“And again I am not calling out anyone’s responses in particular. I was just concerned that the general vibe being expressed, especially early on in this thread, could be construed by a broader audience as support for vigilante actions. The vast majority of us here train and seek to act within the law to defend ourselves, our families, and other innocent people.”
I don’t agree with your entire premise but this particular statement is true. Still, justice is justice. Whether it be lawful or street justice. We can determine the victim was in fact being raped. The perp was stabbed. Is that not justice? Would I have stabbed the guy if I wasn’t being threatened by him? No. Then again, a normal person does not rape an individual.
The reason I espouse repatriation to their home country is how can they possibly object to going back to their homeland? I can see all sorts of legitimate objections to being incarcerated in China, although I am personally in favor of it. I want to make it an actuality rather than a fanciful dream. I don’t want the ACLU or some other organization calling it cruel and unusual punishment to be incarcerated in the land of their citizenship.
I think that very much depends on who has decided there was a wrong and what their definition of wrong is. Then they have to find the actual perpetrator as apposed to a perceived perpetrator who may not have had anything to do with it. And then it will still depend on the definition of justice being used.
There is a lot of room for error in that process which is why due process is vital for eliminating as many of those errors as possible.
I could come up with countless examples in history where the people involved with dispensing “justice” were convinced they were acting in a perfectly justified way even though the vast majority of people outside of whatever group they were in would consider their actions to be completely unjustifiable.
To clarify your comment: If it is determined that the girl was being raped (or was raped after the fact) and the rapist was positively identified, you would be against any retaliation towards the perpetrator. Regardless if such retaliation was from law enforcement or a bystander/witness. You would demand that the entire scenario/case be brought before a judge and jury to determine punishment - if any - towards the perpetrator.
I’m not arguing your point. I just want to be clear on where you stand when it comes to your idea of justice.
My idea of justice lines up pretty much along the lines of what is laid out in the Constitution and various legal precedents established over the past couple hundred years.
A suspect has the right to face their accusers, be judged by a jury of their peers and face punishment that is not unusually cruel for the crime involved. This is vital for doing our best to ensure that “justice” isn’t applied to innocent people.
If someone is forced to immediately kill or seriously injure an attacker in response to a clear and imminent threat then that is not an act of justice that is just a justifiable act of self preservation or the justifiable preservation of another.
If the victim or their defenders has time to ponder about whether or not they are applying appropriate justice in a given situation there is a strong possibility that the threat is not imminent enough to legally justify deadly force. If deadly force cannot be legally justified then I would argue it is best to leave justice up to the justice system instead of letting people appoint themselves judge, jury and executioner because they feel justified to do so.
That is a very tenuous statement. How would one know that there was “time to ponder” and what that means in reality? I recall the two times I had car accidents. The first I hit a deer, a driver instructor who I later related the incident to, stated, if I had the time to decide to slow down, which I did, I had the time to stop, which I did not do. Another incident was where I rounded a corner to find a vehicle stopped in the middle of road. In the split-second or so before the crash, with my mind racing, I was contemplating how I could avoid the crash, which ultimately I could not within the physics of the real world. According to you, I am guilty because I was unable to avoid the crash, even though there was no real way to do so.
That is the point I am trying to make. With an imminent threat most people’s brains only have time to focus on stopping or avoiding the threat.
If someone is facing an imminent threat they likely won’t have any time to think about non immediate issues such as wanting to impose justice/punishment on someone for their crime. They are just focused on stopping the threat.
In your example I suspect you did not have time to think about who was at fault and whose insurance was going to pay for this until after the crash had happened. I had an accident similar yours and a few close calls from drivers who almost ran into me and I was barely able to get out of the way. In all those cases I was just in reaction mode with my brain thinking about if and how I was going to avoid the accident while my body was already subconsciously reacting. I didn’t have time to think about fault or blame or justice until after the threat was over.
