RE: A person on another forum was mean to me!
June 23, 2012 at 4:04 pm
(This post was last modified: June 23, 2012 at 4:09 pm by Autumnlicious.)
So, all I need to do is misidentify a situation and recast it into "protecting my child" and it's AOK?
Get over yourself.
What we know of the case is that we went into the event to protect his daughter. He didn't stop and think, going "Am I now allowed to use deadly force?". He just leapt into the fray, struck his blows and realized he did more than he intended -- the intent was to stop his daughter from being violated not "I'm going to kill".
Arguing about how "right" it is to kill is completely missing the point -- that accidents happen and even murder is committed through them. We recognize that and come up with terms like saying "deadly force is legally ok".
But that doesn't give anyone free reign to commit murder and then claim it was for "protection" unless a clear and consistent pattern can be shown that would convince a jury that there was no other recourse, while answering the question "why didn't you get the police".
For the aforementioned father who was protecting his daughter, he was the fastest responder and in his statements and phone records leans his intent closer to that of simple protection than suddenly law-sanctioned murder.
I feel bad for the guy because now:
- he has to live with the guilt of killing someone
- other assholes keep patting him over his back for killing, thus glorifying a singular part of what he considered awful (quotes to 911 saying "He's going to... die on me!")
- all he intended to do was protect his daughter and he should be recognized for that but will have that sidelined in deference to above and below statements
- people will not let him forget this because it's now a political message that attracts "All criminals should be drawn and quartered" contingent
Get over yourself.
What we know of the case is that we went into the event to protect his daughter. He didn't stop and think, going "Am I now allowed to use deadly force?". He just leapt into the fray, struck his blows and realized he did more than he intended -- the intent was to stop his daughter from being violated not "I'm going to kill".
Arguing about how "right" it is to kill is completely missing the point -- that accidents happen and even murder is committed through them. We recognize that and come up with terms like saying "deadly force is legally ok".
But that doesn't give anyone free reign to commit murder and then claim it was for "protection" unless a clear and consistent pattern can be shown that would convince a jury that there was no other recourse, while answering the question "why didn't you get the police".
For the aforementioned father who was protecting his daughter, he was the fastest responder and in his statements and phone records leans his intent closer to that of simple protection than suddenly law-sanctioned murder.
I feel bad for the guy because now:
- he has to live with the guilt of killing someone
- other assholes keep patting him over his back for killing, thus glorifying a singular part of what he considered awful (quotes to 911 saying "He's going to... die on me!")
- all he intended to do was protect his daughter and he should be recognized for that but will have that sidelined in deference to above and below statements
- people will not let him forget this because it's now a political message that attracts "All criminals should be drawn and quartered" contingent
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
