Man beats up naked Peeping Tom.. Faces 3 years in prison.

[Katzndogz]

Peeping in a window is no different from bird watching. Even when it's peeping children.

Judge Tells Pervert It?s Ok To Take Your Picture In Your Home | Whatever Happen (ed) To COMMON SENSE

 

[martybegan]

Somehow this another clear example of liberal policies in action. I haven't figured out how just yet, but I know it has to be.

It is an example ot Statisr policies, which are often implemented by people who prefer liberal policies as well, i.e. big daddy government will take care of you, and only big daddy government has the legal right to use force.

Great point!

I'd be willing to bet pretty much anything negative that has happened in the last 100 years has got to be the fault of liberals in some way.

In this case it is the statist mentality that only the government has the legal right to use force.

 

[Esmeralda]

It isn't okay to take the law into your own hands. It isn't okay to be judge, jury and executioner. Why don't you people just call the police and let them handle it? Why do you think vigilantism is okay? What about law and order? What about having an intelligent, civilized society? Why did the father need to beat up the guy?

You really don't deserve to be American citizens and live in a sane, civilized society when all you do is champion violence, anarchy and vigilantism.

 

[hortysir]

It isn't okay to take the law into your own hands. It isn't okay to be judge, jury and executioner. Why don't you people just call the police and let them handle it? Why do you think vigilantism is okay? What about law and order? What about having an intelligent, civilized society? Why did the father need to beat up the guy?

You really don't deserve to be American citizens and live in a sane, civilized society when all you do is champion violence, anarchy and vigilantism.

No kids, hunh?!

 

[martybegan]

It isn't okay to take the law into your own hands. It isn't okay to be judge, jury and executioner. Why don't you people just call the police and let them handle it? Why do you think vigilantism is okay? What about law and order? What about having an intelligent, civilized society? Why did the father need to beat up the guy?

You really don't deserve to be American citizens and live in a sane, civilized society when all you do is champion violence, anarchy and vigilantism.

BECAUSE HE WAS JERKING OFF OUTSIDE THE GUYS DAUGHTER'S WINDOW.

/thread.

 

[Esmeralda]

It isn't okay to take the law into your own hands. It isn't okay to be judge, jury and executioner. Why don't you people just call the police and let them handle it? Why do you think vigilantism is okay? What about law and order? What about having an intelligent, civilized society? Why did the father need to beat up the guy?

You really don't deserve to be American citizens and live in a sane, civilized society when all you do is champion violence, anarchy and vigilantism.

No kids, hunh?!

All that question does is reinforce what I said. Rather than dealing with these things according to the law of a very advanced and civilized society, you think it is okay, no matter what has happened, to just go after the culprit yourself. Would it matter what this person did, if you didn't like it, you'd blow him away with your gun or beat him up, whatever. You are just using the fact he was protecting his child as an excuse. No logic, no reasoning, no calm unemotional sanity: just ridiculous vigilantism, , old west cowboy mentality.

 

[Katzndogz]

It isn't okay to take the law into your own hands. It isn't okay to be judge, jury and executioner. Why don't you people just call the police and let them handle it? Why do you think vigilantism is okay? What about law and order? What about having an intelligent, civilized society? Why did the father need to beat up the guy?

You really don't deserve to be American citizens and live in a sane, civilized society when all you do is champion violence, anarchy and vigilantism.

No kids, hunh?!

All that question does is reinforce what I said. Rather than dealing with these things according to the law of a very advanced and civilized society, you think it is okay, no matter what has happened, to just go after the culprit yourself. Would it matter what this person did, if you didn't like it, you'd blow him away with your gun or beat him up, whatever. You are just using the fact he was protecting his child as an excuse. No logic, no reasoning, no calm unemotional sanity: just ridiculous vigilantism, , old west cowboy mentality.

Why yes! You finally got that did you?

 

[martybegan]

It isn't okay to take the law into your own hands. It isn't okay to be judge, jury and executioner. Why don't you people just call the police and let them handle it? Why do you think vigilantism is okay? What about law and order? What about having an intelligent, civilized society? Why did the father need to beat up the guy?

You really don't deserve to be American citizens and live in a sane, civilized society when all you do is champion violence, anarchy and vigilantism.

No kids, hunh?!

All that question does is reinforce what I said. Rather than dealing with these things according to the law of a very advanced and civilized society, you think it is okay, no matter what has happened, to just go after the culprit yourself. Would it matter what this person did, if you didn't like it, you'd blow him away with your gun or beat him up, whatever. You are just using the fact he was protecting his child as an excuse. No logic, no reasoning, no calm unemotional sanity: just ridiculous vigilantism, , old west cowboy mentality.

We do not give up our rights to apprehend criminals to the police, we lend those rights to them. And according to this the little shit fought back when he was being detained.

Waiting for the police was not an option in this case as the asshole tried to flee.

So he fought back against a man who's daughter was violated by this shit, and he got his ass kicked.

BOO FUCKING HOO.

 

[Esmeralda]

No kids, hunh?!

All that question does is reinforce what I said. Rather than dealing with these things according to the law of a very advanced and civilized society, you think it is okay, no matter what has happened, to just go after the culprit yourself. Would it matter what this person did, if you didn't like it, you'd blow him away with your gun or beat him up, whatever. You are just using the fact he was protecting his child as an excuse. No logic, no reasoning, no calm unemotional sanity: just ridiculous vigilantism, , old west cowboy mentality.

We do not give up our rights to apprehend criminals to the police, we lend those rights to them. And according to this the little shit fought back when he was being detained.

Waiting for the police was not an option in this case as the asshole tried to flee.

So he fought back against a man who's daughter was violated by this shit, and he got his ass kicked.

BOO FUCKING HOO.

He wasn't trying to detain the guy; he was beating the shit out of him. I'm not voicing any sympathy for the culprit. But I also have no sympathy for the vigilante.

 

[martybegan]

All that question does is reinforce what I said. Rather than dealing with these things according to the law of a very advanced and civilized society, you think it is okay, no matter what has happened, to just go after the culprit yourself. Would it matter what this person did, if you didn't like it, you'd blow him away with your gun or beat him up, whatever. You are just using the fact he was protecting his child as an excuse. No logic, no reasoning, no calm unemotional sanity: just ridiculous vigilantism, , old west cowboy mentality.

We do not give up our rights to apprehend criminals to the police, we lend those rights to them. And according to this the little shit fought back when he was being detained.

Waiting for the police was not an option in this case as the asshole tried to flee.

So he fought back against a man who's daughter was violated by this shit, and he got his ass kicked.

BOO FUCKING HOO.

He wasn't trying to detain the guy; he was beating the shit out of him. I'm not voicing any sympathy for the culprit. But I also have no sympathy for the vigilante.

They turned his ass over to the police, didnt they? And if he tried to fight back, well then he got a whuppin he deserved.

 

[hortysir]

All that question does is reinforce what I said. Rather than dealing with these things according to the law of a very advanced and civilized society, you think it is okay, no matter what has happened, to just go after the culprit yourself. Would it matter what this person did, if you didn't like it, you'd blow him away with your gun or beat him up, whatever. You are just using the fact he was protecting his child as an excuse. No logic, no reasoning, no calm unemotional sanity: just ridiculous vigilantism, , old west cowboy mentality.

We do not give up our rights to apprehend criminals to the police, we lend those rights to them. And according to this the little shit fought back when he was being detained.

Waiting for the police was not an option in this case as the asshole tried to flee.

So he fought back against a man who's daughter was violated by this shit, and he got his ass kicked.

BOO FUCKING HOO.

He wasn't trying to detain the guy; he was beating the shit out of him. I'm not voicing any sympathy for the culprit. But I also have no sympathy for the vigilante.

Actually he was defending himself.
According to the article, the pervert struck out first.
Dad did what he needed to do to subdue him.

I get the feeling that if the cops had been on the scene and beat the ever living shit out of the guy with their night sticks, you'd be okay with that scenario.

 

[g5000]

It isn't okay to take the law into your own hands. It isn't okay to be judge, jury and executioner. Why don't you people just call the police and let them handle it? Why do you think vigilantism is okay? What about law and order? What about having an intelligent, civilized society? Why did the father need to beat up the guy?

You really don't deserve to be American citizens and live in a sane, civilized society when all you do is champion violence, anarchy and vigilantism.

The pervert is going to get his day in court. And he got his ass beat.

Best of both worlds.

 

[whitehall]

"Upgraded to stable condition" seems to indicate excessive force. It seems pretty clear that the naked man wasn't carrying a weapon. The law doesn't give a person the right to beat a suspect unconscious.

 

[Noomi]

The bloke shouldn't have been peeping, but that is not an excuse to beat him half to death.

 

[George Costanza]

I love these vigilante, "tough guy" threads. They always reinforce my decision many years ago to abandon the cause of today's conservatism and embrace liberal, more tolerant values.

Listen up, "tough guys" - you don't "beat the shit" out of someone unless you are prepared to be prosecuted for doing so. End of story. Self defense is an exception, of course, but this is not a self defense case. The peeping tom here was not threatening the vigilante in any way. You can use REASONSABLE force to detain someone like the peeping tom here, until the police arrive. But you do not "beat the shit" out of him.

You don't think any jury would ever convict the vigilante in this case? Think again.

Now, haviing said all that, I think the main reason they filed this case had to do with the severity of injuries to the peeping tom. He was hospitalized due to the beating administered to him by the vigilante. If his injuries had been less severe, the DA might well not have filed this one.

 

[Sallow]

How is it a crime?
I would have beat the shit out of him too.

Because the State is jealous of its monopoly on the use of legal force, and this guy broke the (idiotic) rules.

You just can't make this stuff..up.

 

[Sallow]

I love these vigilante, "tough guy" threads. They always reinforce my decision many years ago to abandon the cause of today's conservatism and embrace liberal, more tolerant values.

Listen up, "tough guys" - you don't "beat the shit" out of someone unless you are prepared to be prosecuted for doing so. End of story. Self defense is an exception, of course, but this is not a self defense case. The peeping tom here was not threatening the vigilante in any way. You can use REASONSABLE force to detain someone like the peeping tom here, until the police arrive. But you do not "beat the shit" out of him.

You don't think any jury would ever convict the vigilante in this case? Think again.

Now, haviing said all that, I think the main reason they filed this case had to do with the severity of injuries to the peeping tom. He was hospitalized due to the beating administered to him by the vigilante. If his injuries had been less severe, the DA might well not have filed this one.

At best he deserved a couple of bitch slaps before the police came to haul is naked pervert ass to the pokey.

 

[martybegan]

I love these vigilante, "tough guy" threads. They always reinforce my decision many years ago to abandon the cause of today's conservatism and embrace liberal, more tolerant values.

Listen up, "tough guys" - you don't "beat the shit" out of someone unless you are prepared to be prosecuted for doing so. End of story. Self defense is an exception, of course, but this is not a self defense case. The peeping tom here was not threatening the vigilante in any way. You can use REASONSABLE force to detain someone like the peeping tom here, until the police arrive. But you do not "beat the shit" out of him.

You don't think any jury would ever convict the vigilante in this case? Think again.

Now, haviing said all that, I think the main reason they filed this case had to do with the severity of injuries to the peeping tom. He was hospitalized due to the beating administered to him by the vigilante. If his injuries had been less severe, the DA might well not have filed this one.

1st: He is not a vigilate. He is the father of the victim. Vigilate's have mostly been considered people uninvolved in the situation who take the law into thier own hands. 2nd, vigilantism is often far after the fact of the crime being committed, this is a case where the father found the guy whacking off by his daughter's window, gave chase, and the asshole chose to fight back.

1. the asshole chose to whack off under the girls window
2. the asshole chose to flee
3. the asshole chose to fight back.

At that case a beating is the least of your concerns. In the head of the moment this asshole is lucky he isnt dead.

This is not a prosecutable case. If the father sought out the man well after the event, you have a case for vigilatism.

In this case all you have is your misguided belief that we turn over all of our rights to force to the government. You want big nanny government to be the only one with balls in soceity, keep it to your own interatctions. let the rest of us be fucking men.

 

[martybegan]

How is it a crime?
I would have beat the shit out of him too.

Because the State is jealous of its monopoly on the use of legal force, and this guy broke the (idiotic) rules.

You just can't make this stuff..up.

Just because you are a giant pussy, doesnt make the rest of us pussies.

 

[Sallow]

We do not give up our rights to apprehend criminals to the police, we lend those rights to them. And according to this the little shit fought back when he was being detained.

Waiting for the police was not an option in this case as the asshole tried to flee.

So he fought back against a man who's daughter was violated by this shit, and he got his ass kicked.

BOO FUCKING HOO.

He wasn't trying to detain the guy; he was beating the shit out of him. I'm not voicing any sympathy for the culprit. But I also have no sympathy for the vigilante.

Actually he was defending himself.
According to the article, the pervert struck out first.
Dad did what he needed to do to subdue him.

I get the feeling that if the cops had been on the scene and beat the ever living shit out of the guy with their night sticks, you'd be okay with that scenario.

Even if that were true, which I doubt, you don't have card blanche to inflict injuries or death on someone else.

Least not in normal states.