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

[CowboyMcCoy]

You missed the part where it said, that deadly force had to be the only option to protect the third person. I bolded it.

Again we don't know that it wasn't, from what we have been told. But if the accounts of what happened are all that we see, then I think a case can be made the Dad went too far. I don't think he sees one day in jail, and I don't think he will be convicted. But I could see him be indicted and put on trial.

Who said he tried to kill him? Maybe it was an accident. Maybe this was some pencil-necked moron who couldn't take a punch. I won't speculate. IMO, the dude got the easy way out. The law doesn't say he can't use deadly force... and who says that wasn't his only option? Maybe the guy COULD have had a gun. Who knows? Who cares really? The guy got what he had coming.

 

[JBond]

I just saw this on the interweb
http://www.ehow.com/list_6656468_texas-laws-use-deadly-force.html


Now we don't know for certain that it wasn't, but this Texas penal code on use of deadly force, and an argument can be made, the Dad went to far.

The case could be made by those that side with the molester. Not sure why you would want to do that.

 

[Doomsday101]

I just saw this on the interweb
http://www.ehow.com/list_6656468_texas-laws-use-deadly-force.html

Deadly Force in Defense of a Person

• According to section 9.32 of the Texas Penal Code, any person can use deadly force for the reasons covered in section 9.31 (Self-Defense). This means that the individual may use deadly force to protect himself or another person only if he reasonably believes that the individual posing a threat will not retreat and that deadly force is the only means to protect himself or another person. An individual can also use deadly force to protect himself or others from aggravated kidnapping, murder, aggravated robbery, robbery, aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault. Section 9.33 similarly states that an individual may use deadly force in defense of a third person if the individual reasonably believes that the third person is in immediate danger and the intervention by use of deadly force is the only way to protect the third person.

Now we don't know for certain that it wasn't, but this Texas penal code on use of deadly force, and an argument can be made, the Dad went to far.

I don't think so. He acted in defending his girl who was being raped, you don't get it and chances are never will. You would likely sit there and let it happen oh my I could hurt this pervet attacking my family.

Most would kill the SOB as this man did and was well within his rights. You want to whine over this sick jerk fine but Texas Law allows one to protect not only person but property and yes I know the law. Working with Harris County for 26 years I know it well

 

[Kingsmith88]

or not ...

Convenient you gloss over the most important part that could destroy your argument

 

[cowboy_ron]

I just saw this on the interweb
http://www.ehow.com/list_6656468_texas-laws-use-deadly-force.html

Deadly Force in Defense of a Person

• According to section 9.32 of the Texas Penal Code, any person can use deadly force for the reasons covered in section 9.31 (Self-Defense). This means that the individual may use deadly force to protect himself or another person only if he reasonably believes that the individual posing a threat will not retreat and that deadly force is the only means to protect himself or another person. An individual can also use deadly force to protect himself or others from aggravated kidnapping, murder, aggravated robbery, robbery, aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault. Section 9.33 similarly states that an individual may use deadly force in defense of a third person if the individual reasonably believes that the third person is in immediate danger and the intervention by use of deadly force is the only way to protect the third person.

Now we don't know for certain that it wasn't, but this Texas penal code on use of deadly force, and an argument can be made, the Dad went to far.

You're beginning to sound very pro pedophile

 

[Kingsmith88]

The case could be made by those that side with the molester. Not sure why you would want to do that.

Has nothing to do with siding with a molester, to suggest that, seriously brings your intelligence into question, if your other asinine opinions haven't already done that.

 

[RastaRocket]

It shouldn't be legal. You shouldn't be allowed to take the law into your own hands.

He didn't take the law into his own hands. He defended his daughter and the law protects him based on his course of action.

 

[RastaRocket]

Has nothing to do with siding with a molester, to suggest that, seriously brings your intelligence into question, if your other asinine opinions haven't already done that.

Well, we will only know the killers point of view now anyway. It'll be pretty easy for him to say it was the only way to stop him. We don't have pedo mans side of the story to prove otherwise.

 

[cowboy_ron]

This is rather disturbing that a few seem to defend the pedophile more than the dad protecting his 4 y/o daughter....this world is going to the crapper

 

[RastaRocket]

This is rather disturbing that a few seem to defend the pedophile more than the dad protecting his 4 y/o daughter....this world is going to the crapper

Too much picking and probing at laws and politics to justify something. Just ask yourself these questions.

Will society be better off without this pedophile?

Will society be better off with murderer dad in jail?


You can even dig a little deeper...

Do you want your tax money paying for a cell and food for the pedophile?

 

[JBond]

Has nothing to do with siding with a molester, to suggest that, seriously brings your intelligence into question, if your other asinine opinions haven't already done that.

Really? You are the one that keeps posting crap indicating you think the father was at fault. Methinks you are a bit too vigorous in the defense of a child molester.

I already posted the penal code covering use of deadly force in defense of a person. Why do you think that code would not apply in this case?

 

[Kingsmith88]

I don'tthink so. He acted in defending his girl who was being raped, you don't get itand chances are never will. You would likely sit there and let it happen oh myI could hurt this pervet attacking my family.

Most would kill the SOB as this man did and was well within his rights. Youwant to whine over this sick jerk fine but Texas Law allows one to protect notonly person but property and yes I know the law. Working with Harris County for26 years I know it well

No you don't get it and likely never will. Never once said he should sitthere and watch and call the police. I said he could and should put a stop toit. The question is whether he went to far. You clearly don't know Texas Law, Iprovided statements in the Penal code that could bring the fathers actions intoquestion. You choose to ignore that because you are emotional about thesituation. I can understand that.

I don't understand vigilantism or vengeance in place of justice. I won'tever be one of those people in this thread who yell "Yeah kill him"That isn't the way I was raised or what I believe in. The problem I have withthe father's action from what we have been told (we don't know the wholestory), is that it is reported he beat the man to death. That to me says aprolonged sustained beating; where at any time the assault on his daughterceased he could have stopped before killing the man. If it was a one or twopunch fight and the guy died, (because he had something medically wrong withhim or he hit his head) that to me is totally different. Beating to deathsounds malicious to me, something that could have been prevented.

In Texas Penal code

According to section 9.32 of the Texas PenalCode, any person can use deadly
force for the reasons covered in section 9.31 (Self-Defense). This means that
the individual may use deadly force to protect himself or another person only
if he reasonably believes that the individual posing a threat will not retreat
and that deadly force is the only means to protect himself or another
person. An individual can also use deadly force to protect himself or
others from aggravated kidnapping, murder, aggravated robbery, robbery,
aggravated sexual assault and sexual assault. Section 9.33 similarly states
that an individual may use deadly force in defense of a third person if the
individual reasonably believes that the third person is in immediate danger and
the intervention by use of deadly force is the only way to protect the third
person."

Was beating theman to death the only way to protect his daughter? Likely not, but we don'tknow all the facts yet.

 

[cowboy_ron]

Too much picking and probing at laws and politics to justify something. Just ask yourself these questions.

Will society be better off without this pedophile?

Will society be better off with murderer dad in jail?


You can even dig a little deeper...

Do you want your tax money paying for a cell and food for the pedophile?

I believe in due process of law...but if a pedophile is assaulting my daughter I will provide the due process

 

[Kingsmith88]

Well, we will only know the killers point of view now anyway. It'll be pretty easy for him to say it was the only way to stop him. We don't have pedo mans side of the story to prove otherwise.

That is true he could make that argument, specifically if he has defensive wounds. I hope that someone else witnessed the assault on his daughter, otherwise, that leds to a lot more uncomfortable questions.

 

[cowboy_ron]

No you don't get it and likely never will. Never once said he should sitthere and watch and call the police. I said he could and should put a stop toit. The question is whether he went to far. You clearly don't know Texas Law, Iprovided statements in the Penal code that could bring the fathers actions intoquestion. You choose to ignore that because you are emotional about thesituation. I can understand that.

I don't understand vigilantism or vengeance in place of justice. I won'tever be one of those people in this thread who yell "Yeah kill him"That isn't the way I was raised or what I believe in. The problem I have withthe father's action from what we have been told (we don't know the wholestory), is that it is reported he beat the man to death. That to me says aprolonged sustained beating; where at any time the assault on his daughterceased he could have stopped before killing the man. If it was a one or twopunch fight and the guy died, (because he had something medically wrong withhim or he hit his head) that to me is totally different. Beating to deathsounds malicious to me, something that could have been prevented.

In Texas Penal code Was beating theman to death the only way to protect his daughter? Likely not, but we don'tknow all the facts yet.

Pedophiles don't deserve to live

 

[JBond]

No you don't get it and likely never will. Never once said he should sitthere and watch and call the police. I said he could and should put a stop toit. The question is whether he went to far. You clearly don't know Texas Law, Iprovided statements in the Penal code that could bring the fathers actions intoquestion. You choose to ignore that because you are emotional about thesituation. I can understand that.

I don't understand vigilantism or vengeance in place of justice. I won'tever be one of those people in this thread who yell "Yeah kill him"That isn't the way I was raised or what I believe in. The problem I have withthe father's action from what we have been told (we don't know the wholestory), is that it is reported he beat the man to death. That to me says aprolonged sustained beating; where at any time the assault on his daughterceased he could have stopped before killing the man. If it was a one or twopunch fight and the guy died, (because he had something medically wrong withhim or he hit his head) that to me is totally different. Beating to deathsounds malicious to me, something that could have been prevented.

In Texas Penal code Was beating theman to death the only way to protect his daughter? Likely not, but we don'tknow all the facts yet.

I guess he should have shot him.

 

[Kingsmith88]

Really? You are the one that keeps posting crap indicating you think the father was at fault. Methinks you are a bit too vigorous in the defense of a child molester.

I already posted the penal code covering use of deadly force in defense of a person. Why do you think that code would not apply in this case?

I never said that, I said I think he went to far with whatwe are being told. You interpreted wrong, because I posted it too. There is apart that specifically addresses "intervention by use of deadly force isthe only way to protect the third person" We don't know for certain atthis time that it was or wasn't. I would wager it wasn't, and if not the Dadwent to far.

You can say I am protecting the child molester all you want,it is a childish attempt at poking a hole in my argument by impugning mycredibility with our fellow emotional "Kill em ALL" Zealots. Itdoesn't make you anymore right, or sound anymore intelligent.

 

[Doomsday101]

No you don't get it and likely never will. Never once said he should sitthere and watch and call the police. I said he could and should put a stop toit. The question is whether he went to far. You clearly don't know Texas Law, Iprovided statements in the Penal code that could bring the fathers actions intoquestion. You choose to ignore that because you are emotional about thesituation. I can understand that.

I don't understand vigilantism or vengeance in place of justice. I won'tever be one of those people in this thread who yell "Yeah kill him"That isn't the way I was raised or what I believe in. The problem I have withthe father's action from what we have been told (we don't know the wholestory), is that it is reported he beat the man to death. That to me says aprolonged sustained beating; where at any time the assault on his daughterceased he could have stopped before killing the man. If it was a one or twopunch fight and the guy died, (because he had something medically wrong withhim or he hit his head) that to me is totally different. Beating to deathsounds malicious to me, something that could have been prevented.

In Texas Penal code Was beating theman to death the only way to protect his daughter? Likely not, but we don'tknow all the facts yet.

Protecting your family is not being a vigalanty he is not going after the guy after the fact he is confronting him while he is in the act of raping his daughter the law does allow him to protector her using deadly force I don't know where you live but I damn well know in Texas what he did was well within his rights. Hell we are allowed to protect our property using deadly force but you have a problem with a guy who is in the act of raping a man daughter well he went over board. Yeah right

 

[Kingsmith88]

I guess he should have shot him.

Honestly, that would make a huge difference to me.

 

[Kingsmith88]

Protecting your family is not being a vigalanty he is not going after the guy after the fact he is confronting him while he is in the act of raping his daughter the law does allow him to protector her using deadly force I don't know where you live but I damn well know in Texas what he did was well within his rights. Hell we are allowed to protect our property using deadly force but you have a problem with a guy who is in the act of raping a man daughter well he went over board. Yeah right

You didn't read the penal code I posted, or the link. Go ahead read it andcome back to me.


With that I am done with this thread. I don't want to get into a posting battlewith a bunch of posters being overly and irrationally emotional. Name callinghas already started and questions of intelligence and other more heinouscomments. It isn't good for any discussion.