First off, I loved the movie. One of my favorites of all time.
I had this discussion with a friend of mine and we thought that even though the curbstomp was brutal as hell, the man did try to steal Derek's car. If some one tried to steal my car or rob my house, I would have gotten very violent if I got the upper hand.
I am part Black if anyone was wondering, just in case it might seem a little sympathetic to the Nazis.
Was it wrong? You tell me.
...
Did you watch the movie?
I can't honestly believe you are asking if brutal murder of an unarmed man is justified because the guy tried to steal a car, having seen the film.
Ditto!
shareTo OP. I understand your point and do not entirely disagree. When someone unilaterally takes it upon themself to deprive you of something you've earned or is of great sentimental value (in a robbery), it's a serious personal violation. The feelings of anger and retribution are justified.
I think the problem is that, in civilized society, appropriate retribution must consider the threat posed to the victim and the value of the item the thief is attempting to steal. In other words, there are degrees of a crime's 'seriousness' that may call for unique punishments. In this case, Ed Norton's character gained the upper hand on the car-thief and was in no danger whatsoever. I am sure that noone (including the cops) would have raised any serious objections if Norton had just smacked the guy around a little and scared the $hit out of him. However, once the guy was on the floor and the threat of harm removed, he became the victim and there is no car on the planet worth killing over.
I think the problem is that, in civilized society, appropriate retribution must consider the threat posed to the victim and the value of the item the thief is attempting to steal.
I kind of despise that way of thinking. He went overboard, yes, but I hate this view that if someone violates you and your home/property/etc you should only do what is necessary to stop them THAT TIME. I subscribe to more of a "I bet you'll never do that again, you mother****er" school of thought. The funny thing is, I'm sickened by violence and brutality, but I do believe this. Having been robbed before, it's not about the value of your stuff--it's about the violation and also the time and work put into building a place that should be safe. So **** people who think it's okay to go around just taking whatever they want and the system of law that lets them continue to do it with at best a slap on the wrist and much more likely them not being even looked for.
So someone who takes $20 from an open cash register should be punished in the same manner as someone who holds a gun to another person's head and demands his or her wallet, and someone who steals a car deserves the same punishment as someone who murders another human being?
share[deleted]
by - subzero288 on Thu Apr 8 2010 15:34:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To OP. I understand your point and do not entirely disagree. When someone unilaterally takes it upon themself to deprive you of something you've earned or is of great sentimental value (in a robbery), it's a serious personal violation. The feelings of anger and retribution are justified.
I think the problem is that, in civilized society, appropriate retribution must consider the threat posed to the victim and the value of the item the thief is attempting to steal. In other words, there are degrees of a crime's 'seriousness' that may call for unique punishments. In this case, Ed Norton's character gained the upper hand on the car-thief and was in no danger whatsoever. I am sure that noone (including the cops) would have raised any serious objections if Norton had just smacked the guy around a little and scared the $hit out of him. However, once the guy was on the floor and the threat of harm removed, he became the victim and there is no car on the planet worth killing over.
The curb stomp was the only thing not justified. The dude was no longer a threat at that point. All other actions WERE justified by Derrick. But forcing him to put his mouth on the curb and then curb-stomping him, that crossed the line. The thing to do would have simply been to maybe go back into the house and wait for the police. Once a perpetrator no longer poses a threat to one's safety, one may not continue to use deadly force.
shareReally? Was it even necessary for Derek to leave the safety of his house in the first place?
Clearly, the most appropriate action for Derek to take would be to simply call the police and let them handle it. Considering how quickly the police showed up, they would have easily apprehended the thieves if Derek simply called the police, told them what kind of car they were stealing, and what direction they were heading when they finally managed to get the car moving.
Alternatively, he could have fired a warning shot and threatened them through a window. I highly doubt the thieves would decide to lay siege to the house if this were to happen.
It's quite obvious that Derek decides to attack the men simply because they are black. Of course the curb stomping is completely excessive and should have earned him at least 20 years, if not life. Not only did he execute a man that had become defenseless, he did so with extreme brutality. I find it excessive that Derek would attempt to kill any of the men at all.
