Skirt Cafe is an on-line community dedicated to exploring, promoting and advocating skirts and kilts as a fashion choice for men, formerly known as men in skirts. We do this in the context of men's fashion freedom --- an expansion of choices beyond those commonly available for men to include kilts, skirts and other garments. We recognize a diversity of styles our members feel comfortable wearing, and do not exclude any potential choices. Continuing dialog on gender is encouraged in the context of fashion freedom for men. See here for more details.
Pythos wrote: Was this kid actually shot because he threatened the weak and feeble man hood of his shooter?
That's actually probably exactly right. Hey, give the boy a break. He'd been thirteen years old only thirty days before the shooting. It's not like he had a totally mature and virile manhood to draw from.
I am very sorry this kid was shot, but I do not like the linking of wearing feminine clothing with being gay, like the media did. Actually I am really sick of it.
It wasn't the media who did the linking this time. It was well-known at the school that the boy had declared himself as gay, and was wearing this kind of clothing as his own personal expression. The media got it right. Maybe it's unfortunate for the cause of heterosexuals who wear high heels and makeup that this case is so high-profile that it will tend to further link such attire with gays, but facts are facts.
I'm posting this link to a news story in the UK just to show that lethal violence against people because of the clothes that they wear is not confined to the USA. I warn you - it's a horrible (upsetting) story.
Goth clothes 'prompted killing'
A 15-year-old boy kicked and stamped to death a woman because she was dressed as a Goth, a court heard.
Sorry but none of those five thugs deserve to continue living.
They should be sent to their maker in the same manner they sent that girl to meet it.
I don't care how old they were at the time. They knew damned well what they were doing, they were removing what they considered to be inferior people based on appearances. That to me excuses them from the right to live. Before anyone says something like "Jesus said to turn the other cheek" in all my research of Jesus's teachings (not paul's) he never delt with such a horrible and stupid situation.
Also, the parents of all the thugs should have their heads examined, and if necessary put away in an insane assylym.
Goths do not screw with you unless you screw with them, then whoa unto you. I should know, I am one.
There is absolutely no excuse for these thugs to have done what they did, they need removal from the gene pool.
It's time 'life imprisonment' meant an absolute minimum of 50 years inside. However, I do believe that in fairness, anyone so convicted, should be given the option of a 'termination'. And I mean by that, a lethal injection. None of the 'glorification' of being hung, shot or electrocuted - just, 'termination'. Whilst I'll agree that lack of 'parental control' often leads such thugs to consider themselves 'invincible', the blame for this really belongs with the PC brigade who have beguiled (certainly our) Government Authorities into withdrawing discipline from schools and maintaining, through their agencies (the Child Protection arm of the Social Services, or "SS" for short), attacks against parents who believe in keeping their kids on the 'straight and narrow'.
Y'know, if we really wanted to make an example, we should to go back to the past, a hanged felon was, if the crime was heinous enough, gibbeted- that is, the corpse was placed in a wicker basket to rot and displayed near the place of execution until the bones fell out of the cage . This barbaric display was only done away with sometime in the middle of the 18th century. Let's be careful where we go regards revenge. You can take that any way you like but- I'm all for gibbeting the thugs!
It will not always be summer: build barns---Hesiod
I think these thugs are far beyond re habilitation. They murdered in clear cold blood someone who was not harming them. No.
Re-hab is fine for people who have not killed in cold blood, and for no reason. But those who have done just that deserve no better than to leave this existence. Put them in a cell, with a gun with one round, let them pull the trigger.
Just so there's no mistake, I am not speaking in moderator capacity here.
The way things are going in this thread really makes me wonder whether we're talking about justice or revenge. The two are very different notions, and only on the razor's edge do they ever seem to align. From a philosophical point of view revenge never equates to justice.
I'll candidly admit that the cases brought forward in this thread are positively tragic in nature; neither should have ever occurred, and neither makes any rational sense. But, do either of them demand revenge by the taking of yet another life? I'd hope not.
What's my background in this? I used to be an ardent supporter of capital punishment, and made no bones whatsoever about the fact. However, as I've aged, and learned about how "the system" really works, that's come 'round by 180 degrees -- "the system" is too corrupt to "stand in judgment" when it comes to matters of life and death, and the very banal human need for revenge feeds into that. I now believe that capital punishment cheapens the societies that practise it, and that it is not a deterrent to crime in any meaningful sense. Whilst I appreciate, and understand, the occasional desire to "kill 'em all and let God sort it out", I don't believe that that notion is a workable one.
Neither the shooter in the Lawrence King case nor the perpetrators in the Sophie Lancaster case would have been "deterred" by the presence of a threat of capital punishment; these were both, I suspect, "crimes of passion" -- which are, by definition, instances of "heat of the moment" insanity. Normal humans don't thoughtfully kill other humans without reason or fear (and both can take on sometimes bizarre manifestations). Those that are demonstrably abnormal ought to be isolated from society for the sake of society, but they need not necessarily be put to death.
