‘HE GOT WHAT HE DESERVED’: TEXAS DAD BEATS HIS DAUGHTER’S MOLESTER TO DEATH
Posted on June 11, 2012 at 4:31pm by Jason Howerton Print »Email »
Comments (410)
A Texas father beat a man to death after catching him molesting his four-year-old daughter in a horse barn, The Houston Chronicle reports. The incident happened Saturday evening near Shiner, Texas.
Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon identified the deceased as a 47-year-old man from Gonzales, Texas. He was reported dead at the scene, however, his name will not be released until his next of kin is notified.
Harmon said the father and daughter were with several other people at the family’s barn to groom and tend to the horses, according to The Chronicle. The alleged attacker was reportedly an acquaintance of the father.
The sound of the little girl’s screams were later heard coming from the barn and instinctually, the father rushed to his daughter’s aide. After reaching the barn, he found a man sexually assaulting his daughter – undoubtedly a dad’s worst nightmare.
After pulling the attacker off of her, the father repeatedly struck the man in the head.
The young girl was taken to DeTar hospital in Victoria where doctors ran tests to determine whether sexual assault had occurred, The Houston Chronicle reports. She was eventually released.
In the aftermath, nearby residents are having a hard time feeling any sympathy for the alleged child molester.
“He got what he deserved, big time,” Sonny Jaehne, a Shiner resident, told the Victoria Advocate.
Another Shiner resident Mark Harabis said he agreed with the father’s action “totally.”
“I would probably do worse,” he said. “The family will have to deal with that the rest of their lives, no matter what happens to the father. Even if they let him go, he and his child will have to deal with that the rest of their lives.”
Further, Howard Gloor, the owner of Howard’s convenient store, a popular Shiner hangout spot, told The Advocate that the whole town had pretty much come to a “consensus” about the incident.
“Everybody wants to know who it is,” Gloor said. “Everybody’s very curious about it. A lot of people have said that he got what he had coming to him. That’s been the consensus. They’ve been supportive of doing what needed to be done to take care of the problem.”
So far, no arrests have been made. A grand jury will likely decide whether any charges will be brought against the father, whose identity has not been released in an attempt to protect the four-year-old girl.
An autopsy on the alleged attacker is expected to be performed by the Travis County Medical Examiner’s Office to establish the cause of death.
More from KTRK in Houston:
Automatically Appended Next Post: In case there is a query, texas law specifically permits deadly force in this circumstance.
PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
Provided the beating was delivered in only a few moments after pulling him off his daughter, I'd think the father would get off in most places around the world, so surely he'd get off in Texas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
deathholydeath wrote:Good.
Reminds me of a movie I just watched: "Seven Days"
Child rapists don't deserve dignity, just torture and death.
Just... watch a movie called Snowtown. It does a really good job of examining exactly what your mentality above is really all about.
Fair warning, it's a graphic, unrelenting depiction of a series of real life serial killings.
I don't think he will get away with it under the "justifications for deadly force rule". If he beat him I would imagine that the threat was neutralized long before the guy was actually dead. So he crossed the line from neutralizing a threat and protecting his daughter and stepped into the area of vigilante justice. If he had a gun and pulled him off and shot him he would probably have a better argument about him still being a threat at the time of the killing. So from the stand point of the law I think that he is probably guilty. It does appear he crossed the line.
Do I understand why he did it? 100% and I would imagine that almost every dad would do the same and while I don't have a daughter I would imagine that I would do something similar if I walked in on somebody doing that to one of my nieces.
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
If he found the man while he was sexually assaulting his daughter, he prevented nothing.
sebster wrote:Provided the beating was delivered in only a few moments after pulling him off his daughter, I'd think the father would get off in most places around the world, so surely he'd get off in Texas.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
deathholydeath wrote:Good.
Reminds me of a movie I just watched: "Seven Days"
Child rapists don't deserve dignity, just torture and death.
Just... watch a movie called Snowtown. It does a really good job of examining exactly what your mentality above is really all about.
Fair warning, it's a graphic, unrelenting depiction of a series of real life serial killings.
I'm quite aware of what "my mentality" is really about. Thus, the reference to Seven Days
Guy deserved it and looks (from what Fraz posted) like Texas law protects the father's actions. Good on him. I hope he was able to prevent the guy from fully committing the act-and to think the guy was a "friend." What sick sort of "friend" would do something like that? I doubt even God was offended by the father's actions. Not that I want to speak for Him, but...
Alright since we are on to the legallity of it all.
Imagine you have a very young daughter, you hear her scream, you run to find her being molested by a pervert you thought was a friend. How are you feeling, what are you thinking about?
Pure anger and rage probably? A blind rage where you litterally might black out for a moment and not actually remember exactly what you did between hitting the guy, and being pulled away?
Enter the not guilty by temporary insanity defense combined with the affirmative defense of his little girl. No way this guy is going to be convicted of anything.
LordofHats wrote:The average person doesn't care at all about upholding something that takes six to eight years of education and training to practicee.
sebster wrote:Provided the beating was delivered in only a few moments after pulling him off his daughter, I'd think the father would get off in most places around the world, so surely he'd get off in Texas.
I'm going with this. The father seems entirely justified in what he was doing.
It would only be morally, and legally, questionable if the attacker had already been subdued and was then subsequently beaten to death. And I doubt that's the case here.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:
Imagine you have a very young daughter, you hear her scream, you run to find her being molested by a pervert you thought was a friend. How are you feeling, what are you thinking about?
Like any smart man, whether or not my actions are well couched in legality. Don't want a daughter less a father, at least if I like my daughter.
Eh, probably prevented the man from re-offending and saved the state a bunch of money by not having to jail him and "rehabiliate" him. No sympathy for the dead guy from me.
I dunno - I think there comes a point where he has neutralised the offence and crossed over to vengeance. I doubt a jury would convict him, and even so they could possibly argue that he was temporarily insane with rage or some such. Also they'd ask 'is what he did reasonable'. I think a lot of people would say yes.
Personally I don't think he had the right to take his life intentionally, but he did the right thing in defending his daughter.
Phototoxin wrote:I dunno - I think there comes a point where he has neutralised the offence and crossed over to vengeance. I doubt a jury would convict him, and even so they could possibly argue that he was temporarily insane with rage or some such. Also they'd ask 'is what he did reasonable'. I think a lot of people would say yes.
Personally I don't think he had the right to take his life intentionally, but he did the right thing in defending his daughter.
It's hard to determine whether you neutralized the offence already or if more force has to be applied in a situation like that, and I guess judge and jury will be aware of that. I mean, it's not like people have a big shiny health bar over their head - maybe it was evene his first punch that was the lethal one, we don't know that.
I also don't think the father will be charged with anything.
Phototoxin wrote:I dunno - I think there comes a point where he has neutralised the offence and crossed over to vengeance. I doubt a jury would convict him, and even so they could possibly argue that he was temporarily insane with rage or some such. Also they'd ask 'is what he did reasonable'. I think a lot of people would say yes.
Personally I don't think he had the right to take his life intentionally, but he did the right thing in defending his daughter.
It's hard to determine whether you neutralized the offence already or if more force has to be applied in a situation like that, and I guess judge and jury will be aware of that. I mean, it's not like people have a big shiny health bar over their head - maybe it was evene his first punch that was the lethal one, we don't know that.
I also don't think the father will be charged with anything.
I honestly would not be surprised if he gets charged with the most minor offense you can get for killing somebody and then plea-bargaining out to a sentence with minimal, if any, jailtime.
deathholydeath wrote:I'm quite aware of what "my mentality" is really about. Thus, the reference to Seven Days
You miss the point. You referenced a movie in which a father who's daughter actually suffered, and what that leads him to.
But you are not a guy who's daughter has suffered that. You're just a guy on the internet who read about that happening to someone else, leading you to write "Child rapists don't deserve dignity, just torture and death."
That attitude, dreaming up horrible punishments to inflict on other people not because of personal trauma but just because, that kind of thing is better explored with the sheer, unrelenting ugliness of Snowtown.
deathholydeath wrote:I'm quite aware of what "my mentality" is really about. Thus, the reference to Seven Days
You miss the point. You referenced a movie in which a father who's daughter actually suffered, and what that leads him to.
But you are not a guy who's daughter has suffered that. You're just a guy on the internet who read about that happening to someone else, leading you to write "Child rapists don't deserve dignity, just torture and death."
That attitude, dreaming up horrible punishments to inflict on other people not because of personal trauma but just because, that kind of thing is better explored with the sheer, unrelenting ugliness of Snowtown.
You have absolutely no idea who I am or what I've been through.
redbristles wrote:I think it's sad that in the UK he'd probably be sent to jail for manslaughter, when any father would have done the same.
Just as he should be. In the UK the use of deadly force is only legal if it is used to immediately preserve the life of yourself or a third party. the details are very vague but it doesn't sound applicable here. It may even be difficult to prove the father side of the story.
As per usual the mere mention of a possible paedophile and the red mist has decended.
Phototoxin wrote:I dunno - I think there comes a point where he has neutralised the offence and crossed over to vengeance. I doubt a jury would convict him, and even so they could possibly argue that he was temporarily insane with rage or some such. Also they'd ask 'is what he did reasonable'. I think a lot of people would say yes.
Personally I don't think he had the right to take his life intentionally, but he did the right thing in defending his daughter.
It's hard to determine whether you neutralized the offence already or if more force has to be applied in a situation like that, and I guess judge and jury will be aware of that. I mean, it's not like people have a big shiny health bar over their head - maybe it was evene his first punch that was the lethal one, we don't know that.
I also don't think the father will be charged with anything.
Agreed. A single blow to the temple, or an improperly applied choke hold (with enough force), among other things, can cause death. We won't know until an autopsy report is released.
As pointed out above it is possible to kill someone with a single lucky punch while legitimately defending a person or preventing a crime.
If you make a prolonged assault on an opponent, though, which continues after they are subdued, then at some point you cross a line. The difficulty for the jury is to decide where that line lies in a given case.
In this case, I am sure the sympathies of the jury will lie with the father. The attack seems to have taken place in a state of instinctive fury.
I have no qualms with the fathers actions, provided the article accurately represents them.
Frazzled wrote:In case there is a query, texas law specifically permits deadly force in this circumstance.
PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
But to be clear on the legal issues:
Unless the molester was killed in the opening moves of the confrontation, he is NOT covered by the afore mentioned law. The very instant the father had stopped the offence, his justification for using force disappeared and he will have to seek legal defence in some kind of temporary insanity/heat of the moment clause.
Having said that, it (use of force law) is a grey area, and a good lawyer would present it well (he believed the offender to be a mortal threat, believed only way to subdue him was to kill him, etc) but it's dicey at best. There would be no way to argue the father didn't intend to kill him.
I'd have no problem acquitting someone under these circumstances; since I think he has a very strong irresistible impulse defense. I suspect they'll probably have a hard time even getting an indictment - if so, I hope he gets a competent attorney that advises against pleading. The only hope they'd have of a conviction would be to somehow exclude the molestation evidence and I imagine a good lawyer would be able to sneak that in even if (or at the very least hopeless taint the jury pool previous to voir dire).
deathholydeath wrote:You have absolutely no idea who I am or what I've been through.
Given this event made you think of a movie, and not about a personal experience, it was only reasonable to assume your understanding of this issue is through a movie, and not through a personal experience. If that's wrong I'm sorry.
deathholydeath wrote:You have absolutely no idea who I am or what I've been through.
Given this event made you think of a movie, and not about a personal experience, it was only reasonable to assume your understanding of this issue is through a movie, and not through a personal experience. If that's wrong I'm sorry.
It did, but I'm not going to share my own past on an internet 40k forum. Movies are easier.
At any rate, I understand. Don't worry about it.
Ouze wrote:I'd have no problem acquitting someone under these circumstances; since I think he has a very strong irresistible impulse defense. I suspect they'll probably have a hard time even getting an indictment - if so, I hope he gets a competent attorney that advises against pleading. The only hope they'd have of a conviction would be to somehow exclude the molestation evidence and I imagine a good lawyer would be able to sneak that in even if (or at the very least hopeless taint the jury pool previous to voir dire).
But that right there might be the reason for him to plead. A trial would involve lots of media attention, and might even include the daughter having to testify. If the dad had an option of spending a year in jail (random number pulled out of my head) or having his daughter go through a trial, then he could very well choose some time if it means keeping his daughter from reliving this event.
The father of the four year old killed another man. That much is proven by admission.
Now it is up to the 'perpetrator' to prove he was protecting his daughter from and ongoing sexual molestion Can he do that? Does he have witnesses?
If he cannot there is a problem. it is not uncommon to kill people on the grounds they are a paedophile only to find that someone was identified as a paedophile by misidentity or by a flat lie designed to make them a target. Under nearly all cases the consensus is that he got what is coming to him and people overlook the possibility that he might actually be innocent. Paedos have no rights by concensus, so if you want someone out the way declare them one.
With someone life over this meeds more than a cursory look. A lot could have happened.
Its common in many community to accuse people of paedophilia without a scrap of evidence in order to facilitate harming them then or later. there was a nasty drugs gang in our area who had a younfgwoman from a good family under their thumb. Those who tried to help her were accused of being 'nonces' publically, with all the connotations. This was entirely just to get them out of the way and deny the victim a support network from her non drug taking friends.
The accused were lucky that the police didn't believe a word of it, as for the girl, last time I heard of her she looked like an orc, so the probably had her on meth.
They would not even have to put her on the stand, but it is going to come up even if it is just interviews with her by attorneys and such.
I do think he should be charged. He did commit a crime and should not get a pass just because his victim commited a crime himself. I understand why he did it, but that does not make him less guilty IMO.
I honestly can't imagine what public prosecutor would take this case with any seriousness. Along the same lines, I think the family of the deceased would probably *not* want this to go trial so they wouldn't come under scrutiny from media attention themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:They would not even have to put her on the stand, but it is going to come up even if it is just interviews with her by attorneys and such.
I do think he should be charged. He did commit a crime and should not get a pass just because his victim commited a crime himself. I understand why he did it, but that does not make him less guilty IMO.
Whether he committed a crime or not is exactly what the authorities have to process. As Frazz posted, there is a case to be made for him acting within legal parameters.
deathholydeath wrote:I honestly can't imagine what public prosecutor would take this case with any seriousness. Along the same lines, I think the family of the deceased would probably *not* want this to go trial so they wouldn't come under scrutiny from media attention themselves.
And what if the four year old was crying out for another reason. It was a stable, she might have been spooked, or a horse might have hit her by accident. Seedy looking local horse enthusiast tries to help, daddy turns up and thinks PAEDO!!!! With the paranoia of todays society this is very possible.
