FA+
Shop
1426
Views
Views
37
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 700 x 1046
File Size 126.7 kB
Report this content
More from Karno
What faith that guy had in human kindness and forgiveness. I'm touched. Or maybe he was just a complete moron.
Category All / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 700 x 1046px
File Size 126.7 kB
Depending on the prosecutor he _could_ get arrested for that last stomp, since by that point the criminal was helpless and would constitute excessive force, although I doubt you could easily find one who'd file charges or a jury that'd convict him considering the circumstances. I know if I were on the jury I'd have trouble convicting considering he actually saw his wife being raped and it was clear that they were going to murder not just him but his family too.
As far as begging for the medical care goes, I seem to remember some civil rights lawsuits filed over the two bank robbers in California many years ago who'd robbed a bank in full body armor and carrying a ton of ammunition and guns. The police didn't even have weapons that could penetrate the armor and had to raid local gun shops for sufficient firepower and they still got lucky with some head-shots. They were accused of taking too long to bring in medical care for the one who lay in the street bleeding out while the police held back, uncertain if there was a third criminal or not. Considering he and his partner came armed for war and had no worries about killing others I really can't find sympathy for either one if their violent choice lead to their deaths, just like for the criminals in this story.
As far as begging for the medical care goes, I seem to remember some civil rights lawsuits filed over the two bank robbers in California many years ago who'd robbed a bank in full body armor and carrying a ton of ammunition and guns. The police didn't even have weapons that could penetrate the armor and had to raid local gun shops for sufficient firepower and they still got lucky with some head-shots. They were accused of taking too long to bring in medical care for the one who lay in the street bleeding out while the police held back, uncertain if there was a third criminal or not. Considering he and his partner came armed for war and had no worries about killing others I really can't find sympathy for either one if their violent choice lead to their deaths, just like for the criminals in this story.
I still doubt he could get indicted as there's two strikes against that. He's a senior cop, and a lack of unfriendly witnesses. "He was reaching for the gun wiht his uninjured hand! Right, girls?"
The scumbag relatives could try for a civil suit like they do to joe citizen when one kills a deadly home invader of this type, but may find themselves the center of unwanted attention by his buddies on the force. I even wonder if Savage Squirrel would be vexed at scum using the law as a shakedown tool...
The scumbag relatives could try for a civil suit like they do to joe citizen when one kills a deadly home invader of this type, but may find themselves the center of unwanted attention by his buddies on the force. I even wonder if Savage Squirrel would be vexed at scum using the law as a shakedown tool...
From what I've seen everyone uses the law as a shakedown tool, some just do a better job of convincing people that they're doing it 'for all the right reasons'. It's also a bit too generalized to consider the relatives of such people as being all scumbags, many just don't want to believe how bad a relative is and sue out of a belief that their relative was wronged.
Considering how many people in prison right now who were even videotaped and witnessed by dozens of people committing a crime yet manage to have defenders of their innocence it's inappropriate to lump all those relatives in with the few who are indeed just out for the money and if anything wished they'd had insurance on the now dead relative with a clause to ensure payment even in the event of death during a criminal act. Blind gullibility is far more likely when it comes to motivations for such lawsuits in the end.
I could more likely see a well-meaning and overzealous member of the legal profession generating problems for Rumbolt than equally scummy relatives coming after him in a civil suit, although an unscrupulous lawyer manipulating the relatives wouldn't be a stretch. Lawyers are one of those few professions where they can get away with going out and creating work where there wasn't any (something you won't see say a cop or mortician doing, at least not legally), to the point they boldly advertise on TV trying to encourage people to sue in an already over-loaded legal system. Lawyers are like bureaucrats in that they create more and more work under them to pump themselves up until there's so much going on you have to spawn more of them to handle the work, like a Pyramid scheme.
Considering how many people in prison right now who were even videotaped and witnessed by dozens of people committing a crime yet manage to have defenders of their innocence it's inappropriate to lump all those relatives in with the few who are indeed just out for the money and if anything wished they'd had insurance on the now dead relative with a clause to ensure payment even in the event of death during a criminal act. Blind gullibility is far more likely when it comes to motivations for such lawsuits in the end.
I could more likely see a well-meaning and overzealous member of the legal profession generating problems for Rumbolt than equally scummy relatives coming after him in a civil suit, although an unscrupulous lawyer manipulating the relatives wouldn't be a stretch. Lawyers are one of those few professions where they can get away with going out and creating work where there wasn't any (something you won't see say a cop or mortician doing, at least not legally), to the point they boldly advertise on TV trying to encourage people to sue in an already over-loaded legal system. Lawyers are like bureaucrats in that they create more and more work under them to pump themselves up until there's so much going on you have to spawn more of them to handle the work, like a Pyramid scheme.
He might get arrested, but there is no way that a charge would stick. Especially with a dead suspect to give their own account of what happened. Since Rumbolt is a cop, I'm sure he knows exactly what needs to be said and done to prevent any trouble. Not that any jury would ever convict him, maybe the DA for stupidity, anyways.
The lawsuit you are talking about was from the infamous North Hollywood Shootout. The case was from the subject's family because he wasn't stopped from a head shot; he bled to death from relatively minor injuries. An ambulance didn't show up for a long time, some say an hour, after he was down. The case ended on a mistrial with a hung jury.
The lawsuit you are talking about was from the infamous North Hollywood Shootout. The case was from the subject's family because he wasn't stopped from a head shot; he bled to death from relatively minor injuries. An ambulance didn't show up for a long time, some say an hour, after he was down. The case ended on a mistrial with a hung jury.
I'd have been more inclined to side with the family in a case like that, since whatever kind of scum the criminal might be leaving him to bleed to death like that isn't a right that they have. Getting a jury to agree on that is nearly impossible though as you point out from the actual trial. Similar to Jury Nullification.
Yuh I remember the infamous North Hollywood shootout. Considering the circumstances of the 2 mutherfuckers who were trying to commit wholesale murder, I'm surprised the police controlled themselves as well as they did. I would have doubtlessly stomped the 1 remaining asshole to death, shortening his pain. I seem to remember the other cockroach managed to shoot himself in the head.
I was always surprised that only 17 people were injured. The perps certainly had all the right gear, but they sure as hell didn't know how to aim.
He either committed suicide or accidently shot himself while he was reloading one-handed. He was apparently shot in the spine at the same time, so nobody really knows.
He either committed suicide or accidently shot himself while he was reloading one-handed. He was apparently shot in the spine at the same time, so nobody really knows.
Well one of the first things I was told in my concealed carry class is no matter what the case is if you have to fire your weapon you will be treated as a criminal until proven otherwise. And it all depends on the person your shooting at and their lawyers. We have the best justice system money can buy after all.
My dad (25 years on the police force) shot the tires out of a car in a highspeed chase as it was about to head into a populated area. 6 months of infernal repairs.. I mean internal affairs investigations.
My dad (25 years on the police force) shot the tires out of a car in a highspeed chase as it was about to head into a populated area. 6 months of infernal repairs.. I mean internal affairs investigations.
Thats good advice, but this situation is different than most.
The use of a gun is here would be almost irrelevant to any case brought up against Rumbolt. The case would be focused on the "improper treatment" of the criminal. Rumbolt's shoe would be more relevant. Since the criminal died, all evidence of wrongdoing is suppositional at best and not factual. The trial would end with either a not guilty verdict or as a mistrial.
6 months of investigations, but was he ever actually charged for anything?
The use of a gun is here would be almost irrelevant to any case brought up against Rumbolt. The case would be focused on the "improper treatment" of the criminal. Rumbolt's shoe would be more relevant. Since the criminal died, all evidence of wrongdoing is suppositional at best and not factual. The trial would end with either a not guilty verdict or as a mistrial.
6 months of investigations, but was he ever actually charged for anything?
