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.
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
--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.