Whats wrong with people?

[Rich K]

Not a doubt in my mind that I would have stepped in. I have done it before, and will do so in the future if need be.

It is MORALLY wrong to stand by and do nothing, when a weaker defenseless person, whether a child, a woman or an elderly person is being savagely beaten.

All that is necessary for evil to triumph, is for good men to do nothing.


I can't believe that this is even a question.

 

[glockman19]

Only a LEO could get away with this. If you or I had shot the guy we would have been hauled off.

IMHO, while the guy deserved to die for beating to death a toddler, he would have been beaten to death in prision. Even the worst felons have a code and this is a code breaker.

As Far as I'm concerned justice was done. and for the price of a bullet rather than the hundreds of thousands of dollars we would have spent giving him council, trial, and incarceration for the rest of his life.

 

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

Common Sense Approach

1. Big man. Little toddler.
2. Lots of strength in comparison.
3. Stomping, shaking, beating = Grevious Bodily Injury or Death.

Bottom Line: Justifiable Shooting to save a life.

I'm disgusted that none of the other bystanders did not gang up on this guy and tackle him to save the child. They stood there and waited for several minutes while this child was beaten and stomped to death. Only when a police officer arrived by helicopter as the child finally was dying did the perpetrator FINALLY get shot.

 

[coloradokevin]

This shooting was justified, at least in my opinion.

Only a LEO could get away with this. If you or I had shot the guy we would have been hauled off.

Glockman,

In this case I'd argue that the exact opposite is true. When I'm working it is assumed that I have other options available in addition to deadly physical force... I can fight with my hands, an impact weapon, a chemical spray, a taser, etc. I have backup readily available too. On the other hand, a 70 year old bystander (or any citizen, for that matter) doesn't have all of the options I have at my disposal at work.

Thus, to fulfill the section of the law here that states: "reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate", a citizen would be more likely to be able to justify such reasonableness.

Just a thought. I still think this was a good shoot, but that's just me.


Here's a portion of Colorado's Deadly Physical Force statute:

"Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:

The actor has reasonable ground to believe and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or..."

 

[Picard]

That is one of the most horrific things I have read. Having a 2 year old sister, reading this makes me want to cry.

If I had seen something like this, I could not, in good conscience, not done anything about it. I could care less if the lawmakers had figured out common sense or not.

If I had to sit in jail, knowing that I had done the right thing and saved a child's life, at least my conscience would be clean.

 

[42]

I would have been prosocuted for firing but the police would have found an angry young goth in a long black leather coat whaling on the guy with one crutch whilst standing with the other. Or beating him with a cane. I saw a mother thump a child in a pushchair today and said something quietly but got abuse. Smacking yes a large thump acros the head No is my limit.

 

[Thumper_6119]

The bystanders were elderly, and "elderly" may be taken as a relative term, but for an elderly couple to take a 26 year old male to the ground might be a bit hard short of shooting him themselves. I'm sure it was deeply distressing for them to bear witness to all of that and for their efforts to be of no effect, but at least give them credit for trying. I'm sure most of us have seen instances where bystanders walked (or drove) on by instead of intervening.

 

[cracked butt]

I voted 'not legal.' It would have been justifiedin my state, but with how crazy the laws are, it would have been illegal to possess the gun on your person in most instances. No judge or jury would convict you however.



Its good that the evil man was put down, on the other hand, it might have been better revenge/justice or whatever you might want to call it to give him a life sentence and let all the other inmates know what brought him there.

 

[pbearperry]

Even in Massacrapsetts the shooting of that piece of crap would be legal.I would venture to say that all 50 states would find the shooting justafiable either by a Cop or a citizen legally carrying a firearm.

 

[RONSTAR]

I would have shot that ******* until I ran out of ammunition I have zero tollerance for people who would do something like that what the hell is this world coming to

 

[Rachen]

Lethal force is justified all right. Kudos to the hero police officer.

However, help came too late.

