# Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter



## Utopia Realm (Jun 11, 2012)

> (CNN) -- A Texas father caught a man sexually assaulting his 4-year-old daughter and punched him in the head repeatedly, killing him, authorities said.
> 
> The father was casually acquainted with the alleged abuser, said Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon.
> 
> ...





Seem the father acted pretty aggresively but its understandable. 

Your thoughts NF?


----------



## Blue (Jun 11, 2012)

The other guy should have fought back before dying. It would have been more epic that way.


----------



## Overwatch (Jun 11, 2012)

No sympathy for pedophiles. I probably would've done the same.


----------



## Mael (Jun 11, 2012)

The guy's going to have a day in court to settle this, but it's clearly an incident where protective instinct took over.  I have little sympathy for the suspect.


----------



## LayZ (Jun 11, 2012)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMGMZsKXz94[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jun 11, 2012)

it's understandable why one would act the way he did.

article made it seem like theirs a chance he won't do time.


----------



## Utopia Realm (Jun 11, 2012)

I'd probably act in the same manner as well. He if gets any sentencing, I'd expect it to be light. Hope the girl recovers.


----------



## dream (Jun 11, 2012)

Well, I can certainly understand why he acted as he did.  If he does get sentenced hopefully it won't be a long sentence at all.


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

That son of a bitch!

The only regret is that the man didn't suffer that long.


----------



## CandleGuy (Jun 11, 2012)

Mael said:


> The guy's going to have a day in court to settle this, but it's clearly an incident where protective instinct took over.  I have little sympathy for the suspect.



Also seems like he didn't mean to kill the guy just kick his ass. Still I'm not sure if we should be on-board with someone being beaten to death even though the father's rage is definitely understandable. 

That said this is one the few crimes where general opinion would largely favor the defendant of a murder trial.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 11, 2012)

Unfortunate that the guy ended up dying but I don't think its that surprising that a parent could be completely overcome by rage upon finding that.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jun 11, 2012)

CandleGuy said:


> Also seems like he didn't mean to kill the guy just kick his ass. Still I'm not sure if we should be on-board with someone being beaten to death even though the father's rage is definitely understandable.
> 
> That said this is one the few crimes where general opinion would largely favor the defendant of a murder trial.



It's really a complicated case, even though I wish him the best, it would be a precedent that murder is fine as long as it's justified.


----------



## Stalin (Jun 11, 2012)

I would congratulate the father if I was the sheriff.


----------



## Inuhanyou (Jun 11, 2012)

Makes sense i have to say. Hit a man once with a lead pipe in rage and its all it takes.


----------



## Drums (Jun 11, 2012)

I guess the death was unnecessary but it's understandable that the father would be blinded by rage at such a thing.
It even makes me mad just by thinking about it,  what is there to sexually like on a 4 year old? Some people are rlly sick.


----------



## Ari (Jun 11, 2012)

awesome father award


----------



## lathia (Jun 11, 2012)

Overwatch said:


> No sympathy for pedophiles. I probably would've done the same.



This

Except I would have cut his genitals and shove them up his ass.


----------



## Blue (Jun 11, 2012)

Calm yourself Flow, I'm just saying that if you're going to kill some fuck for raping your 4 year old, it would be more awesome as an epic battle for your daughter's honor instead of just curbstomping some mook.

But either way it's pretty cool.


----------



## Mider T (Jun 11, 2012)

He'll probably get life, as the law is the law but hey no regrets.  He probably feels like Sam Jackson in a Time to Kill right now.


----------



## Doma (Jun 11, 2012)

> punched him in the head repeatedly, killing him



Not that I care about about the p*d*p****, but is it an easy thing to punch someone in the head until they die? I'll admit I don't know much about the human body but it just seems odd to me that several punches to the head can kill someone.


----------



## Mider T (Jun 11, 2012)

Blows to the head do the most damage.


----------



## Griever (Jun 11, 2012)

Just a man taking care of business is all this is. 

if someone hurts your family like this, he should die by your hands, I'm old fashioned that way. So hey, right on dad.


----------



## Draxo (Jun 11, 2012)

He should be awarded a medal.

And I doubt he'll get life.. its probably a manslaughter charge.



> I don't know much about the human body but it just seems odd to me that several punches to the head can kill someone.



Even a single punch can potentially kill someone.  Movies and games etc can make it seem that the body can be very durable, and it can be.. some people can take godly amounts of punishment, survive getting beat to hell or shot multiple times.. but since everything is interconnected, even a single impact can potentially rupture some vital blood vessel in the brain or whatever, which can lead to WTF situations like this.  I've seen reports in newspapers over the years about people dying from being pushed over or punched once.


----------



## Orochimaru (Jun 11, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Calm yourself Flow, I'm just saying that if you're going to kill some fuck for raping your 4 year old, it would be more awesome as an epic battle for your daughter's honor instead of just curbstomping some mook.
> 
> But either way it's pretty cool.



Normally I would agree, but in this case a curbstomp is more epic. Think about it.


----------



## Sourcandy (Jun 11, 2012)

I guess he could argue crime of passion or something along those lines. I mean, I would also lose control something like that happened to me.


----------



## Bear Walken (Jun 11, 2012)

Should have made it a family affair. Get all the Uncles involved. 

[YOUTUBE]JfsMfvjdmZ4[/YOUTUBE]

@ 8:05 mark.


----------



## Gogeta (Jun 11, 2012)

Overwatch said:


> No sympathy for pedophiles. I probably would've done the same.



I am with Overwatch on this one


----------



## Blue (Jun 11, 2012)

Bohemian Knight Doma said:


> Not that I care about about the p*d*p****, but is it an easy thing to punch someone in the head until they die? I'll admit I don't know much about the human body but it just seems odd to me that several punches to the head can kill someone.



Not usually, no, but shit happens. A brain hemorrhage, most commonly.  



> Normally I would agree, but in this case a curbstomp is more epic. Think about it.


I guess


----------



## Lord Yu (Jun 11, 2012)

I feel really bad for the little girl. Being sexually assaulted and having to see her father kill a man.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Jun 11, 2012)

Bohemian Knight Doma said:


> Not that I care about about the p*d*p****, but is it an easy thing to punch someone in the head until they die? I'll admit I don't know much about the human body but it just seems odd to me that several punches to the head can kill someone.



You can fall off a step ladder, hit your head and die.  Depends on a lot of factors.


----------



## Yachiru (Jun 11, 2012)

Had it been my kid, I would've beheaded that pedo bitch. And I'm a girl.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jun 11, 2012)

Lord Yu said:


> I feel really bad for the little girl. Being sexually assaulted and having to see her father kill a man.



Don't forget never seeing her father outside of Bulletproof glass.


----------



## Doma (Jun 11, 2012)

Mider T said:


> Blows to the head do the most damage.



I understand if it's something like a baseball bat, but in my experience punching someone in the head just leads to hurting your hand.



Draxo said:


> Even a single punch can potentially kill someone.  Movies and games etc can make it seem that the body can be very durable, and it can be.. some people can take godly amounts of punishment, survive getting beat to hell or shot multiple times.. but since everything is interconnected, even a single impact can potentially rupture some vital blood vessel in the brain or whatever, which can lead to WTF situations like this.  I've seen reports in newspapers over the years about people dying from being pushed over or punched once.



I guess that makes sense but I'm still suspicious of the whole thing. My guess is that in his rage he tried to kill the guy on purpose.


----------



## Gin (Jun 11, 2012)

Surely it could be argued that he killed him as an act of protection.   He caught the guy abusing his daughter, it's not as though it was a premeditated attack.

His sentence should be significantly reduced (if it was up to me he wouldn't be convicted at all).


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

Kunoichi no Kiri said:


> Calm yourself Flow, I'm just saying that if you're going to kill some fuck for raping your 4 year old, it would be more awesome as an epic battle for your daughter's honor instead of just curbstomping some mook.
> 
> But either way it's pretty cool.



I over reacted, sorry about that.

I think him just beating this guy to a bloody pulp in his daughter's honor showed that he wasn't shit to begin with, and when it came to someone his size/around he was nothing.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 11, 2012)

Bohemian Knight Doma said:


> Not that I care about about the p*d*p****, but is it an easy thing to punch someone in the head until they die? I'll admit I don't know much about the human body but it just seems odd to me that several punches to the head can kill someone.



One good punch to the head could cause a severe concussion, and subsequent ones could cause permanent damage and death by aggrivating the concussion.

Espeailly if you hit the less sturdy parts like the temples.


----------



## Mider T (Jun 11, 2012)

Bohemian Knight Doma said:


> I understand if it's something like a baseball bat, but in my experience punching someone in the head just leads to hurting your hand.



Maybe if you're weak as hell.  My punches break things when I make contact.


----------



## Doma (Jun 11, 2012)

Cardboard Jewsuke said:


> One good punch to the head could cause a severe concussion, and subsequent ones could cause permanent damage and death by aggrivating the concussion.
> 
> Espeailly if you hit the less sturdy parts like the temples.



I guess it makes sense that an enraged guy repeatedly punching you in the thinner parts of your skull could potentially kill you. Okay, I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt for now.



Mider T said:


> Maybe if you're weak as hell.  My punches break things when I make contact.



Have you ever punched someone in the head though? It hurts like hell.


----------



## Ƶero (Jun 11, 2012)

The Pedo got lucky, I would've done something way worse to him.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 11, 2012)

_Daughter shouldn't have been a slut._

Crazymoron x will say something like that.


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

Bohemian Knight Doma said:


> I guess it makes sense that an enraged guy repeatedly punching you in the thinner parts of your skull could potentially kill you. Okay, I'll give the guy the benefit of the doubt for now.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever punched someone in the head though? It hurts like hell.



Have you ever been in a fight? I'm not trying to seem like a smartass, but when you're angry; like severely pissed, you don't pay attention to stuff like your hands hurting. 

You definitely will feel it later, but this guy probably didn't notice something like his hands hurting.


----------



## Le Pirate (Jun 11, 2012)

Bohemian Knight Doma said:


> Not that I care about about the p*d*p****, but is it an easy thing to punch someone in the head until they die? I'll admit I don't know much about the human body but it just seems odd to me that several punches to the head can kill someone.



Good punches to the temples, or an uppercut that broke his nose in just the right way, would've been more than enough to kill him. Punches and hits to the head do a lot of damage because the brain is right there.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Jun 11, 2012)

Hand Banana said:


> _Daughter shouldn't have been a slut._
> 
> Crazymoron x will say something like that.




I was actually going to say that the father should receive a medal. Maybe a cash incentive.

It should be legal to beat people to death depending on the circumstances.


----------



## Bioness (Jun 11, 2012)

I'm mixed here.

Yes the father was protecting his daughter, but the other guy didn't need to die, the father should likely get an examination just to make sure this will be an isolated incident and 12 years down the line doesn't shoot some teenage boy caught having sex with his daughter.

I'm of the mindset that violence never solves anything and he should have pushed the guy away identified him and called the police.


----------



## Doma (Jun 11, 2012)

Flow said:


> Have you ever been in a fight? I'm not trying to seem like a smartass, but when you're angry; like severely pissed, you don't pay attention to stuff like your hands hurting.
> 
> You definitely will feel it later, but this guy probably didn't notice something like his hands hurting.



I've only ever fought in self defense so maybe it's different when you're pissed at someone and I've also always been really sensitive to pain too so maybe it's just me.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 11, 2012)

In before Saufdof. 

The man got what he deserved and the father should not go to prison.


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

Bohemian Knight Doma said:


> I've only ever fought in self defense so maybe it's different when you're pissed at someone and I've also always been really sensitive to pain too so maybe it's just me.



I'm sensitive to pain as well. Usually the first fight you get into, it hurts like hell. haha

But when you're like severely pissed, you don't feel a damn thing. I would get into huge fights with neighborhood kids, and I would look at my face and see a few bruises and think "I don't feel a thing". And this was over some petty bull shit. 

imagine how this father must had felt.


----------



## Oturan (Jun 11, 2012)

He did the right thing. It's too bad the p*d*p**** didn't suffer a little before dieing.


----------



## Bioness (Jun 11, 2012)

You people should be ashamed of yourselves, no one had to die in this situation had it been handled rationally.


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

Just like no one has to die in Africa Bioness.


----------



## God (Jun 11, 2012)

when i watch _my_ 4-yr old daughter get molested, i love a good cup of rationality and calm-mindedness


----------



## Gin (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> I'm mixed here.
> 
> Yes the father was protecting his daughter, but the other guy didn't need to die, the father should likely get an examination just to make sure this will be an isolated incident and 12 years down the line *doesn't shoot some teenage boy caught having sex with his daughter*.
> 
> I'm of the mindset that violence never solves anything and he should have pushed the guy away identified him and called the police.


Because two teenagers having consensual sex bears so much similarity to a freak feeling up your 4 year old daughter, right?


----------



## santanico (Jun 11, 2012)

I'd have done the same thing. Sick fucks like that man don't care what sort of damage they inflict, one less monster if you ask me.


----------



## Doma (Jun 11, 2012)

Flow said:


> I'm sensitive to pain as well. Usually the first fight you get into, it hurts like hell. haha
> 
> But when you're like severely pissed, you don't feel a damn thing. I would get into huge fights with neighborhood kids, and I would look at my face and see a few bruises and think "I don't feel a thing". And this was over some petty bull shit.
> 
> imagine how this father must had felt.



I've had crazy surges of adrenaline before too, just not enough to ignore the heavy hits though. I've never been much of a fighter though, and my size is enough to deter most people from picking fights anyways.

I wasn't trying to say the Dad would have been in pain from punching the head, I was thinking he would have done more damage to his hand than the guy by punching him in the head but I realize now that I'm wrong about that.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 11, 2012)

I am ashamed to say that it is the alpha in me that makes me understand another man's desire to kill someone for fucking with the person in life he is responsible for protecting.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 11, 2012)

In general it's wrong for someone to take the law into their own hands and kill someone.

However in this particular case the father was acting in the direct defense of his daughter so it's totally understandable.  Assuming the facts in the story are correct no trial is needed, get the daughter some therapy (and possibly the father depending on how he's doing), bury the p*d*p**** in a shallow grave.


----------



## Bioness (Jun 11, 2012)

Gin said:


> Because two teenagers having consensual sex bears so much similarity to a freak feeling up your 4 year old daughter, right?


You'd be surprised as it has happened many times before.



EvilMoogle said:


> In general it's wrong for someone to take the law into their own hands and kill someone.
> 
> However in this particular case the father was acting in the direct  defense of his daughter so it's totally understandable.  Assuming the  facts in the story are correct no trial is needed, get the daughter some  therapy (and possibly the father depending on how he's doing), bury the  p*d*p**** in a shallow grave.



No giving the guy a few punches and calling the police would be in direct defense of his daughter, killing a man by repeatedly punching his face is manslaughter. Also this begs the question, was the daughter present while this father killed the man? That may give her more mental trauma than the molestation.


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> You'd be surprised as it has happened many times before.



Bioness, I don't understand. You've stated before that you believe countries like Africa and some others should be killed off because they did not "add anything worth while to the world".

But you don't believe a p*d*p**** should of been killed, and the father should of controlled his emotions in the heat of that moment. 

I'm not trying to flame you or anything, I just want to see your reasoning.


----------



## Gin (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> You'd be surprised as it has happened many times before.


My point is, killing a man for sexually abusing his 4 year old does not automatically make the father a psychopath who would shoot a teenage boy for sleeping (consensually) with his daughter when she's 16.   

I would imagine plenty of rational people (including, it seems, plenty of posters here) acting the same way.


----------



## Mael (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> You people should be ashamed of yourselves, no one had to die in this situation had it been handled rationally.



Bioness: King of Liberal Hindsight.


----------



## Deleted member 161031 (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> You people should be ashamed of yourselves, no one had to die in this situation had it been handled rationally.



look, Bioness... in this situation people can't be rational. I mean, wtf, the man is hurting my daughter? I will stop him. and I'll do the fastest way I can think of. I'm not going to think if I might kill the man while doing that... it's just instict, you have to protect her. and you do that, no matter what... 

it's different feeling like shit afterwards becausel even if you're defending a defenseless persons, we're humans after all, and you caused a death. but that's it


----------



## Superstars (Jun 11, 2012)

It is certain that guy won't sexually abuse anyone else anymore.


----------



## Chibason (Jun 11, 2012)

It took me several hours of seeing this thread title before I could read it....

...that sorry bastard deserved death.


----------



## Borel (Jun 11, 2012)

Unfortunate, but understandable. It wasn't exactly a cold and calculated exactement of vengeance, and apparently the intention wasn't to kill either.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 11, 2012)

Flow said:


> Bioness, I don't understand. You've stated before that you believe countries like Africa and some others should be killed off because they did not "add anything worth while to the world".
> 
> But you don't believe a p*d*p**** should of been killed, and the father should of controlled his emotions in the heat of that moment.
> 
> I'm not trying to flame you or anything, I just want to see your reasoning.



Flow don't be afraid to call a spade a spade. Deep down molesting a child is not a major taboo for him, as far as he is concerned people expressing great disgust at the thought of molesting a child are blindly following the outdated moral standards of society. 

You're not going to understand his point of view because he is a hypocrite and one of those odd balls that believes morals have no place in society. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he tries to dismiss what I'm saying with a silly psychological study showing that morals are a result of blah blah blah, and are therefore irrelevant.


----------



## lathia (Jun 11, 2012)

Bunch of Batman(s) in here. I can't even imagine myself being in the father's shoes. To hurt the other guy as much as I can, would probably be the only thing I could think of. Whether the guy can handle it would be the last thing in my mind.

The father is clearly remorseful.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 11, 2012)

lathia said:


> Bunch of Batman(s) in here. I can't even imagine myself being in the father's shoes. To hurt the other guy as much as I can would probably be the only thing I could think of. Whether the guy can handle it would be the last thing in my mind.
> 
> The father is clearly remorseful.



To be honest I would just snap his head from the get go, if you continue to beat someone to a pulp it is harder to claim self-defence. If you kill him with the first blow then it is easier to argue that you used necessary force.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> No giving the guy a few punches and calling the police would be in direct defense of his daughter, killing a man by repeatedly punching his face is manslaughter. Also this begs the question, was the daughter present while this father killed the man? That may give her more mental trauma than the molestation.


Attacking the person in the act of molesting his daughter is the direct defense.  Not knowing when to stop is a tragic miscalculation.  However unless there's more to the story than we've been told it isn't likely criminal in nature.

