Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Tx man beats daughters molester to death.

Page 4 of 6 [ 96 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Ann2011
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jul 2011
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,843
Location: Ontario, Canada

22 May 2014, 9:54 am

Misslizard wrote:
Let's say this fellow was trying to rape a lion cub,what do you think would happen?


Image



Fogman
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 19 Jun 2005
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,986
Location: Frå Nord Dakota til Vermont

22 May 2014, 1:44 pm

Ann2011 wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
Let's say this fellow was trying to rape a lion cub,what do you think would happen?


Image


The mommy lion would shred him to pieces and eat them afterwards. BTW, Cute lion cubs, they remind me of the ones in the South Park Episode 'Woodland Critter Christmas'.


_________________
When There's No There to get to, I'm so There!


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

23 May 2014, 3:14 pm

Dox47 wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
There is no question in my mind that what this man did was criminal.


I'm not so sure, beating someone to death is one of those things that could involve excessive force, or could also be the result of one particularly heavy blow to the right spot, and without the details of what the cause of death was, we don't really know. Given the circumstances, I'd be inclined to give the guy a pass even if it was a more prolonged beating, as it's not a situation where rational thought is going to enter into things.


Read up on the, "thin jawed plaintiff rule," Dox. You aren't protected from a finding of excessive force when a "lucky shot" winds up having a disproportionate impact.


_________________
--James


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

23 May 2014, 3:19 pm

Misslizard wrote:
It has nothing to do with a mob.Im guessing you don't have kids.A parent reacts and they don't even think about it,you are auto pilot at that moment,something is harming your child.Try and take a chick from a mother hen,or a sow with piglets,see what happens.That man was acting on a primal instinct to protect his young,that's why it's justified.Any parent worth their salt would have done the same.


Of course it's the mob, and you are as bloodthirsty as the rest.

There is a Common Law defence that covers the circumstances you posit, Misslizard. It's called automotism. But we will never get to know whether or not the facts would have supported such a finding, because the facts of this case will never be tested in a Court of Law. And why not?

Because the mob would riot in front of the Statehouse were a prosecutor dare to suggest that this person should be held to account for his actions in a Court of Law. This is the very definition of mob rule--when the body politic substitutes its own decision for the Rule of Law.


_________________
--James


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

23 May 2014, 3:23 pm

Raptor wrote:
I just knew someone would come along and have an issue with this. Sure enough someone did and I'm not at all surprised that it's you.


Of course I did. Because first, last and always I stand up for the Rule of Law.

And whether you agree with me or not, you have just paid me one of the highest compliments that I have been paid in this forum.


_________________
--James


Misslizard
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jun 2012
Age: 61
Gender: Female
Posts: 20,550
Location: Aux Arcs

23 May 2014, 3:53 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
It has nothing to do with a mob.Im guessing you don't have kids.A parent reacts and they don't even think about it,you are auto pilot at that moment,something is harming your child.Try and take a chick from a mother hen,or a sow with piglets,see what happens.That man was acting on a primal instinct to protect his young,that's why it's justified.Any parent worth their salt would have done the same.


Of course it's the mob, and you are as bloodthirsty as the rest.

There is a Common Law defence that covers the circumstances you posit, Misslizard. It's called automotism. But we will never get to know whether or not the facts would have supported such a finding, because the facts of this case will never be tested in a Court of Law. And why not?

Because the mob would riot in front of the Statehouse were a prosecutor dare to suggest that this person should be held to account for his actions in a Court of Law. This is the very definition of mob rule--when the body politic substitutes its own decision for the Rule of Law.

Let's suppose you come upon a person savagely raping a small child,no one else is around,you can't get to a phone.What would you do?Send them a cease and desist letter?


_________________
I am the dust that dances in the light. - Rumi


starvingartist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2008
Age: 46
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,032

23 May 2014, 4:53 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
I just knew someone would come along and have an issue with this. Sure enough someone did and I'm not at all surprised that it's you.


Of course I did. Because first, last and always I stand up for the Rule of Law.

And whether you agree with me or not, you have just paid me one of the highest compliments that I have been paid in this forum.


there is a reason justice systems are set up as they are--the point being to adapt and evolve as the populations they serve change and evolve over time by having functions like higher courts that can challenge rulings, as well as bills which can add to/edit/alter existing law, and all those other wonderful functions of justice. what good is any law that is above questioning, above revision? unalterable and unquestionable law carved in stone is the way of madness and social upheaval, not a reasoned society.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

23 May 2014, 6:54 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Read up on the, "thin jawed plaintiff rule," Dox. You aren't protected from a finding of excessive force when a "lucky shot" winds up having a disproportionate impact.


I thought that was mostly an assault law thing, like even if you just meant to shove a guy and he fell down and hit his head and died, you could still be charged with manslaughter or some type of homicide, as opposed to a self defense/defense of others law, where you have greater latitude in what constitutes reasonable force to stop an attack. Do we know how much investigation was done before the no charge decision was made? For all we know, the circumstances were so open and shut that a trial wasn't deemed necessary, rather than the decision being deemed politically expedient (though I'm sure that helped).


