265
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
265 points (94.9% liked)
politics
19239 readers
3171 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What a shit article, it literally skips the most important part and makes it seem like it was self-defense when it was planned. What happened is grossly misrepresented.
This is from https://somethingsbrewingcafe.ca/linkpost/460154/ :
He deserved it and it's sketchy as hell they let him go when they busted him with home made kiddie porn. Regardless, it's illegal to take matters into your own hands.
The fuck!?!
Ummm yea this girl deserves a pay day for doing their job for them not punishment.
She can deserve both compensation for suffering and punishment for taking her own action. This is premeditated and she didn't need to be there, but his actions clearly contributed negatively to her mental state.
Her morally good action was premeditated? Unthinkable!
If you want a society where premeditated extralegal violence is "good", you can always go to Pakistan. That's exactly what people who perform "honor killings" believe.
The developed world got rid of that when duels went out of fashion. The problem with killing someone to solve a problem is that it creates more problems. The person who died has friends, family, children, etc. who will not think your actions are justified. They will come for you and your family.
Obviously you don't have good morals. Vigilantism is immoral..
This is a category error. You wouldn’t say that “kicking is immoral,” or that “driving is immoral.” It just depends what you’re kicking and where you’re driving.
“Vigilantism” is the extrajudicial pursuit of justice. It involves breaking the law in some random corner of the world. However, none of that has any bearing on morality. The holocaust was legal. Slavery was legal. What the Supreme Court is doing now is legal. That has no bearing on whether it’s moral.
That is an insufficient definition of vigilantism.
Why is vigilantism immoral but court systems, including corrupt ones, are not? Aren't both simply a way to decide justice? What makes vigilantism inherently immoral compared to other justice systems?
Eta: “Laws are threats made by the dominant socioeconomic-ethnic group in a given nation. It’s just the promise of violence that’s enacted and the police are basically an occupying army. You know what I mean?” -Dimension20
I mean, it would be nice if all these f****** were actually scared of their victims.
I can't say that just allowing vigilante outright is the right answer, but we could certainly afford to let her go like they let him go. Would be a nice use of a presidential pardon if it applies.
The article is about justice, not “legality.” The question is about the size of the gap (or in this case the gaping chasm) between what is legal in our society and what is moral.
Any rational agent in this woman’s circumstances should do what she did. I understand that doing the right thing is often illegal, which makes some people uncomfortable, but you know maybe that’s why the gap between justice and legality is so vast. That’s why our Supreme Court is a joke.
I think that's really the crux of the issue. She didn't report him to the police but an other girl did and there was an ongoing investigation which she probably would of cemented if she came forward. Instead she resorted to what essentially is revenge killing and went out of her way to do it
I understand situation when taking things into your own hands is acceptable, like in self defense or when the law has really failed you and there isn't any other option, but I don't think this was one of those situations.
There is nothing moral about an ordinary citizen handing out a death sentence, without even trying to get help. Society has systems in place to dispense justice and I don't even think a death sentence is moral in those cases. Not to mention this man was most likely going to prison, had a mountain of evidence against him and had been charged 12 days prior to the shooting.
This is the actual crux of the issue. Justice doesn’t recognize national borders, governing bodies, or laws. The very fact that we — as thinking, feeling creatures capable of suffering — allow a bureaucracy to monopolize violence and distribute justice on our behalf is a tenuous miracle (and a biiiig illusion).
We are entitled to justice. It’s an innate aspect of our rational nature (what Immanuel Kant called membership in the kingdom of ends). We permit a “justice system” to act on our behalf for the sake of practical efficiency, but that's a tenuous contract, and when it fails to hold up its end of the bargain…
That's the thing though, I dont't think it had failed her. Not only was it in the process of dispensing justice, but it wasn't even doing it at her request since it seems she never reported him. The justice system isn't failing when it's being ignored by the victim.
We are entitled to justice but that doesn't entail killing folks on a whim when it feels justified. We have systems in place and we need to at least give them a chance before taking matters into our own hands.
I understand your point that not all forms of vigilantism are bad. For instance, I applaud the ordinary citizens that were fighting against the cartels in mexico a while back. I just think in this case it wasn't justified.
I appreciate the conversation. I doubt we disagree on the fundamentals. However, I have to push back against this characterization. There was nothing whimsical about her decision or this guy’s culpability.
It’s also important not to conflate our ability to know something definitively (our epistemic confidence) with the truth.
If what she claims about this guy is true, then she is morally justified. If it’s not true, then she isn’t. Our uncertainty about the matter is a separate issue and regrettably not the subject of this litigation.
She set fire to his house after killing him, putting neighbors and firefighter's lives at risk.
Ok, except that. Don’t burn down the neighborhood.
When the law and authorities fail to give you Justice, you go ahead and get it yourself. Just don't get caught.
People don't get let go with child porn. That's a hard claim to swallow.
People are let go when they fully rape children, let alone for child porn, what are you even talking about?
https://www.rochesterfirst.com/crime/former-rpd-officer-will-be-sentenced-for-raping-an-underage-child/
https://reason.com/2024/06/12/40-percent-of-police-officers-convicted-of-child-sex-abuse-dont-get-prison-time-investigation-finds/
Is he a cop? We all know cops are not held to the same standards as normal people.
You know what don't bother replying, I see by your profile you have issues and I'm no longer interested I anything you have to say.
You mean you lost and you want to quit. I accept your resignation and my win.
My profile has a lot of posts that are anti-trafficking and child marriage. You do seem like the type of person who would be bothered by that.
...what?
No you're just running with the prosecution's theory of the case.
The article gives her account, which was denied to her in court as a defense.
She first said another women shot him and she didn't know him, then she said she didn't remember, then finally the account you mentioned.
It was also a gun that she brought to his house, it's hard to pretend it was just a lucky coincidence.
Hard to pretend someone in her situation might want protection? Really?
And if her story was that bad then a jury would see it. Removing her ability to use a self defence argument is just blatant rail roading.
She put herself in a position where she needed to use it if that's what happened. Going to the police or literally not going to his house and doing anything else would have offered her the same protection.
Guns are suppose to be a last resort, she used it as her first.
On top off that she burned down the house most likely to hide evidence and then lied about her part in the murder.
So did Kyle Rittenhouse. In the exact same town. I wonder why he was able to use self defence and not her?
And he wasn't a victim of sex trafficking either.
That's funny because I was going to bring him up and decided not to. I think it's insane he got off and what he did was very much murder as well, he knowingly and needlessly put himself in a dangerous situation as to warrant his use of a deadly weapon. There's some similarities between the two cases in that regard imo.