Go go Catholic School Girls!
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
NICE.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
Chalk one up to Girl Power. That's great!
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*laugh* That's awesome.
I mean, I am appropriately hoping he wasn't permanently injured, but I love that he got the crap beat out of him by the people he was trying to victimize.
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
Posted by msquared (Member # 4484) on :
Can you corrupt the morals of a teenage Catholic Highschool girl?
msquared
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Awesome!
Now if only all Catholic schoolgirls would ban together world-wide and beat the snot out of Britney Spears.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
His screaming visage was reflected in their shiny black patent-leather shoes.
I once worked with a girl who had graduated from a Catholic high school. Really cool. She was the only one in the office that could swear better than I could. Posted by Vána (Member # 3262) on :
Fantastic!
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
I'm not going to defend the actions of a man exposing himself to teenage girls, but where does one draw the line regarding so-called vigilante justice? Is it acceptable because these were girls beating up a man? Part of me is really surprised at the responses on this thread, and part is entirely unsurprised. Is punching and kicking a legitimate response to indecent exposure?
It made me think back to the thread regarding the treatment of people in jail, and whether or not they "deserve it." And maybe I'm sensitive to it because I watched last night's episode of Threat Matrix, which could be indirectly related.
--Pop
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Vigilante violence is not an appropriate response . . . but sometimes you [or rather, I] can't help but laugh when somebody gets punished in such a way. Sometimes it is viscerally satisfying to hear about a creep getting a good whupping, despite (or perhaps because of) the fact that whuppings are not how we deal with creeps in this country.
Is it funnier because he was beat up by girls? Yes, but not for the reasons you seem to suggest. Not because it's more humiliating, or at least, not directly for this reason.
What makes it so satisfying is that he chose to victimize these people for a reason. The punishment fits his choice of victim so nicely. He perceived young girls as being weak enough that he could work through his sexual power issues through them, much as all pedophiles choose children because they feel less threatened by kids, and so it is pleasantly ironic that his victims turned the tables on him.
Is their behavior to be encouraged?
I suppose not.
But I won't feel bad about laughing.
Mr. Poopypants.
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
Sorry Papa Moose-I thought that karma was definitely served in this case.
quote: Police said he would be charged with 14 criminal counts including harassment, disorderly conduct, open lewdness and corrupting the morals of a minor.
Because obviously they were slowly corrupted by his lewdness, which is why they felt the urge to beat the snot out of him. For this reason, the school-girls were not charged with assaulting the man. Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
It reminds me of the car jacker who hopped into a minivan at a gas station in California and then was beat senseless by the other passengers in the van. It seems he tried to steal a vehicle filled to the brim with high school kick boxers on their way back from a competition.
It's the poetic justice that makes it funny. And, down deep inside, it makes me feel good when someone doing something so obviously bad actually gets what is coming to them.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Pop, how would you react if it was your underage daughter or sister who had a weenie wagged at her as she was getting out of school?
"I say, old chap, that's in bad taste, rather. Halt, in the name of the law! I am placing you under citizens arrest, cease and desist this vile behavior or I shall be forced to ummm , uhh. . . continue berating you, without raising my voice?"
Vigilante justice is a problem, to be sure. But this guy was asking for it, surely. It's just hilarious that he was beaten by a crowd of kids he was visually assaulting. Do you really think that most kids or adults wouldn't get violent when the tables are turned? Like Bella said, this was karma, and appropriate punishment. I bet he thinks twice before he does it again.
[ October 31, 2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Ralphie (Member # 1565) on :
As a friend so perfectly articulated, I can't help but think that there are many, many sweaty InterNerds getting off on the idea of being attacked by 20 or so Catholic school girls.
It's like Death By Chocolate.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Hahaha, lol Ralphie. I bet they have their own forums and support groups. Posted by beatnix19 (Member # 5836) on :
Along the lines of what ralphie said, this may have been no punishment at all. I've seen Dave Attell go into clubs where guys pay for that kind of abuse on his show Insomniac. People have some very twisted notions of excitment, this guy is obviously no exception.
