178 replies to this topic

[aquatus1]

Quote

Lol  
I predicted you’d say something like this. Sure, it’s possible but which is more probable? Level three sex offenders like to hangout together to help rehabilitate one another? Or they like to hang out together to indulge in their depraved fantasies maybe even plan to abduct a child? Remember Level III means most likely to re-offend.

Speculation can take you anywhere you like to go.  Either way, it doesn't matter.  They can sit and talk about tea-cakes or they can sit and plan out the greateast child-pornography ring in the history of the world.  Anyone can.  American does not have laws against thinking and talking.

Quote

Yes Mullen is brave; brave to make the life changing decision and act for the greater good. Oh and before you go all ‘subjective’ on me; I’m sure the majority would agree it was for the greater good. You do agree with democracy don’t you?

I most certainly do.  A democracy, after all, is more than merely majority rule.  Heck, any mob meets that description.  A democracy, most importantly, is designed to protect the rights of the few against the desires of the many.

Quote

Yes, Mullen is intelligent, especially for a vigilante; he made sure his targets were level three sex offenders! A good start.

What's so intelligent about that?  He looked up up the name of sex offender on the handy list.  Hardly genius level.  

Quote

The psychiatrists  already did their job and decided they were most likely to re-offend.

They also decided it was worth the risk to re-introduce them into society.

Quote

I mean, He didn’t just kill/attack someone merely accused of pedophilia like say a stupid moronic vigilante would have done.

Most vigilantes act like him, actually.  They have a rather narrowly focused criminal element in mind.  He just chose pedophiles, as opposed to prostitutes, homosexuals, etc.

Points added for the way he tricked his way in. Clever boy.
Oh and he also discussed their crimes with his targets; just to see if there was any last chance for redemption. Again, signs of intelligence.

Sign of alcoholism.  How many FBI agents coming in to talk to a man on a hit list would sit out with them on their front lawn and drink beer?  Yep, that's a brain surgeon right there.

Well, looks like Mullen agreed with the psychiatrist; there was no hope for redemption.

Except for the one that he dis-agreed with the psychiatrist, and didn't kill because he felt he was 'repentant'.

Yes, Mullen sacrificed his own freedom.
Again, I don’t thing he was going for martyrdom because he entered a plea bargain with the prosecution’s office to avoid the death penalty! Hence he got 44 years!

He turned himself in expressing his desire to be killed in order to be a martyr.  His lawyer talked him out of it.  No points for him.

Perhaps it is you who feels uncomfortable with the subject of vigilantism?
You hinted that you yourself had a go at taking the law into your own hand and the results were a complete disaster.  

Actually, no, it wasn't a disaster at all.  In fact, I personally found it quite satisfying.  I did, however, turn myself in, and I didn't pretend that I was temporarily insane, and I didn't try to justify my actions or pretend I was on some sort of holy quest.  I still think it was because I was willing to face the consequences of my actions that the judge let me off so lightly.

So, no, vigilantism in general I don't have a problem with.  It is with people who act like vigilantism, but are actually only using the term as a costume for their true intentions that I have a problem with.  If you are a vigilanty, you go after crime.  You don't focus on one specific sort of action that you find personally repugnant.  If all you are doing is focusing on getting rid of the things that bug you personally, you are not looking for justice; you are looking for revenge.

[rapid7]

Quote

And he had a criminal record (he had been to jail twice) before he went on his killing spree.

Yes, he did have a criminal record but only for petty thievery and minor drug offences.
Maybe, he merely stole food to feed himself and took drugs to numb the pain.
Actually there's a good chance that while in prison, he came in contact with pedophiles and realized just what disgusting vile creatures they were.

[aquatus1]

Quote

Yes, he did have a criminal record but only for petty thievery and minor drug offences.
Maybe, he merely stole food to feed himself and took drugs to numb the pain.
Actually there's a good chance that while in prison, he came in contact with pedophiles and realized just what disgusting vile creatures they were.

I sincerely doubt that he was lacking in food and support, as his family all refered to him as a 'good boy', and his girlfriend didn't have any trouble driving him around.  Actually, there is a good chance that he was raped in prison (what his brother believes, apparently), and this traumatized him to the extent that he wanted to kill himself, but he wanted to give his death a bit of meaning.  Considering the environment that he was in, there is little wonder that he chose the lowest rung on the ladder as his scapegoat.

But then, what does that matter?

"Actually there's a good chance that while in prison, he came in contact with pedophiles and realized just what disgusting vile creatures they were. "

So?  That justifies killing them?

"Actually there's a good chance that while in prison, he came in contact with homosexuals and realized just what disgusting vile creatures they were. "

Is that statement still valid as a justification for his actions (Perhaps you didn't mean it as such, but I can't imagine why else you would have posted it).

[rapid7]

They were strangers to him so we know it wasn't an act of personal revenge.
If it was at all revenge, then maybe it was for all the children that have been abused or killed by pedophiles. If this was in fact his motivation then I agree with him. Mere speculation, I know.

It makes little difference what his true motivations were. I agree with the results of  his actions!
The fact of the matter is Mullen found an effective way to make sure pedophilic level III sex offenders never have the opportunity to attack children again. Good judgement call.

You've completely missed the point of his intelligence. It wasn’t his actions in using the net to find them. Jesus give me break.  
It was the fact that he chose to target these criminals opposed to merely attacking someone accused of pedophilic crimes like a moron would and risk the chance of hurting an innocent man. Good judgement call.


Btw So you haven't a problem with non practicing pedophiles?  

[aquatus1]

Quote

They were strangers to him so we know it wasn't an act of personal revenge.
If it was at all revenge, then maybe it was for all the children that have been abused or killed by pedophiles. If this was in fact his motivation then I agree with him. Mere speculation, I know.

No, of course it wasn't personal revenge (to the best of my knowlege).  And yes, this is pure speculation, and it will take a professional to figure out what sorts of issues this guy has that drove him to do what he did.  All I am saying is that it isn't a good idea to think of this guy as a hero.  There's just too much about his character that makes him as bad as the people that he killed.

If there is a gang shoot out, and one of the gang leaders is killed, is the other gang leader a hero?

Quote

It makes little difference what his true motivations were. I agree with the results of  his actions!  The fact of the matter is Mullen found an effective way to make sure pedophilic level III sex offenders never have the opportunity to attack children again. Good judgement call.

And what gave him the right to pass judgement?  You brought up the point of democracy before, so let me ask you: if, in a democratic process, people were judged and punished, but you didn't agree with that punishment, do you then have the right to go against the majority decision and carry out what punishment you deem correct?  As you said, "You do agree with democracy don’t you?"

Quote

You've completely missed the point of his intelligence. It wasn’t his actions in using the net to find them. Jesus give me break.  
It was the fact that he chose to target these criminals opposed to merely attacking someone accused of pedophilic crimes like a moron would and risk the chance of hurting an innocent man. Good judgement call.

I'm still missing the point.  So what, so he chose to kill level three pedophiles, instead of level two pedophiles, or prostitutes, or murderers, or adulterers?  He chose to go to them instead of, what, just picking a random person out on the street and shooting them?

We have different standards for what constitutes intelligent action.

Quote

Btw So you haven't a problem with non practicing pedophiles?  

I can't say I know any.  Or maybe I do, but they haven't 'come out' to me yet.  I would like to say that I wouldn't treat them any differently, but chances are pretty good that I wouldn't let my children alone with them.  Biases die hard.  I'm still a little uncomfortable around homosexuals, but, personally knowing at least two of them, I can say that I haven't too much a problem with their PDA.

I suppose that, as long as they don't attempt to include me in their personal activities, and the pedophiles don't attempt to move on my children, I won't have too much an issue with them.

Edited by aquatus1, 03 May 2006 - 04:16 PM.

[coldethyl]

Quote

Yes, but those are all mere technical differences.  Differences in definition.  Homosexuals feel attraction for members of the same gender; pedophiles for children (not necessarily pre-pubescent).  In the same way that a homosexual claims they cannot choose their sexual preference, so do pedophiles say the same thing.  In the same way that homosexuals have been and are accused of being sick and immoral, so are pedophiles now.  Think about it: you just admitted that pedophilia is nothing more than a preference.  It is not an action, it is not crime, it is nothing more than a personal preference. And yet, you are willing to side with a murderer, which is not simply a personal preference, but rather an action which has had most significant consequences for at least one person (namely, the victim).  You are, in other words, comparing a criminal action to a mere thought that does not include in its definition any specific action.  Wanting to have sex with children is not the same as having sex with children.  Being a murderer is far more serious than merely wanting to kill.

I don't think it is okay to want to have sex with children.  Period.  Children are not capable of defending themselves physically and mentally against an adult who intends to exploit them.  And by your definition all murderers are bad which isn't always the case.  Some people murder in self-defence and some people who are labeled as murderers may have killed accidentally.  That isn't black and white either.  If you follow your own logic then wanting to kill is not as bad as killing because wanting to have sex with children isn't as bad as doing it.  Again, the line is blurred.  Either way I still find sex with children (and murder for that point) wrong.

Quote

I'm not trying to get you to agree with my personal point of view, but can you see where I am coming from?

I understand your argument, yes.

