Man Kills Daughter's Molester
Is the father innocent of any wrongdoing?
0
Though I would love to kill that motherfucker myself I think that man was wrong. If he was sane(angry, but sane) than he should be punished. There lots of people who need to die, but going on kill-streak is still not right.
0
A complicated topic
I believe that everybody would do the same as the father did, but then why do
we need laws if we could solve all our problems on our own ?
If the father crippled that asshole it would have been much better thats my opinion
Reasons: If that guy is crippled you can be sure that he wont try to do the same
thing again.
He would have been arrested for that crime.
And perhaps it would habe been better for both father and daughter
since the daughter saw her own father killing that asshole
( in the worst case stuff like that can lead to a trauma).
I believe that everybody would do the same as the father did, but then why do
we need laws if we could solve all our problems on our own ?
If the father crippled that asshole it would have been much better thats my opinion
Reasons: If that guy is crippled you can be sure that he wont try to do the same
thing again.
He would have been arrested for that crime.
And perhaps it would habe been better for both father and daughter
since the daughter saw her own father killing that asshole
( in the worst case stuff like that can lead to a trauma).
0
Like an idiot, I pressed option three before even reading the details. Now I feel stupid. It was in the defense of another person, and in this case a child. It's justified and he should receive no reprimand for coming to the defense of a child in opposition of the aggressor. So I don't think he should be punished, but I wish I could change my vote to option 1.
0
But you also have to think about this. If the guy was just in jail, he would eventually get out. He would be able to resume his life, all the while thinking about molesting children. People like that never stop having those thoughts. Who's to say he won't act again? If he cared about the law, or anything like that, he wouldn't have done it the first time. Also, the child that was going to be assaulted would have had to live their life knowing the man was still alive somewhere. Is witnessing a murder any more traumatizing then the knowledge that he's still out there? At least the child has a sense of security.
0
If the man had been arrested, or somehow stopped before he was killed, it would be murder.
If someone defends their child it does qualify as self defence if I am not mistaken, as for lethal force that changes from jury to jury. But everyone hates pedophiles so it's quite obvious he wouldn't get charged.
Also Texas, so stand your ground applies and makes defence by lethal force legal.
If someone defends their child it does qualify as self defence if I am not mistaken, as for lethal force that changes from jury to jury. But everyone hates pedophiles so it's quite obvious he wouldn't get charged.
Also Texas, so stand your ground applies and makes defence by lethal force legal.
0
I'm not supportive of killing for any reason, but the guy should have been punished for molesting that little girl in some form.
0
Tegumi wrote...
Texas law allows for the use of deadly force against a perpetrator of aggravated sexual assault. So no, it would not be against the law.In before derps.
I love how texas is so cool with killing people who do wrong, unlike the majority of the country who is all like "No, no, don't kill the criminal. That's a no-no. Less send him/her to jail so we can do a half-assed attempt at rehabilitation just so the criminal can get out in a few years and commit crime all over again."
I like how the dad stood up for his daughter. She might be scarred for life between to attempted rape and murder she probably witnessed but good for him.
Nicholas1603 wrote...
Though I would love to kill that motherfucker myself I think that man was wrong. If he was sane(angry, but sane) than he should be punished. There lots of people who need to die, but going on kill-streak is still not right. 
0
Lethal force on an ATTEMPT? I understand some force, but LETHAL?
No one deserves sexual assault. But at the same time, even criminals don't deserve death without trial. I'd rather see them have to spend some time being shamed and then sentenced, if anything.
However, yes, the use of force to get someone away from a victim is fine, but beyond that leave it to authorities.
No one deserves sexual assault. But at the same time, even criminals don't deserve death without trial. I'd rather see them have to spend some time being shamed and then sentenced, if anything.
However, yes, the use of force to get someone away from a victim is fine, but beyond that leave it to authorities.
0
46% of fakku users are either clinically retarded, or spent all of 8th grade civics class masturbating through their pockets.
Using deadly force in defense of yourself or others (in some states limited to companions) is legal in every US State and every civilized nation.
Texas self defense law: http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.31.00.html
And an explanation in english:
No crime was committed, and the Grand Jury rightly took mere minutes to return no indictment against the father.
The 46% of users who cannot understand this need to learn the law or be deported.
Using deadly force in defense of yourself or others (in some states limited to companions) is legal in every US State and every civilized nation.
Texas self defense law: http://law.onecle.com/texas/penal/9.31.00.html
And an explanation in english:
A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery.
A person is justified in using deadly force against an attacker to protect another person if he would be justified to use it to protect himself against an unlawful attack and he reasonably believes his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the other person from serious injury or death.
A person is justified in using deadly force against an attacker to protect another person if he would be justified to use it to protect himself against an unlawful attack and he reasonably believes his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the other person from serious injury or death.
No crime was committed, and the Grand Jury rightly took mere minutes to return no indictment against the father.
The 46% of users who cannot understand this need to learn the law or be deported.
0
Just because something is legal doesn't make them right. I would have chosen option 2 because Killing isn't right. It only justifies more violence, maybe not from the person you killed but their family might hold a grudge. I would have subdued him without having to kill him probably would have shot him in the legs to restrain any running away and call the authorities. And yes who's to say he wouldn't do it again, but then again who's to say he would. A lot of the people who has made a post about choosing option 1 you remind me of my classmates of high school who would kill anyone who committed an evil act such as rape, robbery, and such. I have to say I always find it odd whenever they said they said they would kill someone since they would have someone else's life on their conscience.
0
flemfire28 wrote...
I would have subdued him without having to kill him probably would have shot him in the legs to restrain any running away and call the authorities.You have never shot a gun before. There's a reason they don't make "leg targets", and a reason cops don't shoot people in the legs.
1) it can kill them just as dead (you've got big arteries in your legs), 2) it's fucking impossible, and you're more likely to shoot someone standing behind them.
Secondly, the father tried to restrain him. He used a very low level of force, while unfortunately resulted in death.
Since your idea of "appropriate" is based on complete Hollywood fantasy, please avoid jury duty until you get a clue.
0
flemfire28 wrote...
Just because something is legal doesn't make them right. I would have chosen option 2 because Killing isn't right. It only justifies more violence, maybe not from the person you killed but their family might hold a grudge. I would have subdued him without having to kill him probably would have shot him in the legs to restrain any running away and call the authorities. And yes who's to say he wouldn't do it again, but then again who's to say he would. A lot of the people who has made a post about choosing option 1 you remind me of my classmates of high school who would kill anyone who committed an evil act such as rape, robbery, and such. I have to say I always find it odd whenever they said they said they would kill someone since they would have someone else's life on their conscience.Of course people who kill will have someone else's life on their mind since they have never taken a life or a normal human being may have some form of guilt or grief. But to post killing isn't right, What would you do if you witness someone trying to sexually assault your own child or harm someone you love? People tend to forget that humans are still animals and it's natural for any animal to kill another animal who is attempting to harm their child or is a threat to their family. Yes, there are people who boast about taking someone's life, but if I witness anyone who is harming my family someone will have to stop me from taking their life or from going to jail for excessive force.
0
Murder is still murder, I dunno if I have watched/read too much Detective Conan but I can only be see this as murder whatever the cause. There is always an equal punishment for every crime and death isn't a punishment for molestation. The father's thoughts and feelings were right but his action was stupid. What his family wasn't that rich and the only one who is working in the family was the father? Now that he is imprisoned for his crimes the family (esp. the daughter) would have to live a hard life, ex. instead of the daughter is full studying, she might be force to do part-time jobs. The father should be responsible for his actions.
0
rowanatkinson23 wrote...
Murder is still murderLet me try to get this through your skull:
"killing" is not "murder"
It's that simple. Killing in self-defense is NOT murder. It is NOT a crime. There is no victim. It is not "punishment": it is a natural consequence of trying to rape or murder someone.
If you try to drag a woman into a van and tear her clothes off, and she shoots you, she is NOT a murderer, and has no legal OR moral responsibility for your death: YOU are responsible for her having to kill you.
Also, are you high, or just stupid? The father is NOT in prison! Because he didn't commit a crime! I don't even...
1
artcellrox
The Grey Knight :y
Altereggo wrote...
Let me try to get this through your skull:Altereggo wrote...
Also, are you high, or just stupid [. . . ] I don't even... I get you're making valid points on the father being innocent because it was justifiable self-defence, but you don't have to go be a complete dick about it when replying to others. Even though your posts weren't in caps, it still felt like you were shouting needlessly at anyone who didn't seem to see it your way. Even if that way may be the correct one.
tl;dr, it's fine to make points, but please stay rational here.
0
I'm sorry, but I just can't apologize for that post. Any person here could one day serve on a jury in a case like this, and the thought that someone could be so willfully ignorant about the law is utterly terrifying.
What made me totally lose it was the way he made a very strong moral claim while being totally ignorant of the facts: assuming the father is imprisoned when several posts on every page note that he isn't.
Still, +rep for calling for politeness.
What made me totally lose it was the way he made a very strong moral claim while being totally ignorant of the facts: assuming the father is imprisoned when several posts on every page note that he isn't.
Still, +rep for calling for politeness.