I would personally prefer that the p*d*p**** had been charged, tried, and convicted for his offenses and then rot in a jail cell for a long, long time.  But I'm not going to waste any tears for him.

As to the mental trauma I'm sure having a man beat to death is going to have an affect on the daughter, which is one of the reasons I suggest therapy for her.


----------



## Oturan (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> You people should be ashamed of yourselves, no one had to die in this situation had it been handled rationally.



I really hope this is some kind of sick joke...



I don't understand how you can defend the slaughter of an entire race of people but when it comes to one p*d*p**** who's molesting a four year old girl, you say that he didn't have to die.


----------



## santanico (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> You people should be ashamed of yourselves, no one had to die in this situation had it been handled rationally.



Normally I'd agree with you hun, but the damage that has brought onto that child will be wore than anything, so I really can't feel bad for the assailant


----------



## Coteaz (Jun 11, 2012)

So we only have the father's word that this guy was abusing his daughter?


----------



## pussyking (Jun 11, 2012)

More fathers should be like this. but instead of jeopardizing getting imprisoned and never seeing their kid again they should hire someone to do the killing.


----------



## Chibason (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> You people should be ashamed of yourselves, no one had to die in this situation had it been handled rationally.



^This backwards idiot advocates genocide, yet thinks child molesters deserve better...

World Class shithead right there, folks.


----------



## E (Jun 11, 2012)

good riddance, the piece of shit can rot already instead of being delayed while in prison

any father would do the same


----------



## lathia (Jun 11, 2012)

Gunners said:


> To be honest I would just snap his head from the get go, if you continue to beat someone to a pulp it is harder to claim self-defence. If you kill him with the first blow then it is easier to argue that you used necessary force.



I understand, this is why we all vent at different degrees. Basically until we get enough. In this case (someone hurting my family), I would not stop until I have the molester half dead. Would the same apply to the rest of the world? No


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 11, 2012)

I have a 3 year old niece and any fucker tries to molest her will get a straight up  beat down  ,  up and down the east coast of Canada. So I understand this father rage. 

 Zero tolerance towards Pedophiles .  

The Father deserves a medal.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 11, 2012)

lathia said:


> I understand, this is why we all vent at different degrees. Basically until we get enough. In this case (someone hurting my family), I would not stop until I have the molester half dead. Would the same apply to the rest of the world? No


Half the world would do that which is why provocation ( or whatever the defence is in America) would be present however from my understanding it is only a partial defence which in the UK would reduce the charge to voluntary manslaughter, in American 2nd degree manslaughter? 

I don't blame him for beating the man to death, if I wasn't a calculated individual I'd probably do the same thing. However he'd have been better off going for a quick kill (whilst the guy still presented a threat).


----------



## wibisana (Jun 11, 2012)

the father's doing is understandable, but society have rules. 
we cant just enforce our own law/justice. he should have turn the pedo to the law. and let the system work.

yes in some corrupt country the pedo have chance to get away.
but to be Punisher is not the answer. imagine a society without laws.


----------



## Angel (Jun 11, 2012)

Can't say I blame him.


----------



## Griever (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> You people should be ashamed of yourselves, no one had to die in this situation had it been handled rationally.



I have no problem with a man killing someone who molested his daughter or raped his wife/girlfriend rather the death was calculated or not, doesn't make a bit of difference to me, in my opinion that's just the way it should be.  

And no i don't feel any of shame for it.


----------



## Bioness (Jun 11, 2012)

Gunners said:


> You're not going to understand his point of view because he is a hypocrite and one of those odd balls that believes morals have no place in society. I wouldn't be at all surprised if he tries to dismiss what I'm saying with a silly psychological study showing that morals are a result of blah blah blah, and are therefore irrelevant.



Exactly how am I a hypocrite and you misunderstand my mindset, I am against the concept of morals as they tend to vary greatly from person to person and can be used to take advantage of others at times for a "higher" cause. We should live with the prospects of never harming another, that includes this situation as well.


Coteaz said:


> So we only have the father's word that this guy was abusing his daughter?



I was also going to mention this but I figured "the man didn't deserve to die" would warrant enough jejune comments for the day.

Also the people in this thread screaming "p*d*p****", need to remember the person was a human being, calling him a name just so you can feeling less remorse for him doesn't change that.


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> Exactly how am I a hypocrite and you misunderstand my mindset, I am against the concept of morals as they tend to vary greatly from person to person and can be used to take advantage of others at times for a "higher" cause. We should live with the prospects of never harming another, that includes this situation as well.



Why did you try and argue this, but won't argue against the fact that you have stated Africa and other countries should be killed off, yet you defend a p*d*p**** and say he shouldn't have died and the father should of had "more self control over his actions"?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> Also the people in this thread screaming "p*d*p****", need to remember the person was a human being, calling him a name just so you can feeling less remorse for him doesn't change that.





Someone who willing to rape the innocence of a *4 year old girl * is not worthy of being called a human being. 

Monster would be more like it because the girl would have had nightmares I imagine throughout her life. 

As far I am concern you give up all rights as a human being the moment you decide to take part in such a despicable act. 

Dont know how you come up with this logic.


----------



## Bioness (Jun 11, 2012)

Danger Doom said:


> Someone who willing to rape the innocence of a *4 year old girl * is not worthy of being called a human being.
> 
> Monster would be more like it because the girl would have had nightmares I imagine throughout her life.
> 
> ...



No where does it mention rape, all they do is call it "sexual abuse" which often means he was only touching her.



> Harmon described the girl as "OK besides the obvious mental trauma."


This "mental trauma" I bet comes more from the man being beaten to death rather than the man touching her. Why would a 4 year old think that area of her body is bad if  touched.

You know I'm right why do you continue to argue.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 11, 2012)

wibisana said:


> the father's doing is understandable, but society have rules.
> we cant just enforce our own law/justice. he should have turn the pedo to the law. and let the system work.
> 
> yes in some corrupt country the pedo have chance to get away.
> but to be Punisher is not the answer. imagine a society without laws.


The issue here is the p*d*p**** was caught _in the act_ by the father.

It's not reasonable to expect the father to call the police and stand by while the p*d*p**** does whatever he wants.

The father acted in the immediate defense of his daughter.  This defense resulted in the death of the p*d*p****.  Which while non-optimal was far better than doing nothing.


----------



## Borel (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> Exactly how am I a hypocrite and you misunderstand my mindset, I am against the concept of morals as they tend to vary greatly from person to person and can be used to take advantage of others at times for a "higher" cause. *We should live with the prospects of never harming another*, that includes this situation as well.


The bolded is a moral principle... what was that about no morals?


----------



## Bioness (Jun 11, 2012)

Borel said:


> The bolded is a moral principle... what was that about no morals?



No that is not a moral principle, it is a natural one. Morality at times comes from natural laws. Harming another human is bad for our species as a whole and lessens our survivability. Again I said I am against the concept of morals, not morals themselves. People usually use "morals" as away to support their actions.


----------



## ~Gesy~ (Jun 11, 2012)

It would be hard to think rationally about this situation. maybe if he thought about it he would have acted differently. but all he saw was the pedo touching his daughter which is quite understandable.

I don't think I would go "wait let me think about it this for a sec" either.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> No where does it mention rape, all they do is call it "sexual abuse" which often means he was only touching her.



 He was caught in the act, so whether it be pre rape/molesting  or during or after , sexual assault/abuse  it  all means little to me because zero tolerance across the board for pedophiles. She was in her house, he was in there with her alone prior to the father arrival.  
So yes he was molesting the child and if given more time could have probably been worst for all we know.


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> No where does it mention rape, all they do is call it "sexual abuse" which often means he was only touching her.
> 
> This "mental trauma" I bet comes more from the man being beaten to death rather than the man touching her. Why would a 4 year old think that area of her body is bad if  touched.
> 
> You know I'm right why do you continue to argue.




So Bioness, what exactly are you arguing? 

Not about the "morals"

but for your argument about how Africans should be killed off but pedophiles shouldn't.


----------



## lathia (Jun 11, 2012)

See your little girl naked with grown man next to her? She will receive more trauma if you do something. Instead, do nothing, let the man feel her up and call the police.


----------



## God (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> No that is not a moral principle, it is a natural one. Morality at times comes from natural laws. Harming another human is bad for our species as a whole and lessens our survivability. Again I said I am against the concept of morals, not morals themselves. People usually use "morals" as away to support their actions.



i cant take anymore of your backwards logic

you claim there are no morals, and at the same time that we shouldn't harm one another (a moral)
you claim that it is not a moral, but a "natural law" because we lessen our survivability, but advocate genocide of two continents?
what was that about natural law and survivability?
and another natural law is that you don't have sex with children, because nature has not let their bodies or minds develop to that point, but yet you advocate pedophilia?

decide where you stand, and then argue your point, because every claim you've made has contradicted itself.


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

He keeps on being vague, and avoids the big questions.


----------



## LoboFTW (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> No that is not a moral principle, it is a natural one. Morality at times comes from natural laws. Harming another human is bad for our species as a whole and lessens our survivability. Again I said I am against the concept of morals, not morals themselves. People usually use "morals" as away to support their actions.



There is no natural law that says harming your own species is bad. That is a moral judgement. Also you are using morals to support an action in this instance, or rather to support the lack of action against the paedophile.


----------



## Artful Lurker (Jun 11, 2012)

It's understandable


----------



## Mael (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> No that is not a moral principle, it is a natural one. Morality at times comes from natural laws. Harming another human is bad for our species as a whole and lessens our survivability. Again I said I am against the concept of morals, not morals themselves. People usually use "morals" as away to support their actions.



Never harming another...well looks like the pedo (yes I'll call the freak a pedo) didn't think about that little girl in that manner.

Whatever, freak apologist.


----------



## Bioness (Jun 11, 2012)

LoboFTW said:


> There is no natural law that says harming your own species is bad. That is a moral judgement. Also you are using morals to support an action in this instance, or rather to support the lack of action against the paedophile.



It is bad because we need to survive, harming another member of our species whether it is through thief, injury, or murder lessens their chance to survive. This is why altruism exists, which is the selfless act of helping or sharing with another human being, we want our species to survive as a whole but we do place ourselves and those close to us on a higher pedestal.



Danger Doom said:


> He was caught in the act, so whether it be  pre rape/molesting  or during or after , sexual assault/abuse  it  all  means little to me because zero tolerance across the board for  pedophiles. She was in her house, he was in there with her alone prior  to the father arrival.
> So yes he was molesting the child and if given more time could have probably been worst for all we know.



All you are doing is assuming, you have no proof one way or the other. In fact we don't even have proof that this man's story is true, just his word.


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> It is bad because we need to survive, harming another member of our species whether it is through thief, injury, or murder lessens their chance to survive.



But you've stated Africans should be killed off.


----------



## Ceria (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> You people should be ashamed of yourselves, no one had to die in this situation had it been handled rationally.



I'd like to see you act rational if you were involved in a situation similar to this. 

That kid's gonna be fucked mentally and it hurts me to think how common this is nowadays.


----------



## lathia (Jun 11, 2012)

I don't want to live on this world anymore. Time to exit this thread.


----------



## Bioness (Jun 11, 2012)

So let me get this right in terms of mental trauma

having a man touch you > having a man beat to death in front of her

Does this really make sense people?


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> So let me get this right in terms of mental trauma
> 
> having a man touch you > having a man beat to death in front of her
> 
> Does this really make sense people?



So let's get this straight Bioness.

"No, no! Africa should be killed off! They don't contribute to society! Every single one of them should die! Oh, but that p*d*p**** shouldn't had died!"

That's what you're saying Bioness.


----------



## Artful Lurker (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> So let me get this right in terms of mental trauma
> 
> having a man touch you > having a man beat to death in front of her
> 
> Does this really make sense people?



I would have thought a man forcibly taking her virginity while she was a little girl who wasn't sexually mature would be more traumatizing to her than seeing her dad punch someone in the face


----------



## Raidoton (Jun 11, 2012)

Artful Lurker said:


> I would have thought a man forcibly taking the virginity of a little girl would be more traumatizing than seeing her dad punch someone in the face


Now she gets both 

Anyway, I don't feel bad for the Pedo, but I also don't justify killing somebody just because the rage is "understandable".


----------



## Descent of the Lion (Jun 11, 2012)

Didn't the father kind of do his job?


----------



## Mael (Jun 11, 2012)

Descent of the Lion said:


> Didn't the father kind of do his job?



Yes, he very much did, but namby pamby sections of society will still cry since they're afraid of a little blood.


----------



## Artful Lurker (Jun 11, 2012)

Raidoton said:


> Now she gets both
> 
> Anyway, I don't feel bad for the Pedo, but I also don't justify killing somebody just because the rage is "understandable".



When you have a daughter of your own maybe your view will change


----------



## LoboFTW (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> It is bad because we need to survive, harming another member of our species whether it is through thief, injury, or murder lessens their chance to survive. This is why altruism exists, which is the selfless act of helping or sharing with another human being, we want our species to survive as a whole but we do place ourselves and those close to us on a higher pedestal.
> 
> 
> 
> All you are doing is assuming, you have no proof one way or the other. In fact we don't even have proof that this man's story is true, just his word.



What you just described is morality based, that is not a natural law.


----------



## lathia (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> So let me get this right in terms of mental trauma
> 
> having a man touch you > having a man beat to death in front of her
> 
> Does this really make sense people?



First of all, mental trauma is resolved in different ways and it varies from patient to patient. In some cases the simple act of doing absolutely nothing can cause more trauma. Coping with death and coping with sexual assault are on two different spectrum. One is natural, the other is not. It is up to the victim to forgive and forget. However, there is no way in hell the victim will favor the rapist's life over the father's doing. 

So don't come here generalizing your logic. Clearly your mind is set in stone on what you believe is right. It however doesn't make it absolute, and to claim this rapist didn't deserve to die is right down disrespectful to the parent.


----------



## Nikushimi (Jun 11, 2012)

Can't really blame the father. He was just protecting his daughter and did more damage than he meant to.

I wouldn't go as far as to say the other guy deserved to die, but I'm not exactly sympathetic towards him either. The fact that he did is worth nothing more than a shrug and an "Oops" as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> So let me get this right in terms of mental trauma
> 
> having a man touch you > having a man beat to death in front of her
> 
> Does this really make sense people?



Maybe if beating the man to death involves pieces of his face flying all over her.  

But a few punches to the face causing mostly non-visible damage to the brain and spinal column is nowhere near being molested.


----------



## Yachiru (Jun 11, 2012)

People are seriously arguing whether this pedo fuck should live or die?

smh NF


----------



## Mist Puppet (Jun 11, 2012)

I'm playing the world's saddest song on the world's smallest violin for this pedo.


----------



## Artful Lurker (Jun 11, 2012)

Wow 42 people


----------



## Raidoton (Jun 11, 2012)

Artful Lurker said:


> When you have a daughter of your own maybe your view will change


Your post doesn't make any sense. I said I don't justify killing somebody just because the rage is understandable, so I can understand his reaction. I can also understand if somebody catches his wife who cheats, and then punches the man more than once in the face, but just because I can understand the reaction doesn't mean it's justified to kill somebody. 

My Ex-girlfried was raped, and often in my mind I imagined how I would let my rage out at the guy who did it. But I don't think it should be okay for me to kill that guy...


----------



## God (Jun 11, 2012)

Mist Puppet said:


> I'm playing the world's saddest song on the world's smallest violin for this pedo.



u r platinum mad


----------



## ? (Jun 11, 2012)

The father's reaction is 100% reasonable. He did what he had to protect his daughter, but it sucks that he might have go to prison for it. And I imagine the daughter will need much therapy for not only the sexual assault, but also having to watch her father kill a man.


----------



## Oturan (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> Exactly how am I a hypocrite and you misunderstand my mindset, I am against the concept of morals as they tend to vary greatly from person to person and can be used to take advantage of others at times for a "higher" cause. We should live with the prospects of never harming another, that includes this situation as well.
> 
> 
> I was also going to mention this but I figured "the man didn't deserve to die" would warrant enough jejune comments for the day.
> ...



'Hey guys, don't call the p*d*p**** a p*d*p****.'


----------



## Hunter (Jun 11, 2012)

I don't care what anyone says. The Father deserves an medal.


----------



## Artful Lurker (Jun 11, 2012)

Raidoton said:


> Your post doesn't make any sense. I said I don't justify killing somebody just because the rage is understandable, so I can understand his reaction. I can also understand if somebody catches his wife who cheats, and then punches the man more than once in the face, but just because I can understand the reaction doesn't mean it's justified to kill somebody.
> 
> My Ex-girlfried was raped, and often in my mind I imagined how I would let my rage out at the guy who did it. But I don't think it should be okay for me to kill that guy...



Your comparing your relationship with one girl to the relationship of a farther to his daughter


----------



## Glued (Jun 11, 2012)

To Bioness, you say natural law is about humans caring and helping one another. Natural Law also has a mother kangaroo rat tearing apart a centipede that threatens her offspring.


----------



## Mael (Jun 11, 2012)

Think of the centipede's feelings, Ben.  It's still living and that rat should've restrained herself.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 11, 2012)

Raidoton said:


> Your post doesn't make any sense. I said I don't justify killing somebody just because the rage is understandable, so I can understand his reaction. I can also understand if somebody catches his wife who cheats, and then punches the man more than once in the face, but just because I can understand the reaction doesn't mean it's justified to kill somebody.
> 
> My Ex-girlfried was raped, and often in my mind *I imagined* how I would let my rage out at the guy who did it. *But I don't think* it should be okay for me to kill that guy...



Your problem to your argument you are thinking what if in a situation you have never been in and you are estimating you can restrain whatever feeling that may arise when adrenaline kicks in with your anger that you need to react quickly in that particular situation. 

You can say sure you can control the anger that will descend upon you but the truth be told if you caught them in the act you would be overwhelm just like this father and your first instinct is to protect your GF.


----------



## Eight (Jun 11, 2012)

By the sounds of it, he won't go to jail, and I'd have to agree with them if they did that. She can't defend herself against an adult or even really comprehend what was going on. I'm sure this guy had more victims in the past, and he probably wouldn't have stopped touching or fucking kids later on in life either, after he was caught or not.

