Dad kills neighbor accused of molesting girl

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: mugs
Here's a thought for all the vigilantes out there - you feel that this guy's actions were justified because the guy he killed was a child molester (allegedly). But now wouldn't Chester the Molester's relatives be justified in killing this Edington guy? He murdered someone in their family, certainly that should give them the right to kill him. Then Edington's family (or should I say "kin"?) would be justified in returning the favor. Before long you have yourself a Hatfield and McCoy situation.

a child being molested is an innocent helpless victim. can you say the same for the molestor?

If he molested the kid, no he wouldn't be an innocent victim. But what difference does that make to his family? They lost a husband/father/son. They'd want revenge.

Then they'd be wrong.

If my daughter grew up and actually raped someone (not statutory bs), I'd turn her in myself. If someone killed her for doing it, I wouldn't press charges or feel they were wrong in the least. I would mourn my loss, of course, but if she did that she was evil and deserved to die.

Hell, if it was bad enough I might even kill her myself. It would be my responsibility in fact, being her father.

Wow, you must have been touched naughtily as a child to say something like the above(bolded). Somewhere in the book of your life, the Chapter called: "In most cases rape is not punishable by death" to "All rapists should die, preferably by my hand." A shrink can help you with that, dude, don't let a bad chapter spoil your book's ending. 😉

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Justice > Law.

Always.

That being said, without concrete proof that the neighbor did it, the man's actions were unacceptable.

Maybe if you're making a Hollywood movie.

In the real world, justice is relative, law is absolute. One man never has the right to step outside of the laws of a society he chooses to live in to fulfill his own personal views of justice.

Law only exists as the pale, scattered reflection of justice. If laws are not absolutely based upon justice then there's no reason to have them. Society cannot exist with unjust laws. Unjust laws lead to exploitation and abuse, which leads to disobedience and eventual revolution. There are many societies which existed with justice but without written laws. This describes justice as being greater than law itself.

EVERY person has the right to do as they see fit...they just have to be willing to accept the consequences for their actions. In an ideal world this wouldn't be so, because each person would respect the law which accurately represented justice. That has never happened however, so it remains more important to serve justice than law.

We MUST have justice to survive...law is an ideal we often cannot afford.

That's incredibly naive to believe society can't exist with unjust (as far as your personal subjective perception of justice is concerned) laws.

And you can't compare justice and law and claim one to be greater than the other. You're dealing with factors that are absolute (law) and relative (justice). That argument is pseudo-philosophical rhetoric and I wouldn't even be responding to it unless I was bored as sh!t.

Laws are absolute in that they are already written with specific language. The interpretation of those laws is subjective however, and left to the discretion of judges. Moreover, the mere existence of a law does not equate to the justness of that law.

Hell, our greatest law, the Constitution, described slaves as 3/5 of a person. This is law without justice, and led to war. It is against the law to get a blowjob in many states...yet no one abides by this (and in fact the legal system seldom enforces it). This has degraded our legal system to the point where there is no respect for it. Laws are often written which are completely against the constitution, and are then eventually overturned (at least sometimes). But what about the interim when those laws are in effect? People are waiting years, or even decades for justice - their lives destroyed and left without reasonable hope.

No. Not just no, HELL NO. Try for laws that work, but always, ALWAYS serve justice first.

You keep using justice in an absolute sense (probably unknowingly, unfortunately), causing your arguments to lack any substance. Luckily, few are that naive.

I hate that ignorant "OMG the Constitution made black slaves 3/5th's of a person" sh!t anyway. Had the Constitution made black slaves as full persons for the purposes of apportioning congressional districts, the South might have had enough political clout to win that war. To avoid the war, it would have better if the black slaves hadn't been counted at all (they weren't allowed to vote after all). Then the political power of the South prior to the Civil War would have been greatly reduced. PoW all too frequently IMO demonstates an ignorant and extremely slanted revisionist sense of history. He likes to point out past injustices -- long ago resolved -- out of context for the purpose of saying we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: mugs
Here's a thought for all the vigilantes out there - you feel that this guy's actions were justified because the guy he killed was a child molester (allegedly). But now wouldn't Chester the Molester's relatives be justified in killing this Edington guy? He murdered someone in their family, certainly that should give them the right to kill him. Then Edington's family (or should I say "kin"?) would be justified in returning the favor. Before long you have yourself a Hatfield and McCoy situation.

a child being molested is an innocent helpless victim. can you say the same for the molestor?

If he molested the kid, no he wouldn't be an innocent victim. But what difference does that make to his family? They lost a husband/father/son. They'd want revenge.

Then they'd be wrong.

If my daughter grew up and actually raped someone (not statutory bs), I'd turn her in myself. If someone killed her for doing it, I wouldn't press charges or feel they were wrong in the least. I would mourn my loss, of course, but if she did that she was evil and deserved to die.

Hell, if it was bad enough I might even kill her myself. It would be my responsibility in fact, being her father.

Wow, you must have been touched naughtily as a child to say something like the above(bolded). Somewhere in the book of your life, the Chapter called: "In most cases rape is not punishable by death" to "All rapists should die, preferably by my hand." A shrink can help you with that, dude, don't let a bad chapter spoil your book's ending. 😉

I personally hold rape as quite possibly even more severe of a crime than murder. It's at least a close call. I absolutely support immediate death for every actual rapist (again, not stupid statutory stuff).

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Justice > Law.

Always.

That being said, without concrete proof that the neighbor did it, the man's actions were unacceptable.

Maybe if you're making a Hollywood movie.

In the real world, justice is relative, law is absolute. One man never has the right to step outside of the laws of a society he chooses to live in to fulfill his own personal views of justice.

Law only exists as the pale, scattered reflection of justice. If laws are not absolutely based upon justice then there's no reason to have them. Society cannot exist with unjust laws. Unjust laws lead to exploitation and abuse, which leads to disobedience and eventual revolution. There are many societies which existed with justice but without written laws. This describes justice as being greater than law itself.

EVERY person has the right to do as they see fit...they just have to be willing to accept the consequences for their actions. In an ideal world this wouldn't be so, because each person would respect the law which accurately represented justice. That has never happened however, so it remains more important to serve justice than law.

We MUST have justice to survive...law is an ideal we often cannot afford.

That's incredibly naive to believe society can't exist with unjust (as far as your personal subjective perception of justice is concerned) laws.

And you can't compare justice and law and claim one to be greater than the other. You're dealing with factors that are absolute (law) and relative (justice). That argument is pseudo-philosophical rhetoric and I wouldn't even be responding to it unless I was bored as sh!t.

Laws are absolute in that they are already written with specific language. The interpretation of those laws is subjective however, and left to the discretion of judges. Moreover, the mere existence of a law does not equate to the justness of that law.

Hell, our greatest law, the Constitution, described slaves as 3/5 of a person. This is law without justice, and led to war. It is against the law to get a blowjob in many states...yet no one abides by this (and in fact the legal system seldom enforces it). This has degraded our legal system to the point where there is no respect for it. Laws are often written which are completely against the constitution, and are then eventually overturned (at least sometimes). But what about the interim when those laws are in effect? People are waiting years, or even decades for justice - their lives destroyed and left without reasonable hope.

No. Not just no, HELL NO. Try for laws that work, but always, ALWAYS serve justice first.

You keep using justice in an absolute sense (probably unknowingly, unfortunately), causing your arguments to lack any substance. Luckily, few are that naive.

I hate that ignorant "OMG the Constitution made black 3/5th's of a person" sh!t anyway. Had the Constitution made blacks as full persons for purposes of apportioning congressional districts, the South might have had enough political clout to win that war. To avoid the war, it would have better if the black slaves hadn't been counted at all (they weren't allowed to vote after all). Then the political power of the South prior to the Civil War would have been greatly reduced. PoW all too frequently IMO demonstates an ignorant and extremely slanted revisionist sense of history. He likes to point out past injustices, long ago resolved, out of context for the purpose of saying we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.

I agree, the Constitution had no business including blacks the way it did. Of course, people had no business owning other people either. The point remains, however, that laws can be unjust, and when they are it can lead to dire consequences, including wars. As to your 'should have just left em off', you're forgetting something. Without that little clause the south would most likely have refused to ratify the Constitution. Not that it would necessarily have been a bad thing, the south is generally nothing but a drain on the rest of the country anyway. 😎

Being a history major, it's pretty much a requirement for me to examine our current existence in terms of outcomes of historic events. It is the failure to do this which I believe is more often responsbile for modern persons making bad choices. If things in history only happened once, and then were actually resolved, I might agree with you. But they don't. They repeat, and patterns emerge which teach us quite a bit. I choose to learn from history, so sue me.

 

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Justice > Law.

Always.

That being said, without concrete proof that the neighbor did it, the man's actions were unacceptable.

Maybe if you're making a Hollywood movie.

In the real world, justice is relative, law is absolute. One man never has the right to step outside of the laws of a society he chooses to live in to fulfill his own personal views of justice.

Law only exists as the pale, scattered reflection of justice. If laws are not absolutely based upon justice then there's no reason to have them. Society cannot exist with unjust laws. Unjust laws lead to exploitation and abuse, which leads to disobedience and eventual revolution. There are many societies which existed with justice but without written laws. This describes justice as being greater than law itself.

EVERY person has the right to do as they see fit...they just have to be willing to accept the consequences for their actions. In an ideal world this wouldn't be so, because each person would respect the law which accurately represented justice. That has never happened however, so it remains more important to serve justice than law.

We MUST have justice to survive...law is an ideal we often cannot afford.

That's incredibly naive to believe society can't exist with unjust (as far as your personal subjective perception of justice is concerned) laws.

And you can't compare justice and law and claim one to be greater than the other. You're dealing with factors that are absolute (law) and relative (justice). That argument is pseudo-philosophical rhetoric and I wouldn't even be responding to it unless I was bored as sh!t.

