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.

Frazzled wrote:

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).

Palindrome wrote:

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?

Shadowseer_Kim wrote:As they say in the great country of Texas "he TOTALLY needed a killing."

Fixed that for you.

Why are texans speaking like Valley Girls?

Totally dude...


Not sure if he will walk, but I can totally understand his reaction...

Frazzled wrote:

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'.

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.

What if you need lethal force to stop the rape?

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.

Trust the leftist PCs on Dakka to try and defend a paedophile...

PhantomViper wrote:Trust the leftist PCs on Dakka to try and defend a paedophile...

Who are they?

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.

Orlanth wrote:

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.

Mr Hyena wrote:
At least Texas is after Justice unlike the UK.

heh, you should do standup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:Trust the leftist PCs on Dakka to try and defend a paedophile...

Innocent until proven guilty and all that.

Palindrome wrote:

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. . .

Hordini wrote:

Orlanth wrote:

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:

Palindrome wrote:

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.

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.

Was he on top of the girl? Does the physical evidence support this? Were there any reliable eye witnesses to corroborate this?

Given that we are undoubtably missing most of the pertinent facts arguing about specific events is a fruitless excersize.

That's what the cops are investigating, and so far they have found no cause to doubt his story.

heh, you should do standup.

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.

It's moot point...
I couldn't imagine a jury convicting him...

Orlanth wrote:

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!

Palindrome wrote:Was he on top of the girl? Does the physical evidence support this? Were there any reliable eye witnesses to corroborate this?

Given that we are undoubtably missing most of the pertinent facts arguing about specific events is a fruitless excersize.

Read another article that there were witnesses at least at some point. The OP notes there were others at the ranch.

Mr Hyena wrote:

heh, you should do standup.

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.