I'd imagine with the adrenalin, its a wonder the head is still attached.

Justice

[I really don't think I'd be able to control my rage if I ever witnessed someone molesting one of my children.]

Demi, that's another option!

I'm thinking about the Sandusky case. I don't know if I can say McQueary is "just" as bad as Sandusky, but I want to say it. How could he not do something!

There wouldn't be enough of him left in good enough shape to identify by the time the cops got there.

And I WOULDN"T be sorry.

That being said......I would have to shoot him.
I would stick the gun in his back and lead him somewhere away from my sweet child so she wouldn't witness it and there he would be shot.

Anyone that can do that to a child doesn't deserve a trial
or a second chance at breathing fresh air.

Afterwards I would go to my knees and ask my God to forgive me for taking the life of a devil....the devil.

I gave this thought before I answered Bill.
No question in my mind.

Grand jury to get case of Texas dad who beat alleged child molester to death
By Joshua Rhett Miller

Published June 12, 2012
FoxNews.com
A Texas prosecutor said the case of a rancher who beat to death a man he caught allegedly molesting his daughter will go to a grand jury to decide whether the killing was justified, or an act of excessive force.

The father, whose name has not been released by authorities, claims he caught the man trying to molest his 4-year-old daughter on his ranch Saturday. Although Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon said the girl�s father is unlikely to be arrested, District Attorney Heather McMinn told FoxNews.com the case remains under investigation and that the Texas Rangers have joined the probe.

"Once completed, [results of the investigation] will be forwarded to the district attorney�s office and it will be taken to a grand jury," McMinn told FoxNews.com. "They�re still investigating what happened at this point."

The grand jury will ultimately decide what charges -- if any -- the girl�s father will face, McMinn said.

Relatives of the 47-year-old dead man -- who is from Gonzales and does not appear to have a criminal record -- had not been located as of Tuesday, McMinn said. His name will not be released until those relatives are found, she said.

"My understanding is that they are looking for family members in Mexico," McMinn said.

Harmon, who could not be reached for comment Tuesday, said earlier that no evidence has led investigators to doubt the father�s account, he said.

"There doesn�t appear to be any reason other than what he told us," Harmon said.

The victim was an "acquaintance" of the father who visited the ranch to help care for some horses, according to Harmon, adding he did not know how long the men may have known each other prior to the alleged incident.

The girl�s father notified police late Saturday afternoon that he attacked a man he caught attempting to sexually assault his daughter near a barn where horses were kept, Harmon said.

"In the course of trying to get her away from him, and protect her, he struck the subject several times in the head and the subject died," Harmon said.

The girl was taken to a hospital to be examined and was later released, Harmon said. The victim's body was taken to the Travis County medical examiner's office for an autopsy. Authorities are still awaiting those results, McMinn said.

James Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, an Austin-based nonprofit group, questioned the father�s decision to "summarily execute" the alleged molester without due process.

"Assuming it�s true that this guy was molesting the daughter, and we don�t know what exactly happened at this point, he would then have the right to defend [her], and hit him enough to have him stop," Harrington told FoxNews.com. "But you cannot summarily execute him, even though I can understand the anger he would have."

Without specific knowledge of the case, Harrington said he was "surprised" that the girl�s father had not been already charged.

Harrington continued: "The question is: When does it move beyond self-defense?"

Meanwhile, several residents of the small town of roughly 2,000 about 130 miles west of Houston said they supported the father�s actions.

"He got what he deserved, big time," Shiner native Sonny Jaehne told the Victoria Advocate newspaper.

Along with Jaehne, Mark Harabis was among a handful of people at a local convenience store on Sunday who discussed the killing.

"I agree with him totally," Harabis told the newspaper. "I would probably do worse. The family will have to deal with that the rest of their lives, no matter what happens to the father. Even if they let him go, he and his child will have to deal with that the rest of their lives."

The owner of Howard�s convenience store said the killing was a hot topic throughout the weekend.

"Everybody wants to know who it is," owner Howard Gloor told the newspaper. "Everybody�s very curious about it. A lot of people have said that he got what he had coming to him. That�s been the consensus. They�ve been supportive of doing what needed to be done to take care of the problem."

Good heavens! Imagine that woman as our neighbor! :0

I don't know what I would do Bill. If I saw a man molesting my little boy, I honestly don't know what I would do. The idea of such a horror happening to him is really beyond my ability to grasp or imagine.

