Welp, that certainly does appear to be where we're at. Thanks for the discussion/argument. It was a lot of fun!
That's because the conversation looped.
And we all recognized she had other choices. Some of us just don't mind the choice she made, even though it wasn't the best.
That's disturbing. You see, it's implying that you're perfectly comfortable with vigilante justice missing the target because the legal system will make it right. Well, last I checked the legal system can't raise the dead.
It would be disturbing if I believed or acted on that to the extreme letter of the statement. We already have bad guys killing good people (though the crime rate has gone down thanks to Freakonomics). Can't raise them either. Justice system isn't perfect, and never will be. But somebody with direct contact with the bad guy is in a good position to cut out the weeds. I prefer such situations to be cut and dried obvious who the bad guy was, so I am not approving rampant vigilantism either.
Whoa, slow down there pardner. It most certainly is not a fact that he ever put her in a position where lethal self defense was warranted and, even if he did, she still shouldn't get a pass for killing him when he wasn't a threat.
Assuming she was ever beaten by him, that warrants lethal self defense in JanxLand. I reserve a special level in hell for wife beaters and I like to receive them direct from their spouses or new boyfriends if possible.
They call it Jury Nullification, but the law specifically covers that a jury member may vote his conscience. If I do not believe that a woman who was abused by her husband warrants going to jail, I do NOT have to side with the letter of the law. That's what happens when Chaotic Good people get involved with writing the Constitution.
Again, let's slow down. That's a hell of an assumption there. You see, what you say I want - her to not be able to raise her daughter - would actually be a consequence of what I want which, of course, is proper punishment for her crime.
I did use a qualifying term "apparently" as I cannot actually know your intent. If you want to punish the woman who was in unusual circumstance (it's not like my wife deciding to off me for no reason), then you are also in effect choosing that she not raise her daughter. She might actually suck at raising her daughter (she did have poor taste in men apparently), but those are variables outside the information I have.
A lot of bad folks in prison have kids. Should we let all of 'em out?
No, because they are bad. I do not believe the woman is bad (lacking any info that she has done any other bad things). Therefore, putting a presumably good woman who did bad but justifiable thing is not a useful punishment for her act. As sociologists have apparently proven that stiff punishments don't disuade others from doing a crime, it seems there is little value and more harm in punishing THIS woman stiffly.
I would prefer to put actual bad people in prison. People who will be repeat offenders or whose crime was very damaging to society. I don't see how this woman damaged society. She probably reduced calls to police for this bad guy and she just happened to prevent terrorism (which if she didn't know he was building a bomb, she also didn't know if he was feeling her kid up and that is VERY common). If she's not likely to kill again or otherwise disrupt society, let's put some stuff on her record and give her time served (including time with mr. wife beater).
I'm not bemoaning anything - I'm participating in an exchange of ideas that's interesting, thought provoking and informative in regard to the personalities of the folks I'm discussing this with. It's kinda sorta exactly what an internet forum is all about.
All good things. The trap is if we get stuck in trying to be a "right fighter" as Dr. Phil would call it, or if we're just blasting the same point that nobody else cares about. Like the jury, I think a majority here doesn't care that what she did was legally wrong. It's an impasse.
We can move on, though. What-evs. I will tell you, though, that if you make assumptions about my position or intent or whatever I'll continue to correct you. That's just how I am. Oh, and I don't mean to imply that you did or will do any of that on purpose. I definitely do not think that's how you roll - far from it. Just wanna make that clear.
I try to to include qualifying words like "apparently" or "appears" or some such to indicate that I think a person's position is XYZ, but to leave room for being wrong and to show I am not stating it as an absolute fact. Deducing intent is always tricky and EN advises not assigning somebody's intent. However, some things are logically deducible. If you say the woman should to go to jail, then I am inclined to believe your intent is that the woman should go to jail and that you are arguing with that goal.
I do find, that if you are attempting to argue as a devil's advocate (choosing a specific side as its own exercise in debate), it helps to declare that upfront. Otherwise, it can make discussion maddening as "we don't care that what she did was illegal, so why do you keep bringing that point up" happens.
Also remember, I suck at debate. I might have a few points, but I am not going to successfully sway anybody.
). I don't believe she was adequately provoked. He posed no immediate threat and that's something that, quite simply, cannot be argued. He was asleep. So far as we know the child was not molested at any previous point and he had no confirmed plans to molest her in the future.
