Mother sets fire to her daughter's gloating rapist

[exentgems]

A Spanish mother has taken revenge on the man who raped her 13-year-old daughter at knifepoint by dousing him in petrol and setting him alight. He died of his injuries in hospital on Friday.

 

Antonio Cosme Velasco Soriano, 69, had been sent to jail for nine years in 1998, but was let out on a three-day pass and returned to his home town of Benejúzar, 30 miles south of Alicante, on the Costa Blanca.

 

While there, he passed his victim's mother in the street and allegedly taunted her about the attack. He is said to have called out "How's your daughter?", before heading into a crowded bar.

 

Shortly after, the woman walked into the bar, poured a bottle of petrol over Soriano and lit a match. She watched as the flames engulfed him, before walking out.

[Kaida23]

And I will execute great vengeance upon them with furious rebukes; and they shall know that I am the LORD, when I shall lay my vengeance upon them.

- Ezekiel 25:17

 

Sounds like someone got smote.

[The Observer]

I saw this story on another site.

 

Both parties were in the wrong. Certainly not punishing her would just encourage citizens to put the law into their own hands, even though they might not necessarily be right. The law tends to favour restitution and rehabilitation over retribution, so obviously the law wouldn't be on her side. But, as I said, putting the law into your own hands isn't encouraged, and its the law's job to help uphold that principle.

 

Although obviously the other guy's actions will be taken into account. eg. Getting 9 years instead of 25 years because he provoked her.

[HexiledRazz]

I would do the same thing tbh. Sure it's not the best idea, but i would light that [bleep]er up.

 

So, imokaywiththis.jpg, kill it with fire, various other memes.

[Slayer_Jesse]

she shoulda nuked him from orbit (It was the only way to be sure.)

[Ginger_Warrior]

I don't really know what to make of this really. I mean, it's not like either side should be encouraged exactly.

 

Arsonist murdering vigilante vs child rapist. All I'm seeing is bad vs bad.

[Giordano]

Self-driven is heroic and admirable on two levels:

 

Firstly, fixing problems yourself is a trait this society (gonna talk mostly American) wants us to have, but hardly does it. This woman did not complain, she went on and did what she had to do. Something clearly lacking from our society pressured by not only moral and cultural beliefs, but authority of the law.

 

Secondly, the reason why our society is as hypocritical is because of the law. The fact that this woman clearly broke it to pursue justice is an act of courage by itself.

 

 

The greatest real justice (the first being not able to fix the effects of the rape itself, but it's unrealistic and impossible to fix), that this sort of behavior is punished. A most terrible injustice.

 

 

 

 

The state did not reach justice. The [puncture] exploited this to insult her. She finished the job the state could not do. I do not and will not ever see this as immoral, incorrect, or by whatever wrong.

 

 

Wow that mother is a [bleep]ing [developmentally delayed]... does she care about her child at all? Now her kid has to deal not only with the emotional trauma of being raped, but also the trauma of her mother going to jail for a long time...

 

I believe, but don't quote me on this since the OP isn't clear, that she was 13 in 1998. Which means she is clearly old enough to take care of herself at 25 years old.

[Ginger_Warrior]

You don't find murder immoral?

 

I mean what you said was essentially a fancy and unnecessary way of saying, "He deserved to be killed," wasn't it?

[Giordano]

You don't find murder immoral?

 

I mean what you said was essentially a fancy and unnecessary way of saying, "He deserved to be killed," wasn't it?

Yes.

 

But if I simply said "He deserved to die." I would have to explain myself later, and to a more hostile group as misunderstanding grows, tempers go off.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'm not sure that Manifest Destiny (when you talked about American society's carpe diem mentality) was meant to extend to murder, that's all. Well, not anyone except native American tribes anyway.

[Giordano]

I'm not sure that Manifest Destiny (when you talked about American society's carpe diem mentality) was meant to extend to murder, that's all. Well, not anyone except native American tribes anyway.

Well for starters, Manifest Destiny was about corporate organizations grabbing Mexico's northern borders for business interests, not justice.

 

Secondly, America does not have the Carpe Diem mentality. We WANT to have it (ask any WASP their virtues and 9 out of 10 they will say hard work somewhere) but fail to accomplish that ourselves. Not only is that part contradicting, but when somebody DOES do carpe diem we as a society punish that individual whether it be OP's example, popular kids in school, or religious beliefs.

