I was giving a ride to my boss's friend. I'd never met the guy before, but the boss asked if I'd mind giving him a lift to the Department of Corrections downtown. Now him having a record didn't bother me. I've got a good friend at San Quentin State Pen, after all. Anyway, we got along all right. We both like old trucks and he was giving me tips on what to watch out for when we swap the drive train on my '68 Ford. So the chat is going fine and the subject of his incarceration came up. Meh, who am I to judge? He did his time, and as long as he stays good, he's okay in my book. Then he tells me what he was in for.
Apparently, some creep molested his three-year old duaghter and then got off scot-free on a technicality. I'll spare you the details, but he said it took a year to track him and his buddies (who were present at the scene of the crime) and he killed them. Somehow he beat it down to a manslaughter charge and did 6 years at Folsom. He said was worth six years of his life to avenge his daughter.
Half of me wanted to pin a medal on the guy. The other half said "You realize you're in a car with a confessed killer?" AWKwarrrrrrrd!
Just thought I'd share.
Wow. Do a search on his name and see what comes up. If it's a sheet different than what he's telling you, I'd look out.
With my views of justice...
HUZZAH FOR THAT MAN! Where the courts did nothing, with their bureaucratic, red-tape, corrupted ways, one man stood and said 'No'. One man exacted justice for his daughter, slaying child-molesting slime where these 'courts' and the amoral, money-grubbing fiends known as lawyers did nothing for justice, but everything for their pockets. HUZZAH!
He's a confessed murderer and has serious narcissism and self-control issues. Anybody who would give him a medal is potentially just as bad as he is. The worst part is that he is proud of what he did, an indicator that no, you are not safe near him.
With my views of justice...
HUZZAH FOR THAT MAN! Where the courts did nothing, with their bureaucratic, red-tape, corrupted ways, one man stood and said 'No'. One man exacted justice for his daughter, slaying child-molesting slime where these 'courts' and the amoral, money-grubbing fiends known as lawyers did nothing for justice, but everything for their pockets. HUZZAH!
Haha wtf?! "Bureaucratic?" "Corrupted?" Naïve much? You do realize why the rules are strict like this, don't you? So, you know, they can be perfectly, 100% sure that the person convicted is in fact guilty. When a person walks away on a "technicality," it's because it's better to let a person walk free than convict them based on a flawed case. They have to be bulletproof. There can be no compromise when it comes to a man's freedom and life. None.
Defense attorneys are by and large one of the noblest people you'll find too. They're charged with ensuring fair treatment of their client and that if doubt exists, it will not be forgotten. Prosecutors are notorious demagogues and have incredible resources at their disposal. If it weren't for defense attorneys we'd have a much higher number of innocents incarcerated (one is unacceptable and you probably get my drift). We'd be in the dark ages in terms of justice. Defense attorneys are vital to the court system to ensure its objectivity.
So no, the man is not a hero who "stood and said 'No'." He's at best a deranged vigilante who bypasses rules that exist for a reason because he's too selfish to realize they apply to him too. And get this, he does it to wreak more destruction. From what I read he still needs to be incarcerated until he gets a clue.
With my views of justice...
HUZZAH FOR THAT MAN! Where the courts did nothing, with their bureaucratic, red-tape, corrupted ways, one man stood and said 'No'. One man exacted justice for his daughter, slaying child-molesting slime where these 'courts' and the amoral, money-grubbing fiends known as lawyers did nothing for justice, but everything for their pockets. HUZZAH!
Naïve much? You do realize why the rules are strict like this, don't you? So, you know, they can be perfectly, 100% sure that the person convicted is in fact guilty. When a person walks away on a "technicality," it's because it's better to let a person walk free than convict them based on a flawed case. They have to be bulletproof. There can be no compromise when it comes to a man's freedom and life. None.Defense attorneys are by and large one of the noblest people you'll find too. They're charged with ensuring fair treatment of their client and that if doubt exists, it will not be forgotten. Prosecutors are notorious demagogues and have incredible resources at their disposal. If it weren't for defense attorneys we'd have a much higher number of innocents incarcerated (one is unacceptable and you probably get my drift). We'd be in the dark ages in terms of justice. Defense attorneys are vital to the court system to ensure its objectivity.
