Re: Chysler hires murderer to shill it's cars
Whoa there, hoss....... we're talking motion picture "anti-hero" not
reality of war..... we're talking one person taking the law into his
own hands, and going beyond simple revenge for himself. This is quite
different than a country being attacked and the rules of law followed
in declaring war against the attackers, by a concensus of the society
(or at least a concensus of it's representatives).
On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:45:20 GMT, "351CJ" <351CJ@msn.com> wrote:
>You are going to have to help me out here.
>I believe in treating all people like I would like to be treated. I also
>believe what comes around goes around. You reap what you sew. Anyone who
>victimizes another human being should fully expect to learn the intimate
>details of the old saying "payback is a M F".
Agreed. But victimized in accordance with the rule of law. For,
without that, society dissolves into chaos.
>According to you, when the US strikes back at terrorism, that is not self
>defense, it is revenge?
>When we went to war with Japan in direct response to them bombing Pearl
>Harbor, it was revenge not self defense?
>If I kill another human being for my country, that would be OK with you, but
>if I kill another human being who is not simply fighting for his own country
>but is knowingly victimizing innocent people, that is not OK with you and I
>am then a "bad guy"?
Back to movie vs reality.... we did not bait terrorists to attack us.
Same with Japan in WWII. What they got in the 40s and what we are
dishing out today is deserved.
Bronson, who was not present when his family was attacked, went out
and baited baddies to do something like vandalize his car, etc, and
used what they did to justify his actions. And once he had his revenge
on those who did his family in, he became a crusader of one, and went
after others who had nothing to do with the original cause of his
The law, in most jurisdictions, says, you have the right to defend
yourself or others in fear of grievous bodily harm. You may use
whatever force necessary to neutralize the source of that fear. Once
neutralized, you must stop and take no further defensive action.
In most jurisdictions this does not give anyone the right to blow
someone away for snatching some old lady's purse, etc. Nor does it
give someone the right to take a life when a lessor tactic achieves
the goal of neutralization. In fact, the law, in most places, says
that you may only increase the level to one step above what your
attacker is using. If you attacker is using a knife, you may use a gun
to neutralize, not kill, your opponent. If your opponent is just using
fists, you can't skip a stick and jump to a gun.
Bronson went straight to the gun in every case. Which is like saying
terrorists are using human bombs and guns, so we can jump straight to
>By your definition, I guess I'm a bad guy too.
>If anyone raped and murdered my wife and/or daughter, I'd hunt them down and
>kill them too.
It's for a court to decide that. If it was my family, I know my
immediate reaction would be no different. But, being one who believes
in the law and due process (I'd sure want it for me), once the initial
reaction passed, then I'd be no better than those I hunted if I
ignored the law and continued.
But Bronson didn't stop there. To follow his example, we finish with
terrorists in Iraq, and then invade the next country and clean up that
neighborhood, and then the next, and to hell with international
laws... in fact, to hell with our own laws.....
>In almost every jurisdiction in the US, fear of bodily harm or death for
>oneself or another person is still legal justification for the use of DEADLY
>force. Thankfully most juries in this country would still NOT (never would
>have) find a man guilty for gunning down the rapist murders of his wife and
A bit incorrect. Sorry, but it's not true. The use of deadly force is,
as described within the law, a "last resort" (see above for how the
laws actually read in most places). Once the assailant is stopped to
the point where you have no more reason to fear, you can not legally
continue and take their life. And more than one jury has found an
individual guilty for going beyond that point, as well as taking the
law into ones own hands, and acting a judge, jury, and executioner.
They have found people innocent in cases where the reaction was
immediate, but when delayed it becomes a premeditated... and
therefore, premeditated manslaughter, murder, etc, depending upon the
individual circumstances of a case.
To believe that you can legally kill someone once the threat has been
removed is as bad as believing that once the moved to Cuba, we can
line them up against a wall and shoot them. Or that if they raise a
white flag and surrender, we have the right to kill them anyway.
>What part of baiting a "bad guy" (then Bitch Slapping them) is actually bad?
The laws, and the courts have upheld, that baiting bad guys into
committing crimes is not legal except within very narrow scopes.
You go to a neighborhood where bad people abound, and flash a lot of
green, knowing that someone will try to take it from you. When they
do, you pull out your 44 automag.
Now the bad guy has a choice, fight or flee. He's frozen in place,
unsure what he should do, thus he is no longer making an overt threat.
You pop a cap and he drops, but he's still breathing. You stand over
him and finish him off (typical Bronson scenario). I call that bad.
On the other hand, he flees. Thus the threat has ceased to exist. But,
you shoot him in the back, blowing out a fist sized chunk of his
chest. I call that bad.
>There are BAD GUYS, and there are GOOD GUYS who are not pushovers, and they
>are entirely different beasts.
I see it as there are bad guys, and there are good, law abiding people
who believe in the rule of law, and the Constitutional principles upon
which this nation was founded. Those same good people might experience
an immediate reaction and do something they would not ordinarily do,
but give time to think, would revert to being good citizens rather
>"Spike" <email@example.com> wrote in message
>> Better go back and review the movie. Bronson's wife and daughter were
>> raped and murdered. Bronson was not defending himself when he went
>> after them. He was seeking revenge. And then, after taking out those
>> bad guys, he didn't stop for, what, three more death Wish movies in
>> which he acted as judge, jury, and executioner? Even to the point of
>> baiting the baddies.
>> But you are right that he was not "originally" a bad guy... he just
>> went bad.
>> On Thu, 11 Aug 2005 05:16:47 GMT, "351CJ" <351CJ@msn.com> wrote:
>>>Of all the examples (think Charles Bronson in Death Wish)???
>>>Defending oneself Does Not define a "BAD GUY"!!! How you get in a
>>>to have to "defend" yourself is purely academic.
>>>Your points were pretty right on, until you selected Charles Bronson in
>>>Death Wish as your example of a bad guy, you might as well have chosen
>>>Shane, or any of Clint Eastwoods man with no name characters.
>>>Self defense IS NOT BAD! If more people exercised a formidable self
>>>in the face of "bad guys", there would truly be less "bad guys", they
>>>pick an easier occupation.
>>>"Spike" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
>>>> Hate to say this but in general, nobody cares... especially, it seems,
>>>> among the younger set, who seem to think as long as you make a lot of
>>>> money, rub elbows with the rich and famous, and don't get caught,
>>>> you're a hero to be adored and idolized. And it's the younger set
>>>> with all that spendable loot that advertisers go after.
>>>> Ever since television and movies started making some bad guys heroes
>>>> against other bad guys (think Charles Bronson in Death Wish) the line
>>>> which marked the difference between the two has been erased. People
>>>> have been desensitized by the likes of Gangsta rap, and national
>>>> leaders who set poor examples.
>>>> Pimps are now to be idolized... think Pimp My Ride.
>>>> A mafia family gets it's own show where the kids act like animals,
>>>> talk back to the mother, and generally set a bad example.
>>>> A wealthy heiress has an X rated flick passed all over the place and,
>>>> whether it was her fault or not, she gets more popular and gets a Tv
>>>> It's a wonder Disney didn't hire Waco Jacko and when the trial was
>>>> over you'd get.... "well, Michael, you beat the rap over molesting
>>>> little boys, what are ya gonna do now?" To which MJ would reply, "I'm
>>>> going to Disneyworld and hand out with my little boy friends."
>>>> On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 22:06:34 -0400, RichA <email@example.com> wrote:
>>>>>Snoop Dogg? Whatever happened to the time he
>>>>>was charged with murder? I guess he got off?
>>>>>In any case, Chrysler can take Snoop Dogg and
>>>>>Lee Iacoaca and shove them up their a--. I will
>>>>>never buy a car from a company that uses such
>>>>>a repellent character to sell their cars.
>>>>>But it doesn't surprise me, seeing the Charger.
>>>> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>>>> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
>>>> 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
>>>> 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.
>>>> "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
>>>> I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
>>>> -JFK Inaugural Address
>> 1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
>> Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
>> 16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
>> 225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.
>> "When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
>> I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
>> -JFK Inaugural Address
1965 Ford Mustang fastback 2+2 A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok
Vintage Burgundy w/Black Standard Interior; Vintage 40
16" rims w/BF Goodrich Comp T/A gForce Radial
225/50ZR16 KDWS skins; surround sound audio-video.
"When the time comes to lay down my life for my country,
I do not cower from this responsibility. I welcome it."
-JFK Inaugural Address