Try reading the article, so you know what you're talking about.
1) Car was stolen with kids inside.
2) Car got stuck in traffic, parents pulled carjacker from the vehicle.
Are you able to comprehend the simple fact that, at that point, the kids were safe?
3) Carjacker ran away.
4) Parents chased him, caught him, murdered him.
Thus, the killing wasn't defense. It was a lynching. But you're obviously cool with that.
Right, right. The horrors of Due Process. I bet you're one of those wave-around-the-Constitution types. Except you're only big on the Constitution when you find it convenient. Someone you despise? Hey, extrajudicial punishment is cool! You probably naively think that only 'people who deserve it' are subject to mob justice.
PS - You also probably read my post and concluded that I'm siding with the carjacker. More naivete. Actually, I'm siding with justice and the rule of law. You probably think this lynching equates with justice, but if so then it's clear that you don't understand the actual concept of justice.
Amendments V and XIV to the United States Constitution: 'twisted view'
No one is arguing that the parents should have intervened. The issue is that the murder took place after the carjacker had fled the scene.
Oh, I forgot - you didn't read the article, and so have no idea what actually transpired.
Me: Why is lynching okay?
You: Because ... emotion!
Quite the fantasy world you inhabit.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
