Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/12/texas-district-attorney-to-present-beating-death-case-to-grand-jury-after-probe/





Says that the father punched the dude in the head a few times while pulling him away from his daughter. According to the quote, the father's story is adding up (meaning, the "few punches to the head" thing is matching up with the body).


1. Should the father serve any time for what he did (do we even know enough information)?
2. Is the father morally wrong for hitting the man?
3. What would you do if you walked in a person molesting your kid?


I believe my reaction would have been the same. I do not think I would savagely beat the guy, but I would probably punch him several times.

After seeing this case will potentially get this dude some prison/jail time, I think I would avoid head shots and, instead, break some fingers and arms. Vigilantism! RAWR!

Originally posted by dadudemon
...Says that the father punched the dude in the head a few times while pulling him away from his daughter. According to the quote, the father's story is adding up (meaning, the "few punches to the head" thing is matching up with the body).


1. Should the father serve any time for what he did (do we even know enough information)?
2. Is the father morally wrong for hitting the man?
3. What would you do if you walked in a person molesting your kid?


I believe my reaction would have been the same. I do not think I would savagely beat the guy, but I would probably punch him several times.

After seeing this case will potentially get this dude some prison/jail time, I think I would avoid head shots and, instead, break some fingers and arms. Vigilantism! RAWR!

1. No. He was protecting his daughter.
2. No. The molester was the one doing wrong.
3. I might just kill the guy. That might sound strange from me, but I would simply be fulfilling the karma of the molester.

I would not try to kill him, but...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
2. No. The molester was the one doing wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
beating anyone is wrong.

so like, it is common then for things to just not go to trial in these types of cases?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos


So, you would just walk out of the room? I have a feeling that you would not do that if it was your daughter.

Originally posted by dadudemon

1. Should the father serve any time for what he did (do we even know enough information)?
2. Is the father morally wrong for hitting the man?
3. What would you do if you walked in a person molesting your kid?


1) Need more Vespene gas

2) No, if the other man was indeed molesting his child.

3) Probably flip-pout and do something I'd later regret

1) No! This deviant was caught in the act...this was not premeditated...any loving rational parent would react suddenly and violently as did this man

2) See above answer

3) This is a dreaded fear I have...my daughter is 10, and it sickens and angers me to even think of this. I would attempt to stomp his head to a fine paste and pray my daughter is able to fully recover from such a violation....And I Would Not Feel Bad or Guilty For Stomping This Sick-O To Death

1) No. Especially since it doesn't seem like he intended to kill the man. Tho if he did still no

2) Yes. He probably didn't need to hit the guy at all to stop the act and have him arrested.

3) Hard to say. I may get lost in the anger and murder them right then with my bare hands and wouldn't give it a second thought. Then again my kid is there and wouldn't need to see that

Originally posted by juggerman
... murder them ...

Funny typo.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, you would just walk out of the room? I have a feeling that you would not do that if it was your daughter.

The question was "what would you do?" it was "was this morally wrong?".

And I'm challenging you be consistent. If beating "anyone" is wrong then beating a child molester is wrong.

Originally posted by inimalist
so like, it is common then for things to just not go to trial in these types of cases?

I believe murder trials always start with a grand jury hearing in the United States.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The question was "what would you do?" it was "was this morally wrong?".

What?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
And I'm challenging you be consistent. If beating "anyone" is wrong then beating a child molester is wrong...

What do you mean by consistent? Do you mean like killing a person is murder, therefore, abortion is murder. Do you mean that kind of consistency?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I believe murder trials always start with a grand jury hearing in the United States.

ah, ok

I think in Canada we have more of an evidentiary hearing, where after a charge has been laid, a judge decides if there is enough evidence to try the case.

probably why it seemed so strange to me that people just seemed to "walk away" from killing people in the states, thanks!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What?

What do you mean by consistent? Do you mean like killing a person is murder, therefore, abortion is murder. Do you mean that kind of consistency?

Wow, you're just too stupid to have a conversation with. Got it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Wow, you're just too stupid to have a conversation with. Got it.

Sorry that my point blew your head off.

Originally posted by inimalist


probably why it seemed so strange to me that people just seemed to "walk away" from killing people in the states, thanks!

Not sure this is common, unless a trend in forming.

Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure this is common, unless a trend in forming.

fair enough, I suppose it might be just a couple of high profile cases

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry that my point blew your head off.

Is that the sexual act where two boys or men rub penises together?

Originally posted by Robtard
Is that the sexual act where tow boys or men rub penises together?

There is a word for that...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a word for that...

Bonding?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Sorry that my point blew your head off.

Sorry that you're so insecure you have to deal with everything by deflecting the conversation.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Sorry that my use of simple English words gave you a stroke.

Come back when your not so pissed.

edited my post while you were responding

And who is angry here? I made a simple statement. You repeatedly made moronic posts in response (which Buddhism has apparently taught you is a way of convincing people that you are "deep" and I pointed this out.

Calm down, buddy. Your sham philosophy falls apart when faced with an actual thinking person. You just have to deal with it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
edited my post while you were responding

And who is angry here? I made a simple statement. You repeatedly made moronic posts in response (which Buddhism has apparently taught you is a way of convincing people that you are "deep" and I pointed this out.

