I’m having a hard time understanding the difference between what you’ve said and what Stevie said. These are some options that might explain your position:
1) Harm was already being done, so since it can’t be prevented, there’s no protection for the shooter.
2) The shooter could not have “reasonable belief” that the child wanted help to stop it.
3) ??
...up to the use of deadly force...
Other key words I forgot to paraphrase were “Reasonably determine that the use of force is necessary to stop the act...Something like that...
Bottom line...The concensus (I have heard and seen) is anyone caught actively sexually molesting a child is a deader...When you consider the cost savings of a trial, investigation, legal fees...etc etc etc...
The ones losing out are the trial lawyers...And I see no love loss for that ilk...
Most everyone I know who carries under the provisions of any states CCW law are folks who do practice good judgement, know to the best of their ability the laws in the use of force and deadly force, and apply them to their thought process every single time they strap on their firearms...
But, this guy (the father of the girl) used his bare hands!!! Last time I looked, you don’t need a permit for those...And if you ask me, why do we need a permit to carry a firearm for lawful self-defense anyway???
I guess the hoops we must jump through to exercise a Constitutional amd moral right to that means of self-defense got lost somewhere along the way...Vermont and Alaska seemed to have fixed that little detail...
We are making progress though...
Just my opinion...