Posted on 01/20/2007 12:19:26 PM PST by jmc1969
He saved my life, daughter says Judge accepts jury's call for 10-year term
A tearful Jadah Walker said yesterday her father, Kim Walker, will always be her hero after a jury found him guilty of second-degree murder in the shooting death of her drug-dealer boyfriend.
The verdict, which the defence plans to appeal, comes with a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.
But Justice Jennifer Pritchard made Walker eligible for parole in a decade, the minimum time allowed, as recommended by the eight-woman, four-man jury.
James Hayward, 24, bled to death from five gunshot wounds on March 17, 2003, after Walker shot him in front of Jadah and four other witnesses.
During the nine-day trial, the defence portrayed Walker as a despairing father trying to rescue his then-16-year-old daughter from a life-threatening drug addiction.
After he was taken into custody yesterday, for the first time since being released on bail shortly after the shooting, a distraught Jadah Walker, now 20, said her father had saved her life.
(Excerpt) Read more at canada.com ...
You said -- "The judge is wrong. While it might have been wrongful (the morals of that are debateable), it was clearly necessary."
As far as it being legal, no it wasn't (for the father to do that).
But, if we're talking about "morally" -- ya gotta be careful here. If we're talking about morals in a Biblical sense (and that's gotta be where the *authority* lies for morals) -- then there are going to be a *lot of people* who are deserving the *death sentence* -- by the moral law of God.
On the other hand, if we're talking about the "morals of society" -- we're in a pit of quicksand, there. That's relative and it changes from Republican to Democrat -- to Shi'ite.
Relativistic moralism is of no help. So, I would say that we're left with the authority of the Word of God in regards to morals -- which means *you* (and everyone else) gets the *death sentence* (i.e., we're "all guilty").
The morals argument is a bad one, I'm afraid...
But, let's say, then..., that it was "necessary". And so, by a similar way of thinking -- it *also* becomes *necessary* to send the father to jail. "Necessary" doesn't get you too far either.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Take that up with the judge, not me. She's the one who chose to characterize it as 'wrongful' rather than 'illegal'. Right and wrong are moral terms. Licit and illicit are legal terms.
I consider it moral, if not always legal, for a father to protect his child. The judge appears to think differently.
As for 'necessary', there was no alternative for him. He'd already tried the cops, and they were of no real help.
Excellent reply. Thank you.
You said -- "As for 'necessary', there was no alternative for him. He'd already tried the cops, and they were of no real help."
And, like I said, maybe he thought it was necessary. And that makes it *necessary* for society to put him in jail -- likewise a "necessity". That's what you get with "necessary".
So, I'm saying, "Okay, let's grant him the 'necessary' part. Society now finds jail necessary." There you go...
As far as the judge using "wrongful" -- I would imagine that jurists use that term all the time. It's in connection with their view of the law, I suppose. Maybe a lawyer could speculate on it "legally speaking". I'm certainly not talking about it from a jurist's legal point of view. A lawyer could do better at that.
I seriously doubt a judge is going to go into morals (as they derive from the Bible). The only other place he could spout off about morals would be from the "legislature". But, those are not *absolutes* like God's moral law is. With the legislature, what is "right" today is wrong tomorrow and vice versa. So...., nothing there... (except legalities).
I think it was simply a synonym that was being used, and using it from the legal framework. Any more than that is simply nitpicking language.
NOW..., as far as the father doing all that he could -- there seems to be an indication that this was *not so*. Apparently he didn't do all that he could, which was evidenced by the fact that he let his daughter's friends pick her up and they promptly took her back to this guy. Now, the proper thing to do would have been to pick his daughter up himself.
And furthermore, did he ever consider *convicting* her of a drug crime, as a means to helping her? Perhaps he should have gotten her arrested -- before killing someone that was causing the problem. He might have been able to work out a deal *ahead of time* with the police and/or prosecutor, for his daughter to then testify against the drug dealer, in order to get her help to get off drugs. Sometimes you've got to apply a large amount of pressure to solve those things.
Furthermore, did the father get any kind of an injunction against this guy? If not, why not? He should have gone through the steps to do so.
I can think of a lot of things to do, in addition to these things that I've mentioined, in order to solve the problem, short of shooting and killing someone.
Is it easier and quicker to shoot and kill someone? Yep..., it's easier and quicker -- but God help us if that's the criteria for solving our problems (i.e., I'm going to shoot my neighbor because of this "intractable" problem he's presenting me with...). Nope, we can't dispense with our problems by going out and killing them.
Regards,
Star Traveler
You said -- "Excellent reply. Thank you."
You better read further on down, in regards to Post #15. You'll notice that the poster assures me (later on) that he was kidding and joking and that I should not take it seriously and I should be aware of that. Check out Post #65 --
"How much longer will it take for you to realize that I'm not really serious? I havent got all day :-)"
You've got to read all of the thread...
Regards,
Star Traveler
Looks like the predator got to her faster than the father could.
--Take that up with the judge, not me. She's the one who chose to characterize it as 'wrongful' rather than 'illegal'. Right and wrong are moral terms. Licit and illicit are legal terms.--
I hope you get a lawyer and not try to defend yourself if you ever get charged.
What is the name of idiot judge.
--What is the name of idiot judge.--
Would you rather he make new law than enforce existing laws?
Poof !!! gone from the face of the earth and if they ever did find the body no ballistics.
I'll surrender none of them. It's a health and family matter, just like when alcohol is ruining someone's life.
For reference, I hate illegal drugs. I don't even like most prescription drugs.
One of my duties as a father and husband is to protect my family. And so I shall.
Apparently the "he needed killin'" defense is not valid north of the US/Canadian border...
You said -- "One of my duties as a father and husband is to protect my family. And so I shall."
By all means -- do so! I'm sure you have the hearty approval of everyone. It's too bad that others (like that father above) don't take it as seriously (by some of his deficient actions towards his daughter).
But, if you choose to do so illegally -- well, your friends will be visiting you in jail, as society will find it necessary to put you there. And, I'm sure your kids and wife will not mind visiting you there either.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Sounds Like dad never heard of a drop gun.
You said -- "Sounds Like dad never heard of a drop gun."
Yep..., he probably never watched the corrupt cops movies..., too bad.
Regards,
Star Traveler
Well,in a straight legal sense,what the man did was wrong in taking the law into his own hands.
But I sure UNDERSTAND!
Tongue definitely NOT in cheek- If that were my underage daughter I would have shot the fellow. I would have arranged a better scenario and he would have had a weapon in hand or nearby. My daughter would not have seen the deed and he would not trouble my family anymore.
Think about this. If your young'un were being enslaved by some scumbag with drugs and a coathanger and the law wouldn't touch him, wouldn't you consider your life worth a sacrifice if it freed her?
I agree with pluggin the fellow, but I seriously doubt the girl is any sort of shrinking violet.
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.