TEXAS DAD BEATS HIS DAUGHTER’S MOLESTER TO DEATH

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

People people people,

There were two partied wronged here.

1. The child who was assaulted.

2. All of us ... because there was no video for us to enjoy.

Danno is going to be raided for child porn tomorrow....

j/k I assume you are referring to the guy getting beaten.

[Ban Hammer 13,348]

Its interesting that a few blows to the head can kill a man. Hmm what case have we heard different recently......

[Ban Hammer 13,348]

This guy will never see the inside of a courtroom in Texas. IF the prosecutor takes it to a grand jury ( and that in itself is a big IF) the grand jury will more than likely "no bill" this guy.

if the prosecutor took it to a grand jury, that prosecutor might be finding himself out of a job upon election day.

seems to me the father is an excellent lifeguard for the gene pool, and the perp was just thrown out of the shallow end of that pool.

[aaydrian 479]

Hi aaydrian! I didn't say any of that.

Stop implicating me in your nasty thought experiment.

Again, people on here just love a "public lynching". I'm just saying this news is bad writing. They didn't have facts, testimonies, etc. And everyone just kept saying how the other guy deserved to be killed by another man's own bare hands. When we weren't even there and didn't truly know what happened.

Then clarify your grey area point of view.

If the molester was really caught in the act (or even after the fact) and in anger the father beats the $hit out of him and he dies as a result then oh well. The victims father blinded by rage reacted and considering the crime I find no fault with his actions. Look at it like this, the offender most likely would have died anyhow be it after being prison raped then killed or by unknown assailants after being released. We just saved some time...and tax dollars.

[Leatherneck 693]

Oh gee. You're pulling out credentials? The knowledge of medically determined physical abuse is very basic. I don't need to be decades away from graduation to know what that is.

I didn't say anything that you were implying. I simply stated that the news article didn't mention the results of a medical report and that we, as objective viewers, shouldn't jump to the conclusion that an abuse actually occurred.

I never said that.

Victim blaming is never a good thing to do.

Hi aaydrian! I didn't say any of that.

Stop implicating me in your nasty thought experiment.

Again, I will quote what you quoted:

"I am definitely against abuse and if it really happened the way it was reported (which is still crappy writing ugh), the offender deserved to be punished. But, killing is simply put... not for men with sane minds.

Some people think it's just so easy to kill someone when really you have to be psychologically "broken down" to be able to kill."

I see that you're in the military. Were you, from day one, able to immediately come to terms with the fact that you will aid or will directly kill another human being? It wasn't that easy, was it? That is what the last statement meant.

Again, people on here just love a "public lynching". I'm just saying this news is bad writing. They didn't have facts, testimonies, etc. And everyone just kept saying how the other guy deserved to be killed by another man's own bare hands. When we weren't even there and didn't truly know what happened.

Ok, "bad news writing." It is what it is, even if you don't like the writing, the story is all over the news, find an article that makes you feel better or is written to your liking. If you're a pacifist, just own it, it's ok, decent people don't like violence.

Really, "killing is simply put... not for men with sane minds." From where did you get such? Adrenaline, fight or flight, panic, fear, anger and the will to survive -- surely being a medically educated woman, you understand the effects of adrenaline suddenly flooding the body. Therefore, when a father discovers his 4 yr old being sexually abused, flight is not an option.

From day one, I knew I hadn't joined the Boy Scouts of America, killing was part of the job description, it's a mindset. Killing is not as hard as you portray it to be, being psychologically "broken down" is not required. The will to survive and/or the desire to neutralize the threat are required.

Edited June 13, 2012 by Leatherneck

[lierre 224]

Ok, "bad news writing." It is what it is, even if you don't like the writing, the story is all over the news, find an article that makes you feel better or is written to your liking. If you're a pacifist, just own it, it's ok, decent people don't like violence.

Ha ha ha! I apologize for using the word "bad" right before the word "news". It confused you. I believe I had a good grasp of English, but sometimes, I forget about grammar (which my fiance does easily, too. Haha!)

I should have typed it as bad, sensationalist, irresponsible news writing.

There are loooads of articles written on crimes everywhere and the posted article is simply NOT one of them.

Really, "killing is simply put... not for men with sane minds." From where did you get such? Adrenaline, fight or flight, panic, fear, anger and the will to survive -- surely being a medically educated woman, you understand the effects of adrenaline suddenly flooding the body. Therefore, when a father discovers his 4 yr old being sexually abused, flight is not an option.

Flight and fight are options. Killing is also an option. Much as just injuring the person enough to make him incapacitated then calling out for further help is an option.

Re: Adrenaline, this hormone/neurotransmitter does not make you temporarily unable to make decisions. Citing it as the cause for the dad going on a blind rampage is a huge misinterpretation of what adrenaline/epinephrine actually does. Here's a wiki link for an easy-to-read fact sheet on the said hormone.

From day one, I knew I hadn't joined the Boy Scouts of America, killing was part of the job description, it's a mindset. Killing is not as hard as you portray it to be, being psychologically "broken down" is not required. The will to survive and/or the desire to neutralize the threat are required.

I still stand by what I said... not all people start their lives out thinking "yes, I can kill just about anyone today"... Surely, you went into training. And for sure, you had mental health advisers and other activities that catered to your mental health... you know why that's needed? Cause killing is not a regular man's natural instinct.

Anyway, I'm just being technical here. The mental health of the military is, in fact, a whole chapter in any good psychiatry book. So, I'm sure any of what I said won't make that much sense to you unless you've read the literature on it.

Then clarify your grey area point of view.

If the molester was really caught in the act (or even after the fact) and in anger the father beats the $hit out of him and he dies as a result then oh well. The victims father blinded by rage reacted and considering the crime I find no fault with his actions. Look at it like this, the offender most likely would have died anyhow be it after being prison raped then killed or by unknown assailants after being released. We just saved some time...and tax dollars.

If what the news article said really did happen, I do not find fault in his urge to protect his daughter. As I said earlier, the news hardly covered everything needed for the reader to know.

I'd like to think the father didn't really intend to kill the offender. And his death was just an unexpected outcome for the father's rampage. Or maybe, I'm just choosing to believe in the best of people... and the father is really that psychologically "broken down" (i.e. able to kill a person without thought to repercussions = psychopath) to kill someone and not feel the least bit guilty about it.

[Peter_Pan 661]

and the father is really that psychologically "broken down" (i.e. able to kill a person without thought to repercussions = psychopath) to kill someone and not feel the least bit guilty about it.

