Sheriff: Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter

[fetaby]

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.

I'm not sure about Toronto, but I do know that here people who have actually been convicted of sex crimes have to register and make themselves known to the community.

So, what's stopping those criminals from coming after your kids? Shouldn't you go and kill them now before they have the chance? You have the opportunity to do the exact same thing so what are you waiting for?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

I'm not sure about Toronto, but I do know that here people who have actually been convicted of sex crimes have to register and make themselves known to the community.

So, what's stopping those criminals from coming after your kids? Shouldn't you go and kill them now before they have the chance? You have the opportunity to do the exact same thing so what are you waiting for?

 

[Telstra]

third time you've said this...

so..those of us who believed that the dad did right should be charged with a crime because we dared to voice that belief

Telstra...you should be charged with supporter of stupid

Yes, i would exchange for that.
Supporter of manslaughter is a bigger crime than a supporter of stupid.

 

[Ninja108]

Here's the thing. I can't and won't condone vigilante justice. If the father had come upon this scene after the fact and hunted the guy down and killed him,I'd say throw in jail. If he had shot the guy in the back while he was running away,same thing.
If he had attacked and killed him during a court hearing,I say throw the book at him.
But he didn't. So far all reports have him walking in on this perp while he was doing something to his daughter after hearing the daughter scream. The idea the father is supposed to just stand there or be able to determine when the man is no longer a threat is a joke to me. If I walk in on a rapist hurting my nieces or nephews or a burglar in my house,I will defend them or myself,which is my right.
And for those who say the man was no longer a threat and therefore the father should have backed off,how the heck do you know he was no longer a threat? How do you know he was going to stay on the ground and not get back up?
Sorry,this father had every right to do what he did to ensure the safety of himself and his daughter. All due respect to some posters,but self-defense is NOT a crime.

 

[bankside]

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 ?

Oakpope your logic makes as much sense as saying since we believe stabbing someone is wrong it is unethical for a surgeon to operate using a scalpel.

They are two entirely different sets of facts; two entirely different contexts. I would be less worried about me serving on a jury and more concerned about anyone with the degree of moral relativism show in this thread taking responsibility for the safety of a child. I am truly astonished at the lack of responsibility on display.

Here's the thing. I can't and won't condone vigilante justice. If the father had come upon this scene after the fact and hunted the guy down and killed him,I'd say throw in jail. If he had shot the guy in the back while he was running away,same thing.
If he had attacked and killed him during a court hearing,I say throw the book at him.
But he didn't. So far all reports have him walking in on this perp while he was doing something to his daughter after hearing the daughter scream. The idea the father is supposed to just stand there or be able to determine when the man is no longer a threat is a joke to me. If I walk in on a rapist hurting my nieces or nephews or a burglar in my house,I will defend them or myself,which is my right.
And for those who say the man was no longer a threat and therefore the father should have backed off,how the heck do you know he was no longer a threat? How do you know he was going to stay on the ground and not get back up?
Sorry,this father had every right to do what he did to ensure the safety of himself and his daughter. All due respect to some posters,but self-defense is NOT a crime.

I think your answer is entirely reasonable. I've highighted the bit in bold; it's not about killing someone in anger or for revenge or to teach them a lesson; it's about defending the child regardless of the effect on the attacker, up to and including, but not necessarily requiring, the attacker's death. Just wanted to emphasize the defence but also the scope of the defence.

 

[DigitalFudge]

how the heck do you know he was no longer a threat?

Does that mean we should kill everybody to make sure they aren't?

 

[bankside]

Oh, here we go; I see the confusion:

Hardly what?

Not having the intention to kill the guy doesn't mean not retaliating.

Not having the intention to kill the guy also doesn't mean the guy lives.

 

[refujiunderground]

you know what...

i'm curious to know what happened if the situation instead was would be armed robbery or a house burglary where the father wound up beating the guy up or shooting him. there was an incident in jersey some years back where a young guy who was about to commit a burglary was making his way through the window of a guy's house and wound up getting stabbed to death while he attempted to make his way in. i do agree that's a bit excessive BUT @ the same time, looking @ that situation in connecticut with that home invasion where the mother and daughters got killed and similar stories. who's to say that wouldn't have happened if dude didn't stab the man to death? i know why the other guy stabbed the would be robber to death but i DON'T know what if the would be robber guy only intention was to rob the house and not kill everybody in there for fun. there are states which have the stand your ground like florida or that protect your castle doctrine like in texas and then there's states like new jersey where it's hard to prove that you did something in self defense. if he did the same thing up here, he would be charged with murder.

let's just say that the guy that probably was about to rape the man's daughter had he not been beat to death DID rape the man's daughter and killed her off. would it be fair to say that the situation that we're arguing about now SHOULD have went down if that was the outcome?

 

[kevbo]

I fucking hate talking about pedophiles because the minute I mention the fact that I don't think they should be murdered for what they've done, I'm suddenly someone who condones their actions.

Fact of the matter is, no one has control over what they're attracted to, but they do have control over their actions. The fact that what they're attracted to cannot consent means they deserve punishment if they end up assaulting a child, but not death.

 

[vulgar_newcomer]

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, only about five percent of convicted sex offenders will commit any other sexual abuse. That's far from "a VAST majority" -- in fact the only crime for which the recidivism rate is lower is murder. In fact when those sex offenders do what's required of them, i.e. registering and keeping their residence current, they're less likely to re-offend than are murderers (on the flip side, one who has failed to register more than once is a ticking time/sex bomb).

For the safety of your family, if you have to have criminals for neighbors, you're actually safer with a sex offender than with an arsonist, burglar, or any of the violent crimes like assault.

what exactly is the "sex offender"? Is it the 19 yr old who is charged with rape of his 15 or 16 yr old gf?
The dude caught jacking off another guy at the interstate rest stop?
I was shocked to find out recently that someone I knew just got 10 yrs in a federal prison for having over 100,000 traded pictures on his pc of kiddie Porn. Like 5 or 7 yr old kiddie porn. While I don't know if he would ever have acted on his desire or did he is still busted as a sex offender.

The dude raping a 4 yr old child and caught in the act is the type of stat you need to be looking at and I would bet the rate of action after serving time would be very damn close to 100%.

A good movie to watch on this subject is L.I.E but its not about 4 or 8 yr old kids, more like 13 to 15. You get a awesome idea how the molesters mind works and you almost feel for the predator. Its a decent flick in a very sad sort of way.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

He didn't -- just read what you quoted.

 

[pat grimshaw]

I fucking hate talking about pedophiles because the minute I mention the fact that I don't think they should be murdered for what they've done, I'm suddenly someone who condones their actions.
…

I so agree. I hate all the hysteria surrounding pedophiles. The hysterical lack of objectivity surrounding them is the same as that which we put with 50 years ago.

 

[Ninja108]

Does that mean we should kill everybody to make sure they aren't?

Where did I say that? Said it in my other posts and I'll say it here again,this father did NOT hunt this man down and kill him. He walked in a on a crime and progress and did what he had to do to protect his daughter.
The fact the perp during the process of that defense is his fault,not the father's.

 

[Kulindahr]

No.
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?

Why would a complete stranger be peering into kids' sleeping bags looking for scorpions, or anything else? It was obvious he was peering at kids, some in their underwear.

I slipped my .22 rifle out of my car, picked up my morning mocha off the dash, walked into the campsite, set the rifle butt down with a definite thump, and when he turned, I suggested he had his own campsite. He turned away and moved on to the next kid in a sleeping bag. I popped the rifle up into ready position and cleared my throat. This time I told him flat out to go back to wherever he came from. When he ignored me again, I worked the bolt and lifted the rifle butt to my shoulder. The bolt sound caught his attention. I didn't quite aim at him. All I said then was, "Go", in a flat, cold voice. He actually stood there and seemed to consider the situation. I started to swing my aim toward him, having noted that he was wearing a knife with about an eight-inch blade. Happily for everyone, he left.
I was suddenly a hero. One of the kids asked what I would have done if he hadn't turned and left. I said if he'd moved toward another sleeping bag, I would have shot him, repeatedly until he was incapable of bothering them or attacking me.

Some time later, I totally got a case of the shakes.


There was no animalistic spirit, just a cold determination those this animal in my campsite wasn't going to keep molesting kids. I felt totally calm, like I was fixing a lawn mower or something. By showing himself as a child molester, he'd made himself an object. I had the tool to fix the situation and was perfectly willing to use it. And afterwards, if I'd had to shoot, I almost certainly would have thrown up.


There was a minority opinion from the kids that I should have just shot him, then we all would have packed up and left.

 

[Kulindahr]

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

Mostly I've seen the proposition that protection = 'stop the perpetrator', with the proviso that if he dies in that process, so what?

 

[DigitalFudge]

Where did I say that? Said it in my other posts and I'll say it here again,this father did NOT hunt this man down and kill him. He walked in a on a crime and progress and did what he had to do to protect his daughter.
The fact the perp during the process of that defense is his fault,not the father's.

To those of us who claim he was no longer a threat before he got killed you said:

And for those who say the man was no longer a threat and therefore the father should have backed off,how the heck do you know he was no longer a threat? How do you know he was going to stay on the ground and not get back up?

How do you suggest we make sure he won't get up?

