he’d get convicted, but he’d get a light sentence.
Well, I sure wouldn’t be particularly proud of myself for doing something like that, but I recognize that discovering my pregnant wife’s severed head while in the presence of the murderer coupled with the fact that I happen to be holding a loaded pistol would almost certainly be enough provocation to make me do such a thing. I don’t think handing out suffering is a Good Thing, even when it is eminently deserved. But in certain instances I am sure it feels like a good thing. Revenge certainly can be a tempting impulse at tmes.
If I was on a jury I would not convict. I wouldn’t convict him of murder, manslaughter or any other minor plea they offered.
If you cut off somebody’s head and then show it to their loved one, the correct response is for them to kill you.
My only problem was that he actually thought about it. He should have just shot him without any hesitation whatsoever. The only justification I can see for thinking about it is if he was trying to decide whether or not to kill him fast or slow. Had he taken his time and shot him many times so that he died slowly, I still would not convict him if I were on that jury.
BTW…
I do not consider this to be vigilante justice. Pitt didn’t go hunting the guy down on his own, Spacey set the whole thing up and then sprung it on him. I consider what happened to be a natural human reaction to a F*ed up situation. Spacey knew what was coming, it was what he himself wanted to happen. I don’t think that has anything to do with the justification for blowing his head off, but it does play to how unavoidable Pitt’s reaction was. I’m sure it would be easier to forgive yourself for blowing the guy away then it would be to let him live. This way Pitt’s character has an ending to the tragedy, if he let him live he would be tortured for the rest of his life.
Any other other reaction would have been inhuman.
Ptahlis,
I know what you mean. And what you just said is exactly the way I feel. I am not saying that I would like to torture the guy but at the time of seeing my wife get killed. I would want him to feel the same pain I was feeling after seeing what he did to the woman I love and me not getting to see her again.(in this life anyway.) Thanks for clarifing that.
When I saw that part of the movie it just made feel horrible. Yucky. Distraught(did I spell that right?). In otherwords, I could feel his pain and can see why he would just blow his head clean off.
Incidentally, two alternate endings are presented on the new special edition DVD; one is different largely in the way it was edited, and in that Pitt only shoots “John Doe” once. Ending #3 wasn’t shot, so all you can see are the storyboards, but the gist is that Freeman (character’s name was “Somerset”, right?) shoots Spacey, basically to prevent Pitt from doing it.
Anyone think that scenario might’ve worked? Woulda ruined the movie’s feel, in my book, but what the heck, I’m open to argument.
If he had done that, he would’ve made himself an accessory to the crime. No smart cop would do that.
I think any half-decent lawyer could’ve got Pitt off with either a mild sentence or a not-guily by insanity type deal. But he would’ve definitely been kicked off the force, lost his means of support, and had his life ruined in a lot of other ways.
Plus, nobody has mentioned that because Pitt’s wife was pregnant, Spacey’s character really murdered two people, one of them an unborn child. And he knew this. I can’t see any jury wanting to punish someone who took revenge on the killer of his own unborn shild. I mean, would you?
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Biggirl *
**
You ask so prettily, how could I refuse?
Actually, my basis for this assumption is the oath. An oath is a voluntary disavowal of a previously-existing right. By taking an oath, one is voluntarily surrendering rights which one would otherwise retain, were it not for the oath.
For an example, I’m married. I voluntarily swore that no consideration would ever take precedence to the welfare of my wife. I also did a hitch in the military. Before I even got the pretty uniform, I promised to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, even if people were shooting at me.
You or I might, acting on our own recognizance as free people, decide to uphold the law, or to tell it to blow itself, as our own consciences dictate. A policeman cannot. The question of “will s/he or won’t s/he?” has already been answered when said cop raises the right hand.
But you asked for cites:
Here’s one from one of the United States: Idaho. Please note the fact that the oath is registered with the secretary of state.
For an example of the fact that the oath is has legal remifications, consider this one from Ireland. Please note the following:
This says to me that in at least one country, the police oath is not merely a rite of passage, it conveys sigificant legal changes.
Here’s the text of a Canadian police oath. Here’s an interesting bit:
Please note that in none of these oaths does it say, “I will, if I feel like it…” or “I will, unless I get REEEEEALY, REEEEEALY MAD…” Nope. It says “I will do it” and no circumstances are allowed to mitigate the performance of this duty.