So no, the man is not a hero who "stood and said 'No'." He's at best a deranged vigilante who bypasses rules that exist for a reason because he's too selfish to realize they apply to him too. And get this, he does it to wreak more destruction. From what I read he still needs to be incarcerated until he gets a clue.
Naive? Yes. I'm fifteen. For me, experience is in short supply, so of course I'm naive. I understand where you're coming from and appreciate your stance. At any rate, I think the system is flawed, and don't much like lawyers of any sort. It is not just defense attorneys. I understand that it is a necessary job, but I just don't like the stuff that it seems to entail. Yes, the guy is a vigilante. However, vigilante work is easier than all the stuff to take a case to court. I do not advocate it except when the vigilante is 100% certain of someone's guilt. Gut feelings don't count. Evidence does.
It is my prevailing belief that murder is wrong. That's just me. Most of my ire on this matter is based around the fact that he got caught. If you have six years to go to jail, you have six years to plan, and there are millions and millions of ways to erase a person from the planet without getting caught. It all hinges on proper planning and research.
The odds that he actually went to prison for what he said he went to prison for are extremely unlikely. Possible, but unlikely. Making up an excuse for incarceration is a fairly common tactic used by ex-cons. It's a form of intellectual and moral jiu-jitsu. You take a negative and make it a positive. Find the right story for the right audience and you go from 'despised untrustworty outsider' to 'misunderstood hero.' It is of course possible that he is telling the truth. But it is very, very unlikely.
And attorneys are like the police. Everyone hates them until you need one.
And attorneys are like the police. Everyone hates them until you need one.
Sir, I disagree. I have met police officers. They are a**-holes.
They certainly can be. They can also be your only hope. You shouldn't be so quick to judge.
The odds that he actually went to prison for what he said he went to prison for are extremely unlikely. Possible, but unlikely. Making up an excuse for incarceration is a fairly common tactic used by ex-cons. It's a form of intellectual and moral jiu-jitsu. You take a negative and make it a positive. Find the right story for the right audience and you go from 'despised untrustworty outsider' to 'misunderstood hero.' It is of course possible that he is telling the truth. But it is very, very unlikely.
^^ This.
That's why I suggested she look him up. I've actually looked people up on Justice Dept web sites before (my fiancee's dad is always getting into some minor, and amusing trouble). All you need is his real name and where he went to trial (probably not even the second). It's easy to say 'I killed the guys that touched my kid' instead of 'I got hammered and held up a 7-11 with a waterpistol'. It does no harm to check and could prove to be helpful.
This thread itself demonstrates how effective this sort of thing can be. People who've never met the man and know literally nothing about him are now championing him as a hero. Would you do the same if he said he was in prison for violently beating his wife? Car theft? Anything but murdering those that harmed his kid? You've shown and seen the reasons behind doing something like that. It's worth it to check.
He's a confessed murderer and has serious narcissism and self-control issues. Anybody who would give him a medal is potentially just as bad as he is.
I'll take that label gladly. People like him make the world a better place.
Assuming of course, that he told the truth.
I think he's full of crap. The moment he set about "tracking down" someone the act is premeditated, thus murder rather than manslaughter. That he claims also to have killed the guy's friends? No way anyone does a 6 year manslaughter stint for premeditated mass-murder.
Now if someone assaulted my loved ones and got away with it I'd hunt them to the ends of the Earth, I can totally understand the emotion, but too a response must be measured in kind. When I was through with the guy he'd need a seeing eye dog to help him find his teeth, but I'd not kill him.
