Sex offender vigilante

[NadiaStar]

I think it depends on the state. You're probably thinking of those Romeo & Juliet laws or similar ones.

[slamjet]

These murders disgust and frightens me.

What this man has done is ended the possibility for these people to have a chance for change. I've worked with all types of sex offenders and they are just as human as we all are (surprise!). The difference is they have been labeled by society as unwanted, un-rehabilitatable, disposable, expendable, and not worthy of a second thought other than to throw them away, give them a life sentence and use them as political punching bags.

So it's no wonder that this person felt the need to do what he did, and it's not the first time this had happened.

To question whether it's murder really disturbs me. Does a person who has taken a life deserve to be murdered also, or are they in a different category? They're all children of God just like anyone else. He loves them just like anyone else. They have families and friends. And I've seen the stress the whole lot is under in just attempting to make a living to survive. Yes, what they've done is horrific but when does it end? A person who has murdered has a better chance at life than a sex offender does.

[NadiaStar]

He's also completely unrepentant. Yawning during court?

[pam]

Heck I yawned during my wedding years and years ago. :) It had been a long week.

[HEthePrimate]

Here's the article

What gets me is that one of the victims was just a guy who had sex with his girlfriend in high school. Should that be a murdering offense?

Obviously no, having sex with your high school girlfriend should not be regarded as a capital offense.

To me, the real issue is the rule of law, letting law enforcement officials and the justice system do their jobs, and not appointing ourselves judge, jury, and executioner. Vigilantes purposely ignore the law and due legal process, and are therefore (IMO) criminals themselves.

[Saldrin]

When does it ever become okay for anyone to take the law into their own hands and go out with the intent to kill someone?

When your reasonably sure they are going to kill you, and the only way to stop them is with lethal force. Its better to stand before twelve then be carried by six. granted they are talking about a premeditated thing, and i'm talking heat of the moment.

[Gwen]

He's also completely unrepentant. Yawning during court?

Yawning doesn't show unrepentant or disinterest or anything else. Ppl yawn because their breathing becomes shallow, the body gets deprived of oxygen and so you reflexively yawn to get a nice large dose of oxygen into the system. This can happen when you are tired or bored.... it also happens when you are very intently listening to someone. You become so focused on the information you are taking in that your breathing slows down so your body reacts by yawning.

I'm not saying why this guy was yawning, I don't know the reason, just that yawning isn't a fair way to convict someone.

[Backroads]

The way the article was written makes it sound like the yawning was in disrepect... but I see Gwen's point. Possibly a one-sided article, though in the case of this guy I don't think anyone cares about the murderer's side.

I also have to admit I feel a little worse about the death of the high school-sex guy, but that doesn't justify any of this. I might like the idea of a vigilante, but the reality is horrible.

Someone in the comment section mentioned a similar case where the victim wasn't a sex offender at all... there was an address mix-up.

Better to uphold the law, expect and hope the law to do its best, and depend on final judgement.

[pam]

Yawning doesn't show unrepentant or disinterest or anything else. Ppl yawn because their breathing becomes shallow, the body gets deprived of oxygen and so you reflexively yawn to get a nice large dose of oxygen into the system. This can happen when you are tired or bored.... it also happens when you are very intently listening to someone. You become so focused on the information you are taking in that your breathing slows down so your body reacts by yawning.

I'm not saying why this guy was yawning, I don't know the reason, just that yawning isn't a fair way to convict someone.

It's very true. My voice teacher used to tell me if I yawned during one of his classes that I wasn't breathing correctly and getting the oxygen I needed.

Thank goodness he wasn't taking it personally. There were days I do believe I yawned from boredom. :)

[NeuroTypical]

So, on topic, we seem all pretty united that the murderer in the original link is a murderer and needs to be convicted as a murderer.

What about the father in Houston Texas who beat a man to death after discovering him allegedly molesting his 4 yr old daughter? They're saying he probably won't even be arrested, much less charged with anything.

My link doesn't mention it, but apparently the physical evidence backs up the father's story.

[pam]

That's a tough one LM. Here was a father protecting his daughter.

Someone mentioned justifiable homocide earlier. To me that falls under this. Don't we have a right to protect our families?

I think there is a huge difference between this story and the story in the OP.

[Soulsearcher]

I can say i don't feel for the guy or that i wouldn't want him not to face legal fall out, but i think he needs to be charged and put through a trial. I worry more about the blurring of the line as to when it is acceptable vs when it isn't more than i think he deserves to be punished. Break a law and go through the system, while the outcome might not be perfect at least we've tried our best to keep to a system of law.

[Vort]

That's a tough one LM. Here was a father protecting his daughter.

Someone mentioned justifiable homocide earlier. To me that falls under this. Don't we have a right to protect our families?

I think there is a huge difference between this story and the story in the OP.

Pulling the guy off his daughter is one thing. Straddling his supine body and beating him to death is another.

Not that I necessarily blame the guy. But "justifiable homicide" typically means that you or someone else is/are in present danger and that homicide is your only reasonable course. I would be surprised if that were the situation in this case, though of course I don't know.

[pam]

Pulling the guy off his daughter is one thing. Straddling his supine body and beating him to death is another.

Not that I necessarily blame the guy. But "justifiable homicide" typically means that you or someone else is/are in present danger and that homicide is your only reasonable course. I would be surprised if that were the situation in this case, though of course I don't know.

Yes you are right Vort. And I'm sure emotion and adrenaline played a huge factor in this. As a father yourself, it's hard to say what you may or may not have done had you been the one in the father's place.

Like I said..it's a tough one.

[estradling75]

The case for the father in Houston is in the hands of a grand jury... it will play out from there as the system is designed to.

The big difference between the two is the first one claims to be seeking either justice or prevention long after the fact, both of which we as a society have taken out of the hands of an individual and put it into the hands of the system or collective group. We consider this a wise thing to do.

The second case the man from Houston was defending or protecting a weaker third party in the moment of being attacked. This is something that we as a society consider acceptable, defending yourself or a third party from hostilities even if it means the death of the attacking party. We consider this a wise thing to allow.

So for the second man we have to figure out if he crossed the line from defense in the moment, (which is allowed) or to taking it upon himself to administer justice, or prevention after the fact. (which is not) In this case that line can be very hard to determine and will depend on details we probably don't have. Right now it appears that those who know the facts seem to be leaning toward that he did not, but that is not the final answer.

[NeuroTypical]

I agree that the two stories are very obviously different.

I can say i don't feel for the guy or that i wouldn't want him not to face legal fall out, but i think he needs to be charged and put through a trial.

Just out of curiosity, what charge would you feel fits this case? Charges are supposed to be leveled against people who we think are guilty of said charge. What charge is he guilty of in your opinion?

But "justifiable homicide" typically means that you or someone else is/are in present danger and that homicide is your only reasonable course.

Here is how the law is written in Colorado. (I haven't looked up Texas law, but I assume it's similar.):

(2) Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

[...]

© The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402, or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.

Good thoughts folks.

[Soulsearcher]

I agree that the two stories are very obviously different.

Just out of curiosity, what charge would you feel fits this case? Charges are supposed to be leveled against people who we think are guilty of said charge. What charge is he guilty of in your opinion?

Here is how the law is written in Colorado. (I haven't looked up Texas law, but I assume it's similar.):

Good thoughts folks.

I would think a man slaughter charge of some sort, he did take a human life when there were other ways of handling the situation, i didn't see it said that the daughters life was thought to be in danger. I don't discount the effect the situation had on the father or that it's his duty to defend his children, and i don't want him to do jail time, but i would feel better if i knew it was going through legal channels for real rather than possibly just the motions because people support what he did. Reading the article I'm not sure deadly force was required to stop the event. I'd actually be willing to accept a temporary insanity plea if any charges are brought. I do worry about a precedent both good and bad condoning this could set.

[annewandering]

There are lesser charges of murder, like manslaughter that might be more applicable to the texas man. Personally I would like to see him charged but then put on probation. He can not be allowed to set a precedent of killing over dialing 911.

Another thing I would like to see is cases of rape and molestation being pursued diligently as if the victims were the prosecutors daughters or wives. If we trusted the pedophiles to be dealt with in the courts and not let go to do it again them maybe we would be less inclined to take the law into our own hands.

[NeuroTypical]

He can not be allowed to set a precedent of killing over dialing 911.

Am I reading you correctly? You would have preferred that the father, when walking in on a man engaged in the act of molesting his 4 yr old daughter, should have taken no action other than to call 911?

If we trusted the pedophiles to be dealt with in the courts and not let go to do it again them maybe we would be less inclined to take the law into our own hands.

Just want to make sure I understand you here too. Two questions:

Are you advocating life sentences for convicted pedophiles?

Are you advocating that private citizens not be allowed to take action to end crimes currently occuring?

[HEthePrimate]

Am I reading you correctly? You would have preferred that the father, when walking in on a man engaged in the act of molesting his 4 yr old daughter, should have taken no action other than to call 911?

I can't speak for anybody else, but I think that obviously the father should have stopped the man molesting his daughter, assured that his daughter was safe from further harm, and then called 911.

Stopping the criminal does not necessarily require killing the criminal. Though if the guy was waving a gun around, there's a good chance I'd shoot him to prevent him from killing my daughter or me.

Are you advocating life sentences for convicted pedophiles?

Point of information (my inner school marm emerges!): A pedophile is not the same thing as a child molestor. A pedophile is an adult who is attracted to children. A child molestor is an adult who, well, molests a child (or more than one). I have met people who feel attraction to children, but have not acted on it.

Anyway, when it comes to legal repercussions, I think it should depend on the seriousness of the crime. For example, looking at child pornography should carry a lighter sentence than raping a child.

[annewandering]

Am I reading you correctly? You would have preferred that the father, when walking in on a man engaged in the act of molesting his 4 yr old daughter, should have taken no action other than to call 911?

Just want to make sure I understand you here too. Two questions:

Are you advocating life sentences for convicted pedophiles?

Are you advocating that private citizens not be allowed to take action to end crimes currently occuring?

wow. no you read very little of what I wrote correctly. He should have pulled the guy off, knocked him out, called 911 then took care of his daughter. Ok maybe restrain instead of knocking out but it would be a fast way to immobilize him. :)

If we have a way of fixing pedophiles so they wont act again then no dont lock them up forever. Other wise yes I would have no problem locking them up forever. The recidivism rate for acting on pedophilia is very very not encouraging.

I think we have laws for a reason. Vigilantism is stupid at best. It is only common sense, however, to stop a crime being committed then call the cops.

Child molesters are pedophiliacs. Here is the DSM IV take on it. (dont yell at me that they put it with gender disorders. I thought it was odd myself) From DSM IV

Edited June 14, 2012 by annewandering

[Vort]

Vigilantism is stupid at best.

Not so. When a society refuses to punish malefactors, vigilantism can be a perfectly reasonable response. Insofar as the fear of vigilante justice keeps potential offenders from acting, it might even accomplish a good end.

[annewandering]

Not so. When a society refuses to punish malefactors, vigilantism can be a perfectly reasonable response. Insofar as the fear of vigilante justice keeps potential offenders from acting, it might even accomplish a good end.

Sorry to disagree but I must. If we do not punish malefactors then we need to reform our justice system, not toss it out the window. I regard vigilante 'justice' as criminal. No better than the crooks they are supposedly dealing justice out to.

[Vort]

Sorry to disagree but I must. If we do not punish malefactors then we need to reform our justice system, not toss it out the window. I regard vigilante 'justice' as criminal. No better than the crooks they are supposedly dealing justice out to.

First, you misunderstand. I was responding directly to your assertion that "Vigilantism is stupid at best." Vigilantism may be sometimes stupid and often worse than stupid, but at its best it is not stupid. At its best, it is a perhaps necessary correction to a grave societal deficiency.

Second, I agree that reforming society and the system of justice is preferable to vigilante justice. The latter, if allowed to continue, inevitably destroys society. So you are not arguing a point under dispute. I am merely saying that, when a society has such important and uncorrected flaws, vigilantism might fill an important need, keeping in check what might otherwise become a much more widespread epidemic of awfulness.

Third, to say that someone who kills his daughter's murderer is no better than the original murderer is simply absurd. I don't think you really believe that, and I suspect very few on this forum would agree with it.

[annewandering]

First, you misunderstand. I was responding directly to your assertion that "Vigilantism is stupid at best." Vigilantism may be sometimes stupid and often worse than stupid, but at its best it is not stupid. At its best, it is a perhaps necessary correction to a grave societal deficiency.

Second, I agree that reforming society and the system of justice is preferable to vigilante justice. The latter, if allowed to continue, inevitably destroys society. So you are not arguing a point under dispute. I am merely saying that, when a society has such important and uncorrected flaws, vigilantism might fill an important need, keeping in check what might otherwise become a much more widespread epidemic of awfulness.

Third, to say that someone who kills his daughter's murderer is no better than the original murderer is simply absurd. I don't think you really believe that, and I suspect very few on this forum would agree with it.

I can accept 1 and 2. 3. No. Murder is murder. Now if we are talking defense etc then ok.

It matters little to me if every single person in this world disagrees with me about an opinion.