Now, here is a respondeat superior case: a tourist goes to a bar in Goa, India where he is beaten to death by the staff for being rude. This is what the family says happened to Austrialian John Kelly, 65, at the Club City Restaurant.
Goa has become a very dangerous place for tourists of late. 15-year-old British tourist Scarlett Keeling was recently raped and left for dead by two local men in Goa.
In Kelly’s case, the staff cited an “arrogant attitude” when he entered the barn around 8 am on the day that he arrived in the city. He probably thought “club” in Club City referred to a social gathering rather than a weapon of choice for the staff.
Security staff reportedly joined the attack in tearing his clothes and beating him. He died 10 hours after being attacked at the bar at Calangute. Police have denied accusations of a delay in taking any action in the case.
And as for the “just knocking the crap out of someone”, considering most peoples bowels release on the onset of death, we see they did just knock the crap out of him.
Buddha Is Laughing
1, October 10, 2008 at 7:43 am
While murder is an extreme solution, perhaps the laws against assault and/or battery should have more exceptions. Not dueling per se, but certain situations where just knocking the crap out of someone is encouraged within reasonable unarmed limits. There is a saying in rural America, “There’s nothing wrong with that boy that a good old fashion country ass whuppin wouldn’t cure.”
And this post, pretty much sums up the absolute hubris of associating the name “Buddha”, with your cowpie philosophy of “good old fashion country ass whuppin”. In case your reading comprehension skills are as poor as your judgement, reread the above article.
See, they did give this guy a good old fashion country ass whuppin.
And his family’s now in mourning.
Both of you sound like a couple who are trying desperatly to compensate for some shortcoming in your lives.
The need to just profanely slander someone, or “talk” about beating people up, is the true sign of the unbalanced individual.
If you two truly represent the “liberal” component of our country, then perhaps we are truly FUBAR.
See? People who are supposed to be normal, like Patty here, are really raving, frothing at the mouth lunatics.
😐
She rests my case.
Cro,
You are a #1, 1st Class A-hole ——— ape…, 😉
Next to you, Dubya would look good
-except he neglected to get his GED…!
You have no sense at all.
The underlying scariness, here, is YOU, as before-
a/k/a ‘BARTELBEE” – taking up limited precious space…
Get ‘lost’ instead of ‘found’,
PC
Oh and as for “laying it on thick”, I was just adjusting for the density of your skull.
I have been watching the news. And folks like you are busy screaming “FIRE, FIRE” in a crowded movie house.
A while back at a White Snake concert there was a fire, and lots of people were killed. Only they weren’t killed by the fire. They were killed by their own stampede.
And in case you haven’t been watching the news, law doesn’t mean a lot anymore beyond academic discussion.
Wow, talk about not having a sense of humor. And walk a mile in a man’s shoes before laying on that thick, smartass.
And you know what the really scary thing is here?
The really scary thing is that you’re in here, advocating this new relaxed policy on violence, in a thread where a group of normal people beat a single 65 year old man to death, simply for being a sloppy drunk.
And for the record, what makes America physically strong, is not the breast beating corn fed Iowa linebackers the conservative Christians are pumping out like rabbits, but the spectacled pocket protected geeks designing, integrating and maintaining our advanced technological offensive and defensive superiority.
So once more, we see that its the lowbrow throwbacks who worship the talking monkey’s who are more adept at bopping their fellow monkey over the head, and the rest of society is busy emerging into a wonderful new world of scientific wonders that our forefathers could have never even dreamed.
Cro Magnum Man
1, October 10, 2008 at 12:20 pm
And CMM, I suspect you can be a deeply silly person.
Guilty as charged.
Buddha Is Laughing
1, October 10, 2008 at 7:41 pm
For the record, I feel hand guns are for cowards – designed with one purpose and that is killing humans. If you talk the talk, you better be able to walk the walk. Any candyass punk can pull a trigger. It takes a Man or a Woman to fight
For the record, they are not. Guns were what made decent society possible, in a violent world where only the largest, physically strongest males dominated, and everyone else was forced to submit to their will. Then, smart people (Chinese) invented something called “gun poweder”, and we suddenly realized that not necessarly the biggest, lowest brow brute wins the day, but the smartest. So smart became cool, and size worship was left for the members of society whose brains had not yet co-equally evolved with their progressive brethren who understand that the difference between man and beast, was not only our opposing thumbs which could be used to make a club out of our magnificantly advanced hands, but our big, fat, brains.
Buddha Is Laughing
1, October 10, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I differentiate between common rudeness (texting during a conversation, being a stupid drunk) and provocation (What did you say about my mother?, Get away from my kids.). Deliberate provocation may merit violence (beating someone threatening your child
The law does not give you permission to “beat” someone who has only verbally threatened your child.
And “threatening” your child may be a broad thing. For example, if some old man who your little darling has been tossing rocks at his yard, hollers “I’m gonna kill you kids”, he is not really threatening your kids, but some parents could construe it that way.
People say all sorts of things in society, and what you are advocating is “vigalante” justice based on a persons ability and proclivity to determine what someone else is saying or thinking. The law does not permit this, thankfully, and instead we are able to walk around in public without beating each other when the mood struck us, which the anarchistic laws you are suggesting, would facilitate.
Its amazing to me in this day and age, the best children our parents could produce want to return our society which is already falling backwards, to an ignorant, archaic lowbrow society where big mouth brutes rule, and everyone else takes their physical step in the totem pole.
America is moving towards an all out IDIOCRACY, and when smart people like you suggest we move closer to anarchy than further from it, it looks like we’re almost there.
I differentiate between common rudeness (texting during a conversation, being a stupid drunk) and provocation (What did you say about my mother?, Get away from my kids.). Deliberate provocation may merit violence (beating someone threatening your child) or it may not (beating someone for calling you a dick). My personal line is a credible threat of violence or an attacker actually being stupid enough to touch me. I prefer no violence at all as violence against others is ultimately violence against self, but sometimes it is required. For the record, I feel hand guns are for cowards – designed with one purpose and that is killing humans. If you talk the talk, you better be able to walk the walk. Any candyass punk can pull a trigger. It takes a Man or a Woman to fight.
And CMM, I suspect you can be a deeply silly person. Cage match, indeed. I have to disagree. It’s not that violence is THE solution, it’s that with some people violence is the only option open. You can punch me in the mouth for suggesting it, but if you take a good long look at the spectrum of human behavior I think you might see my point. I’d rather reason than break a limb, but what do you do with the reason proof attacker?
There is never a reason to “snap” and start hitting someone for their words. Children react that way. So do the mentally challenged.
But ADULTS, are expected to know that words do not injure them, and can be tolerated in all circumstances.
What you two are advocating is a return to primitive society, where the physically strong would rule in society and the weaker citizens, which naturally would include women, children, the old and the handicapped, would take a back seat to those who could pummel them with their fists should they get out of line.
Which is why we invented guns. Guns were created to level the playing field. After all, history had shown us that the physically superior were seldom the intellectual superior, so the handgun leveled the playing field in our early western frontier.
Eventually, we learned that guns, nor fists were the way to solve ANY issue, and were merely the bastion of the dull, ignorant and immature, when their brains couldn’t keep up with their mouths.
What you adovcate, would immediately place all but the strong in society in the dominant roles and would remove the advances in equal rights and turn America into one big “cage match”.
😀
Its a stupid idea, and someone should punch you in the mouth for suggesting it.
Looks like he was an obnoxious drunk (news reports), which is not uncommon for Western tourists in Goa. Hardly grounds for murder or manslaughter but not exactly the basis for being an “innocent victim”.
“Before I start, I’d like to make clear that I don’t consider rudeness justification for killing in any circumstance.”
***************
Well I do. Seriously, the law takes some notice that adequate provocation can cause people to snap. Notions of voluntary manslaughter acknowledge that persons can be pushed too far and that at some point the animal in us will take over. It is not justification for but only in mitigation of guilt and hence reduction in punishment.
The Indian Police are particularly adept at ‘keeping watch’ in Kashmir while their fellow Indians take Pakistani pregnant women, rape them cut open their wombs and stuff them with burning rags while burning the letters “OM” on their foreheads–while they’re still alive.
But alas, let’s give the Indians Nuclear Technology; after all, they’re far more civilized than the Pakistanis and the Chinese.
Before I start, I’d like to make clear that I don’t consider rudeness justification for killing in any circumstance. It’s a clearly disproportionate response. But there is that caveman/lizard part of our brains that should not be ignored. As a species, we are not that far from the savanna and figuring out how pointed sticks work.
Robert Heinlein wrote a story in which everyone was required to carry firearms and dueling was reinstated as a valid method of dispute resolution. The short term effect was a drastic increase in murders. albeit legal ones. The long term effect was a drastic increase in manners and civility. Although I find this sentiment revolting at one level, the logic behind it seems sound.
Rudeness has permeated modern life. Ever has someone start texting during a conversation like no one else was in the room? Drive like an idiot because they were on the phone or their iPod has stolen their brain? A clerk being hostile because you had the audacity to ask them to do their job? Someone just acting like a jerkwad because it’s Tuesday?
While murder is an extreme solution, perhaps the laws against assault and/or battery should have more exceptions. Not dueling per se, but certain situations where just knocking the crap out of someone is encouraged within reasonable unarmed limits. There is a saying in rural America, “There’s nothing wrong with that boy that a good old fashion country ass whuppin wouldn’t cure.” There is some wisdom in that as much as I hate to admit it. Violence is never the best option, but a certain percentage of people won’t behave without physical threat – that’s a fact of human nature. You all know someone like this. You probably can’t stand them, but you know someone fitting this bill. They may be your client or the guy down the street. You may share an office with them. My sympathies if you share a roof with them.
Doubt this is human nature? Watch “Cops” or any of their brethren. Those shows would have zero “entertainment value” without them. Or consider the following:
Would Bush have grown into the arrogant sociopathic criminal he is today if along his little drunken coked up journey more people had knocked him on his spoiled half-witted ass? He’s obviously reality and logic proof, but would the beatings and possible repeat performances have taught him proper behavior concerning respect for others? Even if he didn’t/couldn’t intellectually understand why? Would it have given him a greater respect for human life to have that smirk punched off his face a few times? To have suffered immediate retribution physically for his bad actions and stupidity?
I can only say, “Perhaps.” Some dogs you have to whack on the nose with a rolled up newspaper to keep them from chewing up the couch.
I see that there is another pot that needs stirring, good Turley bloggers, so I’ll leave this for your consideration, critique and certainly scathing criticisms.