TX Dad defends daughter (4)

[sjfcontrol]

"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!

[Heartland Patriot]

Yep, lets just go ahead and convict the dad. Let's give the molester guy a hero's funeral. Lets go ahead and dig a hole under the jail and build a special cell for the dad because when you see someone molesting your little child you are supposed to go over and ask politely in your best Queen's English "I say, dear boy, if it isn't too terribly disruptive to you, would you please refrain from your current actions?"

Yes, I'm being stupid in what I am saying TO PROVE A POINT. Namely, that if the molester hadn't laid his hands on the child IN THE FIRST PLACE he'd still be alive and breathing today. Once again, I will ask: why is it always okay to START TROUBLE but never okay to end it? If folks would simply leave others alone, they'd have a lot less trouble to worry about.

[Keith B]

"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.

[stealthfightrf17]

Just thought I would add this, Texas does not have an insanity defense, but if someone dies in the commision of a crime then the one commiting the crime is responsable. So by that token, then it was suicide, which is also a crime.

[mamabearCali]

That brings truth to the "worst case of suicide I ever saw in my life" quip.

The piece of excrement was in the midst of committing a heinous crime, the piece of excrement died in the commission of said crime. He committed suicide. I love it.


Edited to Add:

Thank you Keith for bringing in your perspective. Can I borrow your words for another gun forum I am on? (Not as my own, but as a reference from a LEO).

[Keith B]

That brings truth to the "worst case of suicide I ever saw in my life" quip.

The piece of excrement was in the midst of committing a heinous crime, the piece of excrement died in the commission of said crime. He committed suicide. I love it.


Edited to Add:

Thank you Keith for bringing in your perspective. Can I borrow your words for another gun forum I am on? (Not as my own, but as a reference from a LEO).

Sure.

[Katygunnut]

The early reports I read say that the Dad punched the child molester twice. I think this would be defined as the use of Force. Not the use of Deadly Force. If punching someone twice is generally acknowledged as Deadly Force, then that changes alot of the discussions we see here about whether it is OK to shoot an unarmed attacker. Might be different if the Dad is a MMA pro and the molester weighs 98 pounds, but assuming similar sizes I think this is the use of Force.

On another note, if they get even one father on this jury, then the dad will never be convicted, assuming it even gets to that stage.

I also hope that the Dad and molester were the same race. If not, then Holder might pursue Federal charges regardless of the facts. Heaven help the Dad if either of his parents are white.

[sjfcontrol]

"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.

Exactly what I said earlier in this thread, here

I don't expect, or even want, the father to go to trial. And I wouldn't expect a conviction even if he did. Just reading the laws as they're written

[Purplehood]

"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.

[sjfcontrol]

"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.

I fully understand. I'm not sure I could do that myself. But there is nothing in the written law that I know of excusing "heat of passion" actions. That needs to come from a human (understanding prosecutor, grand jury, judge, jury, etc.) rather than a lawbook.

[speedsix]

...the crime of passion law in TX allowing a spouse coming upon his spouse in the bed with another person to kill them and go free was changed in 1974...it was written until then...

[Transplant]

I can't imagine this guy getting prosecuted, and certainly not in TX. To try to make a case that justifies his prosecution is stupid, especially in a public forum.

[canvasbck]

OK, let me get this straight. According to what has been stated above:

From a strictly legal perspective if the father had been armed and shot the guy in the head while he was committing the assault. The father would have been in good shape legaly even though he endangered his daughter from a passthrough, ect.

If the father kicked the guy in the ribs, knocking him free of the daughter before placing a round into his cranium, he has committed murder.

What's wrong with this picture?!?!?

Put me on the Grand Jury/Trial Jury and I can guarantee that the Dad walks in either scenario. I would then be honored to take him to lunch after the verdict.

[Katygunnut]

OK, let me get this straight. According to what has been stated above:

From a strictly legal perspective if the father had been armed and shot the guy in the head while he was committing the assault. The father would have been in good shape legaly even though he endangered his daughter from a passthrough, ect.

If the father kicked the guy in the ribs, knocking him free of the daughter before placing a round into his cranium, he has committed murder.

What's wrong with this picture?!?!?

Put me on the Grand Jury/Trial Jury and I can guarantee that the Dad walks in either scenario. I would then be honored to take him to lunch after the verdict.

It's similar to the whole warning shots scenario. Fire a round into the ground to scare off a home invader and you are guilty of a crime. Put that same round in his skull and you're fine.

[knotquiteawake]

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,"

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."