NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's say you're entire family was killed by the mob (even your extended family) and a couple months down the road not one person is in jail and the case has been closed. Let's also say you know exactly who did it, do you think you'd deserve the right to extract revenge on your own terms?

Any other examples of necessary breaches of law?

Yes it's necessary sometimes. I recently saw something on TV about a father who's daughter had been raped. They reported the crime to the police, but the police didn't arrest and charge the rapist. The girl's mother called the rapist pretending to be a little girl who was friends with his daughter. Asked him for a ride, and when he got there the father of the raped girl shot him dead.

Yes it's necessary sometimes. I recently saw something on TV about a father who's daughter had been raped. They reported the crime to the police, but the police didn't arrest and charge the rapist. The girl's mother called the rapist pretending to be a little girl who was friends with his daughter. Asked him for a ride, and when he got there the father of the raped girl shot him dead.


Yet another reason why guns should be taken out of the hands of those insane americans.

Yet another reason why guns should be taken out of the hands of those insane americans.
Don't like guns? Just don't come to the USA. I think that father did the right thing. A man had raped his daughter and one of her friends. He was lured to the place where he was shot because he expected to meet another underage girl there. That means he would have raped again given the opportunity, and the police weren't interested in stopping him.

Revenge is not necessary, all Charles Bronson Death Wish fantasies aside.

it is neccesary but he shouldn't of shot the rapist dead, just shoot both his kneecaps and leave him in a bear infested area or something...

Don't like guns? Just don't come to the USA. I think that father did the right thing. A man had raped his daughter and one of her friends. He was lured to the place where he was shot because he expected to meet another underage girl there. That means he would have raped again given the opportunity, and the police weren't interested in stopping him.


The law is there for a reason. IF everybody disregarded it the moment it isnt moving fast enough for them, we have anarchy. As terrible as that is, the aw MUST be followed, for the benifit of the collective well being.

The law is there for a reason. IF everybody disregarded it the moment it isnt moving fast enough for them, we have anarchy. As terrible as that is, the aw MUST be followed, for the benifit of the collective well being.
The police didn't act even when they had a sworn statement from the girl and a positive rape kit from the hospital. I'd have done the same thing.

The police didn't act even when they had a sworn statement from the girl and a positive rape kit from the hospital. I'd have done the same thing.

Then you, sir, are a scumbag.

Then you, sir, are a scumbag.
I'd rather be a scumbag than a father who sits by while his daughter and other little girls in the community are raped.

Then you, sir, are a scumbag.
what the hell is wrong with you! this poor mans daughter was raped and no one was helping him, he did the right thing even if he took the other mans life! and personally if you side with the rapist on this one i believe you to be a very stupid person!

To overthrow a corrupt state/tyranny it is necessary to take up arms against it

The police didn't act even when they had a sworn statement from the girl and a positive rape kit from the hospital. I'd have done the same thing.

PErhaps the police have a reason not to act. What if they were uncovering a ring of child pornographers, or the like. His Murder in revenge for his daughter could have disrupted it. He could have been the cause of dozens of other rapes.

PErhaps the police have a reason not to act. What if they were uncovering a ring of child pornographers, or the like. His Murder in revenge for his daughter could have disrupted it. He could have been the cause of dozens of other rapes.
the odds of this actually happening are so slim that i still believe the fathers actions where the right course of action.

PErhaps the police have a reason not to act. What if they were uncovering a ring of child pornographers, or the like. His Murder in revenge for his daughter could have disrupted it. He could have been the cause of dozens of other rapes.
They invited the rapist to a barbecue scheduled for the week after the rape was reported. From what I heard the police were protecting a buddy of theirs.

Yet another reason why guns should be taken out of the hands of those insane americans.
We don't need no registration
We don't need no gun control
No dark sarcasm in the gun shops
Liberals* leave our guns alone
Hey, liberals, leave our guns alone!
*Yes I know not all liberals are pro-gun control

PErhaps the police have a reason not to act. What if they were uncovering a ring of child pornographers, or the like. His Murder in revenge for his daughter could have disrupted it. He could have been the cause of dozens of other rapes.

what a fucking moron. now you're just trying to think of unfeasible excuses to protect your argument.

what a fucking moron. now you're just trying to think of unfeasible excuses to protect your argument.

I have another 'unfeasible' excuse, what if the police knew that this girl was a liar and had a habit of crying rape?

I have another 'unfeasible' excuse, what if the police knew that this girl was a liar and had a habit of crying rape?
if you are saying that seriously you are an A**HOLE!

I have another 'unfeasible' excuse, what if the police knew that this girl was a liar and had a habit of crying rape?

Then they still had the positive rape kit to explain.

Then they still had the positive rape kit to explain.
And why the police hasn't (hadn't) explained it?

I have another 'unfeasible' excuse, what if the police knew that this girl was a liar and had a habit of crying rape?
What about the fact that there was a positive rape kit from the hospital? What about the fact that she was 13 and any sex with her by an adult is classified as statutory rape, even if it's consentual. BTW, it wasn't consentual.

PErhaps the police have a reason not to act. What if they were uncovering a ring of child pornographers, or the like. His Murder in revenge for his daughter could have disrupted it. He could have been the cause of dozens of other rapes.IF that were true, the case wouldn't have been closed.
I have another 'unfeasible' excuse, what if the police knew that this girl was a liar and had a habit of crying rape?not if there was a positive Rape Kit, it proves the child was raped, now if she was lying on "Who" did it, then the case wouldn't be closed.

Acting outside the law is never right. The person/s who do so must be prepared to accept the penalty of taking the law into their own hands.

anyone knows what happened to the parents of this girl?

Yet another reason why guns should be taken out of the hands of those insane americans.

My thoughts entirely, here is my favourie guns-are-wrong-when-used-by-americans scenario:
"a man was in court he grabbed the gun of the guard next to him and shot a few people, the authorities blamed it on 'not having enough armed guards in the building'"
however all they had to do was send the man in without an armed guard, yes americans an un-ar-med gu-ard that would have ment the man couldnt have grabbed the gun in the first place.
So, guns should only be avalable to the miliatery no-one else.

IF that were true, the case wouldn't have been closed.
not if there was a positive Rape Kit, it proves the child was raped, now if she was lying on "Who" did it, then the case wouldn't be closed.

Acting outside the law is never right. The person/s who do so must be prepared to accept the penalty of taking the law into their own hands.

anyone knows what happened to the parents of this girl?
Father did 7 years, I dont' think the mother was charged.

My thoughts entirely, here is my favourie guns-are-wrong-when-used-by-americans scenario:
"a man was in court he grabbed the gun of the guard next to him and shot a few people, the authorities blamed it on 'not having enough armed guards in the building'"
however all they had to do was send the man in without an armed guard, yes americans an un-ar-med gu-ard that would have ment the man couldnt have grabbed the gun in the first place.
So, guns should only be avalable to the miliatery no-one else.
Where are you from? I'm assuming they don't have civilian owned firearms there. In the US we already have plenty of guns. The government can't disarm everyone. Also we have a thriving drug import industry. They can bring in guns and ammo with ease. If you have unarmed guards in a courtroom a disgruntled ex-con could just walk right in and shoot the judge.

Father did 7 years, I dont' think the mother was charged.
Know anything about the police? Any trouble?

Know anything about the police? Any trouble?
What happened to them, if anything, wasn't mentioned on the show. Mainly it was an interview with the parents, some other members of the community, and the host read some bits of news articles connected to the incident.

