about what laws should be followed and which ones shouldn't ... i'm not sure why you are saying otherwise now ...
in any case - i find it interesting that you would pose a situation where the family in absolutely no physical danger from the pervert can create a situation where there is ... what if this pervert was physically able to beat up the father? ... what then? ... now this pervert may in fact actually pose a threat to the family when initially he wasn't ...
i'm really not sure how that helps your case ...
anger and outrage have absolutely no place in our justice system ... i would just simply agree to disagree here as to me this is absolutely bizarre to feel this way ... no good ever comes from making decisions in anger ... i don't see how eliminating anger diminishes the act ... the impact and consequences of the act are rationalized along with other factors ... that is how our justice system works ... do we bring in a jury of a victims friends and family in a trial? ... of course not ... our justice system is supposedly designed to be fair ... introducing anger and rage does not make for rational outcomes ...
look at iraq ... so many people still seething from 9/11 allowed their gov't to convince them to go into iraq ... what good has that done for anyone? ... it's that anger that allowed the people to be lied to ...
The guy invoked some strong parental instincts. The father wasn't wishing to beat the guy down... he was placed in a position where he was forced to react. The DA doesn't like how he reacted. They would prefer he had done nothing. Unreasonable. Completely freaking unreasonable.
the crux of our conversation has always been about what laws should be followed and which ones shouldn't ... i'm not sure why you are saying otherwise now ...
in any case - i find it interesting that you would pose a situation where the family in absolutely no physical danger from the pervert can create a situation where there is ... what if this pervert was physically able to beat up the father? ... what then? ... now this pervert may in fact actually pose a threat to the family when initially he wasn't ...
i'm really not sure how that helps your case ...
anger and outrage have absolutely no place in our justice system ... i would just simply agree to disagree here as to me this is absolutely bizarre to feel this way ... no good ever comes from making decisions in anger ... i don't see how eliminating anger diminishes the act ... the impact and consequences of the act are rationalized along with other factors ... that is how our justice system works ... do we bring in a jury of a victims friends and family in a trial? ... of course not ... our justice system is supposedly designed to be fair ... introducing anger and rage does not make for rational outcomes ...
look at iraq ... so many people still seething from 9/11 allowed their gov't to convince them to go into iraq ... what good has that done for anyone? ... it's that anger that allowed the people to be lied to ...
What I wrote is the same thing I have been saying all along: I'm really at a loss as to why you do not understand the point I am trying to make. He was defending his home and his daughter. He's allowed to. He never broke any laws doing so. The law obviously feels he used excessive force while exercising his rights though. My contention is that is subjective and... the courts will most likely side with my impressions after the case goes to trial- if it even does.
The family was in danger of a pervert outside of their home. Although you imply you would have done nothing... to some people... sitting there, cuddled up in a blanket, and shaking with fear sends a message to someone violating your home space that you are victims and incapable of or unwilling to defend yourself: leaving the door open for a future visit or perhaps more. If the creep had thought he was going to get his ass kicked... he likely would have went and found a home where the people would do what you suggest to do- nothing.
Bottom line:
* I feel this father acted as he was compelled to do and legally entitled to do. It is not against the law to defend your home and your children.
* There can be debate as to whether or not he used excessive force. It appears he did, but given the circumstances... the law (and society) should understand that he was dealing with a situation that was forced upon him- not one he created. As such, I feel we should afford him the benefit of the doubt.
As for your other comments...
I find it bizarre that someone would look to keep victims' anger and sorrow from having any weight at all with regards to a judge or neutral jury decide on the appropriate punishment for some loser that has committed a crime. I guess you are saying that you would prefer we try to make some ugly incident less ugly so that it can benefit the rapist/arsonist/murderer/etc. The emotions spawned from any crime are at the very core of the crime. it would work very well for criminals if society ignored them, but unlike you obviously, I feel we should not be working so hard to minimize the damages a criminal may have done. I'm for laying the damages out there so that we ensure justice can be served. What you describe is, in my opinion, being 'soft' on crime and punishment and it is that mentality that has rendered Canada as a joke with regards to how we deal with our worst criminals. The people I hang out with are consistently rolling their eyes when verdicts are handed down for some of the crimes we are forced to deal with.
