Texas Law Makes Sense?!?!?!?

No1newts · 23 Oct 2013 at 17:52

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/t...er-to-death-he-wont-be-charged/#axzz2iZ4gSuU6

Good call. I know I will sound right wing loony but people who step outside the law shouldn't be protected by the law and people who defend themselves (or others) against these people shouldn't be punished.

I never thought I would say this but, good call Texas.

Bennie-Mac · 23 Oct 2013 at 17:56

Even if they did charge him he would not get convicted of anything. No american jury would dare to be seen "sympathizing" with a child molester over a little girl's vengeful father, regardless of the legality.

Sho · 23 Oct 2013 at 17:58

I would do the exact same thing if i walked in to find my daughter bring molested.

Good call Texas.

No1newts · 23 Oct 2013 at 18:00

Sho said:
I would do the exact same thing if i walked in to find my daughter bring molested.

Good call Texas.

I have a son not a daughter, but as you say some sick **** messing with them I would take a jail term to make the world a better place. Thankfully Texas (rightfully) acknowledges the dirty beggar deserved it.

No1newts · 23 Oct 2013 at 18:01

Double post, ignore.

Hyburnate · 23 Oct 2013 at 18:04

No1newts said:
I have a son not a daughter, but as you say some sick **** messing with them I would take a jail term to make the world a better place. Thankfully Texas (rightfully) acknowledges the dirty beggar deserved it.

Yes, because killing one person will make the world a better place. Drop in the ocean :rolleyes:

scorza · 23 Oct 2013 at 18:05

I think I made a thread on this a while back. Yup good call Texas. We need to stop letting the criminals win.

No1newts · 23 Oct 2013 at 18:06

Hyburnate said:
Yes, because killing one person will make the world a better place. Drop in the ocean

A drop that could have destroyed a life. Multiple lives, 10s hundreds dependant on how prolific he was. But clearly your option is better, let him get on with it :rolleyes:

Sho · 23 Oct 2013 at 18:08

Hyburnate said:
Yes, because killing one person will make the world a better place. Drop in the ocean

Really? So what will be your alternative option?

AJK · 23 Oct 2013 at 18:09

Good call Texas, right decision.

Yas786 · 23 Oct 2013 at 18:12

Looks like the child molester apologists will be arriving shortly, everyone else form an orderly que please

Good call by Texas, a good sensible decision not to charge him.

wndsr · 23 Oct 2013 at 18:14

Hyburnate said:
Yes, because killing one person will make the world a better place. Drop in the ocean

One victim of such a grotesque act is more than enough. By ensuring it can't happen again it does make the world a better place, whether it only be a small impact in that local community. It would mean that person is unable to commit such terrible crimes again. If it were to happen worldwide, you'd soon see the world becoming a better place.

No1newts · 23 Oct 2013 at 18:17

Yas786 said:
Looks like the child molester apologists will be arriving shortly, everyone else form an orderly que please

Good call by Texas, a good sensible decision not to charge him.

Hyburnate said:
Yes, because killing one person will make the world a better place. Drop in the ocean

He had already arrived.

joeyjojo · 23 Oct 2013 at 18:18

No1newts said:
I know I will sound right wing loony but people who step outside the law shouldn't be protected by the law and people who defend themselves (or others) against these people shouldn't be punished.

Yes they should, this "eye for an eye" mentality is barbaric.

If you need me to explain why, the second crime is still a crime. Imagine the sadness felt by the family - don't they deserve justice for their murdered relative, even though he's broken the law? (In a particularly unpleasant way, granted.)

If this always happened we'd end up with infinite chains of revenge murders...

drunkenmaster · 23 Oct 2013 at 18:18

Hyburnate said:
Yes, because killing one person will make the world a better place. Drop in the ocean

Actually the world will literally be a better place for all his future victims. While the world doesn't care about one particular person, that one particular person will sure be better off having not been raped/molested. Not every victim has their life ruined or even effected much at all, others are effected severely.

Either way, the guy beat him unconscious he didn't intend to kill him and he called for help that is what makes it right.

Going overboard in the heat of the moment is one thing, it was an accident. Walking in on him and beating him then taking a knife and slitting his throat is another. It would still have mitigating circumstances and a jury may still let them off, but intentionally killing someone is just completely different to accidentally doing so.

