Good luck finding a jury willing to convict that guy.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2012/0616/Is-Texas-dad-who-killed-man-to-protect-his-5-year-old-daughter-a-criminal
QuoteIs Texas dad who killed man to protect his 5-year-old daughter a criminal?
A Texas grand jury must decide whether to charge a father who killed a man after finding the man molesting his 5-year-old daughter. Does deadly force extend to a father protecting his daughter?
By Patrik Jonsson, Staff writer / June 16, 2012
298 and 0 StumbleUpon E-mail
ATLANTA
In Shiner, Texas, there's little doubt among residents that a 23-year-old man who reportedly killed a man he found molesting his 5-year-old daughter in a horse barn should be hailed as a hero, not denounced as a criminal.
Yet some legal experts question why the father hasn't yet been arrested and charged with murder, saying vigilante justice, no matter how the circumstances come about, can't be tolerated in a civil society.
A Texas grand jury will have to deal with those questions next week as it takes a deeper look at the circumstances of the killing, and whether the father was justified in hitting the man so hard with his fists that he died.
In most jurisdictions, according to "Criminal Law," a widely used textbook, the use of fists in defense if there are no other weapons present is automatically an example of reasonable force. But in this case, were emotions an extenuating circumstance that caused the angry dad to go too far? More broadly, when is a person in a defensive fight required to stop?
"Assuming it's true that this guy was molesting the daughter ... he would then have the right to defend her and hit him enough to have him stop," James Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, told Foxnews.com. "But you cannot summarily execute him, even though I can understand the anger he would have."
He added: "The question is: When does it move beyond self-defense?"
And there's another quirk to the case, suggests radio talk show host Geraldo Rivera, a lawyer.
"If he had a weapon and he used it to stop a sexual assault, he would not be indicted, but, ironically, the fact that he didn't have a weapon leaves him more legally vulnerable than otherwise he would be," Mr. Rivera told Bill O'Reilly Friday on Fox News. "In this case, you grab him off, now you've stopped the sexual assault, but now what are you doing? At what point does prevention of the sex assault become revenge, the implementation of vigilante justice?"
So far, the court of public opinion has stood steadfastly behind the father.
"Any father would have done that," Michael James Veit, a neighbor, told CNN on Thursday. "Everybody is saying the father is justified."
The killing happened last Saturday, according to Lacava County Sheriff Micah Harmon, after the man's daughter had gone to a barn to feed the family's chickens, and then began screaming.
When the father ran to investigate, he found a man described as a family acquaintance, a horse groomer, sexually abusing the girl. Police have not released any names, in part to protect the girl's identity, and, in the case of the man who was killed, because they have not yet located his relatives in Mexico.
According to the county coroner, the man died of blunt force trauma to the head and neck. Eyewitnesses arrived to see the alleged molester already on the ground, not moving. The girl was taken to a hospital, where she was treated and released for minor injuries.
While police continue to investigate, they have so far found no reason to disbelieve the man's story. The dad "had remorse," says Sheriff Harmon. "It wasn't his intent [to kill anybody]. He was protecting his daughter and doing what he thought he had to do to protect his daughter."
Despite the dad's potential legal liability, Rivera said, most American jurors – given the facts as known at the moment – would agree with Harmon.
It is the responsibility of the state to charge him. What the jury does, well, that's the jury's problem.
If this goes to court it would a shame on Texas.
This guy is a fucking hero.
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2012, 10:49:43 AM
If this goes to court it would a shame on Texas.
This guy is a fucking hero.
How would you feel if somebody killed you while you were molesting a five-year old girl?
Quote from: Neil on June 17, 2012, 11:02:53 AM
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2012, 10:49:43 AM
If this goes to court it would a shame on Texas.
This guy is a fucking hero.
How would you feel if somebody killed you while you were molesting a five-year old girl?
He'd feel warm.
Whatever the moral justification of this, I can't see how this can be seen as "protecting". It's revenge.
Edit: Oh he killed him while in the act? Then I'd say it qualifies as a crime of passion, even if force was excessive.
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.
Quote from: Neil on June 17, 2012, 11:02:53 AM
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2012, 10:49:43 AM
If this goes to court it would a shame on Texas.
This guy is a fucking hero.
How would you feel if somebody killed you while you were molesting a five-year old girl?
Depends on if the killer were a gentile or not.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 17, 2012, 11:18:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 17, 2012, 11:18:09 AM
I think any case of someone getting kilt should result of an investigation.
Why do you hate the Scots?
Quote from: Syt on June 17, 2012, 11:32:17 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 17, 2012, 11:18:09 AM
I think any case of someone getting kilt should result of an investigation.
Why do you hate the Scots?
Haggis. Sheep abuse. Mel Gibson.
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2012, 11:21:53 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 17, 2012, 11:18:09 AM
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.
Yes, one can hardly take at face value the mere assertion that "he was molesting my child". There should be an investigation.
I'll give my stock off the cuff answer, without reading the OP (Which I'll never do):
Kill the pervert. Open season on kiddie diddlers.
I like how stupidly (biased?) the article is written.
QuoteA Texas grand jury must decide whether to charge a father who killed a man after finding the man molesting his 5-year-old daughter. Does deadly force extend to a father protecting his daughter?
Answer: Yes.
A+ I get a CALI.
To answer the actual content of the controversy, obviously if he sat there and tortured him, sure, I suppose that's illegal. But it's difficult to determine when a human has been fully neutralized as a threat, and usually they're only obviously rendered harmless if they've stopped breathing. It would be a waste of resources, time, and goodwill to attempt to prosecute. Plus, he did the horse groomer pedo a mercy, by simply killing him instead of sending him to prison.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 17, 2012, 12:49:55 PM
I like how stupidly (biased?) the article is written.
QuoteA Texas grand jury must decide whether to charge a father who killed a man after finding the man molesting his 5-year-old daughter. Does deadly force extend to a father protecting his daughter?
Answer: Yes.
A+ I get a CALI.
To answer the actual content of the controversy, obviously if he sat there and tortured him, sure, I suppose that's illegal. But it's difficult to determine when a human has been fully neutralized as a threat, and usually they're only obviously rendered harmless if they've stopped breathing. It would be a waste of resources, time, and goodwill to attempt to prosecute. Plus, he did the horse groomer pedo a mercy, by simply killing him instead of sending him to prison.
I think I'm beginning to see why you are unable to find a well-paid job as a lawyer.
:yes: He's too rational.
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2012, 12:53:18 PM
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.
These facts are mitigating when it comes to a gulty plea, but do not constitute a legal defence. -_-
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2012, 03:41:22 PM
These facts are mitigating when it comes to a gulty plea, but do not constitute a legal defence. -_-
Yup.
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2012, 03:41:22 PM
These facts are mitigating when it comes to a gulty plea, but do not constitute a legal defence. -_-
Two words: jury nullification. ;)
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?
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2012, 04:03:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2012, 03:41:22 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Jacob on June 17, 2012, 05:21:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Jacob on June 17, 2012, 05:21:24 PM
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.
PLEASE MARTINUS LECTURE ME ON AMERICAN LAW
It's gone so well for you in the past.
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2012, 11:21:53 AM
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 17, 2012, 11:18:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Darth Wagtaros on June 17, 2012, 04:50:57 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 17, 2012, 04:03:15 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2012, 03:41:22 PM
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.
A 23 year old father of a 5 year old....colour me suspicious of his status as an upstanding member of society.
Quote from: Tyr on June 18, 2012, 09:25:54 AM
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. :yes:
Quote from: Tyr on June 18, 2012, 09:25:54 AM
A 23 year old father of a 5 year old....colour me suspicious of his status as an upstanding member of society.
:yeahright: That doesn't have anything to do with whether he's a moral individual or not.
Quote from: Tyr on June 18, 2012, 09:25:54 AM
A 23 year old father of a 5 year old....colour me suspicious of his status as an upstanding member of society.
Yes, people who procreate always seem to have sinister motives.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 18, 2012, 09:46:22 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 18, 2012, 09:25:54 AM
A 23 year old father of a 5 year old....colour me suspicious of his status as an upstanding member of society.
