Father kills man after he kidnaps and allegedly molests his son

ChiangShih said:

1. You come home from work, you encounter a man in your hallway, he has just raped your wife or child. You are armed. Do you shoot him or detain him for the police.

2. You come home from work, you catch a man in the act of raping your wife or child. Do you shoot him or order him to stop at gun point and wait for police?

Click to expand...

In #1 above, you can't know that he just raped anyone (until his victim staggers out & tells you). You do, however, know that he's a stranger in your house. If he cooperates, get him on the ground & hold him for police. If he doesn't cooperate, and you fear he will seriously harm you, feel free to defend yourself. (If he's a guest of your wife or child, they can tell you that & make apologies all around.)

In #2, shoot the bastard & kick his carcass off your loved one, then call an ambulance for your family member.
You've caught the criminal in the act of committing a forcible felony, which in most areas is seen as legally equal to homicide in seriousness. ("Likely to cause death or serious bodily harm" is a common phrase in the law.) You are able to "stand in their shoes" with regards to your reaction & self-defense.

I don't agree with taking the law into your own hands unless it is self defense or defense of another.

Click to expand...

You (and others here) are making the same mistake many anti-self-defense / anti-gun people do.
When we defend ourselves (or an innocent other) we are NOT "taking the law into our own hands".
We are acting completely within the law.

Laws specifically mention self-defense as a permitted action (an affirmative defense to a charge of homicide or assault or whatever), and even if self-defense weren't mentioned it would be allowed because it's not prohibited.

However... AFAIK, the man in the OP was not acting in self-defense, he was acting out of revenge. That's legally wrong, but completely understandable. Apparently his peers thought so too, since he "only" has probation.

The subject father took the law into his own hands. He was defending no one. He was exacting revenge on a man already in custody as a result of his crime.

While self-defense is not taking the law into your own hands, revenge is.

There is not a single doubt in my mind that I'll be in jail if this ever happened to one of my daughters.

gsx1138 said:

There is not a single doubt in my mind that I'll be in jail if this ever happened to one of my daughters.

Click to expand...

I have doubt. I tend to be rational. One of the rational questions I would ask would be, "What would be best for my child?" Likely, that would not be my being in jail. Especially if the perp is already in custody for the crime.

eye95 said:

I have doubt. I tend to be rational. One of the rational questions I would ask would be, "What would be best for my child?" Likely, that would not be my being in jail. Especially if the perp is already in custody for the crime.

Click to expand...

ok

eye95 said:

After your explanation, I realize that I read and understood your post perfectly. I disagree. Vehemently.

Vigilantism is dangerous. It is and should be illegal. We are a nation of laws and not of men.

Moving on.

Click to expand...

You may disagree all you want. However you still don't understand.

eye95 said:

I have doubt. I tend to be rational. One of the rational questions I would ask would be, "What would be best for my child?" Likely, that would not be my being in jail. Especially if the perp is already in custody for the crime.

Click to expand...

It seems pretty obvious you do not have children. I intend no insult or disrespect, but you cannot possibly understand unless you have them. No sacrifice for your child's peace of mind is too great. This man ( the father) felt a pain that should live only in nightmares. He felt the pain of his child that depended on him to protect him and he failed. That is an abomination to any parent, every gene in the DNA of a parent would scream to destroy the threat to your child at all costs. As long as this man ( the petophile) was alive he was a very real threat to this child. Perhaps not physically, however as long as that animal walked the earth, free or not he was a threat to the entire family's sanity and any hope of that child recovering from the attack.


We can claim to be rational all we want, however having children opens up some of our more base nature that has been hardwired into our DNA. When your child is harmed, the rules of man mean nothing and only instinct and millions of years of genetic programming matter. Nearly every animal in nature will sacrifice itself to protect a mortally wounded offspring that will perish anyway. This isn't vigilantism, this is the basis of love. It is also an engrained survival ( of the species) instinct that neither laws, opinions, or even god himself can override. This isn't evil, or vigilantism, this is justice, and the true law of nature.

eye95 said:

The subject father took the law into his own hands. He was defending no one. He was exacting revenge on a man already in custody as a result of his crime.

While self-defense is not taking the law into your own hands, revenge is.

Click to expand...

A prison sentence is revenge for a criminal act.

It could be argued that the perp in this case was a danger to society, young kids more specifically, and you were defending a imminent threat to the general population of young children.

When I was younger, a man that my mother had known and allowed me to be around was a child molester...they were never convicted after it was found out. One night, as he slept, someone broke into his home and blew his head off while he was sleeping. The hero was never found to receive their award. The police believed that a parent had heard what had happen, likely to their own child, and carried out their own personal form of due-process.

People who say don't take the law into their own hands don't understand "we are the law".

Our system wasn't designed to have huge super prisons, massive LEO and LEA and a huge over bloated court system. The people in those systems and in positions of "power" have increased them and increased the propaganda that we are to rely on them.

Shooting a suspect, no a well known molester, rapist, murderer, etc. is justice.

Plus I don't see a lot wrong with vigilante, that word has been demonized by the "authorities".

It comes from a root word to guard.

NRAMARINE said:

It seems pretty obvious you do not have children. I intend no insult or disrespect, but you cannot possibly understand unless you have them.

Click to expand...

It seems obvious that you have no grasp of the obvious. Unlike you, I am willing to admit that I have just insulted you and lost a tremendous amount of respect for you.

What I quoted was as far as I bothered to read. The rest of your post is meaningless in the face of the insults and disrespect in your first two sentences. You owe me an apology and either a rational response or silence.

BTW, I raised two happy, healthy, and very successful children.

Your post disgusts me. Moving on unless you decide to return to civility and apologize.

eye95 said:

It seems obvious that you have no grasp of the obvious. Unlike you, I am willing to admit that I have just insulted you and lost a tremendous amount of respect for you.

What I quoted was as far as I bothered to read. The rest of your post is meaningless in the face of the insults and disrespect in your first two sentences. You owe me an apology and either a rational response or silence.

BTW, I raised two happy, healthy, and very successful children.

Your post disgusts me. Moving on unless you decide to return to civility and apologize.

Click to expand...

This seems like an overreaction.

eye95 said:

It seems obvious that you have no grasp of the obvious. Unlike you, I am willing to admit that I have just insulted you and lost a tremendous amount of respect for you.

What I quoted was as far as I bothered to read. The rest of your post is meaningless in the face of the insults and disrespect in your first two sentences. You owe me an apology and either a rational response or silence.

BTW, I raised two happy, healthy, and very successful children.

Your post disgusts me. Moving on unless you decide to return to civility and apologize.

Click to expand...

For the record, I stand corrected about you not having children. However I will not apologize. If you had actually read my post you would understand my point. If you raised your children without incident, or you do not know anyone who has been harmed in the manner being discussed, then count your blessings. However, until you have been in the position to understand what the shooter was going through you have no understanding, and quite frankly are talking out of turn. Your judging others without having been in their shoes is what's disgusting.

NRAMARINE said:

For the record, I stand corrected about you not having children. However I will not apologize. If you had actually read my post you would understand my point. If you raised your children without incident, or you do not know anyone who has been harmed in the manner being discussed, then count your blessings. However, until you have been in the position to understand what the shooter was going through you have no understanding, and quite frankly are talking out of turn. Your judging others without having been in their shoes is what's disgusting.

Click to expand...

I suggest you reread all of my posts in this thread. I am being judgmental...

judgmental of vigilantism. I am being judgmental of a behavior, not a person.

The only post of mine that anyone could accuse of being judgmental of the father would be #23. Careful reading of this post would see that I merely state facts. Any values judgment of these facts is happening in the mind of the beholder.

I still expect an apology. If none is forthcoming, then I don't see any point in ever having further discussions with you. Unapologetic lack of respect earns an unapologetic lack of respect.

Dad served justice.

Courts barley serve justice.

eye95 said:

I suggest you reread all of my posts in this thread. I am being judgmental...

judgmental of vigilantism. I am being judgmental of a behavior, not a person.

The only post of mine that anyone could accuse of being judgmental of the father would be #23. Careful reading of this post would see that I merely state facts. Any values judgment of these facts is happening in the mind of the beholder.

I still expect an apology. If none is forthcoming, then I don't see any point in ever having further discussions with you. Unapologetic lack of respect earns an unapologetic lack of respect.

Click to expand...

....................../´¯/)
....................,/¯../
.................../..../
............./´¯/'...'/´¯¯`·¸
........../'/.../..../......./¨¯\
........('(...´...´.... ¯~/'...')
.........\.................'...../
..........''...\.......... _.·´
............\..............(
..............\.............\... Expect in one hand, crap in the other and see which fills first.

NRAMARINE said:

...Expect in one hand, **** in the other and see which fills first.

Click to expand...

You have amply demonstrated how you deserve to be treated by me. As you wish.

Getting back on topic:

My anarchist friend points out that in a perfect anarchy (?), a person who visits violence upon another is judged by the group, if they think he did right, he goes on his way, if not, he is punished.

This is precisely what our courts do. Break a law, you are adjudicated and incarcerated. If you disagree with the punishment, work to get the law changed. This is how our laws have evolved.

From "eye for an eye" to "thou shalt not murder" to "go to jail for crime X", we have codified what the collective People find acceptable.

If you really think this crime rises to the level of a capital offense, and every sex crime is worth killing the perp, I'd rather not live near you. Because pretty soon, the line marking who you want dead may arrive at my door step. After all, I accidentally ran a stop sign, and have done plumbing work in my house without a permit.

Such a system must have rules (even if the only rule is majority rules). Therefore, it is, by definition, antithetical to anarchy. I won't speak for anyone's definition of Anarchy. I speak only on the generic term.

Also, the system of justice that you discuss sounds like democratic "justice." I thank God we don't have that here, but instead the rule of law. Democracy is dangerous to rights. Rights become what the majority say rights are.

One more thing to consider, if a member of the "group" disagrees with the group decision, he will likely exact "justice," prompting the "group" having to pass judgment again, for which, we can only hope, that no one disagrees to the extent that he needs to exact his personal "justice."

Such could be a vicious cycle. IIRC Greek mythology addressed this precise point and, using a story to illustrate the point, explains the need for societal justice in lieu of individual "justice."

since9 said:

+1. I'm all for locking up or executing child molesters, but by means of due process of law. Unchecked vigilantism leads to anarchy and other breakdowns of society. As it was, the father got off with a slap on the wrist, but with a leash the law can tug if he steps outside the law any time in the next five years.

Click to expand...

+1

I was a on a jury earlier this year. The charge was 'Repeated Sexual Assault of Same Child'. When we were initially impaneled, I was considering taking him outside, finding a tree and hanging him. After 2 days of trial, we found him not guilty within 2 minutes. The defense would not of even had to pt on a defense the case was so ridiculous. This man was financially ruined and got a divorce because of false allegations and prosecution. I personally apologized to the defendant afterwards the evidence was so ludicrous.