Laws are absolute in that they are already written with specific language. The interpretation of those laws is subjective however, and left to the discretion of judges. Moreover, the mere existence of a law does not equate to the justness of that law.

Hell, our greatest law, the Constitution, described slaves as 3/5 of a person. This is law without justice, and led to war. It is against the law to get a blowjob in many states...yet no one abides by this (and in fact the legal system seldom enforces it). This has degraded our legal system to the point where there is no respect for it. Laws are often written which are completely against the constitution, and are then eventually overturned (at least sometimes). But what about the interim when those laws are in effect? People are waiting years, or even decades for justice - their lives destroyed and left without reasonable hope.

No. Not just no, HELL NO. Try for laws that work, but always, ALWAYS serve justice first.

You keep using justice in an absolute sense (probably unknowingly, unfortunately), causing your arguments to lack any substance. Luckily, few are that naive.

I hate that ignorant "OMG the Constitution made black slaves 3/5th's of a person" sh!t anyway. Had the Constitution made black slaves as full persons for the purposes of apportioning congressional districts, the South might have had enough political clout to win that war. To avoid the war, it would have better if the black slaves hadn't been counted at all (they weren't allowed to vote after all). Then the political power of the South prior to the Civil War would have been greatly reduced. PoW all too frequently IMO demonstates an ignorant and extremely slanted revisionist sense of history. He likes to point out past injustices -- long ago resolved -- out of context for the purpose of saying we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Agreed. It seems to be an issue of learning a few select facts about a given part of history, but not having any education or knowledge of the context. Not very useful for participating in an actual debate, but I suppose it works well for his seriously slanted rhetoric.

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: mugs
Here's a thought for all the vigilantes out there - you feel that this guy's actions were justified because the guy he killed was a child molester (allegedly). But now wouldn't Chester the Molester's relatives be justified in killing this Edington guy? He murdered someone in their family, certainly that should give them the right to kill him. Then Edington's family (or should I say "kin"?) would be justified in returning the favor. Before long you have yourself a Hatfield and McCoy situation.

a child being molested is an innocent helpless victim. can you say the same for the molestor?

If he molested the kid, no he wouldn't be an innocent victim. But what difference does that make to his family? They lost a husband/father/son. They'd want revenge.

Then they'd be wrong.

If my daughter grew up and actually raped someone (not statutory bs), I'd turn her in myself. If someone killed her for doing it, I wouldn't press charges or feel they were wrong in the least. I would mourn my loss, of course, but if she did that she was evil and deserved to die.

Hell, if it was bad enough I might even kill her myself. It would be my responsibility in fact, being her father.

Wow, you must have been touched naughtily as a child to say something like the above(bolded). Somewhere in the book of your life, the Chapter called: "In most cases rape is not punishable by death" to "All rapists should die, preferably by my hand." A shrink can help you with that, dude, don't let a bad chapter spoil your book's ending. 😉

I personally hold rape as quite possibly even more severe of a crime than murder. It's at least a close call. I absolutely support immediate death for every actual rapist (again, not stupid statutory stuff).

Yeah, I definitely figured that out after the bolded statement hehe. However, your view conflicts with the majority which I'm sure you're aware of.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Justice > Law.

Always.

That being said, without concrete proof that the neighbor did it, the man's actions were unacceptable.

Maybe if you're making a Hollywood movie.

In the real world, justice is relative, law is absolute. One man never has the right to step outside of the laws of a society he chooses to live in to fulfill his own personal views of justice.

Law only exists as the pale, scattered reflection of justice. If laws are not absolutely based upon justice then there's no reason to have them. Society cannot exist with unjust laws. Unjust laws lead to exploitation and abuse, which leads to disobedience and eventual revolution. There are many societies which existed with justice but without written laws. This describes justice as being greater than law itself.

EVERY person has the right to do as they see fit...they just have to be willing to accept the consequences for their actions. In an ideal world this wouldn't be so, because each person would respect the law which accurately represented justice. That has never happened however, so it remains more important to serve justice than law.

We MUST have justice to survive...law is an ideal we often cannot afford.

That's incredibly naive to believe society can't exist with unjust (as far as your personal subjective perception of justice is concerned) laws.

And you can't compare justice and law and claim one to be greater than the other. You're dealing with factors that are absolute (law) and relative (justice). That argument is pseudo-philosophical rhetoric and I wouldn't even be responding to it unless I was bored as sh!t.

Laws are absolute in that they are already written with specific language. The interpretation of those laws is subjective however, and left to the discretion of judges. Moreover, the mere existence of a law does not equate to the justness of that law.

Hell, our greatest law, the Constitution, described slaves as 3/5 of a person. This is law without justice, and led to war. It is against the law to get a blowjob in many states...yet no one abides by this (and in fact the legal system seldom enforces it). This has degraded our legal system to the point where there is no respect for it. Laws are often written which are completely against the constitution, and are then eventually overturned (at least sometimes). But what about the interim when those laws are in effect? People are waiting years, or even decades for justice - their lives destroyed and left without reasonable hope.

