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.
originally posted by: eNumbra
Charged with means just that, he's only been charged with murder.
The law hasn't done anything yet.
originally posted by: damwel
You aren't allowed to kill people because they wronged you.
originally posted by: damwel
You aren't allowed to kill people because they wronged you.
Killing someone is not the minimum force required to subdue them.
Are these opinions based on justice or the unfanthomable hatred we all share for sexual predators?
originally posted by: Timely
This is not as cut and dried as some might think.
The emergency 000 call was recorded and he was heard screaming " i am going to kill you!" .
The dead man was killed on the street, not inside the house.
The dead mans family claim that he was attending a party at the house.
I also heard that police were in attendace and the man refused an order to desist the attack.
There was also talk of there being two men involved in the beating.
I do condone the right to protect your home and family, however we need to hear the full and truthful series of events to be able to decide.
originally posted by: Dark Ghost
Unless the beating was done in self-defence, then it is not necessarily just. People just hear the words "sex offender" and lose their ability to apply logic and reason. Just breaking into somebody's home is illegal and unacceptable, but it does not mean you gain an automatic licence to kill the perpetrator — at least not in Australia.
originally posted by: Village Idiot
There are a lot of assumptions here... or should we beat every burgular to death...... just in case.
originally posted by: damwel
You aren't allowed to kill people because they wronged you.
originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: Aazadan
Killing someone is not the minimum force required to subdue them.
I don't know about you, but I don't think I would have control to "gauge my force" if I found a man in my house at all let alone approaching a child's room. it is act, react at that point and protect is what we do it is our home!
originally posted by: Aazadan
originally posted by: SeaWorthy
a reply to: Aazadan
Killing someone is not the minimum force required to subdue them.
I don't know about you, but I don't think I would have control to "gauge my force" if I found a man in my house at all let alone approaching a child's room. it is act, react at that point and protect is what we do it is our home!
Then perhaps you're not personally responsible enough to have a child. You don't have the right to take the law into your own hands. If there's an immediate threat you can stop it, but the moment that threat has passed no more force is justified, and medical aid should be rendered. If you find a rapist in your childs room and you shoot them, your #1 priority from that moment on is the rapists life. That's the price of using lethal force to stop the threat. If you can't handle that, then get a taser instead. If they die, you should probably go down for murder. If it's something less like someone is just being an ordinary burglar, you should definitely go down for murder, especially if they turned out to be unarmed.