Sheriff: Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter

[Kulindahr]

How does someone prove that someone was "About to get raped"


Let's say the girl didn't actually get raped: The guy is claiming that he beat the man up to stop it from happening.


Are we simply taking his word on it? What proof is there that he can present?

Do four year olds take the stand?

Did the guy have pants on when the dad beat him to death? If his pants were on, was his dick out?

There are things to look for.


As for four-year-olds on the stand, the practice now tends to be videorecording their testimony so they don't have to deal with the stress of court.

 

[DigitalFudge]

Huntneo spilling the truest tea?

What's new?

 

[bankside]

ummm...no. It only takes a punch (sometimes two, three at most) to stun someone...grab your child and get them to safety. As has been stated--that should have been the father's sole priority. This guy went above and beyond his duty. Instead of focusing solely on protecting his child, he lost control and beat someone to DEATH. You are extremely biased here and just because the 'rapist' is next to subhuman to you does not negate the fact that the 'rape in progress' was most likely more than 'stopped' before he was murdered.



LOL and this ^.

wow.

Nonsense. What else can I say. Sorry.

 

[oakpope]

Murder is murder. Rape is rape. The death of a rapist as the inadvertent by-product of stopping the rape in progress is not murder.

I should add that a couple of posters have said "he had it coming to him." I don't agree with that. The death penalty is unethical, and any punishment would need to occur only after a trial. But the death of a rapist who is being removed from his victim is not punishment, but just a potential effect of the necessity to remove the rapist. It's like pouring salt on a leech. The primary goal is to get it to detach, not to kill the leech.

Sophistic as you know very well that pouring salt will indeed kill the leech. Detaching one from the other has no sense.
Making sure the attack stop : yes. Continue to hit the head till death : no. Whatever the judgement, I would not be too uncomfortable with a very very minor penalty, but the law should be followed and it's not because he was protecting his child that he was allowed to kill someone. Or do you say that in order to save a child someone in position of power would be allowed to kill millions of people with a bomb ?

 

[oakpope]

Brilliantly put!

Besides that, anyone raping a child has already forfeited any claim on being treated as human.

My point is : society doesn't allow you to make this decision, and rightly so. Who's to judge ? Anyone ? By vote ? You don't seem to understand what is a law abiding society and I'm worried that so many think like you.

 

[oakpope]

Besides that, anyone raping a child has already forfeited any claim on being treated as human.

So you think that rapists are not humans and therefore killing one is no big bill. Right ?

There are Americans who believe that gay people are sub humans, are a danger to society and a danger to their belief/culture. If I were to follow your logic, that would entitle them to kill gay people. If the result of your logic somewhat seems wrong, it may be because your logic is wrong, don't you think ?

 

[Kulindahr]

Sophistic as you know very well that pouring salt will indeed kill the leech. Detaching one from the other has no sense.
Making sure the attack stop : yes. Continue to hit the head till death : no. Whatever the judgement, I would not be too uncomfortable with a very very minor penalty, but the law should be followed and it's not because he was protecting his child that he was allowed to kill someone. Or do you say that in order to save a child someone in position of power would be allowed to kill millions of people with a bomb ?

What does killing millions of people have to do with this? Throwing that in... well, there's a name for the fallacy.

My point is : society doesn't allow you to make this decision, and rightly so. Who's to judge ? Anyone ? By vote ? You don't seem to understand what is a law abiding society and I'm worried that so many think like you.

It's not society's daughter. What they think is irrelevant. The only way they might have a say is if they were all present at the time.

 

[72-Jay]

Besides that, anyone raping a child has already forfeited any claim on being treated as human.

I agree with that...

I also totally agree here

 

[Kulindahr]

So you think that rapists are not humans and therefore killing one is no big bill. Right ?

There are Americans who believe that gay people are sub humans, are a danger to society and a danger to their belief/culture. If I were to follow your logic, that would entitle them to kill gay people. If the result of your logic somewhat seems wrong, it may be because your logic is wrong, don't you think ?

Are gays actively engaged in assaulting a specific person's specific children?

"Belief" is irrelevant. This man did not "believe" the other guy was raping his daughter, he observed it. Obvious, visible harm was occurring (maybe not to certain religious freaks, who believe rape is a legitimate way to get a bride, but to any rational person), and not just visible harm, but visible harm to the man's own child.

The result of my logic is fine. You're just not seeing the point.

 

[fetaby]

So you think that rapists are not humans and therefore killing one is no big bill. Right ?

There are Americans who believe that gay people are sub humans, are a danger to society and a danger to their belief/culture. If I were to follow your logic, that would entitle them to kill gay people. If the result of your logic somewhat seems wrong, it may be because your logic is wrong, don't you think ?

And given the fact that the label pedophile was given to all gays by the people you're talking about, the logic is one in the same.

 

[Kulindahr]

And given the fact that the label pedophile was given to all gays by the people you're talking about, the logic is one in the same.

You mean . . . .


ALL HORSE GROOMS ARE RAPISTS ? ! ? !

 

[mikey3000]

The legal defense will be that the father acted, "in the heat of passion" after undue provocation. The bastard got what he deserved, plain and simple. The punnishment will be a slap on the hand.

Anyone with children would understand.

