Philly Girls Don't Need Guns

Status
Not open for further replies.
How would this story play if the flasher was female and the School kids were male?

I ask because strange as it may seem one day many many years ago I was walking home from school in South Florida with a few of my buddies and some gal flashed her breasts at us. We were 13 or 14 years old.

I guess since we were so horribly injured by this we should have chased her down the street and beat the crap out of her.

Go figure. I guess maybe I was to stupid to understand the harm done to me. I just never crossed my mind to attack anyone.

I guess the rules regarding self defense and use of force just don't apply if there is a penis involved.
 
Has there been any comment in the Philly media about vigilantyism, as there would have been if the pervert had been shot? Just curious.
 
This story has been all over the local news. The commanding officer that lead the attack on Baghdad airport is from the Philly/Pennsylvania area. He is going to give the girls and award after they are takin (in a limo) to a famous Philly cheese-steak place, "Gino's"


I'm not joking.:D



The principal of the high school actually condemned the girls for being Vigilantes.:rolleyes:

The guy did get beat up pretty good. I think he lost a few toofs.:evil:
 
bigjim,

How would this story play if the flasher was female and the School kids were male?
Click to expand...

Sorry, but there is a difference in this culture.

Maybe we'd have cheered you and your buddies on if every week we heard stories of women dragging young men into windowless vans and leaving their bodies under bridges.
 
Tamara Said: Sorry, but there is a difference in this culture.
Maybe we'd have cheered you and your buddies on if every week we heard stories of women dragging young men into windowless vans and leaving their bodies under bridges.QUOTE]

Nice try Tamara but nobody in the thread is talking about a rape or a vilolent sexual attack except you. Please join the rest of us by commenting on something related to this topic.

Yes women more often than men end up victims. So I guess we should preemptively beat men that you or catholic school girls feel may be dangerous. No due process or actual violent crime needed.

In our culture guns are often abused as well we better do something about that. Mainly its men that do the gun abusing as well. Better round those things up from all those men.

Do you really think that if man shows his penis to a woman uninvited he should be chased and held by other men and then beaten by mobs of angry women? Did you see that terror footage on Fox news? That is what mob vilolence looks like. I don't know maybe its just me but I think criminal charges and punishment that is proscribed by law might have been a better solution.

Maybe we should give those girls some concrete blocks and baseball bats. Show your penis and you get a date with Tamaras baseball team.

Sorry Tamara, I don't care how many gals jump out of bushes and show me thiers on my walk to Safeway this morning...... I am still not going to beat anyone up.....even if you hold her tight for me.
Click to expand...
 
Artful job of missing my point. ;)

I said "there is a difference in this culture."

If a man were to expose himself to me, I'd likely just point and laugh. I've done that before, and it seems to work. I have this option because, should he try to do anything more than simply expose himself, I have a wide variety of options open to me, ranging from breaking his nose to shooting him dead, depending on the severity of the assault.

However, since young schoolgirls in this culture don't have that option, they are generally perceived as helpless potential victims. Most folks get a chuckle when "helpless potential victims" stomp the snot out of someone who tried to make a play off their perceived helplessness. If you're looking for sympathy for the stompee in this culture, you'll be looking a long time.

Adolescent males, statistically, are pretty over-represented in crime statistics, so, were the gender-roles of the situation reversed, they would not garner the same response. Unfair? Yeah, but, in this culture that's just the way it is...
 
Heres another story.

My wifes sister was riding a bus and a old man sat down next to her. His hand were in his lap and he was rapidly rubbing his penis through his pants. She asked him to stop but he just looked at her. She yelled at him and called him names but he just kept rubbing and ignored her complaints. So she got up and kicked him as hard has she could.

Turns out the Old man had a medical problem and could not control the movement of his hands. Putting them in his lap made this less noticeable and reduced his embarrassment at his condition. He was scared and bewildered at my sister in-laws behavior.

This has bothered me for years on so many levels.

Why did she think that a old man "jerking off" on a bus was OK to attack?
Why was she not charged with her crime? I think she should have been jailed for her attack, even if he was jerking off which he was not!
She felt totally justified and still does because he might have been jerking off. I just don't get it I guess.

Please Tamara no rants about the dangers of Old men and their out of control genitals on publics buses windowless or otherwise.
 
bigjim,

A) How old was your wife's sister at the time?
B) How old was the old man?
C) When she started ranting, why didn't he explain himself?
D) I hope he pressed charges.

Let's look at the totality of circumstances, here.

Do you see similarities between this event and the one in Philly?



