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.