Is Texas dad who killed man to protect his 5-year-old daughter a criminal?

[Maximus]

He's too rational.

[Neil]

I think I'm beginning to see why you are unable to find a well-paid job as a lawyer.

If the guy had been diddling a five-year old boy, you'd be calling this a hate crime.

[Barrister]

These facts are mitigating when it comes to a gulty plea, but do not constitute a legal defence.

[CountDeMoney]

These facts are mitigating when it comes to a gulty plea, but do not constitute a legal defence.

Yup.

[Malthus]

These facts are mitigating when it comes to a gulty plea, but do not constitute a legal defence.

Two words: jury nullification. 

[Tonitrus]

Now, if he had shot the guy (and also subsequently died), would that be legally different/justifiable (using Texas law, not Euro/Canadian) than a beating-to-death? 

[Darth Wagtaros]

These facts are mitigating when it comes to a gulty plea, but do not constitute a legal defence.

Two words: jury nullification. 

How often does that actually happen? I was under the impression it was a rare occurrence outside of TV.

[Jacob]

At the very least there should be an investigation of the facts and they should be put to trial.

If the truth is that the man walked in on someone molesting his 5-year old daughter, he tried to defend her and in doing so accidentally killed the perpetrator, then I think he should be declared innocent or found guilty of whatever degree of manslaughter is appropriate under the local jurisdiction.

If the truth is that the man walked in on someone hanging out with his 5-year old daughter and erroneously assumed she was being molested and then proceeded to kill the man, he should be found guilty of whatever the appropriate crime is.

If the truth is that the man killed another man and then falsely claimed that he was protecting his 5-year old daughter, then he should be found guilty of murder.

Whatever the truth is should be determined by the court system, a duly appointed judge and/or the jury, again as appropriate under local laws. I don't believe it is up to the sheriff to declare whether a man is innocent or not.

[merithyn]

At the very least there should be an investigation of the facts and they should be put to trial.

If the truth is that the man walked in on someone molesting his 5-year old daughter, he tried to defend her and in doing so accidentally killed the perpetrator, then I think he should be declared innocent or found guilty of whatever degree of manslaughter is appropriate under the local jurisdiction.

If the truth is that the man walked in on someone hanging out with his 5-year old daughter and erroneously assumed she was being molested and then proceeded to kill the man, he should be found guilty of whatever the appropriate crime is.

If the truth is that the man killed another man and then falsely claimed that he was protecting his 5-year old daughter, then he should be found guilty of murder.

Whatever the truth is should be determined by the court system, a duly appointed judge and/or the jury, again as appropriate under local laws. I don't believe it is up to the sheriff to declare whether a man is innocent or not.

This.

[dps]

Whatever the truth is should be determined by the court system, a duly appointed judge and/or the jury, again as appropriate under local laws. I don't believe it is up to the sheriff to declare whether a man is innocent or not.

True, but if the investigating officer believes the father's story, the DA is not going to be likely to seek an indictment, at least in most US jurisdictions.

[Ideologue]

PLEASE MARTINUS LECTURE ME ON AMERICAN LAW

It's gone so well for you in the past.

[garbon]

I think any case of someone getting kilt should result of an investigation.  Mass media is nice and all but it shouldn't really dictate how the justice system works.

Definitely. The guy could be lying - I find it unbelievable that people are willing to believe any story they are told without expecting anyone to check the facts.

Facts are for fags.

[Malthus]

These facts are mitigating when it comes to a gulty plea, but do not constitute a legal defence.

Two words: jury nullification. 

How often does that actually happen? I was under the impression it was a rare occurrence outside of TV.

Well, allegedly 3-4% of US jury trial involve nullification, but that figure is from some kind of advocacy group so who knows how reliable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification#21st_century

Point is that BB is right, provocation generally isn't an absolute defence (dunno about Texas, of course  ), but where the facts are sufficiently compelling, it is possible to win nonetheless.

Of course, the article is totally slanted. Could be the guy just murdered this other fellow for his own reasons and then invented the story about molestation. But of the molestation thing turns out to be true, I find it hard to believe a Texas jury would convict him, even if he did actually commit criminal manslaughter according to the laws - i.e., kept beating him above and beyond the need to protect himself & the girl. They'd give him a cheer more like.

[Josquius]

A 23 year old father of a 5 year old....colour me suspicious of his status as an upstanding member of society.

[garbon]

A 23 year old father of a 5 year old....colour me suspicious of his status as an upstanding member of society.

It'd be much better if he was 39.