Go Back   Matt-Hughes.com Official Forums > MMA Related > MMA

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 03-16-2009, 06:43 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is online now
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar
1) So, if I go out and shoot a criminal then I should recieve a lesser punishment? I never got this impression from you before. I thought you contending that someone who shot and killed someone who was breaking into their house should be punished to the fullest extent. I see this as you are almost defending vigilante justice. Rock on, Dave!

Maybe the guy in the Porsche saw Mask speeding and decided to stop him before he killed someone! War Porsche guy! Protecting the innocent.

2) If one guilty party dies before going to court, should the one left not be punished because the other can't be punished with him?

(If Mask had lived he would face the same charges if the other guy had died, right? )
1) thats because you dont listen to me. I am the guy who argues that if you are a criminal you should be treated like a criminal. That you shouldnt be entitled to anything but the basics of human rights BECAUSE Human rights, are given to you by the law

Break that law and why do you then try to use it to protect you. In the United States I hear they have mercinaries who are hired to break the law in order to catch criminals...dont you call them bounty hunters??

I dont think many people realize that Criminals are NOT Citizens. Citizens follow the law, thats why the law protects them. Criminals break the law, why should the law protect them?

Hopefully your morals will stop you from illicitly trying to stop criminals, thats what law enforcement is for. But...and hear again, you havent read the write up I wrote in the other section for "The International" which reminds us that the reason Justice belongs to GOD is because...sometimes you cant meat out justice without yourself breaking the law.

Ethically speaking, if Murder is wrong, what right does a State have to Murder the Muderer?? The answer is, that rule applies to society. Criminals set themselves out of society. You live by the sword, you die by it. The State simply gives them Justice in a way they understand, they are not governed by the law, so it is not an offense for the State to kill them. They are not citizens, they are criminals.

2) No. the Justice process begins when they are charged, if both are living when charged, it doesnt matter if one dies after that before Justice is served. They both took a portion of the blame when the course of Justice began.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-16-2009, 06:56 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is online now
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuck
Here you go....
1) We're not talking about breaking copywrite law Chuck...we're talking about consequences that are serious. I very much doubt that Matt Hughes races cars in an illicit sense, I very much doubt he committs fraud, I very much doubt he committs any crime that would/could lead to someones death deliberatley.

2) No actually there isnt. That illustrates my point entirely

3) There is a line between respecting the dead, and effectively cannonizing them. Before his death I heard an increasing amount of disdain towards Tapout, there brand was seen not to be a companion of christian values, and wasnt their TV thing a little bit frowned on at times? Look at the way they dressed and even at the psedonymns they called themselves. There was an image, that some found offensive.

Course...now that he's dead, well...all of a sudden, He's a saint. He revolutionized MMA, he was the nicest most decent person you could ever meet.

Now dont get me wrong, I know almost nothing about him. But ive seen this happen a lot. death in itself suddenly changes the person and how they were seen by the public.

I bet those who thought that Evan Tanner should have retired, have suddenly changed their minds to think he should be in the hall of fame.

Its the same sort of thing. I dont know how much of that is going on with Mask. I dont know what he was honnestly like before he died. So I'm keeping an open mind and speaking as if he was any normal human being. He might be innocent, he might not...thats why I keep asking for clarification

4) No, if they were both racing it was BOTH of their faults. IF they were racing then Mask wouldnt have been killed had he not been breaking the law. He is as much responsible for his own actions as the other driver. If they were racing, firstly niether of them MEANT to kill the other. One lost control of the car, the other one wouldnt have been killed if he hadnt been racing in the first place. Infact...you could say that whilst not responsible for his own death, IF they were both racing, NIETHER could help losing control. The living party couldnt help crashing into Mask...but Mask COULD have helpped being in the race. Losing control is an accident...but noone accidently finds themselves racing...unless they are being chased...in which case it is NOT a race.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-16-2009, 07:29 PM
lc87
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Wasn't mask's girlgriend ejected from the car? Has anyone heard how she is doing? ir has she released a statement of what actually happened? Or the other parties released a statement?

I just wish we hd those facts. Then we could know if they were racing and if money was involved as motive for the crash? Like if they had a lot of money on the line and he bumped him to slow him down and lost control.

But without all of the facts its just a guess on what really happened.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-16-2009, 07:42 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is online now
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lc87
Wasn't mask's girlgriend ejected from the car? Has anyone heard how she is doing? ir has she released a statement of what actually happened? Or the other parties released a statement?

I just wish we hd those facts. Then we could know if they were racing and if money was involved as motive for the crash? Like if they had a lot of money on the line and he bumped him to slow him down and lost control.

But without all of the facts its just a guess on what really happened.
Thats interesting, but what motivation would Mask have to race for money. He's founder of Tapout...he's going to have plenty of wealth....plus...i'd find it strange that he would race for money etc with his girlfriend in the car.

I was assuming if they were racing it was a spur of the moment type thing
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-16-2009, 08:02 PM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,490
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar
1) So, if I go out and shoot a criminal then I should recieve a lesser punishment?

You never answered this question.

2) If one guilty party dies before going to court, should the one left not be punished because the other can't be punished with him?

(If Mask had lived he would face the same charges if the other guy had died, right? )
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
1) thats because you dont listen to me. I am the guy who argues that if you are a criminal you should be treated like a criminal. That you shouldnt be entitled to anything but the basics of human rights BECAUSE Human rights, are given to you by the law

Would you say that not being killed because you are racing a basic human right?

Break that law and why do you then try to use it to protect you.
Wouldn't this apply to a burglar or tresspasser on your property?


In the United States I hear they have mercinaries who are hired to break the law in order to catch criminals...dont you call them bounty hunters??

I dont think many people realize that Criminals are NOT Citizens. Citizens follow the law, thats why the law protects them. Criminals break the law, why should the law protect them?

Hopefully your morals will stop you from illicitly trying to stop criminals, thats what law enforcement is for. But...and hear again, you havent read the write up I wrote in the other section for "The International" which reminds us that the reason Justice belongs to GOD is because...sometimes you cant meat out justice without yourself breaking the law. But we aren't talking about a citizen meating (lol) out justice; we are talking about the law.

Ethically speaking, if Murder is wrong, what right does a State have to Murder the Muderer?? The answer is, that rule applies to society. Criminals set themselves out of society. You live by the sword, you die by it. The State simply gives them Justice in a way they understand, they are not governed by the law, so it is not an offense for the State to kill them. They are not citizens, they are criminals. And the State in this case says that the other driver should be punished for his actions, regardless of the other person's actions. Otherwise, you couldn't prosecute for vigilante justice.

2) No. the Justice process begins when they are charged, if both are living when charged, it doesnt matter if one dies after that before Justice is served. They both took a portion of the blame when the course of Justice began.
Why did you add that clause 'if both are living'? If one of two criminals gets shot during the crime then does the other get off free because they couldn't charge the dead with a crime before he died? That just doesn't make sense to me. And didn't you say to take the death factor out.

Last edited by Neezar; 03-16-2009 at 08:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03-16-2009, 08:07 PM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,490
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
3) There is a line between respecting the dead, and effectively cannonizing them. Before his death I heard an increasing amount of disdain towards Tapout, there brand was seen not to be a companion of christian values, and wasnt their TV thing a little bit frowned on at times? Look at the way they dressed and even at the psedonymns they called themselves. There was an image, that some found offensive.

Course...now that he's dead, well...all of a sudden, He's a saint. He revolutionized MMA, he was the nicest most decent person you could ever meet.

Now dont get me wrong, I know almost nothing about him. But ive seen this happen a lot. death in itself suddenly changes the person and how they were seen by the public.

I bet those who thought that Evan Tanner should have retired, have suddenly changed their minds to think he should be in the hall of fame.

Its the same sort of thing. I dont know how much of that is going on with Mask. I dont know what he was honnestly like before he died. So I'm keeping an open mind and speaking as if he was any normal human being. (wth? what else would he be? ) He might be innocent, he might not...thats why I keep asking for clarification

Dave, that sounds like you are trying to justify his death because he wasn't the kind of person that you think you would admire.

4) No, if they were both racing it was BOTH of their faults. IF they were racing then Mask wouldnt have been killed had he not been breaking the law. He is as much responsible for his own actions as the other driver. If they were racing, firstly niether of them MEANT to kill the other. One lost control of the car, the other one wouldnt have been killed if he hadnt been racing in the first place. Infact...you could say that whilst not responsible for his own death, IF they were both racing, NIETHER could help losing control. The living party couldnt help crashing into Mask...but Mask COULD have helpped being in the race. Losing control is an accident...but noone accidently finds themselves racing...unless they are being chased...in which case it is NOT a race.
Dave, if we find that Mask was equally at fault for racing then do you think that Porsche guy should still be charged with the crimes that he was committing?

btw - negligent homicide has nothing to do with intention or 'meaning to'.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-16-2009, 09:07 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is online now
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar
Why did you add that clause 'if both are living'? If one of two criminals gets shot during the crime then does the other get off free because they couldn't charge the dead with a crime before he died? That just doesn't make sense to me. And didn't you say to take the death factor out.
Hang on, because a shooting by a police officer is different, from a criminal being killed by another criminal.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-16-2009, 09:09 PM
Tyburn's Avatar
Tyburn Tyburn is online now
Angry @ Injustice!
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: England
Posts: 16,995
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neezar
Dave, if we find that Mask was equally at fault for racing then do you think that Porsche guy should still be charged with the crimes that he was committing?

btw - negligent homicide has nothing to do with intention or 'meaning to'.
He could be charged with offenses that related to dangerous driving, to hit and run, and to driving whilst under the influence.

He shouldnt be tried for the death of the other guy...well possibly manslaughter I suppose...but he shouldnt be charged with Murder...Homicide is Murder...correct? (I only know that coz I watch CSI )
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-16-2009, 09:17 PM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,490
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
He could be charged with offenses that related to dangerous driving, to hit and run, and to driving whilst under the influence.

He shouldnt be tried for the death of the other guy...well possibly manslaughter I suppose...but he shouldnt be charged with Murder...Homicide is Murder...correct? (I only know that coz I watch CSI )
I think I posted the definition of negligent homicide and/or vehicular homicide.


However, in California if you have been arrested with DUI before and and understand the dangers (Porsche guy had been arrested before) then it CAN be changed to murder. I don't think they will charge him with that but he is guilty of vehicular homicide, no doubt.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03-16-2009, 09:19 PM
Neezar's Avatar
Neezar Neezar is offline
SupaDupaMod
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: South
Posts: 6,490
Send a message via Yahoo to Neezar
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyburn
Hang on, because a shooting by a police officer is different, from a criminal being killed by another criminal.
Dave! You frustrating little tink!

Okay, what if they were running from the law, after committing a crime, and one...oh hell, let's say he falls off a cliff and dies. Do you prosecute the other one or not?




Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.