Vigilante or Hero?

[eddo]

I think the French can only ask for extradition. They can't just go in and get him.

Exactly Snafu.

What this doc did to the little girl (and apparently someone else) was horrible, but I don't know what else France could have done- other than ask.

Going in and forcibly taking him could have resulted in enough tension for WWIII.

Not sure this was worth it.


If someone commits a crime here in the states, and runs off to Canada or Mexico to escape punishment, those countries aren't under any obligation to extradite- that's how I understand it anyway.

I know some countries will completely refuse to extradite if the death penalty is being sought in a case.

 

[emkay64]

You say vigilante I say vagilawntay. Okay I don't but meh...whatever.

 

[timesjoke]

Like I thought. Zoltar the Great has read the minds of the French Gov't and concluded facts not in evidence.

Might I suggest that your perceptions may not equal reality here?

An absense of information is also something we can learn from eddo. You come home to a broken window, a big knife missing from the knife block, and the house is silent, do you pretend everything is fine?

Do you assume there is no intruder just because you can't see him "yet"?


The French's lack of results after so many years is a fact eddo, you can choose to believe that such a very long time without result is good, but I will choose to see that fact as significant.

I'm not the one making a claim either way. the proof isn't up to me, it's up to the one making said claims.

and here: that'd be you.

Your just taking shots, as usual.

Your claim is that the French was still working hard to gain extradition eddo, show me where they were and I will admit I was wrong.


Of course I am making a judgement call, just like the father made the judgement call that had him taking action where the French Government would not.


Are you saying the father was wrong?

I think the French can only ask for extradition. They can't just go in and get him.

There are litterally thousands of things the French Government could do, for example, the doctor was in France in connection with his work through the consulate, the first thing I would tell Germany is if they are going to refuse to respect French laws while in France, then maybe it is necessary to not allow German people into France? Maybe?

Respecting international law also includes trade agreements and if Germany has decided to ignore international laws by shrugging off this case then this same thing can apply to any claims they may have in France.


Remember, Germany has said that it is okay for their citizens to kill French citizens and they will not be extradited (with their actions), this is a huge issue and if France ignores this in this case, why would Germany ever respect French laws?

 

[eddo]

Your claim is that the French was still working hard to gain extradition eddo, show me where they were and I will admit I was wrong.

No, Captain Dense, that is not what I am saying.


My claim is that the article says NOTHING about any such thing, and that you, as usual, are going by facts not presented in evidence.

Like I said, show me where the French gave up on this man and his daughter and I will concede this point to you.

You are the one making that claim here, I'm just asking you to back it up.

as the movie says: Nut up or shut up.

Are you saying the father was wrong?

Yes, Kidnapping is wrong, even if the motives are good. Would I have done the same? Yeah, I probably would have, but 10 years ago...

 

[timesjoke]

No, Captain Dense, that is not what I am saying.


My claim is that the article says NOTHING about any such thing, and that you, as usual, are going by facts not presented in evidence.

Like I said, show me where the French gave up on this man and his daughter and I will concede this point to you.

You are the one making that claim here, I'm just asking you to back it up.

as the movie says: Nut up or shut up.

So you can claim anything you want without having to prove it but you want me to prove myself right with 100% irrefutable evidence?

Are you sure your not a Liberal eddo? Your certainly acting like one.


The lack of results is a fact right eddo? The French Government had no success after so many long years is something you can't just ignore eddo. The fact that the French Government did not even do a proper investigation until the father screamed and ranted about it is also a fact eddo.


So while my opinion of what this means might be based on slim evidence, at least there is "some" evidence supporting my point while your empty claim that the French Government was still trying very hard to procure this killer doctor from Germany does not have even one shread of proof to back it up.

I will take slim evidence over no evidence any day, lol.

Yes, Kidnapping is wrong, even if the motives are good. Would I have done the same? Yeah, I probably would have, but 10 years ago...

