NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/30/neighbor.stabbing.ap/index.html

I'm not a strong proponent in temporary insanity, but this is about as textbook as it gets. If I were to find out that my two year old had been molested by a neighbor, I would have an extremely hard time not killing the motherfucker.

Obviously, the accused molester deserved to have his day in court, and I'm not justifying the killer's actions, but in that rage that must have hit him, I can imagine that he wsn't able to control his thoughts or actions. It'd be a challenge for anybody.

I'm not sure if I hope the dead man really was a molester for the father's peace of mind, or that he wasn't for the daughter's wellbeing.

This is pretty screwed up, right here. :(

Give the guy a medal. Assuming of course the neighbor did it. I'm guessing the mother caught him or something 'cause a 2 year old isn't very likely to say the neighbor touched her in a bad way.

I really dont know wether to applaud him, or condemn him.

I'm not a strong proponent in temporary insanity, but this is about as textbook as it gets. If I were to find out that my two year old had been molested by a neighbor, I would have an extremely hard time not killing the motherfucker.
But I really hope you would resist that urge. I understand the enormous amount of fear and anger that this situation brings out in people, but to kill someone because of something your young daughter has said is extreme in the least.

I have no sympathy for anyone who molests children, but they don't know if this guy even did do anything. I would rather the court system dealt with something like this, because otherwise you put it very accurately when you say that this is screwed up, right here.

But I really hope you would resist that urge. I understand the enormous amount of fear and anger that this situation brings out in people, but to kill someone because of something your young daughter has said is extreme in the least.

I have no sympathy for anyone who molests children, but they don't know if this guy even did do anything. I would rather the court system dealt with something like this, because otherwise you put it very accurately when you say that this is screwed up, right here.

Well the nice part is that I can't go temporarily insane. I'm already there. Sometimes I go temporarily sane. :)

I'd like to think that I could show enough self-control to call the police. But in that situation, could somebody simply not be able to think that way? Reason can go right out the window in that kind of rage.

See? My ideas are not so strange. Looks like someone did what I said I would do in just such a circumstance.

I'd like to think that I could show enough self-control to call the police. But in that situation, could somebody simply not be able to think that way? Reason can go right out the window in that kind of rage.
Yeah, but you simply have to control yourself to the point where, at the very least, your rage doesn't involve climbing through a window with a kitchen knife. Because, if you don't, you risk killing an innocent man in his sleep.

wow, he'd better hope that he can come up with some strong evidence of the molestation to get that murder charge down to a manslaughter charge. All he's done is made things worse for his family again by taking himself out of it for some length of time. While we can all understand where he's coming from in this situation, making things worse is not generally the best solution..

Yeah, but you simply have to control yourself to the point where, at the very least, your rage doesn't involve climbing through a window with a kitchen knife. Because, if you don't, you risk killing an innocent man in his sleep.


What if the guy did it?

Out in three years w/ good behaviour.

No fucking way.

Yeah, but you simply have to control yourself to the point where, at the very least, your rage doesn't involve climbing through a window with a kitchen knife. Because, if you don't, you risk killing an innocent man in his sleep.

Climb through a window? If I were that far gone, I'd smash through his front door with an axe. :p

I think the thing that would keep me in control would be my respect for the concept of 'innocent until proven gulty'. Then when he's convicted, I'd pay some fellow convicts with cartons of cigarettes to make him suffer to death. :p

What if the guy did it?

Out in three years w/ good behaviour.

No fucking way.

Maybe probation if it's the first time molesting.

Looks like the guy was already a problem in the neighborhood, and the police and courts were doing absolutely nothing about it.

What if the guy did it?

Out in three years w/ good behaviour.

No fucking way.
So your logic is that it's better to kill innocent men than risk a paedophile being dealt with by the justice system?

Well, I can see you have the moral high ground here. :rolleyes:

Maybe probation if it's the first time molesting.

Looks like the guy was already a problem in the neighborhood, and the police and courts were doing absolutely nothing about it.
Ah, Kimchi; Judge, Jury and Executioner.

Everyday you give me reason to be glad you're back on the other side of the Atlantic. :)

So your logic is that it's better to kill innocent men than risk a paedophile being dealt with by the justice system?

Well, I can see you have the moral high ground here. :rolleyes:

I'm very moral. I'd arrange a violent prison death for him after his conviction. :D

I'm very moral. I'd arrange a violent prison death for him after his conviction. :D


That's the point, we all probably would (well, to an extent..0. After his conviction though, not before.

Think about what this man has gained. He's killed a man that might have done something horrible to his daughter. The trade off? He now probably wont get to see his daughter go up while he spends a fair amount of the next few decades in prision. Personally, that's not a trade off I would like to take. Although perhaps if this man hadn't seen red he would have had a similar view.

Ah, Kimchi; Judge, Jury and Executioner.

Everyday you give me reason to be glad you're back on the other side of the Atlantic. :)

Maybe you're not familiar with the way our justice system doesn't work here.

See Warren vs. District of Columbia.

http://www.healylaw.com/cases/warren2.htm

n the early morning hours of March 16, 1975, appellants Carolyn Warren, Joan Taliaferro, and Miriam Douglas were asleep in their rooming house at 1112 Lamont Street, N.W. Warren and Taliaferro shared a room on the third floor of the house; Douglas shared a room on the second floor with her four-year-old daughter. The women were awakened by the sound of the back door being broken down by two men later identified as Marvin Kent and James Morse. The men entered Douglas' second floor room, where Kent forced Douglas to sodomize him and Morse raped her.

Warren and Taliaferro heard Douglas' screams from the floor below. Warren telephoned the police, told the officer on duty that the house was being burglarized, and requested immediate assistance. The department employee told her to remain quiet and assured her that police assistance would be dispatched promptly. Warren's call was received at Metropolitan Police Department Headquarters at 6:23 a. m., and was recorded as a burglary in progress. At 6:26 a. m., a call was dispatched to officers on the street as a "Code 2" assignment, although calls of a crime in progress should be given priority and designated as "Code 1." Four police cruisers responded to the broadcast; three to the Lamont Street address and one to another address to investigate a possible suspect.