It is my idea that what violence I would attempt to bring to the man, in my immediate shock and instant, crazed reaction, might possibly do even greater long term harm to my little four year old child, more than the harm done to him from the pervert - but that is just my imagination running away with me.

I can't really even begin to know what I would do.

What if the person who was being raped or abused was not a family member, like the boys Sandusky molested?
What should the red headed guy have done when he walked in the showers at Penn State and saw Sandusky anally raping a pre teen boy?
He slammed his locker and left. Why?
Was the child that was being raped a kid from some orphanage that he did not value or was there some other reason he didn't go after Sandusky and beat the sh1t out of him, call police, etc.? What in the he11 was that all about?

Maybe the guy in the bookstore had his heart/mind in the right place ... and could catch a little break on this board? No, I didn't think so.

Heri I do not follow the PA pedophilia story, but my understanding from the little I read originally they were all minority inner city children ... Lilly may be able to give more info.

An interesting concept is that all criminal behavior is due to brain abnormalities. Which nicely explains why many teenagers indulge in criminal behavior but become completely socially compliant at an older age - the brain matured.

But ... without knowing what really happened here, at this point you have a live man's word against a dead man. 3 people involved in this situation - a father, his 4 year old and a dead man. And the dead man cannot dispute what the live man is saying. And is the 4 year a credible witness? I hope so.

Otherwise the dead man's relatives can protest that the live man killed the dead man without provocation - because who is there to collaborate his story? I mean, what if the guy just wanted to kill him for some other reason (like he was having an affair with his wife) and made up the reason for doing it?

I'm just saying it reminds me of the case in Florida where you have one man's word against another; and the other one can't speak to say his side.

My husband would do exactly the opposite, his first instinct would be to kill the b@srt@rd then console the child. Maybe it's a Mom vs Dad thing our maybe it's just how we are built.

In my opinion I do not think a woman vs man plays into how aggressive a person would be to protect their child.

To this day I cannot forget seeing a woman lift a car off her child. It was like watching the Hulk TV Show. If I had not seen it I would have thought it was impossible.

I was simply reflecting on first instincts , going to the child vs going after the perpetrator.

Why does that matter? Is it a reflection of one's worth whether or not one would or wouldn't?

It goes without an answer . We as parents would save our child.

If a drunk driver was headed toward your 19 year old beautiful honor roll daughter and you could have been there to push her out of harms way and have him hit a tree head on and die instead...?????

Some parents might not know for sure what they would do because its hard to wrap your mind around the action but when it comes down to your child or the bad guy.....
I think you would use whatever was in your hand or close by.

Of course we all would attempt to stop the molestation and protect the child from further harm - the primary goal - but how would be the question.

Probably by just showing up.

If we then attempted violence even as the molester moves to leave, then that is the sticky wicket.

I am of shorter than average height, smallish build for my height, physically fit (or was until I fractured my leg). I am unable to physically dominate a reasonably fit (or perhaps even an unfit) man my size, or even somewhat smaller. By far and away most men are well larger than I am.

So, I need a weapon and grab (due to circumstances) the first thing I can find. It's not like I can leave my little child for even an instant to get my handgun. Or would go for it if he molester left, I would be busy doing my primary, most important job of further protecting/comforting my damaged son.

Let's say for argument's sake it's a baseball bat in the corner of the room right next to where I'm standing. I take it, advance to him swinging and being larger and stronger, he is far more likely than not, able to overpower me and take the bat and beat me up or to death and then beats my little boy to death.

Beccause it is more likely than not that he can get the bat away from me, it seems to me to be the smarter and more logical move to not to grab for something that can be taken from me and used to further hurt my little boy.

That could happen with any weapon, including my hands if I attacked him.

My first and only responsibility is to protect my son and prevent further attempted harm in whatever way I can.

If I have already stopped the molestation by entering the room (sudden discovery) then I must convince him to leave in any way I can think of to do so. That way my little boy will be safe from further harm. I believe that simple discovery is what would make him leave, nothing else would be required, most certainly not theats of exposure.

Only if he either continues the molestation even though he has been discovered, or attempts to hurt me or my little boy physically due to the discovery do I think it would be in my little boy's best interest to try to fight him. Because odds are not in my favor of overcoming a man my size or larger.

If he tries to run away, I would let him, and grab the phone for help. That way my little boy won't be further harmed physically and I can devote all my attention to his care and comfort and assurance that he is now safe, which is my primary job.

What I would actually DO under those extreme, sudden and traumatic circumstances is anybody's guess. But I hope I would react in a way that was in the sole, best interest of my child.

....of course it is silly and you better be singing God Bless the USA when you bludgeon, stab, shoot, run over and draw and quarter the guy.

Here's an alternate question: how about keeping a little bit closer eye on one's four year-old? In addition to pedophiles, the world contains other hazards. At a horse stables, one might imagine that horses could be among those hazards.

"""""""""""Maybe the sole best thing for a child is not to take them to horse stables where there is a pedophile in the first place."

So the father is to blame for trying to protect his daughter.......which is the story we have been told so far and the basis on which we are posting here. "The victim was an "acquaintance" of the father who visited the ranch to help care for some horses, according to Harmon, adding he did not know how long the men may have known each other prior to the alleged incident." You know pm, you are probably right.............. the father was probably aware that the guy was a pedophile and still allowed him to work for him and around his four year old. Yeah, makes sense to me. Puleeze, I'm sure a father who would attack someone the way this father did to protect his child wouldn't knowingly allow a pedophile around his daughter. And if the story is true as told, the guy who was killed is definitely not the victim..........the four year old is.

"""""""""""The pedophile probably has little more control over their actions than a drug or alcohol addict has over indulging. This only follows common sense - no one would choose such behavior. It has to be an extreme compulsion
""""""""""""What is the point of the OP question? It seems to boil down to "would you kill a pedophile if you saw him in action?" Why does that matter? Is it a reflection of one's worth whether or not one would or wouldn't?

There is a thing called CHOICE. You choose whether or not you are going to take that first drink or drug and you choose whether or not you are going to take the next one or the next one. Yes, the weakness may be there but a person has to take responsibility for their own actions........no one else can. Some alcoholics and drug addicts want to blame the things they do when under the influence on the substance. Well, pedophilia, lust, lying, stealing, violence, etc is not sold in a bottle or a package..........you can't buy those things. What the drugs and alcohol does is rid you of any inhibitions you had and turn your basest desires loose.

As for a pedophile having no control and it being an extreme compulsion, what would YOU do if you saw your child being molested pn? Ask him nicely to stop and suggest that he get help? Get real......... and what is your problem with this subject anyway. Granted at this time we only have what we read to go by but you act as though even if the guy was molesting the four year old that he is the victim. Believe me, not all pedophiles have brain tumors.

""""""""""""He slammed his locker and left. Why? Was the child that was being raped a kid from some orphanage that he did not value or was there some other reason he didn't go after Sandusky and beat the sh1t out of him, call police, etc.? What in the he11 was that all about?

Leave it to you heri to bring race or rich vs poor into the picture. My opinion is the ONLY reason McQueary dropped the ball was that he was more concerned about his career than he was the kids whose lives Sandusky would ruin. Of course McQueary did say that he slammed the door to stop the act and then later would leave the room every time Sandusky walked in.........gotta give him credit.........that really helped those kids didn't it. As far as I'm concerned McQueary, Shultz, Curley and a few others should be charged with accessory to child abuse.

"why yes M'am, I certainly do, any chance I get".

So, yes, of course the guy was justified in what he did, in the eyes of society, and consequently he will not suffer a penalty. Whether or not he should suffer a penalty is a more interesting question than what would WE do.

To get the abuser away from you child, out of the childs sight so that they would not be traumatized and then shooting him as one poster(CW)claimed they would is IMO a totally different thing. Shows forethought and to some extent planning. Said child no longer in immediate danger.. I don't think said poster would get off being charged with something. Better rethink that action.....

Maybe the OP was giving us a chance to question and think about our feelings, our reaction.

Hopefully none of us will ever be faced with having to find out.
I didn't find it a silly topic but I was offended when ohiomom trivialized any action a parent would take as gungho and to sing God Bless The USA (song she hates)during any action a parent would take.

Molestation of a child is no subject to try and be cute about.

If anyone thinks it is a silly subject then don't respond.
Maybe someone reading this post has had a child molested.

I hear people say all the time they'd kill a person if they knew that person was molesting their child. But they don't think about what will happen after that. Once again, the child is left with no mom/dad AND being molested.

It's not our job to employ the death penalty, unless the law allows it. Which in this case, I'm not sure if it does. We will have to see.

