Naked peeping tom in critical condition after beatdown by victim's family.
- Thread starter ForeverZero
- Start date
- Status
MonkeyKing
Member
Does anyone really think a jury would convict the father in this case? Dad is getting a free pass on this one.
I might not say death, but whacking off to someone's underage daughters on their property does sound like grounds for an ass kicking actually. I'm actually surprised at the amount of faith people have in the police handling this the right way. Of course that just depends on where you live.
Mammoth Jones
Member
This.
I have zero sympathy for a guy trying to look at 13 and 15 year old girls like that. Not saying I would have beat him like that but he took that risk w/ that nasty shit.
Plenty of people have had an ass kicking coming. This "there's never a reason to hit someone!" is a bunch of pacifistic bullshit.
Plenty of problems can be solved by someone getting the shit beat out of them.
I wouldn't if I were on the jury. I'd vote "Not Guilty" and go home and sleep like a baby knowing there's one less scumbag jerking off to kids while peeping on them.
michaelius
Banned
Yeah and then waiting every night thinking if he didn't return and will he stop at just watching this time.
Says who? Last time I checked, I live in a world where I'm entitled to freedom of speech, and I'll be damned if I'm gonna have some junior tell me I don't get to have a personal opinion on a subject that I feel strongly about.
Devolution
Member
In all honesty the law doesn't do shit about sexual predators especially in the early stages.
I'm ok with them beating him up. The idea of some naked man outside my home masturbating to me as an adult or as a child is incredibly uncomfortable. I would feel extremely violated by this, and in my own home?!? I'm glad these girls had people in the home with them who wanted to protect them (however that turned out). This wasn't a minor event. And the fact that he was completely naked is worse. The beating by the family may simply keep him away in the future. I don't really have a lot of faith that being arrested would have done it since our judicial system is really wonky here. I could see him simply paying a fine and being told to stay away from the house or else.
It really baffles me that they don't either. Similar to mental illness and child abuse, apparently someone has to hurt themselves or others first before anything is done. It not surprising that people get frustrated or distrustful.
Good thing you're not a juror then??
To Far Away Times
Member
Completely justified.
dream
Member
If GAF is a representative sample of the population, I think most randomly selected jurors will feel the same as Mammoth Jones and determine that the peeping tom deserved the beating.
No he doesn't know that. That's more ineffectual and inconsistent than ensuring the law properly punishes him for his crimes.
DiipuSurotu
Banned
I imagine the person passing didnt have loved ones in that house to protect.
And I feel basically the opposite. Huge swaths of the population typically have an ass kicking coming. In my opinion.
What if it was a bystander who saw the peeping tom instead, would it had been okey for him to beat the peeping tom within an inch of his life?
It would be a lot less accepted thats for sure. You dont fuck with someones family. Rational thought applies less when loved ones are involved. So if a victim's family has the power to do something i dont have as much a problem with them doing it as some random dude.
Megalosaro
Banned
Does the pervert deserve to go to jail? Absolutely
Does the father, brother, and friend also deserve to go to jail: Absolutely.
Does the father, brother, and friend also deserve to go to jail: Absolutely.
Vigilantism isn't about protecting somebody, it's about exacting revenge. ANYBODY who witnesses somebody being victimized by somebody else should be allowed to step in and protect the victim. The issue at hand is when they should be allowed to go one step further and take the law into their own hands by punishing the offender. So your position is that vigilantism is okay when the victim is related to you?
If you want to argue that finding a naked peeping tom jerking it to your children is an emotionally taxing event and therefore the father's responsibility is mitigated somewhat, then that is something I can agree with. But for people who have the knowledge and forethought to say they would do the exact same thing in this guy's situation, there is no excuse. We live in a civil society and as a consequence taking the law into your own hands is illegal. It's fine if you want to simply detain him so that the authorities can arrest and charge him. You are saying that you will almost beat to death a man who is fleeing from you. Lets not pretend that this is about protecting your children. You would purposely choose this course of action even though it could leave your children with a parent they depend on in prison, all to sate your own desire for vengeance. This is selfishness, you would not be a selfless protector of children, you would be a criminal.
Basically. It's your right to enact revenge, but you will be subject to the law just as anyone else. Go nuts, beat a guy half to death, just don't expect lenience because he wronged you first.
Eh... I disagree about the bolded in particular. There's a very, very distinct difference between protecting your loved ones and waiting/trusting random law enforcement to do the job for you. Personally, I refuse to ever accept the idea of having to look one of my loved ones in the eye after failing to do everything in my power to personally protect them. I acknowledge all consequences that come along with this train of thought and, after being put in a similar situation, I know that I do not hesitate to follow that course nor do I have a single regret regarding it either.
Vigilantism in one of its worse, and common, forms is when someone feels the need to pretend that they actually are the law enforcement. When they consciously go on to enforce their own standards of justice on whoever they come across. To put it simply, there's following an unfamiliar person because you're suspicious of their motives in your domain and then there's actually catching someone in the act of sexually violating your family on your own property - and when confronted, they retaliate as well.
Vigilantism and protecting your family are not the same thing. Castle doctrine is not simply 'bullshit'. There's a reason it exists.
The perpetrator's blood was strewn across the road and the beating was finished outside of of the father's property. This was not in any way analogous to castle doctrine.
Surface of Me
I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
You do realize that jurors are allowed to do that? Even if they know the defendant is guilty, but they don't believe they should really be punished. I'm forgetting the term and the details of it, and a lot of people aren't happy that it's there, but it's there.
It's called jury nullification, and it's legal, but most presiding judges prevent the defense from informing the jury that they have such power.
Close enough. Blood tends to get on the ground as well. *shrug*
And the pervert was lucky he only got beaten within an inch of his life too.
And do you honestly think that there is a single regret in these guys' minds? I'd gladly do time, take a bullet, or anything in between for my little sister. Why? Not only because that's family but because I've had to look victims of sexual assault and senseless violence in the eyes before and I never will leave the responsibility of protecting her from that up to random police officers. I'm definitely not the only person who feels that way either. So unless something new comes out regarding these guys tying the criminal to a tree and beating him to show that they took some great, sadistic planned pleasure out of this - they'll not only get off, but they'll be given a complimentary pat on the back on the way out of the courthouse.
BumblebeeCody
Member
Well I would've done the same to him and then set a up a Facebook and Twitter account just to brag about it.
If the pervert doesn't take other peoples lives into consideration, then why take in his?
After you have subdued the perpetrator, how does continuing to beat him within an inch of his life help your sister. How is stopping your assault when he is no longer a threat, "leaving the responsibility of protecting her to random police officers." This is barbarous bullshit and there is a reason human consensus has made this type of vigilantism against the law.
Because you're better than him?
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Mentioning jury nullification is also a good way to get out of jury duty.
Surface of Me
I'm not an NPC. And neither are we.
I'll remember this.
The continued ass beating is still better than a majority of the pathetic enforcements of trivial restraining orders that get put out every year for starters.
Secondly, you try and find a rational thought in a man's head when he thinks his daughter is in danger of being raped. Then you tell him he's wrong for feeling that way. This is not the vigilantism that's a problem. The kind of vigilantism that you are referring to should've been the most prevalent discussion in the George Zimmerman threads. That is a problem.
Is there an applicable punishment for men trying to stop what they feel is one of the most graven encroachments upon one of their family members, and, after they met further retaliation from this criminal, they have the presence of mind to actually stop? Good for them, I say. And again, if the story remains as is, you'd have better luck finding grass on Mars than finding a jury that'd convict these men for anything that resulted in a sentence heavier than probation. Its a waste of money and the court's time.
I agree that his responsibility is somewhat mitigated by the circumstance, but what he did was more than just a small understandable excess in the face of danger to his daughters. He sadistically beat this guy, almost killing him. He is still in critical condition. The vigilantism discussed in this thread feeds the kind discussed in Zimmerman thread. They aren't equivalent, but they are both part of the same culture. The kind of argument you put forward; that you aren't going to leave the protecting to the police, are the same used to justify harmful stand your ground laws.
If you're going to use a word like 'sadistic', use it properly. You have no idea what was in the minds of these men. Sadistic implies they got some immense joy out of doing this. That there was some pleasure or plan in it. Unless there is something proving this, its just your assertion - and I've also said as much above when I typed something along the lines of "unless they tied the criminal to a tree and beat him".
Also, No. Absolutely fucking not. Going out and looking for a fight, completely disregarding police after you've already contacted them, acting as if you're the protective force for an area that does not acknowledge you as such is COMPLETELY different than protecting your own family in and around your own property.
killer rin
Member
I dont think it should be legal to beat the guy within an inch of death. Smack him a few times across the head maybe, but its just immoral this way. If the guy dies they should be forced to pay at least some repercussions. There is a reason why the law takes in account the amount of force used in self defence when judging people. Dont get me wrong, the guy who was peeping deserved something for being perverted, just not what he got.
So once he penetrates her, its all good?
Or do people need to wait until there's actual groping?
Word.
Replace the word "sadistic" with cruel, savage, brutal, vicious ect. The point is that at some point in that beating, it stopped being about protecting someone and became about metering out punishment.
Of course this situation and the Zimmerman situation are completely different, but the people saying they would do the same thing as this guy, all contribute to the same culture of disregard for the law that was present in the Zimmerman case. You can't cleanly separate the two.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked