Return to “TX Dad defends daughter (4)”
Its all going to depend on the narrative. I like this story better than the "he pulled him off her and then beat him to death.""In the course of trying to get her away from him, and protect her, he struck the subject several times in the head and the subject died,"
This right here.sjfcontrol wrote:He's suggesting that after the assault has been stopped, it is no longer justification for the use of deadly force.Purplehood wrote:Are you suggesting, "Oh okay, you have stopped, you can go now"?knotquiteawake wrote:I think its possible he will get charged if the following is true:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/he-got- ... -to-death/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;If he pulled the man off his daughter then at that point the assault has been stopped. To then beat the man in the head to death looks more like vengeful homicide. Once the crime is no longer in progress I think he would not be covered by the law anymore. If he pulled the man off his daughter how then is deadly force necessary? The crime has been stopped.After pulling the attacker off of her, the father repeatedly struck the man in the head.
What do you guys think? If I were the prosecutor that is the direction I would go with it.
If he pulled the man off his daughter then at that point the assault has been stopped. To then beat the man in the head to death looks more like vengeful homicide. Once the crime is no longer in progress I think he would not be covered by the law anymore. If he pulled the man off his daughter how then is deadly force necessary? The crime has been stopped.After pulling the attacker off of her, the father repeatedly struck the man in the head.
I would assume this will be key for hid defense if he needs one. The prosecution will likely try to make it sound like an honor killing or a revenge killing.C-dub wrote:From multiple articles, it doesn't appear that the father intended to kill the guy and friends, family, and the sheriff say he's been very remorseful.knotquiteawake wrote:I had just been reading about this incident elsewhere on the internet and came here to find exactly that answer. Had I been in that fathers shoes I would have taken whatever steps were necessary to STOP the threat to my daughter as quickly as possible as well. Can't say I would be intending to kill him, depends on the situation I'm sure, I sure as heck would putting a stop to it though. I am glad to hear that the father will be covered by the law in his use of deadly force on that creep.
I had just been reading about this incident elsewhere on the internet and came here to find exactly that answer. Had I been in that fathers shoes I would have taken whatever steps were necessary to STOP the threat to my daughter as quickly as possible as well. Can't say I would be intending to kill him, depends on the situation I'm sure, I sure as heck would putting a stop to it though. I am glad to hear that the father will be covered by the law in his use of deadly force on that creep.Jumping Frog wrote:Seeing as sexual assault is specifically listed as one of the crimes where deadly force is presumed justified, it would be hard to see this getting charged.mamabearCali wrote:I hope he is not prosecuted.
PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A
person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.