What's wrong with revenge?

  • 161 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for OfficerLeach_
OfficerLeach_

419

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#151 OfficerLeach_
Member since 2010 • 419 Posts

[QUOTE="OfficerLeach_"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Yup, the time from conviction to execution can be years. This is due to the absolutely necessary appeals process. Just ponder, for a moment, how many innocent people were killed in executions before we had the appeals process we do now.

worlock77

absolutely...its way more important that a innocent man its proven not guilty then the other way around...but the bad thing is that it allows even guilty people to get out with time...say they stall untill they find a "loophole" in the case like maybe a rascist cop or a bipolar witness or maybe a key witness dies during that time and they come up with something only they could object to, you know something stupid like that...the long wait works both way unfortunatly

Those aren't loopholes, those are reasonable doubt.

Which are loopholes if the person is still obviously guilty but gets off on a technicality that took years to find...lots of people lack common sense anymore so more and more guilty people are getting off for stupid stuff all the time...before I straightened up and flew right I got out a bunch of trouble because I simple knew how to manipulate people.

Avatar image for Phaze-Two
Phaze-Two

3444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#152 Phaze-Two
Member since 2009 • 3444 Posts

i think its okay to get revenge as long as it teaches the person a lesson. make sure they are still doing wrong to others, the same wrong they did to you.

it's redundant to seek revenge on someone who's already learned their lesson, and changed already. then it's wrong IMO. if you're seeking revenge JUST to let your anger out on someone, that's wrong IMO.

Avatar image for BLKR4330
BLKR4330

1698

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#153 BLKR4330
Member since 2006 • 1698 Posts

THAT is peace of mind with pain. CreasianDevaili

totally not what i was expecting and sorry to hear that really. wasn't intending to pry for what i take to be a highly personal account that shaped your perspective on this issue. it did explain your point of view though, as far as i might ever understand that. needless to say i hope, and to some degree count on it, that this will remain a "what if" scenario and never becomes reality.

Avatar image for worlock77
worlock77

22552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#154 worlock77
Member since 2009 • 22552 Posts

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="OfficerLeach_"]

absolutely...its way more important that a innocent man its proven not guilty then the other way around...but the bad thing is that it allows even guilty people to get out with time...say they stall untill they find a "loophole" in the case like maybe a rascist cop or a bipolar witness or maybe a key witness dies during that time and they come up with something only they could object to, you know something stupid like that...the long wait works both way unfortunatly

OfficerLeach_

Those aren't loopholes, those are reasonable doubt.

Which are loopholes if the person is still obviously guilty but gets off on a technicality that took years to find...lots of people lack common sense anymore so more and more guilty people are getting off for stupid stuff all the time...before I straightened up and flew right I got out a bunch of trouble because I simple knew how to manipulate people.

What's "obviously guilty"? Lots of people were "obviously guilty" then later proven to be innocent of the crime. And those loopholes people b**** about aren't loopholes at all. To use your examples if a key witness dies before he can testify then obviously he cannot give his testimony in court. Really I have no idea why you'd call that a "loophole". If the defenant is a black man and the officer in charge of the case is known to be racist then how reliable is that officer's word in this case? Again, not a loophole.

Avatar image for worlock77
worlock77

22552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#155 worlock77
Member since 2009 • 22552 Posts

i think its okay to get revenge as long as it teaches the person a lesson. make sure they are still doing wrong to others, the same wrong they did to you.

it's redundant to seek revenge on someone who's already learned their lesson, and changed already. then it's wrong IMO. if you're seeking revenge JUST to let your anger out on someone, that's wrong IMO.

Phaze-Two

"You can't kill people. And to teach you that lesson I'm going to kill you."

Avatar image for Phaze-Two
Phaze-Two

3444

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#156 Phaze-Two
Member since 2009 • 3444 Posts

[QUOTE="Phaze-Two"]

i think its okay to get revenge as long as it teaches the person a lesson. make sure they are still doing wrong to others, the same wrong they did to you.

it's redundant to seek revenge on someone who's already learned their lesson, and changed already. then it's wrong IMO. if you're seeking revenge JUST to let your anger out on someone, that's wrong IMO.

worlock77

"You can't kill people. And to teach you that lesson I'm going to kill you."

I didn't mean that YOU should do the same to them btw, I meant make sure they are still doing or planning on doing the same wrong to others as they did to you before you seek revenge on them. these are just examples too, not mindless rules set in stone.

Avatar image for worlock77
worlock77

22552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#157 worlock77
Member since 2009 • 22552 Posts

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="Phaze-Two"]

i think its okay to get revenge as long as it teaches the person a lesson. make sure they are still doing wrong to others, the same wrong they did to you.

it's redundant to seek revenge on someone who's already learned their lesson, and changed already. then it's wrong IMO. if you're seeking revenge JUST to let your anger out on someone, that's wrong IMO.

Phaze-Two

"You can't kill people. And to teach you that lesson I'm going to kill you."

I didn't mean that YOU should do the same to them btw, I meant make sure they are still doing or planning on doing the same wrong to others as they did to you before you seek revenge on them. these are just examples too, not mindless rules set in stone.

Ah ok.

"Excuse me sir, but I was planning on beating the everloving s*** out of you in order to teach you a lesson about your crimes. But first I need to know if you're planning commiting more. So are you planning to commit more of your crimes?"

"Umm, no. I am not."

"Ok, thank you sir. Have a plesant day."

Avatar image for OfficerLeach_
OfficerLeach_

419

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#158 OfficerLeach_
Member since 2010 • 419 Posts

[QUOTE="OfficerLeach_"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Those aren't loopholes, those are reasonable doubt.

worlock77

Which are loopholes if the person is still obviously guilty but gets off on a technicality that took years to find...lots of people lack common sense anymore so more and more guilty people are getting off for stupid stuff all the time...before I straightened up and flew right I got out a bunch of trouble because I simple knew how to manipulate people.

What's "obviously guilty"? Lots of people were "obviously guilty" then later proven to be innocent of the crime. And those loopholes people b**** about aren't loopholes at all. To use your examples if a key witness dies before he can testify then obviously he cannot give his testimony in court. Really I have no idea why you'd call that a "loophole". If the defenant is a black man and the officer in charge of the case is known to be racist then how reliable is that officer's word in this case? Again, not a loophole.

Id like to thank you...it was people like you that kept me from getting locked up when I use to rob people and stealall the time...luckily I changed when I joined the military but not everyone changes. I bet you think OJ and Casey Anthony cases were right huh lol..I think im done in this thread...have a good day

Avatar image for worlock77
worlock77

22552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#159 worlock77
Member since 2009 • 22552 Posts

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="OfficerLeach_"]

Which are loopholes if the person is still obviously guilty but gets off on a technicality that took years to find...lots of people lack common sense anymore so more and more guilty people are getting off for stupid stuff all the time...before I straightened up and flew right I got out a bunch of trouble because I simple knew how to manipulate people.

OfficerLeach_

What's "obviously guilty"? Lots of people were "obviously guilty" then later proven to be innocent of the crime. And those loopholes people b**** about aren't loopholes at all. To use your examples if a key witness dies before he can testify then obviously he cannot give his testimony in court. Really I have no idea why you'd call that a "loophole". If the defenant is a black man and the officer in charge of the case is known to be racist then how reliable is that officer's word in this case? Again, not a loophole.

Id like to thank you...it was people like you that kept me from getting locked up when I use to rob people and stealall the time...luckily I changed when I joined the military but not everyone changes. I bet you think OJ and Casey Anthony cases were right huh lol..I think im done in this thread...have a good day

In both of those cases the prosecution failed to prove its case. Take OJ - one of the prosecutions key witnesses, Mark Furhman, was caught lying on the stand, and essentially incriminated himself in planting evidence. There's your reasonable doubt. If you can't understand the simple concept of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt then do society a favor and never sit on a jury.

Avatar image for OfficerLeach_
OfficerLeach_

419

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#160 OfficerLeach_
Member since 2010 • 419 Posts

[QUOTE="OfficerLeach_"]

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

Those aren't loopholes, those are reasonable doubt.

worlock77

Which are loopholes if the person is still obviously guilty but gets off on a technicality that took years to find...lots of people lack common sense anymore so more and more guilty people are getting off for stupid stuff all the time...before I straightened up and flew right I got out a bunch of trouble because I simple knew how to manipulate people.

What's "obviously guilty"? Lots of people were "obviously guilty" then later proven to be innocent of the crime. And those loopholes people b**** about aren't loopholes at all. To use your examples if a key witness dies before he can testify then obviously he cannot give his testimony in court. Really I have no idea why you'd call that a "loophole". If the defenant is a black man and the officer in charge of the case is known to be racist then how reliable is that officer's word in this case? Again, not a loophole.

Oh and thanks for twisting everything I said to fit your point of view...a key witness of someone allready on death row would obviously have already testified..I meant if they die then they make something up that only that witness can prove wrong but cant now...thats why I used the word "object"...and the racist cop I never said he wa in charge of the case...I meant the one who went to go arrest him and didnt handle the case at all just the handcuffs and he dropped the N bomb a couple times like why OJ got off...Im sure youll just keep arguing little points thought so it dont matter...and people wonder why are justice system is so flawed lmao

Avatar image for worlock77
worlock77

22552

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#161 worlock77
Member since 2009 • 22552 Posts

[QUOTE="worlock77"]

[QUOTE="OfficerLeach_"]

Which are loopholes if the person is still obviously guilty but gets off on a technicality that took years to find...lots of people lack common sense anymore so more and more guilty people are getting off for stupid stuff all the time...before I straightened up and flew right I got out a bunch of trouble because I simple knew how to manipulate people.

OfficerLeach_

What's "obviously guilty"? Lots of people were "obviously guilty" then later proven to be innocent of the crime. And those loopholes people b**** about aren't loopholes at all. To use your examples if a key witness dies before he can testify then obviously he cannot give his testimony in court. Really I have no idea why you'd call that a "loophole". If the defenant is a black man and the officer in charge of the case is known to be racist then how reliable is that officer's word in this case? Again, not a loophole.

Oh and thanks for twisting everything I said to fit your point of view...a key witness of someone allready on death row would obviously have already testified..I meant if they die then they make something up that only that witness can prove wrong but cant now...thats why I used the word "object"...and the racist cop I never said he wa in charge of the case...I meant the one who went to go arrest him and didnt handle the case at all just the handcuffs and he dropped the N bomb a couple times like why OJ got off...Im sure youll just keep arguing little points thought so it dont matter...and people wonder why are justice system is so flawed lmao

I'm not twisting your words, if you mean a witness dying after giving their testimony then say so. Don't say half that and expect me to read your mind over the internet. Though now I'm curious as to what you think the defense will make up after the death of a witness after the case has been tried.