No. Not just no, HELL NO. Try for laws that work, but always, ALWAYS serve justice first.

You keep using justice in an absolute sense (probably unknowingly, unfortunately), causing your arguments to lack any substance. Luckily, few are that naive.

I hate that ignorant "OMG the Constitution made black slaves 3/5th's of a person" sh!t anyway. Had the Constitution made black slaves as full persons for the purposes of apportioning congressional districts, the South might have had enough political clout to win that war. To avoid the war, it would have better if the black slaves hadn't been counted at all (they weren't allowed to vote after all). Then the political power of the South prior to the Civil War would have been greatly reduced. PoW all too frequently IMO demonstates an ignorant and extremely slanted revisionist sense of history. He likes to point out past injustices -- long ago resolved -- out of context for the purpose of saying we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Agreed. It seems to be an issue of learning a few select facts about a given part of history, but not having any education or knowledge of the context. Not very useful for participating in an actual debate, but I suppose it works well for his seriously slanted rhetoric.

Yeah, I'll put up my BA in History with a minor in Poli-Sci against your...what relevant degree do you hold again?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I agree, the Constitution had no business including blacks the way it did. Of course, people had no business owning other people either. The point remains, however, that laws can be unjust, and when they are it can lead to dire consequences, including wars.

Being a history major, it's pretty much a requirement for me to examine our current existence in terms of outcomes of historic events. It is the failure to do this which I believe is more often responsbile for modern persons making bad choices. If things in history only happened once, and then were actually resolved, I might agree with you. But they don't. They repeat, and patterns emerge which teach us quite a bit. I choose to learn from history, so sue me.

Oh please :roll:

You're not learning from history when you argue it out of context. And laws that guarantee the right of an individual to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers in a court of law are in no way shape or form unjust. Quite the opposite, such laws are the very foundation of justice and civilization. And that's what we're talking about here. One individual took the law into his own hands and denied another person that right. So kindly STFU with your usual red herring/straw man bullsh!t.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: mugs
Here's a thought for all the vigilantes out there - you feel that this guy's actions were justified because the guy he killed was a child molester (allegedly). But now wouldn't Chester the Molester's relatives be justified in killing this Edington guy? He murdered someone in their family, certainly that should give them the right to kill him. Then Edington's family (or should I say "kin"?) would be justified in returning the favor. Before long you have yourself a Hatfield and McCoy situation.

a child being molested is an innocent helpless victim. can you say the same for the molestor?

If he molested the kid, no he wouldn't be an innocent victim. But what difference does that make to his family? They lost a husband/father/son. They'd want revenge.

Then they'd be wrong.

If my daughter grew up and actually raped someone (not statutory bs), I'd turn her in myself. If someone killed her for doing it, I wouldn't press charges or feel they were wrong in the least. I would mourn my loss, of course, but if she did that she was evil and deserved to die.

Hell, if it was bad enough I might even kill her myself. It would be my responsibility in fact, being her father.

Wow, you must have been touched naughtily as a child to say something like the above(bolded). Somewhere in the book of your life, the Chapter called: "In most cases rape is not punishable by death" to "All rapists should die, preferably by my hand." A shrink can help you with that, dude, don't let a bad chapter spoil your book's ending. 😉

I personally hold rape as quite possibly even more severe of a crime than murder. It's at least a close call. I absolutely support immediate death for every actual rapist (again, not stupid statutory stuff).

Yeah, I definitely figured that out after the bolded statement hehe. However, your view conflicts with the majority which I'm sure you're aware of.

Obviously. That in no way invalidates my right to hold it however.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I agree, the Constitution had no business including blacks the way it did. Of course, people had no business owning other people either. The point remains, however, that laws can be unjust, and when they are it can lead to dire consequences, including wars.

Being a history major, it's pretty much a requirement for me to examine our current existence in terms of outcomes of historic events. It is the failure to do this which I believe is more often responsbile for modern persons making bad choices. If things in history only happened once, and then were actually resolved, I might agree with you. But they don't. They repeat, and patterns emerge which teach us quite a bit. I choose to learn from history, so sue me.

Oh please :roll:

You're not learning from history when you argue it out of context. And laws that guarantee the right of an individual to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers in a court of law are in no way shape or form unjust. And that's what we're talking about here. One individual took the law into his own hands and denied another person that right. So kindly STFU with your usual red herring/straw man bullsh!t.

No, I won't. Because you're ignoring my argument; which has been that the people must have a reasonable expectation of the acceptance of law leading to justice, or the rule of law is false. We do not have that expectation today, therefore we do not respect the law. Without the respect we have no social harmony. You cannot force someoen to accept injustice, instead you have to move with them towards a system of actual justice.

That's pretty much summed up in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If one honestly believes that the existing government (as evidenced by its laws) is destructive to the pursuit of life and liberty and so on, then it becomes the responsibility of that person to alter or abolish it. I think that part is pretty much accepted.

My own view is that in the interim it is not necessary or good to continue to follow the corrupted form. That's what we have here.

 

[imported_Mike]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: Mike

Originally posted by: Citrix
I have 3 kids and i dont know about the rest of you but when my kids were 2 they could bearly talk, much less say. "Mommy that bad man next door touched me".

so now mr lawyer acting on emotion kills guy next door and he will now get to watch his daughter grow up from behind a 1 inch piece of glass as she comes to visit him in prison.

way to go buddy.

Exactly, what a selfish douchebag. If he had thought about what he was doing for 1 sec and how he is now leaving his wife & daughter to fend for themselves basically.

Theres more to being a father then just walking through the door every evening after work. Far more.
Good stab I say. I see nothing wrong with his actions. Give him 6 months probation and 10 hours community service and call it a done deal.

Really? I had no clue.... :roll:

You're just as dumb as he is

 

[SP33Demon]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Obviously. That in no way invalidates my right to hold it however.

That's fine, you can think anything you want in America, just don't act on it. I wouldn't be surprised if you had a big map on your wall with pins in it, where the known rapists from your state registry live. And then plot to kill them all! 😉

 

[Lifted]

This guy really fvcked up. If it turns out the man didn't do it, not only will this guy end up behind bars, but the mother of the dead man will most likely file a wrongful death suit, leaving his children fatherless and poor. Actually, the mother may end up sueing him even if the man did something, since nobody knows what that something was. If he just waved his pecker at the girl becuase he was drunk or mentally ill, you'd have a hard time convincing a jury that the man deserved to die. If he did actually rape/molest the girl, I can't believe the mother waited for this guy to get home to tell him, and didn't call him or the cops before then. Very strange.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: SP33Demon

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Obviously. That in no way invalidates my right to hold it however.

That's fine, you can think anything you want in America, just don't act on it. I wouldn't be surprised if you had a big map on your wall with pins in it, where the known rapists from your state registry live. And then plot to kill them all! 😉

Well, I do have a folder of all the wanteds, but that's just a leftover from my bounty days. Otherwise I tend to manage to keep myself occupied by trying to work to change the system, and teaching self-defense and security classes in the meantime to prepare people to stand up to them.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
I agree, the Constitution had no business including blacks the way it did. Of course, people had no business owning other people either. The point remains, however, that laws can be unjust, and when they are it can lead to dire consequences, including wars.

Being a history major, it's pretty much a requirement for me to examine our current existence in terms of outcomes of historic events. It is the failure to do this which I believe is more often responsbile for modern persons making bad choices. If things in history only happened once, and then were actually resolved, I might agree with you. But they don't. They repeat, and patterns emerge which teach us quite a bit. I choose to learn from history, so sue me.

Oh please :roll:

You're not learning from history when you argue it out of context. And laws that guarantee the right of an individual to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers in a court of law are in no way shape or form unjust. And that's what we're talking about here. One individual took the law into his own hands and denied another person that right. So kindly STFU with your usual red herring/straw man bullsh!t.

No, I won't. Because you're ignoring my argument; which has been that the people must have a reasonable expectation of the acceptance of law leading to justice, or the rule of law is false. We do not have that expectation today, therefore we do not respect the law. Without the respect we have no social harmony. You cannot force someoen to accept injustice, instead you have to move with them towards a system of actual justice.

That's pretty much summed up in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

If one honestly believes that the existing government (as evidenced by its laws) is destructive to the pursuit of life and liberty and so on, then it becomes the responsibility of that person to alter or abolish it. I think that part is pretty much accepted.

My own view is that in the interim it is not necessary or good to continue to follow the corrupted form. That's what we have here.

And now you're confusing vigilantism with civil disobedience. Read carefully: vigilantism is the essence of the worst form of tyranny -- the rule of the lynch mob.

OTOH if what the individual did here were an actual form of civil disobedience, instead of just vigilitanism, then he would turned himself in and then demanded to be punished as severely as possible for his crime against society, and you -- as a supporter of civil disobedience -- would support that, so that justice and the rule of law would be fulfilled completely. I suggest you brush up on your Jefferson and Thoreau.

 

[preslove]

The guy is WAY fvcked because he didn't call the cops after calming down. Body found by "molester's" mom = long prison term.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Really? Any top 5 schools still have merit based scholarships?

Of course I don't know a lot about law, I'm not a lawyer. I was just relaying the experience of a friend. Oh, and he had plenty of cash by the time he was 29, and a young lawyer, so you were wrong on that one.

I never said NO young lawyers were wealthy, just that it isn't the norm. Since your friend supposedly went to Harvard, it would make sense that he would.

 

[Playmaker]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: Playmaker

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Justice > Law.

Always.

That being said, without concrete proof that the neighbor did it, the man's actions were unacceptable.

Maybe if you're making a Hollywood movie.

In the real world, justice is relative, law is absolute. One man never has the right to step outside of the laws of a society he chooses to live in to fulfill his own personal views of justice.

