Acid attack victim commits suicide

[sparticus]

Do you really consider it right and good to beat a defenseless man? Otherwise you are just acid-man in another guise.

Any person that takes another life , rapes a person etc gives up that right.

The only time violence is acceptable is when you are defending yourself.

I was defending myself , he never returned !!

So for example if you cut someone off on the street and they think that is a justification for a beatdown then they can (by your logic) manouvre you off the road, pull you from your vehicle and beat the schit out of you. You have decided that a beatdown is an acceptable punishment for breaking into your house with a knife just as that individual has decided it is an acceptable punishment for you cutting him off.

how you can link that just shows your logic ? One is with intent to do grievious body harm. When someone cuts me off he does so in a public road that belongs to us all , we both have the right to that. I doubt and cannot prove that he is doing it intentionally. However If someone comes into my house he is entering my safe domain armed and threatening to harm me. He has no right to be there. Its his intention to hurt me. He gives up all rights in my book. I dont need a justice system to prove to me that he is innocent , I caught him in the act.

I just remembered something though , 2 years ago in September/October I stayed in a area called Mountveiw in the Southern Suburbs. For 3 weeks a guy would jump over the wall and steal our copper pipes until I got gatvol and left my dog loose in the yard. Few nights later he jumped over again and my 2 year old Boerbul basically ripped off his ear. At the time even I was scared to approach the dog and I felt it was a error in judgement to leave him loose.

My question is , I knowingly left the dog untied hoping to catch the thief , I must admit I did not think Poena (the dogs name) would attack him like that but does that make me guilty ? Genuine question cos it bothered me for a while and still do. I have seen the guys a few times walking around and I dont think he recognises me as he was stoned out of his mind but I do feel a little k@k about it. He even tried to make a case against me at one stage but I moved away then. The cops came to my new house and told me as I ironically now stay about 100 meters away and try and keep in contact with the patrol guys from the station . I dont think they took in any further though.

 

[TheHiveMind]

No there is no "individually". There is the principle you are agreeing to by claiming your act was justified. You are claiming that individuals can determine penalties at their discretion. That means it is also justifiable for an individual to beat you to a pulp for cutting him off in traffic. Same principle.

Not really, the law is primarily on my side if someone assaults me for cutting them off. I'd love to see a robber go complain to the cops because the people he was trying to rob beat him up instead of calling them.

 

[sparticus]

Islam is all about men dominating women bud. It's part of their religion.

Look at Christians and people who are not religious, women are pretty much equal now. It's only the islamic world that deems females to be inferior.

The reason they are inferior is because the religion dictates it be that way.

Most people who don't have a religion won't think they are better than females because there is no amazing unseen GOD telling them anything. There is no GOD saying anything just some book that claims to be the word of whatever GOD.

Try telling that to the people of cambodia and vietnam. Mineer posted something about how Islam should treat woman a while back. I must find it and show you.

 

[FrankCastle]

I agree with porchrat.In a war situation,once you've captured and subdued your enemy its utterly pointless to beat him up or kill him,even though his prime objectve was to kill you.
If he is defiant and poses a threat then its a completely different issue altogether.

 

[porchrat]

Any person that takes another life , rapes a person etc gives up that right.

You have no right to take the life of another human being unless it is in defence. To take the life of someone that poses no threat to you is something I will never agree with. It is a monstrous act.

I was defending myself , he never returned !!

How exactly were you defending yourself? You dragged him out into the garden. Did he still have the knife? Was he still attacking you with it? If so then I agree you were defending yourself and were justified. If not then I don't see how you were defending yourself or your family.

how you can link that just shows your logic ?

Not my logic. Yours. You are the one that claims it is acceptable for an individual to deceide upon a punishment at his/her own discretion. Not me.

One is with intent to do grievious body harm. When someone cuts me off he does so in a public road that belongs to us all , we both have the right to that.

and I don't think you have a right to beat someone up once they are helpless and have been subdued regardles of what they have done leading up to that moment yet you disregard what I'm saying and do your own thing. Why suddenly when the guy that cuts you off does the same thing is he now at fault? Your logic is inconsistent. You are being hypocritical again.

