The Dean Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 and while I'm at it - let me make the converse argument: What would all the enlightened in this thread do if the father heard noises coming from her daughter's room, assumed she was with a boyfriend and the next morning she was laying dead in her bed. What would any of you say about that man if he said to police, "I just thought my 15 year old daughter was having sex and I didn't want to embarrass them." Would he be a redneck in that case too? Is that the alternative that people would want to see? The converse argument to WHAT? Why do you assume it has to be one stupid extreme, or the other? How about the guy sees a naked kid on the bed and shouts "Get off the bed or I'll slam your head in" Honey, who is this?" Does it have to be shoot, or do nothing? I think both extremes are pretty bad options. As long as we find excuses for adults who do not act reasonably, they will continue to act unreasonably. Decision trees are what make actions reasonable or unreasonable. The unexamined violent act is not worth committing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted September 17, 2008 Share Posted September 17, 2008 and while I'm at it - let me make the converse argument: What would all the enlightened in this thread do if the father heard noises coming from her daughter's room, assumed she was with a boyfriend and the next morning she was laying dead in her bed. What would any of you say about that man if he said to police, "I just thought my 15 year old daughter was having sex and I didn't want to embarrass them."? Would he be a redneck in that case too? Is that the alternative that people would want to see? SDS.....I was thinking along these lines as well...... I dont know if I would lay boyfriend out with a pipe......but I am not going to say he will be "unmarked" either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Like I said earlier, maybe a few feet of flesh pipe up the old poop chute, while in the slammer, will tame his redneck tendencies. And before you wonder why I call him a redneck, and assume he is likely a violent and unreasonable human, his daughter felt the need to hide the fact that she had a boyfriend from him for a LONG time. That suggests something, to me. To me, it suggests she's a teenager. He didn't beat him to a pulp--he hit him with a metal pipe because he was in his daughter's room. I'm not a redneck and I'd probably do the exact same thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tux of Borg Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Was there any malice or criminal intent on the father's end to hurt the boy? You could also make the point that the boy was trespassing as the father was the property owner. I can see him liable for civil injuries, but there is no way a jury convicts him in a criminal court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 Was there any malice or criminal intent on the father's end to hurt the boy? Generally when you swing a metal pipe at someone, it's to hurt them. Just ask Bryant McKinney. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 50 years ago - a man sees an unannounced man in his home, who is nude, and assumes he has raped his daughter, and kills him. Everybody applauds. 30 years ago - same scenario. Too bad, but ya know, you are responsible if you put yourself into bad situations. Today - a nude stranger in your home can't be challenged, lest you risk being labeled insensitive. Touch the intruder and get charged with a crime. Sheep primed for easy slaughter... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 50 years ago - a man sees an unannounced man in his home, who is nude, and assumes he has raped his daughter, and kills him. Everybody applauds. 30 years ago - same scenario. Too bad, but ya know, you are responsible if you put yourself into bad situations. Today - a nude stranger in your home can't be challenged, lest you risk being labeled insensitive. Touch the intruder and get charged with a crime. Sheep primed for easy slaughter... I don't think anyone's saying the guy couldn't touch the intruder. But beat with a metal pipe is a bit much. BTW - how many rapists actually get completely nude? My guess -- none, since rape is a crime of control and not of sexual pleasure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 50 years ago - a man sees an unannounced man in his home, who is nude, and assumes he has raped his daughter, and kills him. Everybody applauds. 30 years ago - same scenario. Too bad, but ya know, you are responsible if you put yourself into bad situations. Today - a nude stranger in your home can't be challenged, lest you risk being labeled insensitive. Touch the intruder and get charged with a crime. Sheep primed for easy slaughter... I lot of crappy things have changed in the last 50 years. Hooray for progress! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 19, 2008 Share Posted September 19, 2008 I don't think anyone's saying the guy couldn't touch the intruder. But beat with a metal pipe is a bit much. BTW - how many rapists actually get completely nude? My guess -- none, since rape is a crime of control and not of sexual pleasure. They also seem to be assuming that, neither he (the boy), nor his daughter, said anything to that would make it obvious he WASN'T an intruder before, before Dad struck with the pipe. That's one big assumption. I think it is a more reasonable assumption that he struck him knowing full well that no rape was neither in progress nor had just finished. Of course none of us know how it went down. I'm sure there is much more to the story than the brief story in the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 And now comes this story about a father who killed a would-be rapist intruder in his home. In both cases, the father is in the right. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429503,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Its his 15 year old daughter, and she is having sex at 4 am with a boyfriend the father never knew she had. I'm not a parent right now, but I can honestly say that if I had a daughter and found her at 4 am with a boy naked in her room, I would be doing the same thing this father did. First of all, she is 15, and living in my house. So she is under my rules, and at that age she would not be permitted to have guys in her room, let alone naked at 4 am. I also don't care if he was the same age as her, or if it was "consentual", she is still a minor and I would not be letting her have sex in my house, even if some people think its ok because they are the same age and other kids are doing it. I'm also not going to condem the father for what he did. Its 4am, and you here noises from your underage childs room, you assume that theres an intruder, and when you go to check you find a naked person on your daughters bed, the kid is lucky that unlike most Americans, he didn't have a gun on him to protect his family and instead had a metal pipe. They are still kids, and not old enough to accept the consequences of having sex, like the possibility of her getting pregnant. If you can't accept a possible outcome from your actions, like a pregnancy from having sex, you shouldn't be doing it. As for the father getting it in jail, I doubt they would do anything to him there because of it. He didn't have sex with the kid, he hit him with a pipe and chased him of his daughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Its his 15 year old daughter, and she is having sex at 4 am with a boyfriend the father never knew she had. I'm not a parent right now, but I can honestly say that if I had a daughter and found her at 4 am with a boy naked in her room, I would be doing the same thing this father did. First of all, she is 15, and living in my house. So she is under my rules, and at that age she would not be permitted to have guys in her room, let alone naked at 4 am. I also don't care if he was the same age as her, or if it was "consentual", she is still a minor and I would not be letting her have sex in my house, even if some people think its ok because they are the same age and other kids are doing it. I'm also not going to condem the father for what he did. Its 4am, and you here noises from your underage childs room, you assume that theres an intruder, and when you go to check you find a naked person on your daughters bed, the kid is lucky that unlike most Americans, he didn't have a gun on him to protect his family and instead had a metal pipe. They are still kids, and not old enough to accept the consequences of having sex, like the possibility of her getting pregnant. If you can't accept a possible outcome from your actions, like a pregnancy from having sex, you shouldn't be doing it. As for the father getting it in jail, I doubt they would do anything to him there because of it. He didn't have sex with the kid, he hit him with a pipe and chased him of his daughter. So everything in your post is about your daughter breaking the rules, your daughter having sex, etc. Why not beat your daughter with the pipe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 And now comes this story about a father who killed a would-be rapist intruder in his home. In both cases, the father is in the right. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429503,00.html Maybe he was just going to steal a toaster. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apuszczalowski Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 So everything in your post is about your daughter breaking the rules, your daughter having sex, etc. Why not beat your daughter with the pipe? I'm not saying the daughter wouldn't be in for a punishment too. But first I would be taking care of the person "causing harm" to my daughter (and by causing harm I mean having sex with my underage daughter). When the dust clears, she would be in for a huge punishement too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 I'm not saying the daughter wouldn't be in for a punishment too. But first I would be taking care of the person "causing harm" to my daughter (and by causing harm I mean having sex with my underage daughter). When the dust clears, she would be in for a huge punishement too So the boyfriend gets maimed by a pipe, and the daughter gets a punishment... I guess I'd rather be the daughter in this case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 And now comes this story about a father who killed a would-be rapist intruder in his home. In both cases, the father is in the right. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429503,00.html What separates these two situations, is we know more about the circumstances, in the second one. Given the set of facts presented in the second story, the response is clearly warranted. In the first situation, many of those essential facts were not presented. If, indeed, the cases were similar more than on the surface, my opinion of the what is justified might change. Based on what was reported, and what I have decided to infer based on what wasn't reported, I think the response in the first case was excessive. Those who think the response in the first case was NOT excessive seem to fall into two camps. Some infer different missing facts (fair enough), and some don't really seem to think the missing facts are important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhitewalkerInPhilly Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Very important. Assuming they were over the age of consent, and there was no force being applied to either, the father is simply an !@#$ and deserves whatever punishment he gets. If they were both underage, but of similar age (and assuming this was all consensual), laying the boy out with a pipe is still not the appropriate response. Let me ask some of the neanderthals here, this: If the mother of the boy found the same couple in her house, would you think it was OK for her to bash the girl with a pipe? You catch your kid (girl or boy) having consensual intimacy with another person, I suggest your #1 responsibility is to deal with YOUR KID. Now, I am assuming the girl was with him, and let him in the house. But, it was never mentioned if the girl was even in the room (or the house). If the kid was in the girl's room, by himself, and the girl was nowhere around, then I think he could be treated as a trespasser and dealt with appropriately. Smashing him with a pipe wouldn't be my response, but I might think that it was reasonable, given those circumstances. Because I don't have a daughter I have to agree with the Dean on this one. If I'm ever caught in the act by my girlfriend's parents I sure as hell want them beating me over the head with a pipe. That said, I don't plan on sleeping with anyone under the age of consent. If an underage girl's father found a 20 something guy with her I would agree. As this doesn't seem to be the case I have to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted October 1, 2008 Author Share Posted October 1, 2008 And now comes this story about a father who killed a would-be rapist intruder in his home. In both cases, the father is in the right. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429503,00.html The death is under investigation and will be reviewed by a Marion County prosecutor. "Nobody wins," McNally told The Indianapolis Star bull sh-- nobody wins. You win. And society wins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts