Child Bride Kills Husband and his 3 buddies

[Mormolyce]

I agree, she is pure evil.

Haha, I can never tell what you actually believe and what is sarcasm or trolling.

[Pengalor]

So is it your position that a husband cannot rape his wife, under any circumstance? Or is it your position that rape is not harmful? Unless you take one of those two positions, the statement "marriage doesn't cause innate harm and is certainly not a violent act" is irrelevant, because this marriage was going to cause her harm, and would have involved rape regardless of whether it was violent.

So I'm assuming that you believe she should have submitted herself to him... or that she should have waited until he was actually forcing himself on her to try and do anything, and put herself at much greater risk.

Until she is actually raped she doesn't have a position to defend herself. Even if she had already been raped, she was not defending her life with the poisoning. She was in no danger for her life. This was a calculated killing, pre-meditated, that precludes it from self-defense. That's not to mention the fact that even if killing her husband was somehow justified, her killing 3 other people and poisoning 10 others was not justified at all.

[Mormolyce]

Last time I checked out here in reality-land, there are plenty of reasons to justify murder.

If I were to make a list, "because they're forcing me to be their wife" would be in the top 5 easily.

[TirielWoW]

I don't think sex is a bad thing. I also don't recognize children as asexual.

I mean what the the hell is wrong with you trying to say I'm "demonizing" teenagers having sex.

[Mormolyce]

Until she is actually raped she doesn't have a position to defend herself.

Nominating this for worst argument in the thread.

[darkwarrior42]

So because she 'didn't have the option' to just poison her husband, it's cool for her to poison 13 other people, killing 3 of them?

If that was the only way she had to protect herself and she wasn't willing to sacrifice herself, absolutely. We're not talking about innocent bystanders, but people who were there to celebrate her impending rape (euphemistically referred to as celebrating her husband's marriage).

If I were kidnapped and dragged back to my kidnapper's village, and everyone in the village was complicit in the kidnapping, then I'm not going to feel bad about going through them if it means a chance at protecting myself or escaping, regardless of whether they've actively done anything to harm me or not. In this hypothetical, by being complicit in the act and not doing anything to stop it, they are guilty of assisting my kidnapper, whether intentionally or not. It's a similar situation, except that if I were kidnapped all I would have to do is get away and notify the police or someone not working with my kidnapper. Her entire society would have done everything in its power to keep her locked up forever, so she didn't have a choice.

Many of these situations wind up with the victim only killing herself. Would that have been more palatable? I understand why you don't like what she did; what do you believe she should have done instead?

[Mormolyce]

I don't think sex is a bad thing. I also don't recognize children as asexual.

Make it more obvious that you're a pedophilia apologist.

[TirielWoW]

Nominating this for worst argument in the thread.

We really need "Like" buttons for these posts.

[chazus]

I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, killing/murder is always the wrong option. She did not do the right, or proper thing.

However, that said... I am not surprised it happened. When you force a child into a situation like that... For largely the same reason people of that age cannot drink, drive, or vote (in most countries), they are not expected to be rational, or entirely take into account their actions. You hand a kid a gun, and get shot... People will go "What did you expect?"

I honestly think that this kind of thing (children fighting back) happens more often than people think, and this simply got into international news. I'd highly doubt this was an isolated incident.

[Pengalor]

If that was the only way she had to protect herself and she wasn't willing to sacrifice herself, absolutely. We're not talking about innocent bystanders, but people who were there to celebrate her impending rape (euphemistically referred to as celebrating her husband's marriage).

If I were kidnapped and dragged back to my kidnapper's village, and everyone in the village was complicit in the kidnapping, then I'm not going to feel bad about going through them if it means a chance at protecting myself or escaping, regardless of whether they've actively done anything to harm me or not. In this hypothetical, by being complicit in the act and not doing anything to stop it, they are guilty of assisting my kidnapper, whether intentionally or not. It's a similar situation, except that if I were kidnapped all I would have to do is get away and notify the police or someone not working with my kidnapper. Her entire society would have done everything in its power to keep her locked up forever, so she didn't have a choice.

Many of these situations wind up with the victim only killing herself. Would that have been more palatable? I understand why you don't like what she did; what do you believe she should have done instead?