I doubt and cannot prove that he is doing it intentionally. However If someone comes into my house he is entering my safe domain armed and threatening to harm me. He has no right to be there. Its his intention to hurt me.

I agree.

He gives up all rights in my book. I dont need a justice system to prove to me that he is innocent , I caught him in the act.

you may have caught him in the act but you have no right to dish out the penalty. If you think you do then the guy that you cut off has that same right.

I just remembered something though , 2 years ago in September/October I stayed in a area called Mountveiw in the Southern Suburbs. For 3 weeks a guy would jump over the wall and steal our copper pipes until I got gatvol and left my dog loose in the yard. Few nights later he jumped over again and my 2 year old Boerbul basically ripped off his ear. At the time even I was scared to approach the dog and I felt it was a error in judgement to leave him loose.

My question is , I knowingly left the dog untied hoping to catch the thief , I must admit I did not think Poena (the dogs name) would attack him like that but does that make me guilty ? Genuine question cos it bothered me for a while and still do. I have seen the guys a few times walking around and I dont think he recognises me as he was stoned out of his mind but I do feel a little k@k about it. He even tried to make a case against me at one stage but I moved away then. The cops came to my new house and told me as I ironically now stay about 100 meters away and try and keep in contact with the patrol guys from the station . I dont think they took in any further though.

You did nothing wrong. The man trespassed and your dog attacked him. You cannot be held responsible for that as far as I am concerned. You have a right to protect yourself against invaders. You used the dog as a deterrent and the invader ignored it. You were afraid for your own safety to attempt to pull the dog off him once the attack started. This also is understandable. Had you been certain you could pull the dog from him without sustaining injury I'm sure you would have done so.

You just don't have the right to beat up helpless people. That is something else entirely. Beating up a helpless person would be like catching him breaking into your house and then you tied him up and set your dog on him. That I would have a problem with and I would say you deserve prison if you had done that.

 

[porchrat]

I agree with porchrat.In a war situation,once you've captured and subdued your enemy its utterly pointless to beat him up or kill him,even though his prime objectve was to kill you.
If he is defiant and poses a threat then its a completely different issue altogether.

How do you take a domestic civilian situations and apply that to war? :wtf:

Though if you have subdued someone in a war situation (tied up on the ground helpless for example) and then you execute that individual I imagine you would face penalties even then. It has happened countless times before especially when the footage of the incident ends up on the TV or Internet.

 

[porchrat]

Not really, the law is primarily on my side if someone assaults me for cutting them off. I'd love to see a robber go complain to the cops because the people he was trying to rob beat him up instead of calling them.

LOL you want to talk about the law siding with you while trying to justify assaulting a person totally subdued and at your mercy? Are you insane? BOTH are illegal. The legal system is NOT on your side here.

I'm saying that you, in saying you are justified assaulting a helpless individual, you are also by that same logic saying the guy that beats you up for cutting him off is justified because you are saying the individual has the right to determine the appropriate penalty and not just the legal system.

 

[porchrat]

You compared my actions to his. The two are not the same. I never premeditated any violent act.

I compared your assaulting of an unharmed helpless man to his actions yes. Rightly so as they are both crimes.

What would you do?

Once he is subdued and can no longer harm me or my family I contact the authorities.

Note that I have no qualms about killing someone or beating the tar out of someone to protect myself or my family.

I just have a problem with doing it to a helpless person that poses no threat to me. That has nothing to do with defending myself or my family.

It isn't irrelevant. The fact that he failed is irrelevant.

No all that matters is that you are assaulting an unarmed defenceless person and attempting to justify it.

 

[sparticus]

You have no right to take the life of another human being unless it is in defence. To take the life of someone that poses no threat to you is something I will never agree with. It is a monstrous act.

Never said I was going to take his life , once again there is a huge diffs between killing and a hiding. Never intended to take his life either. Just teach him a lesson and it did. He never returned

How exactly were you defending yourself? You dragged him out into the garden. Did he still have the knife? Was he still attacking you with it? If so then I agree you were defending yourself and were justified. If not then I don't see how you were defending yourself or your family.

I suppose you were never in the situation where you are safe from returning robbers or murderers seeking revenge cos u called the cops on them ? In the area I grew up I remember 2 brothers that use to hassle the local shopkeeper from a early age



Not my logic. Yours. You are the one that claims it is acceptable for an individual to deceide upon a punishment at his/her own discretion. Not me., one day when they were about 18 to 20 or so they robbed him and the one brother stabbed him in the leg as he chased after them. Shopkeeper calls in the cops , they catch them at their house jails them.

The older brother sits for a few months for trial as he stabbed the shopkeeper and the younger brother get released. The very next day he walked into the shopin full veiw of about 8 kids (myself included) and stabs the shop keeper in the neck without saying a word. Thats the Justice world I live in.

and I don't think you have a right to beat someone up once they are helpless and have been subdued regardles of what they have done leading up to that moment yet you disregard what I'm saying and do your own thing. Why suddenly when the guy that cuts you off does the same thing is he now at fault? Your logic is inconsistent. You are being hypocritical again.

Ur logic is just plain stupid , one is a act where the person tried to intentionally harm you , he comes into your home to do so. The other is a guy that can possibly harm you due to his bad driving habits. Why does premedidated murder get a bigger prison sentence than say manslaughter ? Its the planning and intention involved.

you may have caught him in the act but you have no right to dish out the penalty. If you think you do then the guy that you cut off has that same right.

Try telling that to the shopkeepers family. How can I take that chance with my family ? He has already shown no regard for human life with his breaking in armed with a knife. Do you follow the news nowadays ? Do u see how sick people are ? Maybe u want me to ask him to not come back when he is released 3 days later. Maybe ask him not to rape my wife the next time I am at work and he breaks in ? Nope , few knocks to the knee and he wont be back ever , everytime its winter and his leg pains he will remember me. Besides if he does come back I can easily outrun him now.

You just don't have the right to beat up helpless people. That is something else entirely. Beating up a helpless person would be like catching him breaking into your house and then you tied him up and set your dog on him. That I would have a problem with and I would say you deserve prison if you had done that.

He was not a helpless person. A helpless person for me by definition is someone who is unable to care for himself , to defend himself and provide for himself. He was not tied up. He could have easily taken a shot at me if he wanted too but fear paralysed him most likely. Same fear he would have used on me if he got into my room waking me with a knife to my wifes throat.

 

[unskinnybob]

Once he is subdued and can no longer harm me or my family I contact the authorities.

Good luck with that. Another "no conviction" trial, after 3 years of on and off court visits and postponements (with bail).

Note that I have no qualms about killing someone or beating the tar out of someone to protect myself or my family.

At what point does my "victim" become an unarmed helpless man, and how come your assailant doesn't?

 

[sparticus]

Note that I have no qualms about killing someone or beating the tar out of someone to protect myself or my family.

wait a min , how do you beat a guy to death defending yourself ? surely a few smacks and he would be subdued ?

I just have a problem with doing it to a helpless person that poses no threat to me. That has nothing to do with defending myself or my family.

He might have been unarmed at that stage but so was I , how is he helpless ? He was not tied up and he is desperate , he showed already what his intent was coming onto my property armed. How do I make the call that its now safe for my family firstly and that secondly he wont be back tomorrow cos I am a nice guy ? Why would I ever take that stupid risk with my family ? I did not ask him to risk my or my families lives.

No all that matters is that you are assaulting an unarmed defenceless person and attempting to justify it.

I dont need to justify it , I never assaulted an unarmed man defenceless person , for starters he was not defenceless and I doubt he qualified as a person at that stage but thats not my call to make. What do you think would have happened if I say just held him in my lounge with my hands ? Do you think he would have sitted down , watch some telly and waited for the cops to arrive ? Again , you are living in a dream world.

 

[MR V]

The simple answer is to get rid of religion. Love your fellow man not some random god type thing that lives somewhere up in space.

religion is not a problem, rather individuals are

 

[unskinnybob]

wait a min , how do you beat a guy to death defending yourself ? surely a few smacks and he would be subdued ?

I'm also catching a wiff of some major double standards.

 

[porchrat]

Never said I was going to take his life , once again there is a huge diffs between killing and a hiding. Never intended to take his life either. Just teach him a lesson and it did. He never returned

You no right to assault someone who is defenceless either.

