HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Father Who Killed Daughte...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:39 PM

 

Father Who Killed Daughter's Alleged Molester Won't Face Charges In Lavaca County, Texas

Source: Huffington Post/AP

Father Who Killed Daughter's Alleged Molester Won't Face Charges In Lavaca County, Texas

By PAUL J. WEBER and RAMIT PLUSHNICK-MASTI 06/19/12 08:20 PM ET AP

SHINER, Texas Hearing his 5-year-old daughter crying from behind a barn, a father ran and discovered the unthinkable: A man molesting her. The father pulled the man off his daughter, authorities say, and started pummeling him to death with his fists.

With his daughter finally safe, the father frantically called 911, begging a dispatcher to find his rural ranch and send an ambulance.

"Come on! This guy is going to die on me!" the man is heard screaming on the recording, which authorities played during a news conference Tuesday where they announced that the father would not face charges. "I don't know what to do!"

In declining to indict the 23-year-old father in the June 9 killing of Jesus Mora Flores, a Lavaca County grand jury reached the same conclusion as investigators and many of the father's neighbors: He was authorized to use deadly force to protect his daughter.


Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/father-kills-molester-texas-no-charges_n_1610465.html?1340144123&icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl1|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D171344

70 replies, 10433 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 70 replies Author Time Post
Reply Father Who Killed Daughter's Alleged Molester Won't Face Charges In Lavaca County, Texas (Original post)
Great Caesars Ghost Jun 2012 OP
hlthe2b Jun 2012 #1
IamK Jun 2012 #3
Stuckinthebush Jun 2012 #37
MightyOkie Jun 2012 #46
bluesbassman Jun 2012 #2
Warpy Jun 2012 #4
MNBrewer Jun 2012 #5
jtuck004 Jun 2012 #9
kooljerk666 Jun 2012 #60
left on green only Jun 2012 #10
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2012 #11
LisaL Jun 2012 #24
Posteritatis Jun 2012 #12
freedom fighter jh Jun 2012 #13
dsc Jun 2012 #14
Blasphemer Jun 2012 #18
colorado_ufo Jun 2012 #27
frylock Jun 2012 #16
appleannie1 Jun 2012 #21
LisaL Jun 2012 #23
zeemike Jun 2012 #39
cstanleytech Jun 2012 #63
zeemike Jun 2012 #64
cstanleytech Jun 2012 #65
zeemike Jun 2012 #66
cstanleytech Jun 2012 #67
AnotherMcIntosh Jun 2012 #25
progressivebydesign Jun 2012 #28
boppers Jun 2012 #32
kurtzapril4 Jun 2012 #48
SkyDaddy7 Jun 2012 #62
boppers Jun 2012 #69
Kablooie Jun 2012 #49
Exultant Democracy Jun 2012 #54
MrBig Jun 2012 #53
SpartanDem Jun 2012 #30
SemperEadem Jun 2012 #34
happyslug Jun 2012 #44
hack89 Jun 2012 #51
4th law of robotics Jun 2012 #52
Great Caesars Ghost Jun 2012 #56
SkyDaddy7 Jun 2012 #61
MADem Jun 2012 #6
nolabear Jun 2012 #7
emilyg Jun 2012 #8
MrTwister Jun 2012 #15
christx30 Jun 2012 #19
progressivebydesign Jun 2012 #29
boppers Jun 2012 #33
Javaman Jun 2012 #41
happyslug Jun 2012 #45
christx30 Jun 2012 #50
MrTwister Jun 2012 #55
The Doctor. Jun 2012 #17
tularetom Jun 2012 #20
EFerrari Jun 2012 #22
Beacool Jun 2012 #26
Arctic Dave Jun 2012 #31
SemperEadem Jun 2012 #35
mazzarro Jun 2012 #36
marble falls Jun 2012 #38
zeemike Jun 2012 #40
lunatica Jun 2012 #58
zeemike Jun 2012 #59
Javaman Jun 2012 #42
AngryAmish Jun 2012 #43
Dustlawyer Jun 2012 #47
bucolic_frolic Jun 2012 #57
2ndAmForComputers Jun 2012 #68
Lil Missy Jun 2012 #70

Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:42 PM

1. I'm fully ok with this...

I only wish the best for the poor man and his daughter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:45 PM

3. agreed.... n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 07:54 AM

37. Yep.

I can't get worked up over this. I'm ok with it, too.

I worry for the young girl in this. I hope she will be ok.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Stuckinthebush (Reply #37)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:46 AM

46. Well said and agreed.

 

Remembering the little girl in this tragedy is important too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:45 PM

2. Good call by the GJ and investigators. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:48 PM

4. He was saving a child from grave bodily harm

There isn't a jury anywhere that would vote to convict him of anything but being a protective father.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:49 PM

5. Everything beyond stopping the molester and incapacitating him is murder

or at least manslaughter. He should be charged with it. Vigilante justice? Is that what we really want?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:58 PM

9. That's very noble from a chair on the Internet. But his young daughter is being

Last edited Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:46 AM - Edit history (1)

assaulted, crying, it would be very difficult to be all that logical at that point.

If he was in custody, I might agree with you, though I think we need fish bait more than child molesters.

***
on edit, I did a bit more reading. Since it went to a grand jury, and they refused to bring charges, I think that ought to satisfy the most law abiding. The DA knows she can't sustain a conviction. A witness saw the child being forcibly taken and went to find and tell dad, he caught the guy in the act with his pants down. It doesn't sound like he beat him more than would be necessary to keep the child molester away while he tended to his daughter, though who knows what kind of force that emotion/adrenalin created.

"Come on! This guy is going to die on me!" the man is heard screaming on the 911 call. "I don't know what to do!"

He showed concern once he could regain his composure.

His story to the authorities is backed up by evidence and a witness statement. Most importantly the kid is safe. And the people had their say. As they said, story over.
***

So I don't know what we want, but we have one less child molester. And maybe if they convict Sandusky we will have one less soon after that, with any luck. And I hope he gets a bit of that treatment b4 he goes.

And if I ever see the son of a bitch that tried that with me when I was younger, there will be one less. That nonviolent turn the other cheek crap only goes so far.

Better world as far as I am concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jtuck004 (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 05:36 PM

60. It is easy as hell to kill barehanded..............

 

EDIT this should be attached to the PREVIOUS POST, sorry.......

This guy pleaded for the ambulance to hurry up!!

It only takes a pretty lite blow to the temple or a nice punch in the trachea to kill someone.

The guy falling could have struck his head.

Bottom line, the dead guy had it coming & unless the father kicked him in the skull 1/2 a dozen times or stomped on his throat with boots, Dad was in the right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:59 PM

10. I totally agree with you, yet I cannot imagine myself doing anything less if placed in the same

situation.

"And I'll show you young man with so many reasons why
there but for fortune may go you or I."

Phil Ochs



Edited for senior moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:02 PM

11. Vigilante justice implies he found out after the fact

This was while it was going on.

True crime of passion if you ask me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #11)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:04 AM

24. It's not any sort of crime, passion or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:02 PM

12. The law disagrees. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:10 PM

13. In an emergency, it's tough to know just where to draw the line.

If the father had underestimated the force needed to subdue the attacker, then both he and the child would have been in danger for their lives. If you have to disable someone it may not be possible to know exactly how much force you need -- and how much harm you will do by using more than that.

The father was erring on the side of caution. That's the only thing it made sense to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:14 PM

14. It would be exceptionally hard to prove exactly which punch incapacitated him vs killing him

I wouldn't indict either unless there was evidence he hit an unconscious man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dsc (Reply #14)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:38 PM

18. Excellent point

It may have been the first punch that ultimately led to his death. The right decision was made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blasphemer (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:32 AM

27. Absolutely right.

A few years ago, in a small town neighboring mine, some 16 year old boys got into a minor altercation in the town square. One boy threw a punch that caught the other under the chin. Not even all that hard. The boy's head snapped back, and an artery burst; he died almost instantly. Tragedy, all around.

As for that poor little girl and her distraught father, apparently the man who was molesting her did not agonize over whether or not he might be committing a crime. He just took a very little girl, who was a stranger, and used her, injured her, hurt her terribly, just because he felt like doing it, and even her tears didn't make him stop. Premeditated. Merciless. How many of these situations end with the child being murdered, body disposed of in unthinkable ways, because the perpetrator HAD to silence the witness and hide the evidence. After all, he might be caught and then have to face consequences and not just get on with living.

This poor little girl's daddy is a hero, and he should not lose one minute of sleep over this for the rest of his life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:30 PM

16. he did stop the molestor

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:54 PM

21. He saved not only his daughter but probably countless other daughters. Molesters are repeat

offenders. It is never just a one time thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:03 AM

23. Nonsense.

In TX, it's perfectly legal for him to use deadly force to stop the attack on his child.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:45 AM

39. It has nothing to do with law.

It has everything to do with common sense...a person put in that situation was not the intent of any law...Law was meant to protect the innocent from the guilty and punish them...this man stopped a crime and even if the law does not give you the right to kill in self defense reasonable people would never blame him...just as we don't blame the soldier or cop for killing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #39)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:49 PM

63. But we can blame the cop if they beat a suspect to death with a baton, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #63)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:56 PM

64. I fail to see how that has anything to do with this.

But I am all eyes if you want to explain it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #64)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:14 PM

65. You did or did not say

".this man stopped a crime and even if the law does not give you the right to kill in self defense reasonable people would never blame him...just as we don't blame the soldier or cop for killing."
Using your logic of it being ok for this guy to kill the guy then its clearly ok for the police to beat to death someone themselves if the goal is self defense and we should never blame them for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #65)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:32 PM

66. Well cops and soldiers kill all the time is self defense or in the line of duty

And we don't blame them is my point...
And a reasonable person would clearly understand the man's state of mind...no different really that a cop or soldier in a bad situation...but mostly worse sense it is his own child that he is saving....which is a far different situation than a cop and soldier reacting to a stranger.
Never blame a cop of soldier no....there is clearly a line that can be crossed and if it is then they should be blamed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #66)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:28 PM

67. Except even cops and soldiers dont have a blank check to murder people

or atleast they dont usually.
If someone surrenders to either after all the cop nor the soldier is allowed to just shoot them, thats murder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:13 AM

25. Apparently not.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:51 AM

28. Agreed.

Most people don't agree with us, but the truth is that Texas law says you can use deadly force to stop a sexual assault. Once the guy pulled the jerk off his daughter, all he had to do was hold him down. Frankly, I think it's going to be just as damaging for the little girl to witness her father killing man, then screaming obscenities at the 911 people on the phone because the guy was going to die (and I'm sure that was when he realized he could go to jail for killing him.) Hard to guess what any person would do in that situation, but he should have stopped once he had the guy down. I think the DA and Sheriff decided that he did what many people would have done in that situation, once adrenaline kicks in, even though it was not considered self defense or defense of another.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #28)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:09 AM

32. Wow, just WOW.

"Frankly, I think it's going to be just as damaging for the little girl to witness her father killing man, then screaming obscenities at the 911 people on the phone because the guy was going to die (and I'm sure that was when he realized he could go to jail for killing him.)"


I take it you've never been violently molested or abused, perhaps? Or maybe are unaware of the lifelong trauma already visited upon this girl?

Seeing justice dealt upon her attacker is not the trauma that will hurt her, every day, until she dies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to boppers (Reply #32)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:53 AM

48. It's not "lifelong trauma"

unless one wants it that way. It takes hard work to get over that trauma, it needen't wreck ones life. But it will if you let it. I know of what I speak.

This idea that you are a victim for the rest of your days I find really offensive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kurtzapril4 (Reply #48)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:31 PM

62. You may find it "offensive" but...

your comment could be offensive as well...Everyone is different when it comes to such trauma...Some people are haunted for the rest of their life & it is not because they choose to be as you claim!

It is truly "offensive" for you to claim victims have the choice whether or not to be haunted by such trauma as being brutally raped as a child! The more I sit here & think about it the more disgusted I am at your comment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kurtzapril4 (Reply #48)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 12:20 AM

69. You're not a victim the rest of your days, unless you want to be.

However, you can never un-ring that bell. It doesn't have to ruin a person's life, but their life is inexorably altered.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #28)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:55 AM

49. it seems apparent that he did not intend to kill the guy, just disable him.

And how many people can discern the point between disabling someone and killing him?
If you're not experienced in hand combat you have no way to judge.

I think he did the best he could and agree that he should not be subjected to a trial.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kablooie (Reply #49)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:02 PM

54. My father is a world class martial artist. He says you need to know how not to kill a person

and that takes a lot more training then how to kill someone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #28)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:22 PM

53. You make many assumptions

Your description of events makes it sound like the father should have acted in a calm, rational manner upon seeing his daughter getting molested. You expect him to simply go up to the man, gently remove him from his daughter, and hold him down.

How do you know he didn't stop once he had the guy down? How do you know there was more than one punch, or more than one blow? If the guy was molesting his daughter, and he punched him, would that not be defense of another?

Hell, you make it sound like the father's sole motivation for calling the police was to prevent his own incarceration. Could it be that the father, upon punching the guy who was molesting his daughter, simply called the police because his intent was not to kill the guy, but simply incapacitate him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:30 AM

30. Let's see how you react when you see it happening to one of your kids

I'm thinking you're not gonna be so high and mighty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 06:19 AM

34. weak sauce

vigilante justice happens after no action by the law takes place.

get your descriptions right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 10:43 AM

44. The US Supreme Court has ruled you have to have INTENT to be convicted of Murder

Last edited Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:22 AM - Edit history (1)

After Reagan was shot, various states decided to re-write their insanity laws so to prevent someone like Hinckley (the man who shot Reagan) from being found NOT guilty do to insanity.

More on John Hinckley
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hinckley,_Jr.

The problem with those laws was it removed what is called the "Mens Rea" (Latin for "guilty mind") from finding someone guilty of a crime and the Supreme Court has consistently ruled that you can NOT be found guilty of any crime UNLESS intent to do something wrong is found. i.e. the defendant MUST have some sort of INTENT to do something "evil".

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

Now, in insanity cases the traditional Common Law rule was simple, people who committed a crime but did NOT have the mental capacity to understand what he or she was doing was WRONG, lack a "guilty mind" (or sometime called an "Evil mind") and thus could NOT be guilty of ANY crime.

The Supreme Court used the concept that to commit a crime the criminal MUST have some sort of intent to do something that he or she should have known to be illegal, to strike down most State Laws that eliminated the insanity defense, i.e. Insane people do NOT have the capacity to know the difference between right and wrong and as such can never have the intent to do a "guilty deed".

In 1859 a New York Politician heard that his wife was having an affair with another man, on hearing that statement, he went to were that other man was at and killed him. At trial he claimed he was so enraged by what he heard he just reacted without thinking and thus never had a "guilty mind" when he killed the other man. The jury bought the argument, which is the first time what we call "Temporary insanity" was used as a defense (The politician later became a Union General in the Civil War).

More on the Politician in question:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Sickles

More on the Insanity Defense:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insanity_defense#Insanity_Defense_Reform_Act_of_1984

Now, the Supreme Court has upheld changing the burden of proof from the Prosecution to the Defense AND that the evidence must be "Clear and Convincing" as opposed to the Common Law rule that the burden to show someone sane was on the Prosecution AND the burden to prove someone insane was by the preponderance of the evidence. On the other hand the Court has struck down state laws that abolished the insanity defense in total (And subsequent to those rulings, the States adopted what they had before the mad rush to rewrite the insanity laws after Reagan;s attempted assassination).

Thus, any prosecutor MUST show, in this case, that the Father did NOT just react, but had some intent (not just an intent to commit murder, any intent to do anything of a "guilty" nature) to do something to the deceased.

Thus how do you PROVE beyond a Reasonable Doubt that this father, hearing his child crying, and then finding her being raped, did NOT just react but instead THOUGHT about what he was going to do and did it. If the Father had waited, then the concept of the Father having a "guilty mind" might be provable, but since the Father reacted AT THE SAME TIME HE SAW HIS DAUGHTER BEING RAPPED, proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the Father had the INTENT to kill the deceased can NOT be proved.

This comes up in vehicular homicide cases all the time. Vehicular homicide is just manslaughter given a new name for jurys were reluctant to convict drivers on manslaughter charges when they kill people on the highways while driving a car. Now, if you are operating the vehicle in a safe and legal way, you are NOT guilty of vehicular homicide/manslaughter. vehicular homicide/manslaughter comes up when someone is negligent and do to the negligence someone is killed. Given that a Car is a one to two ton death machine, the courts have ALWAYS held drivers to an almost strict liability if someone dies.

At the same time the courts have refused to make such crimes truly Strict liability crimes (i.e Strict Liability would be if you are driving a car, just driving the car is enough to make you guilty of vehicular homicide/manslaughter if anyone is killed in an accident, no court has made that the rule for vehicular homicide/manslaughter).

To be found guilty of vehicular homicide/manslaughter some sort of gross violation of the traffic laws must be found to be a contributory cause of the death (i.e going faster then a safe speed, being impaired with alcohol or violating some other rule of the road that contributed to the accident when someone is killed). Again the courts have upheld such convictions BUT only if some violation of the rules of the Road is first found AND it contributed to the accident (failing to watch for people walking along the road, failing to watch for bicyclists, failing to watch for other vehicles can be contributory factors).

On the other hand, if they was no way the driver could have prevented causing the accident, there is no guilty mind and thus no charge even of vehicular homicide/manslaughter. I.e. operating the vehicle at a safe speed (Could be nice if within the speed limit but a safe speed can be exceed the speed limit, but the burden to show that is on the person charged NOT the prosecution who can rely on the fact the posted speed limit is the maximum safe speed), watching what is in front of the vehicle, and the side (and the rear via the mirrors), and the reason someone died was NOT do to anything the driver did OR could have prevented (i.e. the other vehicle or pedestrian or cyclist darted out in front of the vehicle, the operator lost control of the vehicle do to some fault in the road etc).

More on Vehicular Homicide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicular_homicide

Just pointing out, even in insanity cases and vehicular homicide/manslaughter cases you need to show some sort of "guilty mind" before you can convict someone of a crime. The "guilty mind" does NOT have to be to kill someone, it can be as simple as driving fast to get to work sooner, thinking since you have four wheel drive you do NOT have to slow down for ice and snow, being distracted by talking on a cell phone or texting etc). In simple terms you need to show some sort of intent to do something NOT just a person reacting to something. In this case it would be hard to prove anything more then the Father just reacted, and that is NOT even manslaughter.

Side note: Involuntary manslaughter is the crime when someone does a deed do to being "provoked" or otherwise done without any intent to actually kill someone. The classic situation is someone slaps someone, and the person slapped then punch the slapper, the slapper falls and hits his or her head on something and dies.

Involuntary manslaughter occurs in a lot of abuse cases. The abuser hits who he (generally a he, but sometimes a her) has been abusing, and this time the abused victim dies. No intent to kill the abused victim, in fact in most cases the abuser did not even THINK about hitting the victim, he just did it. In such cases impossible to show any intent to commit Murder (no evil thought before hand, most such abuse is just done not thought out), but it is clear that hitting someone is unacceptable, thus hitting someone is the product of a "guilty mind",

Involuntary manslaughter is the nearest thing the Father could be charged with, but unlike abuse cases, you have the factor the Father was also protecting his child. Protecting one's child is NOT an inherently criminal act and his actions to do so would be acceptable to most people and thus NOT an unacceptable reaction. Thus not guilty of even Involuntary manslaughter.

More on Manslaughter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:15 PM

51. The guy was still alive when he stopped hitting him

do you know exactly when to stop to ensure you don't kill someone?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:20 PM

52. Truly the greatest injustice ever

 

the world will weep for this poor man, killed without provocation and never being able to know justice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 03:07 PM

56. In this case, MNBrewer?

 

YES!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MNBrewer (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:22 PM

61. You should be ashamed of yourself!

Seriously, you should be ashamed!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:51 PM

6. I'd let the guy walk, too.

I am not an advocate of violence, but I find the father's reaction on finding his little child being brutalized by some criminal pervert entirely understandable.

If I were on that Grand Jury, I'd reach the very same conclusion and sleep well that night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:52 PM

7. Awful situation. I say let them be, and give some help.

Since I know jack all about them I won't say anything specific but I think the chance to talk about it and be assured that they went through a terrible thing and that it can be all right is a good idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 10:56 PM

8. ok.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:28 PM

15. Sounds like justifiable homicide to me.

 

One can't expect a father to pull his punches in that situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrTwister (Reply #15)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:40 PM

19. Could not agree more.

If I ever doubt what I would do in that situation, I would just look at pictures of my beautiful 4 year old daughter. I think about her smiling at me, then looking at my wife and saying "mommy? Daddy's silly!".
All doubt vanishes. I can't imagine anyone hurting that little girl. But I know that I would die to protect her from harm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to christx30 (Reply #19)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:53 AM

29. You know, I wouldn't kill someone like that in front of my child.

That's the issue I have here. I can understand where adrenaline takes over, but the child has been through enough... having her witness the death of another man, with the father screaming into the phone and calling the 911 operator filthy names because they couldn't find the house, is going to be equally damaging in this. Children being what they are at that age, will live with the fact that someone died because of what happened to her. I hope that she gets the help she needs for all of this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:14 AM

33. "equally damaging in this"

You just compared an adult raping a child, and a child seeing death.....with somebody yelling obscenities on the phone.

I hope you can live with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:59 AM

41. Frankly, you have no idea how you would react.

We all like to think we would react one way or another, but the reality is: we have no idea.

I think the dad did what he had to do in the situation he was presented with and with the harm that was being perpetrated upon his daughter.

Would I have reacted the same way? I don't know, but I do know that I wouldn't have let the guy get away without at least kicking his ass.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Javaman (Reply #41)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:17 AM

45. The issue is did the father think?

Last edited Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:45 PM - Edit history (1)

When it comes to Murder and Manslaughter, the person who did the killing must be shown to have had some THOUGHT in the act of killing. Mere reaction is NOT enough, what was the THINKING behind the killing? If no thought, no intent, and thus not Murder or Manslaughter.

As I pointed out above in my previous thread, to be guilty of anything you have to have two elements, the actual act (which we do have) AND some sort of intent to do something unlawful. Now, if the reaction is clearly un-thought of, no intent can be shown and thus no guilt.

More on Manslaughter:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressivebydesign (Reply #29)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:10 PM

50. If you were in that

situation, and you went after this guy, at what point would you stop hitting/fighting him? When he says he gives up? How would you know that it's an actual surrender and not just a ruse? When he loses consciousness? Would you be able to recognize it in an amped up state? Just enough to get your daughter away from him? What's to stop him from pulling out a knife and stabbing you in the eye?
How would you know which punch or kick would be enough to disable him and which would kill him? That first punch could kill him. Would you punch once, check for vitals, then do it again? Give the guy a chance to fight back? I would keep going until he was down. It wouldn't be a fair fight. A fair fight could get me and my daughter killed. I would fight to protect her, and I would fight to win. This is fighting for survival.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to christx30 (Reply #50)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 02:22 PM

55. Roger, that.

 

A real fight is nothing like the movies. A single punch can kill under some circumstances. On the other hand, half-a-dozen punches might hardly phase someone depending on where they landed and how they were thrown.

The father was fighting to protect his child. End of story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:35 PM

17. I would worry about anyone who DIDN'T commit violence in defense of their children.

 

I'm pretty sure that anyone who hurt my kids would live, though.

For a very long time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Original post)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:50 PM

20. He didn't stalk the guy, he didn't shoot him

He did what any concerned father would do under the circumstances.

I can't say I would beat someone to death that I caught molesting my kids, but he would definitely know he'd been hit a few times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tularetom (Reply #20)

Tue Jun 19, 2012, 11:59 PM

22. I don't think I could kill anybody but I'm not sure I wouldn't want to.

That poor family.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 12:31 AM

26. Most people would have done the same.

Who wouldn't have attacked a person who they saw molesting their child? It's apparent that the father didn't mean to kill the man. On the other hand, many other children were possibly saved from future abuse. Child molesters and rapists are repeat offenders and the hardest to reform, even with therapy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 01:38 AM

31. I would have done the same thing.

 

Texas gets it right for once.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 06:33 AM

35. I'm glad he won't be indicted--he shouldn't be

dude shouldn't have been molesting the child... it's really that simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 07:48 AM

36. I totally disagree with the decision

If the dead man is not alive to dispute the claim, how are we to just take the word of the people alive and draw conclusions? I do think that the man should be more thoroughly investigated and at least face a manslaughter charge.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mazzarro (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:08 AM

38. I agree with you knowing in my heart I would have done the exact thing dad did, ......

justice isn't for the individuals involved, its for society and to handled by society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mazzarro (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 08:54 AM

40. Well let me play a little game with you on this.

What if the man lived?
And what would happen if he claimed that he was the one stopping the father from molesting his own child?
The question is the same...is he telling the truth....and for the truth we depend on the cops and their story of how they viewed the scene.
So I would assume the cop that showed up that his story fit the evidence he found.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zeemike (Reply #40)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 04:03 PM

58. There were witnesses, but don't let that stop you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lunatica (Reply #58)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 04:09 PM

59. That was the point I was trying to make.

It was not a case of he said he said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mazzarro (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:04 AM

42. Did you read the article??

"Emergency crews responding to the father's 911 call found Flores' pants and underwear pulled down on his lifeless body. The girl was examined at a hospital, and Lavaca County District Attorney Heather McMinn said forensic evidence and witness accounts corroborated the father's story that his daughter was being sexually molested."

I think the Dad was right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mazzarro (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 09:10 AM

43. He was investigated, went before the Grand Jury and they said that this isn't a crime

That is the purpose of the Grand Jury.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:52 AM

47. Being a father of 2 daughters (now grown) I always worried about rape.

If you look at the statistics, which I believe is around 1 in 4 American women are raped or molested, usually by a relative or close friend of the family, there is good cause to watch over them closely. I have thought about what I would do in this exact situation. I am still not sure how far I would go, but I will say it would be prudent for the molester to make his peace with his God before he ever touched my daughters! I will not lose any sleep over this and I hope that the publicity of this will cause a potential molester to have second thoughts about graduating from child porn to the actual molestation!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #47)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 03:10 PM

57. It's best to allow the legal, constabulary, medical, forensic, judicial systems to handle things

Sometimes people lie. Men lie, women lie. Facts are used to corroborate or disprove
victim's and perpetrator's stories. Vigilante justice does not allow someone to be
unbeaten to death. Sometimes people overreact, perhaps on the basis of what they
think or believe, rather than on the basis of what actually happened. I'm not saying
that applies in this case, but in another case it could. Or it could be they attack the
wrong guy, someone who closely resembles. That's why we have a legal system in a
civilized society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Original post)

Wed Jun 20, 2012, 11:36 PM

68. Good. Just once, the system worked.

Not only because legitimate self-defense was allowed, but because before that it was investigated and went to the Grand Jury as it should.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Original post)

Thu Jun 21, 2012, 03:32 AM

70. No jury would ever convict.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread