Dad beats another man to death with fists.

[Former Member]

I could see him getting charged with manslaughter (Reason in italics)... But I'm not sure it would stick...

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter

Some excerpts....

If adequate provocation is established, a murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter. Generally there are four conditions that must be fulfilled to warrant the reduction: (1) the provocation must cause rage or fear in a reasonable person; (2) the defendant must have actually been provoked; (3) there should not be a time period between the provocation and the killing within which a reasonable person would cool off; and (4) the defendant should not have cooled off during that period.

Provocation is justifiable if a reasonable person under similar circumstances would be induced to act in the same manner as the defendant. It must be found that the degree of provocation was such that a reasonable person would lose self-control. In actual practice, there is no precise formula for determining reasonableness. It is a matter that is determined by the trier of fact, either the jury or the judge in a nonjury trial, after a full consideration of the evidence.

 

[northeast]

it appears the italics give reason to not charge him with murder, but not to find him innocent of manslaughter.

 

[Gameface]

Yeah, it's one thing if he told the man to stop, he didn't and then he hit him once resulting in the man's death. Another to startle him, he stops then you go about beating his face in.

Honestly I don't think he did anything "wrong" and would never vote to convict him if I was on his jury (unless there's some pretty crazy details we haven't heard yet). I think claiming temporary insanity should work here if it has ever worked anywhere.

 

[northeast]

Oh yea, most people would sympathize with the father in this case....
I hope public resources are not wasted on a trial on this guy.

 

[Former Member]

it appears the italics give reason to not charge him with murder, but not to find him innocent of manslaughter.

Sorry, I misspoke. The italics were meant to show my belief that they might charge him with manslaughter. I just don't think it would stick because the provocation, daughter getting molested, is one in which any parent on the jury would feel sympathy for.

 

[Stoked]

Sorry, I misspoke. The italics were meant to show my belief that they might charge him with manslaughter. I just don't think it would stick because the provocation, daughter getting molested, is one in which any parent on the jury would feel sympathy for.

I think it is one that any adult on any jury could identify with. I basis this on actions of society.

Two men are fighting and people mostly ignore them (there are exceptions). An adult is doing somehting to a child and people are coming out of the woodwork to get a piece pf that person. I think children naturally bring out protective instincts in all of us. Very, very easy to associate this to your personal life. Almost everyone has a child they care about/love personally. Wether that child is theirs, a grandchild, neighbors kid, friends kid...

 

[Former Member]

I think it is one that any adult on any jury could identify with. I basis this on actions of society.

Two men are fighting and people mostly ignore them (there are exceptions). An adult is doing somehting to a child and people are coming out of the woodwork to get a piece pf that person. I think children naturally bring out protective instincts in all of us. Very, very easy to associate this to your personal life. Almost everyone has a child they care about/love personally. Wether that child is theirs, a grandchild, neighbors kid, friends kid...

You sold me. I don't have a kid, and I would be sympathetic with the father.

 

[HipHopAnonymous]

I could see him getting charged with manslaughter (Reason in italics)... But I'm not sure it would stick...

https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/manslaughter

Some excerpts....

If adequate provocation is established, a murder charge may be reduced to manslaughter. Generally there are four conditions that must be fulfilled to warrant the reduction: (1) the provocation must cause rage or fear in a reasonable person; (2) the defendant must have actually been provoked; (3) there should not be a time period between the provocation and the killing within which a reasonable person would cool off; and (4) the defendant should not have cooled off during that period.

Provocation is justifiable if a reasonable person under similar circumstances would be induced to act in the same manner as the defendant. It must be found that the degree of provocation was such that a reasonable person would lose self-control. In actual practice, there is no precise formula for determining reasonableness. It is a matter that is determined by the trier of fact, either the jury or the judge in a nonjury trial, after a full consideration of the evidence.

From the Texas Penal Code:

9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; (2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect himself 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.

Prooving deadly force being immediately necessary might be a sticking point.

 

[Former Member]

From the Texas Penal Code:

9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; (2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect himself 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.

Prooving deadly force being immediately necessary might be a sticking point.

We would have to know more about the situation to know if deadly force was immediately necessary. My gut reaction is that deadly force wasn't necessary. I'd imagined that the father just lost control of his reasons and emotions.

Good Find, though.

 

[franklin]

I just want to hear the 911 call.

 

[Gameface]

We would have to know more about the situation to know if deadly force was immediately necessary. My gut reaction is that deadly force wasn't necessary. I'd imagined that the father just lost control of his reasons and emotions.

Good Find, though.

Deadly force is justified in order to STOP the person from committing the act. Period, end of story on that. However, once the act has stopped it doesn't matter if deadly force WAS justified, it no longer is as it will do nothing more to stop the act.

But again, under the circumstances you give the father all the benefit of the doubt in the world that he did what he had to do to stop the act and nothing more.

 

[PearlWatson]

He deserves an award for preventing future acts without the cost of housing and feeding this pedophile.