Ooh, this is hard... Perhaps, he shouldn't have served 13 years. What do you think?
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
9 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.He did serve 13 years so I won’t debate whether he shouldn’t have.
Were I a juror deciding the fate of someone being tried for killing a serial rapist, I would know the law had failed. By refusing to convict I can enable the jury to correct the law’s error. ( greatly edited. )
yvilletom
Level 8
Sep 25, 2021
0
He was in an impossible situation. He had to know he would waste many years behind bars, but could not resist the urge to strike back when no one else did. If dad had shot the rapist's nuts off, he might have been out sooner and forced enough exposure to get the perv locked up forever. Tough choices.
alliwant
Level 7
Sep 23, 2021
1
The first problem with this story isn't that a man was sentenced for taking the law into his own hands. That's the law doing its job correctly. The problem is that when presented with the evidence that a man molested a six year old girl, the law did nothing. That's the law failing to do its job at all.
The second problem with this story is that while I can see a number of reasons for someone to write that story and a number more for it getting a great deal of traction and engagement on the Internet, these reasons are entirely independent of the story being an objectively true and accurate account. My brief Intetnet search on this story shows little more than a bunch of the same screenshots. No corroborating evidence or news reports. There is a link to a mugshot and prisoner details here. [publicpolicerecord.com] The name and height match but the sentencing doesn't.
MattHardy
Level 7
Sep 21, 2021
3
This sounds heroic but if this guy were given a lighter sentence it could embolden others to commit acts of vigilantism. And then, where do we draw the line? Letting an individual be judge, jury, and executioner sets a very horrible precedent that will almost certainly result in innocent people being murdered.
And if there are only two witnesses to a murder and one of them is the victim... the survivor gets to spin the story however they wish.
No... vigilantism needs to remain within the confines of comic books and movies.
Charles1971
Level 7
Sep 21, 2021
3
I say "no" to vigilantism. Our adversarial system of justice gives both sides the opportunity to tell their side of the story, not just one side as in this case.
LovinLarge
Level 8
Sep 21, 2021
1
It wants vigilanteism it was self defense.
@barjoe No, he was not defending himself.
Until the late 1970s, our so-called adversarial system of justice failed to protect children from parental violence.
San Jose in California was the first jurisdiction in America to take children from violent homes or to refer offenders for anger management training.
I was working phones in a non-governmental service in San Francisco and sometimes heard from Bay Area children who were being abused. I had no place to refer these children.
BTW, the laws protected domestic non-humans — cats and dogs — a century before laws protected children.
@yvilletom Our justice system is called adversarial because that's what it is, the same as in all common law countries. The adversarial nature of the justice system is not even relevant to your comments.
Also, governmental child protection is a state issue that is administered by counties so San Jose was not a jurisdiction with any authority on this issue at any time. Factual claims require supporting evidence and anecdotal evidence is no evidence at all.
@LovinLarge Your bio says you bark but doesn’t say you practice or teach law. I have met enough lawyers to know that some of them do bark.
The service where I worked had lawyers and they helped us through the period when California’s child protection laws were being made by the state and applied in the counties and cities. The San Jose newspaper reported that San Jose was the first jurisdiction in America to protect children and months passed before we knew we were not a mandated reporter. Your barking is ill-informed.
@yvilletom I hate to break this to you Einstein but you saying shit doesn't constitute evidence.
@LovinLarge Your not knowing history doesn’t falsify my experience and you spawn adversarial relationships.
@yvilletom Right, because it's MY job to provide supporting evidence for YOUR dubious factual claims. It's past your bedtime, gramps.
@yvilletom seemed dubious and especially with what I know of your approach to truth I thought I check. Didn't take long. [en.wikipedia.org]
@MattHardy Thank you for your effort.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.