That right there blows your entire contrived analysis right out the window. The father CAME INTO THE ROOM WITH THE POOL STICK. ("Upon arrival, he got a pool stick from the garage to defend himself, court documents state" -- the "too defend himself" is clearly a self-serving statement given the ambush nature of the entire event.)
The dolt walked into the room with the intent of beating the snot out of the BF (frankly, I'm OK with that). He found the BF in the closet and started beating on him. OK, you are on the ground in a closet (for whatever reason) and someone starts beating you in the head with a pool stick. What are you going to do? That's right, cover up and KICK at the attacker. In that case, the attacker would NOT be entitled to go get a gun and try to blow you away.
I REALLY cannot understand the way some of you are misreading the facts. Frankly, it smacks of cognitive dissonance that I encounter oftent on the left: You have a PRE-CONCEIVED emotional position, and facts to the contrary -- even from the father's version of the story -- just don't register.
Then again, we are all human and interpret things from our own emotional context, so maybe I shouldn't be surprised to see that here on FR. Still am, though...
The Bad Guy was informed previously he was not allowed in the home without escort. The minor daughter lacks the legal authority to override that prohibition period.
While a self serving legislature may have passed a law that says any 16 year old girl may have sex with as many men as can get their hands on her. They have yet to declare her emancipated in any other area.
That the Trespasser was known to the first victim (The Daughter) means nothing.
She lacks the legal authority to allow him into her parent’s home his presence there as adult is therefore illegal.
How would the Father reasonably conclude the trespasser/sexual predator was
A. Not armed?
B. Not dangerous?
C. Did not represent a potential threat to the lives and property of the Father and his family?
IN HIS HOME!!!
There simply is no rational reason to conclude the situation was safe when he made entry and indeed the subsequent events show the situation was not safe.
“….ambush nature of the entire event.”
How you can you describe a Father entering his own home armed with only an improvised weapon when he suspects an intruder is present as some form of “Ambush” is a testament to the success of liberal educational indoctrination.
Then you go on to describe a Father as the Attacker. This when physical conflict occurs after the Father discovers a trespasser/sexual predator in his own home hiding in a closet.
Then for you to continue to describe a criminal hiding in the closets actions as self defense is beyond the pale.
The person initiating a crime is the criminal and the responsibility for all acts as a resultant of their criminality properly belongs as their responsibility.
Augments about proportionality have always been head on the pin sort of stuff.. The province of Monday morning quarterbacks. However, they in no way mitigate the original crime. Which in this case I would argue consists of criminal trespass and home invasion.
There are so many criminal aspects to the punks conduct for someone not to grasp the obvious only demonstrates their own inability or unwillingness to face reality.
To not conclude all was not as it should be and to take some preparatory measures to arm oneself with an improvised weapon makes the Father a Dolt?
The Father Protector is the bad guy and the Trespasser /Sexual predator is the victim?
Perhaps you just need a new pair of glasses because the ones you are viewing this event thru....are distorting your vision.
W