Quote

And yet, it is the exact same, word for word, argument that has been leveled against homosexuals.  Why does it no longer apply to them?  Why is a pedophile sick, and a homosexual not?

For the exact reason that I stated above.  Pedophilia involves children and homosexuality does not necessarily.
  

Quote

I'm sorry, I thought you were being pretty clear and specific when you talked about "the" murderer.  And he had a criminal record (he had been to jail twice) before he went on his killing spree.

Is that what this argument is really about?  Defending a murderer or pedophilia?  I don't 'support' this man one way or the other.  I can say however, that if it had been my child molested I might feel differently.

Quote

I also never said that you supported what he did, although it is pretty hard to interpret your statement in any other way:  "I would much rather stand next to the murderer than next to a supporter of pedophiles."  Perhaps when you said "stand", you were referring to the line in the supermarket?

I mean it literally and figuratively.  Child molesters sicken me.  I didn't say I did support this man, but if it came down to it, I would support him over a child molester any day.  

If the topic is disturbing to you, that's perfectly normal, but you don't need to feel defensive.  No one is accusing you of anything, nor are your statements going to be used against you in a court of law.  Just try being a little more objective.  You don't have to agree with other points of view, but it wouldn't hurt to understand the logic behind them.

I understand the 'logic'.  Don't insult my intelligence.  I just think it's disgusting to try and defend pedophilia, that's all.  Why do you suppose even people in prison punish child molesters harshly?  Could it be because it is wrong?

We have different standards for what constitutes intelligent action.
I can't say I know any.  Or maybe I do, but they haven't 'come out' to me yet.  I would like to say that I wouldn't treat them any differently, but chances are pretty good that I wouldn't let my children alone with them.  Biases die hard.  I'm still a little uncomfortable around homosexuals, but, personally knowing at least two of them, I can say that I haven't too much a problem with their PDA.
I suppose that, as long as they don't attempt to include me in their personal activities, and the pedophiles don't attempt to move on my children, I won't have too much an issue with them.

Chances are pretty good you wouldn't let them alone with your children!!??  Either you do not have children yet or you are beyond naive!

[rapid7]

Quote

All I am saying is that it isn't a good idea to think of this guy as a hero.  There's just too much about his character that makes him as bad as the people that he killed.

Agreed. He wasn’t a hero.
Oh no, he was much greater than that. He’s an anti-hero!
btw it’s this that I find so fascinating about the whole case, as any true vigilante would tell you; you must become the monster to defeat the monster.
Perhaps, the only difference between Mullen and the pedophile sex offenders were his intentions and the duration of how long he was the ‘monster’. It’s a fine line. Michael crossed the threshold and took the full responsibility for his actions.

Quote

And what gave him the right to pass judgement?

Simple. He gave himself the right! He made it his will. Oh and before you give an analogy about psychos eg “does that give a psycho the right to take innocent lives”.
Well, yes it does unfortunately; the thought process is the same. However, with a vigilante you’ll find the intentions are very different. Once again it’s a case of becoming a monster to destroy monsters.
Such a fine line to cross and very brave of Mullen to cross that line for the greater good. Which brings us to democracy.

Quote

You brought up the point of democracy before, so let me ask you: if, in a democratic process, people were judged and punished, but you didn't agree with that punishment, do you then have the right to go against the majority decision and carry out what punishment you deem correct?

Yes the choice is yours. I believe in the justice system to a certain extent and so did Michael Mullen.
If you disagree with the courts punishment, it’s up to you if you want to take the law into your own hands. Although, be prepared to suffer the consequences.
Just ask Mullen. I believe he was fully aware of this fact..
All the evidence suggests he did believe in the court system, well apart from the extent of punishment. Both with his and for pedophile level III sex offenders no doubt lol

And yes I do believe in democracy; if the people were given the choice to release Mullen, I wonder what the verdict would be?

Quote

I'm still missing the point.  So what, so he chose to kill level three pedophiles, instead of level two pedophiles, or prostitutes, or murderers, or adulterers?  He chose to go to them instead of, what, just picking a random person out on the street and shooting them?

He chose to execute level III pedophiles because he saw them as the greatest risk to children. This was his intentions and this was the outcome; the risk to children was reduced. Well highly probable it was reduced. lol

Michael Mullen; a flawed yet inspiration anti hero.  If you’re going to ‘freak out’ at least try and do something for the greater good!      

Edited by rapid7, 06 May 2006 - 10:40 AM.

[rocky4]

IMO Michael Mullen is a hero, he did the right thing.

Just my thoughts.

[aquatus1]

Quote

I don't think it is okay to want to have sex with children.  Period.  Children are not capable of defending themselves physically and mentally against an adult who intends to exploit them.

So, again, we return to the question: "When is a child no longer a child?"

