Grand jury to get case of Texas dad who beat alleged child molester to death

[bmb777]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/12...est=latestnews

A Texas prosecutor said the case of a rancher who beat to death a man he caught allegedly molesting his daughter will go to a grand jury to decide whether the killing was justified, or an act of excessive force.

I say leave the guy alone. Give him a medal, he did what any parent in that situation would want to do. thats one way to be sure the guy wont molest any more kids!

[AHSIllini32]

Originally Posted by bmb777

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/12...est=latestnews



I say leave the guy alone. Give him a medal, he did what any parent in that situation would want to do. thats one way to be sure the guy wont molest any more kids!

while I certainly agree any parent should have stepped in, I just can't justify taking someone else's life unless my or one of my loved one's lives are in danger.

That said, I can only imagine the fury and anger this guy was experiencing when he stumbled upon this.

I tell ya one thing though, getting this trail in Texas can only help this guy! :laugh:

[OlivetNaz]

As the father of two girls, I must say that while I don't condone murder (intentional or not), I sympathize with the rage that guy must have felt.

There is no way a TEXAS grand jury rings him up on charges.

[DaytonIllini]

I really empathize with the dad. I know I would not be impartial on a jury. I also know that if I did something like that I'd understand that society cannot easily tolerate a vigilante. That said, if it's my kid, I can certainly understand his reasoning in taking the actions he did.

[uiba99]

It's just pro forma, believe me.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by uiba99

It's just pro forma, believe me.

What does that mean?

[uiba99]

They're just doing it so that they can say they covered all the bases. I can't think of a grand jury in any county in this state that would indict.

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

I really empathize with the dad. I know I would not be impartial on a jury. I also know that if I did something like that I'd understand that society cannot easily tolerate a vigilante. That said, if it's my kid, I can certainly understand his reasoning in taking the actions he did.

I know society can not easily tolerate vigilantes, but if anyone deserves to die, child molestors are at the top of the list.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by bmb777

I know society can not easily tolerate vigilantes, but if anyone deserves to die, child molestors are at the top of the list.

No question about that. I'd be perfectly willing to use my judgement for judge, jury and executioner. I am just not too comfortable using anyone else's judgement for all three. A reason that I vigorously oppose drones, executive ordered assassinations without trial, etc. Mistakes are made. I'd like to think that I'd give the legal system a crack at it before I took measures into my own hands. If they fail, well, revenge is a dish best served cold.

[illinirazorback]

Let me throw one thing out there. Do we know for a fact what level of force the dad actually used? Not that I'm aware of. What if he punched the guy twice and the guy fell and hit his head? Is that excessive? My point is that we don't know what actually occurred. I can see an instance where the level of force the dad used was perfectly reasonable and the guy still dies.

That said, I'd beat him to a pulp and not feel a bit bad about it.

[bmb777]

saw some more about it on tv last night. some civil rights leader in Texas said he doesnt know why the dad hasnt been charged, since he violated the civil rights of the guy when he killed them. my first thought was, are you freading kidding me?? what about the civil rights of the 5 yr old girl? she shouldve had the right not to be raped.

the sheriff said the investigation is over, and the dad will not be arrested unless a grand jury indicts him. and several lawyers they talked to said there is virtually no chance a Texas grand jury indicts the dad.

chances are the guy was going to die either way. had he been arrested and sent to prison he likely wouldve been beaten to death in prison. I realize its probably wrong he killed the man, even though he wont be indicted, but no one should shed a tear for the man being dead. in my opinion if someone is convicted of child molestation they should be shown the exit door out of this life.

[DaytonIllini]

I wonder what the odds of being indicted in similar circumstances would be in a northeastern state. I am guessing a lot higher.

[DaytonIllini]

By way of comparison:

Plexico Burress accidentally shot himself and got 2 years in New York.

Ohio is just now changing the law about self-defense in your home. It used to be that you had the burden to prove you were in fear for your life and could not flee. Now the state has to prove you were not in fear for your life and could flee. They say that's a big deal.

In North Carolina a man awoke and saw his bedroom door knob turning. He leaped up and fired a shotgun blindly through the door and by his own admission without warning and killed some guy on the other side who was unarmed. No charges filed.

There appears to be a broad chasm in what constitutes a crime across the country.

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Ohio is just now changing the law about self-defense in your home. It used to be that you had the burden to prove you were in fear for your life and could not flee. Now the state has to prove you were not in fear for your life and could flee. They say that's a big deal.

