to feel ambivalent about this man's actions?

[DrSeuss]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18522383

Having found someone in the act of raping his five year old daughter, he beat the man to death. On one level, I know that to kill anyone is wrong, on another I am struggling to care. I suppose that life in prison would be a more severe punishment in the end...

Thoughts?

Good on the bloke.

He used force to defend his child. I think many would do the same. He will have to live with killing someone on top of the rape of his daughter. Punishment enough.

If only the law in this country could have moments of common sense like this.

perhaps not commendable, but understandable.

i once had to write a supportive statement for a teenager who had raped a five year old girl. not easy, but he had tried to express his need for help, and psychological tests had been requested.

I can't say I wouldn't do the same.
There was a programme about a young boy that was kidnapped and abused by his karate instructor. They found them and returned the boy home. When the alleged kidnapper was flown in the dad was waiting at the airport and shot the bloke in the head and killed him.
The father was arrested but never prosecuted as they didn't thinks jury would convict, as many would at least sympathize. This was in America.

I don't agree with the death penalty, but in this case I can understand why it happened. It also sounds like the father didn't mean to kill the rapist, and the fact he called for help for him says a lot.

Wouldn't advise reading some of the comments on the article though..

I think the facts that were probably persuasive in him (from only that news report) not being charged are:

(1) he phoned 911 and was recorded saying tell me what to do this man is going to die on me, so while he inflicted the blows he didn't leave him to die and tried to get him medical help
(2) the rapist was found in the act of raping his 5 year old (i.e. father didn't attack him because he had raped his daughter but to stop him in the act of doing it - so defence on her behalf as opposed to retribution for an act already committed)
(3) the blows sound like they were hard punches to the rapist's head/neck which while able to kill and did, were not inflicted knowing they would kill

How utterly terrifying for the little girl. I hope both her and her dad are getting help and support to deal with such a horrific ordeal.

Actually thinking about that last point (3) I made, I wonder whether there is always an assumption that defending yourself with fists (as opposed to a weapon) is less persuasive of intent to murder than using a weapon of some sort - which kind of puts all women at a disadvantage against a man because it would probably be a rare woman who was capable of defending herself with her fists so a weapon would have to be used for self-defence - which means that more men would use fists and therefore benefit from this kind of assumption. Just musing.

I have no feelings apart from repulsion for the rapist.

Poor kid, poor bloke.

If actually in the act it would be really hard not to use reasonable force - there is a definite justification as the child was in danger - it would be hard to not go over the top slightly to protect

I would have less sympathy with that man DPrince, as while understandable, it was very much premeditated.

I don't feel ambivalent about his actions in the slightest.....

Good on him

Dprince that's a bit different though, that was premeditated murder. Although, ridding the world of a pedophile is an honourable thing IMO.

I commend the man for protecting his daughter, if thats what it took then thats what it took, he tried to save the despicable bastard man after, I would do the same to protect my kids and with the hatred I feel even contemplating that happening I cant say honestly I would call help

I only feel ambivalent as we know that to kill is known to be wrong in all civilised soceities. Personally, my gut reaction was that the father did the right thing.

I am of the opinion that once someone is trespassing in your house then all bets should be off.

I think for me personally quid pro quo comes into play. You shouldn't kill someone if that person is a normal unprovoking member of society, but if someone deserves it well...
I recognise that that in itself is flawed and leaves alot of room for interpretation...

Whatnmeworry I agree.
Something that's annoyed me recently is this proposed law change, if a burglar is attacked by the dog living at the house he is trying to rob, the burglar can press charges, ultimately the dog could be put down and the owner charged. What a load of crap.

How truly awful - poor family. I would fight tigers for DS and can imagine doing the same as the father, frankly. I bet a jury would feel the same way.

Spring your post made me cry pg hormonal as thats exactly how i feel. DP once said that the scene in jekyll where hyde rescues jekylls boy from the lions is how he feels (he actually said i'd punch it in the face ) I imagine most parents feel the same, so to me the mans actions seem rational.

at dog law, in this country we seem to have no rights to protect ourselves, its ridiculous!

Something that's annoyed me recently is this proposed law change, if a burglar is attacked by the dog living at the house he is trying to rob, the burglar can press charges, ultimately the dog could be put down and the owner charged. What a load of crap.

I sometimes think that there is a conspiracy (don't laugh before you look at the evidence...) to make the ordinary citizen as unable to protect themselves as possible from violent people, and keep them scared and cowed..

Is that true White Widow? Will google it for myself but do you have any more info on that proposed change to the law? Am wondering if there would be any exemption for people who put signs outside their homes warning of dogs in the house (so a burglar would know he was putting himself at risk by entering that property and knowingly took it on - which I know sounds ridiculous because you could say that any burglar would know that he risked being attacked by the owner of the property anyway but the law can be strange).

And more in the hands of the police and government ;)

wheezo - what it is is that they're coming down heavier on people with 'dangerous dogs' which I agree with (although I don't agree a dog is born vicious) but they're saying attacks in the home including those against burglars will not be excempt, and will have to be reviewed. I can't remember where I read it but I'm sure there's some information on the Internet somewhere

You're not allowed to kill people because they are also doing something wrong.
And if you want to keep on being a remotely civilised society, thats the way it should stay.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9223700/Dog-owners-could-be-prosecuted-if-their-pets-savage-burglars-under-Defra-plan.html

When I lived at home someone broke into our house. I was in bed and my dad worked nights at the time. My 3 dogs pinned the man down until my dad came home :o didn't hurt him - too much.
That's part of who they are, they protect their home. And we shouldn't expect them to do any less. But now the government will be basically asking a dog to make a decision in what is too much force