Does the fact that they are soldiers, and thus presumed to possess, and require, a higher standard of self-control and lawfulness than ordinary citizens, make any difference?
Only if it goes to trial and the defense lawyer successfully can convince a jury.
this bears repeating. I think it would be difficult to persuade any reasonable human being that it took all 5 trained soldiers beating the man that seriously to retrieve one wallet. Hell each one could have simply taken a single limb of the guy and held it w/o a beating while the 5th removed the wallet.
I don’t think anyone is saying that it actually required all 5 soldiers to get the wallet back. We are saying that the guy deserved to get his ass kicked, and they just happened to use all 5 soldiers to do it.
Well maybe, if he was like this one.
however, as the statement presents itself, they were allowed to use only that force necessary to protect property. They (seemingly) used far more than necessary, thus they, too were (presumabley) lawbreakers -so do ya wanna call in another battalion to put the smack down on them?
Point taken. That was a poor debate tactic on my part, and I apologize.
So if they’d beaten him to death, should they have been allowed to get away with it? What exactly is the equation here? What if it turns out that one of the soldiers had, say, jaywalked earlier that day? Would the thief then have justified in taking the wallet? After all, the soldier would have broken the law first.
Which, again, sick fuck. And yeah, I know you say you don’t care what I think, yet you keep responding to it…
Wow. Could you set up a few more false dichotomies? Lifting a wallet is not equivalent to battery. It is not the equivalent of rape. Yes, if someone attacks you, you have the right to defend yourself, using the force that is necessary to stop the attack and no more. If you happen across a rape in progress, you absolutely have the right to use force to stop the attack. No one’s suggesting anything even approaching the idea of letting a rapist finish up the rape.
While you have the right to use necessary force to prevent or stop an attack on yourself or others, you do not have the right, legal, moral or ethical, to beat up someone who steals a wallet. And even if you as the hypothetical victim of theft had the right to beat up the thief, your four buddies would have no such right.
Are you insane? Is anyone in this thread saying that the thief shouldn’t be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law? Is anyone saying that the soldiers didn’t have the right to detain the thief so that the people who are supposed to deal with criminals (tha would be the police) can take him into custody? No, what people are saying is that the soldiers had no right, in response to one of them having a wallet stolen, to beat the guy so badly that hospitalization was required.
Please tell me you don’t actually believe that expecting the people of the United States not take the law into their own hands to the extent of beating someone bloody because they stole a wallet is nannyism.
Then you’re a citizen of the wrong country. Perhaps you’d be more comfortable living someplace with attitudes more in line with your own. Does Saudi Arabia still cut off hands, anyone know?
Look, even if I gave you the guy whose wallet got stolen, you just can’t have the other four guys, too, baby. I know you like the group thing but it’s just too hard on my knees after a while.
Oh, yeah, and that’s no sane, functional civilization’s idea of even rough personal justice. Have you ever seen five guys beating up one guy? Do you realize how rarely it happens outside of hate attacks and gang rapes? That’s because even people who think you can punch a guy if he tries to steal your wallet realize that you can’t also get five of your friends to join in beating the shit out of him. If they jump in it’s to fight his friends. That’s another reason it smelled like a queerbash at first, and why it still has a bit of the stench about it even now that we know homophobia wasn’t what set it off. It’s fucking excessive, man, especially for trained professional killers. It’s too much, even in your frontier model.
If Mr. Bennett were a heterosexual Gump-lipped redneck wearing a t-shirt with the Stars-N-Bars on it, you guys wouldn’t even give a good God-damn.
can’t answer for anyone else, but for me, bullfuckingshit vigilanti justice, 5 guys beating some one senseless for lifting a wallet will always get my ire up. And, before you go bashing the news, I suspect that had 5 soldiers beat your heterosexual gump-lipped redneck wearing a tshirt w/stars and bars on it instead, it still would have made the news, 'cause ya know, we just don’t expect our ‘good guys’ (ie soldiers) to behave like fucking thugs.
You’d better fucking substantiate that, because if you’re implying bigotry, then me and four of my friends are gonna want a word with you outside.
Yes. Yes they should have been able to get away with it if they had beaten him to death.
If you are too fucking retarded to figure this out on your own, then I will be forced to answer you like I would any other tard.
Nope. It’s not a first come, first served situation. If the soldier had tried to steal someone elses wallet then he should be prepared to get his ass kicked.
Eat shit. :rolleyes:
Jeez, you must feel desparate: “Five big strong guys”, “one fag”?
First, do you know that all five were big. I’ll give you strong given their training?
Second, do you know the degree of the assault committed by each of the five? Do you know that they all were participants in the actual beating? As opposed to one, two, three, or four of participatiing in the chase and just standing by to make sure that justice was served?