I'm amazed by how many people are acting like it's completely OK for Derek to run out of his house guns blazing in order to protect a piece of property. The men attempting to steal the car posed no physical threat to anyone inside the house. Yes, they were carrying firearms, but at no point were they intending to invade the household or cause bodily harm to a human being.
Believe it or not, it is rarely necessary to kill a thief in order to foil their robbery. It's usually completely adequate to inform the authorities and let them catch the criminal...
Do you know why so many people get caught and convicted of armed robbery? Because they never intend to actually use their weapons. If they did, we would have far more successful robberies, and far more homicides. These people generally brandish weapons simply in order to create a threat so that they may rob a store, car, etc. without trouble. The thing is, people often call the bluff. Or, when left alive, people call the police at which point the thief is apprehended.
Sure, the man guarding the door may have shot at a person coming out of the house, but I think it's safe to assume that he would simply have held that person at gunpoint, unless that person was carrying a weapon.
So, Derek himself was never in danger until he decided to leave his house with a gun. At that point, of course we can reasonably assume that either man would have shot at him. You can reasonably argue that Derek acted in self defense by disarming these men, or by neutralizing any perceived threat to himself. But it is EXTREMELY IMPORTANT to consider the fact that Derek was never in a self-defense scenario until he took it upon himself to attack the thieves.
(By the way this is a huge error in the film. Why would the man be guarding the door, yet looking towards the street instead of the door? What a laughable error. It's a shame that an otherwise expertly crafted film is bogged down by several instances in the script that just completely defy all logic and, as a result, remove all plausibility from every plot point that follows.)
I'm not a violent guy, never instigated a fight in my life but if someone tries to steal from me, ESPECIALLY in my home where my family lives, I will make it my life's purpose and obsession to track and murder those people.
It's not about color, its about the personal violation that they have done not just to you but your family.
You sound like a psychotic, worthless sack of sh!t. You'll be one of those idiots who goes on a killing spree because some people talked trash to you.
I don't like the way blood money spends.
Your thinking process and line of reasoning is literally one of THE MOST idiotic things I have read in my entire life! If I look out my window and see an individual trying to steal my car I am NOT supposed to try and stop them? I am just going to rely on the "promptness" of the local PD? HOGWASH!!! I don't know what little Utopian village you reside in but in MY CITY the police take thier sweet ass time getting to a theft scene seeing as how there are murders, rapes etc... going on frequently. So I'd rather not risk losing MY CAR to some IDIOT and then having to go through a *beep* show my my insurance company to haggle over deductibles, personal effects etc... when I can just KNOCK HIM THE **** OUT!
THANK YOU
he wasnt unarmed, he was disarmed. theres a difference. personally, i see nothing wrong with killing him, but thats more of a lack of empathy for gangs than anything else.
shareLegally, and in my opinion morally, speaking, whether the original attacker is disarmed has nothing to do with it. Unarmed is unarmed, once that situation is reached and there is no threat to the defendant, violent retribution is not justified.
share[deleted]
I call Bee-Ess. If this had been a movie where one White guy killed another in the same scene under the same circumstances you would say it were totally justified. What if Derek tried to steal the other guy's donk and ended up getting killed unarmed, what would you say then? Would you say it's wrong regardless or say that's what he deserves?
shareBut shooting an unarmed 15 year-old because your homeboys told you to is OK?
shareyou retarded
the guys had guns, guns arent used to bake cakes
Unarmed?????? He Had A Gun!!!!!!!!
shareUnarmed?????? He Had A Gun!!!!!!!!
shareJust rewatching the film and i just rechecked, the first man he killed had a gun and it was in his hand, the one who was in the front of the door when Norton character ran out and shot.
share[deleted]
If I'd been on the jury, I doubt I'd've voted to convict Derek. He was not the primary aggressor. The ol' castle doctrine works for me.
shareHopefully you will never be on a jury then.
The guy guarding the door however, he would probably have shot anyone coming out of it, I wouldn't sympathize with him.
And you would sympathize with the car thief? Really? Sympathy is not the right word.....
Life choices do have impacts. The impact may not be equal in kind, and that everyone knows.
