Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Fateweaver wrote:Not very likely. I'd just tell the courts I didn't want to kill him so when he came after me I shot his knees out.

Who is believed and who isn't?

Yep...



I mean seriously FW, you have to be freaking kidding here... It is that guys fault right? That guy... over there? The one that no one saw? Or knew anything about really?

Epic... so freaking epic. So much fail I had to edit to contain it.

Sorry Wrex but when someone breaks into my house they give up any and all rights they have.

In my state where I live I can shoot someone who breaks into my house.

If some dude is found in my house with his kneecaps gone and I don't know the guy guess who is going to jail?

Sure as hell won't be me. That is why castle laws are in effect in Mn and a lot of other states. Doesn't matter why they broke into my house, the simple fact of the matter is that they did. I can use whatever force I deem necessary.

End. Of.

Doesn't matter how you feel personally about it Wrex, it only matters how the court feels and the justice system in my state feels the way I do.

I have no problem with the castle code, that is irrelevant. Your home, your rules, graviness to the max, I do not give a flying feck.

You are clearly happy about the fact that you have this opportunity, and not for the reasons that it is in place. I am not going to go into detail, but you seem obsessed with the ability to end another persons life. It sickens me.

I have, and will continue to support peoples rights to protect themselves and their family. I simply do not agree with the fervor that you engage in these imagined scenarios.

FITZZ wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:True. And that's perfectly alright. However, Fateweaver and FITZZ seemed to be advocating actions slightly more 'radical' than that.

Wow,Fateweaver and I on the same side of the fence,strange considering our vastly different political views .
However,I stand by my previous statement,with some clarification,I live in an area where burglary/home invasions do on occasion happen,families have had their doors kicked open and been held hostage/victiamized/injured and even killed.
Now taking this into account,should an individule or individules enter my home with the intent of commiting a crime,I have no intention of assesing why they are there,or attempt to asscertain if they only intend to grab the playstation and run away,I will use deadly force to protect my family from any possibility of harm.

We're actually in agreement here. If you think you're in danger in a home invasion, you're pretty broadly justified in using lethal force to protect yourself. What I'm taking issue with is Fateweaver's silly insinuation that there's nothing wrong with using the guy as a bullet stop after he's already been subdued, and this came up in a previous thread where another poster went off about how, 'you just don't understand the bloodlust man,' re a home invasion ends in the burglar being scared off, but the home owner and friends chase him down the street, hold him down, and curbstomp him.

It's too bad I didn't take my laptop with me to New Year's, or I could've gotten my brother in law's and a half dozen other cops informed thoughts on kneecapping intruders and other acts of vigilantism.

Fateweaver wrote:Not very likely. I'd just tell the courts I didn't want to kill him so when he came after me I shot his knees out.

Who is believed and who isn't?

This is an epic fail in the knowledge of criminal justice and investigation, it would take a even the most inexperiences coroner to look at the bullet wounds and work out how they were shot in conjunction with the obvious blood patterns at your scene and on top of all this, especially in the US DA's don't like vigilantes.

Sorry Wrex, I wouldn't kill someone in cold blood. Guess orkmoticons don't do anything to prevent you from thinking I'm serious.

I also wouldn't seriously aim for the knees if someone is in my house. Aim to kill is what you are taught in basic fire arms safety, not aim to wound and hope the guy breaking into your house doesn't die.

If I could have a man on his knees pleading not to shoot him I'd taser his balls. Failing that, if he wasn't a thread I'd blow out his kneecaps. Hard to burglarize when you will limp the rest of your life.

I somehow doubt you would, but it's fun to talk big and strong online isn't it?

Sorry Wrex, I wouldn't kill someone in cold blood. Guess orkmoticons don't do anything to prevent you from thinking I'm serious.

When your joking stuff sounds just like your regular stuff people can't tell the difference, and I don't mean tone, I mean you have the opinions of someone who would generally want to decapitate people who break and enter (the stuff about throwing out the magna carta reeeaaaally nails home that you prefer civilian justice).

Yes this is another of my 'text walls'. However we are having a seruious discusion, which need not be exclusively conducted with a series of half thought one liners as scrawled out in crayon on a playground wall. I am sure we will find someone here who can read a comprehensive arguement and comment in return.

