I guess I wasn’t clear, because Guinastasia also interpreted things the way you did:
To which I clarified:
Given that, and my posts to Ensign Edison, in which I more than once cited a perfect example of what I meant—“Do you think it took five big strong guys to get a wallet back from one fag?”—I would have thought it would be clear by now.
And yes I DO think that there is a difference between defending the man and putting him in the best (most sympathetic) light. Defending him wold mean excusing or explaining away his crime (which no one has done and I have not claimed anyone has done). Putting him in the best light (and the soldiers in the worst) seeks to make the soldiers seem as brutal as possible. Even more brutal than they probably were given the facts.
You follow me now, son?
I don’t know why you go into all this. I can only assume it has to do with post 118 that I’ve cited several times. Do you deny that his language on both sides of the equation—that describing the men and that describing Bennet—was intended to paint a picture most sympathetic to Bennet as victim. Do you? To be clear, this does NOT mean anyone tried to defend or minimize his thievery.
actually, in my case I’ve not really described the victim of the beating as anything other than a thief and a victim of a beating. My focus was only on the thugery of the soldiers, which I further defined in terms of “5 against 1”. So, I believe it’s still you reading into posts what isn’t there.
when we’re commenting on the soldiers, it’s not as a comparison to the other guy at all. They all deserve to be in jail. Just that 5 of em for assault, 1 for theft.
No, I didn’t. That’s the line that divides many in this thread. I commend them for teaching a thief CAUGHT IN THE ACT a lesson. If the beating was truly severe, where the guy was on life support, or they sought him out later on flimsy evidence, then I’d be on your side of the line. But given the guy was able to flee the hospital (and the injuries as they were described), that doesn’t seen to be the case. I personally think that if every thief, mugger, rapist got a good beating from his victim beforee being arrested it would be a good thing, as it would mean less theft, muggings and rapes.
As I’ve said earlier, the thief got exactly what he deserved, No more, no less.
Yes. I get what you’re saying. You and the others have made it abundantly clear. I disagree. I disagree completely. Giving a THIEF the beat down he richly deserves when you catch him in the act makes one a violent thug in your world. I get it already. I just think it’s pathetic and sad, and indicative as to why there is so much crime in the world today.
And I refuse to call him a victim. He set into motion events completely foreseeable(sp?). If someone attempts to mug me and Im manage to push him away—into the poath of a moving bus, is he a victim. Fuck him is my attitude. What kind of shithead who is drinking with five drunken soldiers thinks that trying to rip one of them off is a good idea? People don’t do that, even a thief with a half a brain, because the risk is too great. But if you DO do it and things get ugly, you only have yourself to blame.
Like it or nopt, those five guys did us all a favor, that thief is going to be less tempted to take what’s not his from now on.
And that’s why you’re an asshole. It is not the place of you, or the soldiers, or anyone other than the criminal justice system to administer punishment for crimes. We as a society decided a long time ago that frontier justice was unacceptable. The lawful punishment for theft in Georgia is incarceration, not beatings from the victim and his drunken buddies.
And this is exactly why we as a society have decided that vigilantism is unacceptable. It’s not up to you or the victim of crime to decide how much of a beating is appropriate, because no beating is appropriate.
Of the five people who beat up Bennett, four of them were not the victims of crime. Does Bennett, as the victim of an attack by four people against whom he did not commit a crime, have the right to beat those four people?
In whose world? Last time I checked, five guys against one for stealing a wallet is kinda frowned upon by the legal system.
Yeah, the guy stole someone’s wallet. Get the wallet back, hold on to him, and call the fucking cops. Beating the shit out of someone doesn’t really accomplish much, and it makes you just as guilty.
Oh no, some hippie pussy from Madison called me an asshole. I think I’m gonna cry. Tell me, is this your usual retort to people who hold opposing views from you? Usually, people on debate boards seek to engage others and, well, debate. Accusations like yours are usually reserved for those who do not argue in good faith or do things like calling people names when they don’t agree with them. To avoid such mistakes, if you’re so inclined, I suggest arguing with the mirror. That way if you feel threatened and just have to hurl an invective like “asshole”, it’ll be warranted.
Doesn’t anyone else think the “barely conscious” part had anything, anything at all , to do with the fact that he was drunk and likely passed out? I sure do agree that the military guys shouldn’t have left him there on the ground, but I am not so sure he was “beaten unconscious”. Yeah, getting socked in the eye and knocked around until he was bloody did play a factor in his incoherent state when the patrons and employees of Blaine’s Back Door found him, but I seriously think he would have been alot more lucid when the cops arrived if he wasn’t drunk off his ass as well. Some of ya’ll are attributing his “unconscious” or “barely conscious” state to the beating only, and I think he was so drunk he might have passed out there in the alley regardless. Afterall, he was drunk enough to try and steal something in public right under everyone’s nose and get caught while doing it. Alcohol played a huge role in the lack of judgement of all parties here. None of them were thinking or acting clearly. It was a bad mix all the way around.
not just my world, the real world. should you do more than just shoot your mouth off about this, and actually do what you profess to admire, it’s likely you’d do time. but don’t worry sociopaths do fine in jail.
and as for ‘teaching the thief a lesson’, I believe you’re wrong there as well. the lesson the thief may instead learn is either ‘steal from some one weak’ or make sure the victim of the theft is laid out first.