Castle doctrine doesn't support that kind of gratuitous force. The shooting would be justified, the curb stomp would not.
sharethe curb stomp was most definitely justified .. who the hell do you think you are invading my home space and trying to steal from me(speaking to the criminal) .. what I've worked hard to earn .. this is an EXTREMELY SERIOUS MATTER .. people are acting as if the perpetrators slapped him on the shoulder IN PUBLIC .. no it is much more serious than that .. they violated the sanctity of their home and to top it off they were armed, displaying a life threatening situation .. this display of *beep* weak kneed liberalism is pretty sickening .. CURB STOMP EVERY LOWLIFE THIEF AND I GUARANTEE YOU A BUNCH OF CRIMINALS WILL STRAIGHT UP REALLY QUICKLY
shareA curb stomp isn't just a form of murder.. its a form of torture as well.. what kind of society do you live in that curb stomping another human being is ever justified??? do you have the right to protect your home, your family and belongings with deadly force if necessary?? of course you do.. but this is not necessary.. for one.. its taking place OUTSIDE THE HOME... after the threat has been averted.. and the man is on the ground practically begging for his life... you don't have the right to kill someone because you're afraid they might come back at a later day.. that is what the justice system is for.. that is why we live under a nation of laws.. and if you don't want to follow them then you don't belong in our society... You have the right to use deadly force if its necessary to saving you and your families life and/or general well being... you do not have the right to use deadly force strictly out of vengeance and anger
shareI thought you should know.
shareNot only was the curbstomp wrong morally, I believe Derick should have been charged and convicted of Murder in the 2nd degree. He had a choice to kill, or not kill the thief. He chose to execute the man. If he had planned it out that way the day before, it's pre-meditated. But because it came up right then. it's murder 2. There is no justification for that kind of response. And anyone who thinks there is only adds to the problem of violence in the world.
"I think that boy's cheese slid off his cracker" The Green Mile
I don't disagree with your post, but.....
He was charged with "murder", according to the newspaper clipping in Danny's memorabilia box. Derek likely accepted a plea bargain for the voluntary manslaughter conviction. Danny typed in his AHX essay, "It would have been life if I had testified", then deleted it, indicates the prosecutor wasn't reasonably certain that without Danny's testimony he could get a murder conviction. Plea bargains to lesser charges are S.O.P. in CA. The problem is jury nullification. Without Danny's testimony, the "heat of passion" relevance is rather vague, as is the course of events leading to the death. A reasonable defense may be, a fight with an attacker, that lead to the death. A problem for the prosecutor would be to convince the jury this wasn't all one continuous event, with the final blow being arguably excessive. Danny's testimony breaks the "heat of passion" defense, as well as describes the execution, which clearly separates voluntary from involuntary, and may lead to murder 2. It wouldn't be murder, in any case, without evidence of the execution, and removing the heat of passion continuity. Add to that, a jury would not be aware of facts not in evidence (such as we viewing the film and knowing what a jury will never know), thus, no murder conviction. Danny would have been a hostile witness, which are extremely unpredictable, if he were allowed to testify against a sibling, at all. He was a juvenile, as well. His testimony would be very easily impeachable.
About the "morality", you are right, IMO. Not justified in any case. It was an execution of a now-deescalated threat. Derek may have been justified shooting him initially, but not justified with killing him afterward. Morality and hatred are only factors during sentencing, after a conviction based on facts in evidence.
Now, the driver Derek shot at would have been charged and likely convicted of murder, among the other charges, but not the curb subject's homicide. Felony murder has a very low burden of proof. He was a co-conspirator in the commission of a violent felony, and a death directly related to that crime did occur (the door gunman's).
Life is tough, but it's tougher when you're stupid.
[deleted]
People like you make me sad for humanity
share[deleted]
i agree with you.
shareIt was a car, not worth human life, or prison time, for either of the boys. Chalk it up to both being young and stupid, and Derek's stupidity and lack of judgement was preyed upon by Cameron after his dad's death. This helped turn him into a monster. The black kid stealing the car was doing something wrong, but he wasn't a monster like Derek and did not deserve to die. I could understand a situation like that turning into a fist fight, but not manslaughter.
shareIt was a car, not worth human life, or prison time, for either of the boys. Chalk it up to both being young and stupid, and Derek's stupidity and lack of judgement was preyed upon by Cameron after his dad's death. This helped turn him into a monster. The black kid stealing the car was doing something wrong, but he wasn't a monster like Derek and did not deserve to die. I could understand a situation like that turning into a fist fight, but not manslaughter.
Let's see how your gunless scenario plays out. Without a gun, it's three on one. Three on one and a half, if you count Danny. End result: victim(s) beaten to a pulp and car stolen! Explain to me again how freedom ruins everything?
In which case, would Derek have confronted the three men? Is a car worth any one life?
shareLet's see how your gunless scenario plays out. Without a gun, it's three on one. Three on one and a half, if you count Danny. End result: victim(s) beaten to a pulp and car stolen! Explain to me again how freedom ruins everything?Because nobody died, duh! share
Is a car worth any one life?In my assessment, yes, that car was worth more than those thieves' lives. We won't miss them much.
Because nobody died, duh!See previous statement. I'd rather the thieves died than their victims be harmed. Freedom ain't the problem here, folks.
But all murder did/does is incite war. God (and the story-conceptualizers) only knows whether Derek sought vengeance, and the war just continues until countries hate each other.
The gun was fine. Self-control is what Derek needed.
Is it wrong to assure a young girl that she's ugly? I mean what's wrong with not being pretty?
[deleted]
[deleted]
Criminals will ALWAYS have ways of getting guns.
Yes, in a perfect world we wouldn't need guns, but to think we can erase weapons through laws is ignorant. Taking/stealing by force can be deadly without guns BTW - especially when dealing with thug types...
_
Father blessed them all with reason
And this is what they choose
"Criminals will ALWAYS have ways of getting guns.
Yes, in a perfect world we wouldn't need guns, but to think we can erase weapons through laws is ignorant. Taking/stealing by force can be deadly without guns BTW - especially when dealing with thug types... "
No way! Obviously violence is purely a result of evil guns and was non-existent before they were invented!!!! >.> <.<
Kinich-Ahau / Kukulcan in 2012!
Well one could argue that the more guns in lawfull circulation will also increase the number of guns on the black market. So that the end result may be a less secure society in the end.
However I have no statistical data to back this up and that would be needed.
[deleted]
the answer to this question is already utilized by the Judiciary system; its called "the reasonable person" rule. what would a reasonable person do in a situation like "this". for one, Derek had control of the situation once he held the gun in hand. at that point he decided to extinguish a life when he could have clearly called the police while keeping the theif under "arrest". What derek did was excessive by law and was murder. the moment he held the gun - took over the situation and made that decision it was no longer self defense.
shareRevenge is illogic. I know it's a very American way to see things, but revenge does not do the harm undone. It's just another excuse to use violence, and hence back into the discussion we are having.
The correct and logical way would have been to let the police handle it. They are, in the movie, literally minutes away but Derek with all his hate inside decides that it's upon him to set things right. To have revenge. If he would have done the right thing, there would be 3 guys taken in and nobody harmed. Especially over something as pathetic as a car.
The question you should ask yourself should be "Why did they want to steal the car?" and "What could they had done proactive?".
So bury those old cowboy ways 3 feet under and welcome to the new century where you can use your brain instead of your hands. Freedom is not to get to shoot people.
Freedom is not to get to shoot people.Then what's the second amendment for? share
Besides everything else wrong with this statement, the other two guys would have had to die. They would have shot Derek on sight.
I once had a signature. But, then I realized how bleak & meaningless such personalizations are.
The question you should ask yourself should be "Why did they want to steal the car?" and "What could they had done proactive?".
Answer: Because they're scummy pieces of ****. Period. Full-****ing-stop. There are a lot of people in the world who are piss-poor and yet DON'T decide they have the right to take what others have earned. And it's not like they're robbing rich people; they're stealing from people who are little if any better off than they themselves are. They're leeches, and stomping (appropriately) people with that self-entitled attitude out of the world is a worthy goal.
The curb stomp was 100% justified.
It is only when we've lost everything we're free to do anything.
So you're telling me by making guns illegal it would stop gun related violence? Since when does making something illegal eliminate it. Drugs are illegal, I guess that means we don't have drug problems, huh? Derek would have just walked out the door and been shot, simple as that.
shareexactly, and lets not forget what happened with the prohibition of alcohol in the 1920's and thirties. we just had crazy amounts of boolegers and people making still sin their homes (which wound up exploding many times or creating alcohol that will make someone blind or die). the crime rate for illegal things just gets bigger.
cellar door
no, freedom to have guns gives us freedom. the more freedom the better. now i do understand that nobody in the united states is free by any means but come one, why restrict that more. thats another reason why most drugs should be legalized. not only that but if guns are made illegal then black market trade for them will skyrocket and we will be wasting money putting people behind bars who simply want a glock. the idea of making things illegal is rediculous.
cellar door
Silly me. Thinking that illegal gun sales were a thing of the past.
I once had a signature. But, then I realized how bleak & meaningless such personalizations are.
I believe that a beating would be called for, but killing, no, it's over the top. So yeah, it's wrong. There's a concept of proportionate response, and this is a key example of that. If someone is attempting to harm you, or is credibly threatening to come back and harm you, that is one thing. If they're attempting to steal your property, that's not generally something worth a life.
I'd be more inclined to lenience for him because it was action in the heat of the moment, but it was still wrong. The only reason I'd refuse to convict would be if I had serious reason to believe the sentence would be out of proportion to that aspect of it.
who says he isnt a monster? what do you know about him other than when he is losing a basketball game he will lash out violently, and as a result of losing try to steal a car with other gang members while fully armed with guns? what, because the camera didnt show this guy going around killing people hes therefore an ok guy? personally, ive seen nothing but that from this idiot. they brought their guns and had them loaded, the one standing by the door raised his to attack the second the front door opened.
the difference here is derek had a reason for his actions, that were obviously excessive. to classify him as a monster while maintaining the other guy just "did something wrong" is ignorant.
i'd probably beat the guy up, but curbstomp is *beep* brutal. worth going to jail for your car?
shareHe had justification in the shootings. They were armed, on his property and perfectly willing to shoot him if they had the chance.
The curb stomp is where it stops being justifiable self defense and becomes cold blooded murder.
The curb stomp is where it stops being justifiable self defense and becomes cold blooded murder.
Exactly. When he decided to curb stomp him, that's when he crossed the line. Everything done by Derek before that was perfectly justified. He should have simply asked his brother to call 911 before going outside. Because at that point (after everything else was done, before the curbstomp), they were no longer a threat to the property or the safety of himself or his family. If they had broken into the house or something, that would have been one thing (to justify deadly force). One may use lethal force against an intruder if one is at home at the time, and INSIDE the house. But this was outside the house, and Derek still killed him, even though he was no longer a threat.
shareYea, once the guy gives up, you call the police and that's it. Killing him after he gives up (unless he tries something again) is just overkill.
share[deleted]
The man was breaking into his car on his property, he had every right to shoot at the guys.
But clearly the curbstomp went way way too far.
But without it, it would be a lot more difficult to show the audience Derek's true hate towards blacks.
by paris_in_flames
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
He had justification in the shootings. They were armed, on his property and perfectly willing to shoot him if they had the chance.
The curb stomp is where it stops being justifiable self defense and becomes cold blooded murder.
by nike_jumpman_23
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The man was breaking into his car on his property, he had every right to shoot at the guys.
But clearly the curbstomp went way way too far.
But without it, it would be a lot more difficult to show the audience Derek's true hate towards blacks.
Agree with these two posters. Shooting two *armed* men who are attempting to steal from in my opinion *is* justified, however to brutally assault a wounded&unarmed man in a fit of rage is quite another matter entirely.
Bob - I have diabetes.
Jim (holding the syringe) - Then you shouldn't shoot heroin.
OP didn't query about legality. Such is the fallacy of all society that equates legality with morality. I would invite you to read mankind's first known recorded law: the Code of Hammurabi. Many would find the laws and their consequences harsh and barbaric. Who is to say that future civilizations would not find the laws of today more or less harsh or barbaric?
The OP was asking opinion. It may be ascertained that the purpose of this query is justification of mind-set. Personally, I would equate theft just underneath rape in level of severity, and rape just under murder. Since I would have no qualms about discorporating an individual that was intent on raping; I might just hesitate long enough to consider whether or not the person I am discorporating has children before I perform the act of shuffling them along their mortal coil in the instance of theft. Theft is a violent crime that denigrates all individuals that are touched by the act. It makes those transgressed feel molested. It rewards the transgressor diproportionally towards their effort, and it encourages more of the same.
