Thread: A father's Love and Rage

Last weekend, Shiner Texas.

A 23 year old man was doing some work on his farm with some acquaintances helping.

He handed his 4 year old daughter a bucket of feed and told her to go in the barn and feed the chickens.

Apparently a 40 year old acquaintance he didn't know very well lead his daughter into the bushes and started to sexually molest her.

The brother spotted them and told the father. The father saw them and hit the man several times in the head. The molester died at the scene.

The father has not been arrested. The police expect the grand jury to no-bill the father.

Did the father cross the line? Did the molester get what he deserved?

Isn't that called taking the law into your own hands? In the UK there is a 'rule' regarding appropriate action - many householders have been arrested for defending themselves and their property against burglar/housebreakers and exceeding the so-called appropriate response. Your US farmer would stand a very good chance of serving a long sentence in this country. Not a judgement - merely an observation.

My opinion, justifiable homicide. The father probably saved over a hundred other children from the same fate as well. The daughter is likely in for a rough life full of therapy however. At least no more damage will be done by that particular pos.

Originally Posted by UKRob

Isn't that called taking the law into your own hands? In the UK there is a 'rule' regarding appropriate action - many householders have been arrested for defending themselves and their property against burglar/housebreakers and exceeding the so-called appropriate response. Your US farmer would stand a very good chance of serving a long sentence in this country. Not a judgement - merely an observation.

There is a distorted view of this around in the UK - you *can* use reasonable force to defend yourself and your family. 'Reasonable' force can be deadly force if you believe at the time that your life is endangered. Couple of examples:

shopkeeper in 2011

Householder kills one of four masked intruders.

In response to the OP: Personally I don't think father was out of line. What more provocation could there be?

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 believe the answer is simple, yes he was wrong by attacking the man.
Would any of us dads do the same? Of course, and wear the consequences proudly.
Did the molester get what he deserved? Debatable, Prison would have likely been torture for this POS.

he was perfectally Justified IMO,will be a manslaughter charge that will be dismissed due to a fit of rage plea.
That assh&&l diserved what he got,If he was 100% guilty of doing so.

Cant say i wouldnt do the exact same ... consequences or not ... wouldnt even hesitate.

Mike

Originally Posted by Matt69

There is a distorted view of this around in the UK - you *can* use reasonable force to defend yourself and your family. 'Reasonable' force can be deadly force if you believe at the time that your life is endangered. Couple of examples:

shopkeeper in 2011

Householder kills one of four masked intruders.

In response to the OP: Personally I don't think father was out of line. What more provocation could there be?

What I find strange about the UK, is the story about the Farmer that had had his home invaded before by burglars. This time he had a shotgun and used it.
The farmer got jail time. Why jail time for a shotgun and no arrest for a knife when the outcome was the same?

Originally Posted by Crotalus

What I find strange about the UK, is the story about the Farmer that had had his home invaded before by burglars. This time he had a shotgun and used it.
The farmer got jail time. Why jail time for a shotgun and no arrest for a knife when the outcome was the same?

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").