Meanwhile, Warren and Taliaferro crawled from their window onto an adjoining roof and waited for the police to arrive. While there, they saw one policeman drive through the alley behind their house and proceed to the front of the residence without stopping, leaning out the window, or getting out of the car to check the back entrance of the house. A second officer apparently knocked on the door in front of the residence, but left when he received no answer. The three officers departed the scene at 6:33 a. m., five minutes after they arrived.

Warren and Taliaferro crawled back inside their room. They again heard Douglas' continuing screams; again called the police; told the officer that the intruders had entered the home, and requested immediate assistance. Once again, a police officer assured them that help was on the way. This second call was received at 6:42 a. m. and recorded merely as "investigate the trouble" - it was never dispatched to any police officers.

Believing the police might be in the house, Warren and Taliaferro called down to Douglas, thereby alerting Kent to their presence. Kent and Morse then forced all three women, at knifepoint, to accompany them to Kent's apartment. For the next fourteen hours the women were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, forced to commit sexual acts upon each other, and made to submit to the sexual demands of Kent and Morse.

Now, you would think the police would be held accountable for not doing their job, right?

Nope.

The respective trial judges held that the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to the individual appellants and dismissed the complaints for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Super.Ct.Civ.R. 12(b)(6). However, in a split decision a three-judge division of this court determined that appellants Warren, Taliaferro and Nichol were owed a special duty of care by the police department and reversed the trial court rulings. The division unanimously concluded that appellant Douglas failed to fit within the class of persons to whom a special duty was owed, and affirmed the lower court's dismissal of her complaint. The court en banc, on petitions for rehearing, vacated the panel's decision. After rearguments, notwithstanding our sympathy for appellants who were the tragic victims of despicable criminal acts, we affirm the judgments of dismissal.

Police in America, by case law, are under NO requirement to provide ANY services to ANY specific individual. Officially, you are ON YOUR OWN.

So your logic is that it's better to kill innocent men than risk a paedophile being dealt with by the justice system?

Well, I can see you have the moral high ground here. :rolleyes:

I didnt say that, and dont play Mother Superior.

I did say earlier that I was unsure wether to applaud the killer, or condemn him.

Or did you just not bother to read the thread, and felt the need to spout your moral superiority?

The very crux of the matter, is that we will never know if he was innocent or not.
BUT, if It were my daughter....I would probably do the same.

The guy was a lawyer...he probably felt that whatever his daughter told him, was convincing.

If you had a child, and she told you that some sick fuck did those things to her.....would you be willing to let a court decide if she deserves justice or not?

And...as I said before....a three year sentence for violating a baby girl like that?

No way.

That's the point, we all probably would (well, to an extent..0. After his conviction though, not before.

Think about what this man has gained. He's killed a man that might have done something horrible to his daughter. The trade off? He now probably wont get to see his daughter go up while he spends a fair amount of the next few decades in prision. Personally, that's not a trade off I would like to take. Although perhaps if this man hadn't seen red he would have had a similar view.

That's just it. We can rationally explore this because we aren't that man.

When that man was in the state he was in upon finding out, he very easily could have been incapable of such thought. He was a lawyer, if he were rational, he would have understood the consequences. But was he rational? Was he even capable of being rational?

If we consider the possibility that he wasn't capable of rational thought, what difference, if any, to the man's legal case if the dead man was actually a molester or not? Would you be more likely to let the father avoid prison if the man he killed actually molested his daughter, or is that irrelevant to determining his state of mind?

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/30/neighbor.stabbing.ap/index.html

I'm not a strong proponent in temporary insanity, but this is about as textbook as it gets.
I'm not so sure - the article is lacking details, so I can't see it. However, this doesn't look like temporary insanity to me as it is.
I really dont know wether to applaud him, or condemn him.
I do: I condemn him.
See? My ideas are not so strange. Looks like someone did what I said I would do in just such a circumstance.
Your kids would probably rest safe knowing that if anything should happen to them their dad would not be around to help them getting through their difficult time.

That's just it. We can rationally explore this because we aren't that man.

When that man was in the state he was in upon finding out, he very easily could have been incapable of such thought. He was a lawyer, if he were rational, he would have understood the consequences. But was he rational? Was he even capable of being rational?
The fact that he took a knife, went to his neighbour's place, crawled in through the window, stabbed him and when found was washing the knife indicates a fairly high level of rationality.
An irrational act would have been to rush over there and attempt to batter the door down to get to the neighbour.

I can't see him being able to successfully claim temporary insanity.

The fact that he took a knife, went to his neighbour's place, crawled in through the window, stabbed him and when found was washing the knife indicates a fairly high level of rationality.
An irrational act would have been to rush over there and attempt to batter the door down to get to the neighbour.

I can't see him being able to successfully claim temporary insanity.

Well, he could see the neighbor through the window in a previous incident.

Since I have more than one high-powered rifle, it might be considered an impulse if, on hearing the news, I took the rifle out of the safe and shot across the intervening distance to hit the guy in the head.

One shot, on the spur of the moment.

Well the nice part is that I can't go temporarily insane. I'm already there. Sometimes I go temporarily sane. :)

I'd like to think that I could show enough self-control to call the police. But in that situation, could somebody simply not be able to think that way? Reason can go right out the window in that kind of rage.

I think I would explode. I dont even want to consider being in this guy's shoes.

I cant even contemplate what is worse for this guy right now-

1. His child really was molested and he killed a man.

2. His child really was molested and he killed the WRONG man.

3. His child really wasnt molested and he killed an innocent man.


I have sympathy for the poor bastard. No matter what the outcome, two families lives have been drastically changed for the worse.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/30/neighbor.stabbing.ap/index.html

I'm not a strong proponent in temporary insanity, but this is about as textbook as it gets. If I were to find out that my two year old had been molested by a neighbor, I would have an extremely hard time not killing the motherfucker.

Obviously, the accused molester deserved to have his day in court, and I'm not justifying the killer's actions, but in that rage that must have hit him, I can imagine that he wsn't able to control his thoughts or actions. It'd be a challenge for anybody.

I'm not sure if I hope the dead man really was a molester for the father's peace of mind, or that he wasn't for the daughter's wellbeing.