Really ??

paradigm shift

Heri, as soon as I saw you posted, I knew where you were going with it. Let me clue you, mister. If I had a gun on my belt, it would stay right there. Shooting that son of a bi*ch would be too merciful. I'd want him to feel each and every blow, and I'd be MORE than happy to pay for the crime afterward. My kids are all grown now. But my daughter in law is preganant with twins right now, due in September, and there's no place on this globe that someone could hide if they were to hurt them like that. I guarantee you they wouldn't die a natural death.

Was the child that was being raped a kid from some orphanage that he did not value or was there some other reason he didn't go after Sandusky and beat the sh1t out of him, call police, etc.? What in the he11 was that all about?

Too many people have the attitude that "it's not my problem".

even if I killed the guy twice I would find it hard to forgive myself for my negligence.

Agreed. (believe that?)

It's not our job to employ the death penalty, unless the law allows it. Which in this case, I'm not sure if it does. We will have to see.

I don't give a rats a$$. What I DO care about is that SOB will never do that to another child again, and for THAT, bboy, I'd be MORE than happy to be "sent up".

Ohiomom-- this has nothing to do with being a proud American, or politics. You know I consider you to be a friend. But that was really crass.

The OP question is obviously rhetorical. What is the point of answering it?

I would say, judging from all the different answers we're seeing, that it's obviously NOT rhetorical, and it IS worthy of answering. Not quite as cut and dry as you seem to think.

Maybe the sole best thing for a child is not to take them to horse stables where there is a pedophile in the first place.

No one KNEW he was a pedophile. He had no record whatsoever. Now what? You don't ever let your kids leave your home again because any person you meet might be a pedophile?

What would I do ? Have not a clue ... but one thing I would not do is "blow someone away" in front of my child.

How's that for an answer?

Vengeance is not mine...

I guess not.

Having a father in jail for protecting you cannot be worse that having to relive the nightmare in court knowing that someday the perp will probably be let out.

It looks like according to the law the father will be out of jail before the b*stard gets out of the cemetery.

Confused in Cleveland

You're right and I don't believe in vigilante justice but what we are speaking about here is first of all "What do you think you would do IF". Some people spoke of getting the child away so they wouldn't suffer any further trauma, some would just kill the guy, some would beat him unmercifully and others had different ideas. The thing is, if you are any kind of parent at all and love your child, I don't think if you walked up on someone molesting that child that you would be thinking straight to begin with. I think you would experience anger like you have never felt before if you are normal and all logical thinking would be out the window. None of us can know for sure what we would do but if the guy was actually molesting the little girl I think the father acted in a normal manner. If the father had taken time to retrieve his gun and gone out and shot the guy that would be one thing. But if the story is true that the killing was accidental and that the father only used his fists, I can't imagine a jury convicting him.......unless pm or a couple of others here on the forum were on it.

""""""""""of course it is silly and you better be singing God Bless the USA when you bludgeon, stab, shoot, run over and draw and quarter the guy.

So om, are you saying we can add you to the list of people who would softly tap the pedophile on the shoulder, ask him to please stop and offer to help him seek help?

"""""""""""What would I do ? Have not a clue ... but one thing I would not do is "blow someone away" in front of my child."

No om, none of us know exactly what we would do but one thing I've learned through life is "to never say never". If someone had your child in a situation where the absolute only way you could prevent that person from killing your child was to kill the attacker , in front of your child, are you telling me that you would let that person kill your child rather than have your child see you "blow someone away"? That's really sad.

"""""""""""Good enough! I just wanted to be sure it was ok to kill suspected pedos or other deviants. Here's an alternate question: how about keeping a little bit closer eye on one's four year-old? In addition to pedophiles, the world contains other hazards. At a horse stables, one might imagine that horses could be among those hazards.

You weren't there as none of us were and we only have the story to base our answers on. You have no idea how closely the father watched the child, how the child behaved in the stable, etc, etc, etc. It only takes a turn of the head for a child to disappear. Sounds to me as if you are defending the alleged pedophile and blaming the parent. Your remarks are disgusting and I can't understand anyone defending pedophilia.

*

Well, I can.

I've seen it.

Defendants charged with pedophilia and their attorneys, and sometimes their family members have defended it.

Oh and off topic here Demi, my sister read my post where lily threatened to contact Tamara regarding my stalking her and sister commented to me that she didn't think Demi was referring to me when she mentioned Tamara. I told her that I hadn't even thought about you when I posted but if you took it as being directed at you, I apologize. It definitely wasn't aimed at you.

IF I were ever placed in that situation, and the proof were there that it actually happened, I don't think I'd be held responsible for trying to protect my child, or any child.

Naw, I think you would shoot to kill. Anger plus a cache of weapons and ammunition in your house must be there for a reason. If not, why have all that stuff mounted on the walls and within close reach?
In your opinion are all those weapons necessary as a great "equalizer" to perceived threats from the Government as you stated in a recent post, or is this just a gun hobby?
If you feel confident enough to deal with situations like the one you posed without a firearm, maybe you don't need that many of them.

Actually on this thread, I said I have no problem with the guy being killed IF the story held up and he was raping the man's four year old.

I have no problem with having no contact with you lily, but if you don't want contact with me then don't answer a comment made and directed to someone else. It's absolutely none of your business but since you ask, which sister do you mean? I have more than one but Elvis doesn't happen to be a sibling. Oh, and as for my stalking you, don't flatter yourself.

"""""""""""""Lady Brat, or whatever your name actually is, your inability to understand my statements says more about your brain wattage than my philosophies"

I find that strange pm because my understanding of your statements has made very clear alI I need to know about your "philosophies and brain wattage". Very clear indeed.

Oh I did misunderstand what you said. I thought you really did think a woman was not aggressive. When you posted the first thing came to me was that woman and her strength I was a teenager and will never forget that sight.

I'm sorry about this, OM. Someone should have warned you not to attend Obamas speech!

We can't even protect people who are mentally ill and not responsible from life in prison. We make the definition of insane so ridiculous that only a person not mentally in this world anymore can be considered insane.

I think of that poor woman who drownded her four poor childen and we found her guilty of murder. She (and so many like her in this world) was so clearly insane and still our society needs to extract it's pound of flesh.

But, on this thread it can't be discussed because I think it really does muddy the waters of the specific subject which is what would each of us do if we walked in on our child being raped or molested. I don't know how any of us could know with absolute certainty. I think a lot of us would be surprised at what we actually would do, it's not like we are in a position to think clearly or rationally. I would hope the sole concern would be the safety and comfort for our little child.

On that, I disagree with many here: the sole responsibility is to stop the molestation/rape. If the man runs, then the goal is accomplished and to attempt to kill him is taking time away from your child who needs you perhaps more on the primitive level than he ever will again need you -putting violence on the perp isn't defending your child, that is acting upon a primitive need of your own, if the perp is making it obvious that he is no longer a threat to anyone by attempting to flee.

If he runs, then you can hold your child and comfort your child and get on the cell phone and get it reported and allow our police to do the job they are paid to do, doing that is protecting your child from further violence he will never forget seeing in all his life.

He might be grateful as an older person that mommy or daddy killed him but that doesn't mean he won't have scars from seeing it happen. The little child is only four.

If he is no longer a threat to you or the child and is fleeing, I honestly believe that the sole concern and the single most important job of the parent is to take care of your child with comfort and assurance of safety, not to take care of your need (certainly deserved) for justice. The kid is four, remember? Not ten.

I understand I'm in the minority.

I also don't think that someone can know who is going to hurt your child - unless signs are given, we can't know. Most are relatives or friends of the family, shockingly enough. People the parents never would have suspected of hurting the child. That is exactly how priests and other people in authority get away with it - they seem so safe.

I don't think it fair or kind to blame a parent unless they are obviously negligent in taking care of the safety of the child. People have to live in this world and I wouldn't want to raise my child in an atmosphere of fear of the unknown with the idea that danger is all around them by anyone at all - especially considering that the perp of this sort of crime is usually someone the area trusts.

If that is what I believe, that danger surrounds the child by everyone who comes into contact with him - the child will feel it even if they are never told is is so.

The children have to live and enjoy their life. It happens and it's terrible but let the blame be put at the perp, unless there are real reasons why the parent should have been more aware, realistic reasons.

I do think that pnbrown's theory would make for a very good thread. Rousing, to be certain!

You think what you like. But you're wrong.

In your opinion are all those weapons necessary as a great "equalizer" to perceived threats from the Government as you stated in a recent post, or is this just a gun hobby?
If you feel confident enough to deal with situations like the one you posed without a firearm, maybe you don't need that many of them.

