7 year old dies protecting his sister from a rapist.

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
You will scream that im an asshole but, that boy also hadnt the right to kill the robber even if he was raping his sister.
I dont see that rape should be punished with death, not even rape of children.
Not at all. I just would suggest that belief that one does not have the right of self-defence is a view only common to Europeans and other Progressives. It is an exercise in childish fancy only possible until someone shoves reality in your face, similar to the amazingly stupid belief that the police will protect you.

Off-thread, I'm wondering how y'all will deal with the big, bad Bear now that we publicly announced our plan to chop our own gonads off?



 

Garbad_the_Weak

Diabloii.Net Member
We have innumerable people, not even counting illegal aliens, who don't buy into the concept of America. When there's no social contract, the risk of identification and punishment is low, and the risk of incarceration even lower, then why <not> offend?
J-merv, don't be silly. Criminal offenders rarely make a rational choice to offend (crime does not in fact pay, and even when it does most crimes are not about money). Crime is more often a product of an imbalanced mind irrationally reacting. That doesn't excuse it, but let's not act like people get into crime because they rationally calculate they can get away with it.

On a related note, I would bet the strongest predictor of violent crime is a lack of empathy for others, for whatever reason. I doubt exhibiting pain in others for the public to view and enjoy would help promote empathy for others. I think the best approach to crime is that of a surgeon -- realize the malignity for what it is and fix it. Doctors don't hate bacteria, they simply prevent it from spreading and damaging the whole. Operate and fix the problem, but don't become the problem.

Finally, remember that despite the streaming flow of attention-grabbing outrage news, crime is lower now than it has ever been at any time or any nation in history. All things considered, we are doing pretty well both in containment, apprehension, and prevention without completely killing off liberty.



 

phool

Diabloii.Net Member
I will support the death penalty the moment it stops being more expensive than life imprisonment, as it is it serves no purpose but revenge. The reality is, crimes aren't committed on an expectation of being caught. Whether a penalty is extreme or very extreme when the stakes are so high.

Not at all. I just would suggest that belief that one does not have the right of self-defence is a view only common to Europeans and other Progressives.
We do expect actions in public or private defence to be proportionate to the threat, of course. Shooting the 5 year old starting a fight with your kid is not ok, for example. A 2 limb test is required: a subjective test that the defendant perceived an imminent threat; and an objective test whether a 'reasonable man', sharing certain attributes of the defendant (in this area of law, physical characteristics and age only), might have responded similarly. This is all or nothing, currently. If the defendant's actions are disproportionate the defence is of no use at all, otherwise they have acted lawfully.
 

Garbad_the_Weak

Diabloii.Net Member
I will support the death penalty the moment it stops being more expensive than life imprisonment.
The reason why the death penalty costs more than life imprisonment is because political groups throw money and waste time for as long as possible. Up until the 60s, it did cost far less than life imprisonment (the trial, sentencing, and appeals process in a capital case are almost completely the same as a regular case -- the same standards apply, its just that people don't have the time/money/inclination to drag out every single case without some group sponsoring you, or at least a very wealthy daddy). Its purely political, in that every imaginable stalling technique is used, wasting taxpayer money and making defense lawyers wealthy for no final result. Its simply an abuse of legal process, which then ironically is used as evidence for why the DP shouldn't exist.

Would you be fine with not prosecuting crimes committed by native americans if they had masses of lawyers throwing so much paperwork at every case involving a native american that even a simple parking ticket or DUI would cost millions? Or would you insist that the rules were changes to prevent that nonsense and ram home what the law requires, even as they wasted the taxpayer's money?

The cost of the dealth penalty isn't an argument against the DP, its an argument against lawyers, and the fact that if you can waste the other side's money and time long enough you can get results under our legal rules. THAT needs to be changed, not the DP itself.

P.S. I am against the DP, btw.



 

Amra

Diabloii.Net Member
Off-thread, I'm wondering how y'all will deal with the big, bad Bear now that we publicly announced our plan to chop our own gonads off?
I love how the Obama Admin is spinning things. Someone should be selling tickets for this circus ride.

"Our administration is reviewing policy toward Iran," Biden declared, "but this much I can say: We are willing to talk."

Unlike whom? Obama's predecessor? The Bush administration held at least 28 separate meetings between Americans of ambassadorial rank and Iranian officials during the eight years of the Bush presidency. According to the Middle East Forum, more than 16 meetings were held in Geneva and Paris from November 2001 through December 2002 between Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Ryan Crocker and senior Iranian Foreign Ministry officials. A number of high-level direct negotiations were conducted in 2003, and a number of indirect contacts were maintained through the Europeans between 2003 and 2007. In March 2007, U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad held a meeting with an Iranian team at a conference of Iraq's neighbors in Baghdad. Khalilzad's successor, Crocker, also met with the Iranian ambassador. Thus the U.S. gave full backing to a (fruitless) European Union initiative to negotiate with Iran about its nuclear program.

Biden announced last week, as if there were something new under the sun, "We are willing to talk to Iran, and to offer a very clear choice: continue down your current course and there will be pressure and isolation; abandon your illicit nuclear program and support for terrorism and there will be meaningful incentives."

Ah, "meaningful incentives." Why didn't someone think of that before? Let's see, here's a CNN clip from May 8, 2008: "The United States has signed off on a European plan that would offer increased incentives for Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program, senior State Department officials said Thursday. ... The United States, along with the other nations, has been following a 'dual track strategy' with Iran, which includes tightening sanctions on the regime while offering incentives if Iran suspends its enrichment activities." Page back through the past eight years and you can find the identical story over and over again. The U.S. and the Europeans have been perpetual Charlie Browns running to kick the football to the Iranian Lucy.

So now the Obama Administration proposes to do exactly, exactly the same thing. But they do so loudly proclaiming how different they are. And the clock ticks, and Ahmadinejad -- who affirmatively desires global chaos because he believes it portends the arrival of the 12th imam -- gets ever closer to a nuclear weapon.
Source.



 

jmervyn

Diabloii.Net Member
J-merv, don't be silly. Criminal offenders rarely make a rational choice to offend (crime does not in fact pay, and even when it does most crimes are not about money). Crime is more often a product of an imbalanced mind irrationally reacting. That doesn't excuse it, but let's not act like people get into crime because they rationally calculate they can get away with it.
You forgot these: [sarcasm][/sarcasm]
I will support the death penalty the moment it stops being more expensive than life imprisonment, as it is it serves no purpose but revenge.
As noted, this is only because the cost to citizenry has been deliberately inflated beyond any rational level, and is also subject to the same false comparison you just made. On the DP side are lumped all the legal costs, while on the incarceration side, only food & board. Those incarcerated for life have an even greater number of opportunities to clog the legal system at amazing costs. Were it only the cost of execution, I'd warrant that you could get companies or even charities to pick up the tab a la Running Man. I bet there would be web pages sprouting up offering to fund the bullets or lethal injection chemicals.
If the defendant's actions are disproportionate the defence is of no use at all, otherwise they have acted lawfully.
Yet you find the non-lethal assault of a 7-year-old defending an innocent 12-year-old against a recidivist criminal unlawful, based on the fact that the criminal had not at that point in time decided to slit the 12-year-old's throat as is often the pattern.

Seems to me that you support my claim that Euro-lefties don't believe in the right of self-defense. Well, for everyone else, at least.
I love how the Obama Admin is spinning things. Someone should be selling tickets for this circus ride.
Fascist. No, wait - RACIST! :wink:



 

trashX

Diabloii.Net Member
You will scream that im an asshole but, that boy also hadnt the right to kill the robber even if he was raping his sister.
I dont see that rape should be punished with death, not even rape of children.
Galabab, by him raping the girl, didn't he ignore her rights to "live" by using her as a toy or whatever his sick mind was thinking? If he ignores that why ignore his right to live? I really don't understand "pro-lifers" in the death penalty sense. How would you think of him if he raped your daughter(Don't know if you have one), would you be able to controle yourself enough to say he still deserves to live? That moment could destroy your daughters life, could you really not want to destroy his?