How are they complicit? Again, this is legal in their society. In their society there is nothing wrong with this. Therefore, the people she is killing and not complicit in anything. Hell, for all we know they are just family members of the man. For all we know they don't even know anything about the bride, maybe haven't even met her before to know she is unhappy. However, even if she was unhappy, that happens in their society and some of them may have had to go through it themselves. Your argument is equivalent to saying anyone in a bank that's being robbed who doesn't try and stop the robber are now complicit in the crime. It's nonsense. And would I have found her killing herself more palatable? Over attempting to murder 14 people, yes. However, where there's a will, there's a way. I highly doubt there were absolutely zero other options (including just killing the husband which, while I don't agree with it, I could at least understand).

[TirielWoW]

I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, killing/murder is always the wrong option. She did not do the right, or proper thing.

However, that said... I am not surprised it happened. When you force a child into a situation like that... For largely the same reason people of that age cannot drink, drive, or vote (in most countries), they are not expected to be rational, or entirely take into account their actions. You hand a kid a gun, and get shot... People will go "What did you expect?"

I honestly think that this kind of thing (children fighting back) happens more often than people think, and this simply got into international news. I'd highly doubt this was an isolated incident.

There was a story a few weeks back of a child bride in...Yemen...I think...who actually hung herself. It was a forced marriage, too.

[Ragnarohk]

We really need "Like" buttons for these posts.

Although the original quote is misleading, I think I actually get the point.
The man had not yet committed a crime, we do not know his intentions and course of action (Hell, he could have been the nicest person in the world that married a young girl for the sake of tradition, we will never know)
Yet he was killed on the assumption that he was going to commit a crime.
Seriously, you should watch the movie "Minority Report" it's about pre-crime and how people are charged with crimes that they have not yet committed. It's a really good movie.

Also, I'm not defending the man. I just love playing the Devil's advocate and try and come up with interesting ideas from both points of view to try and create an interesting moral debate. <3 moral debates

[Pengalor]

Make it more obvious that you're a pedophilia apologist.

I will happily say that I am one. In theory there is nothing wrong with pedophilia as long as it's never acted upon. At worst it would just cause misery for the pedophile because they would have no love life to speak of. I'm against child molesters but that's a different thing. In fact, I'm willing to say that I feel for pedophiles who don't act on their affliction because it's nearly impossible for them to be honest about it and receive help if they want it (mostly because of the social stigma and the rebranding of the word to mean 'vaguely being attracted to anyone under 18').

- - - Updated - - -

We really need "Like" buttons for these posts.

Why, so people like you can hop on a bandwagon without actually refuting an argument? Why am I not surprised, this is the MMO champ forums after all.

[TirielWoW]

Although the original quote is misleading, I think I actually get the point.
The man had not yet committed a crime, we do not know his intentions and course of action (Hell, he could have been the nicest person in the world that married a young girl for the sake of tradition, we will never know)
Yet he was killed on the assumption that he was going to commit a crime.
Seriously, you should watch the movie "Minority Report" it's about pre-crime and how people are charged with crimes that they have not yet committed. It's a really good movie

It's possible, but not very likely. IT's also true we don't know the particulars of the situation, but it's pretty obvious the girl did not see any other options beyond killing him or killing herself. Suicide is actually not that uncommon in situations like these. And, well, sometimes the girls die anyway because of the complications from pregnancy, or end up contracting AIDS or other serious STDs because (at least in Sub-saharan Africa) there is a cultural belief that sex with a young virgin will cure STDs, etc.

[Synros]

Well they were all complicit in the act.

Different culture, different rules. Some of our habits here, would be punishable by death in other countries.

[Ichifails]

It's so fucking annoying that most people see this from the perspective of the "legal age of consent is 18 EVERYWHERE". Trust me, probably no one wants to see humanity wiped out more than I do but I still think she deserves to die. Don't tell me I can't see this from her perspective or "bla bla if it were you!...". Welcome to fucking life, it's not fair. I'm fat, you're thin, you have more money than I ever will while I have more money than that other guy ever will. You had a happy childhood and your parents helped you after while I was sort of forced to move out in a country where that doesn't happen.

Just to give you a heads up on how unfair shit is you know what I just did? My mother asked me for 25$ to give to a colleague for like 2 weeks. Why would he need that? He ran out of money and he needs to buy a propane tank in order for his family to eat. He has a wife and 4 kids but welcome to a country you can't even live paycheck to paycheck. And the money was from me, from a piece of shit youtube channel that I don't bother to update and I don't think I made over 100$/month but here that money is gold.
Want a bonus... both of them are the highest grade scientists in a nuclear reactor. If I didn't have that money, would it be fair for him to murder people so he can feed his family? In another country(Canada since I know 100%) his wage for the same job would be ~600k/year and the intention is good...

