LogFAQs > #956301718

mrduckbear posted...

Do you support vigilante justice even if you believed that person was guilty?

...the implication being that people should support it when they don't believe a person is guilty? >_> Either way, no, we have a fucking legal system. And much -- if not most -- of the time, the thing turns out to not be true anyway?

And just within the last week or two you had some guy murdered on the street as the result of a wrongful accusation.

Kyuubi4269 posted...

Well clearly he had issues, this wouldn't be a surprising revelation.

Except it would be surprising, considering none of the priors had anything to do with that. If somebody is sloppy enough to get 24 priors, they're a shitty criminal so it seems unlikely they just go away with it. The people who do get discovered as prolific pedos are generally people with *no* priors (or at least related priors).

Zareth posted...

Let's just kill a dude and write shit on his corpse so people will think he was a child molester and not care
Fucking disgusting

Was the first thing I was thinking, tbh.

mooreandrew58 posted...

That assumption is almost as bad as the opposite assumption. Like none of us know the real story. Maybe he is a pedo? Killer needs to be caught but if facts come to light that he was indeed a pedo it would be some form of justice for his victims that he is even after death was found guilty of his crimes more so than him being dead. But that will likely make some happy too

That's a shitty assumption that amounts to taking a murderer at his word. If the killer believed the claims, he had an opportunity to involve the law and then an opportunity to make his case to the public. He did neither.

Unless there's some extenuating circumstance, it just seems like straight-up murder.

---

(\/)(\/)|-|
There are precious few at ease / With moral ambiguities / So we act as though they don't exist.