• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

stand your ground?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
"Sir, can you please stop raping my daughter?"

"Sir, I think we can resolve this peacefully if you'll just stop for a moment and talk to me."

"I understand that the only reason you're doing this is because you hate yourself."

"Now sir, I can see from you unzipping your pants that you had a tough childhood. Just know that this isn't your fault. I'm here to help you."

"Sir, if you don't remove your penis from inside my daughter, I'm going to have to get very stern with you."
 
crashtestdummy said:
I'm really not sure if you're serious, calling Rob M. a liberal... 😵
Click to expand...

I don't know who Rob M is and I don't really care. I was simply basing my comment on a typical position of modern "liberals" and that is that a citizen is not equipped to do anything for himself, and that action only occurs when government causes it.
 
I think if you find someone in the process of raping a child, it should be legal to kill them on the spot. I know that's not how our justice system works and we should avoid praising vigilante justice, but if you're caught in the act of molesting a child, that should be a death sentence pure and simple. No nonsense about trials and appeals, lengthy prison sentences or sitting on death row for 20 years while taxpayers cover your useless ass. Dead. On the spot. Done. We get so caught up in protecting the innocent that we let ourselves go easy on the guilty.
 
crashtestdummy said:
I'm really not sure if you're serious, calling Rob M. a liberal... 😵

As for my own views, it's simply a matter of the rule of law. There is a reason that vigilantism is illegal, and it's that individuals, especially ones with a close connection to a crime, are not the best judges of guilt of fair punishment.

If your desire for old-testament style retribution is that strong, you can make a case to proclaim child molestation a capital offense. That's a dialogue that we can have.
Click to expand...

hmm there is the law and then there is being a father. I can't say i wouldn't try to stomp his head to china if caught the guy molesting my daughter. I also feel that a huge majority would do the same and hell even vollenter to take over when i get tired.
 
SilthDraeth said:
I am not sure how I would react, but you bring up a valid point, he didn't stop, or think, ie he just reacted, most likely enraged at what was happening to his daughter.

If anything, if he gets held at trial, I would have a lawyer say temporary insanity on this one.

I would like to think that I would do the same if I caught anyone doing that to my kids, and or wife, or any of my friend's kids.

In my opinion, the law is wrong when it comes to how child molesters are concerned. No I am not talking about parents that take a picture of their young children splashing in a bath. But actual cases like this, and others where it is verifiable that actual sexual assault has occurred. In my opinion, they should all be killed. I don't give two rats ass if they are mentally retarded or not. Rape a kid, die.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, my emotions would have run high too and I would have given him a few blows myself.

Eh, not my daughter, so I really can't say. But I would have stopped it, that's for sure, maybe not killed him though.
 
waggy said:
so you don't have a right to defend yourself or your family? he had no intention of killing the guy. though i would understand why.

he wanted to end the threat.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between defending oneself and killing someone by repeated blows.

A lot of it may depend on what is meant by "several blows". If the guy was lying on the floor unconscious and the man kept hitting him, that is no longer self defense.

I don't pretend to know the details of this case, and likely never will. But there is a big difference between doing what is enough to end the threat, and what is done with intent to punish.

Most likely, he will not be charged, as there won't be enough evidence to convince anyone of the latter.
 
I'll give the guy an exception for protecting his daughter.

HOWEVER, I would like it investigated to ensure that's what really happened. Just to double check the story.
 
Jaskalas said:
I'll give the guy an exception for protecting his daughter.

HOWEVER, I would like it investigated to ensure that's what really happened. Just to double check the story.
Click to expand...

/this

do a investigation of course. IF those are the facts then there is no reason to charge the guy. I don't give a shit if he stomped on his head 1000 times. In such a situation i don't see how many could be calm. or stop and think heh
 
BoberFett said:
I don't know who Rob M is and I don't really care. I was simply basing my comment on a typical position of modern "liberals" and that is that a citizen is not equipped to do anything for himself, and that action only occurs when government causes it.
Click to expand...

I find it interesting that someone with a relatively distinct set of political and moral beliefs such as yourself is so quick to categorize folks into bins. You'll find a lot of "liberals" on your side of this argument, and a lot of "conservatives" on mine.

waggy said:
hmm there is the law and then there is being a father. I can't say i wouldn't try to stomp his head to china if caught the guy molesting my daughter. I also feel that a huge majority would do the same and hell even vollenter to take over when i get tired.
Click to expand...