[Dizzle229]

Guy got what he deserved. Girl got it even worse though now that the mother has to be punished.

[Howlin0001]

I would do the same thing tbh. Sure it's not the best idea, but i would light that [bleep]er up.

Okay, but what would happen to you then? You did kill a person, it wasn't in self defence.

[Runecrafts]

Payback is a [bleep]... he deserved it IMO. :thumbup:

[marcustullius]

 

 

Firstly, fixing problems yourself is a trait this society (gonna talk mostly American) wants us to have, but hardly does it. This woman did not complain, she went on and did what she had to do. Something clearly lacking from our society pressured by not only moral and cultural beliefs, but authority of the law.

 

 

Alright, so what if the gas fire she lit burned the bar down and killed/injured some innocent people?

[Yoshi999]

I honestly couldn't blame her for doing it .The son of a [bleep] rapes her daughter and goes to prison (I'm sure the prisons in Spain are just as laid-back as the ones in the U.S.) then he gets out for a little while and acts like a complete idiot. Eye for an Eye o.0

[Giordano]

 

 

Firstly, fixing problems yourself is a trait this society (gonna talk mostly American) wants us to have, but hardly does it. This woman did not complain, she went on and did what she had to do. Something clearly lacking from our society pressured by not only moral and cultural beliefs, but authority of the law.

 

 

Alright, so what if the gas fire she lit burned the bar down and killed/injured some innocent people?

Firstly, I was talking about the concept of her action not the action by itself.

 

Secondly, it didn't. Now can we please refrain from asking "what-if" questions, because it's going to do nothing but ping-ponging back and forth.

 

A better question you should of asked, is "What happens if someone pursues justice and damages an innocent in the process." That question talks about the concepts, still makes the point you were trying to make, and avoids "what-if" questions.

 

My answer to that: She becomes the rapist. Any one of those at the bar or those who care are justified to bring her to justice. There's no point around her accidentally burning down the place because no laws could of prevented her from doing that. As I said in my first post, second point: she already ignored current murder laws so the freak accident was going to happen whether or not more laws against vigilantes were in place.

[Sir_Squab]

I see nothing wrong with the situation. Kinda sounds like the rapist deserved it, but we can't have people willy-nilly lighting people on fire due to vengeance, so the mother needs to be punished.

 

If vengeance is legal, suddenly we have a legal system where thousands die due to vengeance. What if the rapists mother burns down the mother in this story as vengeance for killing her son? Then the raped daughter kills the other mother as vengeance? Etc.

 

Furthermore, if you're going for the "eye for an eye" thing, then the raped girl needs to somehow rape the rapist to truly follow that.

[Yoshi999]

Even if you believe the whole eye for an eye thing (which is extraordinarily stupid, by the way, and you should go back to the goddamn stone age) the mother actually committed a worse crime (first degree murder vs rape) so her actions really aren't justifiable regardless...

 

In the first place, I do not believe it would be classified as first degree murder, but rather second or third degree murder due to the provocation he provided to her, I don't believe she just thought it out to the point where she knew she was going to set him on fire and kill him. I can tell you've never worked in a prison before, but I have, and I'm currently employed at one. EVEN prisoners classify crimes in different categories and a rapist and/or child molester is going to get his butt kicked before the murderer/serial killer.

[Giordano]

Even if you believe the whole eye for an eye thing (which is extraordinarily stupid, by the way, and you should go back to the goddamn stone age) the mother actually committed a worse crime (first degree murder vs rape) so her actions really aren't justifiable regardless...

 

What's the prison system then? Why don't jailers and wardens be put in jail for imprisoning others? Simply because they wear a badge? A badge given by them via a piece of paper and the vote of a select few not related to the victim or the crime?

 

 

There's a reason why the concept of local government is popular: those living in them understand current problems better than a government thousands of miles away. The same idea applies here.

[Riku3220]

Even if you believe the whole eye for an eye thing (which is extraordinarily stupid, by the way, and you should go back to the goddamn stone age) the mother actually committed a worse crime (first degree murder vs rape) so her actions really aren't justifiable regardless...

 

In the first place, I do not believe it would be classified as first degree murder, but rather second or third degree murder due to the provocation he provided to her, I don't believe she just thought it out to the point where she knew she was going to set him on fire and kill him. I can tell you've never worked in a prison before, but I have, and I'm currently employed at one. EVEN prisoners classify crimes in different categories and a rapist and/or child molester is going to get his butt kicked before the murderer/serial killer.

That's because they're afraid of the murderer/serial killer. Tell me, would you rather fight the person who raped a child, or the person who killed 20 men with his fists?

 

Either way, the the man's provacation doesn't justify the mother's actions and she'll just end up taking his place in jail because of it.

[obfuscator]

Well, this guy is definitely a spambot, but it looks like the topic has taken off so I'm leaving it public. I did remove the link though, especially seeing as it had nothing to do with the actual article.

[Giordano]

Even if you believe the whole eye for an eye thing (which is extraordinarily stupid, by the way, and you should go back to the goddamn stone age) the mother actually committed a worse crime (first degree murder vs rape) so her actions really aren't justifiable regardless...

 

What's the prison system then? Why don't jailers and wardens be put in jail for imprisoning others? Simply because they wear a badge? A badge given by them via a piece of paper and the vote of a select few not related to the victim or the crime?

Because prisoners are convicted by a jury of their peers to be placed in jail and wardens are responsible for keeping them there. Our judicial system is based on the idea that crimes should be judged by a group of people unrelated, unlike in this case where this woman decided that the man's actions were worthy of a death penalty.

 

Further I don't see how you can compare setting someone on fire (which could have injured others and caused property damage) with a legally approved warden keeping people in jail as the justice system intended.

 

Firstly, I was trying to say (and I do apologize I didn't explain this) that judicial system stops somewhere. Let me explain:

 

Rocco kidnaps a child. Rocco goes to jail because he took the liberty of a human being. Judge/Jury Giordano puts Rocco in jail. Giordano goes to jail because he took the liberty of a human being.

 

Oh wait. That last part doesn't happen. Why? Because for justice to work, it must stop somewhere. The phrase "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." suggests punishment will continue without stops. If the state judicial system stops, why cant' eye for an eye stop? You see what I'm saying?

 

 

Secondly, I understand how the judicial system works. I want to know why is it better. Simply saying "You're supposed to do it because the system works like this" is not explaining. You yourself said:

 

Our judicial system is based on the idea that crimes should be judged by a group of people unrelated

 

Okay. So? Why is it better that way? Simply because it's law?

[Omar]

 

 

Firstly, fixing problems yourself is a trait this society (gonna talk mostly American) wants us to have, but hardly does it. This woman did not complain, she went on and did what she had to do. Something clearly lacking from our society pressured by not only moral and cultural beliefs, but authority of the law.

 

 

Alright, so what if the gas fire she lit burned the bar down and killed/injured some innocent people?

Firstly, I was talking about the concept of her action not the action by itself.

 

Secondly, it didn't. Now can we please refrain from asking "what-if" questions, because it's going to do nothing but ping-ponging back and forth.

 

A better question you should of asked, is "What happens if someone pursues justice and damages an innocent in the process." That question talks about the concepts, still makes the point you were trying to make, and avoids "what-if" questions.

 

My answer to that: She becomes the rapist. Any one of those at the bar or those who care are justified to bring her to justice. There's no point around her accidentally burning down the place because no laws could of prevented her from doing that. As I said in my first post, second point: she already ignored current murder laws so the freak accident was going to happen whether or not more laws against vigilantes were in place.

Except that doesn't solve the problem, because being put in prison doesn't solve the fact that the victims in the bar were killed/injured. The only way it can be, is by burning the mother.

Oh wait isn't that a vicious cycle? [cabbage]. Maybe we should prevent that type of thing.

 

Also, hard work in the sense of labour isn't the same as vengeance. Yes, it's a good idea not to rely on others, but applying that to the extreme doesn't work.

[obfuscator]

I kind of agree with nick here; punishment of some sort must follow crime for society to function which by definition follows the (bad) principle of an eye for the eye. The only thing I see differently is that legally, society as a collective takes the eye rather than an individual, which makes it a necessary evil.