Even living in a so-called "civilised" western society I have seen juries convict on nothing more than hearsay. This does not sit well with me -- not one bloody bit! Does this confer the "right" on "society" to sanction the ultimate expression of cold-blooded murder? I'll posit not.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
I agree with your points about the screwed up system and stupid juries convicting on hersay. However, in clear cut cases such as the "night stalker" Richard Rimerez, Richard Allen Davis, and these jokers, along with several guilty beyond all beliefe cases I think revenge is called for. Now on cases that are unclear like Well hell, OJ simpson, Scott Peterson, and other ambiguous cases where the evidence just does not add up, then I think capitol punishment should be off the table.
Why should these thugs get to continue to live after they have denied someone they didn't even know that ability?
Crimes of pasion is a term that was originally coined for men beating the living life out of their uncooprative wives, which is a little known fact.
No excuse in my book.
I don't want a dime of my money going toward the sustaining of any of these scumballs continued existence. If that is revenge, then that is what it is.
Personally, I am saddened by how many people here are so quick to talk about and even revel in the idea of killing other people. It seems to me that both Brandon's actions and the angry insistence by some in this thread that some people have no right to live spring from the same mindset.
Two quotes spring to mind:
"We have met the enemy, and they is us."
"Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends."
It's so damned hard. I had second thoughts about my last post after I pressed the submit button. It (revenge) is probably an atavistic desire that stems from an instinct to protect the integrity of the tribe and, therefore, the safety of those within it. I agree with Carl that too many miscarriages of justice have seen innocent people executed (murdered) by the state, BUT, what do we do with these thugs. It is incontrovertible evidence that they killed that girl who, as far as I know had done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to offend them except to wear "goth" clothing. They went further than just a beating- a prison worthy offence in any case- and, in a fit of blood lust, beat and kicked her to death! The prison system is little deterrent today, no meaningless and exhausting stonebreaking or treadmill. They can refuse counselling and have "human rights". I question their rights when they denied an innocent girl HER right to live out her life to it's potential.
It will not always be summer: build barns---Hesiod
For those that say spare the lives of these thugs, what would you do then?
AMM, the quote you made is very poingent (spelling), however it rings the same as "an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, would leave the people of the world eyeless and toothless" Only thing is, those losing their eyes and teeth would be the "bad" guys. Especially if they were forced to do it to them selves.
Did that girl deserve to live? She performed a selfless act, she defended her unconsious boyfreind, and paid with her life. Do the thugs deserve to live? They red handedly and cold bloodly beat the living hell out of one person, and beat the living life out of another person.
I am saddened when I hear of people having more mercy for the perpetrator, than for the victim. The boyfriend in the case is still alive, and from the looks of it, still dressing in goth style. Should he just be ignored and possibly become the next senseless murderer?
What would you do with the five thugs. Keep alive on the tax payers dollars while they live fairly well, with a roof over their head, getting fair meals daily, in well conditioned cells? How about the homeless bum out on the street who's only crime was having a bad credit rating, preventing him or her from getting a good job? Why should they suffer, when the perps live high on the hog relative to them?
As I said, put each of them in a cell with a gun with one round. Close the door, and let be what should be. If they don't do the deed, they die of starvation. No one pulls the trigger but them.
My point does not fall into the 'revenge' category, although I do feel the offence of murder impinges more directly on the family, etc. of the victim than the courts give credit (if any) for. If imprisonment is the only option, then how can the perpetrator be made to make some direct recompense towards the indirect victims? A murderer's "Human Rights" must be deemed to have been forfeited for the duration of their sentence.
I do strongly believe that a convicted (first degree) murderer should be offered the choice (and this be available at any time during their imprisonment) of a minimum sentence of 50 years (to all intent and purposes, life) or the opportunity to 'pay' for their sin by 'termination by lethal injection'. This adequately dispenses with the moral dilemma many folk face in respect of capital punishment as a 'mandatory' sentence.
A state that kills is no better than the killers it seeks to eradicate. In the end, killing murderers serves no other purpose than to make some feel better. Then what? No rehabilitation for criminals, and no deterrence for would be criminals. Sad.
I'm struggling with coming up with a response to this.
I'm working with an animal shelter case that breaks my heart.
Smudge is a 13 year old neutered male cat who was left abandoned for two months in an apartment when the tenants moved. He's in critical condition, but is a love of a cat. He just loves people.
Refeeding a victim of starvation is tricky and oftentimes the refeeding processs is unsuccessful and the victim dies. Refeeding syndrome was first identified in POWs and concentration camp survivors in WWII.
For animals, navigating refeeding is difficult. Most shelters simply do not have the funds to even attempt treatment. So animals twice victimized, first by the abuser and then by shelter who euthanizes because they can't afford to treat.
Its murder twice over.
Smudge is getting treatment but there is no guarantee that he'll survive.
Moderation is for monks. To enjoy life, take big bites.
-------Lazarus Long
. This barbaric display was only done away with sometime in the middle of the 18th century. Let's be careful where we go regards revenge. You can take that any way you like but- I'm all for gibbeting the thugs!
