It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

"He’s going to learn in the next 25 years why I let him live"

page: 3
31
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Let's hope so.

But if not, this guy is getting out in 25, and he'll only be in his early 40's. Still plenty of time for him to harm others afterwards. This guy's problems aren't going to magically go away in 25 years.




posted on Apr, 7 2015 @ 11:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: infolurker

I read this the other day , boy did he mess his face up , and rightly so . The best thing is the police chief made no attempt to arrest him , nor should he . Kind of brings a little confidence in the ability of LEOs to make the right moral decision . Happy 25 years scumbag .


So it's a good thing that the police chief chose to which laws to enforce and which to ignore? Justice is supposed to be blind. That man should have been arrested for assault.

I take it you're also a fan of when a police department lets a cop that has multiple DUI's and a suspended license drive a car drunk, with other cops in the car? This is the exact same thing.

Justice should be applied equally to all, that means even the lowest of the low, who sexually abused a child should be free from additional assault.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 12:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan




'Dad was acting like a dad. I don't see anything we should charge the dad with




Different country , different police i would suspect . Recently got let off for speeding and i can tell you i was a big fan of that .Police are prosecuted here all the time . I have yet to see a headline about the father not being charged. He caught him in the act . He stopped him . Lets see if the scum tries to sue , nah thought not .
edit on 8-4-2015 by hutch622 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   
a reply to: infolurker

" That’s because, as ABC News detailed, ‘prison is a living hell for pedophiles,’ and that in many cases they need protective custody because some inmates are parents. "

So they are basically saying pedophiles don't molest their own children.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
Different country , different police i would suspect . Recently got let off for speeding and i can tell you i was a big fan of that .Police are prosecuted here all the time . I have yet to see a headline about the father not being charged. He caught him in the act . He stopped him . Lets see if the scum tries to sue , nah thought not .


I don't think so. I'm in the US same as this guy. Justice however is not supposed to be arbitrary, it is supposed to be equal and it is supposed to be conducted by a court. The function of the police is to find crime and get the accused to the courtroom, it is not their function to decide if the person should or shouldn't be prosecuted or to cover up crimes. It is also not their job to allow vigilante justice just because they happen to have a distaste for the accused.

The man was found guilty, he will get 25 years in prison. That is supposed to be his punishment, extra prison rapes or beatings by the accused are not legal punishment. One is a violation of cruel and unusual punishment (a right he maintains while a prisoner), while the other is a man who decided to circumvent the justice system. He should be punished, unless of course you want a society where it is ok for anyone to violate the justice system and take matters into their own hands because of how serious they feel the crime is?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:44 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I dont live in the US .



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: Aazadan

I dont live in the US .


So you believe the justice in your country should be arbitrary and doled out at the whim of a police officer?



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 01:07 PM
link   
I would think that a parent defending their minor offspring would fall under the auspices of "self defense".
I'm not a lawyer, or an expert on the legalese of this case, but just from a logical standpoint, this would make sense.
He was defending his young. Pretty basic right I'd think here.

Jail or not, I'd shoot such a scumbag were I to walk in on the same. (and my first shots would "miss" any vitals, to be sure that I had to take some followup ones).....
edit on 8-4-2015 by Gazrok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 05:53 PM
link   
If the dad murdered the pedo his son would not only have to live with having been assaulted but also with having lost his father, and on top of that the pedo suffers less.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gazrok
I would think that a parent defending their minor offspring would fall under the auspices of "self defense".
I'm not a lawyer, or an expert on the legalese of this case, but just from a logical standpoint, this would make sense.
He was defending his young. Pretty basic right I'd think here.

Jail or not, I'd shoot such a scumbag were I to walk in on the same. (and my first shots would "miss" any vitals, to be sure that I had to take some followup ones).....


Self defense stops when the threat ends. Not when the person leaves, but when the person stands down. I realize it's not popular to defend the pedo, no one is ever going to star me for doing so and I've gotten more than a few choice words from people in public (and once, a punch in the face) when I've taken this side of the debate .

However, it is important for a society to recognize these concepts because rights exist to protect those at the bottom, and if we are incapable as a society of applying justice blindly to one person who is to say we won't repeat the mistake again when the situation is more controversial?
edit on 8-4-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-4-2015 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

"Self defense stops when the threat ends. Not when the person leaves, but when the person stands down."

Right just kill anyone who takes a swing at you!

The thing is when a subject like this is brought up around people. People immediately go into save face and fake mode.

It's like a press meeting after a football game. After you watch about 5 of them it's completely evident that your not goin g to get any substance.

Everything is scripted rehearsed to protect any minor deficiencies in personality and mentality so that a target is not put on their backs.