Calm down, buddy. Your sham philosophy falls apart when faced with an actual thinking person. You just have to deal with it.

Ok, I meant what I said. You were asking about consistency. I brought up a scenario where consistency goes out the door.
Death is natural.

Per the thread starter, this is my daughter being molested. If I found that happening, I would first be in the world of Hell, but I would not stay there. I would move to the world of Anger, and probable kill the man. However, I wouldn't tie the man up and torture him.

I think you have a misconception of Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't make me into a non-human.

BTW Me upset? I wasn't attacking you, I was making a real point.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison


Per the thread starter, this is my daughter being molested. If I found that happening, I would first be in the world of Hell, but I would not stay there. I would move to the world of Anger, and probable kill the man.


Then you'd likely move to the world of prison-anal-rape, which would likely (would it?) move you back to the world of hell and then the world of anger and ending with the world of regret.

Edit: I forgot the world of shame, which is after the world of hell and before the world of regret.

Originally posted by Robtard
Then you'd likely move to the world of prison-anal-rape.

I don't think so. Killing a person who is raping your child is not murder. It might be manslaughter, but I can't imagine any jury putting me in jail. There maybe places in Texas that might even put up a monument in my honer.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I don't think so. Killing a person who is raping your child is not murder. It might be manslaughter, but I can't imagine any jury putting me in jail. There maybe places in Texas that might even put up a monument in my honer.

IIRC, manslaughter means prison time. Excused killing under self-defense or in self-defense of others means there has had to been a threat to you/that person's life.

So yeah, world of prison-anal-rape would likely be on your travel schedule.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Per the thread starter, this is my daughter being molested. If I found that happening, I would first be in the world of Hell, but I would not stay there. I would move to the world of Anger, and probable kill the man. However, I wouldn't tie the man up and torture him.

That wasn't the question.

dadude asked: Is the father morally wrong for hitting the man?
you said: No.

This is inconsistent with your statement in another thread that "beating anyone is wrong". I simply asked you to resolve this contradcition. The question is about what is moral not what would happen.

Is it always wrong to beat people? Is it morally right to beat people who are bad? Is it morally right to beat people if you're angry?

Or is it maybe that you can't even see the issue because you've never bothered to examine your beliefs in any detail? Spewing out a few homilies that you've been trained to repeat when people ask you questions doesn't cut it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think you have a misconception of Buddhism. Buddhism doesn't make me into a non-human.

But it does make you into a non-thinker, evidently.

Originally posted by Robtard
IIRC, manslaughter means prison time.

So yeah, world of prison-anal-rape would likely be on your travel schedule.

Under the conditions described in the thread, would the consequences of your actions stop you from doing (as you said) "something I'd later regret"?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That wasn't the question.

dadude asked: Is the father morally wrong for hitting the man?
you said: No.

This is inconsistent with your statement in another thread that "beating anyone is wrong". I simply asked you to resolve this contradcition. The question is about what is moral not what would happen.

Is it always wrong to beat people? Is it morally right to beat people who are bad? Is it morally right to beat people if you're angry?

Or is it maybe that you can't even see the issue because you've never bothered to examine your beliefs in any detail? Spewing out a few homilies that you've been trained to repeat when people ask you questions doesn't cut it.



But it does make you into a non-thinker, evidently.

Is taking a life morally wrong?

Is abortion morally wrong?

Why is there an inconsistency there?

Maybe there isn't an inconsistency.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Under the conditions described in the thread, would the consequences of your actions stop you from doing (as you said) "something I'd later regret"?

I'd likely would kill the guy or do my best too, as my fear/rage would stop be from thinking rationally and factoring in the consequences on the moments notice.

I'd regret it after I calmed down, as my probable incarceration, my daughter seeing her father beat a man to death and seeing her father go to jail would not be worth taking the scum's life.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is taking a life morally wrong?

Is abortion morally wrong?

Why is there an inconsistency there?

Maybe there isn't an inconsistency.

Spewing out a few homilies that you've been trained to repeat when people ask you questions doesn't cut it.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'd likely would kill the guy or do my best too, as my fear/rage would stop be from thinking rationally and factoring in the consequences on the moments notice.

I'd regret it after I calmed down, as my probable incarceration, my daughter seeing her father beat a man to death and seeing her father go to jail would not be worth taking the scum's life.

I agree. I'm just not going to pretend that I would somehow be able to overcome the power of the world of anger. I could be wrong.

I think killing the guy would have been most peoples reaction with enough uncontrolled anger. To be honest the beating is deserving being guilty of molesting as this will ruin the girls life.

Jail time required.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I agree. I'm just not going to pretend that I would somehow be able to overcome the power of the world of anger. I could be wrong.

What if you focused all your Chi first?

Originally posted by Robtard
What if you focused all your Chi first?

I'm assuming SURPRISE! If somehow that wasn't the case; I don't know.

Originally posted by inimalist
ah, ok

I think in Canada we have more of an evidentiary hearing, where after a charge has been laid, a judge decides if there is enough evidence to try the case.

In the US, it is the DA (district attorney's office) that decides if a grand jury indictment should proceed, not a judge.