 

[Kulindahr]

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)

You shall not murder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

''..The imperative is against unlawful killing resulting in bloodguilt. The Hebrew Bible contains numerous prohibitions against unlawful killing, but also allows for justified killing in the context of warfare, capital punishment, and self-defense."

Bingo. There is no bloodguilt for killing in defense of self, family, tribe, or people.

 

[Kulindahr]

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?

"Sense"? I wouldn't call that sense. I'd draw my .357 and end the threat. Given that I'm probably shooting from the side, odds are he's going to be dead. If they were facing me, I'd go for a head shot -- same if they were facing away.

And I call that "sense": granny's distress is ended immediately, the taxpayers aren't going to have to dish out tens of thousands of dollars prosecuting the creep, and all I have to do next is call someone to take out the trash. Everybody wins, except me, because I'll be going in to the toilet and heaving until there's nothing left to heave.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

I've met both soldiers and police officers who felt remorse after a kill they knew was "righteous". Remorse does not necessarily indicate any sense of guilt.

 

[Kulindahr]

I'm not sure about Toronto, but I do know that here people who have actually been convicted of sex crimes have to register and make themselves known to the community.

So, what's stopping those criminals from coming after your kids? Shouldn't you go and kill them now before they have the chance? You have the opportunity to do the exact same thing so what are you waiting for?

Don't be stupid.

you know what...

i'm curious to know what happened if the situation instead was would be armed robbery or a house burglary where the father wound up beating the guy up or shooting him. there was an incident in jersey some years back where a young guy who was about to commit a burglary was making his way through the window of a guy's house and wound up getting stabbed to death while he attempted to make his way in. i do agree that's a bit excessive BUT @ the same time, looking @ that situation in connecticut with that home invasion where the mother and daughters got killed and similar stories. who's to say that wouldn't have happened if dude didn't stab the man to death? i know why the other guy stabbed the would be robber to death but i DON'T know what if the would be robber guy only intention was to rob the house and not kill everybody in there for fun. there are states which have the stand your ground like florida or that protect your castle doctrine like in texas and then there's states like new jersey where it's hard to prove that you did something in self defense. if he did the same thing up here, he would be charged with murder.

let's just say that the guy that probably was about to rape the man's daughter had he not been beat to death DID rape the man's daughter and killed her off. would it be fair to say that the situation that we're arguing about now SHOULD have went down if that was the outcome?

If an intruder is not actively engaged in or moving to inflict harm on a human being, you don't employ lethal action. Under Castle Doctrine laws, sometimes you're authorized to, but using that authorization is despicable.

If the kid coming in the window had no lethal weapon in evidence, the homeowner committed manslaughter or murder.

Jersey's law is medieval. A defender of home or humans should always get the benefit of the doubt.

 

[mikey3000]

He didn't -- just read what you quoted.

Really? The comparison looks pretty clear. Here is exactly what I quoted...

This is an incredibly old philosophy. As we preach constantly, we don't choose to be attracted to other men we "were born this way". The same can be said for those who are attracted to children. I in NO WAY condone the behaviour of pedophiles, it makes me sick to think about their actions. But the truth is simply this. Not every person who has this attraction act's on it. Saying that they can and will is like saying it's impossible to live a human life with out sexual contact, it can has and will continue to be done.

Abstaining is by all means the hardest thing these people deal with. We dehumanize these people by saying they're lesser then us that they're "Monsters", but are they really? No, they're considered "sick" just like we once were. There attraction is not sick, the actions that some take certainly are. We as a whole need to re-evaluate how we pass judgement as a society.

I know 99% of you will not agree with my statement and again I say I do not condone this kind of behavior. There is very little known as to what causes this attraction, the human brain is largely a medical mystery. Is death the best solution to any mental illness? No. Is rehabilitation an option? Not in every case, but as Humans we all deserve that chance to heal. I'm not saying release all the pedophiles into the world, that would be catastrophic as a VAST majority of CONVICTED sex offenders will commit an act of sexual assault again. Chemical and Physical castration in no way stops a sexual predator from being dangerous. I don't need a work penis to have sexual encounters, nor do any of us. Castration doesn't stop a person sexual urges so much as help suppress them. A castrated person still feels attraction, as it's not a strictly testosterone/estrogen hormone reaction.

Was the Father justified to physically remove this person from the situation? Yes. Was he justified to end his/her life? No, a life for this crime isn't justified in my eyes the Fathers actions were aggravated assault causing death. Can I blame him? No, nor can I imagine his emotional state at the time of the incident.

That's Just my $0.02.

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.

I understand that we cannot control who we are attracted to, but if that attraction breaks laws and harms innocent people, then that is a punishable offense. If we need to "re evaluate how we pass judgement on these people", then we need to re evaluate every criminal who breaks the law.