A self-defense that we can all agree on?

berzirk

berzirk

CAGiversary!
Feedback
2 (100%)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...sexually-abused-daughter-texas_n_1587724.html

I'm sure there will be a couple folks who can't wait to play devil's advocate (case for rehabilitation, etc), but the guy who killed the pedophile is saying all the right things. He didn't mean to kill the man, he was defending his 4 year old from being molested, and he is remorseful.

fuck remorseful, this guy should have a statue and state holiday.

Anyone who thinks it's OK to sexually abuse a child, and especially is caught in in the act, should be dealt with like a person who is threatening a life, because that's effectively what the molester is doing, killing someone's childhood so he can get off sexually on one of the most vulnerable groups.

Argue away.
 
My intial knee-jerk reaction to hearing about this story was "Good for the dad. fuck the guy who puts his hands on another guy's daughter in that manner." If that is in fact the case, then I'm totally understanding where he's coming from wanting to protect his child from someone out to harm her.

Having said that, I'm a little unnerved by all the people in the comments section who are referring to this as "justice".
 
This is a great story as far as justifiable "murder" goes. Apparently an update I read says that it is very unlikely he will face any charges. Not to mention this doesn't take place in a big city or anything like that...it's farm country.

P.S. That guy must have either been punching like a madman or hits like a brick because it reads like he killed the guy pretty quickly.
 
I can understand how this can happen, but that doesn't make it right or in any way just as this is not justice; this is vigilantism albeit lawful in this case.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I can understand how this can happen, but that doesn't make it right or in any way just as this is not justice; this is vigilantism albeit lawful in this case.[/QUOTE]

Fair enough, but it's probably up to legal discretion based on this quote from the sheriff's office:

"You have a right to defend your daughter," he told CNN. "[The girl's father] acted in defense of his third person"

So if he performed a legal action, defense of his third person, then is committing an action legally protected, and the outcome that it creates, not just and justice?

I'm not trying to split hairs, I'm just trying to think of something that would be legal, which is not just in terms of personal actions (not opening it up to taxes, employers, etc; really just something between 2, or in this case, 3 people).
 
I support this killing 1000% assuming, of course, that it actually happened. If I caught someone doing that to one of my kids that person would be beaten to death without hesitation and without remorse. I wouldn't even go as far as saying I didn't mean to kill him or anything. It would be intentional and it would be painful and I wouldn't give one millisecond of thought to the consequences.
 
[quote name='Javery']I support this killing 1000% assuming, of course, that it actually happened. If I caught someone doing that to one of my kids that person would be beaten to death without hesitation and without remorse. I wouldn't even go as far as saying I didn't mean to kill him or anything. It would be intentional and it would be painful and I wouldn't give one millisecond of thought to the consequences.[/QUOTE]

Me too. I would be so out of my mind enraged, the only thing I would be thinking of would be stopping, permanently, the molestation from happening, but from a practicality standpoint, anytime you can be rational enough to show remorse, and mention that you didn't mean to kill the guy, the law tends to smile more favorably on you. So much so that I have been in a course before where a local sheriff...coached the class on how to handle a self defense situation when interviewed after the event.

1) explain that you felt you or someone you were with had their life in danger
2) that you wish the situation hadn't happened, but to end the threat, that was your only option

Edit: But I've seen A Time To Kill, and the racist rapists in the movie were not given a chance to be rehabilitated, so that's why we all were in favor of Sam Jackson's character being sentenced for murder, since that would be justice :/
 
He got knocked da fuck out!

Even if he didn't have to kill the rapist, I would go with an insanity defense because seeing that would make me crazy enough to kill a man.
 
When I first heard this, I though "oh no another vigilante" but seems like he meant to only beat the guy up and things got out of hand. I have 2 kids and I can't say I wouldn't go after anyone to touched them but I think I have enough sense to just hurt them.

Because honestly, I can't get behind the rambo-fantasies about beating another person to death (it's kind of gross and IMO, puts you only slightly ahead of the molester). Obviously someone who would molest kids is very sick person and needs help. Granted there are some sick remorseless fucks in the world but you can't really weed them out in the heat of passion.


and killing a person in front of your 4 year old daughter pretty much negates any "Father of the Year" accolades.
 
[quote name='usickenme']When I first heard this, I though "oh no another vigilante" but seems like he meant to only beat the guy up and things got out of hand. I have 2 kids and I can't say I wouldn't go after anyone to touched them but I think I have enough sense to just hurt them.

Because honestly, I can't get behind the rambo-fantasies about beating another person to death (it's kind of gross and IMO, puts you only slightly ahead of the molester). Obviously someone who would molest kids is very sick person and needs help.[/QUOTE]

Hmm, I strongly disagree. I would put a cold blooded murderer far lower on the scum ladder than a child rapist. A person who kills a guy after seeing a person try to rape their kid isn't even on the ladder to me. They're standing over to the side disgusted by those on the ladder.

