Thursday, August 31, 2006


Vigilante Justice

So this guy heard that this neighbor molested his two-year-old daughter. So he went next door and stabbed the man to death.

*not so clear clarification - Guy A stabbed neighbor because he thinks that neighbor molested Guy A's daughter*

Here's the article.


This is bad, but my gut reaction is...can you blame him? Someone molested his daughter. His reaction is one of rage, and to make sure that it never happens again. He doesn't look like a rage-tastic man. He looks like a total dork who rose to the occasion and avenged his daughter. I'm pretty sure that if anyone messed with me (and I mean real, scary, messing with), my dad, brothers, and uncles would be on that person like no one's business. That's what family does.

According to the article, the two-year-old said something to her mom that tipped her off, and she told her husband.

The slight, slight...shall we say...snag in all this is that this is America. Innocent until proven guilty. Rationally, I'm like. No. The neighbor needed a trial. Maybe he wasn't guilty? And people can't go around stabbing people - that's what prison is for. And I'm against the death penality - where did the condoning of murder come from? I actually have no doubt in my mind that the man was guilty. But there needs to be proof. And when was she left alone with the neighborhood creep?

I'm not saying what he did was right. But really.

Do you blame him?

Oh that dilemma Meg. Innocent until proven... wait just a damn minute.

We might SAY as a country it's innocent until proven guilty, but I think that if anyone ever really pays attention to the way the judicial system works, it's not always that way.

That little rant aside - sorry, I've been known to digress a time or two - no, I don't blame him. I might think it wasn't the right thing to do, and I might say I wouldn't have done the same, but I honestly think that's probably one situation where you can't honestly "put yourself in someone else's shoes."

And I don't think there are many dads out there who can honeslty say that they wouldn't have acted first, thought second either.
As soon as I heard about this story, I thought about the book "Perfect Match" by Jodi Picoult. In this story, the main character is a prosecutor for child molesters. Then her 5 year old son is molested by a priest, and she kills him, only to find out that he was, indeed, innocent, and that it was another priest that had molested the son. (Sorry if I just ruined the ending of the book for all of you.) In the end, she is the one put on trial, and they find her innocent, saying she acted in the best interest of her son as to what was believed at the time.

That being said, I think that this guy is justified in what he did. The legal system in this country is as slow as molassas, and it could have taken years for this case to actually go to trial (if it even came to that). And much of the time, child molesters walk free because a young child cannot or will not testify against them. Who knows if proper justice would have been the outcome of a trial?
wow...getting all philosophical on us today!
Hell, if he hadn't did it, somebody would have shivved (sp?) him in jail... the guys just saved us the price of a trial.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?