A person on another forum was mean to me!

[ohh EPiC FAiL]

there are laws in place for this very reason. the laws are known by the people that willingly CHOOSE to commit these horrific crimes, therefore they acknowledge the possibility that if they get caught, their life can legally be ended. that's the risk they take. i don't think anyone here is advocating murder, whether self defense or otherwise. but the simple fact is, if you commit a violent act against a person in their home, you accept the risk that you could die for doing so.

if i was in the guys position, it wouldn't have been a beating. a couple shots to the chest immediately followed by a call to 911. it's not okay to come into someone else's house and rape their child, or in any way threaten their well being. did he deserve to die for it? no, but he willingly took that risk and it didn't pay off.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

. did he deserve to die for it?

Yes. If I had my way, child rape would be a capital crime.

[Shell B]

I don't blame you, pad. I think some people fail to grasp the extent of the damage inflicted by raping a child. The sheer pain and fear aside, it will continue to arise for them when they go through puberty, date, get married, have children, etc. It will always affect their personal lives. You literally change a person's life forever with that one act. I would say it is fair to equate it with murder or at least damn close. You could argue it all day, but it does not change the fact that rape is a far more substantial crime than anything other than murder and torture. Well, one could call it torture.

[Autumnlicious]

Just so, Pad, and Shell pointed this out in another example above. If someone threatens you or your family with serious injury, you do have the justified right to end his life if that is what it takes to neutralize the threat.

Enjoy your prison cell, then.

Clearly you've never dealt with raging assholes. That or too many.

They blow a lot of steam and wave their arms. It's the quiet and silent ones I consider threatening.

Also, you have no right to search and destroy someone just for their threats or assault them.

In cases (court castes) where the above is shown and presented as evidence, there is also a consistent history that characterizes abuse -- that which often is argued to be a mitigating circumstance.

Certainly, the police and the courts will have to determine whether you were justified in your actions, but they do so (as in this case) every day. Suggesting that people in the absolute heat of the moment are not justified in protecting the lives and well-being of themselves or their family is missing the forest for the trees.

Except that the forest of statistics is against you given your absolute statement above.

Your statement would have us murder each other everyone someone threatens to kill you or someone you care about and various other levels of disproportionate responses to a lot of blustering and windbagging.

---

i don't think anyone here is advocating murder, whether self defense or otherwise. but the simple fact is, if you commit a violent act against a person in their home, you accept the risk that you could die for doing so.

You fool. You just advocated murder.

Edit: removed vitriol. just because I'm pissed from work doesn't mean I should be calling people names.

[Epimethean]

Syn, I worked for years as a detention officer, sheriff's deputy and probation officer. In addition, I worked for five years as a bouncer at a pub. My opinion is influenced by a different understanding than you hold, but one that is as valid. You misrepresent my words above, which is easy enough to do. I do understand the difference between words and physical threat. Let's say that understanding developed professionally.

[Shell B]

I don't think anyone said, "Kill someone for threatening you." I think the idea is "You can, under the law, use deadly force to protect yourself in a situation where potentially deadly aggression is used against you." That's not advocating murder. It is saying, you do not have to stand down at the point of murder and risk being murdered yourself. For example, if someone broke into my home and put a knife to my throat and I happened to have a pistol under my bed, I would not have to make sure I shot the dude in a non lethal spot. I can use the gun to protect myself from the threat of murder that is immediately upon me. Now, if some guy stood on my front lawn and shouted "I'm going to kill you!" I could arm myself and call the police. I would not have to use any kind of force at that point to protect myself and would therefore not be justified in shooting the man and killing him.

There are lines drawn here and I don't think people should jump to conclusions too much in the argument. For example, you saying murder is wrong, Syn, does not lead me to believe you think this particular man was wrong and are advocating his imprisonment. On the other hand, people saying it is okay to kill to protect yourself from a real, present and immediate physical threat are not advocating murder. They are advocating self defense in real situations that require such, not in situations where someone simply says, "I'm going to kill you." without making any move to do so. Me saying that the man did not commit murder, as it was not intentional, does not mean I am happy someone died. There really just seems to be a lot of leaping going on here, while I think most of us actually agree on the topic. Well, apart from individuals who take very extreme, very unrealistic stances.

[Zen Badger]

. did he deserve to die for it?

Yes. If I had my way, child rape would be a capital crime.

I agree entirely, but only after due process.

[Brian37]

I don't blame you, pad. I think some people fail to grasp the extent of the damage inflicted by raping a child. The sheer pain and fear aside, it will continue to arise for them when they go through puberty, date, get married, have children, etc. It will always affect their personal lives. You literally change a person's life forever with that one act. I would say it is fair to equate it with murder or at least damn close. You could argue it all day, but it does not change the fact that rape is a far more substantial crime than anything other than murder and torture. Well, one could call it torture.

Where the hell do you get off trying to FALSELY accuse people about the affects of rape on a child. NO SANE person thinks rap of a child is "no big deal".

I do not know how many times I have to repeat myself. You keep mixing subjects here.

1. A natural and UNDERSTANDABLE reaction to a horrible crime.

2. HOW long term we as a society treat the accused on ANY crime they are accused of.

I am saying what this dad did was UNDERSTANDABLE , but it should be the exception and not the rule.

Again, when you deal with a species that is capable of lying, and we do it all the time, and you are also dealing with a species capable of being vindictive, A CLIMATE OF FEAR is a bad thing to foster LONG TERM.

QUIT making this about one person and one type of crime. IT SUCKS THAT THIS SHIT HAPPENS AND NO SANE PARENT wants this shit to happen to their kid AND EVERYONE agrees that rape of a child has a harmful affect on them. NO ONE IS ARGUING THAT.

If a society just wants to "get even" then we don't need a system of law and we don't need lawyers to defend the accused. In the civilized west LONG TERM we have gotten away from the barbaric "street justice" of fascist states be they the likes of Stalin or theocracies of Iran.

If you are unwilling to give due process even to the worst in our society, long term that mentality will get to the innocent.

People get put in prison even with our system in place, for stupid shit for minor possession when a fine or treatment will benefit society. I see stories in the news all the time where people spend time in prison for ALL SORTS of crimes they did not commit.

THE POINT IS that since our system is not perfect, the last thing we should be basing our reactions on are our emotions, NO MATTER WHAT THE CHARGE. The emotions, WHILE UNDERSTANDABLE, cannot replace and should not replace due process and facts. LONG TERM.

[LastPoet]

There goes another thread

[Napoléon]

On a side note - Who else is fucking sick and tired of 'straw man' being invoked? Or people calling "straw man!" because one or more parties were being vague? I know I am.

If you're sick and tired of invoking it then stop making the fallacious argument.

But justifying murder, is in my opinion no way a moral high ground, which you seem to be trying to sit on.

No one is justifying a murder. The man did not commit murder. Killing someone accidentally without any other mitigating factor that would make you responsible despite lack of intent is not murder. The man did nothing wrong.

Well I would beg to differ with your first sentence.

As for the rest, yes I would agree with you. But that wasn't what I was responding to in my original response.