Man Kills Daughter's Molester

Killing as an act of self defense is not against the law here. Or at least that's how it is in Islam.

I don't agree completely with his actions, but I understand them.

No, that's not what they're saying. They're saying they're not going to press charges. Big difference.

The thing here is that it will be IMPOSSIBLE to find him guilty. Come on, how are you going to find 12 jurors IN TEXAS that are going to vote guilty? You're going to have to exclude every parent from the jury.

Since the man will never be found guilty, why waste the state's time and money?

Also:



He killed the guy, but it was obvious that he didn't mean to. If he meant it, he would have let him die, THEN call 911.

I think what he did was right, but he should not get away without a sentence of some sort.

I am not saying he should go to jail or anything, but maybe give him a symbolic sentence to state that this is not okay to do, no matter what is happening.

With that said, if I ever got into such a situation I doubt I would be able to keep my head cool :/

I believe no one has the right to kill another regardless of circumstance. The father should be charged with manslaughter at the very least.

Yes the father should be punished.

A man protecting his child is one thing. Forcibly remove the molester from the child if needed but it should not go to the extreme of killing the molester. The molester was obviously committing a crime, get the police involved and have a court decide his punishment.

Molesting a small child is obviously a serious crime. However, I do not believe such a crime warrants anything close to the death sentence, nor do I believe that the father is entitled to kill the molester out of rage or parental instinct. The father has committed homicide and he should be punished for his actions.

If a man touched my daughter like that in anyway. I would kill him. I dont care if hes doing it at the moment or if it already happened. I would hunt him down and kill the fucker. I have a nice little place to bury him no one will find him out in the woods.

It did say sexual assault, and the offender will have continued to do sexual acts to the child and who knows what else.

On behalf of the father he would have been protecting his child.

And was MAYBE given pardon on the grounds of self defense of others. The child would have been raped and no way to defend herself if not for her father.

"The rules are the same when force is used to protect another from danger. Generally, the defendant must have a reasonable belief that the third party is in a position where they would have the right of self defense."

Speaking as the voice of expierience, I can tell you that as a child, you have no idea what molestion is especialy if it happens to you. All you know is that you feel dirty and confused after ward, and with time you start to wonder what happens, and when you finaly understand the very memory of that person is enough to bring you to tears, and for some stupid reason you blame yourself for it.

With more tIme, as you trust people and you tell them what happened and hey assure you that it isn't your fault that it is yours. You grow confidant but that scar is still there, and if by some horrible act of evil, you find that person, worse still if that person is part of your family. It WILL leave you with the most powerful sense of distrust toward family. The people that are suposed to protect you has a trator among them. And you know this well, you hide it because despite the fact, you are still loyal to your family as you were taught.

You ae unable to say anything to any other family member, because you donot trust them. When finaly you can trust them, not all, but most, and you start to fell safe, you let your guard down, and you can bet your ass that it happens again, not the same family member but anouther. And this time you do tell your family, and what happens?

Nothing, nothing happens. You cry for days and no one cares, you are visibly uncomfortable in their presence and noone cares. They are accepted and loved in the family, and you have to live with it. You have to live with the fact that they care so much more about keeping the family together than keeping you safe.

So to answer your question; I think the father did the right thing, not only did he stop more trauma but he showed his daughter that he will do anything to keep her safe. And in the long run that means so much more, i just wish my own dad had done the same.

I agree, but the father did not pass a death sentence.



Do you have proof that the father felt "Entitled"? Unless you can read minds, there is NO WAY to prove this.



Yes he did commit homicide.

Justifiable homicide.



As it is non-criminal, then he doesn't deserve punishment.

I am having mixed emotions right now...

IDK if I should be at least be comforted by the fact that what I experienced, back then, was not my fault.
Yet I am also upset that I am not the only one who had to struggle with that kind of tragic experience.

this sheds some light at what is probably running in the child's mind,
it would be more emotionally devastating to the daughter, had the father let that perpetrator be successful in performing his evil intentions

it sure strengthens my resolve in thinking that it is better to have a dad who would kill someone in defending you and keeping you away from harm rather than a parent who is thinking about what society will think about him.

He did what he had to do. Rapists, in general but specially in this case, deserve the worst they can possibly get.

I agree with you, there is nothing worse than what goes threw a persons mind when it happens, or whorse, when someone sees it and does nothing.

What was in question was not 'should the molester have been stopped', that's an obvious yes.

But you can stop someone without killing them.

The necessity of the extent to which it was taken, is the discussion here.

That alone easily sums up the case legally. Morally, though, that ground is trickier. That father just went over the edge. After realizing what he'd done, he still called an ambulance to try and save the guy. This shows that he does not some sort of insane anger syndrome. I'm no father, but I take care of my baby sister and my little brother enough (minus late nights and diaper changes) that I somewhat consider myself a parent. If I saw someone make a move on my little sister like that, I'd probably do the same thing. The thing is, what would and has scarred the daughter more? If she had been raped/fully sexually assaulted, she may have grown up to be a twisted person. But instead she witnessed a killing, and even if her eyes her closed she could still hear the screaming, cursing, and probably the assailants pleas. I'm sure she will be haunted seeing the blood on her fathers hands, just as he will know that blood is literally on his hands and cannot just be washed off.

I know I'm contradicting myself, if not in this post then certainly in my mind, but look at it this way; brutally beat the man, and get charged with excessive violence, even in defense of his daughter, or kill him, say it was a crime of passion and any parent should be prepared to do it, and remove an idiot from our gene pool that's stupid enough to even make a pass in front of him. I think the father has a sentance knowing he took a man's life in a fit of Justified rage.

The title of the thread is misleading. The father did not murder the sex-offender, he just beat him to death in self-defence of his daugther. Such an action would be most likely considered appropriate by any court.

It would have of course been a whole different story if the father shot the perpetrator in cold blood.

2 Things:

1. Self-defense? It was not. It was parental instinct.

2. He still killed the guy. A man is dead directly because of the man.

So no, the thread title is not misleading. O_o

Murder is when you kill in cold blood. But beating a man to death is still killing.

While the fact remains that the father did it to prote act the daughter, there is still undeniable proof that he did, in fact, kill a man. Regardless of the pretense, he still committed a crime. No one felt empathy when a man robbed a bank to support his starving family and tried to provide them protection. Instead, what they saw was a rogue stealing for his own benefit and didn't bat an eye when he pleaded his case. Both men committed a crime, but why is there such a big difference in punishment? One man who only took tertiary items to obtain sustenance that shouldn't be restricted to only those who pay, where another man killed someone who touched his daughter. Mind you, I'm not saying that sexually pursuing a young child is perfectly fine, but to be killed over that is harsh, and to not be punished for killing the said man is crazy talk. There should have been some sort of punishment for killing a man, depriving him of life. Maybe he would have gotten life in prison, but at least he would still be alive. And, though I doubt it, if he got the death penalty, why would it be alright to let the father off without any scourge? Killing a man that's already going to be sentenced to death only brings more trouble.

On top of that, he killed the man in front of the child. Sure, the child may understand that the father did it to protect her, but seeing a man die in a war is already scarring to a soldier. What happens when a man has to beat another man to death, and the witness a young girl?

Summary or tl;dr?: He SHOULD recieve some sort of punishment.