DOG--The bounty Huuunnnterrrrr!

Status
Not open for further replies.
tdowns

tdowns

Puritan Board Junior
Has anyone watched this show, on A and E I think, Tuesday nights. Classic! It follows Dog, a real bounty hunter, and a real Christian. He's probably not up to reformed standards theologically, and def. has an edge, but if you watch a couple of shows I believe he shows fruit of the spirit. It's a crack up and he and his family are characters. Just wondering if anyone has watched it. It is an interesting study on what being a Christian looks like, he's an ex con, and like I said Rough, but he makes the sacrifices for others, his family, even the crooks he tracks down. Very interesting from a christian view, and pretty entertaining from a general point of view.
 
I love the guy...he throws out the f-bomb every now in then in the heat of battle, but he shows fruits of the spirit in the way he treats his wife, family, and outlaws. It's pretty cool that A and E shows them pray before they go out for a bounty. The theme song rocks...is that Ozzie who sings it? It sounds exactly like him.
 
I love the show, too. It makes for very interesting TV, and it doesn't seem like anybody's getting exploited.

Sure he may use some cuss words, etc, but in the grand scheme of things it doesn't seem like a big deal. After the danger of the scene dies down, he almost immediately shows compassion for the criminal, sometimes even to his own cost. That's real Christianity. I like it!
 
Originally posted by tdowns007
It follows Dog, a real bounty hunter, and a real Christian.
Click to expand...

He is a cook! Probably goes to some Word Faith church. He better watch out. His son had better also. That woman his wife could beat them both up.
 
It is on Tuesday evenings on A&E. It is really stupid. I have waisted my time on it twice out of pure boredom.

[Edited on 6-25-2005 by puritancovenanter]
 
Fair warning taken, but I may check it out just to see....I am seldom home evenings though. Should I waste Tivo Space?
 
I would.

I would def. Tivo it. It's def. stupid. It is fun stupidity, and it's stupid funny!

I'd be interested on your take on it Adam, my guess is you will like it. Like all shows, the best ones are probably from first season, so look for the reruns, which is why Tivo is perfect, it can catch the reruns if they pop-up at some unknown time.

Whether or not he's word faith, who knows, that's never been alluded to that I've seen. But his faith has produced more than words I can tell you that, and If I was his neighbor, and needed help with something, I guarantee he'd be there with more than words to help you out.

He's probably becoming more and more a character with the shows longer run, but early shows, you could see the real him--struggles with anger, cursing etc, but you could see him repenting and moving forth in grace as well.

I personally think, if we "saw" everyones heart and attitudes with their wives and families, behind closed doors; we'd see a lot worse than Dog's in most "Christian's" lives. Words and attitudes housed with Christian fluff and facade, without heated emotion or profanity but all the more destructive in their coldness.

That's why I find it interesting, he's proclaiming Christ, but very obviously not perfect. And yes, his wife could take them all down.;)
 
Good point.

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
I agree it is funny stupid.

Don't forget Trevor. Dog on screen is probably different than Dog offscreen.
Click to expand...

Very good point.:bigsmile:
 
Condoleezza Rice may decide the case of bounty hunter Duane Chapman, who is wanted in Mexico after he illegally caught a wanted rapist there three years ago.

Larry Butrick, chief of the criminal division of the U.S. attorney's office in Hawaii, told CNN while a magistrate in Hawaii will determine if Chapman can be extradited to Mexico, the final decision will be made by the U.S. secretary of state.


MSNBC first reported that U.S. officials arrested the TV reality star and two family members in Hawaii for extradition to Mexico on Thursday.

The action took place at the request of the Mexican government in the form of a diplomatic note sent on Wednesday.

Chapman's wife told MSNBC's Rita Cosby that heavily armed U.S. marshals arrived at the family's house and took away Chapman, his "blood brother," Tim, and son, Leland.

Video: Beth Chapman Talks To NBC News

"I was getting the children ready for school and the U.S. marshals burst in our door and they just came right in and took him," said Beth Chapman on MSNBC.

"He was in shock. He was, he was shocked. He was shocked and he was amazed that the marshal's service that came to get him didn't even treat him as kind as he treats his own prisoners."

A representative from the Marshal's office had a different version of what happened in Hawaii.

"There were 7 deputy marshals who went to Chapman's home," said Jay Beber, from the U.S. marshal's office in Hawaii.

