Dad finds and beats naked Perv outside of daughters window...Guess who could go to jail the longest?

reply to post by Mads1987


In the same breath you said you had no sympathy for either, whereas if you have a child sleeping and a perv outside your window, naked and acting indecent and making noises, I kind of think sympathy towards the father is a given. I don't know what I would personally have done, even with prayers and meditations, if for example, there was a firearm handy. I'm not sure that guy would even be alive, with even a minister walking out the door in most cases. Laws are supposed to reflect what ordinary folk are like and would do, ie what being human is all about, not just reflect power grabs for the so called privilege of slavers to be law makers, and deal out harshly to the average normal human response. All these kind of laws are is a protection measure of those who have no right to dominate others, to keep their power. When the power is everyone's and everyone should be empowered, and laws should be for the benefit of the people, not legislators, and reflect the actually make up and psychology of the people.

Mads1987
reply to post by 727Sky

 

Cats do kill - but they aren't sadist. They never do it exclusively to inflict cruelty on others.

Speaking of assumptions !! Glad you can read a cats mind.... The cats I have watched sure seemed to enjoy the act until I saved/took away the baby birds or their play things. You asked for proof all I did was answer you question... and provide proof... Probably others but the whole thing is not worth my time for we are of different minds if not worlds of thought. Your life live it as you please as I will mine.

Now back in the days when I took beginning law, laws were supposed to be based on what humans would do, the normal bell curve of behavior, and in fact if they're not, the laws would be unlawful, so should be challenged.

reply to post by 727Sky


Thanks for that 727

I am having serious issues trying to post videos with the new ATS and still haven't figured it out yet!!

Kindest respects

Rodinus

reply to post by Rodinus

Do you not understand that in confronting the pervert in question the father was stopping the crime or do you really believe that the man was a sadist???

Confront and subdue is by any means logical and civilized.


To beat the person so they need medical care is fulfilling something sick we all have inside ourselves yet some can control the sickness we are capable of and some cant.

reply to post by Unity_99


Sorry, I don't get your point.

YES - I have no sympathy for the farther's actions.

Mads1987
reply to post by Rodinus

 

Okay - well. No I have actually never seen such a scenario in real life. Only on film.
But I am familiar with the situation.

However - to my knowledge, animals don't have a habit of killing predators who attack their young, unless they have to. If they can chase them away, animals will usually settle with this. Animals don't kill for pleasure, only humans.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

edit on 06/06/12 by Mads1987 because: (no reason given)

Animals don't kill for pleasure?!?!?!?!?!?!
What planet are you from?
Dogs kill cats for fun
Cats kill mice and birds for fun

Between you defending a trespassing pervert and saying naive things like only humans kill for pleasure I think you have some issues to iron out with the reality we all live in.
Let me point you in the right direction:
Evil is real

reply to post by TDawgRex

This is not a underdog that you are defending, but rather a known pervert and now a pedophile.

I see no defending of the individual in question.


I see logic being pointed out but because its so controversial many emotional strings are pulled especially if you have your own kids and logic and reason many times are lost such as here.

No one is defending the peeping tom/pedophile.

727Sky

Mads1987
reply to post by 727Sky

 

Cats do kill - but they aren't sadist. They never do it exclusively to inflict cruelty on others.

Speaking of assumptions !! Glad you can read a cats mind.... The cats I have watched sure seemed to enjoy the act until I saved/took away the baby birds or their play things. You asked for proof all I did was answer you question... and provide proof... Probably others but the whole thing is not worth my time for we are of different minds if not worlds of thought. Your life live it as you please as I will mine.

I cannot read cat's minds - just in case I had confused you.

Yes they enjoy playing with smaller animals, just the same as we enjoy playing with a ball. But they do not kill the animal, because they hate it. Humans kill things because they hate them. This is really basic behavioral understanding, and requires no reading of minds.
I am glad you took your time to answer, but you did not provide any proof, cause the comparison was not apt.

But please do live your life as you please.

InhaleExhale
reply to post by Rodinus

 

Do you not understand that in confronting the pervert in question the father was stopping the crime or do you really believe that the man was a sadist???

Confront and subdue is by any means logical and civilized.


To beat the person so they need medical care is fulfilling something sick we all have inside ourselves yet some can control the sickness we are capable of and some cant.

Maybe the Father was confronting and trying to subdue the criminal in question, maybe the criminal was reacting back in an extremely agressive manner and the father HAD to be more physical with him? (The news story does not talk about this?) So we are all assuming for the moment

Kindest respects

Rodinus

reply to post by InhaleExhale


He is trying to score in the emotional aspect of some members in this thread, which is working fine.

For all of these strawman and jumping to conclusionaires.. no one will want their daughters to get raped or harmed.. the point of the question is what is the point in almost killing someone for.. in the eyes of law(we know it is more than that), not doing anything other than public indecency

What would i do in this situation? probably give him few knocks and tie him down for the police to come.

Im not going to shoot a guy going into a bank with a hoodie, il be concerned and let the security know.


I agree with punishment but with a limit on how much it is, death and dismemberment is not the answer in this situation.

reply to post by 727Sky


I think the law is an ass (As always), had it been my child I can not see what I would have done different except held him in restraint until the police arrived and if he had a few contusions say he attacked me first when I challenged him, before he fell up and then down my stairs (several time's) and tripped over my boot's (several time's) damaging my flagstone's, garden plant's, bled profusely on my clothing rendering it worthless for which I wish to sue him.

(I am actually usually a pacifist but this makes my blood boil)

reply to post by riffraff


They don;t kill for fun, they like to experience their hunting prowess, in the wild, a meal does not arrive in plates. They like to experience their animistic instinct that is ingrained in their head.

Humans on the other hand, can reason and use logic, well i guess some don;t use that.

MyHappyDogShiner
Well, here we have yet another unreasonable act being justified via emotion, like Trayvon Martin being shot by George Zimmerman, Trayvon being a kid and all, which somehow removes Zimmerman's right to defend himself.

The guy really should have made sure the child was not harmed, called police and possibly followed the guy and kept police posted as to the "Naked perv's" location if the guy fled.

I know a lot of you people who have kids agree with beating the hell out of the guy, but that is because you are stuck on this "Love and Protect" mode, which I find a bit odd, in that almost any unreasonable act is justified in defense of a child or other person whom one love's, that "Love conquers / justifies all" silliness.

The law, and reason, and common sense state that violence is not justifiable unless one is violently acted upon or attacked. Violence in return for violence being the last resort or self defense.

You just compared this to the shooting of Trayvon Martin, then suggest the father should have called 911 and possibly follow this guy and keep police updated on his whereabouts if he flees. Most 911 operator's and police will tell you NOT to do that, as was made clear in the Zimmerman trial.

The reasoning part of the law states not in so many words, but that stealing a thing does not justify the attempted killing of the thief, and this is true. Stealing does not justify being killed, if one thinks it does, one has no business whining about those middle eastern countries punishing thieves by lopping off their hands or killing them for stealing a loaf of bread. The thief would better be put to use baking bread for you in restitution for stealing from you wouldn't he?.

Texas Penal Code, Sec. 9

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

Unfortunately, most people in the U.S. really do not have the capacity to understand the reasoning behind a lot of laws here, because they have no reasoning capacity to speak of. And because they have no reasoning capacity, laws have to be written to inform people how to react without harming one another, but nobody really tries to read or understand the laws, acting on emotion instead.

[url=Texas Penal Code, Sec. 9

Sec. 9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:

(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

If the child was in no direct danger, the perpetrator should not have been placed in harms way either. Of course many of those of you who have children cannot quite grasp this because that "Love" stuff pretty much kills your reasoning capacity.

Aside from being the most idiotic statement I have ever read on this site, if a man is standing naked at my daughters window, COMMON SENSE and REASON tells me my daughter is in IMMINENT danger, and justifies any actions I take, up to, and including deadly force. You keep saying that "LOVE" stuff kills the reasoning capacity
of parents, and most people in the US have no reasoning capacity at all. YOU, my friend, show a lack of reason and common sense, and more importantly, you and your ilk are what is destroying this once great nation from inside. Step down from that throne you have placed yourself on, and venture into the real world. People LOVE their families and friends, and would do whatever it takes to protect them. I hope and pray you find that kind of love soon and allow it to kill your screwed up reasoning capacity.

Does that make sense?, or am I just rambling?, it makes sense to me, and that must be why most of my friends from childhood are convicted felons, and I am not....

Does not make sense, and rambling, IMHO. Most likely the only difference between you and your childhood friends being convicted felons, is you never got caught!

Aside from being the most idiotic statement I have ever read on this site, if a man is standing naked at my daughters window, COMMON SENSE and REASON tells me my daughter is in IMMINENT danger, and justifies any actions I take, up to, and including deadly force.

I wouldn't try it. Doubt a reasonable jury will see it your way. Maybe if in town run by good old boys.

'removed line, in error'

By the way, were your born in the lone star?

reply to post by retiredTxn

retiredTxn
People LOVE their families and friends, and would do whatever it takes to protect them.

Yes, people will do whatever it takes - even go to above and beyond in fact. Many things are done in the name of protection, also morally objectionable things - and that is the point.

By the way - glad I don't live in Texas if it's alright to shoot people for stealing - I've know a few thieves in my time and gotta say, not all of them were bad people.

reply to post by MyHappyDogShiner

Animals are just so much smarter than humans when it really counts, sometimes it stuns me to witness it.

I would use the word aware instead of smarter.

They are more aware of the natural order of things where humans still debate it.

reply to post by Unity_99

Vengeance is hunting down someone days later. It is not, spur of the moment, attacking a perv, rapist or murderer of a loved one.

Please lets not make up definitions.


It matter not if its days moments or years later.

His beating the the perv is an act of vengeance for what the perv was doing.

If he could beat the perv so badly he could have subdued him even easier, but instincts kick in such a situation and the father did wrong by going to far.

In his position I would most likely be like beezer and this would of never been heard about because the guy would simply cease to exist, however in a society where we call for law and order what the father, I and most others would do would be wrong and put us in a similar category as that which we disposed of.

Mads1987

Yes, people will do whatever it takes - even go to above and beyond in fact. Many things are done in the name of protection, also morally objectionable things - and that is the point.

By the way - glad I don't live in Texas.

You call protecting your loved one's morally objectionable?

Guess what? We are glad you don't live in Texas, because it gets old picking up the dead bleeding heart liberal bodies, clinging to their phones waiting for the police to arrive. I too have known quite a few thieves in my lifetime. I retired from the Texas Dept. of Criminal Justice-Institutional Division, and State Jail Division. Not all of them was good people.

reply to post by retiredTxn


It can be morally objectionable.
I am sure a lot of black men were once hung from trees in the name of protection. I know jews were once put in camps in the name of protection. Witches were burned and recently some social reject got the beating of his life.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions - some of which are protecting our loved ones to the point where we inflict unnecessary harm to another human being.