Was father justified in beating rapist?

[applecorped]

In reference to this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5275514#post5275514

"I was watching a TV program called American Justice. There was a serial killer rapist who picked the wrong house one day. He saw in a rural community what he thought was a small girl who was alone in her house. What he didn't know was her big burly redneck father parked his cars in a building behind his house where he worked on motorcycles.

This big mechanic heard his daughters screams and he ran to her and caught the bad guy in the act of trying to rape her. He took his revolver and beat the guy until the rapists face was unrecognizable and he thought the he was dead. The trigger guard of his .38 was bent. Thats how hard this father hit the guy who was violating his child.

The rapist wasn't dead but he suffered severed head and facial injuries and brain damage. The father wasn't charged."



Since the thread it was in was about another topic and I kept confusing who was responding to what topic, I started this one to keep them separate.

[Ryokan]

It's hard for me to answer. I'm sure there would've been a better way to stop the man (Especially seeing that he actually had a gun at hand.), but the reaction is understandable. Would I have reacted differently? I honestly can't say.

He should've been charged and brought to court, but if I was on the jury I would not convict. Sounds like a perfect case of temporary insanity.

[Cayvmann]

In my opinion, he was completely justified. I would have probably shot the guy, myself, but beating the guy was probably more of a reaction of someone who is ultimately disgusted with this kind of filth.

[Ryokan]

So being 'disgusted with filth' is a justifiable reason to kill someone?

[HarryKeogh]

Looking at the picture of my niece on my desk and thinking what I would do to someone who tried to hurt her (ugh, I don't even want to say 'rape') I wouldn't want to see charges pressed on this father and if I was on a jury I wouldn't convict.

[bethgsd]

I'm totally backing the father on this one. As we say in the South, "Some people just need killin'."

[LTC8K6]

He could legally have shot and killed the man and I'm not at all sure why he didn't. I certainly would have if I had a clear shot. Maybe the guy was too close to his daughter and he couldn't shoot at first. That's probably the reason.

However, I'm not sure which would be worse for the child to witness, beating a man to a pulp or fatally shooting him. (Assuming the daughter had not run away already.)

[Careyp74]

He should've been charged and brought to court, but if I was on the jury I would not convict. Sounds like a perfect case of temporary insanity.

DA's might not want to have a poor record, and in deciding what to do, may use precedent to determine their course of action. The set up is perfect for temporary insanity. Why waste the court's time?

[Flaherty]

Legally, I think the father's actions are okay. You have a right to defend your home, so if someone breaks in, regardless of their intention, you have the right to disable them.

Setting the law aside, was the father morally right? I say yes. We have an instinctive need to protect our loved ones and I'm sure that's what was motivating the father in that moment. More generally, we also have a responsibility to everyone else in society to defend ourselves. Regardless, everyone in society except the rapist was better off because of the father's actions: his daughter was saved further abuse, society was made slightly safer with a rapist having been put out of commission, and a strong signal sent to other would-be rapists that their activities carry the risk of a major beat down.

[Ryokan]

Legally, I think the father's actions are okay. You have a right to defend your home, so if someone breaks in, regardless of their intention, you have the right to disable them.

Sure you have. Not to mention the right to defend someone from getting raped!

But I think there's a step between defending someone and, to quote the OP, to beat someone's face until they're unrecognizable. At some point you've gone beyond defense.

He had two choices, either point the gun at the man and order him to stop, then call the police, or jump the man and beat him to a bloody pulp. I'd send him to court, yet wouldn't convict, just to show that cases like these can be justified and understandable, yet is still something we'd rather not see.

[Starthinker]

To me it's a no-brainer. If someone broke into my home and tried to hurt my daughter he would not live very long.

[Arcade22]

Give this man a medal! :eusa_dance:

[Ryokan]

Give this man a medal! :eusa_dance:

And if he had pointed the gun at the man and told him to stop, then called the police?

The amount of bloodlust in so many posters surprise me.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Damn, if he had shot him we would have a fun gun rights thread!

As it is, I think it is fine. And I can just hear the headlines if the father was charged with something.

[shawmutt]

And if he had pointed the gun at the man and told him to stop, then called the police?

The amount of bloodlust in so many posters surprise me.

Nice ad hom. We aren't discussing what could have happened, we're discussing what did happen.

He was certainly justified in what he did.

[Ryokan]

We aren't discussing what could have happened, we're discussing what did happen.

How about what should have happened? Is that out of the question to discuss as well? Or was beating a man until he's brain damaged the only correct response?

There's a reason why we have a justice system, and reason why we (should) frown upon those that take justice in their own hands.

[uk_dave]

The rapist wasn't dead but he suffered severed head and facial injuries and brain damage.

So, what did happen to him? Was it decided that the father's punishment of his crime was sufficient and he was set free? Or was he prosecuted and sentenced for the crime?

ETA: Apparently the crim was a 'serial killer rapist' (ticked all the boxes there), so was he prosecuted for these other crimes after being beaten to a pulp by the father of his latest victim?

[Cainkane1]

Looking at the picture of my niece on my desk and thinking what I would do to someone who tried to hurt her (ugh, I don't even want to say 'rape') I wouldn't want to see charges pressed on this father and if I was on a jury I wouldn't convict.
This is the way I feel about it. The father may have broken the law and violated the rapists rights but if I were on a jury I wouldn't convict him if I had to hang the jury.

[Ryokan]

Btw, I've been trying to find a source for the OP, but no luck. Is there one, or is it just a feel good story?

[Cainkane1]

So, what did happen to him? Was it decided that the father's punishment of his crime was sufficient and he was set free? Or was he prosecuted and sentenced for the crime?

ETA: Apparently the crim was a 'serial killer rapist' (ticked all the boxes there), so was he prosecuted for these other crimes after being beaten to a pulp by the father of his latest victim?
Nothing happened to the father. He wasn't arrested or charged with anything. The prosecuter refused to bring charges against him.

[Cainkane1]

Btw, I've been trying to find a source for the OP, but no luck. Is there one, or is it just a feel good story?
I saw this on American Justice a few years ago. Take my word for it. This really happened.

[uk_dave]

Nothing happened to the father. He wasn't arrested or charged with anything. The prosecuter refused to bring charges against him.

I must have worded it badly. :)

What happened to the crim?

[-Axiom-]

The Father is totally justified in his actions.

Kudo's to him. :D

[Ryokan]

I saw this on American Justice a few years ago. Take my word for it. This really happened.

And no newspaper ever reported on it?

Sorry, I'm not taking your word for it. It's nothing personal, but this is a sceptics forum.

[ponderingturtle]

Legally, I think the father's actions are okay. You have a right to defend your home, so if someone breaks in, regardless of their intention, you have the right to disable them.


This is a debated point. The right to initiate violence to protect yourself from a crime against property is not a universal. But isn't an issue in this case anyway.

[Drudgewire]

I have more sympathy for the gun than the rapist. Poor bent trigger guard. :(

[Region Rat]

Yes. Period.

[ponderingturtle]

And no newspaper ever reported on it?

Sorry, I'm not taking your word for it. It's nothing personal, but this is a sceptics forum.

I am not finding anything but I did find this

DELTONA, Fla. — An angry Deltona father whacked his teenage daughter's boyfriend with a metal pipe after finding the boy naked in his daughter's room.

Authorities say the father, 45, didn't even know his daughter had a boyfriend or that the youngster had been sneaking into the home for more than a year.



story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422181,00.html)

Wonder how many people support the dad her.

[dtugg]

Personally, I would have just shot and killed the rapist. Screw trying to hold him until the police come. As bethgsd said, some people just need killin' and garbage trying to rape my daughter would be one of those people.

I don't know why the dad beat the piece of crap with the gun instead of shooting him, but as far as I am concerned, he performed a public service and I am glad he wasn't charged.

[RenaissanceBiker]

I have three daughters. I have made boyfriends cry. I catch a rapist in the act? Coyotes will find him before anyone else.

[Darth Rotor]

Yes. I find his self restraint, in not emptying the revolver into the perp, noteworthy.

[Darat]

I saw this on American Justice a few years ago. Take my word for it. This really happened.

I've been searching for more details of this crime and I've found a lot of reports about rapists, serial rapists and even tragically people being brain damaged after a terrible assault by a rapist and not found anything that seems to match up with what you describe (apart from links back to the Forum). Are you sure you are recalling it correctly?

[Cainkane1]

I must have worded it badly. :)

What happened to the crim?
The criminal was a serial rapist murderer. He has been sentenced to life in prison with no chance for parole.

[ponderingturtle]

The criminal was a serial rapist murderer. He has been sentenced to life in prison with no chance for parole.

Where?

[Darat]

As I was looking for further details about the incident in the opening post I came across this report: http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Businessman-suffers-brain-damage-after.5040199.jp

[ponderingturtle]

As I was looking for further details about the incident in the opening post I came across this report: http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Businessman-suffers-brain-damage-after.5040199.jp

Apparently he needed killing I guess.

[uk_dave]

The criminal was a serial rapist murderer. He has been sentenced to life in prison with no chance for parole.

Thank you.

As I was looking for further details about the incident in the opening post I came across this report: http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Businessman-suffers-brain-damage-after.5040199.jp

Yeah, but if I found someone raping my sister.......

[Lupie]

Did the father go too far? Maybe. Did he exceed the limits of what can be considered self defense? Possibly. Should he be charged with a crime? Absolutely not. Had I been in his shoes, I believe I would have done that same thing, if not more. The rapist caused this situation, not the father. Had the father been charged with a crime, and I was on the jury, I would vote not guilty.

L.

[Ryokan]

Where?

I guess you should just take his word for it...

[Eddie Dane]

Yes.

Do we have this guys address, so I can send him a bottle of wine and some flowers?

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, but if I found someone raping my sister.......

Or what if you only thought someone had raped your sister, even if she denies it?

[uk_dave]

Or what if you only thought someone had raped your sister, even if she denies it?

That's a tough one. In the heightened emotional state produced from believing that someone had committed a crime against a family member I would hope that my peers would be sympathetic to my actions.

[Cainkane1]

I've been searching for more details of this crime and I've found a lot of reports about rapists, serial rapists and even tragically people being brain damaged after a terrible assault by a rapist and not found anything that seems to match up with what you describe (apart from links back to the Forum). Are you sure you are recalling it correctly?
Ok google American Justice episodes. You may have problems finding this specific episode because the program deals with criminals many of which are serial killers, serial rapists or both. The focus of the episode was in the capturing of the criminal not on the fathers reaction. The man was really evil. He drifted through the fringes of society looking for young female victims. I don't recall the actual age of the girl he had attacked in this episode but she was not an adult. She was underaged and still living with her mother and father. Incidentally it wasn't the father who got to the scene first. It was the mother. When the father got there the mother was already engaged in a fight with the bad guy.

I didn't realise that my post would initiate this level of response. If I had known I would have tried to find more information about this case.

I reinterate though everything I've posted really happened. The father pistol whipped the intruder so severely that he bent the trigger guard on the criminals head. The perp was permanently disfigured and brain damaged.

Ok I saw this about two or three years ago. The only clue I can give anyone who wants to research this out is that it is an episode of American Justice.

[gambling_cruiser]

And if he had pointed the gun at the man and told him to stop, then called the police?

The amount of bloodlust in so many posters surprise me.
Just pointing a gun at a criminal can easy create a hostage situation.
If the rapist takes the girl as a human shield then the father has a bigger problem to solve.
Hitting the rapist hard has very probably separated him from his victim.
The follow up beating is another thing.
But I don't think you would find a sane district attorney who would charge the father.

[Ethan Thane Athen]

Apparently he needed killing I guess.

Hardly the same circumstances. This was an act carried out purely on suspicion whereas the OP referenced catching the perp in the act of raping his 'young' daughter (whilst she screamed!). As far as I'm concerned the only thing he did wrong was in leaving him alive (so the state picks up the financial burden of looking after him). As other posters have done, I assume he didn't shoot him initially because of the proximity of his daughter.

[Lupie]

I saw this same episode of American Justice a couple of years ago. I can't find any info about this online either, but this really did happen.

L.

[ponderingturtle]

That's a tough one. In the heightened emotional state produced from believing that someone had committed a crime against a family member I would hope that my peers would be sympathetic to my actions.

I have seen plenty of people here post how they would not leave someone alive in that situation.

[ponderingturtle]

Hardly the same circumstances. This was an act carried out purely on suspicion whereas the OP referenced catching the perp in the act of raping his 'young' daughter (whilst she screamed!). As far as I'm concerned the only thing he did wrong was in leaving him alive (so the state picks up the financial burden of looking after him). As other posters have done, I assume he didn't shoot him initially because of the proximity of his daughter.

ANd many people here have talked about how they would seek such personal retribution if they beleived what he beleived had happened. Only difference that they would make sure the person they knew raped their relative was dead.

This is the problem when you sift it from needing to protect a child, from a person who needs killing. The brother clearly thought he fit in the latter category.

[Ryokan]

Ok google American Justice episodes. You may have problems finding this specific episode because the program deals with criminals many of which are serial killers, serial rapists or both. The focus of the episode was in the capturing of the criminal not on the fathers reaction. The man was really evil. He drifted through the fringes of society looking for young female victims. I don't recall the actual age of the girl he had attacked in this episode but she was not an adult. She was underaged and still living with her mother and father. Incidentally it wasn't the father who got to the scene first. It was the mother. When the father got there the mother was already engaged in a fight with the bad guy.

I didn't realise that my post would initiate this level of response. If I had known I would have tried to find more information about this case.

I reinterate though everything I've posted really happened. The father pistol whipped the intruder so severely that he bent the trigger guard on the criminals head. The perp was permanently disfigured and brain damaged.

Ok I saw this about two or three years ago. The only clue I can give anyone who wants to research this out is that it is an episode of American Justice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_justice

There are apparently 247 episodes of American Justice, with 8 specials.

Wikipedia has description of many of the episodes, but not all. A search of serial rapist, rapist, rape, daughter on the article revealed no story similar to yours.

http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/american-justice/episodes/194507

TVGuide has description on all episodes, but no easy way to search. I'm not very tempted to read through them all...

The story remains an anecdote.

ETA: If you or Lupie can remember ca. when you saw the episode, it would narrow it down quite a bit.

[Lupie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_justice

There are apparently 247 episodes of American Justice, with 8 specials.

Wikipedia has description of many of the episodes, but not all. A search of serial rapist, rapist, rape, daughter on the article revealed no story similar to yours.

http://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/american-justice/episodes/194507

TVGuide has description on all episodes, but no easy way to search. I'm not very tempted to read through them all...

The story remains an anecdote.

ETA: If you or Lupie can remember ca. when you saw the episode, it would narrow it down quite a bit.


I'm sorry, I can't remember exactly when I saw the episode. I think, it was one of those all day "marathon" things that they do on the A&E channel where they show a dozen or so episodes of a show all day long. The episode does stand out in my mind though, because I had just rented and watched a movie on a similar subject called "A Time to Kill", where a father kills the two men who raped his daughter. Sorry I can't be more specific.

L.

[timhau]

Setting the law aside, was the father morally right? I say yes.

I don't. I say 'Hell, yes!', and that's the civilized part of my brain talking. The other part says 'Take your time with him, my good man. Want me to go get you a lead pipe? You need someone to hold the bastard down?'

[uk_dave]

I don't. I say 'Hell, yes!', and that's the civilized part of my brain talking. The other part says 'Take your time with him, my good man. Want me to go get you a lead pipe? You need someone to hold the bastard down?'

Interesting.

Would you want any forensic or independant witness evidence to verify the man's claim that his daughter was being raped, or would you just take his word for it and assist anyway?

[GStan]

In reference to this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5275514#post5275514

<snip>

The rapist wasn't dead but he suffered severed head and facial injuries and brain damage. The father wasn't charged."



Since the thread it was in was about another topic and I kept confusing who was responding to what topic, I started this one to keep them separate.

For the most part, I sympathize with the father; but I think cutting the guy's head off with a pistol may have been a bit over the line.

[Darth Rotor]

Interesting.

Would you want any forensic or independant witness evidence to verify the man's claim that his daughter was being raped, or would you just take his word for it and assist anyway?
The man was not making a claim. He (according to the account offered to us) caught the guy in the act. Are you sure you want to go there?

DR

[INRM]

I'd say his actions were acceptable in the course of defending his daughter. In the same situation, I probably would have shot the rapist

[Skeptical Greg]

As I was looking for further details about the incident in the opening post I came across this report: http://news.scotsman.com/scotland/Businessman-suffers-brain-damage-after.5040199.jp
Apparently he needed killing I guess.


