Texas man kills man who allegedly sexually molested his daughter

[Zoe Castillo]

--

 

[BehattedWanderer]

He's fine, according to Texas Law. He was protecting his family, something Texas law permits. Should the court decide to indict him or charge him is another matter, but as far as the police are involved, the man is allowed to defend his family, and it is noted as being an unintended death, one as an unwanted consequence of protecting his daughter, but the need to remove the man from harming the daughter was, understandably, high.

Yes, let's all cheer for the death of a man whom may well be innocent of any crime, before we know all the facts -_-

If you can provide me even one justifiable reason to molest a child, or to sexually abuse someone, then I will admit you're right, that we're wrong in this matter. However, as the one group of similar actions I find no logical, justifiable reason to permit, I hold no sympathy for these individuals whatsoever. Find me one reason, and I will lament the loss of this individual. Until then, I will support the father .

 

[Riff Moonraker]

Yes, let's all cheer for the death of a man whom may well be innocent of any crime, before we know all the facts -_-

Some times I almost hate the society we live in. Trial by media and such.

We've got people here actually happy with the thought a human being dying. Not only do they not know all the facts, not only could the dead man have been completely innocent, they apparently think it's a good thing the man, if he was actually molesting the girl, is dead. Not like I would expect civilized people living in a developed world to be sad that this event took place. No, no, let's all say how great it is that someone lost their life. Yay! How exciting! It's such a good thing that a little girl may have been molested and a man's life ended. I'm so glad he didn't get caught before hurting her and sent to prison and given psychiatric help!

I'm ashamed to even be apart of this community. We preach how good we are as a people and go on and on about how much better we are than other parts of the world, then some of you break out the champagne when a life is lost.

Sickening.

IF true, and the guy was molesting the girl, which the news doesnt say anything about allegedly, they outright say it was happening, then yeah... I have no pity on him whatsoever. Let me put it this way, there are plenty of people out there who havent had a fair shake in life, but they are able to control themselves to the point where they dont go out and inflict horrendous acts on other people. So I absolutely do not buy into the whole "society failed them" crap. Its their responsibility to behave in an appropriate manner.

I dont care WHAT another human beings issues are, if they touched my child, they will die by my hand. I will make sure they dont have another chance to do it to anyone else ever again. So yeah, if thats what happened, I commend the father for protecting his child.

That's because most news sites are useless. There's been no trial and the single shred of reason we have to think he was molesting the young girl is this:

"There doesn't appear to be any reason other than what he told us." - A police officer.

That's right. The only reason the man is assumed to have been molesting the girl is because his murderer said so. That's it. Nothing more. So congratulations on reading a forum post and assuming a man deserved to die because his murderer tells us he did.

Also, if you actually read more than one source - "Texas father kills man who allegedly sexually molested daughter" - http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/326581

If they prove the guy was innocent, obviously that changes things. But, as it stands right now, it appears that this guy was molesting the child. If true, he doesnt deserve any sort of "rights" at all. Period. To me, a person that would do something like this deserves no such rights, and is nothing more than an inhuman monster that needs to be removed permanently. And no, I didnt read the other articles that were put up in this post because I read several on it already days ago when it first hit the news.

This will be investigated, and I assure you they will let us know what they find. Unless they come back and say this guy really didnt do this, and was innocent, my thoughts will not change.

Ah. I see. So you're going to assume the man who murdered the guy is telling the truth based off... just him saying it.

Wise. Always best to just believe whatever someone says. Remaining unbiased and objective until you have all the facts is just stupid. Why not read a forum comment and make your statements now. Waiting for the justice system to investigate crimes before you decide the truth is just silly.

Hell, I might go murder someone now and say they tried to rape me. No reason to doubt me, huh!

Sure, why not.

Let me try to clarify for you... if I was in that guys shoes, and saw that... I would have killed the guy, too. I wouldnt wait for a damn court to say he was guilty, I would rid the world of him right then and there.

So, going by your approach, would you have us lock this father up and assume the monster was innocent, and that the real monster was the father that was protecting his child? Yeah, THATS a fantastic idea.

I will say this once more, unless they come back and say that the guy was innocent, I completely agree with what the father did.

You are missing the entire point by leaps and bounds.

The only evidence we have that the dead man was even near the girl is the father saying he was. That's it. For all you know, the victim was in the toilet taking a leak. You're taking a stranger's word for it that someone abused his daughter and that's why he murdered someone. Rather than remain objective and wait to see if the guy was actually harming the girl or if the father simply murdered him for god knows what reason (maybe he fucked his wife, maybe he didn't like him, maybe he thought the guy stole form him--who knows), you've decided to believe the word of the guy who admits to killing him.

Cool, so according to your logic, I can go murder a stranger now and say she tried to rape me. You would believe me and fervently say she deserved, just like in this thread, yeah?

Absurd.

Yep. Absurd. I feel the same way reading your posts, so I guess we are at an impasse.

 

[Risingblade]

Assuming that the guy did do it I can't really blame the father. If someone did that to my daughter I'd hurt them too. I'm not going to defend child molesters they are sick disgusting people.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

To summarize, the father is getting away with murder because he claimed the man was attempting to molest his daughter, and the only evidence to support that claim is his own word? That's fucked up.

They found no evidence that he committed murder, so he cannot be convicted of murder... isn't that how this sort of thing is supposed to work? If such evidence arises then everything changes but until then... well technically until then we're supposed to assume that both of them are somehow innocent.

What? He's admitted to killing the man.
Okay, having looked now it up, murder actually means premeditated, but that's not the point. The point is that he's killed someone, and is getting away with it based a claim he's made that has no evidence to support it, besides his word.

 

[Angry_squirrel]

The sheer degree of vile and disgusting comments in this thread give me the urge to leave.

I agree, it's fucked up. It even says "allegedly" in the title.

The most important word in the thread title was "allegedly".

The whole first page of the discussion, nobody seems to have noticed that word. And are instead just leaping to justify the murder. Wonderful community we have here.

Thank god a few people are noticing it. Have you read any of the sources? The only evidence suggesting the guy was molesting the girl, is the word of the father

 

[Angry_squirrel]

Yep. Absurd. I feel the same way reading your posts, so I guess we are at an impasse.

I think you've missed his point entirely. I hope you have anyway. Read the sources:

There isn't actually any evidence to suggest the guy was ever molesting his daughter, we only have the word of the father for that.

Does that not seem a little wrong? That he simply claims the man was molesting his daughter, and we take his word for that because, and I quote; "There doesn't appear to be any reason other than what he told us"

 

[Angry_squirrel]

If you can provide me even one justifiable reason to molest a child, or to sexually abuse someone, then I will admit you're right, that we're wrong in this matter. However, as the one group of similar actions I find no logical, justifiable reason to permit, I hold no sympathy for these individuals whatsoever. Find me one reason, and I will lament the loss of this individual. Until then, I will support the father .

You've missed his point. Read any of the sources. We only have the fathers word that the man was molesting his daughter. He's getting away with killing a man, based only on his word. Does that not seem fucked up?

Yes, I agree, if the man truly was molesting his daughter, then he deserved it.

 

[Iron Criterion]

Rather than summarize the articles I have read, I'll just give them to you:
<url=http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/326581>Here's the original one I read, and <url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/father-kills-man-who-sexually-abused-daughter-texas_n_1587724.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular>here is Huffingtonpost. Oh, and <url=http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2012/jun/09/jp_homicide_060912_179037/?counties&police-courts>here is another source just because why not.

Lets try to avoid "of course that would happen in Texas/America", and focus on two things:
1. This guy killed another person and is not being charged (for now at least)
2. He did not mean to kill the guy, he was just protecting his daughter

So my fellow Escapists, what is your opinion of this?
Should he be charged? Was his response reasonable?

Here is a very important bit to pay attention to:
<quote=Huffington>The father was reportedly "very remorseful" about the death and did not know the alleged abuser would die of his injuries.

Edit: It seems I was late in posting this (and wasn't thorough with my forum search to see if someone had already posted it) and this discussion is already going on in this thread: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.378346-Father-kills-man-sexually-abusing-his-daughter

If the victim was molesting the guy's daughter, then the guy shouldn't go to jail; I'm assuming there'll be an extensive investigation.

But there will be a lot of people on here that will condemn him, they did when that officer shot that drugged up cannibal guy.

 

[Iron Criterion]

However, killing a defenseless man because he has committed crimes? The justice system is about justice, not revenge. Revenge has no place within the justice system.

Now, wait a minute.

Variations of justice:

"Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism, where *punishment* is forward-looking. Justified by the ability to achieve future social benefits resulting in crime reduction, the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcome."

"Retributive justice regulates proportionate response to crime proven by lawful evidence, so that *punishment* is justly imposed and considered as morally correct and fully deserved. The law of *retaliation* (lex talionis) is a military theory of *retributive* justice, which says that reciprocity should be equal to the wrong suffered; "life for life, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."[7]

"Restorative justice is concerned not so much with retribution and punishment as with (a) making the victim whole and (b) reintegrating the offender into society. This approach frequently brings an offender and a victim together, so that the offender can better understand the effect his/her offense had on the victim."
-me talkin here: Restorative justice is situational. You brawl with some guy and beat him up bad. Sure, put them together in a controlled environment and let's see what happens. But you kill a father's daughter there's no helping anything, kid's dead, father wants killer dead. End of story.


"Distributive justice is directed at the proper allocation of things ? wealth, power, reward, respect ? among different people."
- me talkin again: I honestly don't understand this one. So basically, as long as everyone is equal everyone has equal ability to do whatever they want? *shrugs*.

Now, lets look at revenge.

"Revenge is a harmful action against a person or group in response to a grievance, be it real or perceived. It is also called payback, retribution, retaliation or vengeance; it may be characterized as a form of justice, an altruistic action which enforces societal rules and which is based on a deep rooted evolutionary instinct that helped humanity by implementing social cohesion in a subtle way."
huh...

Justice is quite literally synonomous with revenge, retribution, and so on.

You say revenge has nothing to do with justice and doesn't belong..........
But uh... that's exactly what justice is, aside from restorative justice (which is only situational, and even then obviously doesn't work)

*sigh* I have been trying to step out of this for quite a while.

You may think that revenge is an integral part of justice. However, in the United Kingdom, prisons exist to segregate people from society who are harmful to society and to rehabilitate people to be productive members of society. Those are the goals. Oh, and to scare people a bit and stop them from committing crimes.

That is all.

You may think that the way we do things in Britain is wrong. I disagree. I disagree because I am a socialist and an intensely moral person. Justice is not about "Revenge" it is not about the victim hurting the perpetrator. Or at least, that is how things are done here.

Killing a man who is defenseless, killing a man who is no longer a danger to society is murder. It is killing someone in cold blood. End of. Simple as that. It does not work as a deterrent, it does not prevent crime, all it does is kill a man so the victim can feel better. Does it bring someone back?

If you kill a man for killing a man, is that justice? The man you have executed, he has a family, what if they then demand this same primal, medieval justice against the one who carried out the orders of the state?

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.

I believe, and I believe this to my core, that no man has the right to take the life of another man, outside of the defense of himself or someone who is incapable of defending themselves. Once a man is in custody he is no longer a threat. He cannot harm anyone. Executing him would be murder, murder most barbaric.

I am sorry if you disagree with me. But if you want a longer dissection of my thoughts, just read through this thread. I genuinely cannot be bothered starting up another "Capital punishment" debate.

There is no argument that can justify execution in my eyes. It does not decrease crime rates. It is prohibitably expensive. Sometimes, innocent men die (http://www.innocenceproject.org/). State sponsored murder is still murder.

Tell me, Mr White Knight, what would you have done in the same situation? Would you not at least be tempted to take revenge?

 

[deathzero021]

i don't think he should be charged for one reason: since he was actively protecting someone during the crime and accidentally caused the death of the criminal.

now my response would be much different if the crime had been done BEFORE he killed the man or if it wasn't accidentally. (such as revenge)

 

[dayjack01]

Seriously, why would someone mourn such a creature?

Maybe because of the unfortunate reality that the man couldn't conquer his demons and keep his issues under control? Maybe the fact that even if the guy tried to get help, he'd most likely be laughed away and shunned. Maybe because in the end, he is still someones family or their friend, and ultimately a human being?

I don't condemn the father at all, in fact I think he should receive no punishment for the defence of his child (a right all parents should have), but that doesn't mean the abuser is some soulless hellspawn creature with the only purpose to inflict suffering in this world.

This.

As much as I understand what the father did (When it looked like I was going to be a dad I became a very different, much more protective person) I will defend the right of a sex offender to not be killed for who they are.






Yeah, its grim, its bad, their actions are not by any stretch of the imagination ok. But, with many people, they should not be treated as monsters, they are just the way they are. They should be able to get help, first and foremost. I am against the death penalty on moral grounds (I do not think anyone has the right to make the judgement that another human should no longer live) but I am ok with situations like this, a father defending their child or accidentally killing someone in a blind rage because of their actions.

I know if someone had attempted to hurt my ex-fiance whilst she was with child I would have stopped them by any means necessary. Hell, I almost assaulted a cop once because I believed he was overstepping his mark.

I am very conflicted, as should be rather evident.

State sponsored murder is not ok. But a man or woman should always have the right to defend their family and home. Within reason.

There was a case in the UK of someone shooting (You can own guns in the UK, lots of people forget this) a thief in the back. The guy was trying to run away. The man in question was done for murder. I am all for that conviction.

Yet an old woman was successfully charged with assault for breaking someones hand with a hammer because he was trying to unlatch her door (She had left the chain on) and I am against that.

Man, I am getting off topic.

I do not condemn what this man did. But I do not think that all sex offenders are horrible people who should be lynched. In my eyes they are people who need help, all crimes are a product of society on some level, any death is regrettable.

You cannot truely believe that execution is never acceptable. Suppose a man kills 77 people, some of which were children. He's clearly not right in the head. Why would you not execute him? Are you suggesting his life is worth just as much as the people he could harm should he ever somehow manage to escape?

You say that nobody can decide the fate of another's life, but really, following that same logic, who are you to decide what his life is worth? Who are you to decide that he should not be killed?

This case might sound extreme, but it's happened before, and will almost certainly happen again in the distant future. You have to make concessions for extreme cases.

No.

You don't.

Simple enough!

He's clearly not right in the head. Why would you not execute him?

I guess its about time we started rounding up everyone who is not "Right in the head". Anyone who is mentally ill and deemed a threat to society. Anyone who, as a result of psychosis, has ever caused harm to anyone else.

I would not execute him because once he is in custody, he is no longer a threat to anyone. I would not execute him because I do not believe anyone has the right to take another. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" (Omg! You are debating with a Christian!) its pretty clear. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Now, self defense or the defense of one who is defenseless? Different kettle of fish entirely. For example, I am very pro the idea of an armed intervention in Syria.

However, killing a defenseless man because he has committed crimes? The justice system is about justice, not revenge. Revenge has no place within the justice system. Someone should be removed from society until they are rehabilitated and no longer a threat to society as a whole. If they are deemed irredeemable, if they are too dangerous to ever release into the general population then they should remain in prison until the end of their days.

Murder is murder. Killing a defenseless man serves no purpose. The Death Penalty is not a deterrent.

So yes, I can truly believe that execution serves no purpose, is barbaric and can never be justified on moral grounds. If someone is insane, they should not be killed. If someone is sane, they can be rehabilitated.

Who am I to pass the judgment that a man should not be killed? A man who accepts the humility of my position and cannot agree with state-sanctioned murder. Who is anyone to be in the position to condemn a man to death?

Nobody has the right to decide what lives are worth living.

Seriously, why would someone mourn such a creature?

Maybe because of the unfortunate reality that the man couldn't conquer his demons and keep his issues under control? Maybe the fact that even if the guy tried to get help, he'd most likely be laughed away and shunned. Maybe because in the end, he is still someones family or their friend, and ultimately a human being?

I don't condemn the father at all, in fact I think he should receive no punishment for the defence of his child (a right all parents should have), but that doesn't mean the abuser is some soulless hellspawn creature with the only purpose to inflict suffering in this world.

This.

As much as I understand what the father did (When it looked like I was going to be a dad I became a very different, much more protective person) I will defend the right of a sex offender to not be killed for who they are.

Yeah, its grim, its bad, their actions are not by any stretch of the imagination ok. But, with many people, they should not be treated as monsters, they are just the way they are. They should be able to get help, first and foremost. I am against the death penalty on moral grounds (I do not think anyone has the right to make the judgement that another human should no longer live) but I am ok with situations like this, a father defending their child or accidentally killing someone in a blind rage because of their actions.

I know if someone had attempted to hurt my ex-fiance whilst she was with child I would have stopped them by any means necessary. Hell, I almost assaulted a cop once because I believed he was overstepping his mark.

I am very conflicted, as should be rather evident.

State sponsored murder is not ok. But a man or woman should always have the right to defend their family and home. Within reason.

There was a case in the UK of someone shooting (You can own guns in the UK, lots of people forget this) a thief in the back. The guy was trying to run away. The man in question was done for murder. I am all for that conviction.

Yet an old woman was successfully charged with assault for breaking someones hand with a hammer because he was trying to unlatch her door (She had left the chain on) and I am against that.

Man, I am getting off topic.

I do not condemn what this man did. But I do not think that all sex offenders are horrible people who should be lynched. In my eyes they are people who need help, all crimes are a product of society on some level, any death is regrettable.

You cannot truely believe that execution is never acceptable. Suppose a man kills 77 people, some of which were children. He's clearly not right in the head. Why would you not execute him? Are you suggesting his life is worth just as much as the people he could harm should he ever somehow manage to escape?

You say that nobody can decide the fate of another's life, but really, following that same logic, who are you to decide what his life is worth? Who are you to decide that he should not be killed?

This case might sound extreme, but it's happened before, and will almost certainly happen again in the distant future. You have to make concessions for extreme cases.

No.

You don't.

Simple enough!

He's clearly not right in the head. Why would you not execute him?

I guess its about time we started rounding up everyone who is not "Right in the head". Anyone who is mentally ill and deemed a threat to society. Anyone who, as a result of psychosis, has ever caused harm to anyone else.

I would not execute him because once he is in custody, he is no longer a threat to anyone. I would not execute him because I do not believe anyone has the right to take another. "Thou Shalt Not Kill" (Omg! You are debating with a Christian!) its pretty clear. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Now, self defense or the defense of one who is defenseless? Different kettle of fish entirely. For example, I am very pro the idea of an armed intervention in Syria.

However, killing a defenseless man because he has committed crimes? The justice system is about justice, not revenge. Revenge has no place within the justice system. Someone should be removed from society until they are rehabilitated and no longer a threat to society as a whole. If they are deemed irredeemable, if they are too dangerous to ever release into the general population then they should remain in prison until the end of their days.

Murder is murder. Killing a defenseless man serves no purpose. The Death Penalty is not a deterrent.

So yes, I can truly believe that execution serves no purpose, is barbaric and can never be justified on moral grounds. If someone is insane, they should not be killed. If someone is sane, they can be rehabilitated.

Who am I to pass the judgment that a man should not be killed? A man who accepts the humility of my position and cannot agree with state-sanctioned murder. Who is anyone to be in the position to condemn a man to death?

Nobody has the right to decide what lives are worth living.

Lets do a batman disscusion specificly the end or arkam city in the end SPOILER ALERT
batman is deciding whether or not to give joker the cure or not for titan now this isnt about whether he cured him or not (he didnt) its about the fact that if you put someone in a asylum if there deemed insane and therefore canot be killed due on the fact of there illness and they break out and do it again obviously this isnt the same situation but the guy molested this other guys daughter and was killed for it. actions always come with consquences (sorry about spelling) And thats about all i have to say.

 

[FolkLikePanda]

Good, I hope the paedo suffered, if its 100% true that the person molested his daughter then let the man who beat him to death go free, I would have done the same though I probably would have prolonged his life so he could suffer even more.

Molester deserved to die, Father deserves to be free (whether he meant to kill him or not).

 

[JokerboyJordan]

Ignore

 

[Eamar]

While I agree it's not as black and white as "this man was born a monster and deserved to die," I sure as hell don't think I'd have seen it that way if I'd just found out my hypothetical four year old daughter had been sexually abused.

So I agree that this was not technically the "right" thing to do, but since he didn't at any point intend to kill the man, I really can't blame him for beating the shit out of the guy he believed had done that to his kid. I hope he doesn't face charges, if only because the last thing that little girl needs after all this is her dad going to prison.