~ archived since 2018 ~

Aron Ralston, who famously amputated his arm after being trapped in a Utah canyon - arrested for domestic violence after being punched twice by his girlfriend in the back of the head.

DownShatCreek

December 9, 2013

0 upvotes

/r/MensRights

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/authorities-man-amputated-arm-escape-utah-canyon-arrested-170444634.html

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Aron Ralston, who famously amputated his arm after being trapped in a Utah canyon - arrested for domestic violence after being punched twice by his girlfriend in the back of the head.
Author	DownShatCreek
Upvotes	0
Comments	21
Date	December 9, 2013 7:43 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1shgkm/aron_ralston_who_famously_amputated_his_arm_after/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/aron-ralston-who-famously-amputated-his-arm-after.1156612 https://theredarchive.com/post/1156612

Comments

[–]Hypersapien 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]EatingSteak 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Hypersapien 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

I agree, very misleading title by the OP.

Shannon was arrested because Ralston says she hit him. Ralston was arrested because Shannon says he shoved her. Both of the acts of violence occured in a heated argument. Nothing indicates that one was done in any sort of self-defense.

The rule about the child is there because situations like this can be more damaging if children are present because they pose a significant risk to them, therefore the sentence/charge must be more severe for detterence/punitive purposes. Even though the 8-month old was undoubtedly unharmed in THIS circumstance, had the altercation escalated he very possibly could have been harmed. The risk wasn't any less, so the police are following through.

Seems to me like everything is being handled prudently here - the case will go to trial and it'll get sorted out. At the moment, not sure how this is a Men's Right's issue, OP.

[–]Hypersapien 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Okay, then you just have a very conservative, though sound, legal philosophy with which I am content to disagree.

I would encourage you to note the difference between what you would like the intent of the law to be and what the intent of the law actually is in future writings on the subject - it's confusing in the way you write it.

The actual intent of the law is to DETER moral wrongs, or the violation of the rights of others. Punishing those who do commit these wrongs is one method of achieving the intent of the law, but is not actually the intent of the law in and of itself. The other method is criminalizing precursive steps to violation. For example, in order to prevent gun deaths, gun ownership is criminalized, because one is more capable of comitting a gun killing if one owns a gun.

You can (and do) rightly disagree that this intent of the law is the right one, but it is the actual, current intent of the law. Right now it's to DETER moral wrongs, you want it to be to PUNISH moral wrongs.

[–]Demonspawn 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

The actual intent of the law is to DETER moral wrongs

No. That's the job of society. To expand this point, pretty soon we get laws like those presented in Europe to make disagreeing with Feminism to be illegal.

The other method is criminalizing precursive steps to violation.

And that is not the intent of law. That, again, is precrime.

Right now it's to DETER moral wrongs, you want it to be to PUNISH moral wrongs.

That's the exact opposite of what I've presented.

ETA:

I would encourage you to note the difference between what you would like the intent of the law to be and what the intent of the law actually is in future writings on the subject - it's confusing in the way you write it.

Here's the issue that I missed.

You don't understand the intent of law. Go read some history of law and get back with me.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. Your writing fails to separate the reality of the world from your legal philosphy. I'm not arguing against your legal philosophy (although I disagree with it.) I'm just saying that you need to make the distinction when you write.

Law, right now, in real life, not in philosophy, but in the real, actual world, is unquestionably intended to DETER moral wrongs by 1) Punishing those wrongs when comitted and 2) Criminalizing precursive steps. That's not a matter of debate, that's just the way things are. That's how laws, in the real world, are currently, actually designed.

You are challenging the idea that this real, actual, true, undebatable way that things are is the RIGHT way for things to be. You are making this challenge on logically sound footing. You propose an alternative system, in which law is intended to PUNISH moral wrongs and nothing else. I am not debating the validity of this system with you here. I am just saying that you need to be distinct in your development of your ideas.

To further illustrate my point; you wrote that "Drunk driving is not a crime." This sentence is incorrect. Drunk driving IS a crime - it is currently, in the real world, in the actual definition of the word "crime," a crime! You cannot debate that fact! What you mean to say, and should have written, is "Drunk driving is not a moral wrong, and therefore SHOULD NOT be a crime." You make a similar error with the "intent of the law" bits. Currently, the intent of the law is, undebateably, one thing. You want it to be another, but you cannot say that with the sentence "The intent of the law is this other thing" because that sentence is factually incorrect.

Do you understand what I'm saying?

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

No, you really don't understand what I'm saying at all.

What I'm saying is that you're a poor writer. I'm not arguing with your viewpoints. I'm just saying that you're unskilled when it comes to presenting them.

"I understand that you accept that grossly misapplied laws in today's society" is simple proof for my claim that you're a poor writer. That's an incomplete sentence that only hints at what you might mean. I accept that grossly misapplied laws in today's society what? That they exist? That they are all, in fact, grossly misapplied? That I'm okay with them being misapplied? That I believe them all to be grossly misapplied? There are so many possible meanings for that incomplete wreck of a sentence that it's hard to tell what you're actually saying, which makes it easy to argue against you because your opponent can fill in whichever potential meaning they choose.

I attempted to advise you on how to formulate your argument more clearly so that people can actually understand your points, and perhaps come around to your way of thinking, because your way of thinking is grounds for good discussion if nothing else. However, you were unable to understand the advice that I gave you because you are too concerned with yelling your talking points over and over again, even though I'm not contradicting them at all.

I am done trying to help you articulate your view more clearly. If you want people to agree with you, you need to write with a basic grasp of sentence structure and clarity of thought. You currently do not do that, therefore people will not agree with you because they are not likely to understand you. Good luck.

[–]jojotmagnifficent 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I disagree for one simple reason: Intent. If you get shitfaced then you go driving you know there is a pretty damn good change you will fuck up and cause some damage/hurt someone. It's something you CHOOSE to risk. You are violating peoples right to safety by driving drunk and knowingly putting them at risk. Otherwise it would be fine to go into a crowded mall and shoot a gun randomly as long as you didn't hit anyone or damage anything.

I imagine the though process is similar in this case with the child, you get crazy and start throwing shit around it could get hurt, you are violating it's right to safety.

I do agree somewhat with your sentiment though, If I go 120 in a 100 zone with nobody around and it's a long straight stretch of highway then who gives a fuck? If I go 70 in a 50 zone around a school at home time in built up traffic though, I should get my ass kicked for being a reckless douche, even if I don't run over any kids.

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]jojotmagnifficent 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]jojotmagnifficent 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Demonspawn -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link