And all that rubbish about defense attorneys being "noble" and the system being "100% certain" they don't lock up the innocent is utter BS. Anyone spewing that nonsense is the naive one in this scenario.
IF he killed the right person, it could be argued that he did the world a favor. Its not a sentiment I can wholeheartedly agree with as I believe that murder is wrong, and I have never had children of my own so I can't really say with any certainty what I'd do to a person who molested my kid. I have a hard time seeing a person that kills anyone a hero and holds no remorse over that fact. Hell, I'd go so far as to say the executioners for those people that are executed on death row might also be no better than the convicted murderers they put to death. The only distinction I can see are those that feel remorse for the act. Its easy to say this guy killed a bunch of people, put him to death before he does it again. But that does not mean it is RIGHT.
Think about it this way. If you are going to punish someone for ending another's life, you are saying that the person who was killed should not have been killed. But when the punishment for a murder is execution, how do you hold validity with your argument? What gives a person the right to determine who's life deserves being ended and who's life doesn't?
Furthermore, how many people have been put to death for a crime they hadn't committed? If the number is greater than 0, that's too many.
The arguments for and against the alleged killing are premature. We don't even know if he killed anyone. The odds say he did not. That and discussing the ethics of execution can take us to multiple CoC violating places. Not that it's not something I don't find incredibly interesting to discuss, though. We just need more to go on than the man's 'confession' before we consider that particular avenue of discussion.
The arguments for and against the alleged killing are premature. We don't even know if he killed anyone. The odds say he did not. That and discussing the ethics of execution can take us to multiple CoC violating places. Not that it's not something I don't find incredibly interesting to discuss, though. We just need more to go on than the man's 'confession' before we consider that particular avenue of discussion.
You are quite the sceptic, aren't you? Note, I totally understand how it's a common excuse for ex-cons etc. etc., but does it matter in the context of this thread? I mean, all we can do here is assume he told the truth - if he didn't, well, the whole discussion is moot to begin with. So why don't we take him for innocent until proven guilty (of falsehood, not of murder)?
You are quite the sceptic, aren't you? Note, I totally understand how it's a common excuse for ex-cons etc. etc., but does it matter in the context of this thread? I mean, all we can do here is assume he told the truth - if he didn't, well, the whole discussion is moot to begin with. So why don't we take him for innocent until proven guilty (of falsehood, not of murder)?
Well, we can, of course, discuss whatever we'd like to. If the thread turns into a discussion about the good and bad of a hypothetical situation, so be it.
It's more than being skeptical, I'm afraid. The facts don't add up. I think Jayne gave the best bit of commentary in that regard. The time served, the plea and the crime itself do not add up. And we (well, Shiftkitty) can do more than just presume innocence. As I stated twice before, this is something that can be looked into. You can get the information yourself. Hell, if he did kill multiple people, there's likely online newspaper articles about the case. Beyond that, there's court records. We don't (Shiftkitty doesn't) have to assume anything.
I concur with what _Jayne_Cobb_ wrote. There should be no way to get manslaughter with mass-fatalities and premeditation. I'm sure many people would turn to vigilante justice (of various forms) if a loved one were a victim of a heinous crime. Which is why such a story would work to help others identify with a convict that uses one.
As for the justice system, I have yet to work in the field (not even as a juror) so I can not say much. I will say that it is not perfect as there is always room for error and corruption in everything we do.
It's more than being skeptical, I'm afraid. The facts don't add up. I think Jayne gave the best bit of commentary in that regard. The time served, the plea and the crime itself do not add up. And we (well, Shiftkitty) can do more than just presume innocence. As I stated twice before, this is something that can be looked into. You can get the information yourself. Hell, if he did kill multiple people, there's likely online newspaper articles about the case. Beyond that, there's court records. We don't (Shiftkitty doesn't) have to assume anything.