Originally posted by inimalist
probably why it seemed so strange to me that people just seemed to "walk away" from killing people in the states, thanks!

During an investigation, you can still get an "order" to not leave the state until an investigation ends.

i hope this isnt a topic on what we, from the internet, would have rationally decided to do while temporarily insane like this fellow.

thats like asking what someone would do if they were on fire. they can easily say "i would remain calm, drop to the ground and roll around", and then in the actual situation they run in circles punching themselves in the head.

...wait...maybe we're supposed to hulk out and rant about what we totally would have done?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i hope this isnt a topic on what we, from the internet, would have rationally decided to do while temporarily insane like this fellow.

thats like asking what someone would do if they were on fire. they can easily say "i would remain calm, drop to the ground and roll around", and then in the actual situation they run in circles punching themselves in the head.

...wait...maybe we're supposed to hulk out and rant about what we totally would have done?

You are absolutely right. I should have said that I would grab my camera and try to got all the evidence I could, and then call 911. Of course I wouldn't interfere, that could be seen as too aggressive and immoral.

Thanks for the great point.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i hope this isnt a topic on what we, from the internet, would have rationally decided to do while temporarily insane like this fellow.

thats like asking what someone would do if they were on fire. they can easily say "i would remain calm, drop to the ground and roll around", and then in the actual situation they run in circles punching themselves in the head.

...wait...maybe we're supposed to hulk out and rant about what we totally would have done?

I'd really have to know what was going on to have any chance of determining how I'd react.

There are probably things that count as molestation that would get me the drag the kid away and scream and nothing more. If it was something really explicit I can imagine myself trying to kill the guy.

Originally posted by Major_Lexington
...molesting... will ruin the girls life.

It's possible. This is something not very many people have discussed. There is a molestation victim involved, here. Taking the father away may not be the best thing to do while she recovers.

I still do not know what was right and wrong. It's just too damn gray. Yes, the father should get the opportunity to beat the dude if he catches him in the act....


But he should not beat the dude to death.


But how can you prevent the death since a single punch can result in the death of another?


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are absolutely right. I should have said that I would grab my camera and try to got all the evidence I could, and then call 911. Of course I wouldn't interfere, that could be seen as too aggressive and immoral.

Thanks for the great point.

Originally posted by dadudemon
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/12/texas-district-attorney-to-present-beating-death-case-to-grand-jury-after-probe/





Says that the father punched the dude in the head a few times while pulling him away from his daughter. According to the quote, the father's story is adding up (meaning, the "few punches to the head" thing is matching up with the body).


1. Should the father serve any time for what he did (do we even know enough information)?
2. Is the father morally wrong for hitting the man?
3. What would you do if you walked in a person molesting your kid?


I believe my reaction would have been the same. I do not think I would savagely beat the guy, but I would probably punch him several times.

After seeing this case will potentially get this dude some prison/jail time, I think I would avoid head shots and, instead, break some fingers and arms. Vigilantism! RAWR!


I'm glad the father killed the molester..

no, but he probably will

no


if someone molests my kid, well i could use my samurai sword or simply several kicks and punches

Originally posted by BruceSkywalker
if someone molests my kid, well i could use my samurai sword or simply several kicks and punches






What idiot in his/her right mind would molest your kids?



Oh man...

I would have tortured him in my basement for years, then let him go free.

I'm no animal, after all.

Originally posted by Mindset
I would have tortured him in my basement for years, then let him go free.

I'm no animal, after all.

"Freedom is the right of all sentient being."
-- Optimus Prime

"But not getting tortured isn't a right, so go ahead."
-- Optimus Prime

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos


"But not getting tortured isn't a right, so go ahead."
-- Optimus Prime

i will be writing to peter cullen regarding your blatant libel.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Is taking a life morally wrong?

Is abortion morally wrong?

Why is there an inconsistency there?

Maybe there isn't an inconsistency.
Most forms of abortions aren't really murder. Something has to be alive--actually alive, not in a figurative or putative sense--for you to kill it.

People used to think sperm were alive.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Most forms of abortions aren't really murder. Something has to be alive--actually alive, not in a figurative or putative sense--for you to kill it.

People used to think sperm were alive.

That isn't what I was saying at all. I could have used someone on death row to illistrate my point.

Shak, is English your second language?

It's actually a chore to find a point to your retorts to SC (Which is not to say that SC being buttmad is justified).

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Should the father serve any time for what he did (do we even know enough information)?
2. Is the father morally wrong for hitting the man?
3. What would you do if you walked in a person molesting your kid? 1. In my opinion no. He was defending his daughter's well-being, assuming that his story is indeed wholly true.
2. If the man was molesting his daughter, no.
3. **** him in the pooper. See how he likes it.

Real response: I'd have to imagine that I'd do similar to what he did. I can't say I would explicitly try to kill this person, but as strong as I am and as desperate as I would be to get someone off of my child, I very well may kill them.

You aren't strong, you lil *****.

No offense.

Originally posted by NemeBro
but as strong as I am

http://s3.amazonaws.com/rapgenius/1329179424_mj-laughing1.gif

I can crush both of your skulls with nothing but the sheer muscled might of my anus.

