Again, not all the facts are known yet. But IF this happened as has been reported so far, the father isn't going to go to prison. Let's see what the grand jury decides.
One who makes himself a worm cannot complain when tread upon.
Legally speaking, I am against the death penalty, even for the worst offenders. As an individual, I likely would have done the same thing this father did. There are certain emotions that just plain overrule everything else.
I donít know enough details to know if the act was justified. I mean, if the guy was knocked unconscious and no longer posed a risk, and the father continued to beat him with the intent to kill him, it could be argued he used excessive force. Once again, Iím not saying I wouldnít have done any different. I am sure his compromised emotional state would be taken into account and whatever the prosecutor does or doesnít do, I canít see a jury convicting the guy.
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?
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.
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?"
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."
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 06-12-12 at 01:53 AM.