Justified killing or murder?

[Ecurb Noselrub]

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.

[Sandra Craft]

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. 

[Buddy]

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.

[Recusant]

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.

[markmcdaniel]

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.

[OldGit]

Plus this is one paedophile who won't be released to reoffend.  O si sic omnes!

[Ali]

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.   

[Ecurb Noselrub]

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. 

[xSilverPhinx]

Justified.

[DeterminedJuliet]

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.

[Sweetdeath]

Justified.

This.
I cry no tears for such a disgusting human being.

[Siz]

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.

[Stevil]

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?

[En_Route]

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.

[Asmodean]

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.