I tend to look at the bigger picture here as well.
Don't much care what the particular circumstances of the attacker are... if it was my child... I'd weed them out.
Problem solved.
Don't much care what the particular circumstances of the attacker are... if it was my child... I'd weed them out.
Problem solved.
I don't believe that there is a parent here on this forum who wouldn't wish death upon those who sexually abuse their children. The only issue in my mind is the level of restraint that they may (or may not) be able to exercise given the situation. We're not talking about a suspected child molestor here, we're talking about a man who sees his 5 year-old daughter being raped. I only hope that if I were placed in that situation, I actually could kill the attacker.
RascalsMom
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2012
- Reaction score
- 3,729
You still contradict yourself. The father was clearly acting in self defense (defense of another), so anything he did cannot be applied to thoughts on vigilante justice. The standard in Texas is reasonable force as well, and it is certainly reasonable to make sure your opponent is fully incapacitated.
I addressed "c" in my first post. Making the determination of what is enough force to render someone harmless/restrain them in the heat of the moment is not something that is always obvious. And in a circumstance like this one, if one is wrong the consequences could be quite fatal. Most humans are not capable of violently raping a small child, so to somehow say the perp here would be unlikely to go to extremes to eliminate witnesses to his crime if given the opportunity seems a bit odd. It is quite reasonable to believe that once someone crosses the line and begins dragging off small girls to rape them that murder is a very, very short step for them.
There is no justice in trying to concoct a way to punish the father to try and dampen thoughts of vigilante justice. I believe it is more important to acknowledge that what he did is a reasonable reaction to a situation that is well beyond any horror the vast majority of us will ever face in our daily lives.
Lord Snot
Parsley Provider
Incapacitating someone is self defense. Accidentally killing someone in an effort to incapacite them is self defense. Making the decision to carry on beating them once they are incapacitated, with an aim to killing them out of punishment, isn't self defense. I'm pretty sure the law agrees with me.
I can't find any stats for how many sex offenders committed murder, or how many murderers had also committed sex crimes, but I don't think the link is as clear as you think it is.
I can't find any stats for how many sex offenders committed murder, or how many murderers had also committed sex crimes, but I don't think the link is as clear as you think it is.
Yes and no. It is a fine line, and not as black and white as you imply. What is beating someone? Plus, in a situation such as this one, the father would have a legitimate claim for diminished mental capacity. So no, in general the law does not agree with you.
I cannot make the point any clearer. Someone who is willing to drag a small child away to rape them is clearly a violent predator. While we cannot know what this person would have done, it is reasonable to assume that someone capable of that level of depravity and violence is capable of crossing the line to greater violence. This person was not the typical sex offender that targets children, as his sexual assault fits into the violent offender subgroup. That group is much smaller as a whole, and does include those capable of murder. He was also cornered, caught in the act, and physically confronted at the time of the assault, and the subgroup we can compare this situation to is close to nil as this scenario almost never occurs. The attacker would have had the motive of increasing his level of violence in order to eliminate witnesses and escape.
As I stated in my first post, once someone enters a confrontation like this, there is no second place. You either win or your lose, and instincts generally take over.
Lord Snot
Parsley Provider
I think that when someone takes the step of raping a child in circumstances where it is not at all inconceivable that he would be discovered in the act, he has indeed crossed a line into violence without any reasoning ability to counteract urges toward further violence (such as would tell him that flight, rather than killing, would maximize his chances at survival).
There is no statistical evidence that can show whether or not this attacker was capable of greater violence. I do believe that a rational person (which is the standard under the law) could reasonably believe that a person capable of a violent abduction and rape of a 5-year old is also capable of killing someone who tries to stop them, either to escape or eliminate witnesses (or both).
The abduction and rape of children is (fortunately) rare, but we do know the subset of offenders that constitute this group are the ones capable of greater violence. As this perp fits that category, it is reasonable to assume that he is also capable of greater acts of violence.
Lord Snot
Parsley Provider
Well this has been one of the most interesting debates I've been involved in. It's really made me think.
Exactly, except that I would add that as the attacker has now been engaged in a physical confrontation by the father, his flight options are more limited, and he will (in his mind but not legally) be possibly acting in the self defense of his life. If he does gain the upper hand, his best chance of escape would be to eliminate anyone who could identify him.
I admit I am making assumptions, but I believe they are reasonable, and justify using a significant amount of force when engaging in self defense in a violent encounter of this nature. My point has been that trying to determine the "minimum" force to restrain a child rapist in a one on one situation is simply something that the average person should not be expected to determine in the heat of the moment. If I was ever in this situation, I would make sure that before I turned my back on this person that I would not have to be concerned about him getting back. If in doing so I ended his life, I would likely feel guilty for taking a life, but hopefully I would be able to forgive myself and place the ultimate blame on the attacker for creating the situation.
Anybody remember the video of the father waiting in an airport by a payphone and shooting the karate instructor (who raped/molested his son) while being escorted by law enforcement? IDK that if I was on that father's jury I'd vote to convict him. Video is still on youtube if one wants to view it.
FortyTwo
Custom Title
It's funny how that's happening over here. Back at the other place, most debates consisted of the vast majority of people either agreeing/disagreeing on a point, then someone conservative coming in and heavily insinuating that they had the opposite viewpoint, then 200 or so pages of bumbling about the same arguments as both sides try to enforce the same points over and over again.
In this place, we actually get things done and have compelling debates.
I was thinking of that incident during this discussion.
That case is a bit more of a sticky wicket, as the father clearly planned out what he did, and the molester was in custody facing a likely life sentence. I think the no contest plea to manslaughter was a reasonable compromise in that case.
Wolfie
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Reaction score
- 497
He just saved the tax payers a lot of money and I hope he's not charged with anything.
I would assume that some form of Castle Law applies here, which allows for the use of force... up to and including deadly force... in defense of home, property, self, or family. Most states have some version of this law and each applies it a bit differently, but if this case does in fact fall under that doctrine then no criminal or civil charges can be brought on the father.
AeryFairy
Anachronism
If this actually happened the way it has been described, then I can't blame him. You walk in on something like that, you're likely to stop thinking and just act. It's not surprising that he beat the guy to a bloody pulp.
Similar threads
