Indiana Father Kills Sex Offender Who Broke Into Home

Originally posted by Leviatano
As much as I think that "justice" (key note on the quotations around it) was served to the offender, how much do you want to bet that the guy who in an act of protecting his daughter will be tried? Don't mean to rain on anyone's "Go protective father parade!" just that it seems that even in your own home if you are protecting yourself or your family. If you step over that invisible line you will be fined or possible jail time.

No way in hell he will go to trial..

He did not have a gun..

He killed a naked sex offender out side his 17 year old under aged daughters room with his bare hands.

An act of desperate self defense ..

The threat (naked old guy sneaking around daughters room) can be easily measured at a quick glance.

I say we give the guy a medal, maybe pay for him and his family to take a vacation to escape for a little bit. Least we can do.. do you realize how much money he just saved the tax payers by killing that dirt bag?

reply to post by earthman4


Intent is the same as the deed.

For some reason i've always believed that once you have the intent to seriously harm someone, or commit a seriously violent crime,

You give up all your rights to life and anyone should have the power to take yours whilst you are committing the act, if they choose to do so.

My reasoning is that if someone has to go, it may as well be the offender.
I hold some pity for the offenders in these casse that it had to come to this due to the life they may have lead but in my eyes there is no choice.

One less bad natured person in the world is fine by me and i wouldn't think twice about killing someone who wishes to kill for no reason.

If the animal kingdom can be cold and cull the weak, so can I.
In this case, it's the weak minded, weak of moral, weak of humanity, weak of self control.

Having said that, I never ever do anything or accuse anyone without being absolutely certain of something.

reply to post by sos37


I am sorry but I find this whole thing very fishy...
How would anyone rape a women in a house full of people? I guess he could be stupid...or, there is always the possibility he was invited by the daughter...

A proper investigation should be held. If it is proved that the alleged perpetrator was indeed trying to brake in, the father should be freed from any further harassment, by police or courts...
If, on the other hand, he was invited by the daughter...

There just isn't enough evidence for me to make an informed judgment...

reply to post by NorthWolfe CND

I am sorry but I find this whole thing very fishy...

What's fishy about a known sex offender being found naked in the house of a girl?

There just isn't enough evidence for me to make an informed judgment...

Him being naked, wearing gloves, and holding a knife isn't enough evidence to make a judgment

If, on the other hand, he was invited by the daughter...

Even if the daughter did invite him, why would that even matter? It doesn't change the fact that he showed up with gloves and a knife...

In this hypothetical of yours, it also does not change the fact that this guy was a prior sex offender.

How would anyone rape a women in a house full of people?

Apparently he didn't. Right?

I guess he could be stupid...or, there is always the possibility he was invited by the daughter...

Or there is the possibility that he is a crazy sex offender.

A proper investigation should be held.

Indeed. And it will be to determine if he should get the death penalty or not.

If it is proved that the alleged perpetrator was indeed trying to brake in

Alleged? "Trying to break in"? Dude this guy was found naked, wearing gloves, and holding a knife. Do you think this is some greater conspiracy from the father or something?

Like he found this dude outside, killed him, brought him inside his house, and planted evidence to make it look like a sex offender was braking in??

Or do you think the father killed this man and staged his death because he was pissed the daughter invited him over?

[edit on 2-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]

Originally posted by NorthWolfe CND
There just isn't enough evidence for me to make an informed judgment...

Well thank god you won't be sitting on a jury deciding if this guy should go free! Thank god the father saved you some such a dilemna!

I can just hear it "well yes he was convicted before, but do we know if maybe those victims invited him in as well? and even if he was guilty before maybe this time this particular 17 year old just really had a thing for naked 54 year old sex offenders carrying knives crawling through her window, so she manipulated the poor man into this situation for her own selfish pleasure!" That happens more than we would think! Its the fault of television!

Thats what you call a REAL man! Killed that bastard with his bare hands. I'd like to buy that man a beer. Gives a whole new meaning to "stay off my lawn" don't it.

reply to post by Rockpuck


she isn`t underage in IL - as i said a few pages back.

Originally posted by AceWombat04
Some people simply don't believe in retribution, violence, or killing (even when seemingly justified.) I'm one of those people.

I respect the views of those who would do what this man did in this scenario, and I respect the man who killed the intruder as well, but I disagree with them. I simply don't believe in violence or killing, no matter how sick, twisted, or dangerous the potential target of said violence or killing may be.

That's just my belief, and I'm not the only person on the planet who holds it. I respect everyone's views, and I don't judge or blame those who do commit violence (even violence resulting in death) in these sorts of situations. I'm not them, and can't judge them for what they felt was right in an incredibly bad situation.

It's just not what I would do myself. I know that's not popular. So be it. I would like it if people could be respectful and tolerant of those who hold such views though.

I have known many people who think like you, and while i respect your opinion on the matter, I hve always wanted to ask this quesiton to people who think such as your self.

You re in a house, your house, and your children are there. An intruder is pointing a gun at you, you have one pointed at them. you cn either shoot, or they can shoot you. you can't shoot to wound because without proper training, your best chance at hitting something not vital is like one in a billion or something like that. What do you do in this situation? kill or be killed and then let you children die too?

Give this man a medal for ending the life of that pathetic excuse of a human being. While it's clear the father had no intention of killing his daughter's would-be rapist, what a stroke a luck that he died all the same.

Father of the Year imho.

reply to post by NorthWolfe CND


Some perpetrators actulay WANT other people in the house they break into or burglurize or rape in. Its the extra 'kick' to the senses that they get off on as well as the idea that they are so stealthy that they gain power over others. Its actualy quite common. We had a burglur here that was labled by the police 'the dinner time burglur' because he always entered the house while the family was eating dinner at the table. He hit Johnny Carsons home as well as Glen Campells and others here in Connecticut!

www.cnn.com...

Zindo

Originally posted by T0by
For some reason i've always believed that once you have the intent to seriously harm someone, or commit a seriously violent crime,

You give up all your rights to life and anyone should have the power to take yours whilst you are committing the act, if they choose to do so.

First off, these are my exact thoughts.

Second, there is a "reasonable person" test in the US judicial system. In this case, if you had a reason to believe that somebody was going to cause you bodily harm or death, (even that turned out not to be the case), you are justified in defending yourself by all means necessary.

If somebody pulls a plastic knife on you, in the dark, and you mistake it for real thing, and kill the bastard, you won't be charged.


[edit on 2-10-2008 by buddhasystem]

Well, if he ever finds himself in my neck of the woods there's a pint waiting for him on the bar!

Originally posted by Harlequin
reply to post by Rockpuck

 

she isn`t underage in IL - as i said a few pages back.

I've seen a lot of people talking about her age, that really an issue here? Whether she was underage or not, the guy was obviously planning to sexually assault her. It shouldn't matter if you're underaged or legal if someone's planning on raping you, even if it does change things in the legal sense. It's still rape.

Originally posted by Sonya610 ...
I can just hear it "well yes he was convicted before, but do we know if maybe those victims invited him in as well? and even if he was guilty before maybe this time this particular 17 year old just really had a thing for naked 54 year old sex offenders carrying knives crawling through her window, so she manipulated the poor man into this situation for her own selfish pleasure!" That happens more than we would think! Its the fault of television!

Just as a by-the by, if the rapist had gone to trial in Australia all evidence of previous misconduct on the part of the rapist would be suppressed, for fear of influencing the jury. Not only that, but each jury member would have to say they knew nothing of this guy's past, or they would be ineligible to sit.

In Victoria, Australia, it has even been illegal to sell or show a documentary, the accuracy of which is undisputed, because it gives a background on gangland killings and the perps have been being brought to justice. My daughter was juror for one of the minor trials of one of these guys, and would have been ineligible if she'd even claimed to be watching the news lately.

On the other hand, the background of the daughter who had been lying innocently in her own bed could have been brought up, and even, as happened in a rape trial here, pictures of her wearing short skirts could be taken from bad angles later by an "investigator" and shown in court to vilify her character.

If it works like that in America, the daughter was saved not only from rape, but also from harassment in court, by her father's brave action.

Originally posted by Optix

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.

I think the article said he was "inside" the home , naked and armed, in the daughter's bedroom.... yep, it is kick his ass time for sure, if he happened to die, oh well. Actually he should of been shot, but it sounds like the father wasn't trying to kill the man but subdue him, he just happen to croak in the process.

Im sorry, the father should not be tried.

I am a father of a young girl and if this happens i will do the same thing.

+1, if I had kids, in this situation, I'd whack the SOB with no hesitation. The father was actually being kind by trying to restrain him; I'm not that evolved.

Originally posted by leafdarking
I've seen a lot of people talking about her age, that really an issue here? Whether she was underage or not, the guy was obviously planning to sexually assault her. It shouldn't matter if you're underaged or legal if someone's planning on raping you, even if it does change things in the legal sense. It's still rape.

what im trying to make people understand is that in different US states , the age of consent is different - from 14 in SC to 18 in california , and in the US Virgin islands - 13 year olds can sleep together (but not with older than 15)

thats all i was trying to make aware;

as for the crime - way to go for the father - my home is my castle really does apply when you find a naked , armed man outside the room where your daughter is.

The girl should thank God for having a dad like that. As for the molester, he got off easy. I could picture doing a lot worse than just restraining him. I could actually picture grabbing his genitals and ripping them off. I would have hurt the bastard. And then killed him so that he couldn't sue me. The dad proved himself to be much more of a gentleman than I could have been.