:yeahright: That doesn't have anything to do with whether he's a moral individual or not.
Not instantly. But having a kid when you're 18....tends not to say good things about a person.
Quote from: Tyr on June 18, 2012, 09:49:29 AM
But having a kid when you're 18....tends not to say good things about a person.
:lol:
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2012, 03:41:22 PM
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 :goodboy:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 18, 2012, 09:55:21 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2012, 03:41:22 PM
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 :goodboy:
In Canada, "provocation" reduces murder to manslaughter.
Quote232. (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.
Quote from: Tyr on June 18, 2012, 09:49:29 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 18, 2012, 09:46:22 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 18, 2012, 09:25:54 AM
A 23 year old father of a 5 year old....colour me suspicious of his status as an upstanding member of society.
:yeahright: That doesn't have anything to do with whether he's a moral individual or not.
Not instantly. But having a kid when you're 18....tends not to say good things about a person.
:bleeding:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 18, 2012, 10:17:28 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 18, 2012, 09:49:29 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 18, 2012, 09:46:22 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 18, 2012, 09:25:54 AM
A 23 year old father of a 5 year old....colour me suspicious of his status as an upstanding member of society.
:yeahright: That doesn't have anything to do with whether he's a moral individual or not.
Not instantly. But having a kid when you're 18....tends not to say good things about a person.
:bleeding:
He has a point. People who have children that young are generally bad people.
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2012, 10:23:52 AM
He has a point. People who have children that young are generally bad people.
As are people who wait longer and people who never have kids.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 18, 2012, 10:39:02 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 18, 2012, 10:23:52 AM
He has a point. People who have children that young are generally bad people.
As are people who wait longer and people who never have kids.
Or people who wait just long enough and then have some.
Quote from: Siege on June 17, 2012, 10:49:43 AM
If this goes to court it would a shame on Texas.
This guy is a fucking hero.
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.
You have temporary insanity and it probably would at worst be manslaughter.
Quote from: Tyr on June 18, 2012, 09:49:29 AM
Not instantly. But having a kid when you're 18....tends not to say good things about a person.
Dude it is a rural community.
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
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?
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2012, 10:53:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
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. :contract:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 18, 2012, 10:55:30 AM
Read his edit. :contract:
Ah got it. Yeah it will be a temporary insanity situation.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 18, 2012, 10:55:30 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2012, 10:53:02 AM
Quote from: Martinus on June 17, 2012, 11:11:53 AM
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. :contract:
:hug:
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2012, 10:07:50 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 18, 2012, 09:55:21 AM
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2012, 03:41:22 PM
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 :goodboy:
In Canada, "provocation" reduces murder to manslaughter.
Quote232. (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. :yes:
Quote from: Martinus on June 18, 2012, 11:12:45 AM
So if the father asked the guy to molest his daughter, he should be convicted. :yes:
:XD:
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2012, 10:07:50 AM
In Canada, "provocation" reduces murder to manslaughter.
Yeah same in the UK, but 'provocation' got replaced by loss of control in 2009 :lol:
Quote from: Valmy on June 18, 2012, 10:46:34 AM
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)
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.
Quote from: Barrister on June 17, 2012, 03:41:22 PM
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. :hug:
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2012, 11:48:39 AM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 18, 2012, 12:26:43 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2012, 11:48:39 AM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 18, 2012, 12:26:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2012, 11:48:39 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2012, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2012, 11:48:39 AM
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.
Quote from: ulmont on June 18, 2012, 12:31:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 18, 2012, 12:26:43 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2012, 12:39:35 PM
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2012, 12:34:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2012, 11:48:39 AM
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. :lol:
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. :D
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.). :)
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2012, 01:03:14 PM
I'm not going to quote you on the 'he gets three free swings with a shovel' defence. :lol:
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. :D
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".
Glad to see Canadian code applied to Texas justice.
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2012, 03:10:42 PM
Glad to see Canadian code applied to Texas justice.
I'm passing along the relevant information that I have. If you want to research what the law in Texas is be my guest.