It didn't say how many times he hit him, it could have been a few. Maybe he hit him in the face a few times and landed a really hard blow to the nose causing the cartilage to be pushed back or whatever. Sometimes, it just doesn't take much to kill a guy. If I caught a guy doing that to my 4 year old, I'd have been swinging my punches hard enough to break MY OWN bones from the impact.

Now they probably already have taken the little girl to the ER for some rape test kits, swabs etc., and also retrieved all the evidence from the pedophiles fingers, penis, clothes or whatever else they could gather DNA from.

Man, only 5 pages into this thread, and I already don't like Bioness lol.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> *Exactly how am I a hypocrite* and you misunderstand my mindset, I am against the concept of morals as they tend to vary greatly from person to person and can be used to take advantage of others at times for a "higher" cause. We should live with the prospects of never harming another, that includes this situation as well.
> 
> 
> I was also going to mention this but I figured "the man didn't deserve to die" would warrant enough jejune comments for the day.


I'm glad you asked. 


> Here is what I believe should be done for the selection.
> 
> Order of first to go:
> 
> ...






> There is a heavy religious association with that word, even that site you links hints at that.
> 
> Africa is horrible continent, there is constant murder, rape, disease, starvation, corruption, all kinds of problems. *While it is mostly contained there it would be easier to just wipe the lot out and use the land for resources which is the only reason the developed world puts up with them. The people in Africa aren't exactly the smartest and do not seem to denote proper logic when needed.*
> 
> Western Asia has a similar issue while they are more advanced than Africa they constantly let religion drive them leading to insane laws, wars, violence, etc. What is worse is that it is driven into their minds and they honestly see no problem with that. *For the past 200 years that place has done nothing but cause problems, given this scenario it would be best to sacrifice all of them for the greater good of the world.*





> Having entire random selection will not be for the great interest of the human race.
> 
> Whether you want to admit it or not certain members and demographics of our species contribute far less than others. *Killing them will not harm the world growth at all*, in fact it might increase it because now money can be spent where it needs to be and not wasted taking care of people who cannot even support themselves or cause problems for other parts of the world.





> My view is that those who can contribute to society and do not dispute peace should live. *You can't lie to yourself and say all human life is equal and should be treated that way when obviously it isn't. Some people can pull their weight and others will drag us down.* We should give up those who have a lower value than others.





> *If anything selecting the right people would cause long term benefits as they would no longer be able to multiple into more problems.* And with immediate economic issues out of the way, the governments of this world could focus on more important matters like improving humans rights.





> But you can still use this opportunity to justify taking out the worst.0




Need I go on?


> Also I'm not choosing to wipe out all the Africans and Arabs, *just the ones in the horrible countries.* I was thinking of leaving South Africa, but then I thought of all the rape that goes on there. Also thought about Egypt *but they are just as crazy as many people in Arab countries.*





> Call it racist I call it truth, those areas are *nothing but underdeveloped brutes.* Sure there are some exceptions and certainly some good people there, but there were good people in Nagasaki and Hiroshima when the United States dropped bombs there which lead to the end of World War II. You can't just wait for the rest of the world to catch up and come to their senses, especially if it will take generations.




The above shows that you have no problem wiping out entire civilizations on the grounds of being brutes, uneducated and contributing nothing to society (selecting a few examples). One could say that you applying negative labels on them to excuse an atrocious act. 


Bioness said:


> Also the people in this thread screaming "p*d*p****", need to remember the person was a human being, calling him a name just so you can feeling less remorse for him doesn't change that.


Yet in this thread you chastise individuals for applying a label to a man in order to justify the father killing him. Here we have an individual who at first glance meets your criteria for an individual society could do without, an individual we should (what was it?) 'use this opportunity to justify taking out' one of the worst society has to offer. 

Yet you are fighting tooth and nail to defend the value of his life.


----------



## Mael (Jun 11, 2012)

All this reminds me painfully of the excuses people tried to make when that kid was being bullied and hit and cornered and he stabbed a kid to death with a knife in fight after flight failed.

Fucking excuses from namby pamby.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 11, 2012)

Mael said:


> All this reminds me painfully of the excuses people tried to make when that kid was being bullied and hit and cornered and he stabbed a kid to death with a knife in fight after flight failed.
> 
> Fucking excuses from namby pamby.



But he was a good kid who wouldn't hurt a fly!


----------



## Glued (Jun 11, 2012)

Mael said:


> Think of the centipede's feelings, Ben.  It's still living and that rat should've restrained herself.



I honestly can't get this Bioness.

He says he's for Natural Law.

What would any male in nature do if he saw his mate, progeny or harem getting violated by another male, of the same species, in his territory?


----------



## Oturan (Jun 11, 2012)

Gunners said:


> I'm glad you asked.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Bioness: 'We should just wipe out Africa.'



Bioness said:


> No that is not a moral principle, it is a natural one. Morality at times comes from natural laws.* Harming another human is bad for our species as a whole and lessens our survivability*. Again I said I am against the concept of morals, not morals themselves. People usually use "morals" as away to support their actions.


so africans don't count as humans?


----------



## Level7N00b (Jun 11, 2012)

Overwatch said:


> No sympathy for pedophiles. I probably would've done the same.



Agreed, I don't feel sorry for any pedotrash.


----------



## Raidoton (Jun 11, 2012)

Artful Lurker said:


> Your comparing your relationship with one girl to the relationship of a farther to his daughter


Uhm, no? 

1. I just told you why I can understand his reaction, I never said that I was in the same situation as the father. But it seems that that's what you were reading 
2. So you say it's okay for the father to kill the p*d*p**** rapist, but not for me to kill a rapist because the girl was already 17? 
And don't tell me she was "just a girlfriend" or something like that, she was everything to me. 
(Inb4 you tell me I compare it to the love of a father to his daughter)



Danger Doom said:


> Your problem to your argument you are thinking what if in a situation you have never been in and you are estimating you can restrain whatever feeling that may arise when adrenaline kicks in with your anger and you need to react quickly to the situation.
> 
> You can say sure you can control the anger that will descend upon you but the truth be told if you caught that act you would be overwhelm just like this father and your first instinct is to protect your GF.


Wtf? I even said that I imagined how I would punch and kick the guy who raped my girlfriend, where do you read about me controlling my anger in the situation?


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> So let me get this right in terms of mental trauma
> 
> having a man touch you > having a man beat to death in front of her
> 
> Does this really make sense people?


The psychological short-answer?  We don't know.  Directly to the point we don't have any idea the details of what she was exposed to (either from the molestation or from the assault of the p*d*p**** that violated her) or what she understood about what was going on.  Best case scenario?  She'll realize the p*d*p**** doing something bad and that her daddy kept her safe without knowing any of the details about what the p*d*p**** was doing or the fact that her daddy killed the man.

Worst case is much much worse on both ends of the spectrum.

But we do know that molestation at such a young age can lead to really really messed up psyche's.  If we're talking psychological trauma we also need to consider the alternative.  What would happen if the dad did nothing?  At some point in her life she'll realize what exactly happened that day, when that happens and she realizes her dad stood there and did nothing how do you expect that will make her feel?

Granted you already prove you have zero understanding of child psychology if you call molestation "having a man touch you."


----------



## Forces (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> No that is not a moral principle, it is a natural one. Morality at times comes from natural laws. Harming another human is bad for our species as a whole and lessens our survivability. Again I said I am against the concept of morals, not morals themselves. People usually use "morals" as away to support their actions.



Don't know if you unintentionally got this right, but yes as I said you did get this right. The Natural/Common Law has two fundamental rules:
Do not encroach on other living beings and their property, which is the basis for all criminal law and Do all you have agreed to do being the basis for all contract and tort law


----------



## Mist Puppet (Jun 11, 2012)

Cubey said:


> u r platinum mad



whoops, i should be acting with calmness and rationality my bad


----------



## Forces (Jun 11, 2012)

Ben Grimm said:


> To Bioness, you say natural law is about humans caring and helping one another. Natural Law also has a mother kangaroo rat tearing apart a centipede that threatens her offspring.



That is not Natural *LAW*, that's just Nature itself, its very similar but not exactly the same.
Also the centipede has no consciousness whatsoever


----------



## Rima (Jun 11, 2012)

Overwatch said:


> No sympathy for pedophiles. I probably would've done the same.



Same here.

But how did the father not know that punching someone in the head multiple times could kill them?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 11, 2012)

Raidoton said:


> Wtf? I even said that I imagined how I would punch and kick the guy who raped my girlfriend, where do you read about me controlling my anger in the situation?



You said in your post you would probably would not resort to killing the dude out of anger (I already assume you would beat him) , and I responded to you with  how would you know if you could control yourself up to that point in the heat of the moment.


----------



## Shinigami Perv (Jun 11, 2012)

Utopia Realm said:


> Your thoughts NF?



The father should not be charged, and the molester got what was coming to him. Obviously a father will lose it if he finds his 4 year old daughter getting sexually assaulted. 

The fact that he had remorse tells me he is a decent person who was pushed too far.


----------



## Zoan Marco (Jun 11, 2012)

The guy definitely deserved it and the father shouldn't get any charges.


----------



## Raidoton (Jun 11, 2012)

Danger Doom said:


> You said in your post you would probably would not resort to killing the dude out of anger (I already assume you would beat him) , and I responded to you with  how would you know if you could control yourself up to that point in the heat of the moment.


No, that's not what I said. I said, it should not be okay for me to kill this person. I would most likely attack this person, maybe blinded by my rage, and maybe killing him with a few kicks to his head while he lies on the floor... But I don't think I'm allowed to do this just because my anger is understandable


----------



## Artful Lurker (Jun 11, 2012)

Raidoton said:


> Uhm, no?
> 
> 1. I just told you why I can understand his reaction, I never said that I was in the same situation as the father. But it seems that that's what you were reading



Exactly your weren't so don't bring your girlfriend situation like it was  



Raidoton said:


> 2. So you say it's okay for the father to kill the p*d*p**** rapist, but not for me to kill a rapist because the girl was already 17?
> And don't tell me she was "just a girlfriend" or something like that, she was everything to me.



- She was 17 and her body would have been far less damaged from the event 
- Had you killed I imagine it would have been premeditated 
- "She was everything to you" is that why your still together?



Raidoton said:


> (Inb4 you tell me I compare it to the love of a father to his daughter)



Inb4 you would have given your life for her



Raidoton said:


> Wtf? I even said that I imagined how I would punch and kick the guy who raped my girlfriend, where do you read about me controlling my anger in the situation?



Did you walk in on the act in the moment?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 11, 2012)

Raidoton said:


> No, that's not what I said. I said, it should not be okay for me to kill this person. I would most likely attack this person, maybe blinded by my rage, and maybe killing him with a few kicks to his head while he lies on the floor... But I don't think I'm allowed to do this just because my anger is understandable



I see, my mistake I misinterpret your post.


----------



## Tiger (Jun 11, 2012)

~Gesy~ said:


> It's really a complicated case, even though I wish him the best, it would be a precedent that murder is fine as long as it's justified.



You should re-read your law books. This is not a new thing. Google "justifiable homicide".

This guy won't do time in prison. Nor _should_ he.


----------



## Crimson King (Jun 11, 2012)

Fucking pedos.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmvnXKRfdb8[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Bioness (Jun 11, 2012)

Artful Lurker said:


> I would have thought a man forcibly taking her virginity while she was a little girl who wasn't sexually mature would be more traumatizing to her than seeing her dad punch someone in the face



There was no taking of virginity or rape or any variation of the sort.



EvilMoogle said:


> But we do know that molestation at such a young age can lead to really really messed up psyche's.  If we're talking psychological trauma we also need to consider the alternative.  What would happen if the dad did nothing?  At some point in her life she'll realize what exactly happened that day, when that happens and she realizes her dad stood there and did nothing how do you expect that will make her feel?
> 
> Granted you already prove you have zero understanding of child psychology if you call molestation "having a man touch you."



I understand child psychology plenty and know what effects trauma can have on their development. And how exactly would her father calling the police be classed as "doing nothing".

As you said we have no details of this situation other than it being called "sexual abuse", and to children they don't think anything of their genitals which is why child predators often take advantage of that. But a child knows blood and knows when something dies. They claimed the child is okay, so my guess if this situation really did happen, because all we have are the words of a man who killed someone, then the child will be okay.


Ben Grimm said:


> I honestly can't get this Bioness.
> 
> He says he's for Natural Law.
> 
> What would any male in nature do if he saw his mate, progeny or harem  getting violated by another male, of the same species, in his  territory?



That whole post for me was a big blunder, but what I mean by natural laws is that killing someone without using them for food goes against most of the universe, yes he was protecting his daughter but the situation should have been handled with more intelligence as that is what makes us different from the kangaroo stomping the centipede.


----------



## αce (Jun 11, 2012)

I can't imagine what I'd do if someone touched my sister let alone my fucking child.



> killing someone without using them for food goes against most of the universe



You make it sound like he killed the guy for the laughs.


----------



## Thdyingbreed (Jun 11, 2012)

The guy was raping a 4 year old? 

He got what he deserved fucking scum bag.


----------



## g_core18 (Jun 11, 2012)

Hope the fucker died in misery.


----------



## Borel (Jun 11, 2012)

Are actions such as the p*d*p****'s punishable by death in the US? Just wondering, seeing as so many people here are saying that he deserved to die.


----------



## Gino (Jun 11, 2012)

Everybody in this thread is wrong he should have been tortured and feed his own genitals piece by piece and then die very very very slowly..........


----------



## God (Jun 11, 2012)

Mist Puppet said:


> whoops, i should be acting with calmness and rationality my bad



that's the way misto


----------



## Glued (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> That whole post for me was a big blunder, but what I mean by natural laws is that killing someone without using them for food goes against most of the universe, *yes he was protecting his daughter but the situation should have been handled with more intelligence as that is what makes us different from the kangaroo stomping the centipede.*



Handled with intelligence?

There is a predator that is endangering his progeny right in front of him. These instincts are a part of us. And frankly you are being incredibly insensitive to the father who was only following his instincts as a father. It was what any father would have done. 

This p*d*p**** did what any predator would do, he went after a helpless calf. However he ended up getting gored to death by the parent.


----------



## Crimson King (Jun 11, 2012)

Gino said:


> Everybody in this thread is wrong he should have been tortured and feed his own genitals piece by piece and then die very very very slowly..........






> Slowly, Bidithal's bulging eyes made out the figure crouched above him.
> 
> "You should have left her alone", Karsa Orlong said quietly, his voice devoid of inflection. Behind and around the giant were gathering ghosts, chained souls.
> 
> ...


----------



## Oturan (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> That whole post for me was a big blunder, but what I mean *by natural laws is that killing someone without using them for food goes against most of the universe,* yes he was protecting his daughter but the situation should have been handled with more intelligence as that is what makes us different from the kangaroo stomping the centipede.



we have a father here who was trying to save his daughter from molestation  but Bioness doesn't approve because he went against the universe.

on behalf of the father who was looking out for his kid, sorry universe


----------



## Bioness (Jun 11, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> I don't think Bioness understands what he's writing. Just think about the situation. Your four year old fucking daughter is found naked with A GROWN FUCKING MAN and he's touching on her. SHE'S FOUR.  AND IT'S YOUR DAUGHTER.
> 
> No one is going to sit there and calculate the most intelligent way to proceed on the issue. "HMMMMMMMM HOW DO I PROCEED WITH THIS?" Basic mammalian parental instics kick in and you defend your fucking child.


No where does he say she was found naked, don't assume the worse.

But you are right, I may be overestimating the human mental capacity for reason.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jun 11, 2012)

I would say too bad the p*d*p**** got killed, but I'm not going to pretend I give a rat's ass.  Instead I'll say good thing that the girl wasn't actually raped and she got out of the incident relatively okay.



Gunners said:


> I'm glad you asked.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


We're going to need an entire air force rescue team to help Bionness out of this crater he dug him self in.  Yikes.


----------



## Raidoton (Jun 11, 2012)

Artful Lurker said:


> Exactly your weren't so don't bring your girlfriend situation like it was


So I'm not allowed to explain why I can understand his reaction? I don't see anything wrong with it.



Artful Lurker said:


> - She was 17 and her body would have been far less damaged from the event
> - Had you killed I imagine it would have been premeditated
> - "She was everything to you" is that why your still together?


- So? The rapist still took her virginity and traumatized her for at least 3 years... And I fail to see how this matters in the moment of rage. 
- What do you mean by that? That while punching the guy, I would have the desire to kill him? I guess the father did too...
- She broke up with me. But nice try 
(the main reason was a result of the rape)



Artful Lurker said:


> Did you walk in on the act in the moment?


No. And I think my reaction would've been worse if I caught him in the act...


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 11, 2012)

Kinda dropped the ball on this one, Bioness.


----------



## Gino (Jun 11, 2012)




----------



## αce (Jun 11, 2012)

> But you are right, I may be underestimating the human mental capacity for reason.


Yup. Our basic animal instincts can be stronger than we think sometimes.
He lashed out and didn't even expect to kill the guy.

He was just reacting to his daughters safety. The immediate threat was the other man.


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

Gunners said:


> I'm glad you asked.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Gunners, thank you for digging all these post up!

For those who have argued with Bioness, please view these post. I'm trying to understand how someone who believes that continents should be destroyed can advocate a p*d*p**** and say "We all should be in touch with our emotions"


----------



## Bioness (Jun 11, 2012)

♠Ace♠ said:


> Yup. Our basic animal instincts can be stronger than we think sometimes.
> He lashed out and didn't even expect to kill the guy.
> 
> He was just reacting to his daughters safety. The immediate threat was the other man.



Bleh meant overestimate >.>

But yeah the point got across.


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

Except he didn't even agree with you, and you didn't get any point across.


----------



## Bioness (Jun 11, 2012)

> This message is hidden because *Flow* is on your .



Keep posting, I think you are getting through to me.


----------



## Black Leg Sanji (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness, Bioness, Bioness


----------



## Crimson King (Jun 11, 2012)

> Keep posting, I think you are getting through to me.





Flow said:


> Except he didn't even agree with you, and you didn't get any point across.



There you go.


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

As long as other posters see your post, I couldn't care less.


----------



## Ari (Jun 11, 2012)

Flow said:


> As long as other posters see your post, I could care less.



saw it already


----------



## Bioness (Jun 11, 2012)

Crimson King said:


> There you go.



Thank you, I now care as much as I did before, which is to say I don't.


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

You don't care about the fact that you seem hypocritical to defend a p*d*p****, but want to slaughter an entire continent? 