This is pretty screwed up, right here. :(

If the guy actually molested the kid then he deserves. If he didn't I suppose it shows just how effected parents can get if their kids are violated. I don't think he deserves to be tried for 1st degree murder. I think insanity (can you claim insanity if it was a lapse in judgement?) or manslaghter is what he'll go down for. Unfortunately even though he was defending his daughter he will go to prison.

The sad thing in a case like this is that the father would probably get a longer sentence then other people, given how prosecuters love to go afer "vigilantes". :(

The sad thing in a case like this is that the father would probably get a longer sentence then other people, given how prosecuters love to go afer "vigilantes". :(

Very true. The justice system sickens me sometimes.

I'm with Lunatic Goofballs on this one.

If the guy actually molested the kid then he deserves. If he didn't I suppose it shows just how effected parents can get if their kids are violated. I don't think he deserves to be tried for 1st degree murder. I think insanity (can you claim insanity if it was a lapse in judgement?) or manslaghter is what he'll go down for. Unfortunately even though he was defending his daughter he will go to prison.

Even more unfortunate- the father's action really cant be considered "defending his daughter"- it will be termed avenging or revenge.

Even more unfortunate- the father's action really cant be considered "defending his daughter"- it will be termed avenging or revenge.

I suppose but he can't have been sane at that moment. I don't have kids but if it ever did happen I'm not sure I could be held responsible for my actions either.

Vigilante Justice is the most erratic form of Justice there is.

Vigelante Justice isn't Justice at all.

Vigelante Justice isn't Justice at all.

We'll see about that *gets brass knuckles*

I suppose but he can't have been sane at that moment. I don't have kids but if it ever did happen I'm not sure I could be held responsible for my actions either.

You could, and you most likely would.

That's the point, we all probably would (well, to an extent..0. After his conviction though, not before.

Think about what this man has gained. He's killed a man that might have done something horrible to his daughter. The trade off? He now probably wont get to see his daughter go up while he spends a fair amount of the next few decades in prision.
Decades? Right...

He can logically pled Temporary Insanity, it really looks like that was the case.

Besides the murder of a single person never gets you 'decades' these days.

I'll estimate 5 years at either prison or an Asylum. Maybe less if they they give him a clean bill of health or good behavior, it seems that this is actually a nice guy who just lost it.

The horrible thing is if it turns out the guy wasn't a molester.

Decades? Right...

He can logically pled Temporary Insanity, it really looks like that was the case.

Besides the murder of a single person never gets you 'decades' these days.

I'll estimate 5 years at either prison or an Asylum. Maybe less if they they give him a clean bill of health or good behavior, it seems that this is actually a nice guy who just lost it.

The horrible thing is if it turns out the guy wasn't a molester.

And if he demonstrates that his past history is spotless.

And if he demonstrates that his past history is spotless.

And it is.

The fact that he took a knife, went to his neighbour's place, crawled in through the window, stabbed him and when found was washing the knife indicates a fairly high level of rationality.
He wasn't washing it. He was just standing there, in a daze as the officers seem to think. Maybe everything between he when picked up the knife till when he got back was the Temporary insanity, it's kind of like how sleep walkers after doing whatever they're doing will end up back in bed sometimes.

He went right back to where he started. (Since I'm guessing he got the knife from his kitchen.)

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/30/neighbor.stabbing.ap/index.html

I'm not a strong proponent in temporary insanity, but this is about as textbook as it gets. If I were to find out that my two year old had been molested by a neighbor, I would have an extremely hard time not killing the motherfucker.

Obviously, the accused molester deserved to have his day in court, and I'm not justifying the killer's actions, but in that rage that must have hit him, I can imagine that he wsn't able to control his thoughts or actions. It'd be a challenge for anybody.

I'm not sure if I hope the dead man really was a molester for the father's peace of mind, or that he wasn't for the daughter's wellbeing.

This is pretty screwed up, right here. :(


A molested two year old who may have also lost her dad...because he decided to become judge and jury...dont get me wrong I would have thought strongly of cutting the dudes sack off and chocking himto death by shoving them down his throat ...but then after I determined I couldn't get away with it..I would have called the cops ...

if the daughter was molested by this man, and the guy knew it,then it would be very hard not to kill him.Even if he wasnt sure, it still would be very hard for him not to kill the potential molester.There should have been better protection for the guy,and better support for the father.Everyone deserves their day in court.

The news report said that the man found out about his daughter's possible molestation when his wife told him about it. My thought about all this is: what did the mother do about it? She could have called the police to request an investigation, or she could have talked with the neighbor himself. I'm guessing that she found out about this and then immediately told her husband, then he went off and killed the guy. But still, she should have talked things over with her husband before either of them took any action.

I feel the same way about the murder itself; it was not done rationally. More time should have been taken before the father jumped to the conclusion that the neighbor molested the girl, when the only evidence he had was that his wife told him that it may have happened.

I suppose but he can't have been sane at that moment. I don't have kids but if it ever did happen I'm not sure I could be held responsible for my actions either.

No-apparently, he had good reason to believe the info he got and lost it.

I have three kids and I cant comprehend the rage and anguish I'd feel.

I do have the advantage of age and wisdom and being cold as ice when I need to be-I would likely have a plan and not go beserk.

But it would be revenge either way, unless I happened upon the crime as it happened.

Its a tragic situation.

Either way the guy is going to prison. His career is gone. His daughter will not have a father while she grows up...

Chances are the family will fall apart.

Tragic.

If I were to find out that my two year old had been molested by a neighbor, I would have an extremely hard time not killing the motherfucker.
And if you did, I would put you in jail, you vigilante lunatic.

The fact that he took a knife, went to his neighbour's place, crawled in through the window, stabbed him and when found was washing the knife indicates a fairly high level of rationality.
An irrational act would have been to rush over there and attempt to batter the door down to get to the neighbour.

I can't see him being able to successfully claim temporary insanity.

I thought about that. I guess that would be up to the courts. *nod*

i find this story confusing and i wonder what is being left out.

i can see no reasonable scenario where the creepy 58 year old neighbor would have a chance to molest a 2 year old.

did they hire him as a baby sitter? did they have him visit their home? did they leave the 2 year old playing outside alone for a long enough time that he could molest her, calm her down and return her to the yard without notice? was he the caretaker at the local daycare center that they took her to?

