Father kills neighbor accused of molesting his daughter
- Thread starter Javery
- Start date
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
a *little* impulsively? He killed a man over hearsay.
Purple Flames
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 21 (100%)
[quote name='javeryh']I think he acted a little impulsively but if that guy really touched his daughter then I don't blame him...[/quote]
I agree. I think he jumped the gun, but if turns out to be true, then one less pedo in the world to worry about. Good riddance.
I agree. I think he jumped the gun, but if turns out to be true, then one less pedo in the world to worry about. Good riddance.
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
No wonder he snapped.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Machine']He should be at home helping to raise his family instead of spending the next 20 years in jail because he had to take revenge. There's a reason we don't allow vigilante justice anymore.[/QUOTE]
Huh? Are you in favor of viglante justice or are you against it? Your two sentences seem to contradict each other.
Huh? Are you in favor of viglante justice or are you against it? Your two sentences seem to contradict each other.
I'm saying he shouldn't have done it because it means he will be in jail instead of at home. If he really cared about his daughter, he would have thought things through instead of acting impulsively. His need for revenge did nothing to help his daughter - if anything it hurt her even more than the alleged molestation would have.
diaeresis
CAGiversary!
Punishing crime isn't supposed to 'help' anyone. That's for families of the victims and other sympathizers who wish to provide support. A crime is punished to demonstrate that it is unacceptable in a society, and that anyone who decides to commit it anyway risks facing the consequences.
Now, the neighbor wasn't sentenced to death and had none of the rights afforded the accused in our system of government, so there was an unquestionable injustice committed. However, with the farce that our justice system has become, the temptation toward taking things into one's own hands only becomes stronger. If the state had a reputation for fairly trying and swiftly executing convicted child molesters, those in his situation would be more inclined toward trusting the process.
Now, the neighbor wasn't sentenced to death and had none of the rights afforded the accused in our system of government, so there was an unquestionable injustice committed. However, with the farce that our justice system has become, the temptation toward taking things into one's own hands only becomes stronger. If the state had a reputation for fairly trying and swiftly executing convicted child molesters, those in his situation would be more inclined toward trusting the process.
DeathDealer
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
I think hes either crazy or was drunk. Not many "normal people" in there right mind get angry enough to kill someone then goes and stabs them to death.. Anyway, Shooting I could understand but to stab someone to death? thats a little crazy. Especially being a lawyer, he would have to be smarter than average. He had to be drunk or something. He could of kicked the shit out of him and stuck a plunger up his ass or something. What the hell was this guy thinking. Especially just going off what he heard. Thats the worst part. Without knowing what exactly happened with the man and the little girl I would say he went a little far to kill him. Did he touch her or what? I doubt he had sex with her.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Machine']I'm saying he shouldn't have done it because it means he will be in jail instead of at home. If he really cared about his daughter, he would have thought things through instead of acting impulsively. His need for revenge did nothing to help his daughter - if anything it hurt her even more than the alleged molestation would have.[/QUOTE]
I see. I misread your other post, then, thinking that "he should be at home raising the child" was more of a plea to not incarcerate him, rather than taking him to task for effectively removing himself as the present father for quite some time. My bad.
Diaresis, I'd like to see some of the evidence of how awful our justice system is to back up your claims excusing this kind of behavior. You're also looking back in the recent past (30 years) when claiming that the role of the justice system was to "serve as an example" (a/k/a deterrence) for others. Deterrence, as a means of enacting policy in the criminal justice system, has been proven a massive failure; the incarcerated population is up 700% since the early-to-mid 1970's, and what's worse, crime went up at the same time, or remained stable at best. It's been going down steadily since the mid-1990's, but only for select offenses, and there are a myriad of plausible explanations for that outside of a functioning highly punitive justice system. At any rate, you make some bold claims in your post. I'd like to see you back them up, rather than think that making a sweeping claim that "the justice system stinks, so there are incentives to this kind of action" is sufficient.