Law only exists as the pale, scattered reflection of justice. If laws are not absolutely based upon justice then there's no reason to have them. Society cannot exist with unjust laws. Unjust laws lead to exploitation and abuse, which leads to disobedience and eventual revolution. There are many societies which existed with justice but without written laws. This describes justice as being greater than law itself.

EVERY person has the right to do as they see fit...they just have to be willing to accept the consequences for their actions. In an ideal world this wouldn't be so, because each person would respect the law which accurately represented justice. That has never happened however, so it remains more important to serve justice than law.

We MUST have justice to survive...law is an ideal we often cannot afford.

That's incredibly naive to believe society can't exist with unjust (as far as your personal subjective perception of justice is concerned) laws.

And you can't compare justice and law and claim one to be greater than the other. You're dealing with factors that are absolute (law) and relative (justice). That argument is pseudo-philosophical rhetoric and I wouldn't even be responding to it unless I was bored as sh!t.

Laws are absolute in that they are already written with specific language. The interpretation of those laws is subjective however, and left to the discretion of judges. Moreover, the mere existence of a law does not equate to the justness of that law.

Hell, our greatest law, the Constitution, described slaves as 3/5 of a person. This is law without justice, and led to war. It is against the law to get a blowjob in many states...yet no one abides by this (and in fact the legal system seldom enforces it). This has degraded our legal system to the point where there is no respect for it. Laws are often written which are completely against the constitution, and are then eventually overturned (at least sometimes). But what about the interim when those laws are in effect? People are waiting years, or even decades for justice - their lives destroyed and left without reasonable hope.

No. Not just no, HELL NO. Try for laws that work, but always, ALWAYS serve justice first.

You keep using justice in an absolute sense (probably unknowingly, unfortunately), causing your arguments to lack any substance. Luckily, few are that naive.

I hate that ignorant "OMG the Constitution made black slaves 3/5th's of a person" sh!t anyway. Had the Constitution made black slaves as full persons for the purposes of apportioning congressional districts, the South might have had enough political clout to win that war. To avoid the war, it would have better if the black slaves hadn't been counted at all (they weren't allowed to vote after all). Then the political power of the South prior to the Civil War would have been greatly reduced. PoW all too frequently IMO demonstates an ignorant and extremely slanted revisionist sense of history. He likes to point out past injustices -- long ago resolved -- out of context for the purpose of saying we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Agreed. It seems to be an issue of learning a few select facts about a given part of history, but not having any education or knowledge of the context. Not very useful for participating in an actual debate, but I suppose it works well for his seriously slanted rhetoric.

Yeah, I'll put up my BA in History with a minor in Poli-Sci against your...what relevant degree do you hold again?

LOL, thinking that regurgitating IDs and essays in a History class at the undergrad level makes you an expert...I graduated from one of the top undergrad business schools that also has one of the most respected liberal arts programs in the country, and History classes at the undergrad level were a joke (I had over 30 credits in the History and PoliSci departments) even compared to my finance classes.

When you're surrounded by the children of corporate lawyers and investment bankers who have the silver spoon mentality and glide through school, you realize fast that at the undergrad level you only get out what you put in. Having the degree is irrelevant if it doesn't come through in your arguments.

 

[Specop 007]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Specop 007

This is exactly why criminals keep the life of crime, or why new criminals start down the road.
You dont have what it takes to do what need be done. You sir are weak, both morally and physically. Your a despicable coward, hiding in your little world of emotions and feel good bullsh1t. Your one of many reasons why I hear stories of women being raped, children being molested, people whos homes are robbed and cars are stolen.

Your a spineless coward, plain and simple. Your scared to take the hard road to ensure safety for innocent people, and want to give compassion and support where none is deserved.

I loathe people who put criminals over innocents.

Ease up on the personal attacks, it only makes you look bad.

Not as bad as it looks siding with child molestors, which happens far too often in this country.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Specop 007

This is exactly why criminals keep the life of crime, or why new criminals start down the road.
You dont have what it takes to do what need be done. You sir are weak, both morally and physically. Your a despicable coward, hiding in your little world of emotions and feel good bullsh1t. Your one of many reasons why I hear stories of women being raped, children being molested, people whos homes are robbed and cars are stolen.

Your a spineless coward, plain and simple. Your scared to take the hard road to ensure safety for innocent people, and want to give compassion and support where none is deserved.

I loathe people who put criminals over innocents.

Ease up on the personal attacks, it only makes you look bad.

Not as bad as it looks siding with child molestors, which happens far too often in this country.

See, you're wrong. No one here is siding with child molesters. They're siding AGAINST a murderer.

What this guy did was unamerican. He deprived his neighbor of a right that he will soon have the opportunity to exercise - the right to defend himself.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Specop 007

This is exactly why criminals keep the life of crime, or why new criminals start down the road.
You dont have what it takes to do what need be done. You sir are weak, both morally and physically. Your a despicable coward, hiding in your little world of emotions and feel good bullsh1t. Your one of many reasons why I hear stories of women being raped, children being molested, people whos homes are robbed and cars are stolen.

Your a spineless coward, plain and simple. Your scared to take the hard road to ensure safety for innocent people, and want to give compassion and support where none is deserved.

I loathe people who put criminals over innocents.

Ease up on the personal attacks, it only makes you look bad.

Not as bad as it looks siding with child molestors, which happens far too often in this country.

who is sideing with the child molestor? nobody. because there IS NO CHILD MOLESTOR. there isnot one shread of proof that he did anything wrong. Yell at kids? big deal. Walk around his house naked? BFG if i want to walk around my house naked that is my right. if you do not want to see my fat hairy ass don't look.

all we have is a the word from a lawyer saying the child said something disturbing and wrong. thats it. No police reports, no doctor reports nothing.


IF this guy did mollest the child then i would side with the father. BUT he should have contacted the police and let them handle it. if the courts screw up (wich they do every now and then) then i would have no trouble shooting the bastard myself.

What the father did was wrong.

 

[imported_michaelpatrick33]

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Thios guy needs to be put away. For the rest of his life. You do not take the law into your own hands. A laywer especially should know that. Pity his daughter will grow up without a daddy.

Even though the law often times fails?
Child molestors generally get off pretty easy, and how many times do we here of repeat offenses? The law is failing.

Way i see it, one less child molestor our tax dollars have to support in prison for a few years, only to have him get out and do it again.

HOW IN THE FU*CK DO YOU KNOW HE EVEN DID IT???? Damn dude i sure hope some little kid doenst say to their psycho dad "daddy SPecop touched me" and pshycho dad comes after you with a butcher knife.

i've said it before.....a little kid doesnt have any idea what molestation is so when they speak of it in codemning detail where do you think it came from?

You may want to examine the many cases in which young children can be schooled to say or mimic any words or actions (the mother could easily misinteptret what the child is saying and through unconscious dislike of the neighbor schooled her child into stating she was "abused" or "touched". The late eighties saw a wave of abuse cases concerning young children and people going to prison and reputations ruined until is was demonstrated how easily children could be taught to say anything or how their words/actions can be manipulated to demonstrate abuse when none took place. The man could have yelled at the child, scared her and this was intepreted by the mother after unconscious coaching of her child as being abusive. Why the mother left and didn't call the police is odd. The fact that she waited to call the father, her husband is odd. The fact that she didn't seek medical care for her child is odd. The fact that a man would murder another man in his sleep over such claims rather than rush to his child is odd. This whole thing stinks.

The psychological state of young children's minds are not reliable witnesses to anything especially at two years old. When was the two year alone with the man? Sounds odd to have a disliked neighbor suddenly having found a way to be alone and/or abuse a two year who would be under supervision (I would imagine) most of the time.

Also, since we don't know what the little girl did or didn't say we cannot ascertain the facts of the case beyond the article. I find it horrendous that you and others in this thread are advocating first degree murder because of the testimony (which we don't know) of a two year especially in light of the fact the mother did not report the "abuse" to authorities. This whole case stinks of a wife setting off a husband deliberately if you want my opinion. My child would be rushed to the hospital and the authorities called immediately if I found probable cause for abuse. Did the child report the abuse multiple times? Did the mother do anything except ensure an explosive situation wouuld occur?

I think politicians who start wars are murderers. Kill them

What if the accused's mother/wife had found the body knew who did it and went the kitchen of the lawyer and stabbed him 20 times? Should she go to jail? What if the wife discovered her dead husband and saw the mother/wife knew who did it and went over to the neighbors house and stabbed her thirty times? Should she go to jail? Onward and upward. If they mother/wife of the murdered man didn't know he was abusing a child (and I am in no way stating that he did) than wouldn't they be justified in murdering the father? Vigilante justice is great black and white theater but the body count gets awfully high quickly.

Where do we draw the line? I would never trust my child's testimony alone (under the age of three; three and up I begin to pay more attention to their stories/accounts without need for external validation) without an independent psychologist's corroboration as well as medical/physical evidence. I would not dismiss their claim but I would not accept it as fact.

Edit: For the most egregious spelling errors

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33

You may want to examine the many cases in which young children can be schooled to say or mimic any words or actions (the mother could easily misinteptret what the child is saying and through unconscious dislike of the neighbor schooled her child into stating she was "abused" or "touched". The late eighties saw a wave of abuse cases concerning young children and people going to prison and reputations ruined until is was demonstrated how easily children could be taught to say anything or how their words/actions can be manipulated to demonstrate abuse when none took place. The man could have yelled at the child, scared her and this was intepreted by the mother after unconscious coaching of her child as being abusive. Why the mother left and didn't call the police is odd. The fact that she waited to call the father, her husband is odd. The fact that she didn't seek medical care for her child is odd. The fact that a man would murder another man in his sleep over such claims rather than rush to his child is odd. This whole thing stinks.

The psychological state of young children's minds are not reliable witnesses to anything especially at two years old. When was the two year alone with the man? Sounds odd to have a disliked neighbor suddenly having found a way to be alone and/or abuse a two year who would be under supervision (I would imagine) most of the time.