And... I'm against the Afghanistan/Iraq invasion as a response to 9-11. Comparing that response to the response of this father who was dealing with the situation as it was occurring is comparing two different things.
& yes cops may elbow a child molester or a perverted window peeper square in the fucking face & should be honored with a trophy
Then you should go live somewhere like Saudi Arabia or Sudan, you'd like it there.
what a lovely post. thank you, friend
you honestly believe a child predator doesn't deserve to be elbowed in the face by the cop who arrests him? we disagree if you say, "no, chadwick, he does not deserve such treatment"
a quick elbow to the eye actually does little damage. it is like a wake up call of sorts....rise & shine, bam
Jumping to your daughter's defence from a leering pervert outside her window and getting angry over a car idling are two different cases.
but the point of the post was to ask who gets to decide what laws get to be followed and when ... and who gets to determine the punishment? ... you? ... this board? ... a lynch mob? ..
no thank you ...
when an intruder is on your property and lusting at your minor female child through her bedroom window while spanking his monkey is defenitly a threat to her safty and maybe other family members as well.
he's lucky he is still alive.
when an intruder is on your property and lusting at your minor female child through her bedroom window while spanking his monkey is defenitly a threat to her safty and maybe other family members as well.
he's lucky he is still alive.
& yes cops may elbow a child molester or a perverted window peeper square in the fucking face & should be honored with a trophy
Then you should go live somewhere like Saudi Arabia or Sudan, you'd like it there.
what a lovely post. thank you, friend
you honestly believe a child predator doesn't deserve to be elbowed in the face by the cop who arrests him?
What are you blathering about? I said not one word about what a child predator deserves. I said I don't believe cops should beat suspects in their custody. A pretty simple and uncontroversial notion really, i'm shocked you can't get your head around it.
when an intruder is on your property and lusting at your minor female child through her bedroom window while spanking his monkey is defenitly a threat to her safty and maybe other family members as well.
he's lucky he is still alive.
Godfather.
+1
Agreed.
Have to wonder, if someone can do such things out in the open, what other (and potentially worse) things do they commit in private? I hope this guy doesn't have unsupervised access to children.
(chadwick, to your earlier question - YES. You would dig Dexter bigtime.)
" On the other side of the equation, there is a father who's protective instincts kicked in and likely overrode any rational thinking at the time of the altercation. The mindset the father adopted was no fault of his[/i]- he was forced to respond in some capacity and it is us, from our safe little homes and outside the situation, weighing in on what we think.
this is the exact same reasoning I gave for the actions of Vince Li, yet you excuse this father, but want death for Vince Li.
Interesting indeed.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
the father did not act in self defense. from my understanding, his daughter was not, nor was any other member of his family, were in any immediate danger. all he had to do was take out his phone, snap a pic of the perv, shut the blinds, lock the doors, and call the cops.
beating the fuck out of him was not necessary. the guy was naked and OUTSIDE THE HOUSE WITH NO VISIBLE WEAPON.
unless he had some sort of concealed weapon. and if he did, I wanna know how/where he hid it.
some people and their lynch mob mentality.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
my head is around it. if it happens i do not care. i'd also rather see/know it happens than not
child predators should actually be shot in the street
I pretty much agree and i rarely post in this place. Had to reply to this one though. It's not uncivilized or barbaric to share these views either. It's called being a parent. You protect your kids at all costs. That guy more than likely wouldve made a return trip. Probably become more brave too. He deserved a lot more than a beating.
Ive heard very similar local stories. In one of them after the parent admited that he beat the shit out of the guy the cop said "okay now write down the statement on how he tried to attack you" with a wink. That's justice right there.
Comments
city itself is about 3 million ... greater area is closer to 7 million
Geezuz, man.
i can understand that you think violence is the answer to all that ails society
Where does this come from? A massive generalization that, frankly, is disrespectful. I tell you what... how about I say you are out of your mind if you think the father in this instance should have done nothing except cross his fingers and hope for the police to take the pervert away?
You might be Ghandi, but for the average joe... the situation was something that demanded some form of action. Don't give human beings too much credit. For example, look at the 'peeping tom' that you feel so sorry for.
when a man has a daughter or a son... forget about it. some adult pervert fucking around w/ those children is a suicidal move in my way of thinking
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
it comes from you advocating the assault on this man as a justifiable action ... it also comes from your position in the death penalty thread ... perhaps all ails of society is a stretch and for that i retract it ... but nonetheless - you do believe violence to be an answer to at least some of society ails ...
and i was wondering when someone who project that i feel sorry for the peeping tom ... nothing i've written would suggest that ...
and AGAIN, for the umpteenth time - who are you or anyone for that matter to determine what laws should be upheld and what shouldn't ...
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
so ... where you live you don't need laws? ... heck you won't even need police ... you guys can just police yourselves?
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
that's great i suppose ... as long as everyone is kinda in agreement as to what is right and what is wrong ...
Let's get this on the record: I deplore violence. But I am not above responding to violence in the manner befitting of the offence. As much as I can admire a Tibetan monk for their non-violent ways... this only works on the small scale.
For the umpteenth time... so read carefully... I haven't determined what laws should or shouldn't be upheld. I have determined that a man was within his right to defend his family from a crime that was occurring under his watch. For the umpteenth time... we can debate if excessive force was used... but this man did not 'break the law' attempting to defend his family from a sick pervert at his own home nonetheless.
There is no 'what if' when I attempted to illustrate simply detaining the man until the police got there is highly improbable. A fight or flight would have ensued and in either scenario... again... I contend that a beatdown was in order. And it is here when I would reassert that the real debate should occur: Was too much force used?
I contend that it would be difficult for someone to simply look at the guy's face and pool of blood and say. "Yes." On the other side of the equation, there is a father who's protective instincts kicked in and likely overrode any rational thinking at the time of the altercation. The mindset the father adopted was no fault of his- he was forced to respond in some capacity and it is us, from our safe little homes and outside the situation, weighing in on what we think.
i'm sorry but your words do not describe a man who deplores violence ... they just don't reconcile ...
yes you have ... because this man is charged with a crime ... one you don't think he committed simply because you felt his actions were justifiable ... the law clearly states that it was not ... if he did not break the law - he likely wouldn't have been charged ... what you are advocating for here is that he exempt from that law and should be let go ...
if the man escapes ... he will be caught ... that's what the police are for ...
the law doesn't allow for protective instincts as a justifiable cause ... we can't allow for subjectivity to override principles ... the justice system cannot allow for that can of worms to be open ...
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.
He's been charged with a crime, but he might just be innocent. I'll bet you any money he walks from the charges that seem to have been erroneously laid. You talk with an air of righteousness... yet you have already sentenced the guy for the crime he has been merely charged with. Sorry... your words just don't reconcile.
I do deplore violence. But, I'm a realist. There will be violence that we need to address. Given such... we should address it. Here lies the debate as well: how to deal with the violence inflicted upon us. I love how you pass judgement on those that call for firmer discipline than yourself as incapable of deploring violence.
Are you a dad? Tell you what... if the time comes when some sick pervert is naked and outside your window leering at your innocent daughter... go share with the freak how inappropriate his actions are and that you have called the police so he should just wait until they get there so they can have a good talk with him as well. From your words... it seems as if you think that should work very well. If you mention a few really nice sounding quotations about peace and love, that might even have a greater impact. I agree with you- I'm sure the young man will no doubtedly reflect on his actions and comply with your request without the need for physical intervention.
(ps to the jedi...I've had an odd Dexter-crush thing going on for awhile now. And I'm at peace with it.)
