Whats wrong with people?

[Eric F]

Police: Officer kills man who beat child to death Sun Jun 15, 7:35 PM ET



TURLOCK, Calif. - Police killed a 27-year-old man as he kicked, punched and stomped a toddler to death despite other people's attempts to stop him on a dark, country road, authorities said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Investigators on Sunday were trying to establish the relationship between the suspect and the child they say he killed Saturday night. The Stanislaus County coroner said the boy appeared to be between 1 and 2 years old based on his size, according to county sheriff's deputy Royjindar Singh.

"It's been a long night of wondering, 'Why?' — not only for the officers and the passers-by who stopped and tried to help out, but for anyone. Why would somebody do this?" Singh said.

Singh said the coroner does not plan to confirm the identities of the suspect and victim until Monday. Because his injuries were so severe, the child will have to be identified through a blood or DNA test, he said.

The suspect had a child's car seat in the back of his four-door pickup truck. The truck caught the attention of an elderly couple at 10:13 p.m. Saturday because it was stopped in the two-lane road facing the wrong direction, Singh said.

As they got closer, the couple saw the man brutally beating the toddler behind his truck and throwing the child on the ground, according to Singh. Two or three other cars stopped, an unusual number to be passing through the remote area surrounded by a dairy, a cow pasture, a cornfield and a farmhouse, he said.

"What we got from witnesses is he was punching, slapping, kicking, stomping, shaking," Singh said. "They tried to intervene and get involved, but their efforts really didn't have an effect. The suspect was engaged in what he was doing. He just pushed them off and went back to it."

A sheriff's helicopter responding to emergency calls from the area landed in a cow pasture at 10:19 p.m. carrying a Modesto police officer who shot the man to death after he refused an order to stop beating the child, Singh said.

Paramedics tried to resuscitate the toddler, who was not breathing when they arrived. The boy was taken to a local hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

No children within the dead boy's age range have been reported kidnapped or missing in Stanislaus County, Singh said.

The incident happened on Bradbury Road about 10 miles west of Turlock, a city located about halfway between Sacramento and Fresno.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080615/ap_on_re_us/baby_killed;_ylt=AqQmPVlGWQcq5BTrHm0zCZ4DW7oF

Would you be legal in your area to have shot this guy? and if you dont mind let everyone know what state you speak for.

I am uncertian what the law is in Virginia but I beleive had I tried physical force to stop it and that failed I would have felt highly motivated to shoot this guy. But now I have a home work assignment, find out what Va law says about protecting others.

 

[Armueller2001]

It's preventing a forcible felony isn't it? Yep, lethal force is justified.

 

[WoofersInc]

I'm in Nevada and we can use force to prevent serious bodily harm of ourself or others. In a case like this I don't think any jurisdiction would find you liable if you shot this guy. But then again stranger results have come out of a jury box.
I believe that even most hardened anti-gun people would be in support of this guy being shot down like the animal that he clearly was.

 

[06]

Whether you come clear or not the scumbag needed to be stopped. Glad he was put down(like a mad dog) and so sorry for the child, wc

 

[jakemccoy]

In California, a person is justified in using deadly force to protect another person if that other person is justified in using deadly force. (That’s the law in most, if not all, states.) The boy's life was in imminent danger, evidenced by the boy's resulting death. In California, the boy clearly would have been justified in using deadly force. Thus, the officer would have been justified in using deadly force.

DISCLAIMER: This is not legal advice.

 

[Creature]

Wow...I cant believe that you are even questioning whether the use of deadly force to prevent murder would be justified or not.

 

[General Geoff]

I'm not sure there's a jury in the world who would convict you, legally justified or not...

 

[Geno]

Michigan has legislated Castle Doctrine. So, the answer I voted, "Yes".

Doc2005

 

[Jamie C.]

Oh, yeah, I'd have shot him.

And in Tennessee, it's legal to use deadly force to protect yourself or someone else from death or serious bodily harm. Has been for quite a long time now.



J.C.

 

[Blakenzy]

"What we got from witnesses is he was punching, slapping, kicking, stomping, shaking,"

-[the child]

Witnessing such an event is binding in my view. If you're there, you must stop it. As a human being you have to act regardless of, well, anything.

I think that situations as such are SO clear; there is no grey area when you see an adult stomping a toddler to death. You stop it with whatever force necessary. No questions asked, no "but's", "if's" or other trying to make sense of it.

"They tried to intervene and get involved, but their efforts really didn't have an effect. The suspect was engaged in what he was doing. He just pushed them off and went back to it."

They tried to intervene and get involved??? That is so lame... You don't try to intervene in a situation like that, you GET INVOLVED- PERIOD

What were their "efforts"?? Poking him with their fingers?? Saying: "um, mister, it seems to me that you general demeanor towards the child is a bit harsh... Please stop beating his brains out or I will be forced to contact the local authorities.."

A tire iron applied multiple times to his head would have been a proper intervention(at the very least)...

 

[Eric F]

Blakenzy I agree with you, however I prefer to think the story was some what poorly written and people did what they could. Maybe they were some 75 year old people who could not do much against a 27 yr old in a rage.

I would really like to say what I would do to this guy but it would not be very high road at all.

The reason I asked the question is basically I do not know the legalities of various places, certianly in this case the death of the child had already happened so justification is pretty much granted. If say he had just started with a single punch to the childs head would that be enough? probably not but a 911 call and some sort of physical intervention would be required. A second punch to the child would likely bring my gun to bear. Depending on how the child apears to be doing I am not sure a second strike would be enough to get away from the jury on a shooting. I guess what I am saying one has to be very careful in deciding when to shoot in protection of others. What you see and what the jury hears can be 2 really diffrent things. But like stated a limp child being stomped on is clearly worth several bullets

 

[Ridgerunner665]

Being that I am very capable and more than willing...

I would have beaten the guy to death...shooting would have been too good for him.

 

[jrfoxx]

Would you be legal in your area to have shot this guy?
In OR, yes.You can use deadly force to prevent the commission of a violent felony, and I'm quite sure the first punch the guy hit the kid with met that definition, easily.

 

[moooose102]

O.M.G.! why indeed! what could make anyone that angry? i don't understand. the poor child. and i concour, shooting this man was way to easy, he needed to be beaten to death! no, i take that back. ALMOST beaten to death about 10 times, nursed back to health, then beaten again. after the tenth time, then one final go for broke beating, by the mother of this kid, with a baseball bat! i know where his soul is going! and it deserves him right! anyway, yes it would be legal in michigan. you are allowed to use deadly force in violent felonys, rape, and some other circumstances. if i had come across this, i shure wouldn't have worried about if it was legal or not though! i would have done what had to be done to try to save the kid. i really cant imagine it would be different anywhere in the us and canada. as for other countries, well who knows.

 

[SCKimberFan]

In SC - YES. To not intervene would have been wrong - though probably not criminal

 

[Titan6]

Beating a child to death is more common than you might think but it is a rare public spectacle. It is difficult to tell based on the article but the shooting seems justified, but not everywhere is this the case. I could think of several countries where shooting the actor would have resulted in lenghty prison time for the shooter.

 

[Shung]

I'm not sure there's a jury in the world who would convict you, legally justified or not...

Unfortunetely here, the cop would be in trouble..
because according to our "lefties" nobody desserve death, even the worse scumbag of our society...there always would be some ******* to say (sitting in a sofa with a drink) that the cop could have used other mean to stop..

This is the beginning of the end..

 

[Boris Barowski]

and he probably saved the state a lot of money in trial costs and inevitably the expense of keeping someone imprisoned.

 

[cambeul41]

Looking at it from another angle

If it had been me that had gotten so totally out of control, killing me on the spot would be the most merciful thing that you could do for and to me.

 

[feedthehogs]

They tried to intervene and get involved???

The police and the media have so ingrained into people to be passive victims that many people will stand and watch someone else getting beat to death without doing anything.

This passive attitude has allowed the rabid dogs to run wild.
The only thing you can do with a rabid dog is put it down.

 

[sprithitler]

In sweden you would probably lose your firearmslicense if you as a civilian shot the guy. You would probably not be convicted by court though. Of course there is in most cases another way to stop somebody than to kill them with a firearm, when you analyze the split second decisions in the comfort of a TV-couch or courtroom, but in practice, while the pundits would say "unjustified shoting", the court would say "extended selfdefense, and thus justified, but (in the case of a civilian) illegal use of firearm, and thus loss of firearmslicense."

 

[19-3Ben]

Absolutely.

You would be preventing a clear, imminent, and direct threat of death/grievous bodily injury to a 3rd party.

No question in my mind.

 

[Mr White]

In PA, the law allows you to shoot to protect your life and the lives of others. But it doesn't matter, I'd do time if need be to save a child's life in that situation, without a second thought about it.

 

[crazed_ss]

They tried to intervene and get involved???

The police and the media have so ingrained into people to be passive victims that many people will stand and watch someone else getting beat to death without doing anything.

This passive attitude has allowed the rabid dogs to run wild.
The only thing you can do with a rabid dog is put it down.

As a Californian, I understand why people were unable to stop him. In this state, virtually the only people carrying guns are criminals and cops. That means if you see some bad stuff going down, and you step in, you're putting your life on the line with no means of defense except for your fists. The people who tried to help were probably scared to death for their own safety.. If someone did have a gun, they could have lawfully shot the guy most likely.

CA Penal Code..

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in
any of the following cases:
1. When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a
felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person; or,
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person,
against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or
surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends
and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter
the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any
person therein; or,
3. When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a
wife or husband, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such
person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to
commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent
danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the
person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he was the assailant
or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have
endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was
committed; or,
4. When necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and
means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in
lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving
the peace.

 

[ambidextrous1]

No problem in Texas.