so glad this "documentary" got 2nd place in the C4 listings tonight - when I first saw it - it moved me like nothing else - anyone else see it? I guess nobody will reply to this thread because I posted it but I just felt I had to shout out! - thanks

I thought it was great as well, also came in very handy in my criminal law exams. i didn't really know much but was able to formulate an excellent discussion about the legallity of killing someone to save your own life.

moral of the story? if ever your in trouble, don't get me to defend you, i clearly don't know s**t!

I also thought the book and movie were impressive. Very hard to watch people with broken legs trying to move.

Although SImon Yate's decision to cut the rope is famous and interesting, I don't think it's the really gripping part of the story.

The heart of the story is Joe Simpson's survival. And from that we learn that our take on reality can determine whether we live or die. Joe Simpson kept trying to stay alive. He adapted to the environment, he carved out manageable tasks, he listened to a voice inside of him insisting that he never give up. He celebrated his achievements. And he survived an ascent that no one has been able to replicate and a fall that has become legendary. An inspiration to think that this vast untapped power may just live in all our brains.

quote:

An inspiration to think that this vast untapped power may just live in all our brains.

Swann - our minds are in empathy!!! - the next morning (after watching the piece the night before) I awoke as a new person (I don't wish to be melodramatic here) - I just felt that whatever hurdles I have to face in the future will be so small compared to what that guy endured struggling down that vast mountain so maimed and emotionally wrecked .... jesus - it was an awsome story ... everyone should see it!!

we must make contact swann - I'm a hot male (like many of us) at the com place (hehe) - up to you I think

quote:

Originally posted by Swann1719:
I also thought the book and movie were impressive. Very hard to watch people with broken legs trying to move.

Although SImon Yate's decision to cut the rope is famous and interesting, I don't think it's the really gripping part of the story.

The heart of the story is Joe Simpson's survival. And from that we learn that our take on reality can determine whether we live or die. Joe Simpson kept trying to stay alive. He adapted to the environment, he carved out manageable tasks, he listened to a voice inside of him insisting that he never give up. He celebrated his achievements. And he survived an ascent that no one has been able to replicate and a fall that has become legendary. An inspiration to think that this vast untapped power may just live in all our brains.

I don't disagree with you, i think the will to survive is the most powerful instinct that we possess. However, it is also legally fascinating and very useful in assessing many right to life cases. none of us know what we will do or indeed what we are capable of doing until we reach the agony of the moment.

OK, what would you do? You're Simon Yates, you will be pulled off the mountain and fall to your death if you don't cut loose Joe Simpson who is tied to you and falling. Joe is likely dead anyway from previous injuries.

You get out your knife. Do you cut the rope? You have about ten seconds to decide before you fall.

Pop quiz, hot shot (remember that movie?) What do you do?

With affection for Keanu Reeves,

Swann

I did not read the book - nor see the documovie... I didn't want to. Nor want to.

Having seen enough of people dying - horribly - over the last couple of years... I just can’t emotionally detach myself to view such questions intellectually. Not that I'm saying it's not important enough to dramatise... Life and death is the human condition - and all book/movies/plays are (or at least should) be about the human condition...

I think I'm just far too sensitive to things... Moonbird said he couldn't stop thinking about it the next day - but I would (and do) have nightmares for weeks about such things... i.e. putting myself in certain positions for weeks!

I feel sick thinking about it now...

DivineM is right… You don’t really know what you’re capable of – or not – until those moments hit you – and to be honest – sometimes I think you’re better off not knowing…

For example: Way back in the 60’s someone I know very well (who I won’t name just in case) was making her way back from a night out in Liverpool… Around that time – there was the usual number of rapes in the area – and one particularly nasty rape/murder that made the news…

She was followed along the dock road some way by a large ‘foreign guy’ who she said ‘raised her heckles’ and in response she got out the only thing she had that was anything like a weapon… A large nail file (they used to be metal back then)… He caught up with her and began ‘hassling’ her… He made it known what he was about when he tried to take her cardigan off…

Now; the thing is, in those moments… what are you thinking? Rape, murder, both? How much force is reasonable force when you’re a 5 ft woman fighting off a 6 ft man!? Now the woman in question was/is feisty for 5 ft… and almost without thinking - she took the nail file and stabbed it, full force, into his eye – he screamed and she ran.

