Mob Beats Carjacker To Death Who Stole Car With Three Kids In Philly

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Best post in this thread!

I have been around both humans and animals for my entire life. The least dangerous are the animals. Humans will trick you, conspire to hurt you, yes, kill you even if they think they can somehow profit from it in ways that make so sense to anyone else... like get more green paper (or ensure you don't get green paper).

The very idea of trying to place humans over animals due to some perceived morality is absolutely laughable. I'll take the morality of a rattlesnake over the morality of the average human any day.

TheRedneck

Facts. With animals, you know what you are dealing with... A rattlesnake isn't going to try to tell you it is a cuddly bunny.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: TheGreatWork
The graduation from the animal kingdom to the human kingdom is to learn to be like humans and not animals.

But what, exactly, does this entail and who decides it is so? Nothing on God's Green Earth kills more out of vengeance, destroy more out of spite, or takes more out of greed than humanity does... sort of seems like that's just man being man, does it not?

That is what "The Great Work" is. Nothing will change in the World until everyone does it, at least more so than not. Starts within.

a reply to: TheGreatWork

Sounds like a lot of work.

Humans prefer the path of least resistance.

a reply to: Edumakated

It'll also leave you alone if you let it. That vicious rattle is a warning that it is scared and ready to defend itself... not a threat that you'd better agree with its personal agenda or it'll strike you down.

TheRedneck

a reply to: roadgravel

When they have your kids, it is a reasonable reason to beat on the person.

But i've seen a guy (in my hometown) that chased a regular car thief down and shot him. That was ruled murder. Protecting property that you don't secure isn't a reason to kill. Protecting 3 children who were kidnapped is.

Im sorry. Ill never agree with you. My kids are grown, and i'd still shoot someone who put them in mortal danger. And i'd likely go to prison for that, as they are adults.

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: carewemust
Mob justice would be the end of a civilized society.

I agree with you. (Mark this date). The kids were safe. Would it have been quite as acceptable if they had strung him up? Careful what you ask for, folks.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: roadgravel

When they have your kids, it is a reasonable reason to beat on the person.

But i've seen a guy (in my hometown) that chased a regular car thief down and shot him. That was ruled murder. Protecting property that you don't secure isn't a reason to kill. Protecting 3 children who were kidnapped is.

Im sorry. Ill never agree with you. My kids are grown, and i'd still shoot someone who put them in mortal danger. And i'd likely go to prison for that, as they are adults.

The problem is the other person will be dead while you keep on living without a regret.


No one thinks that the thief is also the son of someone and they will equally be sad. Everyone says what they will do from their own point of view ignoring what the reallity of the situation is.

You kill the person who stole your car, his parents kill you for killing him, your cousin kills them and thats an endless circle of pain and suffering.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Lets just go full blown Brazil.

Then Canada can get all Mexico.

Everyone will be an off-duty cop.

a reply to: JohnnyCanuck

Its not mob justice. It was a psychological reaction that most people understand. His children were in imminent harm...its different than the villagers sitting around grumbling about the beast on the hill.

originally posted by: ZeroFurrbone
You kill the person who stole your car, his parents kill you for killing him, your cousin kills them and thats an endless circle of pain and suffering.

Highly doubtful.

Why you ask?

Thief created the situation, and was creating victims.

How does your brain think that people are willing to die for a pos?

I think your logic center may be defective.

In an ideal world, the dad and company would be evil for perverting the call for justice.

But in this country, the cops are not about stopping crime, or even about justice. They are merely in the business of crowd control.

Back before there were jails and cops, a captured criminal would be blindfolded by having his hoodie pulled over his face (hood-winked), and forced to be run between two lines of the local yeomanry.

If they thought you were basically not very guilty, they would smack you very lightly. If they thought you sucked, they’d hit you with farming implements and you’d never reach “the end of the line.”

The hoodwink was just so you wouldn’t know who hit you hardest,

Most people survived the gauntlet, except rapists and murderers.

There were fewer repeat offenders then

a reply to: JustJohnny

Easy to say after the fact. In the moment though, any good parent would eliminate the threat unless they love lawful justice more than protecting their children. I wouldn't want to beat him to death but I don't think I'd be in the right state of mind to practice restraint. Those kids were probably scared to death. Now they are safe and hopefully don't lose their father. I was in a department store with my 5 yo nephew. I turned around and he wasn't there. I instantly felt a panic I've never known. He was an aisle over but I cant imagine how it must feel to see a thief drive off with my kids. My hands would be broken and my kids in my arms. Safe again.

a reply to: Lysergic

Well everyone says they would kill the person that endangers their kids and that its compeltely normal.

By their own point of view the parents of the killed guy will kill them too for endangering their kid.

originally posted by: JohnnyCanuck

originally posted by: shawmanfromny
a reply to: carewemust
Mob justice would be the end of a civilized society.

I agree with you. (Mark this date). The kids were safe. Would it have been quite as acceptable if they had strung him up? Careful what you ask for, folks.

I think we need more of that.

What deters thieves now?

A reduced sentence and a slap on the wrist?

Criminals laugh because we have bleeding hearts defending and justifying their actions at the cost of the actual victims.

I think a little "frontier justice" is needed from time-to-time to remind those who would infringe, that it probably wouldn't be a wise decision.

a reply to: ZeroFurrbone

Its unfortunate that the thief made a choice that put his own life in peril. Perhaps his parents could have helped give better guidance? im unsure...but his parents grief doesn't matter. All that mattered was the imminent threat to 3 children caused by this guy.

You have to understand that I live in a state where if you are on my property uninvited after dark, there is a good chance ill get away with shooting you. Even in the back. From 300 yards down the street as you try to flee. My expectation for what is a reasonable risk for a thief is likely different than big cities, who seem to coddle these assholes to the point that they would try to steal the car in front of everyone on what is reportedly a heavily trafficked street.

a reply to: ZeroFurrbone

The problem is the other person will be dead while you keep on living without a regret.

He'll be dead of his own actions. Just because one does not like the expected consequences of their actions, does not mean one has some right to be free of those consequences.

Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood psychopath...

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Graysen
In an ideal world, the dad and company would be evil for perverting the call for justice.

But in this country, the cops are not about stopping crime, or even about justice. They are merely in the business of crowd control.

Back before there were jails and cops, a captured criminal would be blindfolded by having his hoodie pulled over his face (hood-winked), and forced to be run between two lines of the local yeomanry.

If they thought you were basically not very guilty, they would smack you very lightly. If they thought you sucked, they’d hit you with farming implements and you’d never reach “the end of the line.”

The hoodwink was just so you wouldn’t know who hit you hardest,

Most people survived the gauntlet, except rapists and murderers.

There were fewer repeat offenders then

Sounds like the police back then should have been treatd the same way because they were clearly murderers.

Good thing we are not living in the agesd of the inquisition anymore.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: roadgravel

When they have your kids, it is a reasonable reason to beat on the person.

But i've seen a guy (in my hometown) that chased a regular car thief down and shot him. That was ruled murder. Protecting property that you don't secure isn't a reason to kill. Protecting 3 children who were kidnapped is.

Im sorry. Ill never agree with you. My kids are grown, and i'd still shoot someone who put them in mortal danger. And i'd likely go to prison for that, as they are adults.

It's not agreeing or not with me. We are talking the legal system.

I really don't care that the man is dead or that the woman was stupid. It's our lame society.

Some people here try to talk facts, others talk opinion.

originally posted by: ZeroFurrbone
a reply to: Lysergic

Well everyone says they would kill the person that endangers their kids and that its compeltely normal.

By their own point of view the parents of the killed guy will kill them too for endangering their kid.

I bet you 10,000 american dollars nobody does #.

Don't wanna die?

Don't do things to the innocent.

He is not innocent,

Understand or have I lost you?