Texas civil rights group: Are we sure that dad who beat his daughter’s molester to death was engaged in self-defense?

posted at 7:37 pm on June 13, 2012 by Allahpundit

Via the Blaze. Four words, my friends: Trial of the century.

James Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, an Austin-based nonprofit group, questioned the father’s decision to “summarily execute” the alleged molester without due process.

“Assuming it’s true that this guy was molesting the daughter, and we don’t know what exactly happened at this point, he would then have the right to defend [her], and hit him enough to have him stop,” Harrington told FoxNews.com. “But you cannot summarily execute him, even though I can understand the anger he would have.”

Without specific knowledge of the case, Harrington said he was “surprised” that the girl’s father had not been already charged.

Harrington continued: “The question is: When does it move beyond self-defense?”

That’s what I was getting at in last night’s post about the difference between self-defense and punishment. Self-defense entitles you to neutralize your attacker; once he’s been neutralized, you’re not really defending yourself anymore, you’re just kicking the crap out of him. Imagine that the dad here saw his daughter being molested and knocked the guy unconscious with one right hook to the jaw. Boom — he’s neutralized. If he continues to beat him after that in a blind rage, that’s more like voluntary manslaughter than self-defense. More from the Christian Post:

“(We’re assuming) that the father sort of struck this fellow in righteous indignation or something,” he said. “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. I think the Christian teaching certainly would say he shouldn’t have acted on anger if he had a moment to stop and think about it — he should have been motivated by justice instead. He shouldn’t have let his anger get out of control, if that’s what happened here. I think that’s where the grand jury needs to investigate.”

What makes this case conceivably tricky even under Texas’s otherwise expansive self-defense law is that most uses of deadly force involve a weapon, which can kill with one blow, and not one’s bare hands, which usually can’t. If the father had shot the guy or stabbed him in the chest, the fatal blow would have been the neutralizing blow and therefore textbook self-defense; in this case, the neutralizing blow might well have come before the fatal blow. Self-defense technically only covers you up to the former point.

Then again, that Texas law is awfully expansive. Here’s a bit I left out last night about when juries should presume that the use of deadly force was reasonable:

(b) The actor’s belief … that the deadly force was immediately necessary … is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:

(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:

(C) was committing or attempting to commit [sexual assault or aggravated sexual assault];

(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and

(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity…

In other words, dad’s defense starts with the benefit of the doubt on whether killing the attacker was necessary to stop the attack. Think the local D.A. wants to sink time and effort into trying to overcome that presumption, especially given how unpopular prosecuting this guy would be? To convict him, you’d have to convince a jury that will certainly view this killing as morally justifiable to somehow find it legally unjustifiable, even though there’s plenty of room in the self-defense statute to find dad not guilty. E.g., what if dad claimed that, yes, the first punch appeared to have knocked the attacker out, but he had to hit him several more times to make sure he was unconscious because he feared that the guy had a weapon stashed and would kill him and his daughter when he woke up? That’d be an awfully big stretch, but if the jury’s already inclined to stretch in your direction, it’d probably work, no? Juries are going to do what they want to do most of the time, as long as they have a little wiggle room in the statute to do it. Plenty of wiggle room here.

Here’s an interview that Houston TV did with the little girl’s grandfather. According to him, the girl was “injured and bleeding after the attack,” which, if true, will only make it that much harder to convict her father. Other reports, though, quote the sheriff as saying she was “okay besides the obvious mental trauma.” We’ll have to see how that discrepancy shakes out as more reporting is done. Click the image to watch.


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

Why all the fuss?
The man just did what should have been done along time ago. He returned the defective unit back to the manufacturer. Problem solved how many kids did he save from being molested. I think that he should be given a dinner and told Good job.

ColdWarrior57 on June 14, 2012 at 11:18 AM

What makes this case conceivably tricky even under Texas’s otherwise expansive self-defense law is that most uses of deadly force involve a weapon, which can kill with one blow, and not one’s bare hands, which usually can’t. If the father had shot the guy or stabbed him in the chest, the fatal blow would have been the neutralizing blow and therefore textbook self-defense; in this case, the neutralizing blow might well have come before the fatal blow. Self-defense technically only covers you up to the former point

.

To make a case against this father, someone has to establish the point in the defense by the father in which the molester actually died. Good luck with that.

There’s a difficult row to hoe to “imagine” that the father somehow went from “you creep, leave my daughter alone, you devil, take that” to “and take that and that and that and that and…oops, you’re already dead so take that…”

The father beat the molester, everyone understands that. And for more than good reason, for right reason. But trying to condemn the father in a criminal fashion for the death of the molester — unless the molester was strung up and pitchforked and had body parts separated from the rest and whatever else would represent “abnormal” continuation of force by the father against the molester — unless there was some abjectly abnormal denigration of the molester’s person/body, then I can’t imagine anyone establishing some imaginary line across which the father’s use of force went to where he became a criminal killer acting out in violation of Texas laws and God’s.

Lourdes on June 14, 2012 at 11:19 AM

E.g., what if dad claimed that, yes, the first punch appeared to have knocked the attacker out, but he had to hit him several more times to make sure he was unconscious because he feared that the guy had a weapon stashed and would kill him and his daughter when he woke up?

OK, but knocking someone out is not the same as safely neutralizing him. People die from that all the time. That’s why we employ anesthesiologists. So even one punch could have killed the man.

What if, it took a couple of punches to knock the guy away from his daughter (I mean, we’re assuming he was holding onto her in some way, right?), and that last blow knocked him out and killed him?

This man is also innocent until proven guilty. They shouldn’t shy away from proof that he violated the law, but considering this supposedly happened immediately after an assault, I don’t see how any jury would give him jail time unless it’s proven the assault never occurred or occurred days ago.

Esthier on June 14, 2012 at 11:22 AM

Besides, 1 well placed punch can kill a man. And that dude ain’t small.

Spliff Menendez on June 13, 2012 at 7:45 PM

That’s right. And what I meant earlier: unless the father went nuts in some sort of blood-lust that abused the molester’s body in recognized mutilation, then there’s no way to allege the father was intent on taking the molester’s life instead of putting an end to a molester abusing his child.

Lourdes on June 14, 2012 at 11:23 AM

And *IF* Texas charges this father and it goes to trial, the only jurists they’ll ever be able to find who are sympathetic to the prosecution are likely from Austin.

Lourdes on June 14, 2012 at 11:26 AM

If he is charged, the burden is on the State to prove him guilty beyond a reaonable doubt. If the father’s story is true about this man attacking his daughter, the father had every right to suspect that this person might have a weapon. It’s no different than when a police officer arrests someone. Police officers have guns and handcuffs. If they charge him because he used his hands as a weapon instead of a gun, be prepared for more people to carry guns.

Nevertheless, this case SHOULD NOT be tried in the press.

lea on June 14, 2012 at 11:28 AM

If any jury in the great State of Texas were to convict this guy of anything, the defender of his daughter needs to invoke a “dissociative state” in mitigation at sentencing.
Works like a charm.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on June 14, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Texas law paraphrased: ‘you’re allowed to use deadly force to defend yourself or someone else against…sexual assault’.

Lourdes on June 14, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I’m curious where these “Civil Rights” organizations are when Texan residents/US citizens have crimes — many of them very violent crimes — committed against them from “over the boarder” people. Loss of private property and even human life along with livestock is rampant in Texass as caused by people from Mexico or coming from Mexico. Don’t hear so much as a peep about “Civil Rights” when it’s a U.S. citizen who is damaged or whose life is lost by such crime.

Lourdes on June 14, 2012 at 11:45 AM

I understand why the guy employed violence, but justice is BLIND people. We have a court system, and not a series of vigilante gangs, for a reason. Why do you all have so much disdain for the judicial system your beloved founders put into place?

libfreeordie on June 14, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Let the grand jury decide. Until then, shut up!

RMCS_USN on June 14, 2012 at 11:49 AM

Just a little info I spent a minute or two digging up on this org that’s harassing the hero dad:

The “Texas Civil Rights Project” is based out of Austin, and is a project of “Oficina Legal Del Pueblo Unido Inc.”

The TCRP board members are listed here: TCRP Board

It reads like a whos-who of Austin area Lefties.

Here’s some info on the Oficina Legal Del Pueblo Unido Inc.

I like the revenue amount chart. They make LOTS of money. Likely off of suing poor hapless guys like this father. Expect a lawsuit, and soon.

These guys are the poster children for EVERYTHING that is wrong with modern liberalism. They are basically a leftist legal hit group disguised as a “charity”.

Disgusting.

wearyman on June 14, 2012 at 11:56 AM

I think oddmanout has the better of this argument. We have a Constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment, and turning a guy over to a bunch of men with baseball bats would certainly be cruel and unusual punishment. I think his point about it being somewhat similar to what we hear happens in Saudi Arabia is correct — I’d say the punishment you posit is quite close to what happened in 19th and early 20th century lynchings.

The fact that we cannot always protect people in prison is not a justification for using the punitive power of the state to kill them.

unclesmrgol on June 14, 2012 at 2:23 AM

The fact is no one makes the least attempt to protect people convicted of these crimes in prison.