I agree, but the law is in place because the judgement of the father in such a situation is not always the best. I would probably become violent as well, but that doesn't mean it's right.
 
BoberFett said:
"Sir, can you please stop raping my daughter?"

"Sir, I think we can resolve this peacefully if you'll just stop for a moment and talk to me."

"I understand that the only reason you're doing this is because you hate yourself."

"Now sir, I can see from you unzipping your pants that you had a tough childhood. Just know that this isn't your fault. I'm here to help you."

"Sir, if you don't remove your penis from inside my daughter, I'm going to have to get very stern with you."
Click to expand...

For some sick reason I actually LOL'd at this.
 
crashtestdummy said:
I find it interesting that someone with a relatively distinct set of political and moral beliefs such as yourself is so quick to categorize folks into bins. You'll find a lot of "liberals" on your side of this argument, and a lot of "conservatives" on mine.
Click to expand...

No. You have that ass backwards. Conservatives, you know that party that is almost entirely pro-firearm, is big on self defense and doesn't feel sympathy for criminals who are killed while committing a crime. Hell, there's a large contingent of conservatives who cheer when a burglar, robber or other non-violent criminal is killed in the act. It's "liberals" who believe that killing in self defense is wrong.

Personally, I'm against the death penalty because I don't trust the government, and don't believe that vengeance solves problems. But catching a criminal in a violent act forfeits their life on the spot as far as I'm concerned. I'm more for vigilante justice than government justice, when catching a rapist red handed.

I agree, but the law is in place because the judgement of the father in such a situation is not always the best. I would probably become violent as well, but that doesn't mean it's right.
Click to expand...

Actually it is right. Violent reactions evolved in the animal kingdom for a reason. It's a survival mechanism that contributed to the continuance of the species.
 
Last edited:
BoberFett said:
Actually it is right. Violent reactions evolved in the animal kingdom for a reason. It's a survival mechanism that contributed to the continuance of the species.
Click to expand...

Well, lets live without laws... survival of the fittest.

If we're fist-fighting and you punch me it's ok for me to shoot you and kill you and claim self-defense.

Ok...
 
Rob M. said:
Well, lets live without laws... survival of the fittest.

If we're fist-fighting and you punch me it's ok for me to shoot you and kill you and claim self-defense.

Ok...
Click to expand...

Who said anything about living without laws? Take your ridiculous arguments elsewhere.
 
Rob M. said:
You're essentially tossing laws against violence out of the window if you think violent reactions are "right".
Click to expand...

There are laws that specifically protect your RIGHT to use violence to protect yourself or a 3rd party. Violent reactions to protect yourself or possibly another are very much absolutely "right" and in most states, perfectly legal.
 
Deadly force is usually allowed to protect someone from rape, varies of course state by state. Texas law states:

""A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery"


The guy was raping his daughter, he is within the law to use deadly force to stop the rape. I didn't see any requirement on the type of weapon you have to use, so pummeling a rapist to death seems perfectly legal to me.
 
spidey07 said:
There are laws that specifically protect your RIGHT to use violence to protect yourself or a 3rd party. Violent reactions to protect yourself or possibly another are very much absolutely "right" and in most states, perfectly legal.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, I understand that.

I guess I was misunderstanding him, since he was being very general.
 
Rob M. said:
You're essentially tossing laws against violence out of the window if you think violent reactions are "right".
Click to expand...

So you believe that a violent reaction in response to a violent action is wrong and should be illegal? You're essentially tossing any form of self defense out of the window and ensuring that criminals are free to harm anybody they choose with no fear of repercussion.
 
BoberFett said:
So you believe that a violent reaction in response to a violent action is wrong and should be illegal? You're essentially tossing any form of self defense out of the window and ensuring that criminals are free to harm anybody they choose with no fear of repercussion.
Click to expand...

I hear ya. Naw, that isn't what I am saying. I probably misunderstood you the first time.

Of course, it's your right to defend yourself and others. I was arguing the inequality of a violent reaction (such as shooting someone who is only using their fists), for example.
 
Rob M. said:
I hear ya. Naw, that isn't what I am saying. I probably misunderstood you the first time.

Of course, it's your right to defend yourself and others. I was arguing the inequality of a violent reaction (such as shooting someone who is only using their fists), for example.
Click to expand...

ok. so if someone is only using fist you can't shoot them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top