That being said, I find it unlikely that a grand jury in Texas would indict and there is no way a trial jury would convict. Rightfully so for he did, as others have mentioned, what a father should do.
Agreed; but my vote on the jury would be ‘not guilty’ whatever the charge against dad.
Can't agree.
There is such a thing as "heat of battle."
...Jury nullification...
I stand with the father.
The father had no way of knowing if, the scumbag, deprived of his raging lustful satiation, might turn, enraged, beat the father unconscious, and then continue to rape his child. The only way to be sure that this rape was ended was to either restrain (bind) the attacker, or, absent the implements needed to accomplish this, render him unconscious.
None of which takes into account the father's immediate frame of mind upon seeing his kidnapped child about to be sexually savaged by this animal. Striking out to defend his innocent in an immediate flash of righteous anger is only human, should be expected, and would never be found by a jury as grounds for a finding of pre-meditated malicious intent.
I could act as counsel for this Texas dad in 100 such cases and win every single one of them. Except that only an idiot prosecutor would ever bring such a case before a jury. Or a judge.
;-\
Also disagree...the father merely identified the threat to his daughter’s well being and eliminated it. That’s what he should have done. The sexual abuse law had been violated, and dad put an end to it.
At that point, technically, he should of stopped. He is legally vulnerable for each blow he threw afterward.
*******
I’ve yet to see any evidence that he pulled him off the kid *then* started punching him. Its quite likely the perp started fighting back the moment dad got his hands on him, justifying the use of force.
Not that I would convict him even if he’d taken a few shots after he’d pulled the pervert off the kid. This is one case in which the much maligned “temporary insanity” defense would be absolutely justified.
I can’t think of msny things capable of causing someone to temporarily lose their reason as witnessing your own child in the process of being molested by some sh*tbag with his pants around his ankles.
Just the thought of it is enough to raise anyones blood pressure a few points.
“At that point, technically, he should of stopped. “
Umm no
I must disagree. At the point where the pulled the subject off his daughter, he had no way of knowing what the subject would do from that point forward; whether the subject would run, or whether the subject might overpower him and continue the assault on his child. I put this in the same class as the cop who shot the face-eating monster in Florida, rather than baton, tase or physically confront someone whom he reasonably believed could not have been controlled and the assault ended with less than that level of force.
I must disagree. At the point where the pulled the subject off his daughter, he had no way of knowing what the subject would do from that point forward; whether the subject would run, or whether the subject might overpower him and continue the assault on his child. I put this in the same class as the cop who shot the face-eating monster in Florida, rather than baton, tase or physically confront someone whom he reasonably believed could not have been controlled and the assault ended with less than that level of force.
Maybe if the father was armed he could have pulled the guy off and then held him at gunpoint, but since he had no way of knowing the guy’s mental state, he could have been attacked and incapacitated and both he and his daughter would be in danger. With the added danger of drugs that turn people into superhuman zombies, the dad did everything right, based on what he saw of the situation. I’m happy the dad rescued his daughter. The daughter knows that she is loved and that her dad holds her in high enough regard that he would do anything he could to protect her. All children should feel this secure with their parents.
So in other words the dad would have been legally in the clear had he killed the perv first (by, say, splitting his head in two with a crowbar) THEN pulled the body off his daughter ...
Not so fast Johnny Cochran. Since there are no witnesses.... It's obvious that Mr Flores continued to be a threat AFTER being pulled off the child.
Case dismissed.
Correct that the law covers the use of force to prevent commission of the crimes mentioned. However, the father had pulled the scum off of his daughter through the use of force and stopped the commission of the crime. At that point, technically, he should of stopped. He is legally vulnerable for each blow he threw afterward.
The law is always written w/o emotions.. black and white. But human beings are born w/and establish reactions in time...to their emotions that they deem necessary and satisfing to equal the offense against themselves or someone they love. This man,a father,....this is his baby,will do anything,...stand against ten men!...to punish the attempted desecration against his defenseless baby girl. It was a normal reaction to who a father IS!
That’s why we have everyday people w/emotions on juries to JUDGE the laws.
Yes I agree w/you...this is a no bill for the Grand Jury.
B******it.
There was no way to determine if the rapist was going initiate force against the father and is daughter to hide his crime or continue it. The father was COMPLETELY JUSTIFIED for continuing to strike the rapist until he was certain the threat was ended.
The fact that the worm died is just a bonus.