Let me relate a story that may have bearing:

A convenience store in the small town where I lived was broken into one night. The alarm went off at the owner's place. He pulled on a robe, grabbed his Mossberg, and drove the two blocks to the store, in time to see a guy exiting the store and hopping in the passenger seat of the getaway car. He "attempted to mark the rear of the car" with buckshot to "make it easier for the police to locate". In the process, he spattered the passengers melon all over the inside of the windshield.

Now, shooting a fleeing man in the getaway car is illegal. It prob'ly ain't even all that moral. Nevertheless, the grand jury no-billed him. I had to agree with their decision; what the man did was wrong, but the thief could've saved himself a skull full of buckshot by not being there in the first place...
 
Tamara Said:bigjim,
A) How old was your wife's sister at the time?
B) How old was the old man?
C) When she started ranting, why didn't he explain himself?
D) I hope he pressed charges.

Let's look at the totality of circumstances, here.

Do you see similarities between this event and the one in Philly?



Let me relate a story that may have bearing:

A convenience store in the small town where I lived was broken into one night. The alarm went off at the owner's place. He pulled on a robe, grabbed his Mossberg, and drove the two blocks to the store, in time to see a guy exiting the store and hopping in the passenger seat of the getaway car. He "attempted to mark the rear of the car" with buckshot to "make it easier for the police to locate". In the process, he spattered the passengers melon all over the inside of the windshield.

Now, shooting a fleeing man in the getaway car is illegal. It prob'ly ain't even all that moral. Nevertheless, the grand jury no-billed him. I had to agree with their decision; what the man did was wrong, but the thief could've saved himself a skull full of buckshot by not being there in the first place...
Click to expand...

Sister was in her mid 30's sitting in a crowded bus. She thinks the Man was in his 70's. He did not explain himself and this is conjecture on my part, because he was old infirm and being confronted by a loud angry young person which left him scared and bewildered. My Sister in-law thinks this is likely in retrospect. He did not press charges, the old in OUR CULTURE are often even more disenfranchised than the often oppressed school girl.

Yes I do see similarities between this event and the one in Philly. Both cases involve men doing admitted unwelcome and perhaps repulsive things in the presence of females and the females reacting with violence that can not possibly be justified by any law or moral standard. In both cases they were aided in their actions either passively or actively by on-lookers.

Really Tamara what part of equal protection under the law is so confusing to you?

I do think that it is very likely that at least one or two of the young females in Philly may be damaged by this entire thing. While she was kicking the captive man in the face she may have thrilled to the power and control she was able to use for the first time in her life. She will no doubt suppress her real sexuality and marry a man she does not even like, become a US Senator from New York and some day run for President.

I am total unable to understand how your story relates in anyway to this thread.
 
Her "real sexuality"?

Sir, there are obviously deeper issues underlying your vitriol. You win; I'm outta this one. :uhoh:
 
Sorry not sure what you read into that but it was a attempt at humor.

I have no deep issues...that would requier depth.
 
Jim,

Sex crimes (exposing yourself to a female child is a sex crime...) are crimes of violence. Reacting to violence with violence is quite acceptable as far as I'm concerned.
If someone punches me in the nose, I'm going to punch them back.
If someone exposes their genitalia to a young woman, he shouldn't be surprised to find the toe of her boot contacting those genitalia.

There is a cultural, social and biological difference between men and women. A woman exposing her hooters to a man is not a threatening act, merely an indication of her current alcohol level. A man exposing himself to a strange woman is an implied threat of sexual violence.

Keith
 
Get a friggan grip Jim; Keith is right. This guy exposed himself several (as much as seven) to these school girls, and was

A man described by authorities as a known sexual predator
Click to expand...

He was a dangerous deviant and got what he deserved. Understand right now that men and women are different . Just like Keith said; a woman flashing her chest is not a threatening act; although if done repeatedly to school aged boys its an indication of deep psychological issues, and she should be kept away from children.

When an adult male exposes himself repeatedly to school aged girls, it is most definately a cause for alarm and may be flagged as signs of impeding violence. Neither is socially acceptable in this society; but the man got what he had coming: A thrashing at the hands of his perspective victims.

Don't bore us all about how things arent equal; nobody said life was fair. :scrutiny:
 
Keith said: Jim,

Sex crimes (exposing yourself to a female child is a sex crime...) are crimes of violence. Reacting to violence with violence is quite acceptable as far as I'm concerned.
If someone punches me in the nose, I'm going to punch them back.
If someone exposes their genitalia to a young woman, he shouldn't be surprised to find the toe of her boot contacting those genitalia.

There is a cultural, social and biological difference between men and women. A woman exposing her hooters to a man is not a threatening act, merely an indication of her current alcohol level. A man exposing himself to a strange woman is an implied threat of sexual violence.

Keith
Click to expand...

Yes I agree Keith Exposing yourself is a crime. But the law is blind to the gender of the exposer and the exposing "victim". As well it should be.

The phrase "crime of violence" is just like "weapons of mass destruction" and "hate speech" in that it has been rendered so meaningless by the purveyors of PC thought that what ever meaning it once had is lost for all time.

The remedy for someone flashing you is to turn away and call the police. Its also a good idea to be prepared to defend yourself in case it turns violent in a way that is recognized as such by someone outside of the National Organization of Women.

Being punched in the nose is irrelevant to this topic because the only punching was done to captive man by the "victim".

When it comes to using violence in self defense I don't think the standard is "Implied Threat". A person either is or is not threatening as determined by a reasonable person at the time.

If the flasher in this case did something that we are not privy to based on the description, that made those girls believe they were going to be PHYSICALLY assaulted, then they would be justified in defending themselves.

However beating a man that is being held by other men for a moral transgression is just wrong, legally, and morally, no matter how satisfying it may be.
 
There is something SERIOUSLY wrong with this country when the law becomes more important than ethics to normal citizens.
 
However beating a man that is being held by other men for a moral transgression is just wrong, legally, and morally, no matter how satisfying it may be.
Click to expand...

I will agree that it is perhaps "legally" wrong, but morally... no way!

And I'll point out that this guy was a multiple offender. These girls had been exposed (!) to this several times and nothing had been done. The legal means to curb his behavior had been tried over and over again. He was still on the streets despite numerous court appearances.

There have been several interesting discussions on similar topics. Clearly there is a division between those who would obey the law at all costs, and those who would break the law for the greater good.

I will stand firmly with those who, under the right circumstances, would break the law to intervene in a crime or to prevent a violent criminal from escaping - or even, in a case like this, to allow the victims to get a little back...

In this case, you can be certain that he will never bother girls at that particular school again. The "greater good" was served.

Keith
 
I prefer to obey the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of it. And I do not confuse law with morality and ethics; nor do I forget which is more important.
 
I prefer to obey the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of it. And I do not confuse law with morality and ethics; nor do I forget which is more important.
Click to expand...

Well said!

Keith
 
keith Shaivong,

I can agree in principal to your point about a higher standard of behavior than than the "law can describe".

However when a person makes a principled stand and acts outside of the law because it is the right thing to do. ( which in this case I am not persuaded that mob violence was) you must also then stand up and take your consequences.

The fact than in addition to "sex crime" charges there were not also charges filed for various levels of assault against members of the mob is disturbing, that is if you value a society that has any order to it at all.

How many times have we counseled people on this very forum that even though the gun law in question is wrong and not what the founding fathers envisioned you must follow it! If you don't you deserve the consequences. Being right may infact be your ultimate guide but it is no shield from the law.
 
How many times have we counseled people on this very forum that even though the gun law in question is wrong and not what the founding fathers envisioned you must follow it!
Click to expand...

What do you mean "we", Kimosabe?
I'd be the first one to advise someone to carry a gun if the circumstances warranted it, and they couldn't get a legal permit. I'd also advise them that they are taking a risk of legal repercussions. You weigh the risks and you take your chances - if the fear of being killed or raped outweighs the risk of a gun charge, then buy the gun!

Keith
 
exactly Keith..... but you don't then expect to evade accountability for that gun charge do you?
 
exactly Keith..... but you don't then expect to evade accountability for that gun charge do you?
Click to expand...

Nope, but under our system prosecutors have discretion on whether they go after a crime or not. And if prosecuted you have the chance to make your case to fellow citizens.

A woman being stalked by some violent boyfriend may or may not be prosecuted for illegally carrying a gun. And she'll get to make her case to a jury - who may find in her favor.

These are things that you have to weigh before breaking the law. And these are the same things a prosecutor has to weigh before taking the case to a jury. Is he wasting his time and the publics money to prosecute some schoolgirls for kicking a repeat sexual predator who had just exposed himself to them? Yeah, he is - any jury in the land will stick that case right up his... well, they'll acquit.

Keith
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Bush Keeps Saddam Gun at White House
Replies
16
Views
1K
Blackcloud6
Blackcloud6
Y
  • Locked
Courage under fire: Amish girls
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
Henry Bowman
H
D
  • Locked
This is just nuts.
2
Replies
35
Views
3K
Sunspot
S
N
  • Locked
FLASH! Salami semiauto sends SWAT squad!
Replies
18
Views
1K
homeka45
H
J
  • Locked
Kimber loses $10 million to embezzling CFO
Replies
17
Views
2K
hecks68
H
Back
Top