The title would be more apt if the children were back with their parents after the abuse had ended and the parents then planned and carried out a separate, retributive act of vengeance after the fact.
If children can’t depend on their parrent’s, who can they depend on?
GWS (goes without saying) the most inherent character of most parents is to protect their child by any means. The system obviously failed these SF parents and no one has the right to decide the validity and instinctive action of natural law which by the way supersedes man’s law. It is shameful to indict these parents.
When I lived in Austin, there was a case where a Karate instructor had kidnapped and ran off with a 10 yr old kid. He was arrested and extradited back to Texas. As he came out of security, in handcuffs, with a Deputy on each side of him, they walked past some phone booths.
The Father was waiting for him, and pulled out a .45 and shot him once in the forehead, then surrendered to the shocked and stunned Duputies - all on live TV.
He went to court and said he had no regrets, and that he would do it again if he could.
Texas jurors refused to find him guilty, simply because he admitted doing it, on live tv, in front of Deputies, while his victim was in handcuffs. Some people just need to be killed.
I wouldn’t sacrifice a quart of **** for the state I live in now; but I would proudly die for Texas.
Gangs have abrogated their right to habeas corpus AFAIAC; they are waging war on the USA, which makes them enemy combatants. Summary punishment by the military is what is needed.
Hold the phone here..
There’s a world of difference in these two situations.
While the killing of the rapist was justifiable, there does seem to be some issues about an unmarried couple killing a man who was pimping out a 17 year old.
I have no problem taking a perp out, if he’s in the midst of the activity. However, it is imperative that it be the justice system carry out the actual justice.
The family is the basis of society. The father is responsible for the safety and care of his family. In the case of the rapist, the man was caught in the act. The Father had to act to protect his family.
The safety, prosperity and general justice provided by Gov’t in the USA has conditioned people to believe this is how society normally operates. But this is an abberation - throughout history, society is often in chaos, and Gov’ts/rulers do not provide justice. That is why when the family unit is destroyed in the USA (we’re half way there now) Americans will be truly surprised and will suffer, because Gov’t certainly won’t protect them either.
Wrong analysis.
I would kill an adult I caught molesting a 5 year old girl even if she was no kin of mine at all.
There are crimes so heinous they deserve immediate punishment in the defense.
I think "beat to death" is a mischaracterization..more like an unintended consequence of removing the rapist from his defenseless child with the means (his bare fists) he had available.
That said, living in Texas, I am sure if the Dad had splattered the guy's brains everywhere with a .45, the jury still would have no billed him under Texas Statutes.
Matthew 18:5-7
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
5 And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it [a]would be better for him to have a [b]heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Stumbling Blocks
7 “Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!
We know that children who are abused are far more likely to become abusers. To stumble, in the verses above. The abusers are cursed specifically by Christ. Would I feel guilt because I took a human life? Of course, I am a normal human! Is protecting your children from abusers well within your natural rights granted by God? Of course!
No
wrong or right... I don’t care.
TOUCH MY KIDS = YOU’RE DEAD.
Doesn’t matter if it’s my child or not. I see someone harming a child in my presence, I will destroy that person. Somethings cannot be excused and harming a child is at the top of that list.
I wouldn’t vote to convict any of these parents if I were on the jury.
The pimped daughter’s parents, because the law would not help them. They went to the law. The law didn’t care that their daughter was being pimped out. Even if it had, what would the pimp had to do if he were caught, tried and convicted? Two months? There is no justice.
The raped five year old’s parent, for far more reasons. First of all he was defending her as he caught the monster in the act. Secondly there is NO consent on a five year old’s part. But lastly, because there is no justice for child molesters in this country. He may have just been deported. . . or gotten 5 years in prison or something. He should be plain old executed. Until convicted child rapists are executed, I support any parent who kills them. Not politically correct, but that’s the way it is.
When there is no justice, people take justice into their own hands. Our legislators need to remember that. We need to have a sense that justice usually prevails.
There’s some subtleties to this in which we all might agree.
To start with, there are cases of pure vengeance, but critically in those cases, the authorities *acted*, and the criminal was likely to get the full force of the law, but only to the extent of the law, which the parents thought was not enough. The karate guy is an example of this.
In the case of the 17 year old, the parents called on the authorities to act, but importantly, *they did not act*. So this is not pure vengeance, but vigilantism, taking the law into your own hands because the authorities either refuse to, or worse, take the side of the criminal.
Arguments are often made, however, in the gun control debate that *if* there are authorities then people don’t need guns, which is bogus, of course. But that also relates to the father of the 4 year old. If someone is committing a violent felony, *any* person is authorized to use up to and including lethal force to stop them.
That is, authorities are *constrained* to try and *arrest* violent criminals *alive*, even while they are in the middle of committing a crime, if they can; but ordinary people are not so limited. If they kill the criminal, they should have relative immunity from prosecution.
However, this does not mean they can just walk away. The medical examiner must determine that the dead criminal was killed, which *automatically* makes the cause of death “homicide”. And since there is no statute of limitations for homicide, it is necessary to convene a grand jury to see if they will indict the person for killing the criminal.
It *used* to be the case that the grand jury almost *had* to indict the person, so that a criminal jury could acquit them, so they would be protected from prosecution in the future because of double jeopardy. Not so much anymore.
Yes, it’s a messy process, even if it is plain as day that the criminal was committing a violent crime when they were killed.
Well I believe in the law. But if the law fails to protect us and our children—and especially if it PREVENTS us from protecting ourselves and our children—then there is obviously something wrong, and we must protect ourselves.
At some point we have to abandon “Uncle Sugar” and protect our kids! 9 mil, shot gun or bear hands. No “never mind!” they are family!
You had better make DAMN SURE someone is guilty first (like catching them in the act), because children lie like dogs nowadays, and will fabricate BS out of whole cloth just to stir trouble.
You can also bet your bottom dollar that every last kid on that school bus is DENYING that they had ANYTHING to do with abusing that poor bus monitor.