Father Punches Pedophile to Death - Should he be charged?

Offline

Dec 2011

2006

He should be charged; for whatever the reason (no matter how understandable) he still killed someone.
He'd most likely get Voluntary Manslaughter and not murder since obviously the action was in the heat of passion.

Jun 13, 2012 2:49 PM

#203

Offline

Oct 2009

2995

pendragonuzumaki said:
He should be charged; for whatever the reason (no matter how understandable) he still killed someone.

So going by that logic you must be charged for killing another person in self-defense even if that person intends to kill you?

Jun 13, 2012 2:54 PM

#204

Scud

Offline

Jul 2007

5308

Gogetters said:

pendragonuzumaki said:
He should be charged; for whatever the reason (no matter how understandable) he still killed someone.

So going by that logic you must be charged for killing another person in self-defense even if that person intends to kill you?

Where is the need to kill them?

Jun 13, 2012 2:54 PM

#205

Offline

Dec 2011

2006

Gogetters said:

pendragonuzumaki said:
He should be charged; for whatever the reason (no matter how understandable) he still killed someone.

So going by that logic you must be charged for killing another person in self-defense even if that person intends to kill you?

Yeah. Self-defense doesn't grant someone immunity. As always, there's always an execption like the stand your ground law, but generally no one ever gets off scot free for killing soneone when it's an undeniable fact. (Accusations and trials are a different matter).
And to be clearer, with self defense you're not allowed to just kill someone. You're only allowed to use necessary force to stop them.

Jun 13, 2012 3:03 PM

#206

Umbrya

Offline

Dec 2010

2795

pendragonuzumaki said:
He should be charged; for whatever the reason (no matter how understandable) he still killed someone.
He'd most likely get Voluntary Manslaughter and not murder since obviously the action was in the heat of passion.

That all depends on what the court decides his intent was. He claims that he was not trying to kill the man. Self defense does indeed grant someone immunity in Texas given certain circumstances. This was not a case of self defense, however. As you'll see in previous posts, it was a case of castle doctrine.

Is it really so hard to skim over previous pages to at least acquaint yourself with the subject and what has been said? I'll never understand.

Jun 13, 2012 3:03 PM

#207

Offline

Oct 2009

2995

Scud said:

Gogetters said:

pendragonuzumaki said:
He should be charged; for whatever the reason (no matter how understandable) he still killed someone.

So going by that logic you must be charged for killing another person in self-defense even if that person intends to kill you?

Where is the need to kill them?

Oh, I don't know, I think it was because he was trying to kill you?

You people sadden me.

GogettersJun 13, 2012 3:07 PM

Jun 13, 2012 3:06 PM

#208

Offline

Dec 2011

1572

Before I say anything else I definitely believe this guy should be arrested and should have to go to court. At this point no one really knows what exactly went down except the people who were there, one whom is now dead and the other being 4 years old. As mentioned earlier in this thread the guy could have murdered an innocent man and used quite a clever and convenient little excuse to avoid 20 to life in prison.

Having said that now - I say fucking good riddance to any legitimately guilty pedophiles who have harmed kids. You can call me a barbarian all you want, I know I'd sleep better at night if truly guilty pedophiles were simply 'purged' instead of being released from prison only to go harm more children.

Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines.

Jun 13, 2012 3:08 PM

#209

Scud

Offline

Jul 2007

5308

Gogetters said:

Scud said:

Gogetters said:

pendragonuzumaki said:
He should be charged; for whatever the reason (no matter how understandable) he still killed someone.

So going by that logic you must be charged for killing another person in self-defense even if that person intends to kill you?

Where is the need to kill them?

Oh, I don't know? I think it was because he was trying to kill you?

You people sadden me.

So once you have defended yourself you then need to go on and kill them for trying to kill you? How barbaric.

Jun 13, 2012 3:08 PM

#210

bottle

Offline

Dec 2009

1591

Situations vary, if the criminal already surrendered, should he shoot him in the head, or punch him as he feel angry or scared? The details of the situation will be filed by the police.

Jun 13, 2012 3:09 PM

#211

Offline

Jun 2012

Telesis said:

OtakuHearse said:

IAmEnix said:

Lesley_Roberta said:
Touching my 4 year old daughter like that, I'd have enjoyed hearing his screams as I beat him to an unrecognizable pulp with my sledgehammer handled cane.

