TexasCHLforum.com

bronco78 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: He's suggesting that after the assault has been stopped, it is no longer justification for the use of deadly force.

Assault of the daughter perhaps, but who is to say the father did not feel threatened himself now, and was defending himself against the assault.. Only two folks know that answer,, One is dead, the other will tell his side to some folks who will decide.

Keith B wrote:

Bob in Big D wrote:

knotquiteawake wrote:Now if you read this article:
http://www.myfoxdfw.com/story/18765043/ ... d-molester" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It says:

"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,"

That sounds like Lawyer speak...... Must have lawyered up. Good for him

That was from the sheriff

Purplehood wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

Purplehood wrote:"I didn't think he was stopping the assault..."

"He never said, 'I give up!'."

I could go on all day.

The assault was stopped when the father pulled him off the little girl. What isn't clear about that?

PC 9.33 "Defense of a third person" References Section 9.32 "Deadly force in defense of a person", which in part, reads...

PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
[snip]
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
[snip]
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Once the assault was stopped (and therefore, no longer imminent), what would be the justification for deadly force?

But you obviously want to kill the guy -- don't let the law stop you!

I could only hope that I would have the presence of mind to watch a guy assaulting my four-year-old daughter, beat him only until I was relatively sure that he would no longer assault her or myself, and then stop beating on him.

Believe me, I have had the chance to "legally" take matters into my own hands with a law-breaker and chose not to do so. My point is, not everyone is capable of doing the same when they are wrapped-up in a state of justified rage.

Keith B wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:

Purplehood wrote:"I didn't think he was stopping the assault..."

"He never said, 'I give up!'."

I could go on all day.

The assault was stopped when the father pulled him off the little girl. What isn't clear about that?

PC 9.33 "Defense of a third person" References Section 9.32 "Deadly force in defense of a person", which in part, reads...

PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
[snip]
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
[snip]
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Once the assault was stopped (and therefore, no longer imminent), what would be the justification for deadly force?

But you obviously want to kill the guy -- don't let the law stop you!

This is not another bystander or a cop stopping the assault, it was the girls father. It is all going to come down to the father's mindset and how long he continued to punch the guy after pulling him off of his daughter. Even though Texas has no temporary insanity or 'Crime of Passion' law, his immediate fear for his daughter's safety and well being driving him to violence will play heavily in the Grand Jury's decision to no-bill or not.

When you get into a physical fight with a person committing a crime, there are no Marquess of Queensberry rules; it is stop at all costs or potentially be bludgeoned yourself. And when the adrenaline is pumping, it is VERY hard to just cut the emotion off, even for trained police officers. There are quite a few high speed pursuit videos where you see after a 20 minute pursuit the officers are so pumped they can't control their emotion and use excessive force. There is not a ref to step in and keep you from throwing the next punch, no towel thrown to signal they give up and no bell that rings. Trying to stop when your adrenaline is pushed, especially when a crime has been committed against a helpless young child, in this case his own daughter, would enrage anyone to the point they would potentially have to be pulled off of the victim.

Bottom line, unless the father had stopped, the guy was laying there not moving and then the father went back after a minute or two and continued to punch on him, this is a pretty clear-cut case of defense of a third person IMO.

Purplehood wrote:"I didn't think he was stopping the assault..."

"He never said, 'I give up!'."

I could go on all day.

PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
[snip]
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
[snip]
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Keith B wrote:Even if he did continue to punch the attacker, a very viable defense would be temporary insanity. Upon seeing my child or wife being sexually assaulted, I can guarantee I would not be in my right mind and would not be able to calm down immediately. If it was not happening to someone I have a strong emotional bond with, then things might be different upon the attack being stopped.

Purplehood wrote:Same thing, same result.

Purplehood wrote:

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;

After pulling the attacker off of her, the father repeatedly struck the man in the head.

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.

What do you guys think? If I were the prosecutor that is the direction I would go with it.

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;

After pulling the attacker off of her, the father repeatedly struck the man in the head.

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.

What do you guys think? If I were the prosecutor that is the direction I would go with it.