Texas dad “remorseful” after catching man molesting his daughter and beating him to death

posted at 9:00 pm on June 12, 2012 by Allahpundit

The case is headed to a grand jury but this guy’s more likely to land on Barbara Walters’s couch than in prison. I’d be surprised if there’s a GJ in America that would indict him; if there is, lord knows it’s not in Texas. Here’s the relevant statute in the state’s penal code. Not a close call:

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery…

(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.

That provision covers the use of deadly force when you’re the one being attacked; the next section in the code extends the use of deadly force to defending someone else so long as the same conditions as the above are met. In other words, if a woman (or little girl, in this case) is entitled to defend herself by killing the man who’s trying to rape her, a third person who’s coming to her aid is entitled to do so too. In theory, a father might not be entitled to use force if he stumbled upon the molestation and the molester stopped and begged for mercy; deadly force is protected legally as a means of ending an attack (or preventing one that’s imminent), not punishing an attacker for something he just did. But c’mon — is there a man or woman alive who’d vote to convict on a murder charge with a fact pattern like that? Morally, this will be treated as justifiable homicide whether or not it’s technically self-defense by proxy — which, to be clear, I think it is here — and any jury would strain mightily to find that it qualified under the definition for the latter. Exit quotation: “He got what he well deserved.”




Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Allahpundit:” is there a man or woman alive who’d vote to convict on a murder charge with a fact pattern like that? ”

Yes: Joy Behar

Am I Wrong?
I bet She will accuses him of ‘Murder’ tomorrow on the View!

Amadeus on June 12, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 9:35 PM

*CLINK*

Seven Percent Solution on June 12, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Bishop on June 12, 2012 at 9:28 PM

You’re not right Bishop. :-)

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 9:31 PM

ROTFLMAO… No, he aint, never has been… ;p

SWalker on June 12, 2012 at 9:36 PM

SWalker on June 12, 2012 at 9:35 PM

*CLINK*

Seven Percent Solution on June 12, 2012 at 9:37 PM

One of the early reports said all parties were Hispanic.

novaculus on June 12, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Irrelevant.

One more predetor was removed from the gene pool.

Tim_CA on June 12, 2012 at 9:37 PM

You may be right. I may be clueless about Texas.

Then again…nope.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 9:24 PM

You’re right; you’re just clueless, period.

Ward Cleaver on June 12, 2012 at 9:37 PM

I think the term they use in Texas is “he needed killin’.”

It isn’t just in TX, but pretty much most of “flyover country” where people have a clear sense of right and wrong.

Kermit on June 12, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Might have something to do with having a, well, you know, real education in the physical sciences and knowing who and what the Neanderthals really were as opposed to the pseudo-intellectual cartoon stereotypes about who and what the Neanderthals were.

SWalker on June 12, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Now don’t go lettin’ the cat outta’ the bag. It might motivate some of the more curious folks to do some book learnin’.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 9:38 PM

Seems as if the father could have reacted differently, maybe counseled the other guy for a bit to try and determine his motivations and then given him a hug of understanding.

Bishop on June 12, 2012 at 9:40 PM

watertown on June 12, 2012 at 9:27 PM

But that’s exactly the point. We don’t apply laws based on emotion. We apply them based upon logic and facts. This idea that people should be above the law because you sympathize with them, is not just legally flawed, but ethically and morally flawed. Otherwise, you don’t have rule of law. Sympathy for this guy can not be conflated with what is legally right and wrong. Remember, we criticize the left for acting on emotion, not on logic.

keep the change on June 12, 2012 at 9:41 PM

*CLINK*

Seven Percent Solution on June 12, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Legitimate kill correct? If yes. *clink!*

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Ward Cleaver on June 12, 2012 at 9:37 PM

I coulda’ understood this from the noobs. But you…?

Wally and the Beave are givin’ you a double face palm…each of them are givin’ you a double face palm.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Even with the worst of mankind considered, killing is not an easy thing to do.

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 9:24 PM

Judging by the man’s remorse, it was not intentional.

gh on June 12, 2012 at 9:30 PM

That was my point to War Planner. I’d bet the farm the guy saw it, lost it and couldn’t control the primal urges any parent would have to defend his child. Once he came back to his senses, he probably realized even this was this a man and he killed him. Not only is it not easy to kill, it’s also not always easy to live with.

If I’m close here, I’d just hope he gets a little support and couseling and the right folks assuage his concerns that any of this is his doing. If all the facts bear out like are being stated in the news means to me only one person is responsible for this happening. And that was the man who attacked his kid.

But again, no matter how evil that man might have been, it’s completely understandable that he can still free great remorse that any of it happened.

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 9:42 PM

As awful as these crimes are, people need to make d*mn sure that there is proof that a crime actually occurred. The guy in TX had his own two eyes, which is more than good enough for me. I just don’t want people to think they can kill just because an accusation like that is made.

The father walked in during the commission of the molestation and the 4 year-old was treated at a hospital for her injuries so he has evidence to support his claim.

Resist We Much on June 12, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Give the dad a medal.

Poor kid. She’ll probably remember the attack for the rest of her life – at 4, that’s old enough to remember things.

Bastard. Rot in hell.

RedNewEnglander on June 12, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Bishop on June 12, 2012 at 9:40 PM

A group hug, with the daughter and the sheriff.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Seems as if the father could have reacted differently, maybe counseled the other guy for a bit to try and determine his motivations and then given him a hug of understanding.

Bishop on June 12, 2012 at 9:40 PM

Might of, could of, was it a bare handed kill, 45, 357 or ………….. A 45 is generally a fairly understanding caliber.

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 9:43 PM

If you don’t feel some sort of remorse or sadness after taking another man’s life, regardless of his misdeeds, you’re a sociopath.

That isn’t to say that what the father did is wrong or wasn’t justified, but it’s a long step to take for any moral person to even unwittingly take a life in self-defense or in defense of the defenseless.

I pray for the father that he finds solace and resolution for what he did.

wv619 on June 12, 2012 at 9:43 PM

*CLINK*

Seven Percent Solution on June 12, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Legitimate kill correct? If yes. *clink!*

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 9:41 PM

I believe the correct term here is, Righteous Kill… *clink*

SWalker on June 12, 2012 at 9:44 PM

There should be a tax deduction for saving court costs. Just sayin’.

wolly4321 on June 12, 2012 at 9:44 PM

But again, no matter how evil that man might have been, it’s completely understandable that he can still free great remorse that any of it happened.

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 9:42 PM

I would feel remorse that I left my child alone where she could be attacked. I would feel none regarding the fate of the attacker. I would feel sorrow that I had killed him but no guilt.

gh on June 12, 2012 at 9:44 PM

wv619 on June 12, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Yep.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 9:44 PM

If I was on that grand jury I would be seriuosly ticked off that my time was getting wasted on this case. It’s quite apparent to me that the guy was within his legal rights according to the law that was quoted above.

boomer on June 12, 2012 at 9:45 PM

I think the term they use in Texas is “he needed killin’.”

It isn’t just in TX, but pretty much most of “flyover country” where people have a clear sense of right and wrong.
Kermit on June 12, 2012 at 9:38 PM

A line from the song “Indiana Wants Me”, ca. 1970, comes to mind:
“If a man ever needed dying, he did”.

whatcat on June 12, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Texas is full of uncivilized neanderthals.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Uncivilized neanderthals are found in all states jackass… But your implication that someone willing to defend his daughter against an attacker is a Neanderthal?

We should all be Neanderthals then and I’ll gladly accept the moniker of Neanderthal if that’s the case.

SauerKraut537 on June 12, 2012 at 9:46 PM

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 9:42 PM

I would feel remorse that I left my child alone where she could be attacked. I would feel none regarding the fate of the attacker. I would feel sorrow that I had killed him but no guilt.

gh on June 12, 2012 at 9:44 PM

That’s great. How many people have you killed so far?

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 9:47 PM

boomer on June 12, 2012 at 9:45 PM

A grand jury is the law. They do their job. It depends on how the DA presents the case that will determine if the grand jurors get mad, or not. At the DA.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 9:47 PM

SauerKraut537 on June 12, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Some folks are slower than others.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Might have something to do with having a, well, you know, real education in the physical sciences and knowing who and what the Neanderthals really were as opposed to the pseudo-intellectual cartoon stereotypes about who and what the Neanderthals were.

SWalker on June 12, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Now don’t go lettin’ the cat outta’ the bag. It might motivate some of the more curious folks to do some book learnin’.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 9:38 PM

What? You don’t think it would be priceless to see the expressions on their faces when they find out that 10 percent of all European descended people on Earth are Neanderthals? And that if you have Red hair or Blue eyes your odds of being a Neanderthal go up to about 50 percent?

SWalker on June 12, 2012 at 9:48 PM

I really hope this man is acquitted.
I can’t imagine the hurt he felt for his little angel.
My heart,like I know his did,died a little for her.
4yrs old? I mean,the planet is now a better place with him pushing up daisies…

DJcool on June 12, 2012 at 9:48 PM

That’s great. How many people have you killed so far?

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 9:47 PM

None. I am happy that people like yourself have taken on that responsibility.

gh on June 12, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Uncivilized neanderthals are found in all states jackass

SauerKraut537 on June 12, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Not Minnesota.

Bishop on June 12, 2012 at 9:48 PM

I don’t give a crap what race either one of them is. One was human, one subhuman. Deserving of a medal I’d say. He’s a better person than I for having a shred of remorse. Prayers for both the father and the real victim.

Sasha List on June 12, 2012 at 9:48 PM

If you hit someone in the head he may die.
gh on June 12, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Most the time they don’t. Otherwise there would be no boxers in the world.

whatcat on June 12, 2012 at 9:18 PM

…Harry Reid’s…. alive?

KOOLAID2 on June 12, 2012 at 9:49 PM

The law says he’s all clear, Keep the Change.

Besides, it’s pretty rich for you to lecture anyone about morality or ethics.

Vera on June 12, 2012 at 9:49 PM

There’s some good fishing in Texas, I see.

Bishop on June 12, 2012 at 9:49 PM

keep the change on June 12, 2012 at 9:41 PM

AP posted the relevant statute. Father was completely within the law to use deadly force. Has nothing to do with ‘ruling based on emotion.’

Uncivilized neanderthals are found in all states jackass… But your implication that someone willing to defend his daughter against an attacker is a Neanderthal?

We should all be Neanderthals then and I’ll gladly accept the moniker of Neanderthal if that’s the case.

SauerKraut537 on June 12, 2012 at 9:46 PM

YHBT

Good Solid B-Plus on June 12, 2012 at 9:50 PM

The War Planner on June 12, 2012 at 9:02 PM

Hey! You asked about the date on that post on my blog. I backdated it so that it would be at the back of my posts, which is what I do with some posts that are part of a series or linked up front.

The info is current. Just ignore the date. And, no, I am not related to HG Wells. :-)

Resist We Much on June 12, 2012 at 9:50 PM

That’s great. How many people have you killed so far?

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 9:47 PM

That one bugged me, but I let it go. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

I still feel remorse almost twenty years later. Not for the bad guy, but for having to do it.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Do some people deserve to die?

Some people don’t deserve to live. -Dexter

Donald Draper on June 12, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Texas is full of uncivilized neanderthals.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Uncivilized neanderthals are found in all states jackass… But your implication that someone willing to defend his daughter against an attacker is a Neanderthal?

We should all be Neanderthals then and I’ll gladly accept the moniker of Neanderthal if that’s the case.

SauerKraut537 on June 12, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Where did you get the stupidly imbecilic notion that Neanderthals were uncivilized? 10 percent of all Europeans are Neanderthals.

SWalker on June 12, 2012 at 9:52 PM

SWalker on June 12, 2012 at 9:48 PM

But since we won’t be able to see their faces. And most of them won’t admit to an “oops” moment, the joy is gone.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 9:52 PM

When I fought at Gettysburg I just learned to turn off my feelings, to forget that I was fighting actual human beings.

Bishop on June 12, 2012 at 9:52 PM

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 9:47 PM

As I stated, I would be mad at the DA for wasting my time. As I see it, under the written law he is in the clear. There really is no reason for this to go to a grand jury.

boomer on June 12, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Bishop on June 12, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Buffalo Bill, is that you?

malclave on June 12, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Ignorance is bliss, as they say.
cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Yup.

gh on June 12, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Good thing this was Texas. I disagree that there isn’t a grand jury in America that would indict him. I would expect him to be indicted in a lot of deep blue areas such as San Francisco. Especially if the perp turns out to be an illegal and the father was white or even a “white hispanic”. Got to blame the victim in those places.

Hobo with a laptop on June 12, 2012 at 9:54 PM

There really is no reason for this to go to a grand jury.

boomer on June 12, 2012 at 9:53 PM

Almost every instance where a death is caused by another is sent to a grand jury.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 9:55 PM

I believe the correct term here is, Righteous Kill… *clink*

SWalker on June 12, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Can’t go with you there on the Righteous kill thingy. That has an overtone I find troubling. Legitimate works fine for me.

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 9:58 PM

When I fought at Gettysburg I just learned to turn off my feelings, to forget that I was fighting actual human beings.

Bishop on June 12, 2012 at 9:52 PM

Union?

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 9:58 PM

KTC standing up for a molester. Children born or unborn not so much.

Seems the fool did not even read the law quoted by AP.

CW on June 12, 2012 at 9:59 PM

Union?

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Non-aligned, I just sat on a hilltop and picked targets at random.

Bishop on June 12, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Seems the fool did not even read the law quoted by AP.

CW on June 12, 2012 at 9:59 PM

SOP for KTC.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 10:01 PM

Non-aligned, I just sat on a hilltop and picked targets at random.

Bishop on June 12, 2012 at 10:00 PM

That was funny.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Non-aligned, I just sat on a hilltop and picked targets at random.

Bishop on June 12, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Grassy knoll ?

gh on June 12, 2012 at 10:02 PM

Almost every instance where a death is caused by another is sent to a grand jury.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 9:55 PM

The keyword being “almost”. I understand what the job of the grand jury is, I just don’t know why any DA would think he has a snowballs chance in hell on this one. Then again we aren’t given all the information the grand jury will be. I just think it’s a waste of taxpayers money in this case.

boomer on June 12, 2012 at 10:02 PM

You’re not right Bishop. :-)

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Union worker.

kim roy on June 12, 2012 at 10:02 PM

No sympathy for the monster who lost his life, but still unspeakably tragic. The daughter and the father are both likely scarred for life.

Fortunately it does not appear this girl will lose her father to a warped sense of justice, in addition to what she has suffered already.

Wishing this family healing from their horrific ordeal.

Chuckles3 on June 12, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Poor kid. She’ll probably remember the attack for the rest of her life – at 4, that’s old enough to remember things.

RedNewEnglander on June 12, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Yes, it is.

tdpwells on June 12, 2012 at 10:03 PM

KTC I will speak slowly for you

(B) t o p r e v e n t the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery…

Your stupidity knows no bounds.

CW on June 12, 2012 at 10:05 PM

boomer on June 12, 2012 at 10:02 PM

They do it for cases they know will be no-billed.

From my understanding it is a liability thing.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Union?

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Non-aligned, I just sat on a hilltop and picked targets at random.

Bishop on June 12, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Yes, yes, we know, but was it really necessary to use the skull caps as soup bowls afterwards?

SWalker on June 12, 2012 at 10:06 PM

Non-aligned, I just sat on a hilltop and picked targets at random.

Bishop on June 12, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Oh, you were that guy. I remember you.

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 10:06 PM

I wouldn’t convict that guy if he beat that pedophile to death, did CPR & revived him & then beat him back to death.

Who knows how many little girls he saved from that fate.

batterup on June 12, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Where does the law stand on ripping off the guy’s genitals with your bare hands and force-feeding them down his throat? I mean, technically, it’s not murder.

John the Libertarian on June 12, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Texas is full of uncivilized neanderthals.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Coming from a pedophile sympathizer

The Notorious G.O.P on June 12, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Uncivilized neanderthals are found in all states jackass

SauerKraut537 on June 12, 2012 at 9:46 PM

Not Minnesota.

Bishop on June 12, 2012 at 9:48 PM

Says the defender of the state that provided Jesse Ventura and Al Franken.

Happy Nomad on June 12, 2012 at 10:10 PM

The key fact here is that the father claims the death was accidental. I’m sure that most of the commenters were would give the guy a medal even if he chased the pedo down and beat him to death in cold blood, but if what the father said is true, then this clearly would not be murder in any event because there was never any intent to kill.

Even if the law said it was illegal, it wouldn’t matter. The law doesn’t matter in a case like this. No jury would convict, and that would be true even in portland, let alone in Texas. The punishment for this kind of molestation would be, as far as I know, life in prison ANYWAY, so killing the guy just saved the taxpayers a bunch of money.

The only reason to really investigate this is to make sure the father is telling the truth about what happened. We only have his word on what he claimed to have seen and why he beat a guy to death. What if it turned out there was a business dispute or other possible reasons to want the guy dead? I mean, if you beat a guy to death for some other reason, wouldn’t the most sympathetic excuse be “I caught him molesting my daughter?”

kaltes on June 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Coming from a pedophile sympathizer

The Notorious G.O.P on June 12, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Bless your heart, you stick with that.

Are you intentionally stupid, or just dense?

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 9:47 PM

That one bugged me, but I let it go. Ignorance is bliss, as they say.

I still feel remorse almost twenty years later. Not for the bad guy, but for having to do it.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 9:50 PM

I’m not saying anything more than that. It is the focal point. Regardless of how much we want the bad people of this Earth to assume room temperature, there are emotional consequences to making it happen. And just any hint of doubt in retrospect can eat a person alive.

And gh and War Planner, I do understand your points. That in theory, none of us want to hestitate in defending those we love. None of us would want to be saddled with possible regretful feeling for an event that was not of our choosing. But it’s like a Hollywood fistfight with two guys punching each other in the face for ten minutes. It just isn’t like that in real life.

I’ll share one story about a door gunner another pilot I knew had to deal with in the Tegab Valley about 5 years ago. There was a running, raging firefight (a TIC) going on between a new FOB in the valley and Taliban/HIG fighters there. An Apache and Black Hawk were supporting the TIC with Close Air Support. A group of men was spotted on a high noll, two with weapons and one with a Motorola type radio. The SF guys in the back of the Hawk told the crew the guy on the radio was directing the fight for the enemy by intercepting his comms. The Black Hawk passed over them again and the armed men took cover and the guy with the radio stood his ground. The AMC in the Apache asked to confirm what the SF guys monitored and whether or not Motorola dude was still PIDed. After he was satified, he gave the order to the Black Hawk to have a Door Gunner engae and kill him. The pilots gave the command to the gunner and the DG said, “He’s waving at me!” The PIC of the aircraft repeated his command. So, this young man’s most memorable target of the day was a man he had to kill who was waving at him. Necessary? Yes. Easy to live down if you were the one who was asked to pull on him. You’d have to ask him.

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM

Not knowing all the nuances of this:

Go after MY daughter, you will get your ass handed to you; if not your life. I will break any bone (and most rules) if it helps me stop you.

JeffWeimer on June 12, 2012 at 10:15 PM

He didn’t have to kill the person to stop the attack.

keep the change on June 12, 2012 at 9:20 PM

You don’t know that. Maybe evidence will come out to support your accusation, but just because they use the word “beating” doesn’t mean it was a long, drawn out process where it was easy to distinguish defense from offense. Head wounds are tricky like that.

I agree with you about upholding the law, but you’ve yet no proof he violated it.

Esthier on June 12, 2012 at 10:16 PM

Killing should never be an easy thing to do or live with once done. I realize sometimes it might or have been. Still doesn’t mean it should be. My two cents.

Bmore on June 12, 2012 at 10:19 PM

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM

I understand civilian police officers often can’t return to the job after killing someone in the line of duty. Some never return.

John the Libertarian on June 12, 2012 at 10:20 PM

Ward Cleaver on June 12, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Thank GOD – you beat me to it – if Shiner was 130 miles east it would be in Loooosiana (and then it wouldn’t be bovine processed hay that we get charged for Shiner being an IMPORTED brew!)

The geographical distraction was a welcome tangent from cozmo’s pseudo-self-important blathering.

In BACA (B.ikers A.gainst C.hild A.buse) our fondest WISH is to one day cut off our back patches and burn them when not needed anymore. A bunch more Father’s like THIS and it could be possible (sadly I aint holding my breath though…………….approx 14,000 cases of abuse are reported annually just here in Texas)

Way ta GO DAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! *take no fkn prisoners!!!!!*

Katfish on June 12, 2012 at 10:20 PM

He didn’t have to kill the person to stop the attack.

keep the change on June 12, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Absolutely true, but he claims he didn’t intend to kill. So he just lost control and raged on the guy’s face. Granted, it is VERY hard to kill someone with your bare hands usually, but it can happen sometimes, most likely from suffocation. Blunt trauma to face is a very hard way to kill a person because the face itself and sinuses absorb the damage and protect the brain.

I agree with you about upholding the law, but you’ve yet no proof he violated it.

Esthier on June 12, 2012 at 10:16 PM

I think killing the pedo caught red handed is completely legitimate, however, we have to be VERY careful that cold-blooded murders cannot abuse this allowance with false claims of molestation. Unless you have video tape evidence it is very hard to know what really happened.

kaltes on June 12, 2012 at 10:22 PM

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

(B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery…

Not rocket science. As kaltes noted they need to try to confirm his story. If it is supported the law allows deadly force. It says nothing about simply stopping or disabling the guy.

CW on June 12, 2012 at 10:24 PM

kaltes on June 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM

You know, I’ll tread lightly here because it’s only gut instinct in my reaction to your comment. But I cannot help but think every time one of these conversations come up, you debate the point as if you have an emotional connection to the subject and if not directly, hint at coming down on the side the one being accused of this type of crime. Are you a lawyer defending these people?

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 10:24 PM

As far as I’m concerned he’s Father of the Year, and Texas should treat him as such.

Cody1991 on June 12, 2012 at 10:26 PM

And gh and War Planner, I do understand your points. That in theory, none of us want to hestitate in defending those we love. None of us would want to be saddled with possible regretful feeling for an event that was not of our choosing. But it’s like a Hollywood fistfight with two guys punching each other in the face for ten minutes. It just isn’t like that in real life.
hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM

I’m just happy that in my case it’s still all theory.

gh on June 12, 2012 at 10:28 PM

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM

I understand civilian police officers often can’t return to the job after killing someone in the line of duty. Some never return.

John the Libertarian on June 12, 2012 at 10:20 PM

I have heard similiar accounts.

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Just a note to clarify, if deadly force is justified it doesn’t matter what other non-lethal course of action might or might not have served to defuse the situation.

Knott Buyinit on June 12, 2012 at 10:29 PM

keep the change on June 12, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Gosh, if you have a daughter put yourself in this guys shoes. I hate being mean to people, and for the fear of getting banned Ill keep it at that… disgusting.
watertown on June 12, 2012 at 9:27 PM

your sentiment is lost on ktc. It’s pro-abort and pro-eugenics.

AH_C on June 12, 2012 at 10:30 PM

A cautionary tale for every child molester. There are consequences to your vile filthy actions. God bless this dad. I can’t imagine walking in on that scene. Seeing your innocent four year old daughter at the hands of this monster will be something he will relive the rest of his life. I hope and pray that he finds peace and knows in his heart that what he did was right. God bless the daughter too. That is a heavy burden for a four year old to carry.

JannyMc on June 12, 2012 at 10:33 PM

your sentiment is lost on ktc. It’s pro-abort and pro-eugenics.

AH_C on June 12, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Yep, the only killing that doesn’t bother him.

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 10:33 PM

RedNewEnglander on June 12, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Agree 100%. A parent cannot bear harm to the child. At least I can’t. Legal or not. A hero in my eye.

antisocial on June 12, 2012 at 10:34 PM

I guess everyone is assuming the truth that the girl was being molested. I haven’t read about it but id there independent proof of the assault?

casel21 on June 12, 2012 at 10:35 PM

The real problem I have with this discussion is there has been no real expression of sympathy for a family whose four-year-old was molested. I’m as guilty as anybody for just wanting to deal with the justice of dealing with the molester but beyond that- that family in Shiner, Texas, doesn’t need this kind of attention as they seek to deal with the molestation of their child.

Please pray for this family and please end this discussion over the remorse of the father. It puts the family of the victim on trial.

Happy Nomad on June 12, 2012 at 10:37 PM

I guess everyone is assuming the truth that the girl was being molested. I haven’t read about it but id there independent proof of the assault?

casel21 on June 12, 2012 at 10:35 PM

There was a hospital report according to the stories I’ve seen.

gh on June 12, 2012 at 10:38 PM

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM

I understand civilian police officers often can’t return to the job after killing someone in the line of duty. Some never return.

John the Libertarian on June 12, 2012 at 10:20 PM

I have heard similiar accounts.

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Taking another human life, pretty much no matter what the justification or reason, is incredibly difficult for a healthy human mind to deal with. It’s real easy to stand back and be all macho about how you think you would deal with it, actually dealing with it after it has really happened is a 100 percent different thing.

SWalker on June 12, 2012 at 10:41 PM

You know, I’ll tread lightly here because it’s only gut instinct in my reaction to your comment. But I cannot help but think every time one of these conversations come up, you debate the point as if you have an emotional connection to the subject and if not directly, hint at coming down on the side the one being accused of this type of crime. Are you a lawyer defending these people?

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 10:24 PM

dude…

I think killing the pedo caught red handed is completely legitimate

kaltes on June 12, 2012 at 10:22 PM

The punishment for this kind of molestation would be, as far as I know, life in prison ANYWAY, so killing the guy just saved the taxpayers a bunch of money.

kaltes on June 12, 2012 at 10:12 PM

How do you figure that I am coming down on the side of the guy who got killed when I said I approve of the killing and made light of his death by saying it just saved the taxpayers money to kill him, as opposed to putting him in prison for life?

I know I get trolled on every sexual topic that comes up regardless of what I say, which is quite freaky to be honest, but if you actually read comments on other topics, you’d see that I comment on other topics all the time. I do have a higher likelihood to comment on LEGAL topics because I understand the law better.