Now perhaps she shouldn’t have been walking in a street late at night on her own? Perhaps she shouldn’t have pulled her nail file out? Perhaps that man was only ‘messing around’?… It’s unlikely she will ever know… She never heard another thing… She never saw it on the news – and does not know to this day – what happened to that man. Anything could have happened to him!?

How much are you prepared to go on the offensive when you ‘perceive’ that your life is under threat!? In short – you don’t know – at that moment, you’re not thinking rationally! You either freeze and be the victim or you react in the moment – and become the ‘aggressor’ (for want of a better word).

I’m particularly thinking about the cases of women found guilty of spousal murder – interestingly – a large portion of them – cite a history of abuse before they commit the ‘murder’; which is often stated as self-defence in the trial… As DivineM pondered – when are actions that result in the taking of another’s life ‘self defence’…?

If this guy was a rapist/murderer, then your friend clearly did society a huge favour and may have even, as a consequece, saved someone's life. BUT, what if he'd been drinking all day because his elderly mum had just passed away with cancer. What if your friend got it wrong because she was paranoid about being attacked. An inocent man loses an eye. The concept of 'reasonable force' is not perfect within our far-from-perfect system of law, but what else is there? Reasonable force must therefore be decided by 12 reasonable people.

From Swan

quote:

You get out your knife. Do you cut the rope? You have about ten seconds to decide before you fall.

With affection for Keanu Reeves,

Yes, I'd cut the rope and let Keanu fall!

Minxy,

What a horrible story!

If that had been my wife or daughter then i would defend their actions 100%.

I would suggest that as there was no publicity or police hunt following the attack on an 'innocent' man that either his injury was not actually that bad or that he was guilty as hell.

quote:

Originally posted by Swann1719:
OK, what would you do? You're Simon Yates, you will be pulled off the mountain and fall to your death if you don't cut loose Joe Simpson who is tied to you and falling. Joe is likely dead anyway from previous injuries.

You get out your knife. Do you cut the rope? You have about ten seconds to decide before you fall.

Pop quiz, hot shot (remember that movie?) What do you do?

With affection for Keanu Reeves,

Swann

avioding the obvious answer of 'shoot the hostage' but that's kind of my point not about Simon Yates but about Joe Simpson, the human body is capable of remarkable things in the name of survival.

Playfull

Your emotive response is completely understandable, but in some ways it highlights the problem with our jury system. The admirable quality of empathy can sometimes lead us astray from searching for the truth. Thankfully Minxy's friend was ok, but without knowing the full facts it's impossible to say whether he was an innocent simpleton/drunkard/ druggie/whatever, or a dangerous man. The cardigan is pretty damning... but probably not conclusive. If he was in the country illegally, for example, he wouldn't want to report it, would he?

BTW, I'm no liberal, but justice and fairness are very close to my heart.

From what I've read of "Touching The Void" the issue seems to be one of
would I sacrifice my friend to save my own life?
This is contrary to the Graeco-Roman/Christian ethic;
"Greater love hath no man...a man lay down his life for his friends"

Is the instinct for survival under consideration also?

There is the famous case of the yacht Mignionette which sailed for Australia in 1884. This was shipwrecked off South Africa.
Three of the crew (including the captain Tom Dudley) survived by murdering and eating the cabin boy, Robert Parker.
They admitted the offence, were tried and sentenced to death, then reprieved and released after serving just six months imprisonment.
They had committed the worst of crimes in order to survive; one life to save three.

I agree with DIVINEMISSM - it is Simpson's "crawl" back which is the mind blowing part - the message for humanity - especially when he finally reaches basecamp and his friend is about to leave (having waited and waited thinking Simpson is dead) - at that point the tears were flowing!!

Just wondered - what does Simpson do now? Bricklayer? Maybe even playwright???

Shyboy,

Understand and actually agree with your points.

I was just trying to make a point re subjective Vs objective view of girls actions.


On a seperate point, having been on Jury duty twice, I do have a dim view of the 'Jury' system.

