stand your ground?

[spidey07]

Just claim it is justifiable homicide. It is not child molestation it is child attempted rape.

One of the automatic justifiable self defense of a 3rd party is rape. Others include kidnapping and in my state - arson. You try to burn something of mine, I can shoot you.

 

[thraashman]

One of the automatic justifiable self defense of a 3rd party is rape. Others include kidnapping and in my state - arson. You try to burn something of mine, I can shoot you.

Self defense yes, intentional homicide no. It's the weird thing in this case. Because he used his fists it could be argued that he could have stopped before killing the man. Had he had a gun or knife on him and used it as part of the self defense (third party defense), it wouldn't even be an issue (unless say the man had 10 bullet wounds in him and an execution style shot to the back of the head). I do hope they don't prosecute this man, it'll be a waste of money as no jury would want to convict him. And if they do prosecute him I hope some lawyer defends him pro bono.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Some people need killing. Seems like justice was served.

 

[ch33zw1z]

If it went down like the father says, I don't see a problem. One less pedo.

 

[spidey07]

Self defense yes, intentional homicide no. It's the weird thing in this case. Because he used his fists it could be argued that he could have stopped before killing the man. Had he had a gun or knife on him and used it as part of the self defense (third party defense), it wouldn't even be an issue (unless say the man had 10 bullet wounds in him and an execution style shot to the back of the head). I do hope they don't prosecute this man, it'll be a waste of money as no jury would want to convict him. And if they do prosecute him I hope some lawyer defends him pro bono.

He is allowed to use whatever force necessary to stop the rape and threat - if that means beating him as hard as he can until he is not longer a threat (including unconscious) = that's OK. You're correct though, legally it would have been much easier if he had just shot him or split his head with a blunt object.

If it even goes to a grand jury, I doubt any would indict. My guess is they won't prosecute. Prosecutors are elected.

 

[WHAMPOM]

That probably doesn't fall under the definition of self defense technically but I doubt any prosecutor in the world would dare to bring him up in front of a jury (unless perhaps the child molester was black and the father was white, then Eric Holder would call it a hate crime and push for prosecution...)

Why are you bringing race into it? Got some deeply ingrained bigotries slipping out?

 

[Infohawk]

What a horrible thread title. What does this have to do with stand your ground?

 

[LumbergTech]

Good punch(es).

 

[spidey07]

What a horrible thread title. What does this have to do with stand your ground?

It's a way to show WHY we have such laws so the father won't face a crime.

Of course the media, et all, have been purposefully confusing self defense laws with stand your ground lumping them into the same category in an effort to say "look how evil these laws are!"

 

[Rainsford]

No. You have that ass backwards. Conservatives, you know that party that is almost entirely pro-firearm, is big on self defense and doesn't feel sympathy for criminals who are killed while committing a crime. Hell, there's a large contingent of conservatives who cheer when a burglar, robber or other non-violent criminal is killed in the act. It's "liberals" who believe that killing in self defense is wrong.

The point was that you trolled until you got a few responses that you felt fit your agenda, then claimed that represents all "liberals", despite several "liberal" responses basically saying the opposite.

 

[Rainsford]

It's a way to show WHY we have such laws so the father won't face a crime.

Of course the media, et all, have been purposefully confusing self defense laws with stand your ground lumping them into the same category in an effort to say "look how evil these laws are!"

That doesn't make any sense. What the father did is protected under the law in most places even if they don't have "stand your ground" laws, as far as I understand.

I also don't see the same confusion you're talking about. In fact, most of those arguing against "stand your ground" are careful to point out that it specifically doesn't cover cases like this where most people support self-defense or the defense of a third party, particularly in your own home.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Both of these. He clearly went beyond what was necessary to halt the crime and into manslaughter territory. Of course, I don't know what I would have done. I certainly wold have struck him a few times myself. That doesn't make it right, though.

No matter how horrible the crime, we don't have the right to act as vigilantes.

Sure it does. There is nothing in the law that states what kind of weapon or method is used to inflict LAWFUL deadly force. He could have shot him if he had a gun. He could have stabbed him if he had a knife. He could of gone Bruce Lee nunchuk on him if he was carrying them. He had his hands and he used them.
The father did the right thing. He administered a Texas sized ass whopping.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

There is a difference between defending oneself and killing someone by repeated blows.

A lot of it may depend on what is meant by "several blows". If the guy was lying on the floor unconscious and the man kept hitting him, that is no longer self defense.

I don't pretend to know the details of this case, and likely never will. But there is a big difference between doing what is enough to end the threat, and what is done with intent to punish.

Most likely, he will not be charged, as there won't be enough evidence to convince anyone of the latter.