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Then you should go live somewhere like Saudi Arabia or Sudan, you'd like it there.
first of all ... he has been charged with a crime that you and others believe he should be absolved of ... you are not saying he isn't guilty of the crime but simply that he should be let go because you sympathize with him ... if the law and justice system sets him free due to the letter of the law - that is fine with me ... but that is not what you and others are saying ...
what you're saying is you can choose which laws you want to abide by and which ones you don't ... and in the cases of some crimes - apply a vigilante justice ...
secondly ... if you believe a pervert outside a window deserves to be beaten ... i'm not sure how you can say you deplore violence? ... i'm not saying you are a violent person per se but to say you deplore violence but yet support both the death penalty and vigilante beatings doesn't jive ...
thirdly ... your introduction of anger and emotion into these discussions isn't compelling because simply they have no place in our justice system ... it introduces a level of subjectivity that should have no bearing on the crime ... do you not realize what kind of chaos would ensue if we allowed anger into our decision making?
lastly ... i understand violence is part of the world ... but how much do you want it to consume us? ... do you not see that nations and societies that do not use violence as a means of solving problems live more peaceful existence? ...
This conversation is getting messy.
Quit with the you're saying which laws should be obeyed and which ones shouldn't garbage. Nobody is saying this. Read the next passage very carefully.
I think he has been charged with a crime in error. The reason I believe this is because he was within his rights to defend his home and his daughter which was what he did. He acted within his rights... but used a lot of force. Saying this... it is difficult to gauge how much force he should have used being as he was in full 'fight' instinctive mode to what would have been a very distressing incident. Getting the upper hand... perhaps he feared that if he relented on the beating... the creep was going to rise and trouble would begin anew. Who knows what was inside his head as he was forced to defend his child? Suggesting he should have just sat in his home and waited for the authorities to arrive 20/30/40 minutes later is unreasonable.
I do deplore violence, but simply denouncing it doesn't make it go away and in certain situations... it is necessary given the hand one is forced to play. If I was assured that a creep outside my daughter's window would stop his lewd act and wait for police to come without any incident... I would choose that method to save an altercation. But I'm a sensible man- that is not going to happen and if I place myself and, more importantly, my family at risk... I'm going to do what I feel necessary to contain the threat. If I step outside and get my ass kicked... perhaps the pervert strolls in through the front door, goes up the stairs, and pays a visit to my daughter. That wouldn't be so great, eh?
I feel anger and outrage actually has its place in our justice system. These emotions should not be allowed to rule the gamut, but ignoring them minimizes the damage some loser has done. Why would we wish to do that?
Lastly, if I had my way... there would be no need for a discussion of this sort. People would play nicely with each other and we would leave our kids alone. I can't help it I am forced to respond in some way for the brutality we are continually besieged with. I don't make judgements on your preferred method of dealing with these acts and they are different than mine. I understand that you are not the problem.
the crux of our conversation has always been about what laws should be followed and which ones shouldn't ... i'm not sure why you are saying otherwise now ...
in any case - i find it interesting that you would pose a situation where the family in absolutely no physical danger from the pervert can create a situation where there is ... what if this pervert was physically able to beat up the father? ... what then? ... now this pervert may in fact actually pose a threat to the family when initially he wasn't ...
i'm really not sure how that helps your case ...
anger and outrage have absolutely no place in our justice system ... i would just simply agree to disagree here as to me this is absolutely bizarre to feel this way ... no good ever comes from making decisions in anger ... i don't see how eliminating anger diminishes the act ... the impact and consequences of the act are rationalized along with other factors ... that is how our justice system works ... do we bring in a jury of a victims friends and family in a trial? ... of course not ... our justice system is supposedly designed to be fair ... introducing anger and rage does not make for rational outcomes ...
look at iraq ... so many people still seething from 9/11 allowed their gov't to convince them to go into iraq ... what good has that done for anyone? ... it's that anger that allowed the people to be lied to ...
