kelpdiver 2 #151 November 25, 2008 Quote What standard would be higher than knowing? His wife said she was being raped. once again, she had been raped. She was no longer being raped. Unless the actual version of events is the husband found them both in bed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #152 November 26, 2008 being caught in the act in a truck together isn't enough? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #153 November 26, 2008 Quotebeing caught in the act in a truck together isn't enough? was she in the truck? No? Then it's not in the act. If their genitals aren't even in the same room, it's not in the act. Even the most endowed men need to be within a foot or so. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #154 November 26, 2008 QuoteI brought up what exactly? This comment from you: QuoteI take it, then, that in murder for hire situation you'd be OK if the hit-men get off scot free . I then asked if you knew the difference between trying to prevent a crime and being hired to commit one. You then danced around till I got tired watching. Really...You would think you would just be honest instead of the BS song and dance you always give when you are proven wrong. QuoteYou keep going on about preventing a crime from being committed, but there WAS no crime being committed. According to the parties involved, one made the claim that there was a crime happening, one saw the data and thought a crime was happening, the police and justice system believe that the participant that acted to prevent the crime acted correctly given the situation. I guess you would have just sat and watched your wife getting raped to make sure she was not lying to you. Man up and answer and stop the BS dodge tactics."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #155 November 26, 2008 yet again, some folks here should do some more research. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #156 November 26, 2008 Quoteyet again, some folks here should do some more research. so the answer is "no," I take it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #157 November 26, 2008 the answer lies in Tarrant County, Texas. Not in the newspapers. According to court records published there, he caught them together, in the truck, in "the act". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #158 November 26, 2008 Quote the answer lies in Tarrant County, Texas. Not in the newspapers. According to court records published there, he caught them together, in the truck, in "the act". How are people supposed to judge this case if you keep throwing the facts and truth into it? HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 622 #159 November 26, 2008 Oh sorry - forgot this was speakers corner. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #160 November 26, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote You keep going on about preventing a crime from being committed, but there WAS no crime being committed. Your hindsight is outstanding. He saw a guy with his wife who was in a robe and underwear screaming rape. He believed, because of his wife, a violent crime was being committed. The standard for killing someone ought to be very very high. IMO, just believing a crime was committed is not an acceptable reason. What standard would be higher than knowing? His wife said she was being raped. It wouldn't get any clearer than that for me. You're using hindsight again. If the guy could take a time out, move forward in time a few days, see how it all played out, then go back and make a decision, then I'm sure his actions would've been different. It was a split second decision based on his wife's screaming rape. sometimes people like to overthink things, and sometimes that is good. this case is an instinct because of the circumstanses. we as skydivers try to have a plan for every problem and actually build senarios in our heads to counter problems. this guy probably didn't prethink how he would react to his wife being raped and acted out of instict that was breed into him. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #161 November 26, 2008 Quotesometimes people like to overthink things, and sometimes that is good. this case is an instinct because of the circumstanses. we as skydivers try to have a plan for every problem and actually build senarios in our heads to counter problems. this guy probably didn't prethink how he would react to his wife being raped and acted out of instict that was breed into him. And therin lies the problem...as a human being with higher intelligence I would hope he would use that intelligence to rise above bad breeding. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #162 November 26, 2008 Quotethe answer lies in Tarrant County, Texas. Not in the newspapers. According to court records published there, he caught them together, in the truck, in "the act". Didn't the husband catch them in the act and then the deceased tried to drive off with the husband's wife still in the truck? At least that's how I remember it when it first happened.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #163 November 26, 2008 QuoteQuotesometimes people like to overthink things, and sometimes that is good. this case is an instinct because of the circumstanses. we as skydivers try to have a plan for every problem and actually build senarios in our heads to counter problems. this guy probably didn't prethink how he would react to his wife being raped and acted out of instict that was breed into him. And therin lies the problem...as a human being with higher intelligence I would hope he would use that intelligence to rise above bad breeding. and from the other side, a delay in action could have had harsh consiquences for the wife if it was actually a rape or other violent crime. We could go back and forth all day on this, but to the guy who thought his wife was being raped, he and the judicial system in texas thought he acted in good standing with the laws of Texas. case closed. wife goes to jail for being a lying cheating piece of shit. husband gets a divorce and all the marital property and she gets nothing. justice was actually served in this case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #164 November 26, 2008 Quotejustice was actually served in this case. I tend to think that death for a case of adultery is a little too OLD Testament for the modern world 3500 years after those Jewish Laws were codified. I think your idea of justice might be a little out of whack. I wonder if this was carried thru for the posters of DIZZIE DOT COM.... how many users would be left... if they had to live up to the LAW as codified in Leviticus. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #165 November 26, 2008 QuoteQuotejustice was actually served in this case. I tend to think that death for a case of adultery is a little too OLD Testament for the modern world 3500 years after those Jewish Laws were codified. I think your idea of justice might be a little out of whack. I wonder if this was carried thru for the posters of DIZZIE DOT COM.... how many users would be left... if they had to live up to the LAW as codified in Leviticus. Justice was served in that the woman will sit in jail for a few years and will lose virtually all of her material possessions. A fitting penalty for her part in causing the death of another person. Her husband was not charged with a crime because under Texas law he was acting to protect his wife from a violent act. Anyone that does not agree with that would probably do well to not live in Texas. The victim in this case paid a very steep price for his indiscretion. Calling his death justice would be wrong.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #166 November 26, 2008 QuoteJustice was served in that the woman will sit in jail for a few years and will lose virtually all of her material possessions. A fitting penalty for her part in causing the death of another person. Her husband was not charged with a crime because under Texas law he was acting to protect his wife from a violent act. Anyone that does not agree with that would probably do well to not live in Texas. The victim in this case paid a very steep price for his indiscretion. Calling his death justice would be wrong. Justice is administered by the law only. Society putting the women in jail for murder? Justice One man killing another man for any reason is not justice. It's either murder, or an accident. In this case an accident. The man not going to jail for the accident. Justice. I'll get disagreements on this, because don't seem to be able to separate what they think is right from wrong vs what is justice or not. Another way to look at it - justice is defined by the process and the result, not the result alone. That's where many people mess it up. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #167 November 26, 2008 QuoteOne man killing another man for any reason is not justice. It's either murder, or an accident. Bzzt. Wrong. You omitted another very important category of killing: justifiable homicide. Killing someone in lawful self defense is justice, by definition, because it's permissible under the law. If you think that all killings are either murder or accidents, with nothing in between, then you're thinking on this is way off. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jgoose71 0 #168 November 27, 2008 This whole thing could have been prevented if men just stopped believing what women say all togetherI think that was Kallends point. "There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." Life, the Universe, and Everything Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #169 November 27, 2008 QuoteBzzt. Wrong. You omitted another very important category of killing: justifiable homicide. Killing someone in lawful self defense is justice, by definition, because it's permissible under the law. . "permissible" does not equal "justice" (Bzzt, zap, whatever) I phrased that wrong because I was in a hurry. I was going to come back here and refute myself when I saw your post - there are a LOT of category of killings not just the three we've thrown out there so far, but your spin is also wrong. A killing is just a killing, justified or not, and there's a ton of different types of killing, some right, some wrong, etc. It's not justice, just a killing. Justice (in terms of this case of justifiable killing) is when the killer is not punished because his action is deemed by society to not be detrimental to society and he poses no threat of murder in a non-justifiable way. Justice is administered by the people, not by individual. So the killing is not justice, "not punishing the killer' is justice. See the difference? ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #170 November 27, 2008 QuoteOne man killing another man for any reason is not justice. It's either murder, or an accident. In this case an accident. WRONG, Rehmwa, can't you get even this right. I can't believe you. There's more than just two types of killing. Don't you mean there's active killing, and accidents? And there can be many ways to divide those up too? In any case, one person killing another is not justice, it's just an act that happens. Justice is the determination of guilt or innocence vs law and formal review sanctioned by society to protect its members from predators (and a bunch of politcal stuff I wouldn't categorize under the term "justice"). So the only killing that would be "justice" is capital punishment - since that's administered as an act of law for the sake of society. Now this will be argued by people that also confuse their 'personal' sense of justice with 'societal' justice. So be it. The self-righteous don't get it. The truly righteous don't seem to have a problem with the line of thought. Look, my boy, stop wasting our time if you won't think things through. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #171 November 27, 2008 Quotejustifiable homicide. Killing someone in lawful self defense is justice, by definition here's another good one. Justifiable equals justice ? nonsense, the determination of the act BEING justifiable is the justice part of it then why do you need a legal review of the action to determine if it's "justifiable"? again, the action itself wasn't justice - the review of the action and the lawful response to that action itself is the 'justice' again, an individual taking action, no matter the situation might be necessary and correct, but it's not justice - that road leads to vigilantism So, do you consider Superman to be carrying out "justice" (in the context of the comic books?). Or just doing a lot of decent things for people. It's an odd thing, but the only type of killing that is directly considered justice in this line of thought, would be capital punishment - where law and society puts a criminal to death as a response to his actions. That doesn't mean certain types of killing aren't "just", or "right", simply that they aren't tied to process, they are just actions/responses. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #172 November 27, 2008 QuoteQuotejustifiable homicide. Killing someone in lawful self defense is justice, by definition here's another good one. Rehmwa, you're SO full of it. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #173 November 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuotejustifiable homicide. Killing someone in lawful self defense is justice, by definition here's another good one. Rehmwa, you're SO full of it. I'm confused. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FallingOsh 0 #174 November 28, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuotejustifiable homicide. Killing someone in lawful self defense is justice, by definition here's another good one. Rehmwa, you're SO full of it. I'm confused. No, you're not. -------------------------------------------------- Stay positive and love your life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
