The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber
To what extent is it moral to take matters into your own hands?
1. Please post a well thought out response to this question including at least one citation from Francis Macomber to back up your claim. To "wow" your peers and I (aka, get an A), I encourage you to look at online news sources for instances of vigilantism to cite and include in your response.Be sure to put the link(s) for your online news source on a separate line at the end of your paragraph.
2. Please respectfully comment on at least two other students posts as to whether or not you agree/disagree with an explanation as to why, again citing textual evidence.
***Don't forget to use your Last, then First name when posting. :)
This assignment is due Monday (9-30) at midnight.
I believe that at the point where you are in immediate danger and there is no other way then you can take things into your own hands. If you are in the situation of Mr. and Mrs. Macomber, she should not have killed him when she would be able to leave him. However he might have died from the buffalo in which he would have died either way. When Mrs. Macomber shot Mr. Macomber or as we think happened, whoever shot him should not have shot him even if it was an accident. If Mr. Macomber was meant to die then it happened whether it was meant to be from the shooter or the buffalo. In the real world we have many occasions of vigilantism such as the case of "Johnathan "Jack" Idema. Jack, as I am going to call him, was a former Green Beret in North Carolina and died at the age of fifty-five and doctors say he died of AIDS. In his lifetime Jack was an Army Special Forces member who was convicted for torture, illegally entering a country, and making a fake jail. "In 2004, he returned to Afghanistan with another former soldier and a freelance videographer."(paragraph 8). After the 9/11 attacks Jack, the former soldier, and freelance videographer went into Afghanistan and made a fake jail to torture terrorist suspects. Jack thought that he was close to finding Osama Bin Laden using information he received from people that he interrogated. When he was arrested in 2004 he denied that anyone was tortured saying "Nobody was hung upside down...Nobody was burned with cigarettes...and Nobody was beaten." (paragraph 9) He did however say that he used sleep deprivation to get information. So as you can see people in real life do take things into their own hands.
ReplyDelete"Washington Post." Jack Idema, convicted of running private Afghan jail, dies at 55. 25 Jan 2012: n. page. Web. 27 Sep. 2013. .
I agree with Jordan because, in a situation where you are in immediate danger, you don't have time to call 911, so you have to take matters into your own hands. Yes, I also agree that Mr. Macomber may have died anyways. The bull was charging and was going a lot faster than Mr. Macomber, the chances of him surviving were slim. Mr. Macomber was trying to shoot him while trying to escape, but the bullets weren't doing any damage. "Wilson had ducked to one side to get in a shoulder shot. Macomber had stood solid and shot for the nose, shooting a touch high each time and hitting the heavy horns, splintering and chipping them like hitting a slate roof, and Mrs. Macomber, in the car, had shot at the buffalo with the 6.5 Mannlincher as it seemed about to gore Macomber and had hit her husband about two inches up and a little to one side at the base of the skull." (page 22 paragraph 2)
DeleteI completely agree with how Jordan described when you need to take matters into your own hands. I also agree with that Mrs. Macomber could have easily gotten a divorce with Mr. Macomber but I don't think Mr. Macomber would have died either way. Mr. Macomber and Mr. Wilson both had guns so they should have easily been able to take down the bull together.
DeleteAlso from what I understand with Jordan's vigilante story I see that "Jack" took the problem into his own hands but I believe he should've let others hand the situation. And according to Jordan's great description of when to take matters into their own hands then "Jack" wasn't in the position to do this.
I agree with Jordan when he says that the time to take matters into your own hands is when you are in danger. I also agree with him saying that if it was Mr. Macombers time to die then he would have died from the shooter or the buffalo. Saying that I don't believe that Mr. Macomber would have died because there was both Wilson and Mr. Macomber shooting at the buffalo.
DeleteI agree with Jordan because if Mr. macomber was suppose to die it was either going to be by Mrs. Macomber or by the bull. I also agree with him because if your in immediate danger then ya anyone will have taken matters in to there own hands because its like an instinct to protect yourself.
DeleteI disagree with Jordan because of the way the event was described I believe that Mrs.Macomber was aiming for the buffalo not Mr. Macomber being that shooting at the charging buffalo was the best chance Mr. Macomber had to live. But on a larger scale I do agree when you are in immediate danger and your only choice is to take maters in your own hands you can.
DeleteI agree with Jordan because when you are in a dangerous situation you don't know what to do because you have limited time and if you don't use the limited time correctly you will either get seriously injured or even killed, and in the story I think Mrs. Macomber was trying to kill Mr. Macomber and even if she did miss he would have got killed by the buffalo that was charging at him so it was a double-edged sword.
DeleteI agree that if you are in immediate danger and someone is threatening you then you have every right to do whatever is necessary in order to make sure that you are safe and that the people around you are safe.
DeleteA situation in which you would have to take matters into your own hands would be when you, or someone who is close to you was in an unsafe area, or environment. When Mrs. Macomber was sitting in the car, whilst Mr. Macomber and Wilson were hunting down the nearly dead bull, she tried to take matters into her own hands when the bull had came out on its last breath charging at the men. She had took the gun that was in the car with her and tried to shoot the bull, but had missed. The bullet ended up in the back of Mr. Macombers skull, killing him instantly. After the shot was made, Wilson had stated, "That was a pretty thing to do,' he said in a toneless voice.'He would have left you too."(page 22 paragraph 11) Wilson had thought Mrs. Macomber killed her husband on purpose, because they were fighting beforehand, and she had become romantically uninterested in Mr. Macomber. In my personal opinion, I also think that was the case, because the bull and her husband weren't far away, and it shouldn't have been that hard to aim correctly. I don't think she should have attempted to take matters into her own hands, otherwise this wouldn't have happened.
ReplyDeleteAn instance of vigilantism that occurred recently is a case where a father took the life of his daughters alleged rapist. The fathers named was not disclosed to protect identity of the young daughter. The father had walked in on Jesus Mora Flores sexually assaulting his 5 year-old daughter, the father had then taken matters into his own hands and beat Flores to death. He later made a 911 call admitting his taking of action. There was no charge against the father, but he was investigated for homicide.
Richman, Bonnie. " Why a Texas Dad Who Killed His Daughter’s Alleged Rapist Won’t Face Charges" Time: Health and Family. N.p. 20 June 2012. Web. 27 September 2013.
http://healthland.time.com/2012/06/20/why-a-texas-dad-who-killed-his-daughters-alleged-rapist-wont-face-charges/
I agree with Mikayla that Mrs. Macomber was aiming for the buffalo, and just missed. Mrs. Macomber also began crying hysterically after she had shot Francis, proving that it was just a tragic accident. "The woman was crying hysterically" (Hemingway pg. 22). I also agree that Wilson believed that Mrs. Macomber had purposely shot Francis because they had been arguing throughout the entire story. "She did not speak to him [Francis Macomber]" (1). Although the author wanted to make it seem that Mrs. Macomber purposely shot Francis, it was just an accident because she was trying to protect Wilson and Francis from the charging bull.
DeleteI agree with Mikayla on the fact that Mrs. Macomber was trying to protect her husband from the buffalo. However if he was going to die then it was going to happen either from the buffalo or Mrs. Macomber. The shot may have been an accident or it may have been on purpose. "That was a pretty thing to do,' he said in a toneless voice.'He would have left you too."(page 22 paragraph 11). Like Wilson said Mr. Macomber would have probably left her if he lived. If it was an accident or not nobody knows and we probably wont know. I do agree with the fact that the father should not have been arrested however he should have called 911 before beating him to death.
DeleteI agreed with Mikayla that I think that Ms. Macomber had probably missed when she was trying to shoot that buffalo, and I do believe that Ms. Macomber under any situation should have not taken that shot. It endangered the supposed love of her life’s life. Then when she followed through with shooting a bullet into Macombers head, she did just that. She may have not meant to kill Macomber but because of her trying to be a hero, she put her loved one at risk. This is the result of being a vigilante.
DeleteI agree with mikayla when she says that mrs macomber was aiming at the buffalo and cried historically when she realized that she had accidentally hit her husband Francis
DeleteI agree with Mikayla that if you or someone near you is in an unsafe that you can take actions in your own hands and that is why Mrs. Macomber shot the gun she was aiming for the buffalo not her husband.
DeleteI believe that it is right to take matters into your own hands only when people have a very strong sense or gut feeling that something is wrong. This means that if you feel that something not right is being done it is right to take matters into your own hands to protect yourself and others from whatever the situation may be. In "The Short, Happy Life of Frances Macomber,"by Ernest Hemingway, the situation where Mrs. Macomber shot Frances in the head should not have been taken into her hands. When the buffalo charged out of the bushes at Mr. Macomber she grabbed the gun out of the car and tried to shoot the buffalo. Wilson, which was standing by Fransis's side, was an experienced hunter and he is the one that should have taken matters into his own hands. Being an experienced hunter Wilson could have shot the buffalo down. Mrs. Macomber knew Wilson was an experienced hunter but she still took matters into her own hands anyway. So did Mrs. Macomber try to kill the Buffalo in the first place? This could have just been and excuse to make it look like she was shooting at the buffalo; but really she could have purposely shot at Francis. I believe that she purposely shot at Francis. "Mrs. Macomber, in the car, had shot at the buffalo with the 6.5 Mannlicher as it seemed about to gore Macomber and had hit her husband about two inches up and a little to one side of the base of his skull."(Hemingway 22) Mrs. Macomber took matters into her own hands and could have had a split second to decide whether to shoot at Francis or not. Instead she decided to take the shot killing Francis instantly.
