Sensible Erection | Couldn't say that I would have done otherwise.

Tuesday, 19 June 2012

Couldn't say that I would have done otherwise.

quote [ His 5-year-old daughter had gone off toward the barn, to feed the chickens, the child's grandfather told CNN affiliates KSAT and KPRC.

Then her father heard screaming and ran. He found a man sexually abusing his daughter, according to Sheriff Micah Harmon. ]

I'm not a violent man, but this would have set me off had it been my daughter. I only regret that the father has to live with the memories of beating the guy to death.

[by granitewitch@11:22pmGMT] [+10]

Comments

DarkShadowRavenDragonGrrl69 said @ 11:26pm GMT on 19th Jun
V'anne? WTF?

mechanical contrivance said @ 11:28pm GMT on 19th Jun
Why are those 2 guys wearing hats in a courtroom? Is wearing a cowboy hat at all times a state law in Texas?

Champ Kind said @ 11:32pm GMT on 19th Jun [Score:2 Funny]
Whammy!

theolypse said @ 11:32pm GMT on 19th Jun
No, but it is regarded as potentially formal attire.

wynterbourne said @ 11:52pm GMT on 19th Jun
In the more rural areas, it might as well be.

sanepride said @ 12:34am GMT on 20th Jun
Obviously they're orthodox Jews.

mjteegarden said @ 12:41am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:1 WTF]
In many Texan non-urban city and county governments, the cowboy hat is part of the formal uniform of office. This goes up to the state police organization, the Texas Rangers/Troopers (the Texas Department of Public Safety). They wear cowboy hats as part of their workaday uniform.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/TexasRangers/rangerresponsibilities.htm

rndmnmbr said @ 3:49am GMT on 20th Jun
The hat thing makes a lot more sense considering the history of the Rangers.

chold_numa said @ 6:48am GMT on 20th Jun
In a few centuries it'll probably be seen as quaint. Much like judges robes and wigs are today I imagine.

eddiebax said @ 1:08pm GMT on 20th Jun
"Actually, the only thing cowboys and Jews have in common is that we both like to wear our hats indoors."

Kinky Friedman: musician, author, Jew, Texan, gubernatorial candidate

arrowhen said @ 12:03am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:2 Insightful]
This would have set me off had it been anyone's daughter.

discoLemonade said @ 12:08am GMT on 20th Jun
amen. rape is such a heinous crime and to do it to a child? double whammy. I recall watching a news story about something being sexually assaulted and my father told me the same thing, that if that ever happened to me, he would hunt down the person and "beat the ever living hell out of them"
so, he got what he deserved.

DarkShadowRavenDragonGrrl69 said @ 8:00am GMT on 20th Jun
Do you feel the need to protect her in a way that you wouldn't about a male protagonist?

pleaides said @ 8:42am GMT on 20th Jun
and by 'protagonist' you mean 'victim', right?

DarkShadowRavenDragonGrrl69 said @ 11:34am GMT on 20th Jun
Actually I mean Lara Croft. You can't see the "tombraidertrolling" tag at the end there because I, well, used a tag and Sensible Erection actually allows for html fuckery unlike most other sites.

pleaides said @ 11:16pm GMT on 20th Jun
My mistake :)

arrowhen said @ 8:27pm GMT on 20th Jun
Nah, I just used "daughter" to mirror the OP's sentence.

RedRiverRat said @ 12:29am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:2 Insightful]
My sympathies lie with the girl who was abused and the father who has to live with killing a man. The bastard who was beaten to death for his crime deserved it.

Didnt there used to be a 'crime of passion' defense? Where if you found yourself in a horrible situation that so offended your sensibilities that the violence you may have done was taken as understandable.

And I dont mean offended as in 'oh it really irritated me' but provoked you to such defensive or outraged wrath that you couldnt really be held accountable under the whole 'yeah, I don't blame you, would have done the same thing' feeling a lot of us share.

granitewitch said @ 12:49am GMT on 20th Jun
The father clearly didn't mean to kill the attacker, just to stop him from what he was doing. I have a lot of sympathy for him. But god, has I found that going on with my daughter, I don't think I would have had as much restraint as the father. I think I would have torn him into puree.

