Eydawn Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 So, in a recently popular thread, we were discussing whether or not it is appropriate for individuals to take the law into their own hands, even to the point of using violence. It appears that a grand jury in Texas sides with the use of force when protecting the helpless and innocent. http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/06/20/texas-dad-beats-molester.html What do you guys think? Especially JPINFV- I know you side with the law... and this was deemed to be a legal use of lethal force. Ethical perspectives? Anyone disagree with the father's actions? Wendy CO EMT-B RN-ADN Student 1
DFIB Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 When an individual uses violence, even deadly violence, in accordance to the law, said person is not taking the law into their own hands but simply acting according to the lawful provisions. I think it is important to point out that self defense as defined by law is not "taking the law in their own hands" that seems to imply some sort of vigilantism.
erice2592 Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 In this particular situation, i feel with the overwhelming situation he did what ever other father would of done. I feel the difference in opinion is going to be ethic based given your ethical/ geographical background. Myself, i would have laid just as many mike tyson's on the guy as he did. Curious to see what other responses are though
Kiwiology Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 It is entirely reasonable and appropriate that private citizens should be allowed to use reasonable force (including deadly force) to protect themselves or another person from imminent threat of serious danger If I see some dude beating up Nana on the street, I should be able to take whatever measures are appropriate to help Nana, including putting a bullet between the attackers eyes if required.
island emt Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 if a perv was molesting any 5 yo , he would be lucky to die: Trust me! Another case of justice served the way it should be.
DFIB Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 (edited) Here is a portion of the Texas Penal code. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; (2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated; and (3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or ( to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. ( The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of the actor. Edited June 22, 2012 by DFIB
Vorenus Posted June 22, 2012 Posted June 22, 2012 What do you guys think? Especially JPINFV- I know you side with the law... and this was deemed to be a legal use of lethal force. Ethical perspectives? Anyone disagree with the father's actions? Doubt there`s going to be anyone, disagreeing on the father`s action. He was acting in self-defence (enlarged to a third person, who was assaulted) to protect his daughter. It doesn`t even sound like he intended lethal force - he took some swings at the guy. Then, when he realized the gravity of the medical condition of the bloke, he dialed 911 to get medical help and even thought about getting him into his own car to drive him to the hospital. Justifiable both from a judicial and ethical standpoint. 1
JPINFV Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 (edited) So, in a recently popular thread, we were discussing whether or not it is appropriate for individuals to take the law into their own hands, even to the point of using violence. It appears that a grand jury in Texas sides with the use of force when protecting the helpless and innocent. http://www.cbc.ca/ne...s-molester.html What do you guys think? Especially JPINFV- I know you side with the law... and this was deemed to be a legal use of lethal force. Ethical perspectives? Anyone disagree with the father's actions? Wendy CO EMT-B RN-ADN Student It depends on a lot of things. Speaking from a California law standpoint, there's a few things to consider. First, it's up to the DA to press charges, and the DA is an elective representative of "the people." Second, it's justified per the California Penal Code. 197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases: 2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein; or, 3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; ... 199. The homicide appearing to be justifiable or excusable, the person indicted must, upon his trial, be fully acquitted and discharged. http://www.leginfo.c...00&file=187-199 Third, murder requires malice aforethought (CPC 187(a), same link), which is not present in 'moment of passion' or accidental homicides except when a "malignant heart" is present (i.e. "I know this can cause death and I just don't give a darn). The case where 2 parents murdered their daughters pimp would be a good example of malice aforethought in contrast to this case. Assuming that the homicide wasn't justified (I think it is, though), then the proper charge would be voluntary manslaughter since no malice aforethought was present. The best example, albeit of involuntary murder, was the San Fransisco transit (BART) officer who was convicted for killing a suspect because he pulled his firearm instead of his taser (lawful act which produced death due to a lack of "due caution and circumspection" CPC 192( . Ethically, I agree with castle doctrine (assuming you aren't running away, the fact that you broke into my house is enough to cause a reasonable fear of a violent felony or a felony by surprise) and justifiable homicide (we should be able to take a life to save a life). However I'm on the fence with 'stand your ground' style laws since the Florida Zimmerman/Martin case highlights the issue of, "What if both sides are idiots (Zimmerman for leaving his car to follow the 'burglar', Martin for confronting the man stalking him) who gave the other side a reasonable fear for the other's life?" Heck, I'm even sympathetic to the parents who murdered their daughter's pimp (I think the choice of a drive-by shooting was incredibly stupid, but I digress). The difference between the "I killed the man who is in the act of raping my daughter" and "I killed my daughter's pimp" is one was done to protect another person from an act being committed right at that moment, and the other was done as a replacement for law enforcement. To quote a cliche popular in CCW/open carry groups, when seconds count, the police are minutes away. if a perv was molesting any 5 yo , he would be lucky to die: Trust me! Another case of justice served the way it should be. Well, Sandusky faces up to, what, 400 years in PMITA prison? Guilty on 45 of 48 counts. Edited June 23, 2012 by JPINFV
Richard B the EMT Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I believe there is a significant difference between a rapist in the act, versus a pimp, yet yield the point that some killings will mostly be viewed as "Public Service".
Recommended Posts