Rapist's killer not charged.

[Hibbyradge]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18522383

Good decision by the Grand Jury (although I don't understand why were they involved in the decision to charge him or not.)

It's certainly easier to justify using deadly force in this case as compared to shooting a burglar in the back as he ran away.

[VickMackie]

Boo hoo!

Glad he's not been jailed.

[Beefster]

Very sensible decision by the Grand Jury but one I fear wouldn't be made by the courts/PF in this country.

[Twa Cairpets]

Very sensible decision by the Grand Jury but one I fear wouldn't be made by the courts/PF in this country.

Given those paarticular (horrible) circumstances, I'm not so sure you're right here. I'd like to think they wouldnt prosecute anyway

[VickMackie]

In this country you'd be expected to gently shove him off the little girl, of course making sure he might not hit his head on a stone or the like whilst doing it. Or restraining them too tightly whilst waiting for the police to arrive.

[Future17]

Given those paarticular (horrible) circumstances, I'm not so sure you're right here. I'd like to think they wouldnt prosecute anyway

I think they might almost be obliged to, as there's not much wiggle-room in this country in making such decisions. You'd be hard-pushed to justify why failing to prosecute someone who had killed another through a deliberate act of violence was in the public interest. It would be up to the courts to find whether such an extension of the right to act illegally in self-defence was a satisfactory defence to whatever charge was laid.

That said, I think it's a great decision by the Grand Jury and I hope we never have to find out what would happen in similar circumstances in this country.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Correct decision, however how many posters who do not believe in taking the law into their own hands would be able to say they would not have done the same?

Not wanting to start big arguments but genuinely interested in knowing when self policing (anarchy I guess) becomes OK?

[Future17]

Correct decision, however how many posters who do not believe in taking the law into their own hands would be able to say they would not have done the same?

Not wanting to start big arguments but genuinely interested in knowing when self policing (anarchy I guess) becomes OK?

I don't think this case counts as being "self policing" or "anarchy". I think it was accepted that he never set out to hunt the guy down (he went to find his daughter) and that he never intended to kill him.

[--------]

I don't think this case counts as being "self policing" or "anarchy". I think it was accepted that he never set out to hunt the guy down (he went to find his daughter) and that he never intended to kill him.


And as far as I understand it, the District Attorney and Sheriff dealt with the case according to due process of law - a man had died; they referred the circumstances of that man's death to the Grand Jury for the Grand Jury to decide whether the father had a case to answer. The Grand Jury decided not.

Neither the DA nor the Sheriff could just decide to drop a homicide without prosecuting. By referring the case to the Grand Jury they first of all covered their own backs - they didn't drop the case, they submitted it to a body that directly represents the People of the State of Texas.

They would haveplaced all the evidence before the GJ; the father would have been allowed legal representation, possibly gave his side of events; the GJ then deliberates over what they've heard, and rules whether the father has a case to answer before a judge and jury in court. That constitutes due process, not anarchy.

[Lucius Apuleius]

I don't think this case counts as being "self policing" or "anarchy". I think it was accepted that he never set out to hunt the guy down (he went to find his daughter) and that he never intended to kill him.

Not quite the story I read. he was told his daughter had been taken so he went looking for her, yes, but surely by association he was looking for the guy who took her? Self policing obviously comes into it, in my opinion, that he took the law into his own hands and gave the guy a bad enough beating to cause death. Appreciate anarchy is probably not the right word, hence the " I guess" after it. Question still stands though, how far would people go in similar circumstances?

[--------]

Not quite the story I read. he was told his daughter had been taken so he went looking for her, yes, but surely by association he was looking for the guy who took her? Self policing obviously comes into it, in my opinion, that he took the law into his own hands and gave the guy a bad enough beating to cause death. Appreciate anarchy is probably not the right word, hence the " I guess" after it. Question still stands though, how far would people go in similar circumstances?


Being honest, LA, if that were me at that age, and my son or daughter in that situation, I can't say for sure what I would do.

I might very well lose control and hit the attacker a lot harder than necessary to prevent him form continuing his assault, and if the guy is on top of the kid, with his back to me, I might just hit him a lot harder than I intended on the back of his neck, and that sort of blow can very easily be lethal.

I might also be seriously tempted to kick the living crap out of the slimeball.

Which isn't exactly the reactions of a civilised and respectable citizen (never mind a man of the cloth!) but I'm really not convinced that I would be thinking too clearly until well after the event.

FWIW, I think the Sheriff and DA did the right thing in taking the case to the Grand Jury; by doing so they kept it as far as possible within the parameters of legal process.

I'm thinking of the movie 'Cape Fear' - the first one, not the grotty re-make. What does an upstanding legal counsellor like Sam Bowden do when Max Cady's threatening to rape his wife and daughter, and the law can't do anything to protect them?

[Lucius Apuleius]

Being honest, LA, if that were me at that age, and my son or daughter in that situation, I can't say for sure what I would do.

I might very well lose control and hit the attacker a lot harder than necessary to prevent him form continuing his assault, and if the guy is on top of the kid, with his back to me, I might just hit him a lot harder than I intended on the back of his neck, and that sort of blow can very easily be lethal.

I might also be seriously tempted to kick the living crap out of the slimeball.

Which isn't exactly the reactions of a civilised and respectable citizen (never mind a man of the cloth!) but I'm really not convinced that I would be thinking too clearly until well after the event.

FWIW, I think the Sheriff and DA did the right thing in taking the case to the Grand Jury; by doing so they kept it as far as possible within the parameters of legal process.

I'm thinking of the movie 'Cape Fear' - the first one, not the grotty re-make. What does an upstanding legal counsellor like Sam Bowden do when Max Cady's threatening to rape his wife and daughter, and the law can't do anything to protect them?

And that is exactly my point Dodmeister. I don't think any rational man could. Now, we get a lot of people on here pontificating, as is their right, about innocent till proven guilty, the law should be allowed to run its course, no eye for an eye etc, I note most of them are missing from this thread, which again is fine. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion but I don't think any man knows how they would actually react until the circumstances present themselves. I am a church going man as you know. I consider myself well educated. I am obviously extremely well travelled so have seen lots of things I would rather not have seen. I am usually looked upon as being the level headed person professionally as well, but I have not a clue what I would do in these circumstances. My heart goes out to the guy. He knows what he did was not right and is obviously extremely contrite about the whole episode. What must be going through the poor guy's head? I don't know and I pray I never do. You are absolutely correct regarding what happened in law. I too am not convinced that this is what would happen in this country. Having said that if any man's peers could possibly find anyone guilty under these circumstances then it is time to leave this sad world behind.

[--------]

And that is exactly my point Dodmeister. I don't think any rational man could. Now, we get a lot of people on here pontificating, as is their right, about innocent till proven guilty, the law should be allowed to run its course, no eye for an eye etc, I note most of them are missing from this thread, which again is fine. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion but I don't think any man knows how they would actually react until the circumstances present themselves. I am a church going man as you know. I consider myself well educated. I am obviously extremely well travelled so have seen lots of things I would rather not have seen. I am usually looked upon as being the level headed person professionally as well, but I have not a clue what I would do in these circumstances. My heart goes out to the guy. He knows what he did was not right and is obviously extremely contrite about the whole episode. What must be going through the poor guy's head? I don't know and I pray I never do. You are absolutely correct regarding what happened in law. I too am not convinced that this is what would happen in this country. Having said that if any man's peers could possibly find anyone guilty under these circumstances then it is time to leave this sad world behind.



This is one definite advantage of having a Grand Jury system like Texas. The case goes to the defendant's peers, not to a lawyer who goes by the letter of the law and only the letter of the law. The Grand Jury has its flaws - all human systems do - but at least in this instance the father was judged by lay people who would be much more likely to ask themselves, "What would WE do in his circumstances?"

The morning of the Dunblane shootings I and my Free Kirk buddy were asked to go up to our local primary to be around to help out and offer whatever support we could to parents, teachers and pupils. I distinctly remember the wee P1 bairns coming into the assembly hall. Eric and I looked at them, looked at one another, and literally were in tears on the spot. Incomprehension, rage, and utter desolation that anyone could destroy the lives of wee ones like that so callously.

Another close colleague knew the teacher who was murdered by Hamilton; I have to say honestly that Hamilton wouldn't have lasted more than thirty seconds with either him or me that morning. Nor do I think either of us would have been troubled in our consciences afterwards.

I just hope the young man can work things out and that what has happened doesn't affect his future family life adversely.

And callous as it may sound, at least there's one less pervert in Texas for the kids and their parents to worry about.

