alicat

I appologize, I don't know how to copy and post articles (someone clue me in please).

A couple of months ago there was an old woman in New York (I think) that was beaten in the vestibule of her apartment building. It seemed to be all over the news. The View showed the video and spoke with the woman.

About a week and a half ago, a 91 yr. old man was beaten and carjacked in Detroit and it has been all over our local news (I'm in West Michigan). Yet I haven't seen much in the national news and haven't seen a thread about it.

Please watch the video at

http://www.wxyz.com/news/story.aspx?...4-e6a4edc1f25d

This just fucking disgusts me that someone would have so little respect for an elderly person that they would use their obviously superior strength to beat the hell out of a defenceless old man. The asshole could have easily just taken the car. Instead he started punching and even took breaks between blows to remove his fucking jacket. I admit that I am normally a little desensitized to all the bad shit that we see daily, not that I don't care but because I do care and I have to preserve my sanity. Yet, this upsets me so badly that I have to look away everytime the video plays.

Watching that old man being pummeled just makes me see red. I can only picture my deceased or living grandparents, in their frail bodies, being assaulted so violently. Maybe death would be too harsh a punishment, but I'm not so sure. This type of crime is just as disgusting as elderly rape. I haven't decided in my mind what would be a fit punishment for the people just feet away that did nothing while it happened. I'm torn because in the interest of self-preservation, I probably wouldn't step in (I'm a 5' 2" female) and it happened so quickly. But it looked like at least two men were witnesses and the guy didn't seem to have a weapon.

This is mostly a rant, but what are your thoughts on crimes like this and the people (cowards) that commit them? What do you think should happen to these human slime?

__________________
'Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun, The frumious Bandersnatch!'--Jabberwocky, Lewis Carroll

"You cannot do a kindness too soon because you never know how soon it will be too late."--Ralph Waldo Emerson

Willravel

I'm not by any means a violent man. I always do my best to find a peaceful solution to any problem, even if it means losing face. That being said, if I witnessed the above, I would probably step in and do what I can to help. Very few things get to me like people preying on the very young or very old, who are by nature defenseless.

This is terribly sad. My thoughts are with the family of the victim, and I hope for swift justice.

tenniels

This makes me sick. Cowardly is the right word. It has always bugged me when people jump people and completely out number the person, it's not a fair fight and totally cowardly. This is the same type of thing. Beating a child, an elderly person, an animal, or ganging up on someone is absolutely lame and I think anyone who does it deserves it back ten fold. In a city close to where I live a group of teenagers beat a man to death on a city bus and the sick thing is they're going to get away with a slap on the wrist. I know if I was there I would have stepped in and done something. But then, would have I got stomped to death too? Sometimes this world makes me sick. You can't even flip the bird in traffic anymore without worrying that some roadraged asshole is going to come shoot you. I tend to be one of those people that if I see an injustice occurring, I am unable to control myself and end up getting involved. While my intentions are good, sometimes I do worry that I myself will end up getting hurt because people seem to just not care anymore. It makes me really sad.

__________________

World's King

You know... I'm not gonna even click the link.


I'll save myself from getting angry.

__________________
heavy is the head that wears the crown

analog

This didn't get coverage because there's no video of it, pure and simple. People get beaten up or killed with some frequency. The media latched onto the last one because footage is marketable.

Bill O'Rights

Yeah...for once...I'm with you.

C'mon over here. I'll buy you a beer.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Xazy

Yep, I am not pro-violence I think it is barbaric, but at the same time I feel that crimes are barbaric and should be punished in such a way. These people need to feel a true beating, not get cable tv in prison.

Terrell

The carjacker should get life without parole, the bystanders shouldn't be punished at all.


No just law would require the bystanders to intervene physically against the carjacker. Though the carjacker didn't appear to be armed, the bystanders have no way of knowing for sure that he's not armed. To legally require their physical intervention, is to legally require them to take a very big gamble with their lives. What just law would require such from a civilian who hasn't volunteered for such a duty?

Baraka_Guru

To not defend one who is weaker than you; how just is that?

