Time Consider it a warning to those who would stoop to sexually abuse children: on Saturday, a Texas father who allegedly discovered a man sexually assaulting his 4-year-old daughter hit him so hard that he killed him.
And few seemed to care. “Dad’s a hero in my book,” was one of more than 5,400 comments on CNN. “No jury in this country will convict the father,” read another.
The incident took place in Lavaca County, Texas, west of Houston, where the girl’s family had invited people over, including the man who was killed. Neither man has been identified, but Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon told CNN that they were casual acquaintances. The preschooler stayed inside her house while relatives were outside tending to the horses; when her father came back, he found the man attacking his daughter and cut short the assault by punching him in the head multiple times.
Just because it's not legal doesn't mean it should be prosecuted or punished.
ReplyDeleteNo, that is why he should be prosecuted. That is what law is for. Unless it was necessary to save his daughter, he had no legal right to use deadly force, and a despicable victim or despicable crime does not justify murder. No state makes child sexual abuse a capital crime. Nevertheless, he should not be punished beyond what is necessary to show that society does not condone what he did. Ideally, he should be convicted and immediately pardoned. I would hate to be on that jury, because, if the facts are as the article states, my oath would require me to convict him, but as the father of daughters (now grown) I would have a lot of sympathy.
ReplyDeleteIf he had engaged in vigilante justice then yes he should be prosecuted. However he did not. He engaged in the defense of another from bodily harm.
DeleteTexas is one of(a growing number of)"Stand Your Ground" states(so called). That permit defense of self, or others, with potentially lethal force so long as there is a real and present danger. If the father had pulled a gun and shot them man dead there would be absolutely no question regarding whether or not he should be prosecuted, the answer would be a resounding NO.
However, because he used his hands the question might be raised as to whether he used force in excess of what was necessary to defend the child. That is where the law becomes fuzzy because you would have to prove without doubt that not only the actual threat, but the perceived threat was removed and the person continued beyond that.
15-20yrs ago, this may have actually gone to trial, however there is sufficient legal precedent at this point, up to the Supreme Court level, that is going to say that given the "Stand Your Ground" laws being in place the man's use of force was justified, so a prosecutor won't attempt to prosecute(doesn't want the bad record come election time).
The definitive case(sorry I can't remember the actual name) was a Kali expert who when attacked by a man wielding a broken bottle, who deployed a knife and stabbed the attacker an amazing 115 times. His argument before the US Supreme court was that given the speed of his defensive strike(claiming that all of the blows were delivered in under 20 seconds) there was no way for him to assess that he was out of danger in that limited amount of time as it would take at least 90secs for blood loss to incapacitate his attacker. After demonstrating his blitz defense for the court(in which he delivered the same number of strikes in just under 10secs) the US Supreme Court acquitted him.
So coming back tot he case at hand, a single blow to the head can be lethal(more than one boxer has died that way) a prosecutor will have an uphill battle proving that the man's intent went beyond defending his daughter to actually murdering an non-threat.
If it had been one blow, I might agree, but the article said the father "cut short the assault by punching him in the head multiple times." Any grown man can overpower a four year old girl, but we haven't been told that he posed any threat to the father. It appears the father caught the molester in the act and beat him up, giving him no opportunity to retreat. Probably it wasn't even necessary to hit him --surely he stopped whatever he was doing to the girl when the father entered the room. So it still looks like homicide to me.
DeleteIn a Stand Your Ground state, the prosecution is sure to fail. If the father hit the guy once and the guy tried to fight back... threat not ended. Nevermind that in said states deadly force is justified in defense of Life and Limb not just life.
DeleteThere is no necessity to offer route of retreat or opportunity as that would by nature put one's own life at risk.
Do you have any idea the speed with which blows, devastating blows at that, can be landed? 6 or 7 powerful blows a second is well within the ability of an untrained person. 10 or 12 for a trained martial artist.
A single blow to the head can be lethal, 3 or 4 could cause an internal hemorage that will cost a man his life without almost immediate medical attention. Which is why boxers who have been knocked out are administered blood thinners. For example the Journal of Combative Sport reports that 11 people die each year in the US in sanctioned boxing matches. The ability to administer lethal force within seconds, and the inherent lethality of blows to the head mean none of this moves out of the range of a short and violent encounter entirely within the boundaries of the law.
If the prosecutor decides to convene a Grand Jury I will be surprised(unless he is trying to give the father a defense in a civil suit). If a grand jury decides to indict I will be amazed, typically a grand jury will not indict a case which is certain to fail or be overturned on appeal.
you sound like a child molestor to me. Who are you to say he used excessive force? my Fiance was attacked while we were at a bar a few years ago and the attacker took a swing at me with his fist, i punched him once in the face and he was hospitalized with intracranial hemmoraging and almost died. Would it be my fault if he died? No he attacked a woman 1/4 his size and attacked me, all because my fiance would not leave with him. To say that people have to sit down and watch their loved ones become victims to criminals all for the sake of political correctness is wrong. If you molest a child or rape a woman and die in the process you deserve it. Dont punish a panic stricken father because he didnt have his 4 year old daughters rapists wellbeing in mind as he tried to save her. Burn in hell with all the other pedos and child rapists you piece of garbage.