You bring up others post all the time, and flame them for what they've said in the past. Everyone here just wants you to reason why you feel the way you do Bioness.


----------



## Oturan (Jun 11, 2012)

Flow said:


> You don't care about the fact that you seem hypocritical to defend a p*d*p****, but want to slaughter an entire continent?
> 
> You bring up others post all the time, and flame them for what they've said in the past. Everyone here just wants you to reason why you feel the way you do Bioness.



He's a fucked up individual, simple as that.


----------



## Crimson King (Jun 11, 2012)

Flow said:


> You don't care about the fact that you seem hypocritical to defend a p*d*p****, but want to slaughter an entire continent?
> 
> You bring up others post all the time, and flame them for what they've said in the past. Everyone here just wants you to reason why you feel the way you do Bioness.



hypocrite
pedo defender
genocide supporter

Anything else?


----------



## Bioness (Jun 11, 2012)

@ Flowhorrible, when have I ever brought up an individuals past?

In this thread you appear to be obsessed with me, as in other threads, you stalk my post and bring them up any chance you get, because that is the only way people will ever even care about what you say, when it is related to someone far more important than you have ever been or ever will be. I've told you countless times why I think the way I do, it is pure numbers.


----------



## Huey Freeman (Jun 11, 2012)

Bio  for the year I have been here I have seen around 20-25 pedo related threads and in each thread I see you  try to justify a pedo actions under any circumstance possible. 

Just my observation.


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> @ Flowhorrible, when have I ever brought up an individuals past?
> 
> In this thread you appear to be obsessed with me, as in other threads, you stalk my post and bring them up any chance you get, because that is the only way people will ever even care about what you say, when it is related to someone far more important than you have ever been or ever will be.




yaddayadda


Why don't you stay away from the personal "insults" and try to defend yourself.


----------



## Oturan (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> @ Flowhorrible, when have I ever brought up an individuals past?
> 
> In this thread you appear to be obsessed with me, as in other threads, *you stalk my post and bring them up any chance you get, because that is the only way people will ever even care about what you say, when it is related to someone far more important than you have ever been or ever will be*. I've told you countless times why I think the way I do, it is pure numbers.










I wonder if there's a name for people like Bioness...


----------



## Ippy (Jun 11, 2012)

Since I can't rep Gunners...





Gunners said:


> I'm glad you asked.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




BOOM!  HEADSHOT!

Ownage of this level you just don't see every day.


----------



## Bioness (Jun 11, 2012)

Danger Doom said:


> Bio  for the year I have been here I have seen around 20-25 pedo related threads and in each thread I see you  try to justify a pedo actions under any circumstance possible.
> 
> Just my observation.



Link the threads all 20-25 of them, and if you do you will find the answer the same as the one I am about to give you.

For the last time and this is for all of you, I don't support any form of  pedophilia, however it is disgusting seeing how my species reacts over  such a behavior without any real justification for the reason for the  behavior. You are no different than those idiot who would burn witches  because they thought they placed curses on them when, even if the  "curses" were also small time as is this.

I think pedophilia should be treated so that they can control their urges, it is not the thoughts that matter but the actions, you cannot stop a p*d*p**** from thinking about sexual relationships with children but you can treat them so that they can exert those thoughts in healthy ways, such as activities or perusing a relationship with someone closer to their age.


----------



## Crimson King (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:
			
		

> *snip*


----------



## αce (Jun 11, 2012)

Thread turned into a cat fight quicker than I thought it would


----------



## Gin (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> Link the threads all 20-25 of them, and if you do you will find the answer the same as the one I am about to give you.
> 
> For the last time and this is for all of you, I don't support any form of  pedophilia, however it is disgusting seeing how my species reacts over  such a behavior without any real justification for the reason for the  behavior. You are no different than those idiot who would burn witches  because they thought they placed curses on them when, even if the  "curses" were also small time as is this.
> 
> I think pedophilia should be treated so that they can control their urges, it is not the thoughts that matter but the actions, you cannot stop a p*d*p**** from thinking about sexual relationships with children but you can treat them so that they can exert those thoughts in healthy ways, such as activities or perusing a relationship with someone closer to their age.


We aren't discussing someone who is just "thinking about" sexual relationships with children.   This is someone who sexually assaulted a four year old.

And no, the witches analogy is a terrible one because witches were burned purely on suspicion - no absolute evidence of the efficacy of the curses was provided.   Pedophiles, however, are only condemned when caught in the act, and rightly so.   

If someone has sexual thoughts about children, then they, despite being sick, can't help it.   What they can help is actually committing an act of pedophilia, and for that they deserve the harshest of punishments.


----------



## Gino (Jun 11, 2012)

Amazing this thread is


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> You are no different than those idiot who would burn witches  because they thought they placed curses on them when, even if the  "curses" were also small time as is this.


Gee I didn't know feeling up a 4 year old's genitals was the equivalent of ancient superstitious spell casting.  Sounds like something straight out of a sketchy Japanese hentai manga.


----------



## Bioness (Jun 11, 2012)

Gin said:


> We aren't discussing someone who is just "thinking about" sexual relationships with children.   This is someone who sexually assaulted a four year old.
> 
> And no, the witches analogy is a terrible one because witches were burned purely on suspicion - no absolute evidence of the efficacy of the curses was provided.   Pedophiles, however, are only condemned when caught in the act, and rightly so.
> 
> If someone has sexual thoughts about children, then they, despite being sick, can't help it.   What they can help is actually committing an act of pedophilia, and for that they deserve the harshest of punishments.



Read it again I said "IF" those spells and such were real as the people thought they were, then the punishment SHOULD NOT have been death. The people in this thread are doing the same thing, the punishment or consequence greatly outweighed the crime.


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> Read it again I said "IF" those spells and such were real as the people thought they were, then the punishment SHOULD NOT have been death. The people in this thread are doing the same thing, the punishment or consequence greatly outweighed the crime.



This is great and all, but how does this change the fact that you've suggested the killing of an entire continent is necessary, but will defend a p*d*p**** to death. 

Can someone quote this? Because he keeps on avoiding this question and states "how he has me on ignore".


----------



## Ippy (Jun 11, 2012)

Flow said:


> This is great and all, but how does this change the fact that you've suggested the killing of an entire continent is necessary, but will defend a p*d*p**** to death.



Fair point.


----------



## Butō Rengoob (Jun 11, 2012)

The father flew into a rage, not thinking straight, beat the guy down. I'm sure taking the guy's life wasn't on his priority list but he let his rage control him in defense of his daughter. He might do time but i doubt it would be long at all. It was justified. I'd have done the same thing in his position.


----------



## ? (Jun 11, 2012)

This thread has been quite entertaining


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> I understand child psychology plenty and know what effects trauma can have on their development. And how exactly would her father calling the police be classed as "doing nothing".


Standing there and not protecting her will be "doing nothing" in her memory.





Bioness said:


> As you said we have no details of this situation other than it being called "sexual abuse"


First off, the article calls it "sexual assault" not "abuse."  Which is a forced sexual encounter.  

That said  has a clearer picture:


> A father beat to death with his hands a man who tried molesting his  4-year-old daughter after the little girl was heard screaming on the  family's rural Texas ranch, authorities said Monday.



It also says at this point they're not pressing charges on the father, which lends credibility to his statements.


----------



## jNdee~ (Jun 11, 2012)

That father is so manly


----------



## Mochi (Jun 11, 2012)

I'd have done the same thing.


----------



## Bioness (Jun 11, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Standing there and not protecting her will be "doing nothing" in her memory.
> 
> First off, the article calls it "sexual assault" not "abuse."  Which is a forced sexual encounter.
> 
> ...





> "There doesn't appear to be any reason other than what he told us," Harmon said.



All they have to go on ARE what he told them.

And I don't mean just call the police and continue letting the man molest her, I mean get his daughter away then call. And honestly most people don't remember ANYTHING before the age of 5, so what's in her "memory" will likely be from what her father tells her if he chooses to.


----------



## Blue (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness, perhaps you should find another thread to be in? Something... uncontroversial, perhaps.


----------



## Zenith (Jun 11, 2012)

Irrationally speaking he deserved his death

Rationally speaking the father should have tied him up,dragged him afar from the residential area and curb stomp the utter living shit out of his corpse

Rinse and repeat until his urges to kill quieted



Bioness said:


> I'm mixed here
> 
> Yes the father was protecting his daughter, but the other guy didn't need to die, the father should likely get an examination just to make sure this will be an isolated incident and 12 years down the line doesn't shoot some teenage boy caught having sex with his daughter.
> 
> I'm of the mindset that violence never solves anything and he should have pushed the guy away identified him and called the police.



My bullshit detector sensed some double standards

But I think Gunners ironically gunned you down on this already



Bioness said:


> You people should be ashamed of yourselves, no one had to die in this situation had it been handled rationally.



I feel no shame at all

And deep down I'm adamant you too wouldn't

It's just that you need to be facetious,as to preserve the overly rational virtual projection of yourself your flimsy brain ingrained in your persona



Oturan said:


> I really hope this is some kind of sick joke...
> 
> I don't understand how you can defend the slaughter of an entire race of people but when it comes to one p*d*p**** who's molesting a four year old girl, you say that he didn't have to die.



it's called double standards

it's nothing new really,individuals who cloak their personal sentiments behind skewered brands of logic,when faced with hard conceptual wall of truth have no other option than to fabricate from thin air artificial deux ex machina 



Bioness said:


> Exactly how am I a hypocrite and you misunderstand my mindset, I am against the concept of morals as they tend to vary greatly from person to person and can be used to take advantage of others at times for a *"higher" cause*. We should live with the prospects of never harming another, that includes this situation as well



Wasn't the thread about wiping out Africa you made,entirely hinging on the sole premise of erasing that continent for the '_greater good of the rest_'?

Or is Iceman's memory fading?

I kid I rarely forget stuff

That also ignoring the fact you implicitly applied a moral concept right in this very paragraph(the last sentence precisely)



> I was also going to mention this but I figured "the man didn't deserve to die" would warrant enough jejune comments for the day.



since mind reading isn't something we humans have achieved as of yet,we are bound to judge matters from what we see



> Also the people in this thread screaming "p*d*p****", need to remember the person was a human being, calling him a name just so you can feeling less remorse for him doesn't change that.



Gay,Heterosexual,murderer,thief,teacher,president,adult,teenager,mother,father...

We humans give names so we can identify a certain pattern,behavior,group of people and etc,and there's a proper reason for that

It is not derogatory name calling others have been doing here,it's not like calling a gay,^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".),or calling a black person ^ (use bro)

So if someone is sexually playing with a little girl when no one is around and the father finds him in the middle of the act,then he without fail falls in the category of pedophiles,with no ifs,buts and maybes

So please let's not cloak our true intentions behind trivial semantics 



Flow said:


> You don't care about the fact that you seem hypocritical to defend a p*d*p****, but want to slaughter an entire continent?



I'm just curious to know what straw man is he gonna fabricate to save face

PS:My tone was a bit condescending,but I'm not usually like this,I usually fuck around when I'm on NF but this thread caught my attention and my bullshit detector drove me to Bioness's vicinity so yeah,apologies in advance for everyone else


----------



## Araragi (Jun 11, 2012)

I understand protecting your daughter, but killing him makes you look bad as well. It depends on how you see what is right. According to law they are both wrong right?


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 11, 2012)

NatsuDragneel said:


> According to law they are both wrong right?


Nope, just the p*d*p**** rapist 

The father's protected under self-defense "defense of another."


----------



## Ippy (Jun 11, 2012)

NatsuDragneel said:


> I understand protecting your daughter, but killing him makes you look bad as well. It depends on how you see what is right. According to law they are both wrong right?


Easy to say when you aren't in the heat of the moment.

1.  The father used blunt force trauma with his _fists _to stop the sexual abuse.  Those aren't usually the go-to weapons for someone looking to do some killing.  He didn't actually mean to kill him, as it was stated in the article.

2.  Again, as it was mentioned in the article, you have the right to defend another person from harm (as an extension of self defense is the defense of a third party), and sexual abuse is certainly harm.

Based on those two points, I would say no, they aren't both wrong.  Just the guy who tried to rape a little girl.


----------



## Tiger (Jun 11, 2012)

NatsuDragneel said:


> I understand protecting your daughter, but killing him makes you look bad as well. It depends on how you see what is right. According to law they are both wrong right?





EvilMoogle said:


> Nope, just the p*d*p**** rapist
> 
> The father's protected under self-defense "defense of another."





Shinoda Kenichi said:


> Easy to say when you aren't in the heat of the moment.
> 
> 1.  The father used blunt force trauma with his _fists _to stop the sexual abuse.  Those aren't usually the go-to weapons for someone looking to do some killing.  He didn't actually mean to kill him, as it was stated in the article.
> 
> ...



(Quoting the Admins cuz they answered the question correctly. Note: not just their opinion, they stated a factual answer, according to the law of the United States, where this took place.)

Once again, I'd like to insist that people read up on the laws of a country before engaging in a moral debate about what is right or wrong, especially when it comes to breaking the law.

The father literally did not break a law when he performed manslaughter against a man who was endangering an infirm/innocent. 

It's right there under Justifiable Homicide. 

The father will.not.do.time. For he broke no law, as long as the court agrees that the actions they've heard are the reality of the situation.

The Law has spoken.


----------



## Mael (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> No where does he say she was found naked, don't assume the worse.
> 
> But you are right, I may be overestimating the human mental capacity for reason.



Oh fuck you.

Namby pamby ultraliberal bullshit utterly incapable of understanding instinctive parental nature.  I pray you never adopt a kid.



Merrymaus said:


> I'd have done the same thing.



Fucking right.


----------



## cnorwood (Jun 11, 2012)

The father is a hero, Any man who actually cares about his kids wouldve done the same thing or something similar. 

-Advocating genocide, but defending pedophiles. I swear it seems like bioness is playing devils advocate just to be on the opposing side. Or just doesnt like Africans and Arabs


----------



## Mr Bear (Jun 11, 2012)

Seems he reacted in an okay way. As any father would I hope. Shame for the girl, the whole ordeal would be quite traumatizing I would think.


----------



## Joakim3 (Jun 11, 2012)

Yeah I honestly have no sympathy for pedophiles..... it's quite literally one of the few unforgivables that is fround upon in every modern culture

As for the father, blind rage...... I mean how'd u expect him to react/say? "Hey man please stop feeling up my 4 year old daughter"  Parental instinct kicked in and he did what was nessacry in protecting his child.

I think he will get off with a "light" sentence, in the terms they will give him the least amount of possible time and take into account the circumstances of the incident


----------



## Bungee Gum (Jun 11, 2012)

What the fuck is wrong with this Bioness person?


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 11, 2012)

Joakim3 said:


> I think he will get off with a "light" sentence, in the terms they will give him the least amount of possible time and take into account the circumstances of the incident


As it stands right now he's not being charged.  Based off the articles it's pure self defense.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 11, 2012)

~Gesy~ said:


> It's really a complicated case, even though I wish him the best, it would be a precedent that murder is fine as long as it's justified.



There is already precedent for that, it's called self defense.  This falls under that.

You are allowed to defend yourself or another under the right circumstances.  Sexual assault would be one of those circumstances.


----------



## Bungee Gum (Jun 11, 2012)

This only got this long because no one knows what the law is


----------



## Es (Jun 11, 2012)

Bioness said:


> No where does he say she was found naked, don't assume the worse.
> 
> But you are right, I may be overestimating the human mental capacity for reason.



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpHiZAne1aY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Buskuv (Jun 11, 2012)

The thread title says "Father kills man sexually" from the main forum list.


----------



## Thunder (Jun 11, 2012)

The guy decided to feel up a four year old, and it probably wasn't the first time. He got just what he deserved.


----------



## TammyTheMarine (Jun 11, 2012)

I would have done the same. 

At least if the father gets life, he will have a good stoy to tell of why he's there. "What did you do?" "I raped someone. What about you?" "I killed a man for raping my daughter."


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

^ He's not going to jail, it seems. Which is good.


----------



## J. Fooly (Jun 11, 2012)

I was going to comment about how Bioness went full retard but I see you guys handled him thoroughly.

That said, I would have done the same thing. I sincerely hope this man does not see jail time.


----------



## Orochimaru800 (Jun 11, 2012)

First of all: LOL BIONESS.  I don't think i've seen a worst poster on NF

With that said, I would have done the same.


----------



## kidgogeta (Jun 11, 2012)

Lol being a pedo in Texas and actually being stupid enough to get caught. If this guy didn't kill him somebody else would have.


----------



## Banhammer (Jun 11, 2012)

Odds are it was a NF forum member

Anyone notice Spartanl337 missing right now?


----------



## Orochimaru800 (Jun 11, 2012)

Crimson King said:


> hypocrite
> pedo defender
> genocide supporter
> 
> Anything else?



Beastality(sp?) supporter and defender. 

On a side note: I find it funny how Bioness has conveniently been ignoring the posts regarding his comments about the people of Africa. Can't even owe up to your old comments huh? How pathetic.


----------



## Mider T (Jun 11, 2012)

J. Fooly said:


> I was going to comment about how Bioness went full retard but I see you guys handled him thoroughly.
> 
> That said, I would have done the same thing. I sincerely hope this man does not see jail time.



In the words of that guy from National Treasure "Somebody's gotta go to jail".

Also, you need to change your set.  This was Astaroth's last set.


----------



## Miss Fortune (Jun 11, 2012)

Now that is a protective father.

I wonder how that chick will get a boyfriend in the far distant future.


----------



## Mintaka (Jun 11, 2012)

Guy did what he felt was correct.  I'm not sure if killing the guy was the answer, but in the heat of the moment these things can happen.



Flow said:


> I think him just beating this guy to a bloody *pulp in his daughter's  honor *showed that he wasn't shit to begin with, and when it came to  someone his size/around he was nothing.


You just equivocated this to an honor killing.

What the fuck is wrong with you?


----------



## Mider T (Jun 11, 2012)

Went back and read the entire thread, tickled my fanny.


----------



## EJ (Jun 11, 2012)

I just feel as though he got what was coming to him. Maybe my emotions got the better of me, but I could care less about this p*d*p****'s life.


----------



## T7 Bateman (Jun 11, 2012)

Well as a parent I not mad at the daddy. That sick ass shouldn't have been messing with a 4 year old girl. Father was defensing his kid good for him.