If you would have done the same thing then why is it wrong eddo? Just because of political games? Do you believe that "right" comes from the Government? The only reason this father had to act was because his Government refused to act. I already pointed out many examples of how the French Government could have used political means to force Germany to observe their international and even EU laws they have agreed to. There was more that could have been done that was not done....so the father had to act, it was a moral imperitive.


The father did not exact revenge on the doctor himself, he gave the doctor over to his Government instead so in my mind, that proves there was no wrong in this man's actions.

 

[eddo]

So while my opinion of what this means might be based on slim evidence, at least there is "some" evidence supporting my point while your empty claim that the French Government was still trying very hard to procure this killer doctor from Germany does not have even one shread of proof to back it up.

I never said the French gov't was doing anything or was not doing anything.

I have made no claim either way. Maybe you are the one that should try reading...

again, all I have asked for if for you to offer actual evidence that the French gov't stopped trying. Your slim evidence points to ineffectiveness, but doesn't point to lack of effort.

You could be right. You could be wrong. Using your own logic- I can blame you for this murdering doctor not serving his sentence. You obviously didn't make an effort to get this murderer back to France.
He wasn't back in France til he was kidnapped, so you didn't do all you could do, or you stopped trying. So this is your fault.

Sounds stupid, doesn't it? I'll admit that sounds asinine, but, I've got just as much evidence for this cocamamie crap as you do for your claim about the French.

If you would have done the same thing then why is it wrong eddo? Just because of political games? Do you believe that "right" comes from the Government? The only reason this father had to act was because his Government refused to act. I already pointed out many examples of how the French Government could have used political means to force Germany to observe their international and even EU laws they have agreed to. There was more that could have been done that was not done....so the father had to act, it was a moral imperitive.
The father did not exact revenge on the doctor himself, he gave the doctor over to his Government instead so in my mind, that proves there was no wrong in this man's actions.

Laws are laws. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because I would have done something, does not mean it is the right thing to do.

This was not an act of self-defense, this guy and his family were no longer in danger, this doctor posed no threat to them at all. IMO, it was not the right way to handle it, but like I said earlier, if I were his judge, I'd let him off easy.

 

[timesjoke]

I never said the French gov't was doing anything or was not doing anything.

I have made no claim either way. Maybe you are the one that should try reading...

again, all I have asked for if for you to offer actual evidence that the French gov't stopped trying. Your slim evidence points to ineffectiveness, but doesn't point to lack of effort.

You could be right. You could be wrong. Using your own logic- I can blame you for this murdering doctor not serving his sentence. You obviously didn't make an effort to get this murderer back to France.
He wasn't back in France til he was kidnapped, so you didn't do all you could do, or you stopped trying. So this is your fault.

Sounds stupid, doesn't it? I'll admit that sounds asinine, but, I've got just as much evidence for this cocamamie crap as you do for your claim about the French.

What the hell are you talking about eddo?

Me? I am not the government responsible for the care and wellbeing of the people of France. For you to try and twist this situation in such stupid ways proves your just once again only taking opposition against me, your not even trying to discuss the topic at hand.


The French Government refusing to conduct a proper initial investigation "IS" proof.

The French Government failing to obtain this fugative when it would have been easy to pressure Germany to give him up "IS" proof.

You may not like my evidence but the only thing this evidence points tword is the French Government laying down on this issue and any other assumption "YOU" make is the one without any facts to support it.


I offer you two things that clearly support my opinion, can you show me two things that support your claim that the French Government was still working tirelessly to get this fugative?

Laws are laws. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because I would have done something, does not mean it is the right thing to do.

WYF?

Right and wrong is not set by a law eddo. It was once illegal for a black person to drink from the same water fountain as a white person, was the fact that it was law making that right eddo?


Your confusing right/wrong with politics eddo.

This was not an act of self-defense, this guy and his family were no longer in danger, this doctor posed no threat to them at all. IMO, it was not the right way to handle it, but like I said earlier, if I were his judge, I'd let him off easy.

Again, WTF?

You can't say both it was wrong and it was also what you would have done, the very notion of laws is to support the people, not for the people to support the Government.


If the government decided enforcing the law was not politically easy, then why should the law be imposed against a father who simply wants his daughter's killer brought to justice? He handed the killer of his daughter to the French authorities eddo, that is not the act of a criminal or a bad person, you can't possibly be saying blind following of the Government is all you can accept as reasonable.......or can you?

 

[eddo]

What the hell are you talking about eddo?
Me? I am not the government responsible for the care and wellbeing of the people of France. For you to try and twist this situation in such stupid ways proves your just once again only taking opposition against me, your not even trying to discuss the topic at hand.

thanks for missing the point....

I offer you two things that clearly support my opinion, can you show me two things that support your claim that the French Government was still working tirelessly to get this fugative?

I have made no such claim, dumbass

Right and wrong is not set by a law eddo.
.
.
.
the very notion of laws is to support the people,

you are just a giant furry ball of contradiction, aren't ya?

So what is the point of laws then, if not to support the people by setting what is right and wrong for those very people?

If the government decided enforcing the law was not politically easy, then why should the law be imposed against a father who simply wants his daughter's killer brought to justice? He handed the killer of his daughter to the French authorities eddo, that is not the act of a criminal or a bad person, you can't possibly be saying blind following of the Government is all you can accept as reasonable.......or can you?

Justifying breaking the law does not make it ok to break that law. People break the law every day for reasons that they talk themselves into- justifications that make sense, and may even be noble, but that doesn't make breaking the law "right."

I can rob a bank because I need to buy food for my family. Does that make it right? no.

I can steal a car because if i don't then I will be late for work and get fired, thus unable to provide for my family. Is that right? no.

I can lock up all the Jews and start executing them because I think they are an inferior race. Does that make it right? no.


The system let this dad down. I dunno how often this happens in France, but I now that it sucks. Does it make it "right" for him to go (or hire someone to go) into another country to kidnap someone? no. Do I think he is a bad person? No. Do I think he was frustrated beyond belief and, if nothing more than in his own mind- out of options? Yes.

Do I want a country full of French people out running around kidnapping people that they feel have done them wrong? no, I don't.

 

[snafu]

God dog man. TJ why must you make a fight about who said what? The thread is dead now so why continue with the bickering?

 

[snafu]

You said, she said, I said, you meant, I meant, you heard, I heard, blah blah blah....

 

[timesjoke]

thanks for missing the point....

No, you tried to change the point from one of government responsibility to one of personal responsibility. Even if I let you get away with that obvious attempt to get away from a point you know you have lost, I never even knew of the situation so how could I act on it.


The only way this point is even close to on topic is if you believe France never knew about the crime in the first place, I don't think your that stupid so your obviously just trying to change the subject away from how France is responsible for protecting their people, and to enforce their laws as part of their protection responsibilities.

I have made no such claim, dumbass

Showing your juvenile side again I see.

Why is it you must make personal attacks? I let your "Captain Dense" comment go earlier in my attempt to have an honest debate with you but you just can't disagree without making everything personal can you?



You actually did, you said I was wrong, that means you claim the French Government was actively trying to get this fugitive. This is an either/or situation eddo. Either the French Government did everything they could or they didn't.

I propose they never cut off their borders to Germany as a show that if they ignored French laws they could not enter so by refusing to take such measures, the French Government did wash their hands and let it go.

you are just a giant furry ball of contradiction, aren't ya?

So what is the point of laws then, if not to support the people by setting what is right and wrong for those very people?

I have no idea what your talking about eddo, your the contradiction, your saying a person can do everything right and should still be wrong if that "right" action was forced because of political games.


I am saying that when a Government intentionally refuses to protect it's people, enforce their laws and punnish those who kill it't citizens, then it is up to the people to do the "right" the politics will not allow.

Justifying breaking the law does not make it ok to break that law. People break the law every day for reasons that they talk themselves into- justifications that make sense, and may even be noble, but that doesn't make breaking the law "right."

I can rob a bank because I need to buy food for my family. Does that make it right? no.

I can steal a car because if i don't then I will be late for work and get fired, thus unable to provide for my family. Is that right? no.

I can lock up all the Jews and start executing them because I think they are an inferior race. Does that make it right? no.

None of that has anything to do with this situation eddo. Everything you describe is personal decisions by the actual person himself and as such are all wrong as you say, but that is not what this situation is about.


This situation is about the Government ignoring the laws in favor of political games.

The system let this dad down. I dunno how often this happens in France, but I now that it sucks. Does it make it "right" for him to go (or hire someone to go) into another country to kidnap someone? no. Do I think he is a bad person? No. Do I think he was frustrated beyond belief and, if nothing more than in his own mind- out of options? Yes.

You agree the system let him down, so they are wrong, not the dad.

I take issue with your claim that being out of options was only in the father's mind, the Government was no longer trying to get this man so the only way this man would ever face justice was for the father to take action himself.

The Government stopped working for this man, and he jumpstarted it himself, the only other option was to let the doctor get away with killing his daughter, is that what you want eddo?

Your way means the killer gets away, I don't want a world where you want killers to get away with killing children.


Maybe if you were to have your own child you might understand how horrible it is to have someone kill your child.

Do I want a country full of French people out running around kidnapping people that they feel have done them wrong? no, I don't.

That is great, because that is not what is being described here so please stop trying to change the subject.


This is not about feelings of being wronged, this is actual wrong proven by a court of law and a French Government who refuses to protect it's citizens.

In that situation where the kidnaped person is given to the proper authorities I fully support that kind of action. Remember, the doctor had the option of submitting himself to the French authorities himself too, he could have faced his personal responsibility in this to either prove himself innocent or face the punnishment due to him for his crimes.


I have no sympathy for those who try and escape their responsibility.

 

[eddo]

Timesjoke, I dunno what you have against the French so much, but just stay away from the French fries, the French toast, and French dressing, and all should be fine.


holy crap you are dense...

 

[Ahhlee]

Maybe if you were to have your own child you might understand how horrible it is to have someone kill your child.

Yes, I realize I'm going to catch hell for "gangbanging" because God forbid I have an opinion that happens to be the same as your debate opponent, TJ.

That statement that you made was uncalled for. Do you honestly think that someone who has chosen not to have children is incapable of understanding the horror one would feel in losing a child to murder?

Eddo is debating the law. You are bringing eddo's personal life into the mix. That was a flame attack, plain and simple.

Using it to gain ground in your debate is just disgusting.

And for the record, I would defend anyone else here who is childless had you said the same thing to them. This is not a "chiming in for eddo's sake" situation, though I guarantee you will make it out to be just that. So go for it. Whatever. I don't even fukking care.

 

[timesjoke]

Yes, I realize I'm going to catch hell for "gangbanging" because God forbid I have an opinion that happens to be the same as your debate opponent, TJ.

That statement that you made was uncalled for. Do you honestly think that someone who has chosen not to have children is incapable of understanding the horror one would feel in losing a child to murder?

Eddo is debating the law. You are bringing eddo's personal life into the mix. That was a flame attack, plain and simple.

Using it to gain ground in your debate is just disgusting.

And for the record, I would defend anyone else here who is childless had you said the same thing to them. This is not a "chiming in for eddo's sake" situation, though I guarantee you will make it out to be just that. So go for it. Whatever. I don't even fukking care.

Someone who has not had children cannot understand this feeling Ali, that is like saying reading a book on boating will give you the same experience as actually going boating in real life.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure they can feel close to and even love a child they did not bring into the world but there is a connection, a degree of love and dedication you can only obtain as a parent and creating this life. I was always involved with kids and volunteering with them and I would thought the same as you are saying before I had my own kids but being as I have been on both sides of this issue, I can tell you there is no way eddo can understand this feeling until he himself has had children, it is like night and day.




As far as it being a flame, eddo has called me names 7 times in this thread and I have not called him names, if you ever want me to take your claims of me flamming him seriously you must first point your finger at what he does.......something you have never done when he flames me. It seems I am the only person you will say has flammed anyone, and that makes your comment meaningless.



Of course being a parent and feeling a responsibility to bring your child's killer to justice is relivant to this discussion to both look at the motivations of the father and to see where the responsibilities of the French government should be, what can or should they do.


