It's interesting actually, as many of us are what some might call bleeding-heart liberals, but when it comes to issues like this, we've got no problem whatsoever with settling a guy's hash when it comes to our kids. I'm rather proud of that actually, as it proves that we're just as human as the next person, and will fight agressively to protect our young. It doesn't always need to be one end of the spectrum or another. Texas got it right this time.
This is an excellent point. There is close to a 0% chance that this was an isolated incident, considering the guy was 47.
I agree. I read the transcript of the 911 call, and the father was clearly upset by how badly he had injured the attacker. He sounds like a fundamentally good person who was put into a situation straight out of a nightmare.
Generally true, unless there was sometime of mental issue that was manifesting, which does happen. The boldness of the attack does make me wonder if there was some additional trigger with the attacker (drugs/mental illness) as it is not the standard MO you would see in an offender at that age.
Wolfie
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Reaction score
- 497
So never once did he slip your sight? Did you have him chained to you at all hours?
I don't have kids but have spent loads of hours watching them for friends and siblings. I tend to run on the paranoid side and am more careful than many parents, and still a time or two a child has slipped from sight for the minute it would take some perv to move in. When my nephew was 3 he wandered off into the woods by his house in a nanosecond one time. Not on my watch that time but I happened to be there with my dogs. Thankfully my dogs over the years have picked up what "go find the kids" means so he wasn't gone long. Years ago my sister found a small boy wandering in the snow shoeless. We took him inside and called the cops. It turns out he had been napping, so mom took a nap, and he woke up and figured out how to open the locked door. The cops investigated and ruled that the mom wasn't negligent. You can't watch them every second. Plus what if the kid was 8 instead of 4? At a certain age you give kids more freedom but it doesn't mean pervs have a right to move in.true.So never once did he slip your sight? Did you have him chained to you at all hours?
i try to be vigilant with my kids, but they're kids. they run around and get out of sight somewhat regularly. like in our backyard, the front yard, etc. predators have grabbed kids from situations with that much control.
beancounter
The Fire That Burns Within
So never once did he slip your sight? Did you have him chained to you at all hours?
I always knew where he was or who he was with at that age.
8 is different than 4. By then they can communicate fairly well, know their address and number, and have been taught about stranger danger. Obviously you have to give them freedom, but 4 is too young.
But she was still on their property, which I believe is somewhat rural. At 5 she is certain;y capable of being outside of direct site of the parents on their own farm.
The father shouldn't have killed the man who was raping his daughter and if the reports of his demeanor immediately afterwards are accurate, I think he would agree with me. He probably wouldn't agree with me that he shouldn't have been no billed and the evidence should have been heard in a courtroom. I think the DA was derelict in her duties.
I don't want to live in a society where people who are harmed are able to offer that harm as an excuse to kill.
I don't want to live in a society where people who are harmed are able to offer that harm as an excuse to kill.
Nah, heat of the moment and I'm not sure he intended on killing the guy anyway. The DA did his/her duty and brought it before a grand jury for an indictment which they failed to do. Not much else the DA can do except waste taxpayer dollars and cause the father more stress by bringing charges.
Wolfie
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2012
- Reaction score
- 497
The evidence was heard in a court room. The grand jury determined there was not enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges. So no, the DA fulfilled her duties completely, and you are 100% incorrect.
The father felt remorse for killing the man, which is fairly typical in self defense cases. Good people usually regret killing another person, even when the killing is justified.
I would be more fearful of loving in a society that looks to find a way to punish someone for protecting their family.
I disagree ONLY because the father probably wouldn't want one.
I support his actions, and hope he and his family receive the support they need to heal from this tragic event.
das_nut
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 579
Assuming that the circumstances are as the father describes, I have to side with the father.
If the child was being raped, then the attacker loses the benefit of the doubt. Any perpetrator of a violent crime runs the risk that violence will be used to stop him or her. And that may lead to death.
Now, if the attacker was trying to run away when he was battered by the father, the situation would be slightly different.
If the child was being raped, then the attacker loses the benefit of the doubt. Any perpetrator of a violent crime runs the risk that violence will be used to stop him or her. And that may lead to death.
Now, if the attacker was trying to run away when he was battered by the father, the situation would be slightly different.
cornsail
Forum Legend
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2012
- Reaction score
- 237
If he had intentionally killed the guy I wouldn't think he should get no legal penalty (which doesn't mean I would have had a personal moral problem with it necessarily, but legal precedents are important). The evidence seems to indicate otherwise though and that is partly why I'm glad he's in the clear.
Actually, the use of deadly force is legally permissible in cases like this, so I'm not sure he would have been charged even if he did intentionally kill the attacker.
Josh James xVx
Ah Pook is here
Sometimes, violence is the answer. It depends on what the question is. I believe in speaking to people in their own language, and sometimes that language is violence. I can be fairly eloquent, too. Just ask my high school principle and the therapist I was sent to. They both have scars.
If the DA wanted the guy to be indicted, he would have been indicted. That's how grand jurys work and grand jurys are not courts as evidence is presented from only one side. The DA, being an elected official, knew that to indict the guy would cost her her job. Her actions were political.
What if the rapist were not a 47 year old male but a 13 year old male? What is the rapist were a woman? Would the instant death sentence still have been appropriate?
What if the rapist were not a 47 year old male but a 13 year old male? What is the rapist were a woman? Would the instant death sentence still have been appropriate?
Similar threads
