[All Line Rover]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18522383

Common sense prevails for once. An excellent outcome.

[LE Greys]

Since that happened 'in hot blood', as a response to the attack itself rather than a revenge attack some time afterwards, then I agree that it makes sense to handle it that way. Although this was Texas, it's quite possible that, had the same thing happened in Massechusetts, the outcome might have been different.

[Badger]

He was also clearly upset by what he'd done and did not intend to kill the man based on what he said on the phone. "Come on! This guy is going to die on me! I don't know what to do!"

Clearly did not intend to kill, merely to stop his five year old daughter's rape.

And then we have Britain where you can't even harm an armed burglar :v

[All Line Rover]

Originally Posted by Badger

He was also clearly upset by what he'd done and did not intend to kill the man based on what he said on the phone. "Come on! This guy is going to die on me! I don't know what to do!"

Clearly did not intend to kill, merely to stop his five year old daughter's rape.

That explains why I agree with the outcome.

[DarloRich]

Originally Posted by Badger

And then we have Britain where you can't even harm an armed burglar :v

FFS - this AGAIN!!!!!!!!

I don’t know where this idea comes from. The legislation is quite clear. You may use reasonable force to protect yourself and your family.

What it does not allow you to do is have carte blanch to maim or kill anyone who enters your property.

As for the father in Texas, there is every chance the decision would be the same in this country.

[snail]

Originally Posted by All Line Rover

That explains why I agree with the outcome.

What? It's ok to kill someone provided you don't mean it? Outrageous.

[SS4]

Originally Posted by DarloRich

FFS - this AGAIN!!!!!!!!

I don’t know where this idea comes from. The legislation is quite clear. You may use reasonable force to protect yourself and your family.

Quite. Alas, the facts never overcome hysteria.

I'm guessing they had physical evidence to prove he was raping the daughter (at five it could not be consensual anyway) otherwise the father has basically beaten him to death.

Given my limited command of the facts I am pleased with the outcome.

[All Line Rover]

Originally Posted by snail

What? It's ok to kill someone provided you don't mean it? Outrageous.

Did I say that? Stop taking comments out of context.

[snail]

Originally Posted by All Line Rover

Did I say that?

That's how it reads to me.

[LE Greys]

Quite often, people are judged more on intent than on their actions. If he had hunted the attacker down afterwards and killed him in cold-blooded revenge, then I imagine things would have been judged very differently. It's hard to apply absolutes in difficult circumstances. Whatever your position on the taking of human life, context and intent are important.

[WestCoast]

This reminds of the case in the US where a pensioner, in self-defense, shot at and killed a youth who was viciously beating him, some of the posters on the student room would have had the poor guy locked up for murder! If you're physically attacked (to the point of feeling life danger) in most US states and legally carrying a firearm then "shooting to kill" is seen as reasonable force and you're not allowed to fire warning shots.

www.readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=361536

[All Line Rover]

Originally Posted by snail

That's how it reads to me.

He intended to stop his five year old daughter's rape. He used reasonable force. What else do you think he should have done? Watched an waited for the police to arrive?

The court has taken full account of the facts and has come to what I believe to be a sensible decision. Never did I say that it is "OK" to kill someone "just because you didn't mean it."

[Oswyntail]

I do not know what the US "Grand Jury" does, or whether there is an equivalent in this country. But it sounds to me as if the man has actually gone through part of the judicial process, and, for me, that is important. I would not want the CPS in this country to be empowered (by precedent or otherwise) to say someone who admits to perpetrating a crime should not be charged with that crime simply because of intense sympathy with him (which I share). That would set a dangerous - and highly flexible - precedent. As we have already hinted in this thread there is a way of thinking that some crimes are acceptable because the victim "deserved it", but once you have admitted that, you can no longer safely draw a line.

[Paul Sidorczuk]

The fact that the girl in question was only five years of age and unable to defend herself is absolutely horrific and I wonder how many forum members would feel if they too had to face such an emotive situation.

[SS4]

Originally Posted by Paul Sidorczuk

The fact that the girl in question was only five years of age and unable to defend herself is absolutely horrific and I wonder how many forum members would feel if they too had to face such an emotive situation.

Natural selections compels species to protect their young, sometimes to sacrifice themselves so the next generation may live on.

I couldn't say for sure but I'd probably have done the same thing. Of course the deceased is unable to defend himself so they'd have to rely on physical evidence to determine if anything happened which they probably did do.