|
Post by fixit on Jul 20, 2014 20:35:10 GMT -5
What would YOU do if you found someone sexually abusing your child?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2014 20:37:14 GMT -5
on another forum i am on 100% of everyone said they would have done the same if not more to the person in question...
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 20, 2014 21:35:55 GMT -5
on another forum i am on 100% of everyone said they would have done the same if not more to the person in question... I feel anybody would have reacted that way if they saw their own child being attacked in such a fashion. It's just a knee-jerk reaction as it brings instant rage to the surface.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 20, 2014 21:35:55 GMT -5
On the other hand, the father is just lucky he didn't kill the kid.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Jul 20, 2014 21:36:51 GMT -5
On the other hand, the father is just lucky he didn't kill the kid. I'm sure that 18 year old kid will think twice the next time he attempts such a thing, IMHO?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 20, 2014 22:05:55 GMT -5
On the other hand, the father is just lucky he didn't kill the kid. I'm sure that 18 year old kid will think twice the next time he attempts such a thing, IMHO? That's for certain. My concern is: that doesn't constitute justifiable homicide.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 21, 2014 18:32:44 GMT -5
I'm sure that 18 year old kid will think twice the next time he attempts such a thing, IMHO? O_o That's for certain. My concern is: that doesn't constitute justifiable homicide. Not assault and battery either. People taking the law into their own hands is never a good solution.
|
|
|
Post by breakingfree on Jul 21, 2014 18:57:50 GMT -5
That's for certain. My concern is: that doesn't constitute justifiable homicide. Not assault and battery either. People taking the law into their own hands is never a good solution. I disagree that it's NEVER a good solution. Sometimes it's not a good solution. Sometimes it is. I'm not sure understand your concern. Are you saying the sexual assault on the boy doesn't constitute justifiable homicide? Do you think the father should have been charged with assault and battery? Would you clarify, please?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 21, 2014 20:24:21 GMT -5
That's for certain. My concern is: that doesn't constitute justifiable homicide. Not assault and battery either. People taking the law into their own hands is never a good solution.Really? So if you see someone attacking your wife/kid/neighbor/grandma/etc you would just call 911 and wait for the cops to show up and hope the person didn't do too much damage? That's pretty sad......
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 21, 2014 21:15:22 GMT -5
That's for certain. My concern is: that doesn't constitute justifiable homicide. Not assault and battery either. People taking the law into their own hands is never a good solution. Maybe not a good solution, but sometimes the only solution you have. I know if I came across someone molesting or assaulting my children I would have protected them any way I could. I would have no problem with that. If I had an alternative to violence I would use it, it not I would use violence to save their lives.
|
|
|
Post by openingact34 on Jul 21, 2014 21:53:38 GMT -5
That's for certain. My concern is: that doesn't constitute justifiable homicide. Not assault and battery either. People taking the law into their own hands is never a good solution. The dad interrupted the sexual battery of his minor child in his own home. This is not a case of vigilantism where he hunted the guy down with the intent of administering his own brand of justice. He's entitled to use force to defend himself and his family. And will get a very liberal shake in doing so given all the circumstances. Suspect incapacitated but nothing broken, no serious or permanent damage, law enforcement promptly informed.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 21, 2014 22:21:47 GMT -5
Not assault and battery either. People taking the law into their own hands is never a good solution. I disagree that it's NEVER a good solution. Sometimes it's not a good solution. Sometimes it is. I'm not sure understand your concern. Are you saying the sexual assault on the boy doesn't constitute justifiable homicide? Do you think the father should have been charged with assault and battery? Would you clarify, please? No - I'm saying that in civilized societies it is never the place of individuals to punish others for their crimes. That's the fundamental rule of civilization.In many places the father would face very serious charges. He cannot be credited with leaving the guy alive -- it's just a stroke of luck for both of them that he lived. But in this country you can be excused for shooting dead a kid walking across your lawn on Halloween night. And really -- what he did to the guy for molesting his son is no guarantee at all that the guy will not offend again. Straight men who get beaten up for cheating with another man's wife don't decide to be gay so they can play it safe. I'm not excusing the guy who molested the kid -- I'm saying that the law is still far more able to deal effectively with the offender than the father did. As far as the father is concerned, all he did was vent his immature rage -- it did nothing to help his son and his energy was wasted on the offender.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 21, 2014 22:35:29 GMT -5
Not assault and battery either. People taking the law into their own hands is never a good solution.Really? So if you see someone attacking your wife/kid/neighbor/grandma/etc you would just call 911 and wait for the cops to show up and hope the person didn't do too much damage? That's pretty sad...... There's a middle of the road, you know. What's sad is that mature, supposedly civilized people believe it is their role to punish people. Is it not enough to halt the crime in progress? No, let your rage take over and possibly kill someone. An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 21, 2014 22:35:56 GMT -5
... I'm not excusing the guy who molested the kid -- I'm saying that the law is still far more able to deal effectively with the offender than the father did. As far as the father is concerned, all he did was vent his immature rage -- it did nothing to help his son and his energy was wasted on the offender. Spot on. From in information provided I assume this was not about defending or preventing further abuse but rather a father expressing his anger. I find it hard to imagine a situation in which this action would benefit the son whereas I don't find it that hard to imagine a situation in which the son would be further traumatised. The demonization of CSA perpetrators such that it allows suspension of the normal laws, human rights and ways we deal with each other decently is dangerous territory.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 21, 2014 22:42:23 GMT -5
Not assault and battery either. People taking the law into their own hands is never a good solution. The dad interrupted the sexual battery of his minor child in his own home. This is not a case of vigilantism where he hunted the guy down with the intent of administering his own brand of justice. He's entitled to use force to defend himself and his family. And will get a very liberal shake in doing so given all the circumstances. Suspect incapacitated but nothing broken, no serious or permanent damage, law enforcement promptly informed. You obviously didn't see the guy's face after the father was done with him. The kid suffered no mentionable physical damage, the guy had his face beaten literally out of shape and who knows what internal damage he suffered. That's not called defending oneself - it's called beating someone senseless and throwing him on the floor for dead -- undoubtedly disfigured for life.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 21, 2014 22:47:58 GMT -5
Not assault and battery either. People taking the law into their own hands is never a good solution. Maybe not a good solution, but sometimes the only solution you have. I know if I came across someone molesting or assaulting my children I would have protected them any way I could. I would have no problem with that. If I had an alternative to violence I would use it, it not I would use violence to save their lives. This father was obviously big enough and strong enough that if he had his senses about him he could have just as easily tied the guy up and then called the police. The law does allow for justified restraint. And yes -- the child may very well be more traumatized by the event than the offender, unless such beatings were common in that household.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 21, 2014 22:57:32 GMT -5
Really? So if you see someone attacking your wife/kid/neighbor/grandma/etc you would just call 911 and wait for the cops to show up and hope the person didn't do too much damage? That's pretty sad...... There's a middle of the road, you know. What's sad is that mature, supposedly civilized people believe it is their role to punish people. Is it not enough to halt the crime in progress? No, let your rage take over and possibly kill someone. An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind. This I agree with. I would only protect if that was the only solution to stop what was happening from doing more damage. Revenge is not mine to dish out.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Jul 21, 2014 23:02:35 GMT -5
Maybe not a good solution, but sometimes the only solution you have. I know if I came across someone molesting or assaulting my children I would have protected them any way I could. I would have no problem with that. If I had an alternative to violence I would use it, it not I would use violence to save their lives. This father was obviously big enough and strong enough that if he had his senses about him he could have just as easily tied the guy up and then called the police. The law does allow for justified restraint. And yes -- the child may very well be more traumatized by the event than the offender, unless such beatings were common in that household. I agree he went too far. Incapacitate would have been possible without a beating. I was taught how to do that in my work with Corrections Canada. How to restrain someone without hurting them. But if I had to do something to stop what was happening that was going to hurt that person and I had no choice, I would do that.
|
|
|
Post by openingact34 on Jul 21, 2014 23:26:26 GMT -5
The dad interrupted the sexual battery of his minor child in his own home. This is not a case of vigilantism where he hunted the guy down with the intent of administering his own brand of justice. He's entitled to use force to defend himself and his family. And will get a very liberal shake in doing so given all the circumstances. Suspect incapacitated but nothing broken, no serious or permanent damage, law enforcement promptly informed. You obviously didn't see the guy's face after the father was done with him. The kid suffered no mentionable physical damage, the guy had his face beaten literally out of shape and who knows what internal damage he suffered. That's not called defending oneself - it's called beating someone senseless and throwing him on the floor for dead -- undoubtedly disfigured for life. Hmmm, Description in the story was "found with several knots on his face and bleeding from the mouth". You're right, he does look worked over pretty well, but I'm not medically qualified to evaluate his condition..... "throwing him on the floor for dead -- undoubtedly disfigured for life." Not sure about that claim. Probably a lot more to the story for whoever has the time to dig into it. As far as the community that this message board reaches, I'm not aware of one single case where violent over-reaction has been an issue. Hence, the original question seems hugely relevant, but the story not so much.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 22, 2014 0:00:10 GMT -5
Really? So if you see someone attacking your wife/kid/neighbor/grandma/etc you would just call 911 and wait for the cops to show up and hope the person didn't do too much damage? That's pretty sad...... There's a middle of the road, you know. What's sad is that mature, supposedly civilized people believe it is their role to punish people. Is it not enough to halt the crime in progress? No, let your rage take over and possibly kill someone. An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind. I was referring to the comment: Not assault and battery either. People taking the law into their own hands is never a good solution. I disagree with that statement. No matter what the situation, if you get involved in stopping a crime in progress, you are in effect 'taking the law in your own hands'. Or am I mistaken there?
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 22, 2014 0:08:47 GMT -5
The dad interrupted the sexual battery of his minor child in his own home. This is not a case of vigilantism where he hunted the guy down with the intent of administering his own brand of justice. He's entitled to use force to defend himself and his family. And will get a very liberal shake in doing so given all the circumstances. Suspect incapacitated but nothing broken, no serious or permanent damage, law enforcement promptly informed. You obviously didn't see the guy's face after the father was done with him. The kid suffered no mentionable physical damage, the guy had his face beaten literally out of shape and who knows what internal damage he suffered. That's not called defending oneself - it's called beating someone senseless and throwing him on the floor for dead -- undoubtedly disfigured for life. No mentionable damage? 7online.com/news/police-florida-father-beats-man-he-found-raping-his-son/198629/ " Daytona Beach Police Chief Mike Chitwood said. "You have an 18-year-old who has clearly picked his target, groomed his target and had sex with the victim multiple times."Frolander is charged with sexual battery on a child under 12. He is being held without bail. It was not immediately known whether he'd hired a lawyer. According to the arrest affidavit, Frolander admitted the abuse.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.buzzfeed.com/alisonvingiano/911-call-bloody-puddleAccording to the affidavit, the 11-year-old victim told authorities that Frolander performed oral sex on him and told the victim to fondle him. The boy also reportedly told authorities that Frolander began abusing him a few years ago, when he was around 8 years old. Frolander was arrested and charged with sexual battery on a person less than 12 years old, according to the police report. When questioned by the police, Frolander admitted, “I’m guilty.”
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 0:12:33 GMT -5
... Probably a lot more to the story for whoever has the time to dig into it. ... Yeah there is a bit more to this story, including allegations of trusted baby sitter, grooming, having happened multiple times and police chief saying he was only doing what any normal father would do. A few more details but without the full details it is really hard to judge. The media never contains the details. Thus it becomes a black and white issue and all to often I think people end up accepting the demon in question deserved the treatment given them simply because they are a demon (whether or not that demon be a CSA offender, a terrorist, a muslim, an american a jew or whatever).
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 22, 2014 0:36:45 GMT -5
As far as the community that this message board reaches, I'm not aware of one single case where violent over-reaction has been an issue. Hence, the original question seems hugely relevant, but the story not so much. We've had a few tell-tale responses. This discussion involves an important principle that is never learned in an emergency, and if people haven't learned it before they need it they are apt to do themselves more harm than good.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 22, 2014 0:48:35 GMT -5
There's a middle of the road, you know. What's sad is that mature, supposedly civilized people believe it is their role to punish people. Is it not enough to halt the crime in progress? No, let your rage take over and possibly kill someone. An eye for an eye only makes the whole world blind. I was referring to the comment: Not assault and battery either. People taking the law into their own hands is never a good solution. I disagree with that statement. No matter what the situation, if you get involved in stopping a crime in progress, you are in effect 'taking the law in your own hands'. Or am I mistaken there? Yes, you are mistaken, in theory. People are allowed to defend themselves "with equal force", and that's not taking the law into your own hands. Taking the law into your own hands refers to what happens after legal defense -- which becomes punishment and is the court's jurisdiction. We also have a problem with "some" policemen in this country who do not understand that basic distinction.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 22, 2014 0:51:38 GMT -5
You obviously didn't see the guy's face after the father was done with him. The kid suffered no mentionable physical damage, the guy had his face beaten literally out of shape and who knows what internal damage he suffered. That's not called defending oneself - it's called beating someone senseless and throwing him on the floor for dead -- undoubtedly disfigured for life. No mentionable damage? 7online.com/news/police-florida-father-beats-man-he-found-raping-his-son/198629/ " Daytona Beach Police Chief Mike Chitwood said. "You have an 18-year-old who has clearly picked his target, groomed his target and had sex with the victim multiple times."Frolander is charged with sexual battery on a child under 12. He is being held without bail. It was not immediately known whether he'd hired a lawyer. According to the arrest affidavit, Frolander admitted the abuse.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.buzzfeed.com/alisonvingiano/911-call-bloody-puddleAccording to the affidavit, the 11-year-old victim told authorities that Frolander performed oral sex on him and told the victim to fondle him. The boy also reportedly told authorities that Frolander began abusing him a few years ago, when he was around 8 years old. Frolander was arrested and charged with sexual battery on a person less than 12 years old, according to the police report. When questioned by the police, Frolander admitted, “I’m guilty.” I said "no mentionable PHYSICAL damage".
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 22, 2014 0:55:48 GMT -5
I was referring to the comment: Not assault and battery either. People taking the law into their own hands is never a good solution. I disagree with that statement. No matter what the situation, if you get involved in stopping a crime in progress, you are in effect 'taking the law in your own hands'. Or am I mistaken there? Yes, you are mistaken, in theory. People are allowed to defend themselves "with equal force", and that's not taking the law into your own hands. Taking the law into your own hands refers to what happens after legal defense -- which becomes punishment and is the court's jurisdiction. We also have a problem with "some" policemen in this country who do not understand that basic distinction. Hmm.... I wasn't referring to defending oneself. I was referring to stopping a crime in progress. It could be something simple as tackling a purse snatcher, or blocking a bank robber with a car. Either way, I think that is a manner of taking the law into your own hands. In all those cases, you are likely going to be legally within your rights to do so, just as the father in the original story was not charged with any criminal act.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 22, 2014 0:58:35 GMT -5
Not assault and battery either. People taking the law into their own hands is never a good solution. I disagree that it's NEVER a good solution. Sometimes it's not a good solution. Sometimes it is. This is what the vigilantes claimed as well. There is a reason why civilized countries have legal systems. My concern was that an adult attacked and beat another human being because he was angry and upset and was not charged.I am saying that the sexual assault on the boy was a criminal act and that the physical assault on the 18 year old was also a criminal act.I do.There were two criminal acts. Sexual battery by an 18-year-old on a victim under 12 and assault and battery on an 18 year old.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 22, 2014 0:59:51 GMT -5
No mentionable damage? 7online.com/news/police-florida-father-beats-man-he-found-raping-his-son/198629/ " Daytona Beach Police Chief Mike Chitwood said. "You have an 18-year-old who has clearly picked his target, groomed his target and had sex with the victim multiple times."Frolander is charged with sexual battery on a child under 12. He is being held without bail. It was not immediately known whether he'd hired a lawyer. According to the arrest affidavit, Frolander admitted the abuse.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.buzzfeed.com/alisonvingiano/911-call-bloody-puddleAccording to the affidavit, the 11-year-old victim told authorities that Frolander performed oral sex on him and told the victim to fondle him. The boy also reportedly told authorities that Frolander began abusing him a few years ago, when he was around 8 years old. Frolander was arrested and charged with sexual battery on a person less than 12 years old, according to the police report. When questioned by the police, Frolander admitted, “I’m guilty.” I said "no mentionable PHYSICAL damage". Oh. Then if the kid DID have 'mentionable physical damage', you would be fine with the response of the dad? Does that change the 'eye for an eye' scenario?
|
|