I talked to a lawyer about this very subject last night and he said the dad should have killed the man to insure that it wasn't his word against the man's. He said that if he killed the man, there would be no problems in court :thumb:

 

Makes me feel warm all over about the legal profession.

I talked to a lawyer about this very subject last night and he said the dad should have killed the man to insure that it wasn't his word against the man's. He said that if he killed the man, there would be no problems in court :thumb:

 

Sounds very logical

I have confirmed that a minor child does NOT have the right to invite anyone into a parent's house without consent.

 

 

With who/what?

Sounds very logical

 

Actually, it is very logical. It is difficult to defend yourself if you're dead.

 

Sad, but true.

I have confirmed that a minor child does NOT have the right to invite anyone into a parent's house without consent.

 

OK. It doesn't give carte blanche to attack kids in your house.

Makes me feel warm all over about the legal profession.

 

The legal profession or the judicial system?

Actually, it is very logical. It is difficult to defend yourself if you're dead.

 

Sad, but true.

 

Wait... he should have killed the kid?

A few thoughts.

 

• We don't know all the facts, so we are really doing a lot of speculating. With that said I plan to continue speculating.
  
• What startled the father? Obviously he heard something, which I doubt was a cry for help or crashing glass, etc. as the boy was invited and had apparently been there for some time. He obviously knew someone was in the room. How? Were they conversing? If so, it leads me to believe it would indicate the girl knew the boy and had asked him to be there. Anyhow, the father induced that someone was in his daughter's room and grabbed a pipe to impair harm against said visitor.
  
• I've never been hit with a pipe, but I'd imagine that I would move, duck, dive, or attempt to prohibit the person from hitting me with a pipe. I would imagine some degree of dialogue between the father, daughter, and boyfriend may have had time to unfold during this skirmish.

Wait... he should have killed the kid?

 

Not what I'm saying.

 

The point is that it is much easier to win in court when the other party is not able to testify as to what happened. Obviously if he had killed the kid, that would open a whole new can of worms.

A few thoughts.

 

 

• What startled the father? Obviously he heard something, which I doubt was a cry for help or crashing glass, etc. as the boy was invited and had apparently been there for some time. He obviously knew someone was in the room. How? Were they conversing? If so, it leads me to believe it would indicate the girl knew the boy and had asked him to be there. Anyhow, the father induced that someone was in his daughter's room and grabbed a pipe to impair harm against said visitor.
  

 

The article mentioned that it was the daughter's boyfriend, who had been coming to her house for over a year.

The kid is very lucky that he only was hit with a pipe.

Actually, it is very logical. It is difficult to defend yourself if you're dead.

 

Sad, but true.

 

Excellent, excellent point. Had the dad stopped to ask questions and the kid been an intruder with a concealed weapon, then the dad might have been killed and unable to defend himself or his daughter. Better to use reasonable force to incapacitate the perceived threat.

 

I couldn't have said it better myself.

The article mentioned that it was the daughter's boyfriend, who had been coming to her house for nearly a year.

 

I know. My point is that something led the father to believe that a person outside of his daughter was in her room. I proffered that they were talking. If so, it would indicate to the father that both someone was in his daughter's room and this person knew his daughter/was friends/was invited/or at least that the daughter was not in immediate danger.

The article mentioned that it was the daughter's boyfriend, who had been coming to her house for nearly a year.

 

Unbeknownst to the father--he said he did not even know she had a boyfriend.

The article mentioned that it was the daughter's boyfriend, who had been coming to her house for nearly a year.

 

It also mentions that the father didn't know the daughter had a boyfriend and did not know this young man at all.