WARNING SICK - Homeless woman tries to snatch baby & eat its arm

[radiocerk]

Where's the line that we use to decide when people are irredeemably evil? (For those who argue we simply put these people down like animals) When they think about committing their "unmistakably evil" acts... when they talk about them... when they plan them... when they actually carry them out... And when do we decide that someone is irredeemable. Do they have to hurt someone, kill someone, kill several people, harm animals, harm children, bottom out the economy...?

My SO works as a nurse in an old-folks home. I've heard tales of people with Alzheimer's assaulting nurses or other patients in a violent fashion, or sexually assaulting others. Why should they get a pass? Because they don't know better. A trained soldier with PTSD is capable of extremely violent acts against any number of people, should they be put down as a danger as well? Where is the line between mental illness, and plain out "evil".

Most sociopaths are well aware of what they're doing. They are also frequently charismatic, knowledgeable, capable of acting friendly, and the last people you would describe as "crazy". Many of them go through life without ever committing a crime. Where do they fall on the scale?

I agree that it is horrifying that a homeless lady attempted to eat a baby, but that is certainly not the actions of a sane individual.

[Hyena Dandy]

Why? Why can't someone have full reasoning capabilities and just REALLY want to do something fucked-up and evil? There are evil people in the world. Not mentally ill. Not gonna be helped by anything. Evil.

The fact that she tried to snatch a baby right in front of its parents without rigging some sort of distraction/having an accomplice, and then tried to eat it without going somewhere she couldn't be observed.

The complete lack of planning shows that she clearly isn't of sound mind. If she was, and for some reason she wanted to eat a baby, she would have planned her baby-eating escapades better.

Also, some people are just evil. Most of them are too smart to do something like this.

[Rageaholic]

I can't argue against getting her the help she needs. I mean, whether she ends up in jail or in a mental hospital, she's still being kept away from the public so she can't hurt any more people. There's no reason why she shouldn't get help if she needs it. Despite my initial disgust at the story, I doubt she's an evil bitch. I mean, she was homeless...

But still, stuff like this is pretty fucking scary. And while I know that "kill em all" isn't the right answer, there's a part of me that has no sympathy for those who make the world such a dangerous and untrusting place.

[siead_lietrathua]

I agree that it is horrifying that a homeless lady attempted to eat a baby, but that is certainly not the actions of a sane individual.

i actually want to reply to your whole post, but i know people dislike full quotes, hehe.

where the line is drawn, i haven't seen posts in this thread bring up the idea of thoughts being made or plotting done. everyone has seemed to rely on the idea of evil being based on actions committed by the people involved. when it comes to being irredeemable evil, that can vary from person to person sure. but most of us are abhorred by the same acts: murder, mutilation, violent sexual assault, anything harming children, etc. and not all of us are saying outright kill people. but it isn't to much to ask they they receive proper sentencing for their crimes despite mental illness.

the example you gave of people with Alzheimer's and PTSD being violent and abusive and asking "Why should they get a pass? ". well, they shouldn't. they should be charged, and placed in a place where they can be given appropriate care while still being placed under the restrictions of incarceration. an equal punishment to a sane person committing those acts and being imprisoned.

sociopaths that don't commit crimes seems odd to bring up. we aren't talking about people with mental illness that haven't committed crimes, that would defeat the purpose of any discussion on either side for the last several pages. we shouldn't be incarcerating people that are innocent. however, many sociopaths that commit crimes are arrested and incarcerated. Manson, Bundy, Dahmer, Ridgeway, etc.

it is obvious the woman isn't sane, i haven't seen anyone saying she is. i see alot of people saying that her insanity doesn't give her a free pass to do what she wants unpunished.

to everyone (and this is just my opinion so take with salt lol):

i see alot of arguing for the same point here. we all seem to agree the woman is nuts. we all seem to agree that the woman deserved punishment for her actions. but the "she should be punished" side seems to be under the misconception that anyone not in agreement with them thinks she needs to go free. and the "mentally ill" side seems to be under the misconception that those wanting punishment are all demanding her death.

asking for a fair punishment based on the persons crime does not make someone a horrible person that wants to drag every person with mental illness into the street and shoot them. and asking for a bit of consideration into where the person is incarcerated (a mental care facility rather than the local jail) doesn't mean we want violent mentally ill criminals wandering the street unchecked.

[Rapscallion]

using a comedian's quote to support your argument? seriously? that pretty much throws any credibility you had out the window.

Just because someone cracks funnies doesn't mean to say that they're always wrong. Some of the funnier comedy I've witnessed has been funny because it's true.

Rapscallion

[Ginger Tea]

In that case stop linking George Carlin/Bill Hicks videos everybody a comics oppinions don't count ever.

For all I knew the guy quoted could have been a hardline politician and not a comedian, it didn't read like the punch line to a gag.

[insertNameHere]

Just because someone cracks funnies doesn't mean to say that they're always wrong. Some of the funnier comedy I've witnessed has been funny because it's true.

Rapscallion

Agreed, which is kind of why I went with his statement. Yeah he said it for a laugh, but it doesn't change the fact it is true.

[PepperElf]

I haven't read through all the replies yet but a couple of points have been brought up.

