• If you were supposed to get an email from the forum but didn't (e.g. to verify your account for registration), email Wes at stararmy@gmail.com or talk to me on Discord for help. Sometimes the server hits our limit of emails we can send per hour.
  • Get in our Discord chat! Discord.gg/stararmy

Does DOG deserve to be sent to jail?

A

Anthony

Inactive Member
The following is a true story and is still unfolding right now i Hope you al lthat read this voice your opinion and go see all the story on Dog's main site.

DOG the bounty Hunter who you may have seen while watching A&E at some point one night. Has been for years along with his family capturing criminals and bringing them to justice. Is going to be put under trial and possible sent to Mexico for capturing a criminal who was convicted of 97 I repeat 97 counts of Rape against women when he went to Mexico to get him. During his trials in Mexico and eventually capturing the criminal Mexican police told him that it is illegal to bounty hunt in Mexico. As such he still sent the criminal to the States and since Mexico thinks they can tell the united states what to do asked for him to be sent to Mexico and brought to justice. Since then the US marshals have put DOG the bounty hunter his Wife Beth and his brother Tim on house arrest.

I know this is slightly mis worded and if someone wishes to edit this go ahead But do you the people believe that He should be sent to Mexico to be put on trial and if convicted along with his wife Beth and Tim will not I repeat will not leave Mexico for the rest of their lives? Also do you think its right that United states which give him authority to chase criminals should have to face the Mexican government?

Thank you for reading and if you want to go get the full information about this go to his site and read up. Thanks and have a good night.
 
Should've put a poll on this thing. I would've liked to see the results on that. Mind you I'm not fully versed on this topic but I've heard about the issue a bit.
 
Fuck Mexico. Dog's a friggin' hero.

The law should NEVER be used as a tool AGAINST common sense and that which is right.
 
There is no dishonor is disobeying a law that you feel is unjust, but you have to be willing to deal with the consequences.

We have an extradition treaty with Mexico for a reason. If someone breaks a law in the US and flees to Mexico, he still might get caught. This is a good arrangement to have, assuming that Mexico doesn't start passing crazy laws.

And you could argue that a "no bounty hunting" law is pretty silly, although Mexico probably had reasons for it.

I consider Dog's act one of civil disobedience. He did something that he felt he had to do and knew the risks involved. That makes him a hero, not a victim.

Can Fox pardon him or something? Do Mexican presidents have that power? Because this is a perfectly good case for pardon powers, as compared to, say, pardoning your lackeys when you leave office. -_-
 
A hero? He was arrested on 18 counts of armed robery before he became a bounty hunter, and served five years for murder. He's not legally allowed to possess a fire arm!

In any case, bounty hunting's illegal in Britain and however cool it might seem I'm not sure I support it as a occupation.

The case has been frozen for the moment:

"On October 20, 2006, lawyers for Chapman said that the Mexican federal court has granted them an order that halts the criminal case against the bounty hunter until further evidence and witness testimony are gathered."

And Anthony, despite your repetition it would seem that the criminal in question was convicted of 87, yes 87, rapes.
 
Word.

If there's something wrong with the wording, alter it. If you can accept the laws as they are then there's something wrong with them.
 
He violated another nation's laws. Another soveregin nation's laws. Which he should've known and considered before hand. Next time, he won't be so eager to cross the border.

The U.S. government and other law enforcement agencies should file briefs in his favor, or pay for his defense, or something. But Mexico is its own nation, and it can do what it wants. Self-determination and all.
 
Somehow I doubt this discussion would be the same if the rapist had raped someone close to one of you. The law has no hold on what is right and what is right is making sure that creep (for lack of a better, appropriate term) gets what he deserves.
 
Maybe not if that person were close to me, no. But that's still not the point. He has individual rights as well, and they were violated under Mexican law. Just because he's a piece of shit doesn't give us the right to shovel him up.
 

DOG is generally considered a reformed ex-con here in the States, where bounty hunting is considered a relatively honorable profession.
 
believe this discussion will soon travel into God vs. Man territory soon.
Click to expand...

Nah, this is pure Lawful Good vs. Chaotic Good.

Remember kids: all moral issues can be reduced to terms of d20 alignments.
 
*hands Kel a cookie*

While it is true that I would wish for vengence if it was someone close to me, I would try and do it through pressure on the Mexican government. It is still the job of the Mexican police force and the Mexican judicial system to take care of felons within their borders.

Bounty hunters are dangerous.
 
It doesnt matter a bit whether I feel he's a criminal or not. Legality says he is.

Personally, yes, I say the world is much better off with a few less serial rapists. At the same time, this is never an excuse for an American national to play deus ex machina. We Americans like to think that other nations should be beholden to us. Doesnt work that way. We keep trying to impose that, our days of power will be starkly numbered indeed.

He violated Mexican law. Mexico has every right to try him for that. Mexico chooses to drop charges, that is Mexico's business. Mexico chooses to prosecute him until their pubes turn grey, again, that is Mexico's business.

He violated their laws, and should respect that.
 
Why should laws that hinder the good ever be respected?
 
"Good" is merely a matter of personal opinion. To draw a rather touchy parallel, I'm sure that terrorists think they are doing a 'good' and 'righteous' thing when they commit acts of terrorism, and consider anti-terrorism laws and any other laws which hinder them in doing so as unjust and not to be respected. Laws are there as a best-fit solution to a problem that can't have a perfect, 'everyone is happy all of the time' solution; if everyone stops respecting those laws which don't meet their - or the majority's for that matter - view of a 'good' outcome you end up with anarchy.

The law needs to be respected, and people should work within its bounds. Does this suck? Yes, very much so in some cases such as this and others where people trying to do the right thing get shafted while those doing wrong get off scot-free.

Until someone tells me we live in a utopian world, I say you have to play by the rules of whoever's territory you are in.
 
I sign on David's post.

Unless you want anarchy, you play by the rules. Same reason why I don't like Minutemen doing their "patrols," it borders on taking the law into their hands, and that's now how a civil society operates.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…