ReplyDeleteAn article that can relate to this that happened recently is about a few police officers that had to take matters into their own hands to shoot at somebody. On February 18, a few officers received a call about a disturbance. The cops went to where they got the call and found a man with a gun causing the disturbance. The man had a permit to carry the gun and confronted the officers. The officers told the 30 year old to put down the gun but he did not."Cook said officer asked Sellers to put down his gun but according to police and other witnesses, the thirty year old did not."(Martin) The 30 year old man pointed the gun at the officers causing seven of the ten officers to fire at the man. The officers had to take matters into their own hands. If they did not shoot at the man several officers could have been killed. When the officers shot at the man it was in self defense because they were in danger. This is how taking matters into your own hands can relate to "The Short , Happy Life of Frances Macomber."
Martin, Victoria. "Alexandria police officers are cleared in fatal shooting of former Marine" The Washington Post. 27 September 2013. Web. 28 September 2013.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/alexandria-police-officers-are-cleared-in-fatal-shooting-of-former-marine/2013/09/27
I agree with Nate on how shooting at the buffalo could have just been an excuse to murder Francis, but I think the author was just writing that to make the story debatable. I think that Mrs. Macomber just out of instinct, picked up the gun and shot at the buffalo to protect Wilson and Francis. It is a positive thing that Mrs. Macomber tried to shoot the bull to protect them, unfortunately, she just happened to miss and hit Frances in the head. The fact that Mrs. Macomber began crying hysterically after she shot Francis proves that it was just an accident, to me. In that moment that she picked up the gun, the thought that Wilson was a professional hunter and he could handle the situation couldn't have gone through her mind, the situation was happening to quickly for her to think that. "the bull coming, nose out, mouth tight closed, blood dripping, massive head straight out, coming in a charge" (Hemingway, pg. 22).
DeleteI disagree with Nate, because going by your 'gut feeling' or a 'strong sense', you're going off of your morals, or self-beliefs, because depending if your a crazy psychopath, or a 'good' citizen, your morals are most likely going to be different. But I do agree that in Mrs. Macombers case, she did not need to take it in to her own hands, because Wilson was there, and Macomber could have kept shooting or jumped out of the way. Wilson rolled out of the way and survived. (Hemingway, pg 22)
DeleteI disagree with Nate about acting upon gut feeling or strong sense, but agree about acting when something is wrong. This is more of logical reasoning than based off of feeling, as taking matters into your own hands through that usually proves to be consequential. Ask why it is wrong and how it would be better if you had acted. However, I do agree with your response on whether or not Mrs. Macomber should have acted. She should not have, as it was through emotions of either hate for Macomber or instinct to shoot at the buffalo that was about to kill her husband. Eventually, this decision based upon feeling ended in tragedy.
DeleteI do not agree with Nate's explanation on why it is moral. Going with the gut feeling is what gets people into trouble, that is the law that saved Zimmerman from jail, that the state decided to look more into the law because they realized how broad it was, and that people could practically shoot for any reason. I do agree that it was not necessary to take matters into her own hands but, I don't believe that she purposely tried to kill Francis since the quote says specifically "...Mrs. Macomber, in the car, had shot AT the buffalo..." then is continues in that sentence "...with the 6.5 Mannlicher as it seemed about to GORE macomber" 22 paragraph 2. She was trying to prevent Francis from getting gored. You do have a very valid point with Wilson should have been the only one to handle the situation.
DeleteThe extent to which you have to take matters into your own hand is when you are, without doubt, in danger of being injured or even losing your life. It is better to call 911 or use any other harmless method if you believe someone is doing something they shouldn't be doing. I believe that in the case of Ernest Hemingway's "The Short, Happy Life of Francis Macomber" that the killing of Francis Macomber was an accident, and not murder. Even though Hemingway was trying to get the reader to believe that Mrs. Macomber purposely shot Francis Macomber, "'That was a pretty thing to do,' he said in a toneless voice. 'He would have left you too.'" (Hemingway pg. 23), I still believe it was just a tragic accident. The author was just trying to create controversy. The story would not have been as debatable or as interesting if the author hadn't created that suspense. When Mrs. Macomber shot and killed Francis, she was just trying to kill the raging bull to protect Wilson and Macomber. The events leading up to that would say that she was just trying to protect Wilson (who it seemed she was interested in), "Wilson looked over at her without smiling and now she smiled at him" (2). "and Mrs. Macomber, in the car, had shot at the buffalo with the 6.5 Mannlicher as it seemed about to gore Macomber and had hit her husband about two inches up and a little to one side of the base of his skull (22). That last quote (from page 22) proves that Mrs. Macomber had accidently shot Francis Macomber, when she was aiming for the charging buffalo to protect Francis and Wilson.
ReplyDeleteThere was a case that happened earlier this summer that also had to do with vigilantism. A man with the name of James DiMaggio had killed a woman and her eight year old son, then kidnapped her teenage daughter, Hannah Anderson. He then took her to the Cascade, ID woods where they hid from the police. Two horseback riders were also in the area, and once they saw them, they felt like they didn't belong in the area. "'He may have been an outdoorsman in California but he was not an outdoorsman in Idaho'" (FoxNews.com) and "she 'kind of had a scared look on her face' and kept trying to look away" (FoxNews.com). The horseback kept stating that she looked scared and the man looked like he had no idea of what he was doing. The riders did not know at the time that he was a criminal, or that Hannah was kidnapped, but when they went back to their house, they say James' and Hannah's pictures on the news. They then called the authorities, who rescued Hannah, and shot and killed DiMaggio. The horseback riders decided to call the police instead of putting themselves in danger by confronting them.
. N.p., 12 August 2013. Web. 29 Sep 2013. .
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/08/12/calif-teen-found-safe-suspected-abductor-killed-in-idaho-wilderness-police-say/
In most ways I agree with Tanner, but if you look on page 22 in Hemingways story "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber" You will see that Wilson says "Why didn't you poison him? That's what they do in England." Causing you to think that Wilson knew something about Mrs. Macomber wanting to kill Mr. Macomber. Also making you believe that she killed him on purpose. But Tanner had good evidence that showed that she did it on accident, so really it depends on the way you looked at the text and what evidence stuck in your head.
DeleteI agree with Tanner that Mr. Macombers death was an accident because on page 22 Mr. Wilson is over Mr. Macombers death so fast but Mrs. Macomber doesn't want to face the fact that she had killed him. In fact it didn't sink in until Mr. Wilson had started saying things like "leave him as he is" (page 22 paragraph 7) or "that was a pretty thing to do" (page 22 paragraph 10). I also believe that she had shot in the attempt to save both of them, which also has a chance of killing both of them. If she had planned on his death I think she would have gotten closer and told Mr. Wilson that way he could be at a safe distance when it happened. But it is all perspective.
DeleteI agree with Tanner that it is better to use any harmless method to take care of a situation rather than someone getting injured. It is best to use resources like people that protect other people for a living rather than putting justice in your own hands. Tanner did make a good point about the author making the story debatable. Many people can have different opinions about what could have happened about Mrs. Macomber's decision making at the end of the story. "Of course it's an accident," Mr Wilson said.(Hemmingway 22) Mr Wilson acted like it was not surprised that Francis got shot. This could mean Wilson planned it out. "Stop it. Stop it. Stop it," Mrs. Macomber cried.(Hemmingway 22) This could mean she did it on accident or she is shameful for shooting her husband. It could also mean she is just putting on an act to make it seem like it was an accident. This is why I believe Tanner is right about saying the author made the story debatable.
DeleteI agree with Tanner that Mr. Macombers death was just a tragic accident and that the author wrote it the way he did just to create controversy, to leave it up to us what we thought really happened. He completely set Mrs. Macomber up to make it seem like she would do such a thing, from her and Mr. Macomber arguing throughout the entire story, to the unknown happenings during the night on page 13 when Mrs. Macomber came in to their tent in the middle of the night. If that had not happened and they hadn't been arguing through the whole story, it would be more believable that it was an accident. But Hemmingway painted the picture and left it up to us to decipher the meaning.
DeleteI disagree with Tanner that Mr. Macomber's death was an "accident" that Mrs. Macomber shot Mr. Macomber instead of the buffalo because Mrs. Macomber was having a love affair with Wilsom and she had to get rid of Mr. Macomber somehow and the moment when the buffalo was charging at Mr. Macomber she shot him and it would look like a accident, but we don't have correct evidence of that but this is what I think happened.
DeleteI agree with Tanner that Mrs. Macomber killed Francis Macomber. The evidence from the story shows that Mrs. Macomber did not like Francis, and wanted to get rid of him. I also agree that you should be given the power to take matters into your own hands when you are in danger of being injured or killed. Doing self defense is not viewed as being a vigilante.
DeleteThe definition of a vigilante is: “a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly: a self-appointed doer of justice” (“Vigilante.”) In my opinion I think it is right to do this under certain circumstances. One being if you are in immediate danger. If someone is coming at you with a knife trying to kill you I believe it is ok to kill the person, because they were putting you in immediate danger. “Stand your ground laws generally state that, under certain circumstances, individuals can use force to defend themselves without first attempting to retreat from the danger.”(Reuters) Meaning if you are in danger you can take the law into your own hands and help yourself. This law makes it legal under some extent to take the law into your own hands. I don’t think that this law is right in many ways, one reason being you could have put yourself in the situation and then kill a person and get away with it. Another being that the person that is trying to harm you could have a mental illness and you could have called the cops and they could have stopped the whole issue.