The problems with paedophilia scare and modern justice.
Becasue of PC dogma it is a well known and tried strategy for the criminal community to make up accusations along this nature. Because everyone hates paedos it is very common to try and accuse someone of being one with a varying degree of 'evidence'.
If you are a scum, say a drug smuggler, and you want someone out of the way, just spread the rumour they are a paedophile. What you get is a fething frenzy. Job done.

I also know of a case where a teenage girl lied to her dad, she was with a 'm8' in her house, but didnt want to admit that, so she said she was detained by so and so. a suspected paedo. For paedo read misfit, he was no more a paedo than an average old woman in 17th century New England is a witch.
It was only after she found out what had happened to this innocent man that she was shamed enough to tell the truth, and likely only because plenty of witnesses to show her as being in her friends house at the refered time.

This is just one case from my home town that has come to my ears. its by no means a rare problem. I would be feel safe to bet that false accuisation is a more common crime than paedophilia, and would not be suprised if the sum total of damage in lives ruined is greater.
Now a lot of people have worrited over released peados in nearby streets, yes that can happen. But paedos are rare, witchhunts however are not.

The Sun newspaper once outed paedos in the papers as a public service. Some people were lynched two died, IIRC both were innocent. after all the paedos ran, but people who looked like them didnt. They had no need to.

But how do you tell and angry mob you are not the child molester they are looking for? When the people who beat up or even kill the faslely accused go to prison, they dont say. 'I hit the wrong man', no they say, 'I beat up a nonce'. There is no provision of innocence even after the fact, and no release for the targeted even if shown to be innocent. Fortuneately the police are beginning to see this and are less susceptible to wolf tickets than they were. his of course means a woman or chidl from an unfavourable background might have a provblem being beleived when abused. It goes in cycles.

Chemical castration is just a modernised clinical form of medieval punishment. Many women and young persons make a false accusation simply becasue as kids or women they will be beleived. Crying 'paedo' is a good way to get rid of a teacher or scoutmaster you don't like. Its bad enough when innocents are witch-hunted on sop little evidence, how do you say sorry to someone who has had their balls cut off (metaphorically) on the strength of a malicious rumour.

I hope the real message comes across. Paedophilia (and terrorism and pensioner bashing and drug smuggling) might be bad and real, but JUSTICE MUST BE LEFT TO THE RATIONAL. If your opinions on capital punishment or law in general are swayed by your disgust at some crimes then I beg to suggest thast you are not yet fit to make an informated and fair choice on the subject of societal punishment. This does open up the new arguement, whom is fit to comment. I think the answer will be relational, to some extent we all are and are not, itdepends on howe ratonal we can feel on a given day.
The problems of leaving justice to the angry are too terrible to contemplate. If this means defending the undefendable so be it. there can be no justice without dispassion towards they type of offence and a measure of compassion strong enough to look at the victim and the accused both fairly.

Yeah you are right Shuma. Someone enters my house in middle of the night I'll shoot first, call the cops later.

If they get there in time to save his dying ass yay for them.

Hopefully I never have to be put into a position to have to make that choice (but when most of my neighbors are meth dealers and meth heads it probably will happen at some point, garage has already been broken into several times).

Bookwrack wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:True. And that's perfectly alright. However, Fateweaver and FITZZ seemed to be advocating actions slightly more 'radical' than that.

Wow,Fateweaver and I on the same side of the fence,strange considering our vastly different political views .
However,I stand by my previous statement,with some clarification,I live in an area where burglary/home invasions do on occasion happen,families have had their doors kicked open and been held hostage/victiamized/injured and even killed.
Now taking this into account,should an individule or individules enter my home with the intent of commiting a crime,I have no intention of assesing why they are there,or attempt to asscertain if they only intend to grab the playstation and run away,I will use deadly force to protect my family from any possibility of harm.

We're actually in agreement here. If you think you're in danger in a home invasion, you're pretty broadly justified in using lethal force to protect yourself. What I'm taking issue with is Fateweaver's silly insinuation that there's nothing wrong with using the guy as a bullet stop after he's already been subdued, and this came up in a previous thread where another poster went off about how, 'you just don't understand the bloodlust man,' re a home invasion ends in the burglar being scared off, but the home owner and friends chase him down the street, hold him down, and curbstomp him.

