British Comedy Guide

I read the news today oh boy! Page 858

I could continue chasing sootyj as he chases his tail all night, but why bother? It call comes down to this as far as I'm concerned:

Any parent who sees his child being molested is expected to use any means necessary to stop the assault, be it a knife, a gun, a lead pipe or a nail-studded baseball bat. (Kudos to this guy for doing it with his bare fists.)

Any parent who injures or kills his child's attacker should be treated with as much respect and sympathy as possible. He/she shouldn't have to spend more than a few hours (at most) being grilled about the incident before being released to be with his/her family. The parent shouldn't be paraded in front of cameras, made to spend time behind bars or forced to mortgage their home in order to retain their freedom.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ June 12 2012, 12:21 AM BST

Unfortunately, the system doesn't work properly now - so many mistakes are being made with CRB cases based on nothing more then two people having a similar name.

Hence my concern about arresting and charging people even if they are blatantly innocent.

Yep, crb system is an absolute nightmare. It's like a teacher having fake child assault accusations thrown against them, they are found guilty, but permanently barred from their profession. What's the point in finding someone innocent if their life is still permanently ruined?

Quote: DaButt @ June 12 2012, 12:22 AM BST

I could continue chasing sootyj as he chases his tail all night, but why bother? It call comes down to this as far as I'm concerned:

Any parent who sees his child being molested is expected to use any means necessary to stop the assault, be it a knife, a gun, a lead pipe or a nail-studded baseball bat. (Kudos to this guy for doing it with his bare fists.)

Any parent who injures or kills his child's attacker should be treated with as much respect and sympathy as possible. He/she shouldn't have to spend more than a few hours (at most) being grilled about the incident before being released to be with his/her family. The parent shouldn't be paraded in front of cameras, made to spend time behind bars or forced to mortgage their home in order to retain their freedom.

^
Absolutely, entirely, and V to anyone who disagrees.

Quote: DaButt @ June 12 2012, 12:22 AM BST

Any parent who injures or kills his child's attacker should be treated with as much respect and sympathy as possible. He/she shouldn't have to spend more than a few hours (at most) being grilled about the incident before being released to be with his/her family. The parent shouldn't be paraded in front of cameras, made to spend time behind bars or forced to mortgage their home in order to retain their freedom.

The first part I can't possibly agree with, but this part I'm with wholeheartedly. A thorough investigation and being jailed and tormented shouldn't mean the same thing.

Quote: Renegade Carpark @ June 12 2012, 12:13 AM BST

As long as there was a foolproof way to expunge any record of arrest for an innocent person, then I could get behind this. Just being arrested for murder has serious repercussions on any future plans, including international travel.

It's impossible. You can't remove the news stories, the court records nor the impressions formed by the public about your character. What is adequate compensation for being unfairly branded a murderer, even if for a very short time? I'd want hundreds of millions of dollars at the very least.

Quote: Nat Wicks @ June 12 2012, 12:25 AM BST

Yep, crb system is an absolute nightmare.

CRB checks are a total waste of time.

The vast majority of child abusers/sex offenders are never caught and a CRB will only tell tell you what has happened not what is likely/may to happen

Quote: DaButt @ June 12 2012, 12:27 AM BST

It's impossible. You can't remove the news stories, the court records nor the impressions formed by the public about your character. What is adequate compensation for being unfairly branded a murderer, even if for a very short time? I'd want hundreds of millions of dollars at the very least.

The fact that the media are allowed to share anyone's name pre-judgement is atrocious.

Quote: Oldrocker @ June 12 2012, 12:26 AM BST

^
Absolutely, entirely, and V to anyone who disagrees.

Actually I can understand sootyj's angle on this situation. The law should be the law regardless of circumstances, no matter how emotional.

I, on the other hand, do believe that it's the spirit of the law and not the letter that should be obeyed and that there is room for discretion.

Could the man who's daughter was molested actually be lying to cover up murder? I'm sure the police looked at the evidence, his background and the prior relationship the man had with the abuser and decided it was not the case.

What is the point of having an expensive court trial with a prosecution that has no hope of getting a verdict and further wrecking this man and his daughter's life?

As they say in the Daily Mail: Common sense must prevail!

I'm a parent and I'm having trouble with this. Of course I'd do - or try - the same if it was my daughter. But this doesn't give me the right to kill.

I'm not saying this is the case here for sure but didn't it seem to be just the father's word?

Quote: Nat Wicks @ June 12 2012, 12:27 AM BST

The first part I can't possibly agree with

I think you'll discover otherwise if and when you have a child of your own. The parenting instinct is much stronger than your own survival instinct, so imagine what you would be capable of doing to stop a man from raping you and then put your 4-year-old daughter in that position.

Quote: Nat Wicks @ June 12 2012, 12:30 AM BST

The fact that the media are allowed to share anyone's name pre-judgement is atrocious.

In this case they can't release the man's name because it would identify his daughter, but I have little doubt that the press will spill the beans if it becomes a big enough story.

Quote: DaButt @ June 12 2012, 12:35 AM BST

I think you'll discover otherwise if and when you have a child of your own. The parenting instinct is much stronger than your own survival instinct, so imagine what you would be capable of doing to stop a man from raping you and then put your 4-year-old daughter in that position.

Absolutely. I've acknowledged this before. It's easy for me to have ideals when I'm not a parent. Opinion is based on experience and circumstance.

In this case they can't release the man's name because it would identify his daughter, but I have little doubt that the press will spill the beans if it becomes a big enough story.

This is where it all goes a bit wrong, isn't it? Until any case has been appropriately investigated a suspect is a potential victim. It's such a difficult situation.

Quote: Oldrocker @ June 12 2012, 12:21 AM BST

I made my point before correcting your spelling.

Or am I missing the point ?

;)

Your point being you're a father.

May I congratulate you on your functional testicles.

Not only do they seem capable of producing many fine children for you to defend.

But you've also learned to type with them.

Well I failed at that quotage. Oh well, it still sort of makes sense.

Quote: Booo @ June 12 2012, 12:33 AM BST

I'm a parent and I'm having trouble with this. Of course I'd do - or try - the same if it was my daughter. But this doesn't give me the right to kill.

It most certainly does. I'm not familiar with your laws, but here in Texas:

SUBCHAPTER C. PROTECTION OF PERSONS

Sec. 9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a.) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor's belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
(1) knew or had reason to believe that the person against whom the 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 aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;
(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.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless:
(a.) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person while the actor was:
(a.) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section 46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's (or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
(e) A person who has a right to be present at the location where the force is used, who has not provoked the person against whom the force is used, and who is not engaged in criminal activity at the time the force is used is not required to retreat before using force as described by this section.
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a.), in determining whether an actor described by Subsection (e) reasonably believed that the use of force was necessary, a finder of fact may not consider whether the actor failed to retreat.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 190, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.

Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (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 offence 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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1983, 68th Leg., p. 5316, ch. 977, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1983; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 235, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.
Amended by:
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1, Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2007.

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.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.

I'm not saying this is the case here for sure but didn't it seem to be just the father's word?

And his daughter's.

Quote: Nat Wicks @ June 12 2012, 12:40 AM BST

Opinion is based on experience and circumstance.

And being a parent is a life changing experience.

I can't imagine a bigger one.

Quote: sootyj @ June 12 2012, 12:42 AM BST

Your point being you're a father.

May I congratulate you on your functional testicles.

Not only do they seem capable of producing many fine children for you to defend.

But you've also learned to type with them.

Absolutely pathetic.

Share this page