7 ms·

“I had to beat the hell out of the nursing-home director” and "Do what you have to do... We’ll deal with the consequences later" sound like vigilantism to me

• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• jimmywanger 9y ago
  I don't know what you're talking about. The nursing-home director was preventing people from reaching aid. He was just a robot following orders, and in extreme circumstances sometimes you gotta break machines to save people. Ass-beatings are not often justified, but when they are, boy they are.
• exabrial 9y ago
  I wonder if those were literal or figurative words... It could certainly been handled better. But if your residents are "knee deep in sewage" that's pretty gross.
  • DennisP 9y ago
    The article also says the guy who administered the beating ended up with a black eye, and that at one point he drew a gun. So it appears to be literal. But when the police showed up shortly afterwards, it was the nursing home director they detained.
    • exabrial 9y ago
      Absolutely wow. Over evacuating disabled people knee deep in poop.
      • Spooky23 9y ago
        The director was motivated to keep the depth to which he was defrauding Medicaid and criminally abusing helpless people.
      • DennisP 9y ago
        I'm not sure if I described that clearly. The director who was detained was trying to keep the disabled people in the poop, because "corporate policy." The guy who beat him up, got a black eye in the process, and drew a gun was trying to get them out. When the police arrived they sided with the guy trying to get the people out of the poop.
        • exabrial 9y ago
          I understood it correctly. It's one of those stories we only have about 1/10th of the information needed to make an accurate judgment.... like how did the guy with the gun end up with a black eye exactly?
          • DennisP 9y ago
            I assumed the director fought back rather than just standing there and taking the beating, and the guy drew the gun after that. Could be wrong, just seems the likely course of events.
  • astura 9y ago
    "At one point during the altercation, Ben drew a gun. ... he still had a black eye from his showdown with the director."
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• microcolonel 9y ago
  No, what he did had legal authority. Use of force against threats to life (and that is what it was deemed by officials both during and after the fact) is one of the natural rights the U.S. is officially constituted to protect. Cowardice is not a civic duty, nor a virtue. Use of force by civilians in perceived service of the law is often justified. Going out looking for a fight is one thing, serving the public is another. Ideally, the law can be upheld without force; when force is required to uphold the law, we could ideally rely on peace officers to be ready, willing, and able to take on that burden; but in the end, it is the responsibility of society as a whole to uphold the law and prevent suffering. When force is necessary, and when peace officers aren't around, a person who uses the necessary degree of force to rescue old people from a drone who would rather watch them wade naked in their own faeces until they go hypothermic or fall ill, than violate a workplace policy is not a vigilante, but an upstanding citizen. It's natural to scrutinize and question the motivations of somebody who has used force, but it is a disservice to us all to hold common people to a higher standard of conduct than the police.
  • muzz 9y ago
    You didn't cite any statue; your use of "constituted" was as a regular verb ie not referring to the capital-c Consitution. Therefore, your comment appears to be an opinion
    • reactor4 9y ago
      statute
      • fleitz 9y ago
        It's always hilarious when the grammar nazi has a spelling mistake in his grammar nazi post.
        • jimmywanger 9y ago
          To be honest, it's a spelling mistake, not a grammar mistake. The misspelling of a word does not destroy the sentence structure.
• tomohawk 9y ago
  Texas is an expanded stand your ground state. You can use deadly force to defend yourself. You don't have to retreat or run away. You can also defend others when you believe that their lives are threatened.
  • jdavis703 9y ago
    Does it have to be an immediate threat (e.g. a home invasion or active shooter situation)? It sounds like these people were in danger, but not immediate danger. They could've probably lasted several more hours in that water.
    • DennisP 9y ago
      I don't know about Texas, but in my state it has to be immediate. However, there's no way you could wait to the last minute and then suddenly get all those people to safety, so I think the meaning of "immediate" needs some context. Apparently the cops thought it was immediate enough, since they showed up shortly afterwards and sided with the "vigilante."
    • err4nt 9y ago
      Considering it probably took many hours to evacuate them, that does sound pretty last-minute to me! If they had waited until the actual 'last-minute', the people might have died or gotten injured or sick being evacuated.
  • muzz 9y ago
    So you're saying the director could have stood his ground against the cajun navy person