It's a pity we jail people doing the right thing, and yet refuse to jail people that are not even worth the cost of 3 meals and a cot a day (and thus should be exterminated).

They still have to put him in jail he still killed someone he is just like everyone else but only defending his child. But he should still be charged for murder just like anyone else. He is no different from someone killing. If I was this idiot I would've at least knocked the pedo and tied him up or restrain him then leave him alive for the cops to arrive. He went to far and now guess what? He won't be able to see his child because of his stupid decision of killing the pedo.

No, This is America you should be able to kill someone that rapes your daughter in your house. Your talking like killing someone is the biggest offence you can commit. It really isn't even close sorry to say. I mean we have a fucking military we kill hundreds everyday in the name of being "right", and our troops who are sent to do it are "heroes" so it would be really messed up to say that what this guy did was wrong (assuming it's all true)

#1. He didn't rape his daughter and that still doesn't justify murdering him.
#2. It is the biggest offence under law. One could argue it is the worst offence based on their morals too.
#3. Our troops aren't fucking heroes. They say its "right" by using excuses like "spreading democracy/freedom/liberty" when those statements couldn't be further then the truth. The only thing stopping them from being labelled as murderers is the state and jingoists.
#4. Just because troops are unfairly allowed to go above the law it doesn't mean this guy should too. He broke the law assuming that there was a way to prevent killing the man.

Hippie.

I put the fun back in funeral

Jun 13, 2012 3:10 PM

#212

Offline

Oct 2009

2995

Scud said:

Gogetters said:

Scud said:

Gogetters said:

pendragonuzumaki said:
He should be charged; for whatever the reason (no matter how understandable) he still killed someone.

So going by that logic you must be charged for killing another person in self-defense even if that person intends to kill you?

Where is the need to kill them?

Oh, I don't know? I think it was because he was trying to kill you?

You people sadden me.

So once you have defended yourself you then need to go on and kill them for trying to kill you? How barbaric.

I like what you did there.

You kill him WHILE trying to defend yourself.

In the heat of everything that's going on, with someone attacking you... the only thing that's going to be on your mind is staying alive... killing the person in the process.. You shouldn't go to jail for that.

GogettersJun 13, 2012 3:15 PM

Jun 13, 2012 3:15 PM

#213

Offline

Jun 2012

Gogetters said:

Scud said:

Gogetters said:

Scud said:

Gogetters said:

pendragonuzumaki said:
He should be charged; for whatever the reason (no matter how understandable) he still killed someone.

So going by that logic you must be charged for killing another person in self-defense even if that person intends to kill you?

Where is the need to kill them?

Oh, I don't know? I think it was because he was trying to kill you?

You people sadden me.

So once you have defended yourself you then need to go on and kill them for trying to kill you? How barbaric.

I like what you did there.

You kill him WHILE trying to defend yourself.

In the heat of everything that's going on, with someone attacking you... the only thing that's going to be on your mind is staying alive... accidentally killing the person in process.. You shouldn't go to jail for that.

I like how you liked what he did there.

I put the fun back in funeral

Jun 13, 2012 3:22 PM

#214

Offline

Dec 2011

2006

Legendre said:

That all depends on what the court decides his intent was. He claims that he was not trying to kill the man. Self defense does indeed grant someone immunity in Texas given certain circumstances. This was not a case of self defense, however. As you'll see in previous posts, it was a case of castle doctrine.

Is it really so hard to skim over previous pages to at least acquaint yourself with the subject and what has been said? I'll never understand.

I never said this was a case of self defense? That was something another poster brought up that isn't related to this case.
And when a thread is 11 pages long, I'm not interested in reading up on what previous posters have said before me, sorry. I post to give my input on the matter, and that's what I did. Whether or not this is "a case of castle doctrine," I still believe that the man should be and will be charged with voluntary manslaughter. The castle doctrine isn't a defined law anyway, so it's inclusion in any trial is an unknown factor.

Jun 13, 2012 3:27 PM

#215

Sir_Lexa

Offline

Dec 2009

3262

It seems like Post-Josh is once again the smartest person in the thread. Kudos to you :)

Jun 13, 2012 3:27 PM

#216

Offline

Oct 2009

2995

pendragonuzumaki said:
I never said this was a case of self defense? That was something another poster brought up that isn't related to this case.

