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.

Much nicer!

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.

No problem with this whatsoever. If that ever happened to my grand daughters I'd do exactly the same without batting an eyelid.

Witzkatz wrote:

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.

sebster wrote:

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.

I find it unlikely that a prosecutor would put a 4 year old on the stand, because it would serve to bolster the father's defense so much; no?

But I could see them trying to force a plea by threatening the scenario you describe.

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.

Kaldor wrote:

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.

Orlanth wrote:
You can be sure as hell afterward beating the man to death he will stick to his story. " Yes he was feeling her up".

Battre lui la mort.

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.

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.

As it should, being the most abhorrent of crimes.

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.

Frazzled wrote:

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.

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 ...

Update: no charges
http://www.chron.com/news/article/Sheriff-Dad-kills-daughter-s-alleged-attacker-3625120.php

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....