Where are you from? I'm assuming they don't have civilian owned firearms there. In the US we already have plenty of guns. The government can't disarm everyone. Also we have a thriving drug import industry. They can bring in guns and ammo with ease. If you have unarmed guards in a courtroom a disgruntled ex-con could just walk right in and shoot the judge.
And how he could have get in in the courtroom? There could have been an armed officer on the main door, no need for one in courtroom. (well, at least one gun less ;) )

What happened to them, if anything, wasn't mentioned on the show. Mainly it was an interview with the parents, some other members of the community, and the host read some bits of news articles connected to the incident.
ok. I just think they should have faces some serious charges and penalties. Hope they did.

And how he could have get in in the courtroom? There could have been an armed officer on the main door, no need for one in courtroom. (well, at least one gun less ;) )
Most courtrooms I've been in are next to a police station, and numerous armed police are nearby. One is always in the courtroom. A guy trying to shoot a judge will, if the police are competant, face a number of armed men trying to shoot him.

One armed guard at the door might just become one more casualty in the ex-con's crime.

Let's say you're entire family was killed by the mob (even your extended family) and a couple months down the road not one person is in jail and the case has been closed. Let's also say you know exactly who did it, do you think you'd deserve the right to extract revenge on your own terms?No. Not even a couple of years down the road. Hell, not if they were never caught.

Any other examples of necessary breaches of law?Not for revenge, ever. Only if doing so would prevent significant harm from coming about, and there was no other means by which to do so.

Most courtrooms I've been in are next to a police station, and numerous armed police are nearby. One is always in the courtroom. A guy trying to shoot a judge will, if the police are competant, face a number of armed men trying to shoot him.

One armed guard at the door might just become one more casualty in the ex-con's crime.
And then, how one more in the courtroom would make any difference?
But I think we're quite off topic, I'll stop this here.

i can see where someone might decide to take the law into their own hands for revenge. im sure it can seem necessary.

they should be willing to pay the price for doing it however. they should be willing to do their time in jail for breaking the law.

to get it off of revenge fantasies, the civil rights protesters of the 50s and 60s were breaking the law. it was necessary. many of them paid a high price for doing it. arent we glad they did it?

And then, how one more in the courtroom would make any difference?
But I think we're quite off topic, I'll stop this here.
Yeah, let's just agree to disagree and get back on topic.

Let's say you're entire family was killed by the mob (even your extended family) and a couple months down the road not one person is in jail and the case has been closed. Let's also say you know exactly who did it, do you think you'd deserve the right to extract revenge on your own terms?

Any other examples of necessary breaches of law?

No, you are not in immediate danger so you do not have the RIGHT to exact any punishment, that should never be given under the law.

Now do I believe believe that at some level one has a moral obligation to even in the face of dire consequences to stand up and take a stand against evil-yes.

If someone murdered my wife and children I would assuradly do my best to never give them a chance to get to prison.

...but I would do this thing fully prepared to be a man and face the consequences of my actions.

I would defy the law to Right a Wrong--but I would not evade the civil justice that is an evil unto its self.

We have laws and punishments for a reason--sometimes they fail or the evil of an action escapes their scope, so we must exceed them but that is temporary state.

I forget the gentlemen's name I am quoting but I believe his words say it all
"All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

That is my opinion on the matter.

Back to topic. Yes I think it's necessary to act against law sometimes, but never, I really mean never, to revenge someone (I might admit that it's the rigth thing to do in some cases, but yet they should (and have to) face the concequences)

Father did 7 years, I dont' think the mother was charged.

This seems fair. In the father's position, I'd be willing to accept a seven-year sentence to make sure the rapist never hurt anyone again.

Back to topic. Yes I think it's necessary to act against law sometimes, but never, I really mean never, to revenge someone (I might admit that it's the rigth thing to do in some cases, but yet they should (and have to) face the concequences)

If I may be so bold,
I belive you are meaning it is necessary for an individual to seek revenge--civil society should seek Justice--I think that is your meaning yes?

Laugh at my post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9436260&postcount=16) dammit!

If I may be so bold,
I belive you are meaning it is necessary for an individual to seek revenge--civil society should seek Justice--I think that is your meaning yes?
hmm..quite but I don't think it's necessary to seek revenge. I mean I can understand those who want to. I don't think many actually do (seek for revenge).

They invited the rapist to a barbecue scheduled for the week after the rape was reported. From what I heard the police were protecting a buddy of theirs.
Then go to the FBI. Or the media.



Rape is a very very very hard crime to prove, by the way, though that doesn't excuse their actions.

Vigilantism is only acceptable if you have a costume of some sort. Once you have the costume, you may proceed on your killing spree. Make sure you remain relatively emotionless and stoic. You may feel free, however, to make a brief taunting or wry comment to each thug you kill.

This seems fair. In the father's position, I'd be willing to accept a seven-year sentence to make sure the rapist never hurt anyone again.


The father shouldn't have done any time. Just look at that movie, A Time To Kill. Thats what should have happened.

The father shouldn't have done any time. Just look at that movie, A Time To Kill. Thats what should have happened.
Movies aren't law. What did the father get off on, voluntary manslaughter?

We live in a society of laws. These laws exist to protect everyone. You don't break the law because it is a social contract that guarantees your safety. If everyone were to decide to take the law into their own hands we would have chaos. After all, think of all the minor crimes committed that go unpunished - drivers with road rage and a gun would make the streets run red with blood.

In the aforemention case of the raped little girl, I can only assume (as very little by way of factual evidence has been presented) that the reason the "rapist" wasn't arrested was because of either a lack of evidence, or because it would interfere with some other investigation (as previously suggested). Evidenciary laws exist for your protection. After all, how would you feel if you were arrested for a crime that the police "thought" you did? Or how about being shot by a father that "thought" you were his daughter's rapist?
If, as was suggested, the police (which would have to cover the ENTIRE relevant police department, for such a cover up to succeed) did decide to "protect their buddy" there are anti-corruption measures in place to ensure that not only would the rapist be brought to trial, but his friends who chose to protect him would be brought to justice as well.

Also, gun control is definately something that is needed in America. In case you haven't noticed, the British aren't exactly gearing up for re-invasion. Over 10,000 people are killed every year in America with a firearm. In Australia, less than 100. Why? Because we don't let every nutcase who wants one have a gun.

Have you ever noticed that in every movie where someone's friend, lover, wife or family gets killed, that in their ensuing revenge, about 50 times as many people get killed? People that presumably have families and freinds as well. And yet, no-one ever seems to think this is innapropriate...

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people... yeah, but I think the gun helps. I don't think it'd work quite as well if you just pointed your finger at someone and went BANG!" - Eddie Izzard

Father did 7 years, I dont' think the mother was charged.

The father had to have known that if he went down the route of killing the suspected rapist he would most likely be caught and charged. It seems like the best thing for his daughter would have been for him to be around to help raise her and protect her from future attacks by actually being in her life and not in prison.
On the other hand I think that in the same situation I wouldnt have done anything different. Emotion would take over and I would have killed him too

We live in a society of laws. These laws exist to protect everyone. You don't break the law because it is a social contract that guarantees your safety. If everyone were to decide to take the law into their own hands we would have chaos. After all, think of all the minor crimes committed that go unpunished - drivers with road rage and a gun would make the streets run red with blood.

In the aforemention case of the raped little girl, I can only assume (as very little by way of factual evidence has been presented) that the reason the "rapist" wasn't arrested was because of either a lack of evidence, or because it would interfere with some other investigation (as previously suggested). Evidenciary laws exist for your protection. After all, how would you feel if you were arrested for a crime that the police "thought" you did? Or how about being shot by a father that "thought" you were his daughter's rapist?
If, as was suggested, the police (which would have to cover the ENTIRE relevant police department, for such a cover up to succeed) did decide to "protect their buddy" there are anti-corruption measures in place to ensure that not only would the rapist be brought to trial, but his friends who chose to protect him would be brought to justice as well.

Also, gun control is definately something that is needed in America. In case you haven't noticed, the British aren't exactly gearing up for re-invasion. Over 10,000 people are killed every year in America with a firearm. In Australia, less than 100. Why? Because we don't let every nutcase who wants one have a gun.