You can be sure as hell afterward beating the man to death he will stick to his story. " Yes he was feeling her up".
deathholydeath wrote:I honestly can't imagine what public prosecutor would take this case with any seriousness. Along the same lines, I think the family of the deceased would probably *not* want this to go trial so they wouldn't come under scrutiny from media attention themselves.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote:They would not even have to put her on the stand, but it is going to come up even if it is just interviews with her by attorneys and such.
I do think he should be charged. He did commit a crime and should not get a pass just because his victim commited a crime himself. I understand why he did it, but that does not make him less guilty IMO.
Whether he committed a crime or not is exactly what the authorities have to process. As Frazz posted, there is a case to be made for him acting within legal parameters.
Well, if he meets the criteria for acting within legal parameters then he should not be charged. If he doesn't meet them then he should be charged.
He should not get special treatment above the provisions of the law already in place just because of the circumstances (and I know that makes me sound like a heartless evil jerk).
deathholydeath wrote:I honestly can't imagine what public prosecutor would take this case with any seriousness.
That depends on the article being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There may well be extenuating circumstances, and it's entirely possible the entire thing was fabricated as an excuse to murder someone for another reason.
As it stands, I agree with you. But we don't have the whole picture.
deathholydeath wrote:I honestly can't imagine what public prosecutor would take this case with any seriousness.
That depends on the article being the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. There may well be extenuating circumstances, and it's entirely possible the entire thing was fabricated as an excuse to murder someone for another reason.
As it stands, I agree with you. But we don't have the whole picture.
True. I'm only going from what the article says, that the father found the deceased sexually assaulting his daughter. We won't know for "certain" until the police report emerges and the indictment (if there is one). However, given the failure of the police to press charges at this time, we might tentatively be able to conclude that there is at least a kernel of truth to the charge of sexual assault.
To be honest, I think the important thing here is whether or not the the child will be able to have a normal life now. Hopefully she will not remember, or else can have careful counselling and support.
I'm sure the father will gladly go to jail for it, and certainly if I were in his situation I would - that consideration would be secondary to having protected his child.
redbristles wrote:I think it's sad that in the UK he'd probably be sent to jail for manslaughter, when any father would have done the same.
Just as he should be. In the UK the use of deadly force is only legal if it is used to immediately preserve the life of yourself or a third party. the details are very vague but it doesn't sound applicable here. It may even be difficult to prove the father side of the story.
As per usual the mere mention of a possible paedophile and the red mist has decended.
While it's certainly possible to kill a man in one blow, it's not what I'd think of as common. I'd personally think from the information given that he likely knew he was killing him, or at least continued attacking after he had subdued the (now) dead man.
Gram wrote:While it's certainly possible to kill a man in one blow, it's not what I'd think of as common. I'd personally think from the information given that he likely knew he was killing him, or at least continued attacking after he had subdued the (now) dead man.
Look up *one punch deaths* here in Australia. Its more common than you expect.
Gram wrote:While it's certainly possible to kill a man in one blow, it's not what I'd think of as common. I'd personally think from the information given that he likely knew he was killing him, or at least continued attacking after he had subdued the (now) dead man.
'King hits' as you'd call them, while not exactly common, are not uncommon either.
In any case, the community and pretty much everyone seems content to let this blow over (Even Dakka has come to something approaching a consensus). I doubt very highly there will be an arrest.
Whilst it isn't common to kill someone with one punch, it's a lot more common to kill them with several punches.
A furiously angry man can throw punches pretty quickly, so it's possible that the father went bam-bam-bam-bam-bam to the other guy's head in the space of a few seconds, and the damage was enough to kill.
Obviously that is speculation pending the outcome of the autopsy.
d-usa wrote:I don't think he will get away with it under the "justifications for deadly force rule". If he beat him I would imagine that the threat was neutralized long before the guy was actually dead. So he crossed the line from neutralizing a threat and protecting his daughter and stepped into the area of vigilante justice. If he had a gun and pulled him off and shot him he would probably have a better argument about him still being a threat at the time of the killing. So from the stand point of the law I think that he is probably guilty. It does appear he crossed the line.
Do I understand why he did it? 100% and I would imagine that almost every dad would do the same and while I don't have a daughter I would imagine that I would do something similar if I walked in on somebody doing that to one of my nieces.
Son, did you miss the part where this is Texas? Further, I think this is Shiner, Texas (as in delicious Shiner Bock fame). They might throw him a parade.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
deathholydeath wrote:
LordofHats wrote:Even if it was illegal to kill the guy, what jury is going to convict him?
No-one in that town, obviously. Probably no-one in texas. I really doubt a grand jury will even indict him.
Unless there are other facts in evidence, its likely he will be nobilled at worst. At best it was strictly catch and release.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palindrome wrote:
redbristles wrote:I think it's sad that in the UK he'd probably be sent to jail for manslaughter, when any father would have done the same.
Just as he should be. In the UK the use of deadly force is only legal if it is used to immediately preserve the life of yourself or a third party. the details are very vague but it doesn't sound applicable here. It may even be difficult to prove the father side of the story.
As per usual the mere mention of a possible paedophile and the red mist has decended.
I don't believe thats the actual law. You're telling me deadly force can't be used if there is a rape occurring? Doubtful.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kaldor wrote:I have no qualms with the fathers actions, provided the article accurately represents them.
Frazzled wrote:In case there is a query, texas law specifically permits deadly force in this circumstance.
PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
But to be clear on the legal issues:
Unless the molester was killed in the opening moves of the confrontation, he is NOT covered by the afore mentioned law. The very instant the father had stopped the offence, his justification for using force disappeared and he will have to seek legal defence in some kind of temporary insanity/heat of the moment clause.
Having said that, it (use of force law) is a grey area, and a good lawyer would present it well (he believed the offender to be a mortal threat, believed only way to subdue him was to kill him, etc) but it's dicey at best. There would be no way to argue the father didn't intend to kill him.
You would be incorrect on that. Its part of the continuing chain of the same event. Now if he had pounded on the guy, then went off to get some duck tape and pliers, then you're right. In the heat of the moment repeatedly punching the guy committing a clear crime of this nature, when you aren't using weapons, no way this goes anywhere in Texas.
redbristles wrote:I think it's sad that in the UK he'd probably be sent to jail for manslaughter, when any father would have done the same.
Just as he should be. In the UK the use of deadly force is only legal if it is used to immediately preserve the life of yourself or a third party. the details are very vague but it doesn't sound applicable here. It may even be difficult to prove the father side of the story.
As per usual the mere mention of a possible paedophile and the red mist has decended.
I don't believe thats the actual law. You're telling me deadly force can't be used if there is a rape occurring? Doubtful.
Says you! Unfortunately the rest of the world doesnt operate under Texan law. Especially here in Europe, there have been some ridiculous rulings in the near past ...
For example, several child molesters/rapists have received prolonged/preventive custody after their sentence. As per European law, they filed charges due to "unlawful" emprisonment.
Court ruled that they were in the right, so the state has to pay compensation.
Now, mind you, Im no expert in law, but in my world, thats just ridiculous ...
SHINER, Texas (AP) — A father beat to death with his hands a man who tried molesting his 4-year-old daughter after the little girl was heard screaming on the family's rural Texas ranch, authorities said Monday.
Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon said the father, whose name has not been released, is unlikely to be arrested for Saturday's killing and that no evidence so far has led investigators to doubt his story.
"There doesn't appear to be any reason other than what he told us," Harmon said. Harmon said the victim was a 47-year-old man from Gonazles with no apparent prior criminal history. His name continued to be withheld Monday because authorities still hadn't tracked down any of his family.
The victim was an "acquaintance" of the father who had come to help care for some horses, Harmon said. He did not know how long the two men may have known each other. The girl was taken to a hospital to be examined and has since been released, Harmon said.
The father called police late Saturday afternoon and told them he attacked a man caught trying to sexually assault his daughter, Harmon said. The alleged attack happened near a barn where some horses were being kept.
"In the course of trying to get her away from him, and protect her, he struck the subject several times in the head and the subject died," Harmon said.
Harmon said a grand jury will decide what, if any, charges the father will face.
The victim's body was sent to the Travis County medical examiner for an autopsy.
The ranch near Shiner is about 130 miles west of Houston. Killings are rare in rural Lavaca County. Harmon said his office has only investigated six since in his eight years as sheriff.
Frazz, your post is wrong. They haven't decided about charges yet, they just said no arrest at this point. Get your story straight you Texan vigilante.
d-usa wrote:Frazz, your post is wrong. They haven't decided about charges yet, they just said no arrest at this point. Get your story straight you Texan vigilante.
(hey in my defense the Chronicle's title is "no charges to be filed"
Its been a bit of time now....
d-usa wrote:Frazz, your post is wrong. They haven't decided about charges yet, they just said no arrest at this point. Get your story straight you Texan vigilante.
(hey in my defense the Chronicle's title is "no charges to be filed"
Its been a bit of time now....
Blaming the media, how typical of you...
I got some Shiner in my fridge, I think I will have a bottle when I get home in a couple hours.
Frazzled wrote:
I don't believe thats the actual law. You're telling me deadly force can't be used if there is a rape occurring? Doubtful.
It most definately is. You can use reasonable force in most cuircumstances, usually upto the level that you are trying to prevent. If someone is trying to kill you then you can legally kill them (if done at the time) but if someone is only going to punch you you can't lawfully kill them.
The whole world isn't as trigger happy as Texas (thankfully).
Frazzled wrote:
I don't believe thats the actual law. You're telling me deadly force can't be used if there is a rape occurring? Doubtful.
It most definately is. You can use reasonable force in most cuircumstances, usually upto the level that you are trying to prevent. If someone is trying to kill you then you can legally kill them (if done at the time) but if someone is only going to punch you you can't lawfully kill them.
The whole world isn't as trigger happy as Texas (thankfully).
So the law is on his side then. After all he only punched the guy to get him to stop. Thanks for confirming I'm right and that Britain is indeed as trigger happy as Texas. Excellent.
That article doesn't mention him punching anyone. Only that he 'beat him to death' and that he 'struck him repeatedly on the head'; It doesn't mention what he struck him with. Either way this does not appear to be self defense (although that could be contentious) so he would not be legally allowed to use force in the UK at all.
Even if it was if he used a weapon then he has exceeded reasonable force and if he struck him repeated then he has moved away from self defence.
While I have the utmost empathy for the guy (I have no doubt that I'd do the same in pretty much every scenario) this is a clear violation of the law and as such he should do at least SOME jail time.
Palindrome wrote:That article doesn't mention him punching anyone. Only that he 'beat him to death' and that he 'struck him repeatedly on the head'; It doesn't mention what he struck him with. Either way this does not appear to be self defense (although that could be contentious) so he would not be legally allowed to use force in the UK at all.
Even if it was if he used a weapon then he has exceeded reasonable force and if he struck him repeated then he has moved away from self defence.
Again, you can't use force to stop a rape? What kind of country do you live in?
Palindrome wrote:That article doesn't mention him punching anyone. Only that he 'beat him to death' and that he 'struck him repeatedly on the head'; It doesn't mention what he struck him with. Either way this does not appear to be self defense (although that could be contentious) so he would not be legally allowed to use force in the UK at all.
Even if it was if he used a weapon then he has exceeded reasonable force and if he struck him repeated then he has moved away from self defence.
Again, you can't use force to stop a rape? What kind of country do you live in?
A civilised one? You can use force, just it has to be limited, appropriate and cannot exceed what is required to prevent harm to another. In your above example you could use force to prevent/stop a rape but you most assuredly cannot kill the perpetrator, unless you genuinely believe that he was about to kill the victim, nor can you indulge in any vigiliante 'justice'.
timetowaste85 wrote:I hope he was able to prevent the guy from fully committing the act-and to think the guy was a "friend." What sick sort of "friend" would do something like that?
Actually, the vast majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone the victim knows, like a friend or acquaintance. There's this really weird idea in our society where people, particularly women, are afraid of an imaginary rapist hiding in the bushes or down a dark alley, when the reality is that the perpetrator is most likely someone known to the victim. This is just another unfortunate example.
Frazzled wrote:What if you need lethal force to stop the rape?
Thats fine but you must geniuinely believe (this wil be examined after the event) that the victims life was in immediate danger and that the only way to save his/her life was to kill the attacker. Basically its not a very likely scenario.
Frazzled wrote:What if you need lethal force to stop the rape?
Actually from the wording of the article the father got his daughter away from the alleged perpetrator and then hit him over the head until he suffered fatal injuries.
Furthermore we now know the man was there to look after the horses, positive motive.
The father heard screaming , no mention is made of what he saw.
Is it impossible for a horse to spook a little girl make her cry or anything like that?
Might the stablehand out of concern rush to her, possibilty lift her up to get her away from the animal?
Might the animal not be wild, just so much larger he leaned on the girl, trod on her toes etc?
Finally is it possible that parents think 'paedo' whenever they see their own children in distress around someone else?
For a start if the guy was a pervert he would likely have some form of rep by now, though this is by no means a given.
All he can tell is that without any other witnesses it will almost certainly result in the killer saying for the rest of his life ' I stopped a paedo'.
This might be the case, it might also be true that an innocent man not only lost his life, but he may end up with no justice done for him and his whole family will live with undeserved shame.
He actually used a light application of force. What I think he should have done, was hold down the guy and make sure he is awake...then castrate him. (Making sure the daughter doesn't see or hear of course...don't want to traumatise her any more.).
I'd have no problems with that whatsoever.
The whole world isn't as trigger happy as Texas (thankfully).
Frazzled wrote:What if you need lethal force to stop the rape?
Actually from the wording of the article the father got his daughter away from the alleged perpetrator and then hit him over the head until he suffered fatal injuries.
Furthermore we now know the man was there to look after the horses, positive motive.
The father heard screaming , no mention is made of what he saw.
Is it impossible for a horse to spook a little girl make her cry or anything like that?
Might the stablehand out of concern rush to her, possibilty lift her up to get her away from the animal?
Might the animal not be wild, just so much larger he leaned on the girl, trod on her toes etc?
Finally is it possible that parents think 'paedo' whenever they see their own children in distress around someone else?
For a start if the guy was a pervert he would likely have some form of rep by now, though this is by no means a given.
All he can tell is that without any other witnesses it will almost certainly result in the killer saying for the rest of his life ' I stopped a paedo'.
This might be the case, it might also be true that an innocent man not only lost his life, but he may end up with no justice done for him and his whole family will live with undeserved shame.
According to the article on CNN, the girl wasn't in the barn with the horses, but in the family's house.
Frazzled wrote:What if you need lethal force to stop the rape?
Thats fine but you must geniuinely believe (this wil be examined after the event) that the victims life was in immediate danger and that the only way to save his/her life was to kill the attacker. Basically its not a very likely scenario.
1. Wanna bet?
2. Its also a reasonable belief scenario. Its an easy argument that the father strikes the attacker employed the correct amount of force to stop the rape. He did not use a knife, gun, or implement. He just wailed on the guy. if you're a prosecutor, you're only argument is that the father continued beating him well beyond the period neccesary to stop the attack. Give the state of mind of the defending father (we're talking a very fast timeline), finding a procecutor stupid enough to lose their career in attempting to prove that would be...difficult.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:This is a country in which it is considered wrong to welt a robber's head with cricket bats while he lies on the ground after being captured.
Sorry, other than Sean of the Dead and Douglas Adams killer robots, I'm not sure of the lethality of a cricket bat.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr Hyena wrote:He actually used a light application of force. What I think he should have done, was hold down the guy and make sure he is awake...then castrate him. (Making sure the daughter doesn't see or hear of course...don't want to traumatise her any more.).
I'd have no problems with that whatsoever.
The whole world isn't as trigger happy as Texas (thankfully).
At least Texas is after Justice unlike the UK.
Well it was a ranch. He did have the necessary equipment nearby. . .
Frazzled wrote:What if you need lethal force to stop the rape?
Actually from the wording of the article the father got his daughter away from the alleged perpetrator and then hit him over the head until he suffered fatal injuries.
Furthermore we now know the man was there to look after the horses, positive motive.
The father heard screaming , no mention is made of what he saw.
Is it impossible for a horse to spook a little girl make her cry or anything like that?
Might the stablehand out of concern rush to her, possibilty lift her up to get her away from the animal?
Might the animal not be wild, just so much larger he leaned on the girl, trod on her toes etc?
Finally is it possible that parents think 'paedo' whenever they see their own children in distress around someone else?
For a start if the guy was a pervert he would likely have some form of rep by now, though this is by no means a given.
All he can tell is that without any other witnesses it will almost certainly result in the killer saying for the rest of his life ' I stopped a paedo'.
This might be the case, it might also be true that an innocent man not only lost his life, but he may end up with no justice done for him and his whole family will live with undeserved shame.
According to the article on CNN, the girl wasn't in the barn with the horses, but in the family's house.
That changes the scenario but not the ethic. We do not yet know why she was screaming. We now know there was a 4 year old alone in the house, not a barn.
Victim still deserve burden of proof that he was a 'paedo' before he and his family are denied justice.
The questions still need answering.
Frazzled wrote:What if you need lethal force to stop the rape?
Thats fine but you must geniuinely believe (this wil be examined after the event) that the victims life was in immediate danger and that the only way to save his/her life was to kill the attacker. Basically its not a very likely scenario.
1. Wanna bet?
2. Its also a reasonable belief scenario. Its an easy argument that the father strikes the attacker employed the correct amount of force to stop the rape. He did not use a knife, gun, or implement. He just wailed on the guy. if you're a prosecutor, you're only argument is that the father continued beating him well beyond the period neccesary to stop the attack. Give the state of mind of the defending father (we're talking a very fast timeline), finding a procecutor stupid enough to lose their career in attempting to prove that would be...difficult.
I was talking about a hypothetical scenario and using UK law as a guide as I thought that was what you were asking. Given the patchy and contradictory information on this particular incident its impossible to make any kind of informed judgement, doubly so as I know very little about US law.
PhantomViper wrote:Trust the leftist PCs on Dakka to try and defend a paedophile...
Who are they?
You, for one.
You are making up all sorts of hypothetical scenarios where the guy wasn't doing what everyone says he was doing (you know, the father of the little girl, probably the little girl herself when asked questions by the cops, the police investigators, maybe even the doctors that examined the girl at the hospital), without any proof other than your fervent imagination!
I highly doubt that the cops arrived at the fathers house, he went: "the guy was molesting my daughter so I beat him to death", and the cops just walked away without any further questions...
Maybe when the sheriff says that: "no evidence so far has led investigators to doubt his story". Actually means that there is an active investigation going on and that all the signs actually point to the father telling the truth?
Most paedophiles don't have criminal records, unless they have been caught before, its not exactly like drug dealing or robbery in which there are "gateway" crimes before you do the "big one". Last year a serial rapist was caught over here, he had no criminal record whatsoever, he was a 30 year old Electrical Engineer employed in a high profile multinational company with a steady fiancée. He raped 30+ women before he was caught...
Thank jeebus that the USA haven't quite reached the state of PC pussification that Europe has and people like that father can defend their families without being sent to jail for it afterwards!
Its true. Even if the paedo is proven without a doubt guilty, he'd still get a pat on the back by the authorities here in the UK.
I think you will find that it is your opinion rather than fact. As I have already explained in this thread the UK has strict self defense laws, this is a good thing.
Frazzled wrote:I think if Dad runs in, after hearing girl screaming and sees paedo on top of girl, that we've established why she was screaming.
Prove he was a paedo.
She might have done one of many things young children do in the house that leave them in pain or danger. the horse groomer might have rushed in just before the dad.
If you want to extrajudicially endorse beating a man to death then proof is required.
All we currently know is that the father killed the horse groomer in the presence or near presence of his daughter. Its also in his interests to stick to the paedo story even if a second look tells him otherwise.
What is he going to do? If she cried because she picked her finger on a rose, or did one of many many things, many of them bloodless, that would leave a small child in tears, and realised too late that the horse groomer only rushed in just before he did. I think he will stick with his story, it means a short court hearing, celeb status and free beers from every yahoo dad in Texas. The alternative is 15-20 for homicide and a deal with the Aryan Brotherhood to ensure he isn't used as a bitch by the other prison gangs.
Hordini wrote:There's this really weird idea in our society where people, particularly women, are afraid of an imaginary rapist hiding in the bushes or down a dark alley, when the reality is that the perpetrator is most likely someone known to the victim. .
I find it hard to believe that the father of a 4-year-old could not tell the difference between a "someone is raping me" scream and a " ouch I pricked my finger" scream. I would venture that someone's clothes were in disarray.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:I find it hard to believe that the father of a 4-year-old could not tell the difference between a "someone is raping me" scream and a " ouch I pricked my finger" scream. I would venture that someone's clothes were in disarray.
4 year olds have a specific "someone is raping me scream"?
I'd say more context is needed (oh god I'm sounding like Orlanth), I'd doubt a "someone is raping me" scream is especially different to a variety of other screams said four year old would make if they were really scared...
PhantomViper wrote:Trust the leftist PCs on Dakka to try and defend a paedophile...
Now now.
Those might almost be considered "trolling words".
Why?
When every post made by those individuals in this thread are mere conjectures without a single shred of evidence to support them, designed to make a father that was defending is daughter, look like a cold blooded killer that should go to jail? And designed to make a would be rapist and paedophile look like an innocent victim? (as if any person would just misinterpret the reason why his child his crying and kill a man he knew over that misunderstanding!)
This type of thing is a growing trend in Europe's left wing factions, the criminal is never responsible for his actions, it is always societies fault, or the victims! And heaven forbid a would be victim actually protects himself and kills or injures a criminal, those people should just be thrown in jail!
SlaveToDorkness wrote:I would say that it's a damn sight more adrenaline-inducing than a scream the father has heard many times over the course of four years.
Or, you know, he could have heard the scream, went to find his daughter, and found a man touching her private parts.
PhantomViper wrote:Trust the leftist PCs on Dakka to try and defend a paedophile...
Now now.
Those might almost be considered "trolling words".
Why?
When every post made by those individuals in this thread are mere conjectures without a single shred of evidence to support them, designed to make a father that was defending is daughter, look like a cold blooded killer that should go to jail? And designed to make a would be rapist and paedophile look like an innocent victim? (as if any person would just misinterpret the reason why his child his crying and kill a man he knew over that misunderstanding!)
This type of thing is a growing trend in Europe's left wing factions, the criminal is never responsible for his actions, it is always societies fault, or the victims! And heaven forbid a would be victim actually protects himself and kills or injures a criminal, those people should just be thrown in jail!
Except Orlanth (god I'm almost defending him again) isn't left wing IIRC.
Corpsesarefun wrote:I'd say more context is needed (oh god I'm sounding like Orlanth), I'd doubt a "someone is raping me" scream is especially different to a variety of other screams said four year old would make if they were really scared...
As a father of a 4 year old: yes, there are several different types of screams and a "I'm in imminent danger" scream is very different from an "I'm scared" scream...
Hordini wrote:There's this really weird idea in our society where people, particularly women, are afraid of an imaginary rapist hiding in the bushes or down a dark alley, when the reality is that the perpetrator is most likely someone known to the victim. .
PhantomViper wrote:
When every post made by those individuals in this thread are mere conjectures without a single shred of evidence to support them
Essentially that is the position of the 'otherside' as well. So far the fathers story hasn't been disproven but that doesn't mean that its definately true.
SlaveToDorkness wrote:I would say that it's a damn sight more adrenaline-inducing than a scream the father has heard many times over the course of four years.
Or, you know, he could have heard the scream, went to find his daughter, and found a man touching her private parts.
But that would make too much sense.
Exactly. Note the article stated that. I'm not sure what the issue is. And I quote: "After reaching the barn, he found a man sexually assaulting his daughter." Quit the"well it could have been she stubbed her toe" crap arguments already.
Frazzled wrote:I think if Dad runs in, after hearing girl screaming and sees paedo on top of girl, that we've established why she was screaming.
Prove he was a paedo.
Ok!
He sexually molested a four-year-old. That's the goddamn definition.
And if you mean he was a formerly convicted pedophile, no-one prove that until the coroner's office releases the name. So you're right if you meant it that way.
PhantomViper wrote:
When every post made by those individuals in this thread are mere conjectures without a single shred of evidence to support them
Essentially that is the position of the 'otherside' as well. So far the fathers story hasn't been disproven but that doesn't mean that its definately true.
No that doesn't mean that its 100% true, but we do have the sheriffs statement, based on investigators findings and the doctors analysis of the little girl, that says that what has been found so far corroborates the father's story.
Frazzled wrote:I think if Dad runs in, after hearing girl screaming and sees paedo on top of girl, that we've established why she was screaming.
Prove he was a paedo.
Ok!
He sexually molested a four-year-old. That's the goddamn definition.
And if you mean he was a formerly convicted pedophile, no-one prove that until the coroner's office releases the name. So you're right if you meant it that way.
I'm pretty sure the point was there is no proof at this point in time that he WAS molesting said four year old.
And it is wrong that I'd have been more accepting of this case if the father had simply shot the man and killed him in one rather than slowly beat him to death?
In this day and age, dad may have very well covered the "good touch/bad touch" speech and she knows to scream as loud as she can if bad touch happens. So he may very well have recognized that/
I am genuinelyl suprised by the responses on here from so many usually sensible people.
Frazzled, doesnt suprise me at all however.
I'm not "leftist" I'm pretty right wing, and I'm all up for hanging the worst offenders in society, I've long been a supporter of capital punishment.
If a bloke is found guilty and the evidence is extremely damning, then I am up for slotting people, no questions. Ive always said we banned capital punishment because back in the day we fethed up all the time. But with modern techniques and such, if we have like, 100% damning evidence such as goo all over a corpse or something caught on camera or something we should just put a bullet in the mother fethers.
That said, this guy wasn't tried! And It genuinely sounds dodgy to me. Why would you rape a four year old if the Dad was nearby? Don't most paedos get away with it for ages because they are smart and do it pretty circumspect? They don't attack kids like they do grown women do they? So that they scream really loudly? When the family is nearby?!
Something sounds off.... And everyone knows people pick risqué subjects so nobody will question them. There is a scumbag I work with who never turns up for work, and when he gets a bollocking he always says it was due to stress and depression because his missus had a miscarriage. I think she is up to twenty miscarriages by now.. but nobody will say anything to him.
Something sounds off to me, and you shouldn't just be allowed to beat people to death because you fancy it. We have courts and this fether should have ended up in one.
Think about it, say you get your wallet stolen, chase a guy a few hundred yards and then beat him to death in an alley, what's to stop you saying "Oh I wasn't chasing him because he stole my wallet.. no..er.. before he did that he fingered my daughter in the restroom at Macdonalds" and attempting to beat the charges?
Having a really good reason to beat someone to death doesn't give you the right to do it. And I hope this case gets scrutinized aggressively, because it sounds fishy to me.
Not that 90% of people have the brains to be objective when the nonces turn up.. at the end of the fething day we have the rule of law in our nations, so we shouldn't turn into gorillas just because we feel really strongly about something.
If you want to go kick untried, uncharged people to death because you have decided they deserve it, you should go live in Afghanistan, cos that's the kinda gak the uneducated, illiterate tribesmen out there get up to.
Frazzled wrote:I think if Dad runs in, after hearing girl screaming and sees paedo on top of girl, that we've established why she was screaming.
Prove he was a paedo.
.
He was ing a 4 year old. Get real.
Was he, I thought that he was supposed to have been "assaulting" a 4 year old, that could mean a lot of things.
No it doesn't actually.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Corpsesarefun wrote:
Chowderhead wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Frazzled wrote:I think if Dad runs in, after hearing girl screaming and sees paedo on top of girl, that we've established why she was screaming.
Prove he was a paedo.
Ok!
He sexually molested a four-year-old. That's the goddamn definition.
And if you mean he was a formerly convicted pedophile, no-one prove that until the coroner's office releases the name. So you're right if you meant it that way.
I'm pretty sure the point was there is no proof at this point in time that he WAS molesting said four year old.
And it is wrong that I'd have been more accepting of this case if the father had simply shot the man and killed him in one rather than slowly beat him to death?
Wow you are reaching at straws aren't you. What proof do you need?
Sexual assault, violent assault, assault marines, verbal assault, etc...
Frazzled wrote:
Corpsesarefun wrote: I'm pretty sure the point was there is no proof at this point in time that he WAS molesting said four year old.
And it is wrong that I'd have been more accepting of this case if the father had simply shot the man and killed him in one rather than slowly beat him to death?
Wow you are reaching at straws aren't you. What proof do you need?
A conclusive medical report on both the deceased and the little girl and preferably some more witnesses. You know, like any proof other than the "father said it happened" line that seems to be all the various news stories covering this agree on?
Corpsesarefun wrote:
I'm pretty sure the point was there is no proof at this point in time that he WAS molesting said four year old.
And it is wrong that I'd have been more accepting of this case if the father had simply shot the man and killed him in one rather than slowly beat him to death?
Wow you are reaching at straws aren't you. What proof do you need?
A conclusive medical report on both the deceased and the little girl and preferably some more witnesses. You know, like any proof other than the "father said it happened" line that seems to be all the various news stories covering this agree on?
You are conveniently ignoring the sheriffs statement that what the investigators found so far corroborates what the father is saying...