"We knocked on the door to announce that we were U.S. marshals. "¦ Mr. Chapman was compliant and very respectful."

The Chapmans were in custody and expected to remain in custody until a bond hearing is held.

Mona K. Wood, a publicist for the star of the popular cable series "Dog The Bounty Hunter," said Chapman would be vindicated. "He arrests the bad guys -- and he is definitely not one of them," she said.

The charges stem from Chapman's capture of Max Factor heir Andrew Luster on June 18, 2003, in Puerto Villarta, Mexico, said Marshals spokeswoman Nikki Credic in Washington.

Charges have been pending against the three since local police in Mexico arrested them shortly after they roped in Luster. They posted bail but never returned to Puerto Villarta for their court hearing on July 15, 2003, Credic said.

Mexican authorities demanded that the Chapmans transfer Luster to Mexican police. Their refusal to do so led to their initial arrest.

A U.S. warrant for their arrest was signed by a federal judge in Honolulu on Wednesday.

Bounty hunting is considered a crime in Mexico. At that time, Mexican prosecutors maintained that Luster's capture violated their sovereignty.

The Chapmans each could face up to 8 years in prison if they are returned to Mexico and convicted on kidnapping charges.

Luster is now in jail, serving a 124-year term for rape.
Click to expand...
 
My husband watches it occassionally, and I sit down with him and watch for a few--I have yet to see what the "entertainment" value is.

But as He apparently enjoys it, I don't say anything.
 
Mexico has a terribly corrupt police force in the first place. Why should we give a dern what THEY say?

To hand over Dog to them would be a HUGE perversion of justice, and the very thought of it makes me so mad I can hardly sit still!
:mad:
:banghead:
 
Chris, you'll excuse me, but the point is a simple one that has nothing whatever to do with the Mexican police's honesty or lack of it.
Dog carried his bounty-hunting trade into Mexico; in Mexico, bounty-hunting is illegal. Therefore, Dog broke Mexico's law. Is there a gap in that logic?
 
Yeah, there's a gap in the logic....
I don't like it!!!
(Hey, you can't argue with one's emotions....)
:scholar:

Plus, why would we hand over one of our own "law enforcement officers" to be subject to their perverted justice? We need to protect our citizens. He could be cruely treated there, and perhaps with no rights.
Also, the guy he captured was a rapist who needed to be brought to justice. They should certainly see the case for what it is and not try to pursue it! The very fact that they're doing so is what has got my ire up. Our own justice system is very lenient with their citizens (people crossing the border), why would they not show us the same courtesy? Certainly they have more important cases to pursue than this one, you know, like one's with legitimate "victims" involved.

If they are so interested in "justice", why don't they start with cleaning up their own police force? It makes me sick when I hear stories of their police mistreating our citizens.

I know my argument doesn't logically follow, so please excuse my inconsistencies. I'm just expressing my opinion on the case (in which I'm too emotionally involved to be impartial.)
 
Christopher, personally I agree that Dog shouldn't be handed over; if he were he could probably get out without too much difficulty....
And on the whole I am glad he caught the other guy.
But turn it around. What if a Mexican bounty hunter caught a guy in the US, against their laws. Would we be a bit disturbed at that?
It's not a matter of justice, unfortunately: it's a matter of legality, and in the US and Mexico those two only infrequently coincide.
 
Actually, the reason it appears he's being taken back to Mexico is because he jumped bail, he was arrested, charged, given a court date and didn't show up for court.

Once he's there, they MAY look at the Bounty Hunting charges determine they are a misdomeaner, and only give him a small fine. But the fact he jumped bail is the issue, especially given HE is a bounty hunter of those who jump bail.

Charges have been pending against the three since local police in Mexico arrested them shortly after they roped in Luster. They posted bail but never returned to Puerto Villarta for their court hearing on July 15, 2003, Credic said.
Click to expand...

[Edited on 9-18-2006 by BJClark]
 
Bobbi

Why should the U.S.A. support this? This is what amazes me, that this is even being considered by our legal system. It's sad.
 
I agree. Was his target a person that needed to be brought to justice? Yes. Did Dog the bounty hunter do it in the wrong way, and in fact break laws himself? Yes. Just becuase the police force in Mexico is corupt doesn't give you the right to break their laws (necessarily). Also, just becuase something is legal somewhere, doesn't mean it's legal and ok to do everywhere (necessarily). Try opening up a casino in Salt Lake City for example.

