Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?

You have it. Look at the article again. Medical tests were done on the girl.

Corpsesarefun wrote: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?

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.

Also this.

Corpsesarefun wrote:
Yet other reports state it happened in the house.

Link to those reports please?

Here, it was mentioned on page 3.

And the police are saying no evidence contradicts the assertions made.

The assertions made where?

Are the police saying the article in the OP is the official line? If so I despair for the state of the police.

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.

Ignore this. Wierd posting shenanigans

PhantomViper wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

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!

Because they are.

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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?

Hordini wrote:

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.

Spam post deleted.

If you have nothing intelligent to add then don't post.
Reds8n

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.

streamdragon wrote:[

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.
.

Why do people find it so hard to be objective?

Palindrome wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

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.

He did disable the defendant.

Disabling without committing GBH or murder...

Frazzled wrote:

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.

If I was Australian, those Snowtown murders (along with the backpacker ones) would have me clamoring for the death penalty.

PhantomViper wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

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:

Palindrome 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.
.

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.