Dad accused of killing son over sex abuse claim

[DGuller]

I meant if his son was the stranger and he found out about that.

Sounds like some bad soap opera.

[Neil]

I'm just going to ... let this go now.

It's Neil.

Neil has a hard time getting worked up about all that sex hysteria.

[grumbler]

Not blessing, understanding. There is a difference. 

Argument by assertion is not an argument.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. By saying the boy's sister, I meant possibly the man's daughter. I think the dad did it because he found the act foul, despicable, and heinous, much like I do. As you said, we don't know what the boy said to his father, but it was obviously something that set the father off into a murderous rage. Given the reaction, I would hazard that it wasn't something mild that was done to the girl.

I don't understand how you could excuse the father's "murderous rage" like this, as though it were acceptable.  Honor killings are despicable no matter the provocation.

grumbler, I do not think that it was okay that the father killed the son. However, I do understand what may have pushed him into it

.
I am astonished.  Bewildered.  At a loss.  I never thought a member of what I thought my community coud harbor such thoughts. 

I don't think it was an "honor killing", as you do. I think it was pure, blind rage at a heinous crime his son perpetrated. It is a horrible, disgusting thing what the boy did, and yes, to a degree, I believe that he deserved to die for it. Not in the fashion that it happened, but certainly I believe that it was horrible enough to warrant the death penalty. That Dad took it into his own hands... well, it's sad, but in my opinion, understandable.

It does not matter.  I thought I understood that the "burn them at the stake" mentality died with the witch trials, and I was wrong.

Thanks for being honest, even if the was costly to my image of "Americans."

[DontSayBanana]

No matter how you look at it, the delicious irony is that most likely, this dad's going to "avoid the shame" of his son's trial and go away for a long, long time to be completely surrounded by people far worse than his son.

[DGuller]

I think all of the people here are being too hasty in denouncing the father as a cold-blooded murder.  The man should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[Eddie Teach]

I think all of the people here are being too hasty in denouncing the father as a cold-blooded murder.  The man should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Well, he is pleading insanity so I think it's safe to assume he did shoot the kid.

[Capetan Mihali]

I daresay you don't know the nature of the "sexual contact" any more than the dad did.

The son's actions are pretty hard to stomach, but the dad's are even more over the line than the kid's (and so would yours be, if you followed dad's example).  The son didn't kill anyone, and dad did.

The aunt testified that the boy told the father that he "humped" the girl, and somewhere in the article it mentioned actual intercourse. I'd say that qualifies as rape, and crosses this line of yours.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me; I simply said that it would be difficult for me to judge the father on this. What he did was awful, but I can at least understand why he did it. And again, we don't know the relationship of the girl to the family. She could well have been the 15-year-old boy's sister.

If the man who killed the boy had been the father of the girl - and not the boy - would it be more "acceptable"?

"Humped," to my mind, suggests frottage more than sexual intercourse.  Though of course I have no privileged knowledge of this case.

And as far as the righteousness of this killing, I can "understand" the urge to kill virtually anyone at anytime.  Somebody cuts on line at 7-11: waste them.  But the real issue is the legitimacy of the killing. Killing a home invader or someone in the act of raping your child may be more legitimate than not; elaborately and brutally executing a minor for a perceived crime is not legitimate in my eyes.

[Jaron]

I don't think frottage is appropriate because they said the girl had signs of being molested.

[Capetan Mihali]

I don't think frottage is appropriate because they said the girl had signs of being molested.

Well, "signs" is somewhat vague and so is "molestation," at least when it comes to vigilante-father capital cases.   But I don't deny that a serious sexual assault may have occurred.

[DontSayBanana]

I don't think frottage is appropriate because they said the girl had signs of being molested.

Rape is forced penetration.  Molestation is forced sexual contact, and does not have to involve penetration.

[ulmont]

Child molestation, as at least sometimes defined, does not require any physical contact.

[Jaron]

Child molestation, as at least sometimes defined, does not require any physical contact.

How do you mean? What kind of molestation doesn't require physical contact? Dirty talk?

[garbon]

How do you mean? What kind of molestation doesn't require physical contact? Dirty talk?

# sexual molestation – a term defining offenses in which an adult engages in non-penetrative activity with a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification; for example, exposing a minor to pornography or to the sexual acts of others

[DontSayBanana]

I think what Ulmont's talking about is how some codes, including Michigan's, include deliberate touching of the clothes over the genitals for a sexual purpose.  From Michigan Code § 750.520a:

"(q) "Sexual contact" includes the intentional touching of the victim's or actor's intimate parts or the intentional touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the victim's or actor's intimate parts, if that intentional touching can reasonably be construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, done for a sexual purpose, or in a sexual manner for:

- (i) Revenge.

- (ii) To inflict humiliation.

- (iii) Out of anger."

[Jaron]

Wouldn't that be physical contact ?