Have you ever noticed that in every movie where someone's friend, lover, wife or family gets killed, that in their ensuing revenge, about 50 times as many people get killed? People that presumably have families and freinds as well. And yet, no-one ever seems to think this is innapropriate...

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people... yeah, but I think the gun helps. I don't think it'd work quite as well if you just pointed your finger at someone and went BANG!" - Eddie Izzard

By the way, Australia's population is several times smaller than the U.S.'s; I still agree with your point though.

quote

Did that work?

By the way, Australia's population is several times smaller than the U.S.'s; I still agree with your point though.

Fair point, Australia's population is 1/10th of the United States of America's, but our firearm murder rate is 1/100th of theirs. Notice a disparity?
Also, we've yet to have a kid decide it would be a good idea to take a gun to school...

Yes I know, I'm what I believe you call a P.O.M.E. I'm not sticking up for the yanks' stupid laws.

Yes I know, I'm what I believe you call a P.O.M.E. I'm not sticking up for the yanks' stupid laws.

Do you mean a Pom, or Pommie? (in other words, one o' them British types)

Do you mean a Pom, or Pommie? (in other words, one o' them British types)

POME Prisoner Of Mother England

POME Prisoner Of Mother England

ohhhh yeah... I forgot that was the origin of that term :p
So then, you must know all about operation "Invade as soon as they repeal the 2nd amendment"? I've already got my Kangaroo saddled up and ready. I've trained some fighting-Koalas in rhe art of sabotage, and I've got a wombat that's just itching to die for queen and country. We'll show those upstarts not to turn their back on Mother England! Long live the Empire! Rule Britannia!

Also, now that that pesky military genius Ghandi is gone, India is defenceless... We could go back to the good old days, of the sun never setting on the British empire...

ohhhh yeah... I forgot that was the origin of that term :p
So then, you must know all about operation "Invade as soon as they repeal the 2nd amendment"? I've already got my Kangaroo saddled up and ready. I've trained some fighting-Koalas in rhe art of sabotage, and I've got a wombat that's just itching to die for queen and country. We'll show those upstarts not to turn their back on Mother England! Long live the Empire! Rule Britannia!

Also, now that that pesky military genius Ghandi is gone, India is defenceless... We could go back to the good old days, of the sun never setting on the British empire...

How wonderfully commonwealth-iotic of you.! :D

How wonderfully commonwealth-iotic of you.! :D

God save the Queen! (And give the Falklands a ruddy good thrashing while you're at it! :p)

God save the Queen! (And give the Falklands a ruddy good thrashing while you're at it! :p)

But we still have those!

Father did 7 years, I dont' think the mother was charged.
7 years? Rapists often don't get any more!

If the law has failed, then people WILL take it into their own hands, and I wouldn't blame them. Drunk Commies, somehow I'm actually agreeing with you.

What the father did was for the better of the community as well. Forget about whether he had a right to kill him, I think he didn't have a right to live, as he'd have just struck again.
Letting the police catch him? I'm not sure about the US or Australia, but I know that in Britain, a rapist recently got only 7 years… and they had indisputable proof that it took place, because the girl's parents heard it on her mobile phone. Now that's irresponsiblility on the law's part; they were virtually condemning some other poor woman to be raped in another seven years' time.

Some laws are morally unacceptable. I think all people have a threshold, after which it is permissable to disobey silly laws. Would it be when the government took your guns? It wasn't in England, but then we don't really care about guns like America does. Would it be when the government took your booze? It was in America, and it would be for me too. Moonshiners and bootleggers are perfectly justified in breaking the law in my opinion. Not only justified, necessary.

7 years? Rapists often don't get any more!

If the law has failed, then people WILL take it into their own hands, and I wouldn't blame them. Drunk Commies, somehow I'm actually agreeing with you.


What? A murderer should get less than a rapist?