It's not a grey area, it's covered right in the lawfan_from_texas;1196594 wrote:This.
There's a difference--if there's significant overkill, that's going to look suspicious, for sure. I generally think the dad is fine and was probably in the right, but it's possible a jury would find that bludgeoning someone to death was unreasonable. It's a grey area.
sexual assault, aggravated sexual
No, I just do a lot of volunteering with the NRA-ILA and Buckeye Firearms and do a ton of studying on Castle Doctrines and Stand Your Ground. Just because you disagree with what the law says doesn't mean you have to come after me with that stupid "your such and such was a" immature bullshit. Grow up.Steel Valley Football;1196625 wrote:LJ what a piece of work you are lol. Let me guess...your great, great, great grampa Austin Houston, III was a Texas attorney. Gtfoh.
When I say, "it's a grey area," I mean, whether the amount of force is reasonable is not immediately clear. The question of whether something is "reasonable" is necessarily a grey area. It's not like the mere fact that a sexual assault was interrupted gives someone carte blanche to do whatever they want--the question is whether the amount of force applied is reasonably necessary to prevent the imminent commission of the crime. That is, by definition, a grey area that a jury will decide (if it ever gets that far). And as I've already said, I can't imagine a jury would convict, even if there may be room for doubt here.LJ;1196614 wrote:It's not a grey area, it's covered right in the law
$100 he isn't charged with anything, therefore won't even have to go in front of a jury. There are self defense cases with the same type of method of defense all the time. It's all about state of mind, refercence my previous posts.Steel Valley Football;1196635 wrote:You're not certainly right, though. Though you think you are. It's a fine line on what the jury will see as reasonable. You don't even know WTF happened and yet you sit here like a KIA with ten law degrees. You weren't there. Again, gtfoh you are full of shit.
Exactly--it's a question of whether his actions were reasonable under the circumstances, which is a question for the jury. I'm not saying he was reasonable or unreasonable; I'm saying the answer is not immediately clear, and it seems reasonable that someone could ask questions to make sure there was no unnecessary overkill.LJ;1196612 wrote:Is there that point that is IMMEDIATELY known? Not always. Just like I said, there are cases where people put 10 bullets in a guy and are cleared on stand your ground/ castle doctrine. Just because they find out the beating lasted 20 seconds, but the guy died 18 seconds in, isn't going to convict this man.
But how is it a grey area when the law specifically states that you can use deadly force? The law specifically states that in the case of a sexual molestation, deadly force can be used to prevent the imminent danger of the crime. It's spelled out specifically in the law.fan_from_texas;1196642 wrote:When I say, "it's a grey area," I mean, whether the amount of force is reasonable is not immediately clear. The question of whether something is "reasonable" is necessarily a grey area. It's not like the mere fact that a sexual assault was interrupted gives someone carte blanche to do whatever they want--the question is whether the amount of force applied is reasonably necessary to prevent the imminent commission of the crime. That is, by definition, a grey area that a jury will decide (if it ever gets that far). And as I've already said, I can't imagine a jury would convict, even if there may be room for doubt here.
It won't make it to a jury, because the self defense law gives him that right to protect his family with deadly force in the case of a the imminent danger of sexual molestation.fan_from_texas;1196644 wrote:Exactly--it's a question of whether his actions were reasonable under the circumstances, which is a question for the jury. I'm not saying he was reasonable or unreasonable; I'm saying the answer is not immediately clear, and it seems reasonable that someone could ask questions to make sure there was no unnecessary overkill.
The law doesn't specifically spell out that you can use deadly force; the law specifically spells out that you can use deadly force subject to X, Y, and Z conditions (reasonable belief, immediately necessary, imminent commission). You're focusing on just one factor and ignoring the rest of the language. It's a question for the jury as to whether the dad's actions met the necessary conditions to justify deadly force. That's absolutely a grey area.LJ;1196645 wrote:But how is it a grey area when the law specifically states that you can use deadly force? The law specifically states that in the case of a sexual molestation, deadly force can be used to prevent the imminent danger of the crime. It's spelled out specifically in the law.
Actually it's a question for the DA, because the burden of proof falls on the agressor's side. In other words, the state is to take the victim's side. I understand where you are going with it, but the problem is that there are SO many cases like this in stand your ground and castle doctrine states that the grey area has almost been eliminated due to past precidents. The instance meets the 3 conditions since the molestation was in progress, it's not like the guy said "I'm gonna rape your little girl" and then was beat to death. No, he was caught in the act. You are arguing it like someone said they are gonna break into your house and kill you while they are standing on your front porch, whereas I am arguing it that you came downstairs to find and intruder and you killed them. The former would get you thrown in jail, and the latter in states such as Ohio and Texas, the homeowner walks away free (and free from civil penalty as well)fan_from_texas;1196653 wrote:The law doesn't specifically spell out that you can use deadly force; the law specifically spells out that you can use deadly force subject to X, Y, and Z conditions (reasonable belief, immediately necessary, imminent commission). You're focusing on just one factor and ignoring the rest of the language. It's a question for the jury as to whether the dad's actions met the necessary conditions to justify deadly force. That's absolutely a grey area.
Exactly. I would not even put it in front of a grand jury. No Indictment, No trial.LJ;1196664 wrote:Actually it's a question for the DA,
I already posted it. You know reading is fundamental mofo?Steel Valley Football;1196370 wrote:Post the law please.
I remember the RIF commercials. I recall them mostly being geared towards blacks and minorities. IIRC, they had one smart white kid there to help the other kids with the difficult stuff.rmolin73;1196988 wrote:I already posted it. You know reading is fundamental mofo?
WtfSteel Valley Football;1197030 wrote:I remember the RIF commercials. I recall them mostly being geared towards blacks and minorities. IIRC, they had one smart white kid there to help the other kids with the difficult stuff.
Rational <> delusionalSteel Valley Football;1196649 wrote:I checked the IP addresses because SVFB and FFT are posting as if they are one and the same.
/justin'd
He is under the ASSumption that he is making fun of me since I'm black. When in all actuality we are pitying him for his lack of reading comprehension skills. That and his lame "mama" jokes.FatHobbit;1197065 wrote:Wtf
unless one is a pitbull...justincredible;1196439 wrote:Stabbing two puppies would be worse.
I'm talking about the one with Ed Asner on the steps with the kids. Have you seen it or are you just wtf'ing me for no reason?FatHobbit;1197065 wrote:Wtf
I did not know you were black. You've got a white Viking on your avatar, which is racist toward vikings by the way.rmolin73;1197068 wrote:He is under the ASSumption that he is making fun of me since I'm black. When in all actuality we are pitying him for his lack of reading comprehension skills. That and his lame "mama" jokes.
I've come to the conclusion that you are very menntally challenged. Very mentally challenged.Steel Valley Football;1197384 wrote:I did not know you were black. You've got a white Viking on your avatar, which is racist toward vikings by the way.
A young Texas father who beat to death with his fists a man molesting his 5-year-old daughter will not be charged, authorities said Tuesday, as they released a dramatic 911 tape of the dad frantically pleading to send help before the man died.
LJ;1205189 wrote:Just gonna leave this right here
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/national_world/2012/06/19/dad-wont-face-charges.html
