Should Parents Be Allowed to Murder Child Molesters?

[Sydian]

A wolf isn't a person, though. You're not gonna face legal consequences for killing a wolf, unless it's a certain species of wolf that is under conservation laws (if those laws apply when it comes to self defense). But...you know, there are very, very few reported wolf attacks, so that's something you really shouldn't have to worry about. You should worry about a bear before you worry about a wolf. So...yeah, poor analogy to use.

Anyway, like it's been said, killing is never okay in any circumstance, unless you live in Florida with a Stand Your Ground law that isn't enacted appropriately. Hm. But yeah, this guy will probably be charged with manslaughter etc etc I'm regurgitating what's already been said. He shouldn't have done it, but that's what blind rage does to you. I have nothing really important to add, sadly. Everything I wanted to say initially has been said.

 

[psyanic]

I agree that some kind of legal course of action (or punishment) should come into play here. But, personally I think substantial jail time wouldn't be appropriate given the circumstances. It wasn't like they had a fight and it went wrong, he was defending his daughter who could not defend her self. I think it is very close to self-defense, without the "self" part though of course. And yet, at the same time, also very different from vigilante justice.

I agree with this. Even the sheriff mentioned that the man was acting "in self defense of the third person." He was in his own home and he protected his daughter. I'm not saying killing is justified every time someone gets molested, but given these circumstances, I'd say it was completely understandable and almost justified; he didn't have to go far as to kill him, but that couldn't be helped. It wasn't intentional, as far as I know, anyway. In any case, he saved his daughter from any further mental trauma. But he'll live with the consequences, regardless of whether or not he gets jail time. Even so, he shouldn't be too harshly punished. It's not like he went out of his way to kill the molester.

In short, I'll say that it was justified in this case, as he was acting in defense. For these circumstances, I can't say he was wrong nor can I say he was completely right. But still, I find it hard to punish him for doing what anyone else would have done in the same situation.

 

[Shiny Celebi]

I dont think you should kill anyone but in the circumstances, the man was protecting his child who was being molested. Parental instinct took over and he flew into a rage. He obviously didnt mean to kill the man though. Though protecting your child can be done without using deadly force. I imagine he just meant to get the molester to stop attacking his daughter and accidently killed him.

 

[Binary]

What the father did was probably an act of impulse in aid and defense of his child. The article later describes the father as very remorseful, so I wouldn't really call the father "guilty". However, I do not agree with parents being allowed to murder child molesters - it would only add to the number of wrongs, and of course, I don't support any form or shape of murder.

 

[Bolin]

I believe this to be fair, abusing children is reprehensible. The father would more than likely not have killed him in any other circumstances. He also has to live with the fact that he killed a man by his own hand, a fate I would wish on no sane person. If anything, the man is only guilty of acting how I would expect any loving parent to act.

 

[Calipornia]

If that was your child, you'd probably want to do the same. Don't deny it, anyone would.

 

[Esper]

No, I am not saying that he would have deserved a death penalty. That's a completely different thing from protecting your child, which is just, even if in the process the attacker is killed, he was not out to murder him or decided he had to die like with a death penalty. I don't really know why you try to nitpick like that because it seems obvious that it's two different things and that I didn't mean that.

I'm sorry, but when you said "the man got what he had coming" I interpreted that as "he deserved it" and your "eye for an eye" comment made me think you were saying the punishment (death) fit the crime. I don't think I was being nitpicky and I didn't mean to single you out. I was just trying to get the topic opened up to more discussion since a lot of people are saying "killing is bad, but in this case justifiable" and I think there's a lot of room for more discussion.

So then, given that a lot of people think what the man did was (to different degrees) justifiable, does anyone think it might set a bad example? That is, do you think someone in the future might let themselves get angry and attack someone when they could have held their anger in check because in the back of their mind they knew that no one would hold him accountable (or as accountable) for their actions?

 

[Illuminaughty]

So then, given that a lot of people think what the man did was (to different degrees) justifiable, does anyone think it might set a bad example? That is, do you think someone in the future might let themselves get angry and attack someone when they could have held their anger in check because in the back of their mind they knew that no one would hold him accountable (or as accountable) for their actions?

Well I think it all depends on how this case plays out, but either way, yes.

If he is let off the hook entirely, some people might use more excessive force than they would have normally used in a similar situation than if this man was convicted of a crime. If this man is convicted of manslaughter, and/or other crimes, I believe that some people who would have used excessive force might be weary of the consequences, and therefore, use less force than they would have if this man was acquitted/not indited.

 

[BBA_Beyblader_321]

I heard about that~ Do I think parents should be allowed to murder them? No.
Would I if I was a parent? Hell yeah I would.

 

[Gabri]

No one should be allowed to kill another human being under any circumstances, death penalty included. End of story.
Remember, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Defend your child, but not by taking others' lives.

 

[Illuminaughty]

No one should be allowed to kill another human being under any circumstances, death penalty included. End of story.
Remember, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. Defend your child, but not by taking others' lives.

Really?

There are a few examples of when lethal force should be used.

In hostage situation, or any situation where several people's lives are endanger by a person or group of people, if the shot is clear, it should be taken, in order to prevent the loss of innocent lives.

Also, self defense is an important right. If our lives are in immediate danger, and our survival depends on taking an aggressor's life, we should be able to kill that person in order to survive.

Some situations, the only way to protect a child's life is to take lethal force, especially if the aggressor has a lethal weapon. If I had a child, and another person held a gun to his/her head, and I had a clear shot at the aggressor, I would take the shot without hesitation.

The situation in this case, did not call for lethal force though.

 

[Tyrantrum]

Absolutely not! I can understand the desire of wanting to kill the person who molested your child crossing your mind - I'd be the same way; however, murder is murder, no matter how you look at it. As whoever made this saying up said, "Two wrongs don't make a right." So, yeah. No, they shouldn't.

 

[kuzronk]

Nobody should be allowed to do that
Call the police/hit the guy hard enough for him to let go but not hard enough to kill him

 

[Algo Fonix]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18522383#FBM105548

Well, the courts found that he was allowed to do it... of course I can't say I disagree with the way it's played out. He still has to live with killing someone.

 

[Mr. X]

I'm sure that all of you have heard this saying in school.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I can understand protecting whats yours, however this isn't protecting. This is vigilantism.

I do feel sorry for the girl though. Not only does she have the mental trauma from being molested, but she also has the mental trauma from witnessing her father beating a person to death. Given this, while murdering this person might have made the father feel better, all he's really done is cause more harm.

 

[Chaos Dragon]

People should tell the whole "killing is never justified" thing to those that go out of their way to murder. You do NOT know what went through the man's mind, or what went on between the girl and guy molesting her.

That said, he should be tried in a court with a jury to decide what he did was right or wrong and punishment thereof. Assuming we have all the facts before us, I would not allow myself to vote guilty and demand the incident sealed if I were on the jury.

 

[Controversial?]

HE HAD IT COMING
HE HAD IT COMING
HE ONLY HAD HIMSELF TO BLAME
IF YOU HAD BEEN THERE
IF YOU HAD SEEN IT
I BET YOU YOU WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME

(obligatory Chicago reference)

Yeah, I understand why he did it, and tbh I probably would have done the same, but that doesn't justify it. Yes, he attacked him in a blind rage, but it was in defense of his kid and thus he should only get a month or so in jail IMO.

 

[Rivvon]

Murder? As in, plot out how he will kill the other man? No. That is not okay.

But I do believe in being able to defend yourself, and if the attacker dies in the process, it was still in self-defense.
Granted, in this specific case, obviously the father was defending the daughter, but what can a 4 year old girl really do to protect herself?

Knowing how terrible the world can be, sexual harassment can lead to worse things; I don't see why you shouldn't be able to defend yourself against something like that. If it's clear that your intent wasn't to kill but rather to do what you could to save yourself, I see little issue with it.

 

[Mr. X]

I don't see how people are confusing this with self-defense.

Large peice

Spoiler:

It wasn't. The person who killed him wasn't action in defense of himself, so this ISN'T self defense. And even then, I don't see how repeatedly bashing a persons head against the floor can be consdered self-defense. After the first few bashes (This person did it numerous times more then a few), the person is knocked out and no longer a threat, which means that self-defense no longer applies. The father knew that the person wasn't a threat after the first few bashes (I'd assume that the other person was struggling, and stopped struggling after he was knocked out), yet he refused to stop. He went from self-defense to straight out homicide/murder/whateveryouwanttocallit.

tl:dr? Basically, beating a person to death isn't self-defense.

While I understand the reasons, I still think that no person should be above the law, and that no person should be able to appoint themselves judge, juror, and executioner. The fact that he did, and got away with it, sets a dangerous precedent for the future.

 

[droomph]

Sexual harassment can hurt quite a bit, Mr. X, so I need to say that "the dad was completely wrong" part isn't completely right either.

But beating a guy to death for molesting your kid? He went a little overboard, I must say. A swift kick to the genitals should have been sufficient, and maybe even that would be a little too much.

I don't know - I've never been (or seen someone) get molested before, so I wouldn't know the anger involved. But what I do know is that killing someone over something like that is a bit too harsh, and if he meant to kill him (I know that sometimes you don't mean to; I've been there before though on a smaller scale) that's just wrong. And this guy - it says that he was "very remorseful" so it's definitely not on purpose.