So at what level of “moral development” does one become self-righteous?
Is it before or after the ability to determine the moral difference between two groups of people each engaging in the same activity?
That seems a liiiittle bit harsh Brute.
Personally, I think the guy deserved some payback and had he physically attacked a girl I’d definitely say he got what he deserved.
However, under the circumstances as described in the article, I think the girls went too far. Not so far as to be criminally charged, but they should be admonished for what they did and told that if there’s ever a next time, call the cops and don’t play Batgirl.
-
The fathers in this scenario are shooting, and presumably killing, the perv. Overkill. As a civilian, one should only shoot another in a self-defence situation.
-
Serving a steaming hot mug of whoop-ass to some perv who is flashing you is not overkill. He will survive. The girls don’t have to deal with his perversion anymore. Success!
-
Of course, the police should have taken care of the matter after the first time. But police departments in large cities are not exactly reknown for being johhny-on-the-spot when needed.
I thought the “known sexual predator” quote was about the flashing itself. Anyway, an argument can be made that a lot of things are sexual predation. There’s a point at which the definition is so broad it becomes almost meaningless. Picture someone telling a rape survivor “I know how you feel, I was also victimized by a sexual predator. A guy outside my school showed me his pee-pee!”
I can respect that. Obviously I do not know any details about this story beyond what was mentioned in the story. However, I will say that what happened strikes me as not being immoral, just illegal. I guess that all things being said, I distinguish between the law and morality. Although the law seems to have as a goal to reflect morality, there is an important difference.
And I do tend to get irritated at folks that seem to be confusing the two, because in my perception there is a huge and vitally important difference between the two, and it gets rather irritating when folks seem to be smugly and confidently acting as if they are synonymous. Sorry for the snark.
Brutus, thanks.
-
Fair enough. So it would be acceptable if the fathers weren’t shooting, just putting the guy in the hospital?
-
So the defining moral basis is “overkill?” I reckon I understand that, though I disagree with it.
-
Too fucking true.
I’m with andros on this one.
To think this sort of thing is ‘right’ in any way shape or form is very juvenile IMHO. I can see a bunch of teenagers thinking this is ok, but if you’re an adult, how can you justify it?
And what about the ‘catholic’ school girls? Does their religion say NOT to go around hitting people?
I can see them using self-defense if the perp attmepted to physically assault them. I can also see the neighbors holding him for police (citizen’s arrest). I cannot see them holding the guy down while the girls take turns beating him up. How is this right?!?
‘Reasonable Force’ is what I should have said. Sort of what police departments preach these days.
cuauhtemoc, I agree with you-- I wouldn’t consider flashing to be predation, myself, but I’m fucked if I know the legal definition (if there is one). If I had to guess, I say that he’s had priors involving something more then flashing. But we’ll have to see if more details appear.
Binarydrone, no worries, and apologies right back atcha.
I guess my main issue here is with the OP. It seems to be saying “vigilanteism is bad, really . . . well, except in this case, 'cos I like this case.” I’m just trying to figger out why this particular instance is “good” vigilanteism.
It is not vigilantism to opposed a criminal with physical force.
Only taking the aqct of punishment into your own hands is vigilantism.
These girls were apprehending a criminal, & used reasonable force to do it.
Speaking as someone who was flashed as a kid, I can tell you that it is deeply upsetting. Obviously nowhere near rape, but if you’re 6 or 7 years old and you have no idea what the heck the think he’s showing you even IS… trust me, it’s sexual predation. They’re getting off on freaking out little girls.
Except that the “reasonable force” standard as used by the cops is not a “reasonable revenge” standard, nor a “reasonable punishment” standard.
As you seem interested, I will attempt to give you my take on this.
As I see it, the law is a human construct that is an attempt to encode a set of behaviors that is moral. As our perception of what is “good” changes, for the most part the law changes to reflect these changes.
For example, at one time it was considered moral in this county to own other human being and to force them to do work for you. It was also legal to do so.
Here is where the distinction to me comes in, however. It is my assertion that by its very nature the law is always in reaction to changing morality and as such lags behind. Because of this, there is a potential for a gray area in which the two are not overlapping, and you can have acts that, while illegal, are not immoral. Using the above example, consider that during the time in which it was legal to own slaves, the folks that were harboring escaped slaves and helping them to freedom were committing illegal acts that were never the less moral.
Which is not to say that what these girls did was on that scale, simply that I do not perceive their actions as immoral.
And admittedly, I get a bit irritated at folks who in my eyes are not making the distinction between morality and law. This is because to me morality is more important and by it’s nature more advanced than the law. When folks can’t or won’t see the difference, I think, is part of what keeps the law so sluggish in it’s response to changes in morality.
I know that you are trying to be insulting here, but I will happily engage you on this issue. Before I do, however, I want to know if this is a devil’s advocate question, or are you stating that an act itself is either moral or immoral, and that who is doing it has no relevance on that? Thanks in advance for your clarification.
Based on the article, it sure sounds like they were punishing him. Why is putting him in the hospital reasonable force in your opinion?
I see where you’re coming from, Binarydrone.
We are commenting here with kind of limited information. He was treated for ‘injuries’ at the hospital. We know nothing about the extent of the injury, it could just be some minor bruises and scrapes.
There’s no hard line here with respect to the force applied. If he was beaten black and blue with multiple fractures and internal injuries, I’d say the term ‘excessive force’ applies. If we’re talking minor injuries that will heal in a week or so, I would find it hard to demonize these girls.
I’m out for the rest of the day, folks, but let me make this clear:
I’m not bashing on the girls. And I’m not saying that they weren’t justified. And I’m not saying the guy isn’t a shit.
eof
Yadda yadda yadda. Most of us agree that vigilanteism is bad (search for recent threads for my take on the subject).
But in this news story, played out in my mind like a scene in a movie, I was cheering for the girls 100%.
Do I think that it should be written into the law that you’re allowed to kick the shit of out anyone who offends you? No.
But if the school nerd is getting picked on by the school bully and finally one day DECKS the son of a bitch, you may read him the lecture about not taking the law into your own hands, but you’d still be going “You rock, dude!” inside, right?
I just think these girls should get WAY lotta slack on this, in re: any assault charges or anything. Not that they shouldn’t be charged, but I’d be perfectly happy if a jury found them not guilty due to mitigating circumtances.
This is just one of those places where justice and lawfulness differ.
It was just for the Children to chase and beat the man, but it was not legal to do such. The Children should therefor risk legal penalty for what they did, but that penalty should take into account that they were acting in a just fashion.
Well, I doubt the girls actually hurt him seriously. He was probably just severely bruised and will be aching all over for the next week.
Kind of. But we never let that stop us before.