Also, since we don't know what the little girl did or didn't say we cannot ascertain the facts of the case beyond the article. I find it horrendous that you and others in this thread are advocating first degree murder because of the testimony (which we don't know) of a two year especially in light of the fact the mother did not report the "abuse" to authorities. This whole case stinks of a wife setting off a husband deliberately if you want my opinion. My child would be rushed to the hospital and the authorities called immediately if I found probable cause for abuse. Did the child report the abuse multiple times? Did the mother do anything except ensure an explosive situation wouuld occur?

I think politicians who start wars are murderers. Kill them

What if the accused's mother/wife had found the body knew who did it and went the kitchen of the lawyer and stabbed him 20 times? Should she go to jail? What if the wife discovered her dead husband and saw the mother/wife knew who did it and went over to the neighbors house and stabbed her thirty times? Should she go to jail? Onward and upward. If they mother/wife of the murdered man didn't know he was abusing a child (and I am in no way stating that he did) than wouldn't they be justified in murdering the father? Vigilante justice is great black and white theater but the body count gets awfully high quickly.

Where do we draw the line? I would never trust my child's testimony alone (under the age of three; three and up I begin to pay more attention to their stories/accounts without need for external validation) without an independent psychologist's corroboration as well as medical/physical evidence. I would not dismiss their claim but I would not accept it as fact.

Edit: For the most egregious spelling errors

:thumbsup:

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: michaelpatrick33

Originally posted by: IcebergSlim

Originally posted by: Citrix

Originally posted by: Specop 007

Originally posted by: aidanjm
Thios guy needs to be put away. For the rest of his life. You do not take the law into your own hands. A laywer especially should know that. Pity his daughter will grow up without a daddy.

Even though the law often times fails?
Child molestors generally get off pretty easy, and how many times do we here of repeat offenses? The law is failing.

Way i see it, one less child molestor our tax dollars have to support in prison for a few years, only to have him get out and do it again.

HOW IN THE FU*CK DO YOU KNOW HE EVEN DID IT???? Damn dude i sure hope some little kid doenst say to their psycho dad "daddy SPecop touched me" and pshycho dad comes after you with a butcher knife.

i've said it before.....a little kid doesnt have any idea what molestation is so when they speak of it in codemning detail where do you think it came from?

You may want to examine the many cases in which young children can be schooled to say or mimic any words or actions (the mother could easily misinteptret what the child is saying and through unconscious dislike of the neighbor schooled her child into stating she was "abused" or "touched". The late eighties saw a wave of abuse cases concerning young children and people going to prison and reputations ruined until is was demonstrated how easily children could be taught to say anything or how their words/actions can be manipulated to demonstrate abuse when none took place. The man could have yelled at the child, scared her and this was intepreted by the mother after unconscious coaching of her child as being abusive. Why the mother left and didn't call the police is odd. The fact that she waited to call the father, her husband is odd. The fact that she didn't seek medical care for her child is odd. The fact that a man would murder another man in his sleep over such claims rather than rush to his child is odd. This whole thing stinks.

The psychological state of young children's minds are not reliable witnesses to anything especially at two years old. When was the two year alone with the man? Sounds odd to have a disliked neighbor suddenly having found a way to be alone and/or abuse a two year who would be under supervision (I would imagine) most of the time.

Also, since we don't know what the little girl did or didn't say we cannot ascertain the facts of the case beyond the article. I find it horrendous that you and others in this thread are advocating first degree murder because of the testimony (which we don't know) of a two year especially in light of the fact the mother did not report the "abuse" to authorities. This whole case stinks of a wife setting off a husband deliberately if you want my opinion. My child would be rushed to the hospital and the authorities called immediately if I found probable cause for abuse. Did the child report the abuse multiple times? Did the mother do anything except ensure an explosive situation wouuld occur?

I think politicians who start wars are murderers. Kill them

What if the accused's mother/wife had found the body knew who did it and went the kitchen of the lawyer and stabbed him 20 times? Should she go to jail? What if the wife discovered her dead husband and saw the mother/wife knew who did it and went over to the neighbors house and stabbed her thirty times? Should she go to jail? Onward and upward. If they mother/wife of the murdered man didn't know he was abusing a child (and I am in no way stating that he did) than wouldn't they be justified in murdering the father? Vigilante justice is great black and white theater but the body count gets awfully high quickly.

Where do we draw the line? I would never trust my child's testimony alone (under the age of three; three and up I begin to pay more attention to their stories/accounts without need for external validation) without an independent psychologist's corroboration as well as medical/physical evidence. I would not dismiss their claim but I would not accept it as fact.

Edit: For the most egregious spelling errors

exactly what i been trying to say but much better.

 

[grrl]

Originally posted by: MX2times
It would be very, very difficult for me to not want to pursue vigalante justice if I knew undoubtedly someone had hurt my children intentionally.

I can't think of a much better outcome for any child molester. It's not like you can change them.