Something you and the OP don't grasp is, this isn't a 'stand your ground" case. The is Castle Doctrine (Law). It doesn't say don't have to retreat or not retreat, it says you have the right to defend yourself, others, and your property with deadly force. Like I stated, the instrument in which the deadly force was applied doesn't really matter (unless you capture the person and unlawfully detain them and then kill them). If you catch them in the act and kill them with a gun, knife, rock, stick, chopsticks, feet or hands, it doesn't matter. Hell with Castle Doctrin you can shoot them in the back as long as they are still on your property.

 

[waggy]

Self defense yes, intentional homicide no. It's the weird thing in this case. Because he used his fists it could be argued that he could have stopped before killing the man. Had he had a gun or knife on him and used it as part of the self defense (third party defense), it wouldn't even be an issue (unless say the man had 10 bullet wounds in him and an execution style shot to the back of the head). I do hope they don't prosecute this man, it'll be a waste of money as no jury would want to convict him. And if they do prosecute him I hope some lawyer defends him pro bono.

that won't play into it at all. it does not matter what weapon you use. he stopped a crime from continuing. not to mention in his daughter.

it won't go to a jury (unless again they have some evidence disproving the guy's claim).

 

[QuantumPion]

Why are you bringing race into it? Got some deeply ingrained bigotries slipping out?

Hey, I'm not the one who invested the term "white hispanic". The racism is all on your side there, buddy.

 

[SilthDraeth]

It's a way to show WHY we have such laws so the father won't face a crime.

Of course the media, et all, have been purposefully confusing self defense laws with stand your ground lumping them into the same category in an effort to say "look how evil these laws are!"

I thought this was Texas, and would be Castle Law, not Stand Your Ground.

Oh well.

 

[sandorski]

Give him a suspended sentence, with requirements to see a Counselor for a period of time and a biweekly obligation to report to a Parole Officer, for a couple months.

The guy went too far, but likely the situation induced more psychological stress to him than he was able to handle.

 

[thraashman]

that won't play into it at all. it does not matter what weapon you use. he stopped a crime from continuing. not to mention in his daughter.

it won't go to a jury (unless again they have some evidence disproving the guy's claim).

I'm aware he stopped a crime. I'm aware it is legal to stop said crime. What I'm saying is that whether or not he is charged will be on the basis of excessive force. If he'd shot the man and killed him, one bullet would probably do it. Even if he shot twice it's not hard to argue that you felt he was still a threat as he didn't go down. If you shoot him and then walk up to his prone body, place the barrel against his temple, and fire, you're going to be charged. That's when you go from stopping a crime to execution, to murder.

I can't blame a guy for beating to death a man who sexually molested his daughter. I don't think they should charge him. What I'm saying is that because it's pretty hard to beat a man to death generally that it could be argued that he went beyond what was necesary to stop the crime and end the threat. In that case he'd be charged with something like manslaughter. Personally, assuming that he's not making up the molestation accusation (I really hope no one would lie about that), then it would take a real dick of a prosecutor to choose to charge him, or a real shitty grand jury.

Personally, if he could have avoided killing him, I'd rather her didn't. For most people it's very hard to take a life, even by accident, even of someone who deserved it and the father may have trouble dealing with it. Many people would. It's not uncommon for police to be haunted after having to shoot a suspect. It's why they're required mental evaluation afterwards. In addition I've heard that child molesters don't tend to get treated well in prison and that may have been far more satisfying. For the daughter's sake I am glad she'll never have to again see her attacker and she won't have to be afraid he'll come back.

 

[alzan]

I'm aware he stopped a crime. I'm aware it is legal to stop said crime. What I'm saying is that whether or not he is charged will be on the basis of excessive force. If he'd shot the man and killed him, one bullet would probably do it. Even if he shot twice it's not hard to argue that you felt he was still a threat as he didn't go down. If you shoot him and then walk up to his prone body, place the barrel against his temple, and fire, you're going to be charged. That's when you go from stopping a crime to execution, to murder.

I can't blame a guy for beating to death a man who sexually molested his daughter. I don't think they should charge him. What I'm saying is that because it's pretty hard to beat a man to death generally that it could be argued that he went beyond what was necesary to stop the crime and end the threat. In that case he'd be charged with something like manslaughter. Personally, assuming that he's not making up the molestation accusation (I really hope no one would lie about that), then it would take a real dick of a prosecutor to choose to charge him, or a real shitty grand jury.

