"sweat drenched hands - is it blood, fuck who cares"

[zootm]

can anger leading to violence ever be justified? was a person who drove another to rage with taunting and was eventually physically beaten for it truly "asking for it"?

where do you draw the line between an action taken in rage, and one taken in spite? should people driven to violence by anger be let off with a plea of insanity?

all these answers, and more, in this thread. hopefully.

[Merlin]

Yes, if someone repeatedly taunts another person, they deserve equal punishment. Rather than taunt back, it's easier to take the violent option. Some people, however, might take it too far.

[zootm]

just because it's easier, does that make it right, though? often in the long term it'll just prove how immature the violent party was...

[fwgx]

If I was bigger I would have beaten to a pulp sooo many people from school for making my life hell for over 5 years. To right they deserved a taste of their own medicine. I think that would have been completly justified, in reality there is/was no other option to effect a punishment on them without making it worse for me also.

[Merlin]

Originally posted by zootm
does that make it right
Define right.

Right meaning justified? Yes.

Right meaning not harming the other guy? Obviously not.

What's right? :)

[hestermofet]

"Right is what's left behind after you've done everything else."

[Curi0us_George]

I don't believe that taunting justifies physical retaliation. I do not, however, feel any sympathy for someone who taunts someone and then gets his/her ass beaten.

By the way, I believe this is how a lot of those "one time" domestic violence cases occur. "He/she won't hit me." (then proceed with more, more, and still more taunting, until *smack*)

[Some1]

I don't believe that taunting justifies physical retaliation. I do not, however, feel any sympathy for someone who taunts someone and then gets his/her ass beaten.

Agreed, unless it was a very mild/playful taunt that set the person off and resulted in the beating.

[zootm]

Originally posted by Curi0us_George
By the way, I believe this is how a lot of those "one time" domestic violence cases occur. "He/she won't hit me." (then proceed with more, more, and still more taunting, until *smack*)
this is it though - most people would classify domestic violence as straight-out wrong, and blame the perpetrator, without giving any thought to the situations that led up to it.

[Bilbo Baggins]

I did try to exact retribution on the bully who made my life a misery at school for 4 years. Unfortunatly, i was too drunk to fight.

[Curi0us_George]

Originally posted by zootm
this is it though - most people would classify domestic violence as straight-out wrong, and blame the perpetrator, without giving any thought to the situations that led up to it.
I do think it's straight-out wrong. I generally don't believe that violence is appropriate, whether it is in the home with a spouse screaming because you got fired or in a bar with a stranger who's yelling at you because he's looking for a fight. In either case, you should hold your temper. I don't believe that retaliating in the face of repeated provocation is as bad as an unprovoked attack, but I think it is wrong, nonetheless.

So yes, the situation is an important factor, though it's wrong, either way.

[hestermofet]

I don't necessarily think it's correct to punish crimes of passion.

[Curi0us_George]

The problem is, where do you draw that line? Is it okay to hit someone because he spent an hour yelling at you, calling you a queer (or any other derogatory name)? What about three hours? Three minutes? 30 seconds?

[Some1]

I don't necessarily think it's correct to punish crimes of passion.

So if some guy walks in on his wife having sex with another man, then kills the other guy and then rapes his wife, he gets to have immunity because it was a "crime of passion"?

[fwgx]

Originally posted by hestermofet
I don't necessarily think it's correct to punish crimes of passion. All my underage girl fantasies can now come true! - Kick ASS!!!!!

[Some1]

All my underage girl fantasies can now come true! - Kick ASS!!!!!

rofl, that too.

[blumoon11]

Originally posted by Curi0us_George
I don't believe that taunting justifies physical retaliation. I do not, however, feel any sympathy for someone who taunts someone and then gets his/her ass beaten.

By the way, I believe this is how a lot of those "one time" domestic violence cases occur. "He/she won't hit me." (then proceed with more, more, and still more taunting, until *smack*)



I agree with you completely.
I would rather walk away from any potencialy violent situation though.

