Printable View
suppose, but i dont think phil would have let him, i mean he had a gun to his head, he was supposed ot kill him so i dont think he'd let him go. if dennis did get away and got to the police something woukd have been done for him but eventually Dalton would have cuaght up with him himself or got one of his thugs to do it. there was no escaping dalton, not when he wanted you dead!Quote:
Originally Posted by parkerman
Of course he shouldQuote:
Originally Posted by xXxJessxXx
She did...time and time again. Restraining order was the final straw. He took it as a personal insult and waited until 5 in the morning while she was asleep and broke in to "talk." He didn't like what she had to say, which was "Get out, we're thru. The kids (14, 12, 10) and i can't live like this anymore." His reply was, "You'll leave me in a box." Forty-seven stabs wound later her 14-year-old son cradled her in his arms while she bled to death. Her last words were, "Hold mommy, Joey. I think I'm dying." Good thing she got that restraining order, huh? I am not advocating murder in any way, shape, or form, but let's face it...she did the right thing, got out, reported it as you so easily stated she should have done, but who ever thinks they will be killed by someone they love, until it happens? Do you honestly think Den thought Chrissie was capable of killing him? But she did and her reason was not abuse, she had been humiliated and wanted him to pay for it...as well as keep the Vic. So no matter how horrible Den was then, Chrissie had absolutely no justifiable reason at all to kill him, bury him and then steal from him...She deserves to be put in jail, but as I stated before, life does not always work where the guilty pay for their crimes. While my brother in law sits in jail perhaps he does not have his freedom, but he has his life and he goes on everyday while 3 kids have been orphaned and an entire family is wounded for the next 100 years. Remember that all of you who think Sharon has no right to wonder what Chrissie is doing with Jake. Sharon is a victim too and Chrissie is a cold-hearted witch. A murder leaves behind more victims than just the one in the funeral parlor.Quote:
Originally Posted by parkerman
Please don't take this the wrong way, but what world do you live in that you believe the police can actually prevent these things from happening? Did you know that when an abused woman finally leaves or goes to the police she become more likely to be injured or killed? These animals that prey on people weaker than themselves have no fear of the police in the moment. My brother in law thought he was justified because his wife was leaving him. He thought she had no right to kick him out of his house. He was the king of his castle and unless you can get the police there 2 seconds before one of these animals snap, then you are on your own. The police themselves will tell you they cannot do anything unless there is an actual crime commited. I don't know about the UK, but in the US the police cannot lock you up for what you might do. So if you think someone is capable of hurting you and your are afraid of them, unless they act upon that the police have no legal ability to arrest or detain that person. What do you think would have happened if the police were called by Dennis to report Dalton threatening him? Give us a call if he throws the first punch, mate! It would be a wonderful world if the police could keep us all safe and protect us from the evil people in the world, but it just isn't the way it is. Sometimes you have to be prepared to defend yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by parkerman
Okay let's try this...say someone were to molest Peter or Lucy, is Ian justified in hurting the piece of garbage who did it?Quote:
Originally Posted by alan45
How about this...Demi is raped by someone in the square, like a Graham-type person. He gets away with it because there is not enough evidence, what should Keith do?
Or this one...Phil finds out that Ben is kidnapped and killed by a pedophile. No one can find this person to report him to the police. However, some of his underworld cronies get the information about the killer and tell Phil. Without any proof that could link him to the crime, except he tells someone while in prison with him on a robbery charge that he commited the crime, there is still not enough evidence to link him to it. Is Phil wrong for tapdancing on his head until he dies a miserable death?
The point I am trying to make is that in soaps, as in life, there are many gray areas. If something were to happen to my child, I would not rest until I saw the person responsible punished, but many crimes go unsolved. Now if information came to me about who might be responsible and the police did not have enough evidence to arrest him, should I just sit back and wait for the wheels of justice to catch up or take the law into my own hands? Is there ever a time when street justice should be used?
I understand where you are coming from but two wrongs do not make a right.Quote:
Originally Posted by kckinsmcg
I had an uncle who was murdered, due to insufficiebt evidence no-one was prosecuted - i know who killed him - but i have no desire to kill them,
Yes, and we've seen all sorts of cases where people have taken the law in to their own hands and actually got the wrong person.
It's a very very dangerous road to go down exacting personal revenge.
Here's an example. Four Muslim Yorkshiremen believe that the British Government is responsible for murdering thousands of their fellow Muslims in Iraq. Ultimately they hold the British people responsible for this because they elected the Government. Are they right to then go and blow up three underground trains and a bus to exact their revenge?
Of course I know what your answer to that will be. The same as mine - they are not justified. However, the problem is by using the argument that a person should take personal revenge you are in fact legitimising their argument as well.
Apples and oranges...political and religious beliefs spawn many a 2-headed monster. What I am talking about is when you have been personally hurt. I have an intense desire to see Osama Bin Laden dead, but it is not the same as it would be if my child were hurt by someone i could actually get to. Many innocent people are killed in the name of war, but we as a society generally accept that as a necessary evil when trying to protect everyone as a whole. yes, people will be killed and it is sad. I feel terrible for the innocent people being killed in the middle east over issues I barely understand, but if someone were to enter my life somehow by killing or hurting someone that I love, I would not stand idly by. You hope the police can do something, but if they can't I will take my chances. That being said I do not expect that I would be let off due to the circumstances, but I would rather be tried by a jury of my peers and take my chances than to let a guilty person walk free. There is sometimes a justifiable reason for killing, but not what Chrissie did. Even though it was accidental because he attacked her and she had to hit him again, which killed him, she could have told the police about that and again, taken her chances with a jury understanding that it was a sort of self-defense. What she has done now is killed and lied about it to save her own skin. If I had to be put in that situation I would not lie about it after. She may have actually gotten off fairly easily if they all explained what had happened, but now she has committed murder in order to take what was Den's.