ReplyDeleteIn Detroit there was a case where a man was said to have raped a 15 year old girl. The girl had told the police and they ordered a rape kit, which had not been tested for a while after this happened because of a building move, so they didn’t have it sent in for a while. People took this news because the girl had downs syndrome and ran with it. They posted papers around and the neighborhood had it all over Facebook. The man could not be prosecuted because they didn’t have evidence due to the fact that the rape kit had not been sent in to be tested and people were furious. A group of people had seen him pass by and attacked him, hitting him with a bat and beating him up, none of them went to jail. Then people broke into his apartment and wrote “rapist” on the building five times. (“Shaefer”)
This case shows people taking justice into their own hands for no reason. The man could have very well done the crime but they couldn’t prosecute him because the cops had not gotten the rape kit back that told them he did it for sure. Also vandalizing the apartment building because they THOUGHT that he raped the girl was wrong in my opinion. They had no right to go againsed the law and do another crime because the cops didn’t have evidence to have the man arrested.
In The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber by Earnest Hemmingway, Mrs. Macomber didn’t have to kill her husband. It could have just been an accident and she was trying to protect her husband, but Wilson, a skilled hunter, was standing on the other side and could have shot the buffalo without killing Francis. Although Hemmingway was probably trying to let the reader think what they want and come up with their own opinions on why she did it. Hemmingway left clues in the story that tell you she was unhappy in her relationship with Francis. For example “he realized that his wife was not in the other cot in the tent. He lay awake with that knowledge for two hours” (13). You could make assumptions that she was with Wilson. “Mr. Robert Wilson.” She said “The beautiful red-faced Mr. Robert Wilson.”(12) That told you that she thought Wilson was beautiful and she had liked him. And then right after she killed him Wilson had stated “why didn’t you poison him? That’s what they do in England.”(22) Leaving you to think that she had killed Francis on purpose so that she didn’t have to be with him and Wilson had knowledge of it.
"Vigilante." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2013. Reuters, Thomson. "Stand Your Ground Laws." Findlaw. N.p., 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.
Schaefer, Jim. "Neighbors Versus Police: Rape Case, Vigilante Justice." Digtriad.com. Detroit Free Press, Aug.-Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.
http://www.digtriad.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=294654
I agree with Cami on the fact that there are circumstances in which one must consider before taking matters into one's own hands. I believe Cami has done a wonderful job on this blog post. Cami did extra research and found the definitions as well. I think Cami also did a great job referring back to the stand your ground laws.
DeleteI find that there is a limit when you need to let others take charge of the matter. The point between you handling the problem yourself and calling for others could be life or death for you and for the people around you. I believe if someone is threatening or is close to harming you then you need to get the police involved. If someone is in the act of harming you then by all means do what you need to stay alive. My view changes though when it involves another person being there. For instance, if I saw a person near me about to get hurt then I would try to help or save them. If that person though could save themselves then I would want to get other there to help like the police. In Ernest Hemingway’s short story “The Short, Happy Life of Francis Macomber” Mrs.Macomber took matters into her own hands. “…and Mrs. Macomber, in the car, had shot at the buffalo with the 6.5 Mannlicher as it seemed about to gore Macomber and had hit her husband about two inches up and a little to the side of the base of his skull” (page 22 paragraph 2). In the story Mrs. Macomber had taken the situation into her own hands. She shot trying to kill the bull to save both Mr. Macomber and Mr.Wilson. With the distance that she was at and the quickness of her shot she didn’t have very much accuracy and killed Mr. Macomber on accident. I feel like Mrs. Macomber did the wrong thing. Both Mr. Wilson and Mr. Macomber had guns with them and were working on killing the bull. Although Mrs. Macomber shot because she didn’t want either man to die she ended up killing her husband and I find that she should’ve let Mr. Macomber and Mr. Wilson handle the situation themselves instead of risking everyone’s lives.
ReplyDeleteRape victim's family: We want justice, not vigilante justice
By Paula Newton and Joe Sterling, CNN
updated 9:00 AM EDT, Fri April 12, 2013
In this article a seventeen year old girl, Rehtaeh Parsons, hung herself after being gang raped. None of the rapist’s names have been given by the group. The group said ‘the names of the rapists will be kept until it is apparent that you have no intention of providing justice’ (paragraph 5). Oddly the family of Rehtaeh is fine with this. The family said ‘We are not looking for some vigilante justice. We just want justice’ (paragraph 7). I believe the family is doing this because they find that a vigilante will find the rapists and kill them. Do understand that I believe that the rapists need to be punished for this but I also believe that family doesn’t want another family to go through the pain that they had to and it would all just be because someone thought they were making the world right.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/11/world/americas/canada-teen-suicide/index.html?iref=allsearch
I believe that Sophie is right talking about the only time to take matters into your own hands is when a life is put on the line. If you put matters into your own hands it mainly be because of self defense or to defend another human being. I also agree that when the buffalo was charging at Mr. Macomber and Mr. Wilson that the two men probably could have handled the situation themselves. Frances was becoming a better shot and Mr. Wilson hunted for a living. With the experience that these two men had they possibly could have shot down the buffalo themselves. "Its not going to be a bit like the lion," Wilson said. In this quote it is talking about how buffalo are not close to the same as hunting a lion. This proves that Wilson could tell a difference in how to hunt lions and buffalo so he should have been able to shoot it down himself. This is why I believe that Sophie is right saying that Mr. Macomber and Mr. Wilson could have handled the buffalo situation themselves.
DeleteI agree with Sophie when she talked about when it is ok to take matters into your own hands and when it isn't ok. An example is when she said do what you have to stay alive if someone has the intention to do harm to you. I also agree when she said that when Mrs. Macomber endangered Wilsons and Macombers lives when she fired the shot at the buffalo so quickly.
DeleteI agree with Sophie when she talks about when it is ok to take matters into your own hands. I think that if it's a life or death situation then, yes, you should do whatever you can to stay alive. I also agree that Mrs. Macomber shouldn't have tried to help, because Sophie said that Wilson and Mr. Macomber both had guns, not to mention the fact the Wilson did kill a lion just a day earlier, so he should be able to deal with a buffalo.
DeleteI agree with Sophie about how it is fine to take matters into your own hands in an extreme situation. In life or death situations, you could be killed before police arrive, so doing anything you can to survive would be the best choice of action. I believe that she was also right about how Mrs. Macomber made the wrong choice by shooting. Francis most likely would have done fine with Mr. Wilson helping him and his new-found confidence. She killed Mr. Macomber most definitely with the knowledge that she could hit him, even though they would have done fine.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletesorry my real post is below
DeleteIn Ernest Hemingway’s The Short, Happy Life of Francis Macomber the fact that Margot Macomber killed her husband on a hunting trip could be considered some type of vigilante act. I don’t think that this is the case at all. A vigilante is someone who deals justice or supposed justice, without authority. Margot simply tried to kill the buffalo that is charging her husband and missed. She could be charged with some sort of accidental manslaughter but she didn’t take justice into her own hands. She was extremely distraught with the death of her husband. “The woman was crying hysterically” (Hemingway 1936, 22) what kind of murderer cries over the body of her victim? The story of Mr. and Mrs. Macomber was simply one of wrong place, wrong time, and bad aim.
ReplyDeleteIn some sense taking things into your hands is necessary and, undoubtedly, a major part of the American psyche. As Americans, if we see a problem we tend to do something risky and radical. We wouldn’t be a country if we didn’t try to take things into our own hands. Yet I don’t think that taking matters of justice into your own hands is the right thing to do. If you want to deal justice go join the police department. If people are allowed to deal justice at their own discretion then we get whack jobs who think that someone should be punished because they don’t eat cheese. That’s an extremely extreme example but it gets my point across. People all have different opinions on what justice is and how it should be dealt. Self defense is a different manner. If someone is threatening you, you have every right to defend yourself. I think that vigilante justice and self-defense are completely different things. Vigilante justice is seeking someone out to enact revenge or your own form of justice. Self defense is a different matter. Say I guy comes and points a gun at my head, then tells me to give him all my money, I have every right to do whatever is necessary in order to get that gun out of my face and make sure that I’m safe.
In 2009 two masked teenagers attempted to rob a pharmacy in Oklahoma at gun point. A man named Jerome Ersland, who worked at the pharmacy, pulled a gun and shot one of them in the head then chased the other one off. After the other robber was gone Ersland came back into the store and shot the teenager, who had been knocked unconscious by the glazing blow of the first bullet, five more times in the chest and stomach. In the beginning of this particular incident the pharmacist was perfectly justified in shooting one of the robbers and chasing the other off. However he crossed the line when he came back and shot the unconscious teenager five more times. The mother of the robber who was killed said, “He didn't have to shoot my baby like that,” (Press 2009) and it’s completely true. Ersland crossed the line between self defense and vigilantism. Even though the Jerome Ersland went free I believe that his actions weren’t justifiable, even under the circumstances.
