You must log in or register to comment.
Are those the old ladies that end up shooting their neighbor through the front door?
I referenced this post to my wife, she just went “huh” and nodded to her self … IDK, if I stop posting I want it to be known that I’m not suicidal
A friend of mine had an abusive stepfather. He mostly beat his wife, until one day he threatened their baby. That night, my friend’s mom shotgunned the stepfather in bed.
Would putting him jail forever have been better? Sure. But it wouldn’t have happened. He’d have been thrown in the drunk tank overnight and be back at it the next morning. If she’d divorced him, he would have fought for custody.
She solved the problem forever. I can’t endorse what she did, but I also won’t judge her.
I can endorse what she did. what was she supposed to do, hope the police would solve the problem and not make it worse? they haven’t earned that trust.
The ethics of this are completely at odds with our justice system but yet if in a jury I’d want to nullify it every time and I’m guessing many of you would, too.
I mean, isn’t part of the purpose of a jury to allow for nullification in cases where circumstances absolve the defendant from moral guilt even if the letter of the law might have condemned them?
Whether that purpose is always dutifully carried out is a different question, of course.
This reminded me of my own experience. Bear with me as this is a story from long ago, and I was not sober for it.
This is the story of Alice: Biker, Drinker, Badass.
Drinking at the bar with a friend, we went out to have a smoke and started chatting with this cool older lady. It was the type of conversation you have when everyone involved is in a good mood and at least a little drunk: lots of shouting and laughing (and coughing; we were smoking 2 things!)
We were drinking heavily and trading funny stories. Out of nowhere, this lady starts talking about how she “took care of” her first husband. He taught her how to ride and fix motorcycles, but he was a violent alcoholic. One day she’d had enough and found the perfect opportunity. He drunkenly passed out near a river, so she threw him in and held him down until he stopped moving. She then set it up to look like he got trashed and rode his motorcycle into the water, which apparently looked convincingly like he just was too far gone to save himself. This lady, for real, probably did this. I have a decent enough bullshit detector, and nothing was setting off any alarms.
Just because this lady deserves to have her legend remembered, a couple more quick tidbits. On another occasion, she told me in front of my wife that she wanted to sit on my face. On yet another occasion, she shouted “hey boys!” at me and a few friends while we were ordering at the bar, and when we all turned to look, she flashed us and just started cackling.
Seriously, she cackled so joyfully after each one of these anecdotes. What a fucking badass. Ride on, Alice!
[For reference, all of these happened probably 10 to 12 years ago. That lady was old enough, and partied hard enough, that I highly doubt she’s still with us.
I’m not advocating for or condoning murder, by the way. It’s just that I believe this woman’s account, and that she lived in a hard time and place. I don’t know if it’s really true, and I don’t know if she had other options.]
My grandmother on my mother’s side beat my grandfather with a cast iron skillet while he was sleeping in retaliation for him beating her earlier. Apparently he learned from it and it never happened again.
With abortion and divorce getting more difficult “accidents” for male deaths may go up and this will repeat.
My dad was doing some family tree genealogy, he discovered that one of our predecessors died of ‘dementia’ at the age of 28. He discovered that a historian had written a paper (thesis?) on a spike in the number of poisonings that happened in the area (Glasgow I think) at that time (mid-late 1800’s I think). Dad reached out to the historian and she thought it was a likely case.
So my N-th great-grandma (or her beau) probably got away with murdering my N-th great-grandpa.
Her son moved to Canada, (Toronto) went to Winnipeg for work, leaving his pregnant wife in Toronto. Then he joined the army for WWI, and died in Flanders.
Allegedly when his wife (Toronto) went to claim the pension it was already being claimed by his ‘widow’ in Winnipeg.
The baby from the pregnant Toronto wife was my great great grandmother, so he was my GGG grandfather so N=4.
I said allegedly with respect to the pension because it’s a family legend only attested to by my great-grandmother, who may have been a pathological liar. The rest of the story is reasonably verified.
If more of them had been lucky enough to deal with their abusers like this the GOP might not be as powerful as it is today.
This is not bullshit!
I worked as a nurse’s assistant for twenty years. The amount of confessions I’ve heard is frightening. Not even deathbed confessions, but from people that were just in their seventies and did not have any fucks left to give.
Now, before I tell the craziest one I ever heard, there’s a warning and a less crazy one.
The warning our that the last time I told the story online, I got a blast of shit over it, and I no longer entertain assholes, so don’t waste your time with any fuckery, I’ll block you and move on with my evening.
The less crazy one isn’t even my story, it’s my wife’s, and I asked if I could tell it here.
Her grandmother, and she’s still alive and only in her seventies now, was married three times. She shot all three husbands. She killed one of them. Never saw a day of jail, which is kinda batshit when you consider that she killed the one on her front porch in clear view of multiple people.
The first husband cheated on her, and when she objected and told him to GTFO, hit her. She responded by borrowing a shotgun and putting birdshot in his knee the next day.
The second husband did “something ugly” to the son she had from the first husband. She put a 12 gauge slug into him, center of mass, and that was the end of that marriage. Neither the son nor the lady were ever willing to say exactly what was done to the boy, just that it was ugly or nasty.
The third husband knew about the first two, married the lady and was still dumb enough to throw a hot cup of coffee in her face and slap her. He survived, but only after a lot of surgery because a shotgun will absolutely fuck up intestines.
This little lady looked me in the eye and said I shouldn’t ever give her a reason because she still has the shotgun. Then she hugged my neck. She’s a little fucking terrifying.
Now, the story from a patient. Not a woman this time, so not exactly the same thing, though I’ve heard plenty of women talk about having to deal out their own justice.
This was a Korean war vet. He was a deacon in his church, a well known and respected man. What you might call local famous. Real pillar of the community type, and not in a jokey or fake way, we’re talking a guy that would show up when a fire burned families out and make sure they had a place to stay, clothes, food, etc. Like, he’s a hero locally, or was.
We’re sitting around talking after the usual care routine, after a few months of working with him. He starts talking about his war experience. Pretty brutal stuff overall, but nothing too unusual for vets that I’d helped out over the years.
Until he starts talking about having to fight a guy hand to hand. One of those things where it’s down to two men, a knife, and desperation. He ends up stabbed, but killed the enemy. And as the enemy is dying, he gets this rush of anger and all the adrenaline hits him. He starts just stomping on the man’s face, then goes off even more, until not even his mother would be able to recognize the body (that’s as close as I trust my memory about what he said, but it’s damn near a quote).
He finishes it up and realizes he just came in his pants and is still erect.
Now, that’s crazy enough by itself.
But he then tells another story from after that where he gut shot someone just so that he could repeat that feeling. He then says he did it more than once.
Vicissitudes of war and all, so I thank him for sharing it.
He just looks at me and keeps talking.
He tells me about how all of his kids were conceived while he was imagining doing the same thing to his wife. How some of the other people he had sex with, he would need to imagine beating them and killing as he had sex with them to even be interested.
He talked about imagining doing it to his kids.
He said that even after he couldn’t get an erection, he would still imagine killing and having sex with people because it made him feel alive.
I again thanked him for sharing.
He looked me right in the eye and asked me what he was thinking about right this minute.
He lived for about a year after that. I was with him when he died, his son had called me when his father started having agonal breathing (though he didn’t use the term). I helped wash his body.
As near as I can tell, I’m the only one he ever told. To the best of my knowledge he never acted on any of it as a civilian.
This shit does happen
I thought being erect / cumming in your pants while doing something violent only happened in stories Stephen King wrote while he was high on cocaine… I guess not!
No, it’s a thing. I’ve never experienced it, but he was not the only person to have said they’ve had it happen to me, and there’s records of murderers saying they experienced it.
I’ve seen armchair discussions about it possibly being a blend of the adrenaline, the breaking of the taboo of killing, and the rush of surviving conflict just flipping the entire nervous system on its head.
