A Cars forum. AutoBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AutoBanter forum » Auto newsgroups » Driving
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Fireworks, Kids, and the Angry Driver



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old July 20th 05, 04:22 AM
DTJ
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 23:49:13 GMT, DYM > wrote:

>Bernard,
>
>First go look up the definition of vigilante.
>
>Yes, the kids acted in a criminal manner and should be punished for that.
>When the occupants beat and chased the kids they crossed the line and
>commited another crime. When you seek justice outside of the law you are
>a vigilante. That is the very definition of the word.


No. The law gives me the right to arrest someone who is threatening
me with bodily harm. The kids were doing so, and the driver was
simply attempting to hold them for the police.
Ads
  #32  
Old July 20th 05, 06:09 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
DYM > wrote:
>
>Yes, the kids acted in a criminal manner and should be punished for that.
>When the occupants beat and chased the kids they crossed the line and
>commited another crime. When you seek justice outside of the law you are
>a vigilante. That is the very definition of the word.


The difference is that vigilantism isn't a heat-of-the-moment thing,
as this was. In any case, if the law actually provided justice, I'd
be more upset about seeking justice outside it. But nowadays, the law
doesn't give a **** about minor crimes against persons; there ain't no
justice.

>The occupants of the car are (at least as far as the facts reported here)
>guilty of assult.


Not necessarily, if they merely chased them (as the second article said).
  #33  
Old July 21st 05, 12:11 AM
DYM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, DYM wrote:
>
>> First go look up the definition of vigilante.
>>
>> Yes, the kids acted in a criminal manner and should be punished for
>> that. When the occupants beat and chased the kids they crossed the
>> line and commited another crime. When you seek justice outside of the
>> law you are a vigilante. That is the very definition of the word.
>>
>> The occupants of the car are (at least as far as the facts reported
>> here) guilty of assult. They can plead to extenuating circumstances,
>> such as anger. The kids can only plead stuipity and that dones't get
>> you anywhere.
>>
>> All parties are in the wrong in this one.

>
> To me it seems like self defense. Someone launches bottle rockets at
> another person, should not be surprised if that person fights back.
>
> Your post indicates to me that you believe that nobody should fight
> back but always flee. The same mentality that has laws in the UK that
> have sent homeowners to prison for defending themselves and their
> property against criminals who illegally entered the home.
>
> Your theory of always fleeing, running away, never fighting back only
> puts the power in the hands of those who do wrong. Because they can do
> wrong without fear. The cops are never everywhere. And they'll get
> there later, after the fact.
>
> Nothing keeps crime lower than the fear the victim will hurt the
> criminal.
>

You are very wrong in your assumptions about me. Where did I ever
indicate fleeing. I do feel that you are entitled to defend yourself.

There is a big difference between defending yourself and taking revenge.

If the two in the car intended to just detain the kids until the police
arrived, they are with in their rights. You do not have the right to
pursue and exact your own revenge.

Do you think these kids thought they would be caught? Fear of being
caught didn't deter their criminal behaviour.

It all comes down to knowing where that double yellow line is, and
choosing not to cross it.

Doug
  #34  
Old July 21st 05, 12:22 AM
DYM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:

> In article >,
> DYM > wrote:
>>
>>Yes, the kids acted in a criminal manner and should be punished for
>>that. When the occupants beat and chased the kids they crossed the
>>line and commited another crime. When you seek justice outside of the
>>law you are a vigilante. That is the very definition of the word.

>
> The difference is that vigilantism isn't a heat-of-the-moment thing,
> as this was. In any case, if the law actually provided justice, I'd
> be more upset about seeking justice outside it. But nowadays, the law
> doesn't give a **** about minor crimes against persons; there ain't no
> justice.
>
>>The occupants of the car are (at least as far as the facts reported
>>here) guilty of assult.

>
> Not necessarily, if they merely chased them (as the second article
> said).
>


Yeah, I posted before I saw that second article. It paints a very
different picture. Again, just going by what is printed there, I think
the car guys will not be charged. Won't know until the investigation is
complete. I'll go with what the police find.

Earlier, there was talk of one of the kids getting beaten. If that were
the case, that's where the line gets crossed.

Now, going back to the definition of vigilantism, I don't know if "heat
of the moment" really enteres into it. It is simply seeking justice
outside of the legal system.

Is it justice you want or revenge.

Of course, for some on this group, justice is death to all you go slow.

Doug
  #35  
Old July 21st 05, 04:01 AM
Brent P
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >, DYM wrote:

> You are very wrong in your assumptions about me. Where did I ever
> indicate fleeing. I do feel that you are entitled to defend yourself.


Which is all those persons did, defend themselves instead of running away.

> There is a big difference between defending yourself and taking revenge.


Someone fires explosives at your person. How is counter attacking taking
revenge? Taking revenge is hunting them down a week later.

> If the two in the car intended to just detain the kids until the police
> arrived, they are with in their rights. You do not have the right to
> pursue and exact your own revenge.


What if detainment is fought?

> Do you think these kids thought they would be caught? Fear of being
> caught didn't deter their criminal behaviour.


Fear of their victims beating the snot out of them might.

> It all comes down to knowing where that double yellow line is, and
> choosing not to cross it.


The only action you are offering the people in the car is fleeing and
letting it go.

  #36  
Old July 21st 05, 05:12 AM
Bernard Farquart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"DYM" > wrote in message
.. .
> It all comes down to knowing where that double yellow line is, and
> choosing not to cross it.
>

Like not firing explosives at cars because you may reasonably
expect to get your ass whipped for it?