I do not represent defendants in cases like this, but I do think that due process needs to be respected. I know some lawyers who do work on criminal cases, though, and I have seen cases that I consider to be unjust. Sex crimes tend to result in injustice more often than some others because of the emotions and politics involved, but it is not limited to that. I know of an 18 year old guy who got 2 years in prison and lifetime sex offender registration for sex with a 15 year old. Then he gets out, gets married, gets his wife pregnant, doesn’t follow his registration requirements when he moves into his wife’s moms house, and gets picked up and 3 years for failing to register the new address. This is a real case. It blew my mind to learn that this is what really goes on.

I used to think criminal defense attorneys were scum because I was raised on a steady diet of propaganda. I couldn’t have been more wrong. The simple fact is that there is no morality test to be a cop or a prosecutor. There are good and bad ones, and the bad ones can do some really scary things.

kaltes on June 12, 2012 at 10:45 PM

SWalker on June 12, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Well said and I’m pretty sure that’s what the other folks were trying to say too.

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 10:47 PM

I guess everyone is assuming the truth that the girl was being molested. I haven’t read about it but id there independent proof of the assault?

casel21 on June 12, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Are you seriously suggesting that a four-year-old was flirting with a 40-year-old?

I get your larger point but that is the purpose of the process that sends this case to a Grand Jury for consideration. There will be a collection of facts and findings.

But I’m curious about your comment about “independent proof of the assault.” Are you honestly suggesting that any assualt requires a witness to be prosecuted?

Happy Nomad on June 12, 2012 at 10:48 PM

Well said and I’m pretty sure that’s what the other folks were trying to say too.

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 10:47 PM

I’m pretty sure most of the folks were taking the ignorant macho route.

cozmo on June 12, 2012 at 10:49 PM

But once you’ve decided to hit the perp then intentionally or not the outcome is his problem not yours.

gh on June 12, 2012 at 9:10 PM

Sons of Anarchy, watch out. The real badasses are online.

You may think you know what it’s like to have someone’s life in your hands or their death hanging over your head. But your words suggest, to me, that you haven’t had to seriously defend yourself or anybody from peril.

You should all notice how the most balanced/honest perspective comes from people who have actually had to kill in either self or national-defense. The rest of you tough guys are cute though.

Everybody is not qualified or equipped (armed) enough to respond to danger well. I’m wondering about you not-so-tough guys who have to defend themselves or family in similar situations.

Anybody know people on the losing end of self-defense?

Capitalist Hog on June 12, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Yep. And I’m just all teared up about it too. *sniff*

…bah humbug! Remorse my aunt’s glasses! Good rucking fiddance!

MelonCollie on June 12, 2012 at 10:50 PM

But that’s exactly the point. We don’t apply laws based on emotion. We apply them based upon logic and facts. This idea that people should be above the law because you sympathize with them, is not just legally flawed, but ethically and morally flawed. Otherwise, you don’t have rule of law. Sympathy for this guy can not be conflated with what is legally right and wrong. Remember, we criticize the left for acting on emotion, not on logic.

keep the change on June 12, 2012 at 9:41 PM

SENTENCING is based upon the circumstances AFTER the law has been applied.
That is where the guy should get his slap on the wrist.
So if possible, the most lenient sentence available should be given if he’s found guilty of whatever.

Badger40 on June 12, 2012 at 10:50 PM

keep the change on June 12, 2012 at 9:20 PM

When civilization completely breaks down, you’re going to have a hard time finding a tribe that will take you.

TugboatPhil on June 12, 2012 at 10:52 PM

kaltes on June 12, 2012 at 10:45 PM

There was more to your comments than what you reposted. And it’s not just your comments tonight. But you answered my question. It’s obvious you work within the field of law based on your opinions. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

hawkdriver on June 12, 2012 at 10:53 PM

But your words suggest, to me, that you haven’t had to seriously defend yourself or anybody from peril.
Capitalist Hog on June 12, 2012 at 10:49 PM

Yes. I said that explicitly.

gh on June 12, 2012 at 10:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4