Question about the father who physically pummelled his sons abuser

DColeman

You may recall this story regarding the father assaulting his 11 year old sons abuser, who he had caught with the abusers trousers down with his son (there was a thread about it a few days ago on here):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2700872/My-son-saved-attackers-life-Father-pounded-admitted-child-molester-bloody-puddle-claims-son-stopped-stabbing-admitted-pedophile-death.html

What I'm curious is the punishment (or lack of) the father faced. He didn't face any charges and I think most people were in agreement with that, some however disagreed and it caused quite a stir.

I'm of the view that although the attack on the abuser was excessive (in my opinion anyway, I'd like to think I wouldn't have been so violent but nobody can say in that horrible situation how they would have reacted) if the father was simply protecting his child and didn't leave any long term physical damage on the abuser (not that I give a **** about him if truth be told) then I would agree he shouldn't face any charges.

However if he had beaten him so badly that he ended up killing him, or at least, leaving him with long term brain damage, then I'm of the view that he should then face charges. In the article he even talked about stabbing the abuser to death and would have if the son had not pleaded against him doing it. I'm wondering if he indeed had done that, or somebody in a similar situation did that in dealing with an abuser, do you think that said person should face charges of some sort?

I'm glad his son is safe and the abuser is going to jail but I'm just postulating a situation had if turned out differently here.

aaronjumper

I don't think you should face charges if you are defending the people you care about.

solomafioso

Calvary. Now there's a great movie.

K4t

Anyone who disagrees with or criticises the father's reaction is talking out of their pc arse.

Father should have killed him and still got off imo.

pah

I'm guessing the "injured party" here made no complaint of assault

wes

I think the fact that the Father didn't beat the assailant to death, shows that he has a greater level of restraint, than a lot of other people would have shown. He did nothing wrong imho, and the decision not to charge him was the correct one.

Duggy747

Nope, still don't see anything wrong in what the father did.

The abuser put himself in that position, nobody to blame but himself.

DColeman

K4t wrote: »

Father should have killed him and still got off imo.

Just a question are you in favour of the death penalty for murder? I'm just curious of those who believe in violence as a form of a punishment, are more likely to be more pro capital punishment for serious crimes. I personally disagree with 'eye for an eye' you're allowed your in opinion, I'm just wondering about peoples different opinions on this.

I get he was protecting his son but if he were to kill him that, in my opinion, would be a different question.

Maphisto

aaronjumper wrote: »

I don't think you should face charges if you are defending the people you care about.

Nice avatar

There is already a thread on this:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057252278

Lapin

If yer man wasn't noncing the kid to begin with nothing would have happened him.

Anything goes when it comes to protecting your family.

He got off lightly.

eviltwin

Punish the father? I'd love to shake him by the hand. He just did what any parent would do.

131spanner

The abuser should be thanking the father for not beating him to death, not to mind pressing charges of assault or whatever you want.

darkpagandeath

Taking the law into one's hands has always ended well, Never an incident of wrong person targeted or innocent people being hurt as the mob bay for blood. They always are in possession of all of the facts.

DColeman

Maphisto wrote: »

Nice avatar

There is already a thread on this:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057252278

I'm already aware of that, that's why I mentioned it at beginning of my OP I was just postulating a different scenario and so yes I could have bumped that thread but because I was wanting a different scenario about the whole thing I decided to start a new thread over it, don't know if that's allowed or not, but I did it anyway.

Uriel.

DColeman wrote: »

Just a question are you in favour of the death penalty for murder? I'm just curious of those who believe in violence as a form of a punishment, are more likely to be more pro capital punishment for serious crimes. I personally disagree with 'eye for an eye' you're allowed your in opinion, I'm just wondering about peoples different opinions on this.

I get he was protecting his son but if he were to kill him that, in my opinion, would be a different question.

It depends on the circumstances one supposes. For example in the "x" case Justice Egan that no rights, including the right to life were immutable. I think he said something like the right to life is not parmaount in every circumstance. he went on to say that if a situation arose where a father killed a man engaged in the rape of his (the father's) daughter in order to stop it, that it would be beyond doubt that the girl's right to bodily integrity would trump that of the rapist's life.

It's an interesting one and I believe that in principal Justice Egan's opinion was spot on. But in the case at hand (which is not in the Irish jurisdiction) did the father beat the guy to stop him, or just because he was angry. An individual's judgement is likely to be very cloudy in such situations.

I would personally give the father the benefit of the doubt from a legal perspective... from a moral perspective I have no doubts at all.

DColeman

eviltwin wrote: »

Punish the father? I'd love to shake him by the hand. He just did what any parent would do.

I don't think you read my post, I said I didn't think he should be punished as it stands however if he had murdered him I would be of a different opinion.

Uriel.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Taking the law into one's hands has always ended well, Never an incident of wrong person targeted or innocent people being hurt as the mob bay for blood. They always are in possession of all of the facts.

Presumably you are being sarcastic.

Of course, in this case, the father was an eyewitness... so hard to see how it could have resulted in a wrong or innocent person being targeted.

Pro Hoc Vice

DColeman wrote: »

Just a question are you in favour of the death penalty for murder? I'm just curious of those who believe in violence as a form of a punishment, are more likely to be more pro capital punishment for serious crimes. I personally disagree with 'eye for an eye' you're allowed your in opinion, I'm just wondering about peoples different opinions on this.

I get he was protecting his son but if he were to kill him that, in my opinion, would be a different question.

I am against a state death penalty and have always been. But I can understand human emotion, and that a person can in certain circumstances kill and not be guilty of any crime, a person may even harm and not be held to account by society. The two views are not incompatible as the second is not an eye for an eye, its many would accept a normal reaction.

Im amazed that the person in this case had enough restraint not to cause serious injury.

metaoblivia

Apparently, the father said that if his son hadn't stopped him, he would have killed the guy - he had gone back in the kitchen to get a knife to finish him off. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/22/jason-browning-beat-up-sons-attacker_n_5611183.html

I think had that scenario played out there would have been more controversy, and had the father stabbed his son's abuser to death, there would have been more controversy and possibly even a trial, but I can't see a jury convicting the father given the circumstances. It would have been going too far, but you can't expect a parent to walk in on their child being sexually abused and have a reasonable, rational reaction.

K-9

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I am against a state death penalty and have always been. But I can understand human emotion, and that a person can in certain circumstances kill and not be guilty of any crime, a person may even harm and not be held to account by society. The two views are not incompatible as the second is not an eye for an eye, its many would accept a normal reaction.

Im amazed that the person in this case had enough restraint not to cause serious injury.

I'd be a bit "pc" in these things but actually catching the guy with his trousers down kind of changes everything in this case.

DColeman

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

and that a person can in certain circumstances kill and not be guilty of any crime, a person may even harm and not be held to account by society. The two views are not incompatible as the second is not an eye for an eye, its many would accept a normal reaction.

Ok fair enough, but that term of killing with emotion can applied on so many scenario's and can be applied very dangerously.

Now this is a ridiculous scenario and not in comparison with the above case AT ALL but if somebody had their car crashed into by a reckless driver who was clearly in the wrong, seriously injured their wife and children who were screaming in pain, got a gun and shot the other driver, that could be deemed as somebody killing under emotional circumstances and that he should get off especially if the other driver was responsible.

I sympathise with the father but if he killed his sons abuser like he said he was going to, then I do think, unfortunately he should face charges. I don't have sympathy with the abuser but I do think we have a law to say violence is not acceptable (that's why I'm against the death penalty).

metoblivia wrote:

but you can't expect a parent to walk in on their child being sexually abused and have a reasonable, rational reaction.

I noted that in my OP.

darkpagandeath

Uriel. wrote: »

Presumably you are being sarcastic.

Of course, in this case, the father was an eyewitness... so hard to see how it could have resulted in a wrong or innocent person being targeted.

It's not a cut and dry in most cases, This one would be the exception to the rule. Most of the time people taking the law into their own hands ends badly. Just think what would happen to society if everyone did what the liked when they were aggrieved, or wrong done.

Uriel.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

It's not a cut and dry in most cases, This one would be the exception to the rule. Most of the time people taking the law into their own hands ends badly. Just think what would happen to society if everyone did what the liked when they were aggrieved, or wrong done.

It would be anarchy. But, in this instance, the exception appears to exist.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Regarding the scenario of would it be different if the guy had died, I don't know. Do you judge whether or not someone should face charges based on their intent or the consequences of their actions? The picture posted of the child abuser in the last thread showed him to be pretty well beat up around the head and face, hypothetically if he'd turned his head a different way, or not gotten his arms up as quickly as he did, the exact same beating could have resulted in him being killed or sustaining injuries that led to his death. And, by the father's own admission, he would have killed him if not stopped by his son (that poor, poor child).

I don't at all think the father should face charges- but that's a opinion based on emotion and empathy rather than any real logic or code of ethics. It's not really possible to make hard-and-fast judgements about these kinds of situations and obviously based on the details of this case his reaction was completely understandable and it'd be a bit Vulcan-like to insist he be dealt with without taking the extreme circumstances into account. I'm glad the abuser didn't die, for the sake of the father (and by extension the child) because it avoids a lot of tricky moral and legal questions that could have very easily come up.

Maphisto

DColeman wrote: »

I'm already aware of that, that's why I mentioned it at beginning of my OP I was just postulating a different scenario and so yes I could have bumped that thread but because I was wanting a different scenario about the whole thing I decided to start a new thread over it, don't know if that's allowed or not, but I did it anyway.

OK. If you feel this is an original angle fair play to you. Personally I think the other thread pretty much did for the topic - most people saying that the nonce got what was coming and praising the restraint of the Father.

SVJKarate

Uriel. wrote: »

I would personally give the father the benefit of the doubt from a legal perspective... from a moral perspective I have no doubts at all.

I think the law recognises that you are unlikely to be able to act in a calm and reasonable manner if you see your own child being abused. Temporary insanity would get anyone off the hook in these circumstances. Given that in this case the paedophile was not killed the police & DPP would have known they'd never get a conviction and accordingly chose not to waste taxpayers' money by taking a case against the dad.

El Weirdo

DColeman wrote: »

I'm already aware of that, that's why I mentioned it at beginning of my OP I was just postulating a different scenario and so yes I could have bumped that thread but because I was wanting a different scenario about the whole thing I decided to start a new thread over it, don't know if that's allowed or not, but I did it anyway.

Did you not get your fill of Internet hard men on the original thread?

DColeman

El Weirdo wrote: »

Did you not get your fill of Internet hard men on the original thread?

No, because I haven't actually read the original thread (although through searching I know it exists), like I say I could have bumped it, but I personally thought I could have invoked my discussion through a new thread and got more responses and thus more of debate out of it that way. That's all.

Galwayguy35

I agree that the nonce should have got a hiding, thought it was a bit strange that the father set up a site with a pic of himself and his son, explaining what happened and looking for a million dollars in donations, later brought down to $100,000.

steddyeddy

There's right and wrong and understandable. The father's actions fall into the last category IMO.

Calibos

DColeman wrote: »

Ok fair enough, but that term of killing with emotion can applied on so many scenario's and can be applied very dangerously.

Now this is a ridiculous scenario and not in comparison with the above case AT ALL but if somebody had their car crashed into by a reckless driver who was clearly in the wrong, seriously injured their wife and children who were screaming in pain, got a gun and shot the other driver, that could be deemed as somebody killing under emotional circumstances and that he should get off especially if the other driver was responsible.

I sympathise with the father but if he killed his sons abuser like he said he was going to, then I do think, unfortunately he should face charges. I don't have sympathy with the abuser but I do think we have a law to say violence is not acceptable (that's why I'm against the death penalty).



I noted that in my OP.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2277301/Texas-man-David-Barajas-charged-shooting-dead-drunk-driver-killed-sons-age-11-12.html

Holsten

I don't agree with the beating he gave him, but it's just a natural instinct.

I would probably do the same, a man abusing your child directly in front of you will of course produce a reaction.

Now if he had killed the man I would assume he would be charged with some diminished responsibly of murder, although he would probably walk.

Uriel.

SVJKarate wrote: »

I think the law recognises that you are unlikely to be able to act in a calm and reasonable manner if you see your own child being abused. Temporary insanity would get anyone off the hook in these circumstances. Given that in this case the paedophile was not killed the police & DPP would have known they'd never get a conviction and accordingly chose not to waste taxpayers' money by taking a case against the dad.

Absolutely.

CrazyRabbit

I can understand the fathers anger and actions. Can't condone them though.
Also, the father was going to kill the guy, but the son/victim stopped him.

A few things bother me about this case.
Firstly, the widespread reports that the father caught the guy raping his son. I do not condone this perverts actions in any way, but he didn't actually rape the boy. The father caught him performing oral sex on the boy. Obviously still very serious, but I don't think the word 'rape' should be misused. It was a serious sexual assault, not a rape.

Secondly, the father announced what had happened on his Facebook. All the boys friends & school mates now know what happened to him. Even the cop in charge of the investigation has strongly criticised the father.
Thankfully, I haven't seen any negative comments on the boys Facebook yet.

Thirdly, the father seems determined to milk this situation for financial gain.
He first setup a GoFundMe page with a target of $1 million to help his family. After a lot of criticism, he changed it to help a struggling family he is friends with instead.
Now, he's set up another fund to "not only to benefit the --family name snipped-- family, but also, in time, to set up a charity to raise awareness of child sexual assault".
The father has also spent time in prison himself. Bit of a gangster type.

lazybones32

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

The father caught him performing oral sex on the boy. Obviously still very serious, but I don't think the word 'rape' should be misused. It was a serious sexual assault, not a rape.

It's called "oral rape". An Irish 'woman' was found guilty of "digitally raping" another woman in a toilet in a nightclub. http://diplomunion.com/index.php?threads/nurse-jailed-for-raping-woman-in-brisbane-pub.8884/
When I saw the story first, there was a picture of the offender

lazybones32

A Texas father, who beat to death a man he caught sexually molesting his daughter, will not be charged.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/19/us/texas-abuser-father/

P. Breathnach

lazybones32 wrote: »

A Texas father, who beat to death a man he caught sexually molesting his daughter, will not be charged.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/19/us/texas-abuser-father/

The case was brought before a grand jury, so there was legal process involved. That seems to me to be a good thing.

I would not be happy with the idea of a police officer on his or her own deciding on possible culpability. I would be even less happy if AH (or a local equivalent) made the call.

Sand

I thought of that case too when I read the OP, but in fairness didn't that man call an ambulance for the rapist when the red mist cleared? Trying to kill a man and then calling him an ambulance defeats the purpose of the former as Chopper might say.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I would be even less happy if AH (or a local equivalent) made the call.

Most juries are essentially AH, or the local equivalent. I'd view either case of a father beating, or even killing, the rapist of his child as a waste of court time. The victim deserved it. The perpetrator isn't going to re-offend. The court and the police agree. Why waste peoples time?

Now, a different set of circumstances which implied pre-meditation or planning would be a different thing, but freaking out when you find your child being raped by some lowlife is not a crime.

kowloon

I think it would be very different if the father killed the guy with his fists versus backing off on the beating and heading off for a knife. The former is a loss of control, but backing off would imply he was able to contain the rage enough to think about it making any stabbing a very different case.

CrazyRabbit's post is interesting.

Maphisto

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The case was brought before a grand jury, so there was legal process involved. That seems to me to be a good thing.

I would not be happy with the idea of a police officer on his or her own deciding on possible culpability. I would be even less happy if AH (or a local equivalent) made the call.

It would be very unusual to be "just a police officer". I'd expect him/her to report it to the prosecution authority, if not his local management will need to OK it. It can't just be one officer's say so.

CrazyRabbit

lazybones32 wrote: »

It's called "oral rape". An Irish 'woman' was found guilty of "digitally raping" another woman in a toilet in a nightclub. http://diplomunion.com/index.php?threads/nurse-jailed-for-raping-woman-in-brisbane-pub.8884/
When I saw the story first, there was a picture of the offender

If the boy had been forced to perform fellatio on the man, then oral rape would be an appropriate term. But that isn't what happened. It was the man performing fellatio on the boy.

I've always seen rape as penetration of the victim by any method/means. Though I agree that the exact definition is arguable.

Again, to be clear, I'm not trying to lessen the seriousness of this assault. I just like to see accurate reporting & the media not using the word 'rape' for every single sexual assault.

Bafucin

DColeman wrote: »

You may recall this story regarding the father assaulting his 11 year old sons abuser, who he had caught with the abusers trousers down with his son (there was a thread about it a few days ago on here):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2700872/My-son-saved-attackers-life-Father-pounded-admitted-child-molester-bloody-puddle-claims-son-stopped-stabbing-admitted-pedophile-death.html

What I'm curious is the punishment (or lack of) the father faced. He didn't face any charges and I think most people were in agreement with that, some however disagreed and it caused quite a stir.

I'm of the view that although the attack on the abuser was excessive (in my opinion anyway, I'd like to think I wouldn't have been so violent but nobody can say in that horrible situation how they would have reacted) if the father was simply protecting his child and didn't leave any long term physical damage on the abuser (not that I give a **** about him if truth be told) then I would agree he shouldn't face any charges.

However if he had beaten him so badly that he ended up killing him, or at least, leaving him with long term brain damage, then I'm of the view that he should then face charges. In the article he even talked about stabbing the abuser to death and would have if the son had not pleaded against him doing it. I'm wondering if he indeed had done that, or somebody in a similar situation did that in dealing with an abuser, do you think that said person should face charges of some sort?

I'm glad his son is safe and the abuser is going to jail but I'm just postulating a situation had if turned out differently here.

No regardless of what happened I don't think he should face charges.

The only issue I would have is if it turned out the guy was innocent or something. If you do something like that a man has the right and duty to protect his family.

The father is no risk to anyone else. He is not going to rob an old ladies handbag and poses no threat. Really sentencing is about punishment and protecting society. People like the father would never attack some random innocent person.

I am not a father but I am certain most Dad's and Mom's on here would go to jail if necessary to protect their child from that. The law failed to protect that child, so the father had to.

Losing it is perfectly understandable.

Manic Moran

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

If the boy had been forced to perform fellatio on the man, then oral rape would be an appropriate term. But that isn't what happened. It was the man performing fellatio on the boy.

I've always seen rape as penetration of the victim by any method/means. Though I agree that the exact definition is arguable.

Again, to be clear, I'm not trying to lesson the seriousness of this assault. I just like to see accurate reporting & the media not using the word 'rape' for every single sexual assault.

Florida law does not distinguish '"rape" rape' (In the words of Whoopi Goldberg, as I recall) from any other such act. In fact, the word 'rape' does not appear in the legislation. It is termed "Sexual Battery", and means exactly what it sounds like: unconsented sexual contact. In other words, in the Great State of Florida, someone who commits an act which most people would consider to be 'rape' would be charged with the exact same offense under the law as an individual who committed this form of fellatio. So for general purposes, the failure in precise distinction between the two types of act is actually correct in this case. Out of interest, I checked my own State, and it seems that there would be charges under different sections of the California Penal Code, as California distinguishes in law between 'rape' and 'sexual battery.' I do not know which of the two systems is more common in the US.

See Chapter 794 of the Florida Statutes:
"“Sexual battery” means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose."
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0794/0794ContentsIndex.html

Hotfail.com

My only real issue is that this may send the message out to some people that taking the law into your own hands will have no repercussions, and that would be more the media's doing than anything else in my opinion. I know the father's reaction in this instance was all in the heat of the moment, and I agree he shouldn't face jail time, but there is a chance that this may encourage some idiots to assault those they suspect of committing sexual assault on minors, or other crimes, without having any proof (I know that the father had 100% solid proof as he witnessed the assault).

Taking the law into your own hands should be discouraged in my opinion, not necessarily for the safety of the perpetrator, but for the safety of the person who has decided to take action. Criminals are dangerous, if the abuser had a knife in this case I'm sure he wouldn't have hesitated to use it. I understand that the father wouldn't have thought of this or even cared about it, and with good reason, when he saw his son being abused, but I don't think the media should be hyping him up as a "hero" etc. as I believe it sends out the wrong message.

TeddyTedson

I can't really speak of how I'd react as I have no kids but I imagine nobody really knows how'd they react unless they were unfortunate enough to be face with the situation. I'd guess that an uncontrollable rage would be most peoples reaction. It's not like this father brewed over what he was going to do, he actually caught him in the act!

lazybones32

CrazyRabbit wrote: »

If the boy had been forced to perform fellatio on the man, then oral rape would be an appropriate term. But that isn't what happened. It was the man performing fellatio on the boy.

I've always seen rape as penetration of the victim by any method/means. Though I agree that the exact definition is arguable.

Again, to be clear, I'm not trying to lessen the seriousness of this assault. I just like to see accurate reporting & the media not using the word 'rape' for every single sexual assault.

I understand and agree about the wording (my own thoughts are that a certain lobby group are trying to get every sexual offense classed as rape to prove their 'arguments' but there is another thread dedicated to this) but it is common practice for nearly all these to be classed under the umbrella term "rape". Common doesn't mean right or correct but as I wrote...maybe lobbyists?
If a man or woman forced another man or woman to receive oral sex against their will, it is a sexual assault but the same characteristics are there as penetrative rape.

Irishcrx

Father is right not to face punishment , I don't know what I would have done if that was my son. Castration springs to mind, I woulnd't be thinking about punishment I'd only be thinking of protecting him.

conorh91

DColeman wrote: »

Now this is a ridiculous scenario and not in comparison with the above case AT ALL but if somebody had their car crashed into by a reckless driver who was clearly in the wrong, seriously injured their wife and children who were screaming in pain, got a gun and shot the other driver, that could be deemed as somebody killing under emotional circumstances and that he should get off especially if the other driver was responsible.

I sympathise with the father but if he killed his sons abuser like he said he was going to, then I do think, unfortunately he should face charges. I don't have sympathy with the abuser but I do think we have a law to say violence is not acceptable (that's why I'm against the death penalty).

Emotional feelings are not sufficient as a defence.

The Irish courts distinguish between emotional feelings (anger, rage) and a total loss of self control. The latter is a requirement if the killer is to avail of the (partial) defence of provocation.

Here in Ireland we have probably the most liberal provocation defence (to murder) than any other advanced society I know. It's something we should be proud of.

A father who loses self-control upon seeing his child being raped, and kills the rapist, is more likely to be acquitted of murder in this jurisdiction than anywhere else in the common law world.

SVJKarate

Bafucin wrote: »

The only issue I would have is if it turned out the guy was innocent or something.

Like, the kid was bitten there by a snake, and he was sucking out the poison?

Soft Falling Rain

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Taking the law into one's hands has always ended well, Never an incident of wrong person targeted or innocent people being hurt as the mob bay for blood. They always are in possession of all of the facts.

Given the father was an eye witness I'm curious to know what you think would have been a rational reaction? Normally I'd agree with your sentiment but jesus, I really don't know what I would have done if I was in the father's position. If a case of red mist descending could ever be excused it's this.

Hotfail.com

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

Given the father was an eye witness I'm curious to know what you think would have been a rational reaction? Normally I'd agree with your sentiment but jesus, I really don't know what I would have done if I was in the father's position. If a case of red mist descending could ever be excused it's this.

It's the idea of it that I've an issue with. I agree that the father only did what any parent would do and that he shouldn't face punishment, but the amount of publicity this is getting is just going to encourage people to take the law into their own hands, which usually doesn't end well.

Throwing around the title of "hero" etc. isn't helpful at all imo.