  #37  
Old July 21st 05, 02:40 PM
Matthew Russotto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article >,
DYM > wrote:
(Matthew Russotto) wrote in
:
>
>Yeah, I posted before I saw that second article. It paints a very
>different picture. Again, just going by what is printed there, I think
>the car guys will not be charged. Won't know until the investigation is
>complete. I'll go with what the police find.
>
>Earlier, there was talk of one of the kids getting beaten. If that were
>the case, that's where the line gets crossed.
>
>Now, going back to the definition of vigilantism, I don't know if "heat
>of the moment" really enteres into it. It is simply seeking justice
>outside of the legal system.


The term vigilantism comes from vigilance committees, which were organizations
of people who set themselves up to punish crimes. Chasing after
someone who has just committed a crime against you is not at all like
vigilantism. One is the victim (or intended victim) of a crime going
off in the heat of the moment, the other is when people who may or may
not be the victims chasing down and punishing criminals after the
immediate situation is over. They're both a matter of seeking
justice outside the law, but that doesn't make them both vigilantism.

  #38  
Old July 21st 05, 02:50 PM
John S.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:
> This story appeared in today's NY Times/AP News online. It's not the first
> time drivers have been threatened by fireworks shot by unsupervised kids.
> I've had fireworks shot at my car too but didn't chase down the kids.
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> July 15, 2005
> Wash. Boy Dies Fleeing From Angry Driver
> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> Filed at 4:12 p.m. ET
>
> SPANAWAY, Wash. (AP) -- A 12-year-old boy who was firing bottle rockets at
> cars was chased into traffic Friday by an angry driver and killed by another
> car, authorities said.
>
> The driver and his passenger, both 22, were arrested for investigation of
> manslaughter, the Washington State Patrol said.
>
> The death came soon after midnight in this small town south of Tacoma, where
> the preteen and a 12-year-old cousin had been hiding in bushes while
> shooting the bottle rockets, trooper Johnny R. Alexander said.
>
> A car stopped, and passenger Tyrone Sherrod got out, chased the cousin and
> started beating him, Alexander said. The driver, Mario N. Haley, chased the
> other boy, who ran onto the highway and was struck by a car driven by a
> 17-year-old girl.
>
> Both men fled, but police found them at homes. Investigators determined the
> girl was not at fault.
>
> Witnesses unsuccessfully tried to revive the boy struck by the car. His
> cousin was treated for injuries and released to his parents.
>
> Copyright 2005 The Assocoated Press. All Rights Reserved.


Has anyone noticed that Skip Elliott Bowman or who ever it really is
has not once posted a followup. Possibly a troll looking for food????

  #39  
Old July 21st 05, 04:09 PM
Harry K
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default



John S. wrote:
> Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:
> > This story appeared in today's NY Times/AP News online. It's not the first
> > time drivers have been threatened by fireworks shot by unsupervised kids.
> > I've had fireworks shot at my car too but didn't chase down the kids.
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > July 15, 2005
> > Wash. Boy Dies Fleeing From Angry Driver
> > By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
> > Filed at 4:12 p.m. ET
> >
> > SPANAWAY, Wash. (AP) -- A 12-year-old boy who was firing bottle rockets at
> > cars was chased into traffic Friday by an angry driver and killed by another
> > car, authorities said.
> >
> > The driver and his passenger, both 22, were arrested for investigation of
> > manslaughter, the Washington State Patrol said.
> >
> > The death came soon after midnight in this small town south of Tacoma, where
> > the preteen and a 12-year-old cousin had been hiding in bushes while
> > shooting the bottle rockets, trooper Johnny R. Alexander said.
> >
> > A car stopped, and passenger Tyrone Sherrod got out, chased the cousin and
> > started beating him, Alexander said. The driver, Mario N. Haley, chased the
> > other boy, who ran onto the highway and was struck by a car driven by a
> > 17-year-old girl.
> >
> > Both men fled, but police found them at homes. Investigators determined the
> > girl was not at fault.
> >
> > Witnesses unsuccessfully tried to revive the boy struck by the car. His
> > cousin was treated for injuries and released to his parents.
> >
> > Copyright 2005 The Assocoated Press. All Rights Reserved.

>
> Has anyone noticed that Skip Elliott Bowman or who ever it really is
> has not once posted a followup. Possibly a troll looking for food????



Nah, he's a fairly regular poster here.

Harry K

  #40  
Old July 21st 05, 11:00 PM
DYM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Brent P) wrote in
:

> In article >, DYM wrote:
>
>> You are very wrong in your assumptions about me. Where did I ever
>> indicate fleeing. I do feel that you are entitled to defend yourself.

>
> Which is all those persons did, defend themselves instead of running
> away.

Self defense is limited to when you (or someone else) are in immediate
danger. Once the kids started to run, what immediate danger were the car
guys in?
>
>> There is a big difference between defending yourself and taking
>> revenge.

>
> Someone fires explosives at your person. How is counter attacking
> taking revenge? Taking revenge is hunting them down a week later.
>
>> If the two in the car intended to just detain the kids until the
>> police arrived, they are with in their rights. You do not have the
>> right to pursue and exact your own revenge.

>
> What if detainment is fought?

Come on, you can detain a 12 year old boy with out beating the snot out
of him.
>
>> Do you think these kids thought they would be caught? Fear of being
>> caught didn't deter their criminal behaviour.

>
> Fear of their victims beating the snot out of them might.

It would never enter their heads.

>
>> It all comes down to knowing where that double yellow line is, and
>> choosing not to cross it.

>
> The only action you are offering the people in the car is fleeing and
> letting it go.

Again, where did I say anything about fleeing. I don't know where you get
that idea. You are reading WAY too much between the lines. If I were to
read between the lines of your post, I guess that you speak loudly can
carry a big stick and want to bully everybody around. But there is no
evidence to back that up so I won't say that.

Doug
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AutoBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.