A quickie postscript to last Friday’s viral news story du jour. Quote:

“My immediate feeling was to kill him, so he will never hurt anyone again,” the father said.

The father believes Frolander’s bloody and bruised face is getting too much publicity. He said he doesn’t regret his reaction, but he isn’t bragging about it either. He is, however, bragging about his son.

“My son saved Raymond. Raymond was motionless on our floor. I went to the kitchen to grab a butcher knife and my son stopped me. My son came in front of me and saved his attacker’s life,” said the father.

The right of self-defense in Florida entitles you to use force to stop an attack on yourself or another person, including deadly force to prevent imminent death, great bodily harm, or “the imminent commission of a forcible felony.” You can shoot a rapist to stop him, in other words — but once the man’s down and out cold, the attack having been stopped and the perp neutralized, you don’t get to punish him by finishing him off. This guy’s son stopped him right at the line between self-defense and voluntary manslaughter.

Question for legal eagles out there, especially prosecutors: Public support for this guy means there’s no way he’s going to be charged for a crime, especially since he stopped short of inflicting any serious injury, but would his admission that he (momentarily) intended to stab this guy while he was unconscious make you take a second look at the beating? I don’t know how anyone would or could prove that the beating continued past the point that was needed to stop the attack such that it changed from self-defense to assault, but dad’s copping here to some desire to harm the guy, not just disarm him. If his son said, “Yeah, dad kicked him in the face a few times after he passed out,” would that make you revisit the case? Or, realistically, is there just no way you’re going to waste any time pursuing this, knowing that no jury will convict?