Posted by Mrs.M (Member # 2943) on :
Papa, your post surprised me and made me think about my instinctive approval of the girls' actions. I appreciate your point. Of course, upon reflection, I still approve of what they did.
First of all, according to the article, this was the eighth time this guy had exposed himself. He was also described by authorities as a known sexual predator. This leads me to think that the justice system has failed (surprise, surprise) in protecting these girls from that pervert. Frankly, I'm thrilled that they refused to be victimized anymore.
Think about how young these girls are - some of the freshmen could be as young as thirteen. I went to college in New York and I was flashed my third week there. It is incredibly violating and I was freaked out for a long time after that. And I was eighteen and in college. I feel great when I think about those girls beating on that pervert.
You know, the comment that I made about Britney Spears was only partly tongue-in-cheek. I'm an ardent supporter of freedom of artistic expression, but the sexualization of children is repugnant to me. How many pediphiles are fans of Britney Spears and t.A.T.u?
Edit: stupid spelling error.
[ October 31, 2003, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: Mrs.M ]
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Good points about the failure of the system, Mrs.M.
Posted by Tristan (Member # 1670) on :
For some reason this thread made me think of a picture I saw in todays morning paper. The picture was of a man, standing stark naked on a skateboard obviously rolling on a skateboard ramp. The picture was from the behind, and in the background, looking over the side of the ramp and starring at what was apparently a full frontal nudity, were perhaps a dozen children aged around ten, several women and a couple of men, all (but one man) smiling and laughing and looking as if they thoroughly enjoyed the view. The capture under the picture, and the only accompanying text, was "streaker brightening the day at skateboard event".
Obviously there is a difference between a man that purposely exposes himself to young children and a streaker at a public event, but I can't help thinking that laughter often would be a more appropriate response than schock or rage in many situations like these. If a person is looking for some sort of sexual thrill by exposing him or herself, it can't be very satisfying if everybody start laughing at you.
[ October 31, 2003, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Tristan ]
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
Well said, Mrs. M.
Too bad that we have let our system of justice get out of control to the point where a group of teenaged girls have to take upon themselves the responsibility of their own protection.
The guy was a serial flasher and predator. Why didn't civilization take care of him for them?
Is punching and kicking a legitimate response to indecent exposure?
In this case, it was probably a good response. It was all those girls had to work with after they were failed by the "responsible adults" around them.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
According to the article I read, he was hospitalized for minor wounds to the mouth. I'd say that's getting off pretty light for having a crowd of hormonal teenage girls running after him. I would expect him to recieve nothing less than a scalping from such a group, but they acted suprisingly nice to the dude.
[ October 31, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: Primal Curve ]
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Apparently they hit like girls. Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
You know, A guy wagged his willy at me one evening. I went for a walk about that time of day everyday, almost. He said my name, and just kind of stepped out of the bushes. I did not know HIM. It was evening and he was, erm, in a state of readiness. I was sixteen and had never seen one of those before.
By all rights, I should have been scared to death, but all I could do was laugh. I couldn't even walk away-- I could barely breathe, I was laughing so hard. I laughed until tears ran down my face and belly ached.
My beloved says sometimes I have a 'withering laugh', and I think, looking back, that he's right. The guy eventually walked away. I was still immobilized by the giggles.
Never happened again to me, or anyone I heard of.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
*snort* Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Well I suppose everyone would jail a bunch of young male teenagers who run down a 25 year old woman flashing them. Its a normal societal action though, against male sex offenders etc., and makes sense that way. Not that I agree, personally I'd just shrug it off. Now if he touches someone thats completely different. Of course then I'm a man, not a woman.
Posted by Sweet William (Member # 5212) on :
personally I'd just shrug it off.
Guess what, Black Fox, (IMHO) this is precisely the attitude that caused these girls to have to take matters into their own hands.
IMHO, having some guy repeatedly flash teenaged girls with (apparently) no repercussions is a REALLY BIG DEAL. Frankly, I don't want to wait until he "touches" someone.
Posted by littlemissattitude (Member # 4514) on :
Well, I suppose that violence is never the best reaction. In that situation, I think the best reaction would probably have been for all of them the laugh derisively and point.
