Look I understand what he did was horrendous but when are people going to stop thinking vigilante justice is such a grand thing. That is why there are laws.
isnt part of the problem of vigilante justice that people often go after the wrong person? there is no doubt here that this piece of s**t deserved everything he got - he had been abusing that kid for 3 years! (says the article)
Good that shit deserved every punch and kick he got and deserves more in jail. I would have done the exact same thing as this father did and I applaud him for it and for showing restraint.
Having read the posts in this thread accept for maybe two or three FMs, everyone is in a self congratulatory mood on the moronic, ape like actions of the Father and very little thought given to the young boy.
Instead of most of you punching the air and going " yea one for the Father", has it at all occurred to any you why the boy didn't/couldn't speak to his Dad----or to his Mother.
It would appear to me, reading between the lines, the boy would have been scared sh*tless to talk to his dad,---because he knew how he would react and that ape of a father has proved the boy right.
And maybe the boy couldn't talk to his Mother, if around, for the same reason,---that poor--poor kid.
And then all of you should be asking yourself why the relationship between both boys, abusive as it was.
I can perfectly accept the reaction of the Father,----tho' it's not a normal one and I am wondering if/what abuse the Father's reaction is covering up?
So you all keep slapping yourselves on the back and think justice was served,----me, I feel so sorry for the young lad and how trapped he must have felt and have some empathy for the offender.
And I can already envisage the scripted replies and the deliberate misinterpretation of this post.
Those children that do not tell their parents act this way because they are told by the abuser that they are to blame, and sometimes they will hurt family if the child tells - there are LOADS of reasons why children do not talk about what happens to them and maybe a few, but not many, are because the parents are doing something wrong as well!
that is the most ridiculous thing i have read here in a long time
My first thought would have been for my son - make sure he was OK, then I would deal with the perpetrator. I'm sure I would have done a lot of shouting and swearing, and held the youth in place until the police arrived.
I wouldn't have beaten him to a bloody pulp, although I think I would probably have kneed him hard in the groin.
It would be very interesting to know how the law would react in this country to anybody who did the same as the Father did in the case cited here. I'm sure that were he to be charged with assault, the public and red top outrage would have been at fever pitch - rightly or wrongly.
I notice there are one or two on here who have previously offered up sanctimonious lectures on how the law works in relation to beating up intruders, who are notable by their absence on this occasion. I'd be fascinated to know what they would have done.
That's me - if it had been my girl friend as the boy's Mum, I doubt the youth would have survived at all.
My first thought would have been for my son - make sure he was OK, then I would deal with the perpetrator. I'm sure I would have done a lot of shouting and swearing, and held the youth in place until the police arrived.
I wouldn't have beaten him to a bloody pulp, although I think I would probably have kneed him hard in the groin.
It would be very interesting to know how the law would react in this country to anybody who did the same as the Father did in the case cited here. I'm sure that were he to be charged with assault, the public and red top outrage would have been at fever pitch.
I notice there are one or two on here who have previously offered up sanctimonious lectures on how the law works in relation to beating up intruders, who are notable by their absence on this occasion. I'd be fascinated to know what they would have done.
To be fair, I think abusing a child and stealing are two different kettles of fish.
To be fair, I think abusing a child and stealing are two different kettles of fish.
I always understood that it depended on what level of physical threat is offered.
One could argue that once the child was removed from the situation of sexual assault, no immediate threat existed and that consequently, there was no call to act in revenge or retaliation. That's the argument that's been put forward ad infinitum on here when it comes to intruders in the home, and rammed down my throat many times.
So whilst I'm not sitting in moral judgment on the Father in this case, I am pointing out that the same principles should apply as far as UK law is concerned. I'm not sure why beating up a helpless intruder should differ from beating up a helpless sex offender caught in the act ?
I would never support nor condone vigilante 'justice'. But this wasn't that. It was a father reacting to defend his child. I doubt he would be prosecuted in the UK.
If it happened here they, yes, the father would undoubtedly have been charged, convicted and banged up for life. The abuser would probably have been let off with a caution.
People regularly say this type of nonsense, and the truth is very different.
Defence of another, and provocation (of the worst kind) could be used as a defence, and most probably accepted.
I I'm not sure why beating up a helpless intruder should differ from beating up a helpless sex offender caught in the act ?
Devil's advocate and all that ?
Because anyone who gets as emotional about threats to property as hurt to a person is a psycho.
The law is set to to protect reactions within the. normal range. It's normal to be enraged when your child is being hurt. It's normal for children
to feel reassured by knowing their parent reacts that way.
Because anyone who gets as emotional about threats to property as hurt to a person is a psycho.
The law is set to to protect reactions within the. normal range. It's normal to be enraged when your child is being hurt. It's normal for children
to feel reassured by knowing their parent reacts that way.
But as I've pointed out on numerous occasions, one has no idea why an intruder/s are in the home. If you have young children, it's not just property that is potentially under threat.
What would you say if the sex offender had run off while the Dad was comforting his son, and the Dad then went after him and did the same as what he did ? Would that be OK ?
