No jail for father who killed his daughter's rapist

porte

Kill the filthy bacon, nothing but a dirty rasher who got his just deserts.;)


why am I still awake.

Father Damo

Fromthetrees wrote: »

Completely agree with the decision, come on though, the fela McNally got left off for murder when he beat a pavee like a 'badger', I think/hope if the same thing happened here we'd have the same result.
I'd like to think I'd be man enough to kill the fela, medals should be awarded with ceremonies and trophies and plaques for this sort of thing.
Clap clap clap clap clap.

Actually IIRC he was locked up for quite a few months having been sent down for a few years before the sentence was overturned.

IMO he should have tied Frog Ward to a table and waterboarded him to death with a boiled kettle full of water and not been jailed.

BettePorter

I read a more detailed report which described how the dad had been alerted by someone who'd seen this scum carrying the girl to a barn, crying. When the father walked in, he was on top of her with his pants pulled down. The image of him carrying this 5 year old off with the intention of raping her, and the image of walking in to see your daughter being raped, just makes me cry as i read it.

The awful thing is this happens every day.

I wouldn't have to have been her parent for me to kill that bastard on the spot. His only crime was that he didn't drag his death out.

I'm not going to say fair ****s to him for killing him, even the father himself sounded like he didn't want him to die, but having said that no one will feel sympathy for the rapist who won't be raping anymore.

Canis Lupus

Ah lol. I knew if I skipped to the last page of this thread they're would be at least one person saying the father was in the wrong

jiltloop

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I'm going to make myself unpopular (if not already). In the rush of emotion here, people appear incapable of telling the difference between justice and vengeance.

The father should have been charged, manslaughter with diminished responsibility may have been appropriate in this case. If guilty, it would then be up to a judge to determine whether a custodial sentence was warranted given the mitigating circumstances (I realise minimum sentences may have made the jury reluctant to take this action but sentencing is a matter for judges not juries to consider).

"No charge" is ridiculous.

For those posters so concerned about the child, it should be noted that they now have experienced TWO traumatic events in close proximity. One, sexual assault and two, their attacker being killed. Both have massive psychological impact.

So what is your answer? Make it 3 traumatic events by locking up the father? So now the girl has been raped, witnessed a murder and has no father for the next few years? Brilliant solution! Lets all forget we're human and focus soley on the law like emotionless robots.

Father Damo

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Ah lol. I knew if I skipped to the last page of this thread they're would be at least one person saying the father was in the wrong

If the rapist was a Traveller you would have ran into it by the second page tbh.

Canis Lupus

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Ah lol. I knew if I skipped to the last page of this thread they're would be at least one person saying the father was in the wrong

No one said the father was in the wrong for defending his daughter.
I did see some posts about he shouldn't have got off without charges...is that what you're referring to?

I don't understand it myself, the father called the emergency services to try and save that scumbag, so i understand totally why he wasn't charged.

hooradiation

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I'm going to make myself unpopular (if not already). In the rush of emotion here, people appear incapable of telling the difference between justice and vengeance.

The father should have been charged, manslaughter with diminished responsibility may have been appropriate in this case. If guilty, it would then be up to a judge to determine whether a custodial sentence was warranted given the mitigating circumstances (I realise minimum sentences may have made the jury reluctant to take this action but sentencing is a matter for judges not juries to consider).

"No charge" is ridiculous.

For those posters so concerned about the child, it should be noted that they now have experienced TWO traumatic events in close proximity. One, sexual assault and two, their attacker being killed. Both have massive psychological impact.

Ahh would you not leave them to their righteous circle-jerk.

shopaholic01

I'm glad he wasn't charged - living with the memory of seeing his 5 year old daughter raped will haunt him for the rest of his life. As I'm sure, the fact that he killed someone will. It was a gut reaction to save his daughter as opposed to a desire to actually kill him and the tape reflects that.


I cannot fathom how an adult can be sexually attracted to a child, and how they can then just act on, that regardless of the physical and psychological damage it inflicts.

Jester252

jiltloop wrote: »

So what is your answer? Make it 3 traumatic events by locking up the father? So now the girl has been raped, witnessed a murder and has no father for the next few years? Brilliant solution! Lets all forget we're human and focus soley on the law like emotionless robots.