2 year olds are under almost constant supervision. this guy was obviously creepy to the family. how did he get near their kid?

im not trying to suggest that the parents are at fault for the behavior of their neighbor, i just wonder whats not being told.

A molested two year old who may have also lost her dad...because he decided to become judge and jury...dont get me wrong I would have thought strongly of cutting the dudes sack off and chocking himto death by shoving them down his throat ...but then after I determined I couldn't get away with it..I would have called the cops ...

Well, you're thinking rationally about it. Try thinking rationally about it when it happens. Maybe some people can, but does this man deserves to go to prison if he wasn't able to think rationally?

And if you did, I would put you in jail, you vigilante lunatic.

I would like to think my respect for the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty' woul win out and I'd settle for arranging the cocksucker's death in prison after his convction.

But then again, I'm thinking rationlly right now. Well, as rationally as I ever do. :p

does this man deserves to go to prison if he wasn't able to think rationally?
An inability to think rationally marks him as something less than human in my eyes, and I'm suddenly a lot less concerned about his welfare.

An inability to think rationally marks him as something less than human in my eyes, and I'm suddenly a lot less concerned about his welfare.

I think you have a higher opinion of humans than I do. :p

People seem to think the kid would be sad if Daddy ended up in jail, that it'd be a "tragedy," but...

If I was that kid, when I grew up I'd be extremely disappointed if Daddy did NOT attack the pervert!

And I'd be very proud if someone was willing to go to jail for avenging a wrong done to me.

I think you have a higher opinion of humans than I do. :p
No, I just hold them to a higher standard. I'm well aware most of them fail.

Okay. He climbed through the window, so that shows he was able to think rationally enough to not kick in the door and be quite easily noticed. It also seems that he didn't wake up the mother, so he more than likely stabbed the guy in his sleep, which in turn means he couldn't have smashed the window in. And, if he was unable to think rationally, he definately wouldn't have tried to see if the window was unlocked, but rather smash it in because checking to see if the window is unlocked it is something that requires some rational thought to do.

1- The neighbor could be innocent.

2- It's much more of a revenge to get someone life in prison, tortured and a LONG revenge than merely killing them.

3- Not "capable of rational thought" does NOT CUT IT if the neighbor happens to be innocent, and there's no justification for it cutting it in this case. If someone I knew got raped and I killed the first guy I saw I would NOT BE EXCUSED. Same case.

This is a good example of the difference between "good" and "right."

it may have been good for the man to kill the molester, but it certainly wasn't right.

Murder is murder, and this man should be punished for his serious crime.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/30/neighbor.stabbing.ap/index.html

I'm not a strong proponent in temporary insanity, but this is about as textbook as it gets. If I were to find out that my two year old had been molested by a neighbor, I would have an extremely hard time not killing the motherfucker.

Obviously, the accused molester deserved to have his day in court, and I'm not justifying the killer's actions, but in that rage that must have hit him, I can imagine that he wsn't able to control his thoughts or actions. It'd be a challenge for anybody.

I'm not sure if I hope the dead man really was a molester for the father's peace of mind, or that he wasn't for the daughter's wellbeing.

This is pretty screwed up, right here. :(happened not far from where I live, neighbours accused man of being a pedo, then they tortured him to death, he was innocent. A women who intiated and planned the attack is doing a life sentence I believe.

If the guy actually molested the kid then he deserves. If he didn't I suppose it shows just how effected parents can get if their kids are violated. I don't think he deserves to be tried for 1st degree murder. I think insanity (can you claim insanity if it was a lapse in judgement?) or manslaghter is what he'll go down for. Unfortunately even though he was defending his daughter he will go to prison.

So if he crawled in through a window and stabbed a man 13 times who not, in fact, interfere with his daughter, it's just too bad and he should not be made to face the consequences?

Shouldn't the mother, who reported this to her husband, have called the police?
Should they not have gone to the hospital and ascertained if the child had, in fact, been harmed in any way?

Even if the neighbor had molested the kid -- using deadly force after the fact, rather than to prevent or stop it, is not going to help his defense. Neither is the premeditated tone of the crime -- sneaking in through a window, doing it, etc.

The saddest thing about this is that whether or not the neighbor is guilty, we'll likely never know, and losing her father will only add to the distress this poor kid may have undergone already.

For all of you panty-waists complaining and wanting to put the lawyer in jail, I can only hold the highest level of scorn. The only true, manly way to deal with this situation is for the dead man's family to grab a bunch of knives, break in through the lawyer's window, and stab him, his daughter, and the family dog to death.
Then any surviving family of the lawyer should go avenge the avenger on the avenging family. So long as each murder is a sufficiently gross overreaction that involves a significant risk of killing innocent by-standers, I see no problems with this continuing for all eternity.

I have no problem with disproportionate revenge, but avenging is an entirely different and much more disgusting matter, as well as being infinitely more likely to involve innocents who just have shitty luck.

So if he crawled in through a window and stabbed a man 13 times who not, in fact, interfere with his daughter, it's just too bad and he should not be made to face the consequences?

Shouldn't the mother, who reported this to her husband, have called the police?
Should they not have gone to the hospital and ascertained if the child had, in fact, been harmed in any way?

Even if the neighbor had molested the kid -- using deadly force after the fact, rather than to prevent or stop it, is not going to help his defense. Neither is the premeditated tone of the crime -- sneaking in through a window, doing it, etc.

The saddest thing about this is that whether or not the neighbor is guilty, we'll likely never know, and losing her father will only add to the distress this poor kid may have undergone already.

This was the point that I made earlier. There were so many more favorable options for both of them (the woman and her husband).

But in that situation, could somebody simply not be able to think that way? Reason can go right out the window in that kind of rage.

If so, we're lost as a species. This guy had no proof besides the word of a two-year old, and on that he just went and killed a man. I, for one, cannot defend that, because if that is all it takes to set this guy off and he has the utter lack of restraint to let that happen, he is a danger to society. If we as a people cannot resist that kind of impulsiveness, rage, or blind hatred, we have real problems.

I, for one, cannot defend that, because if that is all it takes to set this guy off and he has the utter lack of restraint to let that happen, he is a danger to society.