The law supported the extradition of the doctor, it is the politics that stopped it Ali, this has been my point to eddo and eddo just wants to ignore the political games part of this issue.

 

[eddo]

buttmunch
dumbass
Captain Dense
Zoltar the Great
dumbass

7?? I count 5.

and not a one a personal "flamm" Not a one thing about your personal life. Yet you attack my personal life (and my credibility in this post) by bringing up that I don't have kids. Not necessarily an invalid point, but completely irrelevant to the point that I am trying to make- and thus a personal attack because you were unable to provide the evidence to back up your claims and I was, frankly, making you look silly.
(my point again, just in case you forgot: There is no evidence that the French Gov't ever stopped trying to do anything for this dad. Were they ineffective? Yep. Did they actually stop trying? I dunno, and neither do you.
This has nothing to do with whether or not you or I have children of our own, or the feelings that comes from said offspring.)



And don't forget man, you started the attitude fest in here with your "you could try reading..." comment.

Don't play innocent here. You brought the crap, not me.

 

[emkay64]

The doctor was convicted in absentia...meaning he'd already fled. The article said "Germany refuses to extradite"...therefore sounds like Germany is guilty for the crappy governing. Their refusal means France tried to get him extradited.

That being said...i think the father showed restraint by only kidnapping him. Why he waited 27 years is bizarre but whatever, he still broke the law no matter how noble the cause. He should have just had him killed and disposed of...problem solved . Just kidding. The two countries have incompatible laws plain and simple...and they won't be rewritten for one case. There are laws against kidnapping because kidnapping is WRONG. Letting him get off is like saying this is just fine for anyone else with noble intentions. I'm sure the father will get leniency, but he should have to pay the consequences like anyone else.

Now see...if he just got rid of him...none of this would be an issue

 

[timesjoke]

7?? I count 5.

Stuff like "holy crap you are dense...."

Count too eddo.

and not a one a personal "flamm" Not a one thing about your personal life. Yet you attack my personal life (and my credibility in this post) by bringing up that I don't have kids. Not necessarily an invalid point, but completely irrelevant to the point that I am trying to make- and thus a personal attack because you were unable to provide the evidence to back up your claims and I was, frankly, making you look silly.

I never attacked you as a person, your lack of direct knowledge of what it is to be a parent is not an insult, it is a fact and relivant so cannot be considered as a flame in any way.


You did attack me on a personal level, you put me down and called me names out of your need to "beat me down" as usual.

(my point again, just in case you forgot: There is no evidence that the French Gov't ever stopped trying to do anything for this dad. Were they ineffective? Yep. Did they actually stop trying? I dunno, and neither do you.
This has nothing to do with whether or not you or I have children of our own, or the feelings that comes from said offspring.)

Now your acting like Bender, I have posted the direct evidence such as the French Government not even doing a proper investigation at first but you just pretend these facts do not exist so you can claim your right.


While you may not like it, only my opinion has any supportive evidence while your claim that the French were still trying has no evidence at all....so based on that your wrong.


The not having children thing was because of this comment by you:

"Do I think he was frustrated beyond belief and, if nothing more than in his own mind- out of options? Yes."

Your flippant attitude tword the Father's grief was why I mentioned that part.

And don't forget man, you started the attitude fest in here with your "you could try reading..." comment.

Don't play innocent here. You brought the crap, not me.

Telling you to go read up on the topic for yourself is not a attitude fest eddo. I never spoke to you in a bad way, but as usual you called me names and put me down just because I did not agree with you that the Father should have just let the political games let the killer of his daughter walk away without punnishment.


The French Government could have forced the issue but they didn't.

Besides all of this I still have always said this is my opinion but you still call me names, why is it you feel I deserve to be called names for voicing my opinion?

 

[eddo]

You don't deserve to be called names for voicing your opinion, as I welcome opinions other than my own.

but you do deserve to be called names for continually putting words in my mouth.

