Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 206

Thread: Texas Dad Beats Daughter's Molester to Death: Cops

  1. #161
    Guru
    Aderleth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    04-08-16 @ 06:26 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    4,294

    Re: Texas Dad Beats Daughter's Molester to Death: Cops

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Well, we don't really know what happened. There are people who fall, bump there head on a wood floor in just the right place, and just die. For all we know the guy just landed a strong enough blow in the right place. Or, possibly, he beat the piss out of the guy for an hour. That's an option too.
    True, and both of those situations might be murder, or more likely manslaughter, depending on the circumstances.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    But either way, there's a problem with siding with the technical wording of the law here. In the moment, when someone is raping your daughter, or your partner, or you, or trying to kill you, or whatever else, when the hell do you know they're no longer a threat? When do you know someone capable of that much evil is no longer a threat?
    There's quite a lot of precedent on this issue, but obviously it's hard to know where the line is in the heat of the moment.


    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    As far as I'm concerned, I'm not willing to take that chance until they're no longer showing any ability to move. And I think anyone with an intact sense of fight or flight would think the same. In reality, the "no longer able to move" standard is where a lot of people stop, because it's the only time it makes sense to stop.
    Not necessarily.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    All this legalise is great in the theoretical, but in real life, how do you say to someone who's just been violently attacked, or watched someone they love who is defenseless get attacked, "you really should have stopped once he was no longer actively raping her?"
    Because the law cannot, and does not support revenge. Self defense, and defense of another is all well and good, but once you've stopped the danger, and continue to attack, you are an aggressor, and have started to engage in the same range of behaviors you initially had the right to defend yourself against in the first place.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    You don't, because that's insane. If someone like that is still standing, or in any way capable of standing or even crawling, they're still a threat to anyone with half an ounce of sense in their head. He could have attacked the father. He could have taken the girl hostage. These are all things he could still do when he was no longer actively raping her, and therefore "not an immediate threat."
    It's probably not a good idea to assume that "not actively raping" = "not an immediate threat"

    That would be ridiculous.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    You can say that doesn't hold up in law, and maybe in a technical sense that's true, but in reality people frequently face no charges for doing something that's technically illegal because the law frankly makes no sense in the real world, with the way real people are wired to behave in these situations, with the way predators are in the real world.
    The law does its best with the messiness of reality. This is the problem with living in a civilized society. The alternatives are worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Someone who is capable of raping a 4-year-old is capable of just about anything, and you'd have to be an idiot or just as big of a psycho yourself to stop short of "no longer capable of moving." People know that, even if the law doesn't.
    The law has a great deal more experience with situations like this than any one person. It has been built upon hundreds of years of messy, chaotic, thoroughly ****ed up situations. It has established standards based on all of that experience. Once again, its not perfect, but what you are doing right now - framing a legal standard based on one especially awful occurrence - is a thoroughly bad idea. In the real world, things are a lot more complicated than the facts of any one case. What sounds like a reasonable standard to you, in this situation, may not be in many, many other situations in which it might need to be applied.


    Quote Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors View Post
    Telling someone they should stop shy of well and truly laying someone out is telling them that they should sacrifice their own safety or those of their loved ones in order to mitigate the risk of harm to a violent predator. Talk about having ones priorities mixed up.
    Again, you're making bad assumptions. I'm not remotely suggesting that anyone should sacrifice their own safety.

  2. #162
    Guru

    cAPSLOCK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,922
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Sheriff: Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter

    Quote Originally Posted by Sparky View Post
    Why would the father need psychological help. The father made the right and insane choice.

    Typical how ALL LIBERALSl showing more compassion towards the dispicable child rapist than the actual victim. It's no wonder that ALL LIBERALS are so uncivilized. That's just my FAIR and BALANCED observation.
    I think counseling for an ordinary man who just (rightfully) beat another man to death is quite wise.

    Quote Originally Posted by sharon View Post
    Do you really think the father made the right call?

    I can absolutely understand him beating the stuffing out of the guy, but NOT beating him to death.

    Did the 4 year old witness this?
    How naive.

    Physically defending your child, as a father, is not something you will do carefully. The man was absolutely right to respond with extreme force targeted at COMPLETELY subduing the molester. The fact that this ended the life of the molester is not something fully under the control of the father. The child MAY suffer because of the violence needed to stop her attacker. But this is on the attacker, not the child or her father.

    You need to realize this is not a scene in a movie. The man who molested the little girl was risking his life the moment he began.
    Last edited by cAPSLOCK; 06-18-12 at 07:57 PM.

  3. #163
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Golden City of the Risen Dead
    Last Seen
    10-05-12 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    4,310

    Re: Sheriff: Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter

    Understandable actions, but still not acceptable. We do not use vigilante justice in the US.

  4. #164
    Sage
    mac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    DC Metro
    Last Seen
    11-13-16 @ 12:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    22,499

    Re: Sheriff: Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter

    Quote Originally Posted by RadicalModerate View Post
    Understandable actions, but still not acceptable. We do not use vigilante justice in the US.
    It wasn't vigilante justice, it was proxy self defense, which is perfectly legal.
    ”People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.” --- Ben Franklin

    Quote Originally Posted by The German View Post
    Sterotypes are mostly based on truths.

  5. #165
    Sage
    Dragonfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    East Coast - USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:53 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,495

    Re: Sheriff: Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter

    Quote Originally Posted by RadicalModerate View Post
    Understandable actions, but still not acceptable. We do not use vigilante justice in the US.
    What exactly would have been "acceptable" ?

    "Please sir, release my daughter and sit still while I call 911 and have the police come arrest you for raping my child."

  6. #166
    User Sphere's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    07-26-14 @ 05:18 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    121

    Re: Sheriff: Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter

    I read a few pages of posts, not all and I am late coming into this.
    I saw a couple of posts citing Texas Law, but the ones I saw left
    out what applies in this case, at least as far as what I know about it.
    I believe the rancher stated he didn't intend to kill the offender. That
    is important. A lot of laws for Texas were written long ago, when getting
    help from LE may be a day or two ride on horseback, one way. Current
    law states one may use deadly force to prevent sexual assault upon a
    third person. I dont know but I dont think your required to ask an offender
    to stop an assault in progress and wait for action. The scenario is, the
    rancher would have been justified under the law in shooting the offender,
    probably stabbing him, whacking him in the head with a hammer etc.
    This would have been unquestionably using deadly force. From what I've
    heard, the rancher struck the offender only a couple of times so use of
    excessive force by beating is questionable. My opinion which means nothing
    of course is a grand jury will not indict. This is the law:
    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.
    (b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
    (C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
    (2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
    (3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
    (c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
    (d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of
    deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.
    PC §9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
    (1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
    (2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

    So when looking at what may justify deadly force of a person, and then of a third person, we see sexual assault is a justified reason to use deadly force in terms of the prevention of, or we could say stopping a sexual assault in progress. Then under the third person statute, it states one only needs to reasonably believe his intervention is immediately necessary.
    We also see the Texas version of "stand your ground" law here, whereas the ability to retreat cannot be considered.

  7. #167
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Golden City of the Risen Dead
    Last Seen
    10-05-12 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    4,310

    Re: Sheriff: Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter

    Quote Originally Posted by mac View Post
    It wasn't vigilante justice, it was proxy self defense, which is perfectly legal.
    Right, right, I forgot. All self-defense claims HAVE to result in the death of another.

  8. #168
    Guru

    cAPSLOCK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Dallas Texas
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    2,922
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Sheriff: Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter

    Quote Originally Posted by RadicalModerate View Post
    Understandable actions, but still not acceptable. We do not use vigilante justice in the US.
    Vigilantism is extra-judicial force carried out after the fact in a premeditated fashion.

    This incident was deadly force used to stop sexual assault of a child.

    The second is legal in Texas.

    Apples and oranges are more alike than these two concepts. This is more like apples and sourdough bread.

  9. #169
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Golden City of the Risen Dead
    Last Seen
    10-05-12 @ 12:25 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    4,310

    Re: Sheriff: Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter

    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonfly View Post
    What exactly would have been "acceptable" ?

    "Please sir, release my daughter and sit still while I call 911 and have the police come arrest you for raping my child."
    Kicking him in the face to stop the action and then sitting on him while someone else at the party call 911? Tackle him and hog tie him? Pimp slap him and lock him in the bathroom? THere are countless option that don't include beating someone to death, you want all of them?

    I doubt the molester would've kept going once the father entered the room. Molestations are terrible, terrible things but frankly, they generally do not put the child in IMMEDIATE danger of serious bodily harm or death. Beating a man to death is just getting immediate revenge, IMO.

  10. #170
    Sage
    Dragonfly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    East Coast - USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:53 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,495

    Re: Sheriff: Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter

    Quote Originally Posted by RadicalModerate View Post
    Right, right, I forgot. All self-defense claims HAVE to result in the death of another.
    The death was not intended. Beating the phucker off his daughter and protecting her was the intent.

    Even if the father had grabbed a baseball bat and used the attackers head as a target I don't see why it'd be an issue.
    The father's daughter was being raped.
    Any use of any force to immediately STOP that attack is/was warranted.

Page 17 of 21 FirstFirst ... 71516171819 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •