No charge for Texas dad who killed daughter's rapist.

[Drought]

It's not an emotional issue though. Emotions play no part in it, again, he did only what he had to in order to stop the attack.

He shouldn't have been charged with anything. The case was taken before a Grand Jury and they decided that his defense claim was solid, so they returned a no-bill.

Honestly, if this happened in any other common law nation, it'd be the exact same conclusion. He wouldn't be charged with anything.

Indeed.
Though, it was good that he did got charged with this outcome, as it will be precedence to future cases.
If there would be another outcome; negative to the father, it would have lead to a public outcry/uproar.

[GrizzZzzly]

This is what i found when i googled the case:

"This depends on how he was killed, whether the rape was taking place at the time (or had already taken place), and whether the offender was armed. If the rape was taking place and offender was not armed then the homicide (manslaughter) is UNJUSTIFIABLE as self-defense (or in this case the defense of another person), but could be justifiable as an accident if the rape was taking place and reasonable force was being used to stop the incident but the offender died as a result of the force used. The justifier would have to be committing a lawful act for the homicide to be justified. If the offender was armed while raping the victim, then distant force would have to be used, such as a gun, justifiably."

and personally I agree with this. It says it could be justifiable as an accident which still means it is manslaughter however it is not murder.

[Jack]

That opinion is a personal opinion and in no way reflects Texas state law where this occurred.

[spoiler=Texas Penal Code §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE.](a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or[/spoiler]

[spoiler=PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.](a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the
60 TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS
deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.[/spoiler]

[spoiler=PC §9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON.]A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.[/spoiler]

Note in the second spoiler the text in red.

[GrizzZzzly]

well we know it was legal in texas thats why he was cleared of all charges. i thought we were discussing our opinions here.

[[KMA]Avenger]

The way i see things, if a person is caught in the act of paedophilia-at that point they forfeit all rights and if their death is what is needed to stop the act and protect the child and yourself then it is justified and the law has no jurisdiction whatsoever. that doesn't mean the person stopping/killing the perp should just be taken at there word, but if the police investigate and find the persons story credible then it shouldn't go any further...let alone go to court or jury.