Don't mess with Daddies and their daughters--Lethal stupidity!

mohawk001 · Jun 12, 2012

So if I see someone raping someone and I shoot them to stop it and hit them in the leg causing them to stop, but since I didn't kill him with the first shot I decide to shoot him again I decide to shoot him again, it would be a good kill. Yup, that's what I'm seeing here.

By the way, where does it say he only hit him a few times like some are saying? What the guy who died did was very very very wrong, but I have a hard time saying that a killing was needed to stop it. Or is someone going to tell me the guy just wouldn't stop until he actually died? If I were to do double shots like I started with, people would be all over me. Hell, at least a second shot to the head would be a more impulse style killing since it only takes a second to pull a trigger...while it takes how long to hit someone time after time until they are dead.

Ruger · Jun 12, 2012

I have a little girl who is almost 4 years old. In all honesty, if I walked in on someone raping her, considering that I carry everywhere I legally can, I would shoot the rapist, and I would do it without remorse.

I'm not talking about finding out about it after the fact & hunting someone down, which would most definitely be unlawful. I'm talking about walking in on a rape in-progress.

If it offends anyone's sensibilities that I would lawfully use deadly force to protect my little girl from a piece of human trash who is actively molesting her, then you can piss-off.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2

Tanner · Jun 12, 2012

mohawk001 said:
So if I see someone raping someone and I shoot them to stop it and hit them in the leg causing them to stop, but since I didn't kill him with the first shot I decide to shoot him again I decide to shoot him again, it would be a good kill. Yup, that's what I'm seeing here.

By the way, where does it say he only hit him a few times like some are saying? What the guy who died did was very very very wrong, but I have a hard time saying that a killing was needed to stop it. Or is someone going to tell me the guy just wouldn't stop until he actually died? If I were to do double shots like I started with, people would be all over me. Hell, at least a second shot to the head would be a more impulse style killing since it only takes a second to pull a trigger...while it takes how long to hit someone time after time until they are dead.

Correct me if im wrong but do police shoot to wound? Or do they shoot to kill? I think they are trained to kill. Ive never seen them shoot a target depicting a leg or arm. If the situation is bad enough to draw your weapon its bad enough to pull the trigger. Any thing worth doing once is worth doing twice. However I will use someones quote "45 ACP because pulling the trigger twice is silly" My point. To stop this violent crime violence was used. Any one must accept death as a possible outcome of getting caught in the act of commiting such crime. This goes without saying that death is not always the fair punishment.

MamabearCali · Jun 12, 2012

mohawk001 said:
So if I see someone raping someone and I shoot them to stop it and hit them in the leg causing them to stop, but since I didn't kill him with the first shot I decide to shoot him again I decide to shoot him again, it would be a good kill. Yup, that's what I'm seeing here.

By the way, where does it say he only hit him a few times like some are saying? What the guy who died did was very very very wrong, but I have a hard time saying that a killing was needed to stop it. Or is someone going to tell me the guy just wouldn't stop until he actually died? If I were to do double shots like I started with, people would be all over me. Hell, at least a second shot to the head would be a more impulse style killing since it only takes a second to pull a trigger...while it takes how long to hit someone time after time until they are dead.

Well first off you need better training if you hit him in the leg. Center of mass hits are SOP. So if you hit him in the leg and he stops raping (your four year old daughter who is screaming on the floor) you had better be sure he does not have a weapon to return your fire and is not a good fighter himself. Or else you and your daughter could easily be dead. Additionally if he hit him in the leg and he bleeds out from his femoral artery are you going to be sad and turn yourself in for murder? It takes only one hard hit to the wrong place on the head to kill a man. It does not take mutilple hits, one or two good hits can easily kill. That is why fist fights are still really dangerous.

As for the law in the state of TX you are permitted to use lethal force in these situations.

PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Truckdriver1975 · Jun 12, 2012

Ruger said:
I have a little girl who is almost 4 years old. In all honesty, if I walked in on someone raping her, considering that I carry everywhere I legally can, I would shoot the rapist, and I would do it without remorse.

I'm not talking about finding out about it after the fact & hunting someone down, which would most definitely be unlawful. I'm talking about walking in on a rape in-progress.

If it offends anyone's sensibilities that I would lawfully use deadly force to protect my little girl from a piece of human trash who is actively molesting her, then you can piss-off.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2

I completely agree. My little girl is the center of my universe and I wouldn't hesitate to draw and fire.

mohawk001 · Jun 12, 2012

Good, I'm happy to see that hanging would have been acceptable also for the father to do. It would have stopped it and would be the deadly force as allowed by law. Or perhaps using a hammer, starting with the feet, and working your way up the legs until you get to the head and then smash it in. As pointed out before, people wonder why others look at gun carriers as blood thirsty people. When is it ok to continue to apply deadly force when the threat has stopped being the same threat? I can apply that same standard to say it's ok to shoot a thief in the back then. Perhaps people are more correct than I wanted to believe, that there are too many people who carry that would actually be happy being a vigilante or are at least happy to advocate others being vigilantes.

EDIT: Oh, and believe it or not, there are times it's not the greatest to shoot center mass. Do rounds for example every pass through the target? If you aren't able to look at the whole picture and always shoot a certain way, it could end up worse than you intended.

MamabearCali · Jun 12, 2012

If you are worried about backdrop on your rounds (rounds passing through) then you had better not aim for the legs--not nearly as much matter as in the center of a body.

There is a huge gulf of a difference between hitting the man in the act of raping your four year old daughter and resulting in his death and dragging him out back and stringing him up or torturing him as you indicated. If you can't see the difference you need to look a little harder.

Ruger · Jun 12, 2012

Mohawk001 - in no way has anyone in this thread made statements endorsing vigilantism. You jumped the shark, dude. My previously posted statement was within the law, both in NC where I live, and would be within the law in TX where the event in discussion took place.

MamabearCali said:
There is a huge gulf of a difference between hitting the man in the act of raping your four year old daughter and resulting in his death and dragging him out back and stringing him up or torturing him as you indicated. If you can't see the difference you need to look a little harder.

Well said Mamabear!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2

SFCRetired · Jun 12, 2012

From what I am reading about this case, the father struck the man several times in the head in the process of pulling him off his daughter. All he had to do was hit once or twice in just the right place (and we don't know where he was hitting) and the results are fatal. There is also the possibility of an underlying medical condition that contributed to the man's demise. I do not see any "vigilantism" in this father's actions.

The father has expressed remorse that the man is dead and I can understand that. No sane human being wants to take the life of another human being. We may be forced into it, but we do so reluctantly.

Unless there is something there that we have not been told, I would have to vote "No true bill" were I sitting on that Grand Jury.

As a father of two girls and the grandfather of two more, I can understand why the father reacted as he did.

skidmark · Jun 12, 2012

Maybe I jumped the gun a bit by trotting out Rule 5. Maybe I misread the first few comments as expressing more glee than their authors intended to express. But I notice that the tenor of this thread has been much less bloodthirsty following my posting than other threads about instances of defense of others.

While I would like to see the DA take this to a Grand Jury with a recommendation that they return a No True Bill, there has been a sudden change in the way the public sees the use of force. My opinion is everything is going to hinge on 1) what the father hit him with, and 2) exactly how many times the father hit him.

stay safe.

MamabearCali · Jun 12, 2012

skidmark said:
Maybe I jumped the gun a bit by trotting out Rule 5. Maybe I misread the first few comments as expressing more glee than their authors intended to express. But I notice that the tenor of this thread has been much less bloodthirsty following my posting than other threads about instances of defense of others.

While I would like to see the DA take this to a Grand Jury with a recommendation that they return a No True Bill, there has been a sudden change in the way the public sees the use of force. My opinion is everything is going to hinge on 1) what the father hit him with, and 2) exactly how many times the father hit him.

stay safe.

I think the Sheriff said it would likely go along that path, but was unlikely to result in any charges. On your question #1 What he hit him with---why does it matter? He would have been justified in using lethal force by TX state law to stop a rape...so fists, shovel, plank--does not matter. He could have shot the sorry piece of excrement in the head and it would be the same as if he punched him so hard he died (lethal force is lethal force). As for how many times he hit him--dunno--but the Dad was apparently surprised that he died and feels bad about it (it is a terrible thing to have to kill another human being) so I am guessing he did not intend to kill him.

If a woman is being raped she is justified in using any amount of force including lethal force to end the rape. The father of the daughter is entitled to use that for his child as well.

mohawk001 · Jun 12, 2012

Ruger said:
Mohawk001 - in no way has anyone in this thread made statements endorsing vigilantism. You jumped the shark, dude. My previously posted statement was within the law, both in NC where I live, and would be within the law in TX where the event in discussion took place.

Well said Mamabear!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk 2

Actually, I think people are. People have said the guy deserved to die. So, no trial needed. No evidence needed. Just one person's word is needed. I've asked if that much force was needed to stop it. It was with fists after all, not something that was instant like a bullet. Blunt force trama to head and neck shows multiple blows. So far, it seems it doesn't matter how many times he hit him or if he stopped supposedly assaulting the girl before he died from some of the replies. If the guy stopped doing what he is accused of, did the father continue to hit him? If he did, are you saying it was ok to do? If yes, then I can shoot a robber in the back and you would be cheering about it I would hope. I wonder, if I were to compare names of posters here who are feeling it was justified with names of people in other threads who are saying we need more evidence before making decisions (such as in the Zimmerman case, and we have more information in that case than in this one), how many names would match.

That's what gets me in this case, we have nothing really to go on, and people are applauding a guy for killing someone in a way that sure wouldn't be quick and painless. I'd rather wait to see if any actual proof comes out to support his story before saying a person deserved to die. If it's found that the guy was hit a ton of times with no defensive wounds, will people still be so supportive of the father for example?

Tanner · Jun 12, 2012

mohawk001 said:
Actually, I think people are. People have said the guy deserved to die. So, no trial needed. No evidence needed. Just one person's word is needed. I've asked if that much force was needed to stop it. It was with fists after all, not something that was instant like a bullet. Blunt force trama to head and neck shows multiple blows. So far, it seems it doesn't matter how many times he hit him or if he stopped supposedly assaulting the girl before he died from some of the replies. If the guy stopped doing what he is accused of, did the father continue to hit him? If he did, are you saying it was ok to do? If yes, then I can shoot a robber in the back and you would be cheering about it I would hope. I wonder, if I were to compare names of posters here who are feeling it was justified with names of people in other threads who are saying we need more evidence before making decisions (such as in the Zimmerman case, and we have more information in that case than in this one), how many names would match.

That's what gets me in this case, we have nothing really to go on, and people are applauding a guy for killing someone in a way that sure wouldn't be quick and painless. I'd rather wait to see if any actual proof comes out to support his story before saying a person deserved to die. If it's found that the guy was hit a ton of times with no defensive wounds, will people still be so supportive of the father for example?

People have said no suck thing. Rather that we are not sorry that he died. And your remark about death being painless??? That tickles. Whats done is done. Evidence would do what? Tell us that the guy kept hiting him after he was dead? Is it against the law to kill a dead man? It is obvious that the father did not intend to kill the man. I think we all support due process so yea it should go without saying that we think there should be an investigation.

mohawk001 · Jun 12, 2012

Tanner said:
People have said no suck thing. Rather that we are not sorry that he died. And your remark about death being painless??? That tickles. Whats done is done. Evidence would do what? Tell us that the guy kept hiting him after he was dead? Is it against the law to kill a dead man? It is obvious that the father did not intend to kill the man. I think we all support due process so yea it should go without saying that we think there should be an investigation.