DeleteNow THIS is the rodef that halacha permits killing, and mesira, etc. The accused person is at best a sofek rodef (which does matter). When the accused has been placed away from risk and cannot repeat the alleged crime, I question whether the halacha of rodef applies. I am not questioning the repugnance and horror of the crime of molestation. I am wondering whether the typical blogger and commenter line about rodef in this subject is always being applied correctly. I am thrilled the attacker is dead, and do not wish for better outcome for any molester, jewish, frum, or whatever. But does the din of rodef apply as used on these pages (and others)?
ReplyDeleteWhile normative understanding is that one can act to stop a rodef in the minimal level of force needed to stop him - there are views that does not apply to the victim or the victim's family members who are not required to give a measured response.
DeleteRav Moshe Halberstam (Yeschurun 15): We see in the Mishna LeMelech (Hilchos Chovel u’Mazik 8:10) who brings commentary that the law that if it is possible to stop the pursuer by injuring one of his limits only applies to third parties but the pursued himself is able to kill him freely even if he could have saved himself by damages one of the pursuers limbs…Thus it is proven that the relatives of the pursuer (rodef) are in fact the pursued themselves and they are the closest to the obligation and mitzva to stop the rodef from perpetrating his evil designs on them…
Shevus Yaakov (2:187): … It is explicitly expressed from his words that the pursued himself is permitted to killed his pursuer (rodef) even if he can save himself by wounding one of the pursuer’s limbs. Even stronger than this the Levush Orah writes there that if the pursuer comes to kill his wife and children he is also allowed to kill the rodef and it is not necessary to stop him by wounding one of the pursuer’s limbs. It is this last point that the Tzeida L’Derech disagrees but not on the issue that the pursuer himself can kill the pursuer without having to seek a less method of stopping him. This also indicates that he agrees with the view of the R’am and this makes sense.
DeleteTaz (C.M. 421:13):… So when he did stop the assailant it was good and he did a mitzva. Nevertheless it would seem that there is a distinction to be made. Beating up an assailant who hit a Jew is not exempt unless it is totally clear that he couldn’t save the victim in another manner. In contrast regarding a relative it is not necessary to be so careful. That means that even when it is not clear that there was an alternative it is permitted because a relative is like the person himself or herself. Even though it says in simon 4 that a person is not exempt if he could stop the assailant without giving him a beating but that is concerned with saving money. However here we are dealing with saving a relative who is being beaten and that is like someone is beating you. In such a case even if there is a doubt whether hitting the other person is needed to save yourself it is permitted. This distinction of self and relatives versus others can be perceived in the Rosh (Bava Kama 3:13) and the Tur (421:20). They say concerning a relative they say the reason for beating the assailant is to save the relative. In contrast when saving another Jew there is no exemption unless it is absolutely certain that there is no other way of saving him. In contrast with saving a relative there is no need to be so certain and it is not needed to be absolutely certain there is no other way of saving him because a relative is like oneself.
DeleteA child molester has a chazaka that they will repeat their crime and thus continue have the status of rodef. However if it is clear that he has not molested for many years despite ample opportunity - it might be that he loses the chazaka. Unfortunately there are many cases of renew molesting taking place even after 10 years of inactivity.
DeleteThank you for clarification on the parameters of rodef. A distinction I made in my earlier comment is poignant. The individual who is accused of molestation - is he considered a rodef, or must we verify that he is guilty? I am not looking to keep someone who is accused in harm's way. The accused must be removed from any and all situations that pose risk to anyone. But do we have the right, based on the accusation, to treat him as a rodef? I would not ask the "activists", since most of them lack the Torah knowledge to respond, and most would opine that anyone whose name has ever been mentioned in such a context should be tortured for the rest of his life, even if accusations prove to be not credible. R' Eidensohn - I ask you for your position on this question.
ReplyDeletethere are two categories - a rodef and a sofek rodef. If someone is accused the charges need to be taken seriously and measures taken to protect the children - as if they were true. Rodef is simply saying that there is a perception of danger that a normal person would make. It doesn't involve a court or any complicated halachic analysis. It is a perception. This is similar to the secular concept of "perceiving that there is a threat to life"
DeleteThese citation are from volume II of my "Child and Domestic Abuse"
Rav Yehuda Silman (Yeschurun volume 15 page 663): …1) Concerning removing the perpetrator from his job. In this issue we establish that the halacha follows the view of the Sho’el u’Meishiv that it is enough that there are bad rumors and there is concern because of doubts. It seems that in such a case where there seems to be a basis for these rumors it is possible to remove him from his job even in the middle of the year and he does not receive any compensation for the remainder of his contract or for loss of job…
Rav Yehuda Silman describes sofek rodef in the following way and says it has the same status as rodef.