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

23 May 2014, 7:28 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
I just knew someone would come along and have an issue with this. Sure enough someone did and I'm not at all surprised that it's you.


Of course I did. Because first, last and always I stand up for the Rule of Law.

That guy was not going to get convicted in any criminal court with a human jury. Believe it or not, I know where your coming from with the rule of law thingy but in this case or any others like it it's just not going to fly. WTF kind of message would they be sending about the rule of law if they put that guy through the legal wringer, mentally and financially, just to have a jury refuse to convict him?
Become a realist for a change.

Quote:
And whether you agree with me or not, you have just paid me one of the highest compliments that I have been paid in this forum.

And I am honored.
Sagte der Junge der über die Deutsch Piraten belogen. :D


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


Last edited by Raptor on 23 May 2014, 8:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

23 May 2014, 8:19 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Raptor wrote:
I just knew someone would come along and have an issue with this. Sure enough someone did and I'm not at all surprised that it's you.


Of course I did. Because first, last and always I stand up for the Rule of Law.

And whether you agree with me or not, you have just paid me one of the highest compliments that I have been paid in this forum.


What if you had a child and you walked in and this piece of s**t had his and her underwear off and he was trying to rape her? What, exactly, would you do at that moment? Or, what do you think, or rather hope, you would do?


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


OliveOilMom
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2011
Age: 62
Gender: Female
Posts: 11,447
Location: About 50 miles past the middle of nowhere

23 May 2014, 8:20 pm

Misslizard wrote:
visagrunt wrote:
Misslizard wrote:
It has nothing to do with a mob.Im guessing you don't have kids.A parent reacts and they don't even think about it,you are auto pilot at that moment,something is harming your child.Try and take a chick from a mother hen,or a sow with piglets,see what happens.That man was acting on a primal instinct to protect his young,that's why it's justified.Any parent worth their salt would have done the same.


Of course it's the mob, and you are as bloodthirsty as the rest.

There is a Common Law defence that covers the circumstances you posit, Misslizard. It's called automotism. But we will never get to know whether or not the facts would have supported such a finding, because the facts of this case will never be tested in a Court of Law. And why not?

Because the mob would riot in front of the Statehouse were a prosecutor dare to suggest that this person should be held to account for his actions in a Court of Law. This is the very definition of mob rule--when the body politic substitutes its own decision for the Rule of Law.

Let's suppose you come upon a person savagely raping a small child,no one else is around,you can't get to a phone.What would you do?Send them a cease and desist letter?


I just asked him the same thing. I'm betting he would ask him politely to stop and then ask him if he had been molested as a child, then offer to pay for his counseling.


_________________
I'm giving it another shot. We will see.
My forum is still there and everyone is welcome to come join as well. There is a private women only subforum there if anyone is interested. Also, there is no CAPTCHA. ;-)

The link to the forum is http://www.rightplanet.proboards.com


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

23 May 2014, 8:31 pm

/\ :lol: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

24 May 2014, 2:36 am

Dox47 wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
The Texan dad needs counselling as he clearly represents a serious danger to anyone he "perceives" as not treating his child correctly.


What do you think he should have done, let the guy finish while he waited for the cops? Asked him politely (but firmly) to stop?


I actually agree with most posters that the pedo received what he deserved. However as with using guns, the authorities can;t condone the use of fatal violence even it appears justified. The dad has been forced to do something that's probably not in his nature. It's not easy to kill and one has to be conditioned before you can prepare yourself mentally,

I'm concerned that since he used fairly strong force on the pedophile whether he needs counselling to help adjust ot the idea that he did actually kill somebody.



Dox47
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,670
Location: Seattle-ish

24 May 2014, 3:01 am

cyberdad wrote:
I actually agree with most posters that the pedo received what he deserved. However as with using guns, the authorities can;t condone the use of fatal violence even it appears justified.


They can and do, it's called self defense law, and even the commonwealth countries have their own grudging versions of it.

cyberdad wrote:
The dad has been forced to do something that's probably not in his nature. It's not easy to kill and one has to be conditioned before you can prepare yourself mentally,


Didn't you just say a minute ago that the guy was obviously violent and dangerous? Wouldn't that make killing someone entirely in his nature?

cyberdad wrote:
I'm concerned that since he used fairly strong force on the pedophile whether he needs counselling to help adjust ot the idea that he did actually kill somebody.


That's a bit different to the tone you initially took, which was that the guy was a criminal and dangerous to those around him.


_________________
Your boos mean nothing, I've seen what makes you cheer.

- Rick Sanchez


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

24 May 2014, 3:55 am

Dox47 wrote:
That's a bit different to the tone you initially took, which was that the guy was a criminal and dangerous to those around him.

My initial reaction is one of repulsion to the idea of automatically killing somebody but I guess if any of us found our kids being assaulted it's hard imagine how we would react.,



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

24 May 2014, 3:57 am

Dox47 wrote:
Didn't you just say a minute ago that the guy was obviously violent and dangerous? Wouldn't that make killing someone entirely in his nature?

I'm pretty sure it's a concern to others that he was able to kill somebody so quickly and with little thought. It's just that people wouldn't tell him this to his face.