1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Update: Texas Dad Beats His Daughter’s Molester to Death *Post 286*

Discussion in 'Off-topic Zone' started by JBond, Jun 13, 2012.

  1. Kingsmith88

    Kingsmith88 Benched

    377 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    :laugh2:

    No it doesn't. It says nothing to pedophiles, may send a message to not take the law into your own hands.
  2. vta

    vta The Proletariat

    8,746 Messages
    5 Likes Received
    Honestly, because the laws and punishments are a reflection of the society, not the criminal. I'm all for the death penalty and I'd even be fine with it for child molesters, but the so-called judicial system in Saudi Arabia and other Mid-East nations is simply barbaric and has no place in our society.

    If execution is the way then just have it be done and don't linger on torturous concepts and ugly premises like castration, mutilation or having someone die after a prolonged period of having stones thrown at his/her head. You'd also have to consider the sadistic kind of person who would mete out that form of execution and wonder 'do I really want someone like that around'?
  3. casmith07

    casmith07 I'm the best poster in the game!

    27,145 Messages
    2,566 Likes Received
    Grand juries generally don't look back at other indictments in making their decisions. They only look at the circumstances and evidence presented in the case at hand and determine from there whether or not to indict someone. Previous indictments are not considered precedent and are not generally presented as evidence to support an indictment. In fact, I'm not entirely up on my criminal procedure, but I'm pretty sure it's not allowed in order to avoid tainting the case at bar.

    And it doesn't have much to do at all with statutes concerning deadly force, as much as it does the legal right of defense of others.

    This is from Wikipedia, so it's not gospel, but it's a good explanation.

    Long story short, you got it right, but just had the wrong terminology ;)
  4. CowboyMcCoy

    CowboyMcCoy Business is a Boomin

    12,749 Messages
    234 Likes Received
    Ridiculous. That's exactly what I was saying. It tells the pedophile that the parent may not take the law into their own hands because the molester would know the parents, if they know anything about previous high-profile precedents, would fear not beating them to death because the law protects them from the parents taking the law into their own hands.

    Has it sunken in yet?
  5. jnday

    jnday Well-Known Member

    6,275 Messages
    1,274 Likes Received
    It would cut out the screwing around and that is a good thing. What you call barbaric is what I call punishment.
  6. Kingsmith88

    Kingsmith88 Benched

    377 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    His point was that had they choose to indict it wasn't telling pedophiles they could rape kids, like the other guy said. That was ********.
  7. CowboyMcCoy

    CowboyMcCoy Business is a Boomin

    12,749 Messages
    234 Likes Received
    O my, it's getting deep in here. There is an entire book on the matter.

    http://books.google.com/books/about/A_treatise_on_criminal_pleading.html?id=DqgDAAAAQAAJ

    LOL. What terminology did I get wrong?
  8. Kingsmith88

    Kingsmith88 Benched

    377 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    you posted this
    Another thing to consider, as to why the grand jury didn't indict him, is that if they do indict him and, even if he is punished or not, it sends a message to molesters everywhere that this is ok... that you can do this, even in front of the parents and have protection of "vigilante justice" and they can rape your child right in front of you. And if you do anything, you'll be punished. I'm so glad the system worked this time....
    That was ******** logic he was talking about. I tend to agree.
  9. casmith07

    casmith07 I'm the best poster in the game!

    27,145 Messages
    2,566 Likes Received
    It's all about self-defense/defense of others, not necessarily "deadly force laws." Self defense and defense of others does not require deadly force in order to be invoked -- so like in this case, you have a dad who beats a guy up (not using deadly force) and the child molester happens to die from his injuries. It's not the same as the dad whipping out a knife and stabbing him, or a shooting him with a pistol (deadly force).

    Generally speaking, fists are not a means likely to produce death or grievous bodily harm, and therefore would not qualify as deadly force.

    Also you do realize that the treatise you posted is from 1814, and is from England, right? Just saying.
  10. Hoofbite

    Hoofbite Well-Known Member

    32,523 Messages
    2,211 Likes Received
    Yes, what a loss it would be to lose the ability to be a complete piece of ****.

    Most likely wouldn't have to worry about such a thing because their moral compass and respect for their partner already deters them from even considering it.

    I can't believe you'd even ask such a stupid question. Like "getting some on the side" is just some normal and accepted practice and we'd lose everything if we were ever forbidden from doing so.
  11. CowboyMcCoy

    CowboyMcCoy Business is a Boomin

    12,749 Messages
    234 Likes Received
    Oh, it's ok.. maybe I used the wrong term there. It's ok that they can do it and not fear the parents retaliation. That's what I meant.
  12. jnday

    jnday Well-Known Member

    6,275 Messages
    1,274 Likes Received
    Yep, you went there. He may not like it, but it is the truth for a moral man. There are very few moral men around anymore.
  13. wittenacious

    wittenacious Active Member

    2,805 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I understand how some would, and do, consider stoning a barbarous form of punishment. Not saying I don't.

    But the point I'm trying to make is this: If I know the punishment I might well expect to receive for breaking the laws and mores of the land I'm living in — wherever I might be living — and yet willingly choose to break such laws as will put my life to the hazard, I honestly see no valid grounds upon which to then complain about any perceived barbarism of the punishment I knew I could expect to receive, whether I like it or not.

    Some countries have more barbaric methods of deterrence than others. If a body chooses to ignore the risk, he deserves to reap his dire reward.

    Again, like I'm saying, IF I knowingly and willingly choose to commit an illegal act that I full well know the potential consequences of ... in this case a barbarous, even disgustingly heinous act against an innocent child ... what right do I have to then complain about what I get or how punishment is meted out? I don't see it.
  14. jnday

    jnday Well-Known Member

    6,275 Messages
    1,274 Likes Received
    This is a very good take on the subject. Couldn't have said it better.
  15. casmith07

    casmith07 I'm the best poster in the game!

    27,145 Messages
    2,566 Likes Received
    You don't.
  16. wittenacious

    wittenacious Active Member

    2,805 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    :confused:
  17. casmith07

    casmith07 I'm the best poster in the game!

    27,145 Messages
    2,566 Likes Received
    ...have any right to complain about the punishment. Heh. My post sucked.
  18. wittenacious

    wittenacious Active Member

    2,805 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Gotcha. Sorry, I couldn't tell for sure what you meant.
  19. Hoofbite

    Hoofbite Well-Known Member

    32,523 Messages
    2,211 Likes Received
  20. a_minimalist

    a_minimalist Active Member

    4,565 Messages
    16 Likes Received

Share This Page