I just think that a world where the thieves who are caught get a nice beating equals a world where there is less theft equals a better world. YMMV.
If a guy steals your wallet you have license to thrash him. The law also has the obligation to punish him. Two distinct things. One does not eliminate the possibility, or need, for the other.
The minimal amount of violence necessarily to safely subdue the wallet thief long enough for the proper authorities arrive.
These five soldiers most likely exceeded that - by far.
Any guy that steals the wallet of someone in a bar generally gets what he deserves when caught. This guy got the shit kicked out of him, and he deserved it.
I would say that a different approach would be used had the theif been a woman and the mark had still been a man. Under those circumstances then I would simply have said to detain the woman until authorities arrived. If she was combative, then they should protect themselves, but not really throw her a beating. A male theif get no such break and is entitled to a roughing up.
5 male soldiers beating on a female under these circumstances would not be acceptable. 5 female soldiers doing it, I have no problem with.
100% correct on all counts.
But why? Why? Can anybody fucking explain why?
Sorry. It just makes no sense at all to me. It’s not even like you could say it’s not a fair fight against a woman, because it’s not a fair fucking fight against anybody.
And magellan01, yeah, I do kind of think the justice system means we don’t get to beat up people who commit crimes against us. Call me a liberal nutjob, but that’s just how I roll.
My mileage, and the mileage of, oh, the rest of the civilised world.
Thank gawd he didn’t steal any pancakes!
-Joe
Oops. Meant to type “…thieves caught in the act”.
The theif lost whatever right they had to a fair fight when they decided to become a theif. Once they became a theif they have an ass beating coming to them if the victim catches them before the law does.
I don’t have a reason that will make sense to you for why 5 male soldiers can (in my eyes) beat a man who tried to rob them and they can’t if it’s a woman who tried to rob them. Different rules for different genders. A same sex beat down is no problem for me under these cicumstances.
Morally, everyone, no matter the gender, deserves as harsh a beating as he received after theft, or even worse. Realistically, though, the lack of surety is why we don’t authorize vigilante justice.
And the attitude that you should be protected from it simply because of your sex is on the continuum of attitudes that leads to men being detained without question when they are accused of domestice violence, and women always believed when they claim not to have engaged in it. Not saying that everyone has that attitude, but some do, and it is the extreme outcome of allowing such gender discrimination.
Minor nitpick from this and the pancake thread, it’s thief I before E! Sorry, that’s just been bugging me. /end nitpick
and as you well know, the issue in those threads is completely different from pancake strawmen.
You’re a sick fuck.
You are also a sick fuck.
Fuck off, you choad sniffer. Like I give to shits what the fuck you think.
Say, don’t you have a poker game to be losing right about now?
dammit.
…TWO shits…
No, not really.
But instead I’ll laugh at first reading “Pancake Men”.
-Joe
When I saw this in my inbox I didn’t know if it was directed at me or Otto, and frankly I’m jealous. SWOON! Greathouse, will you hold my hand? I might have to cheat on Martin Hyde with you. You’re even more soulless and morally bankrupt! It just gets me hot, I’m sorry. All this macho “hang 'em high” bullshit really makes my mouth water, if you know what I mean. You big fellas stompin’ around insisting that scum get what they deserve, that there’s Good Guys and Bad Guys and the latter belong under the bootheel of the former forever and ever, amen. It’s so…I don’t know…kinky. And I love that it’s a same-sex party only, and that you let the ladies get their hot homoerotic violence on too. It’s mighty w-- er, straight of you.
What the fuck is wrong with you, and that other clown? Seriously. Break it down for me. Tell me where in your life you became so fucking divorced from reality that you can’t understand that the soldiers were more criminal in their behavior than the T-H-I-E-F?
Whatever blows your skirt up, Mary.
The T-H-I-E-F brought it upon himself. If he didn’t want to take the chance that he was going to get his ass handed to him, then he shouldn’t have stolen the wallet. I see nothing wrong with what the soldiers did.
Under your moral system, perhaps. That attitude, however, is even more barbaric than lex talionis. Civilized society left your morals in the dust a long time ago.
The soldiers let their emotions get the best of them. They should have detained the thief, waited for law enforcement to arrive, and allowed the criminal justice system to decide on an appropriate punishment for his crime according to the letter of the law. Plain and simple.
I’m glad to know you (the posters who have expressed similar opinions) feel that way, because you’ve suggested, based evidence being presented that the victim (and he was a victim) stole a wallet, he deserved what he got.
How about, if you were to find yourself(ves) driving down the road, minding your own business, obeying all laws, etc. and another driver, who thinks that you’ve cut him off unfairly (you changed lanes), are driving too slow or whatever, at some point when he’s caught up with you, he beats the crap out of you, or shoots and/or kills you, you acknowledge right then and there you deserved it. Because (he thought) you wronged him and he got revenge then and there?
And I’ll go ahead and pre-empt you by saying you’ll be back calling this a strawman, or a meme or Gardenian Razor or a shout out to Opal or a pancake. But you’re forgetting – there’s a reason vigilant violence is against the law.