However, as Mrs. M. pointed out, he had done this several times before and it had obvioulsy not been taken care of. So, I think I feel better that the girls reacted in the way that they did - took control of the matter - rather than falling into the role that society seems to find more appropriate for women, that of being helpless victims with no power over their own situation. It seems to have been necessary because, obviously, those authorities who were appointed to make sure that sort of thing doesn't happen weren't doing their jobs too well.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:First of all, according to the article, this was the eighth time this guy had exposed himself. He was also described by authorities as a known sexual predator. This leads me to think that the justice system has failed (surprise, surprise) in protecting these girls from that pervert. Frankly, I'm thrilled that they refused to be victimized anymore.
No argument here. Although I think the best response would've been to point, laugh, and yell "that's the smallest one I've ever seen!"
quote: Think about how young these girls are - some of the freshmen could be as young as thirteen. I went to college in New York and I was flashed my third week there. It is incredibly violating and I was freaked out for a long time after that. And I was eighteen and in college.
I think that says a lot more about the negativity parts of our society associate with the human body than anything.
quote: I'm an ardent supporter of freedom of artistic expression, but the sexualization of children is repugnant to me. How many pediphiles are fans of Britney Spears and t.A.T.u?
None. All of the pop artists likely on your list are post-pubescent.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Think about how young these girls are - some of the freshmen could be as young as thirteen. I went to college in New York and I was flashed my third week there. It is incredibly violating and I was freaked out for a long time after that. And I was eighteen and in college. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that says a lot more about the negativity parts of our society associate with the human body than anything. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What on earth is that supposd to mean? How does Mrs.M's disgust at having some jerkoff show himself off against her desire and permission relate to 'society's negativity' about the human body? In cases like this, the human body is used as a weapon, and I'll be damned if I, as a member of society, don't act 'negatively' (to put it very very mildly) to such a despicable act.
[ October 31, 2003, 06:47 PM: Message edited by: sarcasticmuppet ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Violating? Freaking out for a long time? Clearly there is a lot of socialization at work to cause such a reaction to a 4-inch long piece of flesh. I think we should lament cultivating the environment that led to someone's unnecessary discomfort.
Posted by Liquor and Fireworks (Member # 5785) on :
Okay, should I say it, or would that be inappropriate? I'm really tempted.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Oh go ahead and say it.
For my part, WAY TO GO GIRLS!
As far as I am concerned, there is much too much emphasis on "protecting" the accused in our country, even when they have been caught with their pants down (pun intended)-
Posted by Liquor and Fireworks (Member # 5785) on :
Okay I'll say it. 4 inches? I feel sorry for you.
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
oh now, mack - c'mon . . . .
Posted by mackillian (Member # 586) on :
--I--
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
quote: Clearly there is a lot of socialization at work to cause such a reaction to a 4-inch long piece of flesh. I think we should lament cultivating the environment that led to someone's unnecessary discomfort.
Although I do agree with you to a point that we as a society are incredibly sensitive to displays of nudity and displays of sexuality, (which are similar, but not the same thing), I do not agree that this makes what he was doing any more right. The fact is, in our culture, we are sensitive to such displays, and that should be respected.
Maybe that's not a bad thing. After all, if our children were all as comfortable with seeing each other's privates as adults are, surely we would have a larger occurence of teenage pregnancy? That's just my personal opinion, no offense meant to anyone. It may very well work in reverse, that we have a larger occurence of it now because our youngsters are more curious about such mysteries.
But still, IMHO, I believe that part of the reason why our society does have such a large reaction to such things is that we revere our sexuality, and when we see someone that seems to not, we react in an appauled manner.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I wonder if this guy will stop the behavior now that he's been beaten? If this was somehow corrective then maybe there's an argument in favor of it.
I sort of doubt it, though. I think it's more likely he'll just pick targets that can't fight back as easily in the future.
Posted by Papa Moose (Member # 1992) on :
Well, as long as that new target is, say... a tree, then yeah, I'm ok with it. But what if it's children?
Overall I don't think there's an easy answer. Even if it's decided that this is on the "ok" side of the line, it doesn't help draw the line, at least not for me. It's clear to me that the majority feel this was ok. I'm all for justice, but karmic dessert ain't the same thing.
--Pop
Posted by Occasional (Member # 5860) on :
But what if actions can't be corrected? Should it then become "OK" to let that person alone? It does come down to that old question of the meaning of punishment. Is it for for rehabilitation or justice/revenge?
In a country (the United States) that usually hates the bad guy and then pampers them when caught, I would say vigilantism is the last justice left. Ironic, considering punishment is not about rehabilitation. The lack of a justice minded system shouldn't be surprising that more victims are suing for damages rather than charging with a crime.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
As funny as it is, I think I'm with Moose.
What they should've done is expose themselves to him.
See how he likes being the victim!
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
i am going to have to disagree with richard berg and side along the lines of what sarcasticmuppet said.
even in cultures where there is more comfort with the human body, there are appropriate and inappropriate ways of displaying yourself. in japan, it is not considered sexual or offensive to bathe in the company of others. it is not okay to walk outside of a highschool and wag your bits at young men and women, however.
it is all about context, intention, and circumstances. if i am walking out of the shower and a young neighborhood boy is over without my knowledge and he sees my breasts that is one thing, but to know a young boy is over, walk out, lift my shirt, and fondle myself in front of him would be horrific and completely out of line.
as far as it being right or wrong to applaud the girls: hmm. some people argue a slippery slope, but i disagree. i think i would know where to draw the line. the man was not maimed or crippled, he was just taken by surprise and banged up a little. apparently that is what some people need to learn their lesson. say someone tries to rob me and i defend myself by punching them really hard in the face, scaring them off. i think that is okay. okay, now say someone tries to rob me and i stab them in the face with a knife repeatedly. not okay. i'm sorry, i just have a really hard time feeling bad about this situation. there are too many bad guys that get off scotfree. especially in cases of sexual abuse/assault/etc. he may not have forced himself on anyone, but he acted very inappropriately, and should have learned by now how to be a productive and civilized adult. *shrug* i would have kicked him, too.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
quote:I do not agree that this makes what he was doing any more right.
Where did I say this? The guy is obviously an idiot just asking for more chlorine in the gene pool. As for length, I think it's safe to assume such idiots are compensating for something...
My point had to do with the odd affectation our culture attaches to events like these. It's not an idle point, since as porcelain girl noted exposure not far removed from things like sexual assault. In the latter cases the tragedy of our attitudes toward women et al. becomes realized when victims, taught from birth to be submissive and oversensitized, need years of counseling to remove the "stain" from their consciousness that isn't (or shouldn't be) their fault.
Edit -- to be clear, it's not just about women. Boys/men raped by men encounter similar psychological problems, but for different reasons: latent homophobia, gender identity issues, and so on. As evidence the root of the matter lies in socialization, compare with men who are raped by women: they might not be happy, but they'll get over it.
[ November 01, 2003, 02:15 AM: Message edited by: Richard Berg ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
It's just incredibly naive to think that sexual actions like that are not bound up with their intent and their consent. By exposing himself in that way he was threatening rape. If intent and consent were not important in sexual situations then rape would equal lovemaking. Rapists have always tried to claim they are the same, in fact. "She wanted it." "She does it with other guys." "I didn't take anything from her that she doesn't still have." Only the really clueless believe them. Richard, you are totally wrong about this. Society did nothing here but provide the context in which this man chose how to be offensive and threatening to people he thought were too weak to defend themselves. He turned out to be mistaken.
[ November 01, 2003, 09:59 AM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
I'm really heartened by the frequency with which girls nowadays tend to deck guys who are acting offensively toward them. I think girl power is working.
When I was a young girl, I suffered nearly constant sexual harrassment from guys in public, starting at age 12 and continuing until... well, it still goes on sometimes, though it's no longer frightening. Just rather embarrassing. (A guy at work got down on his knees in the shop in front of several others and said, "will you marry me?" the other day. What was the meaning of that? What was I supposed to do? I dislike being derisive or unkind. So I laughed in what I hope was a kindly way and said to others nearby, "my fan club", and passed over it.)
