Social Question

ETpro's avatar

Do you think this is murder, manslaughter or justifiable homicide? [See details].

Asked by ETpro (34217 points ) June 16th, 2012

A Texas father beat a man to death. He told police that he discovered the man raping his four year old daughter. The details of the case are spelled out in this article in The Christian Post.

The local Sheriff’s office had originally said no charges would be filed, but the case is now on its way to a grand jury to decide what charges, if any, should be leveled against the father. Society has a legitimate interest in preventing vigilante justice. But in this case, many a father identifies with the dad and feels that what he did was justifiable homicide, not murder or manslaughter. What do you think? Should the father face charges? If so, what charge? Or do you agree with the parents who say they would have likely done the same thing if they were in the young father’s shoes?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

104 Answers

SavoirFaire's avatar

I do not think that the man should face charges, especially if it is true that he is remorseful and did not mean to kill the perpetrator. He was defending his daughter from immediate harm, which is perfectly legal.

Trillian's avatar

I’m glad that I don’t have to decide this/ As a parent, I think I would be reluctant to bring charges against a man who probably wigged out completely, if what you say is true. Lord knows, I might do the same thing if it were one of my kids.
I skimmed the article. I think that the man is safe from reprisals, considering that this happened in Texas.

CWOTUS's avatar

So far, it’s just a story. How does anyone know right now that it didn’t happen exactly opposite the way the man claimed? That is, he could have been the one discovered by the victim, and he beat the other to death to keep him quiet. I try to avoid the rush to judgement based on the initial story.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@CWOTUS Yes, but we’re being asked a hypothetical. “What do you think based on this information?” We’re allowed to change our minds as more information comes to light. Only fools marry themselves to their first impressions, after all.

Akua's avatar

Based on just what information you gave us and believing it to be hypothetically true, I would say the father should not be held accountable for his actions. What he did was perfectly justified and within his right as a father.

6rant6's avatar

He should stand charges. He beat a man to death which indicates he went beyond stopping the rape; in other words, it’s not self defense. If he is remorseful, it makes sense that he would be treated with leniency by the court. But he still committed a crime.

Jaxk's avatar

The charges should be dismissed and a statue erected in the public square to honor him.

zenvelo's avatar

If the facts as laid out are true, and I was prosecutor, judge, and jury, I’d find him guilty of involuntary manslaughter and place him on lenient probation for a year or two.

bolwerk's avatar

If he’s telling the truth, justifiable homicide indeed, and there is no vigilantism. He was defending his daughter who was in more-than-imminent danger. The only question is whether he’s telling the truth. The whole point of a grand jury is to figure out whether or not there is a case. Either way, he deserves the presumption of innocence, just like people who have done much worse things.

josie's avatar

How do you know he didn’t kill the guy, and then make up the rape story?

bolwerk's avatar

@josie: as I recall, the guy was in the process of raping when he was caught. This probably means physical evidence was left behind, at least tissue damage to the four-year-old’s vulva/vagina. Quite a stretch to imagine a father faking means, motive, and opportunity for that.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Justifiable.
@josie I second what @bolwerk. They immediately took the baby to the hospital.

josie's avatar

What did they say at the hospital? I didn’t see anything in the article about damgage to anything except the dead guy.
My point is, these and similar stories get reported in the news and the next thing you know everybody has made up their mind about who is guilty or innocent based only on what they heard from sources that occasionally are agenda driven and not credible.
Just sayin…

bolwerk's avatar

@josie: I qualified my comment with “If he’s telling the truth.” But still, this one seems hard to fake. First it has to be faked, then investigators have to miss that it was faked. Then, who am I to assume the police down in Texas are competent? :-O

But I’m not sure I blame the press for having the courtesy to avoid talking about the damaged vagina of a 4-year-old who had just been raped. It would be news if there weren’t any damage because it would cast doubt on the father’s account of the events, but to report that there was damage might be gratuitous. Now if they’d just have the same courtesy about not showing us pictures of Kim and Snooki.

SuperMouse's avatar

First, when I read the story (assuming it played out as described*) I thought the father probably went into a blind rage and just started beating the guy. My thought is that he didn’t have the presence of mind to kill the guy as a means of stopping the crime or meting out justice. I think a young father saw his four year-old daughter being raped and lost control. Not too much of a stretch. The fact that the father is only 23 years-old does come in to play because in reality that is still very young and research has shown that brain isn’t even fully developed until 25 or so. While most fathers would lose their minds witnessing something like this, one with more maturity might have more self-control.

Second, I really hope that baby did not watch her father take another man’s life. That would be just one more trauma she has to live with and the guilt might be unbearable.

*I am going with @SavoirFaire here and answering the question as a hypothetical while reserving the right to amend my opinion if new information is brought to light. All we can do at this point and for the sake of this discussion is comment based on the information we have.

Symbeline's avatar

It doesn’t say much about the beating itself. How long did it last? How many times did he hit the man? If he kicked him twice in the head or something, then I think he would be justified. He was saving his daughter, and he didn’t mean to kill the guy.
But he should probably face charges if, after getting the man off the daughter, he kept on pounding him for like five minutes. But either way, he was saving his daughter and the death was an accident, seems justifiable to me at this point, with the little detail I have to work with. It’s weird how the news article concentrates a lot more on all the controversy and people’s reactions to the event, rather than the event itself…

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

Based on the information given, and considering the fact that I went into a blind rage when our school fucked up in regards to an injury sustained by my little one, I would have done the same exact thing, had it been me who caught the pervert in the bushes with one of my kids. Except… if someone told me my kid was in the bushes with some guy, I probably would have just shot the pervert instead of hitting him.

When you are that pissed off and terrified for your child’s safety, it is almost impossible to stop fighting without a third party pulling you off the perp.

tinyfaery's avatar

Involuntary Manslaughter. He killed a man. 5 years probation and counseling.

augustlan's avatar

I’d likely react exactly as this father did, and might end up killing the guy. And if I did, I should face charges, just as he should. Probably involuntary manslaughter, with a very light sentence.

flutherother's avatar

My sympathies are with the father. However I think he should be charged so we can get to the bottom of what happened as at least one serious crime was committed. The child abuser was an acquaintance of the father so the father must bear some responsibility for creating a situation where abuse could occur.

jerv's avatar

If the alleged molester was caught with his pants down, then there is a definite “defense of others” argument that would not be there if the father did something like stalk the man and kill him elsewhere. Under those circumstances, the worst punishment that could possibly stick is Murder 2 with mitigating circumstances, and even that would be a hard sell.

The thing is, from a legal standpoint, did he do what he had to do to end the imminent threat, or did he go further than that? Regardless of how you feel about child molesters, we are all bound by the law; if it were otherwise, we would be no better than them. The article is quite correct when it says, “Did that last a moment and then the fellow was dead? Or, did he beat him for 30 minutes? There’s a huge difference there.” And that isn’t for us armchair jurists to decide; we don’t have enough facts.

I believe that he should face charges if for no reason other than to investigate what really happened. In the meantime, the father should be out on personal recognizance until the matter is settled; evidence strongly suggests that his account is accurate and truthful. If it turns out that the father used reasonable force to end the danger that just happened to result in a death, then there is no crime on his part and he never served any jail time awaiting trial. However, any time there is a human death, there must be a through investigation.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Well, if the father is found guilty of a crime, then Zimmerman should hang.

ucme's avatar

Any Dad worthy of the title would have ripped this sick fuck’s head off & gleefully pissed down the hole in his neck, I know I would have.
It’s not a question of intent, seeing that happen to your child immediately renders conscious thought invalid, replaced by sheer naked instinct, which in this case leads to savage aggression….justifiable in my book.

flo's avatar

Is this a crime of passion or not?

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

@flutherother “The child abuser was an acquaintance of the father so the father must bear some responsibility for creating a situation where abuse could occur.”

What? He’s partially at fault for his daughter’s rape, just because he invited the guy? So… if I take my kids to a huge family reunion, and a person there rapes my daughter, I should bear responsibility for that? That’s utter bullshit. Abuse can occur anywhere, so if we didn’t want to “create a situation where abuse could occur” we’d all have to stay home.

flo's avatar

It definitely is justifiable homicide.

Toddlers and Tiarra and the like came to mind when I read @flutherother‘s statement ”...so the father must bear some responsibility for creating a situation where abuse could occur” These shows are not doing anything to help deter them.

15acrabm's avatar

Again, it all depends on the true story. According to the current known information, I do believe that the man was simply protecting his daughter. For all we know, the rapist actually tried to fight the father as well which lead to the father needing to kill him in order to end the fight and get his daughter and himself out of danger. There are plenty of things that can be done to test to see if the father is being truthful as well, such as DNA testing and many other things. Since they have the dead mans DNA, it should be relativily simple to see if he was raping the child.

flo's avatar

Of course, my answer and most people’s answer seems assuming the story is factual.

linguaphile's avatar

If I was the judge, I’d put him on probation to be able to require therapy to deal with the fallout.

Personally, if all information’s true, I think it was justified.

Espiritus_Corvus's avatar

All we have at this time is the father’s side of the story. There certainly should be a grand jury investigation to determine what exactly happened. But let’s say the story pans out just as the father stated. In that case, the father used force to stop the crime and in the process the rapist died. I see no crime here. The father was protecting his own and the rapist just happened to not survive while being stopped in the act. It is also a good lesson to others who contemplate child rape, especially within the reach of a family member. Another asshole is dead and the citizens of Texas are saved a huge expense, in my opinion. But, again, this is only if the story as told thus far is true. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

Bill1939's avatar

I can imagine the rage that witnessing the rape of his four-year-old daughter would cause. I think that (assuming the story to be factual) this could be a case of temporary insanity.

Mariah's avatar

Ethically speaking I don’t think he deserves punishment whatsoever. Sounds like he was just doing what he needed to do but took it too far. Who the hell wouldn’t in that situation?

Legally, though, we can’t apply the laws unevenly based on our own opinions of what’s justified or not… he will probably get some kind of sentence, but I hope it’s light.

I’m not terribly knowledgable on legal stuff. If the man had been attacking the father, and the father had fought back, he would have been able to plead self defense, right? Is there an equivalent plea when it’s someone else you’re defending – particularly a child? But does his use of excessive force nullify that? Personally, I kind of think it’s crap that someone in that situation is supposed to somehow determine on the spot how much force to use so that it fits into the narrow range from “not enough to guarantee my daughter’s safety” and “enough to kill.”

SavoirFaire's avatar

@Mariah Yes, self-defense laws extend to one’s immediate family. Moreover, ordinary citizens are held to lower standards than police officers when it comes to determining what counts as excessive force. So while we don’t know for sure yet, it is quite possible that literally no crime has occurred here.

Mariah's avatar

@SavoirFaire Thanks for the info. I wonder why only immediate family? So if I see someone beating up someone I don’t know and I try to break it up, hurting the perp in the process, I have committed a crime? Seems like we need some good samaritan laws for this situation.

bewailknot's avatar

If I saw someone raping my daughter I might well do the same. Scary thought.

ETpro's avatar

Wow, I’m getting to this too late to answer all of you. I agree that referring it to a grand jury to see if a crime was committed makes good sense. But in the father’s favor, he did call 911 and report the incident. He first realized his daughter’s plight when he heard her screams and one of the other children told him the elder man had dragged her into the bushes. Police interviewed the father, his daughter who had experienced the attack, and the child that saw the little girl dragged into the bushes. Based on all the evidence they saw, the police decided to file no charges. It was two days later that the state decided to refer it to a grand jury just to be sure no crime had been committed by the father.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@Mariah Not all jurisdictions are so restrictive, but it is my understanding that the vast majority are. It most likely goes back to old notions that any crime against a man’s family or property was a crime against him.

Coloma's avatar

My daughter just told me this story on the phone tonight. I don’t watch,read, or listen to the news, but somehow others always inform me of the sensational stuff. lol
Completely justified!
If it’s all true I’m surprised he didn’t set the guy on fire too. Up in smoke I say.
I am not an advocate of violence but in a situation like this I’d have done the same thing, baby rapers deserve any and everything they get.

I’m still not over the psycho cannibal guy that ate the homeless mans face off the other week in Florida. The briefest details were more than I needed to know.
WTF is WRONG with some people!!!!
I mean, can’t you just commit a freaking “normal” crime like stealing a car or something? lol

I truly cannot handle the news, so unhealthy and depressing. My daughter likes the shock value of relating all the most insane stuff….thanks my little cupcake. :-/
Now, if you’ll excuse me I am going back out on my deck to watch the happy little tree frogs catching bugs under my porch light.

flutherother's avatar

@WillWorkForChocolate “What? He’s partially at fault for his daughter’s rape, just because he invited the guy?

Yes, I think so. A father is responsible for the safety of his daughter. I don’t know the full circumstances of this case which is why I think a trial might be a good idea. But this wasn’t a random attack, the girl was introduced to the rapist by her father and if it had been me I would feel guilty about that.

PhiNotPi's avatar

If a father finds himself in a situation like that, he has every right to stop the rape with physical violence. The main question is whether the man died in the course of stopping the rape, or the father stopped the rape and then continued to kill the man after the man was no longer a threat.

In the first case, it is justified. It would count as self defense since the daughter was incapable of defense and he was the most qualified man to protect her.

In the second case, the father went beyond what he should of done, most certainly out of anger. I don’t think anger is ever a justified cause for beating someone to death, so he should be charged with manslaughter. Self defense should always be immediate and minimal in terms as what is done, and should not go above stopping the crime.

I would also like to bring up another case of when self defense turned to murder. A pharmacy in Oklahoma was robbed by two armed robbers. The pharmacist had a gun, so he shot one of the robbers, incapacitating him. He then chased the other robber away. He then came back, got another gun, and shot the first robber five more times. The pharmacist was tried and convicted of first degree (premeditated) murder and will spend the rest of his life in prison.

So, there is room for a murder charge if the father stopped the rape first, but continued to beat the man to death after he was already incapacitated.

In this case, there is going to be a lot of sympathy from people who envision themselves doing the same thing as the father. There is not a lot of sympathy in a drug store robbery, but there is a lot in this case. Even if the father did technically commit manslaughter, people with children (including the jury) are unlikely to convict.

PhiNotPi's avatar

@flutherother The majority of cases of child sexual abuse are committed by people who are family members or acquaintances of the victim. One study found that up to 82% of victims knew the abuser before the abuse started. This shows how even other close friends and family members (including fathers) may not know that abuse was occurring. Even though the laws of cause and effect dictate that the rape would not have occurred if the father had not introduced the man, he had no way of knowing about the potential for abuse.

flutherother's avatar

@PhiNotPi The figures you quote show that there was the potential for abuse and the father should have been aware of this. Who you trust and to what extent is a judgement call but in this case it seems the father got it terribly wrong.

PhiNotPi's avatar

@flutherother The same figures (possibly paradoxically) also mean that it is very possible that family members could know the both abuser and victim for years and not know that the abuse was happening. Like you said, there was potential for abuse, but there is always a potential for abuse. There is even the potential for a person’s spouse to commit rape. If the father really trusted the guy, then there would be no reason to suspect him of committing rape more than anybody else, such his brother. He has to trust somebody.

Since I admit that there is no right answer, I want to “break off” this argument before anybody gets angry about it. Don’t take it offensively though.

Mariah's avatar

@flutherother Seems like a whole lot of violent criminals hide it really well. Friends and family are always interviewed saying he’s the last person they’d expect to rape/murder/etc. These things just can’t be predicted, and to try to do so would create a terribly paranoid environment for a young child, that I believe would be harmful.

CWOTUS's avatar

Some of the most recent posts remind me of the old statistic / factoid that we all learned in Driver’s Ed: “More than 80% of all car accidents happen within 25 miles of home.”

Of course, the obvious repartee (which took years for someone to formulate) is: “Well then, we should all move, shouldn’t we?”

According to the statistics quoted above, and following the same logic, we should not have friends and family, and we’d all be okay in terms of crime and abuse.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@CWOTUS Indeed. There’s even a whole episode of South Park about the flaw in that kind of reasoning.

Coloma's avatar

@CWOTUS I can vouch for that!
Infact all of my accidents, minus one rear ender and someone hitting me have happened within 25 feet of my own house. lolol
I have run into my garage wall, backed into the fence, a tree, clipped the gate, dinged the edge of my garage and backed over my pet goose once upon a tragic time. :-p

Dutchess_III's avatar

@flutherother I couldn’t disagree with you more. If the father had any inkling that the guy was a pedophile, he wouldn’t have been over there. Shit can happen. It can tear you up thinking “If only I….” I’ve been there. And I’m sure the father is too. He’s probably torn more by the fact that he wasn’t there to stop it before it started, than the fact that he killed the scumbag.

dabbler's avatar

I have to agree with @Dutchess_III that it isn’t the father’s fault.
Maybe technically (legally?) he’s ‘responsible for his daughter’s safety’ but even reasonable and loving oversight wouldn’t save the daughter from lot’s of other dangers either, like earthquakes and car crashes. I don’t see any neglect in this case.

flutherother's avatar

@Mariah I think that is true. You can’t be completely certain about anyone and yet you have to trust. Usually things work out fine and they did for me and my children but I accept it might have been otherwise. I count my blessings on this Father’s Day.

@Dutchess_III @dabbler Shit can happen, agreed.

@PhiNotPi No offense taken.

Coloma's avatar

I had neighbors once that seemed to be the happiest little family. They had 2 teenagers, a boy and a girl, seemed very nice, down to earth, bohemiam/hippie types like a lot of us country mice in Northern California.
The wife had the most splendid gardens and we would talk gardening on occasion. One day I was driving home down my rural road and their house was cordoned off with yellow police tape and swarming with cops.

Turns out the 17 yr. old son beat his mother to death with a shovel when she refused him the car! 0-o Talk about ya never know!

flo's avatar

First of all it could be the father left her with her big sister or something and this…person, somehow manged to trick her into leaving her with him.

Second I agree wholeheartedly with @Mariah and another poster who made the same point:
I kind of think it’s crap that someone in that situation is supposed to somehow determine on the spot how much force to use so that it fits into the narrow range from “not enough to guarantee my daughter’s safety” and “enough to kill.”

It is expected that he would feel guilty for not protecting her, – who wouldn’t – but that in no way should mean that the law should find him responsible. That would just be cruel beyond belief!!

Dutchess_III's avatar

From what I read, she was with her older brother in a chicken coop or barn or something, and the guy talked the little into going into the house with him. The brother came and told the dad, who went to find out what was up…...

Coloma's avatar

Oooh….that guy would have met the she devil of his worst nightmares had this mama found him. I have a barn too, yep, and let me tell you, after I kept that guy in the barn for a week, begging for mercy I’d tie him to a tree in the woods and wait for the cougars and coyotes to eat him alive. Without a trace. lol

Wow..this is really putting me in touch with my dark side. :-p

Dutchess_III's avatar

Yeah. Like “The Burning Bed” with Farrah Fawcett @Coloma.

Coloma's avatar

@Dutchess_III Burn baby burn! lol
I just can’t fathom what that poor little girl went throuh….harming innocents is the worst!
Like that poor homeless man that was attacked by the psycho druggy guy. Can you imagine? The fragile and most vulnerable humans on the planet and then they have to suffer atrocious assaults. Oh man…beyond sad.

Dutchess_III's avatar

You know, though…that baby had Superman come to her rescue. So many babies….don’t. I will keep them all in my prayers forever.

Coloma's avatar

@Dutchess_III I’m going to start crying, gotta go defrag with my happy goose who just went in the cold hot tub and is now dogging me to put him back in the big, big tubby. haha
Rape my goose and I’ll make pate out of your liver. lol

Dutchess_III's avatar

Who the hell would rape a goose @Coloma??!! They’d get their pecker pecked OFF!!

It makes me want to cry too. Not the goose part. The baby part. It makes me want to…. break things. Violently.

I guess I have to say it wasn’t ”Justifiable homocide but it was justifiable beating the living shit out of someone at the moment and he happend to die. Too bad..

Coloma's avatar

@Dutchess_III I Agree. Last night I was thinking of that poor homeless man asleep under an overpass and the horror of waking up to being punched in the face and violently attacked.
The only GOOD thing is that the poor man is probably experiencing more attention and comfort that he has known in years being hospitalized, and, now that he is blind, some sort of aide and care must be forthcoming to ease the remainder of his life.
How can they turn loose a blind homeless man again?

Dutchess_III's avatar

This is, honestly, too much to think about.

ragingloli's avatar

Manslaughter.

Jaxk's avatar

It is interesting to me how many people think this guy should be prosecuted or at least go to a Grand Jury. Both of which have a severe financial burden to defend. One of the main reasons for punishment is to deter others from doing the same thing. If you daughter is being raped, do you want a bystander to weigh the consequences of his helping before he acts or do you want them to step in and stop it. This is one of the reasons we get so little help when things go horribly wrong. No one wants to take the chance that if they get involved, they will be held criminally or financially responsible. If you want a Good Samaritan, don’t prosecute the guy for helping.

ragingloli's avatar

@Jaxk
They are not being prosecuted for “helping”, they are being prosecuted for homicide, and whether this homicide was justified or not is to be determined at a trial, and nowhere else. Period.

Jaxk's avatar

@ragingloli

That’s not quite accurate. The prosecutor should/will only bring charges if there is sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed and who committed the crime. They should use reasonable judgement so that a prosecution is not started where a conviction is unlikely. The whole notion that we should throw it to a jury and let them decide is out of whack with the system we have. And one of the reasons we keep prosecuting innocent people.

Coloma's avatar

Well…IMO, something as grave and insane as this situation is, most likely, going to end up being a ” shoot first, ask questions later” sort of reaction. Probably the mother of “crimes of passion.” Anyone faced with a situation like this most likely would simply react without much thought in the moment.

ragingloli's avatar

@Jaxk
sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed and who committed the crime.
He killed someone, and has already confessed.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@ragingloli Killing is not illegal. To be illegal, it must qualify as murder or manslaughter. That a man was killed is prima facie evidence that a crime was committed, but it is not sufficient evidence for prosecution. As the confession was to a killing rather than to an act of murder or manslaughter, then, the grand jury may very well refuse to indict in this case.

ragingloli's avatar

@SavoirFaire
” To be illegal, it must qualify as murder or manslaughter. ”
Which is to be determined by the court. What kind of world would it be, if we just had to take the perpetrator’s word for it. Seriously, I’m staggered by the willingness of some people to let an apparent criminal, a killer no less, off the hook just because they feel sympathy with him.

Jaxk's avatar

And I’m staggered by the apparent willingness of some to consider this guy a criminal.

ragingloli's avatar

@Jaxk
The rational faculty of some people becomes apparently disabled or at least clouded by the irrelevant but emotionally polarising fact that the thing he tried to protect was his daughter. I doubt we would be talking about whether or not he should be investigated if he tried to protect his dog from being sodomised.

Jaxk's avatar

@ragingloli

Your confusing ‘Investigated’ with ‘Prosecuted’. No one is saying this shouldn’t be investigated. But taking it to trial requires much more. I’m not sure your dog being sodomized is the same as your 4 yr old daughter. And I’m not sure that if you beat the dog to death you would be charged regardless. It would depend on the reaction of the dog.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@ragingloli Guilt is determined by the court, but there are determinations made prior to that. One such determination is whether or not there is enough evidence to indict in the first place (thus why I mentioned the grand jury). Regardless, you mentioned the fact of the killing in response to a comment about the lack of sufficient evidence that a crime was committed. Killing is prima facie evidence, but not sufficient evidence.

Second, killing in defense of one’s family is not always a crime in the US. Thus your claim that this man is an apparent criminal is as yet unfounded. He might be a criminal, he might not be. There will be an investigation to see if there is enough evidence to think he should be prosecuted. If his story is true, however, then he may be legally guiltless whatever you may think about the morality of his action.

flo's avatar

@ragingloliI doubt we would be talking about whether or not he should be investigated if he tried to protect his dog from being sodomised.” First of all I think we would, (some people think we put too much value on animals and some think we don’t) but if we wouldn’t, then it means we should be, doesn’t it? I mean it shouldn’t be that we should use that we wouldn’t as a barometer.

I hope they don’t find out that he went of his way to make sure he is dead. That is all I’m saying.

If he is a “Toddlers and Tiarra”: parent then yes, I think he is partly responsible, as well as the network that airs this this this

Dutchess_III's avatar

I think they’re farmers. Pretty sure they’re far from “Toddlers and Tiaras”

flo's avatar

@Dutchess_III Okay, not him but the ones who are, are partly responsible. All these pedophiles who are loving that show, are saying “thank you, all you fools!”

Dutchess_III's avatar

I appreciate what you’re saying @flo, and I don’t agree with the Toddlers and Tiara thing. I think it’s a horrible message to send your children.

However, I don’t think something like that would cause someone to do something they aren’t predisposed to do otherwise.

Also, we don’t want to give the sick-o’s any excuses. There is no reason to absolve them of even the tiniest modicum of responsibility.

flo's avatar

@Dutchess_IIIHowever, I don’t think something like that would cause someone to do something they aren’t predisposed to do otherwise.”

You really think I mean it causes them to start being pedophiles? I mean the ones who already are would be encouraged by it even further.

I think it’s a horrible message to send your children.”

I find a mother who is constantly obsessed about her appearance for example, goes crazy if she gains 1 pound even when she is slim, who spends tons of money of expensive stuff, these kinds of things are examples of horrible messages for me. Toddlers and Tiarra is winking at the pedophiles. So, it is not even on the same planet as just a horrible messsage.

Also, we don’t want to give the sick-o’s any excuses. There is no reason to absolve them of even the tiniest modicum of responsibility.”
Finding the network and the parents partly responsible doesn’t mean in any way takes away the responsibility of the pedophile. When it comes to a bank robbery, just because we find the driver of the gateaway car also responsible, it doesn’t mean we are trying to absolve or minimize the part of the robber himself does it?
Added: ...although and relashinship between the show and the pedophiles is not as direct as the relashinship between the bank robber and the driver.

Coloma's avatar

Bottom line. The world has more than it’s fair share of extremely screwed up people. All we can do is hope we don’t encounter them and be grateful if we escape being crime victims.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I meant a horrible message to send to their children that their appearance is THE most important thing. It wasn’t in reference to the message that a pedophile would choose to take away.

flo's avatar

@Dutchess_III Okay.
@Coloma I think we can do better than that though. Glad that men joined the fight for women’s equality for eg.

flo's avatar

Crime it is even more important. I think that we shouldn’t be content that it is not us that it is the victim.

Coloma's avatar

@flo Not sure what the connection is between men championing womens rights and my statement about the crazies of the world, but…okay, yes, that’s a positive. lol

Coloma's avatar

@flo I’m just advocating gratitude, not minimizing crime and it’s victims.

flo's avatar

@Coloma I get it now.

Coloma's avatar

@flo Me too. :-p

Admittedly I live a very sheltered life. Yes, I COULD be a crime victim, anyone could but, I live in a very safe and low crime rural area on a secluded property and honestly, I don’t even know where my house keys are. I never lock my house, car, garage, sleep with the doors and windows open all night, leave my home unlocked when I am gone. I’d be a fish out of water if I had to be on guard in a different environment after living this lifestyle for so long.

I feel blessed to live without fear.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Except for mountain lions @Coloma!

Coloma's avatar

@Dutchess_III Better to be killed by a Mtn. Lion than a Ted Bundy. lol

Dutchess_III's avatar

Yeah, that! Twud go quicker!

ETpro's avatar

This has been a fascinating debate. I am so late getting back to it I don’t want to jump in the middle of now ongoing back-and-forth posts from all, but I’m taking all the comments in. Keep them coming.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I can’t help but compare this to Zimmerman/Trayvon. The father had FAR more provocation, thousands of times more provocation than Zimmerman did to do what he did, and Zimmerman was very nearly not charged with anything. Would it have been different if the father just walked in and shot the man? Does that fact that he used his hands change things?

Has anyone heard if the father has been charged or not?

Jaxk's avatar

@Dutchess_III

Actually if he had a gun and just shot the guy in the head, there would be no charges. The fact that he used his hands does make a difference. At what point was the assault stopped and how much further beating, from that point, was revenge rather than defense. A shot to the head would have been defense of his child.

Dutchess_III's avatar

I understand….but the guy is dead. Dead.

Coloma's avatar

Well…..overkill is always better than underkill when you’re dealing with a psycho.

ETpro's avatar

@Jaxk That’s an excellent point. After the DA’s investigation is complete, it will be up to the grand jury to decide if he kept up the beating for too long.

ETpro's avatar

OK, we have the answer. The Grand Jury decided he will not be charged.

Coloma's avatar

@ETpro Ya think! ;-)

Poor man. Well, a good reminder that life can take the craziest twists and we never know, we just never know what we might be faced with.

Dutchess_III's avatar

Yay!!!
The poor man. And his daughter. And his whole family. :(

ETpro's avatar

@Coloma & @Dutchess_III I know from what I have heard about it that had I been on that grand jury, the best they could have hoped for was a hung jury. Unless there are facts unknown, I could never have voted to bring this hero to trial.

bolwerk's avatar

“Legally, though, we can’t apply the laws unevenly based on our own opinions of what’s justified or not…” – @Mariah

Actually, we should dispense with this notion. Customarily, laws are applied very unevenly based on the discrimination of the police, judge, and prosecutor. If, at any point in the process, one has a “gut feeling” that you’re innocent, you probably are in the clear. On the opposite side of the spectrum, if all three agree that you’re guilty, you’re very likely screwed, at least without a damn good lawyer – even if you’re innocent. Your best hope lies in a jury, and juries are drawn from a pool where 8 out of 10 people believe in angels – and, even more scary, the smarter people in that pool can often find ways to evade jury duty.

Mariah's avatar

@bolwerk Scratch “can’t” in that sentence and replace “shouldn’t”

ETpro's avatar

@Mariah Research Jury Nullification.

Mariah's avatar

@ETpro Cool, never knew about that. It’s nice to know the law takes circumstances into account rather than being broadly, blindly applied. Thanks.

ETpro's avatar

@Mariah I’ll add this. If you want to make absolutely certain you get out of jury duty, mention the words “Jury Nullification” during the prosecution’s questioning of you as a prospective juror.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther