Did your piece of shit ass see the verdict of that pedophile? He'd already been charged twice and here you are whining after he admitted to pedophilia to a SEVEN YEAR OLD and you're fucking whining that the mother killed him.
You are scum. People with your ideals must die. You bring the downfall of civilization.
I've asked kindly already to stop with the name calling, et cetera. My goal is not to fight you or to get you angry.
I've already clarified that my original comment was more general in nature, to be the voice of reason on a fired up thread. People keep referencing this case specifically as some sort of evidence that this should become the norm. But I'm trying to make people aware that it'd still have its drawbacks. I know you are angry, but don't pin defending pedophilia on me. I don't like it just as much as you don't.
I think you are just fired up, and with good reason. I am too. But you haven't advocated any actual procedure(s) that should be followed in response to the concerns I've raised so I don't know what you're even championing for. If you still maintain that you are in fact representing a position for a change in the way these crimes are handled, please clarify the following:
What would the metric of criteria be for allowing one to take the law into their own hands, bar a trial? Would the person have to witness the incident occurring directly? Would word-of-mouth evidence suffice, and how much?
How would such a system of governance handle incidents in which things went wrong an innocents were falsely accused and/or killed? Please describe responses to 2 types of incidents, ones in which the rules you listed in my first question were followed properly, and ones in which they weren't.
Would this system apply to all crimes? Would there be different criteria and answers to the above for different crimes?
Should the US drop the system of courts and law enforcement, and just go full anarchy a-la wild west? It'd be an interesting concept.
Please, don't overly-reference this specific case or bring up Grabowski anymore in your answers. I'll re-iterate that this is not what my chain of comments was ever about. I'm not trying to be a smartass or give you a hard time. I'll listen to your ideas if you actually advocate something and aren't just fired up at me for attempting to be the voice of reason. I wasn't trying to be a party pooper. I was originally and still am just trying to get people here to realize that just because they liked what happened to this guy doesn't mean that adopting this as the standard won't have its drawbacks and kinks in the system.
Did your piece of shit ass see the verdict of that pedophile? He'd already been charged twice and here you are whining after he admitted to pedophilia to a SEVEN YEAR OLD and you're fucking whining that the mother killed him.
You are scum. People with your ideals must die. You bring the downfall of civilization.
I've asked kindly already to stop with the name calling, et cetera. My goal is not to fight you or to get you angry.
I've already clarified that my original comment was more general in nature, to be the voice of reason on a fired up thread. People keep referencing this case specifically as some sort of evidence that this should become the norm. But I'm trying to make people aware that it'd still have its drawbacks. I know you are angry, but don't pin defending pedophilia on me. I don't like it just as much as you don't.
I think you are just fired up, and with good reason. I am too. But you haven't advocated any actual procedure(s) that should be followed in response to the concerns I've raised so I don't know what you're even championing for. If you still maintain that you are in fact representing a position for a change in the way these crimes are handled, please clarify the following:
What would the metric of criteria be for allowing one to take the law into their own hands, bar a trial? Would the person have to witness the incident occurring directly? Would word-of-mouth evidence suffice, and how much?
How would such a system of governance handle incidents in which things went wrong an innocents were falsely accused and/or killed? Please describe responses to 2 types of incidents, ones in which the rules you listed in my first question were followed properly, and ones in which they weren't.
Would this system apply to all crimes? Would there be different criteria and answers to the above for different crimes?
Should the US drop the system of courts and law enforcement, and just go full anarchy a-la wild west? It'd be an interesting concept.
Please, don't overly-reference this specific case or bring up Grabowski anymore in your answers. I'll re-iterate that this is not what my chain of comments was ever about. I'm not trying to be a smartass or give you a hard time. I'll listen to your ideas if you actually advocate something and aren't just fired up at me for attempting to be the voice of reason. I wasn't trying to be a party pooper. I was originally and still am just trying to get people here to realize that just because they liked what happened to this guy doesn't mean that adopting this as the standard won't have its drawbacks and kinks in the system.