Would you be a vigilante?

[Sean85746]

I just watched AMERICAN JUSTICE on A&E. It dealt with so-called "vigilantes".

The Bernie Goetz issue has been done to death, but there was a segment that really hit me, and I wonder what some others would do.

A karate instructor kidnapped his 11-year old "prized pupil" and took him from Louisiana to California. Dyed the boy's hair to black from blonde, and repeatedly raped the boy.

He was captured, and returned to Louisiana.

When the kidnapper/child rapist (he admitted to both crimes) was being escorted from the plane through the terminal, the victim's father, who was on the phone to a friend, drew what appeared to be a Smith & Wesson J-frame and blew the kidnapper/child rapist's brains out. Literally a shot to the right temple that traversed the cranium, and dropped him like a sack of wet rice.

It was all captured on a news camera as it happened. No re-enactment, live and in color..

The father of the victimized boy was charged with Murder 2, but the charge was reduced to Manslaughter. He was sentenced to 5 years probation, and 300 hours of community service.

Now...my views are: The father of the victimized boy was no vigilante, he was simply a father doing a father's duty.

Legal opinions aside...as parents...what do you think?

 

[dfaugh]

As a father

I can tell that no force ON EARTH coulda kept me from blowin' him up if I had the chance....

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I agree -- he was acting as a berieved parent, not as a vigilante.

 

[scottgun]

I am not a parent, but in my opinion, all child molesters should get a shot to the temple. That is the only cure for people who commit such acts.

 

[Sindawe]

I've seen that footage a couple of times. he man was a distraught parent removing a predator from the gene pool. I've no issue with what he did.

 

[Sam]

Daddy doing what daddy's do.

Obviously the jury thought so too.

Sam

 

[Ivy Mike]

rapist had not had a trial by jury as ALL of us are guaranteed.
While I can certainly understand the fathers actions, I must say that I wouldn't want that to happen to me.

Our justice system cannot work if take it into our own hands.

 

[The Viking]

I think he did what's right. It was'nt legal, but to quote some leftist: "Just because your actions are legal, doesn't mean your actions are right". The reverse can be applied.

 

[Standing Wolf]

Obviously the jury thought so too.

Actually, the jury could have found him not guilty.

 

[CAnnoneer]

They sentenced the father for taking matters into his own hands, rather than for killing the rapist. It comes to show how ethically perverse our legal system is. It must have been verdict by judge - I can't imagine a jury that would convict him.

Btw, rapists and child molesters are the first to be found dead in trashcans in prison, AFAIK. Why would you waste your life to do what the system will do for you?

Finally, death is nothing; it is a release from responsibility. Now sticking somebody behind bars, among similar animals, now that is real punishment, equivalent to torture.

 

[dfaugh]

No need for a trial

'When the kidnapper/child rapist (he admitted to both crimes)"

 

[Sean85746]

My bad...I forgot to mention the father of the victim took a plea bargain, and was sentenced by the judge. No jury trial took place.

The prosecution wasn't sure of a conviction (obviously), so they offered the plea bargain.

I can't call the dead creep a victim...when he took that boy and molested him...he chose his own path.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Now...my views are: The father of the victimized boy was no vigilante, he was simply a father doing a father's duty.

Legal opinions aside...as parents...what do you think?

Sean85746, you are playing both sides of the fence, mixing words, and confusing issue. Since being a vigilante is a legal issue, you can't say "Legal opinions aside" after you pass judgement that the boy's father was no vigilante.

He absolutely was a vigilante because he administered punishment without allowing the accused to go through due process. He murdered the accused who was in custody, so his chance to do his fatherly duty had LONG since passed. His fatherly duty was to protect his child and failing that, to help find the guy who had the child. Once the accused was in custody, the fatherly duty was to help in the healing of the child, not committing murder.

The accused acted outside the law, was caught, and then the father acted outside the law. Not only that, he administered more judgment against the accused than the law would administer.

So, in every aspect of this case, what the father did was 100% wrong and he did it as a vigilante. He obviously planned his attack and laid in wait for the accused to come to him so that he could shoot him.

With that said, had I been on the jury, I would have argued for a more lenient sentence.

Oh, and the dead creep was a victim. The father killed him in an act that was NOT any form of self defense or defense of another. At the time of the killing, the molester was not a threat to the father or the family.

 

[4v50 Gary]

Taking justice into one's own hands is unlawful. However, knowing how our system has broken down, I can't say that I blame the father. We're far too lenient with criminals.

 

[DeseoUnTaco]

Now...my views are: The father of the victimized boy was no vigilante, he was simply a father doing a father's duty.

Legal opinions aside...as parents...what do you think

Yes, he was doing a father's duty, absolutely. If the target of his shot really had committed the crime, confessed to it, and there was no doubt about it, then I think the father did the right thing.

But doing the right thing isn't always a defense within the legal system, nor should it be. The legal system must punish him for what he did, because if our legal system did not, that would be to encourage others to do it. The thought through the father's mind was, "I know that I will be criminally charged, and will almost certainly be convicted, for doing what I'm about to do, but in my mind, I must do it, despite this knowledge." That's the right thought process. If the court let him off with nothing, then people would start thinking, "I really think it's the right thing to do, I don't think the courts are going to punish this guy the way he deserves it, so I'll do this and the court will let me off." Do you see the difference? One is saying, "I'll step outside of the boundaries of what our society accepts, because I must do it" while the other is at a much lower threshold.

So yes, I think the father did the right thing and I think the court was right to convict him. Also, I notice that the court gave him a lenient sentence. Manslaughter, no jail time.

This is one of those issues where the situation is bad and no outcome is really satisfying.

 

[Art Eatman]

I'll only comment that this is not the classic use of the word "vigilante", just as Bernard Goetz' deal was not.

The classic use involves an ongoing sequence of actiions against Bad Guys, not just some single event. (IMO, Goetz was merely protecting himself.)

Art

 

[cracked butt]

I already told my wife a few years ago that if something like that happens with my son or any other future child I have, that she can expect that there will be a good chance I will end up in prison. She is nothing but supportive on my position on this.

 

[gm]

the father was not being a vigilante, he was distributing justice. I believe vigwhatevers go out and seek their targets, much like charles brosons portrayal in his death wish series.


the father saved the day actually,he terminated a loser,saved the state, federal and taxpayers bucks by not having to house,feed and treat this nutjob.there will not be a revolving door for that wacko and nor will he be able to continue his disgusting fantasies elsewhere,on anyone else.end of story.

if I were in his shoes,I would have done it too,out of grief,love for my son and the knowledge of how things work these days.. and justice.

 

[ctdonath]

Goetz was not a vigilante, he simply protected himself. He did not hunt down his targets outside an immediately dangerous situation.

 

[Waitone]

The perp plead down. No jury. No trial. Just an administrative process.

The DA said he wasn't sure of a conviction. Maybe true. Maybe not. Maybe the DA was concerned with a budget. Maybe the DA was wanting to clear file folders off his desk in preparation for a political campaign. Maybe the DA's office was so underfunded it worked hard to keep from going to trial (Charlotte, NC is a real live case in point).

Question is, was justice done? If you think justice was done, then the father was out of bounds. If you think justice was not served then your view will tend to support the father. The father evidently thought justice was not served so he acted. If perhaps he had done some research he would have discovered what happens to perps like the perp once they get into prison. Life is decidely unpleasant. Had he know that perhaps he would have considered other avenues of redress.

Classic example of the difference between law and justice. I view law as the most likely avenue of obtaining justice. Most of the time it works, sometimes it fails. Sometimes it takes other institutions to work justice.

 

[ctdonath]

We have a justice system in place to ensure, to society's satisfaction and protection, that the right people are punished. Wherever possible we must let that work.

Should the system fail, THEN it's the father's duty to avenge the harm done his child. The father should have seen to it due proces was given ... and due punishment served. It should be abundantly clear to the perp that, assuming he actually did the crime, his best option is to ensure a suitable conviction; getting off scott-free should be his greatest worry.

 

[1911 guy]

Right vs. Legal

Was it legal? Absolutely not. Was it right? Damn skippy.
I quote Sam: Daddy doing what daddy's do.
Being annoying, aggravating or stupid might be inconvenient for everyone around you, hurting my family will be terminal for you.

 

[middy]

As a father of three boys, I can't say I blame him for shooting that rat down. I'd like to think I could exercise better self control and let the courts do their thing, and then, if he doesn't die in prison, disappear him myself without getting caught. Having some quality time alone with him would make it worth the wait.

 

[chris in va]

He admitted to committing the acts. He was caught with his boy.

What more justice needs to be done? Father did what he had to do.

Interestingly, many state handgun laws allow for shooting someone stealing your kid...

 

[SaintofKillers]

I would have let the guy do his sentence. Then when his sentence was served, I would meet him at the prison gate and give him a ride and he would never be seen again.

Saint of Killers