[Lucius Apuleius]

This is one definite advantage of having a Grand Jury system like Texas. The case goes to the defendant's peers, not to a lawyer who goes by the letter of the law and only the letter of the law. The Grand Jury has its flaws - all human systems do - but at least in this instance the father was judged by lay people who would be much more likely to ask themselves, "What would WE do in his circumstances?"

The morning of the Dunblane shootings I and my Free Kirk buddy were asked to go up to our local primary to be around to help out and offer whatever support we could to parents, teachers and pupils. I distinctly remember the wee P1 bairns coming into the assembly hall. Eric and I looked at them, looked at one another, and literally were in tears on the spot. Incomprehension, rage, and utter desolation that anyone could destroy the lives of wee ones like that so callously.

Another close colleague knew the teacher who was murdered by Hamilton; I have to say honestly that Hamilton wouldn't have lasted more than thirty seconds with either him or me that morning. Nor do I think either of us would have been troubled in our consciences afterwards.

I just hope the young man can work things out and that what has happened doesn't affect his future family life adversely.

And callous as it may sound, at least there's one less pervert in Texas for the kids and their parents to worry about.

Bit in bold 100% agreement, which I guess was the whole point of my question. You however are the only person who has answered it which I find strange knowing the views of a lot of people on here.

As for Dunblane and Hamilton. Really still cannot go there. I had history with Hamilton long long before this happened. My wife was up in front of the enquiry as well as they had letters she had written to Falkirk Disctrict Council questioning his suitability to run boy's clubs. These letters were somehow found in Hamilton's home. Extremely strange to say the least. I will say one thing, when I found out who was running this boy's club that my boys had started going to whilst I was away at work, I went down to the High School and politely told him to Foxtrot Oscar out of Denny and if I ever saw him again I would kick seven bells of crap out him again. That has played on mind for many a year.

[--------]

Bit in bold 100% agreement, which I guess was the whole point of my question. You however are the only person who has answered it which I find strange knowing the views of a lot of people on here.

As for Dunblane and Hamilton. Really still cannot go there. I had history with Hamilton long long before this happened. My wife was up in front of the enquiry as well as they had letters she had written to Falkirk Disctrict Council questioning his suitability to run boy's clubs. These letters were somehow found in Hamilton's home. Extremely strange to say the least. I will say one thing, when I found out who was running this boy's club that my boys had started going to whilst I was away at work, I went down to the High School and politely told him to Foxtrot Oscar out of Denny and if I ever saw him again I would kick seven bells of crap out him again. That has played on mind for many a year.


Like I say - what does one do if the proper legal authorities are powerless or unwilling to deal with a threat to the safety of your family?

There are police and lawyers who will burn in Hell for their part in the Hamilton case.

[Hibbyradge]

I believe that taking the law into your own hands is wrong.

It's perfectly understandable in those extreme circumstances and easily forgiveable, but it's still wrong.

The guy is guilty of murder, but he doesn't deserve to be punished. Can you get a suspended sentence for murder?

[CropleyWasGod]

I believe that taking the law into your own hands is wrong.

It's perfectly understandable in those extreme circumstances and easily forgiveable, but it's still wrong.

The guy is guilty of murder, but he doesn't deserve to be punished. Can you get a suspended sentence for murder?

I'm kind of agreeing with you... I think.:confused:

There's the law, and there's justice. What, for me, would be the ideal scenario is to have the guy charged with murder (which, as you say, is what happened), but to have the option to plead not guilty on the basis of what the French used to call a Crime of Passion. There is plenty of case law to support a not guilty verdict (especially in cases of extreme family abuse), and I am sure that is what would be achieved.

That way, the law and justice are both served.

[steakbake]

Like I say - what does one do if the proper legal authorities are powerless or unwilling to deal with a threat to the safety of your family?

There are police and lawyers who will burn in Hell for their part in the Hamilton case.

God should just take the law into his own hands and send them a lightning bolt...

[Hibrandenburg]

God should just take the law into his own hands and send them a lightning bolt...

If he was to do that before all these awful things took place then I'd happily join his club. But instead he looks on and lets them happen without intervention. Maybe I'm not seeing the big picture though.

Like most on here I'm in favour of of our legal system running its course before any punishment is dished out, however I'm also certain that I would have reacted similar to the father in this case.