Quote

And by your definition all murderers are bad which isn't always the case.  Some people murder in self-defence and some people who are labeled as murderers may have killed accidentally.  That isn't black and white either.

Actually, no, by my definition all murderers are not, by definition, criminal, in the same way that not all pedophiles are, by definition, sexual molestors.

Quote

If you follow your own logic then wanting to kill is not as bad as killing because wanting to have sex with children isn't as bad as doing it.  Again, the line is blurred.  Either way I still find sex with children (and murder for that point) wrong.

You are entitled to your personal opinion, of course, but are you going to say that thought crimes are just as bad as real crimes?  Yes, by my logic, wanting to kill is not as bad as killing, and, again, by my logic, wanting to have sex with children isn't as bad as doing it.  Are we to prosecute people for having different opinions that us?

Quote

For the exact reason that I stated above.  Pedophilia involves children and homosexuality does not necessarily.

  
We return to the necessary first step:  How do we define "child"?

Quote

Is that what this argument is really about?  Defending a murderer or pedophilia?  I don't 'support' this man one way or the other.  I can say however, that if it had been my child molested I might feel differently.

No.  This argument is about not assuming that the current social scapegoat is what popular conception declares him to be.  It's about not condeming all pedophiles of sexual molestation simply because they have a different preference than the norm.

I mean it literally and figuratively.  Child molesters sicken me.  I didn't say I did support this man, but if it came down to it, I would support him over a child molester any day.

  

"nemy of my enemy..."  sort of thing, I suppose.

I understand the 'logic'.  Don't insult my intelligence.  I just think it's disgusting to try and defend pedophilia, that's all.  Why do you suppose even people in prison punish child molesters harshly?  Could it be because it is wrong?

I would be cautious about asking people who have shown the ability to judge right and wrong which landed them in prison.  Asides from that, again, you are equating pedophiles with child molestors.  They are not one and the same.

Chances are pretty good you wouldn't let them alone with your children!!??  Either you do not have children yet or you are beyond naive!

I suppose you feel that only a person with their own children could ever love a child as much as a parent does?  How arrogant.

I have trained over 400 Sea Cadets.  I have, on more than one occasion, dealt with victims of child abuse.  I have trained children to avoid being abused, avoid being kidnapped, to escape from a kidnap situation, and to be able to tell who and how to get to a trusted adult.  I am far from naive when it comes to children's security.

As I told my enlisted when we had to go to sea, finding a trusted adult to watch your children is the hardest task that they will have to perform.  Trust comes in a variety of different ways, but most of all, it comes from personal discipline.  Does this person have the personal discipline to take care of your child in your stead?  Once that question is answered, the rest is just details.  If the person is a pedophile, but I feel he has the personal discipline to take care of my child, I will no more worry that he will take advantage of my child than I would worry about sleeping over at a homosexuals house in fear that they would make a move on me.

You make it sound like being a pedophile is the only consideration when looking for a guardian for your child.  All things considered, I would rather have a personal stable enough to not decide to kill others that he doesn't agree have been sufficiently punishment by the government, regardless of their sexual preference.  Pedophilia does not mean they will instantly try an abuse a child the moment they are alone.

Edited by aquatus1, 05 May 2006 - 07:35 PM.

[Kahrie]

Quote

IMO Michael Mullen is a hero, he did the right thing.

Just my thoughts.

oh don't worry he will be celebrated in prison when the rest of the inmates have 'fun' with him

[aquatus1]

Quote

oh don't worry he will be celebrated in prison when the rest of the inmates have 'fun' with him

That's another interesting aspect.  Presumably, he was sexually assaulted the last time he was in jail.  I wonder what his status will be this time?

[rapid7]

Quote

oh don't worry he will be celebrated in prison when the rest of the inmates have 'fun' with him

Depends on your definition of ‘fun’. Very odd way of putting it, if you ask me.

Would you become a vigilante if a pedophile had ‘fun’ with your or someone else’s kids?

Btw didn’t you post this before?

[Bigfoot_Is_Real]

Quote

AS for attractions, heterosexuals are attracted to the opposite sex, so does that make us comparible to pedophiles also?
Your opinion is that a homosexual is sick, you are entitled to your opinion, don't try to convince the rest of us who don't think that. A pedophile comes no where near in comparison to whatever other 'attraction'. It's not about lust, it's about control, it's about a desire to destroy a little person's life, to frighten, threaten, scar and mark for life.
Homosexuality is nothing like that. Homosexuality is about the choice to love the same sex.
Pedophelia has NOTHING to do with love.

What about there love for children

[Universal Absurdity]

I dont like where this discussion is going
paedophelia is wrong, there is no love involved bigfoot only sick individuals.



this thread has run its course