People have a great deal of leeway when it comes to challenging intruders in their homes, and the very few prosecutions going back many years proves that.
In these circumstances, it is unlikely the Father would be prosecuted in the UK either.
What iffing about how that would change if he tracked the offender down, or chased him, and beat him in revenge is not what happened.
People have a great deal of leeway when it comes to challenging intruders in their homes, and the very few prosecutions going back many years proves that.
In these circumstances, it is unlikely the Father would be prosecuted in the UK either.
What iffing about how that would change if he tracked the offender down, or chased him, and beat him in revenge is not what happened.
If it happened, then those circumstances would be looked at, exactly as they were. Every incident we discuss, you throw a what if into it, and then it just becomes speculation, based on a one sentence what if, not an actual set of circumstances.
If it happened, then those circumstances would be looked at, exactly as they were. Every incident we discuss, you throw a what if into it, and then it just becomes speculation, based on a one sentence what if, not an actual set of circumstances.
No I don't, so stop throwing such personalised tripe in as a deflection tactic.
It's the principle of revenge which is the factor here. As the resident expert on the law here, do you or do you not know where the line is drawn between an understandable response and revenge ?
No I don't, so stop throwing such personalised tripe in as a deflection tactic.
It's the principle of revenge which is the factor here. As the resident expert on the law here, do you or do you not know where the line is drawn between an understandable response and revenge ?
Reasonable force in the circumstances is what is applied, so without a full set of circumstances, I don't know. Revenge attacks are not a defence to assault in general, but the exact circumstances of an incident has to be known before a decision can be made.
That is the strength of the law on reasonable force. It is not rigid, and covers every situation individually.
And you do throw lots of what ifs in. This being an example, another recent one was "what if she'd been run over".
Stick to what did happen, rather than trying to attack actions over what didn't.
Reasonable force in the circumstances is what is applied, so without a full set of circumstances, I don't know. Revenge attacks are not a defence to assault in general, but the exact circumstances of an incident has to be known before a decision can be made.
That is the strength of the law on reasonable force. It is not rigid, and covers every situation individually.
And you do throw lots of what ifs in. This being an example, another recent one was "what if she'd been run over".
Stick to what did happen, rather than trying to attack actions over what didn't.
Re BiB - of course you don't, so stop trying to sound as though you are the fount of all knowledge.
You do know as well as I that you are one of the chief proponents of revenge beatings not being acceptable. Yet even though in this case, a beating was not required in order to make the child safe, you are doing a U turn on the revenge aspect.
This is not consistent with your earlier views on the same principle.
But as I've pointed out on numerous occasions, one has no idea why an intruder/s are in the home. If you have young children, it's not just property that is potentially under threat.
What would you say if the sex offender had run off while the Dad was comforting his son, and the Dad then went after him and did the same as what he did ? Would that be OK ?
I think in the UK you are covered up to lethal force in defence of your self, someone else or your home the guidance looks to be if they have acted honestly and instinctively and in the heat of the moment, that this will be the strongest evidence for them having acted lawfully.
If a criminal is fleeing I think that is different, the threat has ceased so you are not acting in defence. If you pursue you can only use reasonable force to detain them. To use more force you would have to honestly believe they were a continuing threat, they were not fleeing they were going to get a weapon say a knife from the kitchen, etc; In the UK I expect that is difficult to prove,
In some parts of the USA I think you are covered if you pursue and kill a fleeing criminal if the criminal offense is serious on the basis the criminal was say going to their car to get a gun, or would have returned with a gun. Serious offenders especially violent ones, in some parts of the USA I think are not assumed to be running away with their tail between their legs never to return, they are assumed to be going for a weapon or help and a continuing threat.
I think in the UK you are covered up to lethal force in defence of your self, someone else or your home the guidance looks to be if they have acted honestly and instinctively and in the heat of the moment, that this will be the strongest evidence for them having acted lawfully.
If a criminal is fleeing I think that is different, the threat has ceased so you are not acting in defence. If you pursue you can only use reasonable force to detain them. To use more force you would have to honestly believe they were a continuing threat, they were not fleeing they were going to get a weapon say a knife from the kitchen, etc; In the UK I expect that is difficult to prove,
In some parts of the USA I think you are covered if you pursue and kill a fleeing criminal if the criminal offense is serious on the basis the criminal was say going to their car to get a gun, or would have returned with a gun. Serious offenders especially violent ones, in some parts of the USA I think are not assumed to be running away with their tail between their legs never to return, they are assumed to be going for a weapon or help and a continuing threat.
But the threat has ceased as soon as the child is removed from the situation of sexual assault.
Re BiB - of course you don't, so stop trying to sound as though you are the fount of all knowledge.
You do know as well as I that you are one of the chief proponents of revenge beatings not being acceptable. Yet even though in this case, a beating was not required in order to make the child safe, you are doing a U turn on the revenge aspect.
This is not consistent with your earlier views on the same principle.
The extreme provocation in such a situation would be taken into consideration, as would every little aspect of the incident.
The bit I said I don't know to was a made up one liner what if that didn't happen, so how am I supposed to know that?
Comments
isnt part of the problem of vigilante justice that people often go after the wrong person? there is no doubt here that this piece of s**t deserved everything he got - he had been abusing that kid for 3 years! (says the article)
Those children that do not tell their parents act this way because they are told by the abuser that they are to blame, and sometimes they will hurt family if the child tells - there are LOADS of reasons why children do not talk about what happens to them and maybe a few, but not many, are because the parents are doing something wrong as well!
that is the most ridiculous thing i have read here in a long time
I wouldn't have beaten him to a bloody pulp, although I think I would probably have kneed him hard in the groin.
It would be very interesting to know how the law would react in this country to anybody who did the same as the Father did in the case cited here. I'm sure that were he to be charged with assault, the public and red top outrage would have been at fever pitch - rightly or wrongly.
I notice there are one or two on here who have previously offered up sanctimonious lectures on how the law works in relation to beating up intruders, who are notable by their absence on this occasion. I'd be fascinated to know what they would have done.
That's me - if it had been my girl friend as the boy's Mum, I doubt the youth would have survived at all.
I always understood that it depended on what level of physical threat is offered.
One could argue that once the child was removed from the situation of sexual assault, no immediate threat existed and that consequently, there was no call to act in revenge or retaliation. That's the argument that's been put forward ad infinitum on here when it comes to intruders in the home, and rammed down my throat many times.
So whilst I'm not sitting in moral judgment on the Father in this case, I am pointing out that the same principles should apply as far as UK law is concerned. I'm not sure why beating up a helpless intruder should differ from beating up a helpless sex offender caught in the act ?
Devil's advocate and all that ?
I dont blame the father for what he did, I would have seen red also, but if he went any further he might well have killed the abuser.
Your view on that I suppose depends if you support capital punishment or not.
People regularly say this type of nonsense, and the truth is very different.
Defence of another, and provocation (of the worst kind) could be used as a defence, and most probably accepted.
The law is set to to protect reactions within the. normal range. It's normal to be enraged when your child is being hurt. It's normal for children
to feel reassured by knowing their parent reacts that way.
But as I've pointed out on numerous occasions, one has no idea why an intruder/s are in the home. If you have young children, it's not just property that is potentially under threat.
What would you say if the sex offender had run off while the Dad was comforting his son, and the Dad then went after him and did the same as what he did ? Would that be OK ?
In these circumstances, it is unlikely the Father would be prosecuted in the UK either.
What iffing about how that would change if he tracked the offender down, or chased him, and beat him in revenge is not what happened.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-19886504
11 prosecutions in the 15 years between 1990, and 2005. Since then, guidelines have improved householders rights under a very flexible law too.
People always go on about anyone tackling criminals end up in prison, yet it isn't true at all.
So you're not sure then ?
If it happened, then those circumstances would be looked at, exactly as they were. Every incident we discuss, you throw a what if into it, and then it just becomes speculation, based on a one sentence what if, not an actual set of circumstances.
No I don't, so stop throwing such personalised tripe in as a deflection tactic.
It's the principle of revenge which is the factor here. As the resident expert on the law here, do you or do you not know where the line is drawn between an understandable response and revenge ?
Reasonable force in the circumstances is what is applied, so without a full set of circumstances, I don't know. Revenge attacks are not a defence to assault in general, but the exact circumstances of an incident has to be known before a decision can be made.
That is the strength of the law on reasonable force. It is not rigid, and covers every situation individually.
And you do throw lots of what ifs in. This being an example, another recent one was "what if she'd been run over".
Stick to what did happen, rather than trying to attack actions over what didn't.
Re BiB - of course you don't, so stop trying to sound as though you are the fount of all knowledge.
You do know as well as I that you are one of the chief proponents of revenge beatings not being acceptable. Yet even though in this case, a beating was not required in order to make the child safe, you are doing a U turn on the revenge aspect.
This is not consistent with your earlier views on the same principle.
If a criminal is fleeing I think that is different, the threat has ceased so you are not acting in defence. If you pursue you can only use reasonable force to detain them. To use more force you would have to honestly believe they were a continuing threat, they were not fleeing they were going to get a weapon say a knife from the kitchen, etc; In the UK I expect that is difficult to prove,
In some parts of the USA I think you are covered if you pursue and kill a fleeing criminal if the criminal offense is serious on the basis the criminal was say going to their car to get a gun, or would have returned with a gun. Serious offenders especially violent ones, in some parts of the USA I think are not assumed to be running away with their tail between their legs never to return, they are assumed to be going for a weapon or help and a continuing threat.
But the threat has ceased as soon as the child is removed from the situation of sexual assault.
The threat of child abuse, but not the threat of having someone unwelcome in your home.
The extreme provocation in such a situation would be taken into consideration, as would every little aspect of the incident.
The bit I said I don't know to was a made up one liner what if that didn't happen, so how am I supposed to know that?