Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Justifiable Homicide?


SEC=UGA
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yep, I'd have killed him...

 

 

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

The father was casually acquainted with the alleged abuser, said Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon.

Neither has been publicly identified.

The girl was left inside the family's house during the social gathering, while other members of her family were tending to horses, the sheriff said.

The alleged abuser was known for his horse-grooming abilities, Harmon said.

The father returned to the house, caught the man in the act, and stopped him by striking him in the head several times, Harmon said.

The man was pronounced dead on the scene, while the daughter was taken to a local hospital in Victoria, Texas, for examinations before being released.

The incident took place Saturday.

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

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."

Harmon described the dad as "very remorseful," adding that he didn't know the man was going to die.

Authorities were withholding the deceased man's name while they notified next of kin. Officials did not know immediately if he has a prior criminal history.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.

 

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

 

(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

 

(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

( B.) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Edited by Clubfoothead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

( B.) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

 

Just for argument sake....

 

Say this were not part of the law and you were on a jury hearing the case...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for argument sake....

 

Say this were not part of the law and you were on a jury hearing the case...

 

I would have to pretend I didn't feel the way I did during jury selection when the defense attorney asked me the same question. Otherwise I wouldn't be on the jury to begin with.

 

I'm all for due process and all that but I'm also for killing right there on the spot, anyone caught in the act of sexually assaulting a 4 year old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say this were not part of the law and you were on a jury hearing the case...

 

 

I guess I'd want to know how the law reads under your hypothetical but since I have a 4 year old daughter you are going to have a difficult time getting me to convict anyone for killing the guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I'd want to know how the law reads under your hypothetical but since I have a 4 year old daughter you are going to have a difficult time getting me to convict anyone for killing the guy.

 

 

All I needed to know.

 

You do realize that a jury can decide to acquit a person even if something is not "technically" legal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the funny thing is, juries have a lot more power than they think and a lot more power than either the judge or lawyers want them to think.

 

 

Not to sound terribly cheesy, but John Grisham's The Runaway Jury gave me a lot more insight regarding the power of a jury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only person that won't agree with not prosecuting that man is the prison system. If they can't bleed the state of funds for the sexual abuser, they certainly want to bleed the state for housing the father.

 

:clap: to the dad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still wouldn't convict him. :shrug:

 

 

He could have rendered the dude unconcious, hog tied him, and neutered him and I would still let the dad walk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would this be an appropriate time to make a comment about Jerry Sandusky or is it too soon? :unsure:

 

 

Let it roll.

 

So long as you can take the wrath of the local Nittany Lion gaggle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like a pretty easy answer here. Of course it is justifiable. I think it would be very difficult to find anyone, whether here at the Huddle, or in any jury in America, that would think otherwise.

 

I'd even take it another step further... not only was he justified, but he may have had a moral obligation to beat the life out of the man molesting his 4 year old daughter.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harmon described the dad as "very remorseful," adding that he didn't know the man was going to die.

 

If, for whatever reason it did go to trial I do not think it would be considered Homicide but more Manslaughter either in the 1st or 2nd degree. And even then I think his defense team would leverage 'a crime of passion' or 'temporary insanity' to get the charges dropped. No father would be in any other mind set except for protecting their child and I bet most of us would have done far, far worst to the POS.

Edited by cliaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If, for whatever reason it did go to trial I do not think it would be considered Homicide but more Manslaughter either in the 1st or 2nd degree. And even then I think his defense team would leverage 'a crime of passion' or 'temporary insanity' to get the charges dropped. No father would be in any other mind set except for protecting their child and I bet most of us would have done far, far worst to the POS.

 

 

There is no such thing as "temporary insanity." Ungovernable rage cannot form the basis of an insanity defense. While the father killing the perp in this case may be justifiable, his attorneywould not assert an insanity defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information