The “state” is using its punitive power to kill them.

The fact it is doing it in a way which futhers the chain of violence does not bother theoddmanout or yourself in the least.

Judges and prosecutors troubled by literal but unofficial death sentences for child molesters are the driving force behind finding alternative facilities and “catch & release” programs which have made the overall problem worse.

My punishment was described from the outset as beyond the pale. It was intended to polarize the “punishment” aspect to highlight positions. Is is legal under our Constitution, no.

I am not withot sympathy for the offenders. Is it possible to ‘cure’ them …

… well, maybe one day, when we have figured out figured out how to ‘cure’ recidivist behaviors.

I find it extermely troubling none of the ‘non-conservative’ members have focused on this part of my first post:

Violence and sexual assault against women and children is a self perpetuating chain that arches across generations and costs this country hundreds of billions of dollars every year.

WHERE is their concern for the War on Women?

Women know this is the true War on Women.

I have known too many battered women in my life. I have intervened to remove women from these situations (civilian not LEO).

I have known far more who were sexually assaulted as children and adults.

Am I the only conservative man on this site for whom those statements apply?

As I said at the close of my first post:

If we fixed this ONE problem, we would all live in an entirely different world.

In repy to you, specifically, unclemrsgol, why were these not your primary thoughts regarding my posts?

PolAgnostic on June 14, 2012 at 11:57 AM

I understand why the guy employed violence, but justice is BLIND people. We have a court system, and not a series of vigilante gangs, for a reason. Why do you all have so much disdain for the judicial system your beloved founders put into place?

libfreeordie on June 14, 2012 at 11:45 AM

I’m never surprised when “Liberals” look upon OUR Founding Fathers and the society they created with disdain, oblivious to the fact that in the “Liberal utopias” elsewhere in the world they would be persecuted for doing the exact same thing.

KMC1 on June 14, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Setting aside the MMA afficianados and the Hollywood infused ideas of someone being able to put the bad guy on the ground with one blow, the reality is most fights consist of shoving, tussling and other ineffective expenditures of an adrenalin dump.

During an adrenalin dump your body literally dumps every bit of adrenalin it has into your bloodstream to enable your maxiumum strength for a fight or flight response.

The direct effect is loss of all fine motor control in your body. Your large muscles are so amped up by the adrenalin your movements are going to be jerky and hard to control. It also exhausts your muscles supply of energy sources and oxygen very quickly.

It takes a significant amount of mental and physical training for anyone to be able to do quick, well defined damage the way Hollywood portrays it.

(Remember, Hollywood continues to show people having gunfights indoors but no one is ever stunned or deafened by the noise which FAR exceeds the pain threshhold.)

Absent any evidence the father in this case has had the requisite training to enable him to be an overwhelmingly effective advesary to the man ATTACKING his daughter, any action by the D.A. would be presecutorial misconduct.

PolAgnostic on June 14, 2012 at 12:14 PM

If the grand jury no-bills, that will be justice.

J.E. Dyer on June 14, 2012 at 12:37 PM

If I remember my Police Academy correctly I remember the trainer saying, “Once you choose to fight a suspect, are you going to use just ‘enough’ force to subdue him/her, or you going to go all out. We fight to win, you better take every fight as your last.”

So the Dad hits the guy to get him off the girl. This is where liberal retards and normal people differ. A liberal Tard would say their is no longer any need to fight, you defended the girl after the first punch; he went too far. While normal people have this thing called common sense which says, “I just punched a guy in defense of my kid, I’M NOW IN A FIGHT! If I don’t stop punching, I might lose, be killed, because what the guy was doing is felony and he could face the death penalty so it’s reasonable to believe he’s going to try and kill me to cover it up. I best keep punching. Fight to win.”

LordJack on June 14, 2012 at 12:42 PM

“James Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project”

Hey Harrington, what about the little girl’s civil rights? Not one word of sympathy towards the girl or her family.

That just goes to show how all Libtards are sociopaths and clinically insane. I’ll bet this a$$klown would get all weepy on behalf of Hitler if a Jew killed Hitler with his bare hands at Auschwitz.

Bleeding Heart Liberals just sicken me. They are disgusting, loathsome people.

CatchAll on June 14, 2012 at 1:32 PM

You know, we live in a society where the law is so fuzzy, it’s going to hang a father who kills a man who is in the process of raping his 4 year old daughter, we need some serious adjustment.

There’s right and there’s wrong and sometimes that line is very easy to see. When we blur it with gobbledegook and esoteric false righteousness in defense of someone who’s less human than a piss ant, the society has devolved into pure degenerate.

