Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Don, Jun 19, 2012.
I was relieved to hear this family can continue living their lives without the drama of this dad having to defend his defense of his daughter.
Surprised am I, but pleasantly so. Seems that common sense is more common there than most anywhere else.
He should be very glad he lives in Texas.
This man deserves a "Father of the Year" medal. If more perverts were taken care of in this fashion, we'd have a lot less of them running loose putting our kids in danger.
IF the dead man was guilty as the killer charges you all might be right on.
This man actually beat the guy with his fists, then tried to keep him alive.
The facts say he should not be charged.
Any charge against the father who was simply defending his daughter should have never been considered. Thankfully, not-so-common common sense prevailed. Personally, I would have shot the pervert and made sure he wasn't alive to sue me or seek revenge against me.
I'm reminded of a man who trespassed on another man's property and was attacked by the man's dog. He sued but the case was thrown out after the man told the judge he had "No trespassing signs". The man had trespassed after seeing the sign and had no case.
Another time a man broke into a warehouse through the skylight and fell and was injured. He sued the warehouse owner and won $250,000. Who says crime doesn't pay?
"If"? What exactly do you mean by that? Are you implying you think the father took the opportunity to kill another man, and passed it off as defense of his daughter? Or are you implying some type of racial motive? Or what?
And "killer"? Everything points to a father defending his daughter; and you label him a "killer"?
Some anti-death penalty arguments obviously don't apply here. No long expensive appeal process-- unless, and IMO it's too likely, that if local authorities won't charge the man, then somebody will try to charge him at the federal level for 'civil rights violations.' The recent death of Rodney King is a reminder that the police officers were acquitted, which began the rioting, and then, despite the constitutional right against double jeopardy, they were tried, and some convicted, at the federal level. Groups like the ACLU obviously did not care-- they were law officers and the beating victim was a minority, no matter what he had in him to flee and resist. Let's see what happens in this case.
I was making an observation not knowing ALL the facts. "IF" means if, simple concept.
He killed, he is a killer, even though seemingly justifiably.
You are making more of my comments than I had in mind as often goes on around here.
Here are the facts: a grand jury was convened. They considered evidence from 911 calls, the law enforcement personnel involved, etc. A grand jury determined that no indictment would be made. A grand jury determined that it's not "seemingly" justifiable, but absolutely justifiable.
As for calling this father a "killer"; technically, you may be correct. However, when synonyms for "killer" are typically "murderer," "assassin," "slayer," etc., the connotation is one who isn't killing in self defense or defense of others.
Normally, I'm in line with your posts. It was just this one that struck me as different.
"As for calling this father a "killer"; technically, you may be correct. However, when synonyms for "killer" are typically "murderer," "assassin," "slayer," etc., the connotation is one who isn't killing in self defense or defense of others."
I was speaking of a man that had been killed and the one that had killed him, I did not say he was a killer/murderer, assassin, slayer etc.
I am not convinced there was need for death. I have not read that the abuser had a weapon - if so justifiable to kill if NEED BE to stop the abuse, if no weapon then death was not appropriate by a self appointed judge, jury and executioner. On the other hand understandable in the heat of the moment.
Only enough force to stop the situation should have been used. From there, let the law handle it. Vigilante justice is never right.
Trying someone for both federal and state charges for the same set of facts is not double jeopardy because of the separate sovereigns rule. States and the Federal government have co-equal jurisdiction to punish people for crimes against them.
And how do you determine how much force that is?
You can call it vigilante justice if you want, but I can tell this...I catch someone sexually molesting my daughter, they're a dead man.
That's is exactly the right amount of force for the situation.
"...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..." U.S. Constitution, Amendment V.
Is the "same set of facts" not the "same offense?"
It's easy to label a person a "killer" , and as you say , technically it's true. But it's not a term I would use in this situation. He murdered no one. If anything he could have only been charged with manslaughter.
This is coming from someone who has publicly been called a murderer, rapist and arsonist, merely for serving their country. I am none of those things, but technically I am a killer.
Liberals love to label those that defend their country and their family.
The Double Jeopardy Clause applies to the States only because of Selective Incorporation through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Originally, it only prevented the Federal government from putting a person in jeopardy twice. It has been incorporated against the States, and it prevents them from putting someone in jeopardy twice. It does not forbid someone from being prosecuted by both a State and the Feds for the same set of facts.
Furthermore, because a State and the Federal government are separate sovereigns, a single criminal transaction can result in multiple offenses. For example, if I were to go out and buy an illegal drug, I would have committed an offense against the State of Florida and an offense against the United States.
A single criminal transaction can result in multiple offenses? How's that? Because, since the mid-60's it has been a federal crime to attempt to assassinate the president, then if a person is found not guilty of such a crime in a federal court, he could stil be tried in a state court?
Yes or No: If the man in this item were to be tried at the federal level, would it be the same offense-- beating the man who molested his daughter, resulting in his death?