Posted on 06/13/2012 5:25:29 PM PDT by chessplayer
Via the Blaze. Four words, my friends: Trial of the century.
"James Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, an Austin-based nonprofit group, questioned the fathers decision to summarily execute the alleged molester without due process."
Assuming its true that this guy was molesting the daughter, and we dont know what exactly happened at this point, he would then have the right to defend [her], and hit him enough to have him stop, Harrington told FoxNews.com. But you cannot summarily execute him, even though I can understand the anger he would have.
"Without specific knowledge of the case, Harrington said he was surprised that the girls father had not been already charged."
Harrington continued: The question is: When does it move beyond self-defense?
Thats what I was getting at in last nights post about the difference between self-defense and punishment. Self-defense entitles you to neutralize your attacker; once hes been neutralized, youre not really defending yourself anymore, youre just kicking the crap out of him. Imagine that the dad here saw his daughter being molested and knocked the guy unconscious with one right hook to the jaw. Boom hes neutralized. If he continues to beat him after that in a blind rage, thats more like voluntary manslaughter than self-defense. More from the Christian Post:
They skedaddled to Mexico, and the cops can't get ahold of 'em.
If there was a problem besides the alleged molestation, I expect we'll hear about it any minute now.
/johnny
Thanks, but you’d probably be too busy eating squirrels.
/johnny
Semper ubi sub ubi
/johnny
Local sentiment is he should be nominated as 'Father of the Year.'
In a somewhat similar vein remember Leon Plauche in 1984? While TV
cameras are rolling at the airport, he shot the alleged abuser while being
escorted by police?
He pled to Manslaughter and got a token sentence.
Father Who Killed Alleged Abuser on TV Avoids Jail
There is YouTube on the incident.
Actually, I didn’t. I’ve been trying to remember where I came across it before, and if I am not mistaken it was in Robert A. Heinlein’s “Time Enough for Love”.
In that story, the heroine was late for an appointment and explained that she was late due to an impromptu murder trial called by the police proctors when a jerk tried to cut into a long line.
When the witnesses were queried, they returned the verdict “homicide in the public interest”.
Ye gads... and I haven’t read that book in 25 years, at least. Talk about a packrat mind!
Freaking moron of the month award for this diatribe!
I read in one of the earlier threads that they still need to notify the next of kin, and haven’t managed to do so, as they seem to be in Mexico somewhere . . .
Justifiable-period.
To shut the Liberals up - who live and die by such 'Education' options . And perhaps; keep him safer. . .
This is a non-issue. Any real man would face prison willingly to save his child, especially his daughter, from the hands of sexually depraved monster.
No crime. Message to child molesters. Keep your rat hands off our kids, we will kill you and may get away with it.
Perfect case for jury nullification.
back in the day but no so very long ago, if a husband came upon his wife and a lover in flagrante delicto and killed them no jury in Texas would convict.
If they argued about it for a while, then he’d go down for manslaughter if the argument led to a killing.
If he left, had time to cool down, but came back and killed one or the other later, he’d face murder charges.
I don’t expect any Texas jury will convict this guy unless the prosecution can prove he’s lying about what occurred.
Yes.
There was witness, remember? A little girl?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.