I would think being able to kill someone with thought to repercussions would be worse.

~~~

And I don't know what adrenaline does "theoretically", but I can tell you it made me extremely single minded - and not rainbows and unicorns sort of mind set -, and it blocked my short term memory: I remember bits and pieces, but I have no idea what people that were involved looked like (ever since then it always amazes me how people can describe their assailants).

Edited June 13, 2012 by Peter_Pan

[Dan and Judy 614]

Don't forget that LBJ was a Texan.

yeah, JFK made that mistake, He should have stayed out of Texas

[aaydrian 479]

Flight and fight are options. Killing is also an option. Much as just injuring the person enough to make him incapacitated then calling out for further help is an option...

I still stand by what I said... not all people start their lives out thinking "yes, I can kill just about anyone today"...Cause killing is not a regular man's natural instinct.

I'd like to think the father didn't really intend to kill the offender. And his death was just an unexpected outcome for the father's rampage. Or maybe, I'm just choosing to believe in the best of people... and the father is really that psychologically "broken down" (i.e. able to kill a person without thought to repercussions = psychopath) to kill someone and not feel the least bit guilty about it.

Killing is clear option (but shouldn't be a choice not) when:

1) Someone stole that little girl's book and the father knows who's the thief.

2) Someone accidentally or intentionally broke that man's daughter's leg.

Killing is an obscured option when that man witnesses/finds out about the assault on his daughter. This is something that is likely to cause psychological and emotional issues for the girl and who knows how it will affect how she socializes with males or people in general for the rest of her life. Is the father necessarily thinking all this in his anger, no, but I'm sure that what goes through his mind is this digusting man ruined his daughter, someone he swore to protect.

Another thing...if men weren't animals we wouldn't need rules/laws/trials because we would all be tea loving emotionless prudes. Do you ever wonder why dogs being domesticated need to leashed in public? Its because at any moment they may snap and attack someone for no reason and we need to prevent that as this always obedient dog isn't going to hear 'No Rover', 'Stop Rover' or 'Stay Rover'. Laws are here to keep us in line but they only work when you're thinking rationally (or civilized according to your logic) where you take them into consideration and the legal consequences of your actions. We may walk upright, have opposable thumbs, have higher thinking and communication skills but we're still animals. No matter if you're religious or not the fact still remains we're originally from the bush/jungle/mountains and sometimes jungle justice is what happens.

[Captain Oates 911]

Google is your friend. John Adams died in 1826. Civil War started in 1861. I think you're referring to the Boston Massacre.

In Texas a DA brings the evidence in front of a grand jury. They then decide if there is enough eveidence to indict. In other states they use a preliminary hearing in front of a judge to see if there is enough evidence to move forward. In either case, this goes nowhere. Even if this happened in San Francisco, this case would go nowhere.

I don't know much about British law, but I would take a guess and say it wouldn't go anywhere there either. Almost all people act spontaneously in cases like this. They don't pull out the book of the Texas penal code to see what the consequences might be if the bash in some guys brains that is (attempting) raping your 4 year old daughter.

I find it pretty shocking that anyone from any society or culture would have a problem with what this father of a 4 YEAR OLD did to this man.

No such thing as British law - but there is the law of England and Wales

US Federal law adopted the law of England and Wales right up to the mid 1800's when 'stated case' law in England was sent straight to the US so that laws could be updated automatically

The common law is the law that has lasted since 'time immemorial' and that is used in the US for many offenses.

I am sure that the defense of 'provocation' will have found its way into the Federal code and the main thing to note is that the provocation need not been intentional

In the example I gave where a man dressed as a woman in order to be kissed and cuddled by another man, 'she' did not intend to provoke an attack - just the opposite - and yet 'her' killer was acquitted because of provocation

So the main point is that US and English law are invariably at one in these circumstances and the defense is proved for

My concern is that a great percentage of the population are not intellectually equipped to make these fine distinctions, and that vigilante attacks hours or days after the provocation are sometimes seen as reasonable and justified by the vigilante

Provocation has to be in the heat of the event and not cold blooded retribution which is a crime

I do get the impression that many contributors to this thread simply do not care about the law and say that in Texas, we lynch people as we think fit and yankee law has no place here - ie that killing the person a week later and in cold blood, is just fine and dandy and it's the Texan way

It's that mind-set that I have a problem with

[^_^ 5,021]

I do get the impression that many contributors to this thread simply do not care about the law and say that in Texas, we lynch people as we think fit and yankee law has no place here - ie that killing the person a week later and in cold blood, is just fine and dandy and it's the Texan way

It's that mind-set that I have a problem with

you get the impression?

i get the impression you hang out at home all day in your wifes sundress watching monty python.

[Captain Oates 911]

Oh yes they do. Bring up illegal aliens and you'll turn them all back into foaming-at-the-mouth, "it's the law!"-yers.

I think that Lincoln made a big mistake when he forced them back into Union.

They are not happy and we are not happy

Lynching of black farmers - no mixed marriages - shooting child molesters without trial - no voting or State jobs for non-believers - they would like to be able to do all those things again

No wonder everyone is so polite in the shopping malls - they realize the true nature of their fellow citizens

However, it's nice here in Madison, Wisconsin !

Edited June 13, 2012 by Ashud Cocoa

[Penguin_ie 5,993]

**** several posts removed for TOS violation and personal attacks. Get back on topic and stay civil, or thread bans and admin action will be next. Please remember the Mods cannot read every post made on VJ. If you see objectionable content, report it via the REPORT button at the bottom left of every post ****

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What people are really trying to make the argument here is whether retaliatory violence is ever justified and that's a slippery slope to be on when looking at it in the broadest sense.

[Captain Oates 911]

What people are really trying to make the argument here is whether retaliatory violence is ever justified and that's a slippery slope to be on when looking at it in the broadest sense.

It clearly is lawful when it is immediate and there is sufficient provocation in the legal sense rather than the usual sense...

I came fourth in the UK criminal law exams (almost identical in all it's founding elements to US Federal code) and the subject remains clear in my mind

However, I get the impression that Texans in particular, don't give a hoot for 'immediacy' or the law, and advocate the more primitive response of huntin' em down days, weeks or years later - and carrying out Western 'justice'

The more this idea can be resisted, the better it will be for all concerned