Perhaps you have heard the story of the father in Shiner, Texas, who killed a man with his bare hands when he found the man molesting his 5 year-old daughter. He will not be charged with a crime. Here's an article on the story: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/06/19/dad-not-charged-for-killing-daughter-molester/
What say ye? Is it right not to charge him? Should he be charged with manslaughter or murder? Discuss amongst yourselves.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 20, 2012, 02:20:48 AM
What say ye? Is it right not to charge him? Should he be charged with manslaughter or murder? Discuss amongst yourselves.
I say neither justified killing or murder, I'm going with manslaughter.
Yea, I would bring charges against him. Of course, I would not have them be as heavy since he was defending his daughter. Even so, killing the man did not help anybody.
From a purely pragmatic point of view (as opposed to a legalistic approach), there's no way the fellow would be convicted by a jury of his peers if he were brought up on charges of any kind. Thus it would be a waste of resources, both his and the community's, to attempt a prosecution. As for "did not help anybody," one could argue that he saved the state the hundreds of thousands of dollars that would have been spent on a trial and incarceration of the individual that was allegedly raping his daughter.
If the information is accurate I am going to have to go with justified. The father had every reason to think he was protecting his daughters life.
Plus this is one paedophile who won't be released to reoffend. O si sic omnes!
Yeah, I know that we're not supposed to support vigilante justice (although from the sounds of it, I don't think it was even "vigilante justice", since I don't think that the father intended to kill the molester) but I have a hard time feeling that the father should be punished for using force to protect his 5 year old from her rapist. :-\
Quote from: Ali on June 20, 2012, 05:49:25 PM
Yeah, I know that we're not supposed to support vigilante justice (although from the sounds of it, I don't think it was even "vigilante justice", since I don't think that the father intended to kill the molester) but I have a hard time feeling that the father should be punished for using force to protect his 5 year old from her rapist. :-\
Yeah, vigilante justice would be more like if the guy ran away, and the father hunted him down and killed him. As a person who has been in a few fights when I was younger, you don't always know the effect of the force you are using. It's hard to tell the difference between the number of blows that would protect the daughter, end the attack, and keep the perpetrator from doing it again, and the number of blows that would kill the guy. He caught him in the act, and had to disable him to protect his daughter and then allow him to attend to her without fear of the guy getting up and attacking again. He happened to hit him enough times to cause his death, but I don't think you can draw a distinction between how many times you can hit the guy and when you have to stop in a crisis situation like that.
For everyone's information, the case was presented to a "Grand Jury" which is a group of citizens chosen for a particular time to review possible felony cases. The District Attorney (prosecutor) presents the evidence to them, and then they decide whether to indict (formally charge with a felony) or "no bill" (not charge). They chose the latter here.
Justified.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 20, 2012, 06:24:09 PM
You don't always know the effect of the force you are using. It's hard to tell the difference between the number of blows that would protect the daughter, end the attack, and keep the perpetrator from doing it again, and the number of blows that would kill the guy. He caught him in the act, and had to disable him to protect his daughter and then allow him to attend to her without fear of the guy getting up and attacking again. He happened to hit him enough times to cause his death, but I don't think you can draw a distinction between how many times you can hit the guy and when you have to stop in a crisis situation like that.
This is what I was thinking. I have a police officer in the family who has taught a "use of force" course - it's trickier than you might think. Especially in a crisis situation when you're pumped full of adrenalin. It's hard enough for a trained professional to walk the line, let alone your average Joe trying to defend his daughter. Personally, I don't think it's murder because it doesn't sound like he had the intent to kill the guy - he called 911 and was seemed pretty distressed about the guy dying.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 21, 2012, 02:08:32 AM
Justified.
This.
I cry no tears for such a disgusting human being.
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 21, 2012, 02:08:32 AM
Justified.
Natural justice, yes.
Legal justice, of course not. This is a blatant travesty of legal justice. Unless (as in the UK at least) it qualifies to be mitigated on the grounds of 'diminished responsibility'.
It illustrates exactly the
inadequacy imperfection of legal law. It appears that natural justice has been served and the perpetrator vindicated, despite - not because of - the law. I suppose we should be grateful that the system provided the framework for an emotional plee to natural justice to overrule legal law.
Justified? In what sense?
Personally, I don't see him as a threat to society.
Could a person use this as a cover for murder?
i.e. could a person fake a child rape and frame someone in order to conceal murdering someone?
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 21, 2012, 07:32:48 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 21, 2012, 02:08:32 AM
Justified.
Natural justice, yes.
Legal justice, of course not. This is a blatant travesty of legal justice. Unless (as in the UK at least) it qualifies to be mitigated on the grounds of 'diminished responsibility'.
It illustrates exactly the inadequacy imperfection of legal law. It appears that natural justice has been served and the perpetrator vindicated, despite - not because of - the law. I suppose we should be grateful that the system provided the framework for an emotional plee to natural justice to overrule legal law.
I have no idea what natural justice is.It strikes me as another of these unverifiable abstractions like God that people are apt to invoke to make sense of our haphazard existence. From a pragmatic perspective, I would not like to live in a society where a killing of this nature is not put before a judge and jury While it is easy to say the child rapist deserved all he got, not that I personally would, the same lack of rigour could apply in other cases where perhaps your sympathies might be rather more divided.
I think he should be charged and argue the case in court. If killing under those circumstances then qualifies as self-defence or defence of third party with the application of adequate force, all well and good. If not, jail.
As for the jury, in my opinion, the verdict in suh cases should be given by professionals, not a bunch of potentially teary-eyed, overly emotional someoneorothers. Thus, were I a persecutor and such a jury was the cause of my case failing, I would appeal in an instant.
The legal system seems to have worked quite well, the thing was investigated and put before a jury. Further action against the father would hurt the family and hence the child, let them heal if they can.
I don't know what I would have done in a similar situation, but I am guessing it wouldn't have been much different. If that was the case then I would have been happy to do the time.
How old was the daughter? I remember in school there were girls at the age of 13 that had boyfriends in there 20's and were open about their very active sex lives and this was before the internet and mobile phones being popular. It wasn't a common thing but everyone knew it was happening.
Edit:Never mind about the age thing, even though it doesn't state her age the father is only 23 so I assume the girl couldn't have been no more than eleven. Thats fucked up. Big time. Guy gets a pass in my book.
Quote from: En_Route on June 21, 2012, 10:42:26 AM
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 21, 2012, 07:32:48 AM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on June 21, 2012, 02:08:32 AM
Justified.
Natural justice, yes.
Legal justice, of course not. This is a blatant travesty of legal justice. Unless (as in the UK at least) it qualifies to be mitigated on the grounds of 'diminished responsibility'.
It illustrates exactly the inadequacy imperfection of legal law. It appears that natural justice has been served and the perpetrator vindicated, despite - not because of - the law. I suppose we should be grateful that the system provided the framework for an emotional plee to natural justice to overrule legal law.
I personally have no idea what natural justice is.It strikes me as another of these unverifiable and slippery abstractions like God that people are apt to invoke to make sense of our haphazard existence. From a pragmatic perspective, I would not like to live in a society where a killing of this nature is not put before a judge and jury While it is easy to say the child rapist deserved all he got, not that I personally would, the same lack of rigour could apply in other cases where perhaps your sympathies might be rather more divided.
Having been in situations where I have had to use force to defend others from attack I can relate to the case on one level. It is very difficult to estimate on the fly how much force is required to drive off or subdue an attacker. Sometimes you have to cause real lasting harm to achieve this. I once broke a mans wrist to stop him using a knife in a fight. Should I be charged with assault?
That the molester died and can't have his day in court is unfortunate. But the father was, if the facts of the case are correct, perfectly justified to intervene when he caught this perpetrator red handed. If he had not caught him in the act it would of course not be justified defence. Given the facts of the case I would say that the death of the molester is excusable at the least, if not justifiable.
Quote from: Guardian85 on June 21, 2012, 01:19:01 PM
I once broke a mans wrist to stop him using a knife in a fight. Should I be charged with assault?
Charged, yes. Convicted, not if you can prove defence of self or a third party. As for the necessary force, you use less than you want and stop when the immediate danger has passed, no?
QuoteGiven the facts of the case I would say that the death of the molester is excusable at the least, if not justifiable.
I don't want to speculate without the full picture, but in general, I lean towards neither excusable nor justifiable.
Quote from: En_Route on June 21, 2012, 10:42:26 AM
I have no idea what natural justice is.It strikes me as another of these unverifiable abstractions like God that people are apt to invoke to make sense of our haphazard existence.
Luckily for me, I have a grasp on what
I consider natural justice. It may be different from yours but with consensus we have the basis from which we can formulate fair legal law.
What other tools can we use?
For those of you who think this is a "travesty of justice" would you feel the same if the molester had not died? Meaning, if the same situation happened - father walks in on a grown man raping his 5 year old daughter, punches the man - but the man is only injured, does not die, should the father go to jail for assault? And secondary question, if you feel that the father punching the man in this circumstance was inappropriate, what would a more appropriate response be? Calling the police and waiting for them to show up while the man continues to rape his kindergartener?
If the guy he attacked lived, he should have been charged with assault and if he wanted to plead self-defence or defence of third party, given that opportunity in court.
So is there any appropriate response that he could have given that would not have resulted in being charged with a crime?
Quote from: Scissorlegs on June 21, 2012, 03:52:34 PM
Quote from: En_Route on June 21, 2012, 10:42:26 AM
I have no idea what natural justice is.It strikes me as another of these unverifiable abstractions like God that people are apt to invoke to make sense of our haphazard existence.
Luckily for me, I have a grasp on what I consider natural justice. It may be different from yours but with consensus we have the basis from which we can formulate fair legal law.
What other tools can we use?
If natural justice is as subjective as you seem to acknowledge, isn't saying "This is /isn't in accordance with natural justice" just a rather
grandiose way of saying "I think this is right/wrong". This is by the way is not meant to be in any way personal to you; I am interested in how people freely use these concepts which to an amoralist like me lack any objective foundation. How law evolves is a subject in its own right which I'll reserve for another time.
Quote from: Ali on June 21, 2012, 04:44:15 PM
So is there any appropriate response that he could have given that would not have resulted in being charged with a crime?
Any non-criminal response, yes.
Quote from: Ali on June 21, 2012, 04:44:15 PM
So is there any appropriate response that he could have given that would not have resulted in being charged with a crime?
Depends what you call by appropriate. As is stands the child has been molested AND witnessed a murder committed by their own father. If the father had acted in a less aggressive manner and removed the molester, confined them and called the police, the child would only have been molested. Which is a better result for the child. I'm not saying that the father's action were not unexpected under the circumstances but if the father had been able to control his emotional response the child would have been less traumatised than they probably were. The father would probably not have committed a crime they could reasonably argue citizens arrest was appropriate action under the circumstances. But that is in hindsight and expecting a father to behave that way is unrealistic IMO.
I don't really think that anyone who kills someone against their will should be exempt from charges, no matter what the scenario. As some other people have suggested, it's unlikely that this guy is going to be punished very harshly for what he did, but, to me, it's just how the process should work. If you kill somebody, you have to explain what happened, even if it seems clear cut.
Quote from: Tank on June 21, 2012, 05:57:48 PM
Depends what you call by appropriate. As is stands the child has been molested AND witnessed a murder committed by their own father. If the father had acted in a less aggressive manner and removed the molester, confined them and called the police, the child would only have been molested. Which is a better result for the child.
We will never know, but if the father hadn't been able to control the molesterer then the father might have ended up murdered and same thing for his daughter. Rape is an extremely violent crime. Quite a few of them end in murder.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 05:53:42 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 21, 2012, 04:44:15 PM
So is there any appropriate response that he could have given that would not have resulted in being charged with a crime?
Any non-criminal response, yes.
Can you elaborate? :D
Quote from: Ali on June 21, 2012, 08:06:29 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 05:53:42 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 21, 2012, 04:44:15 PM
So is there any appropriate response that he could have given that would not have resulted in being charged with a crime?
Any non-criminal response, yes.
Can you elaborate? :D
Only as far as the Norwegian law is concerned, if examples are what you want. In different countries, different things may be considered criminal. If one's response to a provocation is such a reaction, one should be charged. If not, not. It is that simple.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 08:42:54 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 21, 2012, 08:06:29 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 05:53:42 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 21, 2012, 04:44:15 PM
So is there any appropriate response that he could have given that would not have resulted in being charged with a crime?
Any non-criminal response, yes.
Can you elaborate? :D
Only as far as the Norwegian law is concerned, if examples are what you want. In different countries, different things may be considered criminal. If one's response to a provocation is such a reaction, one should be charged. If not, not. It is that simple.
Sure, according to Norwegian law. Operating under Norwegian law, what would be an appropriate non-criminal response. Tank has suggested a citizen's arrest which I just can't even imagine. Are you thinking along the same lines?
For example. You can try communicating with the perpetrator first though. If it fails, contact law enforcement and attempt to block possible escape routes. If the situation appears as that of immediate danger (Loss of life and/or serious injuries) and you feel like you have the sufficient skills to intervene without endangering own life or further endangering life and health of a third party, attempt to neutralise the threat (For instance: disarm, put on the ground and sit on until the police arrive)
If you hit or otherwise attempt to injure or kill the opponent, intentionally or not, you should be charged according to the severity of the injurues inflicted (And potentially criminal intent, example of which would be attempted murder). Being charged with a crime is not the same as being convicted of it, but it should be up to the court to determine if your use of force and the extend thereof was necessary and justified.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 10:12:40 PM
For example. You can try communicating with the perpetrator first though.
Ahem, don't mean to bother you sir, I can see you are quite busy, but, have you noticed that the girl (my daughter) is screaming and crying, I don't think she wants to be raped, maybe you could consider stopping it, please.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 10:12:40 PM
If it fails, contact law enforcement and attempt to block possible escape routes.
No?, OK, just wait there, carry on if you must, just don't go anywhere, I need to make a phone call. Daughter, chin up, it will be all over soon, I'm calling the cops, they should be here in about half an hour tops. In the mean time, I'll look for a fence so I can block the escape route, I'll be back shortly, promise.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 10:12:40 PM
If the situation appears as that of immediate danger (Loss of life and/or serious injuries) and you feel like you have the sufficient skills to intervene without endangering own life or further endangering life and health of a third party, attempt to neutralise the threat (For instance: disarm, put on the ground and sit on until the police arrive)
Hmmm, I guess rape could be considered immediate danger (serious injury), OK, going into visualisation mode, I'm about 80 KG, rapist looks about 90 KG or so, he seems to have his hands full, so I have the immediate advantage, but I might endanger my own life, what if he is an ex MMA champion? Hmmmm, what to do? Getting into a fight with daughter so close, she might get hit by a stray punch, OK, best I not use force, what other options are there?
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 10:12:40 PM
If you hit or otherwise attempt to injure or kill the opponent, intentionally or not, you should be charged according to the severity of the injurues inflicted (And potentially criminal intent, example of which would be attempted murder). Being charged with a crime is not the same as being convicted of it, but it should be up to the court to determine if your use of force and the extend thereof was necessary and justified.
This one I agree with, they need to investigate, get the evidence, present it, come to a decision.
Quote from: Stevil on June 22, 2012, 12:30:23 AM
Ahem, don't mean to bother you sir, I can see you are quite busy, but, have you noticed that the girl (my daughter) is screaming and crying, I don't think she wants to be raped, maybe you could consider stopping it, please.
As being discovered can scare off some crooks, that's as good a start as any. You do not have to be that (or at all, really) politically correct about it, but if you are so inclined, you might attempt the diplomatic kind of diplomacy.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 10:12:40 PM
No?, OK, just wait there, carry on if you must, just don't go anywhere, I need to make a phone call.
Waste of time, Just dial the emergency number.
QuoteDaughter, chin up, it will be all over soon, I'm calling the cops, they should be here in about half an hour tops.
Again, waste of time. In stead of reassuring the victim, make it clear that you have contacted the law enforcement agencies.
QuoteIn the mean time, I'll look for a fence so I can block the escape route, I'll be back shortly, promise.
If in an open area or a room full of unlocked doors leading to one, forget blocking escape. You should only attempt that if you deem it to be safe and if it is possible to accomplish quicly and efficiently (For instance, locking the only door from the other side or blocking the car's escape route)
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 10:12:40 PM
Hmmm, I guess rape could be considered immediate danger (serious injury), OK, going into visualisation mode, I'm about 80 KG, rapist looks about 90 KG or so, he seems to have his hands full, so I have the immediate advantage, but I might endanger my own life, what if he is an ex MMA champion? Hmmmm, what to do? Getting into a fight with daughter so close, she might get hit by a stray punch, OK, best I not use force, what other options are there?
More immediate concerns: Does he have a knife? A gun? A baseball bat? Does he appear willing to kill if provoked? Drunk? On drugs? Does he have a chokehold on the victim? Are you of any use at all in a fight if your initial attack fails? If you don't think you can do it, wait for professional assistance. Death while trying might sound heroic, but if you fail, you accomplish nothing except getting the pathologist another body to rummage through.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 10:12:40 PM
This one I agree with, they need to investigate, get the evidence, present it, come to a decision.
Your prior comments were those of disagreement rahter than poorly worded (and/or thought through) how-to?
Quote from: Asmodean on June 22, 2012, 01:02:41 AM
More immediate concerns: Does he have a knife? A gun? A baseball bat? Does he appear willing to kill if provoked? Drunk? On drugs?
Honestly, as a parent, I would not be concerned in the least with regards to my own safety. My main focus would be on stopping the rape.
Would you risk further endangering your child by improvised intervention then?
If this man had been present in Norway last year, perhaps Anders Breivik would not have been able to kill 77 people. If the Texas man had been present and killed Breivik, would he have been charged with a crime?
Quote from: Asmodean on June 22, 2012, 01:40:31 AM
Would you risk further endangering your child by improvised intervention then?
If I didn't announce my presence, by initiating dialogue first, but instead took him by surprise, I would have a better chance to subdue him.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 22, 2012, 02:41:17 AM
If this man had been present in Norway last year, perhaps Anders Breivik would not have been able to kill 77 people. If the Texas man had been present and killed Breivik, would he have been charged with a crime?
I am against the general public carrying guns.
If a relatively untrained public member shot at Anders, missed and hit someone else instead, well.....
you could say in hindsight 1 friendly fire death is better than 77 but whose to know in advance how many the crazed nutjob is intending to shoot?
Quote from: Asmodean on June 22, 2012, 01:02:41 AM
Quote from: Stevil on June 22, 2012, 12:30:23 AM
Ahem, don't mean to bother you sir, I can see you are quite busy, but, have you noticed that the girl (my daughter) is screaming and crying, I don't think she wants to be raped, maybe you could consider stopping it, please.
As being discovered can scare off some crooks, that's as good a start as any. You do not have to be that (or at all, really) politically correct about it, but if you are so inclined, you might attempt the diplomatic kind of diplomacy.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 10:12:40 PM
No?, OK, just wait there, carry on if you must, just don't go anywhere, I need to make a phone call.
Waste of time, Just dial the emergency number.
QuoteDaughter, chin up, it will be all over soon, I'm calling the cops, they should be here in about half an hour tops.
Again, waste of time. In stead of reassuring the victim, make it clear that you have contacted the law enforcement agencies.
QuoteIn the mean time, I'll look for a fence so I can block the escape route, I'll be back shortly, promise.
If in an open area or a room full of unlocked doors leading to one, forget blocking escape. You should only attempt that if you deem it to be safe and if it is possible to accomplish quicly and efficiently (For instance, locking the only door from the other side or blocking the car's escape route)
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 10:12:40 PM
Hmmm, I guess rape could be considered immediate danger (serious injury), OK, going into visualisation mode, I'm about 80 KG, rapist looks about 90 KG or so, he seems to have his hands full, so I have the immediate advantage, but I might endanger my own life, what if he is an ex MMA champion? Hmmmm, what to do? Getting into a fight with daughter so close, she might get hit by a stray punch, OK, best I not use force, what other options are there?
More immediate concerns: Does he have a knife? A gun? A baseball bat? Does he appear willing to kill if provoked? Drunk? On drugs? Does he have a chokehold on the victim? Are you of any use at all in a fight if your initial attack fails? If you don't think you can do it, wait for professional assistance. Death while trying might sound heroic, but if you fail, you accomplish nothing except getting the pathologist another body to rummage through.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 10:12:40 PM
This one I agree with, they need to investigate, get the evidence, present it, come to a decision.
Your prior comments were those of disagreement rahter than poorly worded (and/or thought through) how-to?
Sorry, but this isn't a "Choose your own adventure" book. The guy was raping his daughter. You really expect him to just stand there and talk to guy/make a phone call while he continues to rape his daughter? If someone's trying to rape or hurt one of my family members, I would not react any differently.
I think the system worked perfectly here. The jury considered the case and threw it out, and if this story is true, it seems justified. The guy even called the cops, told them exactly what happened, and tried to save the rapist's life before he died. Is it really worth bringing him up on charges? His actions don't indicate a threat to society.
Quote from: Firebird on June 22, 2012, 04:35:37 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 22, 2012, 01:02:41 AM
Quote from: Stevil on June 22, 2012, 12:30:23 AM
Ahem, don't mean to bother you sir, I can see you are quite busy, but, have you noticed that the girl (my daughter) is screaming and crying, I don't think she wants to be raped, maybe you could consider stopping it, please.
As being discovered can scare off some crooks, that's as good a start as any. You do not have to be that (or at all, really) politically correct about it, but if you are so inclined, you might attempt the diplomatic kind of diplomacy.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 10:12:40 PM
No?, OK, just wait there, carry on if you must, just don't go anywhere, I need to make a phone call.
Waste of time, Just dial the emergency number.
QuoteDaughter, chin up, it will be all over soon, I'm calling the cops, they should be here in about half an hour tops.
Again, waste of time. In stead of reassuring the victim, make it clear that you have contacted the law enforcement agencies.
QuoteIn the mean time, I'll look for a fence so I can block the escape route, I'll be back shortly, promise.
If in an open area or a room full of unlocked doors leading to one, forget blocking escape. You should only attempt that if you deem it to be safe and if it is possible to accomplish quicly and efficiently (For instance, locking the only door from the other side or blocking the car's escape route)
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 10:12:40 PM
Hmmm, I guess rape could be considered immediate danger (serious injury), OK, going into visualisation mode, I'm about 80 KG, rapist looks about 90 KG or so, he seems to have his hands full, so I have the immediate advantage, but I might endanger my own life, what if he is an ex MMA champion? Hmmmm, what to do? Getting into a fight with daughter so close, she might get hit by a stray punch, OK, best I not use force, what other options are there?
More immediate concerns: Does he have a knife? A gun? A baseball bat? Does he appear willing to kill if provoked? Drunk? On drugs? Does he have a chokehold on the victim? Are you of any use at all in a fight if your initial attack fails? If you don't think you can do it, wait for professional assistance. Death while trying might sound heroic, but if you fail, you accomplish nothing except getting the pathologist another body to rummage through.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 21, 2012, 10:12:40 PM
This one I agree with, they need to investigate, get the evidence, present it, come to a decision.