You know what, I agree with those in this thread who say he deserved that beating. I wholeheartedly think that’ll make him think twice about thieving again, at the very least from soldiers. I think morally it was probably an acceptable thing to do. In this situation? I’m fine with it. I think five guys on one is a pretty unfair, but a fair fight is not what’s being wanted here - the administerig of a severe beating is.
So, what do I think should happen? The guy should get arrested for stealing, of course, with all relevant consequences. And the five soldiers should be arrested too, with all relevant consequences to them.
Why should they get this trouble, if I think what they did was right? Well, for one, they arguably broke the law; they went past the line of “reasonable force” to protect the property of one of them. Whether or not they crossed it so far to warrant a dishonourable discharge, or should merely be set free, situation is there’s arguably a case to be made for them breaking the law. A jury, military or otherwise, should get to decide on way or the other.
And the other point, possibly more importantly, is that people do not get to take the law into their own hands. In no circumstances do you, as an individual or as part of a group, get to judge someone’s guilt and mete out a punishment, unless you’re sitting on a jury bench with all relevant facts and no emotional attachment. Because people can be wrong about these things so easily; who’s to say some other guy didn’t take the wallet, for example - should they have totally disregarded that as a possibility? No. We have a system set up which we think is the most accurate and most justway of determining guilt, and punishment, that we can have. Let’s use it, shall we?
Typical asshole response. I can assure you, by the way, that I am not anything even approaching a hippie.
So why is it that, when I’ve asked you questions repeatedly, you have yet to answer? Out of all the questions I asked and points I raised, the only thing you chose to respond to was my calling you an asshole.
Well, I can only go by the various reports, which all seem to fault the beating for Bennett’s state. However much Bennett may have had to drink, he was able to function well enough to run. Most people I’ve encountered who were drunk to the point of near-unconsciousness weren’t able to do much running immediately beforehand. But it really doesn’t make a lot of difference. It’s the ones arguing in favor of the beating who are saying that the severity of the beating makes some sort of difference. Those of us who are arguing against the beating are saying that any force beyond the bare minimum needed to detain Bennett for the police was criminal.
Good luck with getting those charges to stick wring old chum. Like I said earlier, I hope and pray that there is not a jury in America who would do anything with the case “He punched a thief when he caught him in the act of stealing from him” other than dismiss it with the contempt that it would so richly deserve. Maybe you’d have a shot in San Francisco.
look back at ** Bricker’ssss** post. no doubt about it. you’d do time. jury nulfication doesn’t happen IRL as often as you assume. and, of course,as this thread shows, thankfully not all of us are sick fucks like you.
Hmm. I can’t decide if this is some sort of general anti-gay slur or whether it’s perhaps a reference to the Dan White case. Either way it’s pretty reprehensible and I sincerely hope it’s neither, but given Davey’s enthusiastic support of excessive violence to settle scores I can’t really be sure.
In other words, you really don’t get it. It’s your opinion that the thief richly deserves a beat down. The law, on the other hand, makes said beat down a crime. In short, your heroes of the moment, the five violent individuals, are themselves adding to the crime in the world today.
Yes, it’s all about being anti-gay. I’m a homophobe and I hate you you fucking little faggot. :rolleyes:
San Francisco is the most bleeding heart city that I thought of on the spur of the moment. Sorry to spoil your persecution complex Otto, but it didn’t have a damned thing to do with anyone’s sexual orientation. Time to retire that cross you’re riding.
Well, I did offer up two possibilities, and I even said that I hoped I was wrong about both of them. But if it makes you feel better to think that I have a persecution complex, as opposed to your happening to name a city which happened to make me think of a particularly infamous case of a jury excusing violence the way you’ve been trumpeting your approval of for the past four pages of this thread, then by all means may your panties moisten at the thought of it.
By the way, Davey old bean, were you ever going to respond to some of the questions I’ve been asking? Like for example:
Do you honestly believe that five trained United States soldiers were unable to recover a stolen wallet from a lone person without beating him to the point of unconsciousness?
If they’re such heroes, shouldn’t they have been proud to stay at the scene?
Why did they run away if they were so sure of the righteousness of their actions?
Does Bennett, as the victim of an attack by four people against whom he did not commit a crime, now have the right to beat those four people?