Depending on where this took place the use of a gun would in any situation even by a law enforcement officer would be questioned. Here would be a question brought by the defense sense there is no witnesses that would talk anyway "was the boot to the head a killing blow or an injury in the course of the struggle?"
That actually kind of makes my point. Rumbolt might be arrested, but he won't get charged with anything. The joy of "innocent until proven guilty" means that the DA would have to prove that Rumbolt killed the man without a valid need for doing so. In this situation, I don't think it would be possible to do so. Even if there was some question, persuading the jury to charge him will be even harder. It is the exact same reason why nobody was charged in the North Hollywood Shootout case.
There's the original dead rapist he killed when he came in, then the one she lured in that he I think snapped the neck on. So two dead upstairs and then the carefully planned assault on the remainder downstairs holding his children hostage and waiting on him to come in through the front door to kill.
Eh, the way I always heard it put was the non-traditonal karma. Say you kick a dog, some years later a dog will bite you for no reason, hence karma making your bad things come back to you. In any case, I believe in doing bad things to bad people, because the we often hope that traditional justice will preval and often it does not.
Well, yes, that was my point- Karma states that whatever evils you do will be returned to you, but not necessarily by the people you wronged. Its not Rumbolt's responsibility to return suffering to this person, its Karma, therefore his intervention is at best, unnecessary.
This of course, is not saying that what he *has* done was inappropriate.
This of course, is not saying that what he *has* done was inappropriate.
Got no love for the media. I think if the same situation played out in a town like this the local cops would cover their own and the evidence would be in someones hog pen by the next feeding time. Thats only because the person involved is a cop. If it happened to average backwoods joe here nobody but immediate family would know. Theres federal law, state law and the law of the land. In a case such as this... threat to your life, raping your wife and holding your kids hostage that would fall under the latter and nobody would say a word.
Well, as of that last boot stop, our cop goes from heroic killer to vigilante murderer. Whether he could get away with it or not is not the issue. Whether or not the criminal deserved it is not for Rumbold to decide. That is why we have courts in this country.
Every killing was justified up to that point. Each criminal was a clear threat to multiple people, and lethal force was entirely justified in subduing them. Had the last perp died from a gunshot wound, everything would be hunky-dory. but he was unarmed, wounded, and *helpless* on the ground.
When the criminal takes the life of a helpless victim, its an evil act, and murder. When a police officer takes the life of an equally helpless criminal (whatever the criminal's prior intentions) its *still* murder.
However much we all sympathize with Rumbold, for having his family and life threatened in such a manner, he is not to be saluted, lionized, or cheered for that last boot stomp. That stomp put him in the same category as the criminal he killed; a victimizer.
In this situation, lots of people would want to take a measure of vengeance out on someone who had threatened his family. I count myself among them.
But killing a helpless person is an evil act, no matter how you slice it. It may be a cathartic release to stomp such a bastard's head in, but it's also against the law. Once the target is subdued and helpless, it is no longer self-defense, or defense of others.
If Rumbold didn't want to show any particular mercy to the perp, he could have simply phoned an ambulance and then walked away. It's entirely probable that he would have died from blood loss before medical help arrived. Or he can choose not to call an ambulance and walk into the living room and watch TV for an hour or two. After all, he is under no legal obligation to render medical assistance in this case. In both situations, Rumbold would have not committed murder, and the perp would probably have died very painfully, thus satisfying any need to "get back at him".
I realize I'll probably get flamed to hell and back for this post, but I feel that people need to understand the difference between a moral killing, and murder.
Every killing was justified up to that point. Each criminal was a clear threat to multiple people, and lethal force was entirely justified in subduing them. Had the last perp died from a gunshot wound, everything would be hunky-dory. but he was unarmed, wounded, and *helpless* on the ground.
When the criminal takes the life of a helpless victim, its an evil act, and murder. When a police officer takes the life of an equally helpless criminal (whatever the criminal's prior intentions) its *still* murder.
