Posted on 08/02/2007 10:03:39 AM PDT by Serious Capitalist
Of course your point and mine will be investigated. However, think about this: the boyfriend could have been sitting against the dresser on the floor (have you ever held a door shut with your body, I have and you don’t stand straight up).
The Bad Guy was informed previously he was not allowed in the home without escort. The minor daughter lacks the legal authority to override that prohibition period.
While a self serving legislature may have passed a law that says any 16 year old girl may have sex with as many men as can get their hands on her. They have yet to declare her emancipated in any other area.
That the Trespasser was known to the first victim (The Daughter) means nothing.
She lacks the legal authority to allow him into her parent’s home his presence there as adult is therefore illegal.
How would the Father reasonably conclude the trespasser/sexual predator was
A. Not armed?
B. Not dangerous?
C. Did not represent a potential threat to the lives and property of the Father and his family?
IN HIS HOME!!!
There simply is no rational reason to conclude the situation was safe when he made entry and indeed the subsequent events show the situation was not safe.
“….ambush nature of the entire event.”
How you can you describe a Father entering his own home armed with only an improvised weapon when he suspects an intruder is present as some form of “Ambush” is a testament to the success of liberal educational indoctrination.
Then you go on to describe a Father as the Attacker. This when physical conflict occurs after the Father discovers a trespasser/sexual predator in his own home hiding in a closet.
Then for you to continue to describe a criminal hiding in the closets actions as self defense is beyond the pale.
The person initiating a crime is the criminal and the responsibility for all acts as a resultant of their criminality properly belongs as their responsibility.
Augments about proportionality have always been head on the pin sort of stuff.. The province of Monday morning quarterbacks. However, they in no way mitigate the original crime. Which in this case I would argue consists of criminal trespass and home invasion.
There are so many criminal aspects to the punks conduct for someone not to grasp the obvious only demonstrates their own inability or unwillingness to face reality.
To not conclude all was not as it should be and to take some preparatory measures to arm oneself with an improvised weapon makes the Father a Dolt?
The Father Protector is the bad guy and the Trespasser /Sexual predator is the victim?
Perhaps you just need a new pair of glasses because the ones you are viewing this event thru....are distorting your vision.
W
I think he was making a generic statement about kids today... do you use language like STFU in front of your family?
The paralyzed man was an invited guest of the mans daughter, if she exceeded her authority in inviting guests over his problem is with her.
He should of crippled his daughter to make it clear to her, that she cannot invite folks over.
Only if he did not know he could kill someone by shooting them.
I only talk like that when people cast aspersions on my daughters.
“Yup, some of these posters are truly frightening. Makes me wonder about Free Republic and my participation here. Seriously.”
I know...no “sarc” tag either. Once they’re called on it, they usually come back with, “I was just joking.”
If he had gun control he would have killed him. What this dude needs is anger control.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.