lol CNN

[Kashiwaba Tomoe]

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed&videoId=us/2012/06/12/khou-dad-kills-daughters-alleged-attacker.khou

 

 

^ link to video.

 

Apparently, a pedophile getting beaten to death by the father of the girl he was trying to rape in the process of the father stopping him is so horrible, that CNN has to mock the town for not minding the guys death.

[windpl]

And I understand that. One of main purpose of law is to reduce abuse of lynch. In worst case scenario suspect weren't even paedophile and was killed because murdered didn't liked his shirt. Without him among living no one will know the truth.

 

That connect to my view on capital punishment, better to have true murderer slip than doom innocent. Well, maybe I'm pussy but that is my opinion.

[Siouliusn]

I'd rather have ten innocents killed than let a guilty one escaped.

And I find that sheriff absolutely great for what he does for that guy that may have acted under the control of emotions without rational control but still did one good thing that many corrupt'd (not 1st degree) cops/politician wouldn't dare to do.

[thesapien]

Such things are best dealt with locally by those involved because only they have the best and closest knowledge as to what really happened. Courts with judges and juries are far removed and play a guessing game.

 

Kudos to the sheriff for not being a stranger to his community and not playing the cop who often gets it wrong.

 

A father IS the one most responsible for protecting his own. No one else has more of a right than he to do what needs to be done.

 

I'd rather have ten innocents killed than let a guilty one escaped.

And I find that sheriff absolutely great for what he does for that guy that may have acted under the control of emotions without rational control but still did one good thing that many corrupt'd (not 1st degree) cops/politician wouldn't dare to do.

 

What's that? You'd kill ten people to get to your bad guy???

 

I'm not sure it makes any sense here to say the father was acting on emotions rather than rational thought. I'm not even a father but would rationalize that killing a guy is a very logical way to prevent him from raping my daughter and well worth any price that may befall me from the state. If he'd left the guy alive' date=' the beaten man could had pressed charges and forced the thing into court making it a huge mess with a very uncertain outcome, perhaps ending with the father in jail and the daughter without any protection and getting raped after all. So I'd argue he did the smart thing, the right thing, and the admirable thing.

 

And I understand that. One of main purpose of law is to reduce abuse of lynch. In worst case scenario suspect weren't even paedophile and was killed because murdered didn't liked his shirt. Without him among living no one will know the truth.

 

That connect to my view on capital punishment, better to have true murderer slip than doom innocent. Well, maybe I'm pussy but that is my opinion.

 

That way of thinking can be used against any form of punishment. Let's not ever punish anybody for anything because they might be innocent. If the problem is that we persecute the wrong people, then the solution is NOT to avoid prosecution.

 

Also, saying that had the other guy lived then we'd get to hear his side of the story and be able know the truth is full of problems and ignores how complicated such matters can be. What if the guy had lived and indeed claimed he was attacked for wearing the wrong shirt?

 

I'm not saying we do know or can know. What I am saying is that if I were a father in a situation where I personally knew for certain that some guy was trying to find ways to rape my daughter, I would had killed him, dead. This is partly BECAUSE I know how our legal system works and how it can be used against me and my family. If I'd just threatened him, he could had pressed charges. If I'd beaten him, he surely could had pressed charges. Killing him would be the only sure way to protect my family while living under the US legal system.

 

Mod edit: combined triple post

[Kashiwaba Tomoe]

Without him among living no one will know the truth.

 

Oh' date=' I'd say the four year old girl that got raped knows the truth, and bears all the forensic evidence needed to fully exonerate her father.

 

I just hope the guy suffered some when her father beat him to death (the shame is apparently he was only hit a few times before dying)

 

 

 

I'd rather have ten innocents killed than let a guilty one escaped.

And I find that sheriff absolutely great for what he does for that guy that may have acted under the control of emotions without rational control but still did one good thing that many corrupt'd (not 1st degree) cops/politician wouldn't dare to do.

 

 

 

 

That's a tad out there, more so than windpl's post (in my eyes at least )

 

Better to simply have fair justice, and do away with all the bullshit penalties for self defense, or simply stopping a crime.

 

A father IS the one most responsible for protecting his own. No one else has more of a right than he to do what needs to be done.

 

CNN viewers are the type to be afraid of the idea of self protection. Impotent. They prefer the false illusion of being protected' date=' not doing the protecting. They would prefer the girl get raped first, then slap the guy on the wrist and let him do some therapy, of course, only after he is proven to be guilty by some jury of strangers who were never there and demand to be shown lots of "evidence".

[/quote']

 

 

 

Pretty much sums it up, CNNs target audiance is more of the 'but he's sick, he should have been given therapy' type, when the correct answer is to kill the guy before he can finish the act (best case, the second he tries, before he can start, but that requires too much luck to happen often).

 

 

What so many people seem to forget is that we actually HAVE rights here in the US, including self defense.

[windpl]

I'm against capital punishment but not against life sentencing. At last if someone is innocent truth will come out sooner or later.

 

Everyone should have a trial, because mob can be xenophobic and ect.

 

edit

damn typos

[Guest Donkey]

And this country is blaming seria for killing it's own people and giving the rebels weaopons and blaming the government in Return..

 

I am sure Russia knows the truth here.

 

Not sure what to say of this matter.

 

I'd rather have ten innocents killed than let a guilty one escaped.

And I find that sheriff absolutely great for what he does for that guy that may have acted under the control of emotions without rational control but still did one good thing that many corrupt'd (not 1st degree) cops/politician wouldn't dare to do.

 

I would rather have 10 Guilty once killed instead of innocent.

 

If everyone was acting like this we would get wild west back. And no more laws to abide by.

[thesapien]

 

Pretty much sums it up' date=' CNNs target audiance is more of the 'but he's sick, he should have been given therapy' type, when the correct answer is to kill the guy before he can finish the act (best case, the second he tries, before he can start, but that requires too much luck to happen often).

 

[/quote']

 

I'd just deleted my CNN comment because I thought I'd over-stated it, but it's cool it went over well with you.

 

They like the "because he's sick" because they are also sick. It absolves EVERYONE of any moral responsibility. They think that explaining how someone can be sick dissolves the fact that they are sick fucks. It's like as if love were explained to be chemistry and then everyone no longer believed in love. They confuse one level of explanation/abstraction with another level.

 

And this country is blaming seria for killing it's own people and giving the rebels weaopons and blaming the government in Return..

 

I am sure Russia knows the truth here.

 

Not sure what to say of this matter.

 

Oh' date=' that's just Western leaders arming thugs and using terror tactics as usual. We've been doing it for decades all over the world. It's Syria's turn.

 

About Russia, don't you watch Russia Today? RT is now one of the most viewed news channels on YouTube. Some of it I actually agree with.

 

Anyone remember back when Al Jazeera was a good source of news? Seems so long ago now.

 

If everyone was acting like this we would get wild west back. And no more laws to abide by.

I'm pretty sure that's a myth about the Old West. It wasn't so wild without governments. During The Gold Rush in California, crime is reported to had been very low. Would you try to rob someone knowing they have a gun? No. More importantly, would you go crazy robbing everybody just because you were in a place without a government police force? No. Nor do most people. And the bad ones who would answers yes find it very hard when there are no easy victims who are helpless to defend themselves.

 

I'm against capital punishment but not against life sentencing. At last if someone is insentient truth will come out sooner or later.

 

Everyone should have a trial' date=' because mob can be xenophobic and ect.

[/quote']

 

One thing I respect about China is that they do have capital punishment for corrupt public officials. They are smart about taking corruption for being as serious as it really is. In the US, corruption is just redefined as normal politics, like boys will be boys...

 

One father is not a mob. Also, not all mobs are bad. Sure, lots are, but I would also point out that mobs don't raid a person's home because that person is smoking weed. Who needs a mob when you have evil laws and SWAT teams???

 

Mod edit: Combined quad post.

[Ashal]

triple post followed by a quad post? They make an edit button you know...

[FusRoDah]

I hope That Child Rapist got his ass kicked.

 

He should be violently Castrated, And, like all Criminals, should lose his Protective Rights. That's Justice. Sadly, No country wants to Take those measures.

[shanyu]

Such things are best dealt with locally by those involved because only they have the best and closest knowledge as to what really happened. Courts with judges and juries are far removed and play a guessing game.

 

Kudos to the sheriff for not being a stranger to his community and not playing the cop who often gets it wrong.

 

A father IS the one most responsible for protecting his own. No one else has more of a right than he to do what needs to be done.

(anip)

........

I'm not sure it makes any sense here to say the father was acting on emotions rather than rational thought. I'm not even a father but would rationalize that killing a guy is a very logical way to prevent him from raping my daughter and well worth any price that may befall me from the state. If he'd left the guy alive' date=' the beaten man could had pressed charges and forced the thing into court making it a huge mess with a very uncertain outcome, perhaps ending with the father in jail and the daughter without any protection and getting raped after all. So I'd argue he did the smart thing, the right thing, and the admirable thing.

 

[/quote']

 

 

People are making this out to be more difficult than it is:

 

1) In many states, lethal force is permissible in self defense (or defense-in-proxy) when under the threat of rape, murder, kidnapping or grave bodily injury. This would be exactly the situation the father was in (the right to "self" defense is transferrable to a proxy) so there's no reason to be surprised that the community would find his behavior acceptable in that manner. If the state did not allow lethal force in self defense, then this would indeed be an issue.

 

2) Depending on the state, again, this "defense" may be something that is to be taken into consideration when you go to charge someone or it may be a factor to be determined during a trial. Essentially, some states give police/prosecutor the discretion to look at the facts themselves, see if "self defense" would logically apply, and if it would, NOT put the person through the expense of a trial.

 

Some states believe that its better to have a judge decide, looking at all the facts, particularly when a human life has been taken, so the 'defense' has to be argued in court. This doesn't necessarily mean that it goes to a full-jury-trial, though. A person is charged, the person files a motion stating that it is clearly self-defense. If the police/prosecution agrees, they don't oppose the motion and the judge rules, dismissing the charges.

 

From the attention-whoring media circus, this is seen as someone "unfairly charged" and later "exonerated" when its just a matter of making sure that the person that the state has entrusted with the responsibility of determining whether "self defense" applies actually IS the one that makes the determination.

 

In the latter situation, the sheriff wouldn't really have a choice but to charge him (he could do a half-assed investigation to support the charges, but he'd still have to file charges). He could get sued if he didn't!

 

Under the "equal protection under the law" part of our constitution, the victim's survivors could essentially sue an officer or police department that doesn't provide even, equal enforcement. If the officer is allowed by the state to decide if self-defense applies, he's safe, but if that's not in his power and he doesn't act, then he's not providing even equal enforcement of the law. Its all in what powers and limitations the state puts on the different people in the judicial system.

 

 

 

3) The "kill him so the father couldn't be sued" argument is equally ludicrous.

- The dead person's estate would always have all the rights to sue the killer's. In fact, they'd probably get more money. Medical bills pale in comparison to the "lifetime of lost earnings" of a dead person, and if the dead guy had people he provided for (wife, minor children, elderly parents, etc) then a jury will often rule to award money just so these people are provided for, regardless of the true fault of the killer.

 

- When "self defense" is a legitimate legal defense (as seems clear in this case), the defender isn't usually considered liable for any of the civil costs incurred. He may be still be *sued* in that the survivor's of the killed man try to argue he *should* pay, but "being sued" and "losing in a lawsuit" are different things. Anyone can file. The question is "can they win."

 

Most people misunderstand this, mostly because they hear of "bad cases" where things went wrong without ever hearing WHY things go wrong. "Self defense" only applies while the threat exists, for example, so killing a molester running away from an attack isn't necessarily defensive. Again, though, even this varies by state- some states go by a strict interpretation of the facts-- someone running away means the threat is over. Some give broad latitude to the state of mind of the defender (maybe he didn't know if the attacker would be regrouping and coming back, maybe things were happening too fast and he hadn't yet registered that the threat had changed, etc).

 

All this makes the national news aspect of these kinds of media circuses laugable at best.

[thesapien]

triple post followed by a quad post? They make an edit button you know...

 

Sorry, and thanks. That is much better!

 

 

Shanyu, in my discussion, I never presumed it was indeed what a court would deem self defense. In my picturing of the events, once the guy was caught by the father, he tried to flee or lie his way out of it. That's where I was coming from. I was thinking that because of the way it's being handled by everybody. No one seems to think it was a case of self defense by the way the town folk are talking. So I was going with that. If so, it is best that dead men don't talk.

 

In other words, to be crystal clear, I'm presuming the father did break the law and went vigilante as judge, jury, and executioner.

 

Most important of all, I said before, it's not just about letting the other guy live or not to tell his side of the story or fabricate one. It's about forcing a certain outcome without dealing with the uncertain outcomes of courts. Killing the man is the only sure way to both punish him and prevent him from doing it again. This was my point in the beginning that I thought was pretty clear but am reiterating for you.

[Guest]

Good, that predator got what he deserved. Although what would've been better is if they arrested the man, and then sentenced him to solitary confinement in a straight jacket for the rest of his life. But as long as that pedo is off the streets one way or the other, I'm happy.

 

And I'm not surprised that CNN would take such a standpoint at all.

[shanyu]

triple post followed by a quad post? They make an edit button you know...

 

Sorry' date=' and thanks. That is much better!

 

 

Shanyu, in my discussion, I never presumed it was indeed what a court would deem self defense. In my picturing of the events, once the guy was caught by the father, he tried to flee or lie his way out of it. That's where I was coming from. I was thinking that because of the way it's being handled by everybody. No one seems to think it was a case of self defense by the way the town folk are talking. So I was going with that. If so, it is best that dead men don't talk.

 

In other words, to be crystal clear, I'm presuming the father did break the law and went vigilante as judge, jury, and executioner.

 

Most important of all, I said before, it's not just about letting the other guy live or not to tell his side of the story or fabricate one. It's about forcing a certain outcome without dealing with the uncertain outcomes of courts. Killing the man is the only sure way to both punish him and prevent him from doing it again. This was my point in the beginning that I thought was pretty clear but am reiterating for you.

[/quote']

 

Ok, I was going by the specifics of the article, particularly the written account here http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/14/us/texas-abuser-killed/index.html

 

The father caught the attacker in the act and pummelled him to death right there. That's why I focused on Self-defense by proxy.

 

 

I assumed the original video was more "mocking" as per the OP's comment, but I just watched it from that link. Unless its changed, I don't know where the OP gets the "mocked" part. The reporter doesn't appear judgmental at all.... unless the video was updated.

[thesapien]

Yeah, not sure the vid was mocking the town, either. Maybe, maybe not. Such things are often subtle and when they are subtle there is plenty of room for my own biases to misconstrue things.

[Kashiwaba Tomoe]

I hope That Child Rapist got his ass kicked.

 

 

If you read the first post' date=' the father killed him in the process of getting him off of the girl, THAT was what CNN was angry about (that and how he wasn't in jail for it).

 

 

Ok, I was going by the specifics of the article, particularly the written account here http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/14/us/texas-abuser-killed/index.html

 

The father caught the attacker in the act and pummelled him to death right there. That's why I focused on Self-defense by proxy.

 

I assumed the original video was more "mocking" as per the OP's comment, but I just watched it from that link. Unless its changed, I don't know where the OP gets the "mocked" part. The reporter doesn't appear judgmental at all.... unless the video was updated.

 

 

Yeah, they edited it a little I think.

 

The video got linked to on some big US news websites, likely why.

 

They didn't remove much, mostly re-did some voiceovers to sound less condescending, before it sounded like they were going all 'lol texas'.

[GMac2021]

And I understand that. One of main purpose of law is to reduce abuse of lynch. In worst case scenario suspect weren't even paedophile and was killed because murdered didn't liked his shirt. Without him among living no one will know the truth.

 

That connect to my view on capital punishment' date=' better to have true murderer slip than doom innocent. Well, maybe I'm pussy but that is my opinion.

[/quote']

 

First of all, your sentence(s) are incomprehensible... In the "best case" scenario - from the victim's point of view - you would be dead in the blink of an eye. Hurt a child, you die. Its simple.

 

IMHO, if I catch you (not actually YOU, but anyone with bad intentions) even threatening physical harm to ANY member of my family - the law has already failed not only me, but my family. Therefore, I must deal with the situation myself. The courts can clean this shit up later.

 

You don't actually expect ANYONE to watch their family (or even a complete stranger - let alone a CHILD) being raped and/or murdered, do you? To just sit there and think: "Oh! I must call 911! This is not right! I'm sorry, innocent person! We must follow THE LAW and be all politically correct and shit!" Then you watch them getting beaten to death while you wait for the authorities to show up.

 

No. What a real person would do is grab a rock or a stick and smash the perpetrator over the head until they were incapacitated.

 

The courts can clean up the mess after I've dealt with the situation - a situation that the "the law" failed to come to terms with in the first place. The mess that the courts will have to clean up will have have nothing to do with platitudes or political correctness.

 

A LOT of innocent people die every day. Very few people die because they are sentenced to death. Most people on death row die of natural causes - or prison violence - before their sentences can be carried out. Very few innocent people are killed by capital punishment.

 

Just because its "law" does not make it right.

 

 

Addendum: My family has owned this house since 1967. This is the only house on my block that has not been broken into in that time. Its not a bad neighbourhood, but its quiet and dark - a good target.

 

I moved back here after my mother died in 2010 and I've had a BBQ and lawnmower stolen from my yard; and some idiot broke a window and tried to crawl into my basement while I was out walking the dogs.

 

We've always kept a few very large dogs in the house. Best deterrant ever. There's not one person on the face of the Earth stupid enough to confront almost 500 pounds of Shiloh Shepherd.

 

I have three (non-purebred) Shilohs, a Border Collie / German Sheppard mix, and the most bizarre Beagle / Jack Russell cross ever seen - and a Boston Brown Tabby Cat. Hey - I'm allowed six pets!

 

I got off track because I love my dogs so much. Needless to say, no-one will ever walk into my house unnoticed (although that one dude tried...) Or - if they do get in - they'll never leave alive.

 

I don't believe in guns - I believe in large, cuddly, territorial, protective animals. I'd keep a Polar Bear as a pet if I was allowed to. As it is, the big boys in my house keep me warm in the winter, and I try to keep them cool in the summers.

 

I put this all in a spoiler. If you read it - you have no right to bitch...

 

[creeposaurus]

Prison is too good for people like that, I'm glad he got his head bashed in. If that were my daughter or anyone else's child, I would've done the same. Maybe worse, though I can't think of anything worse than being dead.

[Insidiator]

I think the main issue is not wether people should defend themselves or their families. I don't think anyone would ever claim that if someone can stop an act of violence against somebody else they shouldn't do it. But there is a major issue here: Unless you are present, you don't know the specifics, you can't proclaim somebody guilty or innocent. If it is proven that the deceased was in fact attempting to molest the child, everything is well done. But that remains to be proven. Anyone can kill somebody and then claim anything. When we are certain things happened as the dad said, then we might say "Good for him".

[gregathit]

I think the main issue is not wether people should defend themselves or their families. I don't think anyone would ever claim that if someone can stop an act of violence against somebody else they shouldn't do it. But there is a major issue here: Unless you are present' date=' you don't know the specifics, you can't proclaim somebody guilty or innocent. If it is proven that the deceased was in fact attempting to molest the child, everything is well done. But that remains to be proven. Anyone can kill somebody and then claim anything. When we are certain things happened as the dad said, then we might say "Good for him".

[/quote']

 

Which of course harkens back to the the foundation of our system of justice: "Innocent until proven guilty." In this case both parties are indeed innocent until such time as the court can review the evidence and a jury made up of their peers can make a decision.

 

Kudos to you Insidiator for such an insightful post! It is hard when dealing with such a repugnant crime (child molestation) to remember that he must be proven guilty before we burn his butt at the stake!

[thesapien]

I'm going to disagree with Insidiator and gregathit because it sounds like you're both saying that the father needs to prove something, else face charges.