I also have serious misgivings about the justice system... I think everyone knows I am a feminist ( )... and read/ get involved in a lot of feminist causes - and the stats on sexual crimes make pretty grim reading... Less than 6% of reported rapes lead to a conviction - and some statistics say that only one in four are reported in the first place...

‘Lock up your daughters’ is perhaps not overly extremist advice…

It seems that Jury's are unfortunately quite easily manipulated in these kind of cases - the man stands in the dock - head down - and is buttered up by his defence lawyer to be a ‘basically good man’ - while the woman has her knickers passed around in an evidence bag and her entire sexual history recounted... No wonder the stats are so low...

I don't know what cases you were involved in Playfull - but I'm sure they could have played the jury in the same way...

It seems in this country - it's very easy to get done for 'benefit or insurance fraud, but very difficult to get convicted of ‘rape’.

Thank God I've never been called up for Jury service - and fingers crossed I won't - or I'll get a couple of parking fines!

Okay, whilst we're serious ...

I was a cop 1979-1982, serving in Gloucester. It was a really rough place then - certainly the equal of any bad inner city area like St Pauls or Toxteth or Brixton; and because I was young and single I served through the race riots in all three of those places, so I can tell you Gloucester was (almost) as bad.

Anyway - because I was a keen career cop I chased the calls, and got involved in some fairly meaty cases (I even arrested Fred West once and with a team searched his house thoroughly - contrary to popular belief, it wasn't a morgue).

I was involved in investigating two rapes - only two. One was an AfroAsian girl who alleged an AfroAsian man had raped her at a party, the second was a white relative of an officer on my shift who alleged that an Asian man had raped her at home. In both cases the sexual act had definitely happened and was admitted by the men, but both claimed it was fully concensual.

After a phenomenal amount of misery for these two men - neither of whom, I have to say, were angels anyway - over many weeks, the first turned out to be a totally contrived gang set-up of another gang member, the second was the woman having had a one-night-stand and got worried that she might be pregnant and 'how would she explain a brown babby to her husband'.

Two of two. In both cases the poor blokes were totally innocent.

Before anyone leaps down my throat and accuses me of being MCP - you have to understand the Jury and Judges' caution about convicting on a defended rape case. It is, actually, one of the easiest and most serious crimes with which to 'frame' a man; and the consequences are probably the most severe of any offence.

Don't get me wrong; where there's a clear-cut case - fully and independently witnessed or undefended - I'd castrate the b*stard, remove the offending organ down to a stub, take off his thumbs (you can't grip anything, like a person or a weapon, with no thumbs) and STILL throw away the key. Seriously, I would.

But being 'basically a good man' could well be the only defence some men have ...

I think i hear the sound of a can of worms opening...............

Well, I'm not sure how we got from Simon cutting the rope to jury trials, but I do want to add something. I have watched (as a law clerk for a federal judge in the U.S.) about 40 jury trials. I have been second chair in six, and first chaired another six. In only one instance out of fifty two did I think that the jury came to the wrong conclusion.

My cousin was raped in the late nineties and I helped her prepare to testify. Very tough. It is very hard and I think that the rules of evidence in the U.S. slightly favour the defendant. But Adman has a point that lying is not restricted to a certain gender.

The jury trial system for determining criminal guilt is like the democratic system for government. It is the worst system except for all the other systems. . .

quote:

Originally posted by MsMinxy:

Thank God I've never been called up for Jury service - and fingers crossed I won't

I agree with that! Can you honestly say, hand on heart (or bible), that if you were, and it was a rape case, that you'd be completely impartial!

I can say that I would.

I have a few story’s re my Jury duty but the most worrying thing I found was the fact that as Jurors we were all presented with the same evidence in court and yet manage to see and hear very different things.

The first jury I served on (a few years ago now) was the case of a Steward at a golf club who was accused of faking a burglary at the club. The police gave no evidence as to this mans guilt and I could not see why he had even been charged with the offence.

When we retired to the Jury room we voted - 10 guilty, 3 innocent. It turned out that an Asian lady could not understand English very well and just put her hand up when everyone else did.

I asked the jury Forman why he thought the accused was guilty and he said dismissively “You only have to look at him”.



So if you are put on trial; get your hair done, wear a suit, brush your teeth and practice looking innocent in front of a mirror.