Romance 101 : Multiple Choice Final
March 23rd, 2007 by 
Kevin
Question 1 : You\’re a 24-year old single man, you have a romantic interest in a 17-year old girl down the street. What do you do?
A) She\’s not legal, forget it, find someone your age
B) Wait until she\’s 18 before doing anything
C) Approach her about your interest…after having purchased a bullet proof vest in case her father objects.
D) Cut off her dogs head and anonymously leave it in a gift-wrapped box on her front door
Answer : If you answered D, chances are you\’re the guy the St. Paul Police just arrested. Or at least one would like to believe there are not more people like this out there.
Even in murder cases, I\’m not a supporter of the death penalty, but cases like this sure make me wish I believed otherwise.
Due to an update in the case, I\’ll add an extra credit question
Question 2 : You\’re a 24-year old man, your 17-year girlfriend has broken off the relationship a couple weeks ago. What do you do?
A) Forget it, she was only 17 anyway!
B) Forget it man, you\’re too good for her. Plenty of fish in the sea and all that.
C) Feel sorry for yourself, and commit suicide
D) Try to win her back by cutting off her dogs head and anonymously leave it in a gift-wrapped box on her front door. Appear the hero by offering to buy her another one.
Answer : If you\’re the guy that did D, the rest of the world would like to request that next time, you choose option C.
Crib Notes For Studying for this test are at:
Personally I agree with the guys at Anti-Strib, even death would be too good for him. I\’m really struggling here not to suggest Mob justice. And this is one of those cases were it\’s very difficult for me to stand by my stance against the death penalty. Besides, even if he got that, their methods would come far short of what he deserved.
Email This Post
| 
Print This Post
Posted in General Commentary | 
4 Comments »
March 23rd, 2007 at 8:33 pm
No, the death penalty should not apply for the killing of a dog, no matter how gruesome and the terrible emotional distress done afterward. I think what’s needed here is a little Saudi justice.
First of all, the guy is called before a criminal court, and we apply whatever penalty is appropriate for killing the dog. No loopholes, just did he or did he not. THEN, the girl or her family haul the guy into civil court and guarantee that he never gets another nickel of his own money– the cost of a new dog (a really good one), the cost of “emotional distress,” and then treble damages on top of that.
March 23rd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
Hey Kevi, did you mean MOB justice? That would make for a very interesting comeuppance, don’t you think?
March 24th, 2007 at 11:26 am
I didn’t mean “MOB justice”, I meant “Mob Justice”. Although knowing some of the people in the MOB it might comes close to the same thing. There are more than a couple whom I can imagine useing “a pair of pliers and a blowtorch” with skill.
Basically Mob Justice implies letting civilians take whatever action they feel necessary, outside the justice system. Lynch mobs are an example.
Basically release the guy, let the public know the whens and wheres and then stand back and look the other way at the results.
It’s an uncivilized approach to a problem, but on cases like this it’s hard to not let your emotions take control and advocate such actions.
In cases like this, I placate myself by remembering that from what I heard, prisons have their own codes of honor, and people that prey on children are not dealt with kindly.
March 24th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
I don’t think you need mob justice if our current system of jurisprudence will “do its job.” We suffer, I think, from “too much law and not enough justice” in our courts. My biggest complaint is the exclusionary rule, because it avoids the truth.
What we should do in court is to determine the truth. Did the person commit the crime, yes or no, based on ALL the evidence available? If so, penalties should be applied, judiciously. THEN, if necessary, we should have a trial for the police to determine whether the person was “targeted” for prosecution, and whether proper procedures were involved in the arrest. If not, than the police are punished, judiciously. THAT would be equal justice under the law. Whenever someone “gets off on a technicality,” it erodes the respect required for our entire legal system to function.