It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Indiana Father Kills Sex Offender Who Broke Into Home

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 08:41 PM
reply to post by earthman4

Earthman, The sexual predator was committing several felonies.
1. Failure to register
2. Absconding with a warrant out for his arrest
3. Breaking and entering occupied home (at 3:00am)
4. His intent was clear.
5. He was subdued by the home owner who had directed someone in the home to call authorities.
6. The homeowner and his family had a legal right to be in the house.
7. The intruder had no legal right to be in the house.
8. The intruder was struggling to free and flee and this necessitated the homeowner to apply greater force to subdue.
9. In the application of force the intruder lost his life.
10. I applaud the homeowner for introducing on the job injury and possible death for these career criminals.
My $0.02

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 08:43 PM
I don't support the death penalty, but when someone is in your home i think you have every right to kill them if they pose a threat. I salute the father for having the balls to defend his family. I wish it could be like this in the UK. Why is it so hard to accept that if somene invades your home then all bets should be off?

Oh well, one less sick piece of trash in this world can only be a good thing.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 08:55 PM
To the poster who said that most molesters were molested themselves.
You sound like a social worker.
More women are molested as little girls that men are molested as little boys.
Therefore more women should be adult child molesters than men adult molesters.
Do you see the idiocy of your position?
Lets suppose that forty five adult women out of one hundred were molested as girls.
And further that 15 percent of adult men were molested.
Then why are the adult molesters 95% male.
I like the idea of castle doctrine laws that introduce the possibility of injury and even death into the job descriptions of career criminals. Lets hear it for deterrence.

In spite of overwhelming social pressure to stop molesting and raping the intruder attempted it and got what he deserved. He is the one person who choose to be in that house illegally.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 09:17 PM

Originally posted by earthman4
I think death is too strong a punishment for the crime. I don't think the homeowner should be charged but he should be ashamed. I bet the sex offender got caught taking a leak in an alley. Maybe he was lost. Maybe he was going to rape. His crime was trespassing. You can't deal a death penalty until they commit the crime. I know it seems wrong but it is just.

He was naked in the girls bedroom; there is absolutely no rationalizing a possible case, legal or moral, against the father. You should be ashamed for blaming this man rather than applauding him. A naked man in a 17 year old's bedroom is not lost, he was not taking a leak in the alley he intended to molest, rape, or worse.

Your position doesn't seem wrong, it is wrong.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 09:18 PM
reply to post by mybigunit

Maybe if they'd whacked him once or twice and not "beaten the hell out of him" it'd be ok.

Having someone break into your house does not give you a legal, nor IMO a moral right to inflict injury or pain for your own emotional satisfaction, only to protect your posessions and safety. Once the guy was subdued they could/should have tied him up.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 09:32 PM

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 09:49 PM
There should be NO ifs, ands or buts; entering someone's home uninvited is to trespass and it is only logical to conclude that it is with the intent to commit a crime of some sort. The home owner has the right to defend their person, family and property. If not, then we are prey for the predator and anarchy will overtake the world in the end.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 10:05 PM
reply to post by earthman4

Death wasn't a punishment for a crime, it was the unintended outcome of a home intrusion. The father who was defending his daughter showed remarkable restraint in capturing the criminal instead of beating him to pulp. The rapist's demise was too late for some of his victims but none too soon for the family whose home he violated while intending to violate an innocent child. He will not be missed.
1. Only God can judge a soul.
2. Everyone is entitled to a speedy trial.
3. Problem solved.

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 10:20 PM
reply to post by sos37

Well I put my two cents into this one since I've thought about what such consequences should be for this kind of crime. It is a crime that has never, ever met its match in punishment.

Should a crime not match its punishment?

Should we not prosecute the source of the problem?

The source is this guys uncontrol of his 5th member.

In addition, his 'member' of which he cannot/will not control has become a weapon used in society against an innocent victim.

A firm legal precedent of serious consequences needs to arrive on the scene here in America and that of the world.

Use your member as a weapon, lose the weapon and therefor lose the risk. I believe this new 'law' may get a little more respect.

I could go on about how the Statutory legal system took over our Constitution and Bill of Rights though thats a whole other issue. Does a Statutory Legal System really work? Well if you can't pay you can't play just like how if the glove don't have to acquit.

"The defense rests, your honor"?

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 10:31 PM
reply to post by jackinthebox

Sorry ! This is massive disinfo in my opinion

Deliberate ?

