• 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.

No charges filed on father who killed child rapist

Texashiker said:
I wonder if obama will ask holder to investigate. Surely the rapist civil rights were violated.
Click to expand...

Lame, you can make your point without some retarded political statement. I don't think you'll find many who would disagree with the outcome. I know I don't.
 
Last edited:
Have to agree, this should be a law in any state. Gotta love Texas...all my friends who move out there never come back to the northeast. I've been there a few times and I can understand why they wouldn't.
 
sze5003 said:
Have to agree, this should be a law in any state. Gotta love Texas...all my friends who move out there never come back to the northeast. I've been there a few times and I can understand why they wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Seriously though, point to state where you can't use deadly force to stop a rape.
 
brycejones said:
Lame, you can make your point without some retarded political statement. I don't think you'll find many who would disagree with the outcome. I know I don't.
Click to expand...

The only lame one is you.

The father should never have faced any charges and this was the right decision. I won't be surprised at all if holder wants a civil rights investigation or some special interest group calls for it.
 
Incorruptible said:
The only lame one is you.

The father should never have faced any charges and this was the right decision. I won't be surprised at all if holder wants a civil rights investigation or some special interest group calls for it.
Click to expand...

So if he doesn't will you come back here and admit you're an ignorant political hack?
 
brycejones said:
Lame, you can make your point without some retarded political statement. I don't think you'll find many who would disagree with the outcome. I know I don't.
Click to expand...

Did you miss the pillowcase rapist thread?

I am thinking that the state of California might disagree with the outcome D:
 
According to many in the Trayvon thread, the father wouldn't be justified in beating the man to death because there was no imminent threat anymore. Though I doubt they'll come say it now.
 
nehalem256 said:
Did you miss the pillowcase rapist thread?

I am thinking that the state of California might disagree with the outcome D:
Click to expand...

Right, because that thread is proof that California goes easy on sexual predators despite them keeping a man locked up for 17 years AFTER his sentence was completed.
 
nehalem256 said:
Did you miss the pillowcase rapist thread?

I am thinking that the state of California might disagree with the outcome D:
Click to expand...

The State of California in that case actually incarcerated the guy based on a statute for civil commitment which allows them to essentially imprison people after their time has been served. While his original sentencing from way back in the 70's was too light, I hardly think that this is an example of California being lenient.

CA toughened up on violent crime with the rest of the country back in the 1990's. But then, you don't really know what you're talking about here. You just like to deliver quips.
 
Incorruptible said:
The only lame one is you.

The father should never have faced any charges and this was the right decision. I won't be surprised at all if holder wants a civil rights investigation or some special interest group calls for it.
Click to expand...

You and the OP are criticizing Holder and Obama over something they haven't even done. Apparently, you aren't limited to criticizing them for stuff they actually do. You and the OP are being assholes here, trying to make every single thread about Obama.
 
thraashman said:
According to many in the Trayvon thread, the father wouldn't be justified in beating the man to death because there was no imminent threat anymore. Though I doubt they'll come say it now.
Click to expand...

The man discovered him in the act, so the threat was imminent.

This would be justified under the law of pretty much any state, if not all of them.
 
woolfe9998 said:
You and the OP are criticizing Holder and Obama over something they haven't even done. Apparently, you aren't limited to criticizing them for stuff they actually do. You and the OP are being assholes here, trying to make every single thread about Obama.
Click to expand...

But you are ok with your buddy thraashman bringing up Trayvon Martin right?
 
Matt1970 said:
But you are ok with your buddy thraashman bringing up Trayvon Martin right?
Click to expand...

It looked to me like he brought up that case because he's trying to argue a legal point about this particular case by mentioning what other people said about the law of self-defense in the Martin thread? He is referring to what other people said in the Martin thread but I'm not that familiar with what they said so I have no context. If they said that self-defense requires an imminent threat, that is correct. In any event, if Thraashman was being snarky then yes, I disagree with him. If he's bringing up the Martin case just to bring it up, then yes, I also disagree. That case has gotten way more attention than it deserves. However, I don't really understand the context of him bringing it up, so I corrected him only on the legal point where he seemed to be suggesting a lack of imminence in this case.

I'm not sure I understand the comparison you're making here. Explain. How is the manner in which Thraashman brought up the Martin case similar to the OP and incorruptible criticizing Obama for something he hasn't done?
 
Last edited:
Matt1970 said:
But you are ok with your buddy thraashman bringing up Trayvon Martin right?
Click to expand...

woolfe9998 said:
It looked to me like he brought up that case because he's trying to argue a legal point about this particular case by mentioning what other people said about the law of self-defense in the Martin thread? He is referring to what other people said in the Martin thread but I'm not that familiar with what they said so I have no context. If they said that self-defense requires an imminent threat, that is correct. In any event, if Thraashman was being snarky then yes, I disagree with him. If he's bringing up the Martin case just to bring it up, then yes, I also disagree. That case has gotten way more attention than it deserves. However, I don't really understand the context of him bringing it up, so I corrected him only on the legal point where he seemed to be suggesting a lack of imminence in this case.

I'm not sure I understand the comparison you're making here. Explain. How is the manner in which Thraashman brought up the Martin case similar to the OP and incorruptible criticizing Obama for something he hasn't done?
Click to expand...
The only reason I even brought up Trayvon is because it was already brought up. In the OP. Anyone can see the comment I wonder if obama will ask holder to investigate. Surely the rapist civil rights were violated. was clearly trying to reference the Zimmerman/Trayvon situation.

As far as my comment, during the Trayvon thread it was brought up that what if Zimmerman confronted Trayvon and Trayvon was defending himself from an armed assailant. Several posters (most prominently spidey) claimed that the second Zimmerman was not a threat, such as being on the ground, that Trayvon was now assaulting Zimmerman; even if Zimmerman was still armed and Trayvon knew it. So by their logic, the second the assault on his daughter was stopped, he was no longer a threat, and the father was assaulting the man illegally. I agree, it's a stupid argument, I was pointing out that here is another time when the argument is stupid, but you won't see those who made it in the Trayvon thread make it here.
 
thraashman said:
The only reason I even brought up Trayvon is because it was already brought up. In the OP. Anyone can see the comment I wonder if obama will ask holder to investigate. Surely the rapist civil rights were violated. was clearly trying to reference the Zimmerman/Trayvon situation.

As far as my comment, during the Trayvon thread it was brought up that what if Zimmerman confronted Trayvon and Trayvon was defending himself from an armed assailant. Several posters (most prominently spidey) claimed that the second Zimmerman was not a threat, such as being on the ground, that Trayvon was now assaulting Zimmerman; even if Zimmerman was still armed and Trayvon knew it. So by their logic, the second the assault on his daughter was stopped, he was no longer a threat, and the father was assaulting the man illegally. I agree, it's a stupid argument, I was pointing out that here is another time when the argument is stupid, but you won't see those who made it in the Trayvon thread make it here.
Click to expand...

OK, that is the context I was missing. I did not know how the subject of imminence came up in the other thread.

Sorry Matt, he was pointing out what he sees as inconsistent reasoning on the part of certain people. I don't see the comparison with bringing up Obama and Holder in the thread.

I DO wish we'd stop hearing about that case though. It's gotten really, really old.
 
thraashman said:
According to many in the Trayvon thread, the father wouldn't be justified in beating the man to death because there was no imminent threat anymore. Though I doubt they'll come say it now.
Click to expand...

Running toward his daughter's screams, investigators said, the father pulled Flores off his child and 'inflicted several blows to the man's head and neck area.'
Click to expand...

Do you have a problem understanding what the word imminent means?

Or should he just have nicely asked the rapist to remove himself from his daughters body?

Or maybe you think that after being pulled off he would have apologized and quietly waited for the police to arrive?
 
Last edited:
I am waiting for obama to say the rapist could have been his brother.

I am also waiting for the national media to claim racial profiling.

The NAAHP (fictitious group National Association for the Advancement of Hispanic People) has yet to bounty on the fathers head.

As far as I know the father has not received any death threats.

What I see is a double standard with the national news media, and hate groups in general.

Grown man raping a child is killed, everyone says he deserved it.

Young man is pounding another mans skull in the ground, young man is shot and killed, nation goes into a race fueled rage fit.
 
Last edited:
woolfe9998 said:
OK, that is the context I was missing. I did not know how the subject of imminence came up in the other thread.

Sorry Matt, he was pointing out what he sees as inconsistent reasoning on the part of certain people. I don't see the comparison with bringing up Obama and Holder in the thread.

I DO wish we'd stop hearing about that case though. It's gotten really, really old.
Click to expand...

That I think we can agree on.
 
Texashiker said:
I am waiting for obama to say the rapist could have been his brother.

I am also waiting for the national media to claim racial profiling.

The NAAHP (fictitious group National Association for the Advancement of Hispanic People) has yet to bounty on the fathers head.

As far as I know the father has not received any death threats.

What I see is a double standard with the national news media, and hate groups in general.

Grown man raping a child is killed, everyone says he deserved it.

Young man is pounding another mans skull in the ground, young man is shot and killed, nation goes into a race fueled rage fit.
Click to expand...

nice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top