Spoilers: Was what James did justified?
James drove away at the end of the film rather than be arrested.
Would you convict James of murder if you were on his jury, and
why or why not?
Well he could have easily claimed self defense for Tara... So I really don't know why he ran in the first place. Of course I wouldn't convict him... But if it was reality the situation would be a lot different. I wouldn't have the benefit of already knowing exactly how everything happened. He would however probably get jail time for kidnapping and resisting arrest though... I mean he wouldn't deserve it but that's just the way the system works.
"You've Got to Keep Your Mind Wide Open" - AnnaSophia Robb
myspace.com/original916
I don't believe that you can claim self defense for a non-lethal attack one someone
else, or even yourself. Maybe I am being picky, and I do not mean to say that I
agree with the law, but my understanding is that as soon as the person is disabled
or stops the attack to continue attacking them is not warranted and is a crime.
Personally, if I was on the jury I would let James walk, but I think that would be
against the instructions of the judge. James also made a lot of mistakes, and they
can be traced back to inadequate parenting and abuse, but the law is the law.
We saw a nice Hollywood style telling of this story, but many if not most people
who grow up with abuse turn abusive themselves.
It is a tough question and subject ... I was hoping to generate some discussion
on this and why we create so many damaged people and do nothing to prevent
it and we are so hard on them?
Well I've actually been in situation involving self defense so I can attest to this: About a year and a half ago I was playing a pickup game of basketball and this one guy had a total attitude problem. My friend who is very athletic blocked one of his shots and he nearly crapped his pants he was so so heated lol. Anyway, on a different play, we both went up for a rebound and I ended up snagging the board. He claimed that I hit him in the head... which was BS (but even if I did it would have been an accident). He started yelling at me and I didn't say anything at first, but then I told him that he needed to calm down. He then proceeded to push me, and I fckin snapped. I socked him in his jaw, threw him to the ground, and then started beating him. I was pulled off of him by some other dudes there fairly quickly so I never got a real good shot at him. Anyway, the guy ended up calling the cops, which shocked me no end,tried to claim that I was the bad guy and that he was going to press charges. I told the cops my side of the story... and there were a bunch of witnesses there that backed me up. Cops basically said, a push is as good as a punch, he started the fight, and I was just defending myself. Those cops were tight... The had no respect for that other dude and weren't going to put up with his crap.
Ok so the situation is quite a bit different in sleepwalking, but, the principle is similar. Tara was not someone that could defend herself and she was being beaten. James was there and did the right thing by defending her. Since his father started it, he could claim self defense for Tara... The snags would be that he is not a legal guardian, he used a weapon (though I believe fists are labeled as weapons too but it didn't come up in my case so maybe not) and like you mentioned he beat him with the shovel multiple times. Lord knows I would beaten the living crap out of that guy though if it didn't get stopped... but I don't know if would have mattered... and it might not of in James situation as well.
Well... That's not always rue. My dad's mom was an alcoholic, and was really a bad mother for most of my dad's childhood. He didn't become an alcoholic himself... He has instead stayed away from it completely because of multiple reasons, but I know he would never want his children to go through what he did. The same goes for abused children... They would never want to harm another because what they have experienced is absolutely terrible.
I'm not sure what you mean we create damaged people and doing nothing to prevent it though... Care to explain?
"You've Got to Keep Your Mind Wide Open" - AnnaSophia Robb
myspace.com/original916
You were the bad guy since you used force first. If you had hurt the guy you would have been arrested. The cops cannot act when there is no evidence on people's words, even with witnesses. When there is harm or danger they pretty much have to do something.
James was not legally justifed in using lethal force to stop a punishment, even if it was corporal punishment or abuse since Tara's life was not in danger, although when you look at Jame's life, of course Tara's life was in danger. That is the paradox I wanted to denote.
No he was an *beep* that pushed me first and I gave him only partially of what he deserved. Your right though, had I of seriously hurt him, they probably would have arrested me. Like I said though, in the eyes of the law, a push is the same as a punch... so he might as well of thrown the first punch. That being the case, even I had of messed him up to the point where he had medical bills... with witnesses to back me up, I don't believe he would win. That was the first fight I've ever been in, and I have no past history of violence or anything of any kind... But I don't take any crap and I won't ever back down. I'm a very peaceful person though and anybody that isn't looking for fight, will never receive one.
That's arguable... Anytime someone is getting hit in the head, there is potential for some kind of trauma and even death. Was he hitting her hard enough to inflict either of those? No. But it did give James reason to act on the situation. It was a lose lose (to an extent) for him though because if he didn't kill him, the dad surely would have turned them in (or continue to hold them hostage). James would have spent some time in jail anyway for kidnapping and Tara would be in a foster home. I don't think after all the history they would have granted custody to Joleen... Who really knows though. I think he made the right choice in killing that evil man... and he can rot in his grave. The paradox... Well, evidence against the father being an abusive prick would surely be presented and Joleen and Tara would testify. Would it be enough to justify the murder? Depends on the jury. If I were given that info... and I saw and heard from those involved, I can say with confidence that I wouldn't convict him. I can feel out people, and I know I would know that James is good man who was just trying to protect his niece.
"You've Got to Keep Your Mind Wide Open" - AnnaSophia Robb
myspace.com/original916
one further issue is that in the movie it was black and white ... as usual in a movie.
in real life abused people are often abusive themselves, and in a court of law both
sides have to present a story - the best they can.
so, what would james have been like in real life? how likely is it that if this was
reality that james would be the angel that he was portrayed as? or how realistic
is it to tell a story that makes james look like an angel?
Well to assume that someone is abusive just because they have been abused is beyond wrong and should not be brought up especially considering James had no other incidents that we know about. That's like saying you are going to everything that your parents do... it's not true.
"You've Got to Keep Your Mind Wide Open" - AnnaSophia Robb
myspace.com/original916
>> Well to assume that someone is abusive
"Someone" ... can i remind you that James was a fictional character?
My comment was that a real character in his situation would have a
high probability of having other pathological things in his life on top
of just being an abused person who is a nice guy. Abuse makes people
depressed, or homicidal, or anti-social, all kind of other problems
including a higher liklihood of abuse.
If you cannot deal calmly with intelligent abstract thought, then maybe
you should go "master your sack" of whatever? instead of trolling
to start a fight.
Are we talking about the movie or not? Your initial question was "Would you convict James?" No I would not convict James. Fact is... He was a nice guy in spite of the fact he was abused... and there are most likely some "real" people that are like him. I'm open to the all of the points you brought up, but that was not the reality of the situation in the movie.
Dude I'm calm... I'm sorry if I seemed like I was otherwise. I was just stating my opinion that I think it's wrong to assume things. Whether or not that pertained to what you were talking about I don't know... but it seemed like it did when I posted it.
Sackmaster is a football term for one who sacks the quarterback often... I don't play so I won't be spending anytime mastering it ; )
"You've Got to Keep Your Mind Wide Open" - AnnaSophia Robb
myspace.com/original916
Thanks for explaining your point.
shareYou're right that he went overboard on the force as the same force (weapon etc) wasn't being used against Tara, but he had been abused by the guy most of his life. Sometimes the prolonged ongoing abuse is recognised in court (though usually if there isn't an interruption in the abuse, which in this case there was, and he voluntarily went back). So I'm not sure if it would apply. But there have been acquittals for people killing someone who abused them for years.
I thought he was going to drive away and kill himself at the end!