Sedative saidI'd hardly call divorce 'justice' in this case. Psychological damage has little to no importance in law. What sort of lesson would it be if a man who uses women for money simply walks off free to do it again on other women?
Divorce is normally considered well suited for someone who cheats on their partner. That is all we know that he did to his wife. Do you mean anyone who commits infidelity should get the same treatment. Secondly, as I stated before, depending on the context they women who gave him money likely had legal recourse to try to get it back.
Sedative saidThe guy was a first class asshole. I have little sympathy for people who manipulate people like that, especially those operating just beyond legal prosecution. The fact that he can't be punished tit for tat for what he did in legal terms means society itself condones his acts. They live to repeat this subtle imposition of their power over other people, arrogant with the fact that nothing they do will ever stick to them in legal circles.
Again, legal recourse was an option.
Sedative saidIt's like the bully who verbally tortures the gay kid in school for years and sues for assault when the kid finally breaks and shoves his face into the toilet bowl. The priest who preaches hell and doomsday on homosexuals and washes his hands off the guilt when the gay child of one of his congregation commits suicide. The cruel husband who sneers as his long-suffering wife struggles to maintain composure as he insults her in front of his buddies purely for the fun of watching her squirm.
In none of these areas do I accept violence as the solution. I understand that we disagree on this and I am not trying to argue that you stop your endorsement of violence as a solution.
Sedative saidIntangible crime, but wrong nonetheless.
Yes, but we don't disagree on this. We disagree on how adults should handle the situation.
Sedative saidBut given the background fact that the guy himself conned money from them in the first place, you begin to see that the theft of the women wasn't ungrounded as well. They had their reasons why they took his wallet and his car. It wasn't simply out of pure pettiness. They wanted to get their money back. Hence why I place importance on context. Law would simply see it as theft. Black and white.
You are assuming motive for the theft of the care and wallet. You don't know the reason behind this and neither do I. I find it odd that his wife would take part in the theft of his wallet for money he did not steal from her.
I assumed they took them as a way to delay his catching up with them. But again neither of us know. I thought you didn't want to play "what if".
Sedative saidAnyway, arguing about it is moot and I'd rather not let this devolve into flame war. I wonder why I got picked out when a lot of the other guys expressed the same sentiment. The women face jailtime now. That should be enough to assuage your sense of 'justice'.
I did say that I was disturbed by the number of people that find this acceptable. As for why I pulled yours as the one to respond to. That is easy. We started off talking about your response to Marshi and as this online conversations do it morphed into an other conversation. I wasn't picking on you. I wouldn't describe this as a flame war, I think we have both been fairly civil and clearly our disagreement is simply over the use of violence. I don't take as a personal affront that you disagree with me on the subject. I do think claiming you don't want a flame war are following up with the snide comment about my sense of justice complete with quotes as some kind of parting shot is a bit disingenuous. But as a response I will say that yes, I think them answering for what they did is the right thing to happen and I wish they had pursued the legal means available to them rather than resorting to violence. Doing so would have avoided the entire mess.