Quite a few people would under those circumstances, actually.
The emotions generally override logic in short bursts.
It's a survival mechanism; if you don't either run from or kill the tiger standing in front of you, you're not gonna live much longer. Incidentally, emotions are WAY better at fast reactions then logic is.
And to all of you saying "he couldn't have been thinking irrationally, he opened the window!", it's not that much harder to open a window when you're really angry then if you're calm.
BTW, you'd think the neighbor would normally lock the windows, which would make trying to break in that way irrational too.
And that would mean he had to smash it open, which would completely get rid of your point.

For all of you panty-waists complaining and wanting to put the lawyer in jail, I can only hold the highest level of scorn. The only true, manly way to deal with this situation is for the dead man's family to grab a bunch of knives, break in through the lawyer's window, and stab him, his daughter, and the family dog to death.
Then any surviving family of the lawyer should go avenge the avenger on the avenging family. So long as each murder is a sufficiently gross overreaction that involves a significant risk of killing innocent by-standers, I see no problems with this continuing for all eternity.
Just like the Vikings!

For all of you panty-waists complaining and wanting to put the lawyer in jail, I can only hold the highest level of scorn. The only true, manly way to deal with this situation is for the dead man's family to grab a bunch of knives, break in through the lawyer's window, and stab him, his daughter, and the family dog to death.
Then any surviving family of the lawyer should go avenge the avenger on the avenging family. So long as each murder is a sufficiently gross overreaction that involves a significant risk of killing innocent by-standers, I see no problems with this continuing for all eternity.

I have no problem with disproportionate revenge, but avenging is an entirely different and much more disgusting matter, as well as being infinitely more likely to involve innocents who just have shitty luck.

Hatfields and McCoys: The Next Generation. :D

If so, we're lost as a species. This guy had no proof besides the word of a two-year old, and on that he just went and killed a man. I, for one, cannot defend that, because if that is all it takes to set this guy off and he has the utter lack of restraint to let that happen, he is a danger to society. If we as a people cannot resist that kind of impulsiveness, rage, or blind hatred, we have real problems.

he wasnt taking a 2 year olds word for it, he was taking his wife's word for it.

Edington's attorney, Michael Sherman, said the information came from Edington's wife. "The daughter gave the mother information which was alarming and disturbing. The mom relayed it to her husband. That was the spark," Sherman said

what the fuck does that mean? how can a creepy neighbor get contact with a 2 year old without the parents knowing it? did he sneak in through the window at night?

2 year olds get molested by family members, trusted family friends, daycare workers, baby sitters. no one leaves their kid alone with the creepy neighbor. 2 year olds are not allowed outside without supervision; they dont go down the street by themselves or go visiting on their own.

the story doesnt make any sense. i think the father is going to have to spend a long stretch of time in prison for murder.

I would be hard pressed not to do the same as this father did. I for one were on the jury in this murder case. I would let this guy skate with time served. Provided that the molestation did happen. Would serve as a warning to all those sick pukes out there that get off on molesting.

Just like the Vikings!
Hence, why it is the "manly" thing to do as opposed to just the "manly" thing to do.

Hatfields and McCoys: The Next Generation.
They are nothing like each other. That was an endless cycle of death and destruction initiated by the theft of a pig, this is an endless cycle of death and destruction initiated on the word of a toddler.
I think it is obvious how the second one makes so much more sense than the first.

Hence, why it is the "manly" thing to do as opposed to just the "manly" thing to do.


They are nothing like each other. That was an endless cycle of death and destruction initiated by the theft of a pig, this is an endless cycle of death and destruction initiated on the word of a toddler.
I think it is obvious how the second one makes so much more sense than the first.

Indeed. :)

holy sh*t.

I must say... in his place... I probably would have done the same thing. Nobody hurts my kid and lives to tell about it.:mp5:

Quite a few people would under those circumstances, actually.
The emotions generally override logic in short bursts.
It's a survival mechanism; if you don't either run from or kill the tiger standing in front of you, you're not gonna live much longer. Incidentally, emotions are WAY better at fast reactions then logic is.

Ah, but he wasn't outside his neighbor's window when his wife told him, was he? Time would have had to pass between his wife telling him and him breaking into his neighbor's house.

And to all of you saying "he couldn't have been thinking irrationally, he opened the window!", it's not that much harder to open a window when you're really angry then if you're calm.

But supposing he opened it and was angry, he would have made quite a lot of noise doing so.

BTW, you'd think the neighbor would normally lock the windows, which would make trying to break in that way irrational too.
And that would mean he had to smash it open, which would completely get rid of your point.

If he smashed the window open, he would have woken up the guy he killed, meaning the guy would scream, meaning he would wake his mother, meaning that the mother would have walked in on him and also been killed.

he wasnt taking a 2 year olds word for it, he was taking his wife's word for it.

Come now, neither of us joined yesterday. So his wife relayed the words, it's still the same situation. No proof of any kind, just the words of a very, very young child. Anyone knows that while children are honest, they also have poor communication skills and are still grappling with the world around them. I have a very, very hard time believing that whatever she said was a complete and compelling enough testimonial to make this an appropriate, justifiable action in a rational person's mind.

What I can believe, though, is that the rumor mill was likely in full swing in the household or whole neighborhood. The article cites abberant behavior by the victim, likely the effect of some mental degradation by either age or alcohol. People don't handle unusual people well, and the mentally ill tend to become the victims of such ignorant fear. So the guy starts getting oblivious to the shades being open while he's naked, how long before panicky neighbors leap to conclusions of perversion? Once there, it would not take much to get them picking up torches and pitchforks.

Quite a few people would under those circumstances, actually.
The emotions generally override logic in short bursts.
It's a survival mechanism; if you don't either run from or kill the tiger standing in front of you, you're not gonna live much longer. Incidentally, emotions are WAY better at fast reactions then logic is.

As I said above, this is not a matter of a situation of certain danger. This would be like if a two year old came out of a hut and said there was a tiger inside, so the village burns it down without checking. I'd say one would have to be a lunatic or an idiot to follow that course given countless other options, the most simple of which is to have someone check it out!

what the fuck does that mean? how can a creepy neighbor get contact with a 2 year old without the parents knowing it?...the story doesnt make any sense. i think the father is going to have to spend a long stretch of time in prison for murder.