Not apparent at all .. and not comparable to the case we are discussing..

[Xulld]

Sure you have. Not to mention the right to defend someone from getting raped!

But I think there's a step between defending someone and, to quote the OP, to beat someone's face until they're unrecognizable. At some point you've gone beyond defense.

He had two choices, either point the gun at the man and order him to stop, then call the police, or jump the man and beat him to a bloody pulp. I'd send him to court, yet wouldn't convict, just to show that cases like these can be justified and understandable, yet is still something we'd rather not see.

And you would have wasted all of our tax payers dollars on a case where the person that was in the wrong got what was coming to him.

If a person wants to do harm to children, they need to be put down, and the example of this sort IMHO is perfect justice.

[Trystero4]

I saw it on American Justice as well. Except it was a doberman and the guy killed it with Pop Rocks and Snapple.

:D

[Trystero4]

FWIW:

"Was father justified in beating rapist?"

Sure he was justified. And yet I'll still stick by my original point. I get a little nervous when average citizen takes it upon themselves to dispense justice.

[Rasmus]

Sure you have. Not to mention the right to defend someone from getting raped!

But I think there's a step between defending someone and, to quote the OP, to beat someone's face until they're unrecognizable. At some point you've gone beyond defense.

I am no expert at beating up people. So I'd follow a simple rule: I'll keep beating until I am convinced that he no longer poses a danger agaisnt me or anyone else, even if I had to turn arouznd and leave the room in order to call the police. If he dies: Tough. You can't expect people to take any risk, however small, that he'll recover and come at you or the original victim again.

He had two choices, either point the gun at the man and order him to stop, then call the police, or jump the man and beat him to a bloody pulp.

Yes, and I'd say it's his call in a situation like that. If he felt beating the guy up was the safer course of action, then so be it.

I'd send him to court, yet wouldn't convict, just to show that cases like these can be justified and understandable, yet is still something we'd rather not see.

Yes, it's something I'd rather not see myself. The more obvious solution is for people to not break into houses and try to rape the inhabitants, though. I really don't want any potential defender to get second thoughts because trying to save the victim might get him into trouble.

As always, a lot will depend on the actual circumstances. A good point to stop the beating would be when the guy first looses conciousness, or once you have him corneded, are a good distance away and know that yours is the only gun in the room.

But on the whole I can't stop thinking that it would have been okay to just shoot the guy. He got less than that,so it can't be that bad.

[uk_dave]

He (according to the account offered to us) caught the guy in the act. Are you sure you want to go there?

DR

Isn't that the claim?

[Ryokan]

And you would have wasted all of our tax payers dollars on a case where the person that was in the wrong got what was coming to him.

Yes, I would.

People who beat up and seriously injure people who 'got what was coming' go to court every day. I think people who are justified for doing so should argue that before a court, not just get a high five. It sends the wrong message to the general public, that you're allowed to take the law into your own hands and dispense justice as you see fit if you feel you are justified.

[Cainkane1]

So being 'disgusted with filth' is a justifiable reason to kill someone?
I wonder if this isn't what happened. The father sees the victims mother fighting the bad guy. Father jumps in with his .38 in hand and starts hitting the bad guy who fights back. The father continues hitting the guy after the guy is no longer able to fight back. Ok the father thinks the bad guy is playing possum and he hits him to make sure he didn't get up. The father not realising his own strength really wallops the guy on his head. The father not actually realising the fight is over.

[Ryokan]

I wonder if this isn't what happened. The father sees the victims mother fighting the bad guy. Father jumps in with his .38 in hand and starts hitting the bad guy who fights back. The father continues hitting the guy after the guy is no longer able to fight back. Ok the father thinks the bad guy is playing possum and he hits him to make sure he didn't get up. The father not realising his own strength really wallops the guy on his head. The father not actually realising the fight is over.

Could very well be. But we don't know, so I'd rather not speculate.

[Rasmus]

FWIW:

"Was father justified in beating rapist?"

Sure he was justified. And yet I'll still stick by my original point. I get a little nervous when average citizen takes it upon themselves to dispense justice.

I would mind that as well. But he caught the guy in the act and stopped him. He stopped him good with a huge dose of violence - but he didn't go round to his house the next day to get revenge.

So, unless someone has a very good case to make that he was just trying to retaliate I really don't have a problem. Sure, let the police investigate! But if it turns out that the guy did try to rape the sister and that he was caught and stopped in the act and that the beatings were administered in a relatively short time, there's no need to press charges.

So, if the rapist had been tied up first and then had been beaten some more just for the heck of it, that ´should be taken to court. But I can't fault anyone who didn't stop the beatings as soon as possible - as would be dtermined much later by a board of experts.

[Cainkane1]

Yes, I would.

People who beat up and seriously injure people who 'got what was coming' go to court every day. I think people who are justified for doing so should argue that before a court, not just get a high five. It sends the wrong message to the general public, that you're allowed to take the law into your own hands and dispense justice as you see fit if you feel you are justified.
Yeah but the father was pi**ed off out of his mind. If losing control at seeing someone violate your child isn't extenuating circumstances I don't know what is. The onus is on the bad guy for causing this to happen to him not the father. Like I said the father may not have even realised what he was doing except fighting an intruder in his home who was performing an unspeakable act on a beloved family member.

[Ryokan]

Yeah but the father was pi**ed off out of his mind. If losing control at seeing someone violate your child isn't extenuating circumstances I don't know what is. The onus is on the bad guy for causing this to happen to him not the father. Like I said the father may not have even realised what he was doing except fighting an intruder in his home who was performing an unspeakable act on a beloved family member.

Exactly. Classic example of temporary insanity. I'd still want him to justify it before a court, even if it's just for show. It would be the right thing to do.

[drkitten]

Exactly. Classic example of temporary insanity. I'd still want him to justify it before a court, even if it's just for show. It would be the right thing to do.

I don't even think you need to go to "temporary insanity."

As Rasmus pointed out, very few of us are experts on incapacitating people without causing permanent damage. I certainly don't consider myself an expert, and I'm a trained martial artist. Well, all right, a semi-trained martial artist.

If my use of violence is legally justified (which it is in this case -- not only is it defense of another person, but it's also apprehending a felon and prevention of a felony), it's justified up to the point where I feel confident that the situation is under control. If I can't tell whether on not he's actually disabled (and if a reasonable person with my training couldn't tell, either), then I've not hit him hard enough. If a reasonable person would think he might be shamming, or he might have the capacity to retaliate, hit him again....

Given that the father could, legally, have killed the rapist and been completely in the clear, letting him off with "only" brain damage is actually remarkably lenient. I guess the father had more confidence in his ability to disable without killing than I have.

[Magyar]

Exactly. Classic example of temporary insanity. I'd still want him to justify it before a court, even if it's just for show. It would be the right thing to do.

I have to agree with you. I would NEVER convict the guy if the info is accurate. But it should be reviewed because as vile as the act is and as much emotion as rape brings it DOES NOT in and of itself justify homocide! You can not use deadly force just because something vile is happening and you can not continue to attack/beat someone because they did/are doing something vile!

For any legal system to be just ALL cases must be treated equally in the eyes of the law, but at the same time it also must be flexible to recognize circumstances of induvidual cases.


To outright dismiss this without review is just as much an injustice as convicting someone with scetchy evidence.

[Trystero4]

For the record...I would never rape anybody. Never.

[dtugg]

Exactly. Classic example of temporary insanity. I'd still want him to justify it before a court, even if it's just for show. It would be the right thing to do.

Why? As far as I am aware, killing (or attempting to kill) a scumbag who broke into your home and tried to rape your daughter isn't illegal in most of the US. I would have made sure he was dead.

And even if what he did was technically illegal, no jury would ever convict, which the prosecutor surely knew. So a trial would be an immense waste of time and resources.

[drkitten]

I have to agree with you. I would NEVER convict the guy if the info is accurate. But it should be reviewed because as vile as the act is and as much emotion as rape brings it DOES NOT in and of itself justify homocide! You can not use deadly force just because something vile is happening and you can not continue to attack/beat someone because they did/are doing something vile!

For any legal system to be just ALL cases must be treated equally in the eyes of the law, but at the same time it also must be flexible to recognize circumstances of induvidual cases.

Er,.... it has been reviewed.

The review happens at all levels. A policeman has discretion about whether or not to arrest. A DA has discretion about whether or not to prosecute. A judge has discretion about dismissing a case before sending it to a jury, and of course the jury can opt to acquit.

This seems like a perfect instance of the DA appropriately using his discretion and avoiding the waste of time and money involved in a trial that he's almost certainly going to lose.

Especially since you're legally in the wrong. From Wikipedia, "A homicide may be considered justified if it is done to prevent a very serious crime, such as rape, armed robbery, or murder. The assailant's intent to commit a serious crime must be clear at the time." So, yes, legally speaking, attempt to prevent a rape does justify homicide.

It doesn't even need to be an actual (provable) rape, as long as a reasonable person would believe that a rape is happening (people cannot, legally, be expected to be omniscient). So if the DA believes that there was, in fact, a rape in progress that the person acted to prevent,....

... well, at that point, he has reviewed the case, and has appropriately dismissed it.

[Sabrina]

I have to wonder if the pistol was even loaded. Could it be the reason the man did not attempt to point the gun at the perp was because it wasn't in fact loaded? Sure, intimidation's all well and good, but if I have a choice between pointing an unloaded pistol at someone who potentially has a fully usable weapon (the father couldn't have known one way or the other IMO) or pistol-whipping the guy before he can potentially harm me and mine, I'm gonna go with the pistol-whipping. Assuming my weapon isn't loaded, mind you. If it had been loaded, I would have likely fired once to wound if I could, or up in the air if he was struggling with my child or spouse before then aiming the gun at the perp. Serves two purposes there; warns the guy I have a loaded weapon, and alerts any neighbors at home nearby so the police can be called without me having to potentially endanger my family once again by trying to hold a gun on the guy and talk to the police at the same time. Since he did not shoot the man, I'd have to say there's at least a chance his gun wasn't loaded to begin with and he simply did what he felt he had to do to protect his family.

[Metullus]

I wonder if this isn't what happened. The father sees the victims mother fighting the bad guy. Father jumps in with his .38 in hand and starts hitting the bad guy who fights back. The father continues hitting the guy after the guy is no longer able to fight back. Ok the father thinks the bad guy is playing possum and he hits him to make sure he didn't get up. The father not realising his own strength really wallops the guy on his head. The father not actually realising the fight is over.Pretty much my take on the situation.

I would do what it took to remove the threat - not merely what would stop him from doing what he is doing to my kid - and I would likely be none too gentle whilst doing so. Given that in this case I do not know the attacker's capabilities or whether or not he is armed, removing the threat would reasonably entail rendering the attacker incapable of any action whatever.

[Belz...]

Personally, I would have just shot and killed the rapist. Screw trying to hold him until the police come. As bethgsd said, some people just need killin' and garbage trying to rape my daughter would be one of those people.

What a wonderfully advanced way of thinking.

[drkitten]

I have to wonder if the pistol was even loaded.

That's be my read on it as well.

In fact, pistol-whipping with a loaded gun is actually rather stupid. Loaded guns have a tendency to go "bang" when you apply force to them (never drop a loaded gun for that reason); if he managed to beat someone hard enough to damage the gun without it going off, that suggests to me that it was unloaded to begin with.

[dtugg]

What a wonderfully advanced way of thinking.

I don't care how "advanced" my thinking is to you. Some people, child rapists, for example, are garbage, and garbage needs to be disposed of.

[ponderingturtle]

Not apparent at all .. and not comparable to the case we are discussing..

It is relevent to the discussion, if not relevent to the uncited case that no one is all that sure about.

People are claiming some people need killing, the brother in that case clearly held that view of the man. Many on this board have made statements that they would act very much like the brother in that case.

Of course the father who beat the crap out of his daughters boyfried has been totaly ignored.

[Rasmus]

I have to wonder if the pistol was even loaded. Could it be the reason the man did not attempt to point the gun at the perp was because it wasn't in fact loaded? Sure, intimidation's all well and good, but if I have a choice between pointing an unloaded pistol at someone who potentially has a fully usable weapon (the father couldn't have known one way or the other IMO) or pistol-whipping the guy before he can potentially harm me and mine, I'm gonna go with the pistol-whipping. Assuming my weapon isn't loaded, mind you. If it had been loaded, I would have likely fired once to wound if I could, or up in the air if he was struggling with my child or spouse before then aiming the gun at the perp. Serves two purposes there; warns the guy I have a loaded weapon, and alerts any neighbors at home nearby so the police can be called without me having to potentially endanger my family once again by trying to hold a gun on the guy and talk to the police at the same time. Since he did not shoot the man, I'd have to say there's at least a chance his gun wasn't loaded to begin with and he simply did what he felt he had to do to protect his family.

Quite possible. Or he just figured that hitting the guy might decrease the risk of him taking the daughter hostage and uzsing her as a shield. Or he might have been scared of hitting her.

And again, there is no reason why he should use the gun in a more traditional way just because he could. It's up to him. If he feels more secure pistol whipping the guy rather than shooting him - so be it. I am hglad I don't have to make that call, and I won't make it for him unless there is a lot of evidence that suggests something went wrong there. Rapist ends up severly beaten is not enough by far.

[Upchurch]

I've not read all the facts of the case, but given just the situation, even as a hypothetical, I'm with the Dad.

[ponderingturtle]

I am no expert at beating up people. So I'd follow a simple rule: I'll keep beating until I am convinced that he no longer poses a danger agaisnt me or anyone else, even if I had to turn arouznd and leave the room in order to call the police. If he dies: Tough. You can't expect people to take any risk, however small, that he'll recover and come at you or the original victim again.

Statements like this really do justify hunting people down and hurting them. The brother made sure that the businessman would never come at him or his sister again after all.

[shawmutt]

This also shoots to pieces the anti-gun nutters argument. There is more than one way to use a gun!

[ponderingturtle]

Why? As far as I am aware, killing (or attempting to kill) a scumbag who broke into your home and tried to rape your daughter isn't illegal in most of the US. I would have made sure he was dead.


So you are for the murder of incapacited attackers then.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't care how "advanced" my thinking is to you. Some people, child rapists, for example, are garbage, and garbage needs to be disposed of.

So did the brother do anything wrong in the british case?

[dtugg]

People are claiming some people need killing, the brother in that case clearly held that view of the man. Many on this board have made statements that they would act very much like the brother in that case.

There was no evidence whatsoever that his sister was raped, so no I would not act like him that situation.


Of course the father who beat the crap out of his daughters boyfried has been totaly ignored.

The father was an idiot. What's your point?

[dtugg]

So you are for the murder of incapacited attackers then.

Of the child rapist variety, sure.

[dtugg]

So did the brother do anything wrong in the british case?

He didn't even have any evidence that his sister was actually raped (since she wasn't).

[shawmutt]

In the real world you can't ever assume an attacker is incapacitated unless he's dead.

[PingOfPong]

He had two choices, either point the gun at the man and order him to stop, then call the police, or jump the man and beat him to a bloody pulp. I'd send him to court, yet wouldn't convict, just to show that cases like these can be justified and understandable, yet is still something we'd rather not see.

Why waste the court's time? Why should anyone frighten this family with the prospect that the father might go to jail? What are you trying to prove with a perfunctory case?

There is a legal concept called "provocation" where it can be argued that a person was provoked to such a degree that they are no longer in control. It could apply here. Kudos to the D.A. for not pressing charges.

[Vic Vega]

Yes, I would.

People who beat up and seriously injure people who 'got what was coming' go to court every day. I think people who are justified for doing so should argue that before a court, not just get a high five. It sends the wrong message to the general public, that you're allowed to take the law into your own hands and dispense justice as you see fit if you feel you are justified.

It's up to the District Attorney to determine whether a possible crime should be dropped, prosecuted, or in some cases sent to a Grand Jury to determine if there is enough evidence to send a case to trial.

If the DA determines that there has been no crime, he can drop the charges. If a crime may have been commited, but he feels that he will not be able to get a conviction (which may have been true in this case) he can and should drop the charges.

[Skeptical Greg]

What a wonderfully advanced way of thinking.Could you share with us your advanced way of thinking, with regard to dealing with someone who is trying to rape your daughter ?

[Brainster]

There was a case about 25 years ago in Louisiana, where a kid's karate instructor had kidnapped the boy, taken him to California, and repeatedly raped him. Eventually the kid got free and the cops arrested the perp, who resisted extradition back to Louisiana. Eventually he was ordered back to stand trial, and the news cameras were there at the airport as the sheriff's deputies escorted him. As they walked past a bank of pay phones, a guy turned away from the phone, walked towards the karate instructor, pulled out a gun and shot him in the head. It was the father, who'd been waiting there for his chance.