We were taught to be shrinking violets. We were taught, "don't go there, don't do that, you can't, it's dangerous, you are a woman". Bullshit. Withering scorn, as Olivia pointed out, is one weapon at your disposal. Decking them is another. Personally now when I get whistles and shouts and such I tend to favor them with a benevolent smile and a Princess Di wave. But I've never understood what it's about. For whom are they acting like that? Not for me, that's for sure! I think it's something they do for the benefit of other guys. If you notice, it's guys in groups who tend to do this most, construction workers being the stereotypical ones.
It happened to come up with my nieces the other day, I asked them what they did when guys bothered them. They looked at me like I was nuts and said guys never bothered them. That if they did they'd just kick them or something. Yay, maybe things are really changing.
[ November 01, 2003, 08:06 AM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
A close analogy to this situation is one we were talking about recently that was (is it still?) going on in Baton Rouge. A man wearing a t-shirt in homage of the recently caught serial killer has been breaking into girls' rooms and standing there looking at them. They wake up and this stranger in the t-shirt is looking at them.
I said the next girl who finds him in her room should shoot him dead. That he's sending a very clear signal that he's a serial killer wanna be. Why wait until he actually kills his first victim? Let his be the life we sacrifice to this dilemma, not hers.
I do agree that if he's apprehended in his home and convicted, that he has not committed a capital offense. But if he were in my room, or any friend's room, I think he should be shot dead.
Someone might say, "who has he harmed?" Yet I think it's clear that he intends harm. Those who live by the sword so die.
[ November 01, 2003, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by Chocodile (Member # 5857) on :
quote: personally I'd just shrug it off.
Guess what, Black Fox, (IMHO) this is precisely the attitude that caused these girls to have to take matters into their own hands.
ana kata, Your posts are really interesting, maybe things really are changing. Maybe there's less of viewing the girls as crazed victims (poor girls), and more praise for their successful empowerment.
It sounds like the girls were empowered to action by their society's apparent inability to remove Mr. Exposer.
Being passive and largely receptive is a large part of our culture's (and many others probably) basic concept of what it means to be 'feminine.'
Specifically though, I do disagree with this characterization:
quote: I said the next girl who finds him in her room should shoot him dead.
It sounds like the girl is waiting to kill him...If she's got a gun, or is thinking about this 'trap,' I'd hope she could come up with something less fatal. I guess I'm trying to make a distinction between 'planning to kill' and 'not planning to kill.' An alarm maybe? A bucket of Acid over the door?
All that said: if I was a girl, and there was a guy in my house, and I made the connection that this was the guy, I would do everything I could to seriously injure him.
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
I agree. I just think this is really funny, and the guy deserved it (I mean, jeez, 8 times?). I was a catholic schoolgirl once,and I still get harrassed when guys find out (oooh, do you still fit in the uniform? I'd love to see you in it). I think there's this whole idea of innocence/repressed sexuality surrounding the catholic schoolgirl image that predators and some regular guys see. So the fact that these girls took the initiative that the police didn't, is awesome and empowering.
quote:His screaming visage was reflected in their shiny black patent-leather shoes.
Sweet William, did you ever see this play (Do Patent Leather Shoes Really Reflect UP?) It was playing in Woodbury, NJ a week or so ago (near Philly). My favorite and most helpful professor played a dancing nun. I really wanted to go and see her, but couldn't.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I don't think vigilante justice is the only justice left in America. And I'm worried that anyone seriously thinks that.
I disagree that we coddle our convicted felons. I do, however, think that sex crimes are a special case in that it appears the compulsions are so strong that it may not be possible to rehabilitate all or most of these offenders.
If that's the case, then we need a different way of handling them.
I'm not in favor of stoning, though. I don't see that as justice. I see it as mob rule. And if we stone people for this type of crime, aren't we soon going to start stoning people for other sexual practices? Then we'll go back to killing adulterers...
Where will it end if we start saying that it's okay to give in to the mob mentality?
With that many people and eye witnesses, couldn't they have held the guy until the cops came and then all filed complaints? It may not be as instantly satisfying, but in the long run I think knowing that they gave in to mob violence is going to have a bad effect on those involved that far outweighs any sense of instant justice they got out of it.
What if they'd killed him? Certainly the fact that he's alive has less to do with their restraint and more to do with how inept they were at kicking him -- and how quickly the cops arrived.
Would all those girls go back to school on Monday and feel good about kicking a person to death? Even if he was a pervert?
Posted by Chocodile (Member # 5857) on :
quote: I don't think vigilante justice is the only justice left in America. And I'm worried that anyone seriously thinks that.
That's a really strong statement, and I don't think the girls were thinking about vigilante justice much when they struck back. I also doubt that this will be an 'example' of successful vigilante justice that will encourage more of it.
Don't know know? Dr. Pepper salutes individuality!
[ November 01, 2003, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Chocodile ]
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Is anyone else slightly worried that there is a law against corrupting the morals of a minor?
That seems like a Constitutional nightmare.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Tonight on FOX! Cops : Naked Perps (Reality) Officers respond to a report of a naked man prowling the neighborhood. 8PM EDT
I would rather see the Catholic Schoolgirl Smackdown.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
Welcome, Chocodile! I see that you've been around a while but I've not seen your posts before so I have not yet welcomed you!
I guess since this is the south I was presupposing that everyone is already armed. I have a shotgun and a rifle and a pistol here, though they aren't usually loaded. I think if I were in a town where someone was terrorizing the women of the area in this way, I would probably load the pistol or the shotgun and keep it handy just in case. Then if I woke and this man were there, I would not be defenseless.
We take it very personally when people are rude enough to come into our homes uninvited. Particularly in that situation where the serial killer targeted women, and this guy is making a point of wearing a t-shirt in honor of the serial killer, I would just take that as a deadly threat. When you threaten someone with a deadly threat, you are taking the chance that they will use deadly force to counter that threat.
I might shoot him in the leg and wait for the cops, but how do I know he doesn't have a concealed weapon? How can I be completely sure I can stay in control of the situation while waiting for the authorities to arrive? What if he jumped me and stabbed me or something? It's just much safer (both for me and for his next victim) to go ahead and kill him. If he wants not to be in deadly danger, he has the very easily available option of not threatening people in this way. Not breaking in to their rooms. That is the method I would recommend he use for staying alive.
[ November 01, 2003, 07:08 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by BelladonnaOrchid (Member # 188) on :
Here in Oklahoma we have what is called the 'Make my Day' law.
It allows us to shoot someone who is intruding in such a manner as the man with the serial killer shirt, or someone who is robbing us.
We've never had a problem with that. My Father is an avid gun collector.
Richard-I appologize. I had assumed from your comment that you felt like what he said was okay. But since that was the only part of what I said that you nit-picked, that's the only part of what I said that I appologize for. The rest was a some-what well thought-out supposition about what I know of psychology of sexuality. Posted by Maethoriell (Member # 3805) on :
I think he was smart to choose Catholic school girls. If they were from public schools the reactions would probably be really different.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
i really think it matters that the girls didn't kick the guy TO DEATH, heck, they didn't even kick him unconscious. they just laid a bit of a smackdown.
sorta like how some kids need a firm slap on the thigh when they just did something really dangerous/wrong to immediately stop them. i am not talking corporal punishment or beatings. there is a difference. i don't think i'd find fault with a mother for slapping her teenager in the mouth for calling her a dirty name. i dont think it's ideal, but i don't think it's abuse or maladaptive, either.
i would like slash's opinion on this matter.
hardly anyone (if any at all) deserves death, but perhaps a few of the more stubborn and obnoxious of us need a moderate beating.
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
Let's boil this down. Situation: random pervert flashes schoolgirls.
I think it's lamentable that the response society generally expects from women is "OMG! the phallus, symbol of male superiority! run away and feel ashamed for yourself!". I think it's great that younger generations are learning to say "**** this guy and his faux power trip."
The tangential points regarding rape etc. will have to wait for another thread.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: His screaming visage was reflected in their shiny black patent-leather shoes.
