Thread: A father's Love and Rage

Originally Posted by Crotalus

Nothing has been said yet about the father's intent. I think they would have to prove that his intent was to kill and not just stop.

I'd think this would be the crux of the issue. Punch him a few times and oops, he's dead -- that's one thing. Knock him unconscious and then pummel him until you can't lift your arms any more, that's something else.

I wrote about this on facebook a few days ago when this happened. In my opinion the father acted justly, with out a deadly weapon or intent to kill the man. He was defending someone who could not defend themselves.

The incident was slightly different than the op but the the sherrif said the following: (taken from CNN)

Asked whether they would press charges against the father, the sheriff responded, "You have a right to defend your daughter. He acted in defense of his third person. Once the investigation is completed we will submit it to the district attorney who then submits it to the grand jury, who will decide if they will indict him."

Harmon described the dad as "very remorseful," adding that he didn't know the man was going to die.

Authorities were withholding the deceased man's name while they notified next of kin. Officials did not know immediately if he has a prior criminal history.

Provoked beyond the limits of human endurance. Justifiable homicide that would be my defense in his shoes.

I think the guy performed a community service honestly. Child molesters will victimize hundreds of kids before they age out of it or go to prison long though to never get out again. Some percentage of them even become killers in order to better avoid detection or first hand witnesses.

Originally Posted by Matt69

The farmer was quite a controversial case. He shot a fleeing, unarmed, teenage burglar in the back, with an illegally-owned weapon. That certainly gave the prosecution quite a lot to play with. (His name is Tony Martin if you want to google him, I'm sure there's tons of coverage.)

Personally I don't think he should have been jailed - he lived in a very rural area, and he had been repeatedly burgled over the preceding years. The police, when he had called them on previous occasions, had just turned up the day after and given him a crime number. Few of my friends agree with me on this, but I think the state lost its right to a monopoly on violence in Martin's case, because it failed in its side of the deal ("Citizens lose the right to mete out violence/ take the law into their own hands and in return the state uses its monopoly of violence to protect those citizens").

There is the difference between the UK and Texas. If your home is invaded at night, you have to right to use deadly force.

If someone is running away with your property and you have reason to believe the only way to recover you property is to shoot, you are allowed to.

Originally Posted by northpaw

I'd think this would be the crux of the issue. Punch him a few times and oops, he's dead -- that's one thing. Knock him unconscious and then pummel him until you can't lift your arms any more, that's something else.

In a fit of rage,the human brain reverts to the animal we all are.is no thinking going on,no reasoning,no morals, no compassion,NADA,you are protecting your offspring as any animal would do.
We may be at the apogee of the animal kingdom as humans,but thank god we can still in a time of protecting the fruit of our loins,Kill them,sadley, the american judicial system may see it that way

If I were that father and had caught him actually molesting my daughter, I would have done the same thing without any remorse and would be happy to explain that one to my maker when the time came.

Will N.

If I were in the father's shoes, i'd be too much of an ass to kill him. He'd be stripped, tied to a barrel and introduced to the horniest bull I could find. And in my mind the molester would deserve every bit of it.

A group of people will meet and study the action over many days and make a decision. Whether they decide to prosecute or not doesn't matter because no jury in Texas will convict him. If it was N.Y or California he would probably plea out to some reduced charge.

Originally Posted by Theseus

If I were in the father's shoes, i'd be too much of an ass to kill him. He'd be stripped, tied to a barrel and introduced to the horniest bull I could find. And in my mind the molester would deserve every bit of it.

That sort of sub-human might just enjoy that

Originally Posted by Crotalus

..............
Did the father cross the line? ..............?

...only if he had thrown him on the grill afterwards; there are some things that even a Texan won't eat.



.......yes, I love Texas, just kidding.