It wasn't related to this case, no, but it was related to what you said.

Jun 13, 2012 3:30 PM

#217

paprikawolf

Offline

Oct 2011

353

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

Just wondering how many people agree that he shouldn't be charged... is there anyone who thinks he should have had some restraint?

Of course he should be charged. Even in a self-defense situation there would be an investigation and inquiry.

The article says there was "sexual assault." I'm not up on the legal definition but I'm guessing it could mean a variety of things. Furthermore, there's the chance the father misinterpreted something innocent (it happens all the time). Or he could simply be making the whole thing up. You can't just take someone's claim and just say "oh, well that's alright then."

Jun 13, 2012 3:34 PM

#218

Offline

Jun 2012

Gogetters said:

pendragonuzumaki said:
I never said this was a case of self defense? That was something another poster brought up that isn't related to this case.

It wasn't related to this case, no, but it was related to what you said.

And what we've all said was related to the posts of other people posting about this case. -Except for the following:

I put the fun back in funeral

Jun 13, 2012 4:04 PM

#219

Josh

Offline

Mar 2012

17647

LayedBack said:
Having said that now - I say fucking good riddance to any legitimately guilty pedophiles who have harmed kids. You can call me a barbarian all you want, I know I'd sleep better at night if truly guilty pedophiles were simply 'purged' instead of being released from prison only to go harm more children.

You can just say you agree with the death penalty, you don't have to beat around the bush.

Sir_Lexa said:
It seems like Post-Josh is once again the smartest person in the thread. Kudos to you :)

I don't know about that, but thanks lol.

LoneWolf said:
@Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian.

Jun 13, 2012 4:26 PM

#220

Offline

Dec 2011

1572

Post-Josh said:
You can just say you agree with the death penalty, you don't have to beat around the bush.

And you can just say you don't agree with it instead of calling everyone barbarians and making useless remarks about other peoples' posts. Seriously I've made one post making a clear point, you've made like 10 posts basically repeating yourself. So yeah... Sorry it took me two entire paragraphs to express my view on the subject.

Anyways while I do agree with the death penalty the point I was trying to make is that I wholeheartedly believe that the father in this situation is in the right if the man he killed truly did sexually abuse his daughter.

Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines.

Jun 13, 2012 4:33 PM

#221

Josh

Offline

Mar 2012

17647

LayedBack said:

Post-Josh said:
You can just say you agree with the death penalty, you don't have to beat around the bush.

I repeat it when I feel it needs to said again, like right now. You're a barbarian, mang.

LoneWolf said:
@Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian.

Jun 13, 2012 5:24 PM

#222

Offline

Dec 2011

1572

Post-Josh said:
I repeat it when I feel it needs to said again, like right now. You're a barbarian, mang.

Yep I confess, I think people who prey on weak and innocent children deserve to die. Now go hug a tree and keep acting appalled that a majority of people would rather see pedophiles dead then their children hurt and psychologically damaged for life.

Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines.

Jun 13, 2012 5:28 PM

#223

AnnoKano

Offline

Sep 2009

3017

You know what this thread reminds me of?

These:

Losing an Argument online?

Simply post a webpage full of links, and refuse to continue until your opponents have read every last one of them!

WORKS EVERY TIME!

"I was debating with someone who believed in climate change, when he linked me to a graph showing evidence to that effect. So I sent him a 10k word essay on the origins of Conservatism, and escaped with my dignity intact."
"THANK YOU VERBOSE WEBPAGES OF QUESTIONABLE RELEVANCE!"

Jun 13, 2012 5:32 PM

#224

Plucky

Offline

May 2012

jrgcool35 said:

sparkedglory said:
Well I can't exactly blame him for killing the guy. I say he's a great father for protecting his daughter. Don't charge him.

There's no opinion here. He can't be charged. He is protected by both Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground Law which is even more powerful than Castle Doctrine.

Exactly, and good job daddy !!

So as you're laughing at this fool tonight , let me rid myself of any line that I might use to trip you up .

Jun 13, 2012 5:36 PM

#225

armeg

Offline

Jul 2011

842

AnnoKano said:
You know what this thread reminds me of?

These:

The first one started pretty funny, but got old after like 5 minutes. The second one was hilarious.

Shameless self-promotion: http://www.pernerple.com/

Slyr3do0n said:
MAL is the dark underbelly of the anime community. While other naive fanboys and fangirls run around in real life forming clubs and squealing in deafening high pitch noises about their favourite animus, we remain here, meticulously dismantling the credibility of each and every show, until all that remains is a steaming pile of tropes and ass pulls which we then devour to gratiyfy our glutinous and masochistic desires.

Jun 13, 2012 5:41 PM

#226

Josh

Offline

Mar 2012

17647

LayedBack said:

Post-Josh said:
I repeat it when I feel it needs to said again, like right now. You're a barbarian, mang.

I'll do whatever it takes to protect the forest spirit.

LoneWolf said:
@Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian.

Jun 13, 2012 5:49 PM

#227

Offline

Dec 2011

2006

Plucky said:

jrgcool35 said:

sparkedglory said:
Well I can't exactly blame him for killing the guy. I say he's a great father for protecting his daughter. Don't charge him.

There's no opinion here. He can't be charged. He is protected by both Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground Law which is even more powerful than Castle Doctrine.

Exactly, and good job daddy !!

What the father did was in no way self defense and he also provoked the attack (he's the one who started punching his daughter's assailant). Stand Your Ground wouldn't even apply.

Jun 13, 2012 6:12 PM

#228

Offline

Dec 2011

1572

pendragonuzumaki said:
What the father did was in no way self defense and he also provoked the attack (he's the one who started punching his daughter's assailant). Stand Your Ground wouldn't even apply.

So it's not deemed self defense to attack a man who is in the act of sexually abusing your daughter? You're incorrect. If what went down is the truth then the man is innocent by Texas law.

Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines.

Jun 13, 2012 6:22 PM

#229

Offline

Feb 2005

13572

Yes it would.

(A) to protect the actor [himself] against the
other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of
aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual
assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

LayedBack said:
So it's not deemed self defense to attack a man who is in the act of sexually abusing your daughter? You're incorrect. If what went down is the truth then the man is innocent by Texas law.

Sure doesn't seem like it, as it was hardly a reasonable use of deadly force.

Jun 13, 2012 6:30 PM

#230

Offline

Dec 2011

2006

LayedBack said:

So it's not deemed self defense to attack a man who is in the act of sexually abusing your daughter? You're incorrect. If what went down is the truth then the man is innocent by Texas law.

My mistake. I forgot self-defense extends to the protection of family members.
If the facts of the case in the article are as it was, then you're probably right. I still feel that he should be charged though, and it's possible that if the DA submits it to the grand jury they might also.

Jun 13, 2012 6:44 PM

#231

Offline

Dec 2011

1572

Baman said:
Sure doesn't seem like it, as it was hardly a reasonable use of deadly force.

Okay well that's actually your opinion, which I strongly disagree with.

But the thing is the Castle Doctrine clearly states things like rape and even robbery occurring on someone's property can justify the use of deadly force.

Any form of sexual abuse is rape. And last I checked pedophiles are extremely dangerous Baman - especially the ones who have just been caught in the act. Can you honestly tell me or anyone else what a pedophile might possibly do in a situation like that? Right next to a little 4 year old girl?

LayedBackJun 13, 2012 6:51 PM

Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines.

Jun 13, 2012 6:54 PM

#232

DarkShards

Offline

Nov 2011

1980

I can see why it is controversial, but if it is pretty clear that the person who was killed was a pedophile in the act of actually sexually abusing someone, then I don't see why he should be charged. It's like if someone is in the act of raping your girlfriend and you happen to have a gun with you. You proceed to shoot him and the other guy happens to die.

I mean, it isn't as brutal as beating someone to death with your bare hands, but the end result is the same. What I see in the thread seems to be like people saying that it was too brutal or torturous to be beat to death like that, but I don't see a problem with it. As long as it's clear that the man was a pedophile in the act of sexually abusing the guys daughter, I mean, who could blame him? Shooting him with gun on impulse would have the same result and people then would not say that he was going too far I would think.

"I like to expose what people hide. I'm an intellectual rapist." - Furudo Erika

Jun 13, 2012 6:55 PM

#233

Offline

Dec 2011

1572

pendragonuzumaki said:

My mistake. I forgot self-defense extends to the protection of family members.
If the facts of the case in the article are as it was, then you're probably right. I still feel that he should be charged though, and it's possible that if the DA submits it to the grand jury they might also.

Yep he should be arrested for sure, definitely agree there. Though I think it being Texas and all if there is even the slightest bit of evidence of sexual abuse this guy will probably get off completely. Any other state with the Castle Doctrine might be different, but those Texans don't mess around with their right to defend one's property, self, and family.

Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines.

Jun 13, 2012 8:43 PM

#234

rekindledflame

Offline

Jul 2011

847

pendragonuzumaki said:

Plucky said:

jrgcool35 said:

sparkedglory said:
Well I can't exactly blame him for killing the guy. I say he's a great father for protecting his daughter. Don't charge him.

There's no opinion here. He can't be charged. He is protected by both Castle Doctrine and Stand-Your-Ground Law which is even more powerful than Castle Doctrine.

Exactly, and good job daddy !!

What the father did was in no way self defense and he also provoked the attack (he's the one who started punching his daughter's assailant). Stand Your Ground wouldn't even apply.

Stand your ground does not have to be in self defense of your own person. It applies to defense in general, when witnessing a victim to a violent crime, which sexual assault certainly falls under.

While you may feel this is a provoked attack for whatever reason, legally it would not be prosecuted as such. The reason why is fairly simple, because the law allows you to use reasonable deadly force to defend yourself or another who is being assaulted. In this aspect he was in accordance with Texas law. The only question is the one of did he use reasonable force or go beyond that, which the forum seems split on. The autopsy report will shed some light on that.

On a side note, you're also assuming he was the first to throw a punch. While I myself find this likely it's still an assumption, even though it has no bearing on if he was in accordance with the law or not.

rekindledflameJun 13, 2012 8:52 PM

Jun 13, 2012 8:54 PM

#235

Vyudali

Offline

Feb 2012

868

I live in Texas and i've never heard of this Doctrine...interesting. I plan to ask my government teacher about this tomorrow.

Anyway, while the guy was a pedophile i can't say beating the guy to death was really necessary. I understand if he was in the moment full of rage after seeing such a foul act, but for killing someone i still think he should have some form of punishment otherwise people will just start making "oh i was saving my daughter that's why i killed him" as an excuse.
I'm glad the father got there in time, but simply punching him once and then calling the cops would have also worked. I don't like the jail system (after all it allows the possibility of being released-i don't like that) but unless the guy was coming at him with a knife killing him was unjustifiable.
Still, he saved his daughter so i won't deny myself a cheer for him if they release him without penalty.

Jun 13, 2012 10:27 PM

#236

Offline

Jun 2012

LayedBack said:

Are you saying that they shouldn't have that right? ...

I put the fun back in funeral

Jun 13, 2012 11:52 PM

#237

dankickyou

Offline

Nov 2011

4952

RY0 said:

jrgcool35 said:

Scud said:
Why shouldn't he be? He just killed a guy.

Because he was well within his rights to do so.

Nothing can ever give you the right to end another person's life.

LOL if you believe that.

The Art of Eight

Jun 14, 2012 1:11 AM

#238

hikky

Offline

May 2008

1747

Uhhh, I'm sorry, where is the proof of what happened to the girl?

They said she's "OK aside from mental trauma..." pretty natural for a toddler to have mental trauma if they watched a man get beaten to death in front of them.

Why are people ready to write off someone's violent death based on some (potentially in a lot of trouble) hothead's story?

You are supposed to have proof for things like this. I don't understand. How can you come to a conclusion before you have seen proof? I like to think we do not live in society where someone can kill you and then get off scott-free with no proof that it was legally justified. For all you know he walked in the room and saw the guy playing peek-a-boo with his daughter.

:/

Jun 14, 2012 2:36 AM

#239

Hauntholic

Offline

Jul 2009

225

Probably. It depends what the guy was doing to the daughter.

Jun 14, 2012 4:20 AM

#240

S0l0

Offline

Jun 2012

DarkShards said:
I can see why it is controversial, but if it is pretty clear that the person who was killed was a pedophile in the act of actually sexually abusing someone, then I don't see why he should be charged. It's like if someone is in the act of raping your girlfriend and you happen to have a gun with you. You proceed to shoot him and the other guy happens to die.