And those folks throwing the word “Christian” around as if they were actually one themselves need to think about their own conscience not assume the mantle of God, Himself.

Portia46 on June 14, 2012 at 1:34 PM

I am a bit concerned too. Nobody should be the judge, jury and executioner. I am afraid that this is a sticky issue and should be. We will never be able to get the man who is dead to testify. That said, I don’t know what I would do, if I found someone in the act of molesting one of my nieces or nephews.

SC.Charlie on June 14, 2012 at 1:38 PM

It’s supposed to be a justice system, not a legal system. He was defending a four year old child and himself; they were alone, isolated. He did not have the luxury of time. To me, he had to make sure that they guy would not get up and either flee or possibly attack again. He had the right to make the decision to beat the guy to death, period.

Legally, can a case be made against him? Sure. Should it? No, that would be contrary to the idea of justice. And I don’t think any case could be made that he sinned by killing the guy; the Bible doesn’t condemn all killing, just murder. I’m unaware of any passage in the Bible that says we must let the authorities take care of it.

kdlee on June 14, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Well, seems it would be very hard to convict him, and further, there may perhaps be some blow-back on the ACLU types.

Denver Bob on June 14, 2012 at 3:11 PM

the defender of his daughter needs to invoke a “dissociative state” in mitigation at sentencing.
Works like a charm.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on June 14, 2012 at 11:29 AM

Bingo…we have a winner!! I believe this is exactly what happend to dad, he heard his little four year old screaming for help and when he saw what the scum bag was doing to his little girl he went into an adrenaline fueled rage…a blind rage that placed him into a “dissociative state” which is a natural physiological reaction to such situations.

Dad probably only remembers his first swing at the guy, from there it went black until he came to and saw the perp was a dead bloody pulp. If a grand jury get involved and dad gets a good lawyer and the lawyer brings in a psychologist that specializes in dissociative psychology the grand jury wont move this to trial!

In the slim chance the grand jury loses its collective minds and they do move it to a trial the chances of dad being convicted by a jury are a snow balls chance in hell!

Liberty or Death on June 14, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Dad probably only remembers his first swing at the guy, from there it went black until he came to…

Like Ralphie on Farkus in Christmas Story.

Dingbat63 on June 14, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Easy for those who aren’t personally involved to suggest there’s a line which the father may have crossed…and obviously those who argue such don’t have a four year old daughter getting raped before their eyes. I have two daughters and would most likely respond in a similar fashion. Too many deviates (see below), such as the one raping the girl- get sentenced, serve a reduced time for good behavior and then return to molest or rape again.

http://www.leadershipcouncil.org/1/res/rcd.html

1. Overall, follow-up studies typically find sexual recidivism rates of 10%-15% after five years, 20% after 10 years, and 30%-40% after 20 years (see, Hanson, Morton, & Harris, 2003).
2. The vast majority of sex offenses are never reported. (Hanson et al., 1990)
3. If 100% of released molesters re-offended, but the rate of reporting is only 12%, and the conviction rate is half of this, than the recidivism rate would be reported as only 6%!
4. Another perspective on the problem is offered by Anna Salter, one of the foremost experts on sex offenders in the country. She writes the following in her popular book Predators:

“The dry research figures only confirm what I have seen over and over in this field: there are a lot of sexual offenses out there and the people who commit them don’t get caught very often. When an offender is caught and has a thorough evaluation with a polygraph backup, he will reveal dozens, sometimes hundreds of offenses he was never apprehended for. In an unpublished study by Pamela Van Wyk, 26 offenders in her incarcerated treatment program entered the program admitting an average of 3 victims each. Faced with a polygraph and the necessity of passing it to stay in the treatment program, the next group of 23 men revealed an average of 175 victims each.”

Arguing the facts legally requires more disclosure then what is offered in the post. It’s much more complicated then implied. Lastly, where’s the discussion over the lasting effects and impact on the little girl? Seems to me there’s very high likely hood that there were other children the pervert molested and/or raped. Did he deserve his day in court? In a perfect world, which i haven’t come across. Are the little girl and father scarred for life…most certainly. Will there be anymore innocent victims that suffer at the hands of this pervert…nope.

GodogGo on June 14, 2012 at 5:25 PM

Like Ralphie on Farkus in Christmas Story.

Dingbat63 on June 14, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Exactly…I thought of that scene too…great minds and all! No doubt in my mind that’s what happened to dad…he will not see the inside of a jail!

I am a bit concerned too. Nobody should be the judge, jury and executioner. I am afraid that this is a sticky issue and should be. We will never be able to get the man who is dead to testify. That said, I don’t know what I would do, if I found someone in the act of molesting one of my nieces or nephews.
SC.Charlie on June 14, 2012 at 1:38 PM

SC, dad did not intend on being judge, jury or executioner. Many people are missing something key here and that is what some have touched on and that is dad went into a blind rage or as Karl Magnus pointed out (in a more technical way) dad went into a “dissociative state.”

Here’s the definition of dissociation: An experience where a person may feel disconnected from himself and/or his surroundings. Dissociation may range from temporarily losing touch with things that are going on around you (like what happens when you daydream) to having no memories for a prolonged period of time and/or feeling as though you are outside of your body. Dissociation has been found to be a risk factor for developing PTSD. Also Known As: depersonalization, derealization, dissociative disorder, dissociative state

What happened to the dad could of happened to anyone, it’s a natural physiological reaction to a traumatic event…dad’s rage fueled by adrenaline sent his mind elsewhere while his physical body pummeled the scumbag pedophile to death…as I commented earlier, dad probably only remembers his daughter’s screams for help and the first swing he took at the attacker, then the next thing he remembers is standing over the perps dead body.

Dad is not a criminal and any decent lawyer will easily win with a “dissociative state” defense!

Liberty or Death on June 14, 2012 at 5:36 PM

Dad probably only remembers his first swing at the guy, from there it went black until he came to…

Like Ralphie on Farkus in Christmas Story.

Dingbat63 on June 14, 2012 at 5:07 PM

Or like Captain Call in Lonesome Dove when he sees someone whipping his son (with an actual whip).

cptacek on June 14, 2012 at 5:40 PM

One last thing…it should be relatively easy to establish whether-or -not the child was sexually molested in this case. Were there witnesses to the facts of the case? Can a four year old testify and what damage will that do to her?

GodogGo on June 14, 2012 at 5:46 PM

One last thing…it should be relatively easy to establish whether-or -not the child was sexually molested in this case. Were there witnesses to the facts of the case? Can a four year old testify and what damage will that do to her? – GodogGo on June 14, 2012 at 5:46 PM

I hope some evidence does support the man’s actions other than just what he says.

SC.Charlie on June 14, 2012 at 6:14 PM

It’s supposed to be a justice system, not a legal system. He was defending a four year old child and himself; they were alone, isolated. He did not have the luxury of time. To me, he had to make sure that they guy would not get up and either flee or possibly attack again. He had the right to make the decision to beat the guy to death, period.

Legally, can a case be made against him? Sure. Should it? No, that would be contrary to the idea of justice. And I don’t think any case could be made that he sinned by killing the guy; the Bible doesn’t condemn all killing, just murder. I’m unaware of any passage in the Bible that says we must let the authorities take care of it. kdlee on June 14, 2012 at 1:52 PM

What if the men got into an argument over something totally different than what he claims? And, they got into a fight and he killed the other man …………… and, now claims that he was defending his daughter from a child molester. That would be a clever defense. Let us all, please, allow the entire legal system do its job and try to sort out all this mess before we put this man on some type of pedestal. It is also good that the dead man’s family and friends haven’t formed a mob aren’t standing outside his house attempting to have him lynched from the nearest tree.

SC.Charlie on June 14, 2012 at 6:25 PM

I used to think Allahpundit and I were of like mind in most cases. Not so anymore.

The nice thing about Texas is that the letter of the law is not necessarily always the letter of the law. You can analyze this case to death, but what father wouldn’t be justified witnessing an illegal molesting his 4 yr. old daughter and not being carried away with rage until he beat the guy to death?

Even pausing for a few seconds/minutes to check on his daughter, and then continuing his own form of justice, he was justified…

stacman on June 14, 2012 at 6:38 PM

With the moronic juries that are seated these days, justice should be immediate anyway before they let the next OJ or Casey Anthony loose on the streets.

stacman on June 14, 2012 at 6:45 PM

Are you Hotair guys lawyering up everytime you think you need to post on these things? You’ve got Ed suggesting that you need to be psychic before you attempt to defend yourself (because somehow you’re supposed to know if the person attacking just wants to kick a little butt vs. wants to kill you…which tells me Ed doesn’t really have a CCW or whoever his intructor was, was more worried about lawsuits than in properly instructing the class) and now this one suggesting that you get one knock out punch and that’s it – hate to say it, most professional boxers don’t do one-hit KOs. You’ve apparently not been in a fight (or not won one), you hit hard and fast, as many times as it takes to make the other guy quit doing what they’re doing – which might be terminal. There’s not one martial arts outfit in the country that teaches you to just hit somebody once.
Can we get a writer on here that knows what they’re talking about at least one time? or just ignore the self defense related articles, because you look like fools.