Ok sorry I'm having a lot of trouble with this. Here's my works cited:
DeleteHemingway, Ernest. THe Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber . 1936.
Press, Assosiated. NBC. May 29, 2009. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31003987/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/killing-stirs-furious-debate-over-vigilante-justice/#.Uki2TYaTg8s (accessed September 29, 2013).
I agree with Isaac on pretty much every side of his statement. He made a valid point that Police aren't just independently dealing justice, they have strict guidelines to what they can convict people of, and in some states it’s illegal to give the death penalty. Vigilantes usually don't have any guidelines or rules on what to do to people that they think deserve justice. All in all a lot of this could be very controversial, but in my opinion Isaac did a good job explaining his view and finding a news story to support his statement.
Delete
DeleteWow I’m also having a lot of trouble with this web site blog it hates me! But anyway I completely agree with Isaac, because there is a very big difference between vigilante justice and self defense considering vigilante justice is “One who takes or advocates the taking of law enforcement into one's own hands” and self defense is protecting yourself. And I never actually thought of margot being bad aim and trying to save her husband I just was using short thinking processes and thought that she was treating him so badly so the story could lead up to her shooting him in the back of the head and she was crying to make it look like more of an accident but I thing Isaac has more of a better view of that than I did. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vigilantism
i agree with Isaac that if everyone handed out justice at there own will, that people would hurt people over stupid stuff like cheese :) and that everyone does have a different view on justice. just looking through this blog, many people have different thoughts on how to handle things and to what extreme people should take vigilantism.
DeleteI agree with Isaac's views on when it is appropriate to take matters into your own hands. It is true that many Americans will do radical and risky things to deal with problems. Although, I wonder if this is an issue in other countries. Is it just Americans that try to take matters into their own hands at inappropriate times? I also agree that the shooting of Mr. Macomber was an accident. It would be very odd for someone to cry over a victim.
DeleteThe extent of when to take matters into your own hands, based on morals is hard to define. Different people have different morals which are why there is such a wide view on vigilantism. Some people will see that a person is a hero and others will see them as the villain. In Francis Macomber, the same could be said for Mrs. Macomber. In the short fiction, Mrs. Macomber tries to take matters into her own hands, and ends up killing her husband in the process. As Francis Macomber is being charged by a buffalo Mrs. Macomber panics and tries to help by shooting at the buffalo herself. Because she was farther away, she missed the buffalo, and ended up shooting her husband in the back of the head instead of saving him from the buffalo. ‘… Wilson had ducked to one side to get in a shoulder shot. Macomber had stood solid and shot for the nose, shooting a touch high each time and hitting the heavy horns, splintering and chipping them like hitting a slate roof, and Mrs. Macomber, in the car had shot at the buffalo with the 6.5 Mannlicher as it seemed about to gore Macomber and had hit her husband about two inches up and a little to one side of the base of his skull (Hemingway, pg. 21-23 paragraph2). I think that in this case Mrs. Macomber was trying to do good and help her husband, but by taking things into her own hands, she became the villain. Due to their relationship problems, some people could say that she intentionally hit Macomber, murdering him instead of accidently hitting him. A different case that you could compare vigilantism to is a case that I found on CNN where a man was at a gas station, waiting for his girlfriend to get back to his car, and took measures into his own hands with a car full of teenagers, because he felt ‘threatened’.
ReplyDelete(CNN) -- The attorney for a Florida man says her client, Michael Dunn, is no "vigilante" but did feel threatened and shot out of "self-defense," the attorney said. "He is devastated and horrified by the death of the teen". Dunn told authorities that he had asked the teens to turn down the music from their vehicle next to his. He heard threats from the teens. Dunn told police he felt threatened and thought he saw a gun in the teens' car. He grabbed his gun and fired at least eight shots, authorities said. Seventeen-year-old Jordan Davis was killed. There were no guns found inside the teens' car, the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office said. Ron Davis, the victim's father said, "He did something that there was no defense for". Ron Davis said his son didn't own any guns, wasn't part of a gang and was a good kid. When Dunn pulled out the gun, the teens' initially thought it was a fake then frantically tried to back up the car before being caught in the gunfire, Ron Davis said. “…Michael is not a vigilante," the attorney said. "He's a brilliant software developer. It was never his intention to kill anyone." The attorney said she is contemplating what defense she will use if the case goes to trial. "Self-defense applies because Mr. Dunn was threatened," Lemonidis said. "We can't say what the defense will be at this stage but stand your ground is a possibility." Some could say that Dunn was acting in self-defense and had a reasonable cause to pull a gun on the teenagers. I personally believe that he took things too far. If he had already contacted police, and had just ignored the teenagers, the situation could have been avoided. The fact he feels guilty for killing one of the teens doesn’t make up for what he did. A father lost his son, and is now grieving because a man felt like he should take matters into his own hands. Taking matters into your own hands is complicated. If you are defending someone else, from a visual, immediate threat, then yes I think it would be okay to intervene. Simply feeling ‘threatened’, in my opinion isn’t enough to justify pulling a gun on someone.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/28/us/florida-music-shooting/index.html
I agree with Samantha, I believe while it is okay to take the law into your own hands in some cases, there is a certain point that takes it too far. When Mrs. Macomber shot that gun she did it with the full intention of helping, but ended up doing more harm than good. When Dunn started shooting it was with little to no reason for it. In my opinion people who get scared are usually the ones who form a faulty sense of justice.
DeleteI Agree with Samantha that Mrs. Macomber didn't really try to take things into her own hands and kill her husband. I think, like Samantha, that she simply panicked and missed.
DeleteI believe a hero and a vigilante are two completely different things that are nowhere near each other in any way. The definition of a hero is: a man of distinguished courage or ability, admired for his brave deeds and noble qualities; or in other words a person that puts his own life before others. My definition of a vigilante is a person that will endanger others and himself to try to become a hero. Unless there is an absence of law or order, under no circumstances should a person step up and put others and their self in danger. Throughout history, there have been individuals and groups that fought against another team for a certain cause or purpose but in reality just wanted power. For Example, in “The Great Hanging at Gainesville”, a big group of vigilantes used unauthorized law to shoot, hang, and lynch forty two suspected Unionist in the confederate part of Texas in 1862. This group believed if these people did not own slaves or thought that slavery was wrong, they were unionists; and if they were unionists, they were treasons and deserved to die. And that is what happened to them. From the forty two that were killed, only seven were tried. Even those few that were tried, it was an unfair and biased trial. This group of vigilantes put to death these men that may have been fully confederate citizen that may have not been able to afford a slave or had no need for one. Without a just law to trial these suspect thoroughly and fairly, chaos emerged without anything to control it. Nobody, even if it for a good cause should be able to take another’s life unjustly. Another, more recent form of vigilante justice happened the 15th of August this year. A 15 year old girl with Down syndrome accused that a man had brought her into her apartment and raped her. Local law enforcement was slow to respond, and before they could do anything a group of angry neighbors confronted him with a baseball bat. They had beaten him up so bad that he was sent to the hospital. That man eventually moved in fear that his life would be taken, regardless if he had raped her or not. These men beat and could have possibly killed a man that may or may have not raped a young women. The man probably deserved what was coming to him if he did rape this adolescent, but they went beyond the law. They took matters into their own hands. In the words of Jerome Warfield, a member of Detroit's civilian commission that oversees police, "We do understand that the neighbors were enraged .Detroit police understand how this is emotional. But vigilantism cannot be accepted when you're impeding upon somebody's rights."
ReplyDelete"Hero." Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.
McCaslin, Richard B. "GREAT HANGING AT GAINESVILLE." Www.tshaonline.org. Texas State Historical Association, n.d. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.
"Vigilante." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 19 Sept. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.
Cawthon, Erinn. "Detroit Man Beaten after Neighbors Say He Raped Teen, Cite Slow Police Response." CNN. Cable News Network, 15 Aug. 2013. Web. 29 Sept. 2013.
I agree completely with Logan's description of a hero! We need more of them in this world. I also agree a socitey without law is chaotic, uncontrollable and unsafe for everyone. I again agree with Logan when he said that no one should be able to take another's life unjustly
DeleteI agree that rights are a big part of what can and can't be done. Police have to read you your rights while arresting you so that you don't cause yourself any more trouble. Rights are for the safety of civilians and are meant to keep balance. Vigilantes are just that small weight that could tip the scales to either side.
DeleteIn the story “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber” the second page from the end (Para. 1-22) it says that Macomber gets shot, “he felt a sudden white-hot flash explode inside his head and that was all he ever felt” saying well he’s dead, in other words… I honestly think that it was something Wilson and the wife came up with because Wilson says “that was a pretty thing to do, he said in a toneless voice he would have left you too. “also because Wilson doesn’t act very surprised she just shot her own husband. It never says that the wife did it though. Even though everyone is pretty sure she did due to the way she was treating her husband all throughout the story. From the information the short story gives us the wife (even though she may have not shot him, I’m just assuming she did) has no reason to kill her husband. He was never trying to harm her and never was trying to displease her.
ReplyDeleteThe only situation I can personally think that someone has a right to take another person’s life into their own hands is if the for a fact is trying to harm you or someone else. For example if someone breaks into your house then yes take matters in to your own hand, because the way I see it is ether you die and so does everyone in the house or the take matters into your own hands and maybe something better will happen to you and everyone else in the house at that time.
