Self Defence, or Murder?

[Jaxel]

Shooting him the first time was self-defense... the 5 shots overkill... that was murder.

 

[Plume]

...What I've said so far in this discussion is very unclear, sorry.

In your example, the man probably could have taken his daughter back without killing. So I kinda agree with it here.

I can bring my example back about the girl and her father... But I suppose that the blame belongs to the retarded system that we have for pedophiles and the way that we handle these particular cases.
And it was a bad example anyway, because she did kill him.
But still, what else could she have done to make him pay? Not much.

So basically, you've been raped continually for a few years? That sucks little girl. We'll send your father to our special pedophile "prison" with free experts to "cure" him while he can brag to other pedophiles about what he did with you. Then we'll release him in a few years. You're suffering from a traumatism? Heh if it's that serious, you can probably pay for a psychologist yourself. Or let your new family do it. (Or the department of "protection" of the youth or whichever alternative.)


Edit: (To give a sense to these two paragraphs...)
She had the choice between letting him meet new pedophile friends, or go to prison herself and make him pay.

(...)but if he's not actually in danger at the time then there's no reason for him to be attacking. Either way, if he could have left without beating her up first then that's what he should have done. The self defence laws are very clear about not covering revenge or vigilante attacks, e.g. if the husband leaves the house but then comes back and attacks his wife he's way over the line.

That's what I'm saying. When it's not a question of life and death, don't do to them what they do to you, even if they deserve it, or else you won't get help from the police.


Maybe the reason why it was unclear is because I didn't make it clear that I didn't mean life and death cases.
I meant the countless other "secondary" cases.

Meh, maybe everything I said in this thread was off-topic.

 

[page]

I don't understand. Do you think making someone pay, as you put it, is of some benefit to the victim?

You're not going to get any argument from anyone, ever, that paedophilia is one of the worst crimes imaginable, but just punishing the paedophile because it might make the victim feel better is not the reason we have laws. At the same time, paedophilia is one of the most dangerous accusation you can make; you call a person a paedophile in public and even if charges are never brought and there's no evidence of anything, they're fucked for life. The sex offenders offenders who actually manage to get released don't exactly have an easy life, either; they're social pariahs who are lucky if they can find work and not be hounded constantly be their neighbours. The vast majority of paedophiles are mentally ill, but there is no known cure, only treatments that have shown limited success in curbing recidivism. If you're not going to treat them, then what? They're sick people, and just locking them up forever doesn't help anyone, really.

 

[Plume]

Well, how to cure pedophilia... I think there's a way that can work very well.
Send them in a real prison.
You know, where many prisoners are prisoners because they had a difficult life and some of them were abused by their parents when they were young.

Send pedophiles in there, and this will probably cure their mental illness for the rest of their life.
And possible future pedophiles will think thrice before touching a kid.

Dr. Plume says so.



I don't know about making someone pay.
There are indeed many false pedophilia accusations, and killing the said pedophiles should probably not be acceptable by the law.
Same for killing anyone who does not threaten your life.

But I think it's illogical that when you're the victim of something that does not threaten your life, you can't defend yourself or else the police won't help you. I think the law should be a little more loose in these cases.
If you were the victim and you defended yourself, even by killing your aggressor, ...sure, maybe you should do prison or some kind of community service, but something lighter, shorter than if you had been the aggressor.

(And since pedophiles remain a possible danger, even when they say that they are "cured", maybe killing them shouldn't be much of a big deal.)

 

[page]

I can't believe you're making me look like I'm defending paedophiles. :<

Sending them to jail isn't going to do anything. They're sick in the head. Like a psychopath, sending them to prison for any length of time will not change them. The only hope is with proper treatment. That doesn't excuse them, and people have this misconception that going to a criminal hospital is a free ride; it isn't. A paedophile can even show remorse for their actions and wish to be punished, and that's good, but it's not going to help anyone.

But where is anyone saying that you can't defend yourself from a sexual assault or that police won't help kids in those situations? That's simply untrue.

Capitol punishment is utter failure, across the board. But that's a different topic.

 

[DC97]

First shot was self-defense, second was murder.

 

[Plume]

I can't believe your making me look like I'm defending paedophiles. :<

Hehe, sorry. I was trying to avoid doing that, but apparently I failed.

Sending them to jail isn't going to do anything. They're sick in the head. Like a psychopath, sending them to prison for any length of time will not change them.

The reason why I think they should be sent to jail is because the prisoners there had their life messed up by people like that.
They were not all raped, but a lot of them were surely beaten by their parents. And that's pretty much the same thing as pedophilia.
If these prisoners have the "chance" to have a pedophile with them, what do you think they'll do to him?

...That's why I think it would be the most effective cure.

But where is anyone saying that you can't defend yourself from a sexual assault or that police won't help kids in those situations? That's simply untrue.

I wish I had any credible source at all to back this up, but I don't...

And I wasn't talking about death sentences, I meant if the victim killed their aggressor.

 

[Marginal]

Well, how to cure pedophilia... I think there's a way that can work very well.
Send them in a real prison.
You know, where many prisoners are prisoners because they had a difficult life and some of them were abused by their parents when they were young.

Send pedophiles in there, and this will probably cure their mental illness for the rest of their life.
And possible future pedophiles will think thrice before touching a kid.

Dr. Plume says so.

They tend to be killed by other inmates in prison. Stops the behavior, but doesn't really cure 'em.

 

[Plume]

Ah...
I would have thought that they'd make them live through hell instead...

Crap, then.

 

[InsaneKhent]

I voted "Other". First shot = Soul Crush, Next 5 shots = Critcal Finish

 

[page]

Even if they weren't killed making them "live through hell" is a cruel and unusual punishment.

 

[GATOR]

The robber, armed or not, is guilty. His friend was armed and he was using his FRIEND as a weapon to extort, and therefore he was armed by association, knew the idiocy that he was partaking in, and got his shit ruined because of it. Self defense, and the good kind.

Umm.. yeaaaaa... thats NOT how life works..lol..or criminal law.

the second shot is way out of bounds. He had control of the scenario at that point. You'll notice that he casually walks up and kills him, it's premeditated. It's not as though the kid went for a gun or to lash back and was shot in defense.

Definitely murder. The guy had sooo many options to choose and going for a walk up kill is just fucked up. Do i think the kid deserved the first shot? Yes. The 2nd shot? Hell no.

Looks like we got ourselves a clear cut case of murder.

If his defense lawyer is any good, he will make his client take a plea of voluntary manslaughter. If this case goes to trial, he wont stand a chance.

makes the point that violence, however someone justifies it, is clearly against the law, and that the use of deadly force outside of a life-or-death situation will get you brought up on some sort of murder charge. Perhaps to Walker it was worth spending 10 years (the minimum sentence, and he doesn't pose any real threat to society so he'll probably get off) of his life in jail to save his daughter, but that shouldn't change the law.

That walker case is pretty fucked up.. def was murder. But yea, anyway, this was murder no doubt. I don't even think you can say it was manslaughter. Manslaughter is you were driving your car and see someone right before you hit them and your were drunk. Manslaughter is if they were yelling at eachother and one guy drew a gun in anger and fired. The cops and the civilian have the same code on this. A downed dis-armed person is "out" and there is no reason to do anything else to them. This guy was either A: sadistic B: Scared STUPID or C: Angry.

If its A or C then its 100% murder. His attorney will obviously try to say taht he was scared stupid and that because he was untrained in combat or something that the situation made it so he didn't know what was gonna happen and tried to make sure he was "safe" again. But there is NO FUCKING WAY you shoot a guy 5 times while he is on the ground without trying to kill him unless you are shooting him in his knee caps and shoulders to completely fuck-up and disarm someone (And even that is more than likely gonna lead to a conviction or a lawsuit by the person you shot).

Fuck.. anyone ever hear about the story about the guys trying to rob a guy's house but they sued because they got hurt tryin to get in? I don't remember the specifics but the robbers won. If something like that happens then there is NO WAY this wasn't pre-determined murder. The moment you walk away from a hot-zone and return you have left the state of "passion" and go into "pre-conceived" territory.

 

[IgnisPhaseOne]

If you're defending yourself, defend yourself with overwhelming force.

One thing that guy knows; that kid isn't going to be robbing him ever again.

Like school bullies. If you beat them with a lacrosse stick until it's slightly bent, you can be sure the fucker will leave you alone for the rest of the school year. And, you don't get punished because he started it, and the rest of the school leaves you the fuck alone.

Overwhelming defensive force. It works like a charm.

 

[ShenRii]

If the first shot killed the kid, fine. Self-defense.
If he came back and fired at the limbs to ensure that the kid can't do jack shit. I can still close one eye and say self defense.
But man, he came back and killed the unconscious kid. That's murder.

 

[Organous]

It's population control.

America is embracing the idea of guilty until proven innocent, and we favor the harshest method of punishment possible. Obviously the worker is of the same mind. He was providing America's brand of justice before it ever goes to the courts. Although I am still a supporter of courts, I am in favor of death for a great many things beyond what we currently have.

As it currently stands, the law sees this as murder, but no jury will convict him of that.

 

[Psylocide]

It's so simple though... it is pure survival mode. Just like Greatone said, i dare you to be held at gunpoint, only injure the guy and see him moving later. You are going to shoot, you have absolutely no idea what he is gonna pull when he is wriggling around on the floor. Still a perceived threat...THREAT NEUTRALIZED.

 

[Plume]

Even if they weren't killed making them "live through hell" is a cruel and unusual punishment.

In this case they'd be pedophiles or kid beaters, in which case they have fucked up an innocent kid's life (or multiple) during many years and for many years to come.

So it doesn't sound like a cruel treatment to me.

If pedophiles want to be cured, they can probably seek an expert *before* touching a kid.
Kid beaters are probably just hopeless.


By the way, this subject is depressing and rather tiring for me heh, I don't know for you Page.
If anyone is interested, there's a documentary that was made in Québec about pedophiles and kid beaters. The name is "Les voleurs d'enfance", but I don't remember if it has been translated in english or if there's only a french version.
That documentary is the reason why I see things that way.

Les voleurs d'enfance means The robbers of youth.

 

[Ghengis_John]

Considering the way you've framed the argument from the git-go black, most people are gonna say murder. if you wanted people to make up their own minds you shoulda just posted the shit objectively.

 

[TasteTheRainbow]

rofl, it's kind of funny how people are uneducated on this.

First shot was actually not even in self-defence. As per according to Canadian law(and probably American, not sure tho), you can only use equivalent force in order to defend yourself against an attacker. So let's say I attack you with a baseball bat, you can only do as much damage to me as I could theoretically do to you with a baseball bat, or until I surrender myself to a citizen's arrest/local authorities/whatever.

This man shot an unarmed man who was an accomplice to a man holding a firearm. If he had shot the man WITH the firearm, that would be self-defence, but in this case he used overwhelming force on an unarmed threat (a warning shot would've been a-okay tho). By then, that already wasn't self-defence anymore but simply a case of overwhelming force. When he came back, that's second degree murder (or whatever you yanks call unpremeditated murder). Was it done in cold blood? Yes. But it was done in a situation where the man was still shaken and not thinking clearly or in full capacity of reasoning. In Canada, that would amount to around 5 to 10 years in prison, with parole eligibility after about 2 years.

So no, it's not self-defence. As soon as he shot at an unarmed man, it went straight into an assault, and then it went to murder. Simple as that, and the law is quite clear on it.

Also GATOR, that thing about the robber suing the home owners is actually a urban myth and a mixture of many cases. There HAVE been cases where a burglar put assault charges against home owners because, just like right here, there was an overwhelming amount of force used (you can SHOW overwhelming force however, as long as you don't ACT on it). Most of the time the cases are dismissed pretty quickly tho since the judges usually just go "you deserve it son, next time don't burglarize people and you won't get shot in the balls".

 

[Ghengis_John]

rofl, it's kind of funny how people are uneducated on this.
So no, it's not self-defence. As soon as he shot at an unarmed man, it went straight into an assault, and then it went to murder. Simple as that, and the law is quite clear on it.

But the fact remains that there was no way for him to know the man was unarmed. It's not like the clerk went looking for trouble, those guys came into his establishment, so given the heat of the moment and all it's hard to say how anyone would react.

You have the benefit of all the facts, you have the benefit of looking at the situation in hindsight and you have the benefit of watching the whole scenario unravel from a thousand miles away in your comfy chair.