First off, I don't have nearly the arsenal I did years ago when I was active in shooting sports. Right now, I have 1 weapon to be used for defensive purposes. The others are hunting firearms, used specifically for that purpose. Even back when I DID have my "arsenal", each weapon had its own specific purpose. I had my hunting weapons-- A Marlin 30/30 for hunting in brush, a Weatherby Mark V 30/06 for field hunting, 2 12 gauge shotguns-- a semi-auto for deer hunting in Ct. (no centerfire rifles allowed) and a pump for bird hunting, a clip .22 for rabbit hunting, and an M-1 carbine for coyote hunting. The carbine was actually dual purpose. It was also part of a collection I'd started of one military arm from each conflict we'd been in. The newer ones also had dual purpose. My AR-15 was my favorite rifle for "plinking" (going down to a sand pit and turning a bunch of aluminum cans into swiss cheese). My M-1A (civilian version of the M-14) was the most accurate rifle I owned, and used for competition, specifically 200 meter flag shoots. I also had an M-1 Garand and a .303 British Enfield sniper rifle (from WWII). My other competitions pieces consisted of a Smith & Wesson 686 .357 magnum, used for bowling pin and pie plate competition, and a Desert Eagle .44 magnum for 40 yard silhouette, and then my Ruger Mk. II bullbarrel .22 pistol for paper target shooting. My defensive pieces consisted up a Colt Series 70 Gold Cup .45 ACP, an Beretta 92AF 9 mm, and a Colt Mustang .380. Back in the early 90's I ended up selling or pawning off most of my guns in order to try and keep from losing my house in Ct., and I never really got back into it until recently. Still not doing the competitions, but my son talked me into getting another 30/30 so I could go hunting with him in the fall, and I have my carry piece, which is a Bersa .380.

So I guess the short answer is it's both for protection, AND it's a hobby, or pastime, as well as other things. As for pulling my weapon, I've told you before, and I'll probably tell you many times after this-- it's a last resort. And in the scenario we've been discussing here, it wouldn't even be a consideration, nevermind the guns at home-- I'm talking about the one on my belt-- IT WOULD STAY RIGHT WHERE IT IS. I'd be looking to break that SOB in half with my hands.

For anyone who bothers to do some reading instead of watching circus media, it is quite obvious that an abnormality such as pedophelia is a compulsion. Nobody chooses their sexual orientation. A very discomfortable reality is that pedophelia is an orientation like all sexualities, but is one that our society has deemed to be taboo. Fortunately it is relatively rare in comparison to typical adult-oriented sexualities. People with this orientation are suffering a fate worse than death, effectively, and an ugly thread of self-congratulatory fantasies about how eager some would be to commit murder is rather vile as well as pointless.

If we are going to engage in randomness, let's just hope that no child has to undergo something like that. If we are going to engage in randomness, how about other pointless questions in a similar vein? Here's one: practicing alcoholics are an immeasurably greater danger to the public welfare than pedophiles, so what would you do if you witnessed a drunk driver very nearly run down a small child, and you then had the miserable sot in your power?

Bust loose with your fantasies. Break him with your hands, cut him with your bowie knife, whatever. Maybe the drunk is a woman.

Actually, there's a very good point to it. As I've told Heri and others-- that piece of scum would never hurt another child again. Now let me ask YOU a question. Do you propose we feel sorry for this asshat? That he's no different than anyone else? We have heteros, gays and pedophiles? Are you out of your freakin mind??? You don't see how destructive this behavior is? IT'S SICK AND TWISTED! It's a cancer that needs to be removed from this society, because it's self replicating. I can't believe you're even trying to MAKE this argument!

And I would also act to stop any crime like that with all force that would be required.

I think what we are arguing about is somewhat similar to what Zimmerman may have faced when he tracked down someone he thought looked suspicious. Even though one may have a right to make a civilian arrest and to stop a crime in progress, how much force is one allowed to use before it becomes excessive and a crime unto its own?

The topic of pedophilia is one that makes us all uncomfortable to even discuss. It is raping a child, mostly involving anal molestation of young boys against their will. The gall of Sandusky and his attorney to let this go to trial and have these disgusting pedo molestations recounted. I just about Santorum-ed reading about the testimony of the last few witnesses. And this kind of disgusting sh1t as been going on in the Catholic churches for years?
In hindsight, maybe there will be some positives from having everyone grossed out by Sandusky's pedophilia. We will kep a closer eye out in every venue where young boys and men are mentored by older men, from Boy Scouts, to organized sports to the Church. This kind of violence against children has got to stop, even if we have to send Bill in to clean it up.

This thread has certainly brought out the tribalism, hasn't it? Boy, one had better agree with the majority opinion (murder without consideration or due process) or one is suspect. What a load of horsecrap. And how un-Jesus-like.

Some of you followers of Christ need to review his teachings.

I see you averted answering. So you would never take a child any place? Who knew the pedophile would be there? If I knew, yes, I would not take her. But since he didn't have his crystal ball, the dad took her. Ok, so it ends up happening right in front of you. You are able to keep your emotions totally under wraps? For your child? I don't see it. Maybe you wish it, maybe you might somewhat successful. Maybe. But you didn't say. Try. Just try to put yourself in that place. Try! My humanity would likely get in the way. Would I kill him? Probably not. But I can't guarantee what would happen (which was my answer above). I don't hit. I actually asked my son the other day if he could remember I time I threw, hit, or kicked anything and he said he couldn't. I don't. But I would if someone was physically handling my son in the wrong way! Wonder Woman would likely come out. Not my stop and think about it answer. My gut instinct would override that. You're condescension isn't believable.

Yes, it is a compulsion. I agree. But he doesn't get a free pass. What should be done with him? Roam free? Nope. Even Christ said sin no more to some people he healed. That is, not everyone got a free pass. I'm not sure what should be done with pedophiles. It can't be changed, undone, or controlled. You seem to have loads of education about it, given it thought, so what's your conclusion?

Even Christ was tempted. He didn't succumb to it, but He had tests. Would you pass? I don't think I pass every test. I might not this one.

Actually, it is, and dozens of studies prove it. Those who are molested as children tend to go on to molest others, themselves. It is MOST CERTAINLY self replicating.

And no, I'm not going looking to "kill some pedophiles". What I said is if I saw a middle aged man molesting my 4 year old daughter (or grandaughter), that yes, I wouldn't stop beating on the SOB until he'd sucked his last breath.

What a load of horsecrap.<

What's a load of horsecrap is you trying to make excuses for these freaks of nature. Go back to your NAMBLA meeting.

Think it over. Are you really the kind of dumb-ass that cannot tolerate disagreement and must respond in this extremely unpleasant way?

The antidote for that girl, not your sense of rage, which is irrelevant to the girl, is some form of love.

maybe just give her a hug, and say BAD MAN! GO AWAY!

I don't have a need to stir the pot, insult or pass judgment on other posters, unlike some others.

take care of the kid . get him help, hug him, let him know that it's not his(her) fault ..

once the kid is safe- meaning weeks later -
go back & do your thing.

the kid should be your priority , not your ego.
if you think murder if right , do it after you take care of the kid, don't become another tragedy in the child's life

Is fully pre-meditated murder. Murder in the 1st awaits the person who does this. It's never excused and shouldn't be. Murder in the heat of the moment (which is what the above scenario sounded like) is quite different.

I had one more thing to add my "I can tell you from personal experiences (not of this nature) when a parent doesn't protect you, you blame them as much as the person who offended."

It's ok to have "rage" about the right things. And directing to the incorrect person/place/thing would be wrong. But at the time a child feels violated (whatever level) all they want is someone on their side. It's especially important when they want protection from their protector. Parents are protectors. This is greyer than you think. Just glad not to have ever been in the dad's position!

"Murder in the heat of the moment" is all right? That's like giving a license to people with poor impulse control to do whatever they like.

"My client is innocent, your honor. He has such poor impulse control, loses his temper easily, gets overwhelmed so readily by his emotions, that he can't help it if he murders someone. It isn't his fault. He was born that way. Therefore, he is innocent."

Something like that? When people start justifying "rage" and "murder" of any kind, society and civilization for that matter are in danger.

Kate

yes, but if you planned it out in your head that you would murder if you stumbled across that situation, it's already pre-meditated

I feel i didn't emphasize what I meant verey well:
take care of the child first, don't make it about you

I also think you're blowing it out of proportion. No one here is planning to murder someone. We're not walking around looking for a fight.

But seriously... what would any one of us do in the heat of moment, rounding the corner of a building and staring at our own child being sexually violated by anyone? What would we do?

I don't know that I could hold back. In all honesty, how many of us would calmly reach for a phone to dial 911 without intervening first, and in a very violent way?

meaning.. if you are in that situation, take care of the child phyically & mentally.
several posters here seem more interested in exacting revenge.