To Stab or not to stab, that is the Question?

“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.

1 Like

Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding! Wphew! Ding! Give that man a Cheerot! Plus+Plus TTJ’s!

1 Like

Don102 you’re starting to affect my thinking. AND I LOVE IT.

1 Like

We need a third

1 Like

I’ll third.

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.

2 Likes

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.

1 Like

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.

2 Likes

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.

1 Like

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.

1 Like

I think this is because Shamrock was responding to a question that called it “retaliation” towards the perp.

Split second decisions about acting in what may well be justified self defense/defense of another are I think different from retaliation

And…I’d question the value of instruction from a driving instructor who said if you have time to slow down you have time to stop. I mean…what?

2 Likes

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.

2 Likes