Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Obi
I really don't think that is what was meant. The first post indicated, and I would tend to agree, that the man in question *probably* stopped when she walked in on it. At that point all she needed to do was throw the a## out and call the police. Taking a gun and killing him was not necessary; it was revenge. And there is a difference between revenge and self-defense. If she tried to stop him and he resisted and continued harming the boy, then I can see her using deadly force. But somehow I don't think that's what happened. To use an example, if some guy takes a swing at me and I take him down with a foot to the groin, that's self defense. If I then proceed to beat the crap out of him and then kill him while he's incapacitated on the ground, that's NOT self-defense. You use enough force to protect yourself or others, and that's it.
|







Then I believe justice would probably truly be served.







Our criminal justice system is a real mess, isn't it? Why should child rapists get special treatment? I agree they shouldn't get protective custody! I think prisons should be divided into those for violent offenders and those for non violent offenders. The child rapists should be housed with the murderers and other violent criminals. Child rapists are the worst type of criminal as attested by the fact that even murderers think they are horrible.




Those were the unlucky ones, that's for sure... )