candrew
Well-Known Member
From what I've read, the father came up from behind and punched this dirt bag in the back of the head while he was on top of his daughter. The guy just fell over and died. It doesn't appear to have been a prolonged beating.
Dad beats another man to death with fists.
- Thread starter Dr. Jones
- Start date
From what I've read, the father came up from behind and punched this dirt bag in the back of the head while he was on top of his daughter. The guy just fell over and died. It doesn't appear to have been a prolonged beating.
That's exactly what he ought to say. There is no question about his right to use force to stop the man from molesting his daughter.
But if he was lying and an autopsy showed multiple punches were inflicted (I'm pretty sure an autopsy can show that kind of thing), wouldn't that hurt his case?
Also, if it is the case, sign this guy up for some boxing lessons.
Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. It certainly isn't out of the realm of possibility that the sight of seeing a family member, especially your young daughter, getting molested would cause adrenaline levels to be high enough to inflict such damage.
Just seems like honesty is the best policy. The case being in Texas, I don't expect to get much jail time, if any at all. If he lies about things though, that could make it worse.
Last edited:
Agree completely.
green
Well-Known Member
You keep worrying about his case going to trial. The first question is this, "Is there a prosecutor in TEXAS who would even touch this?"
No, no there isn't. There won't be a trial. Prosecutors have careers and futures to worry about, and going after a guy who caught his 4 year old getting raped and stopped it will only hurt their career.
Could you imagine if someone did prosecute this guy and then ran for AG someday. "So, what have you done to put criminals in prison?" "Uh, I put a guy protecting his daughter in prison."
There won't be an investigation, there won't be an autopsy, there is no reason to go after this guy. To waste money, time and resources on this case would be a joke.
Yes, the state of Texas is probably pretty loose when it comes to this stuff. To say there isn't a single prosecutor in the whole state that would do this is ridiculous.
green
Well-Known Member
Well, we will see. If there is one, there will be a trial. If there isn't...to loser goes a rep (I'll toss two your way to make up for what I lack if you are right).
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
I'm not here to defend the scum of the earth, but with this line of thought, if I ever wanted to murder someone in Texas, I guess all I would have to do is set things up so I could accuse him of molesting my child after I killed him. I'm not at all saying that's what happened, but if you automatically let someone off on a murder, just because the dead are accused of something unspeakable, it sets a precedent that could be easily abused.
I understand the emotion here, but that doesn't change the fact that people seem ok with killing someone based on reading an article. Obviously, if the article is 100% acurate, then who cares if a scumbag got killed, but I would like to think most people have been around long enough to know that you can't believe everything you read.
green
Well-Known Member
If evidence comes up that suggests that this guy set this up, that he killed the guy then forced him to rape his child, or held a gun to his head and forced him to rape his daughter, then beat him to death, then, yes, they should go after him with all the resources they can. He is a bigger monster than a pedophile.
Until evidence arises that suggests even the slightest hint of this, it is a moot point.
To take this to trial, as it stands right now, is a complete waste of time, money and resources and would be a joke.
pickledXgrandma
Well-Known Member
Wait a second...are you guys trying to tell me Jerry Sandusky is dead?
Whoa, look who's gettin' all spendy.
Yep, got punched right in the back of the head, just like that mean doctor did to Micheal Jackson.
freakazoid
Well-Known Member
Don't be silly. The newspaper article is enough to know exactly what happened. No reason to look any further.
No need to bother with evidence. The crime that the dead guy is accused of is so disgusting, I think it's ok to kill him whether or not he's actually guilty, just to be on the safe side.
Oh, yeah, totally. The article alone is reason enough to come to that conclusion.
I don't think Freak was accusing the guy of setting things up, but you still have to take this to trial. If you don't, you are promoting vigilante justice.