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.
I thought it was more the fact that Derek curbstomped the guy because he was racist rather than because the guy tried to steal his car. I bet if it was a white guy he would have just smacked the sh** out of him and nothing more. The fact the guy was black though just enraged Derek even more to the point he wanted retribution towards African Americans and other cultures because of what happened to his dad.
Or maybe he was just so violent by that point in his life he just wanted to kill in general. We already knew he has bottle up hate towards that particular African American by that point anyway and so he finally let it unleash on the guy.
I am all for protecting myself and my property. But I would not kill a man for trying to steal my car.
Did Derek do it because he didn't want the thieves to spread the word he was "soft"? I haven't seen the movie in a long time. But I think Derek played basketball against at least one of the thieves.
Everything UP TO the curbstomp was probably justifiable, since Derek was protecting his property, his family, and himself from the armed gangbangers.
However, once he'd shot the two guys (killing one and seriously injuring the other), they were no longer a threat. The curbstomp itself was where he went too far out of pure anger, especially because they didn't go away after he'd beaten them at basketball. If it had been some white guys, he probably would've just kicked the crap out of them.
Ideally he should've had Danny or somebody else call 911 before he went out to confront them. The truck his dad gave him had some obvious sentimental value, so his anger was understandable, especially since the police may have not gotten there in time.
The curbstomp - one of the nastiest murders commited to celluloid.
Was it wrong? Of course it was. Was Derek justifiable in that action? No way.
It is all pure speculation as to what one would do in that situation. In Derek's mindset that night, he acted on all that rage and showed what he couldn't on the basketball court.
Let me explain: Derek is very intelligent but obviously became misguided. They made a deal, fair and square, on that court. We win, you take a permanent hike. We lose, we go away. But we do it like men. No b!tching and no complaining. Derek and his crew won straight up. He almost threw down, but he offered a civilized solution.
That guy couldn't take losing like a man, obviously, as he comes to steal Derek's truck because he lost at a game of basketball. Derek showed him up on the court but it didn't stick. Derek capped the dude at the door justifiably. He wounded the other guy as to incapacitate him. But in Derek's mind he had to show his true power.
He said "You just couldn't leave it alone." Derek was correct with that statement, but wrong with his following actions. His fury spilled over into something very toxic.
Derek, I believe, did not cave that guys face in simply because he was a racist. Why hadn't he killed others then? Why wasn't he a racist swastika tattoed Terminator killing machine? He had some sense and intelligence. But all that evaporated when confronted with the fact that his chosen enemies ended up on his doorstep, pushing Derek's already fragile existence into the abyss.
He was not going to call the cops. He had no choice but to show his true force. His whole world fractured by the murder of his father. In his mind, he was reclaiming what was taken from him: his sense of security.
They're in the yard not too far from the car
I'm in Law & Security and last semester we went through defense types (for Canada) and we were told that you can only defend in the same manner.
It's been stated in this thread already. Basically, Derek's threat was removed once he gained the upperhand.
For instance, if someone pushes you at a bar, you're a victim. If you punch back and knock them down, that's defense. But, if you kick them when they are down, you're not the victim. You're the attacker.
In the moment of Derek running outside, he was the victim. During the curbstomp, he was the attacker. He should have logically got a longer time in jail despite the fact his brother didn't testify, the cops can prove that the black guy wasn't a position of power. It was not defensive murder or involuntary manslaughter at that point. It was murder first-degree.
____
"When Gotham is ashes, you have my permission to die." — Bane (TDKR)
Balderdash. No way you can make that into murder one.
I bet you Canadians don't even have the castle doctrine, do you?
[deleted]
American law and guns- what a tragic romance.
Anyway- no right is true only in relation to attacking an intruder. You have the right to fit security devices, monitored alarm systems etc. These are defences. You just can't kill or place a person in physical jeopardy over a matter of property, which is insignificant compared to human life. It's similar to the law regarding the fire brigade when breaking down doors to save people. But people aren't as helpless as you are implying. And a break and enter shouldn't automatically escalate to a manslaughter enquiry. A law that increases the likelihood of that happening is a socially irresponsible law. I guess you agree in principle, in that you say you're somewhere in the middle.
[deleted]
Name-calling will never substitute for the honest exchange of ideas.
You don't want to get shot while breaking into someone's house? Fine --- don't break into his house.
And no one has ever explained why a car thief's life is worth more than a car. My car, crappy and old as it is, can be expected to provide a few more years of reliable service. What is a thug's life expected to produce or provide?
Why does time of day make a difference? How is the 'value' of the crime changed by the mere presence of human life?
You're bringing in factors that are not part of the OP to bolster your position. Stealing a car from the front yard is not the same as attacking someone with a weapon, in their own home or anywhere you like. They are very different circumstances. So, to address just that new stuff- of course! If you reasonably believe that someone is trying to kill you and you have no way out, do what you must. If they make it so that it's you or it's them, then I suggest strongly you make it them. I'd recommend that to anyone.
[deleted]
If Derek or Danny stepped outside or tried to interfere they easily could have been killed...
Yes, it was foolish for Derek to place himself in mortal danger over a car. That's why I asked what the time of day has to do with the penalty- human presence is the factor. The penalty goes up because of the value of human life, not because the car's value is increased by the proximity of people. Life outweighs the value of a car, and (as you say) a car is not worth risking your life over. To knowingly place yourself in mortal danger cannot be condoned by the law. To go out into what you believe is a mortally dangerous situation with a gun and the intention of using (an absurd) law to 'give you the right' to shoot people over a matter of a car makes Derek no better than the other guys. The perpetrators may have shot Derek over a car. Derek's intension was arguably worse; the greater crime. The only defence Derek has is that 'they started it', which is no defence at all.
The injustice of the penalty on the basis of skin colour is interesting, and I can only assume accurate to real life. How that is so doesn't say much for the law-makers. Believing that the same people who perpetrate or allow such things to happen also make sound law is self-deceit, to say it nicely! ;) So, I agree with you on that.
Skin-colour allows justice to place a person beneath the full protection of the law, as does being called a 'car thief'. It's the old, and perhaps worn retort- car theft is not a capital offence. To take the law into his own hands (strike one) and then mete out capital punishment (strike two) in a sickening and, really, criminally insane manner (strike three and then some) should have meant indefinite psychiatric incarceration.
[deleted]
This thread shows why this film was made and why it is worth watching...
[deleted]
wrong, but Ruthless.
Cult Leader my mind's frightening, I drink blood from a human skull like a Viking
The curbstomp was beyond self-defense and why he went to prison. The first one, well despite him not breaking and entering, the guy is on your porch with a gun so it's justifiable IMO.
One thing I wonder about the motive is, what if the car thieves were white? Would Derek still have done the same thing, or just called the cops instead?