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

[Martinus]

Whatever the moral justification of this, I can't see how this can be seen as "protecting". It's revenge.

Huh?  It looks like he hit the rapist with his hands while the rapist was in the act.  How is that revenge?

Read his edit.

[Martinus]

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

I think they could in the UK for a partial defence of loss of control due to a justifiable sense of being seriously wronged 

In Canada, "provocation" reduces murder to manslaughter.

232. (1) Culpable homicide that otherwise would be murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the person who committed it did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation.

What is provocation

(2) A wrongful act or an insult that is of such a nature as to be sufficient to deprive an ordinary person of the power of self-control is provocation for the purposes of this section if the accused acted on it on the sudden and before there was time for his passion to cool.

Questions of fact

(3) For the purposes of this section, the questions

(a) whether a particular wrongful act or insult amounted to provocation, and

(b) whether the accused was deprived of the power of self-control by the provocation that he alleges he received,

are questions of fact, but no one shall be deemed to have given provocation to another by doing anything that he had a legal right to do, or by doing anything that the accused incited him to do in order to provide the accused with an excuse for causing death or bodily harm to any human being.

So if the father asked the guy to molest his daughter, he should be convicted.

[Eddie Teach]

So if the father asked the guy to molest his daughter, he should be convicted.

[Sheilbh]

In Canada, "provocation" reduces murder to manslaughter.

Yeah same in the UK, but 'provocation' got replaced by loss of control in 2009

[alfred russel]

Somebody was killed dude.  An investigation and a trial should be happen.  I think there is plenty of precedent for the guy to be ruled innocent but the facts should at least be submitted before a jury.  You cannot just have people killing each other.

An investigation, absolutely, but I don't think there should be a trial unless the prosecutor is reasonably convinced of guilt and believes the evidence could result in a guilty verdict from a jury. Prosecutors aren't supposed to be relentless advocates for throwing people in jail--they are supposed to consider the cause of justice. (I think)

[Barrister]

Wait - the guy caught the perpetrator in the act?

Self-defence may in fact be valid.  You'd have to see how the facts worked themselves out.  Guy catches him pulls out a gun and shoots him - fine.  But if it's a savage beating long after the unlawful act happened then you're left with provocation.

[alfred russel]

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

This is the best argument for non professional juries. When you are a hammer, a lot of things begin to look like a nail. 

[CountDeMoney]

Wait - the guy caught the perpetrator in the act?

Self-defence may in fact be valid.  You'd have to see how the facts worked themselves out.  Guy catches him pulls out a gun and shoots him - fine.  But if it's a savage beating long after the unlawful act happened then you're left with provocation.

Nah, can't see how it's self-defense, he wasn't the victim.  Did he attempt to abate and successfully stop the assault?  Yes, but that is the extent of his obligation and his defense.  Anything else--and the MEO has ruled death by blunt force trauma to the head and neck--is beyond the scope of his role as an individual actor.

It's a shitty defense, but he doesn't even need a defense--even OJ Simpson would say this guy's gonna walk.  Hell, the most difficult aspect of the defense would be going through jury selection and stacking it with parents.  This would be over and done with in a day, and all that's left is the book and Lifetime Movie of the Week options.

[Barrister]

Wait - the guy caught the perpetrator in the act?

Self-defence may in fact be valid.  You'd have to see how the facts worked themselves out.  Guy catches him pulls out a gun and shoots him - fine.  But if it's a savage beating long after the unlawful act happened then you're left with provocation.

Nah, can't see how it's self-defense, he wasn't the victim.  Did he attempt to abate and successfully stop the assault?  Yes, but that is the extent of his obligation and his defense.  Anything else--and the MEO has ruled death by blunt force trauma to the head and neck--is beyond the scope of his role as an individual actor.

It's a shitty defense, but he doesn't even need a defense--even OJ Simpson would say this guy's gonna walk.  Hell, the most difficult aspect of the defense would be going through jury selection and stacking it with parents.  This would be over and done with in a day, and all that's left is the book and Lifetime Movie of the Week options.

Self-defense isn't restricted to the victim.

Other than that like I said it depends on how it played out.  If it was a one or two blow situation self-defence may be valid.

[ulmont]

Nah, can't see how it's self-defense, he wasn't the victim.  Did he attempt to abate and successfully stop the assault?  Yes, but that is the extent of his obligation and his defense.  Anything else--and the MEO has ruled death by blunt force trauma to the head and neck--is beyond the scope of his role as an individual actor.

Well, he was likely entitled to use deadly force to both 1) defend another from great bodily harm or death and 2) to arrest a serious felon.  I don't see any problem there, assuming the defendant's facts are reasonably accurate.

[Malthus]

Wait - the guy caught the perpetrator in the act?

Self-defence may in fact be valid.  You'd have to see how the facts worked themselves out.  Guy catches him pulls out a gun and shoots him - fine.  But if it's a savage beating long after the unlawful act happened then you're left with provocation.

Can't see it as "self defence". It is hard to imagine how beating the guy to death was necessary to stop the assault. I'd imagine most molesters stop when they are caught, if the haven't been sniffing bath salts. 

Legally, best he could hope for would be provocation. Practically - jury nullification.

[Barrister]

Wait - the guy caught the perpetrator in the act?

Self-defence may in fact be valid.  You'd have to see how the facts worked themselves out.  Guy catches him pulls out a gun and shoots him - fine.  But if it's a savage beating long after the unlawful act happened then you're left with provocation.

Can't see it as "self defence". It is hard to imagine how beating the guy to death was necessary to stop the assault. I'd imagine most molesters stop when they are caught, if the haven't been sniffing bath salts. 

Legally, best he could hope for would be provocation. Practically - jury nullification.

Courts have often remarked that they will not expect someone to carefully weight and consider their options in the heat of a moment.

I can easily imagine a situation - guy sees pervert molesting his daughter, so he picks up a shovel and nails him to the back of the head.  Maybe a couple more times for good measure.

It gets problematic is guy is then sprawled out on the floor and he continues the beating.

[CountDeMoney]

Nah, can't see how it's self-defense, he wasn't the victim.  Did he attempt to abate and successfully stop the assault?  Yes, but that is the extent of his obligation and his defense.  Anything else--and the MEO has ruled death by blunt force trauma to the head and neck--is beyond the scope of his role as an individual actor.

Well, he was likely entitled to use deadly force to both 1) defend another from great bodily harm or death and 2) to arrest a serious felon.  I don't see any problem there, assuming the defendant's facts are reasonably accurate.

Then they better have gotten one hell of a rape kit on the victim, because a 4 year old can only testify so much.  IMMA JUS SAYIN

I just don't see how blunt force trauma can be ruled self-defense in interrupting an assault.  If he's even charged.  Which he most likely will be.
I would think Involuntary Manslaughter works, though.  That would cover the "Oops, I kilt 'em" angle, as the "Involuntary" implies an accident.

A father allegedly interrupted the sexual assault of his own daughter.  I'm curious about precisely how many "blunt force traumas" he inflicted.

[Malthus]

Wait - the guy caught the perpetrator in the act?

Self-defence may in fact be valid.  You'd have to see how the facts worked themselves out.  Guy catches him pulls out a gun and shoots him - fine.  But if it's a savage beating long after the unlawful act happened then you're left with provocation.

Can't see it as "self defence". It is hard to imagine how beating the guy to death was necessary to stop the assault. I'd imagine most molesters stop when they are caught, if the haven't been sniffing bath salts. 

Legally, best he could hope for would be provocation. Practically - jury nullification.

Courts have often remarked that they will not expect someone to carefully weight and consider their options in the heat of a moment.

I can easily imagine a situation - guy sees pervert molesting his daughter, so he picks up a shovel and nails him to the back of the head.  Maybe a couple more times for good measure.

It gets problematic is guy is then sprawled out on the floor and he continues the beating.

I'm not going to quote you on the 'he gets three free swings with a shovel' defence. 

To my mind that's just not self defence, unless the perv in question turned on him. Mind you, I still think he'd get off, particularly with a Texan jury. 

Edit: in Canada manslaughter has no mandatory minimum where a firearm isn't used. So, assuming nullification isn't a factor, the appropriate sentence would be guilty, but no punishment (assuming the facts are as stated etc.). 

[Barrister]

I'm not going to quote you on the 'he gets three free swings with a shovel' defence. 

To my mind that's just not self defence, unless the perv in question turned on him. Mind you, I still think he'd get off, particularly with a Texan jury. 

Except that's usually how "self-defence" issues go.  It's a real challenge when defence starts to assert self-defence.  All they have to do of course is raise a reasonable doubt.  And the case law all states that "The person cannot weigh to a nicety the exact measure of the defensive action nor be expected to stop and reflect upon the risk of deadly consequences which might result from taking justifiable defensive action". R v Kandola (1993) 80 CCC (3d) 481 (BCCA).

So the way it usually goes for the Crown "well okay, we'll concede the first blow could have been self-defense.  Hell, will give him the next two or three could be self-defense as well.  But the 42 OTHER stab wounds clearly go well beyond what he needed to do to defend the victim".