Because we all know every family in the world has a pedo show up for christmas and no one wants to talk about it.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: Gazrok
I would think that a parent defending their minor offspring would fall under the auspices of "self defense".
I'm not a lawyer, or an expert on the legalese of this case, but just from a logical standpoint, this would make sense.
He was defending his young. Pretty basic right I'd think here.

Jail or not, I'd shoot such a scumbag were I to walk in on the same. (and my first shots would "miss" any vitals, to be sure that I had to take some followup ones).....


Self defense stops when the threat ends. Not when the person leaves, but when the person stands down. I realize it's not popular to defend the pedo, no one is ever going to star me for doing so and I've gotten more than a few choice words from people in public (and once, a punch in the face) when I've taken this side of the debate .

However, it is important for a society to recognize these concepts because rights exist to protect those at the bottom, and if we are incapable as a society of applying justice blindly to one person who is to say we won't repeat the mistake again when the situation is more controversial?


I understand the point you are making - absolutely. BUT a person caught in the middle of a criminal act is depriving another person of THEIR rights.

My feeling is that if you go out to commit a crime and you are prepared to ignore the rights of another, don't be surprised if no-one is prepared to uphold YOUR rights.

The very act of committing a crime should deprive of your rights - whilst you are committing it and, to an extent, after you have been apprehended. I'd suggest that once you are in the hands of the Law then you ought to be treated with a modicum of decency. BUT - if you want to risk whatever happens to you when an irate citizen catches you stealing their property or molesting their kid - don't whine about it when you get your lumps.

Rights exist to protect all of us - even from criminals.

And, seriously, how much force might it take to apprehend a strong, fit young man whilst he's determinedly raping an eleven year old? I'd suggest rather a lot.

He didn't expect a little kid to be able to resist him and put a stop to the threat, did he? Poor b*st*rd when the father turned up unexpectedly. He didn't expect to see the odds evened up a bit, did he? I imagine he didn't politely extract himself and offer an apology.

So the father took action to see that the threat ended, and I'd be prepared to accept his word as to when that was.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 07:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: berenike
I understand the point you are making - absolutely. BUT a person caught in the middle of a criminal act is depriving another person of THEIR rights.

My feeling is that if you go out to commit a crime and you are prepared to ignore the rights of another, don't be surprised if no-one is prepared to uphold YOUR rights.


They are, but I don't think it's asking too much of society for the victim to be the bigger person here, if that's the ideal of our justice system then we should strive to live up to it. I realize people get caught up in the moment, but we have all kinds of laws to determine if an emotional reaction that was illegal should be permissible because the person just wasn't being rational. This is supposed to be up to the courts to decide, it is not the job of the police to take the role of the judge. The man should have stood trial for assault (and then probably found guilty of a lesser charge based on what few facts we have).


The very act of committing a crime should deprive of your rights - whilst you are committing it and, to an extent, after you have been apprehended. I'd suggest that once you are in the hands of the Law then you ought to be treated with a modicum of decency. BUT - if you want to risk whatever happens to you when an irate citizen catches you stealing their property or molesting their kid - don't whine about it when you get your lumps.


But at that point you have only been accused of a crime, you haven't been found guilty. I realize that it's a bit more black and white in a sexual assault case like this when you walk in to a guy with his pants down next to your child but what about theft? A store owner thinks he saw you take something, and you have that item on you when he chases you down and beats you up. Was the store owner in the right? What about when it later comes out that you owned that item and didn't take it from the store?

It is the role of the courts to decide guilt, we bystanders or even as victims we are biased witnesses and what we think the facts are, that we use to justify our actions may not always be the truth.


Rights exist to protect all of us - even from criminals.


And there's such things as rights of the accused, to protect them from retribution by the alleged victim before all the facts are in.


He didn't expect a little kid to be able to resist him and put a stop to the threat, did he? Poor b*st*rd when the father turned up unexpectedly. He didn't expect to see the odds evened up a bit, did he? I imagine he didn't politely extract himself and offer an apology.


I have no doubt that a few punches were part of the man simply defending his child, and the man himself was a predator who deserved to be punished. That type of beating though went well beyond neutralizing the threat and self defense.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 07:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I'm with you but I think in your reply before last you just had your message a little mixed with that first sentence.

Basically your saying what is the point in the judicial system and god given rights if we can use excuses to go murder someone whenever and however.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

I think it's preposterous to ask the victim of a crime to 'be the bigger person' during an attack against them or their property.

Why on Earth should anyone be expected to 'be the bigger person' under such extreme provocation?

Society is made up of many sorts of people - some more hot-headed than most. Why don't criminals do a psychological profile of their potential victim to ensure they only pick on the more passive?

Or perhaps, just go for the smallest and weakest?

Here's an idea - why not stay at home and not commit crimes?