Personally, if he could have avoided killing him, I'd rather her didn't. For most people it's very hard to take a life, even by accident, even of someone who deserved it and the father may have trouble dealing with it. Many people would. It's not uncommon for police to be haunted after having to shoot a suspect. It's why they're required mental evaluation afterwards. In addition I've heard that child molesters don't tend to get treated well in prison and that may have been far more satisfying. For the daughter's sake I am glad she'll never have to again see her attacker and she won't have to be afraid he'll come back.

Just personal anecdotes but the two of my friends that have killed someone that was committing a crime relate the incidents with none of the bravada and chest-thumping that's evidenced by some on this board; in fact the look on their faces was ashen and remorseful. They are very much pro-gun but decades after the incident(s) they remain solemn and remorseful that they had to take a life.

As far as the OP; were I the father of the girl I would have gone apeshit on the pedo myself. Had I had access to a gun I'd like to think I wouldn't have used it since I haven't had the training; I would most likely have missed and missed badly. Better to pummel the son-of-a-bitch 'til he stopped then called the police.

 

[Moonbeam]

The real tragedy, of course, is that pedophilia is a mental illness of some kind that anybody who has it should be able to get help and be put in an environment with most of normal freedoms except the right to be around folk they would like to turn into victims. But we despise our pedophiles so they hide and do their thing. Couldn't we drop the hate and advertise for kind treatment for the sake of children? Maybe we love to hate. Maybe it's our way of fucking children, hating the sick so they go underground.

 

[blankslate]

Stand your ground lets people get away scott free or with very reduced penalties in cases like these.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1233133.ece

Questionable cases

Whatever lawmakers' expectations, "stand your ground" arguments have resulted in freedom or reduced sentences for some unlikely defendants.

• An 18-year-old felon, convicted of cocaine and weapons charges, shot and wounded a neighbor in the stomach, then fled the scene and was involved in another nonfatal shootout two days later, according to police. He was granted immunity in the first shooting.

• Two men fell into the water while fighting on a dock. When one started climbing out of the water, the other shot him in the back of the head, killing him. He was acquitted after arguing "stand your ground."

• A Seventh-day Adventist was acting erratically, doing cartwheels through an apartment complex parking lot, pounding on cars and apartment windows and setting off alarms. A tenant who felt threatened by the man's behavior shot and killed him. He was not charged.

• A Citrus County man in a longstanding dispute with a neighbor shot and killed the man one night in 2009. He was not charged even though a witness and the location of two bullet wounds showed the victim was turning to leave when he was shot.

Even chasing and killing someone over a drug buy can be considered standing your ground.

Anthony Gonzalez Jr. was part of a 2010 drug deal that went sour when someone threatened Gonzalez with a gun. Gonzalez chased the man down and killed him during a high-speed gunbattle through Miami streets.

Before the "stand your ground'' law, Miami-Dade prosecutors would have had a strong murder case because Gonzalez could have retreated instead of chasing the other vehicle. But Gonzalez's lawyer argued he had a right to be in his car, was licensed to carry a gun and thought his life was in danger.

Soon after the filing of a "stand your ground'' motion, prosecutors agreed to a deal in which Gonzalez pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter and got three years in prison.

"The limitations imposed on us by the 'stand your ground' laws made it impossible for any prosecutor to pursue murder charges,'' Griffith of the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office said at the time. "This is certainly a very difficult thing to tell a grieving family member.''

Yet the law is just fine. I guess it was always fine if a person is turning away from you and you decide he'd be better off with new holes in his side or back.

 

[waggy]

Stand your ground let's people get away scott free or with very reduced penalties in cases like these.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/article1233133.ece



Yet the law is just fine. I guess it was always fine if a person is turning away from you and you decide he'd be better off with new holes in his side or back.

no its not a perfect law. But i feel its better then makeing someone the victim for defending themselves. I do think they need to still invistagate and use common sense.

 

[blankslate]

no its not a perfect law. But i feel its better then makeing someone the victim for defending themselves. I do think they need to still invistagate and use common sense.

I don't think you'd even have to go to a SYG law when a father bludgeons a child molester assaulting his daughter to death with his fists. It shows that it's a "crime of passion"

In this case I wouldn't call what the father did a crime.

More like a public service.

SYG shouldn't even have been mentioned since in this case it wouldn't even be necessary to cite it for the father's actions if he is charged.

Any prosecutor who'd charge the father would be providing proof that they're batshit insane in my opinion.

 

[thraashman]

So a grand jury has decided that the father will not be charged.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/father-daughter-attacker-beat-death-texas-151942957.html

 

[Pr0d1gy]

I wonder how many other innocent children this father just saved? This country is far too leniant on child predators and this type of response should be applauded as it sends a clear message to these people that Americans do not accept this behavior, nor will they ever.