Sweet William. That is one of the funniest lines I have read in a while.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
I think the term "vigilante justice" is misapplied here. I generally think of a vigilante as somebody who takes it upon him- or herself to punish wrongdoers in general--i.e., somebody who involves him- or herself in cases he or she is not a part of. These girls were the victims of his crime.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Okay here are my personal issues here. For one in the military ,and I'm sure the police as well they have something called appropriate force. For one I can't hit anyone that isn't physical threatning me no matter what. Guess what some man holding his penis is not physically threatning, there is no legal basis as far as me or a police officer to do anything to him. How do I prove in a court of law that the man was going to bash me with it? Thats why in so many situtions the fact that a policeman/soldier has a firearm it does him no good. Anyhow back to this beating.
The day that I can honestly go about and protect myself with physical force will be a good day as far as I'm concerned. However I don't live in a society like that, in my opinion everyone is far too soft when it comes to every matter. Example, Katharina you hoped that he didn't suffer any permanent injury. Why? It honestly befuddles me at time. I believe on having mercy on my enemy, but certain things are going to happen to him or her when stuff hits the fan. Example, Man attacks me and I disable him in a fight but darned I broke his arm in an arm bar. I understand why people think this is bad.. but it just.. perplexes me anyhow. You can't have it two ways. Plus to be honest I'm tired of people being offended.. pretty much nothing honestly offends me unless its someone I have some respect for. As long as you don't violate my physical space ( touch me etc.) I'm pretty much good. Why should we hide commandments, dress a certain way, or have to refrain from who knows how many activities. Go walking around nude for all I care!!! Its you, it doesn't stop me from living and from trying to have a good time!!! I suppose its pointless to vent here.. but just.. I hate people who want to have it both ways. They would love all these freedoms but hate the price. Your free to your opinions and ways of life and until I find someplace nicer, which is probably not going to happen.. well I'm going to stay in America and deal with som cruddy opinions.
Posted by Megachirops (Member # 4325) on :
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
I don't know either, Icky. These days, whenever I read something by fox all I can think is, "Dude, come home."
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
out of all the several things about your post that disturbs me, fox, i think the line about nothing offending you unless its something you have respect for really put up a red flag for me, especially in the context of this thread.
protection of innocence is something you don't respect? healthy sexuality is something you don't respect?
honestly i don't know what else to debate because i am having trouble finding your post coherent. i am not trying to belittle or berate, i just honestly don't understand what the heck you are trying to say.
Posted by ana kata (Member # 5666) on :
I understood him just fine. If you attack, expect to be countered with appropriate force. Don't use excessive force on someone who attacks you or offends you by waving their privates at you or whatever. He doesn't believe that waving your privates at someone is all that offensive, however, because no physical harm is being done. Only people he cares about can offend him without physically touching him. Then again, people shouldn't whine if someone gets hurt while they are attacking someone. He's fed up with what seems like the prevailing opinion in America of excessive worry about harm done to wrongdoers, and just all around softness in general. But until he finds a better place to live, which there isn't one right now, he will stay in America.
Paul, is that an accurate paraphrase? It seemed pretty clear to me. It makes a lot of sense, too. Even though there is an implied threat of rape by the first fellow, and of murder by the second fellow, they have not hurt anyone yet. So it's inappropriate to kick their teeth in or shoot them dead. Maybe you are right, Paul. I'm a lot more violent a person than you, as we know. I would probably hurt them more than I should.
<<<<<Paul>>>>> But I agree with everyone else that you definitely should come home!
[ November 02, 2003, 10:56 PM: Message edited by: ana kata ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Me too.
I'm not sure what it all has to do with our freedoms either. I mean, the most repressive nations on Earth are those that still allow the mob to mete out justice (albeit in state-sanctioned "events"). I'm just not clear how school girls beating up a pervert is advancing the cause of freedom any more than I understand how it advances the cause of justice.
Basically, here's my idea of the right way to handle these situations:
1) Identify the perpetrator 2) Apprehend him 3) Gather evidence and witness statements 4) Have a trial 5) If he's convicted, send him to jail and have a mandatory psych evaluation & treatment program as a condition of parole. 6) If he repeats the offense upon release from prison, make the penalties more harsh and the probation period longer and more closely monitored. But also have more treatment as a mandatory condition as well. 7) If after all that the guy just can't control himself, then he should be put in prison or a psych ward indefinitely.