Theft of ones own goods or services against a thief should be considred an equalizing action, provided that only goods or services stolen match the initial goods or services stolen in addition to a reasonable stipend for the time and effort that it takes to reappropriate one's own goods. However, if the first theft was unprovoked, the first party should expect nothing less than to be murdered while they are doing misdeeds. If you are in the process of theft, rape, or murder, how can you reasonably expect that one of these three evils not be visited upon you?
It's not clear what the OP was asking. I got bored reading the rest of your post.
We can't make you do anything, but we can make you wish you had!
wtf are you talking about. your post is so verbose it bored me to tears
shareHad to look up discorporate, apparently I'm not the only one.
For those too lazy to look it up it just means kill someone. I sorta had it figured out, but thought it might be a technical term for a curbstomp or something too.
We are in the minority, so clearly we are in the wrong.share
I'm not sure about the legality of it. In Texas, you can shoot someone on your property if they are breaking in, so I guess it would apply to your vehicle too. The fact that they were armed and on Derek's porch makes me think if he'd just shot them, he might have gotten away with it. Justifiable self defense. If he'd just shot them, as a jury member, I would have no problem letting him go, since it was self-defense. But the curb stop...that was sadistic. And that was definately not self-defense.
Team Hoffman!
"Get used to me. I'm not going anywhere." -Amanda
Derek was found guilty of manslaughter. While we have no idea how the trial was conducted here are a few interesting thoughts.
MANSLAUGHTER, VOLUNTARY - In order for someone to be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter the government must prove that the person killed another person; the person acted in the heat of passion; and heat of passion was caused by adequate provocation.
Heat of passion may be provoked by fear, rage, anger or terror. Provocation, in order to be adequate, must be such as might naturally cause a reasonable person in the passion of the moment to lose self-control and act on impulse and without reflection.
It should also be pointed out that a curb stomp isn't necessarily a fatal move - I knew someone who went through that. He had passed out on the hood of a car at a bar. The car owner took exception, knocked him out, propped his mouth over the curb, and kicked him in the back of the head. Busted his jaw and a handful of teeth, but the angles are all wrong for splitting the skull open.
Had Derek intended to kill the kid, a bullet in the head would have made more sense - and might have been passed off as self defense.
(And don't tell me his gun was empty - he'd already shot more than it would hold, so what's one more round?)
One's skull doesn't need to be split open in order for them to die. The curbstomp could have caused death in several ways.
Had Derek "simply" intended to kill the kid, one of his hollywood movie unlimited supply mag of bullets would have done the trick. The curbstomp was on par with his rage, where a bullet would not have been satisfactory to him.
On a side note. The car owner in your story has issues - MAJOR issues, in order to justify permanent physical harm, potentially fatal, as a proper punishment for someone passing out on the hood of a car. Scrape the drunk off and get on with life. Geesh.
If you cannot see your thought process is wrong I suggest you go and see a psychiatrist, quickly.
shareHe's not wrong, but he's still wrong? Why?
shareYou're all well hard, I'd hate to mess with any of you.
shareim my opinion. the curb stomping was a little much. the killing of both of them was justified. i just would have shot to kill the first time.
A good curbstomp is never the wrong move. And before anyone says a car isn't worth a human life, you should watch Love the Beast. Man steals your car his jaw needs to be seperated from his face. 'nuff said.
shareDerek was wrong for the crubstomp. 3 Crips come to his house with guns causing trouble. The first guy he shot deserved because that was self defense but he was wrong for what he did to the second guy.
shareSays the ticking time bomb. Christ, I bet you make everyone around you uncomfortable.
I don't like the way blood money spends.
I would go out on a limb and say 99 percent of those who said they would do the same thing are lying.
If not I really worry about mankind. If you would really kill an unarmed person who was running away, for trying to steal your car, you should be in prison right now.
Not a Joe Horn fan, huh? The man's a folk hero.
sharethats *beep* man, are you kidding me? a life for a car? that dont even out.
share