• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter, thoughts?

Page 13 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
highland145 said:
Agree but having a child of your own changes your "attitude", for lack of a better word, about this. There isn't another human being on this planet that I love more than my kid and he exponentially expanded my concept of it.

And no, I don't think tcG's a pedo.
Click to expand...
True...if it happened to one of mine even if I wasn't there to witness it I would probably hunt the guy down and kill him anyway...and no he's probably not a pedo but he's overly sympathetic to them and that is almost as bad, makes me sick
 
CharlesKozierok said:
What I find most disturbing is the sheer number of people who would apparently let the father walk with no evidence to back up his claim of what happened. It stretches the limits of believability to actually think the father had to kill this guy to stop him from doing whatever he (allegedly) was doing.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you've read the continuing news stories on this event.

The father wasn't trying to kill the pervert. He's expressed remorse that the pervert is dead.

And it's not up to the father to prove his innocence. It's up to the state to prove guilt, but they can't do that if the evidence does not exist.
 
sixone said:
And it's not up to the father to prove his innocence.
Click to expand...

If he's claiming self-defense, then I'm pretty sure it is. That's an affirmative defense, where you're admitting committing a particular act but saying that it was justified. In that case, you need to prove the justification.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
If he's claiming self-defense, then I'm pretty sure it is. That's an affirmative defense, where you're admitting committing a particular act but saying that it was justified. In that case, you need to prove the justification.
Click to expand...
You need to look up the laws here in Texas, and many other states have been adopting them as well...criminals need to be aware of these changes
 
CharlesKozierok said:
If he's claiming self-defense, then I'm pretty sure it is. That's an affirmative defense, where you're admitting committing a particular act but saying that it was justified. In that case, you need to prove the justification.
Click to expand...
Yeah, think I'd be all over that, telling anyone that would listen. Wouldn't trust the court system to get it right. Not where my freedom is concerned.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
If he's claiming self-defense, then I'm pretty sure it is. That's an affirmative defense, where you're admitting committing a particular act but saying that it was justified. In that case, you need to prove the justification.
Click to expand...

Who said he's claiming self-defense? I haven't seen that in any of the news articles. Please provide a link, if I've missed it.

He struck the perv in defense of his daughter. The father had a natural, reasonable reaction to seeing his daughter being attacked in such a heinous manner. While the injuries led to the man's death, there was no intent to kill. It would be up to the prosecutor to prove that there was, in order to support a murder charge.
 
corwin said:
You need to look up the laws here in Texas, and many other states have been adopting them as well...criminals need to be aware of these changes
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm guessing you aren't either. We'll see what happens.

For the record, I bear no ill will towards this man. But even if this situation is exactly as it has been described, it's important for everyone that the justice system works as intended.

sixone said:
He struck the perv in defense of his daughter. The father had a natural, reasonable reaction to seeing his daughter being attacked in such a heinous manner. While the injuries led to the man's death, there was no intent to kill.
Click to expand...

Right, but that's still an affirmative defense, one where you admit the act but say it is justified. You have to demonstrate the justification.

sixone said:
It would be up to the prosecutor to prove that there was, in order to support a murder charge.
Click to expand...

I'm assuming it would be a manslaughter or assault charge, not murder.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
I'm assuming it would be a manslaughter or assault charge, not murder.
Click to expand...

Manslaughter doesn't not require proof of intent. That's what makes it different than a murder charge.

Your earlier post specifically said "had to kill the guy to stop him". That implies intent, which can't be proven, based on the facts available.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
Well, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm guessing you aren't either. We'll see what happens.

For the record, I bear no ill will towards this man. But even if this situation is exactly as it has been described, it's important for everyone that the justice system works as intended.



Right, but that's still an affirmative defense, one where you admit the act but say it is justified. You have to demonstrate the justification.



I'm assuming it would be a manslaughter or assault charge, not murder.
Click to expand...

That's only at the pre-trial where the defendant claims self defense and if there is a preponderance (greater than 51%) of evidence it was self defense then a judge dismisses the charge.

If the judge does not dismiss then it goes to trial and the state MUST THEN PROVE BEYOND RESONABLE DOUBT that it wasn't self defense. The burden of proof is not on the defense in a trial, it is on the state/prosecutor.

But this will never see a judge or trial, no grand jury would indict.
 
tcG said:
Again, I think justice should be as a deterrent, not retributive. There is no need to get revenge if you see that bad people are already punished. The universe already does that. Whether you favor retributive justice or not has a lot to do with whether you believe God exists and how much order you see in the universe... I think it's basically a universal law that evildoers are punished immediately and inescapably, in a way more direct and precise than could ever be accomplished by criminal justice, by basically being unenlightened people. Evil people are already in "hell."
Click to expand...

This is a biggest load of horseshit I have ever read.
 
CharlesKozierok said:
Well, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm guessing you aren't either. We'll see what happens.

For the record, I bear no ill will towards this man. But even if this situation is exactly as it has been described, it's important for everyone that the justice system works as intended.
Click to expand...
No not a lawyer but this specifically I can comment on with authority, it's something they teach you about when you get licensed to carry a gun and use it in situations such as this...something those of us who choose to take that responsibility should be very aware of and know backwards and forwards is the laws of the state we are in and how they apply to use of deadly force...and BTW I'm licensed in Texas
 
CharlesKozierok said:
Well, I'm not a lawyer, and I'm guessing you aren't either. We'll see what happens.

For the record, I bear no ill will towards this man. But even if this situation is exactly as it has been described, it's important for everyone that the justice system works as intended.



Right, but that's still an affirmative defense, one where you admit the act but say it is justified. You have to demonstrate the justification.



I'm assuming it would be a manslaughter or assault charge, not murder.
Click to expand...

In Texas it is called a Defense to prosecution. Remember you are innocent until proven guilty. The State must prove your guilt. You shouldn't have to prove your innocence, though in the last few jury trials i've been on, this is something neither prosecutor nor defence lawyer have stated.
It's a pretty clear cut case. Texas law allows for deadly force in defence of a 3rd party. The police obviously see it this way which is why there is no arrest. No crime = no arrest.
 
Hold on everybody, we need to let the pedo apologists speak too...where are they? figured they would have been here to express their outrage over this travesty by now😕
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top