murder or justice?

[hitekredneck]

being a parent, i know that i would go to any extreme if something like this hell befell my family...but what about the rest of you?....how would you handle somebody raping your child?
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3685448&page=1

[Limbo]

It's obviously best for the authorities to dispense justice in an orderly way to make sure innocent people do not get punished by mistake and to make sure the punishment fits the crime. Also, we must try to rehabilitate people if at all possible once they have paid for their crime. Some cases slip through the cracks, like this one, and nothing gets done. This seems to be why things got so out of hand.

The problem with this case is it seems premeditated. She obviously spent some time planning on how she was going to whack this guy. If it was done in the heat of passion that would be another story. She basically decided to give this guy the death sentence.

The other problem is that most people who abuse children have been abused themselves. Of course this does not excuse the behavior, but we should do everything we can to try to break this cycle. Easier said than done obviously.

[hitekredneck]

It's obviously best for the authorities to dispense justice in an orderly way to make sure innocent people do not get punished by mistake and to make sure the punishment fits the crime. Also, we must try to rehabilitate people if at all possible once they have paid for their crime. Some cases slip through the cracks, like this one, and nothing gets done. This seems to be why things got so out of hand.

The problem with this case is it seems premeditated. She obviously spent some time planning on how she was going to whack this guy. If it was done in the heat of passion that would be another story. She basically decided to give this guy the death sentence.

The other problem is that most people who abuse children have been abused themselves. Of course this does not excuse the behavior, but we should do everything we can to try to break this cycle. Easier said than done obviously.

in most other cases i'ld agree with you...but for something as heinous as child rape, then i believe death is the only punishment...the recidivism rate for predators shows that as long as these people are allowed to survive, then children will be in danger...of course, i believe that there must be proof beyond a doubt that the person is guilty, but speaking as a parent, anybody that targets one of my children had best hope the authorities get em before i do:cool:

[Limbo]

in most other cases i'ld agree with you...but for something as heinous as child rape, then i believe death is the only punishment...the recidivism rate for predators shows that as long as these people are allowed to survive, then children will be in danger...of course, i believe that there must be proof beyond a doubt that the person is guilty, but speaking as a parent, anybody that targets one of my children had best hope the authorities get em before i do:cool:

I just read the story over a little more carefully. She blew away the guy the same day that her daughter told her of the rape. She never let the legal system run its course. That is not something I would condone, taking the law into your own hands.

How do we know for sure she didn't have some other grudge against the guy and then just used this as an excuse to whack him? All these things need to be heard in court so that a jury can decide. Democracy and the rule of law are very fragile (look at how few countries really have those things) and vigilante justice is one thing that can screw everything up. If I was on the jury, I probably would have voted to convict her of murder. She says that he just laughed when confronted, but how do we really know that? She could be lying to try and save her own neck. If, on the other hand, I was on a jury trying the alleged rapist, and was convinced of his guilt, I would have been happy to throw the book at him also.

[maxtheawesome]

She did it the same day that the daughter told her? She didn't even put him on trial and killed him imideatly? Hmmm...

No that wasn't fair play, the justice system should deal with him and put him jail as everyone else.

[Limbo]

Don't get me wrong though, raping a child is about as low as it gets. If he really did it, I wouldn't shed a whole lot of tears for the guy. He's wrecked that young girl's life. Problem is, without a trial, we just can't be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he really did do it.

[hitekredneck]

Don't get me wrong though, raping a child is about as low as it gets. If he really did it, I wouldn't shed a whole lot of tears for the guy. He's wrecked that young girl's life. Problem is, without a trial, we just can't be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he really did do it.

wrong...you can have plenty of evidence without a trial...if the evidence proved out, then i feel the woman was justified...

[WhiteRaven]

if he actually did it, then it's both.

[Loseirdo]

wrong...you can have plenty of evidence without a trial...if the evidence proved out, then i feel the woman was justified...

Yes, you can have evidence, but judging someone without a trial is unconstitutional. We can't let everyone be a vigilante or we end up with way too many innocent people being falsely punished and other people being punished cruelly. Due process of law is a very important aspect of our society.

[WhiteRaven]

"Due process of law" is an empty phrase when someone does such a thing to you or your family.

[hitekredneck]

Yes, you can have evidence, but judging someone without a trial is unconstitutional. We can't let everyone be a vigilante or we end up with way too many innocent people being falsely punished and other people being punished cruelly. Due process of law is a very important aspect of our society.

i don't disagree with you on this...i do think that circumstances dictate the response...as far as i'm concerned, when you perpetrate such a hideous act you are no longer a functioning member of my society...in fact, said perpetrators are threats to that very society as held by scientific evidence on recidivism...

[General Septem]

The government doesn't own a monopoly on justice. If they fail and someone else picks up the loose ends, so be it. The courts aren't endowed with some God-given superiority to the rest of us.

[England Expects]

The government doesn't own a monopoly on justice. If they fail and someone else picks up the loose ends, so be it. The courts aren't endowed with some God-given superiority to the rest of us.

The law hasn't failed though General, it's not been applied.

If this guy is guilty of the alleged crime, then there should be no sympathy for him. It would however have been better for him to have to answer to the allegations in a court.

Any woman could just shoot any man in the US and just say "he raped me" or "he raped my child" and he would have no way of defending himself. It could happen to anyone.

Justice is best applied without emotion, but I accept that that's not always a reasonable expectation.

I voted "other".

To vote for either of the other two options, you have to decide on the guilt or innocence of an alleged rapist, without hearing both sides of the story.

[hitekredneck]

The law hasn't failed though General, it's not been applied.

If this guy is guilty of the alleged crime, then there should be no sympathy for him. It would however have been better for him to have to answer to the allegations in a court.

Any woman could just shoot any man in the US and just say "he raped me" or "he raped my child" and he would have no way of defending himself. It could happen to anyone.

Justice is best applied without emotion, but I accept that that's not always a reasonable expectation.

I voted "other".

To vote for either of the other two options, you have to decide on the guilt or innocence of an alleged rapist, without hearing both sides of the story.

so, ee ole buddy...just how would you deal with this nightmare?...jc

[Limbo]

so, ee ole buddy...just how would you deal with this nightmare?...jc

The first thing to do is call the cops and lodge a complaint.That would be the correct place to start. Problem being, of course, since the girl didn't report it at the time (no doubt he threatened her to keep her quiet), there would be no physical evidence and it would be a he-said, she-said situation, but nevertheless that would be the correct way to proceed. He may have done it to other girls who could have come forward corroborating the allegation that he is a child rapist. Until the police investigate, you just never know what potential evidence might be uncovered.

[hitekredneck]

all i'm gonna say about this is that if i asked the dude that same question, and he laughed at me like that, i wouldn't have just killed him, but would have done so very slowly, with as much torture and pain possible...

[England Expects]

all i'm gonna say about this is that if i asked the dude that same question, and he laughed at me like that, i wouldn't have just killed him, but would have done so very slowly, with as much torture and pain possible...

Assuming what she says is true.

[hitekredneck]

Assuming what she says is true.

i'm not saying yea or nay on that...all i'm doing is putting myself in that position...i like to think that i'ld follow the rule of law, but when it comes to children, especially my own, i'm afraid i might become quite reactive:cool:

[England Expects]

i'm not saying yea or nay on that...all i'm doing is putting myself in that position...i like to think that i'ld follow the rule of law, but when it comes to children, especially my own, i'm afraid i might become quite reactive:cool:

I totally agree. With something so horrible I think rationality would probably be completely out of the window. But that doesn't make it right.

[maxtheawesome]

i'm not saying yea or nay on that...all i'm doing is putting myself in that position...i like to think that i'ld follow the rule of law, but when it comes to children, especially my own, i'm afraid i might become quite reactive:cool:

That's why why i voted other explain. She didn't act rational. I still think I'm leading towards murder thou.

[Loseirdo]

i'm not saying yea or nay on that...all i'm doing is putting myself in that position...i like to think that i'ld follow the rule of law, but when it comes to children, especially my own, i'm afraid i might become quite reactive:cool:

Sorry, this is off-topic, but I just wanted to thank you for using the word "yea" correctly.

I very much agree with you that, if it had been me, I probably would have done the same thing. I don't take rape lightly, especially when it's someone I love. But England is right that we can't just allow people to kill each other under this pretense because then anyone could kill anyone. When you circumvent the law, you have to be prepared for the consequences. I consider this murder in the legal sense, and therefore she should be tried accordingly. I would, however, have some mercy on her, because she was merely acting as any self-respecting parent would. Even in the throws of rage, she must have known that what she was doing was illegal and could result in imprisonment. She made that decision and she should pay for it. I hate to admit it, but if we don't do anything, it could be worse for us than imprisoning her. If justice was given a chance and simply not served, I would not have the same opinion and would not much care if she took the law into her own hands. In this case, however, the legal system was not even given a chance. We can't let that slide.

[hitekredneck]

That's why why i voted other explain. She didn't act rational. I still think I'm leading towards murder thou.

are you saying it's irrational to protect you and yours?...see, without knowing the full story of either side, it's just as wrong to condemn this woman as it is to condone her acts...in her place, i can see doing the same thing...just as i can see any parent doing the same if they care for their family...sometimes in this evil world, the only way to deal with a threat is through extreme action...like i said, it all depends on what the evidence proves out...

[hitekredneck]

Sorry, this is off-topic, but I just wanted to thank you for using the word "yea" correctly.

I very much agree with you that, if it had been me, I probably would have done the same thing. I don't take rape lightly, especially when it's someone I love. But England is right that we can't just allow people to kill each other under this pretense because then anyone could kill anyone. When you circumvent the law, you have to be prepared for the consequences. I consider this murder in the legal sense, and therefore she should be tried accordingly. I would, however, have some mercy on her, because she was merely acting as any self-respecting parent would. Even in the throws of rage, she must have known that what she was doing was illegal and could result in imprisonment. She made that decision and she should pay for it. I hate to admit it, but if we don't do anything, it could be worse for us than imprisoning her. If justice was given a chance and simply not served, I would not have the same opinion and would not much care if she took the law into her own hands. In this case, however, the legal system was not even given a chance. We can't let that slide.

last time i'm going to say this....lol...i'm not condoning what this woman did...i'm just not convicting her, either....let them have their investigation....if it proves out that there was no choice, such as a further physical threat against her and/or her children, then i would consider that self-defense....i am merely putting forth that there are circumstances of which we are unaware that could show that this woman was justified...

[England Expects]

She wasn't protecting anything though was she?

The alleged rape occurred years before. If she'd walked in while the kid was being attacked and shot him, then that would be acting in defence of the kid. What this was is retribution.

That cant be right without trial; even if we do have sympathy for her.

[WhiteRaven]

It probably would have been nearly impossible to prove he did it, though.

[hitekredneck]

She wasn't protecting anything though was she?

The alleged rape occurred years before. If she'd walked in while the kid was being attacked and shot him, then that would be acting in defence of the kid. What this was is retribution.

That cant be right without trial; even if we do have sympathy for her.

if he literally threatened her and/or her family when they met, then i can understand her reaction....that is defense....if that isn't the case, then she should be prosecuted under extenuating circumstance....

[MrJim]

I'm glad she was acquitted.. it sucks that the law didn't give him his just desserts.

[England Expects]

She wasn't really acquitted though. She was found guilty of "Voluntary manslaughter", whatever that is.

Sounds like murder to me.

[General Septem]

She wasn't really acquitted though. She was found guilty of "Voluntary manslaughter", whatever that is.

Sounds like murder to me.

It has to do with non-premeditated murder that happens either as imperfect self-defense or "in the heat of passion".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_manslaughter

[England Expects]

If that definition is correct, then she didn't have much of a defence against it really.

[MrJim]

"In her first trial in April 2005, a Knoxville jury acquitted her of first degree murder, but deadlocked on second degree murder. In a second trial in October 2005, the jury acquitted Kimberly of second degree murder, but found her guilty of voluntary manslaughter. She was sentenced to four years in prison, a sentence that was recently reduced on appeal to six months in prison."

D'oh! I read this part wrong.... well, then.... that sucks! She should have been acquitted.

[hitekredneck]

"In her first trial in April 2005, a Knoxville jury acquitted her of first degree murder, but deadlocked on second degree murder. In a second trial in October 2005, the jury acquitted Kimberly of second degree murder, but found her guilty of voluntary manslaughter. She was sentenced to four years in prison, a sentence that was recently reduced on appeal to six months in prison."

D'oh! I read this part wrong.... well, then.... that sucks! She should have been acquitted.

agreed...but hey, at least her kid's safe, right?...and hopefully, they can get on with their lives now

[MrJim]

agreed...but hey, at least her kid's safe, right?...and hopefully, they can get on with their lives now

Yeah, not ideal, but there is a bright side at least.

[hitekredneck]

Yeah, not ideal, but there is a bright side at least.

i believe the brightest side to this story is that there's 1 less pedophile to worry about in this world :D

[England Expects]

i believe the brightest side to this story is that there's 1 less pedophile to worry about in this world :D

Unless of course, he wasn't a paedophile. In which case, the murdering bitch got away with 6 months, when she should have fried.

[Limbo]

Doesn't the constitution (5th and 6th amendments) give all Americans the right to a trial in front of a jury of their peers? It seems to me that he was deprived of that right. Maybe he was as guilty as sin. That's what court trials are for, determining guilt or innocence. Don't we all believe that the accused party is innocent until proven guilty? Where am I going wrong here?

[Loseirdo]

Doesn't the constitution (5th and 6th amendments) give all Americans the right to a trial in front of a jury of their peers? It seems to me that he was deprived of that right. Maybe he was as guilty as sin. That's what court trials are for, determining guilt or innocence. Don't we all believe that the accused party is innocent until proven guilty? Where am I going wrong here?

You're not, Limbo, and I agree with you.

Kind of reminds me of the movie 12 Angry Men. Ever seen it?

[hitekredneck]

Doesn't the constitution (5th and 6th amendments) give all Americans the right to a trial in front of a jury of their peers? It seems to me that he was deprived of that right. Maybe he was as guilty as sin. That's what court trials are for, determining guilt or innocence. Don't we all believe that the accused party is innocent until proven guilty? Where am I going wrong here?

again, limbo, let me explain this very slowly....if the guy DID DO THE CRIME, and he THEN THREATENED HER AND HER family as she reported, i consider THAT self defense....if there's no evidence showing proof of the crime, then she deserves the death penalty...i agree that everybody deserves trial by their peers, but you have to admit that there are cases where extenuating circumstances might change priorities....in her situation, i'ld probably do the exact same thing...hell, i most likely would have killed him much sooner than that...but something else you may not have noticed in the story...this woman had been harrassed by this guy prior to this, and part of his family, if i'm not mistaken, had molested somebody else in the same family...hell, now it's starting to sound like the movie of the week :cool:

[Limbo]

again, limbo, let me explain this very slowly....if the guy DID DO THE CRIME, and he THEN THREATENED HER AND HER family as she reported, i consider THAT self defense....if there's no evidence showing proof of the crime, then she deserves the death penalty...i agree that everybody deserves trial by their peers, but you have to admit that there are cases where extenuating circumstances might change priorities....in her situation, i'ld probably do the exact same thing...hell, i most likely would have killed him much sooner than that...but something else you may not have noticed in the story...this woman had been harrassed by this guy prior to this, and part of his family, if i'm not mistaken, had molested somebody else in the same family...hell, now it's starting to sound like the movie of the week :cool:

I don't know what all came out at her trial, but my idea of self defense is shooting a crazed knife wielding attacker, or gun toting burglar who is in the process of trying to kill you. This lady goes to his work, calls him outside, unloads a clip into him, reloads the gun while he is lying on the ground, and then unloads another clip into him. Doesn't sound like self defense by any definition. Sounds more like taking the law into her own hands.

