DennisNedry Posted 3 September 2013 Posted 3 September 2013 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408953/Texas-father-beat-Jesus-Flores-death-raping-5-year-old-daughter-NOT-face-murder-charges.html?ICO=most_read_module A Texas father who discovered a man raping his five-year-old daughter and beat him to death with his bare hands will not be charged with homicide under state law.
The God Emperor Posted 3 September 2013 Posted 3 September 2013 that's frontier justice boy *spits into spittoon*
MikeyT Posted 3 September 2013 Posted 3 September 2013 I think anyone in the father's position would have done the same. Good on him! And hope that little girl isn't scarred for life by this.
MooseBreath Posted 3 September 2013 Posted 3 September 2013 Let's see the 'liberals' side with the pedo rapist on this one
leicsmac Posted 3 September 2013 Posted 3 September 2013 Different ball game over there - probably no prosecution because no Texan jury would convict. I'm not a father, but in the same situation I couldn't say I wouldn't have done the same. Possibly in even more inventive fashion than just taking him apart with my bare hands. That said, him being given a very warm welcome by the inhabitants of the nearest State prison (they don't separate out nonces over there most of the time) and being bent over a barrel every day for the rest of his natural would have a certain appeal too.
Vacamion Posted 3 September 2013 Posted 3 September 2013 Let's see the 'liberals' side with the pedo rapist on this one I aint a liberal and I don't "side with the pedo rapist" [sic] but it is easy to overlook "slippery slope" arguments. What about due process, the rule of law, the leading of evidence and the overcoming of the burden of proof in an open court? This case might have been open and shut, I don't know, but what if a paranoid father THINKS (and is mistaken) that an assailant raped his child and kills an innocent person? What if that person was you? What gives someone the right to be judge, jury and executioner? I think one of the reasons that people applaud "instant justice" such as this is because our existing system of crime and punishment is not working or does not punish convicted offenders sufficiently. Much though I sympathise with the father in this case, and understand his actions, I think the principle of instant justice is wrong and due process should be followed. I'm not on the side of the "pedo rapist", I'm on the side of justice.
MooseBreath Posted 3 September 2013 Posted 3 September 2013 I aint a liberal and I don't "side with the pedo rapist" [sic] but it is easy to overlook "slippery slope" arguments. What about due process, the rule of law, the leading of evidence and the overcoming of the burden of proof in an open court? This case might have been open and shut, I don't know, but what if a paranoid father THINKS (and is mistaken) that an assailant raped his child and kills an innocent person? What if that person was you? What gives someone the right to be judge, jury and executioner? I think one of the reasons that people applaud "instant justice" such as this is because our existing system of crime and punishment is not working or does not punish convicted offenders sufficiently. Much though I sympathise with the father in this case, and understand his actions, I think the principle of instant justice is wrong and due process should be followed. I'm not on the side of the "pedo rapist", I'm on the side of justice. Yes I agree. You need to follow the law to establish that what they are claiming happened actually happened. They established that the child was being sexually assaulted, so the question then became a pure, was his reaction a crime? Which of course to any right thinking person it absolutely wasn't.
leicsmac Posted 3 September 2013 Posted 3 September 2013 Yes I agree. You need to follow the law to establish that what they are claiming happened actually happened. They established that the child was being sexually assaulted, so the question then became a pure, was his reaction a crime? Which of course to any right thinking person it absolutely wasn't. I think that applying the law retroactively in this fashion does still set a very dangerous precedent. It's what we have a legal system for and the idea of being innocent until proven guilty (regardless of the fact that guilty party in this case was a sicko who pretty much got what was coming to him) should be absolute. I think the legal system (especially in the US) is open to corruption, but the principle is still sound and should remain so.
Vacamion Posted 3 September 2013 Posted 3 September 2013 I appreciate that this particular case was abroad, but if the legal systems in the UK administered appropriate punishments, people would respect the rule of law a bit more. If people knew that murderers and child rapists would get life without parole, they might be less inclined to take the law into their own hands. If a sentence handed out in court was the minimum sentence the convicted criminal would serve, people might respect the judgement of the court. If people could depend on a "three strikes" rule, to prevent those released from prison from persistent re-offending and blighting the rest of society, the public might trust the justice system. If a prison cell for the worst offenders was a minimally heated, poorly ventilated concrete box with a sink and a WC in it and no TV, internet or phones, where subsistence food was served and all luxuries denied, maybe the deterrent effect of prison might prevent some crimes. Sadly, none of the above are true or likely to be so, so it is a struggle to convince people to let justice take its course.
Guest MattP Posted 3 September 2013 Posted 3 September 2013 Well deserved. Imagine I would have done exactly the same. Here's one peado rapist who won't be re-offending no matter how much chance society wants to give him to.
Kitchandro Posted 3 September 2013 Posted 3 September 2013 I aint a liberal and I don't "side with the pedo rapist" [sic] but it is easy to overlook "slippery slope" arguments. What about due process, the rule of law, the leading of evidence and the overcoming of the burden of proof in an open court? This case might have been open and shut, I don't know, but what if a paranoid father THINKS (and is mistaken) that an assailant raped his child and kills an innocent person? What if that person was you? What gives someone the right to be judge, jury and executioner? I think one of the reasons that people applaud "instant justice" such as this is because our existing system of crime and punishment is not working or does not punish convicted offenders sufficiently. Much though I sympathise with the father in this case, and understand his actions, I think the principle of instant justice is wrong and due process should be followed. I'm not on the side of the "pedo rapist", I'm on the side of justice. True but couldn't you say that about anyone? That's the main reason I'm against the death penalty for example. No matter how 'qualified' you are why should you have the legal right to determine somebody elses life? This kind of justice is the only real kind. It's direct consequences for actions and is dished out by the wronged. Technicalities that in law could see someone let off the hook don't matter here. You did something bad against someone and they (well, their loved one in this case) reacted. You cannot complain, it is the natural world without involvement from other parties. It's no different to the animal kingdom. It makes sense. It's a lesson for the rest of the world. Don't fvck with people and expect no consequences. I do agree with your slippery slope argument, we need order and due processes. On the other hand I can't see why a trial for the father would be any more fair than dismissing any charges. If the police are convinced that the girl was raped there really is nothing to see here in terms of a prosecution.
stevelcfc Posted 3 September 2013 Posted 3 September 2013 What about this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-23935768 Rapist may have HIV from Greater Manchester victim
Guest MattP Posted 3 September 2013 Posted 3 September 2013 I'm sorry but if you walk in on someone raping your 5 year daughter you have every right to be judge jury and executioner. To even begin to think someone could remain in a state of normal thought and restrain themself in that situation is so ridiculous I can't even contemplate it.
DennisNedry Posted 3 September 2013 Author Posted 3 September 2013 I aint a liberal and I don't "side with the pedo rapist" [sic] but it is easy to overlook "slippery slope" arguments. What about due process, the rule of law, the leading of evidence and the overcoming of the burden of proof in an open court? This case might have been open and shut, I don't know, but what if a paranoid father THINKS (and is mistaken) that an assailant raped his child and kills an innocent person? What if that person was you? What gives someone the right to be judge, jury and executioner? I think one of the reasons that people applaud "instant justice" such as this is because our existing system of crime and punishment is not working or does not punish convicted offenders sufficiently. Much though I sympathise with the father in this case, and understand his actions, I think the principle of instant justice is wrong and due process should be followed. I'm not on the side of the "pedo rapist", I'm on the side of justice. THIS. The paedophile deserved a painful and traumatic death - which isn't something that can be given out by an court (excluding Sharia I guess)
Saxondale Posted 3 September 2013 Posted 3 September 2013 I aint a liberal and I don't "side with the pedo rapist" [sic] but it is easy to overlook "slippery slope" arguments. What about due process, the rule of law, the leading of evidence and the overcoming of the burden of proof in an open court? This case might have been open and shut, I don't know, but what if a paranoid father THINKS (and is mistaken) that an assailant raped his child and kills an innocent person? What if that person was you? What gives someone the right to be judge, jury and executioner? I think one of the reasons that people applaud "instant justice" such as this is because our existing system of crime and punishment is not working or does not punish convicted offenders sufficiently. Much though I sympathise with the father in this case, and understand his actions, I think the principle of instant justice is wrong and due process should be followed. I'm not on the side of the "pedo rapist", I'm on the side of justice. No, you're on the side of the judicial system, which is not necessarily the same thing.
Rincewind Posted 3 September 2013 Posted 3 September 2013 If it had happened in another state he would have been tried. I can't help wondering what the other blokes in the house were doing while he was beating 'the alleged rapist at the time' to a pulp.
Guest MattP Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 If it had happened in another state he would have been tried. I can't help wondering what the other blokes in the house were doing while he was beating 'the alleged rapist at the time' to a pulp. Not even the most Liberal state in the US California would have sent someone to trial for that. Well you would imagine the other blokes were nowhere near the incident, I mean generally I think when men decide to rape 5 year old girls they probably try and find somewhere private and out the way of prying ears and eyes.
separator Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 Reminds me of this.... Justice served. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi3Hyxuf5AE
Rincewind Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 Not even the most Liberal state in the US California would have sent someone to trial for that. Well you would imagine the other blokes were nowhere near the incident, I mean generally I think when men decide to rape 5 year old girls they probably try and find somewhere private and out the way of prying ears and eyes. Thought it was in the living room. What would you have done if it was one of your mates and they told you the bloke had molested his daughter. Would you have stopped him? From what you have posted I think not and I don't think anyone that saw him may have done. Revenge is not justice in the eyes of the law however much it is used as an excuse.
Captain... Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 Hasn't this one already been discussed on here? My view hasn't changed in that if he was killed in a fit of rage or in defence of another then morally and legally he has done nothing wrong. But if he got to a point whereby he was fully aware of what he was doing, I know it didn't happen in this case, but imagine he had found him beaten him up, knocked him unconscious and then hanged him bloody and beaten from a tree and left him to die slowly, then in my eyes it would be a crime.
1964FOX Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 I see no issue with this, the father finds his daughter being attacked. He hits the suspect several times to stop the attack. The law where he lives allows this action and as a consequence the attacker dies which is within the remit of lawfully authorised force. It also appears the man tried to help the suspect once he was in a position t do so. The man acted within the law so should not be tried for any offence.
Guest MattP Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 Thought it was in the living room. What would you have done if it was one of your mates and they told you the bloke had molested his daughter. Would you have stopped him? From what you have posted I think not and I don't think anyone that saw him may have done. Revenge is not justice in the eyes of the law however much it is used as an excuse. Have you even read the article?, it was a remote shack he found him in on his land with her. Living Room? wtf No I wouldn't have stopped him, had I found out at the same time I would have had a problem controlling my actions had I knew I was standing near a man who had done that to an innocent young girl. Revenge is justice in many cases, the law isn't justice in far too many cases.
Jon the Hat Posted 4 September 2013 Posted 4 September 2013 Glad to hear it. This guy and his family have been through enough already without a pointless trial leading to a unamimous not guilty verdict. Absolutley the rapist deserved what he got.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.