Father Kills Child Molester

[New England and The Maritimes]

Well TBH in the USA, the police aren't actually required to assist you, tho I'm not sure if you're American or not.

Yeah, because the police might get a call about a child being molested and just figure "Nah, fuck it, I'll get some donuts and take a nap instead". I know the pro-gun crowd love that ruling, but it doesn't justify vigilantism.

Eh, a famous case comes to mind of two young girls having been kidnapped and located in the house of a known pimp, and later of one of the girls' father being beaten nearly to death in the front yard of that same house by 3 men with weapons, while the police showed up about 3 hours after the first call was placed.

It varies from location to location, but you cannot simply sit and wait for police to arrive when people are in danger. They may not be willing or able to show up in time.

[Ifreann]

Yeah, because the police might get a call about a child being molested and just figure "Nah, fuck it, I'll get some donuts and take a nap instead". I know the pro-gun crowd love that ruling, but it doesn't justify vigilantism.

Eh, a famous case comes to mind of two young girls having been kidnapped and located in the house of a known pimp, and later of one of the girls' father being beaten nearly to death in the front yard of that same house by 3 men with weapons, while the police showed up about 3 hours after the first call was placed.

It varies from location to location, but you cannot simply sit and wait for police to arrive when people are in danger. They may not be willing or able to show up in time.

You'll note that the entire point being made is that there's more options than immediately killing the assailant yourself and sitting and waiting for the police.

...But this "all or nothing" crap is just that, just crap to satiate people's badass fantasies, people sitting around thinking of 'justifications' for acting like an action hero. Too much Walker: Texas Ranger has convinced them that the most satisfying solution to any problem is a roundhouse kick. Fun thing to joke about in games and such, kind of disturbing when done gleefully in front of your four year old daughter.

"See honey? Killing people is awesome. But make sure you come up with a bullshit justification first! Otherwise people might think you're just a violent monster..."

[New England and The Maritimes]

Eh, a famous case comes to mind of two young girls having been kidnapped and located in the house of a known pimp, and later of one of the girls' father being beaten nearly to death in the front yard of that same house by 3 men with weapons, while the police showed up about 3 hours after the first call was placed.

It varies from location to location, but you cannot simply sit and wait for police to arrive when people are in danger. They may not be willing or able to show up in time.

You'll note that the entire point being made is that there's more options than immediately killing the assailant yourself and sitting and waiting for the police.

...But this "all or nothing" crap is just that, just crap to satiate people's badass fantasies, people sitting around thinking of 'justifications' for acting like an action hero. Too much Walker: Texas Ranger has convinced them that the most satisfying solution to any problem is a roundhouse kick. Fun thing to joke about in games and such, kind of disturbing when done gleefully in front of your four year old daughter.

"See honey? Killing people is awesome. But make sure you come up with a bullshit justification first! Otherwise people might think you're just a violent monster..."

True. Just pointing out that calling the police doesn't always present itself as a favorable option.

[Galla-]

Yeah, because the police might get a call about a child being molested and just figure "Nah, fuck it, I'll get some donuts and take a nap instead". I know the pro-gun crowd love that ruling, but it doesn't justify vigilantism.

Defence isn't vigilantism.

And, while it wasn't a child being molested, the SCOTUS case that decided this involved three children being murdered by their father.

[Cannot think of a name]

You'll note that the entire point being made is that there's more options than immediately killing the assailant yourself and sitting and waiting for the police.

True. Just pointing out that calling the police doesn't always present itself as a favorable option.

Yes, but again, in the scenario we were talking about the daughter was removed from the situation already. So what you're talking about is, if I may now create the false binary people are so fond of, is hold the guy (remember, the daughter has been removed from the situation) or decide "Fuck it, western justice" and kill him yourself. Which at that point, you're just bullshit.

And since we've drifted from this hypothetical I'll just jump ahead and remind people that what we're talking about is some kind of 'ideal' to counter these fantasies where apparently the only two options are 'beat a man to death with your hands in front of your four year old daughter' or 'crack open a soda and wait for the man to finish molesting your daughter.' I acknowledged allllll the way back to my first post that you do not always make the best decisions in the heat of the moment and it's easy to see how emotion can get the worst of you. But it's the difference between seeing this as a regrettable outcome vs. 'the only acceptable one'.

[New England and The Maritimes]

True. Just pointing out that calling the police doesn't always present itself as a favorable option.

Yes, but again, in the scenario we were talking about the daughter was removed from the situation already. So what you're talking about is, if I may now create the false binary people are so fond of, is hold the guy (remember, the daughter has been removed from the situation) or decide "Fuck it, western justice" and kill him yourself. Which at that point, you're just bullshit.

And since we've drifted from this hypothetical I'll just jump ahead and remind people that what we're talking about is some kind of 'ideal' to counter these fantasies where apparently the only two options are 'beat a man to death with your hands in front of your four year old daughter' or 'crack open a soda and wait for the man to finish molesting your daughter.' I acknowledged allllll the way back to my first post that you do not always make the best decisions in the heat of the moment and it's easy to see how emotion can get the worst of you. But it's the difference between seeing this as a regrettable outcome vs. 'the only acceptable one'.

I see it as extremely regrettable. It sucks that this guy had to go and molest a little girl. If only he'd decided to keep his hands to himself, maybe a lot of bad things could have been avoided.

[Cannot think of a name]

Yes, but again, in the scenario we were talking about the daughter was removed from the situation already. So what you're talking about is, if I may now create the false binary people are so fond of, is hold the guy (remember, the daughter has been removed from the situation) or decide "Fuck it, western justice" and kill him yourself. Which at that point, you're just bullshit.

And since we've drifted from this hypothetical I'll just jump ahead and remind people that what we're talking about is some kind of 'ideal' to counter these fantasies where apparently the only two options are 'beat a man to death with your hands in front of your four year old daughter' or 'crack open a soda and wait for the man to finish molesting your daughter.' I acknowledged allllll the way back to my first post that you do not always make the best decisions in the heat of the moment and it's easy to see how emotion can get the worst of you. But it's the difference between seeing this as a regrettable outcome vs. 'the only acceptable one'.

I see it as extremely regrettable. It sucks that this guy had to go and molest a little girl. If only he'd decided to keep his hands to himself, maybe a lot of bad things could have been avoided.

That is such a wank and you know it.

[Person012345]

I see it as extremely regrettable. It sucks that this guy had to go and molest a little girl. If only he'd decided to keep his hands to himself, maybe a lot of bad things could have been avoided.

Of course. That's the reasoning I used when I beat that pickpocket to death. Oh, and there was that time someone was rude to me and I broke their kneecaps. I mean, it's not my fault that they acted like they did.

[Ifreann]

Yeah, because the police might get a call about a child being molested and just figure "Nah, fuck it, I'll get some donuts and take a nap instead". I know the pro-gun crowd love that ruling, but it doesn't justify vigilantism.

Defence isn't vigilantism.

No, it isn't. But a few people in this thread seem more interested in the latter than the former. They're not thinking about how they'd protect their hypothetical daughter, they're thinking about how they'd kill the hypothetical molester.

And, while it wasn't a child being molested, the SCOTUS case that decided this involved three children being murdered by their father.

A rather different situation.

[Katganistan]

I'm not comfortable with letting someone walk away from beating someone to death. Let him stand trial, and see if prosecutor fails to prove him unjustified.

[Wiztopia]

Because when you're at a party with small children, you carry a loaded gun on you the whole time. You know, just in case.

It's Texas.

[Galloism]

Obviously if you gave a shit you'd be a bit violent, unless you were a psychopath.

That doesn't mean you'll sleep well. You'll have nightmares for the rest of your life, and have to learn to live with it, unless you were a psychopath.

I really doubt that happens, seeing you can justify it as being the only logical course of action available.

Sure, you can try that route. You can logic through it, compare, contrast, and justify.

You can try that of course.

It's not as easy as saying "It was only logical"



and moving on, however.

Doubt is a mean motherfucker.

[Galborg]

I see it as extremely regrettable. It sucks that this guy had to go and molest a little girl. If only he'd decided to keep his hands to himself, maybe a lot of bad things could have been avoided.

had to??? had to??? What forced him to? Oh, sorry, I forgot she was asking for it. This is complete liberal douche-baggery to say that the molester had to.

That doesn't mean you'll sleep well. You'll have nightmares for the rest of your life, and have to learn to live with it, unless you were a psychopath.

It is possible that the Father might have nightmares. It is more likely that the bigger trauma is seeing his child being molested. And the nightmare argument is more often used when Liberals want to pardon murderers, whereas in this case, Liberals want to lock up the Father and throw away the key.

When the Yorkshire Ripper was on trial, the Defence Attorney insisted that to have done such huge crime proved that Sutcliffe was insane so he should get care in the community.

[Ovisterra]

liberal douche-baggery

Liberals approve of molesting?

No one told me.

[Person012345]

liberal douche-baggery

Liberals approve of molesting?

No one told me.

Liberals are evil.
Molesting is evil.
Therefore liberals approve of molesting.

Try to keep up son.

[Ifreann]

liberal douche-baggery

Liberals approve of molesting?

No one told me.

Are you sure the liberal hivemind has your proper address?

[Tagmatium]

When the Yorkshire Ripper was on trial, the Defence Attorney insisted that to have done such huge crime proved that Sutcliffe was insane so he should get care in the community.

That is the Defence's job, after all. To defend.

[Condunum]

Well you're wrong.

Citation needed.

Time to jump into this one.
A personal account of PTSD after killing a man.
An article about a police officer with a similar story.
Look, there's even an article about preparing soldiers for the chaos of killing in war.
A nice page here, too.
There's also a book written by Dave Grossman titled On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. It's about the psychological effects of killing and preparing someone to kill - and how much it damages them.

What does this all tell you? That killing someone has severe psychological effects on a person. No matter how you try to justify it in your mind, it stays with you. Both of the officers justified it by saying that they had to. They had no choice, right? Yet they still have the damage. Justification will not get rid of that.

Liberals approve of molesting?

No one told me.

Are you sure the liberal hivemind has your proper address?

Did he miss the memo again?

[Parratoga]

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/11/justice/texas-abuser-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

This is the best news article so far.

What do you think about this? Should the father get off without any punishment? I highly doubt he was remorseful like the article says and I bet he actually meant to do it. Even if he's charged he'll get a light sentence since it wasn't premeditated.

I tried to find updates but so far nothing came up.

I say good for him. I'd have done the exact same thing if I were in his shoes. I believe even if it goes to court it will be ruled a justifiable homicide as he was acting in defense of his four year old daughter who was being assaulted, no jury in Texas is going to convict him.

[Galborg]

To be precise, Liberals have NOT specifically said "thou shalt molest children" neither have they cried "Glory Hallelujah" for their holy martyr. They condemn the Father rather than openly praising their Saint.

Liberals say "thou shalt not stop a molester in the act", "thou mayest phone the Police if really you want to make a big deal of it" but since he had to do it, why worry?

Liberals get their rocks off at sending the Father to jail.

Citation needed for Peter Sutcliffe: I called up the Wiki article, I tried to copy and paste the URL and my computer went kerflewie. There are 5 possibilities: my computer could not bear such horror; I am incompetent with computers; Evil liberal Conspiracy.

[Choronzon]

Its an embarrassment to our species that people are even talking about inditing him. Thank the Gods that this happened in Texas, where he would never be convicted.

EDIT: Also, all this humanist crap about how regrettable it is that the child molester died is pissing me off. He'd have been killed in prison anyway, so this man just saved the state money.

[Seperates]

Yeah, because the police might get a call about a child being molested and just figure "Nah, fuck it, I'll get some donuts and take a nap instead". I know the pro-gun crowd love that ruling, but it doesn't justify vigilantism.

Eh, a famous case comes to mind of two young girls having been kidnapped and located in the house of a known pimp, and later of one of the girls' father being beaten nearly to death in the front yard of that same house by 3 men with weapons, while the police showed up about 3 hours after the first call was placed.

It varies from location to location, but you cannot simply sit and wait for police to arrive when people are in danger. They may not be willing or able to show up in time.

That does not excuse the fact that he beat him TO DEATH. It is quite difficult to kill an adult human being with your bare hands, especially if you are only using blunt force trauma as your means (basically not using any form of martial arts). You have to go out of your way to actually kill him. Had he stopped when the perpetrator was obviously incapacitated, then he would have been fine on the legal front. But no, he countinued to beat him until he died.

There is a hazy line between what is defense, and what is murder. However, one of the many definitions is that defense stops being defense when the person is no longer a threat. Basically, those first few hits are justifiable as defense of his daughter, and maybe a couple after he is down to make sure that he is unconcious. But, anything afterwards moves from defense and crosses into murder. Nevertheless, should his story prove accurate, he should be let go. However, there should be careful investigation to make sure that his story is indeed accurate. But if it proves to be unstable, criminal charges of manslaughter should be levied, because it was indeed a violent act.

[Choronzon]

Eh, a famous case comes to mind of two young girls having been kidnapped and located in the house of a known pimp, and later of one of the girls' father being beaten nearly to death in the front yard of that same house by 3 men with weapons, while the police showed up about 3 hours after the first call was placed.

It varies from location to location, but you cannot simply sit and wait for police to arrive when people are in danger. They may not be willing or able to show up in time.

That does not excuse the fact that he beat him TO DEATH. It is quite difficult to kill an adult human being with your bare hands, especially if you are only using blunt force trauma as your means (basically not using any form of martial arts). be careful investigation to make sure that his story is indeed accurate. But if it proves to be unstable, criminal charges of manslaughter should be levied, because it was indeed a violent act.

It depends on where you hit them. And if he knocked him over with one punch and the guy hit his head on the ground in the right way that could kill him too.

But even if he literally just beat him to death on purpose, I still don't think he should be tried.

[Seperates]

Its an embarrassment to our species that people are even talking about inditing him. Thank the Gods that this happened in Texas, where he would never be convicted.

EDIT: Also, all this humanist crap about how regrettable it is that the child molester died is pissing me off. He'd have been killed in prison anyway, so this man just saved the state money.

I'm sorry that you do not respect the rule of law. But I guess you are more concerned with other things rather than the truth behind what happened during the events that took place.

Every person should have their day in court, regardless of their crime.

[Seperates]

That does not excuse the fact that he beat him TO DEATH. It is quite difficult to kill an adult human being with your bare hands, especially if you are only using blunt force trauma as your means (basically not using any form of martial arts). be careful investigation to make sure that his story is indeed accurate. But if it proves to be unstable, criminal charges of manslaughter should be levied, because it was indeed a violent act.

It depends on where you hit them. And if he knocked him over with one punch and the guy hit his head on the ground in the right way that could kill him too.

But even if he literally just beat him to death on purpose, I still don't think he should be tried.

But that wasn't the case. The article states that he suffered multiple blunt force injuries to the head and spine.

And he must be tried. How else would we know what actually happened? As much as I would like to believe the heroics of this man, the evidence will speak for itself... guilty or innocent, justifiable or unjustifiable.

Such is fairness, such is the law.