I agree with self defence killing, so if someone attacks you with a knife and you use whatever necessary force needed to prevent your own death, even if that results in killing but I wouldn't condone 100% attempting to kill.

I think that I can guage that this boy basically hunted this man down and killed him, although this is the action I would probably take if a paedophile was on my tail I would think that he should have alerted the authoritys and kept an eye out instead of stabbing him, if someone carries a knife on the street (if anything happens) they are under arrest for attempted murder.

I think that the American system of killing anyone who's on your land (a burglar), I think that unless they are a threat to you should just politley ask them to leave, although I would probably act different if they were in my house and I had a gun. I infact support the farmer who shot two burglars

So, he had a knife on him (which at the least shows an intent to use it if necessary), and he stabbed someone causing their death. Whether this person was a predatory pedophile or not, that's still murder. The 17 year old should have faced charges for that, it's not a reasonable response for self-defence in my opinion. Kicking/punching him would, maybe using a knife if there was one in the house to hand, but having it on you with clear intention, nein.

Kudos to the boy.

Because we can't just let people going around doing their own vigilante justice. There is no way to tell if the guy actually wanted to rape him or not and without any evidence you are just relying on the word of some guy.

 

What's the difference between vigilante justice and legal justice? Juries, cops, judges, etc. are all just as capable of making mistakes and having conflicts of interest. I think the best part of a vigilante system would be that it's driven by moral passion instead of a paycheck.

 

I find it absurd that a cop can beat someone up for petty theft or badmouthing authority, but you will get arrested if you beat up a rapist. It's also funny that juries are involuntary and you will get in trouble for not attending, but being a voluntary vigilante is a no no. Justice should be everyone's game because everyone is involved.

Because we can't just let people going around doing their own vigilante justice. There is no way to tell if the guy actually wanted to rape him or not and without any evidence you are just relying on the word of some guy.

 

What's the difference between vigilante justice and legal justice? Juries, cops, judges, etc. are all just as capable of making mistakes and having conflicts of interest. I think the best part of a vigilante system would be that it's driven by moral passion instead of a paycheck.

 

I find it absurd that a cop can beat someone up for petty theft or badmouthing authority, but you will get arrested if you beat up a rapist. It's also funny that juries are involuntary and you will get in trouble for not attending, but being a voluntary vigilante is a no no. Justice should be everyone's game because everyone is involved.

Well, this makes sense. But I never thought of it that way, maybe because we often just follow the ideas that society instills in us without question.

All we know is that a 17 year old killed a 27 year old man. How do we know the 17 year old isn't really some psychopath that killed him for his own amusement/some petty reason, and made everything up about the 27 year old being a paedophile? The school had a background check on this guy, clean. He was married(although arranged...), and was religious. I think they should dig deeper into the story. Something smells fishy.

The hell? The age of consent in Britain is 16, this isn't EVEN PAEDOPHELIA.

 

In my opinion in self defense, it is okay, but the fact they said it was paedophelia is just wrong, I admit the age was quite weird, but when the law actually states the age of consent is 16, they're just being hypocritical.

 

I guess it was cause he was a muslim they were leniant, I wouldn't be surprised.