Was Carl Lee right in what he did? Was it right for him to take the law into his own hands like that? Do you feel it's right for anyone to seek violent revenge on anyone else who've wronged them or someone they love?
I don't want to be a product of my environment; I want my environment to be a product of me.
No. It's morally indefensible, and I believe that was the point – to instill cognitive dissonance in the viewer (who is clearly meant to root for him). I think the movie did it really well, too.
Don't listen to the negative ones; their arguments are irrational.
Morals go out the window when your child is harmed or in harms way. Instinct kicks in and we are no longer in control. Like the mom who was able to lift a car, by herself, off her child. Or the woman who fought/wrestled a polar bear to protect a group of children.
We revert to our wild sides to protect our young. That is certainly temporary lack of morals or regard for right & wrong, therefore temporary insanity. Although is it really insane if we are just acting out our nature? We humans like to think we are so much more evolved than we sometimes are. Our societal denial of this truth should not put people behind bars. Its like getting frustrated at an autistic child for being noisy, or telling the depressed person to just get over it. Oh wait... we do that too.
Not quite. What you're talking about is an adrenaline rush and knee-jerk reaction to the situation. His murdering was methodical, calculated, and planned, and yet completely reckless at the same time. Really, the worst of both worlds which is why there's no way he would get off in real life.
shareBased on what I know of the law and society, yes, in this particular case I think he was right. Rapists and child molestors are repeat offenders, not kept in prison long enough, and never get the "help" they need. Couple that with an elitist attitude and the vicious cycle never ends.
Carl Lee knew that because they were white and the girl was black they would get off.
Honestly, Carl Lee's revenge wasn't even that violent. He shot those guys. In my opinion, they got off easy and deserved much much worse. They hung the girl, they threw her off a cliff, they repeatedly gang raped her and did so much damage internally that she could never have kids. They ruined her life. The least they could do was forfeit theirs.
No, but as someone else said, when it's someone you really care about then what is right and wrong goes out the window. I've said in other threads that what he did could technically be seen as a crime of passion, which would fall under temporary insanity.
shareI think had Carl Lee were walking down the road and came upon them raping his daughter and he killed them he would be innocent. He was protecting his daughter at that point. But he planned it, hid in the closet, shot them and a cop. He was guilty.
--------------------------------
I did sixty in five minutes once...
I posted this on a different thread:
I do NOT agree with the rape victim's father getting off scott free at the end. I can totally understand why he did what he did and I am personally glad those 2 pieces of $hit are dead (though getting repeatedly gang raped in prison for being child molesters would be a much better fate for them than death).
But we as a SOCIETY cannot start condoning vigilante revenge occurring inside courtrooms during trials, as soon as we as a society decide to allow that we are setting the stage for anarchy and a breakdown of the system, and technically one is innocent until proven guilty in court. Can you imagine if an enraged father in a different case did something like that and it turned out that the people he shot were innocent?
Plus, part of the morality of justified revenge is this: If one is getting a justified revenge (think the Punisher or Count of Monte Cristo) no matter how entitled to revenge they are the burden of responsibility is entirely on them to NOT harm innocents in the process of getting their revenge. For example the Punisher or Count of Monte Cristo were both heros so if a villain hid behind a hostage they would wait till later to get their revenge rather than shoot through the hostage. An evil person after revenge would not care (think Khan on Star Trek 2).
Well he was so frantic in his rage that he did NOT aim that gun carefully enough and an errant shot missed the rapists and accidentally hit a security guard in the knee and did so much damage to the leg it had to be AMPUTATED. Yes it was an accident but the burden of responsibility was entirely on him.
I wish he had been convicted of a lesser offense like manslaughter or something, I just do not approve of scott free like that.
No, it was not right.
Yes, I would do the same thing.
It's morally wrong.
No one cares that it's morally wrong. If you wouldn't kill someone for raping your loved one, you simply aren't a man and you don't deserve to live.
Legally? No. Morally? No. Understandable? As a parent, yes.
I know a lot of parents who just might do the same thing; especially in the south, under those particular circumstances, where it was likely the perpetrators would get off or perhaps receive far too light a sentence.
Many white people still believe that black's or any other race are not intelligent human, they feel like it's ok for them to mistreat us,because the world belongs to the white wealthy people. Please of color don't even matter.
shareWas Carl Lee right in what he did? Was it right for him to take the law into his own hands like that? Do you feel it's right for anyone to seek violent revenge on anyone else who've wronged them or someone they love?Yes. "When the law is unjust, just men break the law." share