|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 20, 2012 21:17:40 GMT
I know there are convictions for crimes of passion.....that essentially lessen the conviction of murder.....the definition is "defendant's excuse for committing a crime due to sudden anger or heartbreak, in order to eliminate the element of "premeditation." I would think this crime would be somewhat in that category.......the scene before you is SO BAD....that your reaction is extreme and some what uncontrollable. I can't say I would know when to stop hitting the person that harmed my child. NO rational person would consider this a crime of any kind to begin with. obviously, the ONLY time to stop hitting it is when it is dead
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 20, 2012 21:36:16 GMT
you are entitled to fantasize about it all you want. you have that right. all that i can do is turn on the light for you. i cannot, and wouldn't if i could, force you to open your eyes and see it. i have explained the reality to you, repeatedly. i do not believe that you are stupid, so i have to conclude that you just refuse to accept fact. that is your prerogative, but it has no effect whatsoever on reality What facts and reality am I refusing to accept? Will the law psychically be able to tell the difference between the 'genuine' killing of a genuine pen-thief, and someone who just wants to bump someone off just using the extremely easy opportunities of getting away with it that the law you advocate allows, by just claiming that they killed the person because that person picked up their pen with intent?
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jun 20, 2012 21:58:50 GMT
No charge for Texas dad who killed daughter's rapistA US father who found his five-year-old daughter being raped, then beat the attacker to death will not be charged, prosecutors have said. A grand jury has declined to indict the man, finding that he was allowed to use deadly force to protect his daughter. read more...I agree he shouldn't be charged, but that thought was based on the idea that it was kind of accidental. The law however is telling us the man had a right to end someone's life for the purpose of stopping him from doing what he was doing. That's not right. Surely hurting him and pulling him off, yes; and if in understandable passion he hit too hard (but not with the intention to kill), yes ....but the law says he has the right to murder? Again, Texas is ..wow...just wow. I mean, QUOTE (Jim): "if you go with your buddy to rob a store, and the clerk dies of a heart attack, you are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should, be executed. The fact that you did not intend to kill the clerk has NO relevance.If you go with your buddy to rob a store, and a cop shows up and kills your buddy, YOU are guilty of first degree murder and can, and should, be executed. The fact that you did not pull the trigger to kill your buddy has NO relevance to anything. If you go with your buddy to rob a store, and during the course of your getaway, you hit a pole and your buddy is killed, YOU are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should, be executed. If you and your buddy break into my house, and i kill your buddy, YOU are guilty of first degree murder and can, and should, be executed. That is how it is in.." (Texas) wow. No, the man should not have the right "to use deadly force to protect his daughter", not when deadly force is more than is necessary. For then it is just an excuse to execute murder someone.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 20, 2012 22:06:12 GMT
I agree with what you say mostly, just this bit: The law however is telling us the man had a right to end someone's life for the purpose of stopping him from doing what he was doing. That's not right. IF killing him was the only way to stop the rape then I would agree that it was a justified use of lethal force. Of course dragging the man off then continuing to beat him while he is on the ground would be something different. Understandable maybe, but something different that that.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jun 20, 2012 22:09:19 GMT
I agree with what you say mostly, just this bit: The law however is telling us the man had a right to end someone's life for the purpose of stopping him from doing what he was doing. That's not right. IF killing him was the only way to stop the rape then I would agree that it was a justified use of lethal force. Of course dragging the man off then continuing to beat him while he is on the ground would be something different. Understandable maybe, but something different that that. It's just incredibly hard for me to imagine that a rapist would continue to rape even after being both caught and beaten. I can't believe death would be required to interrupt the act, or to pull him off and have him stay off. Cool avatar , btw
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 20, 2012 22:11:40 GMT
Again, Texas is ..wow...just wow. May as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. If I was a criminal in a place where it is believed that even theft of a pen means that you should die, I wonder if that would make me less dangerous or more.
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jun 20, 2012 22:15:41 GMT
Again, Texas is ..wow...just wow. May as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. If I was a criminal in a place where it is believed that even theft of a pen means that you should die, I wonder if that would make me less dangerous or more. Oh for goddsakes, you did remember to give Jim his pen back, didn't you? No, I mean really. You did, right? lol, Yea, I wouldn't want to live there. Too violent. Even the law, which I always expected was there to protect against violence, seems to want to brutally commit it.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 21, 2012 9:32:07 GMT
you are entitled to fantasize about it all you want. you have that right. all that i can do is turn on the light for you. i cannot, and wouldn't if i could, force you to open your eyes and see it. i have explained the reality to you, repeatedly. i do not believe that you are stupid, so i have to conclude that you just refuse to accept fact. that is your prerogative, but it has no effect whatsoever on reality What facts and reality am I refusing to accept? Will the law psychically be able to tell the difference between the 'genuine' killing of a genuine pen-thief, and someone who just wants to bump someone off just using the extremely easy opportunities of getting away with it that the law you advocate allows, by just claiming that they killed the person because that person picked up their pen with intent? obviously, the law is able to determine the difference. the thought occurs to me that you are somehow under the delusion that the police have to protect you. as always, you are WRONG. it has been settled law in the u.s. since warren vs district of columbia in 1981, and reaffirmed a hundred times since, that the police do NOT have any duty to protect you.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 21, 2012 9:34:58 GMT
No charge for Texas dad who killed daughter's rapistA US father who found his five-year-old daughter being raped, then beat the attacker to death will not be charged, prosecutors have said. A grand jury has declined to indict the man, finding that he was allowed to use deadly force to protect his daughter. read more...I agree he shouldn't be charged, but that thought was based on the idea that it was kind of accidental. The law however is telling us the man had a right to end someone's life for the purpose of stopping him from doing what he was doing. That's not right. Surely hurting him and pulling him off, yes; and if in understandable passion he hit too hard (but not with the intention to kill), yes ....but the law says he has the right to murder? Again, Texas is ..wow...just wow. I mean, QUOTE (Jim): "if you go with your buddy to rob a store, and the clerk dies of a heart attack, you are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should, be executed. The fact that you did not intend to kill the clerk has NO relevance.If you go with your buddy to rob a store, and a cop shows up and kills your buddy, YOU are guilty of first degree murder and can, and should, be executed. The fact that you did not pull the trigger to kill your buddy has NO relevance to anything. If you go with your buddy to rob a store, and during the course of your getaway, you hit a pole and your buddy is killed, YOU are guilty of first degree murder, and can, and should, be executed. If you and your buddy break into my house, and i kill your buddy, YOU are guilty of first degree murder and can, and should, be executed. That is how it is in.." (Texas) wow. No, the man should not have the right "to use deadly force to protect his daughter", not when deadly force is more than is necessary. For then it is just an excuse to execute murder someone. there is NO law saying that anyone has a right to murder. obviously, that would be an impossibility. murder is the UNLAWFUL killing of another. the law says nothing more than the fact that you have a right to kill an individual who willfully makes the choice to die by breaking into your house, raping your daughter, etc etc etc
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 21, 2012 9:55:44 GMT
I agree with what you say mostly, just this bit: The law however is telling us the man had a right to end someone's life for the purpose of stopping him from doing what he was doing. That's not right. IF killing him was the only way to stop the rape then I would agree that it was a justified use of lethal force. Of course dragging the man off then continuing to beat him while he is on the ground would be something different. Understandable maybe, but something different that that. okay. how about giving me just one LEGITIMATE reason that the father should not have killed the piece of shyt. don't come off with something abjectly stupid such as it is a human being
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 21, 2012 9:57:40 GMT
I agree with what you say mostly, just this bit: IF killing him was the only way to stop the rape then I would agree that it was a justified use of lethal force. Of course dragging the man off then continuing to beat him while he is on the ground would be something different. Understandable maybe, but something different that that. It's just incredibly hard for me to imagine that a rapist would continue to rape even after being both caught and beaten. I can't believe death would be required to interrupt the act, or to pull him off and have him stay off. Cool avatar , btw same question for you hon. what difference does it make whether or not the rapist stopped? how does that change the fact that it was raping his daughter? raping his daughter is MORE than adequate justification for killing it
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 21, 2012 10:01:37 GMT
Again, Texas is ..wow...just wow. May as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. If I was a criminal in a place where it is believed that even theft of a pen means that you should die, I wonder if that would make me less dangerous or more. how many times have i told you that what is stolen is irrelevant? it is NOT the pen, or a big screen tv that the trash deserves to die for. it deserves to die for making the conscious, willful choice to violate you by breaking into your house or robbing you, or trying to rape someone. you are one of those people who stood around and watched kitty genovese being murdered
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 21, 2012 10:03:21 GMT
May as well be hung for a sheep as for a lamb. If I was a criminal in a place where it is believed that even theft of a pen means that you should die, I wonder if that would make me less dangerous or more. Oh for goddsakes, you did remember to give Jim his pen back, didn't you? No, I mean really. You did, right? lol, Yea, I wouldn't want to live there. Too violent. Even the law, which I always expected was there to protect against violence, seems to want to brutally commit it. you certainly have everything backwards hon. the law IS to protect against violence. that is why it authorizes the use of deadly force. the deadly force is necessary to prevent violence
|
|
|
Post by Hunny on Jun 21, 2012 10:06:13 GMT
It's just incredibly hard for me to imagine that a rapist would continue to rape even after being both caught and beaten. I can't believe death would be required to interrupt the act, or to pull him off and have him stay off. Cool avatar , btw same question for you hon. what difference does it make whether or not the rapist stopped? how does that change the fact that it was raping his daughter? raping his daughter is MORE than adequate justification for killing it No, we don't give the death penalty for rape..in a court/legally. I'm just questioning why pulling the guy off and calling the cops isn't the thing to do; why give people all these excuses to kill? Beating the guy until he's subdued and calling the cops should be enough. Saying we can kill him is beyond what is necessary.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 21, 2012 14:47:46 GMT
obviously, the law is able to determine the difference. How could it? In both cases you have a dead person being stood over by another person who says that they killed because of an attempt to steal their pen. Not particularly, and don't see what that affects. Fine, I believe you.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 21, 2012 14:49:55 GMT
I agree with what you say mostly, just this bit: IF killing him was the only way to stop the rape then I would agree that it was a justified use of lethal force. Of course dragging the man off then continuing to beat him while he is on the ground would be something different. Understandable maybe, but something different that that. okay. how about giving me just one LEGITIMATE reason that the father should not have killed the piece of shyt. don't come off with something abjectly stupid such as it is a human being Because it is not for private citizen's to decide guilt and carry out the death penalty. It is for the courts to decide that, and to carry it out. And if someone does deserve death for what they did, let it least be done 'properly' via lethal injection or similar, rather than in a prolonged torturous way.
|
|
|
Post by Synonym on Jun 21, 2012 14:51:36 GMT
you are one of those people who stood around and watched kitty genovese being murdered No idea who that is but I would not advocate that anyone should have to stand around and let someone be murdered.
|
|
|
Post by sadie1263 on Jun 21, 2012 14:55:04 GMT
No, we don't give the death penalty for rape..in a court/legally. I'm just questioning why pulling the guy off and calling the cops isn't the thing to do; why give people all these excuses to kill? Beating the guy until he's subdued and calling the cops should be enough. Saying we can kill him is beyond what is necessary. I don't take the ruling as saying you can legitimately go out and kill someone. I think I see it as in the middle of an extreme situation people's reactions can be unpredictable. I don't believe it would work if......the rape had already happened....father hears about it and hunts the person down and beats them to death. But to actually witness the attack.......then sudden adrenaline could over take rationale thinking.
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 22, 2012 11:43:41 GMT
No, we don't give the death penalty for rape..in a court/legally. I'm just questioning why pulling the guy off and calling the cops isn't the thing to do; why give people all these excuses to kill? Beating the guy until he's subdued and calling the cops should be enough. Saying we can kill him is beyond what is necessary. I don't take the ruling as saying you can legitimately go out and kill someone. I think I see it as in the middle of an extreme situation people's reactions can be unpredictable. I don't believe it would work if......the rape had already happened....father hears about it and hunts the person down and beats them to death. But to actually witness the attack.......then sudden adrenaline could over take rationale thinking. you are right that it is illegal to go kill a piece of shyt after the fact. you have to catch it in the act in order to legally kill it. i find it incredible that so many people choose to defend rapists and murderers. that is insane
|
|
|
Post by iamjumbo on Jun 22, 2012 11:45:04 GMT
you are one of those people who stood around and watched kitty genovese being murdered No idea who that is but I would not advocate that anyone should have to stand around and let someone be murdered. that's exactly what you have been saying. okay, if you saw someone being raped or murdered, would you kill the assailant? there is ONLY a yes or no answer
|
|