A just society is one that is based on virtue and harmony. If these are disrupted, wouldn't a citizen who values justice seek to make it right?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Telluride

I think this is correct. But, at least for me, to actually see something like this happen makes it seem more real and horrible than just reading about it. Would the Rodney King incident have been as controversial and newsworthy without the video, for example?

__________________
"I am certain that nothing has done so much to destroy the safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after this mirage of social justice." - Friedrich Hayek

dksuddeth

actually, there is video of this which is how they caught the guy. What is hilarious is now this punk is asking the judge to provide him with protection because he's afraid what will happen to him in jail.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Terrell

I don't claim that not defending someone weaker than you is just or not. My assertion is that it's unjust to legally compel me to do so, at the potential cost of my life, when I didn't volunteer to do so. Especially when the victim of the violence isn't someone who I have a special relationship with, and when I didn't cause the situation in question.

That is what we have the cops and the courts for. I do think that the carjacker should be punished severely, but I believe that the courts are the apropriate place for said punishment to be meted out. I don't think that any of the blame should be attached to those who don't wish to intervene potentially at the risk of their lives, they didn't sign up for physical intervention against perps of violence, and outside of a special relationship to the victim, they shouldn't have to do so. That's what the law enforcement officers are paid to do.

Edited for poor wording.

biznatch

Truly sad. The man in my signature, who was nicknamed Bebert, was an elderly man in my family in his 80s. Although he didn't die from this, young delinquents would often push him around rather violently when he would go towards his own apartment building.

It infuriates me to no end that little pricks enjoy doing such things to helpless people. FUCK.

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

SSJTWIZTA

i know someone who recently broke an 86 year old ladys shoulder trying to rob her, sad shit. if i can find the article ill post it :\

__________________
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for me And there was no one left to speak out for me.
-Pastor Martin Niemoller

Baraka_Guru

What you describe here isn't necessarily in the about justice per se; I would suggest it is more in line with libertarianism. And how would you describe a "special relationship"? Isn't a defenseless elderly human being special enough? Although you didn't cause the situation, doing nothing isn't quite helping the situation either. Especially if you are in what we would call a just society.

Courts and cops have no significance if they aren't around. This is where civic duty comes in. What duty? you may ask. The duty to uphold the values of a just society. Do you truly want to live in a society where an old man can be beaten to death, where no one will do anything unless they are paid law enforcers? I agree that people should not be forced to do something against their will, but surely there is something to be concerned about if they choose to do nothing in this case.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Terrell

No, being an elderly or defenseless person in and of itself isn't sufficent grounds to constitute a "special relationship". By special relationship, I'm thinking of the ones currently recognized under the law in the US. They include parent toward minor child, spouses towards each other, employer toward employee, property owner toward guest, captian/crew of ship towards passengers. Those are some examples. Being a defenseless person isn't one of them outside of those types of relationships. Even in the case of a special relationship though, a person shouldn't be legally required to risk their life, morally maybe, but not legally. Those in special relationships should be expected to render assistance, but not to the point where they risk injury/death.

I don't disagree that it's a Libertarian perspective on this issue, but I also believe that a just law doesn't demand that I risk death, to protect a stranger, when I haven't signed up for it.

The cops do have an influence, so do the courts, they are the ones duly authorized to catch and try perps of crime. Might I remind you that the perpertrator deonte edward bradley has been caught and will stand trial for this crime. The carjacking count alone carries penalties up to life in prison in Michigan. Something is being done about the perp, it's called trial and it will likely be followed by conviction and prison.

As to the society in and of itself, I don't see anything wrong with the bystanders not physically intervening, they shouldn't be expected to risk their lives for someone who is a stranger, whether that stranger is defenseless or not. I don't know their familial status, but I think it's wrong to expect them to put saving a stranger above coming home alive to their families. I also think it's wrong to hold people to different standards in such a situation based on their gender, physical size, or familial status among other things.

Baraka_Guru

Okay, so by "special," you meant those determined by U.S. law as opposed to those that underly our humanity.

This is where things get muddied. Aren't laws created on moral grounds?

Just laws also ensure that those subject to them cannot opt out of the social order. If a law exists that requires one to intervene if they witnesses a crime such as this beating, then they are subject to the penalties for not doing so. If no such law exists, they are merely subject to moral judgement of choosing their own safety over the well being of an old man. And it isn't about protecting a stranger, it's about protecting a fellow citizen who is subject to the same rules and system of values as everyone else. Ignoring their right to this is to undermine your own. And this so-called "signing up" can be argued to have already happened. We are bound—contractually, in a way—by merely being citizens subject to a particular system of justice. If we break this contract, we are breaking our agreement to respect the harmony of society.

Do the cops always get their man?

I don't see this as being completely right, either. If I were to witness someone beat an old man to death and I decided to do absolutely nothing, I'm pretty sure it would haunt me for a long time.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Terrell

Yes, being the same species alone isn't enough reason to require that a person risk their life to stop a crime or rescue someone. Simply calling the cops, alone should be considered both a morally and legally acceptable response.

Moral grounds in and of themelves aren't sufficent to be the cause of a law. Besides, who decides what is moral? What are their reasons for said decisions? Are they rational? Are they up to date? Do they consider the situation holistically, and thoroughly or do they give in to emotion, tradition, or religion?

Not necessarily, if the social order is inherently unfair to a person or group of people how does enforcing the social order make such a law just? There are examples in human history of such laws.

Such a law would be unjust, as it requires people to risk their lives for strangers. In addition how much danger a person should be required to risk to save a victim, whether it's of crime or other danger, is subjective by it's very nature.

Should a 6'4 250 pound man be held to a different standard than a 5'2' 110 pound woman under the law in such a situation? If so, then you have a 14th Amendment problem, because they don't have equal protection under the law, (one is required to risk his life in a situation where the other isn't required to risk hers) if not then you overlook the fact that a 6'4'' 250lb man is probably more capable in physical combat than a 5'2" 110 pound woman. To treat either party differently under the law in this case is wrong both morally and constitutionally.

Such a law would also encourage vigiliantism.

It is about protecting a stranger, because you know nothing about the person whose being attacked other than those things you can know simply by looking at the person. Citizenship isn't something that you can tell by looking at someone here in the US. Even if you could, if the victim were an illegal immigrant, or even a legal immigrant that hadn't become a naturalized citizen, would the standard be different?

The bystanders didn't have a way of knowing that the victim was a citizen and a world war II vet simply by looking at him at the time of the attack, unless he was wearing clothing that would identify him as such, and the people knew the meaning of said identifying clothing.

I don't claim to have a right against other civilians to require that they come to my aid if I'm being attacked by criminals or otherwise in danger. That's the duty of the law enforcement personnel, the duty that they're paid to do. The most that can justly be asked in my opinion, is for the civilians to call law enforcment at the earliest safe opportunity to do so. Even then there are potential problems, should the law attempt to prosecute.

I didn't sign up for this simply by being born. The nature of being born is that it's a decision made solely by one's parents, without one's input. In addition most people are citizens of the country that they were born in (in my case the United States). It may not be practical for me to leave the US and become a citizen of another country, simply because there are some laws that I don't agree with. And some that are proposed that I don't agree with. Signing up for a positive duty, should require some willing action on MY part, not the part of my parents.

Any duties that come with citizenship should be limit to negative ones as far as the physical body is concerned, in my opinion. An example of a negative duty is to refrain from inflicting harm on others. One shouldn't be requried to put your life on the line for a stranger when one isn't employed by either the police force or the military.

The only positive duty I can see being justified is the draft, and that is only in VERY limited circumstances. WWII would be the last good example that would justify a draft in my opinion.

Does it really matter as to this discussion? In this specific case, something is being done. Is there human institution that has a 100% success rate on all things all the time?

That's your choice, mine would be to dial 911 from the nearest phone and summon law enforcement.

Baraka_Guru

Knowing that people have the capacity to experience great suffering should be enough to encourage intervention. But calling the police is the least one should do.

Besides morality, where else do we get laws? Other than rational thought, where is morality based? The laws should be up to date if the system is properly managed. And, no, they should not be based on emotion, tradition, or religion.

We were speaking of a just society (i.e. a society with a fair and balanced social order). Let's refer back to the idea of keeping things up to date.

