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.

 

Human Rights: What would make you SNAP?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 05:57 AM
link   
Hello everyone,

I see alot of good people on this site, some people who are too good.

What do I mean by that?

Let me explain... I'll take the thread that was on here a while back about Paedophile's being killed through vigilante justice. I read and contributed to that thread and as usual found it interesting to hear other peoples opinions.

What shocked me in particular about that thread however was the amount of people who felt the Paedophile didn't deserve to be killed. People who felt that even after the crimes he committed he still had human rights.

Yes I know the manner of his death wasn't exactly squeaky clean but in my personal opinion the man in question deserved to rot in hell.

Now psychologists have proven that anyone, man or women, is capable of killing another human being given the adequate psychological stimulus.

Thus the purpose of this thread is twofold; firstly when does a person lose his/her human rights? Can somebody do something that terrible that they deserve to die?

Secondly, as stated there was a large amount of people who said they would never resort to violence and would never agree with taking another human beings life regardless of what they had done.

I personally do not believe these people, maybe some are true to their word but the majority in my opinion are not.

As an example if one of these people who don't believe in violence or the taking away of another persons life saw their own child murdered in front of them then I'm pretty sure they would want to harm the person responsible. I mean harm physically more than mentally...

So what would make you snap?

Edit: Re-titled to original title!

[edit on 21/8/09 by Death_Kron]




posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   
I kinda think that any person can snap at any moment.

Provided with the right - or wrong depending on our viewpoint - trigger.

Like you I also believe that those who believe otherwise perhaps haven't encountered that *trigger* yet.


In my life I've predominately worked within *conflict based* employment. Done many years working within Security, Private Security, Club/Bar Security for some rather dangerous and often gang-related establishments...and so have found myself in many many coflict situations...facing either unarmed or armed attackers...taking more than my fair share of punches, kicks, stabbed twice, had guns pulled on me etc.

Yet during those jobs I've never really *snapped*. Quite the opposite...I tend to remain icy calm...as again, violence and experiencing violence isn't foriegn and so to face being attacked is like "Yeah, and, been there done that"
Sure, I've had to respond with violence in order to defend myself...but its only been in self-defence. Responder rather than instigator, and then only enough to either remove the person or myself from that situation.


My current employment - and has been for the last 14 years now - is within Mental Health.
I've also worked within Youth Justice, Drug and Alcohol, Violence Prevention, Acute Inpatient Settings/Hospital Wards, Forensic Units etc...and again by the very nature of that work I've found myself in numerous conflict/crisis situations facing some rather unwell and highly agitated people at times.

Within those lines of work I've been called all manner of names, threatened, attacked, spat on, smeared in faeces, urinated on, you name it...but haven't *snapped*.
What I'm reknown for within my team and the Psych Teams we work with is being unshakeable...being someone who just remains calm and focussed and doesn't 'rise to the bait' irregardless of whats being throw at me.


...why the history? Context.


It takes a great deal to even get a rise out of me.
Even more to get me angry enough to contemplate responding with violence.

Yet a month or so ago my wife (who is pregnant - actually, we're expecting to enter labour any day now) and I were shopping at one of the local Malls.

We were standing on one of those escalators which aren't your usual steps, but the travel-ator/conveyor-belt types.
We're just standing there, looking out over other shoppers etc and minding our own business as we descend down the escalator when some guy - obviously in a huge rush - pushed passed me shouldering me out of the way.
No problem, its just a shoulder rub.
The guy then continues forward and pushes past my wife...in doing so she loses her balance momentarily and somewhat *falls* against the rail of the escalator - belly first.

The next thing I know I'm standing over this guy, he's curled up in a ball hard up against the safety barriers of the escalator, covering his head...my wife is yelling out my name.

I had *snapped*.
I seriously DON'T know what happened.
I do remember just seeing my wife fall against the railing, and it wasn't even like a hard fall, more a semi-slip.
I remember just looking back at this guy as he continued to push his way past people and feeling this incredible rage within me...thats all I remember.


Apparently what happened was that I just stormed up behind this guy, kicked him in the back of the knees to drop him down and then kicked him right in the side of the head. I then grabbed him by the scruff of the neck, lifted him up and was about to put my fist through his face when my wife grabbed my arm and screamed "NO! Let him go!". I let him go, he curled up, and thats when I was *conscious* of what was happening again.



So - what would make me *snap*: Endanger my loved ones.
What would I consider *reason* to take a life: Threaten the lives of my loved ones...not so much my own, maybe...


Peace.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by alien
 





I kinda think that any person can snap at any moment. Provided with the right - or wrong depending on our viewpoint - trigger.


You are correct. A threat to one's self may not be a trigger, but a threat to a loved one is. I am an "untrained" female, and like you "woke-up" to find myself taking out a 6 ft plus marine who had attacked my husband. Others had to pull me off him.

As far as I am concerned the "sweetness and light" types have generally lead a sheltered life where their button has not been pushed. There are very very few real pacificists in the world, the gene was culled out as soon as it cropped up. Even a herbivoire will turn and defend its young. I watched my mare stomp a rottweiller into the ground, the dog didn't stand a chance after it attacked her foal.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:51 AM
link   
reply to post by alien
 


Excellent reply!

I can definately relate to your personal experience at the shopping centre.

I haven't been in a similiar situation to that but I have lost my temper over various situations in the past were, like you mentioned, I have honestly had no re-collection of my actions.

Thats pure rage right there.


So - what would make me *snap*: Endanger my loved ones.
What would I consider *reason* to take a life: Threaten the lives of my loved ones...not so much my own, maybe...


Agree with you there 100%.

However, thats exactly what I can't understand. Why someone people wouldn't respond or would disagree with violence, even if someone had hurt their own?

But as you said maybe to those people it just isn't the right trigger.

I get annoyed at people who proclaim to never lose their temper or that they never get angry.

As human beings everyone gets angry and everyone loses their temper regardless of what anyone says.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


Nice work! Its strange and actually quite scary what pure rage can do to a person.

As you said that rage usually kicks in when they a member of their family is in danger, its human nature I suppose. Like animals...

Thats an interesting point about certain people living sheltered lives thus never really losing their temper. It's probably true

The point I do not understand though is some people in the thread I mentioned still said they wouldn't harm the Paedophile and someone even went as far to suggest that he still had human rights!



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 07:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


Now I think this could get pretty interesting, Nice topic OP.

Let's see, I personaly think that the death sentence would be too much of an easy way out for rapists and paedophiles. But it has to be done to ensure no one else falls victim to them. And if I had to be completely honest, I think they should be allowed no human rights, no fancy last meal and should die a slow.torturous.death.

I could go on about what I would do to a person like that, but it would be inapropriate.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by jinx880101
 


Thats my sentiments exactly!

As you say the death penalty i.e. a quick injection or gas chamber is too much of an easy way out for such a criminal and they should be made to suffer for what they did.

However, and I've got to be fair, the counter argument that was raised in the paedo thread was that the person making the paedo suffer is as bad as the paedo himself.

Still, its beyond me that people can turn around and say that paedophiles still have human rights and it actually disgusts me as much as their crimes do when I hear people saying "paedophiles are humans too"

Seriously some of the responses in that thread were actually like that!



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:26 AM
link   
Certainly a fascinating topic.

Within my line of work I've worked with people within Forensics Units who had *snapped* - some who just 'lost it' to the point of killing someone. Who for that moment in time their mind just went into 'ballistic mode' and they ended up taking someones life.
They're fine now. Seriously. But it was that moment where a completely different part of themselves rose and acted.

To add a little more context:
I was raised within an environment of violence.
The usual lower-socioeconomic communities, Gangs, crime, alcohol/drugs, domestic violence...all that...
Violence was the norm. To NOT react with violence, for even the most seemingly innocuous things, was in some ways ABNORMAL. It was expected, it was simply how things were.

As I grew older I learnt to live a different way, with a different way of being.

I guess for decades I've been suppressing that violent upbringing and that violent/rage-driven element of myself.
Channelling it instead into contact-sports such as Rugby League, MMA and other various Martial Art centred activities.

Thats why I tend to be calm in conflict/violent situations...as 1)They aren't anything new to me, and 2)No bravado intended here I assure you, and I know I'm no Mr Bad-A$$, but I'm confident enough in my ability to handle myself if needs be. I'm 6'2'', a shade under 100kgs, fit and well accustomed to various fighting/self-defence styles.

...fear can be a driver.

Those basic responses of Fight, Flight or Freeze come into it.
I tend not to fear for my own safety despite being in some pretty hair-raising situations - so rarely do those responses get triggered.
When they do its predominately been *fight* that gets triggered.


Those 3 basic responses can determine a WHOLE lot of what happens.

I've seen the most smallest, meakest, peaceful looking people just *snap* and go absolutely crazed.

I remember having to call in a few other Ward Staff to haul off this tiny little 5ft-nothing 60 year old lady who was pummelling the stuffing out of this humungous 6'5'' 130kgs Samoan guy once...

The strength she had, the viciousness with it, was just incredible.
We almost had to sprain her fingers to get her to release her grip on this guy...and eventually had to hold her down with a full team restraint and IMI her with a sedative...she was that hyped, strong and uncontrollable!



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 





However, and I've got to be fair, the counter argument that was raised in the paedo thread was that the person making the paedo suffer is as bad as the paedo himself.


I would beg to differ, what kind of person would you be if you let that person live and have the chance to cause physical and phsycological damage to another inocent child/victim. What they do is sick and I feel it is our duty rid this earth of as many sicko's as possible. You can hardly leave the house after dark without being in danger & some people cant even trust their own parents and family members regarding their children.
Thing like child pornography and other unspeakable things make me feel sick to my stomach. And enraged at the person comiting it...and the people staning up for the rights of people who commit such serious offenses.



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Death_Kron
 


At the risk of annoying you
I rarely get angry and it's been an extremely long time since I lost my temper.

It can be a bit of a disadvantage not to completely 'lose it' in a fight, but I can be very articulate in an argument which is useful.

The last time I remember losing my temper was when my then-partner came at me with a kitchen stool - legs first. I flinched and he sneered and said "Hah! That scared you". Well, never accuse me of being scared (or sneer at me). That's when I lost my temper and gave him a black eye.

I used to get pushed and bullied a lot on public transport (the tube) to the point that I found alternative means to travel. Not because I was just fed-up with other people's attitudes but I was getting to the point where I would have been willing to respond with violence.

Other than that, I agree with people who have said they'd be more likely to lose it defending a loved one than when defending themselves.

As for the execution of criminals, I think that as long as the general public are dissatisfied with the punishments meted out to them there will be the risk of vigilantism.

It sickens me that criminals rely on the decency of the society they have preyed upon to save them from what some of us would refer to as 'proper punishment'.

I think, honestly, that there are different degrees of murder and would be inclined to be more lenient with someone who had spent years being tormented by their victim before they snapped than I would be towards someone who picked a random victim off the street.

We are told that there is no cure for paedophiles, so what to do with them? Well, I see no point in locking them up for a few years and then letting them loose on society without having been rehabilitated. I'd seriously suggest life-long medication to dull the desire, or to prevent a person being able to act on the desire if it couldn't be inhibited.
(I'd have no objection to more blood-thirsty 'cures' in extreme cases).

Ditto for any other sort of sexual predator.

Of course, it must be proved beyond all shadow of a doubt that the person about to be punished was guilty of the crime. I'd even stay the execution of a serial killer for ten years to allow the accused person to gather more evidence of their innocence or the prosecution to gather even more evidence of their guilt.

If people are going to be put in prison for lengthy periods of time then I really believe it is up to the authorities to educate them or employ them so their time is spent usefully.

I also think it is up to the authorities to think a bit more carefully about what they imprison people for. There are some unjust laws and penalties that need to be addressed.

But keeping violent persons locked up for the rest of their (possibly long) natural lives at the expense of the tax-payer makes no sense to me. Find a humane way to do it, but get rid of them.

PS - Sterling work on the Dan Tanna thread - keep it up



posted on Aug, 21 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   
I do not condone violence but if someone definatly commited a hanus crims such as rape and it is proven 100% that it was this person..they deserve death. I myself will not "throw the first punch" in a fight but if i had a good reason to, i would kill somebody.



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join