On a side note per his Christian values: Wasn't he just living with that woman on the show? I found the follwoing on Wikipedia:

"Chapman and Smith were married on May 20, 2006 after sixteen years of living together in a common law marriage"
 
houseparent,

I didn't say the U.S.A. should have been involved, but they should support it because it is the law, Mexican Authorities should have paid a Bounty Hunter go get him, and NOT U.S. Marshals. However, considering Bounty Hunting is illegal in Mexico I imagine they couldn't go that route. So they have to trust on the integrity of the U.S. to send them a criminal.

but you know, when it comes to their own Criminals who come to the U.S.A. they don't worry about having them extridited, they leave them here in the US Prisions allowing tax dollars to support them.

Maybe we should send Mexico a bill for housing their prisioners, as well as bill them for the use of U.S. Marshals time and expenses.



Why should the U.S.A. support this? This is what amazes me, that this is even being considered by our legal system. It's sad.
Click to expand...

[Edited on 9-18-2006 by BJClark]
 
Caleb, I'm sure it's Fox's insatiable desire to screw the US which has people down here thinking that his party is basically composed of American yes-men. Also, if you read what I said I distinguished between law and justice. I think most laws these days (US or Mexico) are unjust: that doesn't change the fact that they are laws, and breaking them is, by definition, illegal.
We may think it unjust that in Singapore they cane people for vandalism (although I think it's a good idea); but does that mean it was wrong for those in Singapore to cane that American kid some years ago for stealing street signs?
 
Caleb,

1. I'm sure most politicians act from motives of profit (personal or political). In fact, that seems to be the point of politics.
2. The fact that I think caning is a good idea doesn't mean you do. It serves to distinguish justice and legality yet again. It is perfectly legal in Singapore for them to smack delinquent teenagers. Yet some Americans were very upset about it. I suspect it had more to do with the fact that it was an American getting paddled than with their clear notions of justice or law.
3. According to some reports the Mexican police were on the rapist's trail.
4. Was it just for Dog to break a law and skip bail in the pursuit of his job?
 
Caleb, you're assuming that the job of bounty hunter is just. That would be an interesting point to establish. Second, you're assuming that he can cross the border (whereas his authority technically only extends within the US) in order to carry out that work.
And I can skip bail if I shouldn't have been arrested? I'm sure my local church family that has paid about $1,400.00 in bail would be thrilled to know that.
 
caleb_woodrow,

The point being though Caleb, even though the law was unjust, he should have abided by the law, and gone back to Mexico to face the charges against him.

I find it totally ironic, His job is to track down those who have jumped bail and bring them back to face the charges against them, which is EXACTLY what the Mexican authorities were doing in His case. He jumped bail, they were bringing him back to face the charges against him.
 
Caleb, I am not arguing about the justice of it --though I would be interested to see if there is a way that bounty hunting can be shown to be theoretically righteous. But, in our day, laws are not about justice. Are we free to ignore unjust laws?
 
caleb_woodrow,

He already served time in Mexico. There is an equivocation with regard to his job. He is under entirely different circumstances in that international affairs are not at stake in his daily business.
Click to expand...

Yes he did, but the facts remain the same, he still jumped bail before appearing in court. Which apparently is against the law in Mexico, just as it is in America.

If a person is arrested, and spends time in jail before they go in front of the judge at a bail hearing isn't the same thing as doing time for the crime.

The bail hearing is just that, a bail hearing, which allows the judge to determine if the person should be let out of jail before they go to trial, then a trial date is set for the crime.

He jumped bail, he didn't appear in court on the agreed upon date, I say agreed upon, because HE paid the bail amount saying he would show up in court on the given date. So the judge issued a warrant for his arrest to bring him in, in order to face the charges against him.


Again, that is the same crime he himself enforces, in the United States, so why should it be any different for him to be arrested for jumping bail?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Eoghan
  • Locked
The $100,000 DOG
Replies
0
Views
2K
Eoghan
Eoghan
LadyFlynt
  • Locked
Beware the Dog House!
Replies
3
Views
2K
Seb
Seb
JohnGill
  • Locked
Bizkit, the sleep-walking dog
Replies
6
Views
2K
turmeric
turmeric
Blueridge Believer
  • Locked
Check out Skidboot the dog.
Replies
1
Views
1K
Blue Tick
B
christiana
  • Locked
Smart Dog
Replies
4
Views
2K
Berean
Berean
Back
Top