I know it’s common for threads to be hijacked. This one is worse, however, because the only two mods who have shown up just piled on in the hijack without a word about the OP. There’s nothing wrong with a spirited argument about guns and who should use them and under what circumstances. There are plenty of theads on that subject in GD. But I tought the subject of moral responsibility of bystanders was worth discussing. A few of us in this thread tried. Since the mods refuse to kill this travesty, I’ll just opt out and try to find a thread with just one subject. This has been a disappointment.
You really believe, Exigneer that there is no other option than to kill the rapist?
He had her in a hammerlock, according to witnesses. That’s both his hands occupied by holding her hands behind her back. some of the witnesses were between 15-20. three guys charging a rapist (who can’t run backwards with a hostage to quickly) could easily free the woman.
Yell HELP
Pepper Spray
If you do have a gun FIRE A WARNING SHOT INTO THE AIR
Throw a rock
Scream anything (HEY A GUY IS TRYING TO ABDUCT THIS WOMAN)
Cut off his escape by surrounding him
Cut off his escape by pulling a car around
One of the witnesses had a dog in her yard. LET THE FUCKING DOG OUT.
The point is, taking his life shouldn’t be the priority.
I’m honestly not trying to be persnickety, here (although Aries28 tells me frequently that I don’t debate well). But there are several fallacies, or at least inconsistent thinking, in the post I’m about to quote, and I want to raise the points that occurred to me.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but can’t a hammerlock be applied with only one arm? If a person’s arms are positioned behind them, with the elbows almost touching, it’s possible for an assailant to link one arm through the elbows and keep another arm free.
How do we know this wasn’t done initially?
As noted earlier, pepper spray only works if you get really, really close to the assailant. Which can be dangerous for the would-be rescuer. Pepper spray is designed as a defensive, rather than offensive, weapon.
This can be a bad thing to do, particularly on a city street. Bullets fired into the air have a habit of falling back to the earth. In some instances, they hit innocent people when they do that.
Where? At the assailant? Then you might hit the abductee. Throwing it anywhere else wouldn’t seem to be an effective course of action.
As noted before, this tactic doesn’t seem to do much good. If people are actually watching this take place and aren’t responding, will yelling do anything?
If he’s unarmed, this works in theory. If he’s armed, you’re setting yourself up as a sitting duck.
Again, if he’s armed, you’re basically giving him a way to flee the scene much faster than he can on foot. Plus, he won’t have to physically drag the woman any longer.
This one is a particularly bad idea. The dog could attack the abductee, a witness, or anyone else who happens along. Animals get excited in tense situations, just as people do, and the dog would certainly have sensed the tension in the air. Setting an animal loose just puts another variable into the equation … an unnecessary variable.
I dunno. I don’t see automatically shooting at the guy as the way to resolve this, but I’m a bit put off by pitting a group of people who supposedly “did nothing” when obviously somebody at least called the police. I’m also a little leery of some of the options that are being proposed as alternatives to “doing nothing.” Some of them seem more dangerous than shooting the guy.
what are you talking about? What can be more dangerous to a human being than taking a bullet in the head? ANd if I were the victim,I’d rather get hit with a rock or bit by a dog than accidentally killed.
duffer and starving artist claimed their first action would be ‘walk up real close and waste him’.
I believe that was wrong. Everything that could be done to try and save this woman could end up with death or injury. Only ONE suggestion ASSURES death, this would be my very final choice.
Quite frankly, when I speak of things being “more dangerous,” I mean more dangerous to the potential rescuers and the abductee. If I were a bystander in that particular scenario, I’d want to help – at minimal risk to myself. The safety of the assailant doesn’t really enter into the equation at this point.
Cowardly? Perhaps. But my wife, my children, my parents, my friends and assorted relatives will not be terribly comforted to know that I died because I got too close to someone who was attempting to abduct another person.
Yeah, but a few choices tend to have a greater probability of injuring or killing the assailant as opposed to anyone else. If a confrontation has to occur, he’s the one I care the least about, so his safety – and his life – are lowest on my scale of priorities.
And that’s your right. I find every human life sacred, and you can bring a lost soul back on the right path…so if there were anyway to save both people, I’d do it. That’s all I’m saying.
Which is why I said “last resort.”
which is why I said my responses were to those who said murder was a FIRST resort.
See, I think this is something that JBJ doesn’t get. Because of her-admittedly admirable-determination to rehabilitate the rapist, she is advocating a series of actions that put more people at risk of death or injury. Frankly, the rapist’s life, health and wellbeing are very low on my list of priorities. No, I don’t think he should be tied up and executed in the street, but if he’s hurt or killed in the process of stopping the rape, well, it’s his own fault, he shouldn’t have set out to rape someone in the first place.
JBJ suggested that people should:
The problem is that any of these suggestions, with the possible exception of number 3, are very dangerous to the bystanders if the rapist happens to be armed. If he pulls out a gun, you’re a sitting duck. Assuming you’re armed, throwing down on the guy is the exact right thing to do. It brings the threat of maximum force against the criminal with the least risk to the bystander.
OTOH, if the bystanders are unarmed, yelling and throwing rocks is certainly better than standing around watching.
Actually, my whole point in starting the OP was that no matter whether you think every rapist on the planet should be killed or that life is sunshine and lollipops where everyone has a heart of gold, standing around watching a woman being assaulted and going “gosh, that guy’s scary let’s keep playing hopscotch” is NOT the proper m.o.
What-fucking-ever. I made ONE joke, all of two words. Where you are getting “jokes” from is anyone’s guess. My personal guess is wishful thinking and putting-words-in-others-mouths syndrome.
My comment was based on the over-the-top “leaving brains splattered on the sidewalk” comment which just brought to mind every summer action movie ever to gross $100 million in America.
As for which “side” I’m on I guarantee you’d be wrong if you were to guess.
In short… get over it. :rolleyes:
JBJ, your oratory about who gets to decide who lives and who dies is valid. However, if after all of your “nonlethal” methods, the person doesn’t stop, then what. What if the ONLY option is to kill the perp, or the perp kills the victim? Then you aren’t deciding. They are. It is the perps decision to kill or be killed. Granted, you are the device, but how would you feel if you were the witness to a murder, instead of a justifiable homicide. The anti gun nuts imply that someone brandishing a gun will only use it to start shooting without regard to target or effectiveness. Noone said they would just start shooting. I certainly would yell at the person if I was unarmed, but without knowing how armed the perp is, I don’t think I would just be running into the situation without something serious, like a crowbar, or large pipe, or gun. Not pepper spray. Ever. Not even a knife. I carry one of those, but I use it as a tool, not a weapon. Taking a knife to a gun fight is pretty stupid. Yes, calling the cops should be your first option, because if you go into the melee, and get hurt yourself, backup is nice. But calling the cops is not the only thing that you can or should do.
jar, I don’t think anyone is saying that every rapist deserves to be killed. What people are saying is, in a tight situation, sometimes, the only way to stop someone from hurting you or someone else IS to use deadly force.
Self-defense is a valid reason to shoot someone. (Although in this case, it might not be the BEST option, as one might accidentally hit the victim). But let’s say someone was trying to rape me or someone else, and I had a gun in my posession*. Would I shoot if I came to that? Absolutely. If it was the choice between letting this person harm someone, or killing him, I’d choose the latter.
*[sub]unlikely, as I do not think I’d feel very comfortable carrying a gun, and would rather leave them to people who are better trained and capable. Yes, I could learn to use one, but I don’t feel that is necessary. As for most gun control/ownership debates, I tend to be neutral. It’s not a subject I have much interest in, if any.[/sub]
Being dragged away is still assault. And as I said before, his intent was clear, which was to do her grievous physical harm. And as you said, he mocked her as he drug her away. So yes, if someone killed him to stop the attack, it would be 100% justifiable.
And I do not believe that sexual predators can be rehabilitated, because they don’t want to be rehabilitated. They want to dominate others.
BTW, Sauron asked if someone could have a person in a headlock with only one arm. The answer is absolutely yes, if that person is larger and/or stronger than the other.
-
Spooje, it wasn’t a headlock, it was a hammerlock, and I happen to know a rapist who is rehabilitated, married, with three children, living a wonderful life.
-
Guin, in case you didn’t notice, I was using extremes in my post. I don’t believe anyone here thinks all rapists should be killed, nor do I believe anyone beleives life is sunshine and lollipops.
-
qcomdrj I’ve said about six times that taking him out may happen…but it should be as a LAST RESORT instead of a first.
What y’all need is an education in the finer points of wrestling. Here is an image of a hammerlock as performed by one of the all-time greats, George Hackenschmidt. The hammerlock is a submission move that, if carried too far, will dislocate a shoulder. It can also be performed standing up while dragging someone away to your rape-lair. Two hands are needed to perform this move. Unfortunately, once it’s locked in, it is very difficult to get out of and generally only when the locker (?) screws something up and lets the lockee slip out.
Anyone whose had an older brother can tell you about how much this hurts.
Well, that’s a wrestling hammerlock, but if the girl was standing, it would be the more standard, two arms behind the back, held at the elbows, which WOULD make her a human shield.
If you care at all about the safety of the assailant, surely you would have to keep shooting the attacker as a last resort. Otherwise …
Jarbabyj, I agree that lethal force should not be the first tool out of the box, but it needs to be in the box.
This reformed rapist that you know? What was the m.o. of his rape?
This is why I’m all for extensive training for anyone who is going to carry a pistol - something roughly equivalent to pilot training!
Guns don’t only kill people, they save people too. Most often just the presence of a gun is enough to deter a crime. If it’s not, then it’s also possible to wound a perpetrator in order to save an innocent.
Training. Skill in the use of a firearm. And perhaps even a psych test, should be required for concealed carry.
Plus, I’m appalled at the total inhuman insensitivity shown by this event. I pesonally believe that cities under our present form of government are human toxic waste dumps preparing to explode.
S¬
…V