Very simply, we do not have all the facts in the case. We have the father saying he saw the man assaulting his daughter. We have a dead man. There may or may not be witnesses. All we know is that this is extremely polarizing. We don't have the report from the hospital regarding the child, we don't have the autopsy results, we don't have the luxury of CCTV.
If facts are as they seem on the face, he should not be charged. If there is any, ANY irregularity it should be investigated without prejudice. Easier said than done, more so when innocents are involved.
article in OP wrote:The sound of the little girl’s screams were later heard coming from the barn and instinctually, the father rushed to his daughter’s aide. After reaching the barn, he found a man sexually assaulting his daughter – undoubtedly a dad’s worst nightmare.
Yet other reports state it happened in the house. That article states that medical examinations were done on the girl and will be done on the deceased but say nothing about the outcomes of those reports.
Not to mention the title of the article was "He got what he deserved", somewhat biased...
Overall I agree with Matty, this should have been handled in court so it could be proven he was molesting her before he was executed.
treadhead1944 wrote:Very simply, we do not have all the facts in the case. We have the father saying he saw the man assaulting his daughter. We have a dead man. There may or may not be witnesses. All we know is that this is extremely polarizing. We don't have the report from the hospital regarding the child, we don't have the autopsy results, we don't have the luxury of CCTV.
If facts are as they seem on the face, he should not be charged. If there is any, ANY irregularity it should be investigated without prejudice. Easier said than done, more so when innocents are involved.
timetowaste85 wrote:Guy deserved it and looks (from what Fraz posted) like Texas law protects the father's actions. Good on him. I hope he was able to prevent the guy from fully committing the act-and to think the guy was a "friend." What sick sort of "friend" would do something like that? I doubt even God was offended by the father's actions. Not that I want to speak for Him, but...
You answered your own question. The friend was sick, mentally ill.
PhantomViper wrote:Trust the leftist PCs on Dakka to try and defend a paedophile...
Now now.
Those might almost be considered "trolling words".
Why?
When every post made by those individuals in this thread are mere conjectures without a single shred of evidence to support them, designed to make a father that was defending is daughter, look like a cold blooded killer that should go to jail? And designed to make a would be rapist and paedophile look like an innocent victim? (as if any person would just misinterpret the reason why his child his crying and kill a man he knew over that misunderstanding!)
This type of thing is a growing trend in Europe's left wing factions, the criminal is never responsible for his actions, it is always societies fault, or the victims! And heaven forbid a would be victim actually protects himself and kills or injures a criminal, those people should just be thrown in jail!
1) There is nothing in the article to lead me to believe that there is any doubt that the girl was being sexually assaulted, so for now let's assume that is the case.
2) Under the assumption that there was a sexual assault taking place, physically assaulting the perpetrator would be a perfectly reasonable response for any father catching them in the middle of it.
3) It is easilly possible to hit someone several times in the head within 10-15 seconds, far from a prolonged assault.
4) I have had relatives who worked ranches their entire lives. "Hard as a coffin nail" would be an suitable descriptor. I have no doubt that they would be perfectly capable of killing someone with their bare hands in that span of time...especially if they were in the shoes of that father.
timetowaste85 wrote:I hope he was able to prevent the guy from fully committing the act-and to think the guy was a "friend." What sick sort of "friend" would do something like that?
Actually, the vast majority of sexual assaults are perpetrated by someone the victim knows, like a friend or acquaintance. There's this really weird idea in our society where people, particularly women, are afraid of an imaginary rapist hiding in the bushes or down a dark alley, when the reality is that the perpetrator is most likely someone known to the victim. This is just another unfortunate example.
Good ole "stranger danger" campaign of the 80s/90s. Just one more piece of crap legislation to come out of the federal goverment then...
To the people saying 'we need the medical report', you will not get it. Unless you are involved in the jury of this case, I believe doctor/patient privilege, not to mention the fact that the girl is 4 years old, means that her medical information will not be released to the public.
To those saying "how do we know the father is telling the truth", you don't. You have the father's statement, and the statement by police saying that they haven't found anything to disprove the father's statement.
The idea that the father should have just cut-off his attack midstride is ludicrous. The man was, in all likelihood, not in his right and rational mind at the time.
Truly, there is skepticism, and then there is being contrary for contrary sake.
Looks to me if this is a 2 part debate that is crossing paths. The simple question is if he did walk in on a man molesting / raping his daughter was he justified in beating him to death?
Saying that it sounds odd, or doesn't add up is a different set of questions.
So asking the question again. If we accept that he walked in on this man molesting or raping his daughter is he justified in beating him to death?
Frazzled wrote: if you're a prosecutor, you're only argument is that the father continued beating him well beyond the period neccesary to stop the attack.
Many cases have been made on just that point. As soon as the father had pushed the man off, the offence was stopped. What reason did he then have to continue punching him?
It can't be argue that he only used the minimum amount of force required.
It can't be argued he stopped using force as soon as the offence was stopped.
It must therefore be argued that he acted in the heat of the moment in a way that any reasonable person would have acted in the circumstances. Some kind of 'temporary insanity'.
This of course, only applies with the caveat that he didn't kill the man in the opening moves of the confrontation.
To the people saying 'we need the medical report', you will not get it. Unless you are involved in the jury of this case, I believe doctor/patient privilege, not to mention the fact that the girl is 4 years old, means that her medical information will not be released to the public.
To those saying "how do we know the father is telling the truth", you don't. You have the father's statement, and the statement by police saying that they haven't found anything to disprove the father's statement.
.
Was he, I thought that he was supposed to have been "assaulting" a 4 year old, that could mean a lot of things
No it doesn't actually.
It does in the UK. Why is it termed assault if it is actually rape?
Oh I get you now. This is a legal term. In Texas the legal crime is not "rape." The term is now "sexual assault." I see why you're not understanding now.
If he walked in on someone molesting or raping his daughter then, while I can fully empathise with him (I'd certainly beat the fether to death if it were me), from an objective point of view he should have disabled/restrained the assailant, made sure his daughter was in no further danger and called the police.
Corpsesarefun wrote:If he walked in on someone molesting or raping his daughter then, while I can fully empathise with him (I'd certainly beat the fether to death if it were me), from an objective point of view he should have disabled/restrained the assailant, made sure his daughter was in no further danger and called the police.
Corpsesarefun wrote:If he walked in on someone molesting or raping his daughter then, while I can fully empathise with him (I'd certainly beat the fether to death if it were me), from an objective point of view he should have disabled/restrained the assailant, made sure his daughter was in no further danger and called the police.
He did disable the defendant.
I think he meant disable him in a less permanent way.
Corpsesarefun wrote:If he walked in on someone molesting or raping his daughter then, while I can fully empathise with him (I'd certainly beat the fether to death if it were me), from an objective point of view he should have disabled/restrained the assailant, made sure his daughter was in no further danger and called the police.
As an aside, I'm betting you're not a father. No father is going to be calm and logical. I still remember when citizenry caught the nightstalker (I think that was his moniker) in California in mid act. I do believe they beat him to death "restraining him" before the cops got there.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Corpsesarefun wrote:Disabling without committing GBH or murder...
Its not the father's fault if the defendant had a egg shell skull. It is reasonable to use normally nonlethal force to stop the assualt. The fact the BG died, well, so much the better.
You're right, I sure as hell wouldn't be calm and logical and would likely kill the fether (as I said twice before). That doesn't excuse the theoretical future me or the father in this case from legal repercussions though.
PhantomViper wrote:Trust the leftist PCs on Dakka to try and defend a paedophile...
Now now.
Those might almost be considered "trolling words".
Agreed, still I want to know who he thinks is a 'leftist PC'.
He might be meaning me!
I could do with a good laugh right now.
PhantomViper wrote: Why? When every post made by those individuals in this thread are mere conjectures without a single shred of evidence to support them,
Actually when someone admits to killing someone and claims to have good reason it pays to check that reason out and demand burden of proof.
How about someone guns down your dad and when the police arrest him says, "yeah I killed PhantomViper's dad, he was a child molester after my kid."
You would be happy for burden of proof to be required then wouldn't you.
Here are the facts so far: The father killed the horse groomer in the house, and admitted it.
Now we need proof it was justified, not just his word for it.
PhantomViper wrote: designed to make a father that was defending is daughter, look like a cold blooded killer that should go to jail? And designed to make a would be rapist and paedophile look like an innocent victim?
You need proof here buddy. A man is dead, if he wants to say he was protecting his girl let him proove it.
PhantomViper wrote: (as if any person would just misinterpret the reason why his child his crying and kill a man he knew over that misunderstanding!)
Actually there is a massive hysteria over 'paedos'. There was a study done in the UK in the last decade where parents were asked to give a percentage to the chance of their kid being a victim of a sexual predator. On average they overestimated the threat by 200x.
People are regularly attacked threatened or victimised because of false testimonies of paedophilia. Its not just out of control kids saying it also. Its a common ploy in criminal communities to smear someone as being a paedo because its the one taboo that is a virtual death sentence if believed.
I knew of a case where a man was living in an estate in my town, he was large and seedy looking so in the eyes of some ignorant idiots that meant he 'must be' a paedo. Some children in the area knew this rumour also. Anyone one evening a teenage girl arrived late home, she had disobeyed dad and not rushed home from school to go to a mates house and play on her playstation. In order to not get into trouble with dad she said she met this man on the way home and evaded him and hid. Dad got angry, phoned a few friends and went around to this mans house. By the time he was finished the victim was lucky to be alive. Later when the girl heard what happened she owned up that it was a lie, after all she was at her friends house and her friends parents knew the truth of the matter.
Nevertheless even though the victim had no child offences to his name nothing happened to the angry dad and AFAIK is still claiming 'the paedo had whats coming' in flat denial rather than face the truth.
Corpsesarefun wrote:You're right, I sure as hell wouldn't be calm and logical and would likely kill the fether (as I said twice before). That doesn't excuse the theoretical future me or the father in this case from legal repercussions though.
If it is assumed that most people would not be calm or logical in that situation, why level legal repercussions against a person that most likely would not be able to act calmly or logically? Temporary insanity does have a place in the legal system, and this is a perfect example of that.
Frazzled wrote:I think if Dad runs in, after hearing girl screaming and sees paedo on top of girl, that we've established why she was screaming.
Prove he was a paedo.
.
He was ing a 4 year old. Get real.
Was he, I thought that he was supposed to have been "assaulting" a 4 year old, that could mean a lot of things.
No it doesn't actually.
It means one thing only Frazzie. The dad killed him and is claiming some form of right of vengeance.
That right may or not exist, we are talking Texas after all.
As to whether the child was actually being molested, well we need better evidence than what we have heard so far.
We still cannot rule out misidentity, or possibly there was another motive to kill him unrelating to the child.
Frazzled wrote:
Wow you are reaching at straws aren't you. What proof do you need?
Proof the victim wasn't trying to comfort the child after she was left alone in the house and had a graze, stubbed he toe or did something else made her scream.
Daddy heard a scream and came running, sensible thing to do really if you leave a four heard old in the house unwatched, which is not the sentsible thing to do.
The horse groomer may well have considered the danger and been a faster runner.
PhantomViper wrote: (as if any person would just misinterpret the reason why his child his crying and kill a man he knew over that misunderstanding!)
Actually there is a massive hysteria over 'paedos'. There was a study done in the UK in the last decade where parents were asked to give a percentage to the chance of their kid being a victim of a sexual predator. On average they overestimated the threat by 200x.
People are regularly attacked threatened or victimised because of false testimonies of paedophilia. Its not just out of control kids saying it also. Its a common ploy in criminal communities to smear someone as being a paedo because its the one taboo that is a virtual death sentence if believed.
I knew of a case where a man was living in an estate in my town, he was large and seedy looking so in the eyes of some ignorant idiots that meant he 'must be' a paedo. Some children in the area knew this rumour also. Anyone one evening a teenage girl arrived late home, she had disobeyed dad and not rushed home from school to go to a mates house and play on her playstation. In order to not get into trouble with dad she said she met this man on the way home and evaded him and hid. Dad got angry, phoned a few friends and went around to this mans house. By the time he was finished the victim was lucky to be alive. Later when the girl heard what happened she owned up that it was a lie, after all she was at her friends house and her friends parents knew the truth of the matter.
Nevertheless even though the victim had no child offences to his name nothing happened to the angry dad and AFAIK is still claiming 'the paedo had whats coming' in flat denial rather than face the truth.
Here's another example of the stupidity of people over "paedophiles"
You need proof here buddy. A man is dead, if he wants to say he was protecting his girl let him proove it.
actually when someone admits to killing someone and claims to have good reason it pays to check that reason out and demand burden of proof.
How about someone guns down your dad and when the police arrest him says, "yeah I killed PhantomViper's dad, he was a child molester after my kid."
You would be happy for burden of proof to be required then wouldn't you.
there is evidence, he killed him and admitted it. Now we need proof it was justified, not just his word for it.
Generally there is an investigation when someone kills someone else. If there is not enough evidence to convict a person or say overwhelming proof that the killing was indeed justified, then they do not bring charges against that person. You are trying to justify throwing the guy over the coals based on a newspaper article who is most likely not privey to the details of that investigation.
You need proof here buddy. A man is dead, if he wants to say he was protecting his girl let him proove it.
actually when someone admits to killing someone and claims to have good reason it pays to check that reason out and demand burden of proof.
How about someone guns down your dad and when the police arrest him says, "yeah I killed PhantomViper's dad, he was a child molester after my kid."
You would be happy for burden of proof to be required then wouldn't you.
there is evidence, he killed him and admitted it. Now we need proof it was justified, not just his word for it.
Generally there is an investigation when someone kills someone else. If there is not enough evidence to convict a person or say overwhelming proof that the killing was indeed justified, then they do not bring charges against that person. You are trying to justify throwing the guy over the coals based on a newspaper article who is most likely not privey to the details of that investigation.
Whereas Frazz and associates are saying that the murder was 100% justified based on the same incomplete newspaper article.
You need proof here buddy. A man is dead, if he wants to say he was protecting his girl let him proove it.
actually when someone admits to killing someone and claims to have good reason it pays to check that reason out and demand burden of proof.
How about someone guns down your dad and when the police arrest him says, "yeah I killed PhantomViper's dad, he was a child molester after my kid."
You would be happy for burden of proof to be required then wouldn't you.
there is evidence, he killed him and admitted it. Now we need proof it was justified, not just his word for it.
Generally there is an investigation when someone kills someone else. If there is not enough evidence to convict a person or say overwhelming proof that the killing was indeed justified, then they do not bring charges against that person. You are trying to justify throwing the guy over the coals based on a newspaper article who is most likely not privey to the details of that investigation.
A fair point, but thenwe are open to being convinced by the evidence, or more accurately we hope Law enforcement in Texas are open to being convinced on the evidence.
However Corpsesarefun has it right. Too many here are assuming that the killing is justified due to the alleged status of the victim without subjecting the case to the scrutiny an investigation into the killing of a man deserves.
You need proof here buddy. A man is dead, if he wants to say he was protecting his girl let him proove it.
actually when someone admits to killing someone and claims to have good reason it pays to check that reason out and demand burden of proof.
How about someone guns down your dad and when the police arrest him says, "yeah I killed PhantomViper's dad, he was a child molester after my kid."
You would be happy for burden of proof to be required then wouldn't you.
there is evidence, he killed him and admitted it. Now we need proof it was justified, not just his word for it.
Generally there is an investigation when someone kills someone else. If there is not enough evidence to convict a person or say overwhelming proof that the killing was indeed justified, then they do not bring charges against that person. You are trying to justify throwing the guy over the coals based on a newspaper article who is most likely not privey to the details of that investigation.
Whereas Frazz and associates are saying that the murder was 100% justified based on the same incomplete newspaper article.
Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon said the father, whose name has not been released, is unlikely to be arrested for Saturday's killing and that no evidence so far has led investigators to doubt his story.
Pretty much supports that Frazz and associates are right.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
Maelstrom808 wrote:
You need proof here buddy. A man is dead, if he wants to say he was protecting his girl let him proove it.
actually when someone admits to killing someone and claims to have good reason it pays to check that reason out and demand burden of proof.
How about someone guns down your dad and when the police arrest him says, "yeah I killed PhantomViper's dad, he was a child molester after my kid."
You would be happy for burden of proof to be required then wouldn't you.
there is evidence, he killed him and admitted it. Now we need proof it was justified, not just his word for it.
Generally there is an investigation when someone kills someone else. If there is not enough evidence to convict a person or say overwhelming proof that the killing was indeed justified, then they do not bring charges against that person. You are trying to justify throwing the guy over the coals based on a newspaper article who is most likely not privey to the details of that investigation.
A fair point, but thenwe are open to being convinced by the evidence, or more accurately we hope Law enforcement in Texas are open to being convinced on the evidence.
However Corpsesarefun has it right. Too many here are assuming that the killing is justified due to the alleged status of the victim without subjecting the case to the scrutiny an investigation into the killing of a man deserves.
Absolutely, you have to put faith that the investigators are doing a fair and unbiased investigation. If someone feels otherwise, they are certainly free to try and bring a case against them. Much like currency, if you don't have faith in the justice system, the whole thing falls apart. That said, it is entirely possible that they are biased and are influencing the the investigation based on that bias, but unless someone can show proof of that, you have to assume that they are being impartial.
Oh I get you now. This is a legal term.
In Texas the legal crime is not "rape." The term is now "sexual assault." I see why you're not understanding now.
Does sexual assault definately mean rape? In the UK it has lots of meaning ranging from inappropriate touching to full blown sodomy. I'm not sure on the more serious examples but it is certainly a widely used term that seems to cover a lot of activities.
Maelstrom808 wrote:
Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon said the father, whose name has not been released, is unlikely to be arrested for Saturday's killing and that no evidence so far has led investigators to doubt his story.
Pretty much supports that Frazz and associates are right.
If Frazzie and associates are right its only by accident.
It wont be the first time police haven't looked very hard at a case because they like the idea of a 'paedo' getting their comeuppance. It wont be the first time the victim denied justice wasn't actually a paedo.
IF the father can convince the police via the evidence and IF that counts as self defence under the law then so be it.
Still we can only hope they are doing their job properly.
Maelstrom808 wrote:
Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon said the father, whose name has not been released, is unlikely to be arrested for Saturday's killing and that no evidence so far has led investigators to doubt his story.
Pretty much supports that Frazz and associates are right.
On the other hand that statement doesn't actually support his story either.
Oh I get you now. This is a legal term.
In Texas the legal crime is not "rape." The term is now "sexual assault." I see why you're not understanding now.
Does sexual assault definately mean rape? In the UK it has lots of meaning ranging from inappropriate touching to full blown sodomy. I'm not sure on the more serious examples but it is certainly a widely used term that seems to cover a lot of activities.
Perhaps it is a broad term covering varying degrees such as those you mentioned, as is the case with violent assault?
Maelstrom808 wrote:
Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon said the father, whose name has not been released, is unlikely to be arrested for Saturday's killing and that no evidence so far has led investigators to doubt his story.
Pretty much supports that Frazz and associates are right.
On the other hand that statement doesn't actually support his story either.
Whaaaa?
"no evidence so far has led investigators to doubt his story"
In other words, from what they have seen so far, the evidence supports his story.
Oh I get you now. This is a legal term.
In Texas the legal crime is not "rape." The term is now "sexual assault." I see why you're not understanding now.
Does sexual assault definately mean rape? In the UK it has lots of meaning ranging from inappropriate touching to full blown sodomy. I'm not sure on the more serious examples but it is certainly a widely used term that seems to cover a lot of activities.
Perhaps it is a broad term covering varying degrees such as those you mentioned, as is the case with violent assault?
It is, however rape is a separate charge and is not included with sexual assault.
Corpsesarefun wrote:If he walked in on someone molesting or raping his daughter then, while I can fully empathise with him (I'd certainly beat the fether to death if it were me), from an objective point of view he should have disabled/restrained the assailant, made sure his daughter was in no further danger and called the police.
What father would react like that?
Actually there is a massive hysteria over 'paedos'.
Probably has something to do with releasing them into the community when their short sentences are done and not giving a good indication of where they are...
Corpsesarefun wrote:If he walked in on someone molesting or raping his daughter then, while I can fully empathise with him (I'd certainly beat the fether to death if it were me), from an objective point of view he should have disabled/restrained the assailant, made sure his daughter was in no further danger and called the police.
What father would react like that?
Actually there is a massive hysteria over 'paedos'.
Probably has something to do with releasing them into the community when their short sentences are done and not giving a good indication of where they are...
Other than being on the sex offenders register that, to my knowledge, lists the names and current address of all convicted paedophiles.
Perhaps the fear over them would lesson if it was made much more public where they are. Lets you know who to watch out for.
He wants their details plastered all over the taboids so he can have a real lynch mob.
Preventing the inevitable re-offending from occurring by watching Them carefully is better than having to deal with the after effects of child abuse...
But really, it depends on if you want to reduce the number of lives hurt by paedos or enable them.
On the other hand that statement doesn't actually support his story either.
Whaaaa?
"no evidence so far has led investigators to doubt his story"
In other words, from what they have seen so far, the evidence supports his story.
The statement is neutral. Not casting doubt is not the same as supporting.
Maybe so, I'll give you that, but when the burden of proof is on you to supply evidence on someone's alleged wrong-doing, not casting doubt on a story is just about as good as supporting.
Mr Hyena wrote:Perhaps the fear over them would lesson if it was made much more public where they are. Lets you know who to watch out for.
He wants their details plastered all over the taboids so he can have a real lynch mob.
Preventing the inevitable re-offending from occurring by watching Them carefully is better than having to deal with the after effects of child abuse...
But really, it depends on if you want to reduce the number of lives hurt by paedos or enable them.
Again, their names and addresses ARE public knowledge.
You need proof here buddy. A man is dead, if he wants to say he was protecting his girl let him proove it.
actually when someone admits to killing someone and claims to have good reason it pays to check that reason out and demand burden of proof.
How about someone guns down your dad and when the police arrest him says, "yeah I killed PhantomViper's dad, he was a child molester after my kid."
You would be happy for burden of proof to be required then wouldn't you.
there is evidence, he killed him and admitted it. Now we need proof it was justified, not just his word for it.
Generally there is an investigation when someone kills someone else. If there is not enough evidence to convict a person or say overwhelming proof that the killing was indeed justified, then they do not bring charges against that person. You are trying to justify throwing the guy over the coals based on a newspaper article who is most likely not privey to the details of that investigation.
Whereas Frazz and associates are saying that the murder was 100% justified based on the same incomplete newspaper article.
Oh I get you now. This is a legal term.
In Texas the legal crime is not "rape." The term is now "sexual assault." I see why you're not understanding now.
Does sexual assault definately mean rape? In the UK it has lots of meaning ranging from inappropriate touching to full blown sodomy. I'm not sure on the more serious examples but it is certainly a widely used term that seems to cover a lot of activities.
Perhaps it is a broad term covering varying degrees such as those you mentioned, as is the case with violent assault?
Well in actuality "assault" as in battery would have the same defense. Strangely, you can't batter children either...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Corpsesarefun wrote:No charges so far.
God it's almost like you need to take time to construct a full picture of a scenario before casting absolute judgement...
The event happened on the 9th. We're not talking CSI here. If he's not charged now he won't be.
Corpsesarefun wrote:If he walked in on someone molesting or raping his daughter then, while I can fully empathise with him (I'd certainly beat the fether to death if it were me), from an objective point of view he should have disabled/restrained the assailant, made sure his daughter was in no further danger and called the police.
What father would react like that?
Actually there is a massive hysteria over 'paedos'.
Probably has something to do with releasing them into the community when their short sentences are done and not giving a good indication of where they are...
Other than being on the sex offenders register that, to my knowledge, lists the names and current address of all convicted paedophiles.
Just a small correction, since your post is a shining example of how people misunderstand the sex offender registry:
The registers list the name and current address of all convicted sex offenders.
Sex offender is a very different term than paedophiles. It's the whole square rectangle thing. While all convicted paedophiles might be sex offenders, not all sex offenders are convicted paedophiles. Flashers, streakers, people who hire prostitutes, and sometimes even people convicted of public urination are all on the sex offenders list, right up along side those convicted of rape, bestiality, sexual assault and the like. In some states, even people convicted of sodomy end up on the sex offender registration.
How about we all take a moment and send our thoughts and prayers to this poor girl, rather than arguing back and forth over sex offender registries.
She was horribly traumatized by first a terrible, terrible act by a despicable human being, and then again by watching her father beat a man to death in front of her.
Whether or not her father's actions were justifiable, the entire incident would be very troubling to a 4-year-old, who wouldn't really understand the nuances of what happened.
On behalf of all of us, I'd like to wish her a speedy and thorough recovery.
hotsauceman1 wrote:
i might have lost it too and killed the guy aswell
Its really hard to read that, look at your avatar, and not giggle a bit.
But I just see this as spinning wheels, hes not going to jail. And objective thinking about what he should have done is pointless. If you have kids and something like that happened, you wouldn't sit there and think it through.
I've always supported capital punishment until I read this thread, now I'm having second thoughts.
Basically people want to act like fething Afghan goat herders as soon as their blood is up. At this rate there wouldn't be anyone left alive by 2018.
The bloke should have been arrested, charged, found guilty in a court and THEN been beaten to death.
And beating someone to death isn't easy by the way, who was the guy who said it was a few pages back? And has he EVER been in a proper fight? Ive been wrapped over the head with all sorts, I got knocked out with a sock full of snooker balls, mashed over the head 4 times with 3 cricket stumps taped together, and then booted all over a street by a gang when I was 15, and I was alright to go on the piss the next day once they stitched my crust back together.
If you fething kick a man to death, you have to seriously go to town. Even I would have a sweat on and I can run a 10k in 38 minutes.
mattyrm wrote:I've always supported capital punishment until I read this thread, now I'm having second thoughts.
Basically people want to act like fething Afghan goat herders as soon as their blood is up. At this rate there wouldn't be anyone left alive by 2018.
The bloke should have been arrested, charged, found guilty in a court and THEN been beaten to death.
And beating someone to death isn't easy by the way, who was the guy who said it was a few pages back? And has he EVER been in a proper fight? Ive been wrapped over the head with all sorts, I got knocked out with a sock full of snooker balls, mashed over the head 4 times with 3 cricket stumps taped together, and then booted all over a street by a gang when I was 15, and I was alright to go on the piss the next day once they stitched my crust back together.
If you fething kick a man to death, you have to seriously go to town. Even I would have a sweat on and I can run a 10k in 38 minutes.
I've had unconfirmed reports regarding your mortality...
mattyrm wrote:I've always supported capital punishment until I read this thread, now I'm having second thoughts.
Basically people want to act like fething Afghan goat herders as soon as their blood is up. At this rate there wouldn't be anyone left alive by 2018.
The bloke should have been arrested, charged, found guilty in a court and THEN been beaten to death.
And beating someone to death isn't easy by the way, who was the guy who said it was a few pages back? And has he EVER been in a proper fight? Ive been wrapped over the head with all sorts, I got knocked out with a sock full of snooker balls, mashed over the head 4 times with 3 cricket stumps taped together, and then booted all over a street by a gang when I was 15, and I was alright to go on the piss the next day once they stitched my crust back together.
If you fething kick a man to death, you have to seriously go to town. Even I would have a sweat on and I can run a 10k in 38 minutes.
I've had unconfirmed reports regarding your mortality...
This.
My respect for matty has increase greatly in this thread Ignoring the sprinklings of racism he drops into each post.
mattyrm wrote: If you fething kick a man to death, you have to seriously go to town. Even I would have a sweat on and I can run a 10k in 38 minutes.
Depends though. Plenty of people have died after only being struck once.
However, almost all cases of one-punch-kills are a result of a person being knocked to the ground and striking their head on something like a rock or gutter. I think the death in this case would have required a concerted effort to produce blunt force trauma, not a single lucky blow.
There is, of course, the chance that there was some problem in the brain to begin with, that was triggered by the blows. I'm no expert, but I think some people are more prone to haemorrhages in the brain.
Grakmar wrote:How about we all take a moment and send our thoughts and prayers to this poor girl, rather than arguing back and forth over sex offender registries.
She was horribly traumatized by first a terrible, terrible act by a despicable human being, and then again by watching her father beat a man to death in front of her.
Whether or not her father's actions were justifiable, the entire incident would be very troubling to a 4-year-old, who wouldn't really understand the nuances of what happened.
On behalf of all of us, I'd like to wish her a speedy and thorough recovery.
Word.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Corpsesarefun wrote:Very true, that doesn't change the fact that people ARE given a good indication of where said convicted paedophiles are.
and @Frazz, really? 3 days is enough time to totally close a case like that?
mattyrm wrote:I've always supported capital punishment until I read this thread, now I'm having second thoughts.
Basically people want to act like fething Afghan goat herders as soon as their blood is up. At this rate there wouldn't be anyone left alive by 2018.
The bloke should have been arrested, charged, found guilty in a court and THEN been beaten to death.
And beating someone to death isn't easy by the way, who was the guy who said it was a few pages back? And has he EVER been in a proper fight? Ive been wrapped over the head with all sorts, I got knocked out with a sock full of snooker balls, mashed over the head 4 times with 3 cricket stumps taped together, and then booted all over a street by a gang when I was 15, and I was alright to go on the piss the next day once they stitched my crust back together.
