Moral Dilemma
 

http://cellar.org/2016/killer.jpg

I get the feeling he didn't try to cover his ass, and when the cops asked if he did it he would say, Hell yeah, I did it. I have no evidence of that, so I may be wrong.

But did he do the right thing? His other two choices I see, are walking away, or making a big, continuous, public stink about the dude until the DA took action or everyone for 100 miles was keeping an eye on the dude.

"I wasn't the least bit angry"

Sociopath. You hear of people who torture animals and then go on to horrible crimes against human beings? They feel nothing. They are unaffected. Read that and be chilled. There only needed to be the lightest of reasons; if it hadn't been a molester, it could have been any other justification. Cut off pulling up to a red light. It only needs to have justification in his head, not ours.

It wasn't that he cared about children. What was right for the children was not part of his equation. He also doesn't care about them. That's how this actually works.

Totally agree with da toad.

I don't think the perp's crime(s) generally bring capital punishment as a punitive measure let alone a preventive one. Was the vigilante incapable of blinding the perp; or, severing his spine @ C5 to leave him with major paralysis?

By killing the perp, the vigilante made it clear that even if the police and justice system had worked it wouldn't have been enough for him.

That; or, he was also trying to teach the police and justice system a lesson about working faster (i.e. if people have to take the law into their own hands, individuals can disregard judicial mores).

Too often with vigilantism, even if the goal is good, the implementation is bad. The length of this vigilante's prison sentence seems commensurate with bad implementation. He probably isn't astute enough to do any better. He did the right thing for him.

He didn't do the right thing for society. The end doesn't justify the means. That's not the example we want set for the children he claims to be protecting: it might get them killed later. Even if his goal was altruistic (it could happen!) and he did the best he could, it wasn't good enough to make it right.

Dexter

Thank sir, for your sacrifice.

^Now^ all that's left to do is to put the opening post image in the Awesome People thread.

As long as he killed the right, guilty, pedophile:

Attachment 56062

I also agree with Classic.

But, it's a slippery slope.

I'll take C5 for $400, please.

I'll bet a million dollars that the rapes were statutory but consensual, and the dude conveniently happens to be a homophobe. People who rape three boys don't go unprosecuted unless there are other circumstances (say, the teens won't testify against him.)

Or parents don't want a scandal.

Or the rapists are Catholic priests

"thank you, murderer."??

Wtf?

We have rules, definitions, established and agreed upon ways to handle shit like this. Including ways to deal with free agents, wait, sorry, criminals like this. There's no moral dilemma here.

It's well known that our system of justice is imperfect in many ways, great and small. Let me ask you this, which is less desirable

That a guilty person goes unproscuted or that innocent person is found guilty?

Kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out.