Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
Originally posted by: exdeath
Originally posted by: iamaelephant
Originally posted by: exdeath
Those are the "two wrongs don't make a right" and "turn the other cheek and never punish no matter what" type people eroding our society into a bunch of sissy?s where ?its ok if you are a rapist, we feel your pain and want to understtaaaaaaannnd you? *gag*
Throwing eggs != rape, dipsh!t.
Thanks for totally ignoring the point of my post, which coincidentally did nothing to relate the two, but you're getting close.
Throwing eggs != rape
No it doesn't, but also:
Throwing eggs != harmless prank to be shrugged off either, dipsh!t.
Even *if* it was a harmless prank I have a right to not be disturbed by pedestrians while driving, especially being pranked by a bunch of idiots with nothing better to do than waste food and cause me inconvenience, regardless how minor.
Bottom line you don't invade someone else?s space or mishandle their property without their consent for any reason, especially a total stranger. If you do so and do so mischievously and with intent of ill will, its fair to expect and allow some kind of retaliation;
that the retaliation was excessive in this isolated case is not what is up for debate. In that context, I don't care if its rape or egging, it?s the same fundamental concept which you failed to understand: you are invading that person?s space and property against their will, regardless of the severity. If you look at it that way, then yes it?s the same thing. While we can agree that the allowable social tolerance and severity of the infringement is different, the bottom line is that a person's body is also their private property just as much as a car or house is. And no matter what levels of severity you classify those violations and assign the appropriate punishments, the single node at the root of the entire tree since the dawn of human civilization is the fundamental violation of private property rights, PERIOD.
You can scream at me, flip me off, and call me names, what ever you want on public property. I don't even really care if you display offensive materials, as long as you're not continually harassing any particular individual by following and chasing them. But the moment you touch my car, throw something at me, spit at me, touch me, or step into private property, or prevent me from going about my private business on public property (ie: protesting in the street and impeding traffic), you are in violation.
Just about every problem in the world could be solved if humans would universally accept and respect individual right to private property at any cost. That would eliminate theft, vandalism (ie: eggs), rape, and murder (ie: inappropriate retaliation to eggs), just to name a few. Basically the solution to all the problems in the world is that everyone keep their hands and their projectiles to themselves and their own property, even above and beyond their personal beliefs. I thought this was taught in pre-school.
Think about that.
The hell it's not! It's the entire premise of this thread and the reason it made national news in the first place.
Should the kids have expected a response? Yes. I don't think any reasonable person would ever expect this kind of a response though.
I think a better response by the jackass who shot the kid would have been to wash the egg off his car and call the cops. Now he'll spend the better part of his life behind bars where he clearly belongs...if there is any justice at all that is.
No not really, I'd say that clearly 90%+ of the posters here agree that although some kind of retaliation was justified and warranted, shooting and killing was not.
Because of that, the premise of my contribution to this thread is that it's a given that the shooting was not justified. But I?m curious to know how many feel that a response was definitely justified, albeit more proportional, and of what severity that response is? Catching them and using physical restraining force to make them clean it up? Giving them a black eye? Throwing a hard boiled and frozen egg back and hitting him in the head and knocking him out cold? Restraining them with threat of non-deadly physical force if they try to flee before police arrive? Some people are trying to convince me that you should just sit there and take it and do absolutely nothing, but I don?t subscribe to the pacifist victim philosophy.
By the time you bring your phone up to your ear, nobody will ever see those kids on that street again. Forget about two hour police responses and little more than a one page anonymous report being filed that nobody has time for given more serious crimes like shooters in SUVs. What level of immediate response and retaliation by the driver of an egged car is considered fair and just here?
Personally I?d have made them strip their cloths in the street, wash the egg off with their mouths, and then I would have driven off and dropped their cloths off at a clothing bank and let them figure out how to get home.
Off topic now, VERY off topic, but related (and not directed toward any particular person or event):
Don't give me crap about 'taking the law into your own hands' either, you have a right to protect and defend yourself and your property from vandalism in the exact moment it is happening. There isn't a police officer handcuffed to every individual ready to catch them and stop them doing something that is wrong. While we have police to handle the bulk of the investigation and official work AFTER the fact, we also have laws and statutes in place that give citizens freedom and legal guidelines for personally dealing with day to day situations encountered in life in the moment they are happening. And in most reasonable states there is a clear distinction between physical force and deadly physical force, and while deadly force is always limited to situations with immediate risk of personal harm or death, non-deadly physical force is definitely allowed in the defense of property.
For example, it's not unlawful for taking the law into your hands, for using an amount of physical force required to subdue or remove an individual in the process of stealing or vandalizing your car or trespassing in your home. In fact it's written into state statute that you are justified in doing so under the 'justification of force' sections. You can also use the minimum force or threat of force as necessary to physically restrain the individual in order to stop a crime in progress, until police come to take over.
Ever notice how police always only say they
recommend you don't do anything yourself until they get there? Or how they only reiterate that it may not be safe and
prefer that you don't? It's because they know you have a legal right to do something if you feel its necessary, and they know they can't do anything legally to bar you until they get there to assist you, but they don't want nor deserve to a) be liable for giving you authority, or b) feel responsible for insuring your safety if you act without them on their go ahead, and c) potentially make the problem worse and make their jobs harder. Citizens are in fact allowed to 'take the law into your hands' as defined by state statute, but you take full individual responsibility for your own safety and the safety of innocent third parties not immediately involved until police arrive to take over.
Coincidentally, if the person presents himself as a deadly threat while you are in the process of using only lawful non-deadly physical force to remove him/her, then you may escalate to the use of deadly force in response to the escalation, but not to the original threat to property. Because the thief is in the wrong to begin with, if he pulls a gun to stop you from assaulting him to subdue and remove him from your property, it is considered unlawful threat of force on his part (i.e.: extortion, ie: if you try to stop me from robbing you I will shoot you) and not self defense, therefore you are justified to respond in kind even though you started the actual physical confrontation.
I'm not arguing that chasing down and shooting a kid for throwing eggs was justified. Im saying I'm sick of the over medicated pacifist victim mentality sheep telling us that it's not right to do absolutely ANYTHING AT ALL BUT SIT THERE AND TOLERATE IT. It's funny how people say some actions are wrong and deserve harsh punishment but shy away with a weak stomach when it comes to defining how harsh that punishment should be (ie: U.N.)
If someone is egging my car and I see them I'm not going to gun them down, but I will definately beat their ass and be totally within my right under law to do so.
"Oh my, look at that mean bully push that poor innocent kid to the ground and yell at him, such brutal violence, someone call the swat team to bring in their stun guns and nerf bats, we have to put him in therapy and drug him up right away before he becomes a serial killer!!"
*GAAAAAGG*
We live imprisoned in a lawyer run over-medicated Ritalin laced pussy society today where a normal healthy non violent little school kid can't even punch a bully back in the nose to keep his lunch money every once in a while without the hysteria of the kid being treated like a sociopathic maniac for standing up for himself. Of course nobody cares about the bully save for his hurt ego and traumatized childhood. Give me a fuvking break already. All of you types disgust me and I hope you meet your Darwinian fate of allowing yourselves to be eradicated by real predators before you destroy whats left of my country's legal system. What a way to make prey weaker and predators bolder morons.
We may be human, but we are still animals with predators and prey; in fact we are the only species that prey on our own kind.
I am niether prey nor predator, it's that simple really.