However much we all sympathize with Rumbold, for having his family and life threatened in such a manner, he is not to be saluted, lionized, or cheered for that last boot stomp. That stomp put him in the same category as the criminal he killed; a victimizer.
In this situation, lots of people would want to take a measure of vengeance out on someone who had threatened his family. I count myself among them.
But killing a helpless person is an evil act, no matter how you slice it. It may be a cathartic release to stomp such a bastard's head in, but it's also against the law. Once the target is subdued and helpless, it is no longer self-defense, or defense of others.
If Rumbold didn't want to show any particular mercy to the perp, he could have simply phoned an ambulance and then walked away. It's entirely probable that he would have died from blood loss before medical help arrived. Or he can choose not to call an ambulance and walk into the living room and watch TV for an hour or two. After all, he is under no legal obligation to render medical assistance in this case. In both situations, Rumbold would have not committed murder, and the perp would probably have died very painfully, thus satisfying any need to "get back at him".
I realize I'll probably get flamed to hell and back for this post, but I feel that people need to understand the difference between a moral killing, and murder.
It's only self-defense if the target poses a threat.
He's on the ground, bleeding from multiple gunshot wounds, and he has no weapon...
So exactly how is he a threat? In his state, what can he threaten them with beyond leaving a stain on the carpet? Regardless of what he had intended to do prior to getting shot, the fact is that after getting shot, he was no longer in a position or a capacity to victimize anyone or anything (again, except for the carpet).
Rumbold has crossed a line here. He has murdered a perp in cold blood. Any IA officer worthy of the title would ensure that Rumbold spends the rest of his career behind a desk, because the possibility now exists that he will play judge, jury, and executioner in the future.
It doesn't matter that the perp wanted to murder him first; as long as he was incapable of harming anyone killing him became a crime.
He's on the ground, bleeding from multiple gunshot wounds, and he has no weapon...
So exactly how is he a threat? In his state, what can he threaten them with beyond leaving a stain on the carpet? Regardless of what he had intended to do prior to getting shot, the fact is that after getting shot, he was no longer in a position or a capacity to victimize anyone or anything (again, except for the carpet).
Rumbold has crossed a line here. He has murdered a perp in cold blood. Any IA officer worthy of the title would ensure that Rumbold spends the rest of his career behind a desk, because the possibility now exists that he will play judge, jury, and executioner in the future.
It doesn't matter that the perp wanted to murder him first; as long as he was incapable of harming anyone killing him became a crime.
Fortunately the law does not allow us to kill people just because they *may* be a threat to us at some unspecified time in the future. That is why in pleas of self-defense one must show there was an immediate threat to personal safety, or the safety of others. Society could not stand if we were allowed to eliminate those who we felt might threaten us eventually, as opposed to those who clearly and immediately threaten us now.
Yes, the perp *may* have sought vengeance after getting out of prison. He *may* also have died in prison. He *may* also have been locked up for 20 to life and done some introspective soul-searching... (not much else to do at 20-life) and he *may* have decided that it was his actions that got him put in prison, and that he should try to live the remainder of his life as a law-abiding citizen. He *may* have found a measure of redemption, and attempted to apologize to his victims.
Yes, he *may* also have gotten out in 20 years all ready for vengeance on those who shot him and put him away for half his life.
Lacking the ability to see into the future, neither you, nor I, nor Rumbold could say with any certainty what was going to happen. The future threat, if any, posed by the perp was not certain. Therefore one cannot hide behind claims of self-defense when one decides to play judge, jury, and executioner.
The perp and his friends were bastards and scum. They were wholly deserving of every broken neck and bullet wound that they received, as long as they were in a position to hurt others. But once the last perp was unable to hurt anyone, killing him became as much a crime as his planned murder of Rumbold.
Think of it another way; you've got an idiot cousin who is a good-for-nothing lowlife criminal. You hear that he died in a shoot-out with the police. Your first thought is that "well, that's what the idiot gets".