I don't see any fantasy about it. For this "fantasy" to occur a person would have to want the first step, their child to be sexually assaulted, to happen before the "fantasy" could be acted out.

While I agree that a person who WOULD molest kids should surely get help because they are sick, the person that DOES molest kids is beyond hope to me and should be killed. But clearly I realize that only in very specific circumstances my preferred course of action against them is permissable.

Maybe dmaul or another person with a background in criminology can offer some stats, but I'll bet child sex predators are among the highest repeat criminals out there.

There is no Internet tough guy thing about it to me. If you rape kids, you're no longer human. You should be disposed of. I truly can't think of a more disgusting crime against humanity.
 
Look I can kind of understand the reaction but I simply don't think I would be in a position to be judge, jury and executioner. Are some molsters soulless monsters not fit to be part of society? Absolutely. Are all? I don't believe so. Should the semi retarded man child who was molested themselves be judged as others. Not sure and I don't I know if i would make that call.

And the article didn't say rape. I'm with you on that.

Black and white is easy but i guess I'm saying there is too much grey to make a blanket statement like others

While not the same circumstance, I was falsely accused of molestation in middle school and I am damned glad the father went to the police (where the truth came out) rather than take matters into his own hands
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='berzirk']Fair enough, but it's probably up to legal discretion based on this quote from the sheriff's office:

"You have a right to defend your daughter," he told CNN. "[The girl's father] acted in defense of his third person"

So if he performed a legal action, defense of his third person, then is committing an action legally protected, and the outcome that it creates, not just and justice?

I'm not trying to split hairs, I'm just trying to think of something that would be legal, which is not just in terms of personal actions (not opening it up to taxes, employers, etc; really just something between 2, or in this case, 3 people).[/QUOTE]
The point is that the legal or illegal status of an act doesn't make the outcome moral or serve justice.

I'm not saying that what the father did objectively makes him a Bad Person and if it were me, I'd probably want to do the same thing, but once the rapist is stopped from doing what they're doing, it ceases to be about defending someone and more about revenge if you're beating them to death. Killing and/or beating up every rapist out there won't stop rapes from occurring, muchless the one that just happened.

Even beyond that, under what circumstances would walking in on your daughter having sex make it ok? Didn't you say you lived in Colorado? I hope you don't because you should really look up the age of consent.
 
[quote name='dohdough']The point is that the legal or illegal status of an act doesn't make the outcome moral or serve justice.

I'm not saying that what the father did objectively makes him a Bad Person and if it were me, I'd probably want to do the same thing, but once the rapist is stopped from doing what they're doing, it ceases to be about defending someone and more about revenge if you're beating them to death. Killing and/or beating up every rapist out there won't stop rapes from occurring, muchless the one that just happened.

Even beyond that, under what circumstances would walking in on your daughter having sex make it ok? Didn't you say you lived in Colorado? I hope you don't because you should really look up the age of consent.[/QUOTE]

I live in Oregon.

Walking in on a daughter having consensual sex (while there would be vast repurcussions that she would deal with after the fact) isn't even remotely similar to walking in on your 4 year old daughter being molested. I have a three year old daughter. Thinking that (God forbid) a child that age could be put into this sort of situation makes me furious and disgusted to think about. Imagining a parent of that child walking in and seeing a person they know molesting their child? Killing the molester would be the first, second, third, and fourth thought.

But specific to this case, the guy didn't mean to kill the molester, and was sad that the death occurred. This was sort of the poster child of self defense of a child, in terms of actions of the guy, intent, and handling of the issue afterwards. He's either brilliant, or incredibly sincere. Maybe both.
 
It's interesting to see how eager some of you are for a chance to celebrate violence.

[quote name='usickenme']killing a person in front of your 4 year old daughter pretty much negates any "Father of the Year" accolades.[/QUOTE]

That's one way to make a situation like this even more traumatic.

I can definitely say I understand where the father was coming from, but this wasn't the ideal outcome for anyone.
 
An accident out of understandable rage, and the father said he was remorseful. I'm 100% behind him.

Of course, the OP is entirely different from the man's story. Trying to spin this into something else about how killing pedos on the spot is justice. How horrific.
 
More details.

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/watercooler/article/203578/108/Father-kills-man-who-molested-his-daughter

The incident happened near a barn in Mt. Olive where some horses were being kept.

The adults were shoeing a horse and the girl and her brother had been sent to feed chickens.

The children's grandfather said the boy later came back and said his sister had been taken away by a man.

Her father then went out to look for her, the grandfather said.

The father found both his daughter and the 47-year-old man partially naked, investigators said.
Click to expand...
This further cements in my mind that the father should not be charged.
 
I can definitely understand what the father did in a moment of rage and also the remorse afterward. I'm sure it flops back and forth between remorse and feeling justified. It's surprising and scary what our emotions can lead us to do. I'm all too familiar with that.
 
[quote name='berzirk']http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...sexually-abused-daughter-texas_n_1587724.html

I'm sure there will be a couple folks who can't wait to play devil's advocate (case for rehabilitation, etc), but the guy who killed the pedophile is saying all the right things. He didn't mean to kill the man, he was defending his 4 year old from being molested, and he is remorseful.

fuck remorseful, this guy should have a statue and state holiday.

Anyone who thinks it's OK to sexually abuse a child, and especially is caught in in the act, should be dealt with like a person who is threatening a life, because that's effectively what the molester is doing, killing someone's childhood so he can get off sexually on one of the most vulnerable groups.

Argue away.[/QUOTE]

Child RAPE is a life sentence for the victim and in essence stealing that person's/child's life for life. It is a life long sentence. It stays with them until death.



[quote name='willardhaven']It's interesting to see how eager some of you are for a chance to celebrate violence.



That's one way to make a situation like this even more traumatic.

I can definitely say I understand where the father was coming from, but this wasn't the ideal outcome for anyone.[/QUOTE]

It was the perfect outcome (well not really see below). One dead child rapist that can't continue hurting more and more, and guaranteed there is more and would have been a whole lot more. . Going easy on such an animal is IMO celebrating violence. You are not going to change the child rapist by throwing flowers at them. But imo death is way to easy they should be tortured for life as the victim is tortured for life.

So it's a coin flip... torture for life as that is what they deserve.... or death either one will do.

Are you one of those that got upset when bin laden's death was celebrated?

Some wild animals are just that wild animals and not worthy of air. You can't deal with them the way you would people.
 
[quote name='berzirk']I live in Oregon.[/quote]
Lucky for you that their age of consent laws are pretty strict!;)

Walking in on a daughter having consensual sex (while there would be vast repurcussions that she would deal with after the fact) isn't even remotely similar to walking in on your 4 year old daughter being molested. I have a three year old daughter. Thinking that (God forbid) a child that age could be put into this sort of situation makes me furious and disgusted to think about. Imagining a parent of that child walking in and seeing a person they know molesting their child? Killing the molester would be the first, second, third, and fourth thought.
Click to expand...
And I completely understand your feelings on this with you being a father. The problems is that those thoughts lead to trouble.

But specific to this case, the guy didn't mean to kill the molester, and was sad that the death occurred. This was sort of the poster child of self defense of a child, in terms of actions of the guy, intent, and handling of the issue afterwards. He's either brilliant, or incredibly sincere. Maybe both.
Click to expand...
Poster children tend to have the tendency of not living up to expectations.

Either way, I don't see him being charged and even if he is, there is no fucking way he'll be found guilty by a jury. I'm not going to weep for the guy that was killed, but I'm not going to go out of my way to defend the father either.
 
One less scumbag child molester out there. Probably gonna be even more traumatic for the kid, but it's not like anyone can blame the father for going into a blind rage. Anyone who says differently is full of shit. If you walked in on someone molesting your young child or sister or brother or cousin or niece or nephew, you'd fly right off the fucking handle, too.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']One less scumbag child molester out there. Probably gonna be even more traumatic for the kid, but it's not like anyone can blame the father for going into a blind rage. Anyone who says differently is full of shit. If you walked in on someone molesting your young child or sister or brother or cousin or niece or nephew, you'd fly right off the fucking handle, too.[/QUOTE]

I am with Oprah on this one. I don't care "molest" is a flower version.... It is RAPE regardless of the bill clinton definition of sexual relations. We can make it sound NICE and dumbed down....but the truth is it is violent disgusting and unforgivable.... forced rape and they can't be rehabilitated. They are not humans.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']Well, whatever you wanna call 'em, they are the scum of the planet.[/QUOTE]

I apologize I was not taking a dig at you. I actually agree with you. I just used your wording and as the posts before to drive home the fact that it is a sick thing and death is the easy option. Again sorry if it came across as an attack on you...
 
Objectively, as well as based on the information in the articles, I wouldn't support this killing. It's not like the incident was videotaped, so now we have just one man's word – who may very well be telling the truth–, two children, who feasibly could be manipulated, and a deceased man who can obviously no longer defend himself or be evaluated.

I can understand one's anger if the purported events are veritable, but how can anyone who wasn't involved know. We have a justice system for a reason, and if people get in their mind that some cases justify killing when it could be avoided, then of course we will eventually have innocent victims who are not only murdered but falsely set in stone as criminals. Innocent until proven guilty; there can't be doubt.

I hope the sheriff and his office are legit. For the record, I do think sexual abuse, especially of a child, is one of the most heinous crimes by an individual, but I'd still put murder and many forms of physical torture above that.

That said, homicidal acts being committed in the heat of the moment won't ever go away completely, but they can be lessened if we ever get to a point where people can agree that this kind of incident is wrong. Ingrain into others' minds that justice isn't killing someone as you witness them performing a despicable act unless it is absolutely unavoidable.

I have to wonder if this type of reaction happens to be more likely in Texas, where it occurred.
 
I always thought the definition of defense was to do whatever was needed to defend yourself from harm. Disarm a person, disable them, whatever it takes to remove the threat. Flying into a rage and beating someone to death doesn't equal defense in my opinion. I know the guy was raging, and given the circumstances I can understand why he would be, but that's his problem. We can't have people using "I just flew into a fit of rage" as justification for killing people. He should have done the responsible thing and thrown the guy out, then called the police.The guy should have been locked up for molesting the kid, that's what our justice system does to sex offenders. Of course this is Texas we're talking about, the father will probably get a parade.
 
[quote name='Clak']We can't have people using "I just flew into a fit of rage" as justification for killing people. [/QUOTE]

We can if it involves catching someone in the act of molesting your child.

Honestly, unless you don't have kids, I don't see how anyone could think that this guy was in the wrong or overreacted (assuming, of course, it actually happened).
 
[quote name='Javery']We can if it involves catching someone in the act of molesting your child.

Honestly, unless you don't have kids, I don't see how anyone could think that this guy was in the wrong or overreacted (assuming, of course, it actually happened).[/QUOTE]
That's really disheartening coming form a lawyer. Shouldn't you have the most respect for our justice system short of a judge?

And no, I don't have kids, but I've been in a rage before and yes, even wanted to be beat someone to a pulp, but I didn't. If I had, I'd fully expect to end up in a prison somewhere because I just fucking killed someone.

But like I said, this happened in Texas. If this dad hadn't killed him the court may have anyway, so it's probably moot.
 
[quote name='Javery']We can if it involves catching someone in the act of molesting your child.

Honestly, unless you don't have kids, I don't see how anyone could think that this guy was in the wrong or overreacted (assuming, of course, it actually happened).[/QUOTE]

That's the part that I don't think many in this thread understand. There is an emotional change in a person when they become a (involved) father. You become protective of your child, your instincts to defend a person from harm are heightened. It's very animalistic.

I can appreciate the different views on this topic, but I'd never consider this guy anything less than a hero. He stopped his toddler from being sexually assaulted, and removed one pedophile from the planet.

However you want to split hairs over rape, vs assault, vs molestation is fine, but the end of the day, a creep who tried to attack a child that he knew, got his ass whooped to the point of death. The father didn't mean to, but to address Clak, self defense permits you to "eliminate the threat" (assuming it was present-which in this case very much seems to be true). Beating someone unconscious certainly eliminates the threat, then you call authorities. The dad did both of these things (at least I assume he called the cops). His only "fault" is that he was too efficient in eliminating the threat.

I realize I mentally hold to both an illegal and inappropriate stance-that all pedophiles who are proven guilty should be killed. I'm not trying to make this a law, or even hope to ever be in any sort of situation like that. Instead, I wish pedophiles would quit abusing kids. That's what everybody wants, but since they don't, I don't shed a tear for the death of a child rapist or attempted child rapist. I appluad the person who caused the death. Definitely not PC, definitely not legal, but IMO (and I appreciate that doh and much of society disagrees with the position) just.
 
[quote name='Clak']That's really disheartening coming form a lawyer. Shouldn't you have the most respect for our justice system short of a judge?

And no, I don't have kids, but I've been in a rage before and yes, even wanted to be beat someone to a pulp, but I didn't. If I had, I'd fully expect to end up in a prison somewhere because I just fucking killed someone.

But like I said, this happened in Texas. If this dad hadn't killed him the court may have anyway, so it's probably moot.[/QUOTE]

I'm a father first and foremost. I'm also not a trial lawyer so outside of a few classes I took in law school, the only thing I know about our justice system I learned by watching TV like everyone else.

I'm not speaking about this as an impartial third party about this particular case in Texas. I'm saying if I personally saw someone hurting my kids like that a blind rage wouldn't even begin to describe the feeling and I would most likely beat that person to death - consequences be damned. I wouldn't need a trial for the facts to come out - if I personally witnessed it that's all I would need to know.

EDIT: berzirk said it better than I did.
 
[quote name='Clak']

And no, I don't have kids, but I've been in a rage before... [/QUOTE]

I referenced this part-way in my long response, but I'll just quickly comment here. The above statement is sort of what is the root of the two opinions on this one. I'm telling ya, I don't know how to explain it, but the idea of someone harming your child (really any child, but especially yours) especially something as grotesque as sexual assault, it just flips a different switch in parents. None of us are saying child rape is grand, we all oppose it. It's the opinion on the response that is heavily dependent on the status of the poster of parent vs. non-parent.
 
[quote name='Clak']That's really disheartening coming form a lawyer. Shouldn't you have the most respect for our justice system short of a judge?

And no, I don't have kids, but I've been in a rage before and yes, even wanted to be beat someone to a pulp, but I didn't. If I had, I'd fully expect to end up in a prison somewhere because I just fucking killed someone.

But like I said, this happened in Texas. If this dad hadn't killed him the court may have anyway, so it's probably moot.[/QUOTE]

I'm going to be in my last year of law school and I have no problem with what the dad did, as well. You have a right to use deadly force in defense of your person or a third person if deadly force is being used against you. Rape is generally accepted to fall into the deadly force category and as such the dad was likely justified in what he did. However, if he kept beating the pedophile after the danger had passed the dad's self-defense of another claim would likely be vitiated and he would be exposed to criminal charges.

Essentially the justification for use of deadly force in self-defense is that the perpetrator waived any rights they may have had when they used deadly force against another person. It would be conceivable that a person's efforts to subdue the perpetrator may fail and they could be given another opportunity to use deadly force.
 
[quote name='KCS13']I'm going to be in my last year of law school and I have no problem with what the dad did, as well. You have a right to use deadly force in defense of your person or a third person if deadly force is being used against you. Rape is generally accepted to fall into the deadly force category and as such the dad was likely justified in what he did. However, if he kept beating the pedophile after the danger had passed the dad's self-defense of another claim would likely be vitiated and he would be exposed to criminal charges.

Essentially the justification for use of deadly force in self-defense is that the perpetrator waived any rights they may have had when they used deadly force against another person. It would be conceivable that a person's efforts to subdue the perpetrator may fail and they could be given another opportunity to use deadly force.[/QUOTE]It wasn't rape, it was molestation, something which can be done without causing anyone physical harm. And I think it's obvious the danger had passed once dad stopped the guy from molesting his child. The guy was probably unconscious before dad even finished beating him.

Like I said before, if he wanted to defend someone the right thing to do would have been to throw the guy out and call the police, instead he beat him to death. I think most of you are letting emotion cloud your judgement.

edit- I'd also point out that using the logic in your last paragraph, anyone defending themselves would be totally justified in killing their attacker. So if someone punches you, you'd have the right to beat them to death.
 
[quote name='Clak']It wasn't rape, it was molestation, something which can be done without causing anyone physical harm. [/QUOTE]

Holy fuck! What? Molestation can absolutely cause physical harm. I'd rather not list out the ways, but seriously, what in the hell are you talking about?

And yes, emotion is clouding us. That's what javery and I have repeatedly said, then the law student chimed in that based on the details that he/she had read, this would likely fit precisely under the definition of self-defense.

You're saying that the appropriate course of action is to find YOUR 4 year old daughter half naked, with a man, undressing and already half naked, and say, "Hey you rascal, get outta here!" Then you go call the cops? fuckin shit. If the cops don't catch that guy, who knows how many other kids this scumbag is going to feel up. Those shitheads are overwhelmingly repeat offenders.

Clak, what about that Penn State Assistant coach that saw Sandusky raping a kid in the shower. His response to seeing that was to leave the locker room and tell his pops what happened?

If anyone witnesses a child being sexually abused, or about to be sexually abused, we have the responsibility as a society to stop it. To suggest the appropriate action is to break it up like it's two siblings fighting is insane and irresponsible, logically and emotionally!

Edit: And Clak, you missed it again. The law student said "Essentially the justification for use of deadly force in self-defense is that the perpetrator waived any rights they may have had when they used deadly force against another person." (Emphasis mine).

A sexual attack according to him, is considered deadly force in many cases. So punching someone does not mean the appropriate response is to kill them. If they are running at you with a knife, or an object that could cause you death, then self defense to the point of death IS a legal action and defense.
 
[quote name='Clak']It wasn't rape, it was molestation, something which can be done without causing anyone physical harm. And I think it's obvious the danger had passed once dad stopped the guy from molesting his child. The guy was probably unconscious before dad even finished beating him.

Like I said before, if he wanted to defend someone the right thing to do would have been to throw the guy out and call the police, instead he beat him to death. I think most of you are letting emotion cloud your judgement.

edit- I'd also point out that using the logic in your last paragraph, anyone defending themselves would be totally justified in killing their attacker. So if someone punches you, you'd have the right to beat them to death.[/QUOTE]


You truly are a fucking moron!!!
 
[quote name='berzirk']Holy fuck! What? Molestation can absolutely cause physical harm. I'd rather not list out the ways, but seriously, what in the hell are you talking about?

And yes, emotion is clouding us. That's what javery and I have repeatedly said, then the law student chimed in that based on the details that he/she had read, this would likely fit precisely under the definition of self-defense.

You're saying that the appropriate course of action is to find YOUR 4 year old daughter half naked, with a man, undressing and already half naked, and say, "Hey you rascal, get outta here!" Then you go call the cops? fuckin shit. If the cops don't catch that guy, who knows how many other kids this scumbag is going to feel up. Those shitheads are overwhelmingly repeat offenders.

Clak, what about that Penn State Assistant coach that saw Sandusky raping a kid in the shower. His response to seeing that was to leave the locker room and tell his pops what happened?

If anyone witnesses a child being sexually abused, or about to be sexually abused, we have the responsibility as a society to stop it. To suggest the appropriate action is to break it up like it's two siblings fighting is insane and irresponsible, logically and emotionally!

Edit: And Clak, you missed it again. The law student said "Essentially the justification for use of deadly force in self-defense is that the perpetrator waived any rights they may have had when they used deadly force against another person." (Emphasis mine).

A sexual attack according to him, is considered deadly force in many cases. So punching someone does not mean the appropriate response is to kill them. If they are running at you with a knife, or an object that could cause you death, then self defense to the point of death IS a legal action and defense.[/QUOTE]

Thanks for helping to emphasize the fact that deadly force will only be allowed when deadly force is used. I thought I was clear about that part, but guess not quite enough HAHA

While I'm not a lawyer yet or particularly fond/familiar with criminal law, I would definitely say that sexual molestation could be of the same degree as rape so as to warrant the use of deadly force. Other states may have different opinions on this, but knowing how Texas laws generally are, I would be willing to bet that deadly force is allowed for such cases of molestation. If deadly force is available to the victim, it is available to the third party acting on the victim's behalf, generally. In PA and probably most other states, deadly force is justified if the person reasonably believes that it is essential to their protection. I would definitely go so far as to say that even an adult could reasonably believe that deadly force is essential to their protection if being sexually molested but not raped, given the right situation.

Thus any third party acting on the victim's behalf must reasonably believe that deadly force is essential to the protection of the third party in that given instance. From what I have read so far, it doesn't seem like the dad carried out a prolonged beating of the pedo or did anything to otherwise show that he secured the protection of his daughter and continued to use deadly force upon the assailant. If evidence comes out showing either of those were the case (maybe after the ME's report?), then charges could be filed. Otherwise pressing charges now would be a waste of time and money.
 
[quote name='Clak']It wasn't rape, it was molestation, something which can be done without causing anyone physical harm.[/QUOTE]

On a scale of 1 to 10, how batshit insane are you?

If the day ever comes when a child close to you is "just being molested," and you walk in on it, let us all know how you stopped, processed that it was a molestation and not rape, and then kindly asked the gentleman to stop diddling the small child when it was convenient for him to do so.
 
[quote name='bigdaddybruce44']On a scale of 1 to 10, how batshit insane are you?[/QUOTE]
All rapes are sexual assualts, but not all sexual assualts are rapes.

The real question here is: On a scale of 1 to 10, how dumb are you?
 
[quote name='KCS13']Thus any third party acting on the victim's behalf must reasonably believe that deadly force is essential to the protection of the third party in that given instance. From what I have read so far, it doesn't seem like the dad carried out a prolonged beating of the pedo or did anything to otherwise show that he secured the protection of his daughter and continued to use deadly force upon the assailant. If evidence comes out showing either of those were the case (maybe after the ME's report?), then charges could be filed. Otherwise pressing charges now would be a waste of time and money.[/QUOTE]
You've mentioned some good stuff, but I wanted to highlight a very important aspect of the argument that the people that don't want to pin a medal on the guy are making. No one is saying that the father should've allowed the molestation to continue while he phoned the cops, but at what point does defense stop being defense and turns into murder. And at what point would someone be legally able to violently subdue and/or violently restrain that person after the initial assault was ended?

Rape isn't a capital offense and allowing someone to kill a rapist, muchless a child molester, over it subverts that.
 
[quote name='dohdough']You've mentioned some good stuff, but I wanted to highlight a very important aspect of the argument that the people that don't want to pin a medal on the guy are making. No one is saying that the father should've allowed the molestation to continue while he phoned the cops, but at what point does defense stop being defense and turns into murder. And at what point would someone be legally able to violently subdue and/or violently restrain that person after the initial assault was ended?

Rape isn't a capital offense and allowing someone to kill a rapist, muchless a child molester, over it subverts that.[/QUOTE]

Well it depends upon the amount of time that has passed and the situation. If the dad walked in, saw it happening, told the guy to stop, walked upstairs to get his gun, came back down, found the guy had stopped, and the dad proceeded to shoot him then absolutely charges should be brought (obviously that wasn't the case here; I am under the assumption that dad came in, fight breaks out, dad lands some good blows to the guys head and neck, and then dad stops once guy has stopped moving). I don't believe there is an actual time period for a person to act (i.e. 30 seconds, or whatever other arbitrary number), but rather you should look at how much time passed and what action was taken. If the dad went headlong into the fight throwing fists but stopped shortly thereafter, then I would say no problem at all. If the dad got the guy to the floor and proceeded to pound the guy's face for five minutes, then absolutely there is something wrong there, but his actions will be mitigated by the fact he was acting in self-defense of another (i.e. the charges will be lessened to maybe manslaughter of some degree). The big thing to look for is, was the assailant's use of deadly force ceased by the dad's action and yet he continued to act, which you pointed out in my earlier post. This will be a question for the grand jury to look into.