It is a big deal. If you think about it, in reality it shifts form "guilty until proven innocent" back to "innocent until proven guilty". Isn't that how it's supposed to be?

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by illinirazorback

It is a big deal. If you think about it, in reality it shifts form "guilty until proven innocent" back to "innocent until proven guilty". Isn't that how it's supposed to be?

Not according to tax courts.

[Sure Shot]

Originally Posted by illinirazorback

It is a big deal. If you think about it, in reality it shifts form "guilty until proven innocent" back to "innocent until proven guilty". Isn't that how it's supposed to be?

Not in the case of an affirmative defense (of which self-defense is one), depending on the jurisdiction. And in any event, I don't think there are any jurisdictions that require proof beyond a reasonable doubt for a defendant to succeed on a self-defense rationale.

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by DaytonIllini

Not according to tax courts.

Supposed to be, not actually is.

[DaytonIllini]

Originally Posted by illinirazorback

Supposed to be, not actually is.

Well all people are supposedly created equal too. I got over that fairy tale in grade school.

[uiba99]

An update. Guy was not indicted.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/19/us/tex...her/index.html

I actually am familiar with the DA on this case but I won't say much more beyond that. Grand Jury made the right call.

[illinirazorback]

Originally Posted by uiba99

An update. Guy was not indicted.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/19/us/tex...her/index.html

I actually am familiar with the DA on this case but I won't say much more beyond that. Grand Jury made the right call.

Agreed.

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by uiba99

An update. Guy was not indicted.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/19/us/tex...her/index.html

I actually am familiar with the DA on this case but I won't say much more beyond that. Grand Jury made the right call.

I agree they made the right call. we were talking about it at work and someone said he makes a valid self defense claim, even though he wasnt the one attacked. a 5 yr old girl cant fight off a 47 yr old man, so the father was the one to fight him off.

and the fact they did cpr and tried to save his life proves that the father didnt intend to kill him.

both the girl and the father will probably need therapy to cope with the situation. the girl for obvious reasons, and the father because he will have to live with the fact he killed someone, and that will mess with your mind, so im glad he doesnt also have to deal with facing criminal charges. if the dead mans family sues him then he should counter sue them for the man raping his daughter.

[ill07]

Originally Posted by AHSIllini32

while I certainly agree any parent should have stepped in, I just can't justify taking someone else's life unless my or one of my loved one's lives are in danger.

In most places, one is allowed to use deadly force to prevent or stop forcible rape. I have zero moral issues with this.

Originally Posted by illinirazorback

Let me throw one thing out there. Do we know for a fact what level of force the dad actually used? Not that I'm aware of. What if he punched the guy twice and the guy fell and hit his head? Is that excessive? My point is that we don't know what actually occurred. I can see an instance where the level of force the dad used was perfectly reasonable and the guy still dies.

Given that there was an act of forcible rape going on, unless the guy got up after the first blow and essentially said "I'm retreating!", the law says the level of force he used was just fine. For pretty good reason, the law typically doesn't ask whether theoretically a lesser amount of force would have worked. In the heat of the moment when something like a rape is going on, the actor is generally focused on one thing: persisting until the aggressor stops. There is no time in the heat of the moment to stop and analyze between punches whether or not the guy has technically stopped. The imminent danger is the exact reason why the use of deadly force is authorized.

Bottom line is: rape someone, and you assume the risk that someone kills you even though you "would have stopped" after the first blow (which of course they have no reason to know, since you're clearly a scumbag in the first instance). Sucks to suck.

[bmb777]

Originally Posted by ill07

In most places, one is allowed to use deadly force to prevent or stop forcible rape. I have zero moral issues with this.



Given that there was an act of forcible rape going on, unless the guy got up after the first blow and essentially said "I'm retreating!", the law says the level of force he used was just fine. For pretty good reason, the law typically doesn't ask whether theoretically a lesser amount of force would have worked. In the heat of the moment when something like a rape is going on, the actor is generally focused on one thing: persisting until the aggressor stops. There is no time in the heat of the moment to stop and analyze between punches whether or not the guy has technically stopped. The imminent danger is the exact reason why the use of deadly force is authorized.

Bottom line is: rape someone, and you assume the risk that someone kills you even though you "would have stopped" after the first blow (which of course they have no reason to know, since you're clearly a scumbag in the first instance). Sucks to suck.

it is quite possible he saved his daughters life. who knows what the scumbag waste of oxygen child molestor might have done had he not got caught.

I wonder how many other children this a**hole molested before he was shown the exit door from this life. there should be a special place in hell for child molestors.