[Loseirdo]

I don't know what all came out at her trial, but my idea of self defense is shooting a crazed knife wielding attacker, or gun toting burglar who is in the process of trying to kill you. This lady goes to his work, calls him outside, unloads a clip into him, reloads the gun while he is lying on the ground, and then unloads another clip into him. Doesn't sound like self defense by any definition. Sounds more like taking the law into her own hands.

This also reminds me of the movie The Boondock Saints. :D

[Limbo]

This also reminds me of the movie The Boondock Saints. :D

Haven't seen either of those movies you mentioned. So many interesting things in this world, so little time.

[General Septem]

He wasn't strong enough to defend himself, so he deserved his fate.

[Loseirdo]

He wasn't strong enough to defend himself, so he deserved his fate.

Same with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They weren't strong enough to withstand an atomic blast, so they all deserved to die.

Jesus, Gen, what the fuck kind of logic is that?

[General Septem]

Same with Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They weren't strong enough to withstand an atomic blast, so they all deserved to die.

Jesus, Gen, what the fuck kind of logic is that?

That's ridiculous. Nobody could be expected to withstand an atomic blast.

That said, I wouldn't have been in Japan at the time. After all, they were losing.

Just because she had a gun doesn't mean he didn't have a chance. It's more than possible to disarm someone in that case.

Someone had to die. He was the weaker one, so it was him. Through conflict, the strong triumph over the weak, making the world a stronger place.

[Loseirdo]

That's ridiculous. Nobody could be expected to withstand an atomic blast.

That said, I wouldn't have been in Japan at the time. After all, they were losing.

Just because she had a gun doesn't mean he didn't have a chance. It's more than possible to disarm someone in that case.

Someone had to die. He was the weaker one, so it was him. Through conflict, the strong triumph over the weak, making the world a stronger place.

Whoa, whoa. Someone had to die? How do you figure? She called him out at work and unloaded on him. He probably didn't even see it coming. You can't justify his murder simply because he failed to prevent it. Otherwise I could get away with killing as many people as I wanted. After all, the strong triumph over the weak, right?

Do yourself a favor and see a psychologist. You need some help.

[England Expects]

Whoa, whoa. Someone had to die? How do you figure? She called him out at work and unloaded on him. He probably didn't even see it coming. You can't justify his murder simply because he failed to prevent it. Otherwise I could get away with killing as many people as I wanted. After all, the strong triumph over the weak, right?

Do yourself a favor and see a psychologist. You need some help.

I must be dreaming. I totally agree with Loseirdo and Limbo.

:D:D

Seriously though. By that logic General, did the girl deserve to be raped, seeing as she failed to stop it? (allegedly)

[WhiteRaven]

"After all, the strong triumph over the weak, right?"

yes, but simple murder is a waste.

[General Septem]

Whoa, whoa. Someone had to die? How do you figure? She called him out at work and unloaded on him. He probably didn't even see it coming. You can't justify his murder simply because he failed to prevent it. Otherwise I could get away with killing as many people as I wanted. After all, the strong triumph over the weak, right?

Do yourself a favor and see a psychologist. You need some help.

She didn't just call him out and then unload on him, there was an altercation outside the workplace that led to her shooting him.


Seriously though. By that logic General, did the girl deserve to be raped, seeing as she failed to stop it? (allegedly)

Women, children, and the disabled can't be expected to be strong. Women are strong in different ways, children will be strong, and the disabled have an excuse. It would have been acceptable for the girl to kill the man, but what he did was cowardly because he picked on someone who didn't choose to be weak.