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

[Canarr]

The problem is, with opinions like these...

People like that woman need to be shot like the rabid animals they are.

Agreed 100%. People like this will never be safe to be around others, will never make useful contributions to society.

Nope. No rights for cannibals. Get rid of them.

And people wonder why I'm for the death penalty?

...where do you draw the line? What level of aggression towards others is still tolerated in the insane, and from what point on should they be shot?

Cannibals, apparently; even attempted cannibals. Rapists, too, I've heard.

Assault? Armed or unarmed? With a rock, a knife, a machete, an axe? Where does it begin, and where does it end?

You can only be a truly free society if everybody enjoys the same freedoms - especially those who seemingly don't deserve them. If you deny these freedoms to one, then you deny them to all. If one person is denied protection of the law, then no person is protected by the law.

Yeah, it sucks. Yeah, it'a bitch that you have to protect someone from the torches and pitchforks whom you'd just as well like to kill yourself. But if you want to live in a free and just society, then that's what you do - or you're a hypocrite.

[Andara Bledin]

Let's see... what was actually said:

"People like that woman need to be shot like the rabid animals they are."
"Nope. No rights for cannibals. Get rid of them."
"And people wonder why I'm for the death penalty?"
"Well pardon my lack of sympathy for the mentally ill, but when someone starts trying to gnaw on a baby, there's no reason to care or want to help. She tried to eat a baby's arm."
"I don't think everyone who is mentally ill should be killed. People who are trying to eat other people, yes. People who have repeatedly sexually violated someone, yes. "
"Not everyone believes in compassion and sympathy for the mentally insane criminal mind."
"Who truly deserves help are.... Not criminals with a mental illness."
"I am fine with treating mental illness if it is treatable and they can get better but when the safety of the greater good is in favor of putting down a person who "unknowningly" keeps hurting others because they are fucked up in the head, oh well."

These stand as they are stated here. There are a number of people who have expressed, specifically, that they believe that the mentally unfit who are prone to doing things that most of us would consider unthinkable don't deserve to live and that society should have them put down.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

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

"Nope. No rights for cannibals. Get rid of them."

"And people wonder why I'm for the death penalty?"

"Not everyone believes in compassion and sympathy for the mentally insane criminal mind."

Not talking about onlys elf defense there

[HYHYBT]

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.

When you claim ranking for "rights of the attacker" vs "rights of the victim" you imply that they are in conflict. But how are they, in this case? AFTER the immediate danger is past, that is. What rights of the victim (either the baby or its family) are harmed by the woman being locked up, examined for mental illness, and treated for it if it's found?

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

Why?

A while back, someone or other did a survey of which news anchor people found most trustworthy, or something close enough to that to be a distinction without a difference. Jon Stewart won for The Daily Show.

[PepperElf]

"Nope. No rights for cannibals. Get rid of them."

Sure. Give more rights to cannibals. Give them more rights than their victims. After all, people who eat other people shouldn't be punished for their actions. It's inhumane to kill a cannibal.



"And people wonder why I'm for the death penalty?"

Actually the death penalty is not a bad thing. The reason many states don't support it ISN'T about human rights... it's about the fact that they want the $$$$ to fund the prisons and medical facilities.


"Not everyone believes in compassion and sympathy for the mentally insane criminal mind."

Once again people jump on the bandwagon that punishing insane for harming others is inhumane and that it must mean you want to sterilize all insane and you're bloodthirsty and heartless.

[AdminAssistant]

Actually the death penalty is not a bad thing. The reason many states don't support it ISN'T about human rights... it's about the fact that they want the $$$$ to fund the prisons and medical facilities.

The death penalty is horrific and shouldn't exist in countries that claim to be as civilized as ours. It also costs the government more money than letting people sit in prisons/mental institution for the rest of their natural lives.

Once again people jump on the bandwagon that punishing insane for harming others is inhumane and that it must mean you want to sterilize all insane and you're bloodthirsty and heartless.

They can't help it. We're talking about people who commit crimes because they literally cannot control their actions due to a genetic and/or medical condition. Yes, put these people away. Lock them in a padded room and try to medicate them to stability. But you don't put them in prison with the general population and you don't euthanize them like rabid dogs. I'm sure there are mentally disabled people out there who use their disability as a way to get out of trouble. But there are also those who literally cannot control themselves. It's especially bad in this wonderfully enlightened country where mentally ill people are just dumped out on the street like garbage.

[PepperElf]

The only reason the death penalty ever costs more is because individuals and lobby groups fight tooth and nail. Otherwise it would only cost the price of 3 injections, required medical staff, and the pay of various witnesses.



"they can't help it"

Again, the rights of the attacker matters more than the rights of the victim.


I mean I'm all for helping the inane.
What I'm not for is TOLERATING violence against others. And granting the victims less rights than their attackers.

[Andara Bledin]

Sure. Give more rights to cannibals. Give them more rights than their victims. After all, people who eat other people shouldn't be punished for their actions. It's inhumane to kill a cannibal.

Where is this even coming from? Nobody has suggested any of this. It is not we who are reading more into it than has been said.

Once again people jump on the bandwagon that punishing insane for harming others is inhumane and that it must mean you want to sterilize all insane and you're bloodthirsty and heartless.

Once again you are claiming that people are making statements that have not been made. Nobody has stated that there should be no punishment. Merely that the punishment should be commensurate with the punished's ability to comprehend.

What is the point of punishing someone who has no idea why they're being punished? What good does that do society other than to provide the populace with some bloodsport to sooth their need for righteous vengeance?

Again, the rights of the attacker matters more than the rights of the victim.

The rights of humanity is not some zero sum game where allowing one to have rights means that another loses some of their own.

Everybody has a right to not be attacked by others, and nobody is disputing this. I honestly don't understand why you keep bringing it up as if it were some rallying cry that needed to be squelched.

^-.-^

[Boozy]

Sure. Give more rights to cannibals. Give them more rights than their victims. After all, people who eat other people shouldn't be punished for their actions.

Are you sure you didn't mean to post that in this thread?

[Canarr]

"Nope. No rights for cannibals. Get rid of them."

Sure. Give more rights to cannibals. Give them more rights than their victims. After all, people who eat other people shouldn't be punished for their actions. It's inhumane to kill a cannibal.

Are you just trolling now?

I mean, you DO realize that there are more options than just "Kill them" and "Let them go unpunished"? Right?

Right?

[Nyoibo]

I wholeheartedly support cannibalism, I think it's a good idea considering the size of the population nowdays.

[HYHYBT]

I'd still like to know how locking someone up and treating their mental illness rather than putting them to death goes against the rights of the victims. Or, for that matter, how it even affects them at all.

[Eisa]

Well, it feels pretty not so great when the person who hurt you/tried to kill you/etc. gets like...nothing. Or when they're all "oh you poor mentally ill person let's treat you!" when the victim gets...nothing. Cuz y'know, whatever happened isn't traumatic at all to the person it just happened to.

[/is not advocating shooting mentally unfit people so don't even...]

[Tsiyeria]

I have a question I would like to put into the air, regarding people who have no control over their actions. It raises a point that I am 99% sure hasn't been addressed.

Drug addiction. Specifically, drugs like PCP, meth, and crack cocaine. Drugs that cause these sorts of actions (by which I mean violence, disregard for social norms [or laws]). A person high on PCP might not even realize that they are in the street eating a baby. I would argue that a person high on PCP or meth is not in possession of all their faculties (temporary insanity would probably be the defense used in such a case).

So I suppose my question is this (to both sides): If it was reported that the assailant was under the influence of drugs, as opposed to being mentally ill, would that change your reaction to the crime?

[Andara Bledin]

For the base commission of said crime, they should be absolved. However, they should be found guilty of lesser charges that provide for willful relinquishment of their own competence that resulted in harm to another.

If a person runs over another person with a car while in a state deemed fully competent, then they would be guilty of murder. If a person were, say, drunk, and unable to operate at a competent level, they are thus guilty of manslaughter, instead. Plus a host of other charges related to their abdication of the ability to safely operate a car. At least, that is how it works in many US jurisdictions.

^-.-^