I hope so. I can't see how the neighbor got access to the child either, especially if the parents were suspicious of him as I proposed above. Perhaps he didn't at all? And therein lies the problem...kids say a lot of things.

I would be hard pressed not to do the same as this father did. I for one were on the jury in this murder case. I would let this guy skate with time served. Provided that the molestation did happen. Would serve as a warning to all those sick pukes out there that get off on molesting.

Whether the purported child molester was guilty or not, the man committed murder which is inexcusable. This is not somalia, anyone who wants to have an "honor killing" is liable himself for the death penalty.

...but does this man deserves to go to prison if he wasn't able to think rationally?

Yes. People high on drugs aren't able to think rationally either. But if they kill someone while under the influence, they are still held responsible for their actions. People with low IQs aren't always able to think rationally, yet look at how many of them have been imprisioned/put to death for their actions.

Let the guy go free, and give him a reward.

The molester piece of shit deserved every minute of it.

Hence, why it is the "manly" thing to do as opposed to just the "manly" thing to do.


They are nothing like each other. That was an endless cycle of death and destruction initiated by the theft of a pig, this is an endless cycle of death and destruction initiated on the word of a toddler.
I think it is obvious how the second one makes so much more sense than the first.


BAH!

Brutish thuggery!

I say, we harken back to the good ol days, and use of bit of class in our sensless vandettas.

Like putting a man's winning race horse's severed head in his bed.
Messy, instantly alarming, and sends a clear cut message.
Now thats class.

What if the guy did it?

Out in three years w/ good behaviour.

No fucking way.


So kill everyone who gets accused just in case?

Do you remember the 80's? Cause if you don't, you're not going to hear about the rash of fake molestation charges on one of those VH1 shows.

I would be hard pressed not to do the same as this father did. I for one were on the jury in this murder case. I would let this guy skate with time served. Provided that the molestation did happen. Would serve as a warning to all those sick pukes out there that get off on molesting.

But how do you know that he did it?

Without a trial on the molester you are essentially advocating a get out of jail free card for anyone with a kid.

"Uh, I killed him cos' he molested my kid."

"Sir, we have a dozen witnesses who say that you killed him after he cut you off in a road rage incident."

"Ummm. He was getting away. He was a child molester and a bad driver."

"We also understand that your youngest child is 19 years old."

"We were driving for a really long time. It was rush hour."

Again, even if the guy was indeed a child molester, the father was severely wrong in murdering him.

Its important we remain a nation of laws, not third-world "honor killings."

I would be hard pressed not to do the same as this father did. I for one were on the jury in this murder case. I would let this guy skate with time served. Provided that the molestation did happen. Would serve as a warning to all those sick pukes out there that get off on molesting.

And assuming that the neighbor did NOT do anything to the child, you'd react how as a judge? Because "his child was molested so he's free to kill whoever" is fine by me as long as I get to rob a bank due to having been bullied in high school.

Come now, neither of us joined yesterday. So his wife relayed the words, it's still the same situation. No proof of any kind, just the words of a very, very young child. Anyone knows that while children are honest, they also have poor communication skills and are still grappling with the world around them. I have a very, very hard time believing that whatever she said was a complete and compelling enough testimonial to make this an appropriate, justifiable action in a rational person's mind.

What I can believe, though, is that the rumor mill was likely in full swing in the household or whole neighborhood. The article cites abberant behavior by the victim, likely the effect of some mental degradation by either age or alcohol. People don't handle unusual people well, and the mentally ill tend to become the victims of such ignorant fear. So the guy starts getting oblivious to the shades being open while he's naked, how long before panicky neighbors leap to conclusions of perversion? Once there, it would not take much to get them picking up torches and pitchforks.


what i meant by that is not that WE should give it more credence because she said it but that it is natural that a husband should believe his wife when she tells him such a thing.

its not natural to immediately go kill the accused molestor but perhaps the wife did a good job of filling in the details that we arent privvy to.

i grew up in a much more unsupervised way than 2 year olds are today but even when *I* was a kid our parents warned us away from those they suspected were sexual predators. they would, in their lax manner, keep us well away from any such person. i cant imagine any middle class parents today not doing much more than that to keep their 2 year old away from the creepy guy next door.

Let the guy go free, and give him a reward.

The molester piece of shit deserved every minute of it.

Right, because your omniscience allows you to KNOW that the neighbor had, in fact, molested the kid.

Screw presumed innocence, let's all think with the barrels of our weapons, which incidentally look a lot like penises! But remember this. When a guy kills your brother yelling "child molester!" as if it were the South Park "It's coming right for us" gag, "The molester piece of shit deserved every minute of it".

Just occurred to me, and, since there are so many people assuming a priori that the guy that got murdered was a child molester, I can wonder this.

What if the guy just WANTED or NEEDED to kill the neighbor (for whatever reason) and decided to claim that said neighbor had molested his daughter as a way to get off the hook? Or it's okay to assume the neighbor was a child molester without evidence but it's not okay to think that the guy might simply have WANTED the neighbor dead?

So we should give this guy a medal for sneaking into his neighbor's house and stabbing him to death in his sleep?

What if the kid was lying or made it up? Isn't that at all possible? Kids aren't always the most reliable of witnesseses.

That said, I wouldn't hesitate to kill....

...a psychotic, overprotective parent who came after me or one of my loved ones.

So we should give this guy a medal for sneaking into his neighbor's house and stabbing him to death in his sleep?

What if the kid was lying or made it up? Isn't that at all possible? Kids aren't always the most reliable of witnesseses.

That said, I wouldn't hesitate to kill....

...an overprotective parent who came after me or one of my loved ones.

Hey, the wife of the murdered guy would be fully justified to kill the man, by the logic many people are using here. And the man's wife would be justified to kill the first vic's wife, and it'd be like Barney's song, "I kill you, you kill me..."

Nice world, this one, eh?

Hey, the wife of the murdered guy would be fully justified to kill the man, by the logic many people are using here. And the man's wife would be justified to kill the first vic's wife, and it'd be like Barney's song, "I kill you, you kill me..."

Nice world, this one, eh?