[hestermofet]

Originally posted by Curi0us_George
The problem is, where do you draw that line? Is it okay to hit someone because he spent an hour yelling at you, calling you a queer (or any other derogatory name)? What about three hours? Three minutes? 30 seconds?

When I talk of "crimes of passion", I'm talking about a situation where motive ceases to matter. Sure, putting up with hours of vitriol may have set the person off, but I'm more concerned with the state of mind that a person is in. Temporary insanity, so to speak. The thing is that once you are in a fit of rage, or lust, or whatever, you no longer have rational control over your body, therefore, are no longer responsible for your actions. You could not have done otherwise than what you did, because what you did was based on primal instincts.

[fwgx]

Originally posted by hestermofet


When I talk of "crimes of passion", I'm talking about a situation where motive ceases to matter. Sure, putting up with hours of vitriol may have set the person off, but I'm more concerned with the state of mind that a person is in. Temporary insanity, so to speak. The thing is that once you are in a fit of rage, or lust, or whatever, you no longer have rational control over your body, therefore, are no longer responsible for your actions. You could not have done otherwise than what you did, because what you did was based on primal instincts. I thought that was what you meany but I was being sarcy. I agree, I don't get mad often but when I have lost it anything could have happened, shame it didn't really.

[Curi0us_George]

The problem is, if you allow people to be exempt from punishment like that, then everyone is going to claim to have been out of control, and even worse more people will let themselves get out of control, because they know it's acceptable.

People need to control their tempers.

[hestermofet]

Ideally, the justice system would filter through the valid cases of crimes of passion from the muck. Of course, we don't live in ideals, but the intention should at least be there to show clemency for overly passionate people. After all, they aren't responsible for their actions, so shouldn't be punished for them.

[Some1]

but the intention should at least be there to show clemency for overly passionate people. After all, they aren't responsible for their actions, so shouldn't be punished for them.

Sucks to that...if "overly passionate" people get special legal treatment, then tomorrow I am lobbying to be classified as one 24/7.

These people live in the same society as the rest of us, and thus must abide by the same standards as the rest of us, and control their emotions just like everybody else has to, "overly passionate" or not...if they can't do it then tough shit, they'll have plenty of time to work out their anger control issues while rotting away in jail.

[Curi0us_George]

I like the idea, rm', but only in theory. We already have too much of that. It's called the "temporary insanity" plea. We can't just excuse people because they have a predisposition toward rage. First, even people who have a natural predisposition towards anger can control themselves. Most people who "lose" control simply stop restraining themselves, and that's not the same thing. Allowing oneself to become violent is not the same as being unable to control one's anger. I don't honestly believe that people ever lose control to the point that they are no longer responsible for their own actions. Second, if these people want to be a part of society, then they must learn to control themselves. Let us, for argument's sake, say that they have no control over their anger, so it's not fair to punish them. Is it fair to everyone else that they are still allowed to roam the streets, just waiting to snap again?

[fwgx]

What if you have no disposition to nager or rage but catch someone raping your 10 year old daughter. You then kill the rapist with you bare hands, that's a crime of anger, you lost control. Are you to be punished for this?

[scorn]

Originally posted by Phily Baby
What if you have no disposition to nager or rage but catch someone raping your 10 year old daughter. You then kill the rapist with you bare hands, that's a crime of anger, you lost control. Are you to be punished for this?
Hopefully not - doing unspeakable things to small children is one of those things that in my opinion qualifies you for a one-way trip six feet under, regardless of who administers the punishment - and hopefully the method is as painful as possible. I see CG's point, but the world is not black and white - it's all shades of grey.

[Curi0us_George]

Originally posted by Phily Baby
What if you have no disposition to nager or rage but catch someone raping your 10 year old daughter. You then kill the rapist with you bare hands, that's a crime of anger, you lost control. Are you to be punished for this?
Someone who rapes a ten year old girl loses their humanity. I don't see the killing of such a person as murder.

I think you can count that as "defending the daughter" in court anyway. I don't think anyone is going to try to pull some "excessive force" crap.