----------



## Fojos (Jun 11, 2012)

People who think a few hits to the head from a fist kills you... yes they can, but it's extremely unlikely, he most likely kept hitting many times.

The head is more durable than other body parts, not less.



Starr said:


> Normally I'd agree with you hun, but the damage  that has brought onto that child will be wore than anything, so I really  can't feel bad for the assailant


 
Going by that line you have no idea what kind of effect the beating to death will have on her brain.

She might not even remember the molestation, depending on how long it lasted and how severe it was, but she will definitely remember the beating.



Artful Lurker said:


> I would have thought a man forcibly taking  her virginity while she was a little girl who wasn't sexually mature  would be more traumatizing to her than seeing her dad punch someone in  the face



That's usually not the case though. In almost all known cases there's touching and caressing involved, no penetration.



Anyway, the question here, if he goes free: When is it "OK" to kill someone through instinct, and when is it not? Does it have to involve something sexual? What if someone hits your child, is it alright to go into a rage and kill that person as well (with no punishment)?


----------



## kazuri (Jun 11, 2012)

That is a perfect way to get away with murder. Kill someone, get some of their saliva/skin cells and put it on your infant. Not only would it be near impossible to disprove, who would even try? the topic is so 'bad' most wouldn't dare dream of something like that happening..

I don't think thats what happened of course..


----------



## Tiger (Jun 11, 2012)

Joakim3 said:


> I think he will get off with a "light" sentence



Nope.



Goova said:


> This only got this long because no one knows what the law is







TammyTheMarine said:


> *At least if the father gets life*, he will have a good stoy to tell of why he's there. "What did you do?" "I raped someone. What about you?" "I killed a man for raping my daughter."



Lol what?



Mider T said:


> In the words of that guy from National Treasure "Somebody's gotta go to jail".



Do you guys even read? What part of "not being charged" "not breaking any laws" don't you get?


----------



## Mider T (Jun 11, 2012)

Oh I read it, but somebody's gotta go.  Whether or not it's somebody completely unrelated to this case is something else entirely.


----------



## LMJ (Jun 11, 2012)

I am not going to read all the posts but who actually felt bad for the guy who was killed?


----------



## Crimson King (Jun 11, 2012)

Lee Min Jung said:


> I am not going to read all the posts but who actually felt bad for the guy who was killed?



No one important


----------



## LMJ (Jun 11, 2012)

Glad to hear that. Something right on NF for once.


----------



## olehoncho (Jun 11, 2012)

Second Degree Murder or Voluntary Manslaughter charge most likely.

Will be interesting to see how it plays out in the courts.


----------



## Taco (Jun 11, 2012)

Pedo deserved it. Hopefully the protective father gets off easy (hey it's Texas). Any parent would have snapped like that if they saw that happening to their daughter right in front of their eyes.


----------



## Deleted member 161031 (Jun 12, 2012)

Fojos said:


> Anyway, the question here, if he goes free: When is it "OK" to kill someone through instinct, and when is it not? Does it have to involve something sexual? What if someone hits your child, is it alright to go into a rage and kill that person as well (with no punishment)?



there's no line. I think cases should be judge separately. in this case the man wasn't thinking straight, just defending, and he lost control of the situation. at times it happnes, you're frightened and lose control and harm the other person more that you would have had you thought straight. it's a sad outcome but not something I would punish.

in any other cases with different situations I would form my opinion depending of what happened too.


----------



## J. Fooly (Jun 12, 2012)

Mider T said:


> In the words of that guy from National Treasure "Somebody's gotta go to jail".
> 
> Also, you need to change your set.  This was Astaroth's last set.



I've had this set for months lol.


----------



## Tiger (Jun 12, 2012)

ol?honch? said:


> Second Degree Murder or Voluntary Manslaughter charge most likely.
> 
> Will be interesting to see how it plays out in the courts.



Not a chance.

Not _that_ interesting, as he isn't being charged with anything...


----------



## ShiggyDiggyDoo (Jun 12, 2012)

And nothing of value was lost.I can comfortably say that with absolute certainty. 

While the father understandably did go quite far in his way of handling things, I can say that the death of this person was likely better than the alternative. Let's go over a few things. A lot predators who get charged and sentenced to sexually assaulting a child practically get off easy. They don't get a long sentence in prison and are eventually released. They should NOT be released due to the damage they can eventually cause with the chance of repeating the crime. It's really sad when I see a released sex offender doing the same shit again. The justice system should wise up to how dangerous it is to let these people back out.


----------



## Taco (Jun 12, 2012)

Spartan1337 said:


> And nothing of value was lost.I can comfortably say that with absolute certainty.



Don't forget the pedo's horse grooming skills....


----------



## Tiger (Jun 12, 2012)

Fojos said:


> Anyway, the question here, if he goes free: When is it "OK" to kill someone through instinct, and when is it not? Does it have to involve something sexual? What if someone hits your child, is it alright to go into a rage and kill that person as well (with no punishment)?



You must think you're breaking new ground here, and that this case is setting some kind of bad precedent...but all that shows is you haven't read the thread.

Do yourself a favor and google "Justifiable Homicide". The law tells you when it's ok to kill someone...it's very explicit. We don't have to come up with those answers, they're already readily available.

Let's re-cap:

-The father broke no law.
-He is protected under Justifiable Homicide.
-The father is not being charged with anything.

He will not serve time in prison. He has done nothing wrong in the eyes of the law.

READ.


----------



## Fojos (Jun 12, 2012)

Law said:


> You must think you're breaking new ground here, and that this case is setting some kind of bad precedent...but all that shows is you haven't read the thread.
> 
> Do yourself a favor and google "Justifiable Homicide". The law tells you when it's ok to kill someone...it's very explicit. We don't have to come up with those answers, they're already readily available.
> 
> ...



No, it's not that clear. Because "justifiable homicide" is on a case-to-case basis. The law is also mostly there to protect police, not civilians.

In most cases civilians protected by it get charged with manslaughter instead of murder, they're not seen as free of guilt.

If the offender showed no sign of fighting back, he will get charged, as simple as that.

"However, there is less agreement on the extent to which it is ever justifiable to kill the attacker."

"A killing which occurs after _provocation_ by an event which would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control. There must not be a _cooling off period_  negating provocation. If there is an interval between the provocation  and killing sufficient to allow the passion of a reasonable person to  cool, the homicide is not *manslaughter*, but murder."


Read.


----------



## God (Jun 12, 2012)

law, what you fail to understand is the average jury member has less knowledge of the law than you
if this case goes to jury, dont have your mind set on your verdict, they make dumbfuck mistakes all the time


----------



## Magic (Jun 12, 2012)

Taco said:


> Don't forget the pedo's horse grooming skills....


----------



## zenieth (Jun 12, 2012)




----------



## Unlosing Ranger (Jun 12, 2012)

I feel sick.


----------



## Shock Therapy (Jun 12, 2012)

lol the pedo got curbstomped by punches. how sad


----------



## Opaste (Jun 12, 2012)

To be fair to Bioness, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that perhaps the p*d*p****'s death was an excessive price to pay for his crime. It's a fair point that as highly evolved creatures, members of our species should probably try to react to all kinds of harrowing situations in a well thought-out and reasonable manner and keep our calm. Emphasis on the word "try". It's wildly unrealistic to expect that anyone can keep their cool when their child is being molested in front of their eyes. Evolution has given us very strong instincts to protect our offspring, so this isn't really a question about morality at all - you don't protect your children from predators (sometimes even using excessive violence) because "it's the right thing to do" - you do it because every fiber in your body commands you to. So I really can't blame the father for what he did.

And for the record, even though I agree that in most situations the "good" and "moral" thing to do is probably to let the justice system do it's job, and not to take justice into your own hands (such as in cases where your child has already been molested, and you are only trying to achieve vengeance), and that as civilized people living in a civilized society we should try to follow that guideline, but I understand perfectly well that people are going to want to protect their loved ones, or failing that, avenge them. I know I would. It's pretty damn hard to "do the right/honorable/justified/whatever thing" when your instincts are telling you to put down some fucker who has hurt your loved ones.


----------



## Roman (Jun 12, 2012)

I can understand why the father did what he did. In all honesty, I'd have reacted in a similar way and not waste time talking to a scum who'd want to molest my 4 year old daughter, especially when he was a friend I believed I could trust. Killing him might have been excessive but he was overcome with rage that I believe everyone here can justify.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 12, 2012)

Just a heads up to people in this thread, if you ever kill someone and self-defence is a possible defence don't talk about how enraged you were and how it influenced the force used.


----------



## Masa (Jun 12, 2012)

Despite all the talk about the father acting through emotion and not being able to act rationally in that situation, in hindsight, it may have been the most rational choice anyways. 


Pros:
one less p*d*p**** around
less money spent on trying the p*d*p**** 
less money spent keeping him in jail
no chance of him getting off without punishment or with extremely light punishment as happens so often in our legal system
closure for the victim (if she can indeed even comprehend closure at 4)
no chance of the pedo harming the father or daughter while the police are on their way
no chance of the pedo harming the father and daughter after getting out of jail
a good chance to make Sam L. references

Cons:
bruised knuckles?
...


----------



## Tiger (Jun 12, 2012)

Cubey said:


> law, what you fail to understand is the average jury member has less knowledge of the law than you
> if this case goes to jury, dont have your mind set on your verdict, they make dumbfuck mistakes all the time



He's not being charged.

If it _ever makes it to a jury_, it means they ruled that it was not justifiable homicide.

The jury is not put into a position where it is possible for them to make a ruling that ignores the law. It's like you forget there's a judge in the proceedings.

Secondly, who's taking him to court exactly?

There's no claim, there's no suit. There are no charges. If a crown prosecutor was hired to make a case against him, the only thing that would matter is trying to convince the judge that it was not justifiable homicide, otherwise the judge would never let the case make it to court.

I haven't _failed to understand_ anything. I know the law quite well, and I know how to read.

Once the authorities decide that their initial decision to not press charges was an error, and they think the father was lying about his testimony...then we can talk about what might happen in court. Until then, he is protected by the law, and there are no charges laid against him.

It can not be any clearer than that.

----------------------------------------------------------

I already know how *I* would react if I had been in that father's shoes. I would have been swinging to knock my target unconscious. Every fiber of my being would be screaming at me to make sure he was no longer awake or physically able to hurt my child.

I'd like to think I'd know when to stop, but in a situation like that...you can never know, you can only prepare and hope. I'm a big guy, if I wound up and swung for the fences and you weren't prepared for it, odds are one solid connection would be enough to drag you out of my child's vicinity unconscious...but the scary thing is, what if it didn't? It's not as if you'll stop with one punch if what your entire body is considering a monster predator is still conscious near your child.

I wouldn't act differently if there was a cougar attacking my child as I would if there was a human sexual predator attacking my child. I would attack as fierce, as fast, and as powerful as possible to put that predator down in the shortest possible time.

And if you have kids, you'll do the same. That's why the law protects people like the man in this case.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 12, 2012)

Law said:


> He's not being charged.
> 
> If it _ever makes it to a jury_, it means they ruled that it was not justifiable homicide.
> 
> ...


You're incorrect, do you want me to tell you why?


----------



## Ceria (Jun 12, 2012)

Taco said:


> Don't forget the pedo's horse grooming skills....



apparently he was one of the best.


----------



## hammer (Jun 12, 2012)

the man is from texas he wont be charged even if it was murder.

also law you should just say something like "weaklings cannot pick their way of death, are you frustrated?"


----------



## Tzeentch (Jun 12, 2012)

The father was an Honorable bastion of righteous and his punch will be feared by the horrendous pedo's for the rest of eternity.


----------



## Sherlōck (Jun 12, 2012)

Overwatch said:


> No sympathy for pedophiles. I probably would've done the same.



Totally my thought.


----------



## impersonal (Jun 12, 2012)

Bohemian Knight Doma said:


> Not that I care about about the p*d*p****, but is it an easy thing to punch someone in the head until they die? I'll admit I don't know much about the human body but it just seems odd to me that several punches to the head can kill someone.


It happened in boxing matches... Many of them actually (638 listed here):



What happens when you take a punch is that the brain moves around inside the skull, bouncing inside it like a pinball. This can result in temporarily loss of consciousness, and death, even in a boxing match.

Now consider a fight outside of the ring:

No referee to stop the fight, possibly leading to repeated blows to a downed opponent
No gloves!!
Participants may be of different weights and strength
One participant may not know how to defend himself/reduce the force of the impact
One participant may bump his head on a concrete floor or other dangerous items

Death is clearly possible, and has often occured in bar fights. Movie fights trivialize the violence of a hand-to-hand fight ridiculously: typically, fighters take clean knock-out punch after clean knock-out punch for 5 minutes without getting hurt. A real boxer normally suffers some cognitive consequences for several days after an intense match, even though he is protected by his opponent's gloves, the referee, his evasive actions, etc. Even someone like Mike Tyson can be knocked out by a couple well-aimed shots:


No imagine the same scene without gloves... Seems tough alright. And replace Mike Tyson's neck (as thick as your thighs) with some skinny p*d*p****'s. The guy would have been literally beheaded... Against a slightly weaker opponent, merely dead on the spot.

So yes. The moral of the story is, don't believe the movies, and don't get into a real fistfight.


----------



## Keile (Jun 12, 2012)

Overwatch said:


> No sympathy for pedophiles. I probably would've done the same.



This. A million times this.


----------



## TSC (Jun 12, 2012)

Shock Therapy said:


> lol the pedo got curbstomped by punches. how sad





You're set couldn't be any more appropriate  




Ceria said:


> apparently he was one of the best.



He probably thought the little girl was a horse and wanted to "groom" her.


----------



## Golden Witch (Jun 12, 2012)

Father of the year.

Hope he doesn't get a Jail sentence.
Though, I don't know much about the US Law and Courts with the Jury System so naturally I can't judge on that.

Anyway:
It's an understandable situation, I'm sure nearly every Parent would have done the same.


----------



## Lina Inverse (Jun 12, 2012)

Damn p*d*p**** scum


----------



## aiyanah (Jun 12, 2012)

justified response from the father
the law wont see it the same way though, thats a shame


----------



## Zenith (Jun 12, 2012)

actually if the father hires a good lawyer,plays his cards right,his punishment can range from months in prison or few years to simple therapy,and not a single day behind bars


----------



## Golden Circle (Jun 12, 2012)

The father certainly won't be going to prison if that pedo hurt her enough so that she can't have kids. But hopefully it won't come to that.

The sick pedo deserved what he got.


----------



## Golden Witch (Jun 12, 2012)

aiyanah said:


> justified response from the father
> the law wont see it the same way though, thats a shame



Well here in Germany we'd call this Totschlag, and one gets a minimum of 5 years for it.


----------



## Goshinki (Jun 12, 2012)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoTqszMzMqc&feature=fvwrel[/YOUTUBE] He deserved to die.


----------



## Draffut (Jun 12, 2012)

Fojos said:


> People who think a few hits to the head from a fist kills you... yes they can, but it's extremely unlikely, he most likely kept hitting many times.
> 
> The head is more durable than other body parts, not less.



Except it is connected to the spinal column, and a good hit to the head can cause serius damage to the spine.  Also some parts ARE weaker than other, like the nose and temples can cause serious damage if hit.


----------



## 8-Peacock-8 (Jun 12, 2012)

What i learned from this thread: The dad deserves a meddle and Bionesse is a sick person who shouldn't be allowed in public because of all the shit he spouts out.


----------



## lazer (Jun 12, 2012)

Atleast break his arm.....but death?


----------



## Mael (Jun 12, 2012)

lazer said:


> Atleast break his arm.....but death?



Again...instinctive heat of the moment.


----------



## hadou (Jun 12, 2012)

The father should get some jail time, but not more than one year, along with some anger management therapy.


----------



## DoflaMihawk (Jun 12, 2012)

Seems a bit like overall, but I can see the guy's reasoning.


----------



## WraithX959 (Jun 12, 2012)

hadou said:


> The father should get some jail time, but not more than one year, along with some anger management therapy.



Yeah, not gonna happen. This is Texas we're talking about, the authorities aren't even bothering to press charges. They said they found no evidence to contradict the father's story.


----------



## 8-Peacock-8 (Jun 12, 2012)

hadou said:


> The father should get some jail time, but not more than one year, along with some anger management therapy.



So a guy seeing his daughter getting molested calls for anger management? 

Yeah because accidentally killing a guy to protect your daughter obviously means you need anger management.

And prison isn't happening either.


----------



## Louis-954 (Jun 12, 2012)

> Atleast break his arm.....but death?


So if you saw a guy raping your toddler daughter the first thought that runs through your mind would be to break his arm?? -_- You must not have any kids, this is like x2000 worse than walking in on a guy fucking your wife in your bed. If I, or any sensible father walked in on such an atrocity they'd beat the sick fuck to death or at least within an inch of his life. World would be a better place.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 12, 2012)

Holy ferret balls people this is not that complicated:




> ? 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
> (a) *A person  is justified in using deadly force against another*:
> (1)  if he would be justified in using force against the  other under Section 9.31;
> (2)  if a reasonable person in the actor's situation  would not have retreated;  and
> ...



Assuming the facts in the story are true the father would have been legally justified in pulling out a gun and shooting the guy.


----------



## Mael (Jun 12, 2012)

Texas law has spoken and the man's justified.  I hope to not see another shitty argument about "human reason" when your little girl is being molested by a fuckwit.  Honestly, where do you people get off with this insistence that we as humans stop and think about these things and blatantly ignore protective instinct?


----------



## 8-Peacock-8 (Jun 12, 2012)

Mael said:


> Texas law has spoken and the man's justified.  I hope to not see another shitty argument about "human reason" when your little girl is being molested by a fuckwit.  Honestly, where do you people get off with this insistence that we as humans stop and think about these things and blatantly ignore protective instinct?



Apparently genocidal nazi dip shits like Bionesse do.


----------



## Murdoc (Jun 12, 2012)

The father did nothing wrong.

The guy died doing what he possibly desired, Bohoo. Sick bastard.


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 12, 2012)

8-Peacock-8 said:


> Apparently genocidal nazi dip shits like Bionesse do.



Actually I have found out his posts were taken out of context. I'll let sauf explain it.



Saufsoldat said:


> Not really, just taken completely out of context. All of his posts were in a thread in which 20% of the human population needs to die and we get to choose who.
> 
> What's really insane is taking that opinion on a hypothetical scenario and then pretending it's Bioness's actual opinion on everything.
> 
> ...


