Shame there was no sequel
Probably wasn’t a box office success given the obscurity of the main character coupled with how grahically violent the film was. If I remember correctly it teeters on the brink of being a splatter film
Oooooo
2 Likes
I hope this bill becomes a law.
3 Likes
4 Likes
Things are starting to change though. People are tired of being trodden on by the criminal element while the “justice” system becomes more neutered by the day doing nothing to protect the contributing members of society.
People are beginning to turn to vigilante justice and I am here for it. The scum needs to be eradicated with extreme prejudice.
Coming from somebody who clerked for a few years in a criminal circuit - the sympathizing with criminals and feeling sorry for them is disgusting.
4 Likes
In the future I’d like to see bringing back posse Comitatus but that of course is a pipe dream.
1 Like
I think it’s fine to sympathize with criminals to a certain degree. Sometimes I ponder about the things they experienced in their life to shape them into a not so good person.
Think of it this way, maybe there’s a school bully who picks on little kids. Turns out the bully is physically abused by his drunk dad at home. See, now that’s a “AHA!” moment because that factor must have influenced his behavior.
Or maybe the army veteran who came back from some big war and now he screams and hits his wife. Not a good action and he should be put behind bars, but the war had an influence in the development of such bad behavior.
Don’t get me wrong though, more damage is done with stealing and killing compared to a bully picking on people. But, still I think it’s good to have some sympathy
In some cases this might be the environment shaping the bully, as you wrote here.
In other cases it’s because the bully is a duplicate of his dad. He’s a born scumbag.
Nope…no sympathy for any criminal that causes harm to an innocent individual or property damage
1 Like
How could someone be a born scumbag though?
I say sympathy. A teeny teeny tiny sliver of it, that’s enough for me.
Any of that sympathy roll over to police officers, or just criminals?
1 Like
He just is, in the same way someone is born with a congenital condition; it’s just there.
Of course upbringing shapes people, likely in most cases very much so, for good or bad.
In other cases, people are like their parents and carry the same traits they do.
I waited a day before pressing charges when I was severely beaten without provocation roughly 20 years ago. I was acquainted with the guy and was thinking he might apologize for what he did. I was even a bit sympathetic as I was pondering whether or not I should unleash the legal system on the guy who just beat the hell out of me.
After sleeping on it I decided that pressing charges was the right thing to do. It was my first step in reclaiming my control over that situation and it made sure he wasn’t able to do that to anyone else for a really long time.
Turns out he was on parole and the prosecutor charged him with felony aggravated assault for what he did to me and threw the book at him for everything else he’s done before that. He went back to prison for several more years. He had plenty of time to reminisce on what a badass he was when he became an unhinged monster on a pickup basketball court and beat the hell out of me for asking him to calm down.
I had plenty of time to become much stronger than him, learn how to shoot and learn how to fight. I have no sympathy for violent monsters. One more kick to my head could have been life-altering that day.
6 Likes
The idea of vigilante justice sounds good… but it doesn’t always pan out well
I have problems with the conduct of Auspol (Australian police). So long as a firearm isn’t discharged, they can get away with misconduct with justification being in line with the points outlined here
That is… if police are excessively targeted without good reason, police will cease to do their jobs. Similarly, it is very, very difficult to sue over misconduct, medical negligence here even when blatant wrongdoing is present.
Certain jurisdictions in America have gone WAY too far with the anti-police nonesense. It’s gotten so bad i’ve been hearing of those affiliated with law enforcement commiting suicide.
But you don’t want the other extreme. There was an instance of police in Aus tackling a severely autistic guy and stomping on his head until the guy was in a coma. The entire incident… from start to finish… was caught on video
Police involved were cleared of all wrongdoing. This is a dynamic you guys don’t want. In NSW, strip search quotas were designed by police as a means to procure more funding from the state government. This led to strip search booths being present in train stations, on the streets etc. There were even quotas like “strip search 1 out of every 3 people within a specific neighbourhood”.