Third, do you know that the thief was a weak and wittle faggy boy? Or even that he is gay? and that five guys knew it?
It seems that the reality is (thanks to sulamith) that this guy had a black eye and a couple of bruises maybe. It hardly seems that those five hardy souls unleashed all they had on him.
They shithead took a chance and got caught. The beating was well deserved. If, as originally claimed, he was beaten within an inch of his life, or beaten to death, sure those guys went too far. But in THIS ACTUAL CASE, justice had it’s day. And this guy should still be arrested and prosecuted.
Who says the soldiers were behaving like thugs? I think they were drunk and mad and emotional, which led to some diarrhea of the mouth and too much rough-housing. Yeah, they used too much force, but GEEEEZ LOUISE, why won’t some of you admit Mr. Bennett was the one who stepped over the line. His actions are what changed the evening from hanging out, playing pool and being loud and rowdy into something else completely.
Once again, if you steal a military guy’s wallet at 3am in a bar after copious amounts of alcohol have been consumed all around, and said military guy has been friendly and accepting with you, AND he’s there with a gaggle of his buds, then don’t be toooooo surprised and shocked when they knock the piss out of you. That’s just stooooopid is as stooooopid does. Evidently the guy ain’t too smart, and his career as a scam artist isn’t proving too beneficial or lucrative. I say he needs to pick another line of work, as he ain’t no damn good at being a slick con.
Doesn’t matter if he was gay. (My ‘fag’ line was a joke, of course, based on the fact that one of the soldiers called him that). He was one guy. Five on one isn’t a fair fight, obviously, unless he’s an exceptional fighter.
I should start a collection of these declarations in this thread.
sulamith, no one is saying they’re surprised, or that it wasn’t stupid, or any of that. It’s still criminal and wrong for five guys to jump one guy over something so petty. Doesn’t matter if it happens every day in every shitkicker bar in the country.
I most certainly would. The identity of the victim is not relevent. What is relevent is that a group of people, soldiers in this case, chose to take the law into their own hands. I would give a damn if it was a dog they beat, I would care even if it was President Bush, Hell I could even muster up enough to care if it were Greathouse .
Those 5 people, by all accounts, commited a crime and that is what the issue is for me.
Oh really? So oyu weren’t trying to skew the story to justify your opinion? Okay. Thanks for the clarification. :rolleyes:
But it was very wise of you to avoid the rest of the questions in my post. Well done. :rolleyes:
I did. You even quoted it. I don’t give a shit if they were drunk and behaving like thugs because of it or merely thugs. Five guys beating up one guy = thuggish behavior on the 5 guys part in my book.
"rough -housing? fuck! the victim was hospitalized. that ain’t rough housing, playfulness, that’s criminal.
[/quote]
Yeah, they used too much force, but GEEEEZ LOUISE, why won’t some of you admit Mr. Bennett was the one who stepped over the line. His actions are what changed the evening from hanging out, playing pool and being loud and rowdy into something else completely.
[/quote]
? The victim of the beating was a thief. there. I admitted it. doesn’t change the thuggish nature of the response, however.
see? why can’t you admit that the 5 did something criminal as well? And, frankly, in most jurisidictions, depending on the nature of the charges, the person who steals a wallet will do less time than the 5 beating some one that seriously. (all else being equal). generally speaking when folks talk about criminal charges, most folks see crimes agains persons (ie where some one got physically hurt) as ‘worse’ than crimes against property. I know the parole board members I’ve known believe so.
Frankly, I’d prefer that the soldiers that I’m relying on for our safety have the modicom of self control and intelligence necesary to call the cops to deal with the petty thief. (you know, let the cops do their job) but that’s just me.
fucking coding.
I did. You even quoted it. I don’t give a shit if they were drunk and behaving like thugs because of it or merely thugs. Five guys beating up one guy = thuggish behavior on the 5 guys part in my book.
"rough -housing? fuck! the victim was hospitalized. that ain’t rough housing, playfulness, that’s criminal.
? The victim of the beating was a thief. there. I admitted it. doesn’t change the thuggish nature of the response, however.
see, I admitted it. why can’t you admit that the 5 did something criminal as well? And, frankly, in most jurisidictions, depending on the nature of the charges, the person who steals a wallet will do less time than the 5 beating some one that seriously. (all else being equal). generally speaking when folks talk about criminal charges, most folks see crimes agains persons (ie where some one got physically hurt) as ‘worse’ than crimes against property. I know the parole board members I’ve known believe so.
Frankly, I’d prefer that the soldiers that I’m relying on for our safety have the modicom of self control and intelligence necesary to call the cops to deal with the petty thief. (you know, let the cops do their job) but that’s just me.