Sheriff: Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter

[Charisma Veteran]

I don't think that being a parent has anything to do about that.

I've seen parents that did not care for their own children. I've seen it plenty of time. I've seen people without kids caring a lot for the kids of other people.

I think that a lot of people don't realise he did not want to kill the guy. He just wanted to protect his daughter.

I will not say good job. Cause that would imply he wanted to kill the guy. I'll just say he did what he had to do and i wish him and his daughter to be able to go thru this hard time.

Fully agree.

Reminds me of another point I wanted to make too--a few folks said "but this guy might have had a family!". Think about what you just said. If the guy had lived, do you think they'd let him trot his happy ass back home to more kids? There's no telling what that family possibly dealt with because of him.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

You can't justify the level of sexual assault when its a 4 year old being attacked.

Obviously you can't justify sexual assault. It shouldn't be limited to a 4-year-old though. There's no justification for any type of sexual assault on any individual, regardless of their age.

It's not murder - it's a justifiable homicide.

Like it or not, if you do some crimes your life is forfeit at the hands of the victim or their defender.

Saying or strongly implying that you would kill someone for sexually assaulting a child is essentially saying you would murder someone for it. After all, murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought (predetermination). It's different than saying you could potentially lose control in a similar situation. In that case, it would be justifiable homicide.

The fact that you think that it matters at all when we are talking about a 4 year old girl disturbs me.

It matters to me because I'm against making a hasty generalization. And it should matter to anyone that says they would willingly kill someone for sexually assaulting a child.

[Dot Matrix]

My statement went over your head, just like with my reply it seems... do I have to type slower?

No, you said we still follow instinct. Where in our instinct does it tell us to molest little girls?

[Southern Patriot]

It matters to me because I'm against making a hasty generalization. And it should matter to anyone that says they would willingly kill someone for sexually assaulting a child.

Any level of sexual assault on a defenseless child is inexcusable. If you think that the perp would have just stopped with groping her (if in fact that was all he did) and not moved on to worse things, then you are delusional. The fact that the father caught and stopped the ******* before he did anything worse is the up side to this. The downside is that no matter what, that poor girl will probably have issues for the rest of her life.

[Southern Patriot]

Saying or strongly implying that you would kill someone for sexually assaulting a child is essentially saying you would murder someone for it. After all, murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought (predetermination).

Key word there being "unlawful". The killing of someone in the act of sexual assault of someone else is, in most US jurisdictions, lawful.

[shakey]

No, you said we still follow instinct. Where in our instinct does it tell us to molest little girls?

The instinct to procreate , but I was really referring to the instinct to protect one's young. As I said, it went over your head.

[Tuishimi]

I can see the rage taking over... I have a daughter (and a son) and would likely have done the same. I doubt I would have meant to kill him, just maim him a bit. But when you start seeing red (I don't know if anyone on the board as literally ever seen red, I have... it's kind of scary) it is hard to know what might happen.

[Alwaysonacoffebreak]

Anaron, just stop.

Like you said earlier, should we put pedos and rapists in to the same category? Of course we should. Hang them both without asking.

These things can't be explained by saying "Uhh ohh they are mentaly ill and maybe they will get better after some treatment" and if they don't (which they never do) get better? Lets just hope and wait until the next victim shows up?

[FloatingFatMan]

I'm sure most parents would do whatever it took to defend their children; however, I doubt very many would willingly kill someone in a situation like this.

"Will" wouldn't even come in to it, the instinctual imperative to protect the child would take over. If that imperative lasts long enough for the perp to die, then so be it. NONE of the people here claiming "I'd do that", know how they'd truly react when faced with the situation.

[DocM]

NONE of the people here claiming "I'd do that", know how they'd truly react when faced with the situation.

I've been faced with and had to respond to a deadly force situation, so count me out of "NONE."

[Southern Patriot]

NONE of the people here claiming "I'd do that", know how they'd truly react when faced with the situation.

