Father 'who beat man to death for molesting his daughter, 4' unlikely to be charged

[scottish]

seen this on another forum

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2158122/Lavaca-County-killing-Father-beat-man-molesting-daughter-4-death-unlikely-charged.html


A father who beat a man to death after catching him molesting his four-year-old daughter in a barn will likely not face charges.
The man - whose name has not been released to protect his daughter - allegedly pulled the attacker off his child after discovering them in a barn in Lavaca County, Texas and then beat the man over the head.
Authorities said he expressed regret at the killing, and no evidence so far has led them to doubt his story. The girl's grandfather agreed it had been an accident.


'My son. Sorry,' the grandfather told the Victoria Advocate in broken English. 'It was an accident.'
Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon added: 'He was very remorseful. I don't think it was his intent for the man to die.'

Sheriff Harmon said the victim, a 47-year-old Gonzales man, had died at the scene. His name will not been released until his next-of-kin are notified.
The sheriff said authorities are having trouble tracking down the family and believe they could be from out of the country.
The father and daughter were said to be at the barn with a number of other people tending to horses.
The 47-year-old arrived with several others. It is not known if the father or daughter knew him.
The girl was then heard screaming a short time later and when her father went to see what was wrong, he saw the man sexually assaulting her.
When he pulled him off her, he allegedly hit him several times over the head.
No arrests have been made in the case. A grand jury will determine what, if any charges will be filed, Harmon said.

he girl was taken to DeTar hospital in Victoria to be evaluated and to determine if a sexual assault occurred. She was later released.
The Travis County Medical Examiner’s Office is expected to perform an autopsy on the victim to determine what caused his death.

Residents of the small Lavaca County town were largely in support of the father, saying the victim deserved it.
Sonny Jaehne, a Shiner native, told the Victoria Advocate: 'He got what he deserved, big time.
Friend Mark Harabis reiterated this: 'I agree with him totally. I would probably do worse.
'The family will have to deal with that the rest of their lives, no matter what happens to the father. Even if they let him go, he and his child will have to deal with that the rest of their lives.'


good :p

[lawrawrrr]

This is disgusting. While I don't think it's right to kill another human being (excpeting some circumstances), it's unlikely the courts would do that much to the molester so I suppose it's not as bad. If the girl had done it, it would bein self defense, so he was acting on her behalf...

[Lee]

The victim has no sympathy from me, and I am glad the justice system seems to be working like it I would like to see it :)

[MotorStefan95]

That is just sick molesting a 4 year old. I'm glad he got killed. Served him right!

[jasey]

i don't mind the individual case because the father expresses remorse that his physical attack proved fatal — everyone in the case seems to be on the page that he didn't intend to kill the criminal, including the father himself. what sickens me are the comments on this piece of news across the internet where people say he got what he deserved and he ought to have been killed or felt more pain or been tortured. that's not thinking logically. the death penalty is not logical and is just something to make our bleeding hearts feel better. an eye for an eye in most cases, if you will.

for war, it's almost impossible to decode. i mean, we will never be rid of war. it doesn't matter howoften world peace crap is paraded around, violence is part of the human psyche. i don't feel awful about osama bin laden being killed because it was part of the flawed game that the whole thing is. if he turned himself in i would be outraged if they sentenced him to death in any nation just like i am with saddam hussein. it's a whole different topic, though.

saddam hussein was terrible but he never deserved to be killed through the legal process. i don't care how many people he hurt, there is absolutely no logical reason to kill him other than to appease your conscience for humanity. the solution is to put the criminal in confinement, in most cases indefinitely. a human murdering another human through the legal system is never right in any case. self defense is hard to judge because it is not static but molesting the little girl would not have killed her. it's a bad crime but there is no logic in him dying for it. in short, i side with the father because he had no intention to kill but i do not side with the majority of the comments on this saying how he should die or how painful it should have been.

here come the people that will say i am terrible for not sympathising with their innate desire to fix humanity with baseless methods and laws.

[GommeInc]

The right outcome - he acted to protect his daughter and felt remorse. I wonder what the US would of thought if he did intend to harm or kill him though, because in some cases they could of let him go free because the crime he was stopping could be considered extremely severe, seeing as it has psychological implications that could of stayed with her for the rest of her life.

[Stephen]

If his daughter was older than 18 would he have gotten away with it still?

[andoo89]

its happened before with the gary plauche case. the father assassinates his sons kidnapper and he got a minimal sentence.

[GommeInc]

If his daughter was older than 18 would he have gotten away with it still?
Depends on the circumstances leading up to the death. If it was accidental and he shows great remorse then he would probably get away with it as it was an act of passion - or whatever the US call it. They may find it weird though that an 18 year old wasn't showing signs of protecting herself.

[The Don]

i don't mind the individual case because the father expresses remorse that his physical attack proved fatal — everyone in the case seems to be on the page that he didn't intend to kill the criminal, including the father himself. what sickens me are the comments on this piece of news across the internet where people say he got what he deserved and he ought to have been killed or felt more pain or been tortured. that's not thinking logically. the death penalty is not logical and is just something to make our bleeding hearts feel better. an eye for an eye in most cases, if you will.

for war, it's almost impossible to decode. i mean, we will never be rid of war. it doesn't matter howoften world peace crap is paraded around, violence is part of the human psyche. i don't feel awful about osama bin laden being killed because it was part of the flawed game that the whole thing is. if he turned himself in i would be outraged if they sentenced him to death in any nation just like i am with saddam hussein. it's a whole different topic, though.

saddam hussein was terrible but he never deserved to be killed through the legal process. i don't care how many people he hurt, there is absolutely no logical reason to kill him other than to appease your conscience for humanity. the solution is to put the criminal in confinement, in most cases indefinitely. a human murdering another human through the legal system is never right in any case. self defense is hard to judge because it is not static but molesting the little girl would not have killed her. it's a bad crime but there is no logic in him dying for it. in short, i side with the father because he had no intention to kill but i do not side with the majority of the comments on this saying how he should die or how painful it should have been.

here come the people that will say i am terrible for not sympathising with their innate desire to fix humanity with baseless methods and laws.

Actually you are quite wrong. The purpose of all punishments is deterrence, retribution, reformation and to protect the public. Those who receive the death penalty are usually repeat offenders who can not be reformed. The death penalty serves the other three reasons and also has various other benefits for the government so I see no argument against it.

---------- Post added 14-06-2012 at 04:23 PM ----------


Depends on the circumstances leading up to the death. If it was accidental and he shows great remorse then he would probably get away with it as it was an act of passion - or whatever the US call it. They may find it weird though that an 18 year old wasn't showing signs of protecting herself.

Isn't it down to the Jury to decide so therefore the outcome would vary? Unless there's a clause which would prevent them from going to trial.

[Paige.]

how else was he supposed to react? i have no sympathy for the victim and imo the father shouldn't receive a prison sentence

[GommeInc]

Actually you are quite wrong. The purpose of all punishments is deterrence, retribution, reformation and to protect the public. Those who receive the death penalty are usually repeat offenders who can not be reformed. The death penalty serves the other three reasons and also has various other benefits for the government so I see no argument against it.

---------- Post added 14-06-2012 at 04:23 PM ----------



Isn't it down to the Jury to decide so therefore the outcome would vary? Unless there's a clause which would prevent them from going to trial.
True, they get given the facts and the laws, so if he can get them to sympathise then he would probably be considered innocent :P It depends if he is given a trial by jury, quite a few cases do not involve one - though UK stats are very different to US ones.

[jasey]

Actually you are quite wrong. The purpose of all punishments is deterrence, retribution, reformation and to protect the public. Those who receive the death penalty are usually repeat offenders who can not be reformed. The death penalty serves the other three reasons and also has various other benefits for the government so I see no argument against it.
ah, i missed your ridiculous conceptual thought. an opinion on the death penalty isn't and can never be wrong. my statement would be no less and no more great than yours had you not said that an opinion was wrong which kind of knocks your reputation down a notch. i do ask that you take a look in to the dozens of cases where 'criminals' have been locked up for years, decades even and released later when new evidence spills out showing they never did anything. in countries with the death penalty, they aren't released as they are already dead. in more civilised countries, they are released from jail but have still be wronged. you're very much in the minority in your thought especially for where you live. not many people share your opinion. the only place in europe that even practices capital punishment is the free, fair and lovely nation of belarus. when even russia hasn't dared use the death penalty in over a decade and has it under moratorium, i guess you're left to side with more radical nations in your opinion. let's talk about belarus' reputation and its leader for eighteen years (he abolished the thought that leadership should be term limited), lukashenko:


Belarus has never held a poll seen as fair by international monitors since Lukashenko began his presidency.


Belarus has come to be viewed as a state whose conduct is out of line with international law and whose government is considered to violate human rights.


Belarus has been called "the last true remaining dictatorship in the heart of Europe."


Lukashenko is the subject of sanctions imposed by the European Union for human rights violations.


Lukashenko is quoted as praising Hitler in a speech saying "German order evolved over the centuries and attained its peak under Hitler."


Lukashenko is quoted as being anti-Semitic in a national television address saying "There is a Jewish city, and the Jews are not concerned for the place they live in. They have turned Babruysk into a pigsty. Look at Israel — I was there and saw it myself ... I call on Jews who have money to come back to Babruysk."


Lukashenko is quoted as being homophobic in public address to a German foreign minister saying "It is better to be a dictator than a gay."

alright, i think that paints a clear picture of belarus, its politics and why it is the last place the death penalty is still practiced in europe. fair play, he is clearly not a fit leader — not of the same sound mind that his european contemporaries are. let's go through your arguments for the death penalty, now, mr. graphics designer!

deterrence: that's a nice thought but looking at the fact that china executes more human lives through the death penalty than every other country in the world combined yet has a rapidly rising crime rate i would say that the widespread use of the dealth penalty does little to deter anyone.

retribution: retribution. a moral term. i will get to morals at the end of my post. the death penalty is a vague term, though, and some places in the world give it out for things such as as poaching a protected animal, counterfeiting currency, statuatory rape and even simply struggling and detaining someone.

reformation: i think the site that has your same argument word for word (i daren't accuse you of copying) says it best in that you can't reform someone in to a good citizen if they are dead. it doesn't do much for deterrence, it is past the point of protecting the public and its morality is subjective. how is it a process of reformation? it reforms nothing but the reputation of the practicing nation.

to protect the public: this is your worst argument in the bunch. a criminal cannot be given the death penalty until they are in official custody. the death penalty is not a police shooting a madman on location and on the spot. the death penalty is a legal process and we are more than capable of protecting the public from violent criminals without killing them. it's a symbolic procedure used to feel powerful and moral. it's certainly not powerful. it's very easy to kill someone once you have them in custody. morality is different for everyone but based on the fact half of established governments in the world explicitly ban any usage of the death penalty (bans like this dating, err, back to the nineteenth centry) and a further quarter of all of the established governments in the world either have the penalty under a moratorium or non-usage pact for at least a decade or more, i'd say the moral feeling is pretty strong against the practice.

here's an example of your beloved death penalty in practice! take a look:



http://i.imgur.com/N7mrZ.jpg
oh gosh, did someone hurt her? i hope they got punished for it!

http://i.imgur.com/HgwA1.jpg
wait, why is she in a prison camp? what did she do? can someone answer?

shows a lifeless body, not gory and would be acceptable on daytime televison but still sad
http://i.imgur.com/k5l1r.jpg
oops, too late. she's shot to death now. i guess no one hurt her — she was the criminal! what did she do?

http://i.imgur.com/ew0dw.jpg
ah, i see she has committed the terrible crime of carrying street drugs able to fit in a wrapped towel in a small shopping bag for her boyfriend. yeah, i am so on board that they shot her as soon as possible. it's a mad world! get the perps!


i'll just note the "drugs" she was carrying were confirmed by the same people that killed her as not ever belonging to her. the specific drugs were never released to the public by name. she had nothing that wasn't wrapped in a towel in a tiny bag. it leaves you wondering. at least she had a decent meal of one bowl of rice before they fired a bullet in to her head and took images of it to "deter" everyone!

[The Don]

ah, i missed your ridiculous conceptual thought. an opinion on the death penalty isn't and can never be wrong. my statement would be no less and no more great than yours had you not said that an opinion was wrong which kind of knocks your reputation down a notch. i do ask that you take a look in to the dozens of cases where 'criminals' have been locked up for years, decades even and released later when new evidence spills out showing they never did anything. in countries with the death penalty, they aren't released as they are already dead. in more civilised countries, they are released from jail but have still be wronged. you're very much in the minority in your thought especially for where you live. not many people share your opinion. the only place in europe that even practices capital punishment is the free, fair and lovely nation of belarus. when even russia hasn't dared use the death penalty in over a decade and has it under moratorium, i guess you're left to side with more radical nations in your opinion. let's talk about belarus' reputation and its leader for eighteen years (he abolished the thought that leadership should be term limited), lukashenko:















alright, i think that paints a clear picture of belarus, its politics and why it is the last place the death penalty is still practiced in europe. fair play, he is clearly not a fit leader — not of the same sound mind that his european contemporaries are. let's go through your arguments for the death penalty, now, mr. graphics designer!

deterrence: that's a nice thought but looking at the fact that china executes more human lives through the death penalty than every other country in the world combined yet has a rapidly rising crime rate i would say that the widespread use of the dealth penalty does little to deter anyone.

retribution: retribution. a moral term. i will get to morals at the end of my post. the death penalty is a vague term, though, and some places in the world give it out for things such as as poaching a protected animal, counterfeiting currency, statuatory rape and even simply struggling and detaining someone.

reformation: i think the site that has your same argument word for word (i daren't accuse you of copying) says it best in that you can't reform someone in to a good citizen if they are dead. it doesn't do much for deterrence, it is past the point of protecting the public and its morality is subjective. how is it a process of reformation? it reforms nothing but the reputation of the practicing nation.

to protect the public: this is your worst argument in the bunch. a criminal cannot be given the death penalty until they are in official custody. the death penalty is not a police shooting a madman on location and on the spot. the death penalty is a legal process and we are more than capable of protecting the public from violent criminals without killing them. it's a symbolic procedure used to feel powerful and moral. it's certainly not powerful. it's very easy to kill someone once you have them in custody. morality is different for everyone but based on the fact half of established governments in the world explicitly ban any usage of the death penalty (bans like this dating, err, back to the nineteenth centry) and a further quarter of all of the established governments in the world either have the penalty under a moratorium or non-usage pact for at least a decade or more, i'd say the moral feeling is pretty strong against the practice.

here's an example of your beloved death penalty in practice! take a look:



http://i.imgur.com/N7mrZ.jpg
oh gosh, did someone hurt her? i hope they got punished for it!

http://i.imgur.com/HgwA1.jpg
wait, why is she in a prison camp? what did she do? can someone answer?

shows a lifeless body, not gory and would be acceptable on daytime televison but still sad
http://i.imgur.com/k5l1r.jpg
oops, too late. she's shot to death now. i guess no one hurt her — she was the criminal! what did she do?

http://i.imgur.com/ew0dw.jpg
ah, i see she has committed the terrible crime of carrying street drugs able to fit in a wrapped towel in a small shopping bag for her boyfriend. yeah, i am so on board that they shot her as soon as possible. it's a mad world! get the perps!


i'll just note the "drugs" she was carrying were confirmed by the same people that killed her as not ever belonging to her. the specific drugs were never released to the public by name. she had nothing that wasn't wrapped in a towel in a tiny bag. it leaves you wondering. at least she had a decent meal of one bowl of rice before they fired a bullet in to her head and took images of it to "deter" everyone!

There is absolutely no need for such a rude and patronising response (which also knocks your reputation down a notch) but I shall put it down to your mental state so I won’t hold it against you :-)

I would firstly like to address you mentioning or insinuating if you rather me apparently copying my argument (the 4 factors for criminal punishment) which is a widely taught aspect of criminal law, and is taught as part of the A level Law syllabus so I fail to see how that lessens my argument or in any way lowers my credibility.

Name me two or more recent cases of innocent people (In the UK or any other western country) being persecuted and locked up for an extended length of time… I think you will struggle because it is extremely rare for such instances to occur in developed countries.

I fail to see your reasoning for mentioning my opinion as being a minority. It doesn’t give your argument any more credibility and is also a fallacy.
I won’t discuss Belarus nor china as there are external factors not present here in the UK which make it unfair to use them as examples of the system at work.

To protect the public is a perfectly fine argument. If a criminal is killed, how on earth are they a danger to the public? They aren’t. Admittedly they aren’t a danger to the public if they are in custody, but sustaining their life costs a hefty amount.

The various examples you’ve chucked in at the end are tear-jerking but also irrelevant as I haven’t once mentioned using the death penalty for any of the offences which are highlighted…

I’m glad you replied and I will respond further, but I won’t if you continue with this passive aggressive attitude which is frankly alarming. I understand you have underlying health issues but it isn’t healthy for yourself nor anybody else to take out your problems on members of a habbo forum. I would consult a doctor as you clearly have some issues, medication can also help, I’m sure you’ll be able to find some which can suit your need from a quick Google search! :-)

[jasey]

There is absolutely no need for such a rude and patronising response (which also knocks your reputation down a notch) but I shall put it down to your mental state so I won’t hold it against you :-)

I would firstly like to address you mentioning or insinuating if you rather me apparently copying my argument (the 4 factors for criminal punishment) which is a widely taught aspect of criminal law, and is taught as part of the A level Law syllabus so I fail to see how that lessens my argument or in any way lowers my credibility.

Name me two or more recent cases of innocent people (In the UK or any other western country) being persecuted and locked up for an extended length of time… I think you will struggle because it is extremely rare for such instances to occur in developed countries.

I fail to see your reasoning for mentioning my opinion as being a minority. It doesn’t give your argument any more credibility and is also a fallacy.
I won’t discuss Belarus nor china as there are external factors not present here in the UK which make it unfair to use them as examples of the system at work.

To protect the public is a perfectly fine argument. If a criminal is killed, how on earth are they a danger to the public? They aren’t. Admittedly they aren’t a danger to the public if they are in custody, but sustaining their life costs a hefty amount.

The various examples you’ve chucked in at the end are tear-jerking but also irrelevant as I haven’t once mentioned using the death penalty for any of the offences which are highlighted…

I’m glad you replied and I will respond further, but I won’t if you continue with this passive aggressive attitude which is frankly alarming. I understand you have underlying health issues but it isn’t healthy for yourself nor anybody else to take out your problems on members of a habbo forum. I would consult a doctor as you clearly have some issues, medication can also help, I’m sure you’ll be able to find some which can suit your need from a quick Google search! :-)
Yeah, I'm not in the business of debating when people bring personal things in. Everybody knows — everybody knows — that I'm sick. I'm on plenty of medication. That has nothing to do with my 'passive aggressive attitude' and if you think that post was passive aggressive then I kind of wonder what kinds of real world you live in. Then again, I have been called passive aggressive to an unhealthy degree by other people in the past but it seems that every single person who finds me passive aggressive is someone who has a personal vendetta against me.

Anyways, yes. I was full ready to give you another thought-out and careful reply but I don't feel like debating you because you take clear points I make against you and if they are true in your mind and bother you then I guess you attribute it to the fact that I'm hysterical or mental. I can think. I think a lot and I have many well-formed opinions on many different issues. I said you were a very angry person in my opinions thread ages ago, do you remember? That's an opinion and it's even more well-formed now.

On the topic of the death penalty, I'll answer a few quick things before I eat something but, as I stated, I'm not putting any time in debating with someone who sticks in personal jabs. I don't know where you got the idea that this was about the UK. The original case in question happened in America, Texas to be clear, and my post original post that you found 'wrong' didn't mention any country in specific when I talked about what I thought about the death penalty. I think you are using the UK argument because it makes your retort seem less all over the place. How can you even talk about the principles of the death penalty in the United Kingdom when it hasn't been practiced for almost fifty years? It has never had a chance to enter the modern world. Anything you say about the death penalty in the United Kingdom is light theory at best.

You say you never mentioned the death penalty for any of the offences I posted in my last argument. You didn't. In fact, you didn't mention anything more than a vague attempt at justifying the use of legal execution with an argument you yourself say is taught to everyone. I applaud your usage of your something many students in the UK learn by rote at age seventeen, but the fact is that the death penalty in itself has no boundaries, no lines and no restrictions. It can be practiced by any government at their own jurisdiction. I am against all use of it and clearly you are not all for it either (unless you want to change your argument again) so I guess that kind of sums it up.

This post was a bit longer than I intended but I actually stopped to go eat something before the last few sentences so I had a break to justify why I was replying to this. I figured that it can kind of be like a lesson in thought for you. I encourage you to write a longer argument in reply, but again, I am not going to debate with you given your specific (and vagarious) jabs at my case with psychiatric affliction. You have a lovely morning.

[e5]

They're big on child rape, so I doubt anything will come of this after he killed him.

[kuzkasate]

Good, this is the sort of news I like to hear.

[wiktoria]

if that was my daughter i would've done the same thing. i have no sympathy for the rapist.

[the.games]

Personally I think that the father should be charged. There was no need to kill the man, and this is in my mind a typical story where someone has took revenge on someone else. If you murdered someone that graffiti'd on your front door, you would still be charged and this isn't very different. In a nutshell, he should be charged as he committed a crime.

[Munex]

Personally I think that the father should be charged. There was no need to kill the man, and this is in my mind a typical story where someone has took revenge on someone else. If you murdered someone that graffiti'd on your front door, you would still be charged and this isn't very different. In a nutshell, he should be charged as he committed a crime.

Are you comparing graffiti on your front door with child molestation? Ridiculous.

[scottish]

Personally I think that the father should be charged. There was no need to kill the man, and this is in my mind a typical story where someone has took revenge on someone else. If you murdered someone that graffiti'd on your front door, you would still be charged and this isn't very different. In a nutshell, he should be charged as he committed a crime.

erm

raping a young girl vs graffiti

totally the same.

are you stupid? (not being rude, I'm actually interested)

[the.games]

erm

raping a young girl vs graffiti

totally the same.

are you stupid? (not being rude, I'm actually interested)

What I mean by that is they are both a crime and that you woulden't accept murder for one, so why the other?

[Munex]

What I mean by that is they are both a crime and that you woulden't accept murder for one, so why the other?

For the same reason you wouldn't sentence a man to life-imprisonment for stealing a pick 'n' mix sweet - different crimes carry different consequences.

[the.games]

Yes, but as murder is illegal I don't think it is fair to use the legal system as his defence.

[Munex]

Yes, but as murder is illegal I don't think it is fair to use the legal system as his defence.

I understand what you're saying, but in this circumstance it is similar to self-defense. The little girl can't defend herself, so her father is doing it for her. And quite frankly, I don't give a damn if a violent paedophile is killed by accident.

[GommeInc]

Yes, but as murder is illegal I don't think it is fair to use the legal system as his defence.
There has to be certain criteria to convict someone of murder. The actual action and the guilty thoughts that go into it. He did not intend to murder the man, which hints that the action was accidental given his mind was seemingly innocent. For further reading I suggest you look up actus reus and mens rea - you may be interested, it's useful to know when reading into cases :)

EDIT: And all the evidence in between, of course.

[Richie]

Although the man molested his daughter I think it's wrong for the father to take justice into his own hands. If he physically had to remove him from his daughter by using force or an object and accidentally killed him in the process it should be taken into consideration but he should still be trialled and punished for taking another's life unless his daughters life was at risk (which the report doesn't state).


I was raised to believe two wrongs don't make a right.

[GommeInc]

Although the man molested his daughter I think it's wrong for the father to take justice into his own hands. If he physically had to remove him from his daughter by using force or an object and accidentally killed him in the process it should be taken into consideration but he should still be trialled and punished for taking another's life unless his daughters life was at risk (which the report doesn't state).

I was raised to believe two wrongs don't make a right.
Maybe he didn't realise it was a wrong until too late? Any rational, normal person would drag a child molester off a child to stop him. I wouldn't go "OMG, call 999 and watch in horror!" He did the right thing, but it ended wrong and he expresses guilt for doing it, because he did not intend for the man to die as a result of his actions. I'd be pee'd off if a child I knew, especially one that I raised being attacked, was being molested. It was understandable he was angry.

[Richie]

Maybe he didn't realise it was a wrong until too late? Any rational, normal person would drag a child molester off a child to stop him. I wouldn't go "OMG, call 999 and watch in horror!" He did the right thing, but it ended wrong and he expresses guilt for doing it, because he did not intend for the man to die as a result of his actions. I'd be pee'd off if a child I knew, especially one that I raised being attacked, was being molested. It was understandable he was angry.

Yes I agree but it doesn't mean it was right. Either way, sorry or not, he committed a crime.

I sound like I'm defending the child molester :P, I'm not. If a rape victim killed their attacker later on in life they'd be prosecuted but if they lied and say it was necessary to kill the rapist to get free well then I don't see courts sending the girl to prison. The father of the victim seems like a nice man, admitting he was wrong even though he could of lied about it. Even though he admitted it, he admitted to a crime.

[scottish]

Yes I agree but it doesn't mean it was right. Either way, sorry or not, he committed a crime.

I sound like I'm defending the child molester :P, I'm not. If a rape victim killed their attacker later on in life they'd be prosecuted but if they lied and say it was necessary to kill the rapist to get free well then I don't see courts sending the girl to prison. The father of the victim seems like a nice man, admitting he was wrong even though he could of lied about it. Even though he admitted it, he admitted to a crime.

A rape victim killing someone in 20 years because of a crime that was committed against her would be arrested.

A father accidentally killing someone to protect his 4 year old from an active crime shouldn't be arrested

[GommeInc]

Yes I agree but it doesn't mean it was right. Either way, sorry or not, he committed a crime.

I sound like I'm defending the child molester :P, I'm not. If a rape victim killed their attacker later on in life they'd be prosecuted but if they lied and say it was necessary to kill the rapist to get free well then I don't see courts sending the girl to prison. The father of the victim seems like a nice man, admitting he was wrong even though he could of lied about it. Even though he admitted it, he admitted to a crime.
Crimes need a guilty mind to go with the guilty act too. If you hit a child while driving, you wouldn't find it fair because you didn't mean to hit them or indeed kill them. Strangely, this particular case isn't as clean cut as he clearly wanted hm off his daughter. I see your point though, he did commit a crime but it's that tiny bit where he felt remorse afterwards that changes everything.

[iFlame]

That's really sick and deserves everything coming to him.

[DPS]

Legal system does something right for a change.

[Zak]

I'm not a violent person but I can be if needed. I have always said if someone raped my daughter (if I had one) I would kill or seriously injure them. I'd happily go to prison for life over it too.

Edit: this is the one exception I'd seriously injure, Obv if someone attacked me if hurt them otherwise im well nice x

Sorry for bad English on my phone