Police: Fla. father beats accused child abuser

[irishScott]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Legal or not shooting the guy would have been wrong and unethical.



See answer above.

Whether I'm a father or not is irrelevant, besides I already answered that in my original post.

Just because something is legal doesn't make it correct, ethical or "right"

If you don't think it's "right" or "ethical" to shoot a rapist caught in the act, then you're just a weak, helpless person. I hope you never stumble across someone being raped, you'd probably run away call the cops; and while they took their sweet time the rapist would finish the job and possibly kill the victim.

I'll bet anything you:
1. Are presently emotionally incapable of exercising lethal force under any circumstances that you've experienced.
2. Have never been in a situation where lethal force would have been required or potentially required.

Have fun rationalizing your weakness with your "superior ethics".

 

[MtnMan]

Comparing a human to a dog is fairly inaccurate.

Comparing the low life form to a dog, is an insult to dogs everywhere.

 

[master_shake_]

Comparing a human to a dog is fairly inaccurate.

this, dogs won't try to molest an 11 year old.

 

[WackyDan]

Exactly, put down by whom, the authorities of course after a determination that the dog is vicious etc. The kid doesn't put the dog down. You called your example simple and yet you can't even represent it properly to yourself.

You seem to have no conception of how a society of laws operates and why, or that people are innocent until proven guilty in a court. You don't know what ethics are.

Pretty sure in most states, the dad using deadly force is considered covered under the defense of another who was experiencing great bodily harm as well could not defend themselves.

Case closed. You want to argue ethics on this one... Keep trying, we're all ears.

 

[WackyDan]

Comparing a human to a dog is fairly inaccurate.

You're right... A dog is acting instinctively.

I human's decision is calculated and with consciousness of right and wrong.

Now which one should be put down again?

 

[alzan]

If you don't think it's "right" or "ethical" to shoot a rapist caught in the act, then you're just a weak, helpless person. I hope you never stumble across someone being raped, you'd probably run away call the cops; and while they took their sweet time the rapist would finish the job and possibly kill the victim.

I'll bet anything you:
1. Are presently emotionally incapable of exercising lethal force under any circumstances that you've experienced.
2. Have never been in a situation where lethal force would have been required or potentially required.

Have fun rationalizing your weakness with your "superior ethics".

An "if-then" statement is a conditional computer programming command, hardly useful or accurate in conversational debate. And assuming reactions for hypothetical situations is an exercise in futility.

What exactly are you betting? Whatever it is, I won on both 1 and 2.

Have fun with your tough internet babble but I'm pretty sure Alkemyst has that sewn up as far as AT is concerned.

You're right... A dog is acting instinctively.

I human's decision is calculated and with consciousness of right and wrong.

Now which one should be put down again?

Correct. As I said in my original post if I were the father in that circumstance I would have most likely done the same as he did and would have expected to be charged.

Lots of reading but very little comprehension, about par for a typical AT thread.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

Correct. As I said in my original post if I were the father in that circumstance I would have most likely done the same as he did and would have expected to be charged.

Lots of reading but very little comprehension, about par for a typical AT thread.

What exactly does charging the father accomplish? You've already acknowledged that it was an impulsive act, and therefore punishment would serve no purpose in preventing further acts. You've already acknowledged that it is an act you would most likely have committed, and since you seem to hold yourself to a high moral standard, I'm confused why that would lead you to deduce "I am immoral because I committed this act" rather than "This act is not immoral because any reasonable father could be expected to commit it".

 

[irishScott]

An "if-then" statement is a conditional computer programming command, hardly useful or accurate in conversational debate. And assuming reactions for hypothetical situations is an exercise in futility.

What exactly are you betting? Whatever it is, I won on both 1 and 2.

Have fun with your tough internet babble but I'm pretty sure Alkemyst has that sewn up as far as AT is concerned.

An "if-then" statement is a statement of a logical condition and its outcome, far predating computers, that is fundamental to the very concept of logic and logical debate. If I have misinterpreted the conditions to be placed in the "if" portion, or if you have come other specific problem with my statement, please elaborate.

Oh, so you've been in said situations and you still think irrationally. Well, doesn't change my argument.