I suppose you were never in the situation where you are safe from returning robbers or murderers seeking revenge cos u called the cops on them ? In the area I grew up I remember 2 brothers that use to hassle the local shopkeeper from a early age



Not my logic. Yours. You are the one that claims it is acceptable for an individual to deceide upon a punishment at his/her own discretion. Not me., one day when they were about 18 to 20 or so they robbed him and the one brother stabbed him in the leg as he chased after them. Shopkeeper calls in the cops , they catch them at their house jails them.

The older brother sits for a few months for trial as he stabbed the shopkeeper and the younger brother get released. The very next day he walked into the shopin full veiw of about 8 kids (myself included) and stabs the shop keeper in the neck without saying a word. Thats the Justice world I live in.

Unfortunate. Shopkeeper should have carried a gun. Refuse entry to the dude. When the dude enters and approaches warn him to stay back and if he refuses to back down or if in a non-ideal circumstance there isn't time for a warning then shoot the fscker.

Ur logic is just plain stupid , one is a act where the person tried to intentionally harm you , he comes into your home to do so. The other is a guy that can possibly harm you due to his bad driving habits. Why does premedidated murder get a bigger prison sentence than say manslaughter ? Its the planning and intention involved.

No you have said you have the right to determine the punishment. In your case it was a beating. I'm just giving the dude in traffic that same right. Does he not have the same right? Who gets to decide when he gets that right and not? By the looks of it you do. Subjective bullschit is what that is. Not logic that is for sure.

Ironically by talking about grievous bodily harm and trying to differentiate crimes you are establishing your own little legal system. The very thing you seem to so easily disregard. Hilarious.

Try telling that to the shopkeepers family. How can I take that chance with my family ? He has already shown no regard for human life with his breaking in armed with a knife. Do you follow the news nowadays ? Do u see how sick people are ? Maybe u want me to ask him to not come back when he is released 3 days later. Maybe ask him not to rape my wife the next time I am at work and he breaks in ? Nope , few knocks to the knee and he wont be back ever , everytime its winter and his leg pains he will remember me. Besides if he does come back I can easily outrun him now.

If he breaks in and threatens you again in your own home you defend yourself. That doesn't mean you commit assault. It means you defend yourself.

Otherwise be prepared for the beatdown when you cut someone off in traffic. They too will just claim they were teaching you a lesson to make sure you don't do it again.

He was not a helpless person.

If he was subdued and unable to harm you further in that situation then he was indeed helpless. The only time you are permitted to use violence is when you are defending yourself. At no other point. I'm damn glad for it because otherwise we would have people like you running around assaulting people out of revenge for perceived wrongs.

A helpless person for me by definition is someone who is unable to care for himself , to defend himself and provide for himself.

I'm the one that chose the word. I didn't use it in that manner. I use it to mean someone that did not pose a threat to you. Someone that was completely subdued.

He was not tied up. He could have easily taken a shot at me if he wanted too but fear paralysed him most likely. Same fear he would have used on me if he got into my room waking me with a knife to my wifes throat.

He didn't fight back and you pummelled him. How noble and morally righteous of you

If someone is making no effort to attack you then you shouldn't attack them. You decided to attack that individual once he no longer was attacking you. You are at fault. You are the criminal at that point.

 

[porchrat]

wait a min , how do you beat a guy to death defending yourself ? surely a few smacks and he would be subdued ?

Where did I say beat to death?
There is NEVER a justification for that.

I meant shooting someone or stabbing someone or hitting them over the head with a heavy blunt object. Those can often result in death but they are acceptable uses of force when you are defending yourself. NOT when someone is subdued.

He might have been unarmed at that stage but so was I , how is he helpless ? He was not tied up and he is desperate , he showed already what his intent was coming onto my property armed. How do I make the call that its now safe for my family firstly and that secondly he wont be back tomorrow cos I am a nice guy ? Why would I ever take that stupid risk with my family ? I did not ask him to risk my or my families lives.

So because you were unable to make the call you beat him bloody until he lost proper function in his legs? LOL yea that was an acceptable course of action. Pull the other one.

I dont need to justify it , I never assaulted an unarmed man defenceless person

You have already said he lay there paralysed with fear as you pummelled him. Sounds like a person posing no threat to you as far as I am concerned.

for starters he was not defenceless and I doubt he qualified as a person at that stage but thats not my call to make.

So... you can't make the call as to whether or not he is a person but you can take his rights away by assaulting him? Uh... what?

What do you think would have happened if I say just held him in my lounge with my hands ? Do you think he would have sitted down , watch some telly and waited for the cops to arrive ? Again , you are living in a dream world.

You have already said he lay there paralysed with fear as you beat him. Are you changing your story now? Was he attacking you at that point?

 

[porchrat]

See lets take a step back here and work from the principles you guys are clinging to.

Are you guys saying an individual has the right to determine punishment?

 

[sparticus]

You no right to assault someone who is defenceless either.



Unfortunate. Shopkeeper should have carried a gun. Refuse entry to the dude. When the dude enters and approaches warn him to stay back and if he refuses to back down or if in a non-ideal circumstance there isn't time for a warning then shoot the fscker.



No you have said you have the right to determine the punishment. In your case it was a beating. I'm just giving the dude in traffic that same right. Does he not have the same right? Who gets to decide when he gets that right and not? By the looks of it you do. Subjective bullschit is what that is. Not logic that is for sure.

Ironically by talking about grievous bodily harm and trying to differentiate crimes you are establishing your own little legal system. The very thing you seem to so easily disregard. Hilarious.




If he breaks in and threatens you again in your own home you defend yourself. That doesn't mean you commit assault. It means you defend yourself.

Otherwise be prepared for the beatdown when you cut someone off in traffic. They too will just claim they were teaching you a lesson to make sure you don't do it again.



If he was subdued and unable to harm you further in that situation then he was indeed helpless. The only time you are permitted to use violence is when you are defending yourself. At no other point. I'm damn glad for it because otherwise we would have people like you running around assaulting people out of revenge for perceived wrongs.



I'm the one that chose the word. I didn't use it in that manner. I use it to mean someone that did not pose a threat to you. Someone that was completely subdued.



He didn't fight back and you pummelled him. How noble and morally righteous of you

If someone is making no effort to attack you then you shouldn't attack them. You decided to attack that individual once he no longer was attacking you. You are at fault. You are the criminal at that point.

On each and everyone of these post's of you , you are assuming. How do you know he did not fight back ? How do you know he would not fight back ? How do you know that he was defenseless ?

Unfortunate. Shopkeeper should have carried a gun. Refuse entry to the dude. When the dude enters and approaches warn him to stay back and if he refuses to back down or if in a non-ideal circumstance there isn't time for a warning then shoot the fscker.

and if you dont like guns ? Or what if the shopkeeper as in this case is a old man ? Also so hwo does one decide there is'nt time for a warning shot ? After or before the guy gets stabbed ? Why in my case then should it be seen any different ? I took him out before he could. Simple. I gave him a hiding of note but I did not kill him nor did I intend to kill him. Why does the robber have the luxury of rational thinking and I dont ? Why must I stop , pause and think about my next action when confronted in the middle of the night by a guy in my house armed with a knife ? Why would I ever want to risk myself or family to pause and think rationally ? Why cannot I react (like I am sure 99.99% of people would) and let my actions take over ?

Who gets to decide when he gets that right and not?

The person that the is being intentionally targetted. He has the right to hand out punishment in my book.

Otherwise be prepared for the beatdown when you cut someone off in traffic. They too will just claim they were teaching you a lesson to make sure you don't do it again.

One is illegal to do and punishable by law while the other is bad driving ? How I ask are they related ? How can the same reaction be compared ?

Does he not have the same right?

The dude in the car has the same right as me , we both using a public road and he probably just made a mistake and it was unintentional. If it was not there really is no way for me to prove it. The dud coming into my house with a knife at night have no rights. Same as rapist's , child abusers , murderes etc.

I'm the one that chose the word. I didn't use it in that manner. I use it to mean someone that did not pose a threat to you. Someone that was completely subdued.

You like to point out to others that they must not assume and yet you do the very same thing , how do you know that he did not pose a threat to me ? Even if subdued what if he comes back as he knows I am a soft target ? How do you know at what level I had him subdued when I took him outside ? Hell I was not even sure if he had fight in him at that stage. I am struggling to see how you can say he was completely subdued. How does one make that decision in such an scenario ? Ask the man ? Make a judgement call and hope you are correct ? NO , you make sure that he will never ever entertain thoughts about hurting you or your family. What tyoe of mindset and respect for human life do you think this guy has ? He came into my house armed with a knife at night. That takes some balls to do.

 

[TheHiveMind]

I'm saying that you, in saying you are justified assaulting a helpless individual, you are also by that same logic saying the guy that beats you up for cutting him off is justified because you are saying the individual has the right to determine the appropriate penalty and not just the legal system.

I know what you are saying. That you have to compare cutting someone off in traffic to entering a strangers house with a knife to try to make your point says plenty lol

 

[FrankCastle]

How do you take a domestic civilian situations and apply that to war? :wtf:

How can you take a road rage incident and apply it to a domestic invasion.
The ultimate princpal remains the same tho.

 

[porchrat]

On each and everyone of these post's of you , you are assuming. How do you know he did not fight back ? How do you know he would not fight back ? How do you know that he was defenseless ?

I'm not assuming anything you said he was paralysed with fear.

and if you dont like guns ? Or what if the shopkeeper as in this case is a old man ? Also so hwo does one decide there is'nt time for a warning shot ? After or before the guy gets stabbed ? Why in my case then should it be seen any different ? I took him out before he could. Simple. I gave him a hiding of note but I did not kill him nor did I intend to kill him. Why does the robber have the luxury of rational thinking and I dont ? Why must I stop , pause and think about my next action when confronted in the middle of the night by a guy in my house armed with a knife ? Why would I ever want to risk myself or family to pause and think rationally ? Why cannot I react (like I am sure 99.99% of people would) and let my actions take over ?

Here unfortunately is the grey area. Some actions are considered acceptable others are not.

The person that the is being intentionally targetted. He has the right to hand out punishment in my book.

And here you go beyond the grey area and into "punishment". You have left defence and moved to something else. Something entirely unacceptable and unjustifiable.

One is illegal to do and punishable by law while the other is bad driving ? How I ask are they related ? How can the same reaction be compared ?

because you have claimed that the individual has the right to determine punishment. You cannot now bring the legal system into this. By punishing someone with a beatdown you have already violated the legal system long ago.

By claiming that an individual has the right to determine and administer punishments you have already discarded the legal system. Don't know turn around and try to define acts within the scope of the legal system that is just potty.

The dude in the car has the same right as me , we both using a public road and he probably just made a mistake and it was unintentional.

Similarly the criminal that broke into your house has the same rights as you as a human being. This is part of our legal system. Either you hold the legal system up as something important or you discard it and administer punishment yourself, which is it mate?

If it was not there really is no way for me to prove it. The dud coming into my house with a knife at night have no rights. Same as rapist's , child abusers , murderes etc.

Constitution says "no". Too bad for you.

You like to point out to others that they must not assume and yet you do the very same thing , how do you know that he did not pose a threat to me ?

You said he was paralysed with fear, that you were draggin him around. Doesn't sound very threatening to me. Unless I misunderstood... did he still have the knife? Was he still attacking?

Even if subdued what if he comes back as he knows I am a soft target ?

You face that eventuality when it arises.

How do you know at what level I had him subdued when I took him outside ?

Paralysed with fear. Your words not mine.

Hell I was not even sure if he had fight in him at that stage.

When he fights defend yourself. Beating him until he can't use his legs is unjustifiable.

I am struggling to see how you can say he was completely subdued. How does one make that decision in such an scenario ? Ask the man ? Make a judgement call and hope you are correct ? NO , you make sure that he will never ever entertain thoughts about hurting you or your family. What tyoe of mindset and respect for human life do you think this guy has ? He came into my house armed with a knife at night. That takes some balls to do.

LOL dude you are the one that used words like punishment and "teaching him a lesson" in reference to what you did. I'm just picking up on that. From those words it sounded pretty much like you no longer considered him an immediate threat and chose to punish him. If that wasn't the case then maybe work on your choice of words in the future because you definitely implied it.

If he still had fight in him, was still attacking, then you were justified. I have made my position on this abundantly clear by now.