Your prior comments were those of disagreement rahter than poorly worded (and/or thought through) how-to?
Sorry, but this isn't a "Choose your own adventure" book. The guy was raping his daughter. You really expect him to just stand there and talk to guy/make a phone call while he continues to rape his daughter? If someone's trying to rape or hurt one of my family members, I would not react any differently.
I think the system worked perfectly here. The jury considered the case and threw it out, and if this story is true, it seems justified. The guy even called the cops, told them exactly what happened, and tried to save the rapist's life before he died. Is it really worth bringing him up on charges? His actions don't indicate a threat to society.
i agree with this.
this was an extreme situation. Someone were attacking my girlfriend, you better be damn sure the cops are getting called after said attacker is bloody and unconscious.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 22, 2012, 01:40:31 AM
Would you risk further endangering your child by improvised intervention then?
This is not a case of further endangering the child's life. Having caught a rapist / child molester in the act you will have already done that. It is an unfortunate fact that both child molesters and rapists frequently kill their victims. Having caught one in the act only increases the likelihood that the perpetrator will decide to kill two people.
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on June 22, 2012, 02:41:17 AM
If this man had been present in Norway last year, perhaps Anders Breivik would not have been able to kill 77 people. If the Texas man had been present and killed Breivik, would he have been charged with a crime?
Yes, I very much think so. It would probably not be the longest of trials if the killing occured after Breivik started gunning people down, but charged, that person most probably would be.
Quote from: Firebird on June 22, 2012, 04:35:37 AM
Sorry, but this isn't a "Choose your own adventure" book. The guy was raping his daughter. You really expect him to just stand there and talk to guy/make a phone call while he continues to rape his daughter? If someone's trying to rape or hurt one of my family members, I would not react any differently.
Yes, I would expect the would-be vigilante to start by attempting to establish communication, just like the law enforcement officers would. If that fails, it kind of beomes situational, but unless life is in immediate danger and the intervention opportunity is present, contacting law enforement should be the next step.
If you attack someone in a state of sudden emotional imbalance (rage, jealousy etc, the first being probable in what you describe), well, that would be a crime of passion, would it not? Why should one ever be able to avoid being charged with one of those, whatever its motives?
QuoteI think the system worked perfectly here. The jury considered the case and threw it out, and if this story is true, it seems justified. The guy even called the cops, told them exactly what happened, and tried to save the rapist's life before he died. Is it really worth bringing him up on charges? His actions don't indicate a threat to society.
The system didn't fail, I think. I'd not go as far as to say that it worked without having a lot more case-related and legal data. And the guy did the thing sort-of by the book in the immediate aftermath. Were I a judge, I doubt I'd put him behind bars either, but I would certainly want the opportunity to do so, given that a crime has occured.
Many posters here display a touching faith in the justice system. In the UK, and probably elsewhere, we constantly get killers and paedophiles released from prison and reoffending. I won't rant on here about the immense harm bien-pensant liberal thinking has done and is doing to society. Take my rant as read. This is one paedophile who got what most ordinary citizens would say he deserved, and now he can't reoffend. To hell with the criminal's "rights", we need to protect our kids. Let him anywhere near a judge and his rights will become paramount, while the public safety can go hang.
Well, our rehab system is very good compared to many, if not most, other countries, and the law enforcement officers have never failed me (They did not find my stolen bicycle, but that's what insurance is for) in any major way.
Why would I distrust them any more than I distrust every other stranger on the street?
Quote from: Stevil on June 22, 2012, 02:46:35 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 22, 2012, 01:40:31 AM
Would you risk further endangering your child by improvised intervention then?
If I didn't announce my presence, by initiating dialogue first, but instead took him by surprise, I would have a better chance to subdue him.
...Thus turning what you are trying to do into a premeditated assault, yes?
Quote from: OldGit on June 22, 2012, 10:08:08 AM
Many posters here display a touching faith in the justice system. In the UK, and probably elsewhere, we constantly get killers and paedophiles released from prison and reoffending. I won't rant on here about the immense harm bien-pensant liberal thinking has done and is doing to society. Take my rant as read. This is one paedophile who got what most ordinary citizens would say he deserved, and now he can't reoffend. To hell with the criminal's "rights", we need to protect our kids. Let him anywhere near a judge and his rights will become paramount, while the public safety can go hang.
The answer may be to reform the justice system rather than condoning a lynch mob mentality.
Quote from: AsmodeanWell, our rehab system is very good compared to many, if not most, other countries, and the law enforcement officers have never failed me (They did not find my stolen bicycle, but that's what insurance is for) in any major way.
Why would I distrust them any more than I distrust every other stranger on the street?
It's not the police that are the problem, it's the courts and particularly the system which lets dangerous criminals out on the supposition that they are no longer dangerous. These idiots are much more interested in a convicted killer's "rights" than in the public safety. And however many new victims fall prey to released criminals, those fools never learn.
Quote from: En RouteThe answer may be to reform the justice system rather than condoning a lynch mob mentality.
I don't condone, say, the incidents a few years ago when angry mobs went out hunting for supposed paedophiles. That way lies chaos. This case is very different.
As for reforming the justice system .... nice theory. But in civilised Europe the liberal rot goes very deep.
Quote from: OldGit on June 22, 2012, 10:48:51 AM
Quote from: En RouteThe answer may be to reform the justice system rather than condoning a lynch mob mentality.
I don't condone, say, the incidents a few years ago when angry mobs went out hunting for supposed paedophiles. That way lies chaos. This case is very different.
As for reforming the justice system .... nice theory. But in civilised Europe the liberal rot goes very deep.
I agree this case is not on all fours. But there is, I suggest, a thin line between saying that most ordinary citizens would agree that the offender here got what he deserved and advocating some form of DIY justice. However, I equally agree also that reforming the judicial system is probably a pious aspiration and its shortcomings are deeply frustrating to many people. It is a genuine dilemma and really is a question of whether you opt for the devil or the deep blue sea.
Yes, it's a thin line and at the same time, a fuzzy one. True, we can't have vigilante justice, but we could widen the existing self-defence and justifiable homicide laws.
The main thing is that the self-styled intellectual élite need to move away from their obsession with rights, and have their noses rubbed in what happens in the real world. The pendulum will swing; indeed, I've watched it swinging in recent years. But movement is glacially slow and I won't see a balance restored in my lifetime.
In real world, I suspect that very intellectual élite would be smart enough to know when to call for professional aid and keep a safe distance though.
For my part, if I was being mugged at gunpoint, the last thing I would want would be some wannabe John McClane tackling the mugger, potentially making his trigger finger twitch. The same applies to most, if not nearly all, other examples of amateur rescue from crime as well.
If I were being raped, I would want someone to put a stop to it, right then, using whatever force they deemed necessary.
I would welcome interference by a passer by if someone was actively trying to kill or potentially fatally injure me and my capacity to hold my own was diminished (Either due to my own issues or the opponent being better armed and trained/having weight superiority/whatever)
The variety of responses on this thread have been interesting. They demonstrate regional/national differences in attitudes toward the justice system. In Texas, I'd say that over 95% of the people who knew about this were fine with the grand jury deciding not to charge this man. I only heard one person from the Texas Civil Rights Project who thought he might possibly should have been charged. But it sounds like there would have been a much different outcome in Norway.
I take issue with some people in this thread alluding to vigilanteism. The man in this case was not a vigilante, and painting him as such is doing him a disservice. It is not vigilanteism to defend yourself or others from an immediate threat. Chasing the perpetrator down and hurting him or other criminals after the fact would be.
Quote from: Guardian85 on June 22, 2012, 06:41:46 PM
I take issue with some people in this thread alluding to vigilanteism. The man in this case was not a vigilante, and painting him as such is doing him a disservice. It is not vigilanteism to defend yourself or others from an immediate threat. Chasing the perpetrator down and hurting him or other criminals after the fact would be.
I don't think anyone is calling him a vigilante though the discussion has broadened out to include that topic, which is different.
Indeed, the discussion has evolved and has for some time now been about more than this one guy.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 22, 2012, 12:53:11 PM
In real world, I suspect that very intellectual élite would be smart enough to know when to call for professional aid and keep a safe distance though.
For my part, if I was being mugged at gunpoint, the last thing I would want would be some wannabe John McClane tackling the mugger, potentially making his trigger finger twitch. The same applies to most, if not nearly all, other examples of amateur rescue from crime as well.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 22, 2012, 04:54:05 PM
I would welcome interference by a passer by if someone was actively trying to kill or potentially fatally injure me and my capacity to hold my own was diminished (Either due to my own issues or the opponent being better armed and trained/having weight superiority/whatever)
I realize you're trying to make a distinction between a life-threatening situation and one where you're merely being robbed, but if someone is pointing a gun at your head, or forcibly pushing you down and violating you, at what point does it cross the line to life-threatening situation? In this situation, the rapist was potentially trying to kill the girl too, and she didn't have the capacity to defend herself because she was a child. Doesn't that fit into your second quote?
I'm not supportive of vigilante justice either. The "Stand Your Ground" laws in the southern US which allow someone to shoot first and ask questions later are a horrible idea that should be repealed. But this is not the same thing.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 22, 2012, 10:25:36 AM
Quote from: Stevil on June 22, 2012, 02:46:35 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 22, 2012, 01:40:31 AM
Would you risk further endangering your child by improvised intervention then?
If I didn't announce my presence, by initiating dialogue first, but instead took him by surprise, I would have a better chance to subdue him.
...Thus turning what you are trying to do into a premeditated assault, yes?
Hmmm, I am struggling to understand your thinking. Maybe a walk through of court proceedings
[prosecutor] Mr Father, what did you do upon discovering your 10 year old being raped by the acused
[Mr Father] I asked the rapist to stop it
[prosecutor] Did he stop?
[Mr Father]Unfortunately not
[prosecutor] So then what did you do?
[Mr Father] I called the police
[prosecutor]What happened during the call
[Mr Father]Initially it was IVR, I pressed 1 for police
The operator answered and asked if I was in immediate danger,
I said no,
They asked me what the problem was
I said that my daughter was being raped.
They asked if it was still happening
I said yes
They asked for my address
I told them and they said it would take about 20 minutes for the police to get there.
[prosecutor]After the phone call what did you do?
[Mr Father] I decided to block the exit so at least the rapist would still be around when the police arrived.
[prosecutor]Was he still raping your daughter?
[Mr Father] yes
[prosecutor] How was your daughter fearing?
[Mr Father]Not too well, she was screaming and crying, she was yelling out to me, Dad, help me?
I told her that the police would be there soon
[prosecutor]So what did you do next?
[Mr Father]There wasn't much else I could do except continue to block the exit and wait for the cops to arrive.
[prosecutor]Did you think to try and stop the rapist yourself
[Mr Father]The thought crossed my mind, I figured I didn't want to make matters worse, better to be safe than sorry, you know!
Not bad at all. At least you would not be put in jail for excessive use of force.
As for "the thought crossed my mind" line, well, if it did, you could share it with the emergency response operator and see if they recommended you getting violent or hanging back.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 23, 2012, 10:39:49 AM
Not bad at all. At least you would not be put in jail for excessive use of force.
As for "the thought crossed my mind" line, well, if it did, you could share it with the emergency response operator and see if they recommended you getting violent or hanging back.
If I was on the jury I would want to find the father guilty of accessory to the crime.
What father in his right mind would need permission from a telephone operator with regards to intervening to prevent or stop the rape of his own daughter?
Come on Asmo, surely you would take physical action to help your daughter, surely.
I would. If her life/health was in immediate danger, my attempts to make my presense known and come in contact with the perp failed or were ignored and if I did not think I'd make the situation worse by acting that way.
If, on the other hand, the police were only a few minutes away and there already was a penis in her, my attempt to stop the act would probably just make a bad situation worse. After all, if the perp goes on as if nothing happened upon discovery, he's either desperate, well-armed, high, crazy or otherwise confident in his abilities to shrug off an attack by me, making any physical confrontation ill-advised in my book.
Should I lose the confrontation, what does it accomplish? Nothing except my death or serious injury, quite possibly accompanied by the death of third party victim. I can not count on winning for the abovementioned reasons and thus, the risks are pretty much twice as high as the benefits.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 23, 2012, 12:24:19 PM
I would. If her life/health was in immediate danger, my attempts to make my presense known and come in contact with the perp failed or were ignored and if I did not think I'd make the situation worse by acting that way.
If, on the other hand, the police were only a few minutes away and there already was a penis in her, my attempt to stop the act would probably just make a bad situation worse. After all, if the perp goes on as if nothing happened upon discovery, he's either desperate, well-armed, high, crazy or otherwise confident in his abilities to shrug off an attack by me, making any physical confrontation ill-advised in my book.
Should I lose the confrontation, what does it accomplish? Nothing except my death or serious injury, quite possibly accompanied by the death of third party victim. I can not count on winning for the abovementioned reasons and thus, the risks are pretty much twice as high as the benefits.
:(
I find it hard to believe anyone, even you, would do nothing to stop a rape in progress....
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 23, 2012, 12:55:57 PM
:(
I find it hard to believe anyone, even you, would do nothing to stop a rape in progress....
I would not do nothing - I would attempt to communicate with the perpetrator and get him/her to stop. I'd also inform the law enforcement and aid the victim to the best of my ability. However, the best of my ability does not automatically mean a violent physical response with further danger to self and others.
Quote from: Sweetdeath on June 23, 2012, 12:55:57 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 23, 2012, 12:24:19 PM
I would. If her life/health was in immediate danger, my attempts to make my presense known and come in contact with the perp failed or were ignored and if I did not think I'd make the situation worse by acting that way.
If, on the other hand, the police were only a few minutes away and there already was a penis in her, my attempt to stop the act would probably just make a bad situation worse. After all, if the perp goes on as if nothing happened upon discovery, he's either desperate, well-armed, high, crazy or otherwise confident in his abilities to shrug off an attack by me, making any physical confrontation ill-advised in my book.
Should I lose the confrontation, what does it accomplish? Nothing except my death or serious injury, quite possibly accompanied by the death of third party victim. I can not count on winning for the abovementioned reasons and thus, the risks are pretty much twice as high as the benefits.
:(
I find it hard to believe anyone, even you, would do nothing to stop a rape in progress....
I think the issue is whether having overpowered the rapist, the father lost his self- control and proceeded to beat him so badly that he died. On the basis that he did not intend to kill him and the intense provocation he was suffering, this looks like manslaughter with very significant mitigating circumstances, not meriting a jail sentence.
Quote from: En_Route on June 23, 2012, 01:25:38 PM
I think the issue is whether having overpowered the rapist, the father lost his self- control and proceeded to beat him so badly that he died. On the basis that he did not intend to kill him and the intense provocation he was suffering, this looks like manslaughter with very significant mitigating circumstances, not meriting a jail sentence.
If he killed the rapist
after having overpowered him, I'd call it murder 2, although I do see how involuntary manslaughter could apply. If it was demonstrated conclusively that he killed a downed opponent who no longer posed any immediate danger, I'd toss him in jail for a few years unless his actions were indicative of a psychiatric disorder.
What does "a penis already in her" have to do with waiting for the police? Like, oh well, she's already raped, may as well wait for the cops.
