|
|
Post by biglin on Jun 23, 2010 16:21:31 GMT -5
|
|
beez0811
Craftsman
Nerdypants!!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by beez0811 on Jun 23, 2010 16:44:11 GMT -5
How about we charge the douche bag that sentenced Vargas with extreme stupidity and sentence him twenty-five to life. This moron should chillax with the kiddie fiddlers.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jun 24, 2010 8:44:48 GMT -5
You're right, Linda ~ it's NOT justice.
He chose murder rather than even try legal recourse.
Brown also said to grant probation, "would put the Court's stamp of approval on his action, the use of violence which would encourage more violence."
Meantime, sentenced to 9 years, he'll be out in as little as 4. IMO, such sentences encourage murder. A travesty, indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by biglin on Jun 24, 2010 17:01:31 GMT -5
Lynne, I don't want to fight with you.
I know you and I take different views on this subject.
I know that you have been the victim of murder and I would NEVER in any way attempt to show disrespect towards your pain.
On the other hand, when you have been abused over a period of years it is hardly surprising that some people snap.
IMHO the law OUGHT to make citizen's justice in cases like this acceptable.
I know you don't agree but that doesn't make me a monster any more than you taking a different point of view makes you soft on crime.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jun 24, 2010 23:53:36 GMT -5
Lynne, I don't want to fight with you. Me either. Yep. And, our views will continue to differ. You laid out your view. I laid out mine. No fight there, is there? Well, first off if I was a victim of murder, likely I wouldn't be visiting with you here on a message board, Linda. Secondly, I truly appreciate so very much that you would NEVER in any way attempt to show disrespect towards my shin-ache. It means so very much you saying so in the face of me crying all over this thread, even if one thing has nothing to do with the other. Can we put dead people on trial? How much proof is necessary to say, yeah, the fukker needed killing? Did I call you a monster, Linda? (off topic, once again, very sorry about the mix-up) |
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jun 25, 2010 2:15:32 GMT -5
Well, first off if I was a victim of murder, likely I wouldn't be visiting with you here on a message board, Linda. Can we have a funniest post of the week category? |
|
Kay
Apprentice
Texas Bluebonnets
Posts: 109
|
Post by Kay on Jun 25, 2010 7:05:35 GMT -5
exposereport.com/news/aaron_vargas61610.htmThis is NOT justice. The man did the world a big favour by ridding us of this worthless paedophile sack of shoot and he should be applauded instead of being sent to prison! Where is the proof that Vargas was abused? Was the abuser prosecuted, or are we just supposed to take the word of Vargas, who is a murderer, and we all know murderers always tell the truth, right? |
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jun 25, 2010 9:41:12 GMT -5
My thoughts as well, Kay. In the US, we're not allowed to exact punishment without due process. Instead, in this case, all I see is a murder victim labeled a 'sex offender' without being tried and convicted, and a murderer who is the 'victim'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2010 9:59:26 GMT -5
One area where I DO feel that 'justice' is deaf, dumb, blind and totally idiotic is that it continues to pretend that EVERY person who has been killed 'unlawfully' is a 'murder victim.'
It is simply irrational to pretend that a Mafia hitman who kills a rival assassin is on the same moral level of victimhood as a child murdered by a paedophile.
It is simply irrational (and, IMHO, deeply immoral) to put Georg Elser or von Stauffenberg on the same moral level as Hitler, whom they both attempted to assassinate.
Not all 'murder victims' ARE 'innocent victims.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2010 10:53:15 GMT -5
It is simply irrational to pretend that a Mafia hitman who kills a rival assassin is on the same moral level of victimhood as a child murdered by a paedophile. On the contrary, it is irrational to regard a murdered child as more important, and more entitled to protection under the law, than a murdered hitman. Your reasoning is the same as any murderer's. Just like a murderer, you rationalize exceptions to the law based on a purely subjective attitude toward one individual or another. You're either for murder or against it. You can't be against murder if you pick and choose which victims of murder deserve representation under the law. |
|
Kay
Apprentice
Texas Bluebonnets
Posts: 109
|
Post by Kay on Jun 25, 2010 21:12:44 GMT -5
One area where I DO feel that 'justice' is deaf, dumb, blind and totally idiotic is that it continues to pretend that EVERY person who has been killed 'unlawfully' is a 'murder victim.' It is simply irrational to pretend that a Mafia hitman who kills a rival assassin is on the same moral level of victimhood as a child murdered by a paedophile. It is simply irrational (and, IMHO, deeply immoral) to put Georg Elser or von Stauffenberg on the same moral level as Hitler, whom they both attempted to assassinate. Not all 'murder victims' ARE 'innocent victims.' I thought you were an anti? How can you support vigilante justice and oppose execution? You are assigning blame to the victim. While I agree not all victims are "innocent" no one deserves to be murdered. |
|
beez0811
Craftsman
Nerdypants!!
Posts: 1,617
|
Post by beez0811 on Jun 25, 2010 22:48:30 GMT -5
I don't think Mike necessarily supports vigilante justice, but he at least understands certain situations when it does happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wonder Woman on Jun 27, 2010 0:02:31 GMT -5
From what Mike has said, he absolutely supports 'citizen's justice' ~ his term for vigilantism.
Hey, I can understand the desire for personal revenge. But, I don't want the law to support citizens taking out those they (persoanlly) think need killing, because I believe in our (US citizens) constitutional rights. I absolutely want the right to due process, to trial, and therefore I would never consider premeditatedly offing those who offend me without same.
And, IMO, when one supports 'citizen's justice' one supports murder (as defined by law) as well as an uncivilized society.
|
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Jun 27, 2010 2:37:43 GMT -5
From what Mike has said, he absolutely supports 'citizen's justice' ~ his term for vigilantism. Hey, I can understand the desire for personal revenge. But, I don't want the law to support citizens taking out those they (persoanlly) think need killing, because I believe in our (US citizens) constitutional rights. I absolutely want the right to due process, to trial, and therefore I would never consider premeditatedly offing those who offend me without same. And, IMO, when one supports 'citizen's justice' one supports murder (as defined by law) as well as an uncivilized society. Citizens' justice sounds just fine and dandy until you really understand what it means.....  Yvette Cloete was a 30-year-old trainee consultant 'paediatrician' at the Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, south Wales. She said: "I'm living with friends at the moment. I won't be returning there again. I think I will look for somewhere more upmarket. It looks as though it was just a question of confusing the job title for something else - I suppose I'm really a victim of ignorance," she said having fled from her home after her windows and front door were spray-painted with the word "paedo" Indeed she was, the ignorant plebs - the providers of citizens justice - did not know the difference between a paediatrician and a paedophile. Rosemary Butler, the Welsh Assembly member for Newport West, described the attack as "appalling". Ms Butler said that the attack on Dr Cloete's home appeared to be carried out through "sheer hysteria, bravado and ignorance." She condemned the campaign by the News of the World newspaper (Murdoch owned) to name and shame paedophiles in the community. It is really quite staggering that this kind of mistake can happen. Some people are incredibly ignorant. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/901723.stm |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2010 9:05:13 GMT -5
I AM an anti. I DO oppose the death penalty.
That does not mean that I am naive or narrow-minded enough NOT to recognise that certain types of killing simply ARE more heinous than others and that certain types of 'victim' are hardly victims in any meaningful sense of the word.
I freely admit that I defend citizens' justice (vigilantism if you prefer the term) but the type of action I support has NOTHING to do with misinformed prejudice of the type instanced by Fret.
|
|
Alpha 
