|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 22, 2014 1:05:39 GMT -5
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. Then why do you think there were no charges against the father? Would you still feel that there was 'assault and battery' if the father would have just hit the guy once, or maybe shoved him into the wall? What Is Assault? In criminal law, assault is usually listed alongside battery. Many people are familiar with the term “assault and battery,” and battery is often confused with assault. However, assault is a separate charge from battery. It is generally defined as an attempted battery. Alternatively, it can be defined as “the intentional creation of a reasonable apprehension of harm.”
While this sounds very complex, assault basically refers to situations where one person creates a fear of harm in another person. For example, if a person pulls their fist back as if to punch someone, and the other person believes that they will be punched, it might be considered assault. Battery, on the other hand, would occur if the person was actually punched.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 22, 2014 1:07:10 GMT -5
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. It doesn't matter how you think -- that is not taking the law into your own hands. No, not at all the same thing. If you tackle a purse snatcher you do not leave him like the guy pictured above. If you block someone with your car you don't drive over him if he gets out of the car. In order for the Florida case to be like the two examples you mentioned, the child would have to look like the 18-year old in order to justify anything resembling what happened to the 18-year old. Will I be surprised if the father is let off? Not at all. He lives in Florida.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 22, 2014 1:07:12 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...... Restraining a person from causing harm to another is very different from beating a person who has been subdued and then bragging to the operator about the damage you have caused to that person. This was not a matter of preventing one person from causing harm to another. This was a matter of being judge, jury, and executioner because of not being able to control your emotions. What is sad is because it was alleged sexual abuse the fact that a person almost beat another to death is deemed OK.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 22, 2014 1:10:55 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...... Restraining a person from causing harm to another is very different from beating a person who has been subdued and then bragging to the operator about the damage you have caused to that person. This was not a matter of preventing one person from causing harm to another. This was a matter of being judge, jury, and executioner because of not being able to control your emotions. What is sad is because it was alleged sexual abuse the fact that a person almost beat another to death is deemed OK. And if in order to restrain a person attacking someone else results in the need to punch them or hit them in order to stop them from harming another? I imagine that if the father saw this adult beating his son the result would have been the same.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 22, 2014 1:14:10 GMT -5
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. And if after you tackled the purse snatcher, stopping the crime, you decided to beat the criminal in the same way that the 18 year old was beaten you think that is acceptable? If you blocked the bank robber's car with yours and then pulled him out and beat him senseless that would be OK? Stopping the harm to others I agree with. I do not agree with beating someone in anger.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 22, 2014 1:15:36 GMT -5
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. It doesn't matter how you think -- that is not taking the law into your own hands. No, not at all the same thing. If you tackle a purse snatcher you do not leave him like the guy pictured above. If you block someone with your car you don't drive over him if he gets out of the car. In order for the Florida case to be like the two examples you mentioned, the child would have to look like the 18-year old in order to justify anything resembling what happened to the 18-year old. Will I be surprised if the father is let off? Not at all. He lives in Florida. You are correct. It doesn't matter how I think.
|
|
|
Post by Scott Ross on Jul 22, 2014 1:19:07 GMT -5
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. And if after you tackled the purse snatcher, stopping the crime, you decided to beat the criminal in the same way that the 18 year old was beaten you think that is acceptable? If you blocked the bank robber's car with yours and then pulled him out and beat him senseless that would be OK? Stopping the harm to others I agree with. I do not agree with beating someone in anger. Ah....... here we go around the mulberry bush...... No thanks. I will leave you to have the last word on this. I was simply making a point. Bob has already let me know that I am ignorant, so I don't need you to point it out to me as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 22, 2014 1:19:07 GMT -5
There is a distinction between prevention and a bashing. Possible that was a one punch prevention I guess. I don't know the details. Ignoring that distinction drifts into a bashing is ok depending on the crime.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 22, 2014 1:19:25 GMT -5
Then why do you think there were no charges against the father? Because the justice system is flawed and because CSA raised its head.When the actions taken by the father exceeded the force required to subdue/restrain the assumed criminal it becomes assault and battery
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 22, 2014 1:20:04 GMT -5
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? I believe the father could be excused for what he did (1) if the boy had been beaten like the 18-year old was, AND (2) if the father had no other way to stop the crime in progress. That's the law ... when it's respected. Otherwise you can justify anything any hot-head does to anyone he does anything he is uneasy with. Like the guy who shot the other man in the movie theater because he didn't like the smell or rattle of his popcorn or some such idiot notion -- and claimed he felt threatened. It's tough living with a nation of dim-wits, but you only make it worse when you let them off with it.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 22, 2014 1:33:59 GMT -5
Then why do you think there were no charges against the father? It happened in Florida -- where it too often matters more who did something than what he did. In law, one doesn't even have to touch a person to assault him. Threaten him and that is considered assault. That would certainly be justified in this case. In law, battery involves any kind of physical contact between two individuals -- including spitting on someone. Any contact by the father in an attempt to separate the perpetrator from the victim it entirely permissible. Restraining him until the police arrive is also permissible. Beating him senseless (which he did) is totally in the realm of punishment and is the jurisdiction of the courts only, not even the police. If the 18-year old had happened to die in the whole event, in most places the father would be charged with a minimum of manslaughter, and maybe murder. As I explained above -- e.g. verbal threats. He obviously didn't wave a gun, but that is also assault. [/i] [/quote] Actually, according to the law, fondling is a case like this is also considered battery. e.g. The blond bombshell at the office water fountain.!!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 22, 2014 1:45:28 GMT -5
Restraining a person from causing harm to another is very different from beating a person who has been subdued and then bragging to the operator about the damage you have caused to that person. This was not a matter of preventing one person from causing harm to another. This was a matter of being judge, jury, and executioner because of not being able to control your emotions. What is sad is because it was alleged sexual abuse the fact that a person almost beat another to death is deemed OK. And if in order to restrain a person attacking someone else results in the need to punch them or hit them in order to stop them from harming another? I imagine that if the father saw this adult beating his son the result would have been the same. Judging by what I already know about this father, yes, the result would probably be exactly the same if he's beaten the kid. Why? Not because the crimes were equal, but because he (the father) had nothing worse to do to the guy.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 22, 2014 1:53:29 GMT -5
I think the conflicting reports say a lot about the reporting: Florida dad beats man he found allegedly raping his son, report saysAccording to the affidavit, the 11-year-old victim told authorities that Frolander performed oral sex on him and told the victim to fondle him.Does the word 'rape' sell more newspapers? Or does it make the actions of the father more justifiable? This is a difficult one to decipher without reading Florida law. State laws will distinguish among, rape, assault, seduction, etc. Between adults I don't think any of that constitutes rape in any state, but I expect some states would include some of that under something called statutory rape, or statutory seduction because of the age of the "victim" I am wondering why an 18-year old non-family member was in the room with a child that young to begin with. PS: And yes, "rape" does sell newspapers. Same thing happened in our meeting one Sunday morning!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 22, 2014 1:59:04 GMT -5
And if after you tackled the purse snatcher, stopping the crime, you decided to beat the criminal in the same way that the 18 year old was beaten you think that is acceptable? If you blocked the bank robber's car with yours and then pulled him out and beat him senseless that would be OK? Stopping the harm to others I agree with. I do not agree with beating someone in anger. Ah....... here we go around the mulberry bush...... No thanks. I will leave you to have the last word on this. I was simply making a point. Bob has already let me know that I am ignorant, so I don't need you to point it out to me as well. Nothing wrong with being ignorant -- we all are. That's why I haven't stopped going to school yet. On this matter I happen to have a few law classes under my belt, but I'm still not a lawyer by any means.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Jul 22, 2014 2:04:16 GMT -5
I have deleted my post regarding this. Florida law does not use the word 'rape' but 'sexual battery' which includes the allegations mentioned. Rape is still a charged word and many people will have a different idea after reading the contents of the affidavit. I think the conflicting reports say a lot about the reporting: Florida dad beats man he found allegedly raping his son, report saysAccording to the affidavit, the 11-year-old victim told authorities that Frolander performed oral sex on him and told the victim to fondle him.Does the word 'rape' sell more newspapers? Or does it make the actions of the father more justifiable? This is a difficult one to decipher without reading Florida law. State laws will distinguish among, rape, assault, seduction, etc. Between adults I don't think any of that constitutes rape in any state, but I expect some states would include some of that under something called statutory rape, or statutory seduction because of the age of the "victim" I am wondering why an 18-year old non-family member was in the room with a child that young to begin with. PS: And yes, "rape" does sell newspapers. Same thing happened in our meeting one Sunday morning!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 23, 2014 10:37:02 GMT -5
There is indeed more to the story than in the original news report.
The father admits that if the "victim" had not threatened him with a butcher knife he would have beaten the 18-year old to death. Now, who is the most mature?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 19:13:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 23, 2014 19:47:01 GMT -5
I was trying to say that in my previous post. It's obvious that the "victim" was familiar with much greater violence than the "perpetrator" inflicted on him (the victim). The father first of all claimed the child had the butcher knife -- interesting that he now says otherwise. For anyone wanting to know why the father wasn't charged with anything -- check the color of the father's neck. (They didn't show his face.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2014 20:15:59 GMT -5
Ahh right, I misunderstood. I thought you might have seen a completely different version to what I saw. Everytime I google this story there seems to be another angle. The color of the father's neck sheds a different light again.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Jul 23, 2014 21:13:10 GMT -5
Ahh right, I misunderstood. I thought you might have seen a completely different version to what I saw. Everytime I google this story there seems to be another angle. The color of the father's neck sheds a different light again. No wonder you misunderstood -- one should never use three nameless HE's in one sentence.
|
|