Of course he was arrested, but the prosecutor declined to press charges, knowing there was no chance a jury would convict him, even though it was obviously premeditated murder.

ETA: Apparently he was prosecuted; according to this story (http://spikedhumor.com/articles/38182/Father_Of_Kidnapped_Son_Gets_Revenge.html) he got five years probation. I assume the prosecution was not for murder but for something like shooting a firearm inside a public place.

[Rasmus]

Statements like this really do justify hunting people down and hurting them.

No, if oyu have to hunt someone down it is unlikely that they posed an immediate danger to anyone. If you can show that they did I might be persuaded that hunting them down was the right thing to do - even though in a lot of cases deferring that course of action to the police would seem quite possible.

[Southwind17]

"I was watching a TV program called American Justice. Apparently there was a serial killer rapist who picked the wrong house one day. He saw in a rural community what he thought was a small girl who was alone in her house. What he didn't know was her big burly redneck father parked his cars in a building behind his house where he worked on motorcycles.

This big mechanic heard his daughters screams and he ran to her and caught the bad guy in the act of trying to rape her. He took his revolver and beat the guy until the rapists face was unrecognizable and he thought that he was dead. The trigger guard of his .38 was bent. Thats how hard this father hit the guy who was violating his child.

The guy wasn't dead but he suffered severe head and facial injuries and brain damage.

Thing is, the guy wasn't a serial killer rapist after all, but the girl's uncle, who inadvertently scared the girl when entering the house, causing her to scream. Unfortunately, whilst consoling his niece the girl's father ran in, didn't recognise his brother from behind and, assuming the man was attacking his daughter, began to savagely beat him. Only after his daughter stopped screaming again at what she was witnessing did the father come to his senses and realise his grave mistake. Unfortunately, it was too late for both his brother, who later died in hospital, and his daughter, who has suffered permanent PTSD as a result. Even more sadly, the father, unable to face living with his actions, committed suicide two weeks later."

Sorry ... carry on folks ...

[Trystero4]

There was a case about 25 years ago in Louisiana, where a kid's karate instructor had kidnapped the boy, taken him to California, and repeatedly raped him. Eventually the kid got free and the cops arrested the perp, who resisted extradition back to Louisiana. Eventually he was ordered back to stand trial, and the news cameras were there at the airport as the sheriff's deputies escorted him. As they walked past a bank of pay phones, a guy turned away from the phone, walked towards the karate instructor, pulled out a gun and shot him in the head. It was the father, who'd been waiting there for his chance.

Of course he was arrested, but the prosecutor declined to press charges, knowing there was no chance a jury would convict him, even though it was obviously premeditated murder.

ETA: Apparently he was prosecuted; according to this story (http://spikedhumor.com/articles/38182/Father_Of_Kidnapped_Son_Gets_Revenge.html) he got five years probation. I assume the prosecution was not for murder but for something like shooting a firearm inside a public place.

I remember watching that video on TV right after it happened. The dad was pretending to use a pay phone or something. When Kobra Kai walked by dad gave him a Nguyen Ngoc Loan brain massage.

[Psi Baba]

Thing is, the guy wasn't a serial killer rapist after all, but the girl's uncle, who inadvertently scared the girl when entering the house, causing her to scream. Unfortunately, whilst consoling his niece the girl's father ran in, didn't recognise his brother from behind and, assuming the man was attacking his daughter, began to savagely beat him. Only after his daughter stopped screaming again at what she was witnessing did the father come to his senses and realise his grave mistake. Unfortunately, it was too late for both his brother, who later died in hospital, and his daughter, who has suffered permanent PTSD as a result. Even more sadly, the father, unable to face living with his actions, committed suicide two weeks later."

Sorry ... carry on folks ...
Sounds like someone's been reading the Kalevala, or maybe Tolkien's The Children of Hurin.

[Dumb All Over]

How about what should have happened? Is that out of the question to discuss as well? Or was beating a man until he's brain damaged the only correct response?

There's a reason why we have a justice system, and reason why we (should) frown upon those that take justice in their own hands.
Ryokan, instead of beating the attacker to a pulp, what if the father had simply shot and killed him? Would that have been a justifiable act?

[Ryokan]

Ryokan, instead of beating the attacker to a pulp, what if the father had simply shot and killed him? Would that have been a justifiable act?

I haven't said beating him wasn't justified. I even said that if I was on the jury, I wouldn't convict.

[Southwind17]

Ryokan, instead of beating the attacker to a pulp, what if the father had simply shot and killed him? Would that have been a justifiable act?
Shoot and kill your own brother because of hot-headedness! What do you think?

[Xulld]

Yes, I would.

People who beat up and seriously injure people who 'got what was coming' go to court every day. I think people who are justified for doing so should argue that before a court, not just get a high five. It sends the wrong message to the general public, that you're allowed to take the law into your own hands and dispense justice as you see fit if you feel you are justified.

I think it sends the wrong message to the public if you tried to prosecute a father for protecting his child in his own home regardless of the severity of the reaction.

Short of torture.

[Skeptical Greg]

Shoot and kill your own brother because of hot-headedness! What do you think?
There continues to be a critical shortage of straw in this thread...

[GStan]

"I was watching a TV program called American Justice. Apparently there was a serial killer rapist who picked the wrong house one day. He saw in a rural community what he thought was a small girl who was alone in her house. What he didn't know was her big burly redneck father parked his cars in a building behind his house where he worked on motorcycles.

This big mechanic heard his daughters screams and he ran to her and caught the bad guy in the act of trying to rape her. He took his revolver and beat the guy until the rapists face was unrecognizable and he thought that he was dead. The trigger guard of his .38 was bent. Thats how hard this father hit the guy who was violating his child.

The guy wasn't dead but he suffered severe head and facial injuries and brain damage.

Thing is, the guy wasn't a serial killer rapist after all, but the girl's uncle, who inadvertently scared the girl when entering the house, causing her to scream. Unfortunately, whilst consoling his niece the girl's father ran in, didn't recognise his brother from behind and, assuming the man was attacking his daughter, began to savagely beat him. Only after his daughter stopped screaming again at what she was witnessing did the father come to his senses and realise his grave mistake. Unfortunately, it was too late for both his brother, who later died in hospital, and his daughter, who has suffered permanent PTSD as a result. Even more sadly, the father, unable to face living with his actions, committed suicide two weeks later."

Sorry ... carry on folks ...

While your comparison situation is not impossible, I find it highly improbable to the point of not being useful for this discussion. Primarily because you left out all of the details between the time of the first scream by the daughter and the time the pistol whipping begins, details that would vary greatly between the two scenarios, so much so that scenario 2 is not a good comparison.

[Ferguson]

Thing is, the guy wasn't a serial killer rapist after all, but the girl's uncle, who inadvertently scared the girl when entering the house, causing her to scream. Unfortunately, whilst consoling his niece the girl's father ran in, didn't recognise his brother from behind and, assuming the man was attacking his daughter, began to savagely beat him. Only after his daughter stopped screaming again at what she was witnessing did the father come to his senses and realise his grave mistake. Unfortunately, it was too late for both his brother, who later died in hospital, and his daughter, who has suffered permanent PTSD as a result. Even more sadly, the father, unable to face living with his actions, committed suicide two weeks later."

Sorry ... carry on folks ...

Is there a point to your fantasy version of the events? Or is the only argument against justifiable violence to invent versions where the violence was unjustified?

[Dumb All Over]

Shoot and kill your own brother because of hot-headedness! What do you think?
Is that what actually happened?

[ponderingturtle]

There was no evidence whatsoever that his sister was raped, so no I would not act like him that situation.

So you support people who do that if they have better evidence that their sister was raped. Of course he felt the evidence was compelling, how do you know you wouldn't in that situation?


The father was an idiot. What's your point?

The boy was in his house. The whole castle doctrine thing why wouldn't that back him.

[ponderingturtle]

He didn't even have any evidence that his sister was actually raped (since she wasn't).

He had defensive wounds on her hands. As for her not admitting to the rape that is not exactly uncommon either for the victim to be reluctant to come forward.

[ponderingturtle]

In the real world you can't ever assume an attacker is incapacitated unless he's dead.

So should I put you down on the list of those infavor of murdering unconsious attackers?

[ponderingturtle]

It's up to the District Attorney to determine whether a possible crime should be dropped, prosecuted, or in some cases sent to a Grand Jury to determine if there is enough evidence to send a case to trial.


I believe a grand jury is involved when ever a crime is prosecuted. A DA can not avoid them if he feels he just wants it prosecuted faster.

[ponderingturtle]

No, if oyu have to hunt someone down it is unlikely that they posed an immediate danger to anyone.


This is goalpost moving from your last statement.

That was

You can't expect people to take any risk, however small, that he'll recover and come at you or the original victim again.

Nothing there about any immediate danger, just hypothetical future risk.

So which is it?

[Cainkane1]

What a wonderfully advanced way of thinking.
Ok I'm 62. When I was a young man sitting in front of my parents 3 station black and white TV a popular show called "Harrigan" came on. Lets see if I can describe this show without getting too compicated.

Ok a young man was horsing around with a little girl in the neighborhood, playing chase and what not when the little girl fell and knocked herself unconscience. The young man put her in a shady spot and ran for help. In the meantime while he was gone a pervert violated while she was unconscience. The little girls father was a police officer. Ok the medics get there and call the father who rushes to her side. The medics tell the police officer that his daughter had been assaulted and the little girl tells her father "Thomas" hurt me". The police officer assuming that the first innocent young man was guilty killed "Thomas" while he was in custody. Then a eye witness identified another man as the pervert.

The police officer hired Hannigan to defend him. The policeman was let off the hook by a sympathetic jury. While walking out of the courtroom Harrigan turns to his son who is also a lawyer and says to him. " the stupid cop deserved to go to jail".

I thought I'd toss this in the mix.

[Dumb All Over]

I believe a grand jury is involved when ever a crime is prosecuted.
Hmm... I don't think this is a factual statement.

[Southwind17]

I think it sends the wrong message to the public if you tried to prosecute a father for protecting his child in his own home regardless of the severity of the reaction.
And that "message" would be what, exactly?

There continues to be a critical shortage of straw in this thread...
Not as scarce as critical thinking, surprisingly!

While your comparison situation is not impossible, I find it highly improbable to the point of not being useful for this discussion. Primarily because you left out all of the details between the time of the first scream by the daughter and the time the pistol whipping begins, details that would vary greatly between the two scenarios, so much so that scenario 2 is not a good comparison.
Ah ... you mean similar to all of those details present in the original account? I see what you mean. :rolleyes:

Is there a point to your fantasy version of the events? Or is the only argument against justifiable violence to invent versions where the violence was unjustified?
You mean you really cannot see the point that's pistol whippingstaring you in the face?! You're not really suggesting that actual instances of unjustified violence don't occur, or aren't even common place, are you?!
Is that what actually happened?
Interesting you ask!

[ponderingturtle]

There seem to be two main possitions here. One is that you need to do what is nessacary to protect others. The other is that you need to have retribution and that people who commit the crimes need to be punished.

It seems to me that many people here would be perfectly happy in a bloodfeud like the famous Hattfield and McCoy one. They all were acting to punish those who hurt their loved ones after all.

[Cainkane1]

There was a case about 25 years ago in Louisiana, where a kid's karate instructor had kidnapped the boy, taken him to California, and repeatedly raped him. Eventually the kid got free and the cops arrested the perp, who resisted extradition back to Louisiana. Eventually he was ordered back to stand trial, and the news cameras were there at the airport as the sheriff's deputies escorted him. As they walked past a bank of pay phones, a guy turned away from the phone, walked towards the karate instructor, pulled out a gun and shot him in the head. It was the father, who'd been waiting there for his chance.

Of course he was arrested, but the prosecutor declined to press charges, knowing there was no chance a jury would convict him, even though it was obviously premeditated murder.

ETA: Apparently he was prosecuted; according to this story (http://spikedhumor.com/articles/38182/Father_Of_Kidnapped_Son_Gets_Revenge.html) he got five years probation. I assume the prosecution was not for murder but for something like shooting a firearm inside a public place.
I remember that case. This is on video on youtube. There was also another case where a mother shot a man who has sexually molested her pre teen son in a courtroom where the man was being arrainged. She got off easy too.

The woman later on expressed regret for what she had done saying that she should have allowed the law to take its course.

[ponderingturtle]

Hmm... I don't think this is a factual statement.

In the common law, a grand jury is a type of jury that determines whether there is enough evidence for a trial. Grand juries carry out this duty by examining evidence presented to them by a prosecutor and issuing indictments, or by investigating alleged crimes and issuing presentments. A grand jury is traditionally larger than and distinguishable from a petit jury, which is used during a trial.



wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury)

[BTMO]

How about what should have happened? Is that out of the question to discuss as well? Or was beating a man until he's brain damaged the only correct response?

There's a reason why we have a justice system, and reason why we (should) frown upon those that take justice in their own hands.

Justice is applied retrospectively, in the cold light of day, not in the heat of the moment.

Once, I might have agreed with you - but I recall a time I was visiting Australia and a beggar put out his hand to stop my son to ask for money.

I am a *very* non-violent person, but I found myself between my son and the beggar and ready to fight before I knew what was happening.

Nothing happened, but I was *amazed* at my reaction.

BTW - my son was about 18 at the time, and > 6 feet tall....

Parental instincts are truly amazing. This guy should not have been charged. He was reacting, not dishing out what he considered justice.

Not getting beaten up was always an option for the rapist. He just had to keep his filthy carcass away from little girls.

[PingOfPong]

Thing is, the guy wasn't a serial killer rapist after all, but the girl's uncle, who inadvertently scared the girl when entering the house, causing her to scream. Unfortunately, whilst consoling his niece the girl's father ran in, didn't recognise his brother from behind and, assuming the man was attacking his daughter, began to savagely beat him. Only after his daughter stopped screaming again at what she was witnessing did the father come to his senses and realise his grave mistake. Unfortunately, it was too late for both his brother, who later died in hospital, and his daughter, who has suffered permanent PTSD as a result. Even more sadly, the father, unable to face living with his actions, committed suicide two weeks later.

A question for you SouthWind, should the killer in this hypothetical scenario be punished to the exact same degree as any other first-time manslaughter offender?

[Dumb All Over]

wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_jury)
I'm sorry. Nothing there says a grand jury is utilized whenever a crime is prosecuted. It simply isn't the case.

[ponderingturtle]

I'm sorry. Nothing there says a grand jury is utilized whenever a crime is prosecuted. It simply isn't the case.

So how do you prosecute someone with out an indictment?

[Southwind17]

Having just read this (http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/law-on-using-reasonable-force.html) I've changed my mind.

[Southwind17]

A question for you SouthWind, should the killer in this hypothetical scenario be punished to the exact same degree as any other first-time manslaughter offender?
You mean the man who's dead after committing suicide? Seriously, though, I know what you mean, and I'd say he would have suffered enough without being punished further, not to mention extenuating circumstances.

[Skeptical Greg]

Not as scarce as critical thinking, surprisingly!


As startling as this may sound to you, critical thinking does not mean thinking just like Southwind17 .

Try to be honest and share with us exactly how you would respond to someone trying to rape your daughter ...

[Dumb All Over]

So how do you prosecute someone with out an indictment?
If you can find a citation stating that grand juries are used whenever a crime is prosecuted, then I'm all ears.

[Cainkane1]

Having just read this (http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/law-on-using-reasonable-force.html) I've changed my mind.
There was a case in Florida where a serial killer was put in his place by a female jogger martial arts expert. He was going to club her and she beat the living slop out of him and called the police. He was arrested and it was discovered he was wanted in several assaults, murders and rapes in Florida and other states.

[Skeptical Greg]

There seem to be two main possitions here. One is that you need to do what is nessacary to protect others. The other is that you need to have retribution and that people who commit the crimes need to be punished.

It seems to me that many people here would be perfectly happy in a bloodfeud like the famous Hattfield and McCoy one. They all were acting to punish those who hurt their loved ones after all.
How do we get from doing in the piece of crap you caught raping your daughter, to whacking anyone that pisses you off for any reason ?

Can you point to one post in this thread, or the one that spawned it, that clearly embraces such a philosophy ?

Or should we just lean heavily on the " ... it seems to me ... " part ?

[Darth Rotor]

Or should we just lean heavily on the " ... it seems to me ... "

At this point we lay the needle into the groove of a James Gang album, the song Walk Away beginning to crackle into our head sets ...