[Zantos]

I just read the article. No where in the article did it say that he had had any kind of sexual activities with her. The only reason she gave for justifying killing him was that she did not love him.Look, some people deserve very harsh punishment. Probably even death if they killed someone first. However, trying to justify killing a guy because you do not love him is beyond bs. The simple fact is she poisoned 13people, killing 4. That is only 4 out of the 13 that died. Had she not killed her intended target, this would be a vastly different argument. The only reason anyone is trying to justify it is because of the fact that she managed to kill her target, a guy she had been forced to marry.

She was wrong to kill him and 3 other people there and possibly more. Im sure she would have had Many opportunities to kill him through out the marraige. At this point, going by just her reason give, she deserves jail and what ever punishment she gets. No one can justify taking another humans life simply because "they didn't love them".

[SirPiken]

Last time I checked out here in reality-land, there are plenty of reasons to justify murder.

Some people are more loose with the term murder and use it as a synonym of the word kill. IMO it's murder when the killing is unjustified. If someone is holding you against your will and raping you, to me that falls under justifiable homicide. As far as killing the guys buddies I guess that would depend on how complacent they were in letting the actions take place.

If someone breaks into my house in the middle of the night and I hit them in the face with a baseball bat and they die. I didn't murder them.

[darkwarrior42]

How are they complicit? Again, this is legal in their society. In their society there is nothing wrong with this. Therefore, the people she is killing and not complicit in anything. Hell, for all we know they are just family members of the man. For all we know they don't even know anything about the bride, maybe haven't even met her before to know she is unhappy. However, even if she was unhappy, that happens in their society and some of them may have had to go through it themselves. Your argument is equivalent to saying anyone in a bank that's being robbed who doesn't try and stop the robber are now complicit in the crime. It's nonsense. And would I have found her killing herself more palatable? Over attempting to murder 14 people, yes. However, where there's a will, there's a way. I highly doubt there were absolutely zero other options (including just killing the husband which, while I don't agree with it, I could at least understand).

Hmmm... so your argument is about numbers. It's better for her to kill herself than 14 others, if those are the only ways she has of escaping captivity.

I do not equate legality with morality in any society... and that you equate the two makes it more difficult to take any ethical argument you might make seriously. You are implying that literally anything would be acceptable so long as it's legal in the society that does it. If that is not your intent, then it being legal in their society means nothing, and there would have been no reason for you to bring it up in the first place.

In the case of the bank robber, it is most likely that those who failed to intervene were scared to do so. They are not complicit, they are intimidated into inaction... though even then, it would depend on the exact circumstances, regarding how I feel about them. I will grant that it is possible this is the case for many people living there, but I find it unlikely that any of the people who were there to celebrate her impending rape were also intimidated into inaction by fear of reprisal.

I believe that people have the right to defend themselves, so long as there is clear and present danger. I do not use the word "immediate" myself, because I think it's stupid to wait for your opponent to be ready to strike you down, if there is zero chance that the course of action will change before then (and if her husband didn't intend to rape her, there is virtually no chance he would have married her, and no chance that she would have struck first).

- - - Updated - - -

I just read the article. No where in the article did it say that he had had any kind of sexual activities with her. The only reason she gave for justifying killing him was that she did not love him.Look, some people deserve very harsh punishment. Probably even death if they killed someone first. However, trying to justify killing a guy because you do not love him is beyond bs. The simple fact is she poisoned 13people, killing 4. That is only 4 out of the 13 that died. Had she not killed her intended target, this would be a vastly different argument. The only reason anyone is trying to justify it is because of the fact that she managed to kill her target, a guy she had been forced to marry.

It also doesn't say he didn't have sexual relations, and the statements were related by a police spokesman.... a spokesman for the organization responsible for enforcing the law in that country which, if you'll recall, is the same law that permitted her to be forced against her will, and would have obligated her to have sex with her new husband.

People that want her punished for what she did have little cause to worry; she will be killed, and you can all celebrate her death instead of the death of her husband >.>

[Bryntrollian]

Until she is actually raped she doesn't have a position to defend herself. Even if she had already been raped, she was not defending her life with the poisoning. She was in no danger for her life. This was a calculated killing, pre-meditated, that precludes it from self-defense. That's not to mention the fact that even if killing her husband was somehow justified, her killing 3 other people and poisoning 10 others was not justified at all.

All men are rapist or have the capacity to rape, didn't you know ? He didn't need to be killed during an attempt of carrying out the act. If there is even a slight suspicion that there will be rape in the future, the killing of that individual is always justified...