I mean, it isn't as brutal as beating someone to death with your bare hands, but the end result is the same. What I see in the thread seems to be like people saying that it was too brutal or torturous to be beat to death like that, but I don't see a problem with it. As long as it's clear that the man was a pedophile in the act of sexually abusing the guys daughter, I mean, who could blame him? Shooting him with gun on impulse would have the same result and people then would not say that he was going too far I would think.

This may come as a shock to you. But NO you don't have the right to kill people. Shocking isn't it?
Shooting him with a gun should still get him in prison from the moment the other guy wasn't pointing a gun against him. If you have a gun am quite certain you can make someone do what you want(in this case leave) without shooting them.

hikky said:
Uhhh, I'm sorry, where is the proof of what happened to the girl?

They said she's "OK aside from mental trauma..." pretty natural for a toddler to have mental trauma if they watched a man get beaten to death in front of them.

Why are people ready to write off someone's violent death based on some (potentially in a lot of trouble) hothead's story?

You are supposed to have proof for things like this. I don't understand. How can you come to a conclusion before you have seen proof? I like to think we do not live in society where someone can kill you and then get off scott-free with no proof that it was legally justified. For all you know he walked in the room and saw the guy playing peek-a-boo with his daughter.

:/

I have pointed that at my first post. It's amazing how the use of the world pedophile make others instantly believe you and make you a hero. It seems like anyone can go on a killing spree and then say they where pedophiles.

Annokano's video is absolute perfection of what we are dealing here.

S0l0Jun 14, 2012 4:24 AM

Jun 14, 2012 7:52 AM

#241

AmalgaMat1on

Offline

Jan 2008

450

Telesis said:

Well if you shoot him and he dies because the first bullet somehow managed to kill him then I suppose it could be argued that the father had the intent to just stop the sexual abuse and not kill the man. However, if the first bullet wounds the assaultant and then the father walks up to him and continues shooting then that is murder. The end result isn't all that really matters. Intent matters otherwise everything might as well be treated as first degree murder. It would be unfair to convict a crime of passion equally to something that was planned and done in cold blood.

I remember reading a case where two teenagers robbed a store and the shopowner shot one of the kids. The first bullet wounded the kid and the shopowner proceeded to walk up to the kid (he was already immobilized) and shoot him to death by driving a second bullet into his skull. He was charged with manslaughter. He wasn't charged for the first shot but the 2nd one was unnecessary. The same thing should be said here. Beating the guy until he could no longer fight back is one thing but beating him to death is another. You would think that after some point in the beating he would of realized that the man was going to die.

Let me ask, do you know how many hits the man actually threw? Being Beat to death can be considered killing someone by throwing more then only a couple punches. Do you know how delicate the human body? One good kick to your face, not even by a martial arts, can kill you. Have you ever gone through a REAL traumatic event?(If you are as smart as i hope you are, you should have a general idea of what can easily be considered traumatic).

Most murders don't happen cause the suspect actually wanted it to happen, that is why we have different types of murder charges.

The man walked in on his daughter being sexually assaulted by a pedophile, in his own home. The pedophile deserved to be killed, pre-meditated or not, and got what he deserved. You can call the father a hero, you can call him a bastard, but in my eyes, he was being a father, nothing less.

Jun 14, 2012 8:29 AM

#242

Offline

Feb 2005

13572

LayedBack said:
Okay well that's actually your opinion, which I strongly disagree with.

My soon to be professional "opinion" based on a legal interpretation of the law's criteria. So, yea. But I don't know, maybe American legal practice favours ignoring the wording of the law.

Jun 14, 2012 8:42 AM

#243

dankickyou

Offline

Nov 2011

4952

Synrite said:

Do you know how delicate the human body? One good kick to your face, not even by a martial arts, can kill you.

Not really. The human body is resilient as hell, I've taken strikes to the face and body and hit others as well. Even in old school Vale Tudo and MMA matches where you can legally stomp people's head into the ground, death rarely happens(I believe only 1 person has died in the sport's history)and when someone does die it usually a freak accident.
IMO, if the father was fighting the guy off and the guy died because he had a glass jaw, he should get a slap on the wrist for self defense. But, if the father dropped the guy during the skirmish and kept on hitting while he was unconscious, well than he should get a tougher sentence. But, THIS is Texas, where the law often supports those who claim self defense especially when it takes place in his property, so I think he is gonna walk scoot free.

The Art of Eight

Jun 14, 2012 9:09 AM

#244

Offline

Dec 2011

1572

OtakuHearse said:

LayedBack said:

Yep he should be arrested for sure, definitely agree there. Though I think it being Texas and all if there is even the slightest bit of evidence of sexual abuse this guy will probably get off completely. Any other state with the Castle Doctrine might be different, but those Texans don't mess around with their right to defend one's property, self, and family.

Are you saying that they shouldn't have that right? ...

If you're asking me I'm one of those who very strongly supports the rights to use deadly force in the right situation. But it would be absolutely ridiculous and crazy if this guy isn't at least arrested and investigated thoroughly. We can't just take his word for it can we?

Baman said:
My soon to be professional "opinion" based on a legal interpretation of the law's criteria. So, yea. But I don't know, maybe American legal practice favours ignoring the wording of the law.

It's still your opinion as far as Texas is concerned sorry if it's 'soon to be professional' whatever that means. This IS Texas law. READ the castle doctrine before arguing with me about law good sir. Rape is an assault, sexual abuse is rape - therefore deadly force is completely acceptable under Texas law. I am not the one who made the law - but I damn well support it.

I'm willing to bet an overwhelmingly large portion of people who don't support the right to use deadly force have never even once in there life ever been assaulted by a seriously malicious and dangerous person. When you are watching some scum of the earth threaten the lives of you and the people you love the most in this world - TRUST ME - you would be glad to have that gun and the right to use it.

Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines.

Jun 14, 2012 9:13 AM

#245

Scud

Offline

Jul 2007

5308

LayedBack said:
I'm willing to bet an overwhelmingly large portion of people who don't support the right to use deadly force have never even once in there life ever been assaulted by a seriously malicious and dangerous person. When you are watching some scum of the earth threaten the lives of you and the people you love the most in this world - TRUST ME - you would be glad to have that gun and the right to use it.

Not all of us are incapable of self-control.

Jun 14, 2012 9:17 AM

#246

Offline

Dec 2011

1572

Telesis said:

You can argue what he deserved all you want but it doesn't change the law. The law stands above what you and I find morally correct. He was being a father (or a hero if you want) when he saved his girl from the pedophile but he became a murderer when he beat the man to death.

You keep mentioning the law which confuses me because in his state he literally has the right to use deadly force if it's on his property and he or his family is being assaulted.

Guys, you can use deadly force on someone stealing your television on your property in Texas. If there is even the slightest evidence that his daughter was assaulted then this guy is going to be just fine.

Scud said:
Not all of us are incapable of self-control.

So basically what you're saying is you'd be more concerned with your precious 'self-control' than saving the lives of your own family? Good to know, glad I'm not related to you.

LayedBackJun 14, 2012 9:24 AM

Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines.

Jun 14, 2012 9:20 AM

#247

dankickyou

Offline

Nov 2011

4952

Scud said:

Not all of us are incapable of self-control.

A drug addict breaks in your house wielding a machete, he wants to kill your family. You can tell by the way he moves and talks that he is high as fuck and wont listen to reason. You happen to have a loaded revolver. What do you do?

The Art of Eight

Jun 14, 2012 9:25 AM

#248

Offline

Feb 2005

13572

LayedBack said:
It's still your opinion as far as Texas is concerned sorry if it's 'soon to be professional' whatever that means. This IS Texas law. READ the castle doctrine before arguing with me about law good sir. Rape is an assault, sexual abuse is rape - therefore deadly force is completely acceptable under Texas law. I am not the one who made the law - but I damn well support it.

Derp, go back some pages, see, I even quoted the damn thing. And I assume you don't study law, which is why you completely ignore the imperative criteria "reasonable".

Jun 14, 2012 9:31 AM

#249

Offline

Dec 2011

1572

Baman said:
Derp, go back some pages, see, I even quoted the damn thing. And I assume you don't study law, which is why you completely ignore the imperative criteria "reasonable".

Seems to me the Castle Doctrine specifically states things like "Rape" and "Assault" on one's own property gives us the right to use "Reasonable Deadly Force" in Texas. How the hell should this guy know if this awful pedophile isn't an experienced martial artist ready to get up and murder his entire family after he deals one punch?

Signature removed. Please follow the signature rules, as defined in the Site & Forum Guidelines.

Jun 14, 2012 9:34 AM

#250