Well, seeing how we aren't given any specifics, we do have to assume. We aren't Shiftkitty - at least, I'm pretty sure I am not
. And regarding what Jayne said - and please don't take this the wrong way - we constantly hear weird stories over here of what's possible to get through the American justice system, so a good lawyer, or perhaps a judge who has a faible for vigilantism, might be enough to get the implausible plead of manslaughter through. I know it doesn't make sense, but there might be many reasons for such a verdict.Meh. I'm not comfortable assuming that he's telling the truth about this. You are. That's cool. I'd love to get more concrete info about this, but that's not something I have the right to expect. Not my place.
Regarding the oddball sentencing, yes, it can happen. You can plea down and dodge all kinds of stuff in the right situations. Multiple, pre-meditated murder is not typically one of those situations. Maybe if you're rich and possibly if you could bring Johnny Cochran back from the dead, but otherwise it's incredibly unlikely. Basically, you're looking at a life sentence (or death depending where you're convicted) being converted to six years. That's one hell of a deal.
Should the story be true, I'd like to know the lawyer in case I am ever in a bind for my vigilantism. Knowing my behavior though, I'd probably be sent to a maximum security asylum.
If I'm not mistaken, ShiftKitty lives in California, and Folsom is a California prison. California has the death penalty and a premeditated mass-murder would likely warrant such a punishment (see. Manson). Someone with a healthy sense of self-preservation would likely agree to a plea-bargain, accepting life in prison in an effort to avoid the death penalty. There is no way in the nine-hells that anyone is getting away with a manslaughter plea on this one.
I also find it impossible to believe the motivation. This guy claims to have spent a year hunting down and murdering several people because they hurt his daughter, but was perfectly willing to allow said daughter to grow up without a father? Sorry, I don't buy it. These two goals are simply too at-odds with one another, it simply doesn't add up.
Personally, I'd ask the person who asked me to give the guy a lift.
The guy who asked me to give him a lift was my boss, who is as far from a shady character as you can get. He's a church elder and everything, total "milk of human kindness" to quote Shakespeare, although his own rowdy past reveals that he is also far from naive. He (the ex-con) explained to me that he got it knocked down to manslaughter because of a lack of witnesses. The witness the prosecution cropped up was proven to have been in another part of the state at he time taking delivery on an RV, all other evidence was by and large circumstantial, but just damning enough.
I know this guy's daughter. She comes to the lab after school and earns a couple of bucks helping out and learning a little something about the craft (yes, making dentures is considered a craft). She's got some emotional issues, but nothing major taht I can tell. We weren't good friends or anything, I just knew her as a kid that came around and made herself useful. I assumed she was somehow acquainted with someone else in the lab. I don't delve into the personal ives of my co-workers unless invited.
Her dad is now getting himself situated. He was around the lab because he and my boss were running down old friends to see about landing him a job and putting the touch on some charities to help this guy get an apartment so he can resume his life. He's got a monthly bus-pass now, so his ability to get around is now taken care of, and I doubt we'll ever cross paths again.
I don't have kids, so it's not in my ability to judge the emotional reaction of a parent with any degree of competency.
I'd still let him work on my truck, though!
I think he's full of crap. The moment he set about "tracking down" someone the act is premeditated, thus murder rather than manslaughter. That he claims also to have killed the guy's friends? No way anyone does a 6 year manslaughter stint for premeditated mass-murder.
Now if someone assaulted my loved ones and got away with it I'd hunt them to the ends of the Earth, I can totally understand the emotion, but too a response must be measured in kind. When I was through with the guy he'd need a seeing eye dog to help him find his teeth, but I'd not kill him.
And all that rubbish about defense attorneys being "noble" and the system being "100% certain" they don't lock up the innocent is utter BS. Anyone spewing that nonsense is the naive one in this scenario.
This.
This guy claims to have spent a year hunting down and murdering several people because they hurt his daughter, but was perfectly willing to allow said daughter to grow up without a father? Sorry, I don't buy it. These two goals are simply too at-odds with one another, it simply doesn't add up.
Well, as somebody who dislikes children I can only guess, but it seems reasonable that you wouldn't really be thinking rationally at this point. But yeah, it does seem pretty fishy.
I'll take that label gladly. People like him make the world a better place.
Assuming of course, that he told the truth.
Assuming he told the truth (which at this point I'm doubting that he is), no. People like him get themselves and others killed. They are totally clueless as to the suffering they're causing because they can't see beyond their own nose. Two wrongs don't make a right. I stand by my assertion that he still needs to be in prison.
Okay, I doubt many of your sanity now. Pot calling the kettles black here. Your willing to accept that oneman molested a little girl while his friends watched, and got off without jail time, but unwilling to accept the possibility that someone killed said man and his friends, and got off with 6 years? Because "you don't get 6 years for 6 counts or premeditated murder"? Just because I run someone down in my car, doesn't mean I'm going to jail for murder. I could chug a bear, act stunned, and go to jail for vehicular manslaughter and drunk driving. You go to jail for what they can prove, not for what you did or claim to have done after the fact.
It's not that I am unwilling, I hold a sense of doubt about the story is all. The system of justice makes errors and loop-holes that having what you need to get "off-the-hook" is like winning the lottery. Unless the criminal is extremely methodical on leaving the least amount of clues around as possible.
So will(disbelief).
Actually it's just a matter of hiding the body most times. Without the body they can't find the murder weapon, and they don't have a crime scene to investigate. Then you add there weren't many witnesses(he probably got caught because of these witnesses) and they have missing persons to investigate not murder(which gets more effort).
I know this guy's daughter. She comes to the lab after school and earns a couple of bucks helping out and learning a little something about the craft (yes, making dentures is considered a craft). She's got some emotional issues, but nothing major taht I can tell. We weren't good friends or anything, I just knew her as a kid that came around and made herself useful....
...I doubt we'll ever cross paths again.
So this guy goes around telling people he barely knows the details of his daughter's sexual abuse? Presumably so that these strangers will feel more comfortable around him? Shouldn't sharing that kind of thing be her choice? He's supposedly willing to risk a lethal injection, but not willing to shut up and let her decide who around her knows what been done to her?
@vigilantism: I hope that the people endorsing it really understand exactly what they're cheering for. The U.S. has a long history of vigiantism. It's also called "Lynching." You know, as in "Hang the person we want to believe did this from the nearest tree. Maybe set the body on fire. Then take a picture for the kids to enjoy later." Funny thing tho, it was always people on the edges of society who got lynched, the people who couldn't fight back. Blacks, the poor, immigrants, the old lady down the street with the cats. Yeah, Witch Hunts were usually lynchings, too. So I hope none of those people professing their support for "Private Justice" also stand out from societal norms in any way. No non-christians, ethnic minorities, no one with an alternative sexuality or lifestyle, no atheists, and you definitly better have enough money to hire guards or friends who are really willing to die (and kill) for you. And if you're on this forum, then you probably carry books around with you that contain drawings of demons and devils and discussions of magic, rituals, and incantations. You know, the PHB? The DMG? There's a significant minority in the U.S. who consider those things, and you, to be evil with a capitol "E." Are you sure you want to live in a society where someone can point the finger at someone else who then gets murdered to the cheers of the crowd? You know, like the Taliban does? If so, good luck in your travels, because this issue has been settled in the U.S. And we don't do that here.
Vigilantism it is problem in a society but not at an individual level. The thing is an individual knows it can not be allowed by society and doesn't care, they do it anyway and so they go to jail. It shows a level of dedication that is uncommon nowadays but is that a positive or a negative.
Personally I would give him a chance(after I check out his story and find that he was telling the truth) that kind of dedication is admirable(if misguided). Long as he was telling the truth I just wouldn't care if he killed someone. If I can understand him I can predict what he would do and as such I can trust him(to a similar degree as most people).
