Father beats man to death; sheriff says dad reacted to his daughter(4) being molested

• Juno wrote on 2012-06-12 05:41

  Quote from Bakuryu;884949:

  Do you people realize the person would have been bleeding, half-conscious on the ground before death was anywhere near?
  
  There's no appropriate method for murder, that's the whole fucking point of my post; but there's shit that's bad and shit that's extremely fucking insane bad.
  IF the guy was truly molesting the girl, then fuck him, the father would have reacted to instincts, but once the man was under submission he could have stopped and waited for the police.
  
  This whole thread is truly depressing.
  I think I can't take it anymore so I'll just take my leave from this one.

  
  
  Actually, if a grown man punches someone in the head full out, it's quite possible to inflict fatal damage without any immediate, outside indication. Especially if said grown man works with his hands and thus has above-average muscle mass.
  
  It's not fair to assume that he was out for blood, or at least, there needs to be an objective review first.
• Sinsie wrote on 2012-06-12 06:18
  I think Texas is one of the few states that have let people off the hook for going absolutely ballistic. The only cases I've heard of are a man catching his wife cheating on him and shooting her and the other guy. This kind of situation can probably fall under that kind of "temporary insanity". It'll be interesting to see how this develops.
  
  The worth of human life and whether or not killing is acceptable in any form all comes down to belief; there's no clear, undeniable answer in how much a person should be punished for what crimes, if death is an acceptable deterrent, etc. When it comes down to that we should all remember that it's a matter of opinion and no one is wrong for how much they value life or what they deem is reasonable for ending another life.
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-06-12 20:38
  I don't see why corporal punishment or any punishment would have been necessary. A stern talking to and threat of further legal action or exposure, combined with talking to the child to avoid successful further intimidation if it was clear that the kind of sexual contact was harmful and unpleasant to the child, would have sufficed. As it stands right now the child is certainly much more traumatised than it ever could have been from most of what the man could have done with her, and probably from all that he ever would have done with her, if he hadn't been so brutally torn from the people who loved him.
  
  And if you're telling me "but children always get traumatised by CSA", then I can say with certainty that your opinion lacks education and is well-falsified by various studies, may of which do not suffer from notable methodological flaws, and therefore doesn't matter. And if you're trying to tell me that justifies beating up and killing either way just because "it's really disgusting", then I say you should seek to be admitted at an asylum ASAP. Also I will remove you from my friend list and add you to my ignore list.
  
  

  Quote from Sinsie;885137:

  The worth of human life and whether or not killing is acceptable in any form all comes down to belief; there's no clear, undeniable answer in how much a person should be punished for what crimes, if death is an acceptable deterrent, etc. When it comes down to that we should all remember that it's a matter of opinion and no one is wrong for how much they value life or what they deem is reasonable for ending another life.

  
  It must be fun to be able to opportunistically relativise the death of people you don't really care about, or who disgust you.
• whocares8128 wrote on 2012-06-12 20:56

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;885431:

  And if you're telling me "but children always get traumatised by CSA", then I can say with certainty that your opinion lacks education and is well-falsified by various studies, may of which do not suffer from notable methodological flaws, and therefore doesn't matter. And if you're trying to tell me that justifies beating up and killing either way just because "it's really disgusting", then I say you should seek to be admitted at an asylum ASAP. Also I will remove you from my friend list and add you to my ignore list.

  
  
  What? I don't even...
  
  ...know what you mean by CSA.
  :what:
  
  Edit:
  Oh... Childhood Sexual Abuse? Okay... well, I'm gonna go now...
  :bye:
• Cynic wrote on 2012-06-12 21:01
  Any person who is twisted enough to harm an innocent child deserves worse than death. I feel bad for anyone who's deluded enough to think so little of a child's innocence and well-being to think otherwise.
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-06-12 21:04

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;885431:

  I don't see why corporal punishment or any punishment would have been necessary. A stern talking to and threat of further legal action or exposure, combined with talking to the child to avoid successful further intimidation if it was clear that the kind of sexual contact was harmful and unpleasant to the child, would have sufficed.

  
  
  Now that's really going to deter crime! In fact, why don't we apply this line of thinking to every crime! If you rob a store, but it's the first time you ever did it, then all you get is a "stern talking to"! /end sarcasm
  
  No, of course, child molesters should get punished. Not necessarily with the death penalty, but they should definitely pay for their crime.
• Lan wrote on 2012-06-12 21:16
  "If severe punishment was a deterrent for crime then all crime would have ceased when hand chopping was all the rage."
• Spartaaaaa wrote on 2012-06-12 21:43

  Quote from Lan;885447:

  "If severe punishment was a deterrent for crime then all crime would have ceased when hand chopping was all the rage."

  
  
  While I don't believe in hand chopping (unless it is being used as the punishment for someone who chopped someone else's hand off), that doesn't mean there shouldn't be punishments for crimes like child molesting. Punishment isn't just about deterrent; the primary purpose of punishment is to right a wrong and balance the scales of justice.
• Juno wrote on 2012-06-13 00:00

  Quote from Sump:

  I don't see why corporal punishment or any punishment would have been necessary. A stern talking to and threat of further legal action or exposure, combined with talking to the child to avoid successful further intimidation if it was clear that the kind of sexual contact was harmful and unpleasant to the child, would have sufficed. As it stands right now the child is certainly much more traumatised than it ever could have been from most of what the man could have done with her, and probably from all that he ever would have done with her, if he hadn't been so brutally torn from the people who loved him.
  
  And if you're telling me "but children always get traumatised by CSA", then I can say with certainty that your opinion lacks education and is well-falsified by various studies, may of which do not suffer from notable methodological flaws, and therefore doesn't matter. And if you're trying to tell me that justifies beating up and killing either way just because "it's really disgusting", then I say you should seek to be admitted at an asylum ASAP. Also I will remove you from my friend list and add you to my ignore list.
  

  
  
  Did you get a good price for your humanity?
  
  Your assessment, while sound in theory, has no real-world application or grounding. I really can't agree at all.
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-06-13 00:06

  Quote from Juno;885508:

  Did you get a good price for your humanity?
  
  Your assessment, while sound in theory, has no real-world application or grounding. I really can't agree at all.

  
  A very boring rhetorical question, which suffers from absurdly wrong premises.
  
  Your agreement doesn't concern me.
• Akemii wrote on 2012-06-13 00:10

  Quote from Spartaaaaa;884926:

  I believe in having fair trials, so I don't necessarily condone taking the law into your own hands and killing people, but there's nothing wrong with protecting your loved ones from perverts and criminals.

  
  
  Very distinct difference between disabling someone and killing them!
• Cucurbita wrote on 2012-06-13 00:13
  Doesn't have to be a grown man. Honestly, anything can happen during rough movements that could result to death. People are really fragile like that.
  
  But regardless of that, we have to face some facts here. The events are:
  
  1. Man molests girl
  2. Father fights man
  3. Father kills man
  
  Just because condition 1 exists does not mean he's innocent from result 3. Murder is murder. Depending on circumstances, this can be reduced to manslaughter, but to entirely ignore it would completely undermine everything.
  
  Yes the man deserved to be beat, yeah I would've beaten him too, I might've even killed him, but nothing makes it "right" to take another person's life on some arbitrary group judgement, nor does the reasoning of murder excuse a man from having done just that.
• BobYoMeowMeow wrote on 2012-06-13 00:17
  yes
  he should be charged with murder
  but the circumstances of the crime would tone down the punishment
  
  also, it's easy to kill someone with many injuries
  it's just whether or not they die in the end
• Akemii wrote on 2012-06-13 01:03
  What state did this happen in?
• Juno wrote on 2012-06-13 01:04

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;885510:

  A very boring rhetorical question, which suffers from absurdly wrong premises.
  
  Your agreement doesn't concern me.

  
  
  It was meant to convey a point, not entertain you. However, since it seems I need to be more legalistic in my speech, let me try again.
  
  What you can type up while sitting calmly at your desk does not take into account a myriad of factors present in the actual situation. You're absolutely, without question, incorrect.
  
  As it stands, jail time is almost completely ineffective in stemming pedophilia. To suggest a stern talking to will suffice isn't even funny. Furthermore, sexual abuse by a stranger is always traumatic. The only dispute is whether the trauma is permanent. Having one's father come to the rescue, with this level of violence, is not traumatic. Her mind isn't on 'oh god the violence' but on whether her perceived attacker is no longer a threat.
  
  Note, I'm not trying to justify what he did...just pointing out the seemingly obvious flaws in your cardboard stiff assessment.