Can there ever be such a thing as justified homicide?

[Anonymous]

In 2012, a call came in from a 24 year old rancher and father, to 9-11 from an isolated ranch in Shiner TX. He told 9-11:

I need an ambulance. This guy was raping my daughter and I don't know what to do"

Earlier a witness had seen the alleged rapist, a man named Jesus Flores, forcibly carrying the girl into a secluded area. The father, hearing his daughers screams, followed the sounds only to discover Flores and his daughter, both with underwear down, and Flores in the process of raping her. The father then proceeded to, well, beat the hell out of him, striking him repeatedly in the head and neck. On his 9-11 call he is also recorded as saying:

"Come on! This guy is going to die on me! I don't know what to do."

Flores eventually died, and the case was called into court as a prospective homicide, but no charges were ever filed and the father was set free. People everywhere hailed this father as a hero, many saying, they would have done the same if not worse to this guy. Others were outraged that no charges were filed because they felt like vigilanty style justice, is not justice and we cannot as a society allow people to take the law into their own hands. However, in Texas, deadly force is authorized and justified in order to stop an aggravated sexual assault or sexual assault and in this case, all evidence proved that the father had killed Flores in the process of the rape happening.

This particular case threw me because I consider myself to be a person that stands by the law, thinks an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind, and would much rather criminals rot in jail for the rest of their miserable lives rather than a death penalty. However, even without having kids myself (though I have professionally worked with kids most of my career), I felt without a doubt in my mind that this father was justified in what he did even if perhaps he had not intended to kill Flores. As a parent it is an unspoken oath you take to defend and protect your children from harm no matter how old or young they may be. I just can't see in that situation what other course of action the father could have taken to protect his daughter (meaning, beating the guy up). However, if the case had been that the father found out after the fact that Flores had raped his daughter, then drove to his house and shot him to death, I think the public may have viewed this a bit differently, but in both cases, the father did or would have taken the law into his own hands.

So in your opinion, can there be such thing as justified homicide. Why or how? Hearing of this case, what do you think...should he have gone to jail or have been set free regardless of what actually happened in the case.

[RationalMale]

You're kinda like Batman, I suppose. You think killing is absolutely wrong. Yet what is worse?

Would Batman killing the Joker have been the worse crime... or was letting the Joker live to kill, torture, and maim more and more people the greater crime?

There absolutely is such thing as justified homicide. This is one of the most basic human rights--the right to fight to stay alive. If another person is going to injure, rape, or kill you, you have every right to fight to protect yourself. "The Law" is nothing more than an agreement among men to follow a set of rules for the benefit of all. If "the law" forbids people from protecting themselves or their loved ones from evil attack, then it is their right, their duty, to overthrow such government and secure new guards for the future.

[myTake Owner]

Did you read the ENTIRE take? Clearly, not.

[RationalLioness]

I absolutely think there are justifiable homocides. Many cops use that excuse and many of them are valid in my opinion. Just not the recent ones.

Also, people defending their properties from burglars is another one. In Oklahoma, you are allowed to shoot someone if they trespass on your property.

[myTake Owner]

That's an unfortunate situation I know all too well. Years back my moms friends dad shot and killed what he thought was an intruder breaking in, and it turned out to be his daughters boyfriend trying to sneak into the window. He was never convicted, but the scars for everyone are very real.

[Dave_the_Dude]

I feel similar to you about the rule of law and handling things in a civil manner as much as humanly possible. At the same time, I understand people are human, and when you see someone you love being harmed in that sort of way instinct takes over.

What was he supposed to do? Allow the man to continue raping his daughter and just say "Hey man before you go hold on I need to have the police come talk to you"?

Imagine your mother was being beaten in front of you. Would you risk her being beaten to death while you wait for the police, or would you intervene to protect her? Well that's what this man did. He was protecting a loved one, and accidentally killed the man in the process.

Yes I feel in this sort of extreme circumstance, his actions were justified. If he had heard about the rape after the fact, then tracked down the rapist and murdered him in cold-blood, that would be a different story.

[myTake Owner]

I asked someone further down is the only difference, do you think, between this being a justifiable homicide and illegal one, a few minutes, seconds. If the child had just been raped and the father found out and then ran out after the guy intending to beat the crap out of him and ended up killing him---should he be sentenced to jail for that? Is the only reason this is justice, a few seconds difference in time?

[Dave_the_Dude]

Basically, yes.

In one case you're acting to protect someone, in the other you're acting for revenge.

Once you go past acting purely out of defense, you're taking justice into your own hands, which disrupts the rule of law.

[Jade4]

I think you're "I'd it had been a case of" example is the point. It sounds like he set out to beat the crap out of the guy to get him to stop and not come back, which is reinforced by the 911 call. That's not murder. He didn't wake up intending to kill the guy. It happened as a result of circumstances. I'd consider this an extension of self defence. That is, self defence of your child. Similar to defending an attack on your person in ta bar and having the guy die, not planned murder.

That's very different to setting out to bludgeon to death you child's boyfriend because you don't like him.

Therefore I would say no, planning to murdet someone is not ok. However this is not the case here.

[myTake Owner]

Someone explained the technical legal differences further down, but there are so many people who read this case and the law agrees, that agreed this parent did the right thing and/or they would have done the same if not more to protect the child, but as in another example I gave, if the child told her father she'd been raped, and the father had gone and found the man and killed him, I wonder... is the general consensus that the father can only be justified in the moment the crime is happening? If the crime had happened and literally five minutes later the father found the rapist---how would that murder be any more or less justified then the exact heat of the moment? Is the only real difference between justified and illegal 30 seconds, a minute?

[Jade4]

Since the legal definition is different in each case or country I was really talking an opinion not law. I think it's the intent of the person that matters

[QuestionMan]

Glad the court ruled in his favour. I am an ardent supporter of the death penalty since I believe there are people that could never be rehabilitated. These include serial killers, rapists, and pedophiles.

In the case of the father he is not a threat to society so I see no reason for him to be locked away. As for the rapist if he survived putting him in prison would not have resolved the issue. There are a lot of repeat offenders in the US penal system and even if this happened in Norway and the rapist was sent to one of the best rehabilitation centres in the world, the stigma would always remain.

[myTake Owner]

I agree that I don't think most thought the father was a threat to society, but what if he hadn't walked in on them and had found out later and then gone to kill the man? The court only really supports an immediate threat, otherwise its considered pre-meditated murder. Is there a line that cannot be crossed there?

[QuestionMan]

Yes, if it's pre-meditated it shows that a person is capable of murder and could be a threat to society. This type of person would have serious issues that would need resolving. In this case the girl would have to go to the police to report the rape.

[myTake Owner]

That's really where the question came about... everyone that I've talked to generally has said in the actual situation, that the father did the right thing and many have said, they would have intentionally beaten him up to kill him, but when asked, what if the daughter told him and then drove over to kill him, people change their stories and he's now dangerous. In both the real and the hypothetical, the players are the same, the action is the same, but people have totally different opinions. And even supposing in the original that having seen what was happening the man had without a doubt intended to kill the rapist, would that have changed minds?

[QuestionMan]

When it's in the moment even if the dad was thinking of killing the rapist it was due to extreme anger and adrenaline felt at that point in time. This is called third degree murder.

First degree murder is premeditated, and anyone that truly wants to murder someone that much is a threat to society.

[jacquesvol]

"Earlier a witness had seen the alleged rapist, a man named Jesus Flores, *forcibly carrying the girl into a secluded area.* "

That would not be murder but defense of a person in danger: justified manslaughter.

"However, if the case had been that the father found out after the fact that Flores had raped his daughter, then drove to his house and shot him to death": first degree murder.

criminal.findlaw.com/.../...e-murder-overview.html

[myTake Owner]

Do you have any thoughts regarding the question at hand?

[jacquesvol]

Quite simple.
Killing to defend someone can be justified.
Killing to avenge *not*.

[myTake Owner]

Thanks for your viewpoint.

[LittleSally]

I think what he did was more than fine. In fact it was needed - obviously physically needed!
I don't understand people who say that no one deserves to die... People who say that have had the cushiest lives guarded and protected from everything - every second of their lives.

[nalaa]

Illegal Homicide falls in two categories murder and manslaughter. The term homicide in a legal context is used often synchronously with murder, which clearly doesn't apply here, which is probably while charges weren't filed/

self defense, like in this case it not illegal homicide and why should it be? That'd be insane. So ya there is justified homicide, no doubt about it
Most laws do know other legal exception for homicide for example executions, or soldiers at war

[Fugue]

Of course there is, in cases such as self defense. The case you mentioned was not self defense so I don't think it's justified. At the same time, you have to use judgment and call it a crime of passion and give the accused leniency. Too many people get put in prison for stupid reasons, already. But giving people an open license to be judge, jury and executioner is not a good thing.

[Noxifer626]

No homicide is justifiable. Murder is murder, and there are plenty of other alternatives. Threats, physically restraining the assailant, etc. I do believe this man should get a reduced sentence, but nothing short of complete self defence warrants to let a murderer go unpunished.
Minors are special. Someone below 18 years of age who commits murder should be punished, yes. But in a special institution, not a jail.

[Bandgal]

You believe that there are other alternatives but sometimes the only thing you can do is kill the person. He was defending his daughter and then probably after the fact he was defending himself because the rapist would've most likely fought back and he probably would've killed him because he witnessed the rape. Tell me what he was supposed to do. What other alternative did he have really?

[Noxifer626]

Knock him out and tie him up.

[myTake Owner]

@Noxifer626. Murder isn't murder, but rather dead is dead. Cops/Soliders, they "murder" people all the time, but we don't classify it as such if it is justified under the law to protect other people. In this case, the father was only intending to beat the man up, but ended up killing him in what is viewed under TX law as in defense of his young daughter, hence no charges were ever filed. They didn't just 'let him off.' Legally what he did was protected under the law.

[Noxifer626]

I believe murder itself is immoral. Wether commited by a gangster, a soldier or a cop, the taking of life is still the taking of life.
War has never created peace.

[myTake Owner]

Just curious. If the crazed gunman is coming at you, about to kill you, and a cop shoots him dead, you still think that's wrong or that he should have just let the guy kill you?

[Noxifer626]

Shoot him in the leg. Less chances of kiling him.

[KitKatKo]

A police officer will never aim for the leg. All weapons-trained people know to aim for the largest target, i. e. the torso.

Also, what makes you think that shooting a crazed gunman in the leg is going to save you? He still has a grip on the gun, and every opportunity to kill.

[Noxifer626]

Well, I'm not going to stand there like a moron.
Obviously you have to run.

[Dave_the_Dude]

You realize the murder wasn't intentional, and your idea of "knock him out and tie him up" is flawed.

There's no difference between the amount of force needed to knock someone unconscious and the amount of force needed to kill someone. Once you've hit someone hard enough to knock them out, it's up to the fates to decide whether or not they live. That's why professional fighters die in the ring from time to time. The fighters aren't going above and beyond what's necessary in order to kill their opponents, it's just that a knockout is potentially lethal no matter what.

[Noxifer626]

There were other options even more safe than that. Like simply scaring him off, or breaking one of his legs.

[myTake Owner]

@Noxifer626, my example to you was a crazed gunman coming at you or aiming for you with a police offer aimed and ready to fire to protect you. If the gunman has a gun he has the ability to shoot and kill you even if you run, and an officer is not going to aim for the leg because the gunman is a gunman, with a gun. People already high on their own adrenaline have been known to ignore such pains and do incredible things they wouldn't normally be able to do. I think a firm distinction should be drawn between shooting with the intention of protecting another life, and shooting to kill without provocation or with malicious intent. As long as there are people who ignore 'thou shall not kill,' and/or the laws intended to protect mankind, then we will always need people like police officers or citizens protecting their own right to life.

[Dave_the_Dude]

Again, it's not like the man said to himself "I'm going to kill this guy for what he's doing" He simply saw his daughter being attacked, and acted to protect her. He even tried getting the guy medical assistance afterwards because he didn't want the man's life on his conscience. The death was accidental, not premeditated.

I can tell you've never actually been in a real physical conflict because it isn't as simple as "Just breaking their legs". Obviously the rapist is going to defend himself. He's not gonna to sit there peacefully while you crack his fibula. You land the hits you can, and they aren't always the ones you want.

[Noxifer626]

@Take Owner In that extreme case, I do believe that cop should shoot him.
But of course, he would get reprimanded for doing so.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude If he could break his neck, then he could break his leg.

[Dave_the_Dude]

That's not necessarily true, and it doesn't say exactly what killed the rapist. I'd venture to assume it was blunt force trauma and not a broken neck though. Breaking someone's neck in a fight is extremely hard. It isn't like they show in the movies where you just kinda twist their head a bit.

Breaking someone's legs is also extremely difficult, as it requires throwing kicks which put you off-balance. Unless you're a trained martial artists, you're going be relying on your fists, making the head and chest the easiest targets. This man wasn't Bruce Lee. He was just some dude put in an extreme situation.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude It says on the take that the father repeteadly struck the rapist in the head and neck. I suppose that if he could do that, he could have subdued that guy without killing him. If you can throw a rock 20 feet away, you can throw it 10 feet away.

[Dave_the_Dude]

Again, you're just theorizing about something you know nothing about.

I, on the other hand, have actually fought numerous times.

Punching someone is much much easier than physically restraining them. Physically restraining someone requires completely overpowering them, punching them doesn't. Like I said earlier, one blow to the head is all it takes to kill someone.

One blow to the neck or chest is also potentially lethal, as you can crush their windpipe or collapse their lungs if you hit the right spot.

Also, in this situation, once you start swinging, you can't stop until you're sure the other person is unconscious, which runs the risk of killing them. Doing otherwise is risking giving the other person a chance to fight back and potentially kill you instead.

[Dave_the_Dude]

Also, in case you don't believe me about a punch to the chest being lethal, you know it as "having the wind knocked out of you" and it has the potential of collapsing your lungs and killing you via asphyxiation.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude Even safer option: Don't start fighting, simply threaten him so he runs away. Then call the police.

[Dave_the_Dude]

Humans are extremely fragile creatures. The amount of ways you can be accidentally killed in a fight are literally infinite. I can totally understand how this guy could have set out to stop this man from harming his daughter, and accidentally murdered him instead.

That's why you should avoid fighting at all costs, unless absolutely necessary to protect yourself or your family. In this case, he was just doing what any of us would have have done.

Imagine your mother was being beaten in front of you. Would you risk her being beaten to death while you wait for the police, or would you intervene to protect her? Well that's what this man did. He was protecting a loved one, and accidentally killed the man in the process.

[Dave_the_Dude]

Suppose he doesn't run away... He knows you're going to call the police and doesn't want to spend the next two decades in prison, and he attacks you.

What do you do then?

Keep in mind giving someone the first punch is giving them a huge advantage.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude ¿If my mother was being hit? Grab a knife and threaten the person, not actually fighting them.

[Dave_the_Dude]

Okay but like I said what if they attack you after that.

You have no guarantee they're going to run. They may very well decide you don't have the balls to cut them and fight you instead.

[Dave_the_Dude]

I understand where you're coming from kid, and on an ideological level I agree with you. Taking another person's life is an atrocious thing.

What I'm trying to explain is that life isn't clear cut black and white. Sometimes you're forced into positions where you need to make on the fly decisions, and those decisions carry risks.

No, killing someone isn't the ideal situation. It can be something justifiable under extreme circumstances though.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude There are plenty of things that harm people but don't kill them. Stabbing through the hand, slashing the eyes. If you stab someone through the stomach it takes 15 minutes for them to die. Reasonably long enough for the police to get there and save his life.

[Dave_the_Dude]

Say you slash for the eyes, miss, and cut their throat instead.

Once you start swinging a knife around, you don't know what's going to happen next.

Like I said earlier, in an actual fight the hits that land are necessarily the ones you wanted. That's how I can tell you've never actually fought. You don't understand that things in reality don't play out as perfectly clean as they do in your head.

[myTake Owner]

@Noxifer626... Dave's point, and I would agree... those are not always options. We want to hope that they are, but a knife is not going to stop someone's bullets. In principal we all deserve to live. Yes. That is understood, however, if you decide that you are going to try to take my life, I have a right to protect my right to live in however that is possible. If it takes an officer with a gun, a punch, a knife if I have it etc... but just because I stab someone, doesn't mean they won't later die from infection or what if you hit a major artery. No means of defending or intentionally harming someone guarantees that they will survive.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude In that case, it is unwilling homicide and I will receive a reduced sentence.

[Dave_the_Dude]

The take owner basically just stated my point.

There's no way of defending yourself that doesn't carry the potential of accidentally killing someone.

Even the supposed "non-lethal" alternatives to firearms such as bean bag guns can kill you. You can pepper spray someone, and when they turn to run, they trip and fall crack their head open on the ground.

I made a post earlier in this conversation about humans being extremely fragile, and I meant it. Every single person alive right now is here via sheer luck. You may not know it, but you've come close to dying yourself many times in your life, and you will again before its all said and done.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude But you can reduce the chances. And you should.
And you should still get punished for murder, wether intentional or not.

[Dave_the_Dude]

I assure you, if you were actually facing prison time and understood how horrible really is, you wouldn't be so quick to condemn yourself to it.

If you gave me the choice between spending 10+ years in prison, and being dead, I'd choose death.

In a way, this man did the rapist a favor.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude Murder is murder. Similar to other crimes, such as rape, the circumstances are irrelevant at best.

[Dave_the_Dude]

We're just going to have to agree to disagree.

You're young, and haven't learned the world isn't broken down into black and white, right and wrong.

Life is a myriad of greyish hues. You will eventually need to make decisions that on paper conflict with your ideals, because that's what survival requires.

Once you're older, I promise you'll understand.

[myTake Owner]

@Noxifer626, you desire to punish people who have defended their own right to live? Who have protected those who are in harms way? Where does this logic end? Do you punish the doctor who in an attempt to save your life, accidentally nicks the wrong vein? Do you send the toddler to prison who accidentally finds a knife and cuts someone and they bleed to death? As you have agreed, there is no 100% safe way in which to defend ones person. Punishing someone for actually saving a life, especially if its their own, negates the very statement that everyone should be allowed the opportunity to live.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude If you want to be the type of person who betrays everything they believe in for a bit of money, or love, or any other of those false goals society puts in front of us to distract people from what really matters, go ahead. You're the reason the world sucks. And what's worse, you're doing nothing to fix it. But I don't want to be that.

@Take Owner Mala praxis charges for the doctor, actually. Nothing for the toddler because he is a toddler. Rather, punish the surviving parent (if any) for negligence. Reduced sentences for the others on the basis of unwilling murder.

[Dave_the_Dude]

"Murder is murder. Similar to other crimes, such as rape, the circumstances are irrelevant at best."

Except there are no circumstances that can lead to you accidentally raping someone or stealing from them.

Those crimes require you having the intent to commit them in order to be possible. Other people's property doesn't just jump into your pockets. Your penis doesn't just accidentally fall into a woman's vagina. It's very possible to accidentally kill someone though while doing something completely justifiable. For that reason, there needs to be allowances made in extreme circumstances.

[Dave_the_Dude]

"If you want to be the type of person who betrays everything they believe in for a bit of money, or love, or any other of those false goals society puts in front of us to distract people from what really matters, go ahead."

Again, you're just too young to have been put into a position where you need to make tough decisions, and that's understandable. Eventually, you will be put into a spot where you need to do something the conflicts with your ideals not for money or love, but to continue your own existence or protect someone you love.

Just for example: Once upon a time I was forced with the choice of pulling the plug on my father's life support, or force him to continue living with massive brain damage and constant extreme pain. It wasn't an easy choice, and from your point of view you'd probably think I was wrong for telling to doctors to let my father die. It was a choice I made with his best interest at heart though, and it wasn't easy.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude I'm not saying equal punishment. Just punishment.

[Dave_the_Dude]

"Mala praxis charges for the doctor, actually. Nothing for the toddler because he is a toddler. Rather, punish the surviving parent (if any) for negligence. Reduced sentences for the others on the basis of unwilling murder."

Its spelled malpractice, and doctors don't go to prison for it.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude Murder is wrong, not death itself.

[Dave_the_Dude]

The take owner raises a good point.

Saying everyone has a right to life, and then saying someone should be punished for defending their own life, is a contradiction.

If I have a right to live, and I accidentally kill someone while defending myself, either I have a right to be alive and don't deserve to be punished for protecting it, or I don't have that right and I deserve to be punished.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude Mala praxis is the original latin.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude You are not being punished for defending your life, but for murder.

[Dave_the_Dude]

Also, if your case is that the law is the law and should be upheld, there is legally such a thing as justifiable homicide.

Look up castle law. You have a right to defend yourself. The only grey area is whether you have to attempt escape before resorting to violence or not, which is different from state to state.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude That's not what I'm saying.

[Dave_the_Dude]

"You are not being punished for defending your life, but for murder."

Murder committed accidentally in the course of defending my own life.

Again, you're contradicting yourself. Either I have a right to defend my life, or I don't. It's already been established that there is no such thing as a method of self defense that doesn't carry the risk of potentially killing someone. If you know of one, you've officially outsmarted every single human being to ever exist. Either I take that risk and defend myself, or I don't take that risk and I die.

Like I said, you're simply too young to understand that the world isn't a perfect place. Your ideals don't match up to the necessities of survival.

I was once much like you, and the words used to describe at are "young and naive".

You may disagree with me, and get self-righteous about it all you want. One day, you will understand what I'm saying to you though. Trust me.

[Dave_the_Dude]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide

I understand where you're coming from. You're the one who isn't seeing the other side of the aisle.

[Dave_the_Dude]

What exactly is your point then?

I'm getting fed up with this because its getting to the point where you seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude You have a right to defend yourself. You do not have a right to murder. Hence, you will get a lower sentence in jail. The idea is to make murder itself so abhorrent in a few centuries nobody would ever dream of commiting it.
PS: When a debate gets to the point of someone assuming everything about me without actually knowing me I have no other option but to tell you to go fuck yourself.

[Dave_the_Dude]

"You have a right to defend yourself. You do not have a right to murder"

It's possible for the two acts to be one and the same.

For example, I defend myself by spraying someone with pepper spray, that person is blinded, can't see where he's walking, falls over and hits his head on the ground. He is now dead as a result of my actions, which technically constitutes homicide, or at the very least manslaughter. All I did was defend myself in what I considered the least lethal manner possible.

I don't need to assume you're young and naive because the things you say evidence it. People who cling to their ideals without ever budging simply do not understand how the world works.

You've never actually been in a fight, and I don't mean a fight at school with one of your buddies over some shit talking that occurred. I mean a straight up "If I don't defend myself, I may die" fight. If you had, you'd know how impossible it is to insure the other man's safety.

[Dave_the_Dude]

" The idea is to make murder itself so abhorrent in a few centuries nobody would ever dream of commiting it."

This is evidence of your naivete. This is not a thing that will ever happen.

If the threat of prison deterred criminals, there would be no burglars, rapists, drug dealers, or kidnappers.

Prison has existed for thousands of years, and criminals still exist. For as long as there are laws, there are people who will be willing to risk breaking them.

Defending your own life, should not, and is not, against the law. Whether you agree with it or not, that's just how society has mutually agreed things should be long before you or I existed.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude If they are the same, then you will receive a reduced sentence. ¿How hard to understand is that?

No, people who hold true to their ideals are brave and worthy of respect, even if you don't agree with them. People who betray their ideals or simply don't have them are little more than animals and don't deserve my contempt.

Some oncologists have never had cancer. Thus, they cannot diagnose it.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude That is because capitalism has created abominable double standards regarding murder and the law. Someone robbing you is bad, but a CEO earning more in a hour than his/her employees make in a year is perfectly okay.

[Dave_the_Dude]

"Some oncologists have never had cancer. Thus, they cannot diagnose it

This is a straw man argument. Diagnosing a disease is different from what we're discussing.

And no, you're being naive, you just don't know it. That's the cruel irony of naivete.

I assure you, I was very much like you when I was a teen. Life is a harsh teacher, and you will learn the point I'm trying to make some day. Trust me.

"If they are the same, then you will receive a reduced sentence. ¿How hard to understand is that?"

Again, you just don't understand how horrible prison really is. If I'm to receive any sentence, the person I am now is essentially dead anyway. Prison time fundamentally and permanently alters who you are. The things you think, the way you act, all get shaped by the system. It's unavoidable

There are few fates in this world worse than death, and prison is one of them. You're discussing issues you have no understanding of, and I'm tired of trying to explain to you how the world works.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude Well, I'm tired of you being a paternalistic asshole and I'm not complaining.

[Dave_the_Dude]

"That is because capitalism has created abominable double standards regarding murder and the law. Someone robbing you is bad, but a CEO earning more in a hour than his/her employees make in a year is perfectly okay."

These are two completely different issues, and castle law has existed since roman times. It isn't a modern convention.

[Noxifer626]

@Dave_the_Dude No, it's one and the same. Like saying economy and war are unrelated. And capitalism has existed since the age of stone tools.

[Dave_the_Dude]

It's rather arrogant of you to speak to me as if you've somehow figured out more to life when you haven't even begun to live it yet.

I know what it's like to be 15 and idealistic.

Do you know what it's like to be 28 and experienced in caring for yourself and your loved ones?

Perhaps you should learn to take advice from your elders. We've been doing this a lot longer than you have.

Your attitude will get you hurt, and you will learn the hard way that you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are. You don't believe me now though. In you're head, you're primed to take the world by storm and change the way all of us sheeple think.

Good luck with that. Contact me in 13 years. Tell me how it worked out for you. I'll be waiting to say I told you so.

[Dave_the_Dude]

Murder in self defense, and the inequality between the 99% and the 1%, are two completely unrelated issues.

Now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.

I'll let you have the last word buddo.

[myTake Owner]

I don't normally discount the youth, because I feel they often have new and fresh ideas and things to teach 'us old fogies,' but in this case, once you start implying that we somehow live in a fair world where everyone is equal therefore equal rules should and do apply to everyone and in every situation... I have to pull the age card as well. Life has many many grey areas, but those don't necessarily mean that someone has to be getting away with something or in the wrong to fill in those gaps. I mean is jay walking something you shouldn't do because you may get hit running across the street if the driver doesn't see you... but yet, if you do it to push a kid out of the way to save his life... well, grey area. If only we could meet up in about a decade. I too would be curious to see if your viewpoints have changed.

[Noxifer626]

@Take Owner You are completely missing my point.

[myTake Owner]

... and what point is that?

[Noxifer626]

@Take Owner Unwilling murder is still murder, but you get a reduced sentence.

[Dave_the_Dude]

And our point is that life isn't that simple.

You really have no idea how harsh any amount of time in prison is, even a reduced sentence, or how emotionally traumatic it is for a person, which is why you're so quick to say all people who commit murder in self defense should be sent there.

Again, there is a grey area to life that you will eventually discover. I'm gonna have to disagree with the take owner when she says "I'd like to see if your views have changed". I personally feel that once you're out on your own, and understand the raw amount of emotion involved in having a child, and you see the effects going to prison has on someone close to you, you'll understand that any father would have reacted the same as this man did and he doesn't deserve to be punished for it.

Until then, we simply see the world through two different lenses and nothing anyone says to you will change that.

[myTake Owner]

@Dave, are you saying you are agreeing or disagreeing with my point b/c what you've written is in agreement but you're saying you disagree.

@Noxifer626 once again, murder is not murder. If I must get technical, murder as defined by the dictionary and the law is, "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." A police officer killing someone in defense of another without intent to kill, is not murder and is considered lawful as is the death of the man in my take. The father intended to harm, not kill, as evidenced by 9-1-1 call seeking assistance. This is why I said to you originally, "death is death," as opposed to "murder is murder" because they are not one in the same. You're not even considering the ramifications of incarcerating every military/police/person who kills in self defense. You going to pay for that, and what about the child, she's been raped and now her father goes to jail. If every cop went to jail, who would be patrolling our streets exactly?

[Noxifer626]

@Take Owner Soldiers shouldn't be incarcerated because armies are innecesary.
Cops shouldn't be incarcerated, only reprimanded.

[myTake Owner]

Oh do let me go on. We'd need thousands more jails, more lawyers, more courts. And police don't tend to re-hire those with a criminal record, so now cops can't do their jobs and not to many people will hire those in general with a criminal record. So your solution is to break up families, waste tax payer money, destroy the environment with more land being taken up for these jails and court houses needed... and all for what exactly. Have you seen our legal system and how "great it works" these days, and that's for the mostly truly guilty. How in the world would you ever think this is a viable solution to someone killing someone in the defense of self or others?

[Noxifer626]

@Take Owner Reprimanded, not jailed. That is, just writing on a paper that they fucked up. Then they continue to do their job. It's symbolic.

[myTake Owner]

I have family and friends who are officers, and if you think for one minute cops celebrate having to take a life, you have no idea what being a cop is about. By definition their job is largely to protect the public from harm and when they do shoot, they do everything they can to get those people to the hospital so they can face further justice. They don't stand over bodies and watch them die! To then say to said officer that I'm writing you up, would be ridiculous. Whenever an officer has to fire his gun on someone, they have to file reports, often go for a Psych evaluation, and take time off if need be because it isn't something they love to do. It is serious, taking any life. You don't seem to grasp that because you continue to insist they should be punished or reprimanded for trying to protect themselves or others. This is where growing up, having a family, experiencing the bad of the world wakes you up to the realities of this world.

[myTake Owner]

And no matter what country you hail from, you are the beneficiary of one or more wars. The laws we have, the freedoms we have, the places we are allowed to go wherever you are or globally, people fought for that and to spit on that and say everything could be solved simply by perhaps having a conversation is not in league with the world we live in. Look at ISIS. You think they are sitting down with the UN having conversations on peace. No, they are driving by towns and blowing women and children away because they feel like it and they want power.

[Dave_the_Dude]

Meh I was saying I don't think it's an "if", but a definite thing that will happen.

[KitKatKo]

I do think, in certain cases, homicide can be justified, yes. He didn't set out to kill anyone, only to defend his daughter from a horrifying and traumatic fate. I'm rather glad that he wasn't sentenced.

[Bonnie12I27I12]

yes of course. if you choose to harm someone (especially in such a horrible way) then you deserve whatever happens to you unless what you did was an accident of course. you can't "accidentally" rape someone.

[Drast]

If an individual poses a threat to me or my family, I could care less what the law considers justified. I would rather sit in prison then live with a dead family member on my conscious. In my mind if they lose a threat it is justified.

[Drast]

Pose*

[myTake Owner]

thanks for your viewpoint

[thatkaruguy]

of course in the same situation the best mercy i can give him is him to be crippled in a bed for the rest of his life

[DaddyRollingStone]

Some motherfucker was raping his daughter so he beat him to death, I don't see why the father should be punished for protecting his daughter.

If someone did that to my daughter I'd finish him off with a brick and serve the time, it's worth it.

[John_Doesnt]

I would have done worse to a guy that I found raped my daughter. He did nothing wrong and that homicide/torture was perfectly justified.
Vigilante schmigilante.

[chuppachup]

I believe some homicides can be justified. The only people who should be charged and put in jail for life are people who kill for a more sinister reason

[Sam19XX]

That is right. He doesn't deserves to be jailed or something. People must know that sometimes emotions can be dominant over the mind.

[ThatBritishLad]

The genocide of the Batarians was justified in Mass Effect. Not that they let you live it down, the tossers.

[Anonymous]

I don't know but I'd be pretty angry with god if Jesus was raping my daughter.