John_G on June 14, 2012 at 7:16 PM

Or like Captain Call in Lonesome Dove when he sees someone whipping his son (with an actual whip).

cptacek on June 14, 2012 at 5:40 PM

Quirting, as they put it.

In those days no one would question the father if it’s clear the perp was molesting his daughter. They would have thought Dad did a service for society.

dukecitygirl on June 14, 2012 at 7:23 PM

I hope some evidence does support the man’s actions other than just what he says.

SC.Charlie on June 14, 2012 at 6:14 PM

FOX News reported that the child had some “minor injuries”. I bet they corroborated with the father’s story.

I can’t contemplate what I might have done if I stumbled onto the same scenario. I would probably go into a blind rage and kill.

dukecitygirl on June 14, 2012 at 7:26 PM

What if the men got into an argument over something totally different than what he claims? And, they got into a fight and he killed the other man …………… and, now claims that he was defending his daughter from a child molester. That would be a clever defense. Let us all, please, allow the entire legal system do its job and try to sort out all this mess before we put this man on some type of pedestal. It is also good that the dead man’s family and friends haven’t formed a mob aren’t standing outside his house attempting to have him lynched from the nearest tree.

SC.Charlie on June 14, 2012 at 6:25 PM

WHat I think is amazing is some of you want to give the molestor the benefit of the doubt which is fine, but you don’t want to give that same benefit to the father… There had to be SOME evidence of a molestation of the child or the father would already have been in jail.

melle1228 on June 14, 2012 at 7:56 PM

That just goes to show how all Libtards are sociopaths and clinically insane. I’ll bet this a$$klown would get all weepy on behalf of Hitler if a Jew killed Hitler with his bare hands at Auschwitz.

Bleeding Heart Liberals just sicken me. They are disgusting, loathsome people.

CatchAll on June 14, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Excellent post, my sentiments exactly.

My advice to women, *ESPECIALLY* very good looking women, is to find a good conservative man to marry. As is apparent, a liberal man is a wussy and if your life or the life of your child were ever threatened, they would feel too guilty about harming the man raping you or your child.

A conservative man, though, will fight and if necessary, kill to protect you and your children.

Do you want a deadbeat wussy for a husband, or a strong man that will protect you and your children?

There’s my gift to all you young conservative men :-)

BruthaMan on June 14, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Or like Captain Call in Lonesome Dove when he sees someone whipping his son (with an actual whip).

cptacek on June 14, 2012 at 5:40 PM

My favorite movie of all time.

“I hate rude behavior in a man. I won’t tolerate it.”

BruthaMan on June 14, 2012 at 10:22 PM

All of a sudden this thread is taken over by those oh so holier than thou’s. So ready to tell us what we should say and not say about an animal. What sort of a man attacks sexually toddlers? He was caught in the act, what ever happened to him after that, so be it.

Please don’t try your morally superior arguments on people that have daughters. This argument was the same the Obummer and Holder made on the animals at Gitmo. Hog wash try them and hang them, hang them high so that they can be seen by any who wish to. I’m bone tired of giving rapist and murderers the benefit of the doubt, while their victims are dead or worse.

jainphx on June 14, 2012 at 11:10 PM

jainphx on June 14, 2012 at 11:10 PM

They have a right to their opinion … and the consequences their opinions may someday have on them or their family.

I live in a small town. My neighbor is a retired minister. We were talking one day a few years ago and he asked if I had heard about the young woman who was raped in a parking lot outside our local “box store”.

I said I had heard about it and that the fellow who had raped her had been arrested but was claiming it was consensual – even though the young woman had been severely bruised during the incident.

My neigbor was incensed about the incident.

Not because a rape had occurred; they are infrequent out here.

He was incensed because her family was “trusting the legal system” and not addressing the situation it always had been out here.

Turns out, up till then, the family of a woman who was raped and believed her story would just hijack the wrong doer, take him out to a far away field, put a bullet in his head, bury him and never discuss it.

My neighbor was furious the young woman’s family cared so little for her peace of mind.

(Yes, I know the liberal trolls will be incensed by this story.)

PolAgnostic on June 14, 2012 at 11:47 PM

All of a sudden this thread is taken over by those oh so holier than thou’s. So ready to tell us what we should say and not say about an animal. What sort of a man attacks sexually toddlers? He was caught in the act, what ever happened to him after that, so be it.

Please don’t try your morally superior arguments on people that have daughters. This argument was the same the Obummer and Holder made on the animals at Gitmo. Hog wash try them and hang them, hang them high so that they can be seen by any who wish to. I’m bone tired of giving rapist and murderers the benefit of the doubt, while their victims are dead or worse.

jainphx on June 14, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Amen….