I think in most cases where people have time to start thinking about getting justice they more likely than not are no longer facing an imminent threat. When a suspect ceases to be an imminent threat then they should be given those pesky due process rights that the Constitution affirms.
The term “A jury of their peers” it is my understanding originally meant their neighbors who knew the accused and his reputation. The Brits who were ruling at that time it is also my understanding used a Brit appointed judge to try cases and our founding fathers found that objectionable and felt a jury of the accused’s neighbors would apply more equitable justice. Today, that concept is taboo. If you as a prospective juror have any even remote knowledge of the accused you are automatically excused from hearing the case. The saying around the courthouse was “jury of your peers — yeah, 12 people too dumb to think up a plausible excuse for not sitting on a jury.” A very recent case that made the news was an accused who beat down a female cop, took her gun and tried to shoot her. There was very compelling video of the beat down and shooting. Fortunately the accused was a lousy shot and missed the cop. Found not guilty. Feds were outraged and have filed federal charges against the accused. While I have a serious question about the double jeopardy stink around the Fed’s case, my questions are: How incompetent was the DDA trying the original attempted murder case or how stupid was the jury in that case?
There are a couplr of recent cases that shows , to anyone who cares to look, that it’s all about the D.A. If he wants you, you are going down no matter what, and if they want you to go free, you will go free.
Look at what is happening to former POTUS Trump. Then take a look at Alec Baldwin. Two completely different outcomes, but the one thing they have in common. D.A.'s determined the outcomes from the start.
I’m not scared of much in this life but one of my biggest fears… Making an enemy of a LEO (from the lowest ranking beat cop, all the way up to Judges). Their soft power is terrifying, let alone their coercive power.
This Administration has alot to answer for. But chief among, the many things that have transpired is the weaponization of the Justice System. if you aren’t terrified of that, then you haven’t been watching.
Agreed. If you want to sleep less at night read two books. The first is called Three Felonies a Day. The second is called Bogus. Both of those in detail the abuse of legal power. They can be obtained from Kindle.
That’s what I didn’t like about the military. A higher ranking person could accuse you of violating the UMCJ and he was believed more because he was higher ranking than you. I also watched as leading NCOs set up and charged underlings. They were stripped of rank and pay reduced for a cpl pay checks. I knew if I said something I would be next on the chopping block. I got out as fast as I could.
I agree that was scary. I know a young 0-2 in the military right now. Who is having to document all of his actions for a possible referral to J.A.G. due to his immediate superior in the CoC acting in an extremely unprofessional manner, who tried to place the blame for Conduct Unbecoming of an E-5, and an E-4 who are under this 0-2’s Command and he (the 0-2) is very afraid. This is the kind of 0-2. you want to be your CO, and the military needs these types of young officers,but it has become very complicated for him. He originally intended to be career but he doesn’t know now.
Edit: Changed all military ranks and replaced with appropriate non service specific identifiers
Just think, I was in the Army from 87-91 and this crap is still continuing. Crap like this only gets worse over time until there is a complete overhaul. But in the meantime how many good people will be destroyed for life? I love America and will defend it on my own or in a militia but in any of the armed forces, nah. It’s a miracle I got out intact and have my rights whole.
I believe we are already ‘In it now’
It’s just a question of spark… what spark is large enough to
start the ball rolling back to normalcy?.
What’s it going to take to bring us back to where we were 3.5 years ago?
Is that even possible?
Do you remember when it was really good? Trump 1.0?
Three and a half years of these peoples nonsense and you almost forget how to smile…
I’ve changed a great deal after absorbing all their nonsense.
A confrontation today (attempted stabbing–in keeping with the topic or a shoot)
Will end far faster and more deadly than I may have acted years ago.
Stop the threat—rapidly
Violently
These mutants started it, I’ll do my level best to finish them.
We may need to defend ourselves very soon William.
Against enemies Foreign or Domestic (I have a feeling it will be domestic)