Most people that I encounter who have a criminal history typically never speak of it, and when the subject is brought up, they tend to be evasive with answers and stories, and then either leave or change the subject. I don't know the man or his daughter, so I may be wrong, but I have a hard time believing it. Most people aren't willing to talk about something that personal and painful with someone that they just met. So, I'm not saying that it didn't happen that way, but I won't believe it until I check a few outside sources to confirm the story.
As for the entire vigilante issue: I have mixed feelings. I do think that pedophiles and serial killers and the like all deserve to die, yet creating more violence won't solve anything. Two wrongs don't make a right. What they all should really get is a punishment that fits the crime: the rapist is sent to prison for life, and gets raped on a daily basis. Which I realize contradicts what I just said about two wrongs don't make a right, but whatever. If I was in charge, that's what I'd do. A more personalized punishment for each criminal might get a message across a bit better for people.
As far as I'm concerned witj the individual, he paid his debt to society. It's over. Why he decided to tell me, I don't know. A lot of people that I meet tell me things seemingly to get them off their chest. I like to think I'm a good listener. I know people from all walks of life, so I am acquainted with others who have done time. He simply has one of the more intense stories of people I've known who are or have been in the slammer. At any rate, it's moot. Like I said, he seems to have moved on with his life and I doubt we'll ever meet again.
As far as vigilantes go, I've never been in a situation myself where I've had to take the law into my own hands to a serious degree. I've never had any great wrong like this done to my family while I've been alive, so I really can't say how far I would go if I had a kid who someone molested, screwed up their life as it were, and then skipped away free as a bird because of a technicality. I know it has happened to other people, but it has never happened to me, so I can only speculate on what I would do, hoping that I never have to find out if I would do it.
Vigilantism it is problem in a society but not at an individual level. The thing is an individual knows it can not be allowed by society and doesn't care, they do it anyway and so they go to jail. It shows a level of dedication that is uncommon nowadays but is that a positive or a negative.
Personally I would give him a chance(after I check out his story and find that he was telling the truth) that kind of dedication is admirable(if misguided). Long as he was telling the truth I just wouldn't care if he killed someone. If I can understand him I can predict what he would do and as such I can trust him(to a similar degree as most people).
This.
Vigilantism as a system by itself sucks, for the reasons outlined by jake, and two thousand years of enlightenment should have shown that. There's no way that should stand as the norm.
But an individual who does it anyways, for a reason like this, is still someone I admire. Now, don't get me wrong, I ain't sayin' he shouldn't be punished - he knew the consequences beforehand, and he accepted them. Justice should still do its job. After all, it has to, both in order to preserve what we believe in and, indeed, to make the vigilante's act meaningful. What I applaud is not the fact that he took justice into his own hands. It is the fact that he did so knowing and accepting the consequences, for reasons I can full well understand.
Knew the consequences and accepted the punishment? Like hell he did. The story: several counts of premeditated murder in the first degree. The sentence: 6 years. He did the crime, knowing what the punishment should be, and then lied and squirmed his way out of the majority of his punishment on a technicality. He's a damn hypocrite.
Reads like this discussion is almost dead, but I wanted to share my whole 2's for the sake of it.
After reading what the OP has given as testimony, I must concur with the general agreement that you (the OP) bought a load of a crap from the worlds fattest fertilizer salesman. Not only does the story and sentence add up in no way (aside from a huge technicality if the case may be true after all), but the emotional and personal responses from the man just does not make sense.
What kind of man takes a year out of his time to hunt down, then brutally murder a whole pack of suggested child abusers, and after serving his sweet prison sentence (6 years!?), tells a complete stranger about the traumatic deals of his daughter and incarceration? A nut job maybe. And if that's the case, send him to the Loonies for life. Otherwise he's just one more Con-Artist ex-Con with a BS story to make you like him and sympathize for his poor little ruined life.
Odds the guy did what he said he did? 1-Bullshit.
Odds I'll win the lottery tomorrow? A sure thing by any account.