The Not-So-Tragic Death of Rapy McRaperson (Containment Thread) - Politics and Economics

Trolly McTrollson · 06-12-2012, 09:28 PM

We need a containment thread imo.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/11/justic...html?hpt=hp_t2

Quote:

A Texas father caught a man sexually assaulting his 4-year-old daughter and punched him in the head repeatedly, killing him, authorities said.

Asked whether they would press charges against the father, the sheriff responded, "You have a right to defend your daughter. He acted in defense of his third person. Once the investigation is completed we will submit it to the district attorney who then submits it to the grand jury, who will decide if they will indict him."

What's your take? Justifiable defense of his daughter? Excusable crime of passion? Illegal (though understandable) vigilantism?

Imo, it will depend greatly on the specifics. Dad should use enough force to stop and subdue the rapist, but any further beating is criminal. Then again, it's possible to kill someone when all you want to do is subdue him. This is not to minimize in any way the seriousness of raping kids.

In terms of the legal outcome, IANAL but I doubt there will be compelling physical evidence to really prove if he went over the line.

Riverman · 06-12-2012, 09:32 PM

If he actually saw the dude raping his 4 year old daughter, I have no problem with him killing the guy.

Jake7777 · 06-12-2012, 09:35 PM

I hardly trust Cops with the use of force, so I certainly don't trust emotional parents when it comes to the use of violence on SUSPECTS (ie not proven guilty), or whether what a parent sees, thinks or suspects rises to the level of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

To me it's not so much about in a vacuum whether a child molester deserves violent retribution or not, it's about whether a system is tenable if we excuse those acts. It pretty much undermines the entire purpose of having a justice system if Cops decide it's now their job to make a blanket determination on whether a victim "got what was coming to him or not."

Cliffs - I disagree with everything DBBJ says.

Edit - the mental state of the "vigilante" does go to mens rea though obv.

General Tsao · 06-12-2012, 09:35 PM

riverman,

is that an age thing or was "4 year old" irrelevant? gender thing or is 'daughter' irrelevant?

Riverman · 06-12-2012, 09:40 PM

both irrelevant

DblBarrelJ · 06-12-2012, 09:46 PM

Yea, pretty much it's a 4 yr old getting raped.

While cres is making psych jokes the truth of the matter is you're very likely a sociopath if that image does not induce a sudden, violent reaction.

I hate to play this card, but if you don't have kids, and are willing to say "I would not use violence" or "I would use only the exact mimimal level of violence" your opinion on this subject is meaningless to me.

will1530 · 06-12-2012, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake7777

I hardly trust Cops with the use of force, so I certainly don't trust emotional parents when it comes to the use of violence on SUSPECTS (ie not proven guilty), or whether what a parent sees, thinks or suspects rises to the level of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Rape is clearly not ambiguous at all. Sexual assault is not going to be ambiguous at all. Damn, is there a situation where there could be some sort of ambiguity? I guess maybe the dad thinks he sees the guys hand up his daughters skirt, but it was really just on her leg? Well, wait...no probably not

To me it's not so much about in a vacuum whether a child molester deserves violent retribution or not, it's about whether a system is tenable if we excuse those acts. It pretty much undermines the entire purpose of having a justice system if Cops decide it's now their job to make a blanket determination on whether a victim "got what was coming to him or not."

Cliffs - I disagree with everything DBBJ says.

Well, I guess I understand where you're coming from, but it's all pretty irrelevant because a jury isn't going to convict this guy based on what we know right now.

Jake7777 · 06-12-2012, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

Well, I guess I understand where you're coming from, but it's all pretty irrelevant because a jury isn't going to convict this guy based on what we know right now.

I agree, it doesn't sound to me, based on what we know, that the guy used excessive force at all. But if that's because the police chose not to investigate it because they "trust" that the guy saw what he says he saw then that's a problem imo.

You can't just say "it's ok to kill the guy if you were sure he was raping your daughter." For starters, we don't have the death penalty for those crimes, and we certainly don't let individuals carry out retributive justice as they see fit. The formation of mens rea as a requirement for murder convictions is built into the system precisely because of this. And I would argue that most sexual assault allegations have some level of ambiguity.

If the father was 100% certain that the victim had committed the assault then what difference does it make whether he was right or wrong in this scenario? People are using emotion to justify his actions completely so it doesn't matter right?

If he was disproportionately excessive then that's what sentencing is for - to consider the graveness of the crime in light of the circumstances. That is not a role for police.

will1530 · 06-12-2012, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake7777

I agree, it doesn't sound to me, based on what we know, that the guy used excessive force at all. But if that's because the police chose not to investigate it because they "trust" that the guy saw what he says he saw then that's a problem imo.

Obviously I'd be pissed if the cops didn't investigate at all. From what I understand the little girl went to the hospital and there were other people on the property, so there should be evidence to corroborate his story.

riverdance · 06-12-2012, 10:06 PM

Carl Lee Hailey: Yes, they deserved to die and I hope they burn in hell!

will1530 · 06-12-2012, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jake7777

You can't just say "it's ok to kill the guy if you were sure he was raping your daughter." For starters, we don't have the death penalty for those crimes, and we certainly don't let individuals carry out retributive justice as they see fit. The formation of mens rea as a requirement for murder convictions is built into the system precisely because of this. And I would argue that most sexual assault allegations have some level of ambiguity. If the father was 100% certain that the victim had committed the assault then what difference does it make whether he was right or wrong in your scenario? You are using emotion to justify his actions completely so it doesn't matter right?

You do realize we are talking about a case where the father walked in on the guy sexually assaulting a child right? There is no ambiguity there.

This isn't a situation where we're talking about a revenge killing two weeks later based on simply the word of his daughter. This situation is pretty straight forward. And, yes, a jury will base their decision off their personal emotions. Just like every jury in the history of juries.

DblBarrelJ · 06-12-2012, 10:10 PM

Quote:

You can't just say "it's ok to kill the guy if you were sure he was raping your daughter." For starters, we don't have the death penalty for those crimes, and we certainly don't let individuals carry out retributive justice as they see fit. The formation of mens rea as a requirement for murder convictions is built into the system precisely because of this. And I would argue that most sexual assault allegations have some level of ambiguity.

Ok, I see why you disagree with me.

You didn't understand what I wrote. We're discussing the criminality/legality of Catching a RAPE IN PROGRESS.

The ambiguity of such an act, particularly with a child the age of 4, is extremely minimal.

We're not talking about "Daddy, Uncle Jimmy touched me" and the response thereto, we're addressing "Jimmy WTF are you doing?!?!?" and the reaction thereto.

Jake7777 · 06-12-2012, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

You do realize we are talking about a case where the father walked in on the guy sexually assaulting a child right? There is no ambiguity there.

This isn't a situation where we're talking about a revenge killing two weeks later based on simply the word of his daughter. This situation is pretty straight forward. And, yes, a jury will base their decision off their personal emotions. Just like every jury in the history of juries.

So it was a heat of passion killing if he used disproportionate force. If that's the case then it's voluntary manslaughter probably with a very light sentence considering the circumstances. Again, a role for a sentencing judge and not the police.

We can't just throw out the law.

zikzak · 06-12-2012, 10:12 PM

So I'll just bring this up one more time for kicks.

The linked story says absolutely nothing about rape. It's CNN saying that some sheriff is saying that some guy who just admitted to beating a person to death is saying that he saw his daughter being sexually assaulted. The sheriff also reportedly said the girl is, "OK besides the obvious mental trauma." She went home after an examination at the hospital.

I'm done. You guys can all get back to one of the forum's all-time favorite topics: RAPE!

Trolly McTrollson · 06-12-2012, 10:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DblBarrelJ

While cres is making psych jokes the truth of the matter is you're very likely a sociopath if that image does not induce a sudden, violent reaction...

Dude, give it a rest. You keep insinuating that the people who are against beating the rapist to death are somehow less upset by kiddie rape than you are. It's insulting and stupid.

We have a long tradition in this country of giving even the worst scumbags due process. John Adams acted as legal council for British soldiers who fired on unarmed civilians. It's not because Adams was a sociopath.