 

[mikey3000]

I feel the need to back this with fact's

"Pedophilia can be described as a disorder of sexual preference, phenomenologically similar to a heterosexual or homosexual sexual orientation because it emerges prior or during puberty, and because it is stable over time." - Brian L. Cutler, Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law, SAGE, 2008, ISBN 978-1-4129-5189-0, p. 549

"These observations, however, do not exclude pedophilia from the group of mental disorders because pedophilic acts cause harm, and pedophiles can sometimes be helped by mental health professionals to refrain from acting on their impulses" - Treatments to Change Sexual Orientation, Fred S. Berlin

For a complete understanding for any of those like myself who are willing to read and educate themselves further about Pedophilia click this link, it's quite educational.

Firstly, I can't believe that a gay man such as yourself has equated homosexuality to pedophilia as simply a sexual preference.

Secondly, if pedophilia, as a sexual behaviour, can be "corrected", then why can't homosexuality? See, you're forgetting one little thing, consent. The pedophilliac is missing consent. But wait? So is every other criminal act in society, no? Your point is totally mute. A criminal act is a criminal act.

The father will do very little time, if any, and life will go on (well except for that bastard, of course).

 

[fetaby]

You mean . . . .


ALL HORSE GROOMS ARE RAPISTS ? ! ? !

No. I mean that the reason so many people here are railing on this (especially here) is that there seems to be an irrational fear to produce some measure of distance from the alleged actions to dispel the myth that all gay men are pedophiles.

Cause seriously, who knew JUB had so many potential killers? The "if it was me, I'd have done the same" attitude is posturing. So tell me... You began to tell a story about being in a similar situation. You said it was some kind of camping trip, and you were responsible for a handful of children and you caught an adult opening up the sleeping bags and peering in... So what happened with that? What did you do? What did you say? How did you handle the situation? Did your primitive, uncontrollable animalistic spirit come out? Did it cross your mind that often times candy and snacks are considered contraband? Or that scorpions do like cave-like environments like sleeping bags and shoes?

So here's a hypothetical for you... The guy goes inside to use the bathroom. He meets the little girl in the hallway and she tells him that she is having difficulty with her clothing because her pants have snaps that she can't operate and she is trying to use the bathroom as well. He tries to help her with her clothing and the dad shows up. That puts the stranger in the house in a questionable position. If no questions are asked, if the dad merely reacts to appearances we end up with a dead guy whose crime is trying to keep the laundry clean.

 

[fetaby]

I am also a bit baffled that it seems to a lot of people in this thread that protection = kill.

I'll one up you...

Calling all Christians! Is it not a commandment to not kill? Justify your belief in a religion that explicitly commands to not kill against your position here. (And the "their not human" angle isn't gonna cut the mustard)

 

[mikey3000]

Yes. Justification.

Lets flip it around. Say it's mother day and you're off to the senior's home, flowers in hand, to visit your beloved dimentia afflicted Granny. Upon entering her room you discover her being anally raped against her will and in EXTREME distress. You take action and retaliate. Would you have the sense to just remove the perp from the situation and stop the action so he could stand trial?

 

[fetaby]

You shall not murder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's funny. The link you posted has citations for the actual commandment, "thou shalt not kill" but not a single citation to back up the quote you posted.

Martin Luther summarized the commandment against shedding innocent blood as grounded in the fear and love of God, and as having both positive and negative aspects: negative in that we must neither harm nor hurt our neighbor’s body; positive in that we must help our neighbor and care for him when he is ill.

In a more detailed teaching, Martin Luther explains that God and government are not constrained by the commandment not to kill, but that God has delegated his authority in punishing evildoers to the government. The prohibition of killing is forbidden to the individual in his relation to anyone else, and not to the government.

For God has delegated His authority to punish evil-doers to the government instead of parents,

Therefore, what is here forbidden is forbidden to the individual in his relation to any one else, and not to the government.

 

[fetaby]

Yes. Justification.

Lets flip it around. Say it's mother day and you're off to the senior's home, flowers in hand, to visit your beloved dimentia afflicted Granny. Upon entering her room you discover her being anally raped against her will and in EXTREME distress. You take action and retaliate. Would you have the sense to just remove the perp from the situation and stop the action so he could stand trial?

How do we know it's without consent? Someone with dementia doesn't stop having a sex life. They may not remember any thing of it from agreeing to it or enjoying it or it even happening but that's neither here nor there.

 

[Telstra]

I am also a bit baffled that it seems to a lot of people in this thread that protection = kill.

It seems that way.
That is why some some of the people here should be charged with supporter of manslaughter.

 

[mikey3000]

I will never answer a hypothetical situation thrown into a discussion because it is irrelevant. No one can say how they would react in any of these scenarios until they're in them. Which is why it bothers me when people say they'd do the same thing, even though the father clearly felt he did something wrong if he felt remorse. Which would mean he doesn't have the intention to kill, but apparently people in this thread do. I understand that emotions can get the best of someone, but if it gets the best of someone to the point of killing them, I still don't find it excusable.

Some of the arguments used to defend this guy in this thread a bit ludicrous to say the least.

Hardly. As the father of two little girls, I'd have done the exact same thing. I'd be more scared of the father who would not retaliate.