And you are absolutely right about rape not being a capital offense, but some would seek to see that changed. However, the crime of rape as its occurring is undoubtedly extremely dangerous. I would definitely say that it would be possible for rape or sexual assault to result in the death of the victim, should it be violent enough. That extreme danger translates into deadly force being used upon the victim and thus the victim could use deadly force in their protection. Molestation gets onto slightly shakier ground depending upon what exactly was occurring, but I could see molestation leading to sexual assault/rape, which would once again justify the use of deadly force.

edit: btw, I used sexual assault to encompass any other act outside of rape (which is unwanted vaginal intercourse by use of force or threat of force). The actual charge for molestation is likely to be sexual assault in most states. There is also involuntary deviate sexual intercourse which is encompasses all other intercourse not covered by rape.
 
You are technically only allowed to respond with "equal force" when defending yourself before it escalates into a crime that the guy defending himself is actually committing. Also, you are only allowed to use that "equal force" in order to stop the attack/get out of imminent danger. It is trickier when you are acting on behalf of someone incapable of acting on their own (but the rules are generally the same).

So someone fires a gun at you, and misses and you fire back and kill him - self defense. Someone fires a gun at you and misses, tries again and it is clear that the gun is out of bullets and you fire back and kill him - probably not self defense. Someone tries stabbing you with a pocket knife and you bust out your gun and shoot him - maybe self-defense, maybe not - depends on the facts (size of attacker, etc.). fucking lawyers.
 
[quote name='dohdough']All rapes are sexual assualts, but not all sexual assualts are rapes.

The real question here is: On a scale of 1 to 10, how dumb are you?[/QUOTE]

Bigdaddy, by profile name alone, seems to be a big boy, so he can defend himself, but what I read in his comment was that he was saying how could (m)any of us walk into a sexual attack on a child and legally choose if the child is being raped or "just" molested, and act accordingly based on their perpection. I don't think he was being dumb at all, and I don't think he ever said all sexual assaults were rape. Maybe I misunderstood.
 
[quote name='Javery']You are technically only allowed to respond with "equal force" when defending yourself before it escalates into a crime that the guy defending himself is actually committing. Also, you are only allowed to use that "equal force" in order to stop the attack/get out of imminent danger. It is trickier when you are acting on behalf of someone incapable of acting on their own (but the rules are generally the same).

So someone fires a gun at you, and misses and you fire back and kill him - self defense. Someone fires a gun at you and misses, tries again and it is clear that the gun is out of bullets and you fire back and kill him - probably not self defense. Someone tries stabbing you with a pocket knife and you bust out your gun and shoot him - maybe self-defense, maybe not - depends on the facts (size of attacker, etc.). fucking lawyers.[/QUOTE]

Equal force is rather difficult to define when comparing across two different modes of attack (very large man vs. small woman with a gun). Like we have both said though, everything is dependent upon the facts of each individual case.

P.S. I definitely agree with your last sentence HAHA
 
[quote name='KCS13']P.S. I definitely agree with your last sentence HAHA[/QUOTE]

It won't be so funny in a few years when you are actually working as one, believe me.
 
[quote name='KCS13']Well it depends upon the amount of time that has passed and the situation. If the dad walked in, saw it happening, told the guy to stop, walked upstairs to get his gun, came back down, found the guy had stopped, and the dad proceeded to shoot him then absolutely charges should be brought (obviously that wasn't the case here; I am under the assumption that dad came in, fight breaks out, dad lands some good blows to the guys head and neck, and then dad stops once guy has stopped moving). I don't believe there is an actual time period for a person to act (i.e. 30 seconds, or whatever other arbitrary number), but rather you should look at how much time passed and what action was taken. If the dad went headlong into the fight throwing fists but stopped shortly thereafter, then I would say no problem at all. If the dad got the guy to the floor and proceeded to pound the guy's face for five minutes, then absolutely there is something wrong there, but his actions will be mitigated by the fact he was acting in self-defense of another (i.e. the charges will be lessened to maybe manslaughter of some degree). The big thing to look for is, was the assailant's use of deadly force ceased by the dad's action and yet he continued to act, which you pointed out in my earlier post. This will be a question for the grand jury to look into.[/QUOTE]
Right, and I agree with your assessment.

And you are absolutely right about rape not being a capital offense, but some would seek to see that changed. However, the crime of rape as its occurring is undoubtedly extremely dangerous. I would definitely say that it would be possible for rape or sexual assault to result in the death of the victim, should it be violent enough. That extreme danger translates into deadly force being used upon the victim and thus the victim could use deadly force in their protection. Molestation gets onto slightly shakier ground depending upon what exactly was occurring, but I could see molestation leading to sexual assault/rape, which would once again justify the use of deadly force.
Click to expand...
Right again, but no one here is making the argument that any form of sexual assault isn't dangerous or couldn't lead to death, but just that it isn't black and white.

edit: Looks like you're saying the same thing in another post.

edit: btw, I used sexual assault to encompass any other act outside of rape (which is unwanted vaginal intercourse by use of force or threat of force). The actual charge for molestation is likely to be sexual assault in most states. There is also involuntary deviate sexual intercourse which is encompasses all other intercourse not covered by rape.
Click to expand...
On the brightside, I'm glad we don't have to squabble over semantics since we have a common understanding of terms. It makes it so much easier when trying to relay points.
 
Then to complicate it further, in this instance, it's a minor, in fact a child. I think that creates it's own sub-category of sex crime, right?
 
[quote name='berzirk']Bigdaddy, by profile name alone, seems to be a big boy, so he can defend himself, but what I read in his comment was that he was saying how could (m)any of us walk into a sexual attack on a child and legally choose if the child is being raped or "just" molested, and act accordingly based on their perpection. I don't think he was being dumb at all, and I don't think he ever said all sexual assaults were rape. Maybe I misunderstood.[/QUOTE]
It's nice that you read that much into his posts, but in case you haven't noticed, he has a habit of trolling up the threads in vs. He claims he has me on ignore anyways, so thanks for getting me past his filter!:lol:

Seriously though, Clak made an important point, albeit an anti-intuitive one. No is arguing that we should act like robots, but knee-jerk reactions aren't ideal either.

[quote name='berzirk']Then to complicate it further, in this instance, it's a minor, in fact a child. I think that creates it's own sub-category of sex crime, right?[/QUOTE]
I'm fairly certain that there isn't a difference in labeling a sex crime a "sex crime" regardless of the victim's age or gender. A minor and a child are synonymous too, but what I think you're getting at is that there are different charges and penalties depending on the age of the victim, which would be correct depending on the state.

edit: Or maybe I just had a brain fart and didn't read the sex crime part right, but yes, you're right for the most part.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']It's nice that you read that much into his posts, but in case you haven't noticed, he has a habit of trolling up the threads in vs. He claims he has me on ignore anyways, so thanks for getting me past his filter!:lol:

Seriously though, Clak made an important point, albeit an anti-intuitive one. No is arguing that we should act like robots, but knee-jerk reactions aren't ideal either.


I'm fairly certain that there isn't a difference in labeling a sex crime a "sex crime" regardless of the victim's age or gender. A minor and a child are synonymous too, but what I think you're getting at is that there are different charges and penalties depending on the age of the victim, which would be correct depending on the state.[/QUOTE]

Yah, I don't know anything about the guy in terms of trolling or whatnot.

Clak made a few points that rubbed people the wrong way legally and/or emotionally, but his suggestion that he would have told the molester/attempted molester who is preparing to sexually abuse his 4 year old daughter to "move along", then call the cops, rather than physically restrain the guy, and prevent him from laying hands on his kid and others is insanity. Say you don't want the dad to beat the hell or life out of someone in that situation-while I'm glad the dad killed the shithead, I can get that others aren't happy, whatever, but any human being that walks in on something like that needs to verbally and physically stop it. What, is the 4 year old going to fight him off?

Having it be some random kid in Texas instead of YOUR child that you picture helps people keep emotion out of it, but that's the crux of the case, emotion was involved, the guy did physically defend his child, and he's either a beast of a man, or he just got lucky with some well placed shots, but either way, he killed his toddler's assailant. fuck Zimmerman, I'm not giving a penny to that assclown, but if this guy needs a legal defense fund, I'm donating.

I knew people would come in and argue against killing a person you catch preparing to, or currently molesting your kid, if for no other reason than Devil's advocacy. I didn't think Clak would take it to the extreme of suggesting the right action was to tell the guy off, then call the cops, or not understand a very clear definition of self defense, then try to extend it to say if you're punched once you can kill your attacker. He's too smart for nonsense like that. Argue away, if for no other reason than to argue, but for someone like Clak, who is a good poster, this has not been a great thread for him.
 
[quote name='KCS13']
edit: btw, I used sexual assault to encompass any other act outside of rape (which is unwanted vaginal intercourse by use of force or threat of force). The actual charge for molestation is likely to be sexual assault in most states. There is also involuntary deviate sexual intercourse which is encompasses all other intercourse not covered by rape.[/QUOTE]

rape is not just "unwanted vaginal intercourse" and has not been viewed that way for decades.
Sexual assault and rape are usually the same thing it is just wording. The word rape is not usually used in the law though but varying degrees of sexual assault. But rape is and can apply to abuse and forced sex acts.

I like many others believe it is RAPE when it involves a child and prefer that wording as it RAPE usually carries..evokes more emotion and outrage (as it should) then some flowery word like molest. It is rape.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape
http://www.clarku.edu/offices/dos/survivorguide/definition.cfm

It is disgusting and I think most people are on board with the death penalty for child rape. I think most people are also fine with this guy in this case being killed and yes the guy who killed him deserves a medal.

P.S. clak is still a complete moron.

edit: in fairness it took awhile though for the fbi to update its view on rape. Referring to the first sentence.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top