DR

[Trystero4]

There was a case in Florida where a serial killer was put in his place by a female jogger martial arts expert. He was going to club her and she beat the living slop out of him and called the police. He was arrested and it was discovered he was wanted in several assaults, murders and rapes in Florida and other states.

Do you have a link for this one?

[Belz...]

I don't care how "advanced" my thinking is to you. Some people, child rapists, for example, are garbage, and garbage needs to be disposed of.

Well I find that a remarkably backwards way of thinking. Note that I won't consider you garbage just because we disagree.

[PingOfPong]

I'd say he would have suffered enough without being punished further, not to mention extenuating circumstances.

In that case, what exactly is the point of your extreme hypo? I thought you were trying to present an extreme possibility that makes it unjustifiable for a father to act in this manner. It's a tenuous position to say that an act of homicide is both unjustifiable and unpunishable*.

*By punishment I'm talking about actual conviction and incarceration not personal torment.

[Cainkane1]

Do you have a link for this one?
No but it was in the news just a few months ago.

[bethgsd]

How do we get from doing in the piece of crap you caught raping your daughter, to whacking anyone that pisses you off for any reason ?

Can you point to one post in this thread, or the one that spawned it, that clearly embraces such a philosophy ?

Or should we just lean heavily on the " ... it seems to me ... " part ?



>>It might have been from the in the South we say "Some people just need killin'." And, if you catch someone in the act of attempting to rape your child, that slime needs killin'. Not saying that anyone that pisses one off gets whacked.

[dtugg]

So you support people who do that if they have better evidence that their sister was raped.

Wouldn't bother me at all.

Of course he felt the evidence was compelling,

So?

how do you know you wouldn't in that situation?

Because I am not an idiot.


The boy was in his house. The whole castle doctrine thing why wouldn't that back him.

Because the castle doctrine doesn't state that you can just attack anybody that's in your house for any reason.

[dtugg]

Well I find that a remarkably backwards way of thinking.

What do you think of people who rape children?

Note that I won't consider you garbage just because we disagree.

Nor I you. I reserve that title for child rapists and other horrible people.

[Megalodon]

As Rasmus pointed out, very few of us are experts on incapacitating people without causing permanent damage. I certainly don't consider myself an expert, and I'm a trained martial artist. Well, all right, a semi-trained martial artist.

A bit late I know, but I would like to comment on this. I am a trained martial artist, and in a situation of life and death - as this was - there is no experts in incapacitating without causing permanent damage. You go for the permanent damage to begin with, and if your opponent survives, that's lucky of him. Going for the "incapacitating move" is the fastest way to get yourself hurt or even killed.

This is the reason why you avoid getting yourself in life or death situations to begin with. So good on the dad for bludgeoning this guy. He's lucky to be alive...

[Woolgatherer]

If the story is true wouldn't the attacker be his own victim. He's gambling that he can rape a girl and get away with it. If the father goes too far with his pounding of the rapist he (the father) should be guilty to some degree. But what is "too far" according to the law? The rapist put the father in a place where he (the father) needed to take action. The father took some risk that he could overwhelm the attacker and end the attempted rape. It seems justified but without all the information I couldn't say it with complete conviction.

[Darth Rotor]

Well I find that a remarkably backwards way of thinking. Note that I won't consider you garbage just because we disagree.

Good sir, him disagreeing with you is hardly on the level of child rape, is it? ;)

[logical muse]

Wasn't there a subsequent investigation that found that the victim and the father were involved in a drug deal that went bad, and the father beat the victim and then made up the attempted rape story, knowing that he wouldn't be prosecuted in that case?

Or am I thinking of a different TV show?

[Darth Rotor]

Wasn't there a subsequent investigation that found that the victim and the father were involved in a drug deal that went bad, and the father beat the victim and then made up the attempted rape story, knowing that he wouldn't be prosecuted in that case?

Or am I thinking of a different TV show?
That would be interesting to note. The info we are dealing with is as reported to us by Cainekane1

DR

[drkitten]

A bit late I know, but I would like to comment on this. I am a trained martial artist, and in a situation of life and death - as this was - there is no experts in incapacitating without causing permanent damage.

Yes, but there seem to be lots of experts in incapacitating without causing permanent damage in the situation of their comfortable armchair in front of the computer. Many of them on this very thread.

[jimbob]

Assuming this happened it would have been in the heat of the moment, and even in the UK, I'd imagine would be OK. Whatever the law was, no jury would convict.

[lumos]

Yes, killing and/or beating the rapist was justified.

[applecorped]

I If the father goes too far with his pounding of the rapist he (the father) should be guilty to some degree.

Guilty of what?

[Megalodon]

Yes, but there seem to be lots of experts in incapacitating without causing permanent damage in the situation of their comfortable armchair in front of the computer. Many of them on this very thread.

There's always a few showing up... "If it was me, I would have used the Vulkan shoulder grip and easily subdued the 900 pound gorilla without breaking a sweat!".

Back in reality, if any type of self-defense instructor tells you to hit with anything less than your full strength because "you might kill the attacker", they are incompetent fools. You should aim to kill your attacker, and that in itself is not an easy thing to do, because attackers tend to not collaborate.

If they tell you to use any kind of lock or hold against an unknown attacker, they can easily be responsible for a student's death, because nothing beats a submission hold as a concealed weapon or blade.

Hit them first, hit them hard, make sure they won't hit back...

[drkitten]

Guilty of what?

Assault and battery, possibly aggravated assault, possibly attempted [or actual] murder, depending upon the circumstances.

At the point a "reasonable person" would realize that the perp no longer constituted a threat, the beating should stop. As a quick for-instance, if the father realized that the gun was not effective enough as a club, and he dragged the rapist's unresisting body into the garage, where he (the father) grabbed a ten-pound sledge hammer and proceeded to gavel the guy's head into a warm paste,.... that's going too far.

If the father put the rapist in handcuffs, chained him to the back of his pickup, and went for a ride on the freeway at 80mph,.... that's going too far.

If the father put the rapist's head in a vice and cut it off with a hacksaw,... that's going too far.

[Darth Rotor]

If the father put the rapist's head in a vice and cut it off with a hacksaw,... that's going too far.
I'd not thought of that one, glad you mentioned it.

DR

[applecorped]

Assault and battery, possibly aggravated assault, possibly attempted [or actual] murder, depending upon the circumstances.

At the point a "reasonable person" would realize that the perp no longer constituted a threat, the beating should stop. As a quick for-instance, if the father realized that the gun was not effective enough as a club, and he dragged the rapist's unresisting body into the garage, where he (the father) grabbed a ten-pound sledge hammer and proceeded to gavel the guy's head into a warm paste,.... that's going too far.

If the father put the rapist in handcuffs, chained him to the back of his pickup, and went for a ride on the freeway at 80mph,.... that's going too far.

If the father put the rapist's head in a vice and cut it off with a hacksaw,... that's going too far.


Lot of possibly's and if's in there. What is your definition of "reasonable person"?

[drkitten]

I'd not thought of that one, glad you mentioned it.


A well-equipped toolshed is prepared for all eventualities.

[Darth Rotor]

Lot of possibly's and if's in there. What is your definition of "reasonable person"?
Pee Wee Herman? Octomom?

[applecorped]

Pee Wee Herman? Octomom?

You leave Pee Wee out of this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[drkitten]

Lot of possibly's and if's in there.

Of course. That's because it depends on the circumstances, as I said.

If the perp does not die, for example, murder charges are definitively inappropriate. If the perp does die, then murder and/or manslaughter charges are back on the table. If the father uses something named in the aggravated assault statute as an aggravating factor, then aggravated assault is reasonable. I can't tell you how the charge sheet will read if you don't tell me the details of the presumptive assault, any more than I can tell you how much a car will cost if you don't give me details like the year, make, and mileage.

What is your definition of "reasonable person"?

It's not "my" definition; it's the legal system's definition. Wiktionary defines him as A fictional person used as a comparative legal standard to represent an average member of society and how he or she would behave or think, especially in determining negligence; sometimes formulated as "a person of ordinary prudence exercising due care in like circumstances", which will do to begin with, although I should point out that, legally speaking, the "average" person and the "reasonable" person are actually different standards.

Basically, it means that if a person of ordinary sense would accept what you're doing, then it's fine -- but you can't go kill someone just because THE VOICES IN YOUR HEAD ARE TELLING YOU THAT THEY ARE SPACE ALIENS.

[HeyLeroy]

Here's the episode guide for AJ, should Cainekane1 or anyone else want to find the episode: http://www.aetv.com/american_justice/aj_episode_guide.jsp?episode=425294

This thread reminded me of this: Child killer literally a marked man (http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=5468772).

[Darth Rotor]

Basically, it means that if a person of ordinary sense would accept what you're doing, then it's fine -- but you can't go kill someone just because THE VOICES IN YOUR HEAD ARE TELLING YOU THAT THEY ARE SPACE ALIENS.
Damnit. :(

[Ferguson]

Well I find that a remarkably backwards way of thinking. Note that I won't consider you garbage just because we disagree.

Disagreeing with Belz is equivalent to child rape? :jaw-dropp

[drkitten]

Damnit. :(

And here you were all tricking out your toolshed, too. :D

[Darth Rotor]

And here you were all tricking out your toolshed, too. :D
Sigh. At least the repairs to the bed frame ought to be more tenable now, and not get me arrested. :confused:

DR

[Vermonter]

I think some posters say they aren't violent and wouldn't beat the guy's face in...but humans act weird when it comes to a situation like this. I hope that it never happens to any of you or your families, but I think that if in the same situation, you'd beat the guy's face in, if not shoot him.

I consider myself to be non-violent, but put in that situation I probably would have done the same thing as the father. I think the father was completely justified in what he did.

[applecorped]

Of course. That's because it depends on the circumstances, as I said.

If the perp does not die, for example, murder charges are definitively inappropriate. If the perp does die, then murder and/or manslaughter charges are back on the table. If the father uses something named in the aggravated assault statute as an aggravating factor, then aggravated assault is reasonable. I can't tell you how the charge sheet will read if you don't tell me the details of the presumptive assault, any more than I can tell you how much a car will cost if you don't give me details like the year, make, and mileage.



It's not "my" definition; it's the legal system's definition. Wiktionary defines him as A fictional person used as a comparative legal standard to represent an average member of society and how he or she would behave or think, especially in determining negligence; sometimes formulated as "a person of ordinary prudence exercising due care in like circumstances", which will do to begin with, although I should point out that, legally speaking, the "average" person and the "reasonable" person are actually different standards.

Basically, it means that if a person of ordinary sense would accept what you're doing, then it's fine -- but you can't go kill someone just because THE VOICES IN YOUR HEAD ARE TELLING YOU THAT THEY ARE SPACE ALIENS.

Thank you.

I can't envision any scenario in this given situation, if the attacker died as a result of the father's actions, where any charges would be brought.

[athon]

I think some posters say they aren't violent and wouldn't beat the guy's face in...but humans act weird when it comes to a situation like this. I hope that it never happens to any of you or your families, but I think that if in the same situation, you'd beat the guy's face in, if not shoot him.

I consider myself to be non-violent, but put in that situation I probably would have done the same thing as the father. I think the father was completely justified in what he did.

I half agree, in that if somebody did that to my child, I'm quite sure I would find it damn hard to suppress the rage and not beat the living crap out of them.

However, there is the personal response and there is the measured response. There are people who would feel revulsion if a gay person were to hit on them, and feel justified in beating the crap out of them. So, does my feeling of revulsion justify the response? If we always judged acts based solely on our emotional response to a situation, it would be a terrifying society to exist in.

You could simply say it's balanced retribution. But I don't support the physical torture of a person convicted of other violent acts. If one man stabs another for money, is the victim justified in giving his attacker brain damage? Eye-for-an-eye retribution is a rather pointless way of living, in my view. It doesn't reduce the likelihood that criminal activity will persist in the community, it doesn't change the criminal's behaviour...it is just a way of venting my emotional frustration and sense of violation. So again, we go back to a society where justice is measured according to an appeal to emotion. Which personally is not a society I'd feel safe living in.

Athon

[Roboramma]

I half agree, in that if somebody did that to my child, I'm quite sure I would find it damn hard to suppress the rage and not beat the living crap out of them.

However, there is the personal response and there is the measured response. There are people who would feel revulsion if a gay person were to hit on them, and feel justified in beating the crap out of them. So, does my feeling of revulsion justify the response? If we always judged acts based solely on our emotional response to a situation, it would be a terrifying society to exist in.

You could simply say it's balanced retribution. But I don't support the physical torture of a person convicted of other violent acts. If one man stabs another for money, is the victim justified in giving his attacker brain damage? Eye-for-an-eye retribution is a rather pointless way of living, in my view. It doesn't reduce the likelihood that criminal activity will persist in the community, it doesn't change the criminal's behaviour...it is just a way of venting my emotional frustration and sense of violation. So again, we go back to a society where justice is measured according to an appeal to emotion. Which personally is not a society I'd feel safe living in.

Athon

Which is all fine, as far as it goes, but it doesn't really impact on this case very far, because the problem isn't that the man sought retribution, it's that he defended his daughter and himself in a manner that caused a great deal of physical damage to the assailant.

The question, "was this justified?" isn't about retribution, but self defense.

If he was superman, he could have used his super-speed and super-strength to subdue the rapist without hurting him at all. I'd be all for that.
If he was Hiro Nakamura he could stop time and tie the fellow up at his leisure. I'd support that too.

In the circumstances, however, he was simply an ordinary human being who was more concerned with the safety of himself and his daughter and did what he could to protect that.

I train brazilian jiu jitsu. I can tap out most white belts in less than thirty seconds (and do this often enough to be quite confident with that). But I would be stupid to put down my gun and try to get a rear naked choke on this guy, who may end up overpowering me, have a concealed knife, etc.

While it would be nice if he had hit the fellow in the face with maybe one fewer blows, its all well for us, after the fact, to sit in front of a computer leisurely typing about what he should and should not have done, to expect perfection. But it remains true that he is not, and should not be expected to be, superman.

[fuelair]

Assault and battery, possibly aggravated assault, possibly attempted [or actual] murder, depending upon the circumstances.

At the point a "reasonable person" would realize that the perp no longer constituted a threat, the beating should stop. As a quick for-instance, if the father realized that the gun was not effective enough as a club, and he dragged the rapist's unresisting body into the garage, where he (the father) grabbed a ten-pound sledge hammer and proceeded to gavel the guy's head into a warm paste,.... that's going too far.

If the father put the rapist in handcuffs, chained him to the back of his pickup, and went for a ride on the freeway at 80mph,.... that's going too far.

If the father put the rapist's head in a vice and cut it off with a hacksaw,... that's going too far.

Maybe, but if I was on the jury he would still go free or have to be re-tried.

[fuelair]

Sigh. At least the repairs to the bed frame ought to be more tenable now, and not get me arrested. :confused:

DR
May I assume you were wiring it for a generator and restraints?:D

And there's certainly nothing wrong with that!!:D:jaw-dropp

[fuelair]

I half agree, in that if somebody did that to my child, I'm quite sure I would find it damn hard to suppress the rage and not beat the living crap out of them.

However, there is the personal response and there is the measured response. There are people who would feel revulsion if a gay person were to hit on them, and feel justified in beating the crap out of them. So, does my feeling of revulsion justify the response? If we always judged acts based solely on our emotional response to a situation, it would be a terrifying society to exist in.

You could simply say it's balanced retribution. But I don't support the physical torture of a person convicted of other violent acts. If one man stabs another for money, is the victim justified in giving his attacker brain damage? Eye-for-an-eye retribution is a rather pointless way of living, in my view. It doesn't reduce the likelihood that criminal activity will persist in the community, it doesn't change the criminal's behaviour...it is just a way of venting my emotional frustration and sense of violation. So again, we go back to a society where justice is measured according to an appeal to emotion. Which personally is not a society I'd feel safe living in.

Athon
Actually, it does/can change the criminal's behavior. If he's dead, he can't do anything to anyone else. If he suffers (and I hope he does in the situations like we are discussing here) hopefully what was done disables him sufficiently that he cannot any longer physically harm others.

[athon]

Which is all fine, as far as it goes, but it doesn't really impact on this case very far, because the problem isn't that the man sought retribution, it's that he defended his daughter and himself in a manner that caused a great deal of physical damage to the assailant.

The question, "was this justified?" isn't about retribution, but self defense.

If that was true, by the sounds of it he could have quite easily defended his daughter without beating the living crap out of him. He had a gun, for crying out loud! Surely if that wasn't enough to get the perpetrator to stop, the fact the father was bigger meant he could have at least manhandled him enough to allow his daughter to escape.

No, sorry. This wasn't out of mere self defence. This was the father finding some guy raping his kid, and exacting revenge.

If he was superman, he could have used his super-speed and super-strength to subdue the rapist without hurting him at all. I'd be all for that.
If he was Hiro Nakamura he could stop time and tie the fellow up at his leisure. I'd support that too.

In the circumstances, however, he was simply an ordinary human being who was more concerned with the safety of himself and his daughter and did what he could to protect that.Bollocks. Sorry, that is plainly ridiculous. You're making out as if the guy leisurely considered his options and reduced them down to pounding the assailant silly as the only way to get him to stop. Rather, this guy reacted to the scene of his daughter being violated with extreme rage, and jumped in with that anger.

Do you really think after this guy was belted once or twice, he was still assaulting the kid? Do you really think the father kept pounding away out of fear the guy would get up and try it again? I mean...seriously?

While it would be nice if he had hit the fellow in the face with maybe one fewer blows, its all well for us, after the fact, to sit in front of a computer leisurely typing about what he should and should not have done, to expect perfection. But it remains true that he is not, and should not be expected to be, superman.At no point did I even hint at that being the case. In fact, I sympathise completely. I can't even say I wouldn't have reacted with the same rage and done exactly the same thing. But the point is, the very question 'justification' IS a question of thinking rationally. I might not blame the guy for his actions, especially from my comfy position here in my chair, but sympathising with his response is very different to justifying it.

Athon

[athon]

Actually, it does/can change the criminal's behavior. If he's dead, he can't do anything to anyone else. If he suffers (and I hope he does in the situations like we are discussing here) hopefully what was done disables him sufficiently that he cannot any longer physically harm others.

Fair point. Not one that changes my view on eye-for-an-eye justification, mind you, or that maiming or killing criminals is a valid option for our justice system, but I do stand corrected.

Athon

[Megalodon]

If that was true, by the sounds of it he could have quite easily defended his daughter without beating the living crap out of him. He had a gun, for crying out loud! Surely if that wasn't enough to get the perpetrator to stop, the fact the father was bigger meant he could have at least manhandled him enough to allow his daughter to escape.

From your words I assume you have no self-defense experience. The father manhandles the rapist, who produces a switchblade and becomes a murderer. The father is promoted to a corpse, and his family follows shortly...

I know that there are secret techniques that allow for the complete immobilization of a violent man without harming him, but most people avoid yellow t-shirts...


No, sorry. This wasn't out of mere self defence. This was the father finding some guy raping his kid, and exacting revenge.

It would be if he had tied up the guy and continued beating him. As the story is presented we have a father handling what was probably the biggest adrenaline rush in his life and managing not kill the would-be rapist of his daughter. Notable self-control, I have to say.

Bollocks. Sorry, that is plainly ridiculous. You're making out as if the guy leisurely considered his options and reduced them down to pounding the assailant silly as the only way to get him to stop. Rather, this guy reacted to the scene of his daughter being violated with extreme rage, and jumped in with that anger.

And your point is? That the guy is human?


Do you really think after this guy was belted once or twice, he was still assaulting the kid? Do you really think the father kept pounding away out of fear the guy would get up and try it again? I mean...seriously?


Yes, I think exactly that. There's an intruder in my house, attacking my daughter... I would be scared out of my mind, and wouldn't settle until there was no chance that the man could somehow kill me and proceed to harming my family. That would mean that I would stop, as I suspect the father did, when I think the intruder is dead.

At no point did I even hint at that being the case. In fact, I sympathise completely. I can't even say I wouldn't have reacted with the same rage and done exactly the same thing. But the point is, the very question 'justification' IS a question of thinking rationally. I might not blame the guy for his actions, especially from my comfy position here in my chair, but sympathising with his response is very different to justifying it.

I think you are wrong. The actions were completely justified. Even more violent actions would have been. There was a threat to him and his family, so if he had shot the intruder in the scuffle it would still have been justified.

[athon]

From your words I assume you have no self-defense experience.

Actually, I do. Quite a bit. In fact, I know enough self defence to know it's about getting the hell out of the danger you're in, even if that means distracting somebody enough to get those who aren't capable of protecting themselves to safety. It's not about getting onto a person and continuing to strike them until they're a bloody pulp. That's rage and anger, not self defence.

In any case, the father had a gun. Ironically, if he had have panicked and shot the guy, I might have conceded that was an act of self defence. But the fact he used it as a hand-to-hand weapon...colour me skeptical.

It would be if he had tied up the guy and continued beating him. As the story is presented we have a father handling what was probably the biggest adrenaline rush in his life and managing not kill the would-be rapist of his daughter. Notable self-control, I have to say.

The way I read it, it didn't seem as if he stopped short of killing him out of self control. In fact, it looks like pure luck that the guy didn't die of his injuries.

And your point is? That the guy is human?

My point is that if acting out of rage is itself a justification for an act, we could well say a man who beats the crap out of a gay guy for daring to touch him is justified, too. Both are acting out of rage and anger.

I just don't buy the 'it was just self defence' line. I most certainly understand that he is human, and acted emotively. As I'm sure I would have done. I'd be angry that this guy dared to hurt my child. But there is no way you can tell me his near killing of the rapist was out of fear, especially as he had a gun and was bigger than the perpetrator.

Yes, I think exactly that. There's an intruder in my house, attacking my daughter... I would be scared out of my mind, and wouldn't settle until there was no chance that the man could somehow kill me and proceed to harming my family. That would mean that I would stop, as I suspect the father did, when I think the intruder is dead.

Wait, I thought he was exhibiting self-control by NOT killing him? Which is it? Did he not stop until he thought he was dead, or stop only when he thought he was dead?

I think you are wrong. The actions were completely justified. Even more violent actions would have been. There was a threat to him and his family, so if he had shot the intruder in the scuffle it would still have been justified.

If it was clear from the start that this intruder was about to kill his daughter, and he shot the guy, I might agree. That's not what happened, though.

Athon

[Megalodon]

Actually, I do. Quite a bit. In fact, I know enough self defence to know it's about getting the hell out of the danger you're in, even if that means distracting somebody enough to get those who aren't capable of protecting themselves to safety.

Try that in your kid's bedroom, with your wife already inside, and without a clear picture of the intruder's capabilities...

It's not about getting onto a person and continuing to strike them until they're a bloody pulp. That's rage and anger, not self defence.

No, as the case is told it's self-defense.

In any case, the father had a gun. Ironically, if he had have panicked and shot the guy, I might have conceded that was an act of self defence. But the fact he used it as a hand-to-hand weapon...colour me skeptical.

Again, the gun might have been unloaded, or maybe the safety was on and he thought it was jammed, or maybe he was afraid he would hit his wife or kid...

The way I read it, it didn't seem as if he stopped short of killing him out of self control. In fact, it looks like pure luck that the guy didn't die of his injuries.

Actually I agree with you. I said so later in the post, but forgot to edit this part.

My point is that if acting out of rage is itself a justification for an act, we could well say a man who beats the crap out of a gay guy for daring to touch him is justified, too. Both are acting out of rage and anger.

If the gay guy is in your room uninvited in the middle of the night, then yes, it's a justification. Your hypothetical would be equivalent to a father beating up the daughter's boyfriend after learning they had consensual sex. Nothing to do with the case at hand.

Also I think you emphasize anger and forget about fear, which i think might have been the dominant emotion in the case.

I just don't buy the 'it was just self defence' line. I most certainly understand that he is human, and acted emotively. As I'm sure I would have done. I'd be angry that this guy dared to hurt my child. But there is no way you can tell me his near killing of the rapist was out of fear, especially as he had a gun and was bigger than the perpetrator.

No? You try to enter a dark room where the two persons you love most in the world are screaming in fear. There's an intruder that you can't see very well in the mayhem. You can't shoot him (for any of the reasons above) and you have no idea if he has some kind of a weapon.

Say what you may, I would be scared out of my wits even as I bludgeon the man to death...

[Polaris]

And if he had pointed the gun at the man and told him to stop, then called the police?

The amount of bloodlust in so many posters surprise me.

Forgive me for not giving a rodent's rectum about the well-being of the would-be rapist.

Why are you surprised to see so much glee at the severe beating of scum like this, who was actively searching out a child to rape? We're human beings, not Vulcans. Frankly I'd be a little unnerved if less people wanted to see child rapists beaten to near death.

Keep in mind, if he had simply held the offal at gunpoint until the police showed up, a similar fate would likely have been in store for him, as pederasts aren't exactly high on the totem pole in prison. And this is as it should be.

[athon]

Try that in your kid's bedroom, with your wife already inside, and without a clear picture of the intruder's capabilities...

And yet he approaches the guy and starts attacking him. I just don't buy the scenario of him being in a dominant position enough to continue his assault, and yet still fearing that his kid is in danger.

Again, the gun might have been unloaded, or maybe the safety was on and he thought it was jammed, or maybe he was afraid he would hit his wife or kid...

Sure, we can speculate all we want. And I think we can agree that is all we can really do here - speculate. And we can only base it on our own experiences and observations.

Personally, if anything, fear would make me hesitate. I'd probably raise the gun and shout in an effort to try to distract him and find a way to get him away from my family. That's not a concerted, thought out plan - that would be me being afraid. If that didn't work, I might then approach and engage, hoping that my family would find a way out while the guy was down. Once that had happened, I'd probably do my best to get away.

Instead, this is a guy who seems to have simply jumped in and started beating the crap out of the guy. That doesn't say 'I'm afraid' to me. That says 'I'm pissed off'.

Actually I agree with you. I said so later in the post, but forgot to edit this part.

NP.

If the gay guy is in your room uninvited in the middle of the night, then yes, it's a justification. Your hypothetical would be equivalent to a father beating up the daughter's boyfriend after learning they had consensual sex. Nothing to do with the case at hand.

It has everything to do with it, if the action resulted out of anger.

To me, justification is 'I thought they would do me (or an equivalent, such as a loved one) a great amount of harm and I did what I could to stop them from doing it with what I had at hand'. Which is why your fear defence would, indeed, be a justification.

Yet I don't buy it. Sorry. To tell me this burly guy with a gun would be more afraid than angry simply doesn't ring true. I'm not saying that there was no fear, but I do think his anger was the controlling emotion.

Also I think you emphasize anger and forget about fear, which i think might have been the dominant emotion in the case.

Without further evidence, we'll have to agree to disagree on that.

Athon

[Polaris]

For the most part, I sympathize with the father; but I think cutting the guy's head off with a pistol may have been a bit over the line.

Maybe a little bit over the dotted line...

Actually if he literally did that, it'd be amazing. Like shooting someone with a bar stool.

[athon]

Why are you surprised to see so much glee at the severe beating of scum like this, who was actively searching out a child to rape? We're human beings, not Vulcans. Frankly I'd be a little unnerved if less people wanted to see child rapists beaten to near death.

Not speaking for Ryoken, I personally am not surprised, but disappointed considering this a skeptics forum.

A skill skeptics typically pride themselves on is to distinguish emotive reasoning from rational thought. Now, I personally would also love to put the boot into this guy. Simply because it angers me and makes me sick to think of it. Given I have a small child myself now, even considering it turns my stomach.

BUT, I know it is an emotional reaction. If it was reasonable, I'd want to do what I could to prevent him from coming near my child and not give a thought to any potential pain he'd be feeling. That is not the same as wishing further pain on him, however. The desire for retaliation of that sort is born purely out of a need to satisfy my emotions and not out of any pragmatism.

Now, if we tolerate our own emotional-based decisions, why shouldn't we tolerate those of others? Why not tolerate gay-bashings, or honour killings? Stating this rapist deserves to be bashed to death because he makes us sick is no different to a father killing his daughter because her actions made him feel sick.

Athon

[bob_cadaver]

I have no sympathy for people who break in and attempt to rape anyone they find and I have no problem with what the father did to him. You don't want the living snot beat out of you, don't go breaking in and try to rape someone's daughter. He's lucky the dad didn't kill him. He got what was coming to him.

[Polaris]

Not speaking for Ryoken, I personally am not surprised, but disappointed considering this a skeptics forum.

A skill skeptics typically pride themselves on is to distinguish emotive reasoning from rational thought. Now, I personally would also love to put the boot into this guy. Simply because it angers me and makes me sick to think of it. Given I have a small child myself now, even considering it turns my stomach.

BUT, I know it is an emotional reaction. If it was reasonable, I'd want to do what I could to prevent him from coming near my child and not give a thought to any potential pain he'd be feeling. That is not the same as wishing further pain on him, however. The desire for retaliation of that sort is born purely out of a need to satisfy my emotions and not out of any pragmatism.

Now, if we tolerate our own emotional-based decisions, why shouldn't we tolerate those of others? Why not tolerate gay-bashings, or honour killings? Stating this rapist deserves to be bashed to death because he makes us sick is no different to a father killing his daughter because her actions made him feel sick.

Athon

The "provocations" for gay-bashing and honor killing are irrational. Nobody is harmed by the existence of gays, or by Muslim women having sex (or even less) with men their families don't force upon them. These are poor comparisons, since the rapist in the OP story obviously had victimization of a child on his mind.

By the same measure, I'd have no problem with honor-killers and gay-bashers (when they commit hate crimes) being beaten to death or at least given severe brain damage by blunt instruments (a 3-lb hammer would be a fine choice). But from a pragmatic standpoint that'd be extraneous. Simply kill them. The world is better off without honor-killers, (murderous) gay bashers...and pedophile rapists. I don't consider it unreasonable to kill these "people". And if it's done in the heat of the moment while simultaneously preventing the actual crime they were about to commit, all the better. Saves society the expense of trying them.

[Rogue1stclass]

Well, we don't know when the guy actually stopped resisting.

It's all well and good to say you would have help him at gun point 'till the cops showed, but what if you have him at gun point and he doesn't stop, say, raping your daughter? What if you aren't in a good tactical position to shoot him (hands shaking, target moving, your daughter underneath him) without potentially hurting the person you trying to protect.

Then you pretty much have to rely on the "hit him until gives up" method of conflict resolution. And if he doesn't give up? If you hit him until his face is a bloody, unrecognizable mess, and he is still reaching for your throat? Well, you pretty much have to keep hitting him.

[athon]

The "provocations" for gay-bashing and honor killing are irrational.

It depends.

If the motivation behind bashing a person to death is because you want to prevent them from harming you, then I would agree. It's quite different. However, I think people are kidding themselves if they think that is the motivator here.

It's because of that gut-wrenching, vile distaste over the rapist's actions. It's retribution, plain and simple. It's a wish to have them suffer because you feel sick over their actions. In that case, it's no different to a homophobe bashing a gay person because their actions make them feel sick.

By the same measure, I'd have no problem with honor-killers and gay-bashers (when they commit hate crimes) being beaten to death or at least given severe brain damage by blunt instruments (a 3-lb hammer would be a fine choice). But from a pragmatic standpoint that'd be extraneous. Simply kill them.

Well, we have two distinct things here. One is the emotional need to see them suffer. And the second is a pragmatic wish to have them removed from the community.

Now, if you were advocating capital punishment simply because in your view it would be more humane and less of a burdon on society, I wouldn't have any issue. But - I could be wrong - I suspect your desire to have them die is out of a desire for them to suffer for their crime.

The world is better off without honor-killers, (murderous) gay bashers...and pedophile rapists. I don't consider it unreasonable to kill these "people". And if it's done in the heat of the moment while simultaneously preventing the actual crime they were about to commit, all the better. Saves society the expense of trying them.

That might be a derail if discussed further here. For the purposes of this thread, I don't disagree.

Athon

[Darth Rotor]

May I assume you were wiring it for a generator and restraints?:D

And there's certainly nothing wrong with that!!:D:jaw-dropp

The vibramotor shorted out ...

[Southwind17]

Try to be honest and share with us exactly how you would respond to someone trying to rape your daughter ...
How would I react? First, I'd ask my "daughter" who the hell her mother is! No, seriously, I believe I have done, here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5278630&postcount=164) in "the parallel thread", in which you participated.

In that case, what exactly is the point of your extreme hypo? I thought you were trying to present an extreme possibility that makes it unjustifiable for a father to act in this manner. It's a tenuous position to say that an act of homicide is both unjustifiable and unpunishable*.
*By punishment I'm talking about actual conviction and incarceration not personal torment.
It's not tenuous for me, in the circumstances that I describe (provided I was convinced of the guy's/girl's story!). Yet this is sometimes the outcome in reality, is it not?

Disagreeing with Belz is equivalent to child rape? :jaw-dropp
Agreeing with Belz should be, though!

Rather, this guy reacted to the scene of his daughter being violated with extreme rage, and jumped in with that anger.
I can't even say I wouldn't have reacted with the same rage and done exactly the same thing [emphasis added]. But the point is, the very question 'justification' IS a question of thinking rationally. I might not blame the guy for his actions, especially from my comfy position here in my chair, but sympathising with his response is very different to justifying it.
Bollocks (to use your term). Read this (http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/law-on-using-reasonable-force.html) - it's a short, but effectively-put article. I linked to it earlier at Post #120 right after I read it and immediately stopped thinking like you are.

A skill skeptics typically pride themselves on is to distinguish emotive reasoning from rational thought. Now, I personally would also love to put the boot into this guy. Simply because it angers me and makes me sick to think of it. Given I have a small child myself now, even considering it turns my stomach.

BUT, I know it is an emotional reaction. If it was reasonable, I'd want to do what I could to prevent him from coming near my child and not give a thought to any potential pain he'd be feeling. That is not the same as wishing further pain on him, however. The desire for retaliation of that sort is born purely out of a need to satisfy my emotions and not out of any pragmatism.
That's the point though. Under certain (many) circumstances, like the main one in question here, the emotional reaction IS the reasonable reaction, IS the justifiable reaction. Again, read this (http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/law-on-using-reasonable-force.html).

[GreNME]

Instead, this is a guy who seems to have simply jumped in and started beating the crap out of the guy. That doesn't say 'I'm afraid' to me. That says 'I'm pissed off'.

Have you ever been in a fight before? I don't mean grade school, where most people are still under the delusion that fights should be "fair" (no such thing outside of sports), I mean a real drag-down fight where some serious hurting could take place.

That's not a challenge for you to meet, by the way. What I mean to ask about is the perspective shift that someone who has had an experience similar to a "real" fight tends to have regarding fear and anger, and how both can have the same appearance in reaction and behavior. For example, while I've been in a few fights in my life, I'm not really a "fighter" in the descriptive sense of the word. I'm fairly confident I can defend myself to a degree, but I'm not inclined to test that by any stretch. Were I faced with a situation where a loved one or myself were threatened physically by someone and there was little opportunity to separate the attacker any reasonable way (like yelling, retreating, or calling the police), then my reaction would definitely be one of "hit that individual with everything you've got until you're convinced they aren't going to get up" as a general rule. It's a fear-based reaction, working from the assumption that there are no such things as fair fights, and as a result doing the only thing possible to avoid a worse (less safe, more risky, dangerous, etc.) consequence by stopping. In that reaction, the only condition where stopping is acceptable is when it's clear that escape from the situation is assured, and that means the original perpetrator can't follow or can't follow quickly. I'm sure that could be mistaken for a pissed off or intentionally brutal behavior, but that's a survival mode behavior that's very strongly driven by fear.

[athon]

Bollocks (to use your term). Read this (http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/law-on-using-reasonable-force.html) - it's a short, but effectively-put article. I linked to it earlier at Post #120 right after I read it and immediately stopped thinking like you are.

Hm, it is an interesting piece. Thanks for linking to it.

I guess I can understand a more-or-less blanket ruling of 'all violence against an intruder is justifiable' on a legal front, so I concede from a legal standpoint it is justifiable. No argument necessary, in which case.

The main problem here is that it is all speculative. Ultimately, given the information at hand, you can only guess it was motivated mostly by fear and a need to protect as much as I can only speculate it was motivated mostly by anger and a desire to see the intruder harmed.

That's the point though. Under certain (many) circumstances, like the main one in question here, the emotional reaction IS the reasonable reaction, IS the justifiable reaction. Again, read this (http://www.protectingyourself.co.uk/law-on-using-reasonable-force.html).

From the way I read it, the emotive response is not so much as justifiable as understandable. It would be ridiculous if, by law, emotions were disregarded, considering it's near impossible NOT to act out of emotion.

Have you ever been in a fight before? I don't mean grade school, where most people are still under the delusion that fights should be "fair" (no such thing outside of sports), I mean a real drag-down fight where some serious hurting could take place.

Indirectly, yes. A stalker, believe it or not, who had violent tendencies and who is the only person I have truly been afraid of. At the time I truly thought that person would stop at nothing, and given a later assault they were involved with a few months later, I'm not sure that thought was without good reason.

I do admit, when it came to a head, I was terrified. My girlfriend at the time had been threatened and I was scared for her safety, too. It's the closest I can come to sympathising, and during the incident I did go so far as to wondering how far I'd have to go to stop them. Yet I remember yelling at my girlfriend to get out (she did, and called the cops), and then looking for a way out myself.

Were I faced with a situation where a loved one or myself were threatened physically by someone and there was little opportunity to separate the attacker any reasonable way (like yelling, retreating, or calling the police), then my reaction would definitely be one of "hit that individual with everything you've got until you're convinced they aren't going to get up" as a general rule.

Again, we can only speculate that was indeed the case. So far we've assumed the gun was useless, it wasn't sufficient to have intimidated the intruder, that the fact the father overpowered him wasn't enough to indicate that he had been subdued (to be that severely beaten, I can't imagine it was a standing punch up - it sounds as if the intruder would have been grounded pretty quickly...but again, I'm assuming), that several rather severe strikes again weren't enough to indicate he'd been subdued, etc...

Now, all of that is possible, of course. But I'm having to make a lot of assumptions to arrive at that point. Occham's razor is telling me it's more likely the extent of the assault was driven by rage more than fear. And, yes, relying on my experience of truly thinking this ex lover of my girlfriend was out to do some damage, I can say my fear drove me to consider ways to get far my girlfriend out and then me to follow.

Athon

[PingOfPong]

From the way I read it, the emotive response is not so much as justifiable as understandable. It would be ridiculous if, by law, emotions were disregarded, considering it's near impossible NOT to act out of emotion.


This is the core of the defense that I would use in the father's case. It is understandable that a father, otherwise moral and law abiding, would react with blinding rage at the sight of his daughter being raped. I can't say for certain how "in control" I would be if I caught someone in the act of hurting my nephews. It's a question of culpability. It can be said that the rapist provoked his own beating. It warrants at least some leniency.

However, this isn't the same as the gay bashing example. Provocation requires a test of universality. Clearly, it's not considered proper by the norms of our culture(s) to react to homosexuality with homicidal rage. That rules it right out.

[commandlinegamer]

I'm trying to think of a quotation here: something along the lines of civilisation is defined by how it treats those it despises.

Anyway, I think this is a scenario where you can't really judge unless you're in that situation. You can condemn or condone the actions of the father until you're blue in the face, but it won't make any difference.

[Belz...]

In the real world you can't ever assume an attacker is incapacitated unless he's dead.

I suppose there's more than a little truth to this, however.

[PingOfPong]

You can condemn or condone the actions of the father until you're blue in the face, but it won't make any difference.

It certainly makes a difference to the father, the rapist, the girl, the court, the DA, jurists in a hypothetical trial, and the way society should deal with this by law. It's an interesting topic.

[Belz...]

Could you share with us your advanced way of thinking, with regard to dealing with someone who is trying to rape your daughter ?

If your only option is to shoot the guy (for instance, not being physically strong enough to risk a hand-to-hand confrontation), then do so. But if you're going to go for beating the guy up, and keep on beating and beating and beating, my opinion is that you are using excessive force.

As I said in the other thread, I can't guarantee that I wouldn't use excessive force in that situation, but I'd expect to be judged accordingly if I did.

[Rasmus]

If your only option is to shoot the guy (for instance, not being physically strong enough to risk a hand-to-hand confrontation), then do so. But if you're going to go for beating the guy up, and keep on beating and beating and beating, my opinion is that you are using excessive force.

Well, yeah. But he stopped beating him - or is he still at it?

The question is, at what point can we expect him to stop?

I think there are quite a few things we cannot expect of him.

We cannot expect him to pause after every single lash to assess the current condition of the rapist. If he did that, we could reasonably assume that the rapist would use one of those moments to counter-attack.

We cannot expect him to be able to see when the rapist was sufficiently subdued to not be dangerous anymore. So what if the guy is on the ground and doesn't move? Would you know how long it would take him to get up again? I wouldn't.

In the end, we'd have to allow a lot more force and violence as "reasonable" than what would, strictly speaking, be necessary. (Hey, maybe the rapist was extremely ticklish - then it would have been entirely sufficient to go at him with a single finger or a feather or some such thing. Nothing more would have been necessary in that case. But using more force than that would not have been unreasonable at all, and it wouldn't have been excessive, either.)

The question is, at what point could he have been sure; at what point can we expect him to bet his child's life on the assumption that the rapist doesn't pose any danger anymore. Personally, I want to afford the father quite a large margin of error here.

[Cayvmann]

So being 'disgusted with filth' is a justifiable reason to kill someone?

Did he kill him? I was making a statement about the more visceral reaction of beating someone versus killing them. Not justifying killing him by the disgust.

And yes, I think he would have been justified killing a man he caught raping his daughter. I don't care one way or another whether you agree or not, so I won't ask.

[Cayvmann]

How about what should have happened? Is that out of the question to discuss as well? Or was beating a man until he's brain damaged the only correct response?

There's a reason why we have a justice system, and reason why we (should) frown upon those that take justice in their own hands.

I'm just going to go ahead and assume you are trolling here, but I'll answer anyway. We don't have a justice system to keep us safe. We have a justice system to make sure that whatever happened was lawful and fair, after the fact. This guy caught someone trying to rape his daughter and beat him. I doubt anyone concerned with justice would blame him.

Tell me Ryokan, once you see such a thing happening, do you think you would be so cool and calm in that situation? A situation that is thankfully more rare than winning a large lottery prize? How do you condition yourself to be so cool when it happens? So you just nicely ask a man, who is raping your daughter, to kindly get off of her and wait for the cops please.

I bet the man forgot he had a gun and just went to wailing on this "disgusting peice of filth". The fact that he stopped while the serial killer-rapist was still alive speaks in his favor, IMO.

[Cayvmann]

I am not finding anything but I did find this



story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422181,00.html)

Wonder how many people support the dad her.


I do. Kid shouldn't have been sneaking into his house. How did he know this kid wasn't, you know, raping his daughter or killing her?

[Southwind17]

It certainly makes a difference to the father, the rapist, the girl, the court, the DA, jurists in a hypothetical trial, and the way society should deal with this by law. It's an interesting topic.
What difference does one condoning or condemning the father's actions make to the rapist or the girl?

[Cainkane1]

Here's the episode guide for AJ, should Cainekane1 or anyone else want to find the episode: http://www.aetv.com/american_justice/aj_episode_guide.jsp?episode=425294

This thread reminded me of this: Child killer literally a marked man (http://www.wthr.com/Global/story.asp?S=5468772).
I like this. Some child rapist murderer given a dose of his own medicine.

[Belz...]

What do you think of people who rape children?

<< Blood boils >>

Nor I you. I reserve that title for child rapists and other horrible people.

I prefer to incarcerate them and, in principle, use them as cheap workforce. At least they'd be doing something worthwhile. Who knows ? Might actually learn something in the process.

[Belz...]

Yes, killing and/or beating the rapist was justified.

Just so we all understand each other: I agree. However:

At the point a "reasonable person" would realize that the perp no longer constituted a threat, the beating should stop.

Is what I'm trying to say.

Perhaps I should stop trying to be pithy and re-read myself more. :D

[Belz...]

Disagreeing with Belz is equivalent to child rape? :jaw-dropp

Er... no. Where did you get that impression ?

[PingOfPong]

What difference does one condoning or condemning the father's actions make to the rapist or the girl?

It matters to the girl because she might lose her father depending on how we judge this. I matters to the rapist because we have to ask if he deserves justice for the beating he received. Hint: he doesn't. Not in my opinion anyway.

[Darth Rotor]

If your only option is to shoot the guy (for instance, not being physically strong enough to risk a hand-to-hand confrontation), then do so. But if you're going to go for beating the guy up, and keep on beating and beating and beating, my opinion is that you are using excessive force.

As I said in the other thread, I can't guarantee that I wouldn't use excessive force in that situation, but I'd expect to be judged accordingly if I did.
I see where you are coming from. FWIW, your last sentence would make more sense to me if you added "after the situation was over and the perp disabled and I had some time to collect myself, calm down" --- Something like this complete's your thought, as I understand you:

"I can't guarantee that I wouldn't use excessive force in that situation, but after the situation was over, and the perp disabled, and I had some time to collect myself, calm down, I'd expect to be judged accordingly if I did."

"It's a fair cop" as it were.

DR

[Belz...]

Agreeing with Belz should be, though!

Which is funny because I'm on Southwind's ignore list, and I'm actually agreeing with him on this thread.

[Belz...]

Well, yeah. But he stopped beating him - or is he still at it?

I didn't ask.

The question is, at what point can we expect him to stop?

That's the hard question, isn't it ?

[CptColumbo]

I'm sorry, the only thing that comes up, when I try to do a search for this story, is this thread.

[Southwind17]

It matters to the girl because she might lose her father depending on how we judge this. I matters to the rapist because we have to ask if he deserves justice for the beating he received. Hint: he doesn't. Not in my opinion anyway.
Sorry to appear pedantic, but whether we (by which I assume you mean society generally) condone or condemn the father's actions have nothing to be with how we judge this (whatever that means), and similarly nothing to do with our having to ask if he deserves justice (whatever that means). How we judge this (by which I mean trained judges representing society generally), and the answer to our question as to whether the rapist deserves justice, are already determined and answered by our current legal systems. We are all here simply debating something that was probably debated ad nauseam by the law makers to get us to where we are now. We're essentially just going over old ground for our own sakes!

[soylent]

So should I put you down on the list of those infavor of murdering unconsious attackers?

Making a list and checking it twice?

You can jot me down in the supporter column for the murder of unconscious rapists caught in the act.

[Modified]

I think some posters say they aren't violent and wouldn't beat the guy's face in...but humans act weird when it comes to a situation like this. I hope that it never happens to any of you or your families, but I think that if in the same situation, you'd beat the guy's face in, if not shoot him.

I consider myself to be non-violent, but put in that situation I probably would have done the same thing as the father. I think the father was completely justified in what he did.

Agreed. The justice system can not require people to be emotionless robots. I'm a fairly even-tempered person, but in that situation I imagine I would beat the guy until I got tired or his skull caved in.

[GreNME]

Indirectly, yes. A stalker, believe it or not, who had violent tendencies and who is the only person I have truly been afraid of. At the time I truly thought that person would stop at nothing, and given a later assault they were involved with a few months later, I'm not sure that thought was without good reason.

I do admit, when it came to a head, I was terrified. My girlfriend at the time had been threatened and I was scared for her safety, too. It's the closest I can come to sympathising, and during the incident I did go so far as to wondering how far I'd have to go to stop them. Yet I remember yelling at my girlfriend to get out (she did, and called the cops), and then looking for a way out myself.

Okay, so you can have a reasonable understanding of the type of reaction I described.

Again, we can only speculate that was indeed the case. So far we've assumed the gun was useless, it wasn't sufficient to have intimidated the intruder, that the fact the father overpowered him wasn't enough to indicate that he had been subdued (to be that severely beaten, I can't imagine it was a standing punch up - it sounds as if the intruder would have been grounded pretty quickly...but again, I'm assuming), that several rather severe strikes again weren't enough to indicate he'd been subdued, etc...

Now, all of that is possible, of course. But I'm having to make a lot of assumptions to arrive at that point. Occham's razor is telling me it's more likely the extent of the assault was driven by rage more than fear. And, yes, relying on my experience of truly thinking this ex lover of my girlfriend was out to do some damage, I can say my fear drove me to consider ways to get far my girlfriend out and then me to follow.

Why wouldn't Occam's Razor be telling you that the amount of speculation that everyone is attaching to the original description is disproportionate to a huge degree? All I can speculate on is what I would do in the case that, as was stated in the OP, a family member was being attacked. Anything more really goes off the description. As far as the OP description goes, I can totally see myself going into "hit until they can't get up" mode as a defense mechanism and not an offense mechanism.

[Woolgatherer]

Originally Posted by N.Texas View Post
I If the father goes too far with his pounding of the rapist he (the father) should be guilty to some degree.
Guilty of what?

I'm just trying to think this out. I don't know the law when it comes to self defense. What I was thinking is that if the father went too far he could be charged with the assault or murder of the rapist. He could be guilty of assault disproportionate to the threat posed.

[drkitten]

Sorry to appear pedantic, but whether we (by which I assume you mean society generally) condone or condemn the father's actions have nothing to be with how we judge this (whatever that means)!

So I guess we can add "the semantics of common English words" to ever-growing list of concepts you don't understand.

To "condone or condemn" is to judge.

[Cainkane1]

He could legally have shot and killed the man and I'm not at all sure why he didn't. I certainly would have if I had a clear shot. Maybe the guy was too close to his daughter and he couldn't shoot at first. That's probably the reason.

However, I'm not sure which would be worse for the child to witness, beating a man to a pulp or fatally shooting him. (Assuming the daughter had not run away already.)
The father didn't shoot for this reason. As I said in another post the father wasn't the first person on the scene. The mother was fighting the guy a few seconds before the father got there. The father jumped in and beat the slop out of the perp. If I was on a jury and i said this before I'd hang the jury before I allowed the father to be convicted of anything. Its been a few years since I watched this episode of American Justice but as I recall the perp used a knife to intimidate his victims. Ok adding this to the mix which I should have done earlier and the fact that the father didn't want to shoot his revolver and hit his wife or child its my guess the father was fighting a knife weilding bad guy. In the heat of the moment (perhaps) the father may have lost what control he had and didn't quit hitting the bad guy until he lay still in a bloody mass.

[newton3376]

Agreed. The justice system can not require people to be emotionless robots. I'm a fairly even-tempered person, but in that situation I imagine I would beat the guy until I got tired or his skull caved in.

Yep....I would keep hitting him until he stopped moving or I couldn't move my arms anymore....

[jimbob]

The father didn't shoot for this reason. As I said in another post the father wasn't the first person on the scene. The mother was fighting the guy a few seconds before the father got there. The father jumped in and beat the slop out of the perp. If I was on a jury and i said this before I'd hang the jury before I allowed the father to be convicted of anything. Its been a few years since I watched this episode of American Justice but as I recall the perp used a knife to intimidate his victims. Ok adding this to the mix which I should have done earlier and the fact that the father didn't want to shoot his revolver and hit his wife or child its my guess the father was fighting a knife weilding bad guy. In the heat of the moment (perhaps) the father may have lost what control he had and didn't quit hitting the bad guy until he lay still in a bloody mass.

I would say that anywhere with a jury system, even if there was a charge, no jury would convict.

the self-defence argument would probably hold true in many cases legal systems anyway, but IANAL (thank the FSM, both on my behalf, and the legal system's)

[Darth Rotor]

I would say that anywhere with a jury system, even if there was a charge, no jury would convict.

the self-defence argument would probably hold true in many cases legal systems anyway, but IANAL (thank the FSM, both on my behalf, and the legal system's)
Aye, and a quick tip of the cap to your #3000 post. :)

DR

[jimbob]

Aye, and a quick tip of the cap to your #3000 post. :)

DRThankee-sir

3,000 -Yeagods HTF did that happen?

[Morrigan]

I am not finding anything but I did find this

story (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422181,00.html)

Wonder how many people support the dad her.
A completely different situation with completely different circumstances... but hey I'm sure many people "support the dad" still, huh? :rolleyes:


As Rasmus pointed out, very few of us are experts on incapacitating people without causing permanent damage. I certainly don't consider myself an expert, and I'm a trained martial artist. Well, all right, a semi-trained martial artist.

If my use of violence is legally justified (which it is in this case -- not only is it defense of another person, but it's also apprehending a felon and prevention of a felony), it's justified up to the point where I feel confident that the situation is under control. If I can't tell whether on not he's actually disabled (and if a reasonable person with my training couldn't tell, either), then I've not hit him hard enough. If a reasonable person would think he might be shamming, or he might have the capacity to retaliate, hit him again....

Given that the father could, legally, have killed the rapist and been completely in the clear, letting him off with "only" brain damage is actually remarkably lenient. I guess the father had more confidence in his ability to disable without killing than I have.

Exactly. If the gun was loaded he could have killed the guy and few would have batted an eyelid. But one would assume that non-death is a better outcome for the perp than death, no? Yet even with a better outcome, some would want to prosecute him? I don't get it.

So you are for the murder of incapacited attackers then.
You really are the master of strawmen, aren't you? You do that kind of thing ALL THE TIME. It's annoying.

[Mick Houlahan]

The father didn't kill the guy; so sure - he was justified in beating the crap out of him. Why's there even a question? I'd say the intruder should have to cover the cost of repairing the gun he damaged with his face, and then should be let out of jail once a week on a Sunday to (ala Python) go round to the guy's house, apologize, have his head nailed to the floor, his pelvis screwed to a cake stand, and receive another beating.

[fuelair]

Not speaking for Ryoken, I personally am not surprised, but disappointed considering this a skeptics forum.

A skill skeptics typically pride themselves on is to distinguish emotive reasoning from rational thought. Now, I personally would also love to put the boot into this guy. Simply because it angers me and makes me sick to think of it. Given I have a small child myself now, even considering it turns my stomach.

BUT, I know it is an emotional reaction. If it was reasonable, I'd want to do what I could to prevent him from coming near my child and not give a thought to any potential pain he'd be feeling. That is not the same as wishing further pain on him, however. The desire for retaliation of that sort is born purely out of a need to satisfy my emotions and not out of any pragmatism.

Now, if we tolerate our own emotional-based decisions, why shouldn't we tolerate those of others? Why not tolerate gay-bashings, or honour killings? Stating this rapist deserves to be bashed to death because he makes us sick is no different to a father killing his daughter because her actions made him feel sick.

Athon

Let me try to clarify this as much as possible, for my purposes at least. If I did what that father did it would not be in exactly the same emotional state the father was in. I would be doing it because I decided rather a long time ago - and not for anything that happened to me personally or to any of my family - that there were persons moving in the world that needed to be removed from it - because if they were not they would continue to hurt others moving from place to place and situation to situation never properly out of the way/properly and permanently jailed or executed if left up to the regular "justice" system. I have made sure that if the situation arises where I can remove such, it will happen, if I can aid someone else in doing it, it will happen and if I hear of someone doing it I will applaud and support them. It will have no affect on my conscience and I will do my best to make sure there is no appearance of violation of any important law in it.

As to the father - he did not shoot I suspect, because he did not have the control at that point to aim the gun in any dependable way. His mind was (from a brain mapping bit many years ago) in reptile mode - attack kill destroy
and in that mode you strike over and over until the attacking thing (the rapist in this case) ceases action (if you are able to control the weapon you fire over and over - often you are still firing a while after the weapon is empty) - in Vietnam the Tunnel Rats were removed from hunting the NVA/VC rats if they used more than half the magazine in their .45s (two) as it indicated they had gone from assured and capable to afraid and dangerous to themselves.

[Southwind17]

So I guess we can add "the semantics of common English words" to ever-growing list of concepts you don't understand.

To "condone or condemn" is to judge.
And I guess we can reiterate lack of due attention within your inimitable list of weaknesses.

Sure, "condone or condemn" might well be to judge, but it might not necessarily be how we judge this (whatever "how we judge this" means - "we" being the operative word). I applied italics for a reason. Please pay attention doc instead of defaulting to engaging automatic condescension pilot at every erroneous opportunity.

[Southwind17]

3,000 -Yeagods HTF did that happen?
I think that old evolution thread accounts for most of it! ;)

[jimbob]

I think that old evolution thread accounts for most of it! ;)

Ah, funny you should mention that, because on November 2nd, in this thread (http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=97719&p=2414686#p2414686) on his forum, Richard Dawkins has now stated that he is not using the technical definition for random

I would argue, as marios does four posts down, that it is still wrong and the usual scientific definition of a random event fulfills neither of the options Richard Dawkins stated, but is an event that is not predetermined, which will also be where identical inputs do not produce identical outputs.

</derail>

Maybe time to update one of those threads.... :duck:


I seem to have been spending a lot of time talking about healthcare recently.

[Southwind17]

Ah, funny you should mention that, because on November 2nd, in this thread (http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=97719&p=2414686#p2414686) on his forum, Richard Dawkins has now stated that he is not using the technical definition for random
I would argue, as marios does four posts down, that it is still wrong and the usual scientific definition of a random event fulfills neither of the options Richard Dawkins stated, but is an event that is not predetermined, which will also be where identical inputs do not produce identical outputs.
This is interesting discussion material jimbob. Feel free to start a thread and PM me, or set up a diversion here (beep beep!). Meantime, I'm a little confused as to what you mean by "usual scientific definition", "neither of the options Richard Dawkins stated" and "inputs"? See, you've already managed to obscure matters beyond the pre-existing confusion mentioned by Dawkins! ;)

[jimbob]

This is interesting discussion material jimbob. Feel free to start a thread and PM me, or set up a diversion here (beep beep!). Meantime, I'm a little confused as to what you mean by "usual scientific definition", "neither of the options Richard Dawkins stated" and "inputs"? See, you've already managed to obscure matters beyond the pre-existing confusion mentioned by Dawkins! ;)

This thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5287095#post5287095) with the full post quoted and not linked to, as it is On Topic there

[bigred]

In reference to this post:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=5275514#post5275514

"I was watching a TV program called American Justice. There was a serial killer rapist who picked the wrong house one day. He saw in a rural community what he thought was a small girl who was alone in her house. What he didn't know was her big burly redneck father parked his cars in a building behind his house where he worked on motorcycles.

This big mechanic heard his daughters screams and he ran to her and caught the bad guy in the act of trying to rape her. He took his revolver and beat the guy until the rapists face was unrecognizable and he thought the he was dead. The trigger guard of his .38 was bent. Thats how hard this father hit the guy who was violating his child.

The rapist wasn't dead but he suffered severed head and facial injuries and brain damage. The father wasn't charged."

Let me guess: Texas?

I'd like to buy the guy a beer and hope his girl wasn't violated.

I also hope mr bad guy is alive but in serious pain and misery for a long time. I wish similar for the brilliant legal eagles who let him roam.


I'd say the intruder should have to cover the cost of repairing the gun he damaged with his face, and then should be let out of jail once a week on a Sunday to (ala Python) go round to the guy's house, apologize, have his head nailed to the floor, his pelvis screwed to a cake stand, and receive another beating.I'd like you to join us for said beer. :cool:

[Belz...]

So we've gone from stopping crime to cheering and giving medals to people, not for defending their homes, but for beating up someone, and even wishing harm on lawyers.

[Cainkane1]

The father didn't kill the guy; so sure - he was justified in beating the crap out of him. Why's there even a question? I'd say the intruder should have to cover the cost of repairing the gun he damaged with his face, and then should be let out of jail once a week on a Sunday to (ala Python) go round to the guy's house, apologize, have his head nailed to the floor, his pelvis screwed to a cake stand, and receive another beating.
When the father was interviewed by American Justice he displayed the handgun. It was a brand name ( I forget which) and the steel was about as good as good steel can be. The heavy looking trigger guard was severely bent. I can't get over the fact that a steel trigger guard was actually bent on a human head.


In an earlier post mention was made of temporary insanity and I believe this is what happened. What amazes me more than the bent trigger guard is that the rapist actually survived.

[Meadmaker]

But I think there's a step between defending someone and, to quote the OP, to beat someone's face until they're unrecognizable. At some point you've gone beyond defense.


My great uncle Howard had a saying. "Always kick a man when he's down, because if he gets up, he might beat the hell out of you."

Like most posters, I think the man's actions were perfectly acceptable. In those circumstances, it is absolutely imperative to disable the man, using any means necessary, including killing him. I also would not expect the father to be required to assess the damage and verify that only necessary force was being applied.

Yes, of course, the father went overboard. However, when there's a guy in your home who has tried to rape a little girl, the one and only important consideration is to force him to stop. So, who cares if that mission was probably already accomplished several whacks before the dad stopped beating? I'm not going to complain that he didn't stop to take a pulse or check for medical conditions. I don't expect calm rationality from someone who has interrupted an attempted rape. Keep beating until you are absolutely certain that guy can't harm anyone, and if you have to stop and think about it, better to just keep beating. While you are stopping to think, he just might regain consciousness and pull a weapon.

[Rasmus]

They say that when designing and building a bridge, engineers would calculate all the necessary tolerances to the tenth digit and then apply a factor of two.

In this scenario, I don't expect the layman to be able to judge the minimum required amount of force to any degree of precision, let alone that hight, but I'll happily grant him the factor of two or three just to be on the safe side.

[Southwind17]

When the father was interviewed by American Justice he displayed the handgun. It was a brand name ( I forget which) and the steel was about as good as good steel can be. The heavy looking trigger guard was severely bent. I can't get over the fact that a steel trigger guard was actually bent on a human head. [emphasis added]
Who's saying it was? (think about it)

[Soapy Sam]

I can't help wondering if (assuming the event actually did happen) we have a true account of events.

What if, for example, man 1 broke into the house , thinking it empty? Man 2 hammers him to a pulp, then claims he found him raping his daughter, on the grounds (as strongly supported in this thread) that no jury would convict him for assault- though they might had he prevented a burglary rather than a child rape.
What if man 1 came to the door to ask for the return of money he loaned man 2? Man 2 hammers him to...etc

In short, is there any evidence of attempted rape other than man 2's claim?

Incidentally- was he carrying the gun while working in the yard? Was the child supervised in any sense? Did he stop to collect the weapon when he heard the girl scream?
The story smells, to my mind.

I'm also idly curious why, as the OP poster clearly saw the program some time ago, he raises it now?

[Modified]

When the father was interviewed by American Justice he displayed the handgun. It was a brand name ( I forget which) and the steel was about as good as good steel can be. The heavy looking trigger guard was severely bent. I can't get over the fact that a steel trigger guard was actually bent on a human head.

<OT>When I was a teenager I was hanging out the window of a 1974 Chevy Nova and got thrown against the raised lock stem. Back then they were made of steel and probably 1/4 inch thick. My lower back managed to bend the lock stem over 45 degrees from straight. It did not break the skin, but left a large welt across my back, and there is still a heavy scar that can be felt beneath the surface. My friend who owned the car could not bend it at all with a pair of pliers, he had to take it apart and hammer it straight.</OT>

[Morrigan]

It's entirely possible that the story has been distorted or even fabricated, but most people here are posing their arguments on the assumption that it's true; i.e. a man's actions in an hypothetical situation such as this one are not wrong.

I'm pretty sure that if we learned the facts are different, everyone who'd say "the guy was in the right" would adjust their opinion accordingly.

[Meadmaker]

It's entirely possible that the story has been distorted or even fabricated, but most people here are posing their arguments on the assumption that it's true; i.e. a man's actions in an hypothetical situation such as this one are not wrong.

I'm pretty sure that if we learned the facts are different, everyone who'd say "the guy was in the right" would adjust their opinion accordingly.

Yes, things are rarely as black and white as they are when posted in forums. I was responding as if the OP was an accurate description, which I highly doubt. As others have done, I tried to find some sort of reference using google, and came up empty.

[Vic Vega]

I believe a grand jury is involved when ever a crime is prosecuted. A DA can not avoid them if he feels he just wants it prosecuted faster.

Not so.

A DA can drop or downgrade charges and make plea deals without going before a Grand Jury.

It is also possible to submit a direct indictment to the court, but this is not common as far as I know.

[bigred]

So we've gone from stopping crime to cheering and giving medals to people, not for defending their homes, but for beating up someone, and even wishing harm on lawyers.

And these things are mututally exclusive because -

[Belz...]

I never said they were.

[Cainkane1]

I can't help wondering if (assuming the event actually did happen) we have a true account of events.

What if, for example, man 1 broke into the house , thinking it empty? Man 2 hammers him to a pulp, then claims he found him raping his daughter, on the grounds (as strongly supported in this thread) that no jury would convict him for assault- though they might had he prevented a burglary rather than a child rape.
What if man 1 came to the door to ask for the return of money he loaned man 2? Man 2 hammers him to...etc

In short, is there any evidence of attempted rape other than man 2's claim?

Incidentally- was he carrying the gun while working in the yard? Was the child supervised in any sense? Did he stop to collect the weapon when he heard the girl scream?
The story smells, to my mind.

I'm also idly curious why, as the OP poster clearly saw the program some time ago, he raises it now?
A number of people seem to believe I'm a liar. I really don't know how to prove that this episode of American Justice happened but it did and at least one other poster said they saw it themselves. Being called a liar is not something I like and if a significant number of the members of this forum want me to quit comming in here there are other places I can go. Thanks.

[Darat]

A number of people seem to believe I'm a liar. I really don't know how to prove that this episode of American Justice happened but it did and at least one other poster said they saw it themselves. Being called a liar is not something I like and if a significant number of the members of this forum want me to quit comming in here there are other places I can go. Thanks.

I don't think anyone has called you a liar and you really shouldn't be upset if people doubt the accuracy of your recollections - human memory is notoriously unreliable. Don't forget at least two of us have spent some time trying to find any links to anything that even seems to resemble your recollection of the crime and subsequent events and we haven't been able to find anything.

I do not think you are lying but in the light of any evidence to support your recollection I do suspect that your recollection may not be totally accurate, or may be missing significant information. However I don't think that matters too much for the discussion in this thread as we can discuss your recollection as if it was a hypothetical.

[Tailgater]

I personally am not surprised, but disappointed considering this a skeptics forum.

<snip>

Now, if we tolerate our own emotional-based decisions, why shouldn't we tolerate those of others? Why not tolerate gay-bashings, or honour killings? Stating this rapist deserves to be bashed to death because he makes us sick is no different to a father killing his daughter because her actions made him feel sick.

Athon

LOL. I'm sorry. Equating gay-bashings and honour killings (hate crimes and screwed up morals) to bashing a rapist in the act (temporary insanity unleashed on sick criminal) after making the first comment is the funniest thing I've heard all day.

[Soapy Sam]

Cainkane-

I have no reason to suppose YOU are lying.
I think the defendant may have been be lying. (Assuming he ever existed).

The fact you think you remember a TV show does not mean the incident portrayed in the show ever happened. A lot of "reality" programming is pure fiction.

Further- as Darat suggests- you could be conflating different shows in memory or imagining details incorrectly. You may be mixing up a true story with a similar fictional one. It happens to most people frequently.

I'm just curious about why you raise the matter now, when , by your own statement, you have forgotten some of the details.

[Tailgater]

It depends.

If the motivation behind bashing a person to death is because you want to prevent them from harming you, then I would agree. It's quite different. However, I think people are kidding themselves if they think that is the motivator here.

It's because of that gut-wrenching, vile distaste over the rapist's actions. It's retribution, plain and simple. It's a wish to have them suffer because you feel sick over their actions. In that case, it's no different to a homophobe bashing a gay person because their actions make them feel sick.



You're way off in the comparison even down to the timing of the actions involved. If he tracked down a rapist he saw in a newspaper or someone he knew was convicted of rape and beat the crap out of them just for being a rapist, then you might be a little closer. If your example had some homophobe walking in on two men having sex and beat the crap out of them, then you might be a little closer. Even then, your example would still be wrong because neither victim is violating (to a sane person and pretty much every civilized legal system in the world) anyone else.

[Tailgater]

I can't help wondering if (assuming the event actually did happen) we have a true account of events.

What if, for example, man 1 broke into the house , thinking it empty? Man 2 hammers him to a pulp, then claims he found him raping his daughter, on the grounds (as strongly supported in this thread) that no jury would convict him for assault- though they might had he prevented a burglary rather than a child rape.
What if man 1 came to the door to ask for the return of money he loaned man 2? Man 2 hammers him to...etc

In short, is there any evidence of attempted rape other than man 2's claim?

Incidentally- was he carrying the gun while working in the yard? Was the child supervised in any sense? Did he stop to collect the weapon when he heard the girl scream?
The story smells, to my mind.

I'm also idly curious why, as the OP poster clearly saw the program some time ago, he raises it now?

Maybe aliens were behind the whole thing and the OP poster is one of them and it feels guilty.

Or what Darat said. It's an interesting discussion. So, as Bob Knight would say, lay back and enjoy it.

[king catfish]

So being 'disgusted with filth' is a justifiable reason to kill someone?

No. Someone trying to rape one's daughter is a justifiable reason to kill someone. If that were my daughter that man would be dead. Don't want to get killed? Don't rape my kid. I have no sympathy at all, and the father should get a hero's medal rather than be charged.


The amount of bloodlust in so many posters surprise me.

Are you serious? I'm guessing you do not have a child.

[Beerina]

It's hard for me to answer. I'm sure there would've been a better way to stop the man (Especially seeing that he actually had a gun at hand.), but the reaction is understandable. Would I have reacted differently? I honestly can't say.

Christ almighty, no!

It isn't your responsibility to find some kind of minimal force to stop a guy from raping your daughter!

What is the matter with people?!?!? He should have dragged the guy off and shot him in the head.

[athon]

LOL. I'm sorry. Equating gay-bashings and honour killings (hate crimes and screwed up morals) to bashing a rapist in the act (temporary insanity unleashed on sick criminal) after making the first comment is the funniest thing I've heard all day.

Why? Both offend an individual's personal views. Acting on that offence is exactly the same - it's an emotional reaction.

I'm not referring to the ability to rationally justify it. I'm stating that both are cases of an emotional need to see another individual suffer for their actions.

Still laughing? Then you might want to explain how they are so different, without resorting to rational justifications.

Athon

[athon]

You're way off in the comparison even down to the timing of the actions involved. If he tracked down a rapist he saw in a newspaper or someone he knew was convicted of rape and beat the crap out of them just for being a rapist, then you might be a little closer.

How would that be any closer?

If it was indeed a result of rage at seeing it, it's rage. Pure and simple. I fail to see why you have to modify the analogy to make it fit your view.

If your example had some homophobe walking in on two men having sex and beat the crap out of them, then you might be a little closer.Given I didn't provide any such details, and yet you have to, I think you're trying a little hard to make a case.

Ok, fine. It's no different to a guy enraged at seeing two men having sex, and acting out of that rage.

Even then, your example would still be wrong because neither victim is violating (to a sane person and pretty much every civilized legal system in the world) anyone else.Again, so what? I'm not saying I wouldn't also feel rage. Mostly because you and I share that value of feeling disgust over one person violating another. And I'm certainly not discussing the rational view of wanting to prevent such an action.

I'm stating that the need to see another suffer for offending one's values is the same regardless of what values are being offended. You seem to think it is quite alright for a person to suffer pain because they offended a value of yours, such as 'don't cause pain on another person'. It's retribution. We're not talking about your passive desire to limit their actions in the future - we're talking about your need to see them in pain because you don't like what they're doing.

Athon

[Rasmus]

I think we overlooked another aspect:

How many blows would it take to get the result we have? How long was the father beating the rapist?

Would it take three blows, or thirty? I would find it much easier to accept that he made a mistake if the number is thirty rather than three, and if he kept going for a full five minutes rather than just 15 seconds.

[Southwind17]

No. Someone trying to rape one's daughter is a justifiable reason to kill someone. If that were my daughter that man would be dead. Don't want to get killed? Don't rape my kid. I have no sympathy at all, and the father should get a hero's medal rather than be charged.
Quite right, apart from the hero's medal part, which I'm hoping is a little tongue in cheek. Nobody in their right mind would actually advocate commending and rewarding physical violence, under any circumstances.

It isn't your responsibility to find some kind of minimal force to stop a guy from raping your daughter!
What is the matter with people?!?!? He should have dragged the guy off and shot him in the head.
The maxim of "reasonable force" (not "minimum force") applies in all such situations. The link I posted to earlier makes it clear that, in the UK at least, "reasonable force", in most cases of defense against an intruder in the home, would probably extend to killing the perpetrator. Dragging the guy off and shooting him in the head would not be unreasonable if you mean dragging him off the daughter. If you mean dragging him off to the back yard to be summarily executed that's going too far.

Why? Both offend an individual's personal views. Acting on that offence is exactly the same - it's an emotional reaction.
I'm not referring to the ability to rationally justify it. I'm stating that both are cases of an emotional need to see another individual suffer for their actions.
Still laughing? Then you might want to explain how they are so different, without resorting to rational justifications.
Society and the legal system expect the average person to temper their emotions, and especially rage, according to circumstances. It is reasonable to expect that the average person, even if homophobic, should temper their emotions towards gays such that it would never reach the level of "rage". Acting on one's emotions per se is not a sound defense. The benchmark for reasonablenes is usually "the average person" in "the same situation".

How would that be any closer?
If it was indeed a result of rage at seeing it, it's rage. Pure and simple. I fail to see why you have to modify the analogy to make it fit your view.
Ok, fine. It's no different to a guy enraged at seeing two men having sex, and acting out of that rage.
Again, so what? I'm not saying I wouldn't also feel rage. Mostly because you and I share that value of feeling disgust over one person violating another. And I'm certainly not discussing the rational view of wanting to prevent such an action.
You seem to think that "rage" per se is justification for one behaving violently. As explained above, that's patently wrong, and the judicial system of every civilised country shows it to be so.

I'm stating that the need to see another suffer for offending one's values is the same regardless of what values are being offended. You seem to think it is quite alright for a person to suffer pain because they offended a value of yours, such as 'don't cause pain on another person'. It's retribution. We're not talking about your passive desire to limit their actions in the future - we're talking about your need to see them in pain because you don't like what they're doing.
Notwithstanding that people, individually, ascribe different values to different things and that different people ascribe different values to the same things, demonstrating that your opening statement here is patently false, whilst the "need to see another suffer", as you put it, might, in some circumstances, actually be the same, the justification probably will not be. The judiciary, rightly, does not judge people on what they need emotionally, but what is acceptable to society as judged against an "average persons" actions. Other than to the irrational this concept should not be seen as controversial and should, therefore, be easy to accept.

I think we overlooked another aspect:
How many blows would it take to get the result we have? How long was the father beating the rapist?
Would it take three blows, or thirty? I would find it much easier to accept that he made a mistake if the number is thirty rather than three, and if he kept going for a full five minutes rather than just 15 seconds.
I don't quite follow. Are you suggesting that 30 blows/5 minutes is justified (on the grounds, presumably, of temporary insanity or such like), whereas the more measured 3 blows/15 seconds is suspect? By your reasoning (if I have understood it correctly) it's a no-lose situation for the father (and rightly so!).

[Cainkane1]

Christ almighty, no!

It isn't your responsibility to find some kind of minimal force to stop a guy from raping your daughter!

What is the matter with people?!?!? He should have dragged the guy off and shot him in the head.
I agree.

This is what i recall about this episode of American Justice. It was not about the father. The program was about a serial killer who preyed on young girls he found alone. This monster was always one step in front of the law as they pursued him.

Like I said in an earlier post he made the mistake of thinking a young girl he saw at a rural home was alone when her parents were in a shed outside her house. This goon attacked the girl, her parents heard her screams, the mother got there first and was fighting this thing and the father came running with a handgun and the father beat the slop out of him. Not one word was uttered in the film about any legal action taken against the father. The goon was convicted of multiple counts of aggravated murder and is either on death row or in prison for life or perhaps he's been executed by now. I forget which.

[Tailgater]

Why? Both offend an individual's personal views. Acting on that offence is exactly the same - it's an emotional reaction.

I'm not referring to the ability to rationally justify it. I'm stating that both are cases of an emotional need to see another individual suffer for their actions.

Still laughing? Then you might want to explain how they are so different, without resorting to rational justifications.

Athon

Rape is not a "personal view" and one emotion is justified. The others might be "legally" justified in some countries, but not where we walk standing straight.

....and yes I'm still laughing.

[Tailgater]

How would that be any closer?

If it was indeed a result of rage at seeing it, it's rage. Pure and simple. I fail to see why you have to modify the analogy to make it fit your view.

Given I didn't provide any such details, and yet you have to, I think you're trying a little hard to make a case.

The same reason you have to seperate crime of passion vs premeditation.

Ok, fine. It's no different to a guy enraged at seeing two men having sex, and acting out of that rage.

Again, so what? I'm not saying I wouldn't also feel rage. Mostly because you and I share that value of feeling disgust over one person violating another. And I'm certainly not discussing the rational view of wanting to prevent such an action.

I'm stating that the need to see another suffer for offending one's values is the same regardless of what values are being offended. You seem to think it is quite alright for a person to suffer pain because they offended a value of yours, such as 'don't cause pain on another person'. It's retribution. We're not talking about your passive desire to limit their actions in the future - we're talking about your need to see them in pain because you don't like what they're doing.

Athon

The feeling might be the same for a homophobe, but there is no rational justification for that level of rage short of him being raised to hate them.

If I walk up to you and your kid on the street and punch him in the face, there is a rational justifiaction for your anger. If you punch me right back, there is justification for you striking me that is rational/self defense/legal rage, and I'll go to jail. If you do nothing and come to my house later, we both go to jail. If you come up and punch me because I'm a race you hate, that is irrational/hateful/illegal, you will go to jail.

The feeling might be the same, but you cannot level the playing field of all other factors just because a minority of people have it and you can perform some kind of reverse justification of rape rage.


ETA: I have a feeling someone will start posting about rape being a conditioned feeling. Not saying it would be Athon, but I just know that road is ahead.

[Rasmus]

I don't quite follow. Are you suggesting that 30 blows/5 minutes is justified (on the grounds, presumably, of temporary insanity or such like),

No, that would be excusable but not justified.

whereas the more measured 3 blows/15 seconds is suspect?

No. I am saying fewer blows/less time is not suspect simply because it is measured. He had to do something - so charging the rapist and lashing out a few times is entirely reasonable. It would still be reasonable to take that course of action if he'd had a week top consider the best strategy in the situation as given.

But as the time increases - and the number of blows delivered - he'd have more opportunity to evaluate his progress and decide that it was time to stop.

By your reasoning (if I have understood it correctly) it's a no-lose situation for the father (and rightly so!).

Like I said previously, I see no reason to blame the guy, unless there was a lot more information available. It just occurred to me that we seemed to assume that the act of beating someone face in with a gun could easily be broken up into discrete steps and that a lower amount of violence would have been sufficient without being quite as harmful.

That would be possible if the guy started bleeding after 5 blows, became unconscious after 10 and received permanent damage after 20. In that case you could at least say it would have been more desirable if he had delivered 15 or 16 blows rather than 20.

But we might not even have that luxury. Maybe the nth blow rendered him unconcious, the next blow saw him falling and was the one permantently dmaaging his face? He would have had no reason to stop after the nth blow in that case ...

[Southwind17]

No, that would be excusable but not justified.
What's the difference?

[Rasmus]

What's the difference?

Excusable: I can see why you did that, even though you shouldn't have done it. I will not punish you.

Justified:
- Can I go do this?
- Sure, go on ahead.

[athon]

The feeling might be the same for a homophobe, but there is no rational justification for that level of rage short of him being raised to hate them.

Retribution isn't rational either. It is a response out of the desire to see somebody else suffer as you have suffered. An emotional response, certainly, but not a rational one.

If I walk up to you and your kid on the street and punch him in the face, there is a rational justifiaction for your anger. If you punch me right back, there is justification for you striking me that is rational/self defense/legal rage, and I'll go to jail.Legal rage? Well, that might be some sort of jargon in your neck of the woods, but I've never heard of it here.

Thing is, they are three different things. Self defense is understandable and rational. The goal is to prevent somebody from harming you, which is well reasoned. I might swing back to make you stop.

But if you punch me, and I get so angry I pick up a brick sitting nearby and start to pommel your head in, we're no longer talking a rational response. We're talking a response that comes out of the emotional need to see another suffer for what they've done.

That is the difference we're discussing here.

The feeling might be the same, but you cannot level the playing field of all other factors just because a minority of people have it and you can perform some kind of reverse justification of rape rage.I'm arguing that crimes born out of hatred, anger and rage aren't justifiable. They often might be understandable, and I can sympathise with many of them, but they aren't justifiable. THAT is the whole point.

Obviously to justify it, you need to start bringing in arguments of self defense and self protection. Which is why I conceded if it was an act born of fear, it would be more justifiable. It's fueled by the need for self protection. We can put all self-protection acts on the same, level playing field easily and justify the need to protect one's self or loved ones.

Yet I'm stating that an act that comes from anger or hatred is not the same thing. I use the example that if anger serves as justification for one thing, why not all things?

ETA: I have a feeling someone will start posting about rape being a conditioned feeling. Not saying it would be Athon, but I just know that road is ahead.I'm not sure what that would have to do with it. I'm stating that one's anger and revulsion towards rape is little different on a fundamental level than one's anger towards homosexuality. It's a violation of one's basic values, and entices an individual into feeling as if they need to 'punish' the offender.

Athon

[drkitten]

What's the difference?

When a rational person (i.e. Mr. Spock) would take an action, that action is justified.

When a rational person would not take an action, but a normal human would not be sufficient control of his/her emotions to prevent it, that action is not justified, but may be excusable.

If you are coming at me with a knife and the intention of killing me, it is both rational and justifiable for me to shoot you first.

If you are calling me names and I punch you in the face, that is not rational. It is not justifiable. But it may be excusable.