StarGateWars Forums

GrizzZzzly wrote:personally i think he should still be charged with man slaughter although having the defence that he prevented rape and was clearly driven by emotions flying high but in no way would I agree with an eye for an eye law or anything that suggested such.

Most of these posts i've read have been emotionally driven thoughts and feelings because these things fuel that but you cannot base law on emotionally formed opinions.

The law isn't driven by emotion, it is driven by cold hard logic. Perhaps you should take a moment to read it? Another victim of sensationalism. The father did only what was necessary to protect his daughter. The use of deadly force to stop such a horrendous attack is a human right. A right supported in most, if not all, common law jurisdictions.

Kit-Fox wrote:Not that I personally disagree with the actions taken by the father, but that still doesnt make it Justice

Justice is a man being allowed to use whatever level of force necessary to stop or prevent an assault of this magnitude. The man didn't serve justice to the perpetrator, but the man did not carry out an act of vengeance either. He did what was necessary to protect his daughter. Justice was served when the grand jury returned a no bill.

Kit-Fox wrote:You know i defy anyone to tell me where I have said the father did the wrong thing, or that he should be charged, or that the rapist should have got away with what he was doing

Go ahead, please show in quotes where I have said those things in previous posts


I havent and it really doesnt matter what I think on the subject, it simply isnt Justice. It is at best legally accepted vengeance by the father against the rapist.

Not that I personally disagree with the actions taken by the father, but that still doesnt make it Justice


FFS some people really need to work on their ability to;

- Read
- Comprehend what was written
- Understand what Justice is

KF, i understand what you are saying, and i did not say you sided with the dead man. i know what your saying. but what everyone here is missing is this...ALL law and forms of justice, the courts and the judges get their power from the mob, the mob being the general population. judges are our representatives and their power to act in the court is on OUR behalf. this is meant to be a more civil and better way to dispense justice instead of the masses forming in the streets and stoning people to death. but the fact still remains that the legal system (just like the political system) gets it's authority from us-the people and we supposedly get our laws from the bible. therefore if the masses say that killing a scumbag like this is justice-it is justice....simples!



Again KF, what's with all the attitude calm down man!

KF, i hear what you're saying, and in a rational and non-emotional state-i agree with you. the trouble here is that no moral and descent parent who comes upon such a scene will be in their right mind. justice, morals, all descent behaviour and rational thought goes out the window. IF a parent finds their child being raped-at that point in the parents mind, they will "lose it". it goes WAY past "right and wrong" and the law. it goes beyond petty vengeance and justice. you could even argue that a parent who finds there child being raped may even become mentally unstable and would do things that would never EVER cross their mind.

The fact that the father called 911 and was screaming down the phone he was dying shows he's a better person than most of us here because i tell you now, if that was me i would NEVER have called the police until i knew for sure i killed him. again right and wrong would never cross my mind. all i would care about is 1, stop what my child is going through, and 2, make sure this animal could never do it to anyone again. and if i was charged i would tell the world the truth...he deserved to die.

can i also state this may actually be his primal instincts kicking in because animals in the wild protect their children to the death and we are but animals

I wouldn't go as far to say we are animals (i hate Darwin and his theory of evolution. he was a eugenicist who had little faith in his own theory). but yes, i had the same thought. you only have to look at lions and gorillas who fight to the death to defend their respective pride/band.

Somewhat related to the subject matter: http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/region_ph ... z1yiisTpIx

I don't believe two wrongs make a right. That being said, no one would mind if every bone in his body was broken. But that essentially does nothing good for anyone.

I don't think the guy had any intention of killing this perv. the fact the father called 911 and was telling them to hurry because the perv was dying on him shows he had no intention of killing the man, simply stopping the assault on his daughter.

if you accidently kill someone, lets say in a road accident you are still charged with man slaughter. I hope you're not saying direct intent on killing someone for rape is justified. That is essentially eye for an eye. The majority of countries in the world disagree with this.

if a man breaks into your home and is attempting to rob you do you just sit there? The law says i have the right to protect my home and family which he did!!

how does that go against what i said?

quick question you got a 5 year old daughter you find her being attacked what would you do? you wouldnt wait and phone the police. id personally kick the crap outta them

GrizzZzzly wrote:how does that go against what i said?

Because you're twisting the situation. The father attacked the assailant purely to stop the attack on his daughter, the assailant died as a result.

There is a massive difference between self defense(acting only to protect yourself or another) and vigilantism.

It doesnt prevent the fact that he killed someone.

i said earlier in a post:

"personally i think he should still be charged with man slaughter although having the defence that he prevented rape and was clearly driven by emotions flying high"

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.