Quote from: Ali on June 23, 2012, 02:36:13 PM
What does "a penis already in her" have to do with waiting for the police? Like, oh well, she's already raped, may as well wait for the cops.
When the damage is done, I'd like to think I'd choose a path that aggravates it the least - not at all, if I could.
Admittedly not being an expert on the issue, I think being raped for two minutes and witnessing your would-be rescuer getting a knife to the throat is more traumatising than being raped for five or seven minutes.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 23, 2012, 03:08:35 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 23, 2012, 02:36:13 PM
What does "a penis already in her" have to do with waiting for the police? Like, oh well, she's already raped, may as well wait for the cops.
When the damage is done, I'd like to think I'd choose a path that aggravates it the least - not at all, if I could.
Admittedly not being an expert on the issue, I think being raped for two minutes and witnessing your would-be rescuer getting a knife to the throat is more traumatising than being raped for five or seven minutes.
The damage is not "done" at the moment of penetration. It continues for as long as the rape continues, and then for long, long, long after that.
I would say that knowing that someone else (particularly someone you trust to take care of you like your dad) was there and didn't do a whole lot to stop the rape would be at least as damaging as the rape itself. Rape damages your ability to trust and have relationships with people anyway, even people that you previously loved and trusted like your parents. Actually having your dad there and having him not do much to stop it would be....unthinkable. I don't know how you would get past that.
Quote from: Ali on June 23, 2012, 03:25:39 PM
The damage is not "done" at the moment of penetration. It continues for as long as the rape continues, and then for long, long, long after that.
Poor wording on my part. Let's try again:
When the damage is already being done at the point of discovery...
QuoteI would say that knowing that someone else (particularly someone you trust to take care of you like your dad) was there and didn't do a whole lot to stop the rape would be at least as damaging as the rape itself. Rape damages your ability to trust and have relationships with people anyway, even people that you previously loved and trusted like your parents.
That depends on a multitude of factors, age, personality and nature of the rape among them. However, I do not disagree with you on that point and it does not contradict mine.
QuoteActually having your dad there and having him not do much to stop it would be....unthinkable. I don't know how you would get past that.
Attempting to communicate with the attacker and calling the police isn't exactly "not doing much" - it is doing what one is supposed to in such a situation. The bare minimum would be running for the hills and THEN calling the police. Depending on the exact circumstances, even that may be enough and by far the wisest course of action.
Quote from: Firebird on June 23, 2012, 03:22:24 AM
I realize you're trying to make a distinction between a life-threatening situation and one where you're merely being robbed, but if someone is pointing a gun at your head, or forcibly pushing you down and violating you, at what point does it cross the line to life-threatening situation? In this situation, the rapist was potentially trying to kill the girl too, and she didn't have the capacity to defend herself because she was a child. Doesn't that fit into your second quote?
I'm not supportive of vigilante justice either. The "Stand Your Ground" laws in the southern US which allow someone to shoot first and ask questions later are a horrible idea that should be repealed. But this is not the same thing.
Sorry, I missed it.
An immediately life-threatening situation would be one where death or life-threatening injury could occur in very near future and prior to the arrival of emergency response agencies. For example someone actively choking someone else, having them at gun- or knifepoint, threatening to release dangerous toxins, using blunt weapons (Boots as well as baseball bats and the like), beating a downed opponent, etc.
If the rapist was "only" in the process of raping her (as opposed to simultaneously bashing her head against the wall or the like), I would hesitate to call that situation immediately life-threatening and/or make it such by intervention. So, highly damaging to all involved, the victim especially? Sure. Life-threatening? Not if the conditions for that classification are unmet.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 23, 2012, 06:41:45 PM
If the rapist was "only" in the process of raping her (as opposed to simultaneously bashing her head against the wall or the like), I would hesitate to call that situation immediately life-threatening and/or make it such by intervention. So, highly damaging to all involved, the victim especially? Sure. Life-threatening? Not if the conditions for that classification are unmet.
I have a major issue with this. You seem to think there's a well-defined line between life-threatening and not. Maybe after the fact, when charges are being filed, that can be determined, but not at that moment. The rapist is using excessive force to pin the girl down and violate her; how do you know he won't decide to suddenly smash her head against the floor so she'll stop screaming, or pull out a knife and stab her? His actions already constitute a threat to her life, not to mention a violation of her body. You have no way of knowing what the violent perpetrator will do next.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 23, 2012, 06:23:19 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 23, 2012, 03:25:39 PM
I would say that knowing that someone else (particularly someone you trust to take care of you like your dad) was there and didn't do a whole lot to stop the rape would be at least as damaging as the rape itself. Rape damages your ability to trust and have relationships with people anyway, even people that you previously loved and trusted like your parents.
That depends on a multitude of factors, age, personality and nature of the rape among them. However, I do not disagree with you on that point and it does not contradict mine.
Again, I think this points to a major flaw in your logic, namely some kind of cold calculation when seeing this violent act about whether it's life-threatening or not. Does that really matter? If violence is being inflicted upon a loved one like this, I don't think the distinction matters anymore. There's already being harm done, and you have no way of knowing if it could potentially get worse.
It is not always easy to determine where that line goes, I suppose, although from where I sit (In relative safety, I might add) it doesn't seem all that blurry. It's not about what the perp
might do, but what the perp
is doing. Using your logic, it would be legitimate to hit a car thief on the head with a hammer for dragging your aged grandmother out of her car. Violence is, after all, being done and you have no way of knowing that he won't decide to shoot heror something.
I follow a different strategy: let the asshole have the car, then let the police deal with him. The rest I leave to chance - a lesser chance, as I see it.
Quote from: Firebird on June 23, 2012, 08:17:26 PM
Again, I think this points to a major flaw in your logic, namely some kind of cold calculation when seeing this violent act about whether it's life-threatening or not. Does that really matter? If violence is being inflicted upon a loved one like this, I don't think the distinction matters anymore. There's already being harm done, and you have no way of knowing if it could potentially get worse.
It should matter when it comes to the aftermath. Mitigating circumstances or not, a serious crime has been committed, and I, for one, see it as my duty to avoid committing such unless the benefits far outweigh the risks (and I am not talking about the risk of getting caught or otherwise in trouble with the law)
If you kill or seriously injure somebody because you couldn't think straight, what responsibility do you have (being otherwise mentally healthy) for not pausing to consider the situation before you went in weapons blazing? I'd say quite a heavy one.
Quote from: Ali on June 23, 2012, 02:36:13 PM
What does "a penis already in her" have to do with waiting for the police? Like, oh well, she's already raped, may as well wait for the cops.
Could you imagine the daughter's testimony? While I was being raped, I yelled out for dad to help, but he just stood there at the doorway and watched. I kept yelling but he did nothing, it must have been a good 10 minutes, he just kept watching.
Would you prefer her testimony to sound something like: Then dad rushed the guy and fell over, clutchign his throat and there was a knife in it...
Or maybe: I saw dad come in, but then he ran out and left me there for four days...
Quote from: En_Route on June 23, 2012, 01:25:38 PM
I think the issue is whether having overpowered the rapist, the father lost his self- control and proceeded to beat him so badly that he died. On the basis that he did not intend to kill him and the intense provocation he was suffering, this looks like manslaughter with very significant mitigating circumstances, not meriting a jail sentence.
We don't know all the details.
Who would blame him for getting angry in the moment?
Who could say he had fully overpowered and constrained the rapist?
Is the father really a threat to society? For what purpose would there be to punish him?
Quote from: Ali on June 23, 2012, 03:25:39 PM
I would say that knowing that someone else (particularly someone you trust to take care of you like your dad) was there and didn't do a whole lot to stop the rape would be at least as damaging as the rape itself. Rape damages your ability to trust and have relationships with people anyway, even people that you previously loved and trusted like your parents. Actually having your dad there and having him not do much to stop it would be....unthinkable. I don't know how you would get past that.
