Going to get flamed for this but fuck it. Given the possible circumstance if you read the article, the guy literally was abducting his daughter. He stopped him, the guy was arrested and then let go. can’t say I blame him at all for protecting his family especially when this sicko could absolutely do it again at any given moment. There was clear intent as the pedo was grooming and abducting this girl. Dude deserved to get whacked for the safety of anyone else.
You say this but when you have kids it’s totally different. I would prob end up doing the same thing to protect my family if this person could be a huge persistent threat.
I’m not sure you read or understood the post you’re responding to. You are in agreement that the father was justified in his killing of the abductor/rapist. Where you two seem to disagree is whether the father should simply be allowed to carry out vigilante justice without being challenged then walk away scot-free, or whether he should face a jury and walk away scot-free.
In both posts you agree on the killing of the abductor/rapist, and agree on walking away scot-free.
Yeah, I kind of agree that he should probably go through the legal system because of this. A court-appointed lawyer should be provided, like we should put it on record that if you murder somebody that attempts to rape your child, even if it’s after the fact, you’re going to get away with it scot-free.
Adding a little bit of fear to the very vanishingly small group of sickos that would do such a thing is probably a net benefit for society.
Yes I get it. I’m illustrating I wouldn’t care if the dad was let off without a trial. I know that sets a dangerous precedence. There should be no risk to that person that a trial jury could push punishment on him for that.
I know that sets a dangerous precedence. There should be no risk to that person that a trial jury could push punishment on him for that.
How does that not also justify crazy christians from murdering doctors the perform life saving abortions (or these days, prescribe Tylenol)? You’re suggesting we remove the check on what justified violence is and put it solely in the mind of the person committing the violence. You don’t see a problem with that?
If you cannot tell the difference between a father killing a pedo kidnapper for trying to abduct his child vs some performing an abortion you need serious help that is beyond my ability to describe to you over the internet.
Oh, I can see the difference in the two acts, and a jury can too. That’s where the check occurs. A jury would let the father off. A jury would convict the doctor murderer. However, you’re suggesting we don’t have that check and that not having it is okay. Thats the problem.
If there’s no check, then anyone is free to carry out whatever killing they believe is justified and walk away scot-free.
Going to get flamed for this but fuck it. Given the possible circumstance if you read the article, the guy literally was abducting his daughter. He stopped him, the guy was arrested and then let go. can’t say I blame him at all for protecting his family especially when this sicko could absolutely do it again at any given moment. There was clear intent as the pedo was grooming and abducting this girl. Dude deserved to get whacked for the safety of anyone else.
You say this but when you have kids it’s totally different. I would prob end up doing the same thing to protect my family if this person could be a huge persistent threat.
I’m not sure you read or understood the post you’re responding to. You are in agreement that the father was justified in his killing of the abductor/rapist. Where you two seem to disagree is whether the father should simply be allowed to carry out vigilante justice without being challenged then walk away scot-free, or whether he should face a jury and walk away scot-free.
In both posts you agree on the killing of the abductor/rapist, and agree on walking away scot-free.
Yeah, I kind of agree that he should probably go through the legal system because of this. A court-appointed lawyer should be provided, like we should put it on record that if you murder somebody that attempts to rape your child, even if it’s after the fact, you’re going to get away with it scot-free.
Adding a little bit of fear to the very vanishingly small group of sickos that would do such a thing is probably a net benefit for society.
Yes I get it. I’m illustrating I wouldn’t care if the dad was let off without a trial. I know that sets a dangerous precedence. There should be no risk to that person that a trial jury could push punishment on him for that.
How does that not also justify crazy christians from murdering doctors the perform life saving abortions (or these days, prescribe Tylenol)? You’re suggesting we remove the check on what justified violence is and put it solely in the mind of the person committing the violence. You don’t see a problem with that?
That’s easily discernible as a situational difference. Not even close to an apples to apples comparison
Please describe the easily discernible difference you’re seeing.
If you cannot tell the difference between a father killing a pedo kidnapper for trying to abduct his child vs some performing an abortion you need serious help that is beyond my ability to describe to you over the internet.
Oh, I can see the difference in the two acts, and a jury can too. That’s where the check occurs. A jury would let the father off. A jury would convict the doctor murderer. However, you’re suggesting we don’t have that check and that not having it is okay. Thats the problem.
If there’s no check, then anyone is free to carry out whatever killing they believe is justified and walk away scot-free.