Compare say, he walks in, pushes him away from his daughter, the only intent to get him away from her, and he falls and cracks his skull or something and dies. Or he walks in, pushes him away from her, picks up a knife and goes and kills him, they aren't the same things.

He accidentally killed him while protecting his daughter, he did the right thing.

Hyburnate · 23 Oct 2013 at 18:21

People have no faith in the justice system, people should not take justice into their own hands. Yes it was a mistake on his part to kill him however he should not have been let to get away with it scot free.

semi-pro waster · 23 Oct 2013 at 18:25

No1newts said:
A drop that could have destroyed a life. Multiple lives, 10s hundreds dependant on how prolific he was. But clearly your option is better, let him get on with it

Is that what he said or are you just putting words into his mouth? It's a bit like asking "so when did you stop beating your wife?".

It's also worth reading more of the article because in it the man called the police after the man was unconscious and no longer a threat - the fact that the offender subsequently died doesn't alter that he was within the bounds of the law. And contrary to popular belief he'd probably also be found not guilty in the UK as well, he might get charged with the crime of murder (more likely manslaughter) but it's unlikely he'd be convicted if it went to trial and the reasoning is broadly the same - he was acting in self-defence (for a loved one) and apparently stopped when they were no longer a threat.

If the beating was effectively for revenge or retribution and done after the offender had ceased to pose a threat then it might well be a different story although despite the headlines the UK law on self-defence is surprisingly flexible and forgiving - you've really got to go the extra mile if you are to be convicted of going beyond what was reasonable. It's also worth pointing out that this law in Texas might not save you if you indulge in a retribution beating/killing, no matter how justified you feel it is - the law there seems to allow "deadly force to stop an aggravated sexual assault" so again if the assault was over and you saw the offender in the street a day or two later then you're probably not going to rely on this law.

For what it's worth we as individuals shouldn't be allowed to administer our own justice, that's what we've got a legal system for. We've derogated the right to administer our own justice so that it should be as fair and open to all as possible, not just for those who are powerful enough to administer their own.

Hyburnate · 23 Oct 2013 at 18:28

semi-pro waster said:
If the beating was effectively for revenge or retribution and done after the offender had ceased to pose a threat then it might well be a different story although despite the headlines the UK law on self-defence is surprisingly flexible and forgiving - you've really got to go the extra mile if you are to be convicted of going beyond what was reasonable. It's also worth pointing out that this law in Texas might not save you if you indulge in a retribution beating/killing, no matter how justified you feel it is - the law there seems to allow "deadly force to stop an aggravated sexual assault" so again if the assault was over and you saw the offender in the street a day or two later then you're probably not going to rely on this law.

Yeah it's within the law in Texas, just as it is with an intruder in your home. It's much the same with intrusion in this country, you can use reasonable force. My point was that whilst I respect their justice system (I have too, it's their justice system and it's been there for a very long time!) I do not agree with what the guy did. I'm entitled to my opinion just as much as everyone else is

No1newts · 23 Oct 2013 at 18:29

joeyjojo said:
Yes they should, this "eye for an eye" mentality is barbaric.

If you need me to explain why, the second crime is still a crime. Imagine the sadness felt by the family - don't they deserve justice for their murdered relative, even though he's broken the law? (In a particularly unpleasant way, granted.)

If this always happened we'd end up with infinite chains of revenge murders...

It's an opinion of mine but no, they don't deserve justice.

At one point (I always struggle to remember when and dates) an outlaw law was introducd whereby someone acting outside the law is not protected by the law.

Mid course there should be degrees within this, but if someone acts outside the law/evilly why in any sane world should the law then stand up for them?

Hyburnate said:
People have no faith in the justice system, people should not take justice into their own hands. Yes it was a mistake on his part to kill him however he should not have been let to get away with it scot free.

As above, you wonder why people have no faith when people can act evilly (and let's fact it, evil defines his acts) and be protected by the law. Wrong on every level.

Hades · 23 Oct 2013 at 18:29

Good call texas. I would do the same... not premeditated but I doubt I would be able to restrain myself if faced with the same situation.