ENZ said @ 1:58am GMT on 20th Jun
The only time I've heard of "crime of passion" was when it involved someone catching another dude in bed with their wife. I'm pretty sure that's not a legit defense anymore.

mechanical contrivance said @ 2:39am GMT on 20th Jun
This is Texas we're talking about.

* (The Asshole FKA Morris) said @ 2:47am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:1 Informative]
In Pakistan it is. It's called honour Killing

mrklipp said @ 3:08pm GMT on 20th Jun
*BZZZZZT* wrong answer.

Honor killings are illegal in Pakistan.

The practice is is most often seen only in the most rural and dirt poor areas.

To put some figures to it, by the most recent numbers, during a one year period a resident of Pakistan has about a 1 in 2000 chance of being a victim of an honor killing.

Odds of dying in a car crash in that same period? About 1 in 80.

eIfish said @ 4:49pm GMT on 20th Jun
1 in 80?

Seriously?

To put that in perspective, your average SME or branch office has 80 employees. So if you live in Pakistan, expect to go to one company funeral every 18 months.

cb361 said @ 6:55pm GMT on 20th Jun
If that 1 in 2000 is averaged across the whole population, that's a little misleading because a small segment of the population likely takes the entire brunt. Not many middle-aged family men or eighty-year old grandmothers get their tickets clipped in this way. Focus in on girls from thirteen to eighteen and I suspect their prospects look a lot worse.

mrklipp said @ 10:59pm GMT on 20th Jun
Sure, of course.

The point is, it's not nearly as common a thing as it's made out to be by those using the fact to demonize the region.

cb361 said @ 7:37am GMT on 21st Jun
Which is fine, there's too much of that about. But unfortunately your statistic doesn't bear that out. Quite the opposite.

I'd be pretty leery anyway about something that I knew had a 1 in 2000 chance of killing me this year, but if the demographic I mentioned is 10% (it's probably less) of the population, you've got a 1 in 200 chance of being honour killed. Focus in on girls in rural areas and the probability jumps again. Focus in just on girls who don't want to do what their parents tell them to, and you've got an epidemic.

All the 1 in 2000 says is that the population as a whole isn't going to be wiped out, but if you're a rebellious teenage girl, you're probably fucked.

theolypse said @ 5:19pm GMT on 21st Jun [Score:1 Funny]
Perhaps we should establish a preserve.

zarathustra said @ 3:41am GMT on 20th Jun
I don't know if it has changed since I was in law school (mid 90s), but it definitely was a partial defense then - reduces murder to manslaughter.

Naruki said @ 4:16am GMT on 20th Jun
And then there is the temporary insanity defense, which I think he would pass with no trouble.

eggboy said @ 1:46pm GMT on 20th Jun
Here in QLD that's still a legitimate defence (apparently, my hippie friends can be a little sensationalistic so I'm not entirely sure), for gay bashing. "Oh I was so freaked out when I found out he was a homo my friends I and kicked his head in"

The rest of the country (I don't consider Tasmania part of the country) is about a decade ahead of us on any issue you can think of.

RhesusMonkey said @ 1:04am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:3 Underrated]
I would have done the same thing, but that doesn't mean the father shouldn't have been charged with manslaughter / unintentional homicide, because that's what he did. Charge him and give him time served, or home arrest for 10 years, or something that is a token severance of "actual" justice being administered, versus the emotional response. Just my $0.02

eggboy said @ 1:43am GMT on 20th Jun
Jailing someone is not just to punish, but also to remove a danger to society. Unless you're raping his family I doubt this man is any threat to you. He is possibly less of a threat now, after his emotional response to actually killing someone.

chold_numa said @ 3:42am GMT on 20th Jun
There is that, but the law should be consistent. Manslaughter, which this appears to be, should be recorded, even if the sentencing is trivial.

There is also, I suspect, some degree of racism in this case. Had the deceased been white and the family Hispanic, I think the result would be different and the facts more in dispute.

conception said @ 5:23am GMT on 20th Jun
http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/pe/htm/pe.19.htm

If he was charged and convicted of manslaughter then you just made him a felon for life with consequential loss of rights such as voting. Not to mention always having to note it on things like job applications.

chold_numa said @ 6:42am GMT on 20th Jun
I think the question there is why this sort of thing should be done and continue to be done. Presumably, once a person has completed their sentence their debt to society has been repaid and should be able to return to contribute to the community and the economy.

Disenfranchising them and denying them employment would have a counterproductive effect of entrenching a poverty stricken underclass which would likely result in more criminal activity in the future. Apart from being grossly unfair, I don't see it deterring future crimes. Doubly unfair on those who are unjustly convicted.

backSLIDER said @ 8:39am GMT on 20th Jun
I would totally hire a guy who wrote down that he was convicted of manslaughter after finding someone raping his daughter. And call me old fashened but would be ok with not having my right to vote.

mrcucumber said @ 12:48pm GMT on 20th Jun
I don't think admitting to manslaughter on a job application leaves any verifiable or credible details of the conviction or crime. Isn't it just a box you check?

All you would know was that he was convicted of manslaughter, and anybody could just say the 'dude was raping my daughter.'

backSLIDER said @ 3:59pm GMT on 20th Jun
There is usually a box that is much too short. Along with the one that asks you to explain why you left every job you have ever had.

a.talisan said @ 1:07am GMT on 21st Jun
Any conviction, no matter how *slight*, will put you at the bottom of the pile - many employers won't even read, or care, about the circumstances. It's just all with the box checked go to the bottom - if not the trashcan. And lets not pretend there are a wealth of jobs to go around. In this economy "simply checking a box" results in perpetual joblessness. Is that what the father deserves for what he did?

foobar said @ 2:39am GMT on 21st Jun
No less so than any other felon who's served their time.

chold_numa said @ 6:37am GMT on 21st Jun
Exactly.

CapnSilver said @ 9:44am GMT on 20th Jun
Your sentence is always forever

eggboy said @ 1:40pm GMT on 20th Jun [Score:2]
Cap'n Bligh tried that in Australia, treating convicts like people once they'd finished their sentences. Worked out pretty well.

backSLIDER said @ 3:32am GMT on 20th Jun
I was about to post the same thing you just said. I'm not sure how I feel about the fact that I think raping someone is worse then killing them. I wonder if it's some American thing?

CapnSilver said @ 6:01am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
Rape is worse than murder on the level of trauma to the victim. The victim will have to live with the event for the rest of his or her life. Perhaps "more cruel" is more accurate than "worse".
Neither are good but I'd rather be raped than murdered. Only because I kind of enjoy living. Kind of.

I'm not sure how I feel about this case though. I totally understand the flip out/rage but I don't really want to say "yep, it's good this man is dead". Part of me feels that he should be tried for manslaughter or at least the strongest kind of battery/assault charges even recognising that everyone understands why and can sympathise to some degree.

RedRiverRat said @ 9:34am GMT on 20th Jun
I think that the reason, in the end, why he wasnt,
(and you mustn't forget that this was in Texas and it was an unknown Mexican stranger at a family party),
is the recognition that rape IS so cruel.

No

RedRiverRat said @ 9:41am GMT on 20th Jun
grr. that sentence should have ended:

nah. wasnt a good thought anyway. glad I fubared it

dietcoke said @ 3:11am GMT on 21st Jun
When the rape is of a child that is old enough to remember what happened. yes it is indeed worse then killing, this child is old enough to remember this attempted rape and chances are it will scar her mentally for life and most likely lead to failed relationships, depression and alot of other problems in her life.
SHe has been sentenced to a life of trauma, death of a rapist seems just about right.

theolypse said @ 4:22am GMT on 21st Jun
Yeah, but you want to kill people for not owning guns. You're basically ridiculous.

foobar said @ 8:18am GMT on 21st Jun
Don't feed him.

theolypse said @ 5:18pm GMT on 21st Jun
I'm hardly the worst offender.

Naruki said @ 1:57am GMT on 22nd Jun
Tu Quoque, hypocrite.

theolypse said @ 4:18am GMT on 23rd Jun
I have no idea whether foobar responds to badger in the way he advised me not to, and did not suggest so.

atter_cob said @ 7:51am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
Actually, you have the legal right (especially in Texas) to use force in defense of yourself or others. He has a rather valid argument that his use of force was justified because he had to stop the action that was harming his daughter.

A second reasonable defense would be built around the idea that he was not in full control of his actions. Basically some variation of temporary insanity due to the extreme distress caused by seeing his daughter raped. He'd then be remanded to treatment until he was no longer a threat. Given that he daughter would not be expected to be brutally raped again, this would mean a few weeks of treatment will regular counceling. (He and the daughter should have concealing anyhow.)

Also, note that there is nothing that precludes both defenses from being used simultaneously: Violence was justified to stop the danger to his daughter, and if the violence is found excessive it was due to the emotional distress.

So, agree that no indictment was justified because the trial would have been a waste of time. The main lesson to be learned here is that if you don't want to be beat to death then you should not rape little girls.

sanepride said @ 1:09am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:5 Underrated]
As heinous as the alleged crime was, am I the only one here who takes exception to the idea that the accused rapist "got what he deserved"?
It's worth noting that the father apparently did not intend to kill the guy and seemed to be genuinely horrified that he did. I find this part of the story to be far more redeeming than the brutal death of the alleged rapist.

Spleen23 said @ 1:26am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
At what point was the father under a obligation to stop hitting the guy and trust that a child rapist caught in the act would make the rational decision to flee or surrender instead of retaliating violently against him or his child.

foobar said @ 2:01am GMT on 20th Jun
Fleeing would be the the most reasonable thing to do at that point.

mechanical contrivance said @ 2:41am GMT on 20th Jun
He's a child rapist. I wouldn't expect reason from such a person.

theolypse said @ 4:14am GMT on 21st Jun
That's okay. Most people don't really understand most people, either.q

Naruki said @ 4:14am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:-3 Overrated]
Why would you make such a retarded argument? Sound reason has fuck all to do with a pederast's behavior, and compounding that with a violent confrontation is not going to make it any better.

You know this, somewhere deep, deep inside you must have a spark of sense. So why would you make such a heinously unreasonable argument...

Wait, you're being raped right now, aren't you? Quick, somebody call fooFather!

DarkShadowRavenDragonGrrl69 said @ 7:58am GMT on 20th Jun
What? Could you explain which part you disagree with? I'm assuming foobar is talking about the rapist here and fleeing would be quite reasonable when you're getting the shit beaten out of you. I have no idea how you got so worked up about such a simple statement.

theolypse said @ 4:15am GMT on 21st Jun [Score:-1 Troll]
Sound reason has fuck all to do with a pederast's behavior

Trollololol.

I'm hardly surprised that you don't really get human beings, Naruki, but your firm categorization of them just doesn't stand patent.

sanepride said @ 2:18am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:2 Underrated]
You're not getting my point at all. I have no problem with the father's actions. As I said, he apparently did not intend to kill the guy.
I'm simply a little disturbed by the consensus that the guy obviously deserved to die. I find it interesting that the father who killed him does not necessarily agree.

Spleen23 said @ 2:53am GMT on 20th Jun
My apologies, I read RhesusMonkey's post immediatly before yours and somehow mixed in his belief that the father should face criminal charges in with your post.

mrklipp said @ 2:18pm GMT on 20th Jun
Legally, that would probably be the point where the subject of the beating became non responsive.

You don't go from live and kicking to dead from a beating in any but the rarest of circumstances. There was a point where the person being beaten almost certainly ceased all resistance.

Given his attackers emotional state, it's understandable that that point could have been overlooked, but that's what they'll be looking at if this goes to court.

Omegaphobic said @ 10:04pm GMT on 20th Jun [Score:1 Informative]
People can die after a single punch. It happens more frequently than you might think in street altercations. Now, in this case it seems likely that the father beat the guy pretty soundly (as would I have) but we have no way of knowing if he just kept laying into him once he was lying on the ground, unresponsive.

eggboy said @ 1:43am GMT on 20th Jun
Probably.

foobar said @ 2:02am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:3 Interesting]
It carries a bit of an implication that they're happy to find a target that they're allowed to hate on. It's disturbing.

b said @ 2:07am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:1 Underrated]
While there are few cases where I believe taking the life of another human are warranted, this may very well be one of them. Of course, had the situation worked out a bit differently, perhaps the deceased would merely be serving jail time right now. That being said, I think there's very, very few paedophiles who suddenly begin their molestation career in their late 40s. Chances are that the man had done it before and would do it again.