The fact that you attempt to play semantics implies you have no counterargument. The fact that you assume I care about your opinion of me personally corroborates that. And for someone who wants to preach about tough internet babble, you seem to think you're Batman.

Legal or not shooting the guy would have been wrong and unethical.

He should have subdued and then tied up the abuser and called the police.

And the ironic thing is it sounds very much like the father followed your advice more-or-less, there was just no need for rope. The only difference between you and the father is that you apparently believe tying up someone who's actively resisting you is trivial;and you assume that there was some suitable and conveniently placed material on the scene with which to tie up the abuser (while he was still conscious and actively resisting); and that the father knew how to tie a good knot.

Your argument fails reality. Just a nice cold fact for you.

 

[shortylickens]

this, dogs won't try to molest an 11 year old.

 

[alzan]

An "if-then" statement is a statement of a logical condition and its outcome, far predating computers, that is fundamental to the very concept of logic and logical debate. If I have misinterpreted the conditions to be placed in the "if" portion, or if you have come other specific problem with my statement, please elaborate.

Oh, so you've been in said situations and you still think irrationally. Well, doesn't change my argument.

The fact that you attempt to play semantics implies you have no counterargument. The fact that you assume I care about your opinion of me personally corroborates that. And for someone who wants to preach about tough internet babble, you seem to think you're Batman.





And the ironic thing is it sounds very much like the father followed your advice more-or-less, there was just no need for rope. The only difference between you and the father is that you apparently believe tying up someone who's actively resisting you is trivial;and you assume that there was some suitable and conveniently placed material on the scene with which to tie up the abuser (while he was still conscious and actively resisting); and that the father knew how to tie a good knot.

Your argument fails reality. Just a nice cold fact for you.

Predicting how someone other than yourself would act in a given situation is little more than mental masturbation. As well, calling someone weak and helpless after "predicting" what they would do in that situation is a well known but juvenile tactic in discussion.

Batman is a fictional character, I assure you I am real.

I gave the father no advice, I said I may have reacted like him in the same situation. Also never said tying up someone is trivial, those are your words; I presented the possibility. And yes a belt, electrical cord, etc. could have easily been used to tie up the teen. Despite it being a highly emotional situation people can still think.

What exactly does charging the father accomplish? You've already acknowledged that it was an impulsive act, and therefore punishment would serve no purpose in preventing further acts. You've already acknowledged that it is an act you would most likely have committed, and since you seem to hold yourself to a high moral standard, I'm confused why that would lead you to deduce "I am immoral because I committed this act" rather than "This act is not immoral because any reasonable father could be expected to commit it".

I see nothing confusing about it; committing an unethical act is wrong in any circumstance.

 

[soulcougher73]

I'm Soulcougher73, and I approve of this message.

 

[bshole]

Alzan,

You do realize that that child is fucked for life don't you? Why are you so worried about a child molester getting his ass kicked when an innocent kid has had his entire life destroyed? I find it odd that you can find empathy for a dangerous predator of children but NONE for the victimized children, that is very very very ODD.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Man sees a crime committed - beats the shit out of alleged criminal; everything is A-OK.

Cop sees a crime committed - sneezes on alleged criminal during arrest; POLICE BRUTALITY!!!shift+1!!!

 

[bshole]

Man sees a crime committed - beats the shit out of alleged criminal; everything is A-OK.

Cop sees a crime committed - sneezes on alleged criminal during arrest; POLICE BRUTALITY!!!shift+1!!!

What the fuck does that have to do with this thread?

 

[soulcougher73]

What the fuck does that have to do with this thread?

I think he is trying to point out the hypocrisy of many people here, but he also fails some as well. In his scenario he neglects to mention the crime is against a family member which changes everything. If it was a random person on the street a beat down might not be in order, but when its your child..bring the pain.

 

[alzan]

Alzan,

You do realize that that child is fucked for life don't you? Why are you so worried about a child molester getting his ass kicked when an innocent kid has had his entire life destroyed? I find it odd that you can find empathy for a dangerous predator of children but NONE for the victimized children, that is very very very ODD.

You assume too much. I know all too well what that child is going through and no, he's not necessarily "fucked" for life. A person is not just what happens to them, it's what they do with what happened to them.