If you fething kick a man to death, you have to seriously go to town. Even I would have a sweat on and I can run a 10k in 38 minutes.
Its not a revenege attack. He stopped the assault THAT WAS HAPPENING.
Under the same law, if he capped him with a Colt Peacemaker, he'd have the same defense.
mattyrm wrote:I've always supported capital punishment until I read this thread, now I'm having second thoughts.
Basically people want to act like fething Afghan goat herders as soon as their blood is up. At this rate there wouldn't be anyone left alive by 2018.
The bloke should have been arrested, charged, found guilty in a court and THEN been beaten to death.
And beating someone to death isn't easy by the way, who was the guy who said it was a few pages back? And has he EVER been in a proper fight? Ive been wrapped over the head with all sorts, I got knocked out with a sock full of snooker balls, mashed over the head 4 times with 3 cricket stumps taped together, and then booted all over a street by a gang when I was 15, and I was alright to go on the piss the next day once they stitched my crust back together.
If you fething kick a man to death, you have to seriously go to town. Even I would have a sweat on and I can run a 10k in 38 minutes.
Its not a revenege attack. He stopped the assault THAT WAS HAPPENING.
Under the same law, if he capped him with a Colt Peacemaker, he'd have the same defense.
It was totally necessary to kill him to stop the assault was it? There was no other was of stopping it?
Surtur wrote:I have no qualms. I would probably do the same thing.
Who wouldn't? Most parents would put their own life before their child. Anyone caught in this situation would struggle to restrain themselves, the fear and anger involved would override everything. I don't see how anyone could care about the attacker, my concerns would be for the daughter who has been molested and then seen a men beaten to death in front of her.
mattyrm wrote:I've always supported capital punishment until I read this thread, now I'm having second thoughts.
Basically people want to act like fething Afghan goat herders as soon as their blood is up. At this rate there wouldn't be anyone left alive by 2018.
The bloke should have been arrested, charged, found guilty in a court and THEN been beaten to death.
And beating someone to death isn't easy by the way, who was the guy who said it was a few pages back? And has he EVER been in a proper fight? Ive been wrapped over the head with all sorts, I got knocked out with a sock full of snooker balls, mashed over the head 4 times with 3 cricket stumps taped together, and then booted all over a street by a gang when I was 15, and I was alright to go on the piss the next day once they stitched my crust back together.
If you fething kick a man to death, you have to seriously go to town. Even I would have a sweat on and I can run a 10k in 38 minutes.
Its not a revenege attack. He stopped the assault THAT WAS HAPPENING.
Under the same law, if he capped him with a Colt Peacemaker, he'd have the same defense.
It was totally necessary to kill him to stop the assault was it? There was no other was of stopping it?
Legally lethal force may be used to stop this particular type of crime. As I said, if Pop came in, saw the attack and just blew him away he'd be fine. You can argue if the evidence shows repeated blows after the BG was incapacitated, but otherwise I have a logic failure in saying he could shoot him, he just couldn't punch him.
mattyrm wrote:I've always supported capital punishment until I read this thread, now I'm having second thoughts.
Basically people want to act like fething Afghan goat herders as soon as their blood is up. At this rate there wouldn't be anyone left alive by 2018.
The bloke should have been arrested, charged, found guilty in a court and THEN been beaten to death.
And beating someone to death isn't easy by the way, who was the guy who said it was a few pages back? And has he EVER been in a proper fight? Ive been wrapped over the head with all sorts, I got knocked out with a sock full of snooker balls, mashed over the head 4 times with 3 cricket stumps taped together, and then booted all over a street by a gang when I was 15, and I was alright to go on the piss the next day once they stitched my crust back together.
If you fething kick a man to death, you have to seriously go to town. Even I would have a sweat on and I can run a 10k in 38 minutes.
Its not a revenege attack. He stopped the assault THAT WAS HAPPENING. Under the same law, if he capped him with a Colt Peacemaker, he'd have the same defense.
It was totally necessary to kill him to stop the assault was it? There was no other was of stopping it?
Legally lethal force may be used to stop this particular type of crime. As I said, if Pop came in, saw the attack and just blew him away he'd be fine. You can argue if the evidence shows repeated blows after the BG was incapacitated, but otherwise I have a logic failure in saying he could shoot him, he just couldn't punch him.
Well shooting him would bring up its own problems. There would be a reasonable chance that the bullet could go through the attacker and into the victim, especially with a high powered weapon like a Peacemaker. So if the father did have a gun I'd say he would have been better off just pistol whipping the guy on the back of the head rather than opening fire on a struggle involving his own daughter.
1. There is a difference between screams with children, there's the "I stubbed my toe" scream, and there's screams that put any father into the "terrified something is wrong" mode, as a father of a 5 year old daughter I know them both, as any father of a a young child would.
2. As a thought to punches being lethal, one punch to ttyhe back of the head can kill a person outright, its illegal in contact sports for a reason, and before someone says he wasn't a pro boxer, he did I live on a ranch, probobly worked with his hands all day, so although a punch like that wasn't aimed, it certain ly could have held the force to do serious damage in a matter of 4-5 seconds if repeated, no matter where the punches landed on the head. Secondly, 3-4 seconds is enough time to throw several pu ches, and honestly that's about 2 seconds longer than a draw and fire with a gun.
Besides, we have to account for the adrenaline rush as well. Adrenaline rushes have allowed things like housewives tilting cars so that they can get their children out from under them.
Blows to the head can be very unpredictable. It's not just the punch for the head that occurs to me but what happens next. Yes you get stories where people are shot in the head and recover fully, but falling and cracking your head on the pavement could kill. It happens when people slip on ice or go down after being punched in the street.
People smack their heads on things all the time in films which rarely result sin actual injury or even has comedy value. It leads to a false perception of how serious a head injury is.
Corpsesarefun wrote:It was totally necessary to kill him to stop the assault was it? There was no other was of stopping it?
Doesn't really have to be. 'Black outs' defence works both ways...
Melissia nailed it ; was it a situation in which the parent could rationaly evaluate the harm he was inflicting upon the rapist? Arguing that no will be utterly easy, unless there's a conflict in the timing of the story.
Even outside of Texas, this guy would get away without a single night in a cell.
mattyrm wrote:I've always supported capital punishment until I read this thread, now I'm having second thoughts.
Basically people want to act like fething Afghan goat herders as soon as their blood is up. At this rate there wouldn't be anyone left alive by 2018.
The bloke should have been arrested, charged, found guilty in a court and THEN been beaten to death.
And beating someone to death isn't easy by the way, who was the guy who said it was a few pages back? And has he EVER been in a proper fight? Ive been wrapped over the head with all sorts, I got knocked out with a sock full of snooker balls, mashed over the head 4 times with 3 cricket stumps taped together, and then booted all over a street by a gang when I was 15, and I was alright to go on the piss the next day once they stitched my crust back together.
If you fething kick a man to death, you have to seriously go to town. Even I would have a sweat on and I can run a 10k in 38 minutes.
It's perfectly possible to kill someone in one blow. However, it's usually a matter of location (i.e. to the back of the neck), or environmental factors (they fall on something, or are braced in a position that puts internal pressure on necessary organs or bones), or internal medical problems (they hemorrhage, die from shock, choke, seize, or something similar).
Of course, none of this is relevant, since the article states the father struck the man several times.
mattyrm wrote:I've always supported capital punishment until I read this thread, now I'm having second thoughts.
Basically people want to act like fething Afghan goat herders as soon as their blood is up. At this rate there wouldn't be anyone left alive by 2018.
The bloke should have been arrested, charged, found guilty in a court and THEN been beaten to death.
And beating someone to death isn't easy by the way, who was the guy who said it was a few pages back? And has he EVER been in a proper fight? Ive been wrapped over the head with all sorts, I got knocked out with a sock full of snooker balls, mashed over the head 4 times with 3 cricket stumps taped together, and then booted all over a street by a gang when I was 15, and I was alright to go on the piss the next day once they stitched my crust back together.
If you fething kick a man to death, you have to seriously go to town. Even I would have a sweat on and I can run a 10k in 38 minutes.
My father witnessed a one-punch kill outside a bar a few years ago. Apparently some big dude offered some smaller dude to give the first blow, got knocked out by the hit, and broke his neck on the asphalt. 4 seconds of fight, result ; one dead dude and one 3 years sentence for manslaughter.
Fighting is stupid, if you don't assume you can get killed or kill someone in the process.
Corpsesarefun wrote:While I have the utmost empathy for the guy (I have no doubt that I'd do the same in pretty much every scenario) this is a clear violation of the law and as such he should do at least SOME jail time.
You're absolutely right-let's put him in solitary for 15 minutes, let him cool down, then send him back to his family. He did what any normal father should do. With no previous criminal record (from Fraz's post), it is unlikely that he would have killed his friend/acquaintance if this didn't happen, and his actions were a reaction caused by harm coming to his daughter. While I believe many Texans are crazy, trigger happy, weiner-dog loving nut-jobs (Fraz ), I think Texan law is appropriate here-let the dad walk free. Or, give him a 15 minute 'time-out', then let him go free.
mattyrm wrote:The bloke should have been arrested, charged, found guilty in a court and THEN been beaten to death.
Or given a ten year sentence and gotten off in four for good behavior.
I think Matty meant the molester should have been arrested, charged and beaten to death-not the father. I don't think we wanted the molester getting out of jail in 4 years for good behavior. Moot point, since he's, well...dead.
mattyrm wrote:The bloke should have been arrested, charged, found guilty in a court and THEN been beaten to death.
Or given a ten year sentence and gotten off in four for good behavior.
I think Matty meant the molester should have been arrested, charged and beaten to death-not the father. I don't think we wanted the molester getting out of jail in 4 years for good behavior. Moot point, since he's, well...dead.
I think he meant the alleged rapist and was providing a commentary on the ludicrous nature of our justice system.
Melissia wrote:Besides, we have to account for the adrenaline rush as well. Adrenaline rushes have allowed things like housewives tilting cars so that they can get their children out from under them.
There is no reputable evidence for that occurring, but it is proven that adrenaline rushes temporarily shut down safeguards allowing humans to exert force beyond what they normally could do. As cool as it may sound it can lead to serious injury. You also have to question how reasonable for is it to expect anyone to restrain themselves from seriously injuring any individual attacking their child. This a particularly extreme case. Passing moral judgment on the father, be it good or bad, is misguided unless you've actually be in a similar situation.
Squigsquasher wrote:The perverted bastard got what he deserved.
No one deserves to be beaten death. I'll agree he should be executed, but every execution should be done as quickly and as painlessly as possible.
deathholydeath wrote:
timetowaste85 wrote:
Scrabb wrote:
mattyrm wrote:The bloke should have been arrested, charged, found guilty in a court and THEN been beaten to death.
Or given a ten year sentence and gotten off in four for good behavior.
I think Matty meant the molester should have been arrested, charged and beaten to death-not the father. I don't think we wanted the molester getting out of jail in 4 years for good behavior. Moot point, since he's, well...dead.
I think he meant the alleged rapist and was providing a commentary on the ludicrous nature of our justice system.
Yep, the attacker wouldn't have done life or gotten the death penalty.
I'm with the Grakster. Girl is gonna have some gak to get over.
That said, if you walk in and some dude has his hands down your daughter's pants, our silly societal construct known as family doesn't leave a lot of room for reasoned response. Unless the father got up from the guys supine body, went and got a claw hammer from the garage and finished the job, he ought to walk. I'm all for investigating, but that is really all anyone ought to be saying. There really isn't a reason to invent scenarios where it was innocent misunderstanding and the father is the bad guy. Just say "I think this needs to be investigated, without bias." Done, simple, and people can't really get all offended by that and shout back and turn this into a whole thing.
So, aside from a few people that like yelling death to paedophiles, most everyone else can agree that if the father killed the guy in the act of protecting his daughter he should be fine, but if he inflicted the lethal blows after his daughter was secure then he has a case to answer. And despite a whole lot of guesswork from the collected braintrust of Dakka, we've basically got no idea when the guy was actually killed, so we should probably leave it up to the police.
Oh, and some people have pointed out it's probably more important to send good wishes to the daughter than argue the above, because she's apparently reading Dakka or something.
It would be weird if a four year old could read fluently (some can mind you, but a rural home doesn't strike me as a place where tehy'd send their daughter to preschool), nevermind participate in DakkaDakka discussion. Or follow it.
Melissia wrote:It would be weird if a four year old could read fluently (some can mind you, but a rural home doesn't strike me as a place where tehy'd send their daughter to preschool), nevermind participate in DakkaDakka discussion. Or follow it.
Don't sell the new generation short. Their Internet-Fu is strong, and rural/suburban/urban has little bearing as long as they aren't stuck on dial up anymore.
Bromsy wrote:
Don't sell the new generation short. Their Internet-Fu is strong, and rural/suburban/urban has little bearing as long as they aren't stuck on dial up anymore.
Agreed. Those little bastards sneak up on you with some of the stuff they know.
I am well aware that you can die after one blow of course, you read about it all the time with a world population of nearly 7 billion, the old "punched then fell and heabutted the kerb causing brain injury/snapped neck or something.. but it IS very rare, I'm speaking in general obviously.
I think it must be a tiny chance of even several blows killing a man in a fight, maybe one in every 100,000 or something, because look how many brawls there are every day in the west among piss heads coming out of pubs and bars!
Millions of drunks and young lads boot the gak out of each other on a regular basis, If death as a result of a good kicking was common place, the population of places like Scotland, Ireland and Middlesbrough would be culled by several thousand on weeknights, and about 1.6 million on Friday and Saturday nights.
And on New Years Eve?! It doesn't even bear thinking about!
deathholydeath wrote:
I think he meant the alleged rapist and was providing a commentary on the ludicrous nature of our justice system.
Yeah, ask questions before sentencing, totally ludicrous.
Remember, I have no reason to trust you, and would be stupid if I did in spite.
mattyrm wrote:
I think it must be a tiny chance of even several blows killing a man in a fight, maybe one in every 100,000 or something, because look how many brawls there are every day in the west among piss heads coming out of pubs and bars!
Yeah, but you know they don't really put their all into those punches. Hitting another person in the head is a dicey proposition for most people. Unless you've been conditioned for it most people pull up on reflex, after all human skulls are hard.
mattyrm wrote:I am well aware that you can die after one blow of course, you read about it all the time with a world population of nearly 7 billion, the old "punched then fell and heabutted the kerb causing brain injury/snapped neck or something.. but it IS very rare, I'm speaking in general obviously.
I think it must be a tiny chance of even several blows killing a man in a fight, maybe one in every 100,000 or something, because look how many brawls there are every day in the west among piss heads coming out of pubs and bars!
Millions of drunks and young lads boot the gak out of each other on a regular basis, If death as a result of a good kicking was common place, the population of places like Scotland, Ireland and Middlesbrough would be culled by several thousand on weeknights, and about 1.6 million on Friday and Saturday nights.
And on New Years Eve?! It doesn't even bear thinking about!
We all know being drunk makes you tougher, that is just simple science. The point being that the alleged assaulter was apparently sober and thus his skull more prone to righteous punchings.
Melissia wrote:It would be weird if a four year old could read fluently (some can mind you, but a rural home doesn't strike me as a place where tehy'd send their daughter to preschool), nevermind participate in DakkaDakka discussion. Or follow it.
Of the kids I've known of who could read at very young ages (I mean actually read, not just know their ABCs and be able to recognize a handful of vocabulary words), it usually had more to do with the parents teaching the kids themselves, not sending them to preschool. I'm not saying preschool is bad or pointless or anything, just that most kids don't come out of preschool being able to read children's books on their own without a lot of help from parents, because being able to read at that level isn't really the focus of preschool. Preschools exist in rural school districts too, and plenty of people send their kids to them, so I don't think that really has anything to do with it either.
I know I was reading at a "sixth grade level" when I went into first grade, so evaluate that how you want. I blame my dad for starting Timothy Zahn novels then handing them to me and telling me to finish 'em myself. Plus being a super genius. And humble. Super humble. Considering how awesome I am.
Personally, I just think it means sixth graders are just dumb as gak, on general.
Bromsy wrote:I know I was reading at a "sixth grade level" when I went into first grade, so evaluate that how you want. I blame my dad for starting Timothy Zahn novels then handing them to me and telling me to finish 'em myself. Plus being a super genius. And humble. Super humble. Considering how awesome I am.
Personally, I just think it means sixth graders are just dumb as gak, on general.
I'm not sure how high sixth grade is but most of primary and secondary school is easy to get 'ahead of the curve' as it were...
Bromsy wrote:I know I was reading at a "sixth grade level" when I went into first grade, so evaluate that how you want. I blame my dad for starting Timothy Zahn novels then handing them to me and telling me to finish 'em myself. Plus being a super genius. And humble. Super humble. Considering how awesome I am.
Personally, I just think it means sixth graders are just dumb as gak, on general.
I'm not sure how high sixth grade is but most of primary and secondary school is easy to get 'ahead of the curve' as it were...
I'm just saying there is a lot of play when it comes to age. I was on generally 5 odd years ahead of 'average', without particular effort. If this four year old had a lot of parental pressure she could be well into the literate range. Plus I was also pointing out how awesomely humble I am.
Bromsy wrote:I know I was reading at a "sixth grade level" when I went into first grade, so evaluate that how you want. I blame my dad for starting Timothy Zahn novels then handing them to me and telling me to finish 'em myself. Plus being a super genius. And humble. Super humble. Considering how awesome I am.
Personally, I just think it means sixth graders are just dumb as gak, on general.
I'm not sure how high sixth grade is but most of primary and secondary school is easy to get 'ahead of the curve' as it were...
I'm just saying there is a lot of play when it comes to age. I was on generally 5 odd years ahead of 'average', without particular effort. If this four year old had a lot of parental pressure she could be well into the literate range. Plus I was also pointing out how awesomely humble I am.
You are very awesomely humble...
It's rather remarkable really
Bromsy wrote:I know I was reading at a "sixth grade level" when I went into first grade, so evaluate that how you want. I blame my dad for starting Timothy Zahn novels then handing them to me and telling me to finish 'em myself. Plus being a super genius. And humble. Super humble. Considering how awesome I am.
Personally, I just think it means sixth graders are just dumb as gak, on general.
I'm not sure how high sixth grade is but most of primary and secondary school is easy to get 'ahead of the curve' as it were...
I'm just saying there is a lot of play when it comes to age. I was on generally 5 odd years ahead of 'average', without particular effort. If this four year old had a lot of parental pressure she could be well into the literate range. Plus I was also pointing out how awesomely humble I am.
You are very awesomely humble...
It's rather remarkable really
It is a totally unique and impressive ability I have, to be this humble. I may write a keytar solo about it, whilst flipping through the air.
Bromsy wrote:I know I was reading at a "sixth grade level" when I went into first grade, so evaluate that how you want. I blame my dad for starting Timothy Zahn novels then handing them to me and telling me to finish 'em myself. Plus being a super genius. And humble. Super humble. Considering how awesome I am.
Personally, I just think it means sixth graders are just dumb as gak, on general.
I'm not sure how high sixth grade is but most of primary and secondary school is easy to get 'ahead of the curve' as it were...
I'm just saying there is a lot of play when it comes to age. I was on generally 5 odd years ahead of 'average', without particular effort. If this four year old had a lot of parental pressure she could be well into the literate range. Plus I was also pointing out how awesomely humble I am.
You are very awesomely humble...
It's rather remarkable really
It is a totally unique and impressive ability I have, to be this humble. I may write a keytar solo about it, whilst flipping through the air.
deathholydeath wrote: That's not exactly what I meant. I meant that a convicted rapist getting 10 years and getting out in 4 is ludicrous.
Why? Honest question.
Sure. I'll preface this by saying that this is my opinion, I am admittedly biased, and I'm very tired. So, just keep that in mind. Rape is the only crime for which I can imagine no mitigating circumstances. Murder has room for justification and extenuating circumstances (self-defense, throes of passion, etc). Theft likewise. The only reason a person rapes another person is because they want to--it doesn't happen by accident. We can make a case for insanity for this if we like, but excepting this, no sane person rapes another for any reason other than the desire to do so. with regard to definition of terms, I'm talking about violent rape-- a sexual act committed against someone who has said no or otherwise communicated that the act is not desirable. I would say this also applies to people unable to communicate and to people who do not understand the terms-- an unconscious person, an extremely mentally handicapped individual, or a child for example. I find it ludicrous that a man who robs a bank for 100$ to feed himself gets 15 years in prison while a rapist acting with deliberate intent gets only eight years.
Bromsy wrote:I'm with the Grakster. Girl is gonna have some gak to get over.
That said, if you walk in and some dude has his hands down your daughter's pants, our silly societal construct known as family doesn't leave a lot of room for reasoned response. Unless the father got up from the guys supine body, went and got a claw hammer from the garage and finished the job, he ought to walk. I'm all for investigating, but that is really all anyone ought to be saying. There really isn't a reason to invent scenarios where it was innocent misunderstanding and the father is the bad guy. Just say "I think this needs to be investigated, without bias." Done, simple, and people can't really get all offended by that and shout back and turn this into a whole thing.
Bromsy has the way of it. Now go take some bath salts and get your zombie freak on!
He did what we'd all do in that situation. Well, maybe 99% of us. I doubt that he'd get convicted, though if it were me I'd take a sentence for my actions happy in the knowledge that I'd protected my child.
If I.did.nothing and he walked free, I'd probably kill myself.from the guilt that my inaction had caused. (and in doing so, feth my kids mind up even more, so maybe not, but I'd be fanned tempted!)
Melissia wrote:It would be weird if a four year old could read fluently (some can mind you, but a rural home doesn't strike me as a place where tehy'd send their daughter to preschool), nevermind participate in DakkaDakka discussion. Or follow it.
Most 4-year-olds regularly shout "Nu UH!" vehemently when someone they don't like poses a thought, regardless of how asinine the position. I'd say they'd fit right in!
I think rapists should be placed in a psych ward and not released until they are no longer likely to commit.
There's some reason they do what they do and to put an arbitrary time limit before release without solving the problem makes no sense to me. I accept this may mean permanent incarceration for some.
Ten years is a long sentence. It may not be long enough to change a person.
deathholydeath wrote:
Rape is the only crime for which I can imagine no mitigating circumstances.
Drunk with that cute girl after a party, if a liberal definition of rape is used. She sort of says "No" but not really. Didn't mean to rape, but she feels like she was raped.
with regard to definition of terms, I'm talking about violent rape-- a sexual act committed against someone who has said no or otherwise communicated that the act is not desirable. I would say this also applies to people unable to communicate and to people who do not understand the terms-- an unconscious person, an extremely mentally handicapped individual, or a child for example.
dogma wrote:"No." means "Yes." is a thing. And what do we do with the cloying no?
My ma always told us 'Anything but an emphatic "Yes" should be treated as a "No"'
My step-sister believes that a guy should ask every 5 minutes if the girl already said yes. True story time: she met a guy in college, they spent some time together, one thing led to another and she said yes. A while later, she changed her mind, BUT DIDN"T SAY "NO" or ask him to stop in any way. She now believes she was raped. My sister and I both told her no, she wasn't because she consented and never verbally told the guy to stop. I asked her if she actually felt a guy should ask every couple of minutes if he could continue and she said yes. I can see the human race surviving if everyone was as intelligent as her...
Another true story time as to girls drinking and claiming rape-my buddy got plastered at college, went to play Monopoly with a group of friends and everyone had one single beer. One of the girls talked him into sleeping with her (he was very drunk, and was easily taken advantage of). She had previously joined a Christian group on campus, and the next morning felt guilty for sleeping with a guy. So, because of this, she told the RD that she was raped by him to ease her guilty conscience of taking advantage of him. He was allowed to stay at school, but was put on automatic probation and barred from ever entering that dorm again.
Third true story: another friend who was an RA flirted with another RA who was incapable of scoring with him (he was a soccer/football star player, in great shape and had no trouble getting dates, she was very unattractive and not in shape at all). She pressed her advances, he declined and she informed their boss that he tried to force himself on her. He lost his job, got kicked out of the dorm and was brought up on further disciplinary action. Thankfully my RA caught her smoking pot at a party, reported her and got her booted out too.
dogma wrote:"No." means "Yes." is a thing. And what do we do with the cloying no?
My ma always told us 'Anything but an emphatic "Yes" should be treated as a "No"'
My step-sister believes that a guy should ask every 5 minutes if the girl already said yes. True story time: she met a guy in college, they spent some time together, one thing led to another and she said yes. A while later, she changed her mind, BUT DIDN"T SAY "NO" or ask him to stop in any way. She now believes she was raped. My sister and I both told her no, she wasn't because she consented and never verbally told the guy to stop. I asked her if she actually felt a guy should ask every couple of minutes if he could continue and she said yes. I can see the human race surviving if everyone was as intelligent as her...
Ask every couple of minutes?
So I should ask to go again after I am already done?
dogma wrote:"No." means "Yes." is a thing. And what do we do with the cloying no?
My ma always told us 'Anything but an emphatic "Yes" should be treated as a "No"'
My step-sister believes that a guy should ask every 5 minutes if the girl already said yes. True story time: she met a guy in college, they spent some time together, one thing led to another and she said yes. A while later, she changed her mind, BUT DIDN"T SAY "NO" or ask him to stop in any way. She now believes she was raped. My sister and I both told her no, she wasn't because she consented and never verbally told the guy to stop. I asked her if she actually felt a guy should ask every couple of minutes if he could continue and she said yes. I can see the human race surviving if everyone was as intelligent as her...
Ask every couple of minutes?
So I should ask to go again after I am already done?
Personally, I would have killed the guy regardless of whose daughter he was.
And even if I was sentnenced to death, I would not feel bad about it. Someone that defective has no further purpose in this world and needs to be removed before they do any more harm.
(And I'll point out, those who rape in general have a very high chance to offend again. In child molesters the chance is even higher. Prison does not fix their problem. Even therapy has a general high failure rate. So... what's the point? Save the cost, execute them, and give the victims a sense that justice really has been done.)
Ironically you have the exact same view as my wife, one of the most "can't we all just get along" people you ever met, until she worked for victim services specializing in children.
She's a kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out kind of gal now.
Doesn't really matter. Therapy will still have higher rate of success than sticking them in prison for 20 years then just letting them out with no therapy or killing them.
Also, therapy allows doctors to build up an idea of some of the causes of paedophilia. Do a lot of their patients suffer from bad childhoods etc.? This information will help identify warning signals earlier and allow pre-emptive treatment, before a child has had to suffer.
So therapy will be the better option no matter what it's current success rate may be.
timetowaste85 wrote:
My step-sister believes that a guy should ask every 5 minutes if the girl already said yes. True story time: she met a guy in college, they spent some time together, one thing led to another and she said yes. A while later, she changed her mind, BUT DIDN"T SAY "NO" or ask him to stop in any way. She now believes she was raped.
I know actual rape victims that would make an attempt on her life.
Vulcan wrote:Personally, I would have killed the guy regardless of whose daughter he was.
And even if I was sentnenced to death, I would not feel bad about it. Someone that defective has no further purpose in this world and needs to be removed before they do any more harm.
There's a quote about eyes and blindness that might be relevant.
Doesn't really matter. Therapy will still have higher rate of success than sticking them in prison for 20 years then just letting them out with no therapy or killing them.
Also, therapy allows doctors to build up an idea of some of the causes of paedophilia. Do a lot of their patients suffer from bad childhoods etc.? This information will help identify warning signals earlier and allow pre-emptive treatment, before a child has had to suffer.
So therapy will be the better option no matter what it's current success rate may be.
deathholydeath wrote:Sure. I'll preface this by saying that this is my opinion, I am admittedly biased, and I'm very tired. So, just keep that in mind.
Rape is the only crime for which I can imagine no mitigating circumstances. Murder has room for justification and extenuating circumstances (self-defense, throes of passion, etc). Theft likewise.
Judge Roy Bean was once asked why he only banished the man who'd gunned someone down, but ordered a horse thief to be hung, and he famously replied "Meet a lot of men who needed killing. Never met a horse who needed stealing".
I'm not sure I entirely agree with your argument, but I just really like that story.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Try not to use it as an excuse at trial. Its a defense that no longer works in most states.
And it shouldn't, its lame excuse. Really lame.
Agreed, and so do most courts, either because of stare decisis or actual legislation that made them stop that crap.
Defendant: "She said no but her eyes said yes."
Warden: "Thats just what your cellmate said about you when I told him you were coming."
It's really weird that rape is treated with absolute seriousness on this site, with a lot of people declaring they'll kill a man who raped their daughter, and yet the jokes about prison rape are a constant thing.
Vulcan wrote:(And I'll point out, those who rape in general have a very high chance to offend again.
Well, there's your problem. That statement is a popular myth with little basis in reality. The rate of re-offence is about 25%, and several factors give a strong indicator over whether a person is likely to re-offend.
Studies into this issue have shown that some groups, particularly first time, non-violent offenders who show genuine repentence, and have the support of a family network (either their parents or their partner), have very low rates of re-offence.
Even therapy has a general high failure rate.
Therapy has been shown to reduce re-offence rates by somewhere between a half and a third (with higher reduction rates for sexual crimes generally).
Save the cost, execute them, and give the victims a sense that justice really has been done.)
And there's the next problem. Very, very few families report any kind of feeling of justice after the death penalty has been inflicted.
That said, I'm not arguing for a lighter hand for sex offenders. There are groups with extremely high rates of re-offence (Those who continue to deny or justify their crimes. Those with no social groups to support them. Those who refuse or do not properly engage in therapy.). I believe we need judicial reform to better account for those likely to re-offend, and for it to be based on what's actually happening in the real world, not on popular myths thrown about in the media and on Law & Order.
timetowaste85 wrote:
My step-sister believes that a guy should ask every 5 minutes if the girl already said yes. True story time: she met a guy in college, they spent some time together, one thing led to another and she said yes. A while later, she changed her mind, BUT DIDN"T SAY "NO" or ask him to stop in any way. She now believes she was raped.
I know actual rape victims that would make an attempt on her life.
.
Want her phone number and address? We don't usually get along...and her attitude in this instance disgusted me enough that I'd say she deserves it. Also, she's a smelly hippie that wears massive amounts of lotion into the family hot tub so it's always full of nasty floating scum any time I go over to visit.
I apologize to any smelly hippies who take offense to me calling my step sister a smelly hippie. She is actually one of you.
Vulcan wrote:(And I'll point out, those who rape in general have a very high chance to offend again.
Well, there's your problem. That statement is a popular myth with little basis in reality. The rate of re-offence is about 25%, and several factors give a strong indicator over whether a person is likely to re-offend.
I'm not sure where you got that percentage from. The sources I've been looking at point to the rate of re-offence resulting in conviction being roughly 15-20%, however the actual rate of reoffending may be as high as 40% if you take into account arrests and victim statements. And we really can't dismiss the fact that repeat offenders are going to get better at avoiding arrest.
This is miles above other types of criminals with different offences reoffending, even going past violent offenders.
sebster wrote:
It's really weird that rape is treated with absolute seriousness on this site, with a lot of people declaring they'll kill a man who raped their daughter, and yet the jokes about prison rape are a constant thing.
Its one of the many mysteries of life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lone Cat wrote:Does texas law legalize either Vindicationism or Vigilantism against a criminal? i.e. a civilian can kill a criminal if a he spot a crime. ?
There is Constitutional Charter #127 - famously known as the "He needed killin your honor" statute. It permits a wife to wack her husband for a variety of infractions. Once invoked the local sheriff is ordered to release her, with no further investigation.
Lone Cat wrote:Does texas law legalize either Vindicationism or Vigilantism against a criminal? i.e. a civilian can kill a criminal if a he spot a crime. ?
Vulcan wrote:(And I'll point out, those who rape in general have a very high chance to offend again.
Well, there's your problem. That statement is a popular myth with little basis in reality. The rate of re-offence is about 25%, and several factors give a strong indicator over whether a person is likely to re-offend.
I'm not sure where you got that percentage from. The sources I've been looking at point to the rate of re-offence resulting in conviction being roughly 15-20%, however the actual rate of reoffending may be as high as 40% if you take into account arrests and victim statements. And we really can't dismiss the fact that repeat offenders are going to get better at avoiding arrest.
This is miles above other types of criminals with different offences reoffending, even going past violent offenders.
One might have thought that sex offenders, being on a register, would be more easily caught second time around.
As far as I know most countries and US states do not have a public sex offender registry. Unless you mean just a sex registry in general?
Taking your 15-25% and averaging with your 40%, we get a reoffending rate of 25%.
It's more like 30%, which is still pretty high. On top of that Mercado also admits that these are pretty conservative estimates which only included second offences that resulted in an arrest or being charged. If they investigations into victim reports counted the rate, as would be expected, would definitely be higher.
I fully support him.
Hell I'd probably do the same for less. If I saw someone actively trying to do something to one of my pets... he'd better have a good pair of legs.
One might have thought that sex offenders, being on a register, would be more easily caught second time around.
As far as I know most countries and US states do not have a public sex offender registry. Unless you mean just a sex registry in general?
Taking your 15-25% and averaging with your 40%, we get a reoffending rate of 25%.
It's more like 30%, which is still pretty high. On top of that Mercado also admits that these are pretty conservative estimates which only included second offences that resulted in an arrest or being charged. If they investigations into victim reports counted the rate, as would be expected, would definitely be higher.
If you take the average of the three figures it's 26.6 recurring %. 30% is not vastly higher than that. Naturally I would be open to new research, updates and corrections of these figures.
The UK has a sex offender register. Whether it's open to the public I don't know. That would be irrelevant to its use by police forces, though.
I believe all states have one. They vary slightly from state to state, and most don't list the specific crime that a person was arrested for; it's usually listed according to the category (e.g.: "Class A Felony", "Class 2 Misdemeanor", etc.) They are somewhat useful tools in the hands of police, nigh-useless and easily abused in the hands of your average citizen.
There was a case in the UK when a popular daily newspaper did an anti-paedo crusade and published the home address of a paediatrician. This resulted in pitchforks and torches at dusk.
Kilkrazy wrote:There was a case in the UK when a popular daily newspaper did an anti-paedo crusade and published the home address of a paediatrician. This resulted in pitchforks and torches at dusk.
Already been linked a few pages back, needless to day though, it hasn't got any less amusing.
Kilkrazy wrote:
If you take the average of the three figures it's 26.6 recurring %. 30% is not vastly higher than that. Naturally I would be open to new research, updates and corrections of these figures.
20% is halfway between 15-25%. Take that number and average it with the 40% estimate and you have 30%. I'm not sure why this matters though, as the actual rate of reoffence is still likely to be much higher.
The UK has a sex offender register. Whether it's open to the public I don't know. That would be irrelevant to its use by police forces, though.
I don't know about the UK, but a couple of US states (I think Washington was one after several sex offenders were killed) and Australia are now leaning toward GPS systems for risk offenders rather than a public registry. It has all the advantages with little risk of resulting in vigilantism.
Hazardous Harry wrote:I'm not sure where you got that percentage from.
There are a lot of studies into the issue, and they don't differ greatly in their results. I've looked up studies to make this point dozens of times, and any study I've linked to gives the same results. I typed sex offender recidivism into google and opened the first four results.
That is the first four links that popped up on Google.
The sources I've been looking at point to the rate of re-offence resulting in conviction being roughly 15-20%, however the actual rate of reoffending may be as high as 40% if you take into account arrests and victim statements. And we really can't dismiss the fact that repeat offenders are going to get better at avoiding arrest.
Yes, but there's no point wildly exaggerating the level of under reporting. And more to the point, they remain an excellent guide in showing us which groups are more likely to re-offend, and which groups are less likely. Vulcan's extremely broad claims make any kind of programs targetting those most likely to re-offend harder to put in place.
This is miles above other types of criminals with different offences reoffending, even going past violent offenders.
If your claim above is implying what I think it is, your understanding of the rates of re-offence couldn't be more wrong. Re-offence drops as the crime becomes more severe. That is, shoplifters are very likely to re-offend while murderers are not.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160252706001038
You might not be able to access it if this was one of the articles paid for by the uni.
I can't access the article, unfortunately. Interesting that I used to have access to a lot of this stuff through my old uni job, but not now I'm at a TAFE.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hazardous Harry wrote:It's more like 30%, which is still pretty high. On top of that Mercado also admits that these are pretty conservative estimates which only included second offences that resulted in an arrest or being charged. If they investigations into victim reports counted the rate, as would be expected, would definitely be higher.
High compared to what? High compared to 'we'd like it to be zero because that would mean no-one ever suffered an attack ever again'? Then yeah it's high.
High compared to other less serious crimes? No, it's much smaller than re-offence rates in other crimes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hazardous Harry wrote:20% is halfway between 15-25%. Take that number and average it with the 40% estimate and you have 30%. I'm not sure why this matters though, as the actual rate of reoffence is still likely to be much higher.
The actual rate is believed to be somewhat higher, with exactly how much higher depending on judgements made by individuals. And even then it is sure to be far below the figures bandied about in the media, which in turn produce beliefs like those shown by Vulcan earlier in the thread.
And the rate matters because it remains the only objective information we can produce on this, and while we should keep in mind the limitations of the study we shouldn't ignore the very useful information gleaned from the studies'
1) Sexual crimes do not sit outside all other crimes, they in fact appear to sit quite comfortably in the general trend of 'more serious crimes have lower rates of re-offence'. As in, the rate of re-offence is less than petty theft, but more than murder. And this same pattern follows when you break sexual crimes down into their sub-categories - more serious sexual crimes have much lower rates of re-offence, more minor sexual crimes have higher rates of re-offence.
2) We can pick out a number of indicators that give a pretty good guide as to who is likely to re-offend and who is not.
3) Court ordered treatment, in and of itself, does little.
Yep the grand jury no billed him. You know this is all proforma when the prosecutor appears with the defendant and quotes the Texas Code on self defense.
Interestingly no one mentioned the offender wasn't a citizen.
Yep the grand jury no billed him. You know this is all proforma when the prosecutor appears with the defendant and quotes the Texas Code on self defense.
Interestingly no one mentioned the offender wasn't a citizen.
Does not being a US citizen make it more likely you will commit a crime?
Yep the grand jury no billed him. You know this is all proforma when the prosecutor appears with the defendant and quotes the Texas Code on self defense.
Interestingly no one mentioned the offender wasn't a citizen.
Does not being a US citizen make it more likely you will commit a crime?
Only if you're from Australia. The lack of natural disasters and crazy assed killing machine fauna tends to play with their heads here, and they sort of freak out....
Note to all Aussies in the US. We currently have major wildfires in NM and Corolado, and the heat is breaking 100 in Austin this weekend, should need to schedule a quick trip to get your head back right and calm you down. Also I've heard Florida is now breeding some sort of Anaconda python supersnake if you need a new pet. Hands off chupacrabra though! Leave our goatsucker alone!
Yep the grand jury no billed him. You know this is all proforma when the prosecutor appears with the defendant and quotes the Texas Code on self defense.
Interestingly no one mentioned the offender wasn't a citizen.
Does not being a US citizen make it more likely you will commit a crime?
In Texas? it's almost a certainty, since their very existence in the state is a crime.
Yep the grand jury no billed him. You know this is all proforma when the prosecutor appears with the defendant and quotes the Texas Code on self defense.
Interestingly no one mentioned the offender wasn't a citizen.
Does not being a US citizen make it more likely you will commit a crime?
In Texas? it's almost a certainty, since their very existence in the state is a crime.
Riiiiight. Being a citizen isn't a crime. Being here illegally...well that is a crime. The problem is anytime the state tries to do something big brother comes in and throws a fuss about it, even private citizens can't do anything without big bro getting up in arms.
All in all though I'm glad nothing happened to the dad. Hopefully the daughter can recover and isn't scarred from this whole thing!
Interesting account of the 911 call--it seems the father did come out of the red haze and attempt to save the man's life. Also it seems forensic evidence corroborates the molestation claim. However what I found most entertaining about this article:
Huffpost wrote:The family ranch is so remote that on the 911 tape, the father is heard profanely screaming at a dispatcher who couldn't locate the property. At one point, he tells the dispatcher he's going to put the man in his truck and drive him to a hospital.
"He's going to die!" the father screams, swearing at the dispatcher. "He's going to f------ die!"
The tense, nearly five-minute call begins with the father saying he "beat up" a man found raping his daughter. The father grows increasingly frazzled, shouting into the phone so loudly at times that the call often becomes inaudible.
Does not being a US citizen make it more likely you will commit a crime?
Only if you're from Australia. The lack of natural disasters and crazy assed killing machine fauna tends to play with their heads here, and they sort of freak out....
Its a known fact that Aussies are genetically disposed towards crime, we intentionally set them up that way.
And yes, being illegally in a country is a crime, so by default you are a criminal.
In the state of Oregon it is estimated that 50% of Latinos in the state are illegally here. You can not go a week without hearing of a major drug bust, molestation, rape, etc happening in our state that the offender is not an illegal alien from below our southern border.
Glad to hear the outcome on this, and have some faith in the justice system again. At least in the country of Texas.
Frazzled wrote:Only if you're from Australia. The lack of natural disasters and crazy assed killing machine fauna tends to play with their heads here, and they sort of freak out....
It's true. Without the ever present threat of drop bears to keep me on my toes, I needed to find something to keep the danger up, and the only thing I could find to replace it was assaulting Americans. When I was in the US it took about a week before I just started punching random passers by.
Note to all Aussies in the US. We currently have major wildfires in NM and Corolado, and the heat is breaking 100 in Austin this weekend, should need to schedule a quick trip to get your head back right and calm you down. Also I've heard Florida is now breeding some sort of Anaconda python supersnake if you need a new pet. Hands off chupacrabra though! Leave our goatsucker alone!
Wow, I hadn't heard about the fires. Normally US bushfires get pretty extensive coverage in Australia. I guess there's just so much else going on right now, with Egypt, Greece and all the rest.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:Its a known fact that Aussies are genetically disposed towards crime, we intentionally set them up that way.
But only awesome crimes like bushranging and, if I understand the song correctly, sheep stealing and suicide.
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Called it. No charges. Dismissed. Whatever.
And yes, being illegally in a country is a crime, so by default you are a criminal.
In the state of Oregon it is estimated that 50% of Latinos in the state are illegally here. You can not go a week without hearing of a major drug bust, molestation, rape, etc happening in our state that the offender is not an illegal alien from below our southern border.
Glad to hear the outcome on this, and have some faith in the justice system again. At least in the country of Texas.
The dead guy was here legally, had a green card and everything
Shadowseer_Kim wrote:Called it. No charges. Dismissed. Whatever.
And yes, being illegally in a country is a crime, so by default you are a criminal.
In the state of Oregon it is estimated that 50% of Latinos in the state are illegally here. You can not go a week without hearing of a major drug bust, molestation, rape, etc happening in our state that the offender is not an illegal alien from below our southern border.
Glad to hear the outcome on this, and have some faith in the justice system again. At least in the country of Texas.
The dead guy was here legally, had a green card and everything
Am I the only one amazed that it looks from the conclusion video that Texan lawyers wear their big hats in the courtroom? What a silly, messed up state. Fraz, please tell me you own one of those bucket-hats.
timetowaste85 wrote:Am I the only one amazed that it looks from the conclusion video that Texan lawyers wear their big hats in the courtroom? What a silly, messed up state. Fraz, please tell me you own one of those bucket-hats.
I went through nine years of secondary education so I wouldn't have to any more. On Western Day I think I'm the only one in this city that doesn't pretend they are cowboys. Been there. Done that. Got a belt buckle.
ing a 4 year old. Get real. 
