Father Beats Daughter's Abuser to Death; Should he be Tried?

[Dudel]

By your logic the US government should be on trial for killing Bin Laden or any terrorists then. True? or does this kind of law only apply outside the military? so justice is not ok in civillian life only military and only governments are allowed to kill and get away with it.

Shouldnt the LAW the thing that tells us whats right and wrong, (because we cant decide for ourselves) be totally unbiased to all people who break its code. Is killing people for doing bad right or wrong? acording to the law it depends on who you serve.

The law only covers when an individual kills another individual not when the state acts. "Justice" is NOT for the individual to decide. "Justice" is for the courts, a jury of 12 peers and a proper legal defense to figure out. Notice that the word is still not "decide." You do not just "decide." You have to figure out the truth, and then act.

Bold is a key point, and if the law is totally unbiased, then the man who murdered is still a murderer. Only "the state" has the legal power to declare when a human's life may be taken.

You should also not get confused between law and justice. The point of the legal system is NOT to get justice, it is to follow the law.

I've also already addressed the notion of Military action.

The only valid argument for this is War... which has it's own rules and is Military rather than civilians.

Military "law" and civilian law are different. It isn't against the law for a soldier to kill an enemy soldier during times of war. ...but there are still war crimes, etc, which have been mutually agreed upon by most countries.

The law is just like communism, all are equal just some are more equal than others.

This is just ignorant. The law is simply words written and passed by officials that are then enforced. There is no marks of "equality" when it comes to the law. Fluxed equality when interpreting the law? Perhaps. Fluxed equality when the law is outright ignored? Most definitely. Some people find all kinds of murders totally justified, which are not agreed upon. Like, say, in the name of the christian god. Ask the right people, and it's totally justified to "kill a faggot" without a need for judge or jury.

A father has the right to make that assessment on behalf of his helpless child.

This is a different argument altogether, much like self defense, and should be argued only in a court of law.

If I was on that jury and there was evidence (even a small amount) to back up the father's claim, I would vote not-guilty... but there should still be a trial. You don't skip a step because the victim wasn't well liked.

[mdk]

This is a different argument altogether, much like self defense, and should be argued only in a court of law.

If I was on that jury and there was evidence (even a small amount) to back up the father's claim, I would vote not-guilty... but there should still be a trial. You don't skip a step because the victim wasn't well liked.

Agreed on that point. But you don't have to arrest the man either -- it's not like he's a threat to anybody that isn't raping his little girl, and if he offs a few more assholes like that I say he's doing us a favor. This father should never spend a day in prison -- assuming what he says is true, of course.

[Dudel]

Agreed on that point. But you don't have to arrest the man either -- it's not like he's a threat to anybody that isn't raping his little girl, and if he offs a few more assholes like that I say he's doing us a favor. This father should never spend a day in prison -- assuming what he says is true, of course.

It's up to a judge to say if the father needs to be locked up. That's what bail hearings are for. If I was that judge, I'd not be putting the father in jail, no, but I would still set a court date and expect the man to show up.


I'm not disagreeing with the moral objections - at all, as I agree with those fully. I do have a strong ethical problem, however, with giving this father a pass on the entire process "because he only killed a pedophile."

[Scribz]

A father has the right to make that assessment on behalf of his helpless child.

Yeah but he'd be awfully biased :P

[HeySeuss]

In any case, this goes to a grand jury, who will decide whether or not to press charges. Third party defense is a legitimate justification in this case, going by the law here. This guy is being investigated and is going through the justice system, but it is highly doubtful that charges will be brought, unless his story conflicts with the evidence.

[Beatrix]

The father will not be charged with the accused molestor's death.

[HeySeuss]

The father will not be charged with the accused molestor's death.

Not surprising. The law was on his side and the evidence corroborated the story that he'd beaten the guy to death in trying to defend his daughter from sexual molestation. So yeah, that's that. I still feel for the kid though; she got the worst of it. I don't really give a fuck about the guy who died.