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2012, 03:12:43 PM
I'm passing along the relevant information that I have. If you want to research what the law in Texas is be my guest.
In Texas, "mitigating factors" determine whether he's dragged behind a pick-up or not.
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2012, 03:12:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2012, 03:10:42 PM
Glad to see Canadian code applied to Texas justice.
I'm passing along the relevant information that I have. If you want to research what the law in Texas is be my guest.
No, I don't but discussing the exact text of another nation's law seems well...pointless?
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2012, 03:25:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2012, 03:12:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2012, 03:10:42 PM
Glad to see Canadian code applied to Texas justice.
I'm passing along the relevant information that I have. If you want to research what the law in Texas is be my guest.
No, I don't but discussing the exact text of another nation's law seems well...pointless?
When I'm talking to Malthus, who is also a Canadian lawyer?
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2012, 03:28:25 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2012, 03:25:31 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2012, 03:12:43 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2012, 03:10:42 PM
Glad to see Canadian code applied to Texas justice.
I'm passing along the relevant information that I have. If you want to research what the law in Texas is be my guest.
No, I don't but discussing the exact text of another nation's law seems well...pointless?
When I'm talking to Malthus, who is also a Canadian lawyer?
If you're both from Canada does that some how make it more applicable to the matter at hand? I mean I guess so if you are trying to instruct Malthus in Canadian law. :P
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2012, 03:37:12 PM
If you're both from Canada does that some how make it more applicable to the matter at hand? I mean I guess so if you are trying to instruct Malthus in Canadian law. :P
We are arguing for the fun of it. I assume you are as well.
It just goes to show what different people consider "fun". Each in accordance with their nature. :P
Quote from: Malthus on June 18, 2012, 03:42:06 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 18, 2012, 03:37:12 PM
If you're both from Canada does that some how make it more applicable to the matter at hand? I mean I guess so if you are trying to instruct Malthus in Canadian law. :P
We are arguing for the fun of it. I assume you are as well.
It just goes to show what different people consider "fun". Each in accordance with their nature. :P
:(
The one fact I would like you all to take away from this horribly tragic event is this:
Shiner Bock is DELICIOUS.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F_GO0Q9VKVbM8%2FSffbLbS11CI%2FAAAAAAAACv4%2FLYepdw8jj9g%2Fs400%2FHuman%2BPicture%2B379.jpg&hash=43bdfd0d19853bfffeb25393f951d09639fbd23c)
First of all, Shiner Bock is nasty and uses caramel coloring to make it darker.
Secondly, whomever poured that swill into a Salvator glass needs to be shot. Respect the glass, FFS.
Quote from: derspiess on June 18, 2012, 07:03:54 PM
First of all, Shiner Bock is nasty and uses caramel coloring to make it darker.
Secondly, whomever poured that swill into a Salvator glass needs to be shot. Respect the glass, FFS.
Glad to know what is important in Ohio? :unsure:
I like Shiner Bock. :(
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 18, 2012, 12:45:24 PM
Quote from: ulmont on June 18, 2012, 12:31:49 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 18, 2012, 12:26:43 PM
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.
You can use deadly force in the defense of others. Further, it becomes, immediately, a true self-defense situation once he's physically engaged with the molester.
And I'd say anything below 20 would be fully appropriate. As I noted above--and I'm sure you know this as well as I--it's very difficult to tell at what point an individual is no longer an imminent threat of serious bodily harm, especially if you're only using your hands, and you lack special training. Even a partial withdrawal is by no means a guarantee of safety, and iirc as long as it does not become a full-fledged and clear retreat, pursuit is permissible. Thing is, once they've stopped moving, they might just be dead and not just neutralized. This is what we're assuming* the case to be here.
*This being for Martinus, who likes to 1)point out blindingly obvious "flaws" and 2)not realize that everyone else has tacitly accepted them as the premise for constructive conversation, insofar as discussing the case under the assumption that he knocked the guy unconscious with the first punch, then stomped on his head with steel toed boots till his skull caved in, is not a valuable use of anyone's time.