Once again (in hopes that you may actually get it this time):
I did not claim that France was still trying to do anything. I simply asked you to back up your claim that they weren't. You couldn't, so you lose. In fact, I have made 0, zip, zilch, nada claims that France has done anything one way or the other in here. Not a single one. YOU are the one making all the claims here, I just asked for evidence to support the claims you have made. You have been unable to prove that France did or did not do anything. You have shown how ineffective they were in this case, but have not backed up your claims that France "was blowing it off."

You not getting this, after me repeating it now multiple times, officially makes you a dumbass.

Now your acting like Bender, I have posted the direct evidence such as the French Government not even doing a proper investigation at first but you just pretend these facts do not exist so you can claim your right.

How does an investigation 27 years ago prove anything about the current actions of the countries government?



I was not at all "flippant" about the attitude of the father. That is a horrible thing for him to go through, and I would not wish that on anyone. I also never said the killer should walk away with no punishment.


Me calling you dense, and now calling you a dumbass, is not an attack, but instead, "it is a fact and relivant (sic) so cannot be considered as a flame in any way."

 

[emkay64]

Actually...after reading the article from a few other sources too, it appears there wasn't evidence that he was going to rape her at all. I mean it certainly could be implied given his past arrest, but without all the evidence, none of us can really make the call.

Apparently this father acted on his own perceptions, not necessarily the right perceptions. France convicted him to 15 years for wrongful death without intent, and Germany felt there wasn't enough evidence to even press charges. France also issued an international warrant, but it was German authorities that seemed to do the stonewalling, but again, all we have are a few very vague newspaper articles.

Bottom line...who knows?

 

[timesjoke]

You don't deserve to be called names for voicing your opinion, as I welcome opinions other than my own.

but you do deserve to be called names for continually putting words in my mouth.

I never put words in your mouth, now again your just making stuff up to justify your bad behaviors....as usual.

I just as equally do not agree with your opinions but I don't call you names.


In this case your defending the actions of France as reasonable and as such the actions of the father as unreasonable.

Once again (in hopes that you may actually get it this time):
I did not claim that France was still trying to do anything. I simply asked you to back up your claim that they weren't. You couldn't, so you lose. In fact, I have made 0, zip, zilch, nada claims that France has done anything one way or the other in here. Not a single one. YOU are the one making all the claims here, I just asked for evidence to support the claims you have made. You have been unable to prove that France did or did not do anything. You have shown how ineffective they were in this case, but have not backed up your claims that "France was blowing it off."

Again, I offered you a couple examples such as the many years of no results, the refusal to conduct a proper investigation until the Father made a massive stink, stalling even then as well as their desire to prosecute the father all are evidence to my opinion.

I named off a few escalated political actions that France "could" have used to gain complainace to their extradition request and none of these things or any other advanced measure was done. Inaction is evidence too eddo.

You not getting this, after me repeating it now multiple times, officially makes you a dumbass.

Stating a lie over and over does not change the lie into truth eddo. Again we were in the opinion mode and we both offered our opinions and while we both do not agree with the 9other, only you have turned to calling me names for not believing what you believe.

I believe you are wrong, but I do not think tossing insults at you will change anything. The real question is why do you feel tossing insults improves your case?

How does an investigation 27 years ago prove anything about the current actions of the countries government?

Already covered many times, this is my point about reading as well, you just skim or even ignore what is said that does not line up to your own beliefs. Inaction is also speaking volumns....well to those willing to listen.

I was not at all "flippant" about the attitude of the father. That is a horrible thing for him to go through, and I would not wish that on anyone. I also never said the killer should walk away with no punishment.

You said the father should not have acted, without that action the killer goes free, so by default, your condemning this mans action means you would prefer the killer go free. Another either/or issue, the French Government would have done more if they ever intended to do more 15 years ago.

Me calling you dense, and now calling you a dumbass, is not an attack, but instead, "it is a fact and relivant (sic) so cannot be considered as a flame in any way."

No it is your opion based on me not agreeing with you so it is an attack on me based on your need to try and "put me down" as a usual tactic by you. Your calling me names as a punnishment for my failure to agree with you.