1) Suggesting the homeless lady was mentally ill.
2) That she is starving.


When you are carrying a gun and you are attacked, you "Neutralize the target." That means you don't specifically go for a kill shot, but that you take action in order to remain safe.

Even if the person trying to kill your baby is mentally ill and starving.


I know some people will have the sarcastic reaction of "sure let's just punish the mentally ill! let's punish them for staving too," but that's not the point.

If I were to go around just shooting people for being homeless, starving, and insane then yes you'd have a point.... But if I am DEFENDING A BABY from being murdered for food, the "starving card" and "mentally ill" card isn't going to cut it.

I mean wtf, you can't just say "O you're ill... here, take my baby and eat him." You have to defend your child's life. Even if it means hurting someone who is mentally ill. It's not like you're hurting them on purpose... you're defending your child from being killed.

[AdminAssistant]

Yes, if you are in the act of defending the baby, then you have to take whatever measures necessary to do that, until the baby is out of harm's way. But you don't go out in cold blood after the fact and put a bullet between the crazy woman's eyes.

[PepperElf]

that's why I said "neutralize the target"

it may mean killing them. or it may mean just drawing and aiming.

although if the person is currently ripping the kid's arm off, at that point deadly force would be authorized.

[Andara Bledin]

If I were to go around just shooting people for being homeless, starving, and insane then yes you'd have a point.... But if I am DEFENDING A BABY from being murdered for food, the "starving card" and "mentally ill" card isn't going to cut it.

I don't think a single person here was saying that in the case of anything or anybody threatening your child that you shouldn't take all reasonable action to prevent that from happening.

The problem comes when there is no imminent threat and people are still crying to murder the dangerously mentally ill as if she were no more than an animal. The baby is safe, the woman is in custody, and people are still waving their torches and pitchforks and crying, "put her down" as if this were some bloodsport.

Honestly, that sort of call to arms from what should be people in their right minds is far more disturbing to me than someone obviously not of sound mind doing something undisputedly crazy.

^-.-^

[PepperElf]

the problem is of course, there's actually no proof the woman was mentally insane. Starving perhaps but that doesn't really excuse putting people on the menu. This is a city not the middle of a frozen wilderness where it's "eat Joe or die"



And let's say she was mentally challenged.
Maybe it's me but it seems that the whole "politically correct" thing requires us to overlook and ignore inappropriate behavior, and even assault, if the person is mentally ill. Even if that person harms others. Any reaction other than, "that poor insane person! We need to treat you!" is considered inhumane and horrible.

At that point, the rights of the attacker are more important than the rights of the victim. If you're angry with the attacker and want justice, there's something wrong with you.


If anything that's why some cases with mentally ill criminal behavior get out of hand before it goes to court. Some people are afraid that they'll be branded as bigots for daring to go against a mentally challenged person. Or they may follow the PC idea and overlook more serious offenses because the person "didn't know what he was doing"


And the biggest problem is that someone may most likely read what I wrote and decide that "PepperElf hates the clinically insane" instead of what I'm really saying, is that... overlooking harmful actions until it's too late and granting the attacker more rights than that of the victim is the real heart of the issue.

[Andara Bledin]

If you're angry with the attacker and want justice, there's something wrong with you.

There is a difference between justice and vengeance.

Justice would be to get this woman off the street and then determine if she is mentally fit to stand trial, and if not, to determine if the cause can be treated.

If anything that's why some cases with mentally ill criminal behavior get out of hand before it goes to court. Some people are afraid that they'll be branded as bigots for daring to go against a mentally challenged person. Or they may follow the PC idea and overlook more serious offenses because the person "didn't know what he was doing"

Nobody is asking that this be "overlooked." Absolutely lock this person up just like you would any other dangerous individual.

There is a dearth of additional information regarding this attack other than the basic facts, which are being repeated by nearly all reports. What I do find interesting is that many of the reports, not including the one linked in the OP, fail to note that the mother, aunt, and child sought refuge in a local shop where they were then forced back out by the store owner.

Article at Hollywood Today with that detail
Article at Los Angeles Downtown News with some updated information

Again, nobody is saying to ignore what happened or to not defend their children and themselves from attack, or to let the woman go. But why a person does something matters and as a civilized people, we do not throw our mentally unfit to the wolves merely because it's easier and more viscerally satisfying than doing what is just.

^-.-^

[Canarr]

What I do find interesting is that many of the reports, not including the one linked in the OP, fail to note that the mother, aunt, and child sought refuge in a local shop where they were then forced back out by the store owner.

Okay... who the hell would do something like that? And isn't that punishable by law? In Germany, failing to help someone in need is a felony - though rarely enforced, due to the huge loophole of, "without risking undue danger to their own life and health". But pushing someone out of your shop when they were just attacked outside? There's gotta be a law against that.

[PepperElf]

that's the problem.

the original comments that sparked this whole debate had nothing to do with punishing all of the insane. they pertained ONLY to self defense and harsh treatment to "people like that" - meaning people who try to kill children for eating them.

yet, people jumped on it suggesting that it meant they wanted to exterminate all mentally insane.


so yes, the overreaction does happen