I fully expected something like, "I'd tell him to wait his turn" comment to be made by NemeBro or Backfire. I am disappointed in the lack of tasteless humor on KMC, these days.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I fully expected something like, "I'd tell him to wait his turn" comment to be made by NemeBro or Backfire. I am disappointed in the lack of tasteless humor on KMC, these days.

Just like you to think that revenge-homosexual-anal-rape is not enough.

I know, right?

I actually found saying that too much.

Edit: Referring to the me molesting my daughter comment dadudemon brought up.

Originally posted by NemeBro
I actually found saying that too much.

You're becoming soft in your old age.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are absolutely right. I should have said that I would grab my camera and try to got all the evidence I could, and then call 911. Of course I wouldn't interfere, that could be seen as too aggressive and immoral.

Thanks for the great point.
i think you kinda missed the point

temporary insanity is not just something some lawyer made up to defend his client. with that established:

it's paradoxical to attempt rationalizing what you would do in a state of irrationality.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i think you kinda missed the point

temporary insanity is not just something some lawyer made up to defend his client. with that established:

it's paradoxical to attempt rationalizing what you would do in a state of irrationality.

No, I got you completely. I was being totally realistic by saying I would try to kill the man, but then I was attacked because that seemed to be contradictory to the teaching of Buddhism. I was using your post as a sarcastic stick to point at them.

You are absolutely correct.

ahhh i see.

murder death kill

Originally posted by juggerman
murder death kill

Damn minimalists.

i tried not to go too extreme. i think murder death kill is the diplomatic approach

Originally posted by dadudemon
1. Should the father serve any time for what he did (do we even know enough information)?
2. Is the father morally wrong for hitting the man?
3. What would you do if you walked in a person molesting your kid?
1. Hell no
2. Also hell no
3. First priority is getting him away from my child, not killing him.

I feel that killing someone in front of a child is a pretty dickish thing to do also. Take out your anger on him, then let him rot in prison for a few years, where I hear those with child crimes are among the worst treated.

The important thing is to explain to the child what has happened, and why it was wrong.

Originally posted by Barker
where I hear those with child crimes are among the worst treated.

wrong

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I was being totally realistic by saying I would try to kill the man, but then I was attacked because that seemed to be contradictory to the teaching of Buddhism.

No I pointed out that you specifically said it was moral to do so and then you deflected a bunch rather than go through the pain of forming an actual thought and vomited out your usual supply of bullshit pseudo-philosophy.

Is beating a man to death because he made you angry a moral act in Buddhism?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No I pointed out that you specifically said it was moral to do so and then you deflected a bunch rather than go through the pain of forming an actual thought and vomited out your usual supply of bullshit pseudo-philosophy.

Is beating a man to death because he made you angry a moral act in Buddhism?

That particular set of events is not cover in any of the Buddhist text. I would be surprised if it was.

You are so delusional, it isn't funny. There is no pseudo-philosophy going on here. You simply can't understand what I am saying. Maybe you should go to a Buddhist teacher rather then asking me.

I answered your question twice. I will one more time: There is no inconsistency.

Is it more moral to kill with a gun or your fists?

That is the problem with the idea of morality; it is so absolutely connected to Christianity, that it has no real meaning.

If you want to live a good life, it would be best to not kill people in anyway. I would call that moral, just as a way of communicating. The truth is: by killing you have caused suffering, and the karma of that suffering will become part of your karma.

Is adding negative karma to your karma moral?

Don't reply. I will never read it, I'm putting you on ignore. Goodbye...

Originally posted by focus4chumps
it's paradoxical to attempt rationalizing what you would do in a state of irrationality.

I understand your point but I am not familiar with your use of "paradoxical" in that context. How is it paradoxical?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
wrong

Unrelated but I am quite interested in where you got this information:

So it is a myth that they get treated worse? No one I know that has direct work or was incarcerated in the prison system agrees with that. But that is anecdotal. I am interested in the truth.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I understand your point but I am not familiar with your use of "paradoxical" in that context. How is it paradoxical?

attempting to rationalize and predict your own unpredictable irrationality.

oh wait. am i "trolling" again?

Originally posted by dadudemon
So it is a myth that they get treated worse? No one I know that has direct work or was incarcerated in the prison system agrees with that. But that is anecdotal. I am interested in the truth.

they are kept apart from the general population (and often in a separate building) because they WOULD be killed on sight. thus, they WOULD be treated the worst if that was allowed to happen.
but since this is common practice, they are NOT treated worse.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
wrong

Originally posted by Barker
1. Hell no
2. Also hell no
3. First priority is getting him away from my child, not killing him.

I feel that killing someone in front of a child is a pretty dickish thing to do also. Take out your anger on him, then let him rot in prison for a few years, where I hear those with child crimes are among the worst treated.

The important thing is to explain to the child what has happened, and why it was wrong.


Very well put Barker!

+1

cool article bro!


since you have taken an interest in vintage massachusetts sensationalist news articles, allow me to quote some contemporary massachusetts law:


http://www.mass.gov/bb/h1/fy12h1/os_12/h28.htm



now am i "trolling"?