An instance I have found on the internet is a woman killed two bus drivers because she was seeking revenge for sexual abuse of females passenger clearly not having enough information and not going to the police or anyone first she took matter into her own hands and shot the two bus drivers on different days. It never really says if the drivers were actually sexually harassing anyone but still she should have went to someone first before she decided to shoot them in the head.
http://www.newser.com/story/173593/woman-claims-shes-hunting-bus-driving-rapists.html
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/vigilantism
I believe that there is no reason to take matters into your own hands because then you would become a vigilante. That being said I do believe if you are just informing law enforcement about something that you have seen is the right thing to do and I do not believe that is really taking matters into your own hands. In the short story "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber" an instance at the end of the story when Mrs. Macomber takes matters into her own hands and try's to save her husband Francis from a charging buffalo she accidently shoots Francis in the back of the head. I believe that Mrs. Macomber should not have done this because Francis was not alone when the buffalo charged there was also a hunting guide a Mr. Wilson with him and they were both armed with rifles. In the story the author Ernest Hemingway describes it as saying "Mrs. Macomber, in the car, had shot the buffalo with the 6.5 Mannlicher as it seemed about to gore Macomber and had hit her husband about two inches up and a little to one side of the base of his skull."(Pg.22,2)
ReplyDeleteAn instance of vigilantism occurred when neighbors of the alleged rape of a 15 year girl with Down syndrome caused the them to beat a man that accused to be the man who raped her. The neighbors justified this act with saying that the police weren’t getting the job done fast enough so they beat the man that the family of the girl accused of him of being the rapist. I believe this was wrong on the part of the neighbors because they did not have all the facts of knowing if this man was the rapist and also it’s not right to justify this act by saying that the police weren’t doing the job fast enough even though they were working on the case.
http://www.newser.com/story/172545/locals-beat-detroit-man-blamed-in-teens-rape.html
I disagree with Ethan because sometimes the police do not act fast enough. In this case there was only one thing keeping the buffalo from killing Mr. Macomber and that was Mr. Wilson. The buffalo however was not stopping for anything."the bull coming, nose out, mouth tight closed, blood dripping, massive head straight out, coming in a charge" (Hemingway, pg. 22). The buffalo was just going for broke and trying to kill whatever was in front of it. I do however agree with the fact about the case of rape how the men beat an alleged suspect. They did not have clear enough information on if it was the right man. However if they did have enough information and knew for a fact that it was the right guy, then it would have been okay to me if they at least called 911 for the injured man.
DeleteI feel that Ethan is wrong that Mrs. Macomber should not have taken the situation into her own hands. Wilson doesn't act quickly enough and Francis was going to be gored. He was going to most likely die anyway, so his wife tried to shoot the buffalo herself, presumably to save her husband.
DeleteIn the vigilante case, I do agree, though. The people should not have beaten the man, but they would have been better people if they had asked him to go with them to the police. Or, even better, they could have tolf the police what they suspected, and helped them in their search.
I totally agree with Ethan’s perspective on how vigilantes should not take measures into their own because, in most cases, more people get hurt than originally. He used a fairly good example from the short story, “The Short, Happy Life of Francis Macomber”, and really explained how that is Ms. Macomber did not shoot toward the charging buffalo, there might have been a chance that Macomber would have alive. Extremely injured, but alive. He also did a great job and found an article (or looked up the article I looked up) and linked it to his point. I believe he did a great job.
DeleteI disagree with Ethan because like Jordan Lewis states, the police do not always act fast enough. However, I do agree with Ethan about his statement that Mrs. Macomber should not have done anything. She was completely out of place there and there were many people with guns, including the expert guide Hemmingway. As for the story about the girl that he used, I would not have just beaten the man without getting the story, I do think that was very ignorant of the men. However they did have a point by saying the police weren't working fast enough. If the man had actually raped the girl, it would have been very easy for him to escape when the option was presented.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that taking the law into your own hands is okay most of the time. The point were it crosses the line is when we cross the typical human morals. For example it would be okay to shoot a person with the full intent of killing you or bodily harming you, however shooting someone in cold blood is far too severe. Vigilantism starts when you use your own opinions to pass justice instead of the opinion of the community. An instance of what in my opinion I would call "good" vigilantism in The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber is when Wilson saves Macomber from the lion (pg 12 paragraph 2 and 3) that isn't being a criminal, it's just helping someone out.
ReplyDeleteAn example of "bad" vigilantism I found on the internet was an NBC article. The article was about the neighbors of a convicted pedophile (Timothy Chandler) who set fire to his house in hopes of scaring him off. However as a result of this fire, the wife of Chandler was killed. This is an excellent example of why people should not take justice into their own hands, as an innocent person was harmed in the process.
Sorry forgot to post web address
Deletehttp://www.nbcnews.com/id/20780983/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/t/police-vigilante-justice-led-unintended-death/
I agree with Connor when he says that the difference between cold blooded crime and vigilantism is when it crosses human morals like how it is too severe to kill someone in cold bloo
DeleteI believe it is only moral to take matters into your own hands if you or someone else is in immediate danger and you can handle it without seriously injuring or killing yourself or anyone who is not committing a crime. Hypothetically, if someone came into my house with intentions to harm my family, and he came into my room and my dad was able to stop him without seriously hurting himself or I, I would hope he does it. I wouldn't care if the person got seriously hurt because his intentions were the same as what happened to him.
ReplyDeleteIn "The Short Happy Life of Fracis Macomber" by Earnest Hemmingway, Mrs. Macomber, or Margot, shoots her husband in the back of the head during a hunting trip. The story is set up to leave you wondering if the shooting was an accident or intentional. Personally, I believe it was an accident because on page 22 after Francis is shot, it shows how much she's crying; "The woman was crying hysterically." And later on the same page, "'That was a pretty thing to do,' he [Wilson] said in a toneless voice. 'He would have left you too.'
'Stop it,' she [Margot] said.
'Of course it's an accident,' he said. 'I know that.'
'Stop it,' she said.
'Don't worry,' he said. 'There will be a certain amount of unpleasantness but i will have some photographs taken that will be very useful at the inquest. There's the testimony of the gun-bearers and the driver too. You're perfectly alright.'
'Stop it', she said.
'There's a heck of a lot to be done,' he said. 'And I'll have to send a truck off to the lake to wireless for a plane to take the three of us into Nairobi. Why didn't you poison him? That's what they do in England.'
'Stop it. Stop it. Stop it,' the woman cried."
Do I think she meant to kill him? No. But do I think that she should have tried to help? Definitely not. Wilson was able to kill a lion earlier in the story, I'm pretty sure he can handle a buffalo.
A real life example of vigilantism is when four teenage males broke into Vincent Bosca's home. They stole cash and marijuana. Three days later, Vincent and one of his friends tracked down the four teens and beat and tortured them. Now there is a lot to be said about this case. First of all Vincent shouldn't have had marijuana in the first place, unless it was medicinal, although I highly doubt it because one of the charges he is facing includes illegal substances. Second of all, the teenagers shouldn't have stolen it, let alone break into the house. Third, Vincent shouldn't have beaten and tortured them. I believe that once he found out who it was, he should have notified the police and let them take care of it, instead of taking it into his own hands. Now because of what he did, the teens get to walk free even after committing a crime that would have given them 20 year sentences.
http://www.sourcenewspapers.com/articles/2013/09/30/news/doc52458a4c9f794691925425.txt
i disagree with you that Margot un-intentionally killed Francis. Just because she was crying when she was talking to Wilson doesnt mean that she didnt do it intentionally. She could have been pretending, acting, or putting on a show so she wouldnt be blamed or be looked at as a un-loving wife. also, when she was married to Francis, she pretended to love him, so who says shes not pretending to care now?
DeleteI agree with Conner that Margot did not mean to kill Francis. She was horrified at what she'd done, and Wilson was antagonizing her. Just because she'd been a not very nice person before, doesn't mean that she'd always been like that. True, Francis did seem to know that she'd been cheating on him before, so perhaps she did not love him, but I don't think that cheating is necessarily a prelude to murder.
DeleteI agree with Connor G. There is a point were it is okay to take care of things and there is a point where it's not. Shooting an animal charging a bystander or beating up an intruder are both acceptable, but torturing someone no matter the crime is unforgivable.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Connor Gilchrist. Self defense is an acceptable reason to take matters into ones own hands however, I, unlike Connor Newcomb, feel as though in come cases, torture is an acceptable option. If my mom, sister, and I were abducted, I would hope that my father would find the man or woman responsible and torture them until they told my dad where we were.
DeleteI believe it is moral to take matters into your own hands if your life or your family’s life is in danger and there is no way out except for taking it into your own hands. If you or another family member is about to, or in the process of being sexually assaulted, I believe that is another case where it is okay. Fight as a last resort and only when your life is in imminent danger. It cannot just be a gut feeling that you’re in danger, or it is morally right at that time to take the law into your hands. The Zimmerman case did not make it right to shoot Travon, even though he was a criminal. At the time, Zimmerman had not been in danger or anybody else, Travon was not in the act attempting murder. In the story “the short happy life of Francis Macomber” his wife had tried to kill the buffalo. It did take me a little while to figure out she hadn’t intentionally tried to kill her husband, since I missed the part that specifically said she was aiming at the buffalo. Mrs. Macomber had felt that her husband’s life was in danger, because it looked like the buffalo was about to kill him. She felt the need to protect him and pulled out a gun to defend him, as a reflex as it was a very intensely scary situation. She missed the buffalo and killed her husband by accident.