Seems determined to portray paedophiles as 'kindly uncle' types

Nothing could be further from the truth !

Paeodophiles are degenerates ! They are perverts !

They DO harm children .. physically and otherwise !

This tall tale about 'most child molesters were molested as children' is FICTION !!

It has been conclusively DISproven repeatedly.

It's a LIE ! A LIE utilized by whore lawyers to excuse their paying clients (said paedophiles) and thereby GAIN THEIR LIBERTY in order they may get back out there on the street to molest MORE children !

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 10:33 PM
I dont think you will find hardly anyone who doesnt think this creep got what he deserved and as an expecting father myself I hope I could do what he did given a similar situation. I also bet that the daughter is going to repect her father even more

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 10:35 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 11:06 PM
First, I'm glad the filth bag child rapist is dead, but there is something disturbing about this story. If you just read the following lines from the article:

Quoting from the article:

"Police did not anticipate any charges against McNally."
"In this situation, I don't think he was trying to kill him..."
"The death is under investigation and will be reviewed by a Marion County prosecutor."
"Nobody wins..."
"It's a lose-lose situation for everybody. He (rapist) has family also."

Now, I've been accused of being hypersensitive to the bias in the mainstream media. But I have seen this "poor filth bag" under tone in nearly every story where a man has killed a piece of trash like this. And the tone gets accusatory towards the defender of his home and family when he uses a gun.

We were talking about this at work and nearly all the men agreed, hang em' and hang em' high. A dead child-molesting monster won't ruin the lives of more children nor will he kill any more children. There are big winners here, the man, his wife, society at large and especially his daughter.

"May God have mercy upon my enemies, because I won't."
- General George Patton Jr

posted on Sep, 30 2008 @ 11:20 PM
This kind of justice always makes me smile. If some creepy half naked person comes into my house with a rape kit, be sure I'll do what ever it takes to rid my home of him.

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 02:34 AM
give that man [ the father ] a medal

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 02:51 AM
reply to post by Sonya610

Well then agree to disagree then, because what I am saying is that I think these kinds of violent sex offenders are so sick mentally that they don't perceive right and wrong in the same rational and sane way that we, the normal people, do. That's what makes them sick; they think it's 'okay'.

I am not making excuses for them. I have been quite clear as to how I feel they should be dealt with. Still, I think it's a misinterpretation to think they have a fully cognizant understanding of their actions, or even that it is sexual in nature.

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 02:54 AM
For anyone who is concerned that this father would face trial for protecting his daughter, as a part-time reserves officer with the LaPorte IN County Sheriffs Police Dept., I can assure you that there is no prosecutor here in Indiana that would waste their time to bring up any criminal charges against him.

Indiana has a very strong and well-defined Castle Doctrine, meaning that one does not have to retreat and can use whatever force necessary to prevent or terminate another persons unlawful entry onto their property, as defined in IC 35-41-3-2. The intruder does not have to be armed for one to use force against them. One has a right to this not only in their home, but also in any out buildings on their property, while in their vehicle, at their place of business, or out in public if threatened, and one is also legally absolved from any legal jeopardy if they choose to intervene and protect an innocent third party victim as well. While this is clearly defined, one must use common sense and reasoning pertaining to the specific situation. For example, under normal circumstances one could not just shoot someone who just walked onto their property to knock on the door. If that person as much as opened the door or a window without permission and merely reached a hand into the primary dwelling area, then deadly use of force would be justified. Porches and breezeways are a gray area, garages are not. I live on over 200 acres, and my driveway and all of the access roads onto my property are gated, and there is a considerable length of wrought-iron fencing on either side of my main drive, and I have posted "no trespassing" and "beware of dogs" signs at each entry and at regular intervals along the perimeter of my property. I would likely be legally justified in using deadly force against someone who has breached these and gained access onto my property without my permission, but unless they were armed and/or threatening, personally, I don't believe I would be ethically responsible to do so. I would not have to worry about that anyway as my three well-trained dogs would take care of any intruder who is dumb enough to enter my property, and I would not be responsible for that, as warning sings are well posted.

While this man would be absolved from any criminal charges, not long ago it is possible that he would be the victim of a civil wrongful death suit by the family of the deceased sex offender. Indiana law now provides immunity for the victim against a civil suit if the person they used force against was involved in criminal activity, or they were otherwise justified in using force against them.

I would think it is fairly safe to assume that this homeowner is in the clear from a legal standpoint, and it would be inane think of him as anything less than a hero for his actions.

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 05:16 AM
reply to post by Dock6

The problem is, child rape is quite common around the world though Americans are 'shocked' and 'awed' by thought it could happen here though we don't live in the same 'America' we used to.

Before the media came about, all kinds of crimes went unnoticed, unnanswered, unquestioned and mostly unsolved. The problem is the media often distorts or bends the truth to serve another agenda.

There are 'many' cultures and accepted norms around the world that are completely foreign to an average American. Hey, how about the idea of marrying your 13 to 15 year old cousin or other relative. It was quite common around the world till the 20th Century came about though that was designed to keep a families assets within the family....especially land holdings in the feudal society.

I've travelled quite a bit and discovered a fascinating though shocking world out there. Most Americans really do have it better except for the fact that they are too exposed to technology and are spending less time in the 'natural' world. Nature heals the soul.

I believe that many will be living much closer to nature than they realize and much sooner as well. Only problem, is most peoples 'experience' with nature will be more like sleeping on a park bench stealing the squirrels lunch while dreaming about the good ole happy days with 80's music vibing through the parks. Meanwhile the limosines cruise by throwing cans in the street as donations for the rat people.

Others will charge forward and accomplish the 'change' we all 'talk' about one way or another.

The problem is, it will probably have to become a police state sooner than later based on the serious aftermath of this coming depression. Buckle up, we're going for a ride whether your ready or not. Time to be like that squirrel...for a 'winter' is coming.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by Perseus Apex]

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 07:13 AM

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
Well then agree to disagree then, because what I am saying is that I think these kinds of violent sex offenders are so sick mentally that they don't perceive right and wrong in the same rational and sane way that we, the normal people, do. That's what makes them sick; they think it's 'okay'.

First of all, by saying it’s about “right and wrong” that implies that LOTS of people want to do it, but they don’t because they know its “wrong”. I would bet you could probably work with this rapist fellow, go to lunch with him twice a week, and never have a clue there was anything “wrong”, you think he lives in some other mental reality where up is down and the earth has 3 moons, but he doesn’t.

Secondly lots of people would do all sorts of crazy things if they thought they could “get away with it”. Whether its driving 30 miles over the limit, or drug smuggling for some serious cash, or any number of things. That has nothing to do with right and wrong, it has to do with weighing the risks involved. It comes down to “does the perceived benefit outweigh the risk”.

Example I would bet there are posters on ATS that for whatever reason would gladly duct tape a sex offender of this type to a chair in their garage and “go to work on him” if the situation presented itself. Why don’t they do it? Because they don’t want to risk getting caught! Now others would say “but that is just so wrong, don’t you see that?” however they wouldn’t care, if they thought they could get away with it they would do it! They are not basing their decisions on whether it is “right or wrong” they are basing their decisions on the risks involved.

The difference in many cases isn’t about realizing what is right or wrong. The difference is often about impulse control. The one thing these individuals (convicted rapists and serial killers) usually DO have that truly sets them apart from a psychological standpoint is faulty impulse control. People think of all kinds of twisted things, but most have better impulse control and would never actually do it. Often times criminal types lack the same control, which is why they decide “what the heck, its worth the risk” and they jump on it.

Now I am not in any way implying that most people would rape kids if they were given the chance, but I am saying that a LOT of people would do some extreme things for various reasons and they don’t do those things because of the risks involved, not because they see those things as “wrong”.

posted on Oct, 1 2008 @ 08:39 AM

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by mybigunit

Maybe if they'd whacked him once or twice and not "beaten the hell out of him" it'd be ok.

Having someone break into your house does not give you a legal, nor IMO a moral right to inflict injury or pain for your own emotional satisfaction, only to protect your posessions and safety. Once the guy was subdued they could/should have tied him up.

so, do you think the family of the dead guy should now sue for wrongful death?

in ohio, until very recently, if someone broke into your home, under law, your only option was to leave if you could.

thats changed, and rightly so, if someone invades your home now, shoot first and ask questions later.

if the criminal invades your home, knowing that they risk paying with their lives, then the decision is theirs.

not mine, because i will shoot. thats a given.

its not that i think my tv is worth more than their life, its that the theif must decide wether their own life is worth stealing my tv over.

because i will shoot them, and to avoid any civil lawsuit later, it will be a decidedly fatal shot.

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in