It's not a question of protecting innocent eyes, but the fear of escalation on his part. The point is that the guy was caught early in what is probably a degenerating cycle of perverse sexual behavior. Eventually he probably will work up the nerve to physically harm someone and it's better if we catch him and give him some treatment early rather than have to deal with the victims of his more serious crimes later.
I have known many girls & women and a few boys who were the victims of sexual assaults. My immediate reaction is to want to kill or maim the perpetrator. Especially when the victim is a child I want to just kill the guy. But that is not what I truly hope for.
And the death of a criminal gives me very little satisfaction in any meaningful sense. I think those people do have souls and that they probably were victims themselves. What I want is to find ways to stop them or help the current victims of this kind of thing before they too end up abusing others.
I think these people need to be studied so that we can figure out the conditions under which sexual impulses become harmful and then the harm is directed at other people. I think it is part of our duty as a mature society to do more than punish the wrongdoer. I think we should be working to figure out how to avoid the bad things in the first place. We know it has to have a developmental/nurture component so at the very least we can attack that part of it with training and better parenting.
And even if we still end up having to punish people, wouldn't we be better off if everyone learned to be better parents in the first place? Maybe we could even teach parents to recognize the signs of growing perturbations in their own kids. I mean, even with wonderful parents, some monsters are born among us. Shouldn't we have a way for those people to be identified and helped as much as we can. And then remove their freedom if that's what it takes?
In the grand scheme of things, this guy getting pummeled by school girls is just an oddity and a footnote to what is a real and growing problem in our society. Ultimately, I don't care that the kids got to kick the guy or not. What I care about is whether we are doing anything to prevent the problems in the first place.
And I don't think sheltering children is the right answer. As much as I'd like to think that children should just have a childhood and not have to worry about bad things, the reality seems to me that it's horribly naive to actually act on that impulse. I think parents simply have to prepare their children for the kinds of things that they are likely to encounter so that they aren't as traumatized and don't just internalize whatever happens.
But I'm not a parent. And I can easily see how it would be hard to have these kinds of "training sessions" with a small child and then have the years rush by without ever feeling that the time is right to bring the subject up.
Posted by Black Fox (Member # 1986) on :
Yeah I suppose thats rather incoherent. There are a few reasons for that but yeah. I just had my first three full days of being off since March. Thats like.. 200 some odd days of 24/7 employment. If only I was paid by the hour. I think I end up making about.. 2k a month over here right now, which is a lot more than usual. My base pay for being an E4 is like.. 1400-1500 dollars a month, something in that range. Of course thats before taxes ( my evil state takes like a hundred dollars of my measily paycheck a month) yippe for tax returns. Anyhow.. yeah I'm a bit confused in the mind a good portion of the time. You could say I'm a rather angry individual, and that would not be an understatement. Luckily I still act happy and cheery around everyone else. I just can get bad in an argument. Anyhow, I gotta get running here so umm.. don't pay attention to most of the things I've said in the past 4 months . Later
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
(((Black Fox)))
Hang in there until you can return to us, dude.
Bob, all I can do is be your dittohead. You nailed it for me.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: 200 some odd days of 24/7 employment.
I would totally be foaming at the mouth after that much work, pressure and stress. Even if it wasn't in a combat zone with enemies wanting to shoot or blow up me and my buddies. I hope you enjoy your brief R&R Blackfox. Hang in there. ((Blackfox))
Posted by Starla* (Member # 5835) on :
((((BlackFox)))) I don't really know you, but I feel for you. I get angsty after 14 straight days of work, I can't imagine what you are going through.
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Mr. Poopypants.
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
The guy eventually walked away. I was still immobilized by the giggles. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I would totally be foaming at the mouth after that much work, pressure and stress. Even if it wasn't in a combat zone with enemies wanting to shoot or blow up me and my buddies. I hope you enjoy your brief R&R Blackfox.