Ethical debate anyone?

[Danefied]

Really???

Gangs are not just a "social club," they are criminal organizations. They are in the business, very literally, of selling drugs, illegal guns, etc.

Yes, really. I'm playing devil's advocate, offering a different perspective.

Pharmaceutical companies are also in the business of selling drugs, they're not ethical about it either, they'll put premature babies on speed and give expectant mothers thalidomide.
Our own beloved government sells guns to genocidal maniacs.

Its all relative

 

[Buckshot]

Yes, really. I'm playing devil's advocate, offering a different perspective.

Pharmaceutical companies are also in the business of selling drugs, they're not ethical about it either, they'll put premature babies on speed and give expectant mothers thalidomide.
Our own beloved government sells guns to genocidal maniacs.

Its all relative

Good stuff

 

[sillysally]

Its all relative

Walk through certain communities in Chicago and tell the residents there to just relax, its all relative, and it's basically just a bunch of frat buys running around their communities and killing their kids in the crossfire.

Your right, it's all in how you look at it. And I have explained how it is that I see it.

 

[PixieSticksandTricks]

Nope I don't. They are trash and should be treated as such.

 

[PixieSticksandTricks]

Danefied

Gangs in many ways are no different than fraternities and sororities aren't they? But because one is cloaked in the "propriety" of a college kid its more socially acceptable. And don't tell me fraternities and sororities aren't dangerous to society - how many girls are raped by frat boys? What about the kids killed in alcohol related accidents while at frat parties?

Thats the dumbest thing I ever heard. I live in a city where there is gang violence. Actually just around the block from my best friend a young teenage boy was shot to death on his front porch by a drive by......Why? The shooter was new in the gang and to be fully excepted had to kill someone. So he chose a random young man he had never met and who had never met him.

So its complete and utter BS to compare a gang to a Fraternity. Yes there is hazing in college and yes rape happens in college. But no Fraternity is sending their members to kill innocent people for credibility.

Again its total and complete BS.

 

[Danefied]

Walk through certain communities in Chicago and tell the residents there to just relax, its all relative, and it's basically just a bunch of frat buys running around their communities and killing their kids in the crossfire.

I'm sure the parents of Matthew Carrington were assuaged at the notion that their son died of water intoxication and basically torture instead of a bullet.

We can play this game all day.

Atrocities are committed by human beings not gangs, not soldiers, not governments. Individuals.

What I'm trying to point out is that a person's worth is a person's worth, whether they have the label of "gang banger" or "frat boy". Would you say that Matthew Carrigton should be mourned less because he should have known what to expect at a hazing?
Should the men who performed the hazing be punished less because they didn't "mean" for anyone to die, just suffer a little?
Do you think gang bangers mean for kids to get shot in the crossfire? Do you not think they're human beings with emotions who feel remorse? Who maybe do try to get out and just don't have the resources to do it?

Its easy to dismiss a whole group when from the periphery. And its easier to be understanding of the group you identify with more. I try to understand before I judge

 

[sillysally]

I'm sure the parents of Matthew Carrington were assuaged at the notion that their son died of water intoxication and basically torture instead of a bullet.

We can play this game all day.

Atrocities are committed by human beings not gangs, not soldiers, not governments. Individuals.

What I'm trying to point out is that a person's worth is a person's worth, whether they have the label of "gang banger" or "frat boy". Would you say that Matthew Carrigton should be mourned less because he should have known what to expect at a hazing?
Should the men who performed the hazing be punished less because they didn't "mean" for anyone to die, just suffer a little?
Do you think gang bangers mean for kids to get shot in the crossfire? Do you not think they're human beings with emotions who feel remorse? Who maybe do try to get out and just don't have the resources to do it?

Its easy to dismiss a whole group when from the periphery. And its easier to be understanding of the group you identify with more. I try to understand before I judge

If you are asking if I believe that a gang member shooting (as in, trying to kill) someone and accidentally shooting a 7 year old playing video games in his living room is the same as a frat boy drinking so much water that he dies is the same thing, the answer is "no," IMO. Remorse? I'm sure some do have remorse, but I'm sure that others are others who have none. Either way, the 7 yearn old is still dead because one gang member decided to needed to turn a community into a shooting gallery.

Yes, someone going through a hazing should know what to expect. My cousin is a frat boy. If he were to (God forbid) willingly take part in some sort of hazing and die as a result, I would not feel that those that set up the hazing murdered him, because they didn't. He chose to do to stupid thing and died as a result. I know he probably binge drinks and that his "brothers" probably encourage it. However, I also know that he chose to join a frat and knows that he shouldn't be binge drinking, and I would not want those providing the alcohol to be thrown in jail if something were to happen to him. Of course I would mourn him--he's my family and I love him. Incidentally, I have friends with a history of drunk driving. If (God forbid), they were to get drunk, get in an accident and die, I would mourn them, but also know that they died as a direct result of their own actions and choices.

 

[PixieSticksandTricks]

If you are asking if I believe that a gang member shooting (as in, trying to kill) someone and accidentally shooting a 7 year old playing video games in his living room is the same as a frat boy drinking so much water that he dies is the same thing, the answer is "no," IMO. Remorse? I'm sure some do have remorse, but I'm sure that others are others who have none. Either way, the 7 yearn old is still dead because one gang member decided to needed to turn a community into a shooting gallery.

Yes, someone going through a hazing should know what to expect. My cousin is a frat boy. If he were to (God forbid) willingly take part in some sort of hazing and die as a result, I would not feel that those that set up the hazing murdered him, because they didn't. He chose to do to stupid thing and died as a result. I know he probably binge drinks and that his "brothers" probably encourage it. However, I also know that he chose to join a frat and knows that he shouldn't be binge drinking, and I would not want those providing the alcohol to be thrown in jail if something were to happen to him. Of course I would mourn him--he's my family and I love him. Incidentally, I have friends with a history of drunk driving. If (God forbid), they were to get drunk, get in an accident and die, I would mourn them, but also know that they died as a direct result of their own actions and choices.

:hail::hail::hail::hail:

 

[Renee750il]

:rofl1: Way to put it so eloquently sparks! hahahaha

And what if the 'killer' of the gang banger isn't a 'scumbag' at all.......but maybe one of his victims that fought back then ran? The possibilities are endless.

That is called self defense, and, theoretically, doesn't land you in prison. It does, however, cost you pretty much everything you own to defend yourself. It also pretty much ensures that you'll be watching your back from now on, expecting another gang member to exact a perceived vengeance.

Theoretically, ETHICALLY, the object is to punish a killer, no matter what the victim may or may not have been.

I reality, I've seen too much of the legal system to have much faith that it really happens like that very often, and no, it's not that it turns too many guilty loose, it condemns too many who aren't guilty, whether of any crime or that particular one.

 

[Danefied]

If you are asking if I believe that a gang member shooting (as in, trying to kill) someone and accidentally shooting a 7 year old playing video games in his living room is the same as a frat boy drinking so much water that he dies is the same thing, the answer is "no," IMO.

Fair enough. We'll have to agree to disagree. I believe both are innocent lives lost at the hands of another. Both someone's beloved son with a bright future, both where their parents thought they were safe.

 

[PixieSticksandTricks]

Both someone's beloved son with a bright future, both where their parents thought they were safe.

Not in every case. Actually in my experience. Most gang members come from really crappy abusive home lives. There is of course the handful with loving families and the kid/person is just looking to rebel.

But I just wanted to make it sadly clear not all gang members killed are missed by their families.

 

[Danefied]

Not in every case. Actually in my experience. Most gang members come from really crappy abusive home lives. There is of course the handful with loving families and the kid/person is just looking to rebel.

But I just wanted to make it sadly clear not all gang members killed are missed by their families.

I was talking about the 7 year old sitting in his living room playing video games and the fraternity pledge going through a little innocent hazing.

 

[ACooper]

I was talking about the 7 year old sitting in his living room playing video games and the fraternity pledge going through a little innocent hazing.

But the major difference between those two scenarios is STILL choice. The frat boy chose to participate in the hazing...........the 7 year old didn't sign on for a gun fight.

Now, the frat boy situation is still sad......heck, the gangster situation is sad as well. What makes the difference in THOSE two situation is the frat boy didn't sign on thinking death would be a possibility........didn't sign on to hurt other people or commit crimes against society in general where the gangster DID sign on for those things.

What is sad in a gangster death (IMO) is all the things that led up to them BECOMING a gangster in the first place........meeting a tragic end doesn't necessarily sadden me, it's sort of expected, the life that led them there is what makes me weep.

 

[jess2416]

this thread has brought back a lot of heartbreaking memories for me...

and ya know while people can despise and hate what a person does in their lifetime, and sure sometimes peoples lifestyles DO catch up with them, and that might make them more prone to getting murdered, cause hey we all know it happens, but the fact is that is that person was murdered, and SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE loved them and cared about them, even if its ONLY ONE person whether its a family member, friend or someone that might have tried to reach out to them...

Im not saying anyone has to have compassion for anyone but there should be compassion for the people that did care about them, and people shouldnt go around saying that scumbag deserved to be killed, and they are GLAD they are off the streets, thats a little harsh to me... and it makes me sad...

 

[puppydog]

Morally, no. They don't deserve the same time and effort.

Logically, yes they do. If one murder is allowed then all murders should be allowed. People need to be scared to commit crimes and know that if they do, no matter the circumstances, they will be investigated.

Do I think that a person who shoots someone who breaks into their home should go to jail? No. Do I think that the death of the intruder needs to be investigated? Yes.

 

[ihartgonzo]

What if that "accused gang banger" was not a gang banger and would've gone on to be a really good person, save some one's life, make an impact on the world, etc? What if that 10 year-old would've gone on to become a gang banger? I cannot judge which person deserved to live more, as both deserved to live, period!

The fact is, some one took another person's life into their own hands. No one has the right to take another person's life, IMO.

 

[corgipower]

Jess,

((((((((((((((((HUGS))))))))))))))

 

[MPP]

I am morally, ethically, and intellectually opposed to the death penalty (and to skimping on any murder investigation.) But d@mn, some people just plain need killing.*




*And yes, I am perfectly aware of the ramifications. Which is why I'm opposed. My emotions are my own business, though.

 

[corgipower]

But d@mn, some people just plain need killing.

Yeah, I used to have a bumper sticker that said
"Some people are alive only because it's illegal to kill them."

 

[Lilavati]

I am morally, ethically, and intellectually opposed to the death penalty (and to skimping on any murder investigation.) But d@mn, some people just plain need killing.*




*And yes, I am perfectly aware of the ramifications. Which is why I'm opposed. My emotions are my own business, though.

I once shocked a room full of fellow law students by commenting that I personally felt that pedophile priests should be dragged out into the street and shot like rabid dogs. After the gasps died down I remarked that that wasn't my legal opinion . . . but dang, that was how I felt.