I see. I misread your other post, then, thinking that "he should be at home raising the child" was more of a plea to not incarcerate him, rather than taking him to task for effectively removing himself as the present father for quite some time. My bad.
Diaresis, I'd like to see some of the evidence of how awful our justice system is to back up your claims excusing this kind of behavior. You're also looking back in the recent past (30 years) when claiming that the role of the justice system was to "serve as an example" (a/k/a deterrence) for others. Deterrence, as a means of enacting policy in the criminal justice system, has been proven a massive failure; the incarcerated population is up 700% since the early-to-mid 1970's, and what's worse, crime went up at the same time, or remained stable at best. It's been going down steadily since the mid-1990's, but only for select offenses, and there are a myriad of plausible explanations for that outside of a functioning highly punitive justice system. At any rate, you make some bold claims in your post. I'd like to see you back them up, rather than think that making a sweeping claim that "the justice system stinks, so there are incentives to this kind of action" is sufficient.
Dark Slayer120
Banned
ing good for him I don't blame him one ing bit.
I could understand him beating the guy senseless but murder is something else. He must have been drunk or something to go that far because normal sane people don't just murder people like that. I'd be more in a state of shock from hearing that news than in outright anger(esp. enough to murder someone). Wouldn't be the first time alcohol has ed people up.
ed people up.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Buster Rod G']Would you really think that rationally if you were told someone molested your daughter?[/QUOTE]
Don't try to get me emotively involved with that "if it was *YOU*" argument. It won't work, and it's irrelevant to the crime committed.
Don't try to get me emotively involved with that "if it was *YOU*" argument. It won't work, and it's irrelevant to the crime committed.
[quote name='mykevermin']a *little* impulsively? He killed a man over hearsay.[/QUOTE]
Legally speaking, it is not hearsay because the statement is relevant to show the effect upon Edington, not because it is true, but merely because Edington heard it. If Edington heard the statement and believed it, then it is more likely that Edington was provoked, whether or not the statement is true. For this reason, the statement is relevant merely because it was uttered
See Ex Parte Bunn, 611 So.2d 399 (Ala. 1992)(statement used to prove threat upon hearer to explain his conduct in fleeing the state). See also People v. Thurmond, 221 Cal. Rptr 292 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (defendant's testimony that he had heard homicide victim had acted violently towards victim's wife would have been admissible to prove effect of statement on hearer, if it were relevant; held it was not relevant in this case). See also People v. Roberson, 334 P.2d 666 (Cal. Dst. Ct. App. 1959) (defendant charged with sale of drugs to undercover officer; defendant denied sale, claiming he had been told the buyer was a police officer; held: evidence admissible to prove defendant, hearer's state of mind.
[quote name='mykevermin']Don't try to get me emotively involved with that "if it was *YOU*" argument. It won't work, and it's irrelevant to the crime committed.[/QUOTE]
Actually, as per above, it's completely relevant.
Legally speaking, it is not hearsay because the statement is relevant to show the effect upon Edington, not because it is true, but merely because Edington heard it. If Edington heard the statement and believed it, then it is more likely that Edington was provoked, whether or not the statement is true. For this reason, the statement is relevant merely because it was uttered
See Ex Parte Bunn, 611 So.2d 399 (Ala. 1992)(statement used to prove threat upon hearer to explain his conduct in fleeing the state). See also People v. Thurmond, 221 Cal. Rptr 292 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (defendant's testimony that he had heard homicide victim had acted violently towards victim's wife would have been admissible to prove effect of statement on hearer, if it were relevant; held it was not relevant in this case). See also People v. Roberson, 334 P.2d 666 (Cal. Dst. Ct. App. 1959) (defendant charged with sale of drugs to undercover officer; defendant denied sale, claiming he had been told the buyer was a police officer; held: evidence admissible to prove defendant, hearer's state of mind.
[quote name='mykevermin']Don't try to get me emotively involved with that "if it was *YOU*" argument. It won't work, and it's irrelevant to the crime committed.[/QUOTE]
Actually, as per above, it's completely relevant.
[quote name='Fanboy']Legally speaking, it is not hearsay because the statement is relevant to show the effect upon Edington, not because it is true, but merely because Edington heard it. If Edington heard the statement and believed it, then it is more likely that Edington was provoked, whether or not the statement is true. For this reason, the statement is relevant merely because it was uttered
See Ex Parte Bunn, 611 So.2d 399 (Ala. 1992)(statement used to prove threat upon hearer to explain his conduct in fleeing the state). See also People v. Thurmond, 221 Cal. Rptr 292 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (defendant's testimony that he had heard homicide victim had acted violently towards victim's wife would have been admissible to prove effect of statement on hearer, if it were relevant; held it was not relevant in this case). See also People v. Roberson, 334 P.2d 666 (Cal. Dst. Ct. App. 1959) (defendant charged with sale of drugs to undercover officer; defendant denied sale, claiming he had been told the buyer was a police officer; held: evidence admissible to prove defendant, hearer's state of mind.
Actually, as per above, it's completely relevant.[/quote]
God I hated Evidence. Those hearsay exceptions are tricky!
See Ex Parte Bunn, 611 So.2d 399 (Ala. 1992)(statement used to prove threat upon hearer to explain his conduct in fleeing the state). See also People v. Thurmond, 221 Cal. Rptr 292 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (defendant's testimony that he had heard homicide victim had acted violently towards victim's wife would have been admissible to prove effect of statement on hearer, if it were relevant; held it was not relevant in this case). See also People v. Roberson, 334 P.2d 666 (Cal. Dst. Ct. App. 1959) (defendant charged with sale of drugs to undercover officer; defendant denied sale, claiming he had been told the buyer was a police officer; held: evidence admissible to prove defendant, hearer's state of mind.
Actually, as per above, it's completely relevant.[/quote]
God I hated Evidence. Those hearsay exceptions are tricky!
Silverwolf
CAG Veteran
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
Ok I'm new here so be gentle. He should've done things deferently (maybe beat the crap out of him). But what really gets me about the whole thing is, with this guys previous behavior. How in the world did he get access to the two year old girl in the first place? I have two girls and I know anythings possible but me and my wife are the gate keepers. Keeping an eye on your kids is mandatory!
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Silverwolf']Ok I'm new here so be gentle. He should've done things deferently (maybe beat the crap out of him). But what really gets me about the whole thing is, with this guys previous behavior. How in the world did he get access to the two year old girl in the first place? I have two girls and I know anythings possible but me and my wife are the gate keepers. Keeping an eye on your kids is mandatory![/QUOTE]
What kind of previous behavior is cited in the OP? Other than one drinking citation? Being seen partially clothed in a window? Shit, I've walked by more windows after a shower without thinking than I care to recall. The evidence certainly isn't damning in that case. Not without context, it isn't.
Fanboy, you'll have to spell things out for me better. How is it relevant to the case to garner what my reaction would be if it were my child?
What kind of previous behavior is cited in the OP? Other than one drinking citation? Being seen partially clothed in a window? Shit, I've walked by more windows after a shower without thinking than I care to recall. The evidence certainly isn't damning in that case. Not without context, it isn't.
Fanboy, you'll have to spell things out for me better. How is it relevant to the case to garner what my reaction would be if it were my child?
Silverwolf
CAG Veteran
- Feedback
- 3 (100%)
[quote name='mykevermin']What kind of previous behavior is cited in the OP? Other than one drinking citation? Being seen partially clothed in a window? Shit, I've walked by more windows after a shower without thinking than I care to recall. The evidence certainly isn't damning in that case. Not without context, it isn't.
Fanboy, you'll have to spell things out for me better. How is it relevant to the case to garner what my reaction would be if it were my child?[/quote]
I agree. But regardless, how did he get access to the two year old? How and why did she leave the girl unattended? I have a two year old and I can't make out most of what the hell she's trying to say. How did they come to the conclusion that the girl had been molested? Sounds fishy to me...
Fanboy, you'll have to spell things out for me better. How is it relevant to the case to garner what my reaction would be if it were my child?[/quote]
I agree. But regardless, how did he get access to the two year old? How and why did she leave the girl unattended? I have a two year old and I can't make out most of what the hell she's trying to say. How did they come to the conclusion that the girl had been molested? Sounds fishy to me...
Rags
CAGiversary!
The one thing I question is this>
How did the old crazie get access to be able to do this?
Some guy said that up above, but I was wondering it before. If this guy had been noticed doing weird things you think that the parents would not have let the kid be in the access of the crazy neighbor. Even if he had been a baby sitter in the past, after him running into 2 buildings recently and exposing himself through a window I would sure as hell not let my nephews(no kids myself) go over to his house by themselves. This just sounds like the whole situation could have been avoided.
Silverwolf, this is on your thoughts>
I have a nephew that is around 2 and half years old, and words come out but not all are understandable so I know what you are saying. Kinda makes me think that the kid may have done something weird and the mom asked where they learned it or where they had seen the behavior and the kid pieced together that the neihbor showed her. Just a guess though, that is usually how child molesters are caught when they are doing it to little kids.
If true though, one less perv of the planet and the guy should be given a medal.
How did the old crazie get access to be able to do this?
Some guy said that up above, but I was wondering it before. If this guy had been noticed doing weird things you think that the parents would not have let the kid be in the access of the crazy neighbor. Even if he had been a baby sitter in the past, after him running into 2 buildings recently and exposing himself through a window I would sure as hell not let my nephews(no kids myself) go over to his house by themselves. This just sounds like the whole situation could have been avoided.
Silverwolf, this is on your thoughts>
I have a nephew that is around 2 and half years old, and words come out but not all are understandable so I know what you are saying. Kinda makes me think that the kid may have done something weird and the mom asked where they learned it or where they had seen the behavior and the kid pieced together that the neihbor showed her. Just a guess though, that is usually how child molesters are caught when they are doing it to little kids.
If true though, one less perv of the planet and the guy should be given a medal.
A
Apossum
Guest
[quote name='the3rdkey']Dude was 58 living with his mom. Pervert!!! I hope the lawyers don't get bad reps for this and no video games are blamed.[/QUOTE]
Super Child Molester 2 Turbo is definitely going to take the fall for this one
Super Child Molester 2 Turbo is definitely going to take the fall for this one
Mid Boss
CAGiversary!
[quote name='mykevermin']Don't try to get me emotively involved with that "if it was *YOU*" argument. It won't work, and it's irrelevant to the crime committed.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps that was not the best way to argue my point. It just seems odd to me that you would expect someone in that situation to be so rational when presented with the molestation of his daughter. It's just something that I can see being damn hard to remain clear headed about and to be able to consider that perhaps his wife misinterpreted something their daughter said. Yes, he killed a guy based on hearsay, but he believed what he was told was true and reacted in a way that I would expect a lot of people to when given that information. It may not be an appropriate reaction, but it is one I can certainly understand and which I think should be taken into consideration when he goes to trial.
Perhaps that was not the best way to argue my point. It just seems odd to me that you would expect someone in that situation to be so rational when presented with the molestation of his daughter. It's just something that I can see being damn hard to remain clear headed about and to be able to consider that perhaps his wife misinterpreted something their daughter said. Yes, he killed a guy based on hearsay, but he believed what he was told was true and reacted in a way that I would expect a lot of people to when given that information. It may not be an appropriate reaction, but it is one I can certainly understand and which I think should be taken into consideration when he goes to trial.
Rags
CAGiversary!
It's easy to claim he's a dumbass now, but think about the situation if it were you in his shoes. I'm not saying he is right or wrong.
I know about 5 people that have been charge with molestation(personally know them). One is a distant relative. Anyway, they did nothing to kids that I know yet I want to punch them in the face myself for being a sick bastard. That is me now, with a clear head. Imaging the situation if it was someone(a 2 year old) you knew that was telling you that the neighbor had done sick things to them. You are probably not going to think things out logically and want to do the "right" thing. So I don't want to hear BS about this guy is a dumbass from some one who is thinking of things only through a legal standpoint.
My guess>
There is no way possible to 100% know if he did it now that he is dead. BUT, there is the kid herself. She will be analyzed by Psychologists to see if she changes her story when asked multiple times about the situation. The guy will get SOMETHING, but it may be a little as 6 months to as severe as Life(not very likely). I think that he will go for temporary insanity, and due to some situations that the neighbor had done in the past(exposing himself, and appariantly nuts from the other neighbor's comments) this guy guy will get a fairly light sentence when considering he killed someone. Just a guess though.
I know about 5 people that have been charge with molestation(personally know them). One is a distant relative. Anyway, they did nothing to kids that I know yet I want to punch them in the face myself for being a sick bastard. That is me now, with a clear head. Imaging the situation if it was someone(a 2 year old) you knew that was telling you that the neighbor had done sick things to them. You are probably not going to think things out logically and want to do the "right" thing. So I don't want to hear BS about this guy is a dumbass from some one who is thinking of things only through a legal standpoint.
My guess>
There is no way possible to 100% know if he did it now that he is dead. BUT, there is the kid herself. She will be analyzed by Psychologists to see if she changes her story when asked multiple times about the situation. The guy will get SOMETHING, but it may be a little as 6 months to as severe as Life(not very likely). I think that he will go for temporary insanity, and due to some situations that the neighbor had done in the past(exposing himself, and appariantly nuts from the other neighbor's comments) this guy guy will get a fairly light sentence when considering he killed someone. Just a guess though.
Duo_Maxwell
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 36 (100%)
[quote name='Rags']It's easy to claim he's a dumbass now, but think about the situation if it were you in his shoes. I'm not saying he is right or wrong.
I know about 5 people that have been charge with molestation(personally know them). One is a distant relative. Anyway, they did nothing to kids that I know yet I want to punch them in the face myself for being a sick bastard. That is me now, with a clear head. Imaging the situation if it was someone(a 2 year old) you knew that was telling you that the neighbor had done sick things to them. You are probably not going to think things out logically and want to do the "right" thing. So I don't want to hear BS about this guy is a dumbass from some one who is thinking of things only through a legal standpoint.
My guess>
There is no way possible to 100% know if he did it now that he is dead. BUT, there is the kid herself. She will be analyzed by Psychologists to see if she changes her story when asked multiple times about the situation. The guy will get SOMETHING, but it may be a little as 6 months to as severe as Life(not very likely). I think that he will go for temporary insanity, and due to some situations that the neighbor had done in the past(exposing himself, and appariantly nuts from the other neighbor's comments) this guy guy will get a fairly light sentence when considering he killed someone. Just a guess though.[/QUOTE]
It's not just a legal standpoint, it's a societal standpoint. We cannot just enact vengence and kill as we please, especially not based on what someone simply tells us, no matter how much we trust the source. If we all did this we may as well drag people to the townsquare and hang them without a trial, in short we'd be back to the good ol' time of the Salem Witch "trials". What's more this isn't a simple killing, it was a guy stabbing someone to death in their sleep. The accused molester could be as nutty as a fruit cake, but nevertheless he never got a chance to defend himself, hell he didn't even get a chance to respond to the accusations, he may not have even known why he was dying. Had the legal system failed this man or some other related mess occured I could find more empathy for his plight, but to viciously kill a defenseless man over simple word of mouth and basically forefit your family in the process is something I cannot condone, perhaps even if I was in his shoes.
Now to speak form an actual legal standpoint, depending on what is found out his sentence may indeed be lighter, but a temp. insanity plea should not work here. There's simple too much apparent premeditation involved such as sneaking into his house, attacking while in his sleep, things of that nature indicate at least some premeditation. was involved in the part of the father.
Edit: After reading the article again I guess it's unclear whether or the guy was actually asleep, I guess I assumed that because he went in through the bedroom. Still it doesn't change my opinion much if at all, either way I'm sure it was definately a "surprise attack" of sorts...
I know about 5 people that have been charge with molestation(personally know them). One is a distant relative. Anyway, they did nothing to kids that I know yet I want to punch them in the face myself for being a sick bastard. That is me now, with a clear head. Imaging the situation if it was someone(a 2 year old) you knew that was telling you that the neighbor had done sick things to them. You are probably not going to think things out logically and want to do the "right" thing. So I don't want to hear BS about this guy is a dumbass from some one who is thinking of things only through a legal standpoint.
My guess>
There is no way possible to 100% know if he did it now that he is dead. BUT, there is the kid herself. She will be analyzed by Psychologists to see if she changes her story when asked multiple times about the situation. The guy will get SOMETHING, but it may be a little as 6 months to as severe as Life(not very likely). I think that he will go for temporary insanity, and due to some situations that the neighbor had done in the past(exposing himself, and appariantly nuts from the other neighbor's comments) this guy guy will get a fairly light sentence when considering he killed someone. Just a guess though.[/QUOTE]
It's not just a legal standpoint, it's a societal standpoint. We cannot just enact vengence and kill as we please, especially not based on what someone simply tells us, no matter how much we trust the source. If we all did this we may as well drag people to the townsquare and hang them without a trial, in short we'd be back to the good ol' time of the Salem Witch "trials". What's more this isn't a simple killing, it was a guy stabbing someone to death in their sleep. The accused molester could be as nutty as a fruit cake, but nevertheless he never got a chance to defend himself, hell he didn't even get a chance to respond to the accusations, he may not have even known why he was dying. Had the legal system failed this man or some other related mess occured I could find more empathy for his plight, but to viciously kill a defenseless man over simple word of mouth and basically forefit your family in the process is something I cannot condone, perhaps even if I was in his shoes.
Now to speak form an actual legal standpoint, depending on what is found out his sentence may indeed be lighter, but a temp. insanity plea should not work here. There's simple too much apparent premeditation involved such as sneaking into his house, attacking while in his sleep, things of that nature indicate at least some premeditation. was involved in the part of the father.
Edit: After reading the article again I guess it's unclear whether or the guy was actually asleep, I guess I assumed that because he went in through the bedroom. Still it doesn't change my opinion much if at all, either way I'm sure it was definately a "surprise attack" of sorts...
A
Apossum
Guest
There's a lot to say in hindsight about this situation, but there are plenty of people with anger problems who would completely snap at the news that their daughter had been molested. Maybe not stab the guy to death, but they'd probably lose it and kick the shit out of him.
the guy did screw up though. he's totally in the wrong. she's gonna be much worse off for this. and who knows what happened, kids say false things all the time without even knowing it. Even if it didn't happen, she'll have to say it did to help her Dad justify his-up.
The whole family would've been better off had he not done anything violent and that's a fact.
the guy did screw up though. he's totally in the wrong. she's gonna be much worse off for this. and who knows what happened, kids say false things all the time without even knowing it. Even if it didn't happen, she'll have to say it did to help her Dad justify his
-up. The whole family would've been better off had he not done anything violent and that's a fact.
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
Am I the only one who though about this?
A
Apossum
Guest
[quote name='Wolve22']Temporary Insanity Plead....[/QUOTE]
QFT FTW BBQ USA
QFT FTW BBQ USA
Quackzilla
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
Um, if the guy had been improsoned for molesting a child he would have been ed every which way but loose every day of is short life..
ed every which way but loose every day of is short life..
bread's done