ReplyDelete“Wilson had ducked to one side to get in a shoulder shot. Macomber had stood solid and shot for the nose, shooting a touch high each time and hitting the heavy horns, splintering and chipping them like hitting a slate of roof, and Mrs. Macomber, in the car, had shot at the buffalo with the 6.5 Mannlicher as it seemed about to gore Macomber and had hit her husband about two inches up and a little to one side of the base of the skull” 22 paragragh 2. She was put into a fight or flight situation and chose to protect her husband in the last minute of imminent danger, and had shot him instead by accident. In a very recent vigilante case, a wife had reported that the pastor had raped her then a couple days later; her husband came in and killed him. Woodrow Karey is charged with fatally shooting 53-year-old Ronald Harris Sr. during a revival service Friday. A few days after Karey’s wife had filed a report, Karey went in the church, having believed the pastor had raped his wife, and killed him. I believe this was a vigilante case that should not have happened in the first place. The husband should have left it to the police instead of taking the law in his hands to kill (to him) a suspected criminal. This action was unnecessary, and it was murder, according to the law.
http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/wife-of-suspect-filed-rape-report-against-slain-pastor
I agree with Charity to some extent when she states, "...it is moral to take matters into your own hands if you or your families' life is in danger...". In some cases, I feel as though taking matters into one's own hands even though a loved-one's life is at risk is not always okay. For example, if a family member was selling drugs and the police came in with their weapons drawn, that puts the family member's life at risk. In this situation, I feel as though it would not be okay to take maters into ones own hands and shoot the officers. On the other hand however, if a civilian man stormed into ones house and put a gun to my sisters head without any apparent reason, then I feel as though it would be acceptable for anybody around to take matters into their own hands and kill the man.
Deletei believe that it is okay to take morals into your own hand when your life is being threatened or when you know for sure someone is doing something extremely illegal and wrong and no one is doing anything about it. there is a limit to taking morals into your own hands for example when someone just dislikes someone else and doesn't want them in there life anymore, so they kill him, or when the matter is small like littering and something thinks its there job to discipline that person. i also believe that if you or someone you love is being threatened to be killed, that it is okay to take extreme measures, but if that person isn't threatening you to that extreme then extreme measures shouldn't be taken.
ReplyDeletethe short story the short, happy life of Francis Macomber, Macomber's wife kills him. the story leaves the reader wondering if Mrs. Macomber shot Francis intentionally or un-intentionally. i believe that she shot him intentionally because on page 21 Francis notices "his wife, with the rifle by her side, looking at him. he waved to her and she did not wave back." first of all, throughout the other hunts, including the lion hunt, she did not offer to go search for the dead animals nor did she have a gun or weapon with her. she also gave Francis the cold shoulder when he waved at her cause he was excited, and when he was sad or when he cowardly missed the lion she was mad at him for being so wimpy, and seemed to encourage him being more bold and brave. something else that supports my theory is when she said to Wilson on page 4 "That's Mr. Wilson's trade. Mr. Wilson is really very impressive killing anything. You do kill anything, don't you?" she seems very impressed with Wilson's knack for hunting, and she also seems interested in how talented he is, and when Francis finally got really interested and good at hunting she was un-impressed, even mad at him. this shows that she really despises her husband, and thinks of him as a coward, and only married him for his money, for example on page 13 Francis admits,"he was very wealthy, and would be much wealthier, and he knew she would not leave him ever now." and he also said on page 13, " Margot was too beautiful for Macomber to divorce her and Macomber had too much money for Margot to ever leave him." this passage from the story basically says that the only reason Mrs. Macomber is married to Francis is for money and not for love, and to some people, thats enough to kill someone.
all this evidence supports my theory that Mrs. Macomber shot Francis on purpose.
here is a link to a cite that offers a vigilantism crime done semi recently: http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-06/opinions/35453922_1_vigilante-george-zimmerman-criminal-justice-system
I agree with Alli. It should only be taken to the extent that is required. If it is taken beyond that, then there are all sorts of legal issues and charges filed and it can just turn into a big old mess. But, if not enough is done then the issue can become even more dangerous than it previously was.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI believe that being a vigilante is judged by someone’s moral standards. Some people may say it’s better to not act at all, and rather call someone else to handle the situation. Others may say it’s best to act as soon as something doesn’t look right. I personally believe that it’s best to act vigilant whenever the voices in your head tell you something is wrong. An example of vigilante I found on the internet is a 92 year old WW2 veteran shot and killed a man who tried to break into his home. This is a great example of vigilance, as this war veteran would have most likely been killed if he had not taken matters into his own hands. The man explains that he was in his bedroom, when he heard a noise in the basement. That’s when he got his gun and looked in the basement. When he found nothing, he sat down sitting in his chair, gun pointed at the basement door. When he heard the intruder opening the door, the veteran yelled “That’s close enough!” The intruder broke the door down, and being fully exposed, got shot straight through heart by the old man’s rifle. The interviewer asked the man why he didn’t call 911 first, to which he replied, “I’m a military man. I don’t anybody else coming to my house when I could take care of the problem myself.” This story is a perfect example of how being a vigilante is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteIn the short story “The short and happy life of Francis Macomber”, Francis Macomber is shot in the head by his wife while hunting buffalo. Edgar Allen Poe does a fantastic job of leaving the question ‘Was it a murder or an accident?” up for debate. Their safari guide, Hemmingway, talks to the woman about how he’ll be able to cover up the murder, to which she cries and tells him to stop saying those things. I think she tried to kill him, because since she’s his wife, she inherits all of his money if he dies. So she definitely gained more than lost more, due to the fact that she did not love him. But I also think it could have been an accident, because women were not known for hunting back then, so it’s possible that she could have simply missed her target. However, the foreshadowing in this story leads me to believe that this was no accident.
http://gawker.com/5941081/92+year+old-wwii-vet-shoots-kills-home-invader-with-rifle
I loved how Caleb Aretz stated the Edgar Allen Poe quote "Was it a murder or an accident?" I always refer to saying its the persons point of view and or the persons opinion. I agree with Caleb how she killed him on purpose to get the money because in the story it seemed to me that she only married him for the money.
DeleteI agree with Caleb's statement about how whether or not one is a vigilante is based on one's moral code, because one's differences in opinion creates conflict as to whether or not one is a murderer or not. I also agree with Caleb's statement about Ernest Hemmingway's foreshadowing and that the foreshadowing leads me to believe that the death of Mr. Macomber was no incident at all.
DeleteIn the short story, “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber” by Ernest Hemingway, a question is posed to us as human beings: to what extent is it moral to take matters into your own hands?
ReplyDeleteI believe that Mrs. Macomber might have been actually trying to save her husband, due to the fact that the story never actually reveals her intentions, after the shooting she was, “crying hysterically”. This goes to show that she may have been trying to help her husband, who was in danger of the buffalo.
I think that she was within her rights to help her husband, seeing as she had a weapon and Francis was her husband. There is nothing against helping someone, but as soon as that help goes awry, then the helper is outcast and, in this case, suspected a murderess. Even during the drive back to camp, Mrs. Macomber was telling Wilson to stop saying things that made her seem like she killed her husband on purpose. If she had done it on purpose, she might not have done that.
I think what Mrs. Macomber did was well within the boundaries of the moral limit of taking matters into her own hands.
In the case of vigilantism, in the UK, a vigilante group called Letzgo Hunting caught a man convicted of pedophilia after he pretended to be a sixteen year old boy and asked a fifteen year old girl for naked photos. He had persuaded her to meet with him, after which he raped her. After turning the man over to the police, they posted on their Facebook page, “Anyone who said we were frauds, fakes or not interested in child protection, eat your words”. (Booth)
I think that they were also in their rights to take matters into their own hands, because the police did not catch the man before they did.
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/20/police-warn-vigilantism-paedophile-jailed
Everyone has their own moral compass that they live by. This moral compass is determined by their background and beliefs. My personal moral compass is based on love, while others might be based on justice or religion. In the short story written by Ernest Hemingway, “The Short Happy Life of Francis McCumber”, a character known as Mrs. McCumber, or Margot, is introduced. In Margot’s case, it seems to me as though her moral compass was based on whatever it was that would keep her reputation flawless. This is shown throughout the story when we learn, piece by piece, about Mr. and Mrs. McCumber’s backstory and how Mrs. McCumber was only married to her husband because of the social status that his money attributed to.
ReplyDeleteAccording to my moral compass, I would say that the separating factor between when it’s moral or immoral to take matter into one’s own hands is determined by the heart of whoever is making the decision. If one is taking matters into their own hands with a heart of love, in an attempt to do what is best for all parties involved, then I feel as though it is moral to take matters into one’s own hands to every extent no matter the circumstance. In The Short Happy Life of Francis McCumber, when Margot takes maters into her own hands and shoots her husband, there is no way to tell to what extent this is moral. Some would argue that Margot’s action was immoral because of the fact that she may or mat not have been angry with her husband at the time, and his death was her intention. Others may argue that her action was moral because they believe that she was attempting to save his life from the bull rather then take it (Page 22). I argue that there is no way to tell weather her action was moral or immoral due to the fact that we are unable to know weather she shot the gun with a heart of love, in attempt to save the life of her husband, or if she shot the gun with a heart of anger, in hopes of taking the life of her husband.