I'm not attempting to justify violence against just anyone because someone decided they looked guilty of something.

I'm defending a person's right to defend themselves or another, or their property, whilst under attack.

Seriously, be the bigger person after you've just witnessed your son being sodomised? People are emotional creatures and, I'd suggest, anger is a perfectly legitimate response to that cirumstance.



posted on Apr, 8 2015 @ 08:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: berenike
I think it's preposterous to ask the victim of a crime to 'be the bigger person' during an attack against them or their property.

Why on Earth should anyone be expected to 'be the bigger person' under such extreme provocation?


Because you either believe in the justice system or you don't. If you do, you should be able to apply it to yourself and let things happen. Obviously you should defend yourself and your family, but once the immediate threat is gone why do you get to dole out punishment? Part of agreeing with living in society is that you hand this power over to the courts.


Society is made up of many sorts of people - some more hot-headed than most. Why don't criminals do a psychological profile of their potential victim to ensure they only pick on the more passive?


What makes you think they don't? The criminals that get caught are the ones that screwed up. Criminals, especially the ones that commit home invasions are well documented to stake their victims out.



Here's an idea - why not stay at home and not commit crimes?


Because some people are sick. Besides that, criminals always have a justification for their actions. Revenge, thought the person had something that was yours, or more commonly... just wanted to take something.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 07:16 AM
link   
a reply to: Aazadan

Of course I believe in a justice system but the flaw is that the justice system kicks in AFTER the crime has been committed.

Nobody knows how they or another will react in the face of an assault - but if you're not the victim how can you possibly assess how threatened they felt? How frightened? How outraged? It's insulting to try and tell them afterwards how you think they should have behaved.

A person defending themselves has the right to drop the aggressor and make sure they stay down. The aggressor has a massive advantage over the victim - they are already on the wrong side of the law, they're likely to have done that sort of thing before, and probably likely to be bigger and stronger.

Also, the criminal may have even more to fight for than the victim. If the aggressor is caught they might be looking at a lengthy prison sentence, so how can you possibly tell how far they are willing to go to beat off a victim who fought back?

I'd like to live in a civilized society but that doesn't mean I want to see people so neutered that they roll over and invite an attacker to give them an extra kick rather than risk being imprisoned because they dared to fight back.

And to go back to the case in the OP - thinking about it, that father did show rather a lot of restraint in the face of such severe provocation.

I can't speak for all criminals, but let's suppose that some are stupid and can't properly assess the risk when they choose their victim. Do I really have to feel sorry for them if they get beaten up?

You're suggesting to me that either I (we) believe in a justice system or not. As a law abiding person, I have to support the system we have even though I believe it is severely flawed.

But what about persons who commit crime? Presumably they believe in the justice system and that's why they want to complain if their intended victim didn't go through the proper process to have them punished, but decided to fight back physically instead?

If 'criminals always have a justification for their actions' then I'd suggest that victims who fought back are allowed to have a justification for their actions too - whether some think them too extreme or not.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 10:15 AM
link   
This guy is a great Dad to his child. Listening to the 911 call on the article's page also sounds like he is a pretty humble guy too.

He did exactly what he should have done (beat the hell out of the molester) and he received no trouble from the police for it. That is my favorite part of this story.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 05:33 PM
link   
I wonder if the father also messed up the guy's ability to assault another human again. I know I wouldn't have re-arranged just his face.



posted on Apr, 9 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: berenike
Of course I believe in a justice system but the flaw is that the justice system kicks in AFTER the crime has been committed.


A necessary evil. We don't want to start prosecuting precrime right?


Nobody knows how they or another will react in the face of an assault - but if you're not the victim how can you possibly assess how threatened they felt? How frightened? How outraged? It's insulting to try and tell them afterwards how you think they should have behaved.


If you're not the victim how can you say what the punishment would be? The victim is the one who feels the pain from the crime. The answer to that question, is that the victim takes the crime personally. Only a person who is detached can impartially judge the crime, the response, and the punishment. It's precisely the people who aren't involved that can say how a person should have behaved, because to them the crime isn't about them and they can look at it from a macro rather than micro perspective.


You're suggesting to me that either I (we) believe in a justice system or not. As a law abiding person, I have to support the system we have even though I believe it is severely flawed.


If it's flawed, why should you support it? Shouldn't you instead propose a better system? If you're incapable of coming up with a better system, how are you so sure the current one is flawed?


If 'criminals always have a justification for their actions' then I'd suggest that victims who fought back are allowed to have a justification for their actions too - whether some think them too extreme or not.


Just because you can justify an action (and all humans justify virtually everything they do) doesn't mean that person is in the right. It means they believe themselves to be in the right.




top topics



 
31
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join