Then you hear that he was actually shot by the officers three times, and then stomped to death while begging for a doctor.
Your cousin is still an idiot, who got what all idiots get for trading gunfire with police officers... but now he's also a victim of police brutality. And murder as well.
Yes, the perp *may* have sought vengeance after getting out of prison. He *may* also have died in prison. He *may* also have been locked up for 20 to life and done some introspective soul-searching... (not much else to do at 20-life) and he *may* have decided that it was his actions that got him put in prison, and that he should try to live the remainder of his life as a law-abiding citizen. He *may* have found a measure of redemption, and attempted to apologize to his victims.
Yes, he *may* also have gotten out in 20 years all ready for vengeance on those who shot him and put him away for half his life.
Lacking the ability to see into the future, neither you, nor I, nor Rumbold could say with any certainty what was going to happen. The future threat, if any, posed by the perp was not certain. Therefore one cannot hide behind claims of self-defense when one decides to play judge, jury, and executioner.
The perp and his friends were bastards and scum. They were wholly deserving of every broken neck and bullet wound that they received, as long as they were in a position to hurt others. But once the last perp was unable to hurt anyone, killing him became as much a crime as his planned murder of Rumbold.
Think of it another way; you've got an idiot cousin who is a good-for-nothing lowlife criminal. You hear that he died in a shoot-out with the police. Your first thought is that "well, that's what the idiot gets".
Then you hear that he was actually shot by the officers three times, and then stomped to death while begging for a doctor.
Your cousin is still an idiot, who got what all idiots get for trading gunfire with police officers... but now he's also a victim of police brutality. And murder as well.
just to follow up since no one else chimed in. I think youre exactly right there on your points. It`s not surprising he did what he did.And its totally understandable. But legally and morally murdering someone who is helpless is wrong. But it fits in the story as written,kind of a Charles Bronson kill the scum moment. Still getting people to go against the flow of the story and see fault in the protaganist after such horrible stuff happened to his family is extremely hard to do.It`s like trying to get people to respect the free speech of idiot kkk people or things that go against what volatile emotions drive us.
Disarming an evil being may be heroic but taking the extra steps to ensure that evil can't strike again, well that's just plain intelligent.
Historically, even Biblically, it's a common knowledge that repelling an enemy can only be done by crushing him/her like they've never been crushed before.
I don't mean to jump in and pile on my morals onto you but IMHO the criminal forfeit his rights as a citizen when he committed the initial crime to get his ass in jail. THEN he forfeit his right to live when he decided he needed to kill Rumbold, not to mention threaten to kill innocent children and rape a defenseless woman.
If I have to put it in video game terms I can: Defeating the mini-boss in this battle is one thing but he'll be back later... He may have a better strategy, he may have a tighter trigger finger or worse yet, he's armed with lawyers and the game will REALLY start to suck after that!
Well, perhaps I'm talking in circles but I suppose it'd be easier to explain if you had a wife and children to place in that situation. I suppose you could call it vigilante if you'd like but I'd rather be judged by 12 instead of watching any of my family being carried off by 6.
Historically, even Biblically, it's a common knowledge that repelling an enemy can only be done by crushing him/her like they've never been crushed before.
I don't mean to jump in and pile on my morals onto you but IMHO the criminal forfeit his rights as a citizen when he committed the initial crime to get his ass in jail. THEN he forfeit his right to live when he decided he needed to kill Rumbold, not to mention threaten to kill innocent children and rape a defenseless woman.
If I have to put it in video game terms I can: Defeating the mini-boss in this battle is one thing but he'll be back later... He may have a better strategy, he may have a tighter trigger finger or worse yet, he's armed with lawyers and the game will REALLY start to suck after that!
Well, perhaps I'm talking in circles but I suppose it'd be easier to explain if you had a wife and children to place in that situation. I suppose you could call it vigilante if you'd like but I'd rather be judged by 12 instead of watching any of my family being carried off by 6.
Comments