Being raped can make someone a victim or not; the child's future life will very much be determined by whether he gets proper counseling and how he reacts to it.

 

[werepossum]

Going out on a limb and saying your aren't a father...

The guy is lucky to be alive. I have a son and if I had walked in and saw that happening to my boy, I would have killed the guy with my bare hands. The 911 call would have been to alert the coroner and save an ambulance trip.

Prevention of a forcible felony justifies the use of deadly force. Most states agree...

Agreed. As far as I'm concerned, beating the guy half to death was exercising incredible restraint.

Comparing the low life form to a dog, is an insult to dogs everywhere.

lol +1

Man sees a crime committed - beats the shit out of alleged criminal; everything is A-OK.

Cop sees a crime committed - sneezes on alleged criminal during arrest; POLICE BRUTALITY!!!shift+1!!!

Speaking only for myself, I am perfectly okay with any cop catching a child molester in the act beating the guy half to death too.

 

[OutHouse]

if i walked in and saw some guy raping my son im very certain that i would go insane and kill the dude.

the father in this story showed more restraint than i know would have if i found myself in this horrid situation.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I see nothing confusing about it; committing an unethical act is wrong in any circumstance.

Sure, but explain why it is an unethical act.

 

[irishScott]

Predicting how someone other than yourself would act in a given situation is little more than mental masturbation. As well, calling someone weak and helpless after "predicting" what they would do in that situation is a well known but juvenile tactic in discussion.

Batman is a fictional character, I assure you I am real.

I gave the father no advice, I said I may have reacted like him in the same situation. Also never said tying up someone is trivial, those are your words; I presented the possibility. And yes a belt, electrical cord, etc. could have easily been used to tie up the teen. Despite it being a highly emotional situation people can still think.

Wow. Well if you hadn't said it before, you just said it now; and it's just as naive. Get one of your friends and try to tie them up with a belt or electrical cord while they actively resist you. Note you'll need both hands to do it and will have effectively zero defense while doing so. So all your method does is give the bad guy multiple unnecessary opportunities to either escape or injure you. You can think and be as emotionally controlled as you like, neither trait will change that.

You're basically proscribing the hand-to-hand version of a leg-shot, and it's just as Hollywood.

 

[alzan]

Sure, but explain why it is an unethical act.

It's unethical to physically assault another person.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

It's unethical to physically assault another person.

Always? Even a single punch to incapacitate a person with means intent and to kill you?

 

[JEDIYoda]

Man sees a crime committed - beats the shit out of alleged criminal; everything is A-OK. <--- Man arrested for beating criminal!!

Cop sees a crime committed - sneezes on alleged criminal during arrest; POLICE BRUTALITY!!!shift+1!!! Cop`s held to higher standard!!

Father catches 18 yr old man forcibly raping Father`s 11 year old son!! - beats the shit out of alleged criminal and then pops a cap in criminals head!!; everything is A-OK.

Cop sees a crime committed (public citizen, no relation to cop)- cop`s forcibly beat down (public citizen who was not resisting)alleged criminal; POLICE BRUTALITY!!!shift+1!!! <<-- for the win!!

 

[alzan]

Always? Even a single punch to incapacitate a person with means intent and to kill you?

You should have said you were talking about self defense earlier. In the case of self defense it's legal, but still unethical. Completely different situation than the OP however.

Wow. Well if you hadn't said it before, you just said it now; and it's just as naive. Get one of your friends and try to tie them up with a belt or electrical cord while they actively resist you. Note you'll need both hands to do it and will have effectively zero defense while doing so. So all your method does is give the bad guy multiple unnecessary opportunities to either escape or injure you. You can think and be as emotionally controlled as you like, neither trait will change that.

You're basically proscribing the hand-to-hand version of a leg-shot, and it's just as Hollywood.

There are quite a few proscribed ways to incapacitate a person without beating them unconscious.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

You should have said you were talking about self defense earlier. In the case of self defense it's legal, but still unethical. Completely different situation than the OP however.

OK, so physical assault isn't always unethical then. What about physical assault in the defense of others? If he had punched the rapist just once to incapacitate him, would you consider it unethical?