Housed separately doesn't necessarily mean placed under protective custody, especially given that they allow them to co-mingle in so many places.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
cool article bro!


since you have taken an interest in vintage massachusetts sensationalist news articles, allow me to quote some contemporary massachusetts law:


http://www.mass.gov/bb/h1/fy12h1/os_12/h28.htm



now am i "trolling"?

Calm down. I am trying to have a normal conversation with you.


I have two questions for you:

1. Does this:

" they are kept apart from the general population (and often in a separate building)...
...they WOULD be treated the worst if that was allowed to happen.
but since this is common practice, they are NOT treated worse. "

Mean the same thing as this?

" persons committed or awaiting commitment as sexually dangerous persons ... shall be housed separately from inmates who are not civilly committed as sexually dangerous persons; but all such persons may commingle in common areas of the treatment center, including but not limited to the dining room, the general and law libraries, the gymnasium and the recreation yard, and may participate together in sex offender treatment and other therapeutic, rehabilitational, academic education, vocational education, vocational training, and other related prevocational and employment programs at the discretion of the department of correction."


2. Why is a news article written 8.7 years a "vintage news article"?



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Housed separately doesn't necessarily mean placed under protective custody, especially given that they allow them to co-mingle in so many places.


OR I could just ask the question this way.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Housed separately doesn't necessarily mean placed under protective custody, especially given that they allow them to co-mingle in so many places.

when did i say they are given protective custody? oh right. i didnt.

"they are kept apart from the general population (and often in a separate building) because they WOULD be killed on sight."

ok so "would" is a bit exaggerated in a general sense. what i meant was: a guy like this, who is essentially a baby-****er, would be killed on sight if the general population had that knowledge. maybe a date rapist, convicted on dodgy grounds (koby bryant's who could not afford a team of lawyers, etc) or a technical pedo (girl is a year or two below the legal min). remember that sex offenders is not synonymous with baby-****ers.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
when did i say they are given protective custody? oh right. i didnt.

"they are kept apart from the general population (and often in a separate building) because they WOULD be killed on sight."

Oh, so you're saying you plainly meant this?

"They are sent to prison."



Rather than this?

"By general population, I meant the general prison population. By separate housing, I meant they were housed in a different building, entirely, from the rest of the prison population."


Because I assumed you meant the latter and not the former. If you meant the former, yes, I would agree with that.

Hopefully he will get no charges brought against him, I would do the same thing!

dadudemon, you have a wonderful way of winning internet awards when you have proven essentially nothing.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
dadudemon, you have a wonderful way of winning internet awards when you have proven essentially nothing.

I just don't get this. What are you talking about?


What is it that you think I was "trying to prove" but failed to do so?



F4C, why does every conversation have to be some sort of argument? Go back and read through our conversation. But get rid of the notion that I was even remotely trying to be antagonistic. It will change the tone to how you have been approaching this topic.



Also, I have several questions for you that you have not answered. It would clarify several points we are discussing if you were to answer them. This is something I never do but I am willing to do it to show how much I am willing to have a normal conversation: would you like me to re-quote the questions of mine that you have not addressed?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, so you're saying you plainly meant this?

"They are sent to prison."



Rather than this?

"By general population, I meant the general prison population. By separate housing, I meant they were housed in a different building, entirely, from the rest of the prison population."


Because I assumed you meant the latter and not the former. If you meant the former, yes, I would agree with that.

no. what i was actually saying was "they are kept apart from the general population (and often in a separate building) because they WOULD be killed on sight."

is that clear enough the second time or should i draw pictures for you?

you have not proven me wrong. yet you victory crow. how adorable.
i can tell now that this is going to be "compulsively respond until opponent is fed up with copy and paste spam" sessions. then again its your nonsensical non-discussion thread, so i dont mind continuing it. you?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
no. what i was actually saying was "they are kept apart from the general population (and often in a separate building) because they WOULD be killed on sight."

is that clear enough the second time or should i draw pictures for you?


No, it is not clear enough.

The context means prison population since we were talking about how they are treated in prison. If you mean "general population" please clarify.

Here it is, again, so you know exactly what I thought:







Originally posted by focus4chumps
you have not proven me wrong.

What is it that you wanted me to prove wrong or you thought I proved wrong?


Originally posted by focus4chumps
yet you victory crow. how adorable.

Where is my "victory crowing" and why would I do it? Are you quoting the correct person? You're not making sense.


Originally posted by focus4chumps
i can tell now that this is going to be "compulsively respond until opponent is fed up with copy and paste spam" sessions. then again its your nonsensical non-discussion thread, so i dont mind continuing it. you?

I still have no idea what you're on about. You're obviously extremely and unnecessarily antagonistic.


I posted on the previous page and edited in some additions on the previous page. Take a look at that post. Maybe that will change how you approach the topic?

they are kept in a seperate building in mass, the state you cherry picked. i was correct in what i said. you need to throw a tantrum and distract. go on then. juggle bowling pins.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
they are kept in a seperate building in mass,

Where was this fact established?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
the state you cherry picked.

When did I "cherry-pick" Massecheusets as an example? Furthermore, for what example did I make this choice?

You're not making any sense, man. I do not know how to make it more obvious that you're really coming out of left field, here.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i was correct in what i said.

Correct in what you said about what?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
you need to throw a tantrum and distract. go on then. juggle bowling pins.

I would be more than happy to oblige with this tantrum you want me to throw, but I don't know how to throw one yet because you are making little sense.

PM sent for clarification.

you suggested several times that my claim (sex offenders are kept in a separate building) was baseless.

now you are trying to act like it never happened with diversionary tactics.

anyone can read back and see how an infantile you are behaving.

and no i will not read your PM.

its really sad to see what the world has come too, but my Q is why did he leave his girl alone for this to happen in the first place. No, he shouldnt go to jail.

Originally posted by rudester
but my Q is why did he leave his girl alone for this to happen in the first place.

why did he leave his girl alone, on his farm, with someone he thought was a family friend? the child was 4 iirc, yes? that doesn't sound irresponsible at all.

i think torture is the way to go here

Originally posted by juggerman
i think torture is the way to go here

What will you do when you are done? Let him go?

I think that 25 years in a box will do more good.

Is that another Buddhist world, the world of 25-years-in-abox?

Originally posted by Robtard
Is that another Buddhist world, the world of 25-years-in-abox?
Why are you asking me questions about Buddhism in this thread? It is a bit irritating when people try to get me off topic. If you have questions about Buddhism, make a thread in the religious forum, and I will see what I can do.

25 years in a box is just another way of saying put the molester in prison. I assumed you would get that, but I guess I was wrong.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
you suggested several times that my claim (sex offenders are kept in a separate building) was baseless.

Where?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
now you are trying to act like it never happened with diversionary tactics.

Please explain/expand on exactly what you mean by "diversionary tactics".

Originally posted by focus4chumps
anyone can read back and see how an infantile you are behaving.

That makes no sense. I haven't even gotten the chance to "throw a tantrum" yet because you are avoiding all questions I am asking you.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
and no i will not read your PM.

Okay, I'll ask here:

Were you drunk last night? You seemed all over the place and made little sense.

its ok, you learned something new about how sex offenders are dealt with in the penal system, just like you learned the meaning of "menarche". it just seems you get really angry when you learn that you are mistaken, and try your best to divert attention from the fact like a child. "you trolling? you drunk? you mad? herp derp, etc"

Originally posted by focus4chumps
its ok, you learned something new about how sex offenders are dealt with in the penal system,

I did? Where did I learn this?


Originally posted by focus4chumps
just like you learned the meaning of "menarche".

Where did I learn this?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
it just seems you get really angry when you learn that you are mistaken,

Wait am minute, where have I gotten angry? You do know you haven't even given me a chance "to get angry" yet, right? You won't even answer any question I pose to you.


Originally posted by focus4chumps
and try your best to divert attention from the fact like a child. "you trolling? you drunk? you mad? herp derp, etc"

Well, if you would make posts that made much more sense, I would not be left wondering why you are so drunk.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...Wait am minute, where have I gotten angry? You do know you haven't even given me a chance "to get angry" yet, right? You won't even answer any question I pose to you...

Once bitten, twice shy.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why are you asking me questions about Buddhism in this thread? It is a bit irritating when people try to get me off topic. If you have questions about Buddhism, make a thread in the religious forum, and I will see what I can do.

25 years in a box is just another way of saying put the molester in prison. I assumed you would get that, but I guess I was wrong.

Easy, it wasn't a serious question.

Originally posted by Robtard
Easy, it wasn't a serious question.

You guys have made me so jumpy.

after the torture? you kill him and dispose of the body duh

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What will you do when you are done? Let him go?

I think that 25 years in a box will do more good. Torture him for 25 years.

Then molest him to death.

Originally posted by Mindset
Torture him for 25 years.

Then molest him to death.

Why would you want to torture him?

That last part...

Why wouldn't I?

nice



because this clown was molesting my child thats why! time for a little street justice

Hmmmmmmmm, law of the jungle.. No proof etc. Vigilante = wrong!

Originally posted by juggerman
after the torture? you kill him and dispose of the body duh

What a waste of perfectly good food.

*hides bath salts*

I wonder who's sock Zenophobe is...

someone you pissed off, i think.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
someone you pissed off, i think.

What some people will do.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why would you want to torture him? Personally it would be because my daughter is too emotionally dead at this point to respond to my torture like I want her to.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Personally it would be because my daughter is too emotionally dead at this point to respond to my torture like I want her to.

See, that's more like it.

Originally posted by dadudemon



1. Should the father serve any time for what he did (do we even know enough information)?
2. Is the father morally wrong for hitting the man?
3. What would you do if you walked in a person molesting your kid?


I believe my reaction would have been the same. I do not think I would savagely beat the guy, but I would probably punch him several times.

After seeing this case will potentially get this dude some prison/jail time, I think I would avoid head shots and, instead, break some fingers and arms. Vigilantism! RAWR!

1. No, he was protecting his daughter.

2. I don't think he is morally wrong for that. In his mind, that may have been the only way to protect his daughter.

3. probably the same thing this guy did. I would like to kill the guy, but in the end, how would that help my daughter? I would probably end up going to prison and missing out on being her father for several years. I would hope the law handles the violator after he recuperates from the beatdown and be there for my daughter.

Originally posted by socool8520
3. probably the same thing this guy did. I would like to kill the guy, but in the end, how would that help my daughter? I would probably end up going to prison and missing out on being her father for several years. I would hope the law handles the violator after he recuperates from the beatdown and be there for my daughter.

This is something people keep bringing up. I agree that it is very important to get the daughter/son out of that situation. I would also think it important to make sure the daughter/son cleared the room before you delivered a "good ol' boy ass whoopin'" to the perv.

Breaking an arm or hand and kick to the nads would be enough. Anything more than that and it borders on twisted/frightening to me.


I still do not know how I would react, though. I may well bite his throat out and pull his heart out Or I could just push him down, pull my daughter away, and call the police. Don't know. I would hope I would have enough sense to do the latter instead of going psychopath on him. Then again, I would probably thoroughly enjoy or take pleasure, to my grave, in having beaten the shit out of a perv that had gotten my daughter.

Originally posted by NemeBro
Personally it would be because my daughter is too emotionally dead at this point to respond to my torture like I want her to. Hate when that happens.

Oh well, can always have more kids.

Thank the gods.

this topic inspires much internet toughness.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
this topic inspires much internet toughness.

If you were in that situation, what would YOU do?

well whatever happens now, his daughter will grow up being overly protected by dad or she might just have to pay visits it jail??

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you were in that situation, what would YOU do?

i'd lift him in the air, throw him into the farthest wall, shoot fire out of my eyes, and burn him alive

Originally posted by focus4chumps
i'd lift him in the air, throw him into the farthest wall, shoot fire out of my eyes, and burn him alive

Is that all?

1. Should the father serve any time for what he did (do we even know enough information)?

No. What good would it do? Maybe compensation for the dead person's family, but I don't see why HE would owe them anything.

2. Is the father morally wrong for hitting the man?

No. He was doing his best to protect his daughter. If he had some other way of stopping the molester that was less violent, I suppose it would be wrong, but molestation really hits a sore spot with most people. He probably wasn't thinking rationally at that point. Hell, even in the criminal justice, molestation is treated worse than murder.

3. What would you do if you walked in a person molesting your kid?

I would try to stop it, of course. Depending on how awful the molestation/rape was and how young my hypothetical daughter was, I would lose my temper and likely do what this guy did. If she was like, I don't know, 16 or something though, I would probably just tell the guy to get out until I found out whether it was consensual.

the father confessed that what he did was amoral simply by expressing regret of the outcome and that he never intended it. and for all the pitchfork/torch holders who say that rapists and molesters should all be executed, i only ask that you fast forway to 6:00 of this video and listen:

T7xt5LtgsxQ

Originally posted by focus4chumps
the father confessed that what he did was amoral simply by expressing regret of the outcome and that he never intended it. and for all the pitchfork/torch holders who say that rapists and molesters should all be executed, i only ask that you fast forway to 6:00 of this video and listen:

T7xt5LtgsxQ Which is why vigilantism is the key to success.

but also why it must remain illegal. or else it wouldnt be vigilantism, would it?

No one said to legalize it, so what are you talking about, noob?

I'm about to go vigilante all over your face.

Originally posted by Mindset
No one said to legalize it, so what are you talking about, noob?

I'm about to go vigilante all over your face.

...by suggesting that any legal ramifications would be an injustice. how can one argue that an action should not be punished yet remain illegal?

haha yeah all over my face. funny.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
...by suggesting that any legal ramifications would be an injustice. how can one argue that an action should not be punished yet remain illegal?

haha yeah all over my face. funny.

knowing how the legal system works...who could really blame the father?

Originally posted by focus4chumps
...by suggesting that any legal ramifications would be an injustice. how can one argue that an action should not be punished yet remain illegal?

haha yeah all over my face. funny.


I think that what is missed in the questions I presented is "killing another human being."

If you have a conscious (ambiguous "you", you will remember that the rest of your life...in a bad way. I would not want that on my conscience. Sure, he did a scumbag thing but you KILLED a man. It doesn't seem like a great way to end the confrontation.


However: unintentionally killing the person by punching them a couple of times is not nearly as bad as "capturing him and torturing him" as others have suggested.


Originally posted by alltoomany
knowing how the legal system works...who could really blame the father?

Someone said that the molestor could have been out of prison in 18 months with good behavior. If that's true, that is not a very long time in prison for a crime that will most likely scare the child for life.

However, that's desiring punishment. We should be more civilized and instead desire rehabilitation and integration back into society. I read that rehabing a sex offender is much more difficult than other types of criminal behavior. That sucks.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
...by suggesting that any legal ramifications would be an injustice. how can one argue that an action should not be punished yet remain illegal?

haha yeah all over my face. funny. Except I never did that.

you're right. i shouldnt have suggested that you did. oh wait, i didn't.

Your post was in response to me.

By extension you suggested that I did.

Originally posted by Mindset
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OvryYdVtfSo/SeQ28yMOkqI/AAAAAAAAEFA/GFZvW10MfG0/s400/MIS5_Robert_Conrad_electric_blue_tank_top.png

Originally posted by alltoomany
knowing how the legal system works...who could really blame the father?

again, i believe temporary insanity real, and not some lawyer jargon used to excuse and exonerate the guilty.

he wigged out, jacked up on adrenaline at the sight of his daughter getting raped, and likely had no control of his actions.
this is an entirely different scenario than kidnapping, false imprisonment, torture, and eventual murder, which is what many people seem to support and which also happens to be arguably far more deplorable than rape, regardless of the victim.

Originally posted by Mindset
Your post was in response to me.

By extension you suggested that I did.

i asked a rhetorical question to express a point.

Originally posted by focus4chumps
...by suggesting that any legal ramifications would be an injustice. how can one argue that an action should not be punished yet remain illegal?

haha yeah all over my face. funny.

thus "one" and not "you".

you seem quite aggressive toward me. did i say something to upset you?

Originally posted by dadudemon
...If you have a conscious...

Stupid me. "Conscience" was what I meant.

The grand jury decided not to indict the father, so he will not face charges.

http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/20/why-a-texas-dad-who-killed-his-daughters-alleged-rapist-wont-face-charges/

I don't know if beating someone to death for attempted molestation counts as justified force.

I mean...I understand I suppose how it could happen, I just don't think that it's "necessary" to protect the child. At all.

Like, I'm not surprised or outraged, I just feel like letting him off without any kind of penalty opens the door to possible abuses of this precedent in court.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't know if beating someone to death for attempted molestation counts as justified force.

I mean...I understand I suppose how it could happen, I just don't think that it's "necessary" to protect the child. At all.

Like, I'm not surprised or outraged, I just feel like letting him off without any kind of penalty opens the door to possible abuses of this precedent in court.

well...yes...that ^^

Originally posted by Omega Vision
I don't know if beating someone to death for attempted molestation counts as justified force.

I mean...I understand I suppose how it could happen, I just don't think that it's "necessary" to protect the child. At all.

Like, I'm not surprised or outraged, I just feel like letting him off without any kind of penalty opens the door to possible abuses of this precedent in court.

Well, from the news story, he only punched the dude a few times: it wasn't a rage punch fest. The risk seems to have been hi in killing the guy with just a few punches.

That...or the father has giant fists and is an ex-boxer or something.

the father hulked out and hit the guy with the power of a thousand exploding suns!

didnt the father call 911 and try to save the man once he realised he was in really bad shape?

seems to me like he didnt mean to kill the man and was just trying to protect his child. also seems like he deeply regrets his actions.

they should name a school after him

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/21/i-would-have-done-the-same-thing-locals-cheer-as-texas-father-who-beat-daughters-rapist-to-death-with-bare-fists-is-cleared/

I'd still like to see him charged, then make the self-defense/protecting-his-daughter argument, but failing any clear evidence that calls his emotions during the 9-11 call into question, this seems somewhat open and shut.

well it did go the the grand jury and they decided not to press charges right? guess they thought it was open and shut as well and decided not to waste the time and money

Originally posted by dadudemon
Well, from the news story, he only punched the dude a few times: it wasn't a rage punch fest. The risk seems to have been hi in killing the guy with just a few punches.

That...or the father has giant fists and is an ex-boxer or something.

Or the child-molesting-rapist is complete weak-sauce, there's that chance too.

that is possible but more likely the father was just "Hulk angry, Hulk smash" mad

i mean if that were me i wouldnt care if the rapist was Brock Lesnar id whoop his.... well maybe not Lesner but if it were some normal sized non-gorilla type person their durability would mean sh!t here

Keep telling us how eAwesome you are.

Originally posted by juggerman
well it did go the the grand jury and they decided not to press charges right? guess they thought it was open and shut as well and decided not to waste the time and money

well, to be fair, a grand jury takes both time and money.

from my very brief reading of this on wiki, I think America is the only nation that still uses grand juries. up here, there is an evidentiary hearing which sort of acts as the same thing, only the person is first charged then appears in court. I think I like it better, though in a case like this it is hardly relevant.

ok buddy

Originally posted by inimalist
http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/21/i-would-have-done-the-same-thing-locals-cheer-as-texas-father-who-beat-daughters-rapist-to-death-with-bare-fists-is-cleared/

I'd still like to see him charged, then make the self-defense/protecting-his-daughter argument, but failing any clear evidence that calls his emotions during the 9-11 call into question, this seems somewhat open and shut.


With a jury of his peers, FROM TEXAS, there is no way they would get a conviction on him.

Originally posted by dadudemon
With a jury of his peers, FROM TEXAS, there is no way they would get a conviction on him.

I imagine no judge would say there were enough evidence to try the case anyways

but ya, don't mess with Texas!

Originally posted by inimalist
I imagine no judge would say there were enough evidence to try the case anyways

but ya, don't mess with Texas!

It's a "good ol' boy" system in many rural municipalities, in Texas. First hand experience.

It's interesting. A man defends himself from a man attacking him in Vegas, gets charged with murder. Rancher apparently defends his daughter in Texas, self-defense. I'd say only one of the situations sounds reasonable, at least on the surface.