Dad beats another man to death with fists.

[green]

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.

Re-read my first sentence. The rest of your post becomes irrelevant.

 

[green]

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.

Why? If there isn't evidence of a crime being committed, then there is no crime, there is no trial. Very few cases ever make it trial. So, the question becomes, did this guy commit a crime? Let's look at the law, shall we (HipHopAnonymous posted this):

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.

So, "A person is justified in using deadly force against another...to prevent the other's imminent commission of...sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault.:

Did he use deadly force? Yup.
Was it to prevent sexual or aggravated sexual assault? Yup.

So, what crime was committed that would justify spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer's money?

Like I said, this would be a waste of time, money and resources, because no crime was committed (unless Freak's theory of the dude setting up the deceased is true).

 

[freakazoid]

Re-read my first sentence. The rest of your post becomes irrelevant.

Actually, you should re-read my post that you responded to in the first place. And what evidence in this case have you seen? A newspaper article in which the guy who killed the other guy accuses him of something terrible? Your argument is silly.

 

[freakazoid]

Why? If there isn't evidence of a crime being committed, then there is no crime, there is no trial. Very few cases ever make it trial. So, the question becomes, did this guy commit a crime? Let's look at the law, shall we (HipHopAnonymous posted this):.

Again, what evidence are you talking about?

You are ASSUMING there is evidence of one crime, and then yapping about there being no evidence of a murder? Hello, ever heard of a dead body? Or perhaps the killer admitting he killed the guy.

But sure, let's just take his word that he had a very good reason for killing the guy. Makes sense.


The point here is that neither you or I are in a position to make such a judgement, having read a frickin' newpaper article.

 

[green]

Freak - let's start over. Here is what you originally quoted from me:

there is no reason to go after this guy. To waste money, time and resources on this case would be a joke.

You wrote:

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.

So, I said, there is no reason to go after this guy because murder was never committed (definition of murder: the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.) So right there, the rest of your post becomes a moot point, because murder was never committed.

So, I thought I would humor you, so I posted this:

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.

Remember, no murder was committed, because it was a LAWFUL killing of one human by another, but I thought I would validate you a little.

Now, you then went on your little rant about:

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.

Now, the first sentence of my post that you go off on:

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.

IF evidence is brought up, then yes, we should look into murder. BUT, all we know is that this guy walked in another dude raping his daughter. He then killed him. Under Texas law, that is no a crime (here, I'll refresh your memory yet again):

Why? If there isn't evidence of a crime being committed, then there is no crime, there is no trial. Very few cases ever make it trial. So, the question becomes, did this guy commit a crime? Let's look at the law, shall we (HipHopAnonymous posted this):

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.

So, "A person is justified in using deadly force against another...to prevent the other's imminent commission of...sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault.:

Did he use deadly force? Yup.
Was it to prevent sexual or aggravated sexual assault? Yup.

So, what crime was committed that would justify spending hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer's money?

Like I said, this would be a waste of time, money and resources, because no crime was committed (unless Freak's theory of the dude setting up the deceased is true).

Now, again, for the last time, based off the information we have, and based off of Texas law, no crime was committed. Because no crime was committed, there is absolutely no reason for there to be any trial, any sentencing, and anything of that sort would be a complete waste of money, time and resources.

 

[Deleted member 848]

Freak - let's start over. Here is what you originally quoted from me:



You wrote:



So, I said, there is no reason to go after this guy because murder was never committed (definition of murder: the unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.) So right there, the rest of your post becomes a moot point, because murder was never committed.

So, I thought I would humor you, so I posted this:



Remember, no murder was committed, because it was a LAWFUL killing of one human by another, but I thought I would validate you a little.

Now, you then went on your little rant about:



Now, the first sentence of my post that you go off on:



IF evidence is brought up, then yes, we should look into murder. BUT, all we know is that this guy walked in another dude raping his daughter. He then killed him. Under Texas law, that is no a crime (here, I'll refresh your memory yet again):




Now, again, for the last time, based off the information we have, and based off of Texas law, no crime was committed. Because no crime was committed, there is absolutely no reason for there to be any trial, any sentencing, and anything of that sort would be a complete waste of money, time and resources.

 

[freakazoid]

So, I thought I would humor you.

Oh, you have no idea.

, all we know is that this guy walked in another dude raping his daughter. He then killed him.

And how do we know that? Because the killer told us that's what happened? Unless there is some other source other than the link posted, you're just assuming that the guy who did the killing is telling the truth. You don't actually know that's what happened, and surely not to the point to make a decision on the case being ignored.

 

[Former Member]

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.

Absolutely agree... I think he gets charged with manslaughter. But doesn't get convicted by a Texas jury. (Unless, there is evidence we don't know of).

 

[Former Member]

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.

So... if the father punches the molester one time to get him off his daughter, and this one punch kills the molester <------- Justified (If this is the case there will be no trial)

If he punches him and throws him off his daughter, but after throwing him off continues to batter him to death <------ Unjustified (If this is the case, I think he could be charged with manslaughter)

This is Texas, however, this guy might wind up getting elected governor then running for president someday.

 

[Brown Notes]

Finally something good happened in Texas. Every molester deserves to be beaten to death. LOL at the idea the guy didn't think the dude would die.

 

[Tarkanian]

In Texas we molest and maim the child molesters!
Kudos to the father!
I have a Ph. D. in Law (superflous and shameless bragging here) and defending this action may be a pain in the *** legally and technically speaking, for I know the father exceeded the limits of legitimate defence of her daughter. Why? Because defence should and does serve to eradicate the danger. In this case however, father went on punching him until he dies, even after he was no more a threat!
This is an excess!
That said, morally speaking what he did was just and legitimate provided that the killed was really a molester.

 

[One Brow]

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.

If evidence comes up that suggests that this guy set this up, ...

Just what sort sort of evidence do you think might come up if there is no autopsy and no invesitgation?

 

[Deleted member 848]

Green's *** will look like Tuesday night's Sloppy Joes by the time every one finishes taking turns to humiliate him

 

[northeast]

you guys talking about killing somebody for molesting your daughter...
You realize that is not doing much to prevent somebody from molesting your daughter , right?
I mean, it is after the fact, the crime has already been committed.

 

[Stoked]

you guys talking about killing somebody for molesting your daughter...
You realize that is not doing much to prevent somebody from molesting your daughter , right?
I mean, it is after the fact, the crime has already been committed.

So because they already did it once and he catches him again he shouldn't do anything because whats done is done?

Also none of us got into how we protect our daughters (or sons for that matter).

 

[Maktub]

There's a big difference between defending your family against an attack and punishing the attacker after the fact. Somebody is dead, that should automatically trigger an investigation to find out what happened.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I really hope the 1 punch story is true. That would be so epic.

 

[Stoked]

I really hope the 1 punch story is true. That would be so epic.

I would immediately ask has that father had any type of martial arts/fighting training? Then I would ask did he hit him in the nose or throat area with that blow?

 

[Stoked]

There's a big difference between defending your family against an attack and punishing the attacker after the fact. Somebody is dead, that should automatically trigger an investigation to find out what happened.

Agreed.

 

[northeast]

Also none of us got into how we protect our daughters (or sons for that matter).

It sounded to me like some people thought that their resolve to harm and kill people who molested their daughters was their plan to protect their daughters from being molested