|
Besides, if someone does this kind of thing, then it is more than likely that they have done other things before and will continue to do other criminal offenses again in the future. These kind of people are a threat to me and all innocent people. I would deal with them as I would a Rabid dog.
"Criminals get locked up. Dogs get put down."
- RorschachHe's right, you know.
Besides, if someone does this kind of thing, then it is more than likely that they have done other things before and will continue to do other criminal offenses again in the future. These kind of people are a threat to me and all innocent people. I would deal with them as I would a Rabid dog."Criminals get locked up. Dogs get put down."
- RorschachHe's right, you know.
True. But that just means that we are often times more humane with our dogs. ~gives a wry smile~ And on that note, time to vacate the thread before another flame war starts. Sorry for doing that ahead of time.
|
|
Sure, Mr Hussain deserved no prison time.. Except for the whole brutal beating of an unarmed and non-threatening man, after all.
Question, what would you say is the limit then to what a homeowner can do with a burglar (or anyone) on his property? Assault them with weapons? Tie them up, throw them in a pit and set them alight? Tie them up and rape them repeatedly over a few days? Do you want a limit?
No offense meant, but this argument seems to be using the fallacy of the slippery slope. Just because it can escalate doesn't mean that it will escalate.
Ghost post.
No offense meant, but this argument seems to be using the fallacy of the slippery slope. Just because it can escalate doesn't mean that it will escalate.Sure, Mr Hussain deserved no prison time.. Except for the whole brutal beating of an unarmed and non-threatening man, after all.
Question, what would you say is the limit then to what a homeowner can do with a burglar (or anyone) on his property? Assault them with weapons? Tie them up, throw them in a pit and set them alight? Tie them up and rape them repeatedly over a few days? Do you want a limit?
There should be no fear of offense in calling out a false argument. However, the slippery slope is only a fallacy because it falsely equates two points of view ("If you're on the slope at all then you must be at the bottom").
He's not doing that, he's just asking you where on that slope you stand.
We aren't exactly talking about a sane situation. How are we supposed to react when masked men with knives invade our houses and tie up our families?
Just wondering, because if that happens to me, I sure hope I'm not infringing on any criminals rights. I certainly would hate to think I'm breaking a law by taking back my home from armed men who had my family members in a position to murder, rape, what-have-ya. You know, I'd hate to think I wasn't doing something sane.
|
|
Soda Snot. Now THAT is a great name for a punk band. :)my keyboard must just love getting soaked in soda snot. Thanks Jade.YAY! My computer speakers work, AND I have time. Gotta lotta Jade's Atomic Array to catch up on.....I highly recommend listening to them in backwards order... you can hear me getting happier and younger that way.
Dig it, man. Consider it stolen.
|
|
Huh. I would have done the opposite.One might wonder to which victim you intended to refer: The victim of the attempted burglary, or the victim of the vicious battery?
Edit: If it were up to me, both parties would probably be going to jail.
If I said that you would make a very, very bad judge, would you argue? I would be very surprised if you did. People who don't believe in state-sponsored justice to begin with rarely make good arbiters of state-sponsored justice.
The wild-west, high-adventure, rough-and-tumble world that you're envisioning is all well and good, but it has little relevance to the criminal justice systems of first-world nations. After the views you've expressed, hearing you say how to judge a case in court is like having a vegan tell me that I've overseasoned my steak. You object to the whole enterprise, yet you also tell us how we should run it.
Not arguing at all. You're right on almost all counts. However, I'm not saying you should run the whole enterprise a certain way (alright, maybe I am, but that's not what I meant), rather merely that the enterprise was f&%!ed from the get-go.
I'd make a terrible judge and a worse lawyer. All too often, I end up thinking with my fists.
|
Regarding Eldritch's comment, it's interesting to know that those cases actually happened. The one where a burglar got tied up and set alight happened in the UK (Source), while the rape one happened in Russia. (Source)
It's further interesting to note that the Self Defence laws allow for reasonable responses to home invasions, and that's reasonable depending upon the situation. So, chasing a burglar down the street and beating him half to death with a cricket bat isn't reasonable. But beating off someone who's attacking your wife is fine. Again, depending on what you do. It's also important to note that according to the first article, between 1990 and 2005, there were 11 prosecutions of people who had attacked burglars in their home.
Proportionate and reasonable responses are perfectly legal. Revenge isn't, unless you really do want an army of Rorschach's out there.
"Criminals get locked up. Dogs get put down."
- RorschachHe's right, you know.
Rorschach is a crazy person.
The whole point of Watchmen in general and Rorschach in particular is that vigilantism is by definition insane because it has no place in a sane society.
Not the entire point (edit: you have reduced Watchmen to a simple black and white binary, a binary which it undermines as I see it). In particular the point of Rorschach is to have this mad vigilante doing the things that we, in our hearts, either want to do ourselves, or perhaps we even feel are fundamentally right.
As with many madmen in world literature, his purpose is to reveal a contradiction within us, or within our society.
Rorshach is the madman who speaks in Truths.
In fact, and I'll bet Heathansson will back me up on this. Rorschach is not really crazy. Rorschach is damaged, but quite sane. Were he not signified as insane (by his mask and reputation) i don't think his insanity would be a forgone conclusion by any stretch, for those who read the series.
Dig it, man. Consider it stolen.Soda Snot. Now THAT is a great name for a punk band. :)my keyboard must just love getting soaked in soda snot. Thanks Jade.YAY! My computer speakers work, AND I have time. Gotta lotta Jade's Atomic Array to catch up on.....I highly recommend listening to them in backwards order... you can hear me getting happier and younger that way.
I greatly look forward to the first release.
What I've learned here is that I will always use a licensed fire-arm to take down burglars over a cricket-bat.
What I've learned here is that I will always use a licensed fire-arm to take down burglars over a cricket-bat.
~laughter~ Good point!
You're meant to sympathize with his madness, as well as the madnesses of nearly all the characters, but Rorschach doesn't speak in truths. In fact, his very first monologue has blatant examples of him lying to himself, at the same time as he's saying that he doesn't flinch away from the truth. (He talks about good, honest men like his father and President Truman; we come to find out later that he never knew his father.) All of the other characters, to one degree or another, are forced to confront the essential insanity of their delusions and it has a profound effect on each of them in turn. Rorschach is the one who never does (until his ending, depending on how you interpret his reaction); he's still trapped in the delusion they all bought into at one point.
It's rather odd to see you describe the character who is an outright serial killer as "damaged, but quite sane".
Ok you got me.
|
|
Ok. One last time as some otherwise intelligent people clearly have some problem reading or processing this case.
It's not about self-defence or defending your home. It's about chasing someone off (legal), knocking them out (legal) and then continuing to beat them over the head with an implement (not legal). Is that clearer? If you're defending yourself, or your wife, or anyone, you can use a heck of a lot of force to do it. You can break the other guy's bones. You can beat him unconscious. You can even kill him if you're in serious and reasonable fear of your life, as when confronting someone in your home and he's armed. Those are all legal responses. What is not legal is to take the law into your own hands and try to kill him AFTER he's stopped being a threat by virtue of being subdued.
Also, once again as people still don't seem to process this either, the burglar was not charged because he was deemed unfit to plead owing to the brain damage the father had caused. So it's not about 'sending messages', 'letting him off' or any other nonsense, it's because he was not legally competent to stand trial. Or do you people think we should prosecute people who are mentally incapable of defending themselves?
Finally, Garydee, you keep condoning it when you say things like "he should get a slap on the wrist". You are downplaying and dismissing the level of violence he used. That is condoning it. You don't go as far in condoning it as some others here who seem to think that anything other than leaving the burglar as a corpse without a recognisable face is some sort of limp-wristed libural wussyness, but you are condoning it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have discovered that these boards are a far scarier place than I realised.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Paul,
My issue isn't with the beat down, my issue is with him lying about it after the fact.
You hear about cops shooting a suspect 30 or 40 times. Why? Because they're trained to kill if they have to fire. Not "*Blam* is he still standing? *blam blam* how about now?"
There was a case in Ohio where there was a nut with a gun sitting in the street. A sniper took him down by shooting the gun out of his hand. It was an amazing shot. He was suspended for a week because he was supposed to kill the guy, not do a trick shot. In other words, SOP is to kill the target, not incapacitate it.
Now, we don't know all the circumstances of the beating. But it doesn't appear that it was 'knocked him out, went for a pint, then came back and hit him some more.' It was beating him repeatedly. I'd easily chalk that up to anger and adrenaline.
Plus, as you note, the burgler was convicted twice of fraud after his head met the cricket bat. so he was still functional enough to commit crimes.
|
Chris, I'm not going to get involved in "what if" scenarios.Well, he is a criminal, insofar as he did commit aggravated assault with a weapon, and then lied to the police in an attempt to cover it up.
Let me ask you this: what if, during his pursuit, he'd lost sight of the man briefly and then, upon catching up with him, beat the wrong man into such a state of permanent disability?
Or, better yet: somebody beats up your brother, again permanently disabling him with massive brain damage. The assailant first claims that he had nothing to do with it, but then changes his story, claiming that your brother was trying to rob him, blocks away. And there's no evidence other than the assailant's word. Are you okay with the courts letting this guy go free?
Therein lies the problem when sentencing or judging the man the sheriff has to take into account all possible possibilities not just the one that actually happened.
|
|
Then again I am willing to admit that I may be more biased. since I have a friend who was mistaken for a guy that had just robbed someone at Knifepoint (roughly the same build and was wearing the same type of hooded top as the robber had)who then had both his legs and an arm broken before the lynch mob realised they had the wrong guy and promptly legged it leaving passers by to get him to hospital.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
"Salem went on a crime spree shortly after he was discharged from hospital "
Now it's true that I speak American English and not the queen's, but that sentence is pretty clear that Salem (the burgler) went on a crime spree (action) after (denoting time) he was discharged from the hosptial.
So unless you are saying he was in the hosptial for something else, then made the mistake of committing a crime, then got beat up by a cricket bat, it seems that the sentence is clear to me.
The offences add a further five offences to the list of Mr Salem's 50 previous convictionsFifty?!?
Guess they don't have a "three strikes" rule in the UK. Fifty convictions? Criminals there must be used to slaps on the wrist. Not much deterrent there, eh?
Beat me to it. This guy should have been off the street and in a concrete block forty-eight or so convictions ago.
|
|
Ah, new information comes to light......
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1237390/Thug-Walid-Salem-boasts-unt ouchable-householder-tormented-jailed.html#ixzz0aSKZnHPk
(I hope this link works, I am horrible at the link thing)
The predator Walid Salem boasts he is untouchable and the law can do nothing to him.
Obviosly he is brain damaged.
He planned with two other individuals to invade a private home, tie up and violently assualt the residents, threaten them with murder, hold knives to the residents throats and demand money.
Forethought. Malice. Motive. That equals guilt. 50 plus previous convictions from 1980 to present. These include burglary and possesion of firearms. The word for those factors eludes me......
Then we have Munir Hussain. He and his were assualted in his own home, they were threatened with death. In the heat of the moment he beats the c&@p out of one of his assailents while fearing the other two are nearby.
Clearly acting in the moment, clearly a continuation of the original conflict initiated by the three predators.
From the article:
" Munir's son Awais said the ambush was 'every family's worst nightmare'. 'These men were wearing balaclavas and holding 12in knives to our necks,' he said. 'They punched me and my father repeatedly in the head and face and pushed us all to the floor.
'My father tried to reason with them, saying, "Take everything we have - just don't hurt us". But the men were sneering and shouting, "We're gonna f*****g kill you".
'My sister and mother were crying hysterically. We all thought we were going to die.'
Qadeer assumes the gang wanted to rob them. 'You force the family to say where money is hidden, or whatever. "
Put yourself in that moment. Then defend Salem. Then condemn Hussain.
My problem with everyone going on about the rule of law is you keep ignoring the forethought and planning that went into this home invasion and assualt versus the visceral reaction to recieving that threat. And until you have that personal experience you really have no idea how you will react or feel at that moment. This man Hussain (who is touted as a good father and benefator to the community, a pillar of upholding the law) was pushed to the limit by this assualt on the sanctity of his home and family. And he reacted as any reasonable, sane, normal person would react to that situation. He defended himself and his family. And for that he and his family has been punished:
"Speaking publicly for the first time, Qadeer Hussain, the brother of Munir and Tokeer, reveals the devastation the family has suffered as a result of the incident. Munir's wife and their sons Awais, 21, Samad, 15, and 18-year- old daughter Arooj, are living in terror after police told Munir they had received information that their lives were under threat."
Not to mention his incarceration and the cost of defending himself and the health cost on his family and the lost income and etc.......
|
Dig it, man. Consider it stolen.Soda Snot. Now THAT is a great name for a punk band. :)my keyboard must just love getting soaked in soda snot. Thanks Jade.YAY! My computer speakers work, AND I have time. Gotta lotta Jade's Atomic Array to catch up on.....I highly recommend listening to them in backwards order... you can hear me getting happier and younger that way.
Ha. Go for it Shiney. Just when you hit it big remember the Jade and me.
|
|
So unless you are saying he was in the hosptial for something else, then made the mistake of committing a crime, then got beat up by a cricket bat, it seems that the sentence is clear to me.Since the Daily Mail is excellent at walking the libel line, the sentence you quoted can also be interpreted to mean that the Daily Mail learned of the spree after he was discharged, instead of the spree occurring after he was discharged.
Okay. So...according to whom did this crime spree occur? When did it occur? What crimes were involved? I have yet to find an article that says, "On XX September/October/November/December, Walid Salem allegedly committed such-and-such crime." Help me out, here. You've got at least two English tabloids with heavy-duty get-tough-on-crime agendas, yet all they do is mention crimes committed in January. Surely if he was arrested after September, someone would be reporting on it?
"Salem spent two weeks in hospital recovering from his injuries after he terrorised Mr Hussain and his family in their home on September 3, 2008.
Mr Hussain, 53, was jailed for two and a half years for causing grievous bodily harm with intent and his brother Tokeer received 39 months for the same offence
But the Daily Mail has learned Salem went on a crime spree shortly after he was discharged from hospital - and was caught for crimes including possession of forged credit cards.
He appeared at St Albans Crown Court on November 30 for five offences - one of possessing a false instrument, one of possessing a false identity card, two of handling stolen goods and one of possessing an article for use in fraud.
However, Judge Stephen Warner gave him an absolute discharge after Salem's solicitor presented evidence that he was unfit to plead because of the brain damage he suffered"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1237632/New-let-brain-damaged-burgl ar-got-decent-man-sent-jail.html#ixzz0aScst2UN
I would suggest this individual be commited to a facility housing the criminally insane until such time as he CAN take responsibility for his actions. At the very least, this would prevent the rest of society from being victimized by this predator. At best, we would see how quickly he would "recover" from his so called "brain damage".
A part which a good defense attorny probably coached him to play.
You're meant to sympathize with his madness, ... blah, blah, blah...
It's rather odd to see you describe the character who is an outright serial killer as "damaged, but quite sane".
Ok you got me.
Heck I was waiting for a further comment but never got one. So much for luring you in for the kill. Anyway, I just don't have the time for this now, the matter is literary and one for the rhetoric: we could each write theses one way or the other, no doubt.
It is certainly not cut and dry.
A few things to leave you with: you ignore the fact that Rorschach was imprisoned, not institutionalized. Second, everyone has their delusions, and leading a contradictory life is 100% no cause to declare someone insane. Were we to label everyone with delusions and contradictions insane there wouldn't be many sane people left in the world. AFAIC, Rorschach knows exactly what he is doing, is doing so rationally and with calculation, and this is key to his sanity.
Furthermore, Rorschach's reasoning is similar to what we are seeing from some people on this thread, and they are clearly not insane.
What is Rorschach? Not just a madman for sure. Madness? Perhaps. Perhaps not. He certainly has none of the characteristics of a serial killer AFAIK from my undergrad studies in psych and criminology, other than a massive body count--I honestly don't know where you get that. Does going into a slimy bar and breaking a randomly selected man's fingers make him insane? No, I had a principal who used the same tactic to flush out a perp in grade ten. There were no fingers broken, but he did punish indiscriminately until the perp was revealed (me, actually). Not insane.
Whatever he is, he's a far more complex character than you are giving him credit for in your post (which you may or may not agree with, because you didn't write much).
Wrong thread Krue >_>
Nothing came back to me. I hadn't said s##@ to the cops when he f%#*ed with me. Nor did he when we f%#*ed with him. A year later I saw him at a gig with his buddies and all he did was wink at me.Was that the guy that you based the demon off of in your playtest game?
Ahhhh yes. Paul. Lots of great stories about that guy. Pissing in the Chili. Mooching my hash--okay stealing. The rough up. The big fight. Stage diving onto his head. Fun, fun, fun.
Wrong thread Krue >_>
Nope. Off topic slightly, yes. But not the wrong thread.
|
|
I did find on Wikipedia where there are "mission-oriented" instead of "warped gratification" type serial killers; guess Rorschach would fit that mould; the general psychiatric profile for serial killer doesn't seem to entirely fit his character.
For example, it says that a serial killer often has a "mask of sanity," where he can be rather glib, even charming....that's not Rorschach at all. Among other things, I don't know if it was just an inauthenticity in the writing or what, but he's not the run-of-the-mill serial killer.
Since when are atypical main characters considered "inauthentic"? People are complicated, and "typical" trends rarely count for much, especially when you're already discussing deviant and sociopathic behavior.
Supers stories are often about the extremities of human freakishness. Rorschach certainly wasn't a run-of-the-mill serial killer, no, but I still find him very easy to believe in.