Forums

Only in Arlington County would you get charged for what he did… and perhaps several of the leftist enclaves of Southern California.

John Fontain said:

“Sheriff: Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter”

http://tinyurl.com/7todhaa (story on CNN)

 

You'll remember that our local Mr. Canales was locked up after defending himself from three vandals doing late night damage to his street, while the vandals weren't charged for their crimes…

http://tinyurl.com/78dypk4 (Mr. Canales' mugshot)

So if someone abuses your daughter you can kill them? No need for a trial?

He probably didn't have to kill the guy to stop him from abusing his daughter. He could have stopped him without that much force. (I don't blame him, mind you, but it's still a crime. And if you read the article – he expressed remorse for it).

The man in your article was referred to the district attorney, who could indict him for murder. Probably 2nd degree, and a plea or light sentence if he's convicted.

You can't just kill someone because they commit a crime against you, John. That's not enough. Revenge or anger is not a defense against murder, only self-defense or the defense of another.

dynaroo said:

So if someone abuses your daughter you can kill them?

He could have stopped him without that much force.

Probably 2nd degree, and a plea or light sentence if he's convicted.

Posts like this are like whoa…

Ehh, this is kind of all over the place. Definitely other extenuating factors involved that differentiate the cases – that the father was defending a child, for one, and that he moved immediately to stop an unprovoked violent act, as opposed to going out and instigating an argument over property. Don't get me wrong, I think Mr. Canales was doing a good thing as well in stopping those criminals, but I don't think there's a one-to-one legal comparison here.

dynaroo said:

You can't just kill someone because they commit a crime against you, John. That's not enough. Revenge or anger is not a defense against murder, only self-defense or the defense of another.

You sort of can… at least in Texas, where this occurred. It depends on the state and the crime. It isn't the same situation, but they have Castle Laws there, so you CAN just kill someone for breaking into your house. I remember one story of a drunk girl who accidentally went into the wrong house with an unlocked door (thinking it was where she was supposed to be) and the owner shot and killed her, and IIRC, he wasn't even charged.

There are more than a few states allow you to use the same force on someone committing an act of violence on someone else as you would be allowed to if the offender were committing that act against you.

redstang423 said:

dynaroo said:

You can't just kill someone because they commit a crime against you, John. That's not enough. Revenge or anger is not a defense against murder, only self-defense or the defense of another.

You sort of can… at least in Texas, where this occurred. It depends on the state and the crime. It isn't the same situation, but they have Castle Laws there, so you CAN just kill someone for breaking into your house. I remember one story of a drunk girl who accidentally went into the wrong house with an unlocked door (thinking it was where she was supposed to be) and the owner shot and killed her, and IIRC, he wasn't even charged.

Yeah, and that's a good example of why that's a preposterous law.

Perhaps you can just go killing anyone for committing even a minor crime against you in Texas, but this isn't Texas.

There are more than a few states allow you to use the same force on someone committing an act of violence on someone else as you would be allowed to if the offender were committing that act against you.

Well, yeah, that makes sense though. You should be able to defend anyone, not just yourself.

dynaroo said:

redstang423 said:

dynaroo said:

You can't just kill someone because they commit a crime against you, John. That's not enough. Revenge or anger is not a defense against murder, only self-defense or the defense of another.

You sort of can… at least in Texas, where this occurred. It depends on the state and the crime. It isn't the same situation, but they have Castle Laws there, so you CAN just kill someone for breaking into your house. I remember one story of a drunk girl who accidentally went into the wrong house with an unlocked door (thinking it was where she was supposed to be) and the owner shot and killed her, and IIRC, he wasn't even charged.

Yeah, and that's a good example of why that's a preposterous law.

Perhaps you can just go killing anyone for committing even a minor crime against you in Texas, but this isn't Texas.

There are more than a few states allow you to use the same force on someone committing an act of violence on someone else as you would be allowed to if the offender were committing that act against you.

Well, yeah, that makes sense though. You should be able to defend anyone, not just yourself.

So in general I agree, but it comes to the issue of in the middle of the night when it's dark, how are you supposed to determine whether the person that's in your house is there to try to hurt you or not? It's not like you can ask them. The premise of the law is that if they've broken it, they're trying to hurt you – which makes sense, but can lead to some terrible situations like the one I mentioned. The converse, however, is that sometimes the completely innocent person (homeowner) would be hurt. What if in that extra five seconds it takes you to decide if that person is trying to hurt you, you realize they have a gun and have the intent of trying to hurt you – since they're already well aware that you're there, they can shoot you before you have a chance to defend themselves. Few laws will never have unintended consequences. It comes down to the states determining which works best for their state.

To the second point – you do seem agree that you should be able to defend anyone. Why is the case with the child causing you to say what the father did isn't right?