Ejayrazz's Blog

It wouldn't be hard to imagine that it's Dexter.

Bottom line, I would turn him in. No matter how skilled, he is a murderer. There is no societal benefit worthy of permitting such a heinous exemption to the standards of civilization.

Yes.

He's pretty much like those he killed...

I would nevar turn Dexter in! Lol

Dexter RULES

LET HIM GO!!!!

The great thing about the law is that they look at what you did. You killed people, here in the Netherlands you can get arrested and can do some jail time if you hurt the person that is robbing you. While in the US you can kill trespassers.

$%&@ no. Leave my Dexter alone!

Plus he's taking out the trash. That's good enough in my book.

Can't say I'd turn Dexter in.

The fact is that if we granted moral vigilance to every person who has some deemed self-righteous punishing mission, society would ultimately break down and the clear line between moral innocent and guilt would be blurred to a wash. So yes, I'd turn them in because despite the people he had killed, they were still deemed innocent until proven guilty, and I will attest that DNA does, indeed, lie in the form of "inconclusive"; as someone who works with DNA on an everyday basis, DNA is not cut and dry like they make it seem in CSI.

Yes. He is not given the power of life and death.

Honestly? No I wouldn't. If anything I'd want to know how I could help punish these scumbags.

If he's not killing me or my friends/family, I really do not care.

Whilst that paints a pretty picture of a vigilante hero of justice, what if then some of his victims have completely reformed, donating massive amounts of their income to charities, schools and hospitals etc? Not only that but the victims have friends and families too - some of which could be utterly dependent upon these people.

Also then where do we draw the line of a heinous crime worthy of being put on this guy's list?

EDIT: bottom line is whether or not someone has murdered someone in the past, if they are not going to do so again, and especially if they are actively trying to repay the commuinity, it is detrimental to kill them off (or even to gaol them to an extent).

Not that I'm suggesting every (or even many) violent criminal will turn into perfect citizens.

I'm against the death penalty, so I can't see why I would be for this.

I should have added that these criminals will never reform. Sort of like the perfect storm coming together.

Though I agree with what has been stated, I am not sure what I would do. Imagine if your baby daughter was murdered right after turning the serial killer in and he looks at you and says, "It was Enrigue Shavez...He was next on my list. A known rapist and murdered the Johnson family."

No one is above the law I do agree, but the law has a lot of legality loop holes which makes the non-system extremely delicate.

I never agree with pretty much (including laws, although I obey them myself) unless I can see it serving a practical purpose. While he is breaking the literal interpretation of the law, he is not violating what I see to be the practical intent of homicide laws.

Although it's a silly question (there's no way to know if he's telling the truth about all those things he's supposedly doing to pick his victims), yes I would – you can't just take the law into your own hands and that's especially true for killing people.

The great thing about the law is that they look at what you did. You killed people, here in the Netherlands you can get arrested and can do some jail time if you hurt the person that is robbing you. While in the US you can kill trespassers.

That's actually completely inaccurate, but thanks for showing yet again that people who insult Americans or their culture as a whole are much more ignorant than the Americans they're accusing of ignorance.

If you shot a trespasser you would generally be sent to prison for murder. The most RADICAL anti-crime law in most states is the 'castle doctrine', that says that if you're in your home, and the intruder breaks in, AND you believe you're subject to great bodily harm or death, then the PROSECUTION must prove that you acted incorrectly. In fact, outside the home if you shoot someone trying to mug you, the burden of proof is, unlike all other cases, on you. That means you must prove that you acted in self defense, and the law assumes you acted as a murderer.

It's a lot more complicated than that and there are a lot more ways you can be arrested for 'self defense', including if you escalated it in any manner whatsoever (were the first to yell, etc.), if you were stronger than them or not, what your state of mind was, etc. You have a duty to retreat, as well. But when someone is bashing in your car door with a baseball bat (while you're in your car), even showing your gun is, in fact, illegal here.

But yeah, Americans are all cowboys shooting little kids who accidentally step on our lawns. Because we're allowed to under law. Right. Don't spout off about things you clearly do not know.

Whilst that paints a pretty picture of a vigilante hero of justice, what if then some of his victims have completely reformed, donating massive amounts of their income to charities, schools and hospitals etc?

Nope. The people have not reformed. Things are not better. They are not innocent people at all. Don't try to look for an out of this moral dilemma because that's the entire point of the question... it's a moral dilemma. You can't change it to make one choice the hands-down prudent choice, you cheater

You cannot take the law into your own hands.

But when someone is bashing in your car door with a baseball bat (while you're in your car), even showing your gun is, in fact, illegal here.

You live in a lousy state. I can openly carry mine on my hip as long as I have my license.

I would ask him if he needed any help.

I would turn him in.

The only person allowed to 'go all vigilante' with impunity is me.

You live in a lousy state. I can openly carry mine on my hip as long as I have my license.

You live in a lousy state. I'm 99% sure we can open carry without a license. But you can't take an already concealed weapon and bring it out. It's seen as your provocation / escalation and means that guy can legally pull his gun if he had one and you couldn't legally react to him. The whole system is pretty messed up, but it's nearly impossible to fire a weapon in self defense unless you kept it hidden, never escalated, didn't start it, and were attacked with someone who either had much much much more strength than you or had a weapon out, and you couldn't run away or call for help. They will sit back and critique every move made in that situation as if you were sitting at home thinking of the best options, even though I doubt that's the case. Only if you made every single best possible choice every step of the way do you get off with no legal action against you, and in some circumstances you can still be sued by the "victim's" family.

The law is so strict that if I walked into a store and saw a man pull out a knife and run at a little old woman and I shot him, I would probably go to prison for murder if she had been the first one to begin yelling, or if she started the fight. Because, once again, you can't start or escalate it.

In fact, I bet we're more conservative than many other countries when it comes to self defense...

[No, I don't carry or have my permit, nor am I an attorney, I just know the law on it.]

The law is so strict that if I walked into a store and saw a man pull out a knife and run at a woman and I shot her, I would go to prison for murder if she had been the first one to begin yelling. Because, once again, you can't start or escalate it.

I don't think this is what you meant to type, but it puts a very, very humorous image in my head.

I don't think this is what you meant to type, but it puts a very, very humorous image in my head.

Haaaaahahahaha. ***** deserved it!