Justice can never be done in a case like this.

[Twa Cairpets]

This is one definite advantage of having a Grand Jury system like Texas. The case goes to the defendant's peers, not to a lawyer who goes by the letter of the law and only the letter of the law. The Grand Jury has its flaws - all human systems do - but at least in this instance the father was judged by lay people who would be much more likely to ask themselves, "What would WE do in his circumstances?"The morning of the Dunblane shootings I and my Free Kirk buddy were asked to go up to our local primary to be around to help out and offer whatever support we could to parents, teachers and pupils. I distinctly remember the wee P1 bairns coming into the assembly hall. Eric and I looked at them, looked at one another, and literally were in tears on the spot. Incomprehension, rage, and utter desolation that anyone could destroy the lives of wee ones like that so callously.

Another close colleague knew the teacher who was murdered by Hamilton; I have to say honestly that Hamilton wouldn't have lasted more than thirty seconds with either him or me that morning. Nor do I think either of us would have been troubled in our consciences afterwards.

I just hope the young man can work things out and that what has happened doesn't affect his future family life adversely.

And callous as it may sound, at least there's one less pervert in Texas for the kids and their parents to worry about.

Oddly, this is the worrying bit.
I think the right decision was made but for thr wrong reasons.
The problem is that you're right, human systems do have flaws, which is why the law is the law - it's a set of societal rules that take the emotuon and the fallibility out of the hands of lay people. If the law can be bent (if indeed it was) in this instance to offer a "no case to answer" decision, then whatever prevailing morals are in place in a particular area within a society can have precedence over law.
It's a difficult one, and the decision is whether or not the rule of law is sacrosanct. It may of course be the case tha the law is just wrong, as I would have unquestionably have acted in an identical manner as the guy in the OP and not have considered for one iota that what I was doing was in any way wrong.

[Future17]

Oddly, this is the worrying bit.
I think the right decision was made but for thr wrong reasons.
The problem is that you're right, human systems do have flaws, which is why the law is the law - it's a set of societal rules that take the emotuon and the fallibility out of the hands of lay people. If the law can be bent (if indeed it was) in this instance to offer a "no case to answer" decision, then whatever prevailing morals are in place in a particular area within a society can have precedence over law.
It's a difficult one, and the decision is whether or not the rule of law is sacrosanct. It may of course be the case tha the law is just wrong, as I would have unquestionably have acted in an identical manner as the guy in the OP and not have considered for one iota that what I was doing was in any way wrong.

The law is constantly evolving throughout the world because of the prevailing morals in particular places at particular times. It has to be that way - it simply wouldn't survive otherwise.

The majority of legal systems I know of throughout the world purposely contain elements which allow for flexible interpretation and application. That's the way it should be IMHO.

Historically, there are many examples of the inflexibility of the law bringing about the fall of civilisations. Admittedly, there are also a few examples of the ability to manipulate the law bringing about the same result, however those tend to be due to the actions of an individual or small group, rather than when the freedom to interpret and adapt the law is given democratically to the masses.

[--------]

Oddly, this is the worrying bit.
I think the right decision was made but for thr wrong reasons.
The problem is that you're right, human systems do have flaws, which is why the law is the law - it's a set of societal rules that take the emotuon and the fallibility out of the hands of lay people. If the law can be bent (if indeed it was) in this instance to offer a "no case to answer" decision, then whatever prevailing morals are in place in a particular area within a society can have precedence over law.
It's a difficult one, and the decision is whether or not the rule of law is sacrosanct. It may of course be the case tha the law is just wrong, as I would have unquestionably have acted in an identical manner as the guy in the OP and not have considered for one iota that what I was doing was in any way wrong.


I need instruction from a US poster, TC, but as I understand it, the Grand Jury is an integral part of the legal system in Texas.

The defendant has the right to an 'examining trial' before indictment, and this trial take place before a magistrate, with the defendant present and counsel for him/her and the State present, witnesses who may be examined by the respective counsels and the same rules of evidence as in the formal criminal trial.

"After the examining trial has been had, the judge shall make an order committing the defendant to the jail of the proper county, discharging him or admitting him to bail, as the law and facts of the case may require. Failure of the judge to make or enter an order within 48 hours after the examining trial has been completed operates as a finding of no probable cause and the accused shall be discharged."

This seems to be a hearing at which the magistrate determines whether in fact the defendant has or has not a case to answer, and if he has a case to answer, what's to be done with him before his formal criminal trial. That's Chapter 16 of the Texas Code of Criminal procedure.

But Chapter 20 says that the Grand Jury may initiate proceedings to inquire into any offence or any possible indictment of which they are informed by anyone sensible: "The grand jury shall inquire into all offenses liable to indictment of which any member may have knowledge, or of which they shall be informed by the attorney representing the State, or any other credible person."

Seems to me that this case received due process under the law of the State of Texas as it stands, and that's effectively that.

There's an old proverb - "In the next life, we get justice; in this life we make do with the law."

[Twa Cairpets]

I need instruction from a US poster, TC, but as I understand it, the Grand Jury is an integral part of the legal system in Texas.

The defendant has the right to an 'examining trial' before indictment, and this trial take place before a magistrate, with the defendant present and counsel for him/her and the State present, witnesses who may be examined by the respective counsels and the same rules of evidence as in the formal criminal trial.

"After the examining trial has been had, the judge shall make an order committing the defendant to the jail of the proper county, discharging him or admitting him to bail, as the law and facts of the case may require. Failure of the judge to make or enter an order within 48 hours after the examining trial has been completed operates as a finding of no probable cause and the accused shall be discharged."

This seems to be a hearing at which the magistrate determines whether in fact the defendant has or has not a case to answer, and if he has a case to answer, what's to be done with him before his formal criminal trial. That's Chapter 16 of the Texas Code of Criminal procedure.

But Chapter 20 says that the Grand Jury may initiate proceedings to inquire into any offence or any possible indictment of which they are informed by anyone sensible: "The grand jury shall inquire into all offenses liable to indictment of which any member may have knowledge, or of which they shall be informed by the attorney representing the State, or any other credible person."

Seems to me that this case received due process under the law of the State of Texas as it stands, and that's effectively that.

There's an old proverb - "In the next life, we get justice; in this life we make do with the law."

Given our somewhat divergent views on the afterlife, I'm mostly concerned at justice being issued on the earthly plane :wink:

Like I said, I wasnt sure if the local law was being broken in this case, it was more a general unease that the legal process could be circumvented by lay opinion on what is effectively morality. It's the right decision, in my view, but the potential for precedent is more of a concern. I realise entirely these are different circumstances and highly contentious, and i dont want to move the thread in a different direction, but could there be a similar argument for say, a potential father killing an abortion doctor as they prepared to operate?

[--------]

Given our somewhat divergent views on the afterlife, I'm mostly concerned at justice being issued on the earthly plane :wink:

Like I said, I wasnt sure if the local law was being broken in this case, it was more a general unease that the legal process could be circumvented by lay opinion on what is effectively morality. It's the right decision, in my view, but the potential for precedent is more of a concern. I realise entirely these are different circumstances and highly contentious, and i dont want to move the thread in a different direction, but could there be a similar argument for say, a potential father killing an abortion doctor as they prepared to operate?


I would have thought that in such a scenario preparation, premeditation and fixed intent would be significant factors.

The father in the abortion case would have had notice of when and where the operation would take place and therefore have been able to take the time to prepare his attack.

The father in this case was responding to a sudden, very highly emotionally-charged emergency - he caught the guy in flagrante, in process of raping his wee daughter. He'd only been told she was missing and in trouble a few minutes previously.

Because he had had time to plan his attack, the father in the abortion scenario couldn't claim to have been overcome by an irresistible impulse triggered by fear, grief, whatever. His killing would be a rational, deliberate act of homicide. He would have had plenty of time to see sense and step away. He would have had what the law calls 'mens rea', the 'guilty mind' which is a fundamental part of the definition of criminal behaviour.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mens+rea

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

The guy in the abortion case would have had to travel to the clinic, gain access to the building, find the operating theatre, identify the surgeon, and THEN kill him. In the Texas case the father was told his child was missing, went to search for her, and when he found her found her being raped. In the Texas case it seems to me one could argue that the event was acting upon and pressuring him. In the abortion case the father is moulding circumstances to place himself in the position where he can kill the doctor/surgeon.

There's also the factor that in the USA abortion is legal.

The rape of 5-year-old girls is illegal. The Texas father could also argue that he was acting, under extreme emotional constraint, to prevent a crime being committed against his child.

The abortion father could not.