Right. As a father, I would much rather have my daughter say "my daddy killed the bad man who was hurting me" as opposed to "my daddy was on the telephone while the bad man kept hurting me."
We don't know exactly what would have happened if the father had followed Asmo's approach and refrained from doing any violence to him. Possible scenarios include, among others, that the man would have continued to rape the girl or that the man would have attacked the father, gained the upper hand, and killed him and the girl. We do know for certain the outcome of the course of action taken by the father in this case. The father took the opportunity that he had to save his daughter and it resulted in his daughter not being assaulted anymore and in the rapist's death, who will now never rape the girl again. I'm certain that she is thankful for this, and one father-daughter bond has probably been firmly sealed.
Quote from: Stevil on June 23, 2012, 08:46:03 PM
We don't know all the details.
Precisely the reason why I try to discuss in in generalised terms.
QuoteWho would blame him for getting angry in the moment?
For acting on his anger with fatal consequences? I certainly would. Not for the anger itself though.
QuoteWho could say he had fully overpowered and constrained the rapist?
That there is a very good point. However, the thing did end in a death.
QuoteIs the father really a threat to society? For what purpose would there be to punish him?
If he has the tendency to "lose it" under less extreme stressors, possibly to the point of killing or seriously injuring a third party, I would say yes, some rehab may be beneficial. The court (Court-appointed psychiatrists, really, I suppose) would have to take a stand on that.
Quote from: Ali on June 23, 2012, 03:25:39 PM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 23, 2012, 03:08:35 PM
Quote from: Ali on June 23, 2012, 02:36:13 PM
What does "a penis already in her" have to do with waiting for the police? Like, oh well, she's already raped, may as well wait for the cops.
When the damage is done, I'd like to think I'd choose a path that aggravates it the least - not at all, if I could.
Admittedly not being an expert on the issue, I think being raped for two minutes and witnessing your would-be rescuer getting a knife to the throat is more traumatising than being raped for five or seven minutes.
The damage is not "done" at the moment of penetration. It continues for as long as the rape continues, and then for long, long, long after that.
I would say that knowing that someone else (particularly someone you trust to take care of you like your dad) was there and didn't do a whole lot to stop the rape would be at least as damaging as the rape itself. Rape damages your ability to trust and have relationships with people anyway, even people that you previously loved and trusted like your parents. Actually having your dad there and having him not do much to stop it would be....unthinkable. I don't know how you would get past that.
That would be about the worst possible outcome as the child would fell utterly abandoned.
Quote from: Tank on June 23, 2012, 08:56:05 PM
That would be about the worst possible outcome as the child would fell utterly abandoned.
If the kid is actually aware of the father's presense in the first place, perhaps?
Quote from: Asmodean on June 23, 2012, 06:23:19 PM
The bare minimum would be running for the hills and THEN calling the police. Depending on the exact circumstances, even that may be enough and by far the wisest course of action.
Honestly, this is about as helpful as saying "The wisest course of action would be to fly around the world fast enough to rewind time, and go back and invite the rapist to a movie so he'll be tied up watching
The Avengers rather than raping your daughter."
There is simply no way I could "run for the hills" if someone was hurting my son. I would literally die first.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 23, 2012, 08:51:12 PM
If he has the tendency to "lose it" under less extreme stressors, possibly to the point of killing or seriously injuring a third party, I would say yes, some rehab may be beneficial.
The reason why they have a jury of peers is to come to a collective understanding of "normal". What would a normal father do in a situation like this? Would it be normal to get angry and act on that anger?
Quote from: Stevil on June 23, 2012, 08:59:10 PM
The reason why they have a jury of peers is to come to a collective understanding of "normal". What would a normal father do in a situation like this? Would it be normal to get angry and act on that anger?
I think it would be quite common, not sure about normal. That said, to the best of my knowledge, the juries do not consist of a representative sample of the population. What are they? 10-15 people? Not much, statistically...
I find the "not getting physically involved" response pretty impossible to fathom. Even if this guy agreed that it'd be the most rational thing to do (which he may or may not), you're talking about an emergency situation where you're probably reacting on instinct. I mean, geez, my kid fell and split his lip once (drawing a lot of blood, but not really doing much damage) and I reactively grabbed him up in my arms before I could even process what was happening. My brain just saw blood coming from my son and totally went into parental instinct mode. I'd find it very, very hard to believe that this father could have approached the situation calmly and rationally, even if he wanted to.
Let me construct another hypothetical from your example:
A kid, who is playing on carousel, falls off and is still on the ground with some blood gushing here and there. A parent runs over and picks the kid up, unwittingly aggravating a neck injury. Kid ends up a quad.
It's not a very medically sound example, but it will do for the purpose. The point is, and this is a personal observation, that thinking before acting generally yields more favourable results than just acting.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 23, 2012, 09:13:58 PM
Let me construct another hypothetical from your example:
A kid, who is playing on carousel, falls off and is still on the ground with some blood gushing here and there. A parent runs over and picks the kid up, unwittingly aggravating a neck injury. Kid ends up a quad.
It's not a very medically sound example, but it will do for the purpose. The point is, and this is a personal observation, that thinking before acting generally yields more favourable results than just acting.
Would you convict that parent? Throw them in prison?
Quote from: Stevil on June 23, 2012, 09:23:13 PM
Would you convict that parent? Throw them in prison?
Depends.
I would say that the different between rape and other more physical injuries (like falling off a merry-go-round or whatever) is that, generally speaking, the emotional damage is far greater than the physical damage. I mean sure, depending on the brutality involved, the physical damage can be severe too. But I would say that the physical damage heals more quickly than the emotional damage. Emotionally, it's hard to feel safe again after a rape. Having your father do very little (other than talking to the rapist or calling the cops) would reinforce that feeling of not being safe; heck, your own father will stand by and watch while someone rapes you. If he won't fight to help you, probably literally no one else in the world would either. That's what it would feel like, I think. Maybe like you're not worth saving too. It's just...people who are trying to argue that it would be less traumatic for the daughter than watching the rapist get a knife to the throat or whatever, I think they're wrong. Really, really, really wrong.
Quote from: Ali on June 23, 2012, 09:32:31 PM
It's just...people who are trying to argue that it would be less traumatic for the daughter than watching the rapist get a knife to the throat or whatever, I think they're wrong. Really, really, really wrong.
If I got to choose a parent or a jury in a self defence case, I know who I would choose.
Haha Stevil, are you saying that I'm biased in favor of the defendant? Probably. :)
Quote from: Asmodean on June 23, 2012, 09:13:58 PM
Let me construct another hypothetical from your example:
A kid, who is playing on carousel, falls off and is still on the ground with some blood gushing here and there. A parent runs over and picks the kid up, unwittingly aggravating a neck injury. Kid ends up a quad.
It's not a very medically sound example, but it will do for the purpose. The point is, and this is a personal observation, that thinking before acting generally yields more favourable results than just acting.
I don't disagree necessarily, I'm not even really arguing that he SHOULD have done A or B, I've just worked a job in which emergency situations came up pretty frequently (the vet clinic - we got a lot of hit-by-cars, which is about as emergency as you can get for a living creature) and I've seen time and time again that people don't get a chance to "think" in these circumstances. It can take years of training to condition a proper response to an emergency or crisis situation. Unless you have that training, your average Joe is highly unpredictable.
Quote from: Ali on June 23, 2012, 09:32:31 PM
.people who are trying to argue that it would be less traumatic for the daughter than watching the rapist get a knife to the throat or whatever, I think they're wrong. Really, really, really wrong.
Especially in view of the fact that she was 5 years old. We are talking some very, very serious damage, both physical and emotional, that would have been done. She might not have survived it, and certainly would have been scarred for life if she had.
Quote from: Ali on June 23, 2012, 09:45:02 PM
Haha Stevil, are you saying that I'm biased in favor of the defendant? Probably. :)
No,
I'm saying I'd rather have a parent that would lay their life on the line for me, without hesitation rather than one that is worried about doing the "right" thing.
With regards to jury, I'd rather one that takes into account human emotions in a situation, and the responsibility of a parent to protect their dependants.
Quote from: Firebird on June 23, 2012, 09:52:00 PM
Depends on what?
Did the parent see the kid fall and hit his head/nearly snap his neck? If yes and if they knew nothing of first aid, then I would call picking the kid up negligent. There are a multitude of such factors, which are very time-consuming to list without a properly constructed (or a real) scenario.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 23, 2012, 10:28:11 PM
Did the parent see the kid fall and hit his head/nearly snap his neck? If yes and if they knew nothing of first aid, then I would call picking the kid up negligent. There are a multitude of such factors, which are very time-consuming to list without a properly constructed (or a real) scenario.
The parent will spend the rest of their life and a great deal of money caring for this child. Probably racked with guilt as well.
How would criminal justice benefit society here?
By performing its function properly. In most cases, even I would not convict a parent after such an event, but I would want more reason than that it was a once in a lifetime occurence for that.
Quote from: En_Route on June 21, 2012, 12:50:49 PM
I personally have no idea what natural justice is
Just world hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis). There is this but personally I think its a load of bollocks.
Quote from: Ali on June 23, 2012, 09:32:31 PM
But I would say that the physical damage heals more quickly than the emotional damage. Emotionally, it's hard to feel safe again after a rape. Having your father do very little (other than talking to the rapist or calling the cops) would reinforce that feeling of not being safe; heck, your own father will stand by and watch while someone rapes you. If he won't fight to help you, probably literally no one else in the world would either. That's what it would feel like, I think. Maybe like you're not worth saving too. It's just...people who are trying to argue that it would be less traumatic for the daughter than watching the rapist get a knife to the throat or whatever, I think they're wrong. Really, really, really wrong.
I agree with this. There was never any way this experience was not going to be damaging for the daughter, but having her father turn up and not take immediate action to rescue her might have been seen as a betrayal on the level of the parent excusing or denying the rape. And that, I promise you, is worse than the actual rape. The emotional fallout from rape the victim can recover from, tho it's difficult and takes a long time, but recovery from a betrayal -- probably not going to happen.
And I think there are some situations in which thinking before acting is just not possible, and this was one of them. A man found his child being raped, he saw red and attacked. It's to his credit that after his child was safe and he came back to his senses, he tried to get help for the other man. A lot of people would have done the first, but not many of us would have done the second. I don't think situations like this should be shrugged off by the law, but there are a lot of extinuating circumstances here that make it unreasonable to prosecute.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 24, 2012, 02:05:37 AM
A lot of people would have done the first, but not many of us would have done the second.
...And I would toss each one of those assholes who failed to do the second in jail for a very long time.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 24, 2012, 02:11:27 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 24, 2012, 02:05:37 AM
A lot of people would have done the first, but not many of us would have done the second.
...And I would toss each one of those assholes who failed to do the second in jail for a very long time.
And we would deserve it, but still.
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 24, 2012, 02:16:31 AM
Quote from: Asmodean on June 24, 2012, 02:11:27 AM
Quote from: BooksCatsEtc on June 24, 2012, 02:05:37 AM
A lot of people would have done the first, but not many of us would have done the second.
...And I would toss each one of those assholes who failed to do the second in jail for a very long time.
And we would deserve it, but still.
Indeed. Deserving, but... is still deserving.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 23, 2012, 10:28:11 PM
Quote from: Firebird on June 23, 2012, 09:52:00 PM
Depends on what?
Did the parent see the kid fall and hit his head/nearly snap his neck? If yes and if they knew nothing of first aid, then I would call picking the kid up negligent. There are a multitude of such factors, which are very time-consuming to list without a properly constructed (or a real) scenario.
If they knew nothing of first aid, it's likely they didn't know you shouldn't move someone with a possible head/neck injury.
I guess I just don't understand what point all of this prosecution of parents trying to care and protect their children is supposed to play. It seems so pointless; it won't change the human instinct to rush to your child's aid, and frankly in most cases that instinct is a good and useful thing. It may cause a negative situation when your child has a neck injury, or cause trouble for their rapist ( ::)) but in general it's a good thing.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 24, 2012, 02:31:26 AM
Indeed. Deserving, but... is still deserving.
And human nature is still human nature. It can be worthy of punishment, no argument there, but it's still going to happen.
Quote from: Ali on June 24, 2012, 02:43:39 AM
I guess I just don't understand what point all of this prosecution of parents trying to care and protect their children is supposed to play.
When that caring and protection results to injuries to a third party, that should be pretty obvious. When it results to injuries to the kid or the parent due to neglect, reckless endangerment and the like... Well, that too is pretty obvious, I think.
QuoteIt may cause a negative situation when your child has a neck injury
It may cause a whole mess of bad situations in case of MVCs, (near-)drownings and other unpleasantness too.
Quote from: Asmodean on June 24, 2012, 10:42:56 AM
Quote from: Ali on June 24, 2012, 02:43:39 AM
I guess I just don't understand what point all of this prosecution of parents trying to care and protect their children is supposed to play.
When that caring and protection results to injuries to a third party, that should be pretty obvious. When it results to injuries to the kid or the parent due to neglect, reckless endangerment and the like... Well, that too is pretty obvious, I think.
QuoteIt may cause a negative situation when your child has a neck injury
It may cause a whole mess of bad situations in case of MVCs, (near-)drownings and other unpleasantness too.
I don't agree with this. A person should be criminally prosecuted because their actions illustrate that they are a potential danger to society. If a parent accidentally snaps a child's neck while trying to protect them, that is a horrible accident. Does that illustrate a danger to society? How does prosecuting help anyone besides adding to the horrible guilt and pain the parent is already suffering? The person intended to do good and it went horribly wrong. It does not mean they're going to go around doing that to other people's children too.
Quote from: Firebird on June 24, 2012, 06:59:32 PM
I don't agree with this. A person should be criminally prosecuted because their actions illustrate that they are a potential danger to society.
If the accident and/or untold misery in its aftermath were the result of negligent or reckless behaviour on the part of the accused, then why NOT convict?
QuoteIf a parent accidentally snaps a child's neck while trying to protect them, that is a horrible accident. Does that illustrate a danger to society? How does prosecuting help anyone besides adding to the horrible guilt and pain the parent is already suffering? The person intended to do good and it went horribly wrong. It does not mean they're going to go around doing that to other people's children too.
...And yet if I intend to do good by getting my hypothetical pregnant girlfriend to the hospital and run over a kindergarten class out for some air, I can kiss my license (And most probably my only marginally limited freedom of movement) goodbye for a long time and rightly so.
By not prosecuting cases where negligence or ignorance turn otherwise good deeds into disasters, the society is sending a message that as long as you have your intentions in the right place, the means don't really matter, nor do the ends. It is not a message I, for one, am too happy to recieve.
Quote from: Firebird on June 24, 2012, 06:59:32 PM
I don't agree with this. A person should be criminally prosecuted because their actions illustrate that they are a potential danger to society. If a parent accidentally snaps a child's neck while trying to protect them, that is a horrible accident. Does that illustrate a danger to society? How does prosecuting help anyone besides adding to the horrible guilt and pain the parent is already suffering? The person intended to do good and it went horribly wrong. It does not mean they're going to go around doing that to other people's children too.
They would have learnt their lesson, and wouldn't make that mistake twice.
The parent needs money and liberty to look after the kid now, what value is there in government taking away money or liberty from the parent, this would be counterproductive for the child.