----------



## drache (Jun 12, 2012)

Opaste said:


> To be fair to Bioness, I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that perhaps the p*d*p****'s death was an excessive price to pay for his crime. It's a fair point that as highly evolved creatures, members of our species should probably try to react to all kinds of harrowing situations in a well thought-out and reasonable manner and keep our calm. Emphasis on the word "try". It's wildly unrealistic to expect that anyone can keep their cool when their child is being molested in front of their eyes. Evolution has given us very strong instincts to protect our offspring, so this isn't really a question about morality at all - you don't protect your children from predators (sometimes even using excessive violence) because "it's the right thing to do" - you do it because every fiber in your body commands you to. So I really can't blame the father for what he did.
> 
> And for the record, even though I agree that in most situations the "good" and "moral" thing to do is probably to let the justice system do it's job, and not to take justice into your own hands (such as in cases where your child has already been molested, and you are only trying to achieve vengeance), and that as civilized people living in a civilized society we should try to follow that guideline, but I understand perfectly well that people are going to want to protect their loved ones, or failing that, avenge them. I know I would. It's pretty damn hard to "do the right/honorable/justified/whatever thing" when your instincts are telling you to put down some fucker who has hurt your loved ones.



Fair or not I side with the father, if this has happened to my sister the least that would have happened to the guy is a nice extended stay in the ICU

and I don't really care if that's moral or not,


----------



## Magic (Jun 12, 2012)

aiyanah said:


> justified response from the father
> the law wont see it the same way though, thats a shame



if this goes to court, I'm sure the DA will cut him a plea deal to just go to therapy or something. They won't send this man to jail. No jury would convict him.


----------



## Lord Raizen (Jun 12, 2012)

~Gesy~ said:


> It's really a complicated case, even though I wish him the best, it would be a precedent that murder is fine as long as it's justified.




It's not setting any such precedent. If the defendent had planned to kill the individual, id' be one thing. He was defending his child, and unfortunately let his emotion get the better of him.

If he had grabbed a gun and shot the guy who assaulted his daughter, it'd be one thing, but the killing intent isn't there in this case.

If they choose not to punish father for beating a man seen raping his daughter, it'd be setting an entirely different example. And that is that, justice is not all facts and figures. American justice should have a heart. That's why we have a jury of peers in the first place.


----------



## lazer (Jun 12, 2012)

Louis-954 said:


> So if you saw a guy raping your toddler daughter the first thought that runs through your mind would be to break his arm?? -_- You must not have any kids, this is like x2000 worse than walking in on a guy fucking your wife in your bed. If I, or any sensible father walked in on such an atrocity they'd beat the sick fuck to death or at least within an inch of his life. World would be a better place.



I would immobilize the person by breaking some bones, then take my child to safety, return and wait a while before calling the cops, so that the pain of the broken bones lasts. Then i would bleed all the money i can get out of the person through the law and let them rot in jail. If they go to jail and finish their sentence or don't go to jail, i would have a hitman assassinate the person. So, either way the person would die but not before compensating me first.


----------



## Mael (Jun 12, 2012)

lazer said:


> I would immobilize the person by breaking some bones, then take my child to safety, return and wait a while before calling the cops, so that the pain of the broken bones lasts. Then i would bleed all the money i can get out of the person through the law and let them rot in jail. If they go to jail and finish their sentence or don't go to jail, i would have a hitman assassinate the person. So, either way the person would die but not before compensating me first.



Hindsight doesn't suit you, dude.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 12, 2012)

Being dead doesn't get in the way of someone receiving compensation from the deceased estate.


----------



## zenieth (Jun 12, 2012)




----------



## impersonal (Jun 12, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Holy ferret balls people this is not that complicated:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I find it bizarre that you would post legislation stating one thing, and then go on to pretend it means the exact opposite.

The father said that he surprised an ongoing sexual assault, and then attacked the guy. From the father's story, it seems like the punching was not done to prevent or to stop the sexual assault (which we can guess ended the second the perpetrator was caught in the act). Instead, it was done in _retaliation_. Thus was therefore neither done to "prevent" sexual assault, and more importantly it was not "immediately necessary". In fact, no violence at all was _necessary_ in that case. The law you posted does not justify the father's actions (however justifiable/understandable they may be from a human and moral standpoint).


----------



## Gin (Jun 12, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Clearly not. The law states that violence is allowed to prevent sexual assault. In that case, the sexual assault probably stopped the instant the father surprised him; the punching was _retaliation_, which is not covered by the law (at least not the one you just mentioned).


Someone disturbed enough to molest a 4 year old shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to violence.   He could have physically attacked the kid or the father had the father not "retaliated".

He still represented a danger to the man's family, even if he did stop momentarily when the father surprised him.   If he was documented as actually attempting to flee, it would be another story.


----------



## impersonal (Jun 12, 2012)

Gin said:


> Someone disturbed enough to molest a 4 year old shouldn't be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to violence.   He could have physically attacked the kid or the father had the father not "retaliated".
> 
> He still represented a danger to the man's family, even if he did stop momentarily when the father surprised him.   If he was documented as actually attempting to flee, it would be another story.



Well, that's an interesting line of defense, but clearly that's not what actually happened. The notion that a child molester should necessarily also be a murderer or otherwise prone to violent physical assault is unsupported. In our case, there was no hint that the man could turn violent. So it's going to be hard to say that the father, by acting like that, stopped an immediate threat.

Furthermore, you also will not be able to argue that the father intended to do so (even if mistaken). Indeed, he was probably (understandably) mad about what he just saw, and wanted to punish the guy for doing this to his daughter. He was not thinking of protecting himself or his family, he was thinking of immediate retaliation.

In support of everything I just wrote, consider the fact that the father was remorseful -- he didn't intend to do that much harm to the child molester : suggesting (a) that he did intend to hurt him and (b) that his action was not fully necessary. Thus you have neither the right factual danger, nor the right intent. The level of violence used was clearly not justified by the law that EvilMoogle posted. I don't know about other laws, regarding "heat of the moment" actions for example; such laws would apply. But it seems almost certain, from the information available at the moment, that self-defense laws do not apply.

Again, I am speaking strictly about the legal aspect, not the moral one.


Edit:


> *First degree* murder is any murder that is willful and premeditated. Felony murder is typically first degree.
> *Second degree* murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance.
> *Voluntary manslaughter* sometimes called a "Heat of Passion" murder, is any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed." Both this and second degree murder are committed on the spot, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.
> *Involuntary manslaughter* stems from a lack of intention to cause death but involving an intentional, or negligent, act leading to death. A drunk driving-related death is typically involuntary manslaughter. Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional," because the killer did not intend for a death to result from his intentional actions. If there is a presence of intention it relates only to the intent to cause a violent act which brings about the death, but not an intention to bring about the death itself.


Seems like this cases mixes elements of voluntary and involuntary manslaughter -- considering that it was a heat-of-the-moment action, likely without intent to cause death.


----------



## Ultimania (Jun 12, 2012)

I would have done worse to that sick son of a bitch if I was in that father's shoes, so props to him.


----------



## EJ (Jun 12, 2012)

Can't he plea like a "moment of insanity"? I forgot the name of the law.


----------



## Gunners (Jun 12, 2012)

Well he is not being charged so he doesn't have to plea anything. 

Assuming that he was charged it'd be best for him to argue self-defense. I don't think insanity applies to him from my understanding it deals with the whether or not the defendant understood the nature or quality of their act. So failing insanity or self-defense he'd have to rely on loss of self-control as a defence which is only partial.

Really speaking he's fortunate that they have not decided to press charges against him as a lot of people would have a hard time accepting that the force he used was necessary.


----------



## Tiger (Jun 12, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Holy ferret balls people this is not that complicated:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yup.



RemChu said:


> *if this goes to court*, I'm sure the DA will cut him a plea deal to just go to therapy or something. They won't send this man to jail. No jury would convict him.



It will only go to court if they have reason to believe the father is lying about what happened.

At least EvilMoogle understands what's going on here, lol

There have been no charges, because under the law in the United States, what the father did was justified, and he is protected by it.

Now, if the father had learned later that the man had been sexually-assaulting his daughter, and then went out to find the perv and kill him - that's murder. You guys really need to understand the difference and what it means to the law.


----------



## EJ (Jun 12, 2012)

^ Ok, yes this makes sense.



Gunners said:


> Well he is not being charged so he doesn't have to plea anything.
> 
> Assuming that he was charged it'd be best for him to argue self-defense. I don't think insanity applies to him from my understanding it deals with the whether or not the defendant understood the nature or quality of their act. So failing insanity or self-defense he'd have to rely on loss of self-control as a defence which is only partial.
> 
> Really speaking he's fortunate that they have not decided to press charges against him as a lot of people would have a hard time accepting that the force he used was necessary.



And this too.


----------



## Kue (Jun 12, 2012)

People saying that the man deserves to die? I empathize with those feelings, but they are still savage thoughts.  Besides, do we really need to have a whole debate about the death penalty again?

Blindly just allowing anyone to get away with murder is a really risky thing to do.  Letting the guy do what he did (even though I do find it justifiable) and just letting him get away with it would put a bad example.  Criminals could see that and say "oh, if I deceive everyone that my victim is a p*d*p****, I can get away with murder".


----------



## Gunners (Jun 12, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> People saying that the man deserves to die? I empathize with those feelings, but they are still savage thoughts.  Besides, do we really need to have a whole debate about the death penalty again?
> 
> Blindly just allowing anyone to get away with murder is a really risky thing to do.  Letting the guy do what he did (even though I do find it justifiable) and just letting him get away with it would put a bad example.  Criminals could see that and say "oh, if I deceive everyone that my victim is a p*d*p****, I can get away with murder".



He's not walking free because the man is a p*d*p****, he is walking free because he was defending his daughter from what he perceived as an imminent threat. To that end we do need to encourage people to take reasonable steps to defend themselves and those around them.


----------



## Kue (Jun 12, 2012)

Gunners said:


> He's not walking free because the man is a p*d*p****, he is walking free because he was defending his daughter from what he perceived as an imminent threat. To that end we do need to encourage people to take reasonable steps to defend themselves and those around them.



Yes I know, I read the article.  That's not what I said in my post however.


----------



## Mist Puppet (Jun 12, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> Criminals could see that and say "oh, if I deceive everyone that my victim is a p*d*p****, I can get away with murder".



Criminals were never restricted from framing someone before this case. If they are now just thinking about it after seeing this, they are either really wet behind the ears or really stupid.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 12, 2012)

impersonal said:


> The father said that he surprised an ongoing sexual assault, and then attacked the guy. From the father's story, it seems like the punching was not done to prevent or to stop the sexual assault (which we can guess ended the second the perpetrator was caught in the act). Instead, it was done in _retaliation_. Thus was therefore neither done to "prevent" sexual assault, and more importantly it was not "immediately necessary". In fact, no violence at all was _necessary_ in that case. The law you posted does not justify the father's actions (however justifiable/understandable they may be from a human and moral standpoint).



That's not how it works.  If he surprised an ongoing assault (or an imminent assault) then his immediate actions are to prevent it.

It's only retaliatory if he goes after the p*d*p**** after the assault.  Basically if his daughter had told him about the assault after-the-fact and he hunted the p*d*p**** down and killed him that would be retaliatory (or if the p*d*p**** had surrendered or any other similar situation).

Plus you assume that the father waited at all.  I wouldn't.


----------



## impersonal (Jun 12, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> That's not how it works.  If he surprised an ongoing assault (or an imminent assault) then his immediate actions are to prevent it.
> 
> It's only retaliatory if he goes after the p*d*p**** after the assault.  Basically if his daughter had told him about the assault after-the-fact and he hunted the p*d*p**** down and killed him that would be retaliatory (or if the p*d*p**** had surrendered or any other similar situation).
> 
> Plus you assume that the father waited at all.  I wouldn't.


Meh, I re-read the article and it does mention that the punching was done to "stop" the assault. However, I have very high doubts that the sexual assault continued after the man was caught in the act. To me, it seems pretty obvious that, as soon as the p*d*p**** got discovered, he stopped. 

That the father "necessarily" had to punch to stop the assault, as opposed to simplly making his presence known, seems utterly unbelievable.

Regarding what constitutes relatiation: that's not a legal term. So I'm a hundred percent certain that even if you retaliate IMMEDIATELY after something wrong was done, that's retaliation. Regarding self-defense: I don't believe there exists a notion of self-defense that applies after the crime was committed, eg. catching a thief in the act, and shooting him dead when he is already outside your house, fleeing.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Jun 12, 2012)

Holy shit! This is so badass! 
I am smiling so wide right now. 

Best father ever. Must have had one hell of an adrenaline rush.


----------



## EJ (Jun 12, 2012)

Cold Dish said:


> People saying that the man deserves to die? I empathize with those feelings, but they are still savage thoughts.  Besides, do we really need to have a whole debate about the death penalty again?



Uh, yeah. That p*d*p**** got what was coming to him. 



> Blindly just allowing anyone to get away with murder is a really risky thing to do.  Letting the guy do what he did (even though I do find it justifiable) and just letting him get away with it would put a bad example.  Criminals could see that and say "oh, if I deceive everyone that my victim is a p*d*p****, I can get away with murder".



You're looking too hard into things. If this situation was correct (by the father's side) he got what he deserved.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Jun 12, 2012)

Bioness said:


> You people should be ashamed of yourselves, no one had to die in this situation had it been handled rationally.



You are the lamest person ever..

"Handled rationally"? Do you think before you type? Someone is RAPING your daughter, and you want to try, and handle this "rationally"?

What would you do? Calmly leave the room, and call the police? Would you try to plead to the man? 

_"Would you please stop raping my daughter Sir? This is highly inappropriate, and unbefitting of a house guest."_

You're either a troll, or incredibly deluded.


----------



## Gogeta (Jun 12, 2012)

ImperatorMortis said:


> "Handled rationally" do you think before you type? Someone is RAPING your daughter, and you want to try, and handle this "rationally"?
> 
> What would you do? Calmly leave the room, and call the police? Would you try to plead to the man?
> 
> ...



Or just fucked up.


----------



## the box (Jun 12, 2012)

good may the pedo trash rot


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Jun 12, 2012)

Gogeta said:


> Or just fucked up.



Most likely. I just.. I just can comprehend this guys line of thinking. 

And from what I read in this thread so far, he advocates *genocide*, yet says this guys death was unnecessary? 

I swear.. I don't know whether to be upset at him, or feel sorry for him. 

The man clearly has issues.


----------



## Raidou Kuzunoha (Jun 12, 2012)

ImperatorMortis said:


> You are the lamest person ever..
> 
> "Handled rationally"? Do you think before you type? Someone is RAPING your daughter, and you want to try, and handle this "rationally"?
> 
> ...



Rationality doesn't exist when a father or any sane human being in fact defends their loved ones from danger.

What's gonna go through a person's head is not "oh I'm gonna think things through like a tool", it's gonna be more like "I'm gonna kick their ass and I'm gonna do it correctly and if he (or they) die, then so be it". Or more like a blur of pure rage.

And anything Bioness says is null and void yet again. A fool as usual.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Jun 12, 2012)

Raidou Kuzunoha said:


> What's gonna go through a person's head is not "oh I'm gonna think things through like a tool", it's gonna be more like "I'm gonna kick their ass and I'm gonna do it correctly and if he (or they) die, then so be it". Or more like a blur of pure rage.



I agree. I don't think I'm that great a fighter, but if someone was raping my child, or anyone really. I would go berserk. 

No fucks would be given about that persons(or my own)well being.


----------



## EJ (Jun 12, 2012)

Raidoton even if it was "in a certain situation" it just seemed like some excuse to see if anyone actually believed a continent should be killed off.


----------



## Judas (Jun 12, 2012)

pedos>underdeveloped brutes


----------



## Zenith (Jun 12, 2012)

> pedos>*underdeveloped brutes*



subective         .


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jun 12, 2012)

Not that I agree with Bioness at all, because I don't, but lets get a couple things straight.

1. The girl _was not_ raped.  She was molested, but not actually raped.  Huge difference.  

2. You should all chill out on the flaming.  You don't have to agree with the guy or like him, but you won't get your point across by repeating insults 24/7.  It's pretty well established that he's said some controversial things in this thread that a lot of people oppose, no need to emphasize it further.  Attacking his arguments is enough at this point.


----------



## Cthulhu-versailles (Jun 12, 2012)

I'd need to know more details on what kind of "abuse" was occurring before I could take a side. The same goes for what kind of beating the father gave the abuser. In any case, I usually believe any death not related to self-defense deserves an automatic life-sentence. There should be no forgiveness. There is no justice when you can kill someone, be pronounced guilty, and then walk out with your whole life ahead of you minus a year or two. Our system is too soft in some areas, and absolutely too hard in others.


----------



## ImperatorMortis (Jun 12, 2012)

Cthulhu-versailles said:


> I usually believe any death not related to self-defense deserves an automatic life-sentence.



It Self-Defense. Technically. Its defense of another. 

No one is going to jail, and he wouldn't deserve it. Besides it wouldn't be a good message to send.


----------



## Megaharrison (Jun 12, 2012)

Oh ho ho. My children, this thread is to:

A.) Discuss the story

Not to

A.) Attack bioness (or have bioness attack others)
B.) Have a pedo vs whatever discussion (Can't be bothered to read these arguments)

Bioness isn't going to post in this thread anymore. Keep this on topic. Failure to comply will get you sent to the countryside for reeducation.


----------



## The Immortal WatchDog (Jun 12, 2012)

Judas said:


> pedos>underdeveloped brutes



spectacular reasoning by a true master.


If I was a member of this sites LGBT community I'd be ashamed that this person was our self appointed spokesperson and try to have to him removed. The outcry against him from his own peers should be far louder than it seems to be. Their doing themselves a disservice with their silence 



Raidou Kuzunoha said:


> The ironic part about it all is that Bioness is black.
> 
> He's an honest to god Uncle Ruckus made flesh.



that makes me feel ashamed for being a repentant Argentine..



afgpride said:


> 1. The girl _was not_ raped.  She was molested, but not actually raped.  Huge difference.



There is no difference..the damage is just as severe and the action just as barbaric




afgpride said:


> 2. You should all chill out on the flaming.  You don't have to agree with the guy or like him, but you won't get your point across by repeating insults 24/7.  It's pretty well established that he's said some controversial things in this thread that a lot of people oppose, no need to emphasize it further.  *Attacking his arguments is enough at this point.*



that's exactly what we're doing.. Alas though we aren't dealing with a rational human being



Megaharrison said:


> Oh ho ho. My children, this thread is to:
> 
> A.) Discuss the story
> 
> ...



so he's done? Spectacular then I'll cease the heat immediately and thank you for being diplomatic in your desire to keep the peace boss man

gladly I'll return to the topic at hand


----------



## ShiggyDiggyDoo (Jun 12, 2012)

Cthulhu-versailles said:


> I'd need to know more details on what kind of "abuse" was occurring before I could take a side. The same goes for what kind of beating the father gave the abuser. In any case, I usually believe any death not related to self-defense deserves an automatic life-sentence. There should be no forgiveness. There is no justice when you can kill someone, be pronounced guilty, and then walk out with your whole life ahead of you minus a year or two. *Our system is too soft in some areas, and absolutely too hard in others*.


Yes it is, which is why I liked this result, more than the alternative, which was this man getting off essentially easy and serving jail time for like a decade or so before getting out.

Thing is, people who sexually molest kids usually serve less time than those who get caught with child porn within their computer. Something's not right here.

It's also a little off topic but there's also the problem of those who get sentenced for a long time for drug charges.


----------



## Nevermind (Jun 12, 2012)

Topic at hand: the guy is a scumbag, I feel no sympathy for him, and the father deserves zero penalties. On the contrary, he deserves an award.


----------



## The Weeknd (Jun 12, 2012)

He did his job.


----------



## Deleted member 198194 (Jun 12, 2012)

The Immortal WatchDog said:


> There is no difference..the damage is just as severe and the action just as barbaric


Yeah, a four year old getting touched in the wrong place is the same as it would have been had he forced her into sex.  The damage is clearly the same and so would the mental trauma be.  No difference at all.


Way to discredit yourself.


> that's exactly what we're doing.. Alas though we aren't dealing with a rational human being


Except that's not all you were doing, you kept repeating insults and flaming the shit out of him.  Attacking arguments is all that was _needed_, and that doesn't imply you weren't doing that, only that you were doing unnecessary things along with it.  Not hard to understand.


----------



## Tsuchi (Jun 12, 2012)

I'm not saying that taking someone else's life is justified no matter the situation, or whether it was intentional or not, but damn I would have done the very same or even worse if I was in his position. Just the image alone in my head was disturbing enough, so we can only imagine what was going through the father's head when he saw someone he trusted violating his babygirl.


----------



## dummy plug (Jun 12, 2012)

you can just imagine his rage and disgust when he saw the perv doing that to his daughter


----------



## Lina Inverse (Jun 13, 2012)

WTF

why are there so many deleted posts


----------



## Mikaveli (Jun 13, 2012)

Mider T said:


> He'll probably get life, as the law is the law but hey no regrets.  He probably feels like Sam Jackson in a Time to Kill right now.



I doubt that. He'll get little to no time.


----------



## Kue (Jun 13, 2012)

Flow said:


> Uh, yeah. That p*d*p**** got what was coming to him.



So you support the death penalty for crimes?

This situation is different how it was made on self-defense, but you've said yourself that he deserved to die.


----------



## EJ (Jun 13, 2012)

"he had it coming, he only had himself to blame. If ya had been there. If ya had seen it, I bet yaddayadda". I think this guy deserved to die f the fathers story is correct. I would shake the father's hand.


----------



## Outlandish (Jun 13, 2012)

Bohemian Knight Doma said:


> Not that I care about about the p*d*p****, but is it an easy thing to punch someone in the head until they die? I'll admit I don't know much about the human body but it just seems odd to me that several punches to the head can kill someone.



It doesn't take many hits to the head to die. 

Though he may have went overboard i can understand his sentiments. I hope he doesn't get jail time.


----------



## Fojos (Jun 13, 2012)

Opaste said:


> you do it because every fiber in your body commands you to. So I really can't blame the father for what he did.



Interesting how often children are abused in different ways by their own parents, isn't it?

If we all had an inherent instinct to protect our own, that wouldn't happen (back in the day, it was even commonplace).



Rainbow Dash said:


> The father certainly won't be going to  prison if that pedo hurt her enough so that she can't have kids. But  hopefully it won't come to that.
> 
> The sick pedo deserved what he got.



Hurt her enough she can't have kids? Again, be reasonable. It was most likely petting, nothing else. Could have been penetration, yes, but it's extremely unlikely.


----------



## OS (Jun 13, 2012)

Good for the dad.


----------



## vampiredude (Jun 13, 2012)

On a personal level i understand why he did it.

But nonetheless there is a reason we have justce systems around the world. 

Vigilantism leads to anarchy.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 13, 2012)

vampiredude said:


> On a personal level i understand why he did it.
> 
> But nonetheless there is a reason we have justce systems around the world.
> 
> Vigilantism leads to anarchy.



You'll note, the justice system in every 1st world country has exemptions relating to self defense and defense of others.

Did the pedo need to die?  No.  Is it a miscarriage of justice if this father doesn't even see a court?  Hell no, what he did was perfectly legal.  He was completely within his rights to kill that son of a bitch to stop the assault.  You cannot even say he used excessive force as he didn't even have a weapon.


----------



## Tiger (Jun 13, 2012)

vampiredude said:


> On a personal level i understand why he did it.
> 
> But nonetheless there is a reason we have justce systems around the world.
> 
> Vigilantism leads to anarchy.



It wasn't vigilantism.

Read the thread.

The father is not being charged, as he's broken no law. Come on people, READ.


----------



## Crowned Clown (Jun 13, 2012)

In case this hasn't been posted. From Texas Penal Code Chapter 9



> quote:
> Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
> 
> (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
> ...




It is looking however that this is going to a Grand Jury to determine justification.


----------



## hammer (Jun 13, 2012)

I have lost faith in all the americans in here thinking he will go to jail, I hope you never get jury duty for anything since you are showing you dont understand law at all.


----------



## Patchouli (Jun 13, 2012)

I saw "father kills man sexually" on the front page and was instantly interested.

Was not what I was expecting from this thread.


----------



## Lina Inverse (Jun 13, 2012)

Ms. T said:


> I saw "father kills man sexually" on the front page and was instantly interested.
> 
> Was not what I was expecting from this thread.



this is like the second time someone thought of this


----------



## Patchouli (Jun 13, 2012)

Lina Inverse said:


> this is like the second time someone thought of this



It's an honest mistake anyone could make.


----------



## Lina Inverse (Jun 13, 2012)

But of course


----------



## impersonal (Jun 14, 2012)

Crowned Clown said:


> In case this hasn't been posted. From Texas Penal Code Chapter 9
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It has been posted before... It seems to me that this is not going to be useful in this case. He's going to have a very hard time showing that he couldn't just grab his daughter and go away, and that punching the man to death was "immediately necessary".

So, if charges are pressed, this is going to go as voluntary or possibly involuntary manslaughter, with strong attenuating circumstances. The man could spend up to a few years behind bars, though probably he'll get only few months.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 14, 2012)

impersonal said:


> It has been posted before... It seems to me that this is not going to be useful in this case. He's going to have a very hard time showing that he couldn't just grab his daughter and go away, and that punching the man to death was "immediately necessary".


Sigh, again you don't understand how imminent defense works.

Imagine this, you walk into a room and see someone punch a friend of yours knocking the friend to the ground.  Can you attack the stranger to defend your friend?  Or do you have to wait for him to start punching again because he's "not currently attacking him."

According to the articles the father walked in in the middle of the p*d*p**** molesting his daughter.  He has every right to attack the man to make him stop (and ensure that he stays stopped).

By the definitions you're trying to use you could basically _never_ use force to defend yourself or another.

It would only work the way you're trying to make it if the father took his daughter away and came back to attack, or if the situation had otherwise obviously had time to diffuse.  There is _no indication_ in any of the stories about this that this is the case.



impersonal said:


> So, if charges are pressed, this is going to go as voluntary or possibly involuntary manslaughter, with strong attenuating circumstances. The man could spend up to a few years behind bars, though probably he'll get only few months.


Even if they find cause for charges to be pressed, I imagine the father will get off with just parole.  He attacked with his bare hands so it's pretty clear he wasn't intending to kill (so it would be manslaughter not Murder 1 or 2), and given the rather unique circumstances I doubt anyone wants to put this in front of a jury.

But I seriously doubt any charges will ever be filed against him.

(Again assuming no new evidence comes up like the father's hand-written plan to frame the guy and kill him working with his daughter as an accomplice  )


----------



## J. Fooly (Jun 14, 2012)

Fojos said:


> Interesting how often children are abused in different ways by their own parents, isn't it?
> 
> If we all had an inherent instinct to protect our own, that wouldn't happen (back in the day, it was even commonplace).
> 
> ...



Spanking your kid is not fucking child abuse.


----------



## DeK3iDE (Jun 14, 2012)

i don't blame the dad one bit for going off on the culprit, but he's gotta sack up and face the prison time. It's bad enough the court system is a joke but it doesn't need to be made a bigger joke of when ppl can do w/e they want and get off because the jury sympathizes with them. Since he did the crime he's gotta do the time


----------



## EJ (Jun 14, 2012)

HE DOESNT HAVE TO DO ANY TIME

THERE WAS NO CRIME


----------



## Jello Biafra (Jun 14, 2012)

Flow said:


> HE DOESNT HAVE TO DO ANY TIME
> 
> THERE WAS NO CRIME



That's the grand jury's job to decide.

Legally, unless you reasonably fear for your own life, or for the life of another, you can't use lethal force in defense. We do this so that dueling to the death won't be de facto legalized.


----------



## Ben Tennyson (Jun 14, 2012)

i gues that child pussy was to die for.


----------



## Mael (Jun 14, 2012)

Jello Biafra said:


> That's the grand jury's job to decide.
> 
> Legally, unless you reasonably fear for your own life, or for the life of another, you can't use lethal force in defense. We do this so that dueling to the death won't be de facto legalized.



I believe Kira Yamato posted the Texas law that gave proper defense to the father's actions.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 14, 2012)

Jello Biafra said:


> Legally, unless you reasonably fear for your own life, or for the life of another, you can't use lethal force in defense. We do this so that dueling to the death won't be de facto legalized.


Not in Texas, you can use it:


> to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping,  murder, *sexual assault*, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or  aggravated robbery.


----------



## Enclave (Jun 14, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Not in Texas, you can use it:



Sexual assault is one of the exceptions pretty much everywhere, not just Texas.


----------



## Blackfeather Dragon (Jun 14, 2012)

He did well


----------



## letsplaybingo (Jun 15, 2012)

He did a good job. I would do the same thing if I saw that happening to my child, even if I had to do some jail time afterward.


----------



## impersonal (Jun 15, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Sigh, again you don't understand how imminent defense works.


 Sigh, some guy thinks starting his post with "sigh" is going to promote a healthy debate.


EvilMoogle said:


> Imagine this, you walk into a room and see someone punch a friend of yours knocking the friend to the ground.  Can you attack the stranger to defend your friend?  Or do you have to wait for him to start punching again because he's "not currently attacking him."


Imagine this. You walk into a room and see someone punch a friend of yours. The guy stops the attack and wants to get away and flee, but you punch him until he dies. Is that imminent defense? It's pretty easy to imagine further aggravating circumstances; e.g. you're Mike Tyson, you walk in to your son getting bullied, and you punch to death the poor teenage bloke as he pleads for mercy.

But perhaps I'm a bit influenced by my own mental reconstitution of the event. Since one guy (the father) killed the other (the p*d*p**** horse groomer) with a punch, I imagined that the father must have been much larger and stronger than the p*d*p****. Furthermore, since the two guys knew each other, it seemed to me that the primary attitude of the p*d*p****/molester would not be to display further agression/threat, but rather a mix of awkwardness and (useless, given the situation) apologizing.

If that was not the case, I can imagine that the father still felt rightfully threatened afterwards; but I would also have imagined that the father would have mentioned it. But if that was the case, the threat was removed the second he made his presence known. Depending on which of these interpretations is correct, imminent self-defense applies, or not.



EvilMoogle said:


> Even if they find cause for charges to be pressed, I imagine the father will get off with just parole.  He attacked with his bare hands so it's pretty clear he wasn't intending to kill (so it would be manslaughter not Murder 1 or 2), and given the rather unique circumstances I doubt anyone wants to put this in front of a jury.


That's kind of weird. You're repeating just what I posted earlier, except you're mixing it with a bit of false information. I mean, how is attacking with his bare hands proving anything? If he did intend to kill, what do you think he would have done? Told the guy to wait there as he went and searched his home for a weapon, or just keep punching him as hard as he could, making the guy's head bounce between the floor and his fists until he stopped breathing? The forensics report will show whether the damages inflicted are consistent with merely trying to incapacitate the other guy (i.e. a single knock-out) or not. The story will determine whether incapacitating the other guy was necessary.

All in all, I think you're blinded by your desire to see him innocented. I can understand that. But I'm not so sure that you can so easily invoke defense of a third-party, given the circumstances (they were acquainted, etc.). It's not like he walked onto a group of thugs in a side-street, and had reasonable grounds to believe that violence was necessary -- as opposed to rage towards the other guy.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 15, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Imagine this. You walk into a room and see someone punch a friend of yours. The guy stops the attack and wants to get away and flee, but you punch him until he dies.


"The guy stops ... and wants to get away and flee."

EVERY article on this says the father interrupted the p*d*p**** in the middle of a sexual assault.  You are the one making up the "well he must have stopped the assualt when the father entered.  And clearly the then allowed the father to safely pick up his daughter and all the poor little p*d*p**** wanted to do was flee the scenario."

If we're making up details to fit our view of it, why don't we just try this one.  The father interrupted the p*d*p**** who then rather than zipping up picked up his shotgun and moved to shoot the father.  Thinking quickly the father attacked the armed p*d*p**** with his bare hands and through a lucky single punch caused hemorrhaging in his brain killing him nearly instantly."

In a case of self defense (or defense of other) you do not have to stop your attack to make sure the criminal is still okay and doesn't want to quit.  _If_ evidence comes up that the man had surrendered and obviously no longer proved a threat then that will change things.  But there _is no evidence of that_ right now.

Based on the articles we've seen the father interrupted the assault by attacking the man.  This explicitly makes it legal by Texas law.



Lets try again:You enter a room of your home and see a man stomp on the head of your friend's broken and bloody body.  The man's fists are stained with your friends blood.  He grins at you and says "I'm done here" and turns to leave.​Legally justified in attacking him?


Yes: He's still in the commission of an assault, you're free to attack him in the defense of your friend.
Yes: He became a violent intruder in your home the moment he assaulted your friend, he's obviously a dangerous person and you have the right to attack him to feel safe in your home.
Yes: He's guilty of at least assault (that you witnessed), you have the right to detain him under a citizen's arrest.
No: He wants to leave now thus there's nothing you can do to stop him.


----------



## the box (Jun 15, 2012)

Bioness said:


> Link the threads all 20-25 of them, and if you do you will find the answer the same as the one I am about to give you.
> 
> For the last time and this is for all of you, I don't support any form of  pedophilia, however it is disgusting seeing how my species reacts over  such a behavior without any real justification for the reason for the  behavior. You are no different than those idiot who would burn witches  because they thought they placed curses on them when, even if the  "curses" were also small time as is this.
> 
> *I think pedophilia should be treated so that they can control their urges, it is not the thoughts that matter but the actions, you cannot stop a p*d*p**** from thinking about sexual relationships with children but you can treat them* so that they can exert those thoughts in healthy ways, such as activities or perusing a relationship with someone closer to their age.



so can i use this same excuse for gay and transgender people  

dont by a hypocrite


----------



## Hand Banana (Jun 15, 2012)

the box said:


> so can i use this same excuse for gay and transgender people
> 
> dont by a hypocrite



Why shouldn't he by a hypocrite?


----------



## KyuubiFan (Jun 15, 2012)

He shouldn't feel any remorse. He did well.


----------



## Raidoton (Jun 15, 2012)

the box said:


> so can i use this same excuse for gay and transgender people
> 
> dont by a hypocrite


How is he a hypocrite? What "excuse" do you wanna use now?


----------



## Stringer (Jun 15, 2012)

I sympathize with him. That said, as much as I hate it, the justice system can't condone his actions. So hopefully the sentence he receives won't be too severe.

Personally, I would let him walk away.


----------



## whatuwan (Jun 15, 2012)

The father should be commended for his bravery .


----------



## -Dargor- (Jun 16, 2012)

Its a normal reaction to walking in on some a-hole fingering your 4 years old daughter.

Hot white rage and the need to punch.

Let him walk, nothing of value was lost.


----------



## Kirito (Jun 16, 2012)

J. Fooly said:


> Spanking your kid is not fucking child abuse.



If done right.

If done wrong then obviously not.


----------



## zenieth (Jun 16, 2012)




----------



## skins (Jun 16, 2012)

Sucks the guy died, but yeah, no sympathy whatsoever.


----------



## J. Fooly (Jun 16, 2012)

Kirito said:


> If done right.
> 
> If done wrong then obviously not.



Yeah, because when it's done right, it's called Discipline.

When it's done wrong, its called Child Abuse.


----------



## butcher50 (Jun 16, 2012)

Big Bad Wolf said:


> i don't blame the dad one bit for going off on the culprit, but he's gotta sack up and face the prison time. It's bad enough the court system is a joke but it doesn't need to be made a bigger joke of when ppl can do w/e they want and get off because the jury sympathizes with them. Since he did the crime he's gotta do the time





you moralfags make me sick.


----------



## impersonal (Jun 16, 2012)

butcher50 said:


> you moralfags make me sick.



Aren't you the moralfag here, faggotfag? He's just being a justicefag.


----------



## impersonal (Jun 16, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> "The guy stops ... and wants to get away and flee."
> 
> EVERY article on this says the father interrupted the p*d*p**** in the middle of a sexual assault.


When exactly did I dispute that? Do you have reading comprehension issues? I was just making a different example, to give a counterpoint to your own example.



EvilMoogle said:


> You are the one making up the "well he must have stop
> ped the assualt when the father entered.  And clearly the then allowed the father to safely pick up his daughter and all the poor little p*d*p**** wanted to do was flee the scenario."


I'm not sure why you assume that I sympathize with the p*d*p****. You're just so overwhelmed by your feelings on this issue that you can't look at the facts straight. What I'm making is a reasonable inference based on what is known. It is not a hundred percent certain, but it is probable. I also did not say that the p*d*p**** tried to flee. 



EvilMoogle said:


> If we're making up details to fit our view of it, why don't we just try this one.  The father interrupted the p*d*p**** who then rather than zipping up picked up his shotgun and moved to shoot the father.  Thinking quickly the father attacked the armed p*d*p**** with his bare hands and through a lucky single punch caused hemorrhaging in his brain killing him nearly instantly."


The difference between my description and yours is that yours is impossible. No shotgun was found on the scene, and multiple punches apparently caused the death.




EvilMoogle said:


> Lets try again:You enter a room of your home and see a man stomp on the head of your friend's broken and bloody body.  The man's fists are stained with your friends blood.  He grins at you and says "I'm done here" and turns to leave.​Legally justified in attacking him?
> 
> 
> Yes: He's still in the commission of an assault, you're free to attack him in the defense of your friend.
> ...


In your example, he's obviously not still in the commission of an assault, considering he stopped the moment you entered. Secondly, if the guy is leaving already and trying to show that he is no longer posing any threat to anyone, there is no point in attacking him "to feel safe in your home": by doing so you would be exposing yourself to danger, if anything.

Only the third point is valid. And this makes sense: the only reason why the law would allow you to attack someone, in that situation, is for restraining the man so that the law can deal with him. Not for punishing him/retaliating about your friend. And not for defending your friend, considering that your actions will not change anything with regards to your friend.

If you were to beat up the guy continuously and with such strength that he eventually dies, and it can be shown that you voluntarily used more violence than was necessary for restraining and/or your own security, then you will be liable for manslaughter. 

Consider however two major differences between the case of your example and the case we are debating: 
1) in your example, the assaillant is a violent person (and apparently good at it), thus likely at any point to use more violence. In the story, we have no indications of that; we only know that the man is a pervert. That changes the situation completely with regards to whether or not violence is necessary for stopping, restraining or any safety purposes.
2) in your example, the identity of the assaillant is unknown, so nothing is known of his actual dangerosity and the amount of violence needed to safely subdue (kill) him. Furthermore, if he was to escape, it would be difficult to find him. In the news story, the p*d*p****'s identity is known.

(One thing I'm not sure about is how the fact that it was the father's house factors in.)


----------



## vampiredude (Jun 16, 2012)

wait he saw it happening and tried to stop it? 

yes then it was personal defence and rightly justified.


----------



## cnorwood (Jun 16, 2012)

GAIZ THINK ABOUT THE p*d*p**** HE WAS STILL HUMAN. THE FATHER SHOULDVE ACTED RATIONALY AND AT LEAST LET HIM FINISH BEFORE DOING ANYTHING.


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 16, 2012)

impersonal said:


> In your example, he's obviously not still in the commission of an assault, considering he stopped the moment you entered.


Great, he then laughs when you show no resistance and crushes your friend's head killing him.
*BAD END*​


impersonal said:


> Secondly, if the guy is leaving already and trying to show that he is no longer posing any threat to anyone, there is no point in attacking him "to feel safe in your home": by doing so you would be exposing yourself to danger, if anything.


As the man walks by you to leave he decides he doesn't need to leave any witnesses to his assault, he breaks you in half like he did your friend.  When you wake up in the hospital four weeks later you hear that the police are still looking for him.

*BAD END*​ 




impersonal said:


> Only the third point is valid. And this makes sense: the only reason why the law would allow you to attack someone, in that situation, is for restraining the man so that the law can deal with him. Not for punishing him/retaliating about your friend. And not for defending your friend, considering that your actions will not change anything with regards to your friend.


And did you read the article in question?  The father says he was simply trying to stop the p*d*p**** not that he was trying to punish him.  The fact that the p*d*p**** ended up dead was due to the inherent danger of such a physical confrontation.



impersonal said:


> If you were to beat up the guy continuously and with such strength that he eventually dies, and it can be shown that you voluntarily used more violence than was necessary for restraining and/or your own security, then you will be liable for manslaughter.


That's really the only point that makes sense.  It all depends on the duration of the assault.

If the father kept up his attack for minutes even after the p*d*p**** fell limp laughing with bloodlust as the skull cracked under his blows he _might_ be guilty of manslaughter.  Of course we don't have any evidence whatsoever that this was the case.

If the father simply launched a flurry of punches knocking the man to the ground targeting the head (as is a natural target) and was unskilled in hand-to-hand combat and thus didn't realize in the 30 seconds the confrontation went on what the damage was then he's not guilty of anything.  This agrees with his story in the article.

Here's a question for you:  Was the father treated for broken hands or  fingers?  An unskilled fighter punching a man in the skull over and over hard enough to certainly kill is likely going to break something.  If the father didn't my (admittedly unskilled and ignorant of the facts) medical opinion is the p*d*p**** had a tragic weakness rather than the father being a kild-blooded killer.



impersonal said:


> Consider however two major differences between the case of your example and the case we are debating:


Okay 



impersonal said:


> 1) in your example, the assaillant is a violent person (and apparently good at it), thus likely at any point to use more violence. In the story, we have no indications of that; we only know that the man is a pervert. That changes the situation completely with regards to whether or not violence is necessary for stopping, restraining or any safety purposes.


Texas law makes no distinction between sexual assault and aggravated assault as far as lethal-defense-of-other.  Which might be because sexual assault (especially of minors) can do as much psychological and developmental damage as physical assault.  Or might just be because Texas likes killing criminals, I don't know.

So your point is invalid.



impersonal said:


> 2) in your example, the identity of the assaillant is unknown, so nothing is known of his actual dangerosity and the amount of violence needed to safely subdue (kill) him. Furthermore, if he was to escape, it would be difficult to find him. In the news story, the p*d*p****'s identity is known.


So assume that this is a party hosted at your home and the assailant is a friend-of-a-friend that you casually know.   You don't know how prone to violence his is nor do you know how skilled of a fighter he is.

Does this change any of your answers above?



impersonal said:


> (One thing I'm not sure about is how the fact that it was the father's house factors in.)


Legally it doesn't, the father is still legally allowed to use lethal force to defend his daughter.  The fact that it's his home makes it a little clearer though as it defeats some of the "duty to retreat" arguments.


----------



## butcher50 (Jun 16, 2012)

cnorwood said:


> GAIZ THINK ABOUT THE p*d*p**** HE WAS STILL HUMAN. THE FATHER SHOULDVE ACTED RATIONALY AND AT LEAST LET HIM FINISH BEFORE DOING ANYTHING.



let the man cum in !


----------



## impersonal (Jun 16, 2012)

EvilMoogle said:


> Great, he then laughs when you show no resistance and crushes your friend's head killing him.
> *BAD END*​
> 
> As the man walks by you to leave he decides he doesn't need to leave any witnesses to his assault, he breaks you in half like he did your friend.  When you wake up in the hospital four weeks later you hear that the police are still looking for him.
> ...


Great, if you're going to act retarded, don't expect me to give you the benefit of the doubt. Using SIZE=5 and colors won't make me accept your argument, which is already idiotic in its form.

Both of the scenarios you described should obviously be avoided. However, you presented the story in such a way that both could have been impossible (depending on the distance between you and the man as you surprise him, the existence of another exit, whether the man had already started walking away, etc, etc.). My answers were rational: if your friend is not in any danger anymore, and if you cannot reasonably expect to be in any danger yourself, then you should not attack the man. (That's of course ignoring your right to arrest him on the spot for the sake of the argument; but I could just call your whole argument retarded for ignoring this aspect.) 



			
				EvilMoogle said:
			
		

> And did you read the article in question?  The father says he was simply trying to stop the p*d*p**** not that he was trying to punish him.  The fact that the p*d*p**** ended up dead was due to the inherent danger of such a physical confrontation.


...Well, the father is the only witness and the prime suspect. He's not going to say "I wanted to kill him right here and now and I knew exactly how to do that". Duh. Forensics will tell whether he is credible or not. This also depends on the physical fitness of the father and the molester, on how well they knew one another, on the testimony of the little girl, on the personality of the molester, etc, etc. All we have at this point is an AP report. But the scenario in which the molester puts up a fight seems improbable.


			
				EvilMoogle said:
			
		

> Here's a question for you:  Was the father treated for broken hands or  fingers?


How do you want me to know about that?



			
				EvilMoogle said:
			
		

> Texas law makes no distinction between sexual assault and aggravated assault as far as lethal-defense-of-other.  Which might be because sexual assault (especially of minors) can do as much psychological and developmental damage as physical assault.  Or might just be because Texas likes killing criminals, I don't know.


You completely missed the point. Texas law says that you have the right to use force to defend someone *to the extent that you can reasonably believe it necessary*. If you are facing a 200 pounds experienced street brawler skinhead that you've never seen before, who is in the process of curb-stomping your friend, clearly violence is going to be necessary, and to a very great extent too. 

However, if the child molester is half your weight, is a discreet pervert who has never fought before in his life, and the first thing he does when you surprise him is to look mortified, then the extent to which violence is necessary is not very great. Do you see now why it makes a difference?



> Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
> 
> (1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
> 
> (2) the actor *reasonably believes* that his intervention is *immediately necessary* to protect the third person.





			
				EvilMoogle said:
			
		

> So assume that this is a party hosted at your home and the assailant is a friend-of-a-friend that you casually know.   You don't know how prone to violence his is nor do you know how skilled of a fighter he is.
> 
> Does this change any of your answers above?


Well, if the guy looks like he could put up a fight and is up for it, then yes, use of force and even deadly force is "immediately necessary".


----------



## EvilMoogle (Jun 16, 2012)

impersonal said:


> Well, if the guy looks like he could put up a fight and is up for it, then yes, use of force and even deadly force is "immediately necessary".


Great, then we're in agreement.  If things happened the way the stories say it did the father was justified in his actions.


----------



## Darklyre (Jun 16, 2012)

impersonal said:


> My answers were rational: if your friend is not in any danger anymore, and if you cannot reasonably expect to be in any danger yourself, then you should not attack the man. (That's of course ignoring your right to arrest him on the spot for the sake of the argument; but I could just call your whole argument retarded for ignoring this aspect.)



The guy just beat the shit out of your friend and has, by this point, committed assault, battery, and a whole host of other crimes, and you're supposed to take him at his word that he's not going to attack your friend anymore and that he won't be a danger to you? That is some _naive_ bullshit.



impersonal said:


> You completely missed the point. Texas law says that you have the right to use force to defend someone *to the extent that you can reasonably believe it necessary*. If you are facing a 200 pounds experienced street brawler skinhead that you've never seen before, who is in the process of curb-stomping your friend, clearly violence is going to be necessary, and to a very great extent too.
> 
> However, if the child molester is half your weight, is a discreet pervert who has never fought before in his life, and the first thing he does when you surprise him is to look mortified, then the extent to which violence is necessary is not very great. Do you see now why it makes a difference?



Yes, here's the key point: TEXAS. We don't give a goddamned fuck if Mother Teresa and the Dalai Lama had a kid and that kid was Christ reborn and Christ reborn was the one diddling the victim in the name of saving humanity. You find a guy diddling your kid and every goddamned Texas jury will find that you reasonably believed it necessary to shoot that guy in the head 15 times.


----------



## MasterSitsu (Jun 16, 2012)

vampiredude said:


> On a personal level i understand why he did it.
> 
> But nonetheless there is a reason we have justce systems around the world.
> 
> Vigilantism leads to anarchy.


AHHH The old vigilantism lead to anarchy post.

At some point people have the right to defend them selves or property in this case it is certainly justified, unless you think the father should of waited for the cops to get the guy  off her vagina.


----------



## Brox (Jun 16, 2012)

MasterSitsu said:


> AHHH The old vigilantism lead to anarchy post.
> 
> At some point people have the right to defend them selves or property in this case it is certainly justified, unless you think the father should of waited for the cops to get the guy  off her vagina.



A father is legally obligated to help his children in such a situation.
He would have been sentenced if he hadn?t intervened.


----------



## Gin (Jun 16, 2012)

Saving your child from a pedo by the most thorough method, ie. killing him, is not vigilantism.   

A vigilante believes it's their right to take the law into their own hands, he was acting on his paternal instinct to protect his daughter, I doubt concepts such as "justice" went through his mind as he killed the guy.


----------



## Red (Jun 16, 2012)

Utopia Realm said:


> Seem the father acted pretty aggresively but its understandable.
> 
> Your thoughts NF?


He protected his daughter. Good for him. Now he should face charges for killing a man with his hands. We live in a civilized society. That being said, I'd kill a man to protect my family but I would expect to be punished for it and I'd take it like a champ.

Too bad the fact he killed a man will be glossed over because the man is a p*d*p****.


----------



## EJ (Jun 16, 2012)

He.

Is.

Not.

Going.

To.

Be.

FINED


----------



## Brox (Jun 16, 2012)

Gin said:


> Saving your child from a pedo by the most thorough method, ie. killing him, is not vigilantism.
> 
> A vigilante believes it's their right to take the law into their own hands, he was acting on his paternal instinct to protect his daughter, I doubt concepts such as "justice" went through his mind as he killed the guy.



That?s not relevant. In order to justify his actions it?s only necessary that he wanted to defend his daughter.
"Self-defense" knows no restrictions regarding the act of defense, so killing the pedo is legally fine.


----------



## Darklyre (Jun 16, 2012)

Red said:


> He protected his daughter. Good for him. Now he should face charges for killing a man with his hands. We live in a civilized society. That being said, I'd kill a man to protect my family but I would expect to be punished for it and I'd take it like a champ.
> 
> Too bad the fact he killed a man will be glossed over because the man is a p*d*p****.



Killing someone in defense of yourself or others is not a crime.


----------



## Red (Jun 16, 2012)

Darklyre said:


> Killing someone in defense of yourself or others is not a crime.


I looked it up, that's true. Justice wins this one.


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 17, 2012)

Um good riddance. Beat that fucker to death.


----------



## Mael (Jun 20, 2012)

I know it's three days old but I haz update.



Red said:


> He protected his daughter. Good for him. Now he should face charges for killing a man with his hands. We live in a civilized society. That being said, I'd kill a man to protect my family but I would expect to be punished for it and I'd take it like a champ.
> 
> Too bad the fact he killed a man will be glossed over because the man is a p*d*p****.



Too bad for you.  He's free of charge.



He felt enough remorse too...that should be it.


----------



## Romanticide (Jun 20, 2012)

Yeah, read that article last night. And the poor girl was raped, they did a kit too. Glad the dad didn't go to jail though.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jun 20, 2012)

Overwatch said:


> No sympathy for pedophiles. I probably would've done the same.



You know it's possible to be a p*d*p**** without being a child molester, just like it's possible to be heterosexual male without being a rapist.

On the other hand, I really don't object to what happened here though I would agree more with the guy going into prison than dying. As for the dad, he should be at most given a symbolic punishment but nothing else. It wasn't really self defence but the situation is so extreme that I can understand the reaction of the dad perfectly...


----------



## ZERO PHOENIX (Jun 20, 2012)

Overwatch said:


> No sympathy for pedophiles. I probably would've done the same.



I agree with you 100%. Guy was trying to rape a 4 year old. Fuck em.  It's a shame he died of head trauma though. I would like for the guy to have survived and then sentenced to prison where they could tear that ass up. But this works too.


----------



## Mael (Jun 20, 2012)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> You know it's possible to be a p*d*p**** without being a child molester, just like it's possible to be heterosexual male without being a rapist.
> 
> On the other hand, I really don't object to what happened here though I would agree more with the guy going into prison than dying. As for the dad, he should be at most given a symbolic punishment but nothing else. It wasn't really self defence but the situation is so extreme that I can understand the reaction of the dad perfectly...



But Texas law decreed the man innocent given the circumstances, so symbolic punishment is worthless against base parent instinct and that law.  I still don't understand where we try to violate protective instinct with this magical reason we all want them to have in extreme duress.  Sounds like extreme liberalism, a denial of our very instincts to protect with lethal force.

Little girl was indeed raped too...kits proved it.  Add that to the pedofreak.


----------



## Le Pirate (Jun 20, 2012)

I've already said this, but nothing of value was lost. It's good the father didn't get jail time, he reacted how any good father should.


----------



## Tiger (Jun 20, 2012)

I shake my head in haughty derision at all the people who can't take two minutes to google or learn about the law in their country who actually thought the father would go to jail.

I was going to single Red out, but he recanted his statement after doing a quick google search and realized he was wrong.

Not only was it perfectly acceptable to attack the rapist with deadly force, but the father also called 9-1-1 and tried to save the rapist's life after the fact. He deserves a fucking medal.


----------



## Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki (Jun 20, 2012)

Mael said:


> But Texas law decreed the man innocent given the circumstances, so symbolic punishment is worthless against base parent instinct and that law.  I still don't understand where we try to violate protective instinct with this magical reason we all want them to have in extreme duress.  Sounds like extreme liberalism, a denial of our very instincts to protect with lethal force.



I said at MOST he should be fined, and I said that before I knew the guy had been cleared.


----------



## Mikaveli (Jun 20, 2012)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> You know it's possible to be a p*d*p**** without being a child molester, just like it's possible to be heterosexual male without being a rapist.
> 
> On the other hand, I really don't object to what happened here though I would agree more with the guy going into prison than dying. As for the dad, he should be at most given a symbolic punishment but nothing else. It wasn't really self defence but the situation is so extreme that I can understand the reaction of the dad perfectly...



Except it was self defense.


----------



## hammer (Jun 20, 2012)

Kojiro Ganryu Sasaki said:


> I said at MOST he should be fined, and I said that before I knew the guy had been cleared.



so your saying if a see a man  stick it up my 4 year old daughters pooper and I punch him in the face _I_ need to pay the consequences?


----------



## cnorwood (Jun 20, 2012)

hammer said:


> so your saying if a see a man  stick it up my 4 year old daughters pooper and I punch him in the face _I_ need to pay the consequences?



yes because pedos are humans and you need to think about their feelings. Wouldnt you want to see a guy get fined if he punched you in the face


----------



## hammer (Jun 20, 2012)

cnorwood said:


> yes because pedos are humans and you need to think about their feelings. Wouldnt you want to see a guy get fined if he punched you in the face



logical                       .


----------



## Cardboard Tube Knight (Jun 21, 2012)

I'm glad that at least a few members on this forum recognize that there is a good time for violence and it was it


----------