If you can sit on Mount Olympus and look down your nose at the unwashed masses with disdain because they lack sympathy for the rights of the “accused”… when he was caught in the friggin act by her father..

congratulations on departing humanity and every instinctual impulse to protect your child that the rest of us are born with. You can parse it with the “oh.. I don’t know what I’d do myself” horsesh*t you like.

The fact is, if you can say that with a straight face, you have already demonstrated exactly what you would do.. you’d walk outside and cower behind a bush while dialing 911 and waiting for someone else to come and help her.

I don’t care if the bast*rd is 7’6″ and 350lbs….. I would die tying, and I would use any means fair or foul to take him down.. and I know the usual foul ways.

I’m disabled, but have a history as a scrapper,.. and military training in the low art of inflicting pain, and death on an opponent… I am not very stable on my feet,.. can’t run, legs won’t co-ordinate.. but there’s nothing wrong with my hands. But given the advantage of surprise, and the knowledge I cannot loose a fight, and have to end it as fast as humanly possible, to keep from dying or allowing her to die.. you can bet I will use every nasty wicked technique and skill I was taught to end his life quickly. I also will state with a completely honest answer after, I feared for her life and my own and used the force necessary to end the threat..

convict me if you dare..

The law as I understand it here in Ohio, says you can use deadly force if you fear for your life, or the life of another. My training was put to use in a restricted area with big signs posted, “use of deadly force is authorized”. My entire mindset is built around that, and instinctive muscle memory make it a given, in a high adrenaline moment, I would revert to that mindset and training.

convict me if you can.

No one causes harm to another human being cost free.. I know that, and I would not revel or relish doing that… but I am stating a fact, I would do what he did, because I to my mind, have no other option. Running for help is not an option.. I’d be running on instinct..

and spare me the “keyboard hero” horsesh*t.. I have had my epiphany, and have had to deal with a fight or flight situation more than once, so I know how I’d react. There’d be no guess..

There are a great many white collar educated and professional people who post here, I have no issue with that, but my background is not yours. Violence in my world, was a tool, of last resort, but a tool. Too many here have a lack of real world experience with the darker side of human nature. It’s one thing to read about it, quite another to have memories of my father sitting up with a 12 gauge across his lap because a felon he arrested had threatened to come and kill his family when he made bail.. or have to take on a schoolyard thug and his three best friends when they thought pounding my brother for his developmental handicap was fun.. or taking the throat of a sis in laws boyfriend in hand because he had left her with a black eye..

Welcome to lower income middle working class America. There are no high priced condo’s or gated communities where I live or millions like me.

I, we,.. would never convict that father, because … “guilty till proven politically correct” is an idiot liberal mindset.. I prefer innocent till proven guilty,.. and I’ll grant the Dad that.. You can weep for the rapist all you like, my sympathy for the demons in my world is short, to nonexistent.

well.. ok.. just nonexistent.

But Ivory tower legal wrangling, and mental exercises are fine for many of you.. you don’t live three doors down from an ex con dealing weed.. or a half a block from an all male homeless shelter.. or a hundred yards from a white trash slum.. seperated by a bridge and a small river… I intend to move as soon as we can.. but..

Try living as many of us are forced to with the dregs, then lecture about tolerance for a rapist’s civil rights.

I doubt we’ll listen.

mark81150 on June 15, 2012 at 8:08 AM

I walk in and find a man molesting my four year old daughter and he will be a dead man. As for this man beating him to death, I say bravo, about time one of these monsters got what they deserves.

old war horse on June 15, 2012 at 8:16 AM

Are you criticizing the mobs that demanded that Zimmerman be prosecuted? – blink on June 14, 2012 at 12:28 PM

I am damned outraged by the mobs calling for Zimmerman’s head on a platter. The more I learn about what when on that night, the more I am convinced Zimmerman acted within his rights. The sad fact is that Zimmerman is going to have to live in fear of his life, for the rest of his life.

SC.Charlie on June 15, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Mr. Perv has the right to remain dead.

mojo on June 15, 2012 at 11:42 AM

Mr. Perv has the right to remain dead. – mojo on June 15, 2012 at 11:42 AM

The man is dead, but let the legal system determine if the killing was justified. Don’t hoist the Father on a pedestal too quickly, only to find out that he ain’t telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

SC.Charlie on June 15, 2012 at 11:48 AM

SC.Charlie on June 15, 2012 at 11:48 AM

If this is all a hoax, why was the girl bleeding and in the hospital?

cptacek on June 15, 2012 at 12:19 PM

The man is dead, but let the legal system determine if the killing was justified. Don’t hoist the Father on a pedestal too quickly, only to find out that he ain’t telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

SC.Charlie on June 15, 2012 at 11:48 AM

.
This would be the same legal system that has George Zimmerman in jail even though Alan Dershowitz has publicly written the prosecutor illegally and unethically withheld evidence in the affadavit she put before the judge regarding to obtain his arrest warrant.