 

The Sheriff at the scene saw reason to believe the father's story and no good reason to doubt it enough to arrest him. Don't know how much the community knew, but everyone closest to it all seemed to be in agreement that the family did not need to go on trial. I say leave it at that.

 

On a lighter note, today or yesterday, a cool Chinese cop swings in to save a man's day:

 

[video=youtube]

[Insidiator]

OK, imagine this: I am a respected member of my community. I am found standing over a dead guy and when my old-time friend, the sheriff asks me "What happened?" I say "He tried to kill me". He - being an old time friend- believes me. Does this seem like due process? There are close-knit communities where everyone knows somebody rapes his daughters but nobody says or does anything. The community always knows best? How about the killers that when arrested the neighbors go all "I can't believe it! He seemed like such a nice guy!" How can we be so sure about what happened in that case so as to proclaim heroes and monsters?

 

And it's not the father's job to prove anything, it's the state's job to find the facts.

[thesapien]

We shouldn't arrest him without good reason to suspect that he committed a crime. And it shouldn't go to trial until after a judge has determined there's enough evidence to make a good case against him.

 

Sure, he could be a naive and bad Sheriff who has never watched night time crime dramas. Sure, the town could be stupid hillbillies. Going down that road, you could plug in a bad judge and bad jury. Let's throw in some bad evidence and top it off with bad laws.

 

If you saw something about this case that made you suspect something wasn't what it appeared to be and your morals weren't aligned with what you suspected, then by all means, you should investigate and have a moral imperative to do so. Especially true for any sworn in officers in that area. But before arresting the father and/or pushing for a trial, there had better be something solid to go on.

[Rogue13]

Presumed innocent until proven guilty.

 

I don't think the generation who grew up being freely given this right understand how valuable it is. There are plenty of current and historical examples of people who don't have this right. I don't think any of them would so casually dismiss it. The absence of this right has (and is still being in many countries) been used to coerce, remove rivals, steal property, money, land, etc. Just look south of the border.

 

I don't have enough evidence to say whether the dead man is a pedophile. I do know he is innocent of being a pedophile.

 

Having said this, if I found someone attacking my daughter, I'd like to think I'd fully express my outrage (and I know pedophiles can very rarely be rehabilitated, so death might be an option). I would then expect to be charged with murder and to stand up proud in court and defend my actions. To defend why my right to defend myself (even by proxy) superseded his right to life.

[thesapien]

Consider another situation where a woman is attacked by someone attempting to rape her. Say she kills him. Should she be charged with murder, arrested and locked up to stand trial? No, unless there is good evidence that she committed a crime.

 

For some reason, a father is seen as some sort of superman who can handle the emotional trauma of having his daughter attacked and then killing a man and to then be arrested and charged with murder. Fuck that. If you're going to put him through more, you'd better have some very damning evidence. "Stand up proud in court" my ass. After taking a life, even if you were right to do so, I would expect some feelings of remorse and self doubt and maybe some guilt. At least a little, no? Hell, if he's at all doubting himself, the outcome of such a trial gets really uncertain.

 

You can't charge someone with murder unless you have some damning evidence to begin with. Arresting him after the charge is no small deal because people also have the right to defend themselves. You risk a confrontation that can end badly. What if he's too proud to let himself be wrongly arrested? The use of force in arresting someone and locking them up for trial is no small matter to skim over. Being locked up is no small thing either.

 

As far as we know, until someone shows good reason to think otherwise, the father committed no crime. No charges should be pressed then. Go do your investigation if you're suspecting something, but don't press charges until after doing so and uncovering something substantial that passes a judge who issues a warrant. And it had better be good because I'm sending you (well, not really) to go be the one who tells the daughter that her father is being arrested to stand trial for murder and watch her start questioning who was wronged and was she somehow responsible. She was 4 years old, right? That would be pretty confusing, wouldn't it?

 

"Mom, why is daddy being arrested? Did he do something wrong? Was it true what that man said before touching me, that it was okay and our good little secret?" Yeah, I'm using what you might think of as an emotional tug or cheesy way to go, but I'm serious and mean it. You really need to think hard on something like this before acting and very good reason backing you before taking action.