What I can definitely say is that sometimes a fight, a real fight where there’s no ref, just someone trying to fuck you up, and you stopping them with violence of your own, there’s a definite rush of chemicals that hit the brain, and the groin. It’s a total body arousal sensation, where even a breeze across the hair on your arms is amplified. And that can turn very sexual in the right circumstances. I never personally got wood during a fight, but it did happen a couple of times afterwards, usually right after the shakes would settle down. It was like the adrenaline changed blood flow, and as it faded, it left the valves in the penis set up for arousal.
Not just for men, either. Back in my days as a bouncer, one of the main partners I had was a woman, and she would end up insanely horny after we’d have to fight someone. She’d get home and her and her girlfriend would be at it for hours from what they said.
Happens with other life or death circumstances too. Car wrecks, sometimes people come out of the rush of surviving and they’re a little delirious and a lot horny. You work in hospitals, you hear stories. And, again, I’ve been in a couple of bad wrecks, and the urge to find a connection to life is strong, and sex is one of the most life affirming things we have.
It also happens in every single dean Koontz book
I must have missed this when I was reading Odd Thomas and Cold Fire.
He said that even after he couldn’t get an erection, he would still imagine killing and having sex with people because it made him feel alive.
“I know exactly what you mean. You know what’s better? When they’re old and lonely and can’t fight back or don’t have anyone who’ll believe them. I once shoved a kitchen knife in a 90 year old’s ass cause he wouldn’t stop whining when I fucked him. He loosened up real good after that.”
Worst case scenario, you creeped out an old man with a bad sense of humor. Best case scenario, for the last days of his life a twisted psycho murderer who’s been hiding his true nature behind good deeds gets to feel a tinge of fear whenever he’s not sure he locked his door.
jeeezus. That’s some nightmare fuel. I wonder if he felt uninhibited by the nearness of death, or was trying to rattle you to feel like he had some control in a patient/caregiver dynamic?
Well, I’ve thought about that over the years.
While it may seem weird, there’s this thing called the universal light church, where you can get ordained online.
I did it because I figured it might help some of my patients feel a bit more comforted.
Is was a few days after it had come up in conversation.
But he definitely wanted to fuck with for some reason. I’ve never been sure if it was to feel more control, to feed his inner monster, or just for entertainment, or some combination. But he was enjoying telling me, and there was no doubt he was trying to get to me with the way he was looking at me.
I kinda figured that there was a part of him that wanted confession of some kind, and wanted someone to see him, to see that part of him and not react the way he thought people would react. The timing with having talked about end of life care, and how patients often told me about some pretty deep stuff, and how I felt like it was one of the best parts of the job, being the one that gets to be there. I think it was one of those things where he knew he’d never get another chance at sharing that with someone that would both keep it secret and not flip out on him.
But it was also part him trying to fuck with me in one way or another for sure.
Holy shit. Signed up for shitposts and got true crime
Amazing comment
Wepa, goddamn
Hey look ma I’m famous!
Grandma knows some people just need a killin’
Vigilante justice is always wrong. Do not trivialize murder.
Edit: you are all idiots
what universe are you living in, and are they allowing immigration?
Reading through these comments is making me realize maybe this place ain’t it for me.
When the state and its agents fail to utilize their monopoly on violence to uphold justice and provide no alternative to escape the injustices in one’s life, it leaves the victim with no other alternative but to enact justice by their own hand with the means most readily available to them.
Vigilante justice is the solution to systemic injustice.
Every slave revolt was morally wrong, as the slaves broke the law while doing it
Illegal != immoral
It’s 100% okay to break immoral laws.
I think that was their point
KILL EVERYONE NOW. CONDONE FIRST DEGREE MURDER.
the duality of man
Holy shit I haven’t seen an advice animal post in awhile.
Trivialize murder more, especially for corporate bosses and politicians. They see human lives as cheap and replaceable which frankly speaking theirs are.
That isn’t the conversation here but thanks for playing.