Recently, a story has been in the news about a vigilante group in Mexico that patrols the boarder, in attempt to stop drug cartel. This group of people is unauthorized to patrol the boarded, make arrests, and search or confiscate any belongings of those crossing the Mexico boarder, yet they do anyway. Every member in this group has lost a love one due to drug related violence. Their longing for change and hope of a more peaceful country is what drives these patrollers. I feel as though these vigilantes are moral in their actions because it is evident that although their actions may be illegal, they are doing them out of a love for their country.
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/21/16623826-mexicans-weary-of-drug-gangs-form-vigilante-patrols?lite
I agree with Kayla that everyone has their own moral compass. I also found it extremely difficult to determine whether Mrs. Macomber's actions were moral or immoral. Eventually, I came to the conclusion that Mrs. Macomber's actions were moral. She was operating in the heat of the moment so it would be difficult to think clearly at that time. I remembered accidents I had made when I wasn't thinking, so I can relate to Mrs. Macomber in a way (Although I've never killed anyone).
DeleteI agree with Kayla that Margot actions were hard to define but i think that she killed him on purpose because Wilson was a there to protect her husband and thoughout the story you can feel Margot's dislike toward her husband. What loving wife kisses another man if front of her husband? I agree about the vigilante group in Mexico.
DeleteI believe that it is only appropriate to take matters into your own hands if the danger at hand is life threatening. In “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber,” Mrs. Macomber takes matters into her own hands, by shooting the buffalo Mr. Macomber was aiming at. Unfortunately, Mrs. Macomber misses the buffalo, instead shooting her husband. In this scenario, Mrs. Macomber shouldn’t have intervened. First of all, Mrs. Macomber didn’t have any idea how to use a gun. Secondly, she wasn’t thinking clearly enough to realize that Mr. Macomber would be in the path of the bullet if she were to shoot. Wilson assumes that the shooting fiasco was done on purpose. “Why didn’t you poison him?” Wilson asks, “That’s what they do in England” (pg. 22, par. 17). However, I don’t think that Mrs. Macomber purposely shot her husband because Mrs. Macomber repeatedly tells Wilson, “Stop it,” throughout the text on page 22. The text also says, “The woman was crying hysterically,” (pg. 22, par. 5). Mrs. Macomber is clearly upset about her husband’s death. Although there is no evidence that her feelings are genuine, it is mentioned enough to persuade the reader that they are.
ReplyDeleteLuis Ricardo Hernandez was a vigilante the day he murdered a suspected burglar, Chris Soranio. Hernandez took matters into his own hand, and shot Soranio. However, if the police had been more attentive this incident might have been avoided. This feat of vigilantism was wrong because Hernandez’s life wasn’t endangered. Although, he did what he believed was right. How did he know that the burglar wasn’t innocent? If Hernandez had been patient and let the police decide, he might not be facing the consequences of his actions. I believe that the right response to this would be to lock all doors and call the police reporting a suspected burglar.
"Man Accused in Vigilante Case Charged With Murder." NBC Bay Area. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Sept. 2013.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Man-Accused-in-San-Jose-Vigilante-Case-Charged-With-Murder-185720311.html
I agree with Chloe's claim on when it becomes moral to take matters into your own hands. I also agree with the claim that Mrs.Macomber shouldn't have intervened , and that the shooting of her husband was an accident. I also agree with her conclusion on how the Luis Hernandez incident was a wrong way of taking things into your own hands, and her reasoning was supported by her claim in the beginning.
DeleteI believe that it is true to take matters in to your hand if something bad happens. Also I agree that Mrs. Macomber shouldn't have interfered because then she wouldn’t have accidently killed her husband. I also agree that Luis Ricardo Hernandez should have waited to see what the police would said than just killing the person.
DeleteIt is ok to take matters into your own hands to some extent where as if you are in a life or death situation you can of course take matters into your own hands, you have no other choice. If you are in a situation like mrs macomber was in you don't need to take matters into your own hands, macomber and Wilson were both armed and could easily have taken down the bull on there own. Mrs macomber also had a lack of shooting experience displaying that clearly she didn't really care where the bullet was going. Vigilantes are not persecuted as much as actual criminals because the crimes that vigilantes are not out of rage or cold blood but out of anger.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.crimemuseum.org/vigilante
Lee Nicholas
ReplyDeleteI believe that there are limits to the stuff someone could take in to his or her own hands. One of those limits is murder no one should be considered moral and a murderer. I also think murder and killing someone are two different things, the dictionary defines murder as “ the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.”. This definition excludes war, self-defense and accidents such as a car crash. With this definition the only reason one human should kill another is for a selfish and immoral reason.
“Macomber had stood solid and shoot for the nose shooting a touch high each time and hitting the heavy horns, splintering and chipping them like hitting a slate roof, and Mrs. Macomber, in the car, had shot at the buffalo with the 6.5 Mannlicher as it seemed about to gore Macomber and had hit her husband about two inches up and a little to one side of the base of his skull.” (pg22/ 2) Mrs. Macomber clearly killed Mr. Macomber, but the question here was it murder or an accident? I believe it was an accident based on the fact that Ernest Hemingway wrote, “ Mrs. Macomber, in the car, had shot at the buffalo with the 6.5 Mannlicher as it seemed about to gore Macomber” I think that if he wanted people to think Mrs. Macomber murdered Mr. Macomber he would have not phrased it the way he did mentioning the buffalo. So I don’t think Mrs. Macomber crossed a line taking matters in to her own hand. Francis dying was just an unfortunate accident.
Abcnews.go.com reported on a group of vigilantes from Seattle who claims they stop drunk drivers, stop drug deals, pass out food to the hungry, and give real police officers probable cause to search criminals. There are is a negative that being that some police officer don’t believe that they are any real help and are at risk of causing large fights. I personally think that in this instance vigilantes are helpful for several reasons. First no one in the group uses deadly weapons. Also they don’t just “fight crime” they also pass out food and try to stop drunk drivers, I will admit that they probably don’t need to dress up in costumes but makes them feel safer when they are helping people.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/real-life-superhero-phoenix-jones-tackles-streets-se attle/story?id=12562715
“To what extent is it moral to take matters into your own hands?” Well I think that when you are in danger it would be best to put the situation in your own hand like a vigilante, but if you are not in total danger than it would be best to call 911. But then again the world is full of opinions so it’s always up to you in what you believe in and how you do something. Unlike everyone else (or so I think so) I will be writing about a case on a vigilante gone wrong. An angry mob brutally killed a man thinking he was involved in the disappearance of their friend. A sheriff found this man beaten named Tony Lorin Blakeney; he had some serious injuries, later he died in a hospital. 10 men ages 16-30 had beaten this guy, now they are charged with murder. Tony Lorin Blakeney was just at his house then a car came and the group accused him of complicity. Now this discuses me of what people will do with evidence of him doing anything, also he was just at his house minding his own business and then he got brutally beaten.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/03/us/03beating.html?_r=1&sq=&st=nyt&scp=265&pagewanted=all&
In the short story “The short and happy life of Francis Macomber” By Ernest Hemingway. Near the end Mr. Macomber is shot by his wife Ms. Macomber in the head. I think what she did was not a simple accident, I think she it was unnecessary that she shot the gun either way. I am fairly certain that she never shot a gun before; after all she was a model (1). Also she was a bit away from them, so she would have been safe.
I agree with Eddy. I believe that Francis Macomber's death was no simple accident. While I believe it was cold-blooded murder, I do agree that it was highly unnecessary for her to shot that rifle. "Mrs. Macomber, in the car, had shot at the buffalo with 6.5 Mannlicher as it seemed about to gore Macomber and had hit her husband about two inches up and a little to one side of the base of his skull. (pg. 22 p. 2). I also agree with him in the fact that it is encouraged to act with vigilance if you are in danger.
DeleteI believe that if you find yourself in a situation where your life is in danger, there is a threat of being sexually assaulted or robbed at gun point or beaten, and then it is ok to use what means necessary to defend yourself. In some cases that might mean the attacker is dead, or in other circumstances it might just mean he/she is incapacitate enough to allow you to escape and call for help. The question here is what is enough? I believe that it is correct and moral to use only enough force to allow you to escape harm.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber”, I think that Margot carried out her own form of vigilante justice when she shot her husband, Francis in the head. She had no reason to shoot the buffalo, Wilson was a skilled hunter and guide, and he would have protected Francis if the need arose. This idea is confirmed in my mind when Wilson says to Margot, “why didn’t you poison him? That’s what they do in England” (pg.22, 17). I think Margot was disgusted with her wimpy husband. She thought he was a coward, but really she was the coward. She killed him for convenience instead of messy divorce that might leave her with no money.
In Kensington, Philadelphia, on June 1, 2009, an 11 year old fifth grade girl had just dropped of her sibling at a daycare and was walking to school. She was abducted by a man, taken in to a backyard and repeatedly raped. Her injuries were so severe that she required surgery. The police put out a photo of 27 year old Jose Carrasquillo as a person of interest, he was not charged officially with the crime. A few days later the neighbors of the girl found him and confronted him, called the police and then beat him until they arrived. He was hospitalized and release two days later into police custody. The neighbors were not charged with any crime and given a reward of $11,500. Carrasquillo had 17 prior arrested including other rape and drug charges. This to me is clear cut case of vigilante justice, but I do necessarily agree with what happened. I do believe that he was a vicious animal of a man that deserved harsh punishment, but I think the neighbors may have gone too far. If he was not resisting their citizens’ arrest then they should not have beaten him but just held him until the police to arrive. If he was fighting back then I believe they could and should use only enough force to hold him. If we all took every injustice done to people into our own hands no one would be safe. That is why we have a legal system that gives us the right to a fair trial before punishment is given.
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2009325039_apusvigilantejustice1stldwritethru.html
Chao, Sebastian
ReplyDeleteWhen the situation you are in has a high chance of hurting you and/or someone else, it would be moral to take matters into your own hands as long as the threat is neutralized before it can cause more damage. However, one should always think about whether or not they will live to regret the attempt to do good, as some could result in tragedy. In “The Short, Happy Life of Francis Macomber, Ernest Hemmingway portrayed a story where Francis was in danger of being mauled by a buffalo and the shot made by Margot that hit and killed him. Francis Macomber was killed by Mrs. Macomber purposefully and would be considered immoral and totally unnecessary, showing her as a villain. She had gotten sick at him for being a coward after showing his true nature at the safari and became more emotionally attached to Mr. Wilson, hence the affair and the attitude they had towards Mr. Macomber (Hemingway 1-15). Margot had also stated that she hadn’t liked it when the two men chased the buffalo from a car to shoot them. “’It seemed very unfair to me,’ Margot said, ‘chasing those big helpless things in a motor car’” (Hemmingway 18). She opposed the only event in which her husband had not proved himself as a coward. The braveness that she had wanted from him was viewed as terrible. “’You’re both talking rot,’ said Margot. ‘Just because you’ve chased some helpless animals in a motor car you talk like heroes’” (Hemmingway 20-21). This shows that she completely went against whatever her husband did and hated him, leading her up to shooting him. The shot that Margot had fired from the car hit Francis, making her the villain. This is a situation where murder was done. The reason why Margot Macomber wanted to kill her husband at that moment was most likely to make her seem innocent. She wanted it to look like she tried to shoot the buffalo and missed, making everything an accident. This is highly unlikely as the evidence above clearly repeats the fact that she wanted to get rid of him. She should not have acted.
A recent article from yahoo had an example of a hero and what had been done. Franco Scaramuzza, a professional fencing coach was going to a Bellevue shopping center in Nashville, Tennessee when he witnessed an attempt of robbery. Two people pepper sprayed a woman and took her purse when he intervened. Luckily, he had his fencing equipment with him and charged the two of them, brandishing his epee. The robbers dropped everything and panicked as he phoned the police. Soon after, the police arrived and arrested the two men in charge of the robbery. He did the right thing, since he neutralized the threat before it can cause more damage when someone else was being hurt and the law being broken. This incident where he took matters into his own hands was therefore moral and even so, resulted in no serious injuries to both parties.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/fencing-coach-stops-robbery-shopping-213438561.html
Taking matters into your own hands is really a matter of ability. If you're someone trained with skills to handle the situation then you should probably try to do something to deal with it. Now I'm not saying that you need to get a belt or degree in anything to help protect someone in harms way, but I am saying that you don't have to be an ex special operations soldier to save a life or take one. If you can handle the situation then great, deal with it, but if you know that it is out of your range then leave it be and get somebody else. " "Leave it as it is," said Wilson. Then, "Go get Abdulla so that he may witness the manner of the accident." " (22). This scene takes place just after Mrs. Macomber has taken the life of her husband and is crying hysterically over his body. This is an example of somebody knowing what to do. Wilson knows not to disturb the crime scene so that justice can be fairly decided. This is an example of good vigilantism. Controlling the situation and making sure that everything can be seen as it happened.
ReplyDeleteI think that when you are in danger and you don’t know what to do and you know that something will happen to you if you don’t do anything; you get a feeling that tells you that you have to do something and I think that’s what happened to Mrs. Macomber, because she liked Wilson and wanted to break up with her husband and she didn’t know how to do, so she shot him in the head and I think she did it on purpose because it says
ReplyDelete"Mrs. Macomber, in the car, had shot at the buffalo with the 6.5 Mannlicher as it seemed about to gore Macomber and had hit her husband about two inches up and a little to one side of the base of his skull."(Hemingway 22) and it proves to you that she wanted to hit him in the head because the 6.5 Mannlicher is a fairly big gun and it takes skill to hit your husband in the head from a distance, in real life a case that sticks out in my mind is the case of Jonathan "Jack" Idema who was a former Green Beret in North Carolina who died at the age of fifty-five and the cause was that the he died of AIDS, in his life Jack was an Army Special Forces member who was arrested for torture, illegally entering a country, and making a fake jail(Using the jail as a torture place for people he captured). In 2004, he returned to Afghanistan with another former soldier when he was captured for entering the country illegally. http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/27/jonathan-jack-idema-dies-in-obscurity/?_r=0 dangerous serious
Taylor, Monique
ReplyDeleteErnest Hemmingway's short story "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber" is a wonderful story that makes one think about when it is okay to take things and/or situations into one's own hands. In my personal opinion I have come to believe that taking matters into one’s own hands is allowable to an extent. If one were to be in a situation where they are being threatened or attacked I believe that they have the right to protect themselves from their attacker, but I believe that if any damage were to be done that it must be in the most serious of cases. If someone were to be in a situation where there was no other possible way to get help aside from self-defense then it is 100% okay to take matters into one’s own hands and protect one’s self from the attacker. For instance in the Philadelphia rape case stated at the following web address: http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2009325039_apusvigilantejustice1stldwritethru.html it helps explain that if you are in a situation where you must take matters into your own hands then do it, but be humane about it. It is true that they beat the man for doing a crime and were in fact not part of the justice department, but they did help the police catch the criminal and put him behind bars. In Hemmingway’s story he seems to use foreshadowing as a way to push one’s opinion on whether or not Mrs. Macomber was in fact a murderer or a vigilante. I have came to the conclusion that she is a murderer in my own opinion due to the fact she never necessarily shows interest in her husband or what him and Wilson are doing. She in fact seems to be very against it as one could see in the following quotes from the story. First she gets very upset while Macomber and Wilson talk about the lion and just before running off to cry she states “I wish it hadn’t happened. Oh I wish it hadn’t happened,”(Hemmingway 3) as well as “You’re both talking rot,’ said Margot. ‘Just because you’ve chased some helpless animals in a motor car you talk like heroes’” (Hemmingway 20-21).
I believe that you shouldn’t take matter in to your own hands, but if you feel that something bad is going to happen. Then you should do something about it. In “The Short, Happy Life of Francis Macomber,” by Ernest Hemingway, the situation between Mr. Macomber and the buffalo, Mrs. Macomber had to take matter into her own hand because the buffalo was going to charge to Francis and Wilson. Before she shot Francis, Wilson should have helped Mr. Macomber kill the buffalo because Wilson is more experience in hunting than Francis. Wilson just standed there and did nothing to help Francis. But “Mrs. Macomber, in the car, had shot at the buffalo with the 6.5 Mannlicher as it seemed about to gore Macomber and had hit her husband about two inches up and a little to one side of the base of his skull” (Hemingway 22). She was trying to hit the buffalo, but accidently hit her husband. So this shows that Mrs. Macomber had taken the matter into her own hand.
ReplyDeleteThe article also shows the same thing that happened in “Memphis of 2 killing cops” (fox news). The cops came to Mr. Duma’s house to arrest him because he has been “charged of first-degree of murder” (fox news). When the cops arrived to Dumas house and he did not answer the door the cops had the right to take the matter into their own hand by kick down the door. Also Dumas had done the same by setting a bomb because when the 2 cops kicked the door down. Then triggered the bomb and blue them up. I believe that both of them taken the matter in to their own hands.
the article's website is http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/10/15/2-memphis-cops-shot-in-police-standoff/?intcmp=latestnews
DeleteIn my heart I believe taking matters in your hands is wrong. But many people follow their instinct, but don't think about the problem before they act. If the person does not act they would feel guilty the rest of their life. There is one thing to remember "No good deed goes unpunished". In the story "The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber". Francis and his wife go on a trip to go hunting in the jungle. Francis is always trying to impress his wife but all she does is cheat on him and treat him poorly. Wilson is the expert hunter that is with them. Mrs. Macomber supposedly cheats on her husband with Wilson. In the Story Wilson says "Leave it as it is"(22). Cause if you take something into your own hands there will be a punishment. But if you just leave it as it is then you wont get punished. Then just call for help and let someone that is more trained than you deal with it. Mrs. Macomber is indeed a murderer and not a vigilante, because she kills her husband and then runs away. When instead of killing him they could work out their problems and never see each other again. But she never cared about him and never too interest in what he usually did. She was loved by him but he could no take it any more. That is my opinion. She did not care for him. That is why you should never take matters in your own hands and let someone that has done before take care of it. Like i said no good deed goes unpunished.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow to Make a Citizen's Titanium Watch - Tioga Art
ReplyDelete1. titanium belly ring First make titanium melting point a 2020 ford edge titanium for sale model titanium dental 00-001-003-003-003-003-003-003-003-003-003-003-003-003-003-003-003-003-003-003-003-003-003-003. nipple piercing jewelry titanium