What I wrote is the same thing I have been saying all along: I'm really at a loss as to why you do not understand the point I am trying to make. He was defending his home and his daughter. He's allowed to. He never broke any laws doing so. The law obviously feels he used excessive force while exercising his rights though. My contention is that is subjective and... the courts will most likely side with my impressions after the case goes to trial- if it even does.
The family was in danger of a pervert outside of their home. Although you imply you would have done nothing... to some people... sitting there, cuddled up in a blanket, and shaking with fear sends a message to someone violating your home space that you are victims and incapable of or unwilling to defend yourself: leaving the door open for a future visit or perhaps more. If the creep had thought he was going to get his ass kicked... he likely would have went and found a home where the people would do what you suggest to do- nothing.
Bottom line:
* I feel this father acted as he was compelled to do and legally entitled to do. It is not against the law to defend your home and your children.
* There can be debate as to whether or not he used excessive force. It appears he did, but given the circumstances... the law (and society) should understand that he was dealing with a situation that was forced upon him- not one he created. As such, I feel we should afford him the benefit of the doubt.
As for your other comments...
I find it bizarre that someone would look to keep victims' anger and sorrow from having any weight at all with regards to a judge or neutral jury decide on the appropriate punishment for some loser that has committed a crime. I guess you are saying that you would prefer we try to make some ugly incident less ugly so that it can benefit the rapist/arsonist/murderer/etc. The emotions spawned from any crime are at the very core of the crime. it would work very well for criminals if society ignored them, but unlike you obviously, I feel we should not be working so hard to minimize the damages a criminal may have done. I'm for laying the damages out there so that we ensure justice can be served. What you describe is, in my opinion, being 'soft' on crime and punishment and it is that mentality that has rendered Canada as a joke with regards to how we deal with our worst criminals. The people I hang out with are consistently rolling their eyes when verdicts are handed down for some of the crimes we are forced to deal with.
And... I'm against the Afghanistan/Iraq invasion as a response to 9-11. Comparing that response to the response of this father who was dealing with the situation as it was occurring is comparing two different things.
i pose a position that says laws must be respected and now i'm trembling under a blanket because a pervert is outside my door ...
our discussion is circular and we clearly do not understand each other ...
you honestly believe a child predator doesn't deserve to be elbowed in the face by the cop who arrests him? we disagree if you say, "no, chadwick, he does not deserve such treatment"
a quick elbow to the eye actually does little damage. it is like a wake up call of sorts....rise & shine, bam
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
when an intruder is on your property and lusting at your minor female child through her bedroom window while spanking his monkey is defenitly a threat to her safty and maybe other family members as well.
he's lucky he is still alive.
Godfather.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
What are you blathering about? I said not one word about what a child predator deserves. I said I don't believe cops should beat suspects in their custody. A pretty simple and uncontroversial notion really, i'm shocked you can't get your head around it.
child predators should actually be shot in the street
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Have to wonder, if someone can do such things out in the open, what other (and potentially worse) things do they commit in private? I hope this guy doesn't have unsupervised access to children.
(chadwick, to your earlier question - YES. You would dig Dexter bigtime.)
this is the exact same reasoning I gave for the actions of Vince Li, yet you excuse this father, but want death for Vince Li.
Interesting indeed.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
beating the fuck out of him was not necessary. the guy was naked and OUTSIDE THE HOUSE WITH NO VISIBLE WEAPON.
unless he had some sort of concealed weapon. and if he did, I wanna know how/where he hid it.
some people and their lynch mob mentality.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I pretty much agree and i rarely post in this place. Had to reply to this one though. It's not uncivilized or barbaric to share these views either. It's called being a parent. You protect your kids at all costs. That guy more than likely wouldve made a return trip. Probably become more brave too. He deserved a lot more than a beating.
Ive heard very similar local stories. In one of them after the parent admited that he beat the shit out of the guy the cop said "okay now write down the statement on how he tried to attack you" with a wink. That's justice right there.