Rav Yehuda Silman (Yeschurun 15): Question: Is it permitted to kill someone that there are doubts whether he is in fact a rodef (threat to life)? I was asked concerning a security guard in a public place e.g., the entrance of a restaurant or a mall who notices a man approach and he appears suspicious. The person is acting strangely and appears to be an Arab. When the security guard approaches him, he begins to run. The security guards suspects that he is a terrorist. This is only a suspicion since it is possible that he is in fact a Jew and there are people in the world who act strangely. In addition it is possible that the suspicious stranger is running away simply out of panic. However it is possible that in a short time the stranger will in fact cause a serious terror attack. Is it permitted to kill the stranger when the facts are not clear? This is a common question and a similar question can be asked regarding a bank teller who is suddenly confronted with a bandit with a pistol in his hand. There are many times when it is later determined that the gun was only a toy and even if it were real the bandit didn’t intend to kill but only to scare the bank teller. Nevetheless there is a doubt whether the person is in danger. In such circumstances is it permitted to kill him? Answer:… Conclusions: 1) It appears that we hold in practice that it is permitted to kill a suspected rodef. In other words someone who is doing activities that endanger others even if there are doubts. … 4) Therefore in the two versions of the question that were asked concerning a suspicious person it is permitted to kill him. That is only in a case there are valid bases to suspect that he is trying to kill. 5) In contrast in the case of someone running in the forest or is shooting and there are doubts as to his intent[ - he is not to be viewed as a rodef because we assume he has a legitimate reason for doing these things (chezkas kashrus).
In general with rodef - if it is possible to stop him without harming him then that is required
This seems to be a classical case of 'kannoim bog'im bo' meaning it is forbidden if you go and ask a question of how to proceed, but are exempt if you act impulsively. See Rambam Hilchos Issurei Bia 12:5
ReplyDeleteואין הקנאי רשאי לפגוע בהן, אלא בשעת מעשה כזמרי, שנאמר "ואת האישה אל קובתה" (במדבר כה,ח); אבל אם פירש, אין הורגין אותו, ואם הרגו, נהרג עליו. ואם בא הקנאי ליטול רשות מבית דין להורגו--אין מורין לו, ואף על פי שהוא בשעת מעשה
Rodef is not an issue of a zealotry but of protecting a person from being the victim of a crime or saving a person from sin. Dealing with a rodef doesn't necessarily involving killing the rodef. It also isn't invalid if you ask a posek.
DeleteIn contrast kannnoim pogim bo - involves killing those who are involved in only one type of prohibited sexual relations. It also has to be something done openly and not in private. If you ask a posek you can't do it. It apparently is not learned from the same sources as rodef and is halacha l'Moshe m'Sinai.
I was told by families members that in the old country, this issue was handled this way. First the molester was given a warning, next he would be beaten up, third time he would be whacked, his body would be thrown outside the getto and his death would be blamed on some gentile thugs.
ReplyDeleteThis way the family names is not being tarnished. Of course these days with the "gedolim" we have, the molester is a local hero and the victim need to move away.
For child molestors not caught in the act first offense, the word rapist or child molestor should be tattooed in bold letters across their forehead or somwhere that can not be covered by clothing or hair. Like the scarlet letter only thing will be permanently branded on them for life. That way no one will mistakingly trust them around their children (if they get away with not registering) spend time in prison since we all know prisoners despise molestors. 2nd offence chop off their pricks, and make them pee out of a cathedor pee bag. If they still dont get a clue by now and continue to rape and destroy our children...then clearly it is time for more serious measures. Allow the molested children if they are old enough, or childrens family do as they please, torture him mafia style or horror movie style until he dies a slow painful death. This may be cruel, but I was molested myself luckily I was too young to remember it now. They took him to court but his family had a ton of money and bought his way out,there is no telling how many other kids were victims. We know of one, a special needs girl that was a good friend of mine, but she never came forth about any of it. Not a day passes that I wish I could be the one to deliver the bullet with his name on it. How much I would love to make his death slow and painful. But I would get caught and its not worth jail...the law needs to be changed...eye for an eye. Torture for all child abusers, rapist, elderly abuse, and animal abusers. Being molested myself as well as raped by someone else, I have no tendencies to touch any child at all and never have. If anyone thinks what I just said is inhumane, what made the abuse said rapist ok? If we should feel sorry for them why arent we thinking about the victims that may or may not carry on the cycle of abuse. Just IMO
ReplyDelete