Sheriff: Father kills man sexually abusing his daughter

[strollingbones]

i am all for the facts coming out....i think the facts will back up what the father and other family members have said...if the initial injury killed the man then its over...he had ever right to stop the man with any amount of force needed....

now my raw emotional thoughts


if that had been my child, i would have expected my husband to have killed him on the spot.....

or if it took a day, a week or a month later....if my husband refused (which i doubt) i would do it....

why? i would want my child to know if anyone dared to hurt them like this.....they would answer for it..and face the full wrath of my husband and i... i would want my child to know they are safe....and i would do anything to ensure that safety....

and i would expect to be arrested and come to trial for taking a life...simple as that

 

[Samson]

so now we can kill people for being in the process of a crime?

Killing them afterwards doen't seem to be working.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

maybe liberals just believe in the law......

“Assuming it’s true that this guy was molesting the daughter … he would then have the right to defend her and hit him enough to have him stop,” James Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, told Foxnews.com. “But you cannot summarily execute him, even though I can understand the anger he would have.”

Is Texas dad who killed man to protect his 5-year-old daughter a criminal? - CSMonitor.com

Funny, that is not what the law in Texas actually says. You would think a lawyer that practices civil rights in the state of Texas would be familiar with Texas law, or is he one of those wackos that thinks federal law trumps state law?

What the law in Texas actually says is this.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

TEX PE. CODE ANN. § 9.32 : Texas Statutes - Section 9.32: DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON

In other words, if the story that we have is accurate, the father is presumed to be justified in using whatever force he felt necessary at the moment to stop the assault. You might be able to make a case if the father had systematically beat the guy to death after tying him to a chair that it was not legal under Texas law, but you would have a hard time finding a jury that would have a problem with it.

 

[The Infidel]

i am all for the facts coming out....i think the facts will back up what the father and other family members have said...if the initial injury killed the man then its over...he had ever right to stop the man with any amount of force needed....

now my raw emotional thoughts


if that had been my child, i would have expected my husband to have killed him on the spot.....

or if it took a day, a week or a month later....if my husband refused (which i doubt) i would do it....

why? i would want my child to know if anyone dared to hurt them like this.....they would answer for it..and face the full wrath of my husband and i... i would want my child to know they are safe....and i would do anything to ensure that safety....

and i would expect to be arrested and come to trial for taking a life...simple as that

After all the crap you posted in this thread.... I would say you just did a nice flip flop there.

A double barrel roll of a flip flop




Hey Bones... I think we agree on this, I would do the same for my little darlings as well.

Im just busting your chops my friend.

 

[The Infidel]

so now we can kill people for being in the process of a crime?

Killing them afterwards doen't seem to be working.

When is the last time a dead man came back and committed another crime


Seems to work if ya ask me

 

[Katzndogz]

so now we can kill people for being in the process of a crime?

Well.

Yes. It's too late to stand around and wait until after the crime has been committed.

To impose upon the father and obligation to wait until after his daughter was raped is asking a bit too much.

One of these men was going to die the very second Dad walked into the barn. To imagine that the rapist would have stood up, said I'm sorry senor and pulled up his pants is simply delusional. The rapist was not going to stop because someone said "Stop or I'll yell Stop again" is senseless. Flores was going to defend himself and his right to take his prey. He certainly would have killed that girl's father if he could.

 

[Samson]

so now we can kill people for being in the process of a crime?

Killing them afterwards doen't seem to be working.

When is the last time a dead man came back and committed another crime


Seems to work if ya ask me

I mean that killing them AFTER they commit the crime doesn't prevent the crime in progress.....

......

Either my squid's on to tight, or your response makes my head hurt.

 

[strollingbones]

i think women are different in reaction....i do not have the strength to kill with my hands....my instinct would have been to protect my child by grabbing my child and getting her out of there....this type of thing is man stuff.....i would have gotten my child and then called my man.....men react with strength that women do not have

 

[Ernie S.]

i wonder what was more traumatic to the child...the abuse or watching her father kill a man?

She at least knows her daddy has the balls to defend her, so she's likely in better shape than if no one had acted.

 

[tigerbob]

maybe liberals just believe in the law......

“Assuming it’s true that this guy was molesting the daughter … he would then have the right to defend her and hit him enough to have him stop,” James Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, told Foxnews.com. “But you cannot summarily execute him, even though I can understand the anger he would have.”

Is Texas dad who killed man to protect his 5-year-old daughter a criminal? - CSMonitor.com

Funny, that is not what the law in Texas actually says. You would think a lawyer that practices civil rights in the state of Texas would be familiar with Texas law, or is he one of those wackos that thinks federal law trumps state law?

What the law in Texas actually says is this.

(a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The actor's belief under Subsection (a)(2) that the deadly force was immediately necessary as described by that subdivision is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the deadly force was used:
(A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor's occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment;
(B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor from the actor's habitation, vehicle, or place of business or employment; or
(C) was committing or attempting to commit an offense described by Subsection (a)(2)(B);
(2) did not provoke the person against whom the force was used; and
(3) was not otherwise engaged in criminal activity, other than a Class C misdemeanor that is a violation of a law or ordinance regulating traffic at the time the force was used.
(c) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the deadly force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the deadly force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the deadly force is used is not required to retreat before using deadly force as described by this section.
(d) For purposes of Subsection (a)(2), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (c) reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

TEX PE. CODE ANN. § 9.32 : Texas Statutes - Section 9.32: DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON

In other words, if the story that we have is accurate, the father is presumed to be justified in using whatever force he felt necessary at the moment to stop the assault. You might be able to make a case if the father had systematically beat the guy to death after tying him to a chair that it was not legal under Texas law, but you would have a hard time finding a jury that would have a problem with it.

Well, that seems pretty clear to me.

 

[strollingbones]

i have not flip flopped at all.....i believe in the legal system.....you have to....


he needs to be processed just like anyone else who killed someone....rarely is anyone given a walk with the trial...

we had a kid kill his stepfather for beating his preggie mother...he was maybe 13......it was heartbreaking......the facts stood for themselves...he was beating the boys mom and the boy stopped him....the kid went thru the system...sad as it was to watch...he was freed....and his name was cleared......having one's name cleared should carry some weight

 

[strollingbones]

why would you even think i would allow my child or any other child to be harmed in my presence?

 

[Ernie S.]

Let's put it this way: a father saved his daughter from being raped and the pedophile died as a result of the confrontation.

And the last time I looked, our criminal justice system doesn't impose the death penalty for rape.

Such a shame.

 

[strollingbones]

but again its a slippery slope when one has a dead body and no one accounts for it.

 

[strollingbones]

Let's put it this way: a father saved his daughter from being raped and the pedophile died as a result of the confrontation.

And the last time I looked, our criminal justice system doesn't impose the death penalty for rape.

Such a shame.

no ernie its not a shame......then rapist would kill their victims....no reason not too....

do you not get that?

 

[Ernie S.]

i wonder what was more traumatic to the child...the abuse or watching her father kill a man?

Our John Wayne machos here are far less concerned about the welfare of the child than they are about getting off on the fact that someone killed a bad guy with his bare hands.

No daughters, I take it, George.
If it makes you feel better, I would have shot him, if armed, or more likely eviscerated him. I ALWAYS carry a knife.

 

[Katzndogz]

i think women are different in reaction....i do not have the strength to kill with my hands....my instinct would have been to protect my child by grabbing my child and getting her out of there....this type of thing is man stuff.....i would have gotten my child and then called my man.....men react with strength that women do not have

Nonsense. Don't make excuses for your weakness.

I cringe when women cower. Stamp on his nose if nothing else. Kick him in the temple. Gouge out his eyes. Twist his dick off and shove it down his throat.

Didn't a woman do that a couple of weeks ago?????

You would not have been able to grab your child and get out of there. Do you honestly think a rapist would simply let you walk off with his intended victim?

 

[Katzndogz]

And the last time I looked, our criminal justice system doesn't impose the death penalty for rape.

Such a shame.

no ernie its not a shame......then rapist would kill their victims....no reason not too....

do you not get that?

No reason to leave them alive to identify them anyway. Do you think that Flores didn't intend to kill that little girl once he raped her? He was just having fun. No harm done. That child was dead the second he got a gleam in his eye. Only her father's quick action saved her life.

Haven't the bodies of dead children taught you anything?

 

[Samson]

i wonder what was more traumatic to the child...the abuse or watching her father kill a man?

Our John Wayne machos here are far less concerned about the welfare of the child than they are about getting off on the fact that someone killed a bad guy with his bare hands.

No daughters, I take it, George.
If it makes you feel better, I would have shot him, if armed, or more likely eviscerated him. I ALWAYS carry a knife.

Evisceration isn't terribly efficient.

 

[Ernie S.]

but again its a slippery slope when one has a dead body and no one accounts for it.

In this case, the only one accountable for this man's death is himself. HE started the chain of events. The law provides for the use of deadly force in this instance. The RAPIST was held accountable; justifiably so.