Everything comes in threes

ROBBO7

I don't think the father meant to kill him which probably helped his case, but if it was any right minded person who came upon that scene no matter father or not that guy is getting a serious beating. Anyone that says differently is as another poster said a robot.
As for getting off being charged then in my opinion thats common sense being applied rather than the strict interpretation of the law. As a father myself i would have done exactly the same and wouldnt/couldnt care of the consequences.

bee_keeper

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I'm going to make myself unpopular (if not already). In the rush of emotion here, people appear incapable of telling the difference between justice and vengeance.

The father should have been charged, manslaughter with diminished responsibility may have been appropriate in this case. If guilty, it would then be up to a judge to determine whether a custodial sentence was warranted given the mitigating circumstances (I realise minimum sentences may have made the jury reluctant to take this action but sentencing is a matter for judges not juries to consider).

"No charge" is ridiculous.

For those posters so concerned about the child, it should be noted that they now have experienced TWO traumatic events in close proximity. One, sexual assault and two, their attacker being killed. Both have massive psychological impact.

on the contary , by having seen their attacker catagorically dealt with , the victim will feel a huge sense of security and protection , the father did what he did out of pure love , its the one possitive thing out of the kids horrid ordeal

justice happened on both fronts , the father and the judge were 100% right

shopaholic01

Jester252 wrote: »

Everything comes in threes

I imagine the 'third' in this case is trying to live with what has happened, and rebuidling some semblance of normaility for the child.

Dravokivich

vicwatson wrote: »

Every case on their circumstances, but you are right it could indeed. Public opinion would be right on your side and it be hard for any jury to go against that in my opinon.

A jury should never be swayed by public opinion under any circumstances. I think such is grounds for a mistrial.

CdeC

While I am not against what the father did I still think it should go to trial.
A man is dead and it should be investigated properly.

What if the guy beat the man to death then paid a medical worker to lie saying his daughter was abused.???

Rural Texas might have a "look after your own policy"
If such was the case then a man just got away with murder.

No matter how bad the crime I am not going to high five someone and say "yeah well done, you killed a guy!".

Jimoslimos wrote: »

I'm going to make myself unpopular (if not already). In the rush of emotion here, people appear incapable of telling the difference between justice and vengeance.

The father should have been charged, manslaughter with diminished responsibility may have been appropriate in this case. If guilty, it would then be up to a judge to determine whether a custodial sentence was warranted given the mitigating circumstances (I realise minimum sentences may have made the jury reluctant to take this action but sentencing is a matter for judges not juries to consider).

"No charge" is ridiculous.

For those posters so concerned about the child, it should be noted that they now have experienced TWO traumatic events in close proximity. One, sexual assault and two, their attacker being killed. Both have massive psychological impact.

I agree with above, should have gone to trial.

MadYaker

CdeC wrote: »

While I am not against what the father did I still think it should go to trial.
A man is dead and it should be investigated properly.

What if the guy beat the man to death then paid a medical worker to lie saying his daughter was abused.???

Rural Texas might have a "look after your own policy"
If such was the case then a man just got away with murder.

No matter how bad the crime I am not going to high five someone and say "yeah well done, you killed a guy!".





I agree with above, should have gone to trial.

Did you read the article?? It was investigated properly. So many things wrong with you're post I don't know where to start.

Nothingbetter2d

kingtiger wrote: »

I suppose you would get life imprisonment here

so about 3 years then when u factor in the 9 month year and suspended sentences

sbsquarepants

Fúck him. He got what he deserved.
Father is a hero in my book, fathers are supposed to protect their kids.

CdeC

MadYaker wrote: »

Did you read the article?? It was investigated properly. So many things wrong with you're post I don't know where to start.

Do you believe everything you read??

All is evidence from witness and the mans statement. Witness could have been mans friend and medical worker a local who was on his side.



All I am saying is he should have been charged and then if the ruling of the court was that he should walk free then so be it.

We have to have laws and procedure no matter how bad the crime.

shopaholic01

CdeC wrote: »

Do you believe everything you read??

All is evidence from witness and the mans statement. Witness could have been mans friend and medical worker a local who was on his side.



All I am saying is he should have been charged and then if the ruling of the court was that he should walk free then so be it.

We have to have laws and procedure no matter how bad the crime.

The procedure before a trial is set is to examine the evidence and determine if there is a case to be answered. In this case there wasn't.

It's the same here - when an alleged crime is committed a file is sent to the DPP, who will then decide whether or not to prosecute.

A father rescuing his screaming 5 year old from a rapist is unlikey to have considered the consequences of his actions - his protective instinct was fuelled by adrenaline. I doubt anyone can dispute his right to protect his daughter.

HigginsJ

Gives you faith in humanity that he is not being charged.

Jimoslimos

Camo22 wrote: »

Maybe the judge had a daughter... Did the right thing IMO. I'm sure the man would never have commited a crime in his life. Is it right that he should be punished for something he probably had no control over. What would you do if your daughter was put through the same??

Whether the judge had a daughter or not is completely irrelevant, I would hope they would keep their personal lives out of their job. As is the father's criminal record, or lack of.

As for what I'd do, I commented on another similar thread;

Would I take the same measured approach I advocate?
Probably not. I'd like to think that my first priority would be to swiftly remove my child from the situation and immediately set about caring for them. However I can't honestly say, hand-on-heart that I wouldn't refrain from physical violence upon the aggressor. I'd also like to say that concern for my child's welfare should I be jailed would be a contributing factor in not crossing the line between reasonable force and manslaughter. How I or anyone would act in these cases is something that I can't (and hope to never) know.

Does this make me a hypocrite?
Possibly, but more likely a normal human being who is, like the rest of us, susceptible to acting on emotion. That's why we need an independent, objective system to judge on my actions - not a baying mob. A judge and a jury can take my emotional state into account when weighing up the case, however they should not allow their own emotions to dictate judgement.

jiltloop wrote: »

So what is your answer? Make it 3 traumatic events by locking up the father? So now the girl has been raped, witnessed a murder and has no father for the next few years? Brilliant solution! Lets all forget we're human and focus soley on the law like emotionless robots.

bee_keeper wrote: »

on the contary , by having seen their attacker catagorically dealt with , the victim will feel a huge sense of security and protection , the father did what he did out of pure love , its the one possitive thing out of the kids horrid ordeal

justice happened on both fronts , the father and the judge were 100% right

I wonder how many people here have actually ever witnessed somebody they reckoned were deserving of death, being killed, and not in a lethal-injection execution type way. Especially when they were 5. Life isn't like an action movie where the bad guy gets killed at the end and everybody walks out smiling grimly.

A 5yr old seeing somebody being beaten to death, even an aggressive rapist, by her father is not something that can be described as a loving action, or one that teaches a child right from wrong. I'd argue that at that age, the manslaughter was more traumatic (if the child was present), than a single isolated sexual assault. Less aggressive, but longer term grooming by a paedophile would also be worse.

I can't agree that the father acted out of love in killing the man, love to me would be immediately setting about caring for his daughter and putting aside HIS emotions and need for vengeance.

PC CDROM wrote: »

If true then fair enough.

All seems a bit dodgy to me from reading further articles.

I was wary of mentioning anything but there is something odd about the case - all the more reason for it being investigated fully.

The isolated ranch and the rural small town.

Where was everyone else? There was one witness who saw the child being dragged away - where did he/she disappear to while the rapist was being killed?

How many blows were inflicted, it may well have been the case that only a few caused the death and so were justifiable in protecting his child - or perhaps reasonable force was exceeded?

Medical reports show the child had experienced a sexual assault - did forensics confirm by who? This is actually extremely important - see last two points for reasons why.

Most sexual assaults on children don't (despite what DM hype would tell you) happen in such a blatant aggressive manner. More often there's grooming by another family member and a level of trust built up. However the child-snatching scenario by an immigrant (latino name) ticks the boxes for outrage.

And finally, leading on from that point - one critical reason reason for fully investigating these crimes and bringing them before a court. It is more common (sadly) that a stranger would encounter a father abusing his child rather than what transpired here. If this occurred and the stranger was killed while trying to stop it - what is there to stop the father claiming that it was he who tried to stop the abuse and killed the other man in self-defence? For obvious reasons, the child would be reluctant to go against her father/abuser

fusuf

Dickerty wrote: »

That is so good to hear. Call it temporary insanity, or self defence (where you are defending a minor) or whatever, but if this guy had done time, I would have lost what little faith I had left...

It's not good to hear. A 5 year old girl was raped. It's right that her father won't be charged but it's not good to hear.