So is this justice?
I have no problem with what this guy did. If you sat me on his jury, I'd never convict him. And if I were him, I'd divorce the wife.



FORT WORTH, Texas (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,322386,00.html) — A father sodomized his 18-year-old stepson to avenge the teenager's alleged rape of the man's 8-year-old daughter, police said.

The father, 32, turned himself into to authorities on Friday and was released from jail Saturday after posting a $17,500 bond. He faces a charge of aggravated sexual assault.

The stepson was arrested Jan. 2 and charged with suspicion of aggravated sexual assault. Police say the father caught him assaulting his daughter, and a subsequent examination at a hospital revealed the girl had been sodomized.

Sgt. Cheryl Johnson, supervisor of the Fort Worth sex crimes unit, said in a story posted Saturday on the Fort Worth Star-Telegram's Web site that people need to "allow the criminal justice system to work for them."

"This is a very unique case, but we have a criminal justice system in place, and no one can take the law into their own hands," Johnson said.

The Star-Telegram didn't identify the father or the stepson to protect the identity of the girl. Fort Worth police didn't immediately return phone and e-mail messages from The Associated Press.

When the stepson was arrested, the man warned his wife not to get the teenager out of jail. She posted bond for the teen's release. When he called home Jan. 3 after getting released, the father took the call and picked him up, police said.

Instead of taking the teenager home, the Arlington man drove to an abandoned house in Fort Worth, beat his stepson with a baseball bat and sodomized him with a metal tool, police said.

After the man left, the stepson found a pay phone and called police, who searched the abandoned home.

"We did find evidence at the scene to corroborate our victim's story," Johnson said.

I think his revenge was too light. He should have had him gang raped.

I don't blame him either. The wife appears to be exceptionally stupid.

:bugeye:. What the hell SAM, you cant just do stuff like that.

:bugeye:. What the hell SAM, you cant just do stuff like that.

that punk sodomized his 8 yr old step sister and the man caught him doing it. Then his wife bailed the poor baby out of jail.
I think I'd plead temp insanity.

that punk sodomized his 8 yr old step sister and the man caught him doing it. Then his wife bailed the poor baby out of jail.
I think I'd plead temp insanity.

Me too.

I'd probably beat him senseless and have him gang raped.

Then have his bones broken.

I can't believe the man showed so much restraint.

An eight year old child? Sick sick sick

If you sat me on his jury, I'd never convict him.

Of course it's not justice, and you've demonstrated exactly why.

Apparently a jury trial is only good enough for some of us? Of course, if jurors such as yourself have no respect for the law, there will be no justice.

Of course it's not justice, and you've demonstrated exactly why.

Apparently a jury trial is only good enough for some of us? Of course, if jurors such as yourself have no respect for the law, there will be no justice.

So, your opinion is that the man was wrong, correct?

Me too.

I'd probably beat him senseless and have him gang raped.

Then have his bones broken.

I can't believe the man showed so much restraint.

An eight year old child? Sick sick sick

So this is what people against the death penalty have in mind? HAHAH! Give me the chair over this any day!

---

If I were the father, I wouldn't have sodomized the boy (can't help but feel a little grossed out by that). I'd just make him bite the curb...

Of course it's not justice, and you've demonstrated exactly why.

Apparently a jury trial is only good enough for some of us? Of course, if jurors such as yourself have no respect for the law, there will be no justice.

Frankly I would not be able to convict him either. The circumstances are just too incredibly sick. What normal person would NOT take action?

What would you do in a similar circumstance?

that punk sodomized his 8 yr old step sister and the man caught him doing it. Then his wife bailed the poor baby out of jail.
I think I'd plead temp insanity.

I can understand killing the guy in an act of passion but that wont make things right. Longer jail terms with no bail is the best option. I think do this once and you get life in prison, no parole.

In prison they should have to produce something valuable for sale. Except for particularly violent cases, that should be different.

So this is what people against the death penalty have in mind? HAHAH! Give me the chair over this any day!

.

Apples and oranges.

I've beat up many a boy in my day for being an arse.

...If I were the father, I wouldn't have sodomized the boy (can't help but feel a little grossed out by that). I'd just make him bite the curb...

what's 'bite the curb'? And he sodomized the boy with a piece of metal.

Apples and oranges.

I've beat up many a boy in my day for being an arse.

As for your punishment, who would you have gang rape him?

what's 'bite the curb'? And he sodomized the boy with a piece of metal.

It's when you make someone "bite" a curb. Then you kick the back of their head, which subsequently breaks their teeth/jaw. Done hard enough, it can kill someone. Ever watch American History X?

Urban dictionary: to coerce someone to lie down on the street and open their mouth on the concrete curb, at which point the assailants can then stomp on the back of the victim's head, shattering their teeth and causing severe head/neck trauma.

.....Ever watch American History X?

LOL, If I had would I need to ask what it meant?

As for your punishment, who would you have gang rape him?

Haven't thought that far ahead, this is just a reaction, you understand?:p

Though if he showed up at my door, he would regret it.

LOL, If I had would I need to ask what it meant?

Maybe. It was only a short clip, and they didn't give it a name. Anyway, it's a great movie.

So, your opinion is that the man was wrong, correct?

Well, what are you suggesting. If we are pissed off we can 1) determine guilt and 2) decide the proper punishment.

Is this only around crimes related to sex? to children?

If I am robbed by people illegally armed, am I allowed to find them the next day and rob back? (how much do I get to take? just what they took? I should also take something for my inconvenience too.)

I am not thrilled with Stepdaddy's actions. What if he is 'sure' someone in my family did something?

I would not treat it as a simple rape, were I the judge or even the prosecutor. To do that is wrong.

But just how big is the door you are trying to open.
What parts of the current legal system do you think we should now all, as inviduals have the right to bypass?

Haven't thought that far ahead, this is just a reaction, you understand?:p

Though if he showed up at my door, he would regret it.

Even if he was on his knees begging for forgiveness, and had brought you a delicious fruitbasket?

Even if he was on his knees begging for forgiveness, and had brought you a delicious fruitbasket?

Are you kidding. He SODOMISED an EIGHT year old. He'll be lucky if I don't just bash his head in.

However, if he consents to physical and chemical castration, I'll be happy to assist him.

Apples and oranges.

I've beat up many a boy in my day for being an arse.
:roflmao: Your too much.

Are you kidding. He SODOMISED an EIGHT year old. He'll be lucky if I don't just bash his head in.

Actually, I was kidding (thought the whole fruitbasket thing would give it away).

However, if he consents to physical and chemical castration, I'll be happy to assist him.

What's with you and castration? You seem to have a fetish for robbing men of their manhood. :bugeye:

What's with you and castration? You seem to have a fetish for robbing men of their manhood. :bugeye:

I used to spay cats with my vet.:p

Are you kidding. He SODOMISED an EIGHT year old. He'll be lucky if I don't just bash his head in.

However, if he consents to physical and chemical castration, I'll be happy to assist him.

So if you were the judge presiding over the trial of the 18 year old you would sentence him to gang rape? Would he also serve jail time or would you release him after that?

And if you were a jury member in the step-father's trial you would vote not guilty?

So if you were the judge presiding over the trial of the 18 year old you would sentence him to gang rape? Would he also serve jail time or would you release him after that?

And if you were a jury member in the step-father's trial you would vote not guilty?

If I was the judge in the 18 year old's trial (and not restricted by legal booyah), I would consider him a danger to children and give him the option of life in an institution or physical plus chemical castration with lifelong probation.

In my ideal institution, since we are fantasising, he would be able to get an education and work.

For the father, I would recommend community service; mostly so he would have the opportunity to get over what had happened to his daughter.

I used to spay cats with my vet.:p
which means you took out their ovaries.

which means you took out their ovaries.

No I made little slits in their testicles and snipped out their little balls. :D

Ah I just looked it up, we always used "spaying" as the term, I guess neutering would be more appropriate.

If I was the judge in the 18 year old's trial (and not restricted by legal booyah), I would consider him a danger to children and give him the option of life in an institution or physical plus chemical castration with lifelong probation.

And if he turns out to have been sexually abused as a child - which is fairly likely - would this affect how you would treat this just reached the age of majority adult.

For the father, I would recommend community service; mostly so he would have the opportunity to get over what had happened to his daughter.
Which would essentially set precedent for revenge. What other crimes do you think we should be allowed to take revenge for. And given the fact that this was not immediate revenge, but premeditated revenge, do you have any concerns about the message you are sending about when citizens can bypass the law and act as judge and jury.

In other words this was not a situation where the man caught the guy doing it and flipped out and beat the living hell out of the guy or even sodomized him on the spot. But later, with some good chance that the guy would go to prison where he would stand a good chance of being raped, he decides to meet out his justice anyway.

What other crimes do you think it is OK for us to take care of on our own?

And if he turns out to have been sexually abused as a child - which is fairly likely - would this affect how you would treat this just reached the age of majority adult.

Nope, regardless of his history I am interested in the children he will have access to. If he was abused, then its even more imperative that no more children are.


Which would essentially set precedent for revenge. What other crimes do you think we should be allowed to take revenge for. And given the fact that this was not immediate revenge, but premeditated revenge, do you have any concerns about the message you are sending about when citizens can bypass the law and act as judge and jury.


Absolutely, I would do the same for all fathers who witnessed their underage children being sodomised.

In other words this was not a situation where the man caught the guy doing it and flipped out and beat the living hell out of the guy or even sodomized him on the spot. But later, with some good chance that the guy would go to prison where he would stand a good chance of being raped, he decides to meet out his justice anyway.


As long as the boy was in prison, it was fine, he is now on the loose and a danger to the daughter or other children, again.

What other crimes do you think it is OK for us to take care of on our own?

Several, but mostly any that are inadequate in addressing the danger to children.

If the father beat the son immediately with a bat, that could get some sympathy with a jury, but waiting several days and then assaulting him shows pre-meditation, and it's just as criminal as what the son did.

If the father beat the son immediately with a bat, that could get some sympathy with a jury, but waiting several days and then assaulting him shows pre-meditation, and it's just as criminal as what the son did.

I actually think the fact he only did it when he knew the son was free shows that he respects the law, but not when it endangers his child.

He has no respect for the law, obviously. He didn't think the law could inflict an adequate punishment, an eye for an eye. It doesn't work like that here.

That was too light. I would have killed him very, very slowly.

He has no respect for the law, obviously. He didn't think the law could inflict an adequate punishment, an eye for an eye.

I'm guessing you would have a different reaction to witnessing a family member sodomised, especially an underage one.

I can only speak for myself.

It doesn't work like that here.

Nope, it sure doesn't. <insert stuff about premeptive wars and secret prisons and racially motivated convictions and sentencing>

Does anyone else think he should have just fucking killed him? A dead guy can't rape anyone.

Unlike you people, my belief in the rule of law is not provisional. It's not based on my personal feelings of outrage.

Have you ever actually had any dealings with the law?

Sure.

What would you do in a similar circumstance?

I'd at least give the justice system a chance before I cracked.

Frankly I would not be able to convict him either. The circumstances are just too incredibly sick. What normal person would NOT take action?

A rational person?

A decent person?

A person who is not a complete moron?

What I don't understand, though, is why nobody bothered to request or issue a no-contact (restraining, protection) order.

I find it ironic that you and others would acquit the man from a juror's perspective. After all, the one thing that is unacceptable to this man is, apparently, a trial by jury.

Anyway, there is one chuckle to be had, at least: anal rape = heterosexual justice.

So, on the upside, it's worth noting that none of 'em are gay.

I'd at least give the justice system a chance before I cracked.



A rational person?

A decent person?

A person who is not a complete moron?

What I don't understand, though, is why nobody bothered to request or issue a no-contact (restraining, protection) order.

I find it ironic that you and others would acquit the man from a juror's perspective. After all, the one thing that is unacceptable to this man is, apparently, a trial by jury.

Anyway, there is one chuckle to be had, at least: anal rape = heterosexual justice.

So, on the upside, it's worth noting that none of 'em are gay.

Its not anal rape = heterosexual justice.

Its "the law let you out but don't try this again while you're out, and just to underline it, this is what it feels like to have something forced up your arse when you cannot defend yourself against it"

Where is the boy currently living? At home with the same guy and his daughter?

Also is his daughter also his wife's daughter? If not, he may have also done this out of anger towards his wife for releasing the boy.

Its "the law let you out but don't try this again while you're out, and just to underline it, this is what it feels like to have something forced up your arse when you cannot defend yourself against it"

Okay. You realize, though, you're not helping your case. The argument that "I'm unhappy with the way the law works, therefore I'm going to shove various objects up your ass" doesn't amount to much more than ignorant vigilanteism.

I mean, think about it: you're seeking a reason to justify a sexual assault. I would applaud the irony, except that I think it's sick.

Where is the boy currently living? At home with the same guy and his daughter?

I've been wondering about that, too.

Also is his daughter also his wife's daughter? If not, he may have also done this out of anger towards his wife for releasing the boy.

Well, at least he didn't throw anybody off a bridge, eh?

• • •

As a general comment, it's worth recalling the number of people who decry liberal philosophies for "giving criminals too many rights". Would this be one of those cases? After all, this man decided that the right to a jury trial was too much privilege for his stepson, and yet justice will bring this man before a jury. Those who would, from a juror's perspective, acquit a vigilante should also remember that their judgment, in this suspect's mind, is apparently not valid to begin with. Ironic, and nearly paradoxical, eh?

But what now? Should the law just forego a jury trial? Maybe import to Texas some NYPD officers and have them beat the man and ram a toilet plunger up his ass? After all, if it's good enough for a sodomite rapist, it's good enough for a sodomite rapist. Right? Right?

Oh, right. We're supposed to find a reason to excuse this sodomite rapist.

Seriously, I don't know whether to make a Texas joke here, or build a Mitt Romney "at least they're not gay" punchline.

I think anyone who endangers a child should not be let out on bail.

If I was the judge in the 18 year old's trial (and not restricted by legal booyah), I would consider him a danger to children and give him the option of life in an institution or physical plus chemical castration with lifelong probation.

In my ideal institution, since we are fantasising, he would be able to get an education and work.

For the father, I would recommend community service; mostly so he would have the opportunity to get over what had happened to his daughter.

I think he did a community service already.

I think anyone who endangers a child should not be let out on bail.

It's a reasonable proposition. Unfortunately, a general application of such a rule is simply infeasible. It sounds great when someone claims to have caught a suspect in the act, but this is America, and, whether you like it or not, this suspect is innocent until proven guilty. This particular accusation, as repugnant as it is, does not describe a no-bail case, especially when the accused has no criminal record.

• • •


I think he did a community service already.

The courts won't be particularly lenient with him. He has a rap sheet (http://www.star-telegram.com/metro_news/story/407080.html). Burglary plea in '96 that dropped two counts of assault with bodily injury and one of fraud (theft by check); the probation from that was revoked in 2000, and he served time. In 2001, he received a sentence for assault with bodily injury (presumably in relation to the revocation of probation). In 2006, he did twenty days for possession of marijuana.

• • •

As a general comment, this will be an interesting case to follow. The state's primary witnesses against the boy are:

• A man with a history that includes alleged fraud and a conviction for assault.

• An 8 year-old girl whose testimony could easily be manipulated.

There is, of course, one detail we don't have: Is there a DNA result from the rape examination?

It's a reasonable proposition. Unfortunately, a general application of such a rule is simply infeasible. It sounds great when someone claims to have caught a suspect in the act, but this is America, and, whether you like it or not, this suspect is innocent until proven guilty. This particular accusation, as repugnant as it is, does not describe a no-bail case, especially when the accused has no criminal record.


I blame the mother, she was foolish to the point of endangering the child. He should dump her.

That was too light. I would have killed him very, very slowly.

I would have killed him as soon as I caught him. He never would have made it to jail, but I assume the father's thoughts were more on helping his 8 yr old daughter while that scum ran out of the room pulling his pants up.

He has no respect for the law, obviously. He didn't think the law could inflict an adequate punishment, an eye for an eye. It doesn't work like that here.

I really don't think he cared what would happen to him after he did it. I think he was only thinking of his daughter and what she went through. Then to have his wife turn around and bail him out....I can see that pushing him over the edge.

For all I know the kid got lippy in the car and his step-dad drove him some place, took the bat out of the truck and beat him. Grabbed a tool out of his tool box and sodomized him with it.

I would have killed him as soon as I caught him. He never would have made it to jail,

Same here, just get me the nearest baseball bat :mad:

Here is an issue that should have been raised: Under no circumstances should the stepson have been allowed back in the house with the girl who he allegedly sodomized.

Well, he is innocent til proven guilty. (Doesn't matter that he was caught in the act or medical proof was given of teh 8 yr old girls rape) And the Mom bailed him out so he could come home.

It's still an unacceptable risk. Where were the child protection services when they were actually needed?

Here is an issue that should have been raised: Under no circumstances should the stepson have been allowed back in the house with the girl who he allegedly sodomized.

I agree.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The father's actions have proven him to be equally violent and sick as the stepson who raped his daughter.

Instead of driving out to pick up the boy, he should have taken the girl away and gotten her the help she needs to recover from her own ordeal. What he has done is placed himself in a position where he may now have to be away from his daughter, if he finds himself jailed for what he has done. Worst of all, he has now allowed his daughter's rapist to become a victim of rape. His sodomising his daughter's rapist will now take away from what the stepson did and brand the stepson as a victim.

He should have given the law a chance to work.

Don't get me wrong, if it were my child who had been raped, I would have sought revenge too. But not like this. If the law failed to jail the stepson after a trial, then I would probably find myself hunting him down and killing him with my bare hands. But to leave the daughter behind (I am assuming she was not with him when he went to pick the stepson from the police station?), then take the time to sodomise the stepson and beat him like that.. that time could have been better spent with his daughter and getting her out of the house and taking her someplace where she would feel safe. In short, he put his own need for revenge over his daughter's needs.

His first priority should have been to his daughter, not to exacting revenge on the stepson.

I don't think he was thinking all that much

I agree.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

The father's actions have proven him to be equally violent and sick as the stepson who raped his daughter.

Instead of driving out to pick up the boy, he should have taken the girl away and gotten her the help she needs to recover from her own ordeal. What he has done is placed himself in a position where he may now have to be away from his daughter, if he finds himself jailed for what he has done. Worst of all, he has now allowed his daughter's rapist to become a victim of rape. His sodomising his daughter's rapist will now take away from what the stepson did and brand the stepson as a victim.

He should have given the law a chance to work.

Don't get me wrong, if it were my child who had been raped, I would have sought revenge too. But not like this. If the law failed to jail the stepson after a trial, then I would probably find myself hunting him down and killing him with my bare hands. But to leave the daughter behind (I am assuming she was not with him when he went to pick the stepson from the police station?), then take the time to sodomise the stepson and beat him like that.. that time could have been better spent with his daughter and getting her out of the house and taking her someplace where she would feel safe. In short, he put his own need for revenge over his daughter's needs.

His first priority should have been to his daughter, not to exacting revenge on the stepson.

Bet you the son of a bitch stays away.

I understand that it probably made the stepfather feel good to take revenge in this way, but is this really helping the daughter? Not only was SHE raped out of lust, she will now have to deal with the fact that her father is a revenge-rapist too; whether the raping was done in lust by or in the heat of revenge matters little to an 8 year old, now she has to deal with TWO horrors.

"...he put his own need for revenge over his daughter's needs" (Bells, above). This sums it up, exactly.

Not only that but the child will now have to go into care because the father will be in jail or will be judged an unfit parent so she will be left without his surport. I agree 100% with bell that it was understandable that he did this but compleatly unaceptable

They shouldn't charge the stepfather with being a sex offender because he was administering revenge in kind for the injury done to his daughter.

Does anyone else think he should have just fucking killed him? A dead guy can't rape anyone.

Hey, there is a thread on capital punishment with the same idea.

I would have given him very harsh punishment for taking justice into his own hands, like 20 hours community service.

2 wrongs don't make a right, but 3 rights do make a left....

because he was administering revenge in kind ...

That was logical. That's how justice should be. Had he burnt the son, now that would have been cruel....

My favorite comment from Digg on the article:

"Go out into the forrest in Yosemite. Find a bear den with cubs in it and a mother. Try to sodomize the cub. Let me know what happens ok?""

Revenge isn't a legal defense.

revenge crimes are punished MORE harshly not less because they can lead to a systamatic break down of sociaty

Not if you plead diminished capacity

They shouldn't charge the stepfather with being a sex offender because he was administering revenge in kind for the injury done to his daughter.

In exacting his revenge, he became a sex offender.

I wonder how anyone will explain this to the 8 year old girl? She now has to live with the knowledge that not only was she raped, but her father is also a rapist in that he sodomised her rapist. How will they explain to her that what her step-brother did to her was wrong, but what her father did to her step-brother is somehow ok because it was revenge? She won't be able to distinguish between the two. Raping someone as revenge does mean it is any less of a rape.

In exacting his revenge, he became a sex offender.

I wonder how anyone will explain this to the 8 year old girl? She now has to live with the knowledge that not only was she raped, but her father is also a rapist in that he sodomised her rapist. How will they explain to her that what her step-brother did to her was wrong, but what her father did to her step-brother is somehow ok because it was revenge? She won't be able to distinguish between the two. Raping someone as revenge does mean it is any less of a rape.

Thats true, I agree with all this.

I would probably just kill him with my bare hands.

Not if you plead diminished capacity

How can he? He knows that rape is wrong. His then raping the rapist does not make his crime any less vile just because it is revenge. It just makes him a rapist like his stepson is a rapist.

Not if you plead diminished capacity

That'll be a hard plea for this one:

(A) It's Texas
(B) His actions show calculation—e.g. taking the kid to an empty house
(C) He has a record that includes assault

If the prosecution can manage to work in the point that he pled on a burglary charge and had a fraud charge dropped, it will make a diminished capacity defense even tougher. His best hope is that a jury will agree with you, that juries aren't worth the bother.

Thats true, I agree with all this.

I would probably just kill him with my bare hands.

Had he done so, it would have been understandable. But to rape him? It has only diminished what has happened to his own daughter. What kind of message does it send her?

revenge crimes are punished MORE harshly

I agree. That's why I gave the 20 hours community service....

he definitly didnt think about that poor little girl when he did it. So now who is she left with?

He father would never be judged a fit parent (nor should he be), her step mother hasnt provided a safe enviroment so is not a fit parent. I just hope that her biological mother is a fit parent because that poor girl is going to need a LOT of help

he definitly didnt think about that poor little girl when he did it. So now who is she left with?

He father would never be judged a fit parent (nor should he be), her step mother hasnt provided a safe enviroment so is not a fit parent. I just hope that her biological mother is a fit parent because that poor girl is going to need a LOT of help

I think we should wait for the verdict. Presently both are out on bail (and presumably in the same house)

How can you concider 20 hours comunity service fair even if you forget that it was a revenge crime

16 years i belive is the standard sentance for rape, if you add another 5 for revenge you get 21 years jail.

SAM i dont belive you need a conviction to rule someone an unfit parent. In fact im SURE you dont, you also dont need to establish it behond resnable doubt either

How can you concider 20 hours comunity service fair even if you forget that it was a revenge crime

OK, I was too harsh, 15 hours...

now i know you are being saterical

I actually think the fact he only did it when he knew the son was free shows that he respects the law, but not when it endangers his child.
It was the first moment he had access to the man. and his actions clearly do not show respect for the law since he broke several of them.

For the father, I would recommend community service; mostly so he would have the opportunity to get over what had happened to his daughter.
this wasn't my question in relation to the step-father. I was asking if you were on the jury - who decide guilt or innocence and generally not the sentence in the US. Is there a crime you would find him guilty of?

Absolutely, I would do the same for all fathers who witnessed their underage children being sodomised.

That's it? Just anal penetration, not other kinds of sexual abuse or violence?
And to be clear: I don't think your position is ridiculous, but if you have a clear position - for example, something like the parents of children sexually abused are free to exact revenge on the perpetrators - 1) as a member of a democracy one should work to change the laws. In other words you believe that certain crimes warrent vigillante behavior. Parents of children cannot be expected to follow due process, even days or more after the event and should have exemptions. 2) these exemptions from due process should be carefully worded, so that, for example, adult victims of assaults cannot assume that they too can exact revenge. Or handicapped victims or victims of white collar crimes etc.

I think it should also be made clear what happens to those who carry out revenge on the wrong person. Their lawyers will definitely use any law you make out of the above to vastly reduce the guilt of their clients. They made a mistake - under the horrible stress of the incident - and chose the wrong person, but they had the right to exact revenge.

As long as the boy was in prison, it was fine, he is now on the loose and a danger to the daughter or other children, again.
If he is still a danger than the step-fathers revenge and punishment was worthless. And it was a planned controlled revenge. We are not talking about an out of control beating.


Several, but mostly any that are inadequate in addressing the danger to children
1) the stepfathers actions may not have prevented anything.
2) So it is only in relation to children where you feel people should have the right to bypass due process?
Why do you limit this to situations that involve children?
If someone rapes my wife and I then rape him in revenge a few days later...you would send me to jail?
How about my elderly mother?

this wasn't my question in relation to the step-father. I was asking if you were on the jury - who decide guilt or innocence and generally not the sentence in the US. Is there a crime you would find him guilty of?

No. Its why they would never let me be on the jury.

Would you let people off in general for taking the law in their own hands if
1) they got the right person
2) their revenge fit the crime

And have you tried to affect legislation so that it fits your beliefs about justice and due process?

Would you let people off in general for taking the law in their own hands if
1) they got the right person
2) their revenge fit the crime

And have you tried to affect legislation so that it fits your beliefs about justice and due process?

I don't know what I would do. I know in this case, I wouldn't be able to find him guilty. I would have killed that piece of shit. He got off lucky.

Ever see the movie A Time To Kill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_To_Kill).

And why are people saying now the girl has to go into the system. Anyone ever consider her living with her Mom?

I don't know what I would do. I know in this case, I wouldn't be able to find him guilty. I would have killed that piece of shit. He got off lucky.

Ever see the movie A Time To Kill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_To_Kill).

And why are people saying now the girl has to go into the system. Anyone ever consider her living with her Mom?

In effect you are saying that one case of sodomy is acceptable, while another is not? Sodomy for revenge is alright, but not for anything else?

Where would the line be drawn? Would it only be acceptable if it is revenging another rape?

Is her mother the wife who bailed out the stepson? Or is she the father's ex? As it stands, if the stepson has returned home, she cannot stay there.

In effect you are saying that one case of sodomy is acceptable, while another is not? Sodomy for revenge is alright, but not for anything else?

Where would the line be drawn? Would it only be acceptable if it is revenging another rape?

Is her mother the wife who bailed out the stepson? Or is she the father's ex? As it stands, if the stepson has returned home, she cannot stay there.

I'm saying I understand why he did what he did. I could never find him guilty. I'm saying the punk got off light cuz I would have killed him. He got what he deserved. Some may say the Dad serving prison time is getting what he deserved. I don't feel that way. I think the Dad showed restraint in not killing him, which is what I would have done.

The rapists Mother bailed him out. She is the child's stepmother.

I don't know what I would do. I know in this case, I wouldn't be able to find him guilty. I would have killed that piece of shit. He got off lucky.

Ever see the movie A Time To Kill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Time_To_Kill).
Yup, I've seen it. I have to say I can't remember whether the rapist was going to get away with it.

I think what bothers me about the case in the OP is the cold-bloodedness of the revenge.

As strange as it may seem I have more sympathy for a hot blooded immediate kill reaction.

But this stepfather did not, I assume, say 'I am going to fucking kill you' when he got the call. He went down with bail money, had a place to take revenge in mind, had a tool. I assume he was fairly calm and controlled when he picked the guy up.

I have to say I am not sure I want this guy on my block. the guy who comes home, finds his stepson raping his 8 years and beats him to death or spur of the moment grabs something in the room and sodomizes the guy. That guy I am much more happy to have as a neighbor.

But this guy set himself up as judge and jury.

Also it opens a lot of doors if we say he did not commit a crime.

Honestly, I am not sure what I would do if I were the judge and let's say the guy got found guilty of aggravated assault or some other intermediate charge. I do feel incredibly sympathetic to his rage and even to his violence with the provisos mentioned above. On the other hand I am in a position of closing the door on anybody whose family member is the victim of violence playing Clint Eastwood.

I also wonder about this guy, the stepfather.

I would also have more sympathy for the stepfather if the stepson was aquitted say on a technicality.

I think what bothers me about the case in the OP is the cold-bloodedness of the revenge.

How would you know? First the mother pissed him off and maybe the kid said something stupid in the truck that aggrevated his anger....

How would you know? First the mother pissed him off and maybe the kid said something stupid in the truck that aggrevated his anger....

If it turned out that the 'kid' said something stupid in the truck, that would affect my reaction. Interesting you would call him a kid, since I assume you are for him getting harsh treatment and being on the receiving end of an eye for an eye.

I thought about pointing out that in some states he would be a minor perhaps days before.

Many to put this kid away forever regardless of whether he was abused or there is any possibility he can change.

What if it turns out he was raped repeatedly by the father who is not in the picture?

Should his life be essentially over.
(I am not talking now about the hot blooded beating of the kid, but rather the life sentence (plus being sodomized by a tool) that many seem to think is the only good justice for the 'kid')

There is a difference between legally adult and emotionally,socially mature. At 18 he is most likely a blabbering idiot....

By the way I could make a case that the kid's punishment was already done. I am all for the quick punishment types instead of wasting time and money in prisons....

There is a difference between legally adult and emotionally,socially mature. At 18 he is most likely a blabbering idiot....which sounds like you mean 18 year olds in general are not very together. Were I a judge his age would affect my sentencing. His attitude, his past also, of course. And of course the crime. But I am less likely than some of the others here to assume that justice is best served if we throw the key away on every 18 year old who commits such a crime.

By the way I could make a case that the kid's punishment was already done. I am all for the quick punishment types instead of wasting time and money in prisons....

Which is part of the problem from anybody's position. That he was raped will come out in his trial. The ones here who think the stepdad did right AND he should go to prison (forever) are not taking into account how his having been raped may get him off and will, I would lay money on it, end up reducing his sentence immensely. An eye for an eye, to some degree happened. I am not saying this is right but those who think he should be put away for life should realize the stepfather reduced that possibility to nil. And he damn well cut down any sentence that kid faced.

In relation to your position that he received his punishment, he will, nevertheless go to trial and probably do time. So we did not reduce courts and prisons, etc.

Hey, there is a thread on capital punishment with the same idea.

I would have given him very harsh punishment for taking justice into his own hands, like 20 hours community service.

2 wrongs don't make a right, but 3 rights do make a left....

I don't agree. I sympathize wih his anger. The kid, for want of a better word, had just been let out on bail despite having just raped his daughter. Can you not see why he felt that the justice system had failed him?

I would not actually call what he did cold blooded. You would have to have a lot of rage in you to do that.

Me too.

I'd probably beat him senseless and have him gang raped.

Then have his bones broken.

I can't believe the man showed so much restraint.

An eight year old child? Sick sick sick
Wow, SAM, we're on the same side of this issue. And you're actually to my right. I think the father metted out a perfect punishment, while you think he needed a gang rape and broken bones in addition to the beating/sodomy. Of course it's not justice, and you've demonstrated exactly why.
Apparently a jury trial is only good enough for some of us? Of course, if jurors such as yourself have no respect for the law, there will be no justice.At least Tiassa still disagrees with me. I was starting to think I should rethink my position!

Tiassa:

Oh, right. We're supposed to find a reason to excuse this sodomite rapist.


Don't you think it's funny how a lot of people attempting to excuse the father's vigalante behaviour are dyed in the wool liberals against the death penalty?

I am not excusing his behavior in the least, I feel sorry for his daughter not him.
Also im against CP so there goes your argument

Originally Posted by S.A.M.
Me too.

I'd probably beat him senseless and have him gang raped.

Then have his bones broken.

I can't believe the man showed so much restraint.

An eight year old child? Sick sick sick


That's not an eye for an eye though. Did the 18 year old beat the 8 year old near to death with a baseball bat? Did he get his mates around to gang rape her? Did he break all of her bones?

I have nothing against 'eye for an eye' justice, because it is the most elementary form of justice. You hit me, I hit you back. You sodomise my daughter, I sodomise you. What goes around comes around.

But to go overboard like you're suggesting is just malicious, and isn't justice in any sense of the word. It's not the pussy liberal concept of 'justice', and it's not 'eye for an eye' either.

Orleander:

I'm saying I understand why he did what he did. I could never find him guilty


He broke the law to get revenge. He wasn't out for justice, he was out for revenge. You can't just break the law in such a serious manner, and then expect to get off scott free. Otherwise there would be no point in having a legal system.

By the way, isn't the accused assumed innocent until proven guilty? So why are we all assuming that the teen is guilty?

Are you kidding. He SODOMISED an EIGHT year old. He'll be lucky if I don't just bash his head in.

However, if he consents to physical and chemical castration, I'll be happy to assist him.


So next time a woman rapes a small child, you'd be glad to get out the rusty spoon to fix her up?

So next time a woman rapes a small child,

I probably missed the memo, but when did that EVER happen???

By the way, isn't the accused assumed innocent until proven guilty? So why are we all assuming that the teen is guilty?

1. Because the dad caught him in the act.
2. Why are we assuming the dad is guilty?

Umm...wow. Sodomy festival for that family but both the dad and the son are both guilty, for....ehh...rape.