Someone with an M-40A1 could have put down that m*****f****** before he could even beat that poor child twice. Reading things like that really make the hairs on my neck stand on end. In NYC, the child-murderer would just have received 5-10 years.[Insert the most nastiest swearword] And maybe if he behaves good in prison, the "authorities" would let him out after 2. That is, unless he gets his head ripped off and kicked against the wall like a soccer ball in the prison shower.

The above shooting is legal in Texas and most places? Thats good. I would have shot anyway if it is in one of the Stalinist states. A human life is a human life. You don't need a damn filthy law to say whether you can defend a life or not, it is what a citizen is supposed to do.

 

[Old School]

If he were somekind of invincible madman that I physically could not stop, I would definately use the lead option. Anyone who was present and did not do everything possible to help that child has a higher authority to answer to.

 

[Telumehtar]

Not too worried about it being a problem in Texas, however even if it were would you have still done nothing?

I would like to think I have the grit to do the right thing even if the law forbade it. The law cannot address every situation, and unfortunately we've become a society who values the letter of the law far more than the spirit of law. And because of that we need so many laws to spell out so many situations that is now impossible for even lawyers to know all the laws of this land.

I would much rather return to a day when the law was simple and it's spirit ruled than the literal bog we find ourselves in today.

 

[FieroCDSP]

There are crimes that transcend all comprehension of human morality. Crimes against kids can reach into that zone. We've seen reports of shaken babies because they wouldn't stop crying.... women who completely lose it and drown all their kids one by one, or collectively in a car...... Child rapists are a monster all their own.... All of the crimes against children prove one very important idea.

There is tangible evil in this world. We, as a culture, have to have the moral, physical, and emotional strength to do what is right. The cop in this case sent the BG to The Highest Court, and I hope he has no nightmares about that act. Any person able to respond has a moral obligation to do so, and would likely be cleared by our own courts. Even if not cleared because of some stupid law of man, knowing you did the right thing at that time should give you solace.

I've found myself turning a blind eye, at times, to things I see. Nothing like this, but things that I am ashamed to have done nothing about. I hope I never feel compelled to turn a blind eye to something that could save a life.

 

[Seenterman]

Tell him to stop once then shoot until he is no longer standing. Let God have mercy on him, I dont have the time nor the inclination.

Edit:
Old School said:

Anyone who was present and did not do everything possible to help that child has a higher authority to answer to.

Said it better that I could. Wouldnt have worried about the law I would have wondered if I could have lived with myself afterwards if I didnt, or was unable to do something. I would have went after this idiot with a spork or a rock why did all the shepple have to wait for toe police!?

 

[zminer]

In New York State, conduct is justified when:

"Such conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury which is about to occur by reason of a situation occasioned or developed through no fault of the actor, and which is of such gravity that, according to ordinary standards of intelligence and morality, the desirability and urgency of avoiding such injury clearly outweigh the desirability of avoiding the injury sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense in issue."

So, yeah, I'd say it would have been legal here. Threat was imminent (actually occurring) and ordinary standards of morality clearly outweigh any rights the man had before he began beating his child.

 

[armoredman]

aquapong, in AZ he's clear as crystal.

13-404. Justification; self-defense

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.

13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force

A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:

1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under section 13-404, and

2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.

13-406. Justification; defense of a third person

A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if:

1. Under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under section 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and

2. A reasonable person would believe that such person's intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.

13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention; applicability

A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under section 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under section 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under section 13-1304, manslaughter under section 13-1103, second or first degree murder under section 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under section 13-1405, sexual assault under section 13-1406, child molestation under section 13-1410, armed robbery under section 13-1904 or aggravated assault under section 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.

B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.

C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if the person is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.

D. This section is not limited to the use or threatened use of physical or deadly physical force in a person's home, residence, place of business, land the person owns or leases, conveyance of any kind, or any other place in this state where a person has a right to be.

And a favorite of mine...

13-413. No civil liability for justified conduct

No person in this state shall be subject to civil liability for engaging in conduct otherwise justified pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.

 

[shadowalker]

90% sure would have been a legal shoot in Idaho.

Idaho is pretty friendly, we also have civil immunity for lawful defense. You can take a look at the statutes at http://www3.state.id.us/idstat/TOC/idstTOC.html, here are a few, I took just the top of 18-4009 because the other sections are somewhat long.

I refuse to live in a state that doesn't recognize the right of self defense and defense of others.

18-4009. JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE BY ANY PERSON. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in either 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;
...

19-202A. LEGAL JEOPARDY IN CASES OF SELF-DEFENSE AND DEFENSE OF OTHER THREATENED PARTIES. No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting himself or his family by reasonable means necessary, or when coming to the aid of another whom he reasonably believes to be in imminent danger of or the victim of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, murder or other heinous crime.

19-203. RESISTANCE BY OTHER PARTIES. Any other person, in aid or defense of the person about to be injured, may make resistance sufficient to prevent the offense.

6-808. CIVIL IMMUNITY FOR SELF-DEFENSE. (1) A person who uses force as justified in section 18-4009, Idaho Code, or as otherwise permitted in sections 19-201 through 19-205, Idaho Code, is immune from any civil liability for the use of such force except when the person knew or reasonably should have known that the person against whom the force was used was a law enforcement officer acting in the capacity of his or her official duties.

 

[Rachen]

There are crimes that transcend all comprehension of human morality. Crimes against kids can reach into that zone. We've seen reports of shaken babies because they wouldn't stop crying.... women who completely lose it and drown all their kids one by one, or collectively in a car...... Child rapists are a monster all their own.... All of the crimes against children prove one very important idea.

People who commit crimes against children shouldn't be executed by shooting after they are caught. THEY SHOULD BE GIVEN THE BAYONET.

And no "insanity plea" bulls*** either.

 

[Black Knight]

One thing to remember is this is California. A land where what would be considered normal anywhere else may or may not apply. With that in mind I would have and let the Judge or Jury sort it out later.

 

[packnrat]

here in ca it is not legal to shoot.

a cop can but not us.


.

 

[mainebear]

The question of legality is secondary in this instance to that of basic decency, compassion, character and bravery. If this instance did not illicit intervention by bystanders to prevent the brutal beating and murder of a helpless child then what situation ever would.

What type of people have we become when we feel we have to question adults coming to the aid of a child in such a situation. I would certainly hope with all my heart that I would have had the courage to defend that child, by any means, with my own life if necessary. We must all think, what if that had been our child. Would we have not wanted someone to intervene? I certainly hope so. Personally I don't think I could live with myself had I been present and not taken action.

If we do not draw the line at this type of behavior wherever would we?

 

[RONSTAR]

I also belive that if one was not willing to act in a situation like this due to legal issues is a phucking coward. A small defenseless child deserves more then that. This is America not Burma for god sakes I would never settle for something like this I would tear that guy in half even if I new I would be prosecuted for it what it comes down to to is morals.

 

[Nolo]

If he was lucky, I'd have a gun. Slow, easy, death.
If he was not lucky, I would not be armed... at least yet.
Then I'd find the hardest object within view and see if he likes having his brains bashed out...

I have no tolerance for those that prey on the weak.
Depending on how much it got to me, I might even go rabid animal on him and just let myself get lost in the heat of the moment.
It'd make a great episode of CSI:

"Wait, what? You're saying that those are human teethmarks? What about all that skin hanging off on him?"
"Those are in a pattern consistent with human fingers."
"What!?"
"And his heart appears to have been ripped out..."
"Why do you say that?"
"There's a big hole in his chest and the heart ain't there anymore."
"Any clues to who did this?"
"Only the words "YOU DO NOT BEAT CHILDREN" carved into his back, italics and everything..."

 

[justin 561]

I live in South Florida, and regardless if it were legal or not, I would have put a bullet in this guy. There is NO need to kill a innocent child, no matter what he/she has done.

Castle Doctrine:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/rpt/2007-R-0052.htm