Horrible world. But I differentiate between the clear and present danger of some psychotic, sensationalist-news-addicted parent crawling through my window intent on ventilating me or a member of my family, and a crime (no matter how vile) that was committed in the past and presents no clear and present danger.

People should have a right to defend themselves. Slithering into someone's house intent on dicing someone up in retribution (that he's not even sure about it makes it even worse) is quite different from putting a nice sized hole in that guys head while he's attacking.

Horrible world. But I differentiate between the clear and present danger of some psychotic, sensationalist-news-addicted parent crawling through my window intent on ventilating me or a member of my family, and a crime (no matter how vile) that was committed in the past and presents no clear and present danger.

People should have a right to defend themselves. Slithering into someone's house intent on dicing someone up in retribution (that he's not even sure about it makes it even worse) is quite different from putting a nice sized hole in that guys head while he's attacking.

Hey! You stole my point, you... point-stealer! :p

Hey! You stole my point, you... point-stealer! :p

Whoops. Err... you do realize that the self defense argument doesn't allow you to cap me just because I stole your point, right?

:eek: :D

Nail the fucker.

Whoops. Err... you do realize that the self defense argument doesn't allow you to cap me just because I stole your point, right?

:eek: :D

Awww... *Pockets his knife*

I don't see why this guy has to go to prison at all. He wasnt thinking clearly and he had a valid reason to kill the guy. I'd give him probation at most.

It is up to the court and maybe the doctors to decide if the lawyer is mentally ill or was temporaliry insane, thats about the only thing that might negate if found guilty. He is still innocent of the crime until proven guilty so won't make judgement but yeah, killing someone who might be a molester is not right.

Vilgante justice is a dangerous thing, people should trust the law system, neither the American of the British one is perfect but there are far worse

I don't see why this guy has to go to prison at all. He wasnt thinking clearly and he had a valid reason to kill the guy. I'd give him probation at most.

How convenient it is to ASSUME that the two-year old kid did NOT lie or invent or make a mistake, just so the guy's thirst for blood can be justified. What if, I repeat, what if it turns out that the neighbor this guy murdered was not a child molester? "It's okay, he wasn't thinking clearly, screw the guy's family, it's what they get for having as father someone that other people think might be a child molester!"? Do you realize the end state of that thought process or need I spell it out for you? Well, I'll spell it out: A system in which killing someone that looks at you funny is rewarded and enforced conformity follows since anyone acting "creepy" might be a child molester and thus would be justified to kill them. Do you want to release these 99 balloons?

It is up to the court and maybe the doctors to decide if the lawyer is mentally ill or was temporaliry insane, thats about the only thing that might negate if found guilty. He is still innocent of the crime until proven guilty so won't make judgement but yeah, killing someone who might be a molester is not right.

Vilgante justice is a dangerous thing, people should trust the law system, neither the American of the British one is perfect but there are far worse

Right you are, but it seems that he didn't negate that he killed the guy, so the answer to "did he do it?" is most likely "yes". Even ASSUMING the guy was a child molester, it's much better to get him in prison via the normal legal means, and this guy, a lawyer, should know this. If he still felt like getting revenge, letting the molester's fellow prisoners know what he did would be vengeance enough. In the US, as I recall, just like in Brazil, sexual offenders tend to have poetic justice inflicted upon them by the gentlemen they share the prison with, no?

I don't see why this guy has to go to prison at all. He wasnt thinking clearly and he had a valid reason to kill the guy. I'd give him probation at most.

The word of a small child is a "valid reason" for killing someone? So if I show a picture of you to my kids and they say "bad man, bad man", you won't complain if I attempt to do grevious bodily harm to you?

The word of a small child is a "valid reason" for killing someone? So if I show a picture of you to my kids and they say "bad man, bad man", you won't complain if I attempt to do grevious bodily harm to you?

*Raises up a sign with "9.5" written on it*

:D

I don't see why this guy has to go to prison at all. He wasnt thinking clearly and he had a valid reason to kill the guy. I'd give him probation at most.

Well, afterwards, after my murdered brother/dad/friend's name is cleared, I'd be back to cap the kid and his dad. BLAOW! BLAOW! Take that kid, you got my friend killed! BLAOW! Take that biatch, sneakin' in the window at night, I'll shoot yah punk ass in the street, cuz that's how I roll. :mp5:

Because, you know... gangster slang makes violence fun.
I swear, this was funny when I thought of it.

what i meant by that is not that WE should give it more credence because she said it but that it is natural that a husband should believe his wife when she tells him such a thing.

its not natural to immediately go kill the accused molestor but perhaps the wife did a good job of filling in the details that we arent privvy to.

The wife was not a witness, and I really doubt a two-year old's capacity to give a detailed statement. I am not even sure a cop could get a credible account from a child that age, let alone some civilian housewife. I could really imagine two overreactive parents filling in the blanks, though. Child runs over crying. Mom asks what's wrong. Kid gestures vaguely to neighbor. Mom infers he hurt her and asks where, so she points to her tummy. Mom tells dad, and a simple tummy ache is now cause for murder.

Maybe the wife was just a dingbat and the husband a psycho. If I were the surviving neighbors, I would get the hell out of town.

Well, afterwards, after my murdered brother/dad/friend's name is cleared, I'd be back to cap the kid and his dad. BLAOW! BLAOW! Take that kid, you got my friend killed! BLAOW! Take that biatch, sneakin' in the window at night, I'll shoot yah punk ass in the street, cuz that's how I roll. :mp5:

Because, you know... gangster slang makes violence fun.
I swear, this was funny when I thought of it.

And it would be perfectly legitimate too, see, because mob rule and vigilanteism are what makes America this great country that's so different from Taliban-era Afghanistan... :D

(Only, it'd be a revenge for something that ACTUALLY happened, so it'd be a bit less non-legitimate.)

But, to finish with style, I ask you gentlemen...

To all of you that defend the murderer here, if it turns out the man was innocent, will you support someone murdering the lawyer for having killed the man? Your main point in favor of the murderer is "oh, his daughter had been molested" so, you're now forced to say that, if the father was innocent, it's okay for his son to kill the guy that killed his father, because, "oh, his father had been killed". And I say forced because otherwise you'll have to either acknowledge you're wrong or acknowledge a sliiiiiight contradiction within your own thoughts.