Let's not confuse "unjust" with "asking too much." I think it unjust to do nothing, or worse, turn a blind eye to a crime. I agree, however, that it may be too much to legally require someone to risk their life for a stranger.

Again, I think it may be a little too much to legally require one to intervene.

Aren't there laws against that?

It shouldn't be. The crime would be taking place within the society, not merely exclusively to the illegal immigrant.

It shouldn't really matter. See above.

It's not necessarily about rights, so much as it is doing what's right.

Regardless, you are a subject of the society into which you were born. We can only hope that we are born into one that is just. All things considered, you wouldn't want to be born into anarchy, would you?

Although I appreciate your consideration for the original post, the discussion we've been having reaches beyond this particular case. We've been asking each other what should or should not be required by law or by moral standards. As you implied, we should assume that law enforcement may not always be available or successful in their duties. This would be the rationale behind laws requiring citizens to act in certain ways in these situations. (Once again, I'm uncertain about the feasibility of such laws.)

We all do what we will.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

spindles

I've gotta say I agree with Terrell. Especially in the US where the original offender could be carrying a gun, I think I would be having a good think before getting involved. No-one should be forced BY LAW to intervene. I'd like to think I would intervene, if this case arose, but I can't say I'd want to see any bystander arrested because they didn't.

__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

Terrell

Calling the police in this type of situation, should be tne Most that is legally or morally expected of you. In pretty much any likely to happen situation where someone is in need of rescue from danger, there is also some danger to any potential rescuer. Especially if said rescuer doesn't have training or aptitudes specific to the situation.

Rational argument, should definitely be a part of the source of laws. It should carry the most weight of all possible types of arguments for or against a law in my opinion.

I was referring to whether or not a law requiring physical intervention was just or not. I was specific to that in my comments with use of the word "just".

Notifying the authorities isn't turning a blind eye to crime. One doesn't have to jump into a fight with a carjacker, and possibly be killed, to not be "turning a blind eye to crime".

And requring the bystander to intervene would mean that he has the law telling him 2 mutually exclusive things to do.

The crime would be a violation of the illegal immigrant's person. I mentioned the illegal immigrant because you mentioned requring people to protect fellow citizens.

Above argument applies.

When it comes to the law, there is almost always some kind of balancing of the rights of one person against another or society at large.

My point is that I didn't volunteer to jump into violent altercations between strangers, and my point stands. To volunteer for something I would need to take an action to do so.

I don't want to live in anarchy, but I also don't want to live in a society where the law dictates positive duties upon me to lay down my life for strangers either. Especially when I'm not trying to make a living by risking my life in this fashion, nor am I being compensated for doing so. IOW, my life is valuable to me, and I don't want leglislatures telling me I have to throw it away in ways that I don't choose to do so.

There is something in-between anarchy, and the state holding my hand.

Yet the individual citizens may not be able to meet said requirements of such a law that would impose a positive duty. It would also be giving people a positive duty to risk their lives for others. The individual person may also see the situation and assess their best course of action differently than what the legislature deems apropriate, and unless their course of action is to inflict harm on an innocent person, I don't think that the leglislature has any business dictating what the individual must do in a dangerous, or potentially dangerous situation.

I would also say that moral standards shouldn't require a person to risk their life for a stranger when they didn't volunteer to do so.

biznatch

In France, "not assisting someone in danger" is a crime. I'm not sure whether I agree with it or not; like most things, it depends on the situation.

__________________
Check it out: The Open Source/Freeware/Gratis Software Thread

MySexyAssJ

I saw an episode on Seinfeld where Jerry, Elaine, George, and Kramer got arrested because they didn't help this guy who was getting car jacked. I'm not sure where I stand on that. What if it's a serious situation that could get you killed as well? It doesn't make sense to me.

__________________
Once bitten, Twice shy.

spindles

I guess we saw in Melbourne earlier this week to those who step into the wrong dispute in a street. 3 people shot, one killed. This kind of incident would surely make most people think twice before helping others...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...019118052.html

__________________
who hid my keyboard's PANIC button?

Terrell

Spindles, your example posted explains very well why I oppose condemning the bystanders in this situation, and also oppose Bad Samaritan Laws.