That’s why I said that police have fewer rights than the rest of us. They gave up the right to chicken out, or to get insanely angry, which (according to law, but not my conscience) a citizen retains.
It would totally come done to the DA and the jury’s opinion which means that:
If it was in Massachusetts he’d do 18 months with 5 years probation.
If it was in Texas he’d get a medal and run for mayor!
And does everyone remember that it was cutie-pie Gwyneth Paltrow’s head in that box?
Screwtape:
Police officers don’t give up their rights, sorry. Yes, cops are held to a higher standard for purposes of keeping their job, I have no doubt Brad would be off the force.
But, in order to convict Brad of anything, a DA has to file charges, and a jury has to convict. How many DAs are going to enrage the cops by going for a murder conviction? Anyway, this situation would be manslaughter, if anything. There might be a DA brave enough to try for a manslaughter conviction, but prosecutorial discretion would probably apply. Unless there was a huge public outcry, Brad probably wouldn’t be indicted. And the public is going to feel the same way Bill here does.
Even if you could find a DA hard-assed enough to prosecute, a jury still has to convict. You might be willing to vote for conviction given the facts of the case, but I bet that at least one juror would not, and probably more. Unless the verdict is unanimous, Brad walks. Even if there were a few “law and order” types on the jury, there’s still going to be many jurors who wouldn’t even consider conviction.
Have you guys seen that last episode from The Practice? There was vigilante justice that was supposed to be done by Bobby through a hit man on that guy who kept on harassing Bobby’s wife after he was aquitted of serial murder spree that he confessed to. Instead, the hit man waxed him. What if it turned out that the guy killed was innocent as his trial declared him to be? Then vigilante justicce killed an innocent guy.
In real life there have been tragic incidents where innocent people were murdered after being mistaken for the real perps.
Yeah, he killed his wife. Pitt still shouldn’t have shot him - on his knees, handcuffed, posing no immediate danger, warned not to, and cops simply cannot be allowed to do such things. He should be punished, albeit the circumstances should mitigate somewhat the sentence. I think at the very least his law career should come to an end. (The character was pretty screwed up anyway.)
Was justice done? Perhaps in a righteous kind of way. Was legal justice done? Not even close.
We live in a society of laws because it is one of the most important things that defines us as human beings. To throw it away, even under such circumstances, would be extremely suspect.
Esprix
There would be no trial. He would bargain for a plea of Manslaughter 2nd degree with a recomendation of 2-10 years and he would do 2 years.
There would have to be some jail time, because he shot a man in custody in front of witnesses. The DA wouldn’t want to go trial because of the extenuating(sp) circumstances. So he would do the bare minimum.
I would have shot him a bunch of times.
This might be a bit earlier than you want, but here's an article about a [police officer executed for murder](http://www.crimemagazine.com/killer.htm) during the 1910s.Detroit Police officers Nivens and Budzyn were both convicted of (I believe) manslaughter in the case of Malice Green, a former welder, crack addict. They beat him to death (in front of witnesses) with flahslights. The responding ambulance techs were star witnesses. Their convictions were overturned, but both were re convicted. One is out now (I believe).
http://detnews.com/1998/metro/greenlinks.htm
http://www.celebritymorgue.com/malice-green/
From the position of the viewer of the movie “Seven,” you’re God. You knew Spacey was guilty because you were told by the script.
If those events happened IRL, Brad Pitt would not have known for sure Spacey was guilty. Not that it really matters; in the United States of America, the guy was innocent. That’s a fact of law. You’re innocent until proven guilty.
That said, I don’t think Pitt’s character would have been convicted of anything because the extreme emotional disturbance case is so strong. If you’re presented with your wife’s head in a box, I think it’s a reasonable to doubt that you are thinking rationally and might temporarily be incapable of distinguishing right from wrong. Reasonable doubt = Acquittal.
Now, knowing what I know and being God with respect to the movie, I can see a case for manslaughter. But a real life jury would not have seen it happen. They’d see a spin job, and what would be first and foremost in their minds would be “The guy’s wife’s head was Fedexed to him by the murderer he shot.” The fact that there was a pause during which Morgan Freeman told him not to do it might not cut through that. Heck, it might not even get to the jury if the cops rally around Pitt.
I think a lot of posters are wildly underestimating what police officers can and do get away with. Generally speaking, a cop who shoots a suspect will always be acquitted. We have as recent anecdotal evidence the plainclothes NYC cops who turned a completely innocent man into Swiss cheese and were acquitted, or the recent trial in Toronto involving four cops who shot a man and two of his sons over a traffic stop, and were acquitted, and I’m sure you could find several examples in every big city.
I LIKE cops and I know there are rare exceptions, but 99% of the time justice will not be served in these matters. Always, always, always bet on the cop being acquitted and you’ll make lots of money.
Okay. Then what does the oath mean? Have you ever taken one? Did you not understand that by doing so, you were giving up certain rights of refusal?
Don’t just say “sorry.” Prove it. Honor requires that the actions of police are constrained in ways that civilians’ actions are not.
When you raise your right hand and repeat after The Man, it isn’t just pretty words. You are saying that either you will perform what you say you will, or you will die, or your honor will die.
“Sorry” my shiny metal ass.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RickJay *
**
Let’s not forget that Pitt’s character never SAW the head in the box…
Srewtape’s an adnroid? Cool!
The OP presents or implies several questions:
-
Would Pitt’s character be charged with murder? Probably not. Prosecutors have literally absolute discretion as to whether or not to file charges on a criminal complaint. They also tend to respond to political pressure. The pressure from the police force will be overwhelmingly against filing charges, as cops have a notoriously dim view of people who kill cops or their families. There will not be anybody standing up for John Doe.
-
Has Pitt’s character broken the law against murder? Yes, absolutely. He killed the man deliberately. Self-defense does not apply. For temporary insanity to excuse him, the M’Naghten Rule must be met: that is, Pitt had to either not know what he was doing, or be unable to understand that his action was “wrong” in the sense of being against the law. We have no reason to believe that he didn’t know that what he was doing was illegal.
-
Would a jury convict Pitt’s character? Not in a million years. It’s not unknown, in Texas, for a jury to acquit a husband for shooting his wife when she’s caught in flagrante delicto in the act of adultery. This revolting practice is sometimes called “Texas self-defense.” I think most people would consider Pitt’s killing of Doe as much more excusable than the killing of an adulterous spouse (one is the taking of life for the taking of life, which has some balance and fairness to it; the other is the taking of life for a broken promise, which is grossly unbalanced and disproportional).
-
Was it morally wrong for Pitt’s character to kill John Doe? Not in my opinion. The OP compared John Doe to a pest or insect, but I consider John Doe to be worse than that. Unlike a pest or insect, John Doe is a highly intelligent, rational human being who has deliberately chosen to inflict suffering on an innocent woman and her unborn child. Unlike a pest or insect, he inflicts suffering knowing it to be suffering, against those who did not wish to make him suffer. I do believe that John Doe deserved to die. Nor can I accept that Pitt’s failure to give Doe due process of law in itself makes his action wrong. To accept that, I would have to accept that an action that is wrong in itself can be made right if the law does it; i.e. that being given the title “judge” gives me the right to do what it would be wrong for me to do as a private citizen. That idea is completely repugnant to my moral views. I believe it is wrong to murder Jews, blacks, or homosexuals for being who they are, no matter whether some law passed by the Congress or the Reichstag says it is right. The individual may indeed hurt innocent people by malice or mistake, but so may the State. We are seeing that every day in the Los Angeles police department, on Illinois’ death row, at the graveside of Amadou Diallo, and elsewhere. Unlike the State, though, the individual may at least be held responsible for his mistakes, while the State is protected by sovereign immunity.
-
Would I have done what Pitt’s character did? In a heartbeat. Although, as I have described above, I doubt I would be legally punished for it, I would still have killed Doe even in the certain knowledge that I would be convicted and executed for it. Between dying and living the rest of my life knowing that I had let John Doe get away with raping and killing my pregnant wife, I know which I would choose.
I am (obviously) not a lawyer (nor have I seen the movie), but I feel like causing trouble, so: could Pitt have raised a “Burning Bed” defense? Admittedly, he’s not in any immediate physical danger, but there’s a pattern of threats/abuse that he can’t escape from nor end, and that promises to continue in the future.
A difficult position. Please explain the difference, in this view, between sending someone to jail and kidnapping.