As leader of the Happy Medium Party, I once again find myself caught i the middle.

Obviously what the man did was wrong. In a nation of laws, the dead prick in question still has the benefit of the doubt and the father has no business taking the law into his own hands. We really don't have all the details, but at first examination, it seems pretty ludicrous to kill your neighbor on the word of a two year old. You call the police. The dead prick had the right to his day in court.

However, was the father CAPABLE of thinking that way? Upon being informed that his child was molested by a neighbor(who from the article's description was a twisted bastard already), did he have the ability to determine right from wrong and make a conscious choice to break the law understanding the cosequences? That's for a court to decide. But if he was not in his right mind, considering the level of tragedy this has already reached, I don't think it's right to imprison for decades a man who couldn't make a rational choice at the time out of a blind rage that his child had been molested.

This is, of course, bearing in mind what things seem to me from the article. The killer was a lawyer with a young daughter and no prior criminal record. The dead man was the neighborhood prick. On the other hand, the killer did have the presence of mind to crawl in through a window and kill the man in his sleep. Still, does cunning go out the window when reason does? These are questions for a court of law.

My only point in this, really, was my surprise to discover a crime that made me reconsider my stance on temporary insanity.

And it would be perfectly legitimate too, see, because mob rule and vigilanteism are what makes America this great country that's so different from Taliban-era Afghanistan... :D

And here I was thinking it was the growing blur between church and state.

And here I was thinking it was the growing blur between church and state.

Oh, right, sorry: ONE of the things that makes America great... :p

...the dead prick..
...The dead prick...
...a twisted bastard already...
the neighborhood prick...
I'm glad to see that you are keeping a fair and open mind about the man. It's always good to see 'innocent before proven guilty' working so well. :p

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/08/30/neighbor.stabbing.ap/index.html

I'm not a strong proponent in temporary insanity, but this is about as textbook as it gets. If I were to find out that my two year old had been molested by a neighbor, I would have an extremely hard time not killing the motherfucker.

Obviously, the accused molester deserved to have his day in court, and I'm not justifying the killer's actions, but in that rage that must have hit him, I can imagine that he wsn't able to control his thoughts or actions. It'd be a challenge for anybody.

I'm not sure if I hope the dead man really was a molester for the father's peace of mind, or that he wasn't for the daughter's wellbeing.

This is pretty screwed up, right here. :(
At first i thought you said Mole-ster like a Mobster or a BritSter
this is more acceptable though.

I'm glad to see that you are keeping a fair and open mind about the man. It's always good to see 'innocent before proven guilty' working so well. :p

According to the article, he wasn't exactly the jewel of the neighborhood before this. :p

And it would be perfectly legitimate too, see, because mob rule and vigilanteism are what makes America this great country that's so different from Taliban-era Afghanistan... :D


It's funny you mention that:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/02/fatal.beating.ap/index.html

It's funny you mention that:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/02/fatal.beating.ap/index.html

See? Now THAT'S why America is a great and civilized country! :p *Sarcasm*

See? My ideas are not so strange. Looks like someone did what I said I would do in just such a circumstance.
Your ideas are strange alright. Judge, jury, and executioner all rolled into one. Your vigilante style and let God sort them out style is presumptuous and certainly not in accordance with Christian principles.

These are questions for a court of law.

Yes they are, and with luck they'll be answered without quite as much "leading of the jury" going on while the court attempts to sort out this Godawful mess.

'Prick'? Three times in one post, LG? I'm pretty disappointed over this.

It's funny you mention that:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/02/fatal.beating.ap/index.html

oops! If you're going to form an angry mob and beat someone to death, at least be sure that the guy you're killing might actually deserve it.

As for those ten guys? They can rot. I'm fine with killing in self-defense or in dire circumstances, if there's no other way. Even crimes of passion, in the heat of the moment - okay, I can understand, even though it's still a crime. But this kind of thing is disgusting.

See? My ideas are not so strange. Looks like someone did what I said I would do in just such a circumstance.

So, if the Unabomber does it too, it becomes "not so strange"? Because saying that one's ideas are normal because one moron goes with them lends no authority to the ideas...

So, if the Unabomber does it too, it becomes "not so strange"? Because saying that one's ideas are normal because one moron goes with them lends no authority to the ideas...

its normal to have the idea, to want to kill the person who molests your child. its not normal to do it.

for all the macho bravado in this thread, the truth is that probably none of the posters would actually kill a molestor. they have to consider their family and how much more their child needs them there than in jail.

after all thousands of men find out every year that someone has molested their child. many many of them find out exactly who did it. how many murdered child molestors can you remember in the past year? ever?

its normal to have the idea, to want to kill the person who molests your child. its not normal to do it.

for all the macho bravado in this thread, the truth is that probably none of the posters would actually kill a molestor. they have to consider their family and how much more their child needs them there than in jail.

after all thousands of men find out every year that someone has molested their child. many many of them find out exactly who did it. how many murdered child molestors can you remember in the past year? ever?

Oh, I was just pointing out the fallacy here - using the guy's example to claim it's normal.

Oh, I was just pointing out the fallacy here - using the guy's example to claim it's normal.

i was agreeing with you.

all these claims of bloodlust seem particularly contrived to me in the light of how few molestors ever get attacked by the family of the person s/he molested.

According to the article, he wasn't exactly the jewel of the neighborhood before this. :p

According to the article, the guy just began exhibiting strange behavior recently, and no complaints about him are listed besides this. This is indicative of the onset of some sort of mental illness, and faulting him like this just goes to show why western society has severe problems in handling its mentally ill.

Or, why justice is on the skids with "guilty until proven innocent" such a hollow phrase these days...

So, if the Unabomber does it too, it becomes "not so strange"? Because saying that one's ideas are normal because one moron goes with them lends no authority to the ideas...

Most of the time, yes.
DK's idea, however, is one of collective moronity and so that rule would not apply here.
And I think I made up a word. Yay.

Most of the time, yes.
DK's idea, however, is one of collective moronity and so that rule would not apply here.
And I think I made up a word. Yay.

Good, because I did not understand what you said and was afraid my grasp of English was slipping, but it turns out you're just being weird. :p :D

His methods lacked subtlety and distance.