Not sorry that he is dead and deserved to die. Please explain the big difference then. You obviously haven't read the post, or can you point out where I said anything about hitting after he was dead? I thank you for saying what you think is obvious. But does that make it the truth? Or are you a god who can tell us what is exactly what? And for supporting due process, are you sure that's the case here? I really don't. If it was so true, then we wouldn't be seeing remarks saying how the father was right for what he did and glad someone is dead so quickly and with no apparent thought about how there hasn't been much, if any, evidence put out yet. So let's say that a report comes out saying there is no proof that the girl was assaulted that day, I guess the people who are not sorry he died will still think the same way? Make excuses, but you are a hypocrite along with some others here. Plain and simple. And please explain where I said death being painless. Or are your English skills just that poor? I know mine aren't perfect, but you sure seem to twist things. You accuse me of saying things I haven't said. Is that your way of trying to adjust the fire?

After all, you are happy he's dead, but yet why would you think there should be an investigation then? The guy, who you must feel is abolutely guildy already, is dead. You've already said you're happy he is. So are you now changing your story or are you going to continue to speak out of both sides of your mouth? Hypocrite.

Tanner · Jun 12, 2012

mohawk001 said:
Actually, I think people are. People have said the guy deserved to die. So, no trial needed. No evidence needed. Just one person's word is needed. I've asked if that much force was needed to stop it. It was with fists after all, not something that was instant like a bullet. Blunt force trama to head and neck shows multiple blows. So far, it seems it doesn't matter how many times he hit him or if he stopped supposedly assaulting the girl before he died from some of the replies. If the guy stopped doing what he is accused of, did the father continue to hit him? If he did, are you saying it was ok to do? If yes, then I can shoot a robber in the back and you would be cheering about it I would hope. I wonder, if I were to compare names of posters here who are feeling it was justified with names of people in other threads who are saying we need more evidence before making decisions (such as in the Zimmerman case, and we have more information in that case than in this one), how many names would match.

That's what gets me in this case, we have nothing really to go on, and people are applauding a guy for killing someone in a way that sure wouldn't be quick and painless. I'd rather wait to see if any actual proof comes out to support his story before saying a person deserved to die. If it's found that the guy was hit a ton of times with no defensive wounds, will people still be so supportive of the father for example?

In red you suggest that his death should be quick and painless. As for the Hypocrite remark. Not sure how I am being one. So far I have expressed my opinion based on the info I have to work with. Have I jumped to the conclusion that the man was guilty? YEA its called a conversation. Will my opinion change if there is some evidence that this apperently strang unknown guy who was on to of a 4 year old child while she was crying some how turned out to be a good samaritan who was just fixing her boo boo. Then yea I will change my opinion.

Last but not least sir. I acknowledge that my text could surely cause you some anger when I say things like that tickles and or stating what I feel is obvious. HOWEVER I did not attack you or call you names nor would I on a forum like this where we should argue without resorting to such tactics. I will leave it at this. Without getting to personal and boo hoo poor me I have specific reasons why I feel so strongly about subjects like this one. We all base our opinions on personal experience. So again I will say, based off of the info I have the man was caught in the act of a violent crime so a violence was used to stop him. He died as a result of said violence.......OH WELL!!!
Had he lived I do not feel he would deserved to die even if he was found guilty. Now please explain how I was being a hypocrite. You have turned this from what is right or wrong into who is right or wrong. I will continue to respect your opinions and look for your posts.
I wouldent be upset with you disagreing with me and being rude about it. The first thing I learned on this site about OCing. Have thick skin.

MamabearCali · Jun 13, 2012

Just for you Mohawk. I do not know any lawyers in TX (where the crime occured and what laws will be applicable), but I do know some LEO's and I chatted with one of them on a different gun forum and this is what he said in regards to the excessive force you persist in mentioning.

"This is not another bystander or a cop stopping the assault, it was the girls father. It is all going to come down to the father's mindset and how long he continued to punch the guy after pulling him off of his daughter. Even though Texas has no temporary insanity or 'Crime of Passion' law, his immediate fear for his daughter's safety and well being driving him to violence will play heavily in the Grand Jury's decision to no-bill or not.

When you get into a physical fight with a person committing a crime, there are no Marquess of Queensberry rules; it is stop at all costs or potentially be bludgeoned yourself. And when the adrenaline is pumping, it is VERY hard to just cut the emotion off, even for trained police officers. There are quite a few high speed pursuit videos where you see after a 20 minute pursuit the officers are so pumped they can't control their emotion and use excessive force. There is not a ref to step in and keep you from throwing the next punch, no towel thrown to signal they give up and no bell that rings. Trying to stop when your adrenaline is pushed, especially when a crime has been committed against a helpless young child, in this case his own daughter, would enrage anyone to the point they would potentially have to be pulled off of the victim.

Bottom line, unless the father had stopped, the guy was laying there not moving and then the father went back after a minute or two and continued to punch on him, this is a pretty clear-cut case of defense of a third person IMO."

Good perspective, I think.

mohawk001 · Jun 13, 2012

MamabearCali said:
Just for you Mohawk. I do not know any lawyers in TX (where the crime occured and what laws will be applicable), but I do know some LEO's and I chatted with one of them on a different gun forum and this is what he said in regards to the excessive force you persist in mentioning.

"This is not another bystander or a cop stopping the assault, it was the girls father. It is all going to come down to the father's mindset and how long he continued to punch the guy after pulling him off of his daughter. Even though Texas has no temporary insanity or 'Crime of Passion' law, his immediate fear for his daughter's safety and well being driving him to violence will play heavily in the Grand Jury's decision to no-bill or not.

When you get into a physical fight with a person committing a crime, there are no Marquess of Queensberry rules; it is stop at all costs or potentially be bludgeoned yourself. And when the adrenaline is pumping, it is VERY hard to just cut the emotion off, even for trained police officers. There are quite a few high speed pursuit videos where you see after a 20 minute pursuit the officers are so pumped they can't control their emotion and use excessive force. There is not a ref to step in and keep you from throwing the next punch, no towel thrown to signal they give up and no bell that rings. Trying to stop when your adrenaline is pushed, especially when a crime has been committed against a helpless young child, in this case his own daughter, would enrage anyone to the point they would potentially have to be pulled off of the victim.

Bottom line, unless the father had stopped, the guy was laying there not moving and then the father went back after a minute or two and continued to punch on him, this is a pretty clear-cut case of defense of a third person IMO."

Good perspective, I think.

So if the beating took five minutes, that's ok as long as it was non-stop? Or ten? Again, my disgust is that after all the talking on this forum about making sure all the evidence is heard before making a decision, especially if it's about a person who is OCing being arrested for example, people are so quick to be happy a person is dead with just one article and no facts but just the word of the person who did the killing. Also on this board there have been many discussions about being able to control oneself and if that ability or inability should be a deciding factor in an outcome. I had always picked up that general consensus was to be in control, so has that changed? And finally, you are quoting cops, not lawyers. So basically again it's just personal opinion and I'm sure some experiences they've had, but I wouldn't be sure it's actual law either. Even though lawyers can be wrong, I'd trust them more if you had gotten something from one since they specialize in it.

And Tanner, you are a hypocrite because there is no need to see any evidence or have an investigation, you've already made up your mind. You've said the guy deserved to be in hell, so why also say you welcome an investigation? Again, no need for one if your mind is made up. People who want to get a more complete picture before passing judgement will want an investigation and more evidence before making up their minds. You see, I can't make up my mind yet on if it was right or wrong, because I don't have enough evidence. I, for one, am keeping an open mind about it until more information has come to light. Taking personal feelings aside about what the guy supposedly did, since we don't have all the facts yet, to me a few deciding factors will be if the father actually didn't try to kill the guy and if he actually did then did he really believe that it was immediately necessary to use deadly force to stop the guy (as per the law quoted earlier) if he was actually doing what the father says and if the legal system agrees with him then that it was. So I have up to three main questions myself I guess. Did the guy actually do what the father said, was it intentional, and was it necessary if it was intentional. If the first is yes, then I will agree with you that he is hopefully in hell burning. The other questions I'd want even more information on to decide. I may feel sorry for the guy and understand why he did it if the guy was actually trying to assault his daughter, but depending on information I may still decide he was in the wrong for how it ended.

skidmark · Jun 13, 2012

While it pains me to say it, I agree with mowhawk001 - there has been discussion of both glee in the death of the alleged abuser and discussion of willingness to "overlook" some/all technicalities in deciding not to charge the father with a/any crime. I had hoped that an early reminder of Rule 5 and a plea for restraint would have headed this off at the pass, but it apparently did not.

There is nothing to indicate that the father continued his beating of the alleged molester after he was able to get him off his daughter/stop the attack. The few facts that are available show that the alleged abuser died from one or "a few" blows which landed on his head - although exactly where has not yet been specified/I can find on the internet. It has also been established that the father felt/feels no joy in being the cause of the death of another, regardless of what that other person was doing.

If anybody wants to talk about what they would do to a person caught sexually abusing a child, or what they think ought to be the punishment and/or retribution for getting caught sexually abusing a child, or even just for sexually abusing a child and not getting caught in the act, or even rehashing true tales and myths of what happens to child sexual abusers in prison or ought to happen to them in prison, then I suggest you take that discussion elsewhere.

Speculation about how the justice system might respond to this situation, or discussion of when the legally sanctioned use of deadly force to stop a violent felony in progress goes over whatever line you want to draw in sand or concrete or granite - that's all well and good if for no other reaason than it is educational.

Discussion about shooting center mass as opposed to elsewhere and why one might not want to shoot center mass in a situation such as this, or why one might not want to shoot at all in a situation like this, or why the gun is not the only tool we can use - that's all well and good, and my opinion is that some folks need to learn about some or all of those points.

Discussion about why we shoot to stop the threat, as opposed to shooting to kill or shooting to wound, or shooting warning shots - my opinion is that such discussion appears to be needed.

But anything that might be perceived as celebrating the death, or manner of death, of the alleged child sexual abuser is, in my opinion, something we ought not do if only because it provides ammunition for the anti-gun folks to use in supporting placing their own projections onto gun owners/gun users.

One of the supposed featues of OCDO is that for the most part it relies on self-moderation. I ask that everyone take a step back, look at what they have posted, and decide if they want to moderate either what they have already posted or what they will post in the future. We all know that nothing disappears down the rabbit hole forever, but deciding to post with a different attitude/mindset may change the wish that something(s) did in fact disappear.

And for the record, just in case anybody was wondering - I cannot post how I feel about child sexual abusers because of several federal and state laws prohibitting and criminalizing the transmitting of certain things over the electrons.

stay safe.

Tanner · Jun 13, 2012

mohawk001 said:
So if the beating took five minutes, that's ok as long as it was non-stop? Or ten? Again, my disgust is that after all the talking on this forum about making sure all the evidence is heard before making a decision, especially if it's about a person who is OCing being arrested for example, people are so quick to be happy a person is dead with just one article and no facts but just the word of the person who did the killing. Also on this board there have been many discussions about being able to control oneself and if that ability or inability should be a deciding factor in an outcome. I had always picked up that general consensus was to be in control, so has that changed? And finally, you are quoting cops, not lawyers. So basically again it's just personal opinion and I'm sure some experiences they've had, but I wouldn't be sure it's actual law either. Even though lawyers can be wrong, I'd trust them more if you had gotten something from one since they specialize in it.

And Tanner, you are a hypocrite because there is no need to see any evidence or have an investigation, you've already made up your mind. You've said the guy deserved to be in hell, so why also say you welcome an investigation? Again, no need for one if your mind is made up. People who want to get a more complete picture before passing judgement will want an investigation and more evidence before making up their minds. You see, I can't make up my mind yet on if it was right or wrong, because I don't have enough evidence. I, for one, am keeping an open mind about it until more information has come to light. Taking personal feelings aside about what the guy supposedly did, since we don't have all the facts yet, to me a few deciding factors will be if the father actually didn't try to kill the guy and if he actually did then did he really believe that it was immediately necessary to use deadly force to stop the guy (as per the law quoted earlier) if he was actually doing what the father says and if the legal system agrees with him then that it was. So I have up to three main questions myself I guess. Did the guy actually do what the father said, was it intentional, and was it necessary if it was intentional. If the first is yes, then I will agree with you that he is hopefully in hell burning. The other questions I'd want even more information on to decide. I may feel sorry for the guy and understand why he did it if the guy was actually trying to assault his daughter, but depending on information I may still decide he was in the wrong for how it ended.

Ugh.....I dont know what to say anymore. But hear goes nothing!
Here is what I have said up to this point.

Hope thiss guy is roting in hell........Not sorry he died....BLAH BLAH BLAHHHH

When you started posting that basically we are all meanies and we dont have evidence I pointed out some things.
1) I think most the people here support due process. Hell some of us have benifited from it and avoided false accusations.
2) This is a disscusion about how we feel about things. So yea in a convo we make assumptions well aware that we dont have the BIG PIC

You know after sitting here staring at the screen for a while contemplating the million and 1 things I could say I decided to interupt my self and simply say !GOOD DAY TO YOU SIR!

hypocrite ha

Tanner · Jun 13, 2012

skidmark said:
While it pains me to say it, I agree with mowhawk001 - there has been discussion of both glee in the death of the alleged abuser and discussion of willingness to "overlook" some/all technicalities in deciding not to charge the father with a/any crime. I had hoped that an early reminder of Rule 5 and a plea for restraint would have headed this off at the pass, but it apparently did not.

There is nothing to indicate that the father continued his beating of the alleged molester after he was able to get him off his daughter/stop the attack. The few facts that are available show that the alleged abuser died from one or "a few" blows which landed on his head - although exactly where has not yet been specified/I can find on the internet. It has also been established that the father felt/feels no joy in being the cause of the death of another, regardless of what that other person was doing.

If anybody wants to talk about what they would do to a person caught sexually abusing a child, or what they think ought to be the punishment and/or retribution for getting caught sexually abusing a child, or even just for sexually abusing a child and not getting caught in the act, or even rehashing true tales and myths of what happens to child sexual abusers in prison or ought to happen to them in prison, then I suggest you take that discussion elsewhere.

Speculation about how the justice system might respond to this situation, or discussion of when the legally sanctioned use of deadly force to stop a violent felony in progress goes over whatever line you want to draw in sand or concrete or granite - that's all well and good if for no other reaason than it is educational.

Discussion about shooting center mass as opposed to elsewhere and why one might not want to shoot center mass in a situation such as this, or why one might not want to shoot at all in a situation like this, or why the gun is not the only tool we can use - that's all well and good, and my opinion is that some folks need to learn about some or all of those points.

Discussion about why we shoot to stop the threat, as opposed to shooting to kill or shooting to wound, or shooting warning shots - my opinion is that such discussion appears to be needed.

But anything that might be perceived as celebrating the death, or manner of death, of the alleged child sexual abuser is, in my opinion, something we ought not do if only because it provides ammunition for the anti-gun folks to use in supporting placing their own projections onto gun owners/gun users.

One of the supposed featues of OCDO is that for the most part it relies on self-moderation. I ask that everyone take a step back, look at what they have posted, and decide if they want to moderate either what they have already posted or what they will post in the future. We all know that nothing disappears down the rabbit hole forever, but deciding to post with a different attitude/mindset may change the wish that something(s) did in fact disappear.

And for the record, just in case anybody was wondering - I cannot post how I feel about child sexual abusers because of several federal and state laws prohibitting and criminalizing the transmitting of certain things over the electrons.

stay safe.

I wish that I saw this post before I posted mine. Skid why is it that I agree completely with you while at the same time you agree with mohawk.
Oh yea I know why because you are one of those smart people who know how to communicate your feelings without crossing a line. As I once heard a wise man once say "agree with everything I say and you to will be wise" any ways. For the record I think I have said some harsh things.
Out of line I dont really think so. But like I said I do agree that for a forum like this a discussion about such opinions would be beter shared through a private message or something like that. And finally I think I will start a new threat based on that thought.

Don't mess with Daddies and their daughters--Lethal stupidity!

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member