 

Amra

Diabloii.Net Member
You will scream that im an asshole but, that boy also hadnt the right to kill the robber even if he was raping his sister.
I doubt Zhenya's intent was to kill. More likely he was trying to disrupt the attacker.



 

SaroDarksbane

Diabloii.Net Site Pal
You will scream that im an asshole but, that boy also hadnt the right to kill the robber even if he was raping his sister.
I dont see that rape should be punished with death, not even rape of children.
Curious.

Scenario: A man breaks into your house and starts raping your daughter.

What do you do?



 

AeroJonesy

Diabloii.Net Member
It should generally be permissible to use lethal force to prevent/stop the commission of a violent felony, which includes:

murder
robbery
rape
arson
mayhem

Specific circumstances can change it - especially in the case of arson where you catch the guy with the match, and he is completely defenseless.
 

lAmebAdger

Diabloii.Net Member
that man got jailed for the killing because the rape could not be proven, but the killing could...

@jmervyn: bout the self-defense issue: phool wasn't saying the stabbing of the 7-year old was unlawful, in fact, i think phool would ay the law is on the side of the 7-year old because the boy acted according to criminal proportion.
phool was just stating that your prejudice against europeans that they commonly are anti-self-defense is plain wrong, because proportionately justifiable self-defense is lawful (like the stabbing by the boy)

PS: i also think this prejudice against europeans is plain wrong ...
 

krischan

Europe Trade Moderator
You will scream that im an asshole but, that boy also hadnt the right to kill the robber even if he was raping his sister.
I dont see that rape should be punished with death, not even rape of children.
Punished ? You have a wrong idea about the situation. That boy didn't mean to punish him, he wanted to stop that guy. A 7 year old boy will have a hard time to knock out a grown up person and I also doubt that the chance is high that stabbing him with a knife will be lethal.

BTW, a 7 year old child is unable of being legally guilty of anything, at least here in Germany. No matter what his rights are, he wouldn't suffer any punishment at all, no matter what it was, and in this case, his parents will probably be proud of him and pat his shoulder for being that brave if he had survived it. Debating about his rights in that case is very insulting to his parents and his sister.



 

stillman

Diabloii.Net Member
^ That's right; we can't expect a 7 year old to behave with the rationality that an adult has. The frontal lobe has not been fully developed yet. I'm tired of stupid parents expecting their 3 year old to act like a proper adult, and I'm tired of people saying how violent rap music and such doesn't affect the youths who listen to it because they have the free choice to disregard it. No they don't. Even teenagers are subject to acting on impulse, without thinking about things rationally first. Young people really do emulate what they see and hear without control over themselves. A bit OT, but I had to bring this up.
 

Dondrei

Diabloii.Net Member
It should generally be permissible to use lethal force to prevent/stop the commission of a violent felony, which includes:

murder
robbery
rape
arson
mayhem

Specific circumstances can change it - especially in the case of arson where you catch the guy with the match, and he is completely defenseless.
Robbery is violent?



 

krischan

Europe Trade Moderator
Yes. Robbery is theft with armed force. If you steal sweets in a store when nobody is watching, that's theft. Robbery is if you threaten people with a knife to get them.
 

lAmebAdger

Diabloii.Net Member
yep, everything that involves snatching away the handbag of an old woman, while it's placed on some bench right before her wary eyes with no body contact or visible weapon is violent!

EDIT: that's still robbery, right?
 

krischan

Europe Trade Moderator
You are right, it doesn't need a weapon. A threat or using force is enough, like wresting handbags from the hands of old woman while they are trying to hold on to it. Snatching them from park benches when they aren't looking is just theft.

It needs more criminal energy to commit a robbery while everybody has probably taken a cookie or a piece of candy as a child while mummy wasn't around.
 

lAmebAdger

Diabloii.Net Member
i meant snatching them while the old woman is looking but out of reach

EDIT: still hope that's still robbery...
 
Top