Quote from: Caliga on June 18, 2012, 07:20:02 PM
I like Shiner Bock. :(
Shiner Bock is fine. It isn't the best, and isn't the worst. Most of their beers are like that in their particular categories.
It's really solid as a party beer though. :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 18, 2012, 10:17:28 AM
Quote from: Tyr on June 18, 2012, 09:49:29 AM
Not instantly. But having a kid when you're 18....tends not to say good things about a person.
:bleeding:
I don't see why.
With the disclaimer that this is just a generalisation and there are of course exceptions out there, generally the sort of person who has kids that young aren't the winners in life. They're usually the screw ups who don't really care about anything, left school at 16 (in the UK, I guess it'd be drop outs in the US) and since they were 13 have spent their evenings drinking cheap cider and rutting behind a bus shelter.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 18, 2012, 03:15:05 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 18, 2012, 03:12:43 PM
I'm passing along the relevant information that I have. If you want to research what the law in Texas is be my guest.
In Texas, "mitigating factors" determine whether he's dragged behind a pick-up or not.
Yea, they're funny like that down there.
Quote from: Tyr on June 18, 2012, 09:25:54 AM
A 23 year old father of a 5 year old....colour me suspicious of his status as an upstanding member of society.
Haha, you are such a fucking liberal.
Brainwashed fom the craddle, aren't you?
Hey, my car burns a lot of fuel, I eat read meat, and I fucking shoot guns for a living!!!!!!11111 hahaha
Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2012, 09:06:47 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 18, 2012, 09:25:54 AM
A 23 year old father of a 5 year old....colour me suspicious of his status as an upstanding member of society.
Haha, you are such a fucking liberal.
Brainwashed fom the craddle, aren't you?
Hey, my car burns a lot of fuel, I eat read meat, and I fucking shoot guns for a living!!!!!!11111 hahaha
Yeah, but you get drunk after one lite beer.
Question is moot. He's not going to face charges.
QuoteSan Antonio--A grand jury has declined to bring charges against a Texas father who said he beat to death a man who was attempting to sexually assault his 5-year-old daughter, officials said on Tuesday.
The father, whose name has not been released because he has not been charged with a crime, told police he heard his daughter's screams and ran to a secluded area where he found her under attack by Jesus Flores, 47, who worked for the family.
The father, 23, admitted to Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon and a Texas Ranger investigating the case that he beat Flores to death to protect his child during the incident earlier this month, authorities said.
The case received national attention and focused interest on exactly how far a person could go to prevent a violent crime from happening to a child.
"The Texas Rangers and the Lavaca County Sheriff completed an extensive investigation into the death of Jesus Flores, and the evidence showed that the use of deadly force was justified," District Attorney Heather McMinn said on Tuesday.
"The five year old had injuries consistent with what her father witnessed."
In the dramatic call to 9-1-1 the father made, he frantically tells the dispatcher, "I need an ambulance! This guy was raping my daughter, and I beat him up, and I don't know what to do!"
Good
USA! USA! USA!
Beat Jesus to death, huh?
Insert "Big Lebowski" reference here. :lol:
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 20, 2012, 06:37:05 AM
Question is moot. He's not going to face charges.
At least the Grand Jury heard the testimony and the facts. Florida take note.
Quote from: Siege on June 19, 2012, 09:06:47 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 18, 2012, 09:25:54 AM
A 23 year old father of a 5 year old....colour me suspicious of his status as an upstanding member of society.
Haha, you are such a fucking liberal.
Brainwashed fom the craddle, aren't you?
Hey, my car burns a lot of fuel, I eat read meat, and I fucking shoot guns for a living!!!!!!11111 hahaha
:huh:
Its generally the conservatives who take the most issue with teen pregnancies and how they're something special and unique to the modern world and a sign of the degradation of society
And don't conservatives like to claim to be better with money? Yet you boast about driving a crappy car....
You work a crappy job. Whoopee. A lot of left wingers do too.
As to red meat....that I just don't get...left wingers have more problems with their blood pressure and have to adopt special diets?
Looks like they made the right decision to me.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/us/father-not-charged-in-killing-of-man-molesting-his-daughter-5.html
Quote from: Tyr on June 20, 2012, 08:25:47 AM
As to red meat....that I just don't get...left wingers have more problems with their blood pressure and have to adopt special diets?
Lefties are much more prone to silly things like vegetarianism.
Quote from: Tyr on June 20, 2012, 08:25:47 AM
:huh:
Its generally the conservatives who take the most issue with teen pregnancies and how they're something special and unique to the modern world and a sign of the degradation of society
They haven't cared about that in the US for like 20 years. You can either fight teen pregnancies or abortion, you can't do both. Since they care more about stopping abortion, teen pregnancies are A-Ok. Just look at Palin's daughter.
EDIT: Also, it seems like this young man owns a ranch, hardly the wastrel Tyr paints him as.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 20, 2012, 08:37:20 AM
EDIT: Also, it seems like this young man owns a ranch, hardly the wastrel Tyr paints him as.
Why would you take anything Tyr says seriously? He suffers from one of the worst cases of over-generalization syndrome I've ever seen.
I'd bet half the people born in history were born to one or both parents aged 18 or below. One cannot, unless one is a Tyr, generalize from that.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 20, 2012, 08:36:15 AM
Lefties are much more prone to silly things like vegetarianism.
But what about Hitler?!!11
Besides Siegey is one to talk he goes vegetarian all the time.
Quote from: grumbler on June 20, 2012, 09:00:08 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 20, 2012, 08:37:20 AM
EDIT: Also, it seems like this young man owns a ranch, hardly the wastrel Tyr paints him as.
Why would you take anything Tyr says seriously? He suffers from one of the worst cases of over-generalization syndrome I've ever seen.
:lol:
I specifically made a point of saying again and again it was just a generalisation and wasn't always valid.
Quote
I'd bet half the people born in history were born to one or both parents aged 18 or below. One cannot, unless one is a Tyr, generalize from that.
pfff.
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2012, 09:09:01 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 20, 2012, 08:36:15 AM
Lefties are much more prone to silly things like vegetarianism.
But what about Hitler?!!11
Socialist. OK, National Socialist, but still....
As long as timmay approves of the grand jury's decision I can sleep at night.
Quote from: Tyr on June 20, 2012, 09:55:50 AMI specifically made a point of saying again and again it was just a generalisation and wasn't always valid.
You haven't had any kids, yet your generalization seems to work pretty well when describing...you. :hmm:
Quote from: dps on June 20, 2012, 10:59:45 AM
Socialist. OK, National Socialist, but still....
Paternalism is perfectly right wing in Germany. Unless we just assume what means right wing and left wing in the United States in 2012 holds true for every single culture in world history. But that would be idiotic.
Quote from: Tyr on June 20, 2012, 09:55:50 AM
:lol:
I specifically made a point of saying again and again it was just a generalisation and wasn't always valid.
:lol:
I specifically said that it was an over-generalization and so not valid at all.
Quotepfff.
A typically Tyrian "intellectual" response to a valid point against his over-generalization.
Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2012, 09:09:01 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 20, 2012, 08:36:15 AM
Lefties are much more prone to silly things like vegetarianism.
But what about Hitler?!!11
Besides Siegey is one to talk he goes vegetarian all the time.
When I deploy I have no choice.
Keeping kosher is not negotiable.
Quote from: Siege on June 20, 2012, 06:13:22 PM
When I deploy I have no choice.
Keeping kosher is not negotiable.
Why? This is the 21st century. Kosher is for the weak.
Quote
Socialist. OK, National Socialist, but still....
You jest....right?
But I don't see a problem with the lefties being more likely to be veggies assertion, seems pretty true to me. Though of course that doesn't apply in any way to a significant number of leftists.
Quote from: grumbler on June 20, 2012, 01:15:26 PM
Quote from: Tyr on June 20, 2012, 09:55:50 AM
:lol:
I specifically made a point of saying again and again it was just a generalisation and wasn't always valid.
:lol:
I specifically said that it was an over-generalization and so not valid at all.
Quotepfff.
A typically Tyrian "intellectual" response to a valid point against his over-generalization.
:lmfao:
Oh Grumbler. :hug: