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.
[deleted]
In the context of the movie, it was excessive and was motivated by his hatred of non-whites. When he realises racism is a mugs game, he probably wouldn't do anything like that again.
Life is just one damned thing after another - Elbert Hubbard
I think it was wrong to kill him out of hate. But for his stand point on white vs. black, he has the right to do so, the way he did.
shareNo Message
shareIt interesting question. Here we hammer thiefs to barn gate through night but if curbs not shabby then why not!
---------------------------------------
Thank you for your answer, good humans
Sincerely Daniel
I haven't read all of the posts on this thread. I can't believe a silly question like this even got responded to this many times. Of course it's wrong. The OP proposed that the curbstomp was somehow okay because the guy was breaking into Derek's car. Are you kidding me? If that happens, go ahead and use force to stop the person and hold them for the police. Responding by brutally killing them is wrong. Murder is wrong under any circumstances, except for cases of self-defense.
--------------------
Tears of a rapper...
I just think it's funny that so many people can't tell the difference between murder and killing.
The stomp was completely justifeid. People that walk around stealing cars don't need to be on this planet. Black or white. If derek let him live, than the dude would have stolen somebody else's car.
shareI agree, even though I found the curb-stomp excessive. He should have just shot him in the back of the head (Boondock Saints' style) and acted as if it was in self-defense. People seem to forget that the Vinyards did not invite those guys to their house. They came because they were upset that he beat them in bball. Let me repeat that, THEY TRESPASSED ON HIS PROPERTY, PUT HIS ENTIRE FAMILY IN DANGER, AND TRIED TO STEAL HIS TRUCK BECAUSE HE SHOWED THEM UP IN A PICK-UP GAME OF BBALL. Derek had every right to shoot them, especially since one of them was carrying. How was he to know that the guy he later stomped did not have a gun in his coat? The only thing Derek did wrong was the curb-stomp. Had he just shot the second perp, it could all have been labeled as self-defense. Throughout this whole movie, the African American characters were portrayed as overreacting to everything. Derek beats them in basketball, they show up with a gun and try to steal his truck. Danny stands up to one and blows smoke in his face, and the kid shoots him 3 times.
shareBOTTOM LINE
If these scumbags hadn't tried to steal his car (commit a crime), they'd still be alive.
This 'sympathy' for criminals is sickening. To hell with them. They brought the violence down on themselves. They TOTALLY got what they deserved! You can't instigate a situation then cry about the consequences.
Also, wasn't one of the thieves one of the guys he beat on the basketball court? So it was motivated out of humiliation as well? Pathetic.
I'm not racist. I just hate criminals! Try to steal? Get your head busted open. Sounds fair to me.
WTF is WRONG with you people? A car can be replaced. A human life cannot. It is not 'reasonable force' to shoot someone in the back/stomp their brains out because they tried to steal a car. Your kind of attitude is exactly what's wrong with the world and why there are so many people killed by guns every year. Americans will literally die for the right to bear arms. It's crazy.
shareA car can be replaced. A human life cannot.Really? Derek had the money to replace that car? And to somehow replace the sentimental value associated with his last link to his murdered father?
You sir, are a moron.
There's such a thing as insurance. Or saving money. Death is the end, nothing can be rectified.
You sir, are a moron.Childish name-calling will never be an adequate substitute for legitimate, original thought.
There's such a thing as insurance. Or saving money. Death is the end, nothing can be rectified.There's also such a thing as protecting your family and property. share
Killing someone is not a legitimate course of action in this situation. This is a messed up world where people think it's ok to kill for a car.
shareSo people armed with guns show up at your house to steal your stuff and the proper response is... let them do it? Call the police and hope they get there before your property is gone? Sorry but I disagree. Also after they steal your stuff what is to stop them from deciding to put 3 rounds in your head? I guess we are just suppose to trust in their high morals?
Once you decided to steal from me you are a thief, once you decided to come onto my propety you are a trespasser; both of which make you a criminal and once you decided to carry a weapon capable of lethal force while you did those other things, you are a threat to MY life and the lives of my family. Therefore.. I'm going to kill you if I can.
I do agree totally that the curb stomp was completely uncalled for and wrong. The intruder had been rendered incapable of hostilities and was obviously an act of pure hatred.
Kinich-Ahau / Kukulcan in 2012!
Amen to everything you said.
Babies taste like chicken
If someone is heading AWAY from your property they are no longer a threat. Hence Derek being found guilty. At that point it was out and out revenge, not self defence. AND IT'S A *beep* CAR
shareIf the criminals had not been armed that would be one thing, but they were. One of the first lessons I was taught in regard to guns is that you had BETTER be ready to use a gun if you have it to hand. So if I see someone on my property stealing from me carrying a gun, yeah I am going to try and kill them. They are certainly capable of killing me. As I already said in regards to the curb stomp, yes that was completely out of line. The thief was injured and no longer armed, thus NOT a threat.
Sorry but I value MY life and the lives of my family more than some gutter punks who think grand theft auto, trespassing, etc are a fun way to spend a Sat night. If you feel differently than by all means when they show up at your house let them take what they want, and I hope for your sake they are content to stop there.
Kinich-Ahau / Kukulcan in 2012!
Luckily I live in the UK where we don;t have every Tom, Dick and Harry owning guns. And I think that is the USA's problem.
shareYes my owning a gun really contributes to street crime and violence. Oh wait, that's right it doesn't! Because I am not a criminal! I do not go out and rob, steal, etc. I just go about my life, take care of my family, work a steady job. I think it is perhaps YOUR problem that you have been so brain washed into thinking that you do not have the right to defend yourself and what is yours. That is one of the most fundamental mandates in Nature, and you are so far gone in your rose colored world that you do not even see it. Perhaps you have never been a victim of a violent crime, and if that is the case good for you; but for myself I can guarantee you I will not be a victim again.
All that being said, obviously this conversation is going precisely no where, as I am not going to make you see the need for self reliance and defense and you are certainly never going to get me to agree that I should not be self reliant and defend what is mine. So cheers, and here's hoping your world stays the perfect serene happy place it obviously is. With no crime and violence. ^.^
Kinich-Ahau / Kukulcan in 2012!
If people were unable to get their hands on guns there would be less deaths from shootings. It's not rocket science. Nobody's saying you shouldn't DEFEND yourself but killing someone is not the answer.
shareOK so there are three men on your property with GUNS. They are stealing your vehicle and waiting right outside your door. I am guessing your choice of action would be to phone the police and stay inside. So what happens when the three men with guns decide your vehicle is not enough and kick in your door? What do YOU do then?
Kinich-Ahau / Kukulcan in 2012!
Toots is missing the point. The thieves had already decided that the car was worth more than a human life. When they showed up with firearms in the commission of grand theft auto, they demonstrated that they were willing to kill to get the car. They established the relative value of human life vs. a car, and there's no point disputing their values system.
Derek simply validated their decision by taking their lives.
Yes I know, but it never ceases to amaze me that people could hold to such an unrealstic view of the world. If you get rid of firearms it just means more people would die to knives, hammers, chains, tire irons etc. It certainly isn't going to stop violence. :(
Kinich-Ahau / Kukulcan in 2012!
Don't be obtuse. Do you think the fatalities at columbine, Virginia Tech, etc would be as high if it was two guys running about with hammers/knives? Of course not. That's why you rarely hear of these things occurring in countries which are civilised enough to not allow Joe Public to have guns.
The guys in the film were LEAVING. And I would rather have my car stolen (which can be replaced on insurance) than get into an altercation with criminals.
The police are there to do that.
The guys in the film were LEAVING. And I would rather have my car stolen (which can be replaced on insurance) than get into an altercation with criminals.You have the right to make that decision. And I believe I have the same right. share
It is not a RIGHT to blow someone's brains out.
shareChilling.
shareReally? Self-defense is not a right? Looks like you better overhaul Western civilization's legal systems to account for your discovery.
"Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense."
- John Adams
The Castle Doctrine has 5 main points:
(1) Previously, "justification" defenses, including self-defense, were affirmative defenses. The defendant (or self-defender) had to prove them by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., proof of "more likely true than not). Under SB 1145, if the defense presents "evidence" (quantum undefined) of justification, the prosecution must disprove justification to a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. This change is not limited to defense of home or car, but applies anywhere.
(2) No duty to retreat before using force to prevent certain serious offenses, including aggravated assault. Again, this applies anywhere, any place a person has a legal right to be, in the language of the law.
(3) A person is presumed to be justified in using force or deadly force if he/she reasonably believes they or another person are in imminent peril and the attacker has entered or is trying to enter a residence or occupied auto. Once again, there is no duty to retreat.
(4) A person is generally presumed to be justified in use of force if the attacker has unlawfully forced his way into residence or car or is trying to do so (with certain exceptions, such as if the person forcing in had a legal right to be in there). This means that justification is automatically presumed when a person uses physical or deadly force against an intruder. It is now the prosecutor’s job to prove there was no justification, which once again falls within our legal system’s concept of innocent until proven guilty.
(5) If the aggressor is foolish enough to sue, and the defender wins, the defender recovers attorney fees and lost income (presumably, lost while at the courthouse). This not limited to the home invasion situation.
Why is the Castle Doctrine necessary?
The Castle Doctrine comes from the idea that "A man's home is his castle", as stated in English Common Law. It establishes that an individual has an undeniable right to use any type of physical force against an attacker or intruder.
Pretty sure that 3 armed intruders on the victim's property stealing his car qualifies. Been awhile since I have seen that movie but I seem to recall that two of them were waiting right outside the door with weapons drawn? Yeah I think that would probably qualify under this LAW, which gives the VICTIM the complete right to bring lethal force to the table. Once again, curb stomp = wrong and completely illegal. Shooting armed intruders and car thieves = OK!
I am done with this thread BTW. If people want to be victims, that is their choice as noted by Slew Foot above. By all means, let whoever do whatever they want to you, your family and your property. I personally have made a different choice. Good luck and Happy Holidays. :)
Kinich-Ahau / Kukulcan in 2012!
JESUS Christ. It is not self defence unless they actually go for you. If they are taking your car AWAY from your house, shooting them is not self defence as you are not at risk of actual harm.
The castle doctrine is an excuse for headcases who shouldn't be allowed guns in the first place to shoot people.
Okay, toots. Against my better judgment, I'm gonna ask. Where does your moral outrage originate? On what moral grounds do you overrule the values inherent in English common law and the American legal system? Who appointed you the moral guardian of America and authorized you to declare other people to be "headcases"?
As I pointed out before, the thieves had established the relative values of human life and automobiles. Why are you arguing against agreement with the standard that they set forth?
As I also pointed out, you won't get anywhere with mindless name-calling. It's one thing to state your beliefs. It's another thing entirely to state that your beliefs are the only ones that are valid, and that people who don't agree with you are evil or insane.
I am from a civilised place called Great Britain where we clearly value life more than people in the US (in general). THAT is where I get my moral guidance from. People who 'shoot first, ask later' are headcases and have no qualms about taking another person's life. That is disturbing.
Just because a thief has a gun does not mean that they are therefore dispensible. You seem unable to grasp the importance of human life. I will bet my mortgage that all the people that think shooting someone over possessions is fair game are also pro capital punishment.
Another reason America is less civilised IMO.
I am from a civilised place called Great Britain where we clearly value life more than people in the US (in general). THAT is where I get my moral guidance from.Look, toots, I didn't ask where you're from. I asked the philosophical basis of your outrage against the principle of self-defense.
People who 'shoot first, ask later' are headcases and have no qualms about taking another person's life. That is disturbing.Just out of curiosity, which questions should Derek have asked when he opened that door? "May I help you, sir? Would you like the keys? When will you bring it back?"
Just because a thief has a gun does not mean that they are therefore dispensible.Not according to our justice system.
You seem unable to grasp the importance of human life. I will bet my mortgage that all the people that think shooting someone over possessions is fair game are also pro capital punishment.You mean you'll bet the money you owe your lender? What the heck does that mean? You can bet something you own, not something you owe. If you can't grasp a concept that simple, I can see why you'd have trouble comprehending the castle doctrine.
Another reason America is less civilised IMO.You're certainly welcome to your opinion. Of course, we all know what they say about opinions. It'd be just fine with me if you kept your opinion out of America.
Keep my opinion out of America? What a curious sentence.
Nobody said we should run your country but you asked where I get my moral outrage from.
The fact that US law values life so little means that you are clearly not as civilised and forward thinking as you like to believe.
And 'betting your mortgage' is a saying, nicely swerving the point though.
The fact that a) Americans in general believe that Joe Public should be entitled to a deadly weapon and that b) human life is so dispensible be it by capital punishment or the fact that you feel it is ok to kill for a car shows me that the US is a less civilised and more savage place to live.
You keep going on and on about how the US is "less civilised." Fine. You want to win the civlized contest? Okay. You're civilized. We get it. So civilized, in fact, that you allow thugs to run around happy-slapping people with impunity. Enjoy your civilization.
And you have yet to explain which questions Derek should have asked prior to shooting those morons. Or what value their lives had.
You, like many of the ignorant people on this board who "supposedly" watched this movie, need to "rewatch" it. The first guy was sitting at his door with an effing pistol, his intentions were clear. The dude in the car pulled up and stopped, we have no idea what his intentions were, but he stopped, therefore we can assume he was going to shoot him. Both of their murders were justified. The guy who tried to run could legally have been shot and killed if that was the route Ed Nortons character would have taken. The ONLY illegal act was the curb stomping after the guy had been crippled by the bullet. If Ed Nortons character didn't have a gun, his family could have been shot and killed. Did you ever think of that?
shareSupposedly watched it? Eh? The curbstomp was wrong but this discussion is now in general about people thinking a car is worth more than a human life. The lack of respect for humanity here is genuinely worrying me. Although as Americans think the death penalty's a good idea, I shouldn't be surprised.
shareMaybe it was excessive, but it was definitely a powerful moment in the movie. I am watching AHX right now. Been a long time. Like visiting an old friend!
shareyes - it was wrong.
shareThe penalty for auto theft is not death of course what he did was wrong.
~Maybe he just wanted to steal our wire cutters. You ever think of that?