You said no murder, ya didnt specify if anyone was excluded. I granted a fine example of two groups who should be excluded from such moral rules if they in fact existed, though id also like to add priests, cops, and the ATF.
I didn’t say no murder I said don’t trivialize it. Vigilante justice is always wrong.
Vigilantism is often the only way to get justice. Especially when the police are the ones you need justice from
Vigilante justice is always wrong.
You keep saying this, but I don’t understand why. Hear me out.
So, vigilante justice is justice outside the legal system. If you say it is always wrong, you implicitly say that the legal system is the only way to resolve things. In an ideal society, I would grant you that. But you’re aware that even our laws today are imperfect, let alone the laws from tens or hundreds of years ago. So how can you stand by that claim? Surely if we allow for the system to be imperfect, it must mean that vigilante justice is sometimes the only possible way to achieve justice, and therefore right?
Aside from this: even if the system was perfect, laws are society’s convention. They are not natural, they are man-made. That means man can also change them (and we do, constantly - parliament/congress/senate/whatever form it takes). But even if they weren’t in constant change and they would reach a stability - is it still not the case that society must agree to obey them? If you give me hammurabi’s code and tell me to live my life by it, I may agree and do it or I may think you’re a fool and not do it. Same here - just because a vocal minority has decided the law that should govern everyone (even if that law is just and fair and impartial and righteous and by all means perfect) - it doesn’t guarantee that it will be followed by the majority. So there will be situations where each of us will be a vigilante, outside the system of laws imposed by a third party. Is that really ALWAYS wrong to do? Because I can personally think of very many situations where it’s not wrong.
By your logic every instance of white people lynching black people is a-ok (or even celebratory from the comments on this pos) because the black person was accused of some crime they could have been acquitted of in court. White people couldn’t stand that and the only way for them to get “justice” was for a lynching. After all, laws are just made up and the courts aren’t fair, right? Oh but that’s different? Not to those who hold different values from you.
You disgust me. I’m going to kill you now because of some perceived moral repugnancy on your part. You disagree with me? You actually didn’t do the thing i think you did? Tough shit, that isn’t how vigilante justice works and there is no one to appeal to. My decision is completely arbitrary and final. Leopard, face.
You seem to be under the impression that there’s only 2 agruments here when in reality there is at least 3.
Your interpretation seems to be that Either Vigilante justice is never OK, or vigilante justice is always OK.
No one here is arguing that vigilante justice is always OK.
The argument here is between vigilante justice is always OK, and vigilante justice is sometimes OK.
The examples of slave revolts and lynchings of black people both fall into the camp of sometimes. Slave revolts are always morally good, while racist lynchings of black people are always not morally good. Both were illegal at the same time, but at no point is it argued that both are always morally good.
I’m just gonna keep your initial claim here for visibility
Vigilante justice is always wrong
Now, where did I claim that it’s never wrong? Because that’s what you seem to argue. You won’t find such a claim from me though, because I agree with your implied point, which is more like “vigilante justice is usually wrong because an emotional mob doesn’t weigh facts or proportional response, it just acts based on feeling”. So yeah, that one seems great. But not ALWAYS wrong though.
I’ll just give another example, since you gave one as well. Kid1 gets his bike stolen by kid2. He sees it happening and while he doesn’t know the thief personally, he (with his parents help) contacts the police and provides a very detailed description of the bike and a decent visual description of the thief. Because this isn’t really a top prio case, nothing happens for about 6 months. Then kid1 sees kid2 riding the bike around town, and he lucks into kid2 parking it in front of a small shop and going inside. Kid1 walks up to the bike, makes sure it’s his, and rides off into the sunset with it.
So I ask - was it really always wrong for me to go and get my bike back?
You seem to have all of the comprehension and logical reasoning ability of a middle schooler.
Police are corrupt and the courts are injust. Why shouldnt we commit it, there is no moral reason why not to.
Looks like democracy disagrees with the court.
Who are you, to be the minority arbiter of ethics?
