TX Dad defends daughter (4)

[knotquiteawake]

And I should be quick to add that I don't feel bad for the pervert at all. I would agree that he got what was coming to him. Just looking it at it from a legal perspective.
If I had already pulled the bad guy off my daughter or son, I would probably not pull the trigger.

[sjfcontrol]

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.

, kinda. If the scumbag tried to fight the father after being pulled off the daughter, then the father was continuing to defend the daughter (and himself), and if the scumbag died in the process, well, good riddance to bad rubbish (and he was justified). However... If the scumbag was only trying to escape at that point (or less), seems to me that the father could be at risk.

Edit: however, he'd probably still be found justified by a Texas jury.

[rp_photo]

Clearly it's time for bare hands control and bare hands free zomes.

[Jumping Frog]

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.

Why would you "go in that direction"? Just because the man is no longer physically on top of the girl does not mean one can assume the threat is stopped.

[stealthfightrf17]

Regardless of what the BG did after he was pulled off, he got what he deserved. Just pulling the BG off does not stop the attack in my opinion. However, I would think it was more likly that the BG turned on the father fearing he was going to be attacked. I know one thing for sure, if that was my daughter I would do what ever I had to protect her no matter what is cost me. I highly doubt it will make it to trial, let alone get any convection. No jury in there right mind could say they would have done diffrent

[Purplehood]

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"?

[sjfcontrol]

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"?

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

[Purplehood]

Same thing, same result.

[sjfcontrol]

Same thing, same result.

Then you're suggesting the only way to keep him there is to kill him -- makes sense, I guess.

[knotquiteawake]

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"?

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

This right here.

I'm suggesting that if it goes to trial that this will be what is going to be brought up. At what point has the assault been stopped? Whenever it was stopped is when justification of deadly force ends. Even if the pervert is trying to escape you can't use deadly force to keep him (or his body I guess) there. Either way, as others have said, the jury would likely come out in favor of the father.

[Keith B]

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.

[sjfcontrol]

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.

Somebody else brought up temp. insanity. I believe the answer was that that it isn't defined under Texas law. (srothstein? -- can't remember now)

[speedsix]

...it's in the telling of the story...choosing his words would be very important in this case...I'd bet that the grand jury will no-bill unless he just runs his mouth too much...

[Purplehood]

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

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

I could go on all day.

[Bob in Big D]

In this case I read where the little girl was being sexually assaulted and then the father pulled him off of her and beat him to death. Absolutely justified in my mind!
But where do you draw the line? A few minutes earlier, before the sexual assault took place, would the father have been justified in beating him to death? Would the father then have to prove intent? Might be much harder to do......