Father beats man to death for molesting child; probably won't be arrested

[Fenris]

Incredibly misleading article from the DM leads to GD argument shocker.

The father pulled the man off his daughter and (allegedly) hit him over the head and he died, assuming the account is true, the story does mention witnesses, I see no issue, the fact he beat him up for what he was doing wouldn't be argued.

I would have preferred the guy didn't die so he could be properly punished by law, however his death wasn't some sort of vengeful execution and it is unlikely the man meant to kill him or would at most be classed as temporary insanity or whatever makes the most sense.

 

[deuse]

Then you would be done for murder / manslaughter, he had no weapon so shooting him would not be reasonable.

Not under the US trespass law

 

[UncleRuckus]

When did I say I didn't have empathy for the victims?, all you care about is vengeance, I care about stopping it happening again.

I said I had empathy which stopped me from hurting others, regarding the criminals I said I want to understand why they do it - to stop it occurring again - learn to read before posting again.

All you are displaying is empathy for the abusers so my statement is correct.

Don't assume that I am stupid, may be I am a victim.

Maybe I am an animal, acting in accordance to a combination of my genetics, epigenetic, environment & other various external influences.

 

[Curio]

As a father myself....good for him! However, it does throw up some interesting questions. It's totally unrealistic to expect anybody to do the rational thing if they were confronted with that situation. I'm sorry Burnsy, but you simply cannot say you would calmly restrain him and wait for the authorities. Firstly, when it actually becomes necessary, you're going to protect your child without thinking about the consequences. Secondly, how do you know the molester isn't armed? Isn't a ninja? He could drop you and then continue to molest your child. Therefor, the logical decision is to smack him as hard as you can while you have the chance! Your child can't defend themselves, so it's your job to do it for them. I know nothing about law, but surely in this situation it's effectively self defense for that reason?

 

[Dave M]

he's talking about the video in that post - shooting the guy in the airport

This is going to get too confusing if we talk about two cases at the same time

 

[estebanrey]

All you are displaying is empathy for the abusers so my statement is correct.

Technically it's sympathy unless elmarko is speaking from experience.

 

[estebanrey]

Firstly, when it actually becomes necessary, you're going to protect your child without thinking about the consequences. Secondly, how do you know the molester isn't armed? Isn't a ninja? He could drop you and then continue to molest your child. Therefor, the logical decision is to smack him as hard as you can while you have the chance!

Bingo, and would fall under the definition of reasonable force. Too many people think reasonable force = physical restraint only, but it is what is says, 'reasonable' which includes taking account for all the variables of the situation.

A small woman hitting a rapist over the head with a crowbar would be reasonable, a 6'4" MMA champion doing the same to an unarmed 14 year old skinny chav mugger wouldn't be.

It's not the action, but the situation and context as well that define what is 'reasonable'. Finding a man in the act of sexually assaulting you daughter would account for 'red mist' and you would get a lot of lee way I'd hope. Hitting a man over the head with a heavy object in the act of molestation would be reasonable, tracking down a paedophile who assaulted your daughter a year ago and doing it wouldn't be (legally not moraly speaking).

 

[Burnsy2023]

As a father myself....good for him! However, it does throw up some interesting questions. It's totally unrealistic to expect anybody to do the rational thing if they were confronted with that situation. I'm sorry Burnsy, but you simply cannot say you would calmly restrain him and wait for the authorities. Firstly, when it actually becomes necessary, you're going to protect your child without thinking about the consequences.

If I don't know what I'd do in the situation, I'm pretty sure you don't either, so I'd prefer you don't make assumptions.

Secondly, how do you know the molester isn't armed? Isn't a ninja? He could drop you and then continue to molest your child. Therefor, the logical decision is to smack him as hard as you can while you have the chance!

That argument comes up a lot. Most people are neither armed to the teeth, nor ninjas which is why the Police can stay unarmed.

 

[TJM]

From the video, unless he could prove diminished responsibility or insanity, I think there's plenty for the CPS to work with for a murder charge.

Diminished responsibility requires an 'abnormality of mind' caused by a medical condition and being in a rage doesn't cut it. The only other choice - loss of control (formerly provocation) - doesn't cover revenge killings. He'd be screwed, although I imagine a judge would give him a relatively light sentence since he wouldn't be a danger to the public.

 

[cwhitehead]

If someone came anywhere close to my child in that way i wouldnt even think twice.

Restraint wouldnt even come into it, if you don't have children you wouldn't have a clue on how it would feel.

 

[Stretch]

Do people really think that was a proportional response?

Yes, but I'm not one of them. He should at least go to trial.

 

[badcompany]

sweet justice.

need more of it over here

 

[badcompany]

Sweet, saves the tax payer executing him. That is if the man was actually guilty, guess we'll never know though...

he was caught in the act.

 

[estebanrey]

Yes, but I'm not one of them. He should at least go to trial.

Proportional Force in Hindsight =! Reasonable Force

 

[Curio]

If I don't know what I'd do in the situation, I'm pretty sure you don't either, so I'd prefer you don't make assumptions.

I think it's a very fair assumption that the vast majority of parents would lash out in such a situation. Although you can't know for sure how you would act, your natural instincts to protect your offspring would almost certainly take over and push rational thinking to one side.

That argument comes up a lot. Most people are neither armed to the teeth, nor ninjas which is why the Police can stay unarmed.

But most people aren't trained law enforcement officers - which is why the whole "reasonable force" things comes into play. I would imagine in this case he was well within his rights to do what he did, and I don't think anybody in their right mind would say it was excessive. Might make a good poll though - I would be genuinely interested.

 

[shoes]

So, attempting to understand the cause of a behaviour means the person finds it excusable?, - you really are pretty stupid.

Do you even know what excusable means? - forgivable, understandable, justifiable, permissible, minor, slight, allowable, defensible, venial, pardonable, warrantable? - how exactly do I find it excusable?.

I'm talking about the underline cause of the behaviour.

You can cry "KILL THE EVIL PEADOS" all day, but how exactly do you propose we reduce the chance of new paedophiles being created?.

People like you (the knee jerk idiots of the country) are too busy screaming about revenge/justice to see what really matters - which is reducing the amount of children who get raped.

See bold.

We won't reduce the chance of new pedos being created unless we can find some way of scanning for this trait pre-natal and allowing or enforcing abortion based on it. Never gonna happen.

You're obsessed with rehabilitation, excusing offenders, seeing it from their point of view. Apologies for not giving a flying **** about criminals, their intent, their reasons or pathetic excuses.

I hope you never become a victim of crime, however in the unfortunate event that you do become one I'm sure your point of view will change dramatically .

If not then perhaps you're as stupid as you make the rest of us out to be.

 

[Andybtsn]

I don't think that's an excuse for murder though. I would probably want to kill the guy, but unlike him I would have the restraint to do what is right.

Really?

You're only human, with emotions...

I may have had a different opinion a year ago (although probably not) but now I have a daughter the thought of anyone doing something like this to her makes my blood boil just the thought of it.

 

[shoes]

a 6'4" MMA champion doing the same to an unarmed 14 year old skinny chav mugger wouldn't be.

NO but it'd be ******* hilarious though. I'd pay to see that.

Unarmed mugger picking on an MMA champion would deserve it.

 

[Burnsy2023]

Really?

You're only human, with emotions...

I may have had a different opinion a year ago (although probably not) but now I have a daughter the thought of anyone doing something like this to her makes my blood boil just the thought of it.

Don't get me wrong, there's being protective, but taking the step to kill someone is perhaps one that is a bit far for me.

 

[Energize]

Sounds like some corruption of the legal system or really bad daily mail reporting. But if that happened in the UK, it would be manslaughter by provocation and would probably not carry a hefty custodial sentence anyway.