Recently, for one of my classes, we watched the film,"A Time to Kill." It's about a man that takes justice into his own hands (the definition of vigilante justice just in case) after his daughter his brutally raped and nearly murdered. The man is then put on trial for killing the men who raped his daughter. My question is, in the situations like this one, would you approve, or even do the same thing yourself? I had said yes before I ever watched the film, and the film only affirmed my belief that much more.
Also, the film was pretty good, I recomend it for many people (unless you have really weak stomachs).
No. The laws are in place for a reason, and we must trust in them if we are to be truly safe. It is not up to us, nor should it be up to even a collective of elected officials to decide who lives and dies.
" And eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. " - Ghandi.
I am in support of self defense, but not to such a degree of lethal force.
HayesA wrote:No. The laws are in place for a reason, and we must trust in them if we are to be truly safe. It is not up to us, nor should it be up to even a collective of elected officials to decide who lives and dies.
" And eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. " - Ghandi.
I am in support of self defense, but not to such a degree of lethal force.
I disagree with your stance on self-defense. If it comes down to the life of your family or yourself, lethal force can be used. I haven't seen the movie so I don't know when the father kills the rapist, but if it is during the rape it doesn't fall under the catagory of revenge. It would be the defense of his family. However, if he killed him after the act, it would be unnecessary.
The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart.
My self defence part wasn't based on the laws of our country. I'm well aware of what degree I can use force, and when. But my personal views on the matter. I would not use force enough to kill, even if it was in defence of my family. Instead, I would cause enough pain, and damage for them not to want to fight back. Breaking arms, legs, feet, ribs, etc etc etc until they no longer have the will to get up. Then I would turn them over to the police, for them to stand trial.
HayesA wrote:No. The laws are in place for a reason, and we must trust in them if we are to be truly safe. It is not up to us, nor should it be up to even a collective of elected officials to decide who lives and dies.
" And eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. " - Ghandi.
I am in support of self defense, but not to such a degree of lethal force.
Put yourself in a father's position, you have a young girl (8-9 years old), goes out to go to the store, play with friends, etc, but while she is on her way, a couple of men kidnap her, start beating her mercilessly, rape her (in some cases, including the movie) to the point where she will never be able to have children, scars all over her body from the beatings, and who knows what else. As a father (metaphorically speaking in your case), would you really feel content at letting the people who did this to your little girl have a chance to keep walking the streets? Don't say it hasn't happened, because it has, and these people end up raping others because they dodged doing hard time.
HayesA wrote:No. The laws are in place for a reason, and we must trust in them if we are to be truly safe. It is not up to us, nor should it be up to even a collective of elected officials to decide who lives and dies.
" And eye for an eye will make the whole world blind. " - Ghandi.
I am in support of self defense, but not to such a degree of lethal force.
Put yourself in a father's position, you have a young girl (8-9 years old), goes out to go to the store, play with friends, etc, but while she is on her way, a couple of men kidnap her, start beating her mercilessly, rape her (in some cases, including the movie) to the point where she will never be able to have children, scars all over her body from the beatings, and who knows what else. As a father (metaphorically speaking in your case), would you really feel content at letting the people who did this to your little girl have a chance to keep walking the streets? Don't say it hasn't happened, because it has, and these people end up raping others because they dodged doing hard time.
I trust a jury of my peers until I am proven wrong. I would cause physical pain until they submit, yes. But I would not want to see them dead. Rather I would want them to ROT IN JAIL FOR THE REST OF THEIR DAMN LIVES. I would want them to live in pain for the rest of their lives. Death is too much of a luxury for such people; they'd only want it. Death is also such an easy, abrupt end. Where as pain is eternal.
Yes in theory incapacitation of the assailent would seem to be the best course of action. But lets use the scenario of a gun. If you have a gun and are being rushed by someone with a knife, would you take the time to aim for a non-lethal target? If he's a second away from you and you miss, you're dead. In many cases of self-defense the only realistic option is to kill the attacker or be killed yourself.
The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart.
Grooveman2007 wrote:Yes in theory incapacitation of the assailent would seem to be the best course of action. But lets use the scenario of a gun. If you have a gun and are being rushed by someone with a knife, would you take the time to aim for a non-lethal target? If he's a second away from you and you miss, you're dead. In many cases of self-defense the only realistic option is to kill the attacker or be killed yourself.
The body of a healthy male is an easy target. I would naturally aim for the cneter of mass. Depending on the caliber of the round (.45 is ideal for me), 1 or 2 rounds would be enough to stop a man in his tracks. Like I said, death is too easy, and in some cases, people beg to be dead. Pain is forever, and living in pain is just... it's.. well, I honestly don't know what real pain is, and it's hard to tell what it would feel like. But i'm sure I would want to be dead if I were to feel physical, and mental anguish for the rest of my life.
This reminds me of one instance in particular. I'm not certain of all the details , but there was a sex offender in a town and the townspeople didn't want him there. Some of them decided to take it into their own hands and set his house on fire. He escaped, but his innocent wife and infant child weren't so lucky.
I'm not saying that vigilantism is altogether wrong, as long as you don't hurt any innocents. I think muy's example is something that shows a case where a government official would probably pardon the murder.
Grooveman2007 wrote:Yes in theory incapacitation of the assailent would seem to be the best course of action. But lets use the scenario of a gun. If you have a gun and are being rushed by someone with a knife, would you take the time to aim for a non-lethal target? If he's a second away from you and you miss, you're dead. In many cases of self-defense the only realistic option is to kill the attacker or be killed yourself.
The body of a healthy male is an easy target. I would naturally aim for the cneter of mass. Depending on the caliber of the round (.45 is ideal for me), 1 or 2 rounds would be enough to stop a man in his tracks. Like I said, death is too easy, and in some cases, people beg to be dead. Pain is forever, and living in pain is just... it's.. well, I honestly don't know what real pain is, and it's hard to tell what it would feel like. But i'm sure I would want to be dead if I were to feel physical, and mental anguish for the rest of my life.
Well, 2 .45 cal. rounds hitting center mass at close range would most likely kill a man. They wouldn't even need to hit any vital organs, the sheer force of the bullets would be enough to shred someone's insides.
The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart.
Grooveman2007 wrote:Yes in theory incapacitation of the assailent would seem to be the best course of action. But lets use the scenario of a gun. If you have a gun and are being rushed by someone with a knife, would you take the time to aim for a non-lethal target? If he's a second away from you and you miss, you're dead. In many cases of self-defense the only realistic option is to kill the attacker or be killed yourself.
The body of a healthy male is an easy target. I would naturally aim for the cneter of mass. Depending on the caliber of the round (.45 is ideal for me), 1 or 2 rounds would be enough to stop a man in his tracks. Like I said, death is too easy, and in some cases, people beg to be dead. Pain is forever, and living in pain is just... it's.. well, I honestly don't know what real pain is, and it's hard to tell what it would feel like. But i'm sure I would want to be dead if I were to feel physical, and mental anguish for the rest of my life.
Well, 2 .45 cal. rounds hitting center mass at close range would most likely kill a man. They wouldn't even need to hit any vital organs, the sheer force of the bullets would be enough to shred someone's insides.
Exactly, so missing would be irrelevant at center mass. If it were 9mm, which is more probable, 2 rounds at close quarters would be more then enough to stop a normal sized male in his tracks. Female would be no question.
That said, to incapacitate someone in that situation, you would need to shoot for the shoulders, arms, or legs. An unrealistic goal if you wish to survive.
The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart.
Grooveman2007 wrote:That said, to incapacitate someone in that situation, you would need to shoot for the shoulders, arms, or legs. An unrealistic goal if you wish to survive.
Certainly depending on how far they're off. But perhaps you're right.
Is this about vigilanteism or self-defense? Because the two are very far removed as far as what can be excused.
If somebody committed some heinous crime against me or my family, I would obviously be very sorely upset. But unless I felt that he was capable of doing the same thing again, I don't see how I could reason doing the same sort of thing back to him. The legal system is half-decent at that sort of thing. Anyways, correct me if I'm wrong (although I'm not) but revenge is definitely not in the Bible. I feel like Jesus would have touched on it if He thought it was OK.
I think I've seen the movie (or most of it at least), the point was that the two did rape the girl, it was proven they did it, and they got off with a fine of 200$ or something like that. Only at that point did the father decide to take things into his own hands and shot them, if I remember correctly.
The main part of the movie is not so much an appeal for vigilante justice as a comment on racism, the US judicial system and a good dose of cliches. In the movie the father was declared innocent, which makes the movie a drama with a (more or less) happy ending, had he been convicted of murder it would be a tragedy, either way the sympathies of the viewer would be on his side.
If the system hadn't failed so blatantly in the movie things would have looked very different. Then it would really have been a comment on vigilanteism. As for vigilanteism itself... it's not something that should be condoned, murdering a known murderer is still murder and leads all the way to feuds and vendettas. An institutionalized legal system is vastly preferable to that situation. However, this is not to say that there can not be extenuating circumstances.
A real life example that comes close to vigilanteism from a few years back might be when a child had been kidnapped and the kidnapper, who had been caught, would not say where it was. A policeman threatened the kidnapper with physical pain (ok, let's call it torture) and managed to make him tell where the child was. At this point the child had already been dead for a few days.
The final verdict was that the policeman got a very mild sentence, he had obviously broken the law himself, but under the circumstances it was deemed understandable because he took the law into is own hands in order to try and save an innocent person's life.
The example that pancakemix gave goes a whole mile further, a person who had (presumably) served his sentence and this person's family were attacked for no other reason than "we don't want the sort of folk here". In a case like that the whole mob deserves to be convicted of murder and no extenuating circumstances about it. They set a house on fire and killed two people. That's not something that can be excused under the given circumstances.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
MeDeFe wrote:I think I've seen the movie (or most of it at least), the point was that the two did rape the girl, it was proven they did it, and they got off with a fine of 200$ or something like that. Only at that point did the father decide to take things into his own hands and shot them, if I remember correctly.
The main part of the movie is not so much an appeal for vigilante justice as a comment on racism, the US judicial system and a good dose of cliches. In the movie the father was declared innocent, which makes the movie a drama with a (more or less) happy ending, had he been convicted of murder it would be a tragedy, either way the sympathies of the viewer would be on his side.
If the system hadn't failed so blatantly in the movie things would have looked very different. Then it would really have been a comment on vigilanteism. As for vigilanteism itself... it's not something that should be condoned, murdering a known murderer is still murder and leads all the way to feuds and vendettas. An institutionalized legal system is vastly preferable to that situation. However, this is not to say that there can not be extenuating circumstances.
A real life example that comes close to vigilanteism from a few years back might be when a child had been kidnapped and the kidnapper, who had been caught, would not say where it was. A policeman threatened the kidnapper with physical pain (ok, let's call it torture) and managed to make him tell where the child was. At this point the child had already been dead for a few days.
The final verdict was that the policeman got a very mild sentence, he had obviously broken the law himself, but under the circumstances it was deemed understandable because he took the law into is own hands in order to try and save an innocent person's life.
The example that pancakemix gave goes a whole mile further, a person who had (presumably) served his sentence and this person's family were attacked for no other reason than "we don't want the sort of folk here". In a case like that the whole mob deserves to be convicted of murder and no extenuating circumstances about it. They set a house on fire and killed two people. That's not something that can be excused under the given circumstances.
I have similar views, to be honest. I watched the film the other day again when it was on the box, and I had fairly lengthy conversation with my missus about how I'd have voted had I been in that jury box. To be honest, I think I'd have gone with guilty. I think that the benefits we get from an ordered and policed society require a committment from us, and that committment is to let the system work. Else it undermines everything. I know the case in the film was a result of racial opinions, and that was reflected in the result, and that it was maybe a needed example of 'positive' discrimination in action, buty still...
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
Funny though, how nearly everyone in the community (discounting the KKK and NAACP people) thought he was in the right to kill the men that raped his daughter. Even the deputy that was accidentally shot admitted himself that he would have done the same thing, and didn't hold the father responsible. When you only look at the cold facts (termed logos in some instances), it may seem that he should be convicted since his daughter survived and he killed the 2 men. However Guis, if you listen to the details, and look at it from a father's point of view (though not a father myself, I do feel like an older brother to a friend of mine and to some of my cousins, and I already knew that I would have done the same thing myself to scum like that), you would see that you really can't hold the man at fault for what he did, maybe even justified?
There was a guy in Russia who may or may not be getting 5 to ten years for killing the guy who was raping his preteen son (he caught him in the act and kileld him right then and there). So in certain circumstances yes, in fact it helps sometimes because legally its hard to get to some people, such as those that run extensive crime rings (see: Man on Fire). Then again, it can get out of hand. The wrongly accused, for example.
unriggable wrote:There was a guy in Russia who may or may not be getting 5 to ten years for killing the guy who was raping his preteen son (he caught him in the act and kileld him right then and there). So in certain circumstances yes, in fact it helps sometimes because legally its hard to get to some people, such as those that run extensive crime rings (see: Man on Fire). Then again, it can get out of hand. The wrongly accused, for example.
I know it can get out of hand (one reason why I am not Libertarian or an Anarchist), which is why I would only see it in such terms like in the movie, or the example that you used for the Russian guy protecting his son.
muy_thaiguy wrote:Funny though, how nearly everyone in the community (discounting the KKK and NAACP people) thought he was in the right to kill the men that raped his daughter. Even the deputy that was accidentally shot admitted himself that he would have done the same thing, and didn't hold the father responsible. When you only look at the cold facts (termed logos in some instances), it may seem that he should be convicted since his daughter survived and he killed the 2 men. However Guis, if you listen to the details, and look at it from a father's point of view (though not a father myself, I do feel like an older brother to a friend of mine and to some of my cousins, and I already knew that I would have done the same thing myself to scum like that), you would see that you really can't hold the man at fault for what he did, maybe even justified?
I think you can. I do not believe in the death penalty for anyone. One of the reasons we have a police force in the first place is that it can be regulated, legally controlled... We can put into practice the way we want our society to be fairly and without corruption (ideally). None of those features are present in vigilantism. The debate isn't anything to do with his daughter (unless, as argued, it made him insane). It is to do with committing a criminal act. I cannot tell you what I would have done in his situation, but I know that if I had killed those boys I would expect to be prosecuted and found guilty, or found to be insane. 'Right' or 'wrong' do not feature whatsoever.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
As I said Guis, you only are looking at the logistics of it. The man was actually quite sane, and admitted to it numerous times, and was also a respected member of the community, not rich, but he got by. Sadly though, there is corruption within the justice system, whether one admits to it or not it is there. Also, you seem to be thinking that I am saying that I approve of vigilantism in general, I do not. In cases like these though, I can only say that the man was being a good father in taking out those scum. And if you had killed those men, I doubt you would be thinking about court that much, and more about what they had done to your daughter. Also, you would be surprised at how often "right" and "wrong" take place in the court system. It does vary though at where you are.
muy_thaiguy wrote:As I said Guis, you only are looking at the logistics of it. The man was actually quite sane, and admitted to it numerous times, and was also a respected member of the community, not rich, but he got by. Sadly though, there is corruption within the justice system, whether one admits to it or not it is there. Also, you seem to be thinking that I am saying that I approve of vigilantism in general, I do not. In cases like these though, I can only say that the man was being a good father in taking out those scum. And if you had killed those men, I doubt you would be thinking about court that much, and more about what they had done to your daughter. Also, you would be surprised at how often "right" and "wrong" take place in the court system. It does vary though at where you are.
I do quite obviously acknowledge that the Police, and the courts, sometimes get things wrong. But that is not an argument which condones vigilantism, rather it is one which advocates legal reform. I fully admit that, were I in that situation, I may have acted in a similar way. But again I'll state that I do not believe that in a civilised society where we have a Police force and legal system vigilantism should be an option. Whatever your motives, it is and should still be illegal. End of. The legal course of action would be to detain the man, violently if needs be, until Police can arrive to deal with the situation legally and justly.
qwert wrote:Can i ask you something?What is porpose for you to open these Political topic in ConquerClub? Why you mix politic with Risk? Why you not open topic like HOT AND SEXY,or something like that.