The would be the legal system that has George Zimmerman’s wife in jail on a perjury charge from the same prosecutor whom Alan Dershowitz says has perjured herself in handling the Zimmerman case.

This would be the same legal system which despite the testimony of MF global witnesses that investor funds were comingled at the direction of Jon Corzine says, in the form of several U.S. Attorneys, they cannot find sufficient evidence to indict Corzine for violation of Federal statutes.

This would be the legal system that has been directly scoffed by the TBTF banks when they set up M.E.R.S. and used it to bundled millions of mortgages into clearly fraudulent Mortgage Backed Securities. The legal system subverted by the Obama administration with the nationwide settlement crammed down the throats of all but one state and ignoring the single largest R.I.C.O. conspiracy by the executives of the TBTF banks.

Would this be the legal system you are referring to?

PolAgnostic on June 15, 2012 at 12:33 PM

If this is all a hoax, why was the girl bleeding and in the hospital? – cptacek on June 15, 2012 at 12:19 PM

I don’t know let the doctors testify in a court of law.

Would this be the legal system you are referring to? – PolAgnostic on June 15, 2012 at 12:33 PM

The legal system has become politicized in the Zimmerman case to a horrid degree. But it is what we live under. I hope that Zimmerman is able to sue the heck out of some of those who have misused the legal system to appease an African-American mob.

SC.Charlie on June 15, 2012 at 3:10 PM

I hope some evidence does support the man’s actions other than just what he says.

SC.Charlie on June 14, 2012 at 6:14 PM

I guess when you posted this, you really didn’t want to know?

What if the men got into an argument over something totally different than what he claims? And, they got into a fight and he killed the other man …………… and, now claims that he was defending his daughter from a child molester. That would be a clever defense. Let us all, please, allow the entire legal system do its job and try to sort out all this mess before we put this man on some type of pedestal. It is also good that the dead man’s family and friends haven’t formed a mob aren’t standing outside his house attempting to have him lynched from the nearest tree.

SC.Charlie on June 14, 2012 at 6:25 PM

So your super theory is that they got in an argument, the dad killed the guy, then raped his daughter to cover it up?

cptacek on June 15, 2012 at 4:07 PM

The legal system has become politicized in the Zimmerman case to a horrid degree. But it is what we live under. I hope that Zimmerman is able to sue the heck out of some of those who have misused the legal system to appease an African-American mob.

SC.Charlie on June 15, 2012 at 3:10 PM

You have conveniently ignored the two other instances demonstrating a MUCH larger scale of corruption in the legal system.

It is fair to say under the Obama administration the legal system has been abrogated so the desired outcomes are obtained (e.g. protection of campaign sponsors, persecution of gunowners, civil rights protection for select groups, bypassing the GM bondholders).

You are either incompetent to hold an opinion on the legal system or you are corrupt and part of the current thuggery.

Which is it?

PolAgnostic on June 15, 2012 at 5:32 PM

So your super theory is that they got in an argument, the dad killed the guy, then raped his daughter to cover it up? – cptacek on June 15, 2012 at 4:07 PM

No, I just don’t know what happened, do you. Let the authorities/legal system sort through the mess.

SC.Charlie on June 15, 2012 at 8:21 PM

You have conveniently ignored the two other instances demonstrating a MUCH larger scale of corruption in the legal system.

It is fair to say under the Obama administration the legal system has been abrogated so the desired outcomes are obtained (e.g. protection of campaign sponsors, persecution of gunowners, civil rights protection for select groups, bypassing the GM bondholders).

You are either incompetent to hold an opinion on the legal system or you are corrupt and part of the current thuggery.

Which is it? – PolAgnostic on June 15, 2012 at 5:32 PM

Obama has inserted himself into the Zimmerman case and the case about the African-American professor. He should have stayed the hell out of both cases. And, his Attorney General should be thrown out of office. Obama and his doofus of an Attorney General have not said one word about this case. From what I have read it appears that the man the father killed did molest his daughter. Just let the damn legal system function in Texas. Have we lost all confidence in our legal system? If so, feel free to take the law in your own hands and then we will have anarchy.

SC.Charlie on June 15, 2012 at 8:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4