I am confident that, if faced with a situation where my child was in danger from someone else, I'd use any means at my disposal to remove the source of danger, be it a gun, a knife, a large rock, or my bare hands. The moment that a predator puts their hands on one of my children, their life is forfeit.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

Any level of sexual assault on a defenseless child is inexcusable. If you think that the perp would have just stopped with groping her (if in fact that was all he did) and not moved on to worse things, then you are delusional. The fact that the father caught and stopped the ******* before he did anything worse is the up side to this. The downside is that no matter what, that poor girl will probably have issues for the rest of her life.

No one said it was excusable. I don't know what the man would've done if he survived and neither do you. It could have been his first offence or his 10th offence. The fact is, we shouldn't be making assumptions about worst-case scenarios. And given what we know of the situation, the father is very remorseful for what he did and didn't know the man would die. There was no intent to kill, just a strong desire to protect his daughter. The difference between him and some people in this thread is a desire to willingly kill someone.

Key word there being "unlawful". The killing of someone in the act of sexual assault of someone else is, in most US jurisdictions, lawful.

It's unlawful because it's contrary to law. And what you said isn't entirely true. As I said before, sexual assault is a broad term that encompasses various types of sexual assault (e.g. rape, attempted rape, groping, indecent exposure, etc). Do you think it would be lawful to willingly kill a man or woman if they expose themselves to a child?

Anaron, just stop.

Like you said earlier, should we put pedos and rapists in to the same category? Of course we should. Hang them both without asking.

These things can't be explained by saying "Uhh ohh they are mentaly ill and maybe they will get better after some treatment" and if they don't (which they never do) get better? Lets just hope and wait until the next victim shows up?

Stop posting because you don't agree with what I said? No thanks. I never said anything about putting pedophiles or rapists in the same category. No one is above the law and everyone has the right to a fair trial. You can't just decide the fate of someone else because you don't like what they did.

"Will" wouldn't even come in to it, the instinctual imperative to protect the child would take over. If that imperative lasts long enough for the perp to die, then so be it. NONE of the people here claiming "I'd do that", know how they'd truly react when faced with the situation.

I can agree with that (except I'd switch "none" with "most"). (Y)

I am confident that, if faced with a situation where my child was in danger from someone else, I'd use any means at my disposal to remove the source of danger, be it a gun, a knife, a large rock, or my bare hands. The moment that a predator puts their hands on one of my children, their life is forfeit.

I would do the same; however, I wouldn't go out of my way to kill the "predator". For example: if they happened to run away, I would stay by my child. I wouldn't pursue the individual in order to kill them. But if they happened to die while I defended my child, then it would be very unfortunate for the person. I would probably regret it for a long time too.

[Black Flash]

Why is everyone already assuming there was a sexual assault to begin with? Unless there's already forensic evidence to back it up , there's only the word of the father and his young daughter.

[DocM]

Swabbing the perps hands for signs he touched the girl inappropriately would give results in anything from a few hours to 3 days.

[Southern Patriot]

It's unlawful because it's contrary to law. And what you said isn't entirely true. As I said before, sexual assault is a broad term that encompasses various types of sexual assault (e.g. rape, attempted rape, groping, indecent exposure, etc). Do you think it would be lawful to willingly kill a man or woman if they expose themselves to a child?

I suggest you go back and read DocM's previous post. What I said is true in that (and many other) jurisdictions.

Here's the relevant section of the Texas law:

Deadly Force in Defense of Person

"A person is justified in using deadly force against another if he would be justified in using force under Section 9.31 of the statute when and to the degree he reasonable believes that deadly force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force, if a reasonable person in the same situation would have not retreated. The use of deadly force is also justified to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, rape or robbery."

Defense of Another Person

"A person is justified in using deadly force against an attacker to protect another person if he would be justified to use it to protect himself against an unlawful attack and he reasonably believes his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the other person from serious injury or death."

http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm

Sexual assault of a 4 year old child would fall under the category of rape, or at least "serious injury".

[Southern Patriot]

Why is everyone already assuming there was a sexual assault to begin with? Unless there's already forensic evidence to back it up , there's only the word of the father and his young daughter.

You must have missed the part of the article where the girl was examined at a hospital afterwards.

The man was pronounced dead on the scene, while the daughter was taken to a local hospital in Victoria, Texas, for examinations before being released.

I think it is reasonable to assume that if the hospital hadn't found any evidence of an assault, this would have been a very different news article.

[Yusuf M. Veteran]

I suggest you go back and read DocM's previous post. What I said is true in that (and many other) jurisdictions.

Here's the relevant section of the Texas law:

http://www.self-defender.net/law3.htm

Sexual assault of a 4 year old child would fall under the category of rape, or at least "serious injury".

I was going to quote the same thing but I felt it wasn't necessary. I'm aware that you can use deadly force to defend yourself (or someone else from rape) but that's not what I'm arguing. I'm arguing the use of sexual assault because it's a broad term. Rape is quite specific and it differs from less extreme forms of sexual assault like indecent exposure to a child. That's why I said "[...] isn't entirely true."

Let's just agree that what happened was unfortunate and hope that the girl hasn't suffered any major psychological trauma.

[DocM]

Under the law here any sexual assault of a kid 13 or under is rape because a kid under 16 cannot give consent for sexual activity. The 13 and under provision is an 'enhancement' charge to make sure such pervs get put away for a very long time.

Sexual contact with a person legally unable to give consent = rape.

[Southern Patriot]

I'm arguing the use of sexual assault because it's a broad term. Rape is quite specific and it differs from less extreme forms of sexual assault like indecent exposure to a child.

Again, it depends on the wording of the law in the particular jurisdiction. In the one DocM quoted, it specifically states "sexual assault". Sexual assault in Texas has a very specific legal meaning, and is essentially the same thing as rape in other places: http://law.onecle.co.../22.011.00.html & http://en.wikipedia....l_assault#Texas & http://www.arte-sana...pe_statutes.pdf (see page 27 of that PDF). There appears to not be a difference in terminology in Texas between the two, they are synonymous in that state. So, unless you are going to argue with the state of Texas about how they choose to define the terms, I suggest we stop arguing over them.

[f0rk_b0mb]

The sick f*ck got what he deserved. The father went on his instinct and did what was right. Poor girl.

[Growled Member]

Under the law here any sexual assault of a kid 13 or under is rape because a kid under 16 cannot give consent for sexual activity. The 13 and under provision is an 'enhancement' charge to make sure such pervs get put away for a very long time.

Sexual contact with a person legally unable to give consent = rape.

And that's the way it should be.

[revparadigm]

K, come talk to me after you've killed someone. Cause right now you're all talk.

What kind of lame ass response is this? Is it that offensive to you that in speaking for myself, that I wouldn't have any guilt in that if a rapist died at my hands while trying to protect my precious daughter from him? Get over it....I have no sympathy for child predators. Period.

[inactive]

being that it's a 4 year old i can't really see most people being that upset he killed a guy over it.

personally i would not blame him at all and even if there where charges against him they should be minor. because messing with a kid sexually at 4 fricking years old is beyond wrong. it's like the guy who did it was pretty much wearing a big sign on his back saying 'Kill Me'.

[metro2012]

Anaron, u r a student, non father, a supervisor, and TRY to defend this???

......I have no words....

[Hum]

Texas father won't face charges

Authorities say a Texas father who beat to death a man who tried molesting his 5-year-old daughter will not be charged.

Officials said the grand jury met Tuesday and declined to return an indictment against the father in the death of 47-year-old Jesus Mora Flores.

The attack happened on the family's ranch between the farming towns of Shiner and Yoakum. Investigators said the 23-year-old father ran toward his daughter's screams, pulled Flores off his child and beat him with his hands.

Authorities say forensic evidence and witness accounts corroborated the father's story that his daughter was being sexually molested.

Earlier, the Lavaca County Sheriff's Office said in a statement that the death would be treated as a homicide investigation, and the case was sent to the grand jury.

Sheriff Micah Harmon, according to the statement, believes the girl?s father is remorseful, and did not intend to kill Flores. He called the case "traumatizing" for the girl and her entire family.

"He was just protecting his daughter and doing what he thought he had to do to protect his daughter," Harmon said.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/06/19/texas-beating-death-girl-alleged-molester-is-ruled-homicide/