Pedophile Meets Angry Daddy

[siead_lietrathua]

As I recall there was a similar case a while back where the father just shot the guy outright, and was not charged.

hubs told me about that one. the guy was charged, but he basically gets the easy street version of prison time because the guards know why he's in. sadly i can't seem to find it online.

but another da in texas beat his (5yo) daughter's rapist near death and got off with nothing. no weapon involved though.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-molester?lite

[patiokitty]

As a parent I can tell you that even now I would stop at nothing if somebody were to hurt my son, and he's 22 now. Mama Bear instinct kicks in and that's it - if somebody is hurting my child I'll damn well make sure that this somebody will never hurt my child again. I would beat the ever loving shit out of anybody who tried to rape or molest my son and I wouldn't think twice about it. Most parents are hard-wired to protect their children at any rate, and what better way to ensure their safety than to permanently take their attacker/abuser out?

Granted that not all parents think like I do, but if somebody had done that to my old man when the first girl came forward with what he had done to her then he never would have lived long enough to repeat it with me. So yeah, I support the parents who either beat the shit out of or flat-out eliminated the scum who hurt their children.

[s_stabeler]

My hypothetical is are we ok with the dad IF the courts were actually forced to reduce sentence over it. This could also be applied to the concept of sentences in any crime being reduced over cruel and unusual police behavior by the way.

and IF it was the police, I would agree with you. The issue I take is with the sentence being reduced as a result of someone who was at least theoretically attempting to help prevent the kid avoid getting raped. ( put it a different way. IF the sentance was reduced, then it would mean the courts would actually be encouraging people not to help someone being attacked, since it could affect the perpetrator's punishment)

[Canarr]

As a parent I can tell you that even now I would stop at nothing if somebody were to hurt my son, and he's 22 now. Mama Bear instinct kicks in and that's it - if somebody is hurting my child I'll damn well make sure that this somebody will never hurt my child again. I would beat the ever loving shit out of anybody who tried to rape or molest my son and I wouldn't think twice about it. Most parents are hard-wired to protect their children at any rate, and what better way to ensure their safety than to permanently take their attacker/abuser out?

Is that not a somewhat cheap excuse, though? "I have maternal instincts, so I get to dispense vigilante justice to anyone harming my (adult) offspring!" ? After all, we humans are more than just our instincts; we are capable of rational thought, and we form societies with laws designed to protect their members, and with institutions (law enforcement, courts) designed to uphold and apply those laws. And that means we don't get to go out and decide arbitrarily which offenders we want to kill because they harmed us and ours, and which offenders we don't really care about, because they harmed only other people's children.

You may support parents who decide to go out and "eliminate" people who harmed their children; that's your prerogative, of course. In turn, I support charging these people with premeditated. murder.

NOTE: this does, of course, not apply to people using violence to stop an ongoing attack against them or anyone else - you know, self-defense. But it most certainly applies to any parent deciding to protect their children by "permanently taking their attacker/abuser out".

[TheHuckster]

You may support parents who decide to go out and "eliminate" people who harmed their children; that's your prerogative, of course. In turn, I support charging these people with premeditated. murder.

Premeditated murder? Really? If there's anything to charge, this is a textbook case of voluntary manslaughter. Premeditated murder is something you plan in advance before you even enter the room. And chances are defendants are going to convince a sympathetic jury to acquit them of that after they describe in detail what they witnessed to provoke such a reaction.

[Canarr]

Premeditated murder? Really? If there's anything to charge, this is a textbook case of voluntary manslaughter. Premeditated murder is something you plan in advance before you even enter the room. And chances are defendants are going to convince a sympathetic jury to acquit them of that after they describe in detail what they witnessed to provoke such a reaction.

Did you actually finish reading my post? Because you seem to have missed this part:

NOTE: this does, of course, not apply to people using violence to stop an ongoing attack against them or anyone else - you know, self-defense. But it most certainly applies to any parent deciding to protect their children by "permanently taking their attacker/abuser out".

Such as, apparently, done in the case cited in the OP of this thread. A father comes across someone harming their child, knocks them unconscious, calls the cops - fine. No argument there.

My post was in reply to patiokitty's suggestion of "protecting children by permanently taking their attacker/abuser out". That goes a bit beyond what I'd deem acceptable.

[TheHuckster]

Such as, apparently, done in the case cited in the OP of this thread. A father comes across someone harming their child, knocks them unconscious, calls the cops - fine. No argument there.

My post was in reply to patiokitty's suggestion of "protecting children by permanently taking their attacker/abuser out". That goes a bit beyond what I'd deem acceptable.

My apologies. I thought you were saying beating him unconscious was not self-defense, since I read some arguments on comment pages for the articles that claimed such, plus I believe a lot of his motivation was rage-induced more than just motivated by defense. But, I do have to ask, if he did not survive this beating, either because he had a preexisting condition which weakened his ability to do so, or because the father had thrown one punch too many in his rage, would you charge him with murder?

[s_stabeler]

honestky, I don't know. If t was due to a pre-existing condition, then probably not (there's no way of telling) but if the guy just punches the pedophile until the pedophile is dead, then it'de say manslaughter would be more appropiate.

If someone goes out killing people accused of pedophilia, then the appropriate charge is murder.

[Canarr]

No worries, it happens; I might not have phrased my post as well as I thought.

But, I do have to ask, if he did not survive this beating, either because he had a preexisting condition which weakened his ability to do so, or because the father had thrown one punch too many in his rage, would you charge him with murder?

Murder, no. But under German law, there is the concept of "excessive self-defense" - which basically means, going beyond the boundaries of legal self-defense, either in intensity (using more force than necessary) or in extension (continuing the defensive actions beyond the occurrence of the attack).

In either case, the defender may be charged with a crime afterwards, depending on the exact circumstances. Fear and confusion are accepted as an excuse for that, but rage or vengeance are not. So, if he punched the guy five times and he died of a pre-existing heart condition, no one could fault him for that. If he spent an hour battering him and he died of a broken skull... then, yeah. That would warrant punishment in my book.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

If someone goes out killing people accused of pedophilia, then the appropriate charge is murder.

Not quite applicable in this instance because there's no accusation here. The guy watched the perpetrator committing the crime.

Personally I would hesitate going after someone who was an "accused pedophile" but if I walked in on someone doing that to my kid? I'd be across the room faster than lightning doing just what this father did.

Would I regret it at all after the fact? Maybe, but I don't doubt for a second what my initial reaction would be.

[s_stabeler]

Not quite applicable in this instance because there's no accusation here. The guy watched the perpetrator committing the crime.

Personally I would hesitate going after someone who was an "accused pedophile" but if I walked in on someone doing that to my kid? I'd be across the room faster than lightning doing just what this father did.

Would I regret it at all after the fact? Maybe, but I don't doubt for a second what my initial reaction would be.

please reread my post. It was in reply to Huckster's questioning if, assuming the paedophile died as a result of being beaten up by the father, if it would then be murder. I said that it probably would be manslauighter at worst. I then clarified that if you go out specifically looking to kill a pedophile ( i.e. not the situation in the OP) then it WOULD be murder.

[HYHYBT]

For some reason, this conversation is reminding me of the Bush/Dukakis election.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

please reread my post. It was in reply to Huckster's questioning if, assuming the paedophile died as a result of being beaten up by the father, if it would then be murder. I said that it probably would be manslauighter at worst. I then clarified that if you go out specifically looking to kill a pedophile ( i.e. not the situation in the OP) then it WOULD be murder.

My fault. I apologize for not reading more carefully.

[s_stabeler]

no problem- I would have said the same thing if someone was seriously suggesting the father be charged for murder.

[Skelly]

hubs told me about that one. the guy was charged, but he basically gets the easy street version of prison time because the guards know why he's in. sadly i can't seem to find it online.

but another da in texas beat his (5yo) daughter's rapist near death and got off with nothing. no weapon involved though.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012...-molester?lite

This one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Plauche