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.

 

There are a lot of degrees of "harm." What kind of evidence do you need ?

 

Your daughter says the strange man touched her in her genitals. Are you going to wait until someone provides physical evidence before you go to town on his head? I'm not sure I would wait.

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.

Ok. Now I follow. However, the physical evidence is easily gathered. So, this one doesn't have to fall in the "he said" category.

Ok. Now I follow. However, the physical evidence is easily gathered. So, this one doesn't have to fall in the "he said" category.

 

You guys are reading a lot more into that statement then than I am. If you're on the grand jury what do you need to see in order to not indict the father?

You guys are reading a lot more into that statement then than I am. If you're on the grand jury what do you need to see in order to not indict the father?

 

Physical evidence of assault on a 4 year old girl, which once again, is very easily obtained.

There are a lot of degrees of "harm." What kind of evidence do you need ?

 

If I'm the father the only evidence I need is my own eyes witnessing it. If I'm on the jury I would need some physical evidence of some kind. I'm not saying I wouldn't be convicted if I murdered a man for molesting or trying to molest my child. I'm saying the rage inside me that would follow witnessing such an event would not subside until I had killed the man. That's something I honestly don't think I would be able to control. Somebody else would have to physically stop me. I would just have to take my chances in front of the jury.

I hear you but the typical punishment, even in Texas, for a sexual predator is not death.

 

Not saying I blame the dad or that this guy did not deserve what he got, but from a legal standpoint he still murdered a guy.

 

It doesn't have anything to do with the punishment from a legal stand point IMO.

 

I don't think a grand jury will indict him. I could be wrong though.

If I'm the father the only evidence I need is my own eyes witnessing it. If I'm on the jury I would need some physical evidence of some kind. I'm not saying I wouldn't be convicted if I murdered a man for molesting or trying to molest my child. I'm saying the rage inside me that would follow witnessing such an event would not subside until I had killed the man. That's something I honestly don't think I would be able to control. Somebody else would have to physically stop me. I would just have to take my chances in front of the jury.

 

I think we all agree that the rage would be hard to control. That has never been a debate in this thread.

It doesn't have anything to do with the punishment from a legal stand point IMO.

 

I don't think a grand jury will put indict him. I could be wrong for sure though.

 

I think you're right about the indictment.

 

When I was a kid my dad was a state trooper in a small town. Old man shot his drunk son. Dad said his son was coming at him. He never got to him as the dad shot him. Never charged. Never went to a grand jury. The thinking was "he got what he deserved." Slippery slope.

Physical evidence of assault on a 4 year old girl, which once again, is very easily obtained.

 

Agreed. Any sort of true physical evidence makes it a no-brainer. You assume it's there. I just can't tell by the statement made.

 

My point is that even if there is not physical evidence the thinking of most will be "ah, let him go."

 

It would seem to matter legally.

 

I can shoot you if you're coming into my house but I don't think I have the right to shoot you if you're running out of my house.

 

It will be up to a grand jury. I can almost guarantee you a grand jury in Kentucky wouldn't indict this man.

 

Consider this example which happened in KY. I don't have all the details, only what was in the news. A man robs a gas station with a knife. As the man is leaving, (and is outside of the store) the clerk shoots him and kills him. The grand jury did not indict the clerk.

Agreed. Any sort of true physical evidence makes it a no-brainer. You assume it's there. I just can't tell by the statement made.

 

My point is that even if there is not physical evidence the thinking of most will be "ah, let him go."

 

 

I don't get that feeling at all.

Let's say I wanted to beat a guy to death. Couldn't I just say I found him molesting my daughter? I could easily convince my 4-yr-old to lie.

 

Seems like a rock solid way to murder someone you don't like.

 

Your 4 year old would most likely inadvertently give you up. They arent professional liars.

Your 4 year old would most likely inadvertently give you up. They arent professional liars.

 

Sure. However, that doesn't mean I'm smart enough to not try. Maybe she doesn't. I could get away with it?

I don't get that feeling at all.

 

You would vote to put the guy in prison for manslaughter in that case?

Agreed. Any sort of true physical evidence makes it a no-brainer. You assume it's there. I just can't tell by the statement made.

 

My point is that even if there is not physical evidence the thinking of most will be "ah, let him go."

Well, I suppose I have to assume it's there. If the assailant actually assaulted a 4 year old there IS physical evidence. Whether or not it's been stated or not, if any investigator worth his salt takes the case, he should be able to obtain that evidence. Perhaps Mex can confirm, but I wonder if the parents even have to give consent for an exam in this instance.