While I wouldn't wish death up him, per se, I do feel comfortable saying that he probably got exactly what he deserved: to be beat to death by the parent of one of his victims.

foobar said @ 4:39am GMT on 20th Jun
Abusers are often themselves the end product of abuse.

atter_cob said @ 7:53am GMT on 20th Jun
True, but it does not excuse the crimes.

mrklipp said @ 2:27pm GMT on 20th Jun [Score:2 Insightful]
Any being bat shit crazy doesn't excuse the crime of murder.

That does't mean it isn't a legally valid defense in court.

Research has demonstrated over and over that this sort of behavior is due to mental illness, not perversion. In the vast majority of cases, that mental illness is caused by the trauma of being a victim of the same abuse.

In a sane and rational society, these people would be treated as any other potentially dangerous victims of mental illness. More to the point, there would be a much larger focus on therapy and treatment for the victims to stop the cycle.

Unfortunately, two very emotional reactions get in the way. The desire to defend children enrages people to the point that they don't care about the circumstances of the perpetrator/past victim. The desire to pretend that nothing bad happened and forget about anything unpleasant most often leads to the victims not getting the care they desperately need.

damnit said @ 3:40am GMT on 20th Jun
I was expecting manslaughter conviction... if this was in another state.

smoug said @ 12:38pm GMT on 20th Jun
I'm thinking getting a conviction in any state would be fairly difficult given the information and evidence supposedly on-hand.

damnit said @ 3:51pm GMT on 20th Jun
That's what I'm scared of. This and many other similar situations (more or less grave) has set the precedence that killing is somehow justified.

I'm sure it wouldn't help if they throw him in jail as I'm sure he's already damaged enough with killing another human being.

King of the Hill said @ 7:18pm GMT on 20th Jun
Please... It is justified in many instances of self defense... Not always but certainly common enough... To imply that killing is never justified and make it a crime regardless of the circumstances would be violating a basic human right.

damnit said @ 7:32pm GMT on 20th Jun
I'm actually glad he didn't get punished for it.

But like I said... precedence

RedRiverRat said @ 3:45am GMT on 20th Jun
I admit that my reaction was as a father of a daughter was admittedly horrified anger. I would still take a crowbar to the guy if there had been one handy when I walked into that barn.

That being said,

The family itself upon closer reading didn't seem to think that the abuser 'got what he deserved' and did what seems to be extraordinary effort to do their best to save him.

The father was quoted as crying on a called in 911 and also notes that " the child's grandfather and aunt both administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation."

I agree with what you say, that the best part of the story is not 'abuser got beaten to death' but should be 'family deals with many horrors'

(Im still glad the dad did what he did and dont fault him at all)

mrcucumber said @ 12:58pm GMT on 20th Jun
He obviously stopped the beating, and through the rage was able to see that he was killing him. Where is that line? I understand the shock of witnessing such an event, and letting your emotions get the best of you, but at some point you stop, and withdraw the punches and start to see the reality.

Where is that line? Is the consensus here saying that the line is irrelevant? Simply because he caught him in the act gives him the right to kill? Does the act of rape releases him from controlling his anger and rage?

If I were ever in such a situation, I'd like to think I would do serious damage but stop before killing the guy, but I don't think reality would set in quick enough, like this father.

Reminds of a scene from the movie Irreversible.

Croatia said @ 9:01pm GMT on 20th Jun
I agree with you sanepride. The best part of the story is that the man was horrified to have taken a life with his Fist of the North Star 3-punch killer flurry.

However, I also agree with the comments saying that anyone who is raping a child deserves death. Perhaps that person could be redeemed. Perhaps not. All I know is that the innocence lost in child sexual abuse is a utterly tragic event and it is not necessarily beneficial to society to keep pedophiles alive for treatment purposes.

If they survive and recover their minds then great! But if they die for their crimes, so be it.

Supreme_Coconut said @ 1:15am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:3 Insightful]

mfchill said @ 1:41am GMT on 20th Jun
I would have done the same thing. I also hope I would have faced the consequence. THe grand jury did not do their duty.

Misanthrope said @ 2:24am GMT on 20th Jun
Jury's duty is to the law as written.

foobar said @ 4:37am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:1 Insightful]
No, the whole point of having juries is that they may throw the law out if they don't like it. Otherwise we'd just leave it to judges, who are experts in the law, not laypeople.

Misanthrope said @ 5:46pm GMT on 20th Jun
That's not at all what juries are for. Where do you even get that?

foobar said @ 9:03pm GMT on 20th Jun
Yes, it is.

a.talisan said @ 1:20am GMT on 21st Jun
Jury Nullification (or intention to nullify the law) appears to be reason for a juror to be removed from the trial. It doesn't appear to be a commonly embraced practice in the US in modern times. According to this further in the same article.

foobar said @ 2:44am GMT on 21st Jun
If someone is going into jury duty with the intent to nullify, sure. That's not really any different than someone going in intending to vote guilty/not guilty regardless of the trial. Of course the court would toss anyone who's not going to take the process seriously.

midden said @ 5:08am GMT on 20th Jun
My understanding of the purpose of the jury is to be faithful to the spirit of the law, as opposed to the letter of the law; to be judged by every day people who can imagine themselves in the same position as the person charged. Yes, person A killed person B, but realistically, would anyone in a similar situation not respond the same way? The whole point of defining criminal behavior is to categorize behavior that is outside of the acceptable social norms, so that such behavior can be curtailed for the benefit of the rest of society. If pretty much anyone could be expected to behave in the same way under the same circumstances, isn't that exactly what you'd call the social norm? And if that's the case, wouldn't it be, by definition, not considered criminal behavior?

mrcucumber said @ 4:40pm GMT on 20th Jun
...categorize behavior that is outside of the acceptable social norms, so that such behavior can be curtailed for the benefit of the rest of society

So then it's like a ......democracy? I've always thought defining "social norms" as a difficult thing, especially in a modern society that nurtures liberal thinking and behavior. Society sanctions all kinds of fucked up behavior, yet since the "majority" either engage in the very same behavior or look the other way as "tolerant," it continues.

IMO there is a fine line between the anger this guy felt while pummeling the offender to death and the rational thought of just making him stop abusing his daughter.

Easy to say sitting here after the fact

foobar said @ 9:05pm GMT on 20th Jun
Not really. Canada has no abortion laws in large part because juries simply refused to enforce them, for example.

ahPook said @ 2:07am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:4]
My opinion: there should be a full investigation, the father should be charged, let a judge or jury decide. If after due process he walks away scott free then so be it. The law only works if its consistently applied WHATEVER the circumstances.

atter_cob said @ 7:55am GMT on 20th Jun
Yep... which is why it went to a grand jury. They chose not to indite. That is how the law works.

yasha said @ 3:01pm GMT on 20th Jun
that's exactly what happened. and given the evidence the grand jury said there was no reason to indict the one man for the death of the other.

ahPook said @ 7:35pm GMT on 20th Jun
So what's the problem?

Croatia said @ 11:10pm GMT on 20th Jun
there...isnt one?

zsander said @ 2:08am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:2 Funny]
To me, this either falls under the category of assisted suicide, or the Texas "He needed him some killin', I reckon" standard.

Misanthrope said @ 2:17am GMT on 20th Jun
This is Texas, and it is their property...

oranges said @ 5:18am GMT on 20th Jun
Interesting point. I was a little upset at all the "the bastard deserved it" but castle doctrine is a new take. I'm not sure he needed to die but it might be legal under the castle law alone.

kichijoii said @ 2:20am GMT on 20th Jun
Regardless of how heinous the crime sounded, they still should have followed through on a thorough investigation and trial. The reporter makes it sound like they just accepted the family's story and let it rest at that. However, since I am not privy to examine the "overwhelming evidence" for myself, I can't say for certain that they didn't do everything properly, or even that they did.

Supreme_Coconut said @ 2:31am GMT on 20th Jun
I read a different article on this where the sheriff's department did say that they had gathered evidence and turned it over to the district attorney's office for review and if charges are filed then the sheriff would take the necessary actions.

swiggy said @ 3:56am GMT on 20th Jun
I only regret that the father has to live with the memories of beating the guy to death.

That, there, he should remember with pride. It's the moments before that that I regret will haunt him.

swiggy said @ 4:18am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:2 Underrated]
And now that I got the visceral reaction out of the way:

All life is precious, and (on the universal scale at least) vanishingly rare. No one should ever wish death on anyone at all, especially someone who's a slave to their own fucked-up neurochemistry, like the kid-toucher obviously was.

That having been said, the father shouldn't blame himself for the guy's death. I'm reasonably certain the immediate reaction of pretty much everyone in that situation would be "render this person into a texture closely resembling a pulled pork sandwich, using whatever materials are closest at hand." He shoudn't feel guilty for an emotional reaction that's been wired into human brains since "stick with pointy rock tied to it" was cutting-edge technology.

He SHOULD, however, feel glad he stopped the guy when he could, and that the dude will never, ever be able to create more human wreckage than he already has.

kichijoii said @ 9:09am GMT on 20th Jun
It seems to me that the collary to "not wishing death upon anyone at all" is feeling guilty should you personally cause someone's death, regardless of the circumstances. Its just something that can't be avoided, like a fact of nature - you have one, you have the other. Hopefully the man has a strong support base and possibly access to good therapy.

robotroadkill said @ 11:09am GMT on 20th Jun [Score:5 Insightful]
I'm eternally grateful that I'm attracted to adults rather than children. It has to be a horrible life. I don't believe I could "choose" to be sexually attracted to a kid any more than I could choose to be attracted to men. Help should be more freely available to these people. The article below is a window into that situation.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/SavageLove?oid=12927907

pleaides said @ 11:22am GMT on 20th Jun
I don't think this point is made enough, you're bloody right. What person can be called responsible for the chemical makeup of their brains? I expect that they no more 'chose' their desires than any one of us chose to be tall.

eggboy said @ 2:04pm GMT on 20th Jun
But you can choose not to act on those desires, as you can choose not to act on desires for consensual gay sex. The difference is the only things hurt by consensual gay sex is the feelings of wowsers, and that is a good thing in my books. When cunts cant tell the difference between homosexuality and pedophilia you get the snowtown murders.

I feel sorry for the poor fucks attracted to kids, I really do, but to act on it, you'd fuck up someones life forever just to get your rocks off. Selfish cunts, they have no place in society. Hell, I'd like to do terrible things to some people and satisfy some primal lust, but I never will, cause I'm not a selfish cunt who'd fuck up someone else's life for an orgasm. Fuck em.

mrklipp said @ 2:41pm GMT on 20th Jun
See, here is the thing.

Our bodies are wired to make more of themselves. This is arguably the strongest motivation, regularly outweighing even self preservation.

When you repress those urges, they don't go away. There are reams written on mental illness caused by people trying to deny this drive.

You seem to think these are rational people deciding that they really want to get off. If you look at the actual data, it's usually people who have been suppressing these desires for many years before they ever actually engage in any illegal behavior. The brain doesn't just keep ticking along working rationally at this point, things start going off track badly.

eggboy said @ 4:25pm GMT on 20th Jun
Yet prostitution is seen as bad for society, and religion good.

Fuck this.

When I was growing up I was told the 21st century would be a sexy Huxleyan mixture of post-war Germany and the Jetsons. Where's my free [simulated emotion approximating love (tm)] and eugenics based crimeless society?

arrowhen said @ 8:28pm GMT on 20th Jun
Realistic child sex dolls. I'm just sayin'.

spyderpdm said @ 10:52pm GMT on 20th Jun
I'm attracted to women. Most of them in fact. I rarely get laid, but I don't go around raping them.

If billions of men can resist the urge to rape then these people who are allegedly wired to find kids attractive should be able to resist too

mrklipp said @ 10:57pm GMT on 20th Jun
Yeah, try dropping the rarely to never and see how well you are doing after a decade or two.

Even occasional release is far healthier than none at all.

scojam said @ 2:55pm GMT on 20th Jun
I wonder what this guy would have done if some TSA person started mauling his daughter and she started screaming like some of the little girls do who get mauled by TSA persons.

mrklipp said @ 3:41pm GMT on 20th Jun
Most likely answer? Not a damn thing.

We are incredibly highly conditioned to obey anyone in a position of authority, even if that is as minimal an authority as a TSA agent or a guy in a lab coat. This is even the case when the instructions conflict with our conscience and morality.

Hell, see the Milgram experiment for a start.

dietcoke said @ 3:13am GMT on 21st Jun
Is this TSA agent you are speaking of in your imagination lying on top of the girl with his pants and underwear down and ripping off the young girls panties?
If so, then yes I do believe that every single adult in the airport would run over and rip this TSA agent into bloody shreds.

lalanda said @ 10:09pm GMT on 20th Jun
Killed someone "allegedly sexually abusing his daughter".