I get where your comming from,and agree,in a (hypothetical) home invasion,should the individule(s) turn and run/surrender (although I would be extreamly cautious here),they become the problem of the cops/courts as they are no longer an immediate threat to my family.
I have no qaulms about fireing on someone who has illegaly enterd my home,however if they turn and run I'm certainly not going to chase them out into the street shooting at them as they flee,my goal is to protect my family not to play at being (insert favorite action hero here).

Orlanth wrote:Yes this is another of my 'text walls'. However we are having a seruious discusion, which need not be exclusively conducted with a series of half thought one liners as scrawled out in crayon on a playground wall. I am sure we will find someone here who can read a comprehensive arguement and comment in return.

The problems with paedophilia scare and modern justice.
Becasue of PC dogma it is a well known and tried strategy for the criminal community to make up accusations along this nature. Because everyone hates paedos it is very common to try and accuse someone of being one with a varying degree of 'evidence'.
If you are a scum, say a drug smuggler, and you want someone out of the way, just spread the rumour they are a paedophile. What you get is a fething frenzy. Job done.

I also know of a case where a teenage girl lied to her dad, she was with a 'm8' in her house, but didnt want to admit that, so she said she was detained by so and so. a suspected paedo. For paedo read misfit, he was no more a paedo than an average old woman in 17th century New England is a witch.
It was only after she found out what had happened to this innocent man that she was shamed enough to tell the truth, and likely only because plenty of witnesses to show her as being in her friends house at the refered time.

This is just one case from my home town that has come to my ears. its by no means a rare problem. I would be feel safe to bet that false accuisation is a more common crime than paedophilia, and would not be suprised if the sum total of damage in lives ruined is greater.
Now a lot of people have worrited over released peados in nearby streets, yes that can happen. But paedos are rare, witchhunts however are not.

Forgive my skeptimism, but where are you getting this information? I'm not aware of any statistics that refute or agree with this.

The Sun newspaper once outed paedos in the papers as a public service. Some people were lynched two died, IIRC both were innocent. after all the paedos ran, but people who looked like them didnt. They had no need to.

That is a truly sad example. And the first I have heard of it. It's disgusting that something like that was allowed to happen.

I hope the real message comes across. Paedophilia (and terrorism and pensioner bashing and drug smuggling) might be bad and real, but JUSTICE MUST BE LEFT TO THE RATIONAL. If your opinions on capital punishment or law in general are swayed by your disgust at some crimes then I beg to suggest thast you are not yet fit to make an informated and fair choice on the subject of societal punishment. This does open up the new arguement, whom is fit to comment. I think the answer will be relational, to some extent we all are and are not, itdepends on howe ratonal we can feel on a given day.
The problems of leaving justice to the angry are too terrible to contemplate. If this means defending the undefendable so be it. there can be no justice without dispassion towards they type of offence and a measure of compassion strong enough to look at the victim and the accused both fairly.

I agree with you wholeheartedly here. The court is the only place where things like this should be decided, not in front of a mob. However, I also understand societies wish that such people are never let out again. Once the court has established that the accussed is ACTUALLY guilty in an unbiased, fair trial, then I see no real reason that capital punishment should not be enforced for such a grave crime.

Fateweaver wrote:Yeah you are right Shuma. Someone enters my house in middle of the night I'll shoot first, call the cops later.

If they get there in time to save his dying ass yay for them.

Hopefully I never have to be put into a position to have to make that choice (but when most of my neighbors are meth dealers and meth heads it probably will happen at some point, garage has already been broken into several times).

Fateweaver, I am having real difficulty in recognising when you are joking and when you are not/

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Yes this is another of my 'text walls'. However we are having a seruious discusion, which need not be exclusively conducted with a series of half thought one liners as scrawled out in crayon on a playground wall. I am sure we will find someone here who can read a comprehensive arguement and comment in return.

The problems with paedophilia scare and modern justice.
Becasue of PC dogma it is a well known and tried strategy for the criminal community to make up accusations along this nature. Because everyone hates paedos it is very common to try and accuse someone of being one with a varying degree of 'evidence'.
If you are a scum, say a drug smuggler, and you want someone out of the way, just spread the rumour they are a paedophile. What you get is a fething frenzy. Job done.

