What do you think of a man who has been charged with killing an unarmed man? Inexcusable, right? Now, would it change your mind if the dead man had molested a child and the accused shooter was the child’s father?
All right, here’s more information: The molestation happened a dozen years ago. Finally, would it change your thinking to know the dead man had already served time in prison for the crime and paid restitution? Opinion Piece
It should be perfectly clear to anyone who doesn’t believe in, and recognizes the danger of double standards that it is a crime to murder anyone for any reason; especially if they have served time and/or paid restitution. It’s highly disturbing that the court is even considering anything other than premeditated murder against the man who murdered Raymond Earl Brooks in cold blood; Jay Maynor.
The fact that Brooks was a registrant who served his time, and paid restitution, and presumably led a law abiding life upon release. If he continued any kind of criminal conduct you can rest assured the press would have been all over that; like flies on sh*t.
Ellie Nesler; the drug addict committed premeditated murder too, and should have been charged accordingly. The fact that she wasn’t and is now free sends a dangerous message and is as close to giving consent for vigilantism / murder as one can get, and the judge that participated in this poor excuse for justice should have been held accountable; but he wasn’t.
I have never touched a child and have never been inclined to do so, yet I’m a registrant and fully aware that most people could care less about the particulars of anyone’s individual case; especially if they are intent of murdering a “sex offender.” I have a variety of defensive tools placed about the property where I live, and they are all legal. Should anyone ever come on to the property where I reside with the intention of murdering me they will be in for a very big surprise; (unless they shoot me with a long range rifle), and I would do everything humanly possible to make sure they could never attempt to murder again. If anyone thinks I’m extreme just take a look at this site and you will no longer wonder why I consider the passive “that only happens to other people” crowd careless with their own life.
http://murders-new.blogspot.com/
Then look around this site for even more instances of registrants being murdered after they have paid their debt to society. The courts and police can not / will not / do not protect us; the fact of the matter is it is the system that places our very lives in danger. We do not get justice. If anyone doesn’t recognize this fact then they are indeed blind to the truth of their situation.
Yes; I get pi**ed every time something like this happens.
Note: the article requires subscription, so only the first couple of paragraphs can be read. Can someone summarize the article, including the gist of the author’s own bias? Thanks.
How about an angry parent helping to create and pass laws against offenders who never touched his/her child?? Maybe never touched any child.
For those having trouble getting more than a few paragraphs here’s what you need to know. The opinion piece questions whether or not vigilante justice is justice at all. Using the recent Alabama case as a foreground and other prominent examples from previous years as a background in showcasing the different times where vigilante justice was applied, but sometimes not seen as criminal by the law and other times prosecuted with (public supporters) leaning favor of the vigilante rather than the law. In the end the author wonders how the justice system in the United States can be upheld when certain individuals take it upon themselves to circumvent the system in favor of their own brand of so called justice.
The short answer to the question is a resounding no, the actions of the angry don’t serve justice.
Justice will be the father getting convicted of 1st degree murder. Maybe he weighed the “one man’s justice” idea against the justice system and decided it was worth it…as we all know all too well:you can’t stop someone intent on committing a crime. I’m not saying I condone his actions, but I understand. Sad to say it, but at least he didn’t go on a crusade to drive the steamroller of the system over every offender by turning his daughter into a poster child of victimhood. Maybe, in the interest of jurisprudence, we should disarm and monitor everyone who’s ever had a loved one victimized to keep this from happening again.
In my opinion, this man should be convicted of 1st degree murder and spend the rest of his life behind bars (I don’t believe in the death penalty for anyone – period). This was a well-written op-ed.