Seems like there was some evidence in this case. I take "there was no evidence to suggest he was lying" to mean there was evidence that he had molested the child.

 

So I beat you with a bat and you die. I tell the police that you were trying to sexually assault me but luckily I had my bat with me and saved myself.

 

Your family would be OK with the police taking my word for it even though there was no physical evidence to support my contention? Seems like a very low burden of proof.

Im not sure I see where its even relevant if he is committing the act or not, he broke into the house, at that point you have a right to protect yourself and those in the house.

So I beat you with a bat and you die. I tell the police that you were trying to sexually assault me but luckily I had my bat with me and saved myself.

 

Your family would be OK with the police taking my word for it even though there was no physical evidence to support my contention? Seems like a very low burden of proof.

 

 

Did you even read my post Clyde before you quoted it? I said:

 

Seems like there was some evidence in this case. I take "there was no evidence to suggest he was lying" to mean there was evidence that he had molested the child.

So I beat you with a bat and you die. I tell the police that you were trying to sexually assault me but luckily I had my bat with me and saved myself.

 

Your family would be OK with the police taking my word for it even though there was no physical evidence to support my contention? Seems like a very low burden of proof.

The evidence in this instance is easily found by exam. EASILY found. Father excluded via DNA, Perp (victim in this case) is EASILY placed in the position of guilt.

I'd be curious what theguru would do.

Did you even read my post Clyde before you quoted it? I said:

 

Seems like there was some evidence in this case. I take "there was no evidence to suggest he was lying" to mean there was evidence that he had molested the child.

 

Yes. I read it. The evidence was "we didn't think he was lying." Thus, my example. Your assumption is different than mine.

 

But let's take my example and tell me how you think the police should respond. Or change it to the father claiming the guy was trying to assault her but there was no physical evidence (torn underwear, ripped shirt, semen,etc.) Just the dad saying "I did what any dad would do when his girl was being attacked."

I'd be curious what theguru would do.

 

Make sure they didn't find his body.

The evidence in this instance is easily found by exam. EASILY found. Father excluded via DNA, Perp (victim in this case) is EASILY placed in the position of guilt.

 

Agreed. However, nothing from the article indicates that any physical evidence was found. If so, there wouldn't be any question that the grand jury would not charge.

Yes. I read it. The evidence was "we didn't think he was lying." Thus, my example. Your assumption is different than mine.

 

But let's take my example and tell me how you think the police should respond. Or change it to the father claiming the guy was trying to assault her but there was no physical evidence (torn underwear, ripped shirt, semen,etc.) Just the dad saying "I did what any dad would do when his girl was being attacked."

 

That's a completely different scenario than the one we were presented.

If this happened how the article reads then this is self defense. A third party who witnesses an assault can stand in the position of the victim and has the same right to use whatever force the victim is exposed to. Here, it was a potential matter of life and death, I believe that he had the same right to protect his daughter with similar force. In the name of justice, I hope that they do investigate this. Seems like he could have made that story up as well. If he didn't, then seems like justice was served

Agreed. However, nothing from the article indicates that any physical evidence was found. If so, there wouldn't be any question that the grand jury would not charge.

Then I'm not following your line of thinking. I know you sometimes play the devil's advocate, I'm still not following your connection.

That's a completely different scenario than the one we were presented.

 

Which one?

 

Really, it doesn't matter though. The consensus is if anyone tries to harm my daughter I'm going to kill him and it will be justified.

 

So I could take advantage of that thinking and get away with killing you just by lying. The locals would support me as a "good dad."

Then I'm not following your line of thinking. I know you sometimes play the devil's advocate, I'm still not following your connection.

 

My thinking is simple. Unless the police say there was physical evidence (they haven't) then we're in a gray area. We all want to protect the dad for doing what we think we would do but we haven't seen that the beating was justified. We're just taking some guy's word for it AND that seems to be enough to many in this thread. Dangerous.

Which one?

 

Really, it doesn't matter though. The consensus is if anyone tries to harm my daughter I'm going to kill him and it will be justified.

 

So I could take advantage of that thinking and get away with killing you just by lying. The locals would support me as a "good dad."

 

 

No Clyde the consensus is if anyone tries to harm my daughter, and there is evidence that said someone tried to molest my daughter, if I kill him, most juries will acquit me.

If this happened how the article reads then this is self defense. A third party who witnesses an assault can stand in the position of the victim and has the same right to use whatever force the victim is exposed to. Here, it was a potential matter of life and death, I believe that he had the same right to protect his daughter with similar force. In the name of justice, I hope that they do investigate this. Seems like he could have made that story up as well. If he didn't, then seems like justice was served

 

OK, Mr Prosector. You just have the guy's word for it. No physical evidence. Now what? Take his word and walk away?