I also know of a case where a teenage girl lied to her dad, she was with a 'm8' in her house, but didnt want to admit that, so she said she was detained by so and so. a suspected paedo. For paedo read misfit, he was no more a paedo than an average old woman in 17th century New England is a witch.
It was only after she found out what had happened to this innocent man that she was shamed enough to tell the truth, and likely only because plenty of witnesses to show her as being in her friends house at the refered time.

This is just one case from my home town that has come to my ears. its by no means a rare problem. I would be feel safe to bet that false accuisation is a more common crime than paedophilia, and would not be suprised if the sum total of damage in lives ruined is greater.
Now a lot of people have worrited over released peados in nearby streets, yes that can happen. But paedos are rare, witchhunts however are not.

Forgive my skeptimism, but where are you getting this information? I'm not aware of any statistics that refute or agree with this.

The Sun newspaper once outed paedos in the papers as a public service. Some people were lynched two died, IIRC both were innocent. after all the paedos ran, but people who looked like them didnt. They had no need to.

That is a truly sad example. And the first I have heard of it. It's disgusting that something like that was allowed to happen.

Wait, doesn't lynched mean killed?

Relapse wrote:
You are spot on with that statement. A lot of pedos get their kicks by fondling, sexual talk, etc., as I've found out.

If that's the case, then they aren't pedophiles. Pedophile is a specific, clinical term with a discreet meaning. Someone who sexually assaults, or engages sexually with children for reasons other than erotic desire is not a pedophile. Sexual assault does not necessarily relate to carnal wishes.

Its a complicated issue which is handicapped by a limited vocabulary (largely a result of prudish sensibilities).

Emperors Faithful wrote:Wait, doesn't lynched mean killed?

Usually, yes. More accurately, someone who is lynched is tortured to death. Its a manifestation of sadism.

Emperors Faithful wrote:Wait, doesn't lynched mean killed?

No. It means unjustly attacked by a mob of vigilantes. One paediatrician's house was attacked. Another person was attacked because he wore a neck brace similar to the one worn by a paedophile in a photo. Neither of them was killed though obvious they got shaken up.

dogma wrote:Usually, yes. More accurately, someone who is lynched is tortured to death. Its a manifestation of sadism.

That is more of "this is how I personally view this" then an actual definition. Lynching is vigilante 'justice', in recent history carried out by hanging. It is a manifestation of disregard for law. It can involve torture, but doesn't necessarily. It most certainly involves terror.

When I actually found myself in a couple of situations in New Orleans, once with a gunman I subdued and held for the cops and another time when I got into a fight with knife armed muggers,
I decided to chuck my kill 'em with no questions asked opinion.
I found in my own case, anyway, it's easier to talk about killing someone vigilante style than actually performing the deed when you have an attacker in the position where, with just an ounce more pressure, you could break bones and cripple them for life.

Ahtman wrote:

dogma wrote:Usually, yes. More accurately, someone who is lynched is tortured to death. Its a manifestation of sadism.

That is more of "this is how I personally view this" then an actual definition. Lynching is vigilante 'justice', in recent history carried out by hanging. It is a manifestation of disregard for law. It can involve torture, but doesn't necessarily. It most certainly involves terror.

To lynch someone is to hang them until death, usually in a mob fashion, the hanging isn't tied to it in all cases, but it's certainly pretty inherent to the meaning.

lynch (lĭnch)
tr.v. lynched, lynch·ing, lynch·es
To punish (a person) without legal process or authority, especially by hanging, for a perceived offense or as an act of bigotry.

[Short for lynch law.]
lynch'er n., lynch'ing n.

lynch (v.)
1835, from earlier Lynch law (1811), likely named after William Lynch (1742-1820) of Pittsylvania, Va., who c.1780 led a vigilance committee to keep order there during the Revolution. Other sources trace the name to Charles Lynch (1736-96) a Virginia magistrate who fined and imprisoned Tories in his district c.1782, but the connection to him is less likely. Originally any sort of summary justice, especially by flogging; narrowing of focus to "extralegal execution by hanging" is 20c. Lynch mob is attested from 1838. The surname is either from O.E. hlinc "hill" or Ir. Loingseach "sailor."

Legal Dictionary

Main Entry: lynch
Pronunciation: 'linch
Function: transitive verb
: to put to death (as by hanging) by mob action without legal sanction —lynch·er noun

It has a pretty solid meaning.

Ahtman wrote:That is more of "this is how I personally view this" then an actual definition. Lynching is vigilante 'justice', in recent history carried out by hanging. It is a manifestation of disregard for law. It can involve torture, but doesn't necessarily. It most certainly involves terror.

Fair enough. A better statement would have been "lynching is closely tied to sadism". Its not an intrinsic link so much as my understanding of popular justice.

Relapse wrote:When I actually found myself in a couple of situations in New Orleans, once with a gunman I subdued and held for the cops and another time when I got into a fight with knife armed muggers,
I decided to chuck my kill 'em with no questions asked opinion.
I found in my own case, anyway, it's easier to talk about killing someone vigilante style than actually performing the deed when you have an attacker in the position where, with just an ounce more pressure, you could break bones and cripple them for life.

While I can appreciate your view Relapse,I was born and raised in New Orleans,grew up on Alvar street a few blocks away from the Desire street projects in the 9th ward,and honestly belive you were extreamly fourtunate considering the situations you described.
As you no doubt are aware of,situations can become very vicious very quickly in New Orleans,and while it would be nice to be able to have a more "merciful" outlook concerning confrontations,in more cases than not it can quickly get you killed.

FITZZ wrote:

Relapse wrote:When I actually found myself in a couple of situations in New Orleans, once with a gunman I subdued and held for the cops and another time when I got into a fight with knife armed muggers,
I decided to chuck my kill 'em with no questions asked opinion.
I found in my own case, anyway, it's easier to talk about killing someone vigilante style than actually performing the deed when you have an attacker in the position where, with just an ounce more pressure, you could break bones and cripple them for life.

While I can appreciate your view Relapse,I was born and raised in New Orleans,grew up on Alvar street a few blocks away from the Desire street projects in the 9th ward,and honestly belive you were extreamly fourtunate considering the situations you described.
As you no doubt are aware of,situations can become very vicious very quickly in New Orleans,and while it would be nice to be able to have a more "merciful" outlook concerning confrontations,in more cases than not it can quickly get you killed.

Both times, I got into it at the Clarion Hotel, on Canal street. The first time, with the gun man, was actually inside the lobby at about 2 am when it was just me and a couple guys behind the desk. The guy just came in from the street and held up the desk clerks. I was in the luggage room having lunch when I first knew anything was going on because of them yelling to me. I came out to see a security guard wrestling with the man who I at first thought was having an epileptic seizure. The desk clerks yelled at me that he had a gun, just as he shook off the guard. My first thought was, great, the guard is going to get us all killed for the night's till. This was followed closley by the thought if I didn't do something quick, the guy was going to shoot the guard and clerks.
As he was pulling up his gun, I ran in and clipped him behind the knees and took him down. We rolled around a second or two with him trying to get the gun on me, but I managed to keep him from getting a good aim and caught him up in a joint lock that caused him enough pain to throw his gun off to one side, the money he stole to the other, and begin screaming for mercy. After the incident, I was told that his screams of pain could be heard throughout the first and second floors of the Clarion.
The security guard then ran in and began slamming his head into the ground. I was a bit worried about lookouts coming in, at which point, I was going to cripple the guy for life and start shooting with his gun. It didn't come to that, though. The cops came to carry him away, literaly, because he couldn't walk after the hold I had him in.
The guys with knives were trying to force me to go to the Iberville projects with them and we just got into it the and there in the early morning hours outside the hotel. I ended up just kicking the living gak out of those two.
After that, I decided the job of graveyard bellman could go to someone else.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Orlanth wrote:Yes this is another of my 'text walls'. However we are having a seruious discusion, which need not be exclusively conducted with a series of half thought one liners as scrawled out in crayon on a playground wall. I am sure we will find someone here who can read a comprehensive arguement and comment in return.

The problems with paedophilia scare and modern justice.
Becasue of PC dogma it is a well known and tried strategy for the criminal community to make up accusations along this nature. Because everyone hates paedos it is very common to try and accuse someone of being one with a varying degree of 'evidence'.
If you are a scum, say a drug smuggler, and you want someone out of the way, just spread the rumour they are a paedophile. What you get is a fething frenzy. Job done.

I also know of a case where a teenage girl lied to her dad, she was with a 'm8' in her house, but didnt want to admit that, so she said she was detained by so and so. a suspected paedo. For paedo read misfit, he was no more a paedo than an average old woman in 17th century New England is a witch.
It was only after she found out what had happened to this innocent man that she was shamed enough to tell the truth, and likely only because plenty of witnesses to show her as being in her friends house at the refered time.

This is just one case from my home town that has come to my ears. its by no means a rare problem. I would be feel safe to bet that false accuisation is a more common crime than paedophilia, and would not be suprised if the sum total of damage in lives ruined is greater.
Now a lot of people have worrited over released peados in nearby streets, yes that can happen. But paedos are rare, witchhunts however are not.

Forgive my skeptimism, but where are you getting this information? I'm not aware of any statistics that refute or agree with this.

It's stories from my home town, double sourced of course. The 'girl who lied' story was from an estate under two miles away from where I lived at the time. It never made the press. I didnt know anyone related to the story, but I knew people on the estate.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Orlanth wrote:The Sun newspaper once outed paedos in the papers as a public service. Some people were lynched two died, IIRC both were innocent. after all the paedos ran, but people who looked like them didnt. They had no need to.

That is a truly sad example. And the first I have heard of it. It's disgusting that something like that was allowed to happen.

This was a one off, the press got told. It hasnt happened since. Frankly I don't think even the tabloids imagined what would or even could happen the idea was to warn 'parents'. But provision of information doesnt ensure correct use of the information, even if there is a correct use. From what little more I know of the case the newspapers were shocked at the results of what happened, it would have been bad enough if this had only happened to the 'right' people. The lynchings story was kept out of the papers, I dont know if this was censorship or damage limitation by the journalists themselves. Its a well known stoy in some police departmnts, and on Fleet St.

One of the offshoots of this, there are calls for the Uk equivalent of Megans Law, but while politicians know better than to speak out against it (for fear of losing the confidence of the mob) they are dragging their heels. This, I suspect is the reason. Megans Law in the Uk would likely be a lynch mobs charter.

Emperors Faithful wrote:
I agree with you wholeheartedly here. The court is the only place where things like this should be decided, not in front of a mob. However, I also understand societies wish that such people are never let out again. Once the court has established that the accussed is ACTUALLY guilty in an unbiased, fair trial, then I see no real reason that capital punishment should not be enforced for such a grave crime.

My concerns with paedophilia and the legal responce to it and capital punishment are seperate but mutually reinforcing. I think a miscariage of justice is more likely in cases where the public disgust is riled. Capital punishment only raises the ante, it is no the core problem.
The point of connection is that ttherre is a lot of overlap between calls for the death penalty and offences that cause public offence, though nt entirely so. Drug smugglers are not on the 'to execute' list but are hated.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

It was the News Of The World, not The SUn, and no-one died although several were lynched.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/News_of_the_World#Anti-paedophile_campaign
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1713905.stm

Rebekah Wade went on to edit The Sun later in her career.

I stand almost corrected, so it was not The Sun. I have the story from memory. However the report I heard from credible sources is that at least one innocent mistaken identity case died, I beleive the stories. I don't know if any real paedos were also harmed or killed, that wasnt the gist of the converasations I had. The case of the guy who died (there may have been others) certainly didnt reach the press.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:To lynch someone is to hang them until death, usually in a mob fashion, the hanging isn't tied to it in all cases, but it's certainly pretty inherent to the meaning.

Lynching literally means an extra-judicial hanging performed by an enraged populace, however it has a wider colloquial definition like many modern uses of words. Besides a 'lynch mob', the term I used, has a wider definition built in, a lynch mob might do something other than an actual lynching. Tghe colloquial defintion fr that is even wider, sometime something as 'benign' as hecklers are refered to as a lynch mob in a poetic way.

Outside of the KKK, which IIRC is not very active lately if at all, noone does literal lynchings as far as I have heard. You might have heard otherwise.

Relapse wrote:

FITZZ wrote:

Relapse wrote:When I actually found myself in a couple of situations in New Orleans, once with a gunman I subdued and held for the cops and another time when I got into a fight with knife armed muggers,
I decided to chuck my kill 'em with no questions asked opinion.
I found in my own case, anyway, it's easier to talk about killing someone vigilante style than actually performing the deed when you have an attacker in the position where, with just an ounce more pressure, you could break bones and cripple them for life.

While I can appreciate your view Relapse,I was born and raised in New Orleans,grew up on Alvar street a few blocks away from the Desire street projects in the 9th ward,and honestly belive you were extreamly fourtunate considering the situations you described.
As you no doubt are aware of,situations can become very vicious very quickly in New Orleans,and while it would be nice to be able to have a more "merciful" outlook concerning confrontations,in more cases than not it can quickly get you killed.

Both times, I got into it at the Clarion Hotel, on Canal street. The first time, with the gun man, was actually inside the lobby at about 2 am when it was just me and a couple guys behind the desk. The guy just came in from the street and held up the desk clerks. I was in the luggage room having lunch when I first knew anything was going on because of them yelling to me. I came out to see a security guard wrestling with the man who I at first thought was having an epileptic seizure. The desk clerks yelled at me that he had a gun, just as he shook off the guard. My first thought was, great, the guard is going to get us all killed for the night's till. This was followed closley by the thought if I didn't do something quick, the guy was going to shoot the guard and clerks.
As he was pulling up his gun, I ran in and clipped him behind the knees and took him down. We rolled around a second or two with him trying to get the gun on me, but I managed to keep him from getting a good aim and caught him up in a joint lock that caused him enough pain to throw his gun off to one side, the money he stole to the other, and begin screaming for mercy. After the incident, I was told that his screams of pain could be heard throughout the first and second floors of the Clarion.
The security guard then ran in and began slamming his head into the ground. I was a bit worried about lookouts coming in, at which point, I was going to cripple the guy for life and start shooting with his gun. It didn't come to that, though. The cops came to carry him away, literaly, because he couldn't walk after the hold I had him in.
The guys with knives were trying to force me to go to the Iberville projects with them and we just got into it the and there in the early morning hours outside the hotel. I ended up just kicking the living gak out of those two.
After that, I decided the job of graveyard bellman could go to someone else.

Again I have to say how fortunate you were,I'm very familar with the area you worked in,in my late teens/early twenties I lived on Chartres street,which is several blocks from the Iberville projects and a great neighborhood to get your head blown off in.
I belive your decision to give up your night job was indeed a good one.

Orlanth wrote:
But paedos are rare, witchhunts however are not.

Forgive my skeptimism, but where are you getting this information? I'm not aware of any statistics that refute or agree with this. :S

It's stories from my home town, double sourced of course. The 'girl who lied' story was from an estate under two miles away from where I lived at the time. It never made the press. I didnt know anyone related to the story, but I knew people on the estate.

Sorry I meant this.

The point of connection is that ttherre is a lot of overlap between calls for the death penalty and offences that cause public offence, though nt entirely so. Drug smugglers are not on the 'to execute' list but are hated.

Actually, they are.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

Orlanth wrote:
But paedos are rare, witchhunts however are not.

Ok there have been cases that made the press of witchhunts.

Best example are the Tyneside social services cases which were a scandal in the early 90's. Some social workers came to the conclusion that any sign of stretching around a childs anus was defacto proof of sexual abuse. Actually there are plenty of rasons for this many innocuous, and also diagnosis is difficult because the anus is designed to stretch naturally anyway. In any case the social workers conducted spurious tests and based on their own opinions based on very flimsy 'evidence' accused large numbers of parents of being child molesters. Many children were taken into care and many familes lives were ruined as a result.

The story blew up into a major scandal, ansd doctors condemned the testing used as grossly unscientific. Ther parallels betwen this scandal and a witch finding are so close that witchunt is not an unfair description: Fear, stigmatism, spiralling accusation and spurious testing to expose the guilty.

The McMartin Preschool scandel is another good example of a witch hunt like that. The end result was a family lost the school their school, their son spent seven years in prison without ever being convicted of anything, the prosecution cost taxpayers millions of dollars, really all because the claims of a schizophrenic, ill mother were taken at face value, the absolutely awful examination techniques of a psychologist were never questions, and people in positions of power wanted to show how hard ass they were against 'bad people.'

@FITZZ,

One nice thing was that after those two incidents I could do no wrong in the eyes of the NOPD. They'd even come to warn me when tow trucks were coming so I could move my truck somewhere else if I was parked in a place by the hotel where the cars there were going to be ticketed or towed .

Ketara wrote:Having read through this thread with great interest, I'd like to propose a hypothetical situation here that's a bit more on topic than the child molestation scenario.

You are sitting in a jury in a court, and a nondescript man is lead out. He stands accused of something in the region of a hundred murders, from the rich and powerful to the poor and nondescript, all across the globe. He is an assassin, a hit man, people pay him large sums of money to take care of their 'problems'. He is proficient at what he does, and professional, always ensuing that his targets do not suffer needlessly.

Just before sentencing commences, he stands up and makes a speech. In it, he considers the nature of morality. He asks why paying a man to kill people in the army is socially acceptable, whilst paying what is effectively a freelancer is not. He raises the question as to why he is prosecuted, and dogs of war (mercenaries) are not treated so harshly. He underscores his professionalism, and says that like any soldier, he merely does what he is paid to do. He points out several cases of the Secret Service in your Government doing what he does.

So, as a member of the jury, what would your verdict be? Does this man deserve to hang? He's not motivated by hatred, or even greed particularly, this is simply his job, and he is good at it. He is no greedier than any soldier, and does not make an obscene amount of money. He has a wife, and two daughters he supports from the proceeds, who live a relatively well off middle class life. You know that if you do not kill him, he will simply return to his previous life off liquidating people for money. He is not the kind to be rehabilitated, as he feels his conscience is clear anyway.

Assuming you are the judge, jury, and executioner here, what is your ruling? On what grounds do you make them? Answer me well Dakkaites, as I await your judgments and reasoning with the greatest of curiosity.

Thats a great question mate, here is my opinion.

I have always believed that it is ridiculous how our society seems to make organised criminals into celebrity types, in the UK, people like the Krays, Lenny Mclean etc, they all have some sort of hero status, releasing books and such, and yet we scorn burglars and muggers as scum, when maybe there are more convincing reasons for their stupid crimes, such as addiction to drugs or even starving for example.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, i have always belived that killing people for money, is the absolute worst thing a man can do. Stealing and robbing are one thing, but to actually end a mans life just for your own personal gain (money) is abhorent to me. You could argue that many criminals also have a mental issue as well as a motive, paedos and such most certainly do have a mental issue, as normal people do not find children attractive, and yet we vilify them (and rightly so of course) but a hitman, is a sane person, merely killing for wealth.

The solider analogy is a bad one, because a solider is sent to fight by his country, and his country is made up by the officials that were elected to represent the people that inhabit it. Now, since Iraq people have kinda gotten pissed about the whole thing, but the principle remains! A soldier is paid to do his job, and to kill people that their nation decides are deserving of their fate. When i was over in Iraq and Afghanistan, there were very strict ROE and we always made our very best efforts to hurt only combatants. Even if you disagree with the occupation, then do what our protesters do, and peacefully protest and picket. Make your views known as aggresively as possible, just dont hurt people.

In this regard, i never ever felt bad about shooting at a human being on operations, i rationalized that the good people that may have been against the issue would not take up arms to murder coalition soldiers. And that is a black and white mentality, but you need it sometimes as a ranking soldier, you just have to hope that your high ranking officers and politicians are doing their very best and are trying as hard as you.

If you will end a mans existence for nothing other than money, you ARE scum. No matter how you try and dress it up.

Thats my opinion anyway, though i concede that for some reason there is some sort of romantic notion about big time criminals like Al Capone and such.. and i dont understand it, maybe we respect men who we think of as "strong" for some kind of primal reason.

But anyway yeah, a hitman is a dirtbag. Hang the fether!

Capital punishment = Yes.

My 2 cents.

@Waaagh_Gonads: What in that scenario? Or just in general?

@mattyrm: Personally, I agree with you there for the most part. But on the other hand...

...and to kill people that their nation decides are deserving of their fate.

This statment raises a lot of questions.