Sheriff: Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter

[Telstra]

I'll the judge, some of you should be charged for supporting manslaughter !!!

 

[oakpope]

we should not burden responsible parents by demanding a more restrained response. I mean the rape of a child is by definition not only corrupt intent, but the abandonment of restraint; the response (of an emotional parent) cannot ethically be expected to show greater restraint in the moment where they confront this kind of threat.

Yes it can, and it should. Otherwise the parent is as guilty as the pedophile (well as guilty technically, not morally, it's manslaughter compared to rape). We can't justify killing someone when that could be prevented. Once the rapist on the ground, the father shouldn't have keeping banging him. That's the humanity in us, to know when to stop violence.

 

[oakpope]

all i have to say is this. you guys can call the guy a murderer or whatever but hey, who's fault is it though?

let me put it to you like this. none of this would have happened if that child molester didn't decide to act on his urges. he shouldn't be doing what he did in the first place and he would still be alive. you expect me to feel sorry for someone who basically fucked themselves off. i don't see why you guys are being sympathic towards someone who basically put himself in that position to have that happen to him. so enough of your boo hoos. the man is NOT a victim here. the real victim is the child that he raped. he wouldn't be dead if he kept his dick in his pants.

i can't believe you guys are painting a damn father who was saving his child's life or any man for that matter as a cold blooded killer that was getting off on hurting this dude. are you people serious?

You put words in my mouth. But the argument that the rapist did the evil act first justify any acts following, is not a good one. It's a gut feeling, and I understand why you would feel this way, but is it not well educated. In our society we don't do justice ourself. Do you understand why ?
Tha rapist's act was horrible. Does that allow a man to kill another man ? No. Once the danger for his daughter had disappear the father should have stopped. He was certainly in rage and out of control, and I can understand that, but that doesn't make it morally right. For the defense of the child it was not necessary to kill the rapist. And it's not our place to decide if the rapist deceive death or not. It's for the Justice to do that. And personally I oppose all forms of death penalty on moral ground.

 

[oakpope]

Hmm, okay. I'm honestly just curious as to what you feel its goal is?

Justice cannot just be satisfying the victims, because victims are a party in the judgment. Example : if the father hadn't kill the rapist, the rapist would stand trial in a court. The father could want the death penalty for the rapist. The court may decide otherwise. The court should not always just apply a sentence so that the victim is satisfied, because the victim's will can be inappropriate, out of scale, ect. There is a judgment so that Society decide what is the best for Society between the victim and the accused.

If a victim demands 1 million dollars at a firm for compensation of a wrong, and he gets 100 000 because a judgment was made so, was justice wrong because it has not fulfilled the victim's wishes ? In my mind, not at all

 

[oakpope]

Actually it does! That's the whole point. When someone sees a child being raped, if the brain is forming thoughts like "I wonder how best to proceed to be legally compliant" or "Let me analyse what moral duty I owe to this adult whose penis is currently in my child" then his brain is letting him down. More importantly, his brain is letting the child down. There is no duty to do anything other than whatever action, instinctive or irrational as it may seem, that will most expediently neutralise the attack on the child.

I don't care whether that is wrestling the attacker to the ground, hitting him on the head with a brick, shooting him, throwing him in the nearest wood-chipper, or just causing him to flee by charging toward him. There is absolutely no duty to do anything other than the first action that comes to mind in order to abbreviate the attack on the child.

Sorry you don't see the nuance. Right to defend his child and make the attack cease : yes, yes, yes. Once the threat is eliminated (rapist on th ground) continue to pound on his head until he died : no, no, no. The difference is what makes a civilization or just a bunch of savage.

 

[oakpope]

If she was anyone's property, it was her father's -- yet she wasn't property at all, but a precious thinking being in his care until she can assume exercise of her own self-ownership. So the state has little claim on intervening: the offender violated the self-ownership of the little girl, and the custodianship of the father, thus surrendering any right he had to be considered as anything but a wild animal come to destroy. Not only was the response of the father right, it was his duty.

There are times in civilization that the right thing is to let loose of civilized constraints and unleash our inner animal. A father defending his child is one of those times. We should not be accusing or condemning him, but giving respect.

Are you high or something ? "Unleash our inner animal" ? So someone who is a homophobe and can't stand gay people is entitled to unleash his inner animal and kill any gay men he may encountered ? I'm very surprised by your very silly post here.

 

[oakpope]

thus there is no option C.

I always deny to answer these kind of questions because, in my opinion, there is always a 'C'.

 

[oakpope]

Actually it is the other way around; the act of becoming a parent creates a debt of fealty to the child which is judged to last at least 18 years. The child owns a defender; her parent. And the parent's obligation is to defend. This vassal, this serf in fact, must defend to the death. The rapist has no stake or moral claim at all which should be determinative of the option taken by the defender. Generally the defender is obliged to take the first expedient action that occurs to him, in what is of necessity a moment of panic and horror. Whatever action that is, we cheer it on and hope for its success. Whether it is lethal to a rapist is of no consequence.

What is the difference between a human and an animal ?

 

[ravenstar]

All I know is between getting raped and then watching your dad kill someone that girl had one hell of a day.

She did, but she also would know that her Daddy will do whatever he can to protect her.

And as for the OP I'd give the father a medal quite frankly. He saved the state the cost of execution.

 

[Ninja108]

And once the guy was on the ground,how do you guys calling for the father's jailing know the man was no longer a threat? You don't.
If the father had hunted the man down after it had occured and killed him,then I would be calling for his jailing like many of you are.
But he didn't,he walked in on this man raping his daughter and did what he had to do to protect her. I'm not going to shed tears for the deceased or be outraged that he died while committing a violent act.
ANd people can call for the father to be indicted all they want,no DA is going to take this to trial or push for jail time. I have friends who are DA's and they will tell you that no matter what the law says,there are cases you won't be able to win.
And when the victim is a man who was raping a child and the defendent was her father who walked in on it,the not guilty verdict will be read in no time.

 

[bankside]

Sorry you don't see the nuance. Right to defend his child and make the attack cease : yes, yes, yes. Once the threat is eliminated (rapist on th ground) continue to pound on his head until he died : no, no, no. The difference is what makes a civilization or just a bunch of savage.

What is the difference between a human and an animal ?

The difference between a human and an animal is the ability to perceive this nuance:

If the father had hunted the man down after it had occured and killed him,then I would be calling for his jailing like many of you are.
But he didn't,he walked in on this man raping his daughter and did what he had to do to protect her. I'm not going to shed tears for the deceased or be outraged that he died while committing a violent act.

 

[oakpope]

We don't know the details. If the father thought he saw a rape when there was none, would that resuscitate the alleged rapist ? When you kill someone it is definitive and the error can not be undone. I don't say it is the case. But is it absolutely impossible ? You base your opinion upon a man who is clearly very upset and emotional, but there is no proof given in the article. Maybe there is, even probably. But if 48 hours later it is revealed that the man was innocent, which one of you will resuscitate him ?

Beware of the lynching mob, it is rarely wise.

 

[bankside]

Oakpope we do know the details as far as they have been reported and that is all we can discuss. If you want to invent details like a case of mistaken identity, fine.

The reality is the child will have already been examined by a doctor, and evidence of the sexual assault has already likely been collected and forwarded to police as part of their duty to investigate. It isn't a lynching mob that will establish the facts here but the authorities involved. Assuming the reporter has done his job, we know roughly what has occurred. In any case, we can discuss the principle that is relevant.

And the principle is, if you discover someone raping your child, do the first thing you can to stop the attack, without wasting any time to analyse the security interests of the attacker. If this means squeezing the attacker by the neck until you run out of adrenalin and the attacker is dead, do so. If a moment of reflection is possible to adjust tactics, restraining the attacker to face a trial, do so. But if the opportunity does not present itself or it simply does not occur to you that it might be safe to let go, you are blameless.

I have no idea what I would do in a situation like that. I have no skill or training at interpersonal combat. I've never been in a physical altercation with anyone. But I know if I were to have encountered someone doing that to my little sister, I would have attempted to do something definitive to break off the attack. I don't know what that would be, but a rational assessment of the attacker's interests is not my responsibility in that situation, and an estimate of a safe margin of restraint is beyond my expertise. Having never hit anyone how am I expected to know what is sufficient to merely knock someone unconscious as opposed to killing him? It's ridiculous to think I could or should try to make that assessment when in that split second the only duty is to protect the child. I'd try my best, whatever I could think of, and if the rapist lived he lived, if he died he died.

 

[looseliam]

Fortunately, if charges are filed, no one with your cruel view is likely to make it onto the jury.

I don't think his view is cruel. Rather, I feel he doesn't fully understand what happens to someone in that situation. It's almost an out of body experience. There's very little, if any, way he could have just stopped after the first few blows. It's similar when a police officer will discharge his entire magazine when one or two rounds would have sufficed.

 

[DigitalFudge]

Are you high or something ?

Ugh.. Not with us both asking if people are high in this thread

 

[sixthson]

I wonder how many children he got away with molesting before this little girl?
These kind of predators usually have a history of this kind of thing before they are caught.
In this case, he paid the ultimate price when he got caught.

No court will every find the father guilty of anything and rightly so.

Perhaps if a parent, guardian or co-worker would have had the balls to do
something, Jerry Sandusky would not have gotten away with molesting so many
boys, either.

 

[oakpope]

and evidence of the sexual assault has already likely been collected

Innocent people have been put to death with less. Would you be able to live with that ? No trial ? You condemn based on a news report ? My God I hope you will never be on jury duty in a criminal court.

'the only duty is to protect the child' : I do disagree. We have to abide by the law. Yes protecting the child is paramount. No, when the attack had ceased, it was wrong to kill the rapist. I place humanity at a higher standard than a lioness protecting her cubs with lethal violence.

 

[sixthson]

I wonder how many children he got away with molesting before this little girl?
These kind of predators usually have a history of this kind of thing before they are caught.
In this case, he paid the ultimate price when he got caught.

No court will every find the father guilty of anything and rightly so.

Perhaps if a parent, guardian or co-worker would have had the balls to do
something, Jerry Sandusky would not have gotten away with molesting so many
boys, either.

For some reason, my entire post did not appear here.

I just wanted to ask who showed more care and concern for the child/children in these
cases? Those who had the power to do something in the Sandusky case, but did nothing or
the father of this little girl? Apparently enough people knew about SAndusky that they
could have dealt with him through the legal system, which seems to be what many JUBbers
want when they claim the father overreacted and should have let the courts deal with him.
But, again, who was protecting these boys? No one. And who protected this little girl? Her Daddy.

 

[sixthson]

The problem was that no one stopped Sandusky when they could have done it by legal means before any more children were harmed. The father of the little girl stopped it without premeditaion or thought of legal ramificaitons.

 

[72-Jay]

Guy gets killed for raping a child... all I can say is good riddance! the guy deserved it.