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

[Kingsmith88]

Again, it shows you don't know what you're talking about. It would have set a precedent for other grand juries to base their decisions in a similar way for similar cases with similar sets of circumstances. You, of all people, should know that.

:laugh2:

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

 

[vta]

Me. No, I wouldn't like it. But how is that the point?

IF I knowingly broke the law and mores of the land I live in, knowing that if caught by those who would take GREAT offense at my actions ... in this case, ESPECIALLY if caught by the father of the 5-year old girl I/ HE was raping ... I would most certainly expect to have my life attacked and very possibly snuffed out, sooner rather than later!

Stoning is just one form of punishment and death isn't always the worst fate, but it is very often a fate both deserved and meted out, in the heat of the moment or otherwise.

And "getting some on the side?" Poor example. Incredibly insensitive reference to try to use to make a point, especially in light of what actually happened to an innocent child. Poor stance to take on this subject, IMO. Can't you see you're fighting a losing battle?

Give it up, already.

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'?

 

[casmith07]

Ironic. I seriously think you just talk a lot of trash. Based on this view, I'm guessing you missed most of you law classes. If the guy is tried, it does set a precedent. Why this is lost on you is baffling. Unless........


Back on topic.If another dad kills a molester they could look back at this indictment. And some county with less sense may actually indict some pervert in the future. The fact they didn't indict him informs us of how a grand jury may interpret the deadly force laws.

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.

The rules are the same when force is used to protect another from danger. Generally, the defendant must have a reasonable belief that the third party is in a position where they would have the right of self defense. For example, a person who unknowingly chances upon two actors practicing a fight would be able to defend their restraint of the one that appeared to be the aggressor. However, in many jurisdictions a person who causes injury in defense of another may be liable to criminal and civil charges if such defence turned out to be unnecessary.

Long story short, you got it right, but just had the wrong terminology

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

:laugh2:

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

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?

 

[jnday]

would you like to be stoned to death for getting some on the side? isn't that barbaric?

It would cut out the screwing around and that is a good thing. What you call barbaric is what I call punishment.

 

[Kingsmith88]

The burden of proof rests with the government. If the government was not able to show probable cause, then the jury has a duty to return with no indictment.

Thems be the breaks in the USA.

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 ********.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

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.

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

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

LOL. What terminology did I get wrong?

 

[Kingsmith88]

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?

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.

 

[casmith07]

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?

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.

 

[Hoofbite]

would you like to be stoned to death for getting some on the side? isn't that barbaric?

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.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

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.

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.

 

[jnday]

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.

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.

 

[wittenacious]

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'?

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.

 

[jnday]

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 that 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 know the potential consequences of ... in this case a barbarous, even disgustingly heinous act against an innocent child ... what right do I have to complain about what I get or how punishment is meted out? I don't see it.

This is a very good take on the subject. Couldn't have said it better.

 

[casmith07]

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 that 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.

You don't.

 

[wittenacious]

You don't.

 

[casmith07]

...have any right to complain about the punishment. Heh. My post sucked.

 

[wittenacious]

...have any right to complain about the punishment. Heh. My post sucked.

Gotcha. Sorry, I couldn't tell for sure what you meant.

 

[Hoofbite]

Wow.

The audio is intense.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/crime/2012/06/20/bts-dad-molester-killed-911-call.khou

 

[a_minimalist]

Wow.

The audio is intense.

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_t2#/video/crime/2012/06/20/bts-dad-molester-killed-911-call.khou

WOW!!