Finally there is an investigation into wrongdoing here… an investigation that I’m sure will go nowhere…
I’m apalled by what has happened in certain jurisdictions. Particuarly with tent cities. There actually are generally anti vagrancy laws, but due to such scutiny being present against law enforcement cops have more/less said “shrug… you treat us like shit, penalise us for making neighbourhoods safer? We will stop enforcing laws… not worth getting into trouble”
Wherever a tent city pops up, the surrounding area goes to shit. Tent cities are comprised of hardcore addicts, people with severe mental illness and very occasionally someome who is down on their luck. Generally those in tent cities actually have access to government assisted housing, opiate substition therapy, programs that help these individuals acquire enployment.
Why would someone so down on their luck refuse these modalities? I could go into a lot of detail
But for starters… the opiate substitution therapy provided nowadays generally makes it impossible for an addict to get high (long acting buprenorphine depot injection that displaces any introduced opiate from receptor while taking away withdrawl symptoms. Unlike suboxone, sublocade is given every 1-3 months and cannot be abused). Secondly… in government assisted housing you will generally get kicked out if you are found with drug paraphernalia, needles, tinfoil and lighter etc.
Some people don’t want a job, and some don’t want treatment. Unfortunately there is a group of addicts who (either due to concommitant mental illness, severe addiction which is a disease in itself, pathological personality traits etc) don’t want treatment no matter how low they sink.
I do feel for these people as they’ll wind up dead very young. I feel more for the normies who are assaulted or robbed by these people. It shouldn’t be a law abaiding citizens ‘bullet to bite’ so to speak.
Where tent cities are tolerated, addicts from all over tend to flock to them.
Agreed… but I sympathise with those who are affected by criminality to a greater extent.
It should be noted… HOMICIDE rates are generally higher in red states. As to crime in general… I don’t know
Though this likely has less to do with red vs blue (homicide rates in these states) and more to do with a persuasive culture of violence onnipresent within certain subcultures. The south has historically always had high homicide rates.
It should also be noted… the rate of criminality tends to be directly correlated with how likely you are to get caught for commiting a crime.
The severity of potential punishment on paper doesn’t serve as a deterrent unless there is a decent chance of getting caught. Take road rules in Aus vs US for example
In Australia you can get a fine for going more than 3km (a little over 1 mile) over the speed limit… not only that, but chances are if you are consistently going 3-5km over, especially in school zones or in suburban areas… you will get a fine
As a result, Australia has a very low road fatality rate and people are very wary of speeding
In America you theoretically can get fined for going over the speed limit, but it is relatively unenforced unless you are going like 10-20mph+ over the limit. As a result speeding is far more common/accepted.
More likely to get caught in Aus…
Subjective measurements of crime are often anecdote based. I care far more about the statistics present, as anecdote is frequently guilty of sampleship bias. Anecdote presents as one of the lowest common denominators as to how reliable a given piece of evidence is.
Humans have an inherently sinful nature. Our natural instinct is to do wrong.
EDIT: That’s what I believe, anyway. Many disagree, and that’s fine.
1 Like
This is fundamental liberal ideology. All people are inherently bad and therefore need laws to be coerced into doing the right thing.
If we’re fundamentally sinful, why do we ever do good things for other people?
The longer I live - the less I have for certain sects of society.
Call me jaded I guess.
1 Like
Usually because we were taught to, or maybe learned from observation. Most of the people who do good things for other people were taught that that’s a good thing. People who weren’t taught how to be good members of society usually turn out to be the types of people being discussed in this thread.
Yeah, I mean hasn’t pretty much every civilization had laws? Have there been any societies that moved beyond the hunter-gatherer phase that didn’t have rules for its members? Even the hunter-gatherer types often had standards of conduct for people.
1 Like
When you are attacked, injured, dead, loss of family or business
then you can tell me if there is any sympathy
2 Likes
I don’t think I’m unique. However I instinctively knew not to harm others and felt bad when I witnessed it. That came from within. My mommy didn’t have to teach me that.
I also cried the first time I saw a homeless man and couldn’t sleep that night. And I remember that day like yesterday even though that was in 1985 at six years old. No one taught me to feel his pain.
2 Likes