wildcard451 0 #1 June 12, 2012 http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/11/justice/texas-abuser-killed/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 Good riddance. I cannot imagine this man getting prosecuted in TX. Anyone have a problem with the way this turned out? If so, why? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #2 June 12, 2012 I'll be on the jury. I can say 'not guilty' just fine.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 340 #3 June 12, 2012 I'll be very surprised if this actually gets to trial, in Texas or anywhere. I'd even be surprised if it gets as far as a grand jury. You ARE allowed to protect your kids. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,469 #4 June 12, 2012 " . . .caught the man in the act, and stopped him by striking him in the head several times, Harmon said." That's the key right there. Force used to stop such a crime is justified. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shah269 0 #5 June 12, 2012 QuoteI'll be on the jury. I can say 'not guilty' just fine. AMEN!Life through good thoughts, good words, and good deeds is necessary to ensure happiness and to keep chaos at bay. The only thing that falls from the sky is birdshit and fools! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
masterrig 1 #6 June 12, 2012 Just a father doing his job to protect his child. Good for him!! He'll never see the inside of a courtroom. Chuck Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #7 June 12, 2012 Quote" . . .caught the man in the act, and stopped him by striking him in the head several times, Harmon said." That's the key right there. Force used to stop such a crime is justified. this one does sound justified - 'not guilty' based on this little article sound like a no brainer. I hope the evidence aligns. the more difficult scenario to come up with the correct answer: If he was able to stop the guy, but THEN, he continued to assault the scum instead of holding him for the cops. I'd have to say 'guilty' even though I'd approve of the results (I'm ashamed to say). ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #8 June 12, 2012 QuoteQuote" . . .caught the man in the act, and stopped him by striking him in the head several times, Harmon said." That's the key right there. Force used to stop such a crime is justified. this one does sound justified - 'not guilty' based on this little article sound like a no brainer. I hope the evidence aligns. the more difficult scenario to come up with the correct answer: If he was able to stop the guy, but THEN, he continued to assault the scum instead of holding him for the cops. I'd have to say 'guilty' even though I'd approve of the results (I'm ashamed to say). If we're really looking at this for actions needed to stop the assault, rather than appropriate street justice being done, I think it may be hard to support the initial blows as well. Odds are that a simple "hey you fucker, get off my daughter" would result in the guy running. I can't see having any regrets about the outcome, but I'm glad it didn't happen in California and I'm glad I'm not the DA or a potential juror. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #9 June 12, 2012 But... but... the media tells us that taking the law into our own hands is wrong. That standing our ground against criminals is wrong. Obviously what this man should have done instead is to run away and call 9-1-1, to let the authorities handle the situation, rather than confronting the man himself. And now look what we've got - a dead human being, because this man refused to do the right thing and run away. Shame on him for not following media advice. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #10 June 12, 2012 Why would you leave a 4 year old alone in a house? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #11 June 12, 2012 QuoteWhy would you leave a 4 year old alone in a house? I'm guessing you don't have kids. My wife's son is almost 4. 4 year olds are perfectly capable of keeping out of trouble while the parents do yard work, watch TV, etc. When people come over with their 4 year old or we visit them, the kids run off and play unsupervised. Whether the kids are in the house while we are outside or they are in a remote room of the house makes little difference. It hasn't changed since my kids were that age. In this story, I understand that the majority of adults were outside and the child was inside. Sounds like Dad went to do a periodic check on the child to make sure she hadn't gotten into anything. Normal stuff to that point.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #12 June 12, 2012 Fair play to him, they should give him a feckin medal.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #13 June 12, 2012 QuoteQuote" . . .caught the man in the act, and stopped him by striking him in the head several times, Harmon said." That's the key right there. Force used to stop such a crime is justified. this one does sound justified - 'not guilty' based on this little article sound like a no brainer. I hope the evidence aligns. the more difficult scenario to come up with the correct answer: If he was able to stop the guy, but THEN, he continued to assault the scum instead of holding him for the cops. I'd have to say 'guilty' even though I'd approve of the results (I'm ashamed to say). Legally I see your point but in that case I'd feel happy about justice being blind.When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #14 June 12, 2012 QuoteQuote" . . .caught the man in the act, and stopped him by striking him in the head several times, Harmon said." That's the key right there. Force used to stop such a crime is justified. this one does sound justified - 'not guilty' based on this little article sound like a no brainer. I hope the evidence aligns. the more difficult scenario to come up with the correct answer: If he was able to stop the guy, but THEN, he continued to assault the scum instead of holding him for the cops. I'd have to say 'guilty' even though I'd approve of the results (I'm ashamed to say). I would understand and applaud your adherence to the law...and then vote 'not guilty'. I take no issue with jury nulification. I think 'he needed killin' is a viable defense sometimes. This is one.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #15 June 12, 2012 QuoteI'm guessing you don't have kids. My wife's son is almost 4. 4 year olds are perfectly capable of keeping out of trouble while the parents do yard work, watch TV, etc. When people come over with their 4 year old or we visit them, the kids run off and play unsupervised. Whether the kids are in the house while we are outside or they are in a remote room of the house makes little difference. It hasn't changed since my kids were that age. In this story, I understand that the majority of adults were outside and the child was inside. Sounds like Dad went to do a periodic check on the child to make sure she hadn't gotten into anything. Normal stuff to that point. I ahve three kids, ages 18, 8 and 6. I would not leave a 4 year old outside of earshot. Outside tending to horses while my 4 year old is unsupervised and out of earshot would simply not happen. I hate to admit I would likely have killed the guy as well though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #16 June 12, 2012 Interesting. Different parenting styles, I suppose. Possibly due to different regions of the country. In rural areas (suggested by the horses) we don't tend to be as protective of the kids. There are obviously pros and cons to that.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #17 June 12, 2012 QuoteI think 'he needed killin' is a viable defense sometimes. This is one. never - individuals don't dispense justice only organized society has that duty. However, there are some situations, where I'd gladly go to jail. But I'm adult enough to admit that it is NOT 'justice' in those cases and I'd take my lumps - and would expect others too also. You can't give free passes to people just because you have a "that's exactly what I'd do in his situation" reaction. That's the reason our courts are losing their teeth today. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,150 #18 June 12, 2012 QuoteQuoteI think 'he needed killin' is a viable defense sometimes. This is one. never - individuals don't dispense justice only organized society has that duty. However, there are some situations, where I'd gladly go to jail. But I'm adult enough to admit that it is NOT 'justice' in those cases and I'd take my lumps - and would expect others too also. You can't give free passes to people just because you have a "that's exactly what I'd do in his situation" reaction. That's the reason our courts are losing their teeth today. +1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #19 June 12, 2012 I respect that position.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #20 June 12, 2012 Quote Why would you leave a 4 year old alone in a house? this usually where one of the usual lefties throws out the "she shouldn't have been wearing that miniskirt" comment......(e.g., capital punishment, abortion threads, etc etc etc) just noting it here since the (incorrect, straw horse tactic) read of your comment is that the father/parents were at fault and this'll head off that non-value added tangent - smiley's added to emphasize my intent to show wry amusement, not hacking at you specifically ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #21 June 13, 2012 Even if he ends up on charges, I can certainly see a "heat of passion" defense that takes it down to nothing more than manslaughter and a guy who won't have trouble finding a job after being released from prison. "What was your conviction?" "Manslaughter." "Manslaughter?" "Yes. I caught a guy sexually assaulting my little girl. I didn't mean to kill him - it was my bare hands." "You're that guy?" "Yes. That was me." "You're hired." My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #22 June 13, 2012 QuoteAnyone have a problem with the way this turned out? If so, why? There really isn't enough information to say one way or another. Another story I read about this said the father caught the man "attempting" to molest his daughter, whatever that means??? And was it necessary to use deadly force to stop him? I mean, I can see the "crime of passion" thing here, but there isn't enough info to know what actually happened. QuoteThe Associated Press reports a rancher in Lavaca County, Texas, beat to death a man who he says attempted to molest his 4-year-old daughter. Alleged molester was an "acquaintance" The alleged molester, described as a 47-year-old man from Gonzales and a Mexican national according to Fox News Latino, is said to have been an "acquaintance of the rancher," according to the Associated Press. The alleged molester went to the ranch to help care from some horses. The identities of the rancher and the alleged molester have not been released. Man caught attempting to molest child According to the Associated Press, the man in question was caught by the rancher attempting to molest his daughter. The family had gathered for an afternoon barbeque, according to Fox News Latino. The child had been left inside the house where she was alleged to have been attacked. A fight ensued and the rancher beat the alleged child molester to death. Rancher feels remorse Fox News Latino reports the rancher feels remorse for the death, telling law enforcement he had not meant for the other man to die at his hands. He said he was just protecting his daughter. Daughter taken to hospital The Associated Press reports the girl was taken to a hospital, was examined and released, apparently with no physical effects of her assault. Rancher not arrested The rancher was not arrested or charged with a crime as law enforcement who investigated believed his account, according to the Associated Press. The matter has been referred to a grand jury as a routine manner. http://news.yahoo.com/texas-rancher-beats-death-alleged-child-molester-214000340.html;_ylt=A2KJNF.cwNhPYUMArvPQtDMD Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
normiss 641 #23 June 13, 2012 Except in corporate America anyway. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #24 June 13, 2012 QuoteI'll be very surprised if this actually gets to trial, in Texas or anywhere. I'd even be surprised if it gets as far as a grand jury. I don't have independent knowledge of TX crim procedure, but from the article is sounds like it probably will be presented to a grand jury just as a matter of course. Grand juries are ordinary local citizens. Obviously the smart money is on no indictment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #25 June 13, 2012 QuoteEven if he ends up on charges, I can certainly see a "heat of passion" defense that takes it down to nothing more than manslaughter and a guy who won't have trouble finding a job after being released from prison. "What was your conviction?" "Manslaughter." "Manslaughter?" "Yes. I caught a guy sexually assaulting my little girl. I didn't mean to kill him - it was my bare hands." "You're that guy?" "Yes. That was me." "You're hired." Even if charged this sounds like a prime candidate for jury nullification."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
