[Texas] Father not charged with murder of man he found molesting his child

As with everyone... Good job dad. But circumstance has helped him a bit. Had he found the duo after the act was done should be still get off legally?

I'm reminded of the case a few months back in Houston where a drunk driver hit and killed a dads two young teenage sons in front of him and the dad got a gun and proceeded to kill said drunk driver. I'd hope for a similar outcome for that dad because f that pos driver.... but don't expect it. I understand we can't let people be judge and jury themselves but sometimes the emotional trauma is too much, especially when you know exactly what happened and frankly are capable of being judge and jury.

Of course there's also the case of that dad a couple decades ago who hid in the airport as cops were bringing his sons molester back into town from fleeing and just shot the dude... All caught on TV news cameras. Guy was let off on the killing by virtue of temporary insanity effectively. Seemed fair.

 

Does a man deserve to die for raping a child? Yes he does.

 

Good. May all pedophiles meet the same end.

 

When are they giving this guy his medal?

 

California and the Northeast, of course.

 

In both of these cases, if I was the murderer I'd be okay with a conviction. Obviously, it'd be even better to not be convicted, but if I knew with a certainty of the man's guilt and took the law in my own hands, it'd be worth the jail sentence that came with it.

 

Poor little girl and father, that's has to a really bad scar for both of them.

 

The scenario you outlined would be trickier, but it would depend on the exact circumstances.

The legitimate belief that the other person's life is in danger is sufficient to warrant action. So if he arrived after the act it would depend on how long after the act this occurred, whether the child was still present, and whether he legitimately believe his child's life was still in danger (not a stretch by most standards considering that the killing of people after commission of a crime does happen depending on the exact circumstances).

The difference between this father's action and the ones that you outlined would be the physical presence of the child, the amount of time that has elapsed, etc.

Also, drunk driving can not be equated with this sort of crime. Though drunk drivers kill people, I think it's safe to say that most do not intend to kill people or cause harm to others. Also, the victims already being dead you could not argue that the father believed that his or anyone else's life was in imminent or immediate danger.

As for the father shooting the molester at the airport, had he not been excused on grounds of "temporary insanity", he would have undoubtedly have suffered prosecution and criminal punishment. The foundation of any legal system is that the legal system is the agreed way which guilt, innocence and punishment are determined. While it is far from perfect, given the imprecision of human judgement I find it highly preferable to leaving it to the "judgement" of emotionally compromised individuals.

The law allows for action to protect due to imminent threats, it does not allow for the personal administration of "justice".

 

The earth is now a better place.

 

If that girl's father would have killed the guy with an ax, then mutilated the body and then pissed on his grave, I still wouldn't convict.

 

Deadly force is allowed. There is no gray area to consider if the force applied was too much to stop the crime.

I will say a prayer for the father and daughter for the ordeal and hope that they heal.

 

Good job Dad!

I just pray that the little girl will be able to overcome this traumatic experience...at least she knows her Daddy will kill to protect her.

As a father of a 2 year old boy, 3 girls, ages 4, 5 & 9; I would have done the same thing...I just pray it never happens.

 

Good for him cause as a father of girls myself i would have done the same.

 

The article said the father found someone "raping his five-year-old daughter". The father could legally shoot him or apply any deadly force at that point. How can anyone from this article, or even presented with physical evidence say there was ANY point where the rapist was subdued and deadly forced was no longer justified. The entire thing was over in seconds, it doesn't take very many blows to the head to kill someone.

 

Legally, this doesn't need to be considered. These are the same arguments people try to apply to shootings.

"Why didn't he just shoot him in the leg?"

Even a trauma surgeon couldn't tell you how many blows it takes to kill a specific person vs knock them out. Deadly force was justified, the circumstances just make the story easier to believe, not more justified. He could have just been a random bloke going for a wander and killed someone to stop an aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery of a 45 year old stranger.

 

As a father of a two year old daughter this is my greatest fear as well. Kids at these ages are just so innocent and full of life that the thought of some POS harming them would make even the most self controlled man lose it.

Good job dad and jury.