Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
What am I missing here?
Quote
DELTONA, Fla. An angry Deltona father whacked his teenage daughter's boyfriend with a metal pipe after finding the boy naked in his daughter's room.
Authorities say the father, 45, didn't even know his daughter had a boyfriend or that the youngster had been sneaking into the home for more than a year.
When he heard noises coming from his daughter's bedroom Thursday morning and saw a stranger standing naked on the girl's bed, he swung a metal pipe. He then chased the teen out the front door and called police.
The boy was taken to the hospital where doctors closed a head wound with staples.
The father was charged with aggravated battery on a child and bonded out on $10,000.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422181,00.html
Post by: Manedwolf on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Locking the kid outside the house in the condition you found him, and turning on all the exterior lights maybe setting off your car alarm accidentally to boot, and then calling his parents, or not, might have not gotten charges.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
As far as the law is concerned, he shouldn't have used a pipe, as there was no threat of harm to himself or his daughter.
He didn't know who the kid was, just some naked guy standing over his daughter.
That's attempted sexual assault in most places seems to me.
Says he "saw a stranger standing naked on the girl's bed".
Home intruder? Rapist? Who knows what.
Post by: Fjolnirsson on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
As far as the law is concerned, he shouldn't have used a pipe, as there was no threat of harm to himself or his daughter.
Locking the kid outside the house in the condition you found him, and turning on all the exterior lights maybe setting off your car alarm accidentally to boot, and then calling his parents, or not, might have not gotten charges.
Locking the kid outside the house in the condition you found him, and turning on all the exterior lights maybe setting off your car alarm accidentally to boot, and then calling his parents, or not, might have not gotten charges.
So sorry, but I would've shot him right there. Naked, unknown male standing on her bed? The article doesn't say, but I am assuming the girl was also on the bed. If so, bang.
If not, if the boy was on the bed alone, yeah, I'd have called the police, maybe tossed him out on his ear.
Post by: De Selby on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: 280plus on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Based on the limited amount of info in the article, and applying the thinking of the non-self-defense minded majority:
He saw a kid about his daughter's age standing naked in her bedroom, apparently not doing anything threatening and with her apparently neither struggling nor screaming and made the more rational judgement that this little punk was sexing up his daughter.
I assume he hit him with a pipe in the belief that a kid was taking liberties with his little angel, not in fear she was being ravished. A father's righteous wrath, not concern about a "crime".
Post by: Sindawe on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Yeah, I'm gonna say the pipe is key-you can't beat people to death on the spot for being your daughter's boyfriend...
Perhaps not. But in those States still civillized one can beat a person unknown as needed when in one's home unbidden. And if said daughter is minor, adult parent determines the state of bidden-ness, not the daughter.
Quote
I am SOOOO glad my 17 yo still likes horses better than boys.
EWWWWWWW!!! Thats just wrong.
Quote
He saw a kid about his daughter's age standing naked in her bedroom, apparently not doing anything threatening...
His presence as in one unknown to householder is alone enough to make him a threat.
Damn-fool kids. When I was his age, I made darn sure my g-friend's parents knew who I was, and did NOT disrobe in THEIR homes.
Post by: Matthew Carberry on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Given that it is a naked 14 year old, who's only weapon at hand may still be hairless, there may be time to establish exactly what is going on before opening fire or swinging away.
Once you establish Don Juan was just making moves on the princess, there's plenty of time to shoot or beat him then.
Again, we'll have to see what the father's take was. I'm sure if he actually thought it was a rape in progress, the kid would be dead with more than one blow to the head.
Post by: De Selby on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Yeah, I'm gonna say the pipe is key-you can't beat people to death on the spot for being your daughter's boyfriend...
Perhaps not. But in those States still civillized one can beat a person unknown as needed when in one's home unbidden. And if said daughter is minor, adult parent determines the state of bidden-ness, not the daughter.
This isn't a case about the state of the boy's permission to be on the premises, though-I don't think there's any question the father had a right to eject the kid.
The issue is the means he chose-you can't kill people for being invited into your home by another resident.
Hitting someone with a pipe is a whole lot more serious than a spanking or an angry thrashing. I don't believe, for example, that anyone would think it just in this country to put a kid in a wheel chair for the rest of his life, or saddle his family with caring for someone with severe mental disabilities, because someone else's daughter chose to have him over for an illicit encounter.
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Yeah, I'm gonna say the pipe is key-you can't beat people to death on the spot for being your daughter's boyfriend...
Perhaps not. But in those States still civillized one can beat a person unknown as needed when in one's home unbidden. And if said daughter is minor, adult parent determines the state of bidden-ness, not the daughter.
This isn't a case about the state of the boy's permission to be on the premises, though-I don't think there's any question the father had a right to eject the kid.
The issue is the means he chose-you can't kill people for being invited into your home by another resident.
Hitting someone with a pipe is a whole lot more serious than a spanking or an angry thrashing. I don't believe, for example, that anyone would think it just in this country to put a kid in a wheel chair for the rest of his life, or saddle his family with caring for someone with severe mental disabilities, because someone else's daughter chose to have him over for an illicit encounter.
Um, lets see:
Dad had no idea who naked intruder was. Naked intruder is in his daughter's bedroom. Um, yeah, I'd have used force to evict him from the house, too.
Come on down off that high horse and actually read the OP for once.
Post by: De Selby on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Um, lets see:
Dad had no idea who naked intruder was. Naked intruder is in his daughter's bedroom. Um, yeah, I'd have used force to evict him from the house, too.
Come on down off that high horse and actually read the OP for once.
Yeah, I read it-says he battered the kid with a metal pipe. Worst case scenario, he knew what was going on and was upset that his little girl was doing this. Best case, he didn't have a clue, and just decided to attack the naked guy.
Fact of the matter is, in either situation, he is in the wrong-you can't attempt to kill someone for being with your daughter, just like you can't attempt to kill someone for being in your house when you have no idea or indication whether there is some violent felonious purpose.
I hope you do not ever use force without having any idea of what the person you're using force on is doing on your property-you will pay for it, just like this guy is now paying, and that is true in any jurisdiction in America. It's near universal here in our country that you need a pretty decent reason to attempt or complete a homicide without suffering criminal penalties.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Oh, yeah, I'd also like to see the story where it says he tried to kill the kid. One certainly couldn't get that from the OP. Especially since he was charged with aggravated battery, not attempted murder.
Post by: Fjolnirsson on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
just like you can't attempt to kill someone for being in your house when you have no idea or indication whether there is some violent felonious purpose.
Nonsense. If I find someone in my house whom I don't know, he's naked, and he's in my daughter's room with her, he will leave with holes in his body, end of story. The mere act of entering ones house naked and uninvited indicates a disposition toward acts of a felonious nature. Further, if I believe he has entered by force(which I would, if I did not know him, as I lock my doors at all times), that means I believe he is currently in the process of felony illegal entry, which means I have the right to use whatever force necessary to stop that felony from progressing. The key here is to ask what a "reasonable" person would do in this case. "Reasonable" where you live might be different than where I live. I know my response would be fairly typical for this area.
Now, if I knew the kid was there through consensual activities with my daughter, I'd handle it a little differently. But if I find a naked man standing over my daughter, I am not going to stop to play 20 questions.
Post by: Sindawe on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
just like you can't attempt to kill someone for being in your house when you have no idea or indication whether there is some violent felonious purpose.
In the still partially civillized State of Colorado, the contrary hold true.
Quote
The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
Source: http://www.jeffco.us/jeffco/sheriff_uploads/revised_statutes.htm
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.
Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.
Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.
Source: http://www.jeffco.us/jeffco/sheriff_uploads/revised_statutes.htm
Father, unknowning that his 'princess' has a boyfriend and that they are on intimate terms, discovers said boyfriend in the room of his 'princess' and in a state of undress. It is reasonable for the father to come to the conclusion that unclad male is in his house illegally and bent on nefarious intent with his 'princess'. So in Colorado father may beat unclad male with what ever force is neccesary to preserve the sanctity of his 'princess'.
Quote
I hope you do not ever use force without having any idea of what the person you're using force on is doing on your property-you will pay for it...
I may have to pay legal counsel for their services, but our statute and prior cases make it quite clear that favor does NOT lay with those who are in my home unbidden.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Jim
Post by: DustinD on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
The mere act of entering ones house naked and uninvited
I thought he entered clothed and invited by the daughter. I don't know that for a fact though.
Post by: Fjolnirsson on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
The mere act of entering ones house naked and uninvited
I thought he entered clothed and invited by the daughter. I don't know that for a fact though.I was speaking from the father's viewpoint. The daughter let the guy in, but if I found a naked man in my house whom I don't know, I would not assume he was let in by my daughter.
Post by: De Selby on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Some of you should supply links to the news stories you're reading about this. From the certainty some of you are displaying, I sure hope you're not going solely off that skimpy little story linked in the OP.
Oh, yeah, I'd also like to see the story where it says he tried to kill the kid. One certainly couldn't get that from the OP. Especially since he was charged with aggravated battery, not attempted murder.
Oh, yeah, I'd also like to see the story where it says he tried to kill the kid. One certainly couldn't get that from the OP. Especially since he was charged with aggravated battery, not attempted murder.
Hitting someone with a metal pipe over the head is lethal force-an aggravated battery is usually only different from an attempted murder based on what was in your head at the time, not on what you actually did.
Post by: De Selby on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
just like you can't attempt to kill someone for being in your house when you have no idea or indication whether there is some violent felonious purpose.
Nonsense. If I find someone in my house whom I don't know, he's naked, and he's in my daughter's room with her, he will leave with holes in his body, end of story. The mere act of entering ones house naked and uninvited indicates a disposition toward acts of a felonious nature. Further, if I believe he has entered by force(which I would, if I did not know him, as I lock my doors at all times), that means I believe he is currently in the process of felony illegal entry, which means I have the right to use whatever force necessary to stop that felony from progressing. The key here is to ask what a "reasonable" person would do in this case. "Reasonable" where you live might be different than where I live. I know my response would be fairly typical for this area.
Now, if I knew the kid was there through consensual activities with my daughter, I'd handle it a little differently. But if I find a naked man standing over my daughter, I am not going to stop to play 20 questions.
Again, what you will do in this situation, and what the law will do in response, are two different things. As confident as you are that you would not stop to play 20 questions, you should also prepare yourself for the game of 20 questions that the investigators will play with you afterwards, and I hope you aren't too committed to firearms ownership, because there's a real good chance you won't be allowed to own them if you actually do believe it's okay to just kill/attempt to kill a naked man in your house.
Post by: De Selby on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
I may have to pay legal counsel for their services, but our statute and prior cases make it quite clear that favor does NOT lay with those who are in my home unbidden.
Sindawe, I will highlight the key provisions that would be a problem in this scenario:
Quote
against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling,
Being invited in by daughter is not usually an unlawful entry.
Then you must also have this:
Quote
the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry
ie, reasonable belief that the person is there to steal from you, that he might use physical force, etc etc.
"I didn't know what he was doing" will not fly under this or any other similar law. You need circumstances that suggest something on the level of a burglary, ie, daughter screaming for help, boy in a mask, weapon in hand, broken glass, etc etc. Just coming home and finding a naked dude in a room with one of your female relatives is not going to cut it, and that's why they're charging this father.
You need a reason to fall underneath castle doctrine statutes like this-naked teen in your daughter's bedroom is not going to supply reasonable belief that this was a criminal intrusion all by itself. Do not rely on this snippet of legislation for your own protection, because it will not protect you....(Florida, where this guy is being charged with a crime, has basically the same law...something to consider)
Post by: lacoochee on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
"I didn't know what he was doing" will not fly under this or any other similar law. You need circumstances that suggest something on the level of a burglary, ie, daughter screaming for help, boy in a mask, weapon in hand, broken glass, etc etc. Just coming home and finding a naked dude in a room with one of your female relatives is not going to cut it, and that's why they're charging this father.
You need a reason to fall underneath castle doctrine statutes like this-naked teen in your daughter's bedroom is not going to supply reasonable belief that this was a criminal intrusion all by itself. Do not rely on this snippet of legislation for your own protection, because it will not protect you....(Florida, where this guy is being charged with a crime, has basically the same law...something to consider)
You need a reason to fall underneath castle doctrine statutes like this-naked teen in your daughter's bedroom is not going to supply reasonable belief that this was a criminal intrusion all by itself. Do not rely on this snippet of legislation for your own protection, because it will not protect you....(Florida, where this guy is being charged with a crime, has basically the same law...something to consider)
Parts of this are just stupid, I personally was engaged to a girl who was raped by her brothers friend in her own bed. Her father was in the house 50 feet away, he was/is? a Sergeant in the West Palm Beach department, she didn't scream she was so scared she didn't know what to do, it in fact took her 6 months to tell them what happened. So his standing over her bed and her not screaming hardly constitutes consent, it may just constitute intense terror.... Personally, I would have shot, I would likely have felt bad about it later but given the time it takes to make the decision and the circumstances, I would have pulled the trigger and figured it out later. The consequences of being wrong are just to great, meaning that he may well shoot you and then finish up with your other two daughters and wife before killing them all by setting them on fire. Far stretched not really, kind of went down that way in New Hampshire recently....
Another interesting point I think this raises is in the area of the Florida Castle Doctrine, what constitutes consent to entry, can it be given by a 3 years old daughter for the purposes of sexual contact? (Obviously absurd right?) What about a 12 year old girl? I suspect the answer has to be a person with their majority has to make the invitation for it to constitute a legal invitation to entry, in which case the "boyfriend" is epically lucky to be alive.
Post by: Fjolnirsson on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Again, what you will do in this situation, and what the law will do in response, are two different things. As confident as you are that you would not stop to play 20 questions, you should also prepare yourself for the game of 20 questions that the investigators will play with you afterwards, and I hope you aren't too committed to firearms ownership, because there's a real good chance you won't be allowed to own them if you actually do believe it's okay to just kill/attempt to kill a naked man in your house.
From the Oregon Revised Statutes:
161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
(2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
(3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]
I see a naked man I don't know standing over my daughter, I assume he is attempting to rape her. Period. Bang.
If it's a boyfriend I have never met, well, that sucks. But again, the "reasonable person" is going to be drawn from my area, and I know what the majority of people here would say.
Now, if he was just standing in the room with her, well, thats another story, and I would let the cops handle it, or at most, toss him out on his ear.
Post by: Fjolnirsson on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
[url]http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/archives/2006_01_01_archive.html/url]
From the Miami Herald of January 26, 2006
Mom of 4 shoots 'naked' intruder
A woman shot a man in the stomach early Wednesday after he removed his clothes, entered her Lauderhill town house and refused to leave.
Michelle Carroll was upstairs in her Lauderhill town house when she heard her 7-year-old son yell that there was a man in the house.
Carroll rushed downstairs to see a naked man sitting on a chair in the first floor of the home, her family later said.
The man wouldn't leave, and she pulled the trigger of her handgun.
The bullet struck the man once in the stomach.
''She asked him to leave several times and then he wouldn't leave,'' said her cousin Lindey Carroll. ``He walked toward her, and she shot him.''
Someone inside the house called 911. The man ran and was outside the house when rescue workers arrived, police said.
The unidentified intruder was taken to Broward General Medical Center, where he was listed in stable condition late Wednesday, said Lauderhill police Lt. Tundra King.
Police would not release the man's name on Wednesday. Detectives were interviewing the man and were trying to speak to his relatives, King said.
Police said they don't know how the man got into the beige, two-story town house in the 5900 block of Northwest 23rd Street.
The woman lives in the home with her four children, between the ages of 7 and 14.
While state records show a Michele R. Ware listed at the woman's address, family members said her name is Michelle Carroll. Police would not confirm her name.
Investigators were looking into whether one of the children in the home may have left a door or window unlocked.
When Michelle Carroll came downstairs, the front door was open, a family member said.
''We don't see any signs of forced entry,'' King said.
Police said they could not confirm that the man was naked, but bloody clothes were found outside on the sidewalk near the town house. The man did not know her, King said.
''She was protecting her kids,'' Lindey Carroll said.
Michelle Carroll was too upset to talk about the incident, Lindey Carroll said.
``She's just trying to calm down and settle down. She is scared.''
It was unclear whether anything was stolen from the home, and no charges had been filed as of Wednesday night.
The incident occurred in a safe neighborhood full of families, said Marie Egleton, whose mother lives on the street.
''It's a lot of families that live down this row, and everyone looks out for everyone's children,'' she said.
Note, he was naked, and made no threatening moves. He did walk toward her, but hey, maybe he just wanted a hug. Maybe his self esteem was low that day...
Post by: De Selby on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
I see a naked man I don't know standing over my daughter, I assume he is attempting to rape her. Period. Bang.
If it's a boyfriend I have never met, well, that sucks. But again, the "reasonable person" is going to be drawn from my area, and I know what the majority of people here would say.
If it's a boyfriend I have never met, well, that sucks. But again, the "reasonable person" is going to be drawn from my area, and I know what the majority of people here would say.
No, it won't be drawn from your area--it will be whatever the law defines it to be in the jurisdiction in which you are tried. You will likely be forced to argue that you reasonably believed the man was committing a felony, not that a naked man with your daughter is presumptively committing a felony.
If this may actually be an issue for you (daughters at home, for example, and a fear that a boyfriend might show up), it might be wise to consult an attorney to have this verified to your satisfaction. You won't like what you hear, but at least you won't be under the illusion that your presumption of danger in these sorts of situations will protect you from very serious legal consequences.
The story you posted, btw, is a completely different situation. I will highlight the key facts:
Quote
Michelle Carroll was upstairs in her Lauderhill town house when she heard her 7-year-old son yell that there was a man in the house.
Quote
''She asked him to leave several times and then he wouldn't leave,'' said her cousin Lindey Carroll. ``He walked toward her, and she shot him.''
Notice that she has an alert from her child, tries to get him to leave, and he's uncooperative, and naked on top of it.
Post by: Fjolnirsson on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Fjolnirsson on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
No, it won't be drawn from your area--it will be whatever the law defines it to be in the jurisdiction in which you are tried.
Precisely. The jury will be drawn from my area. There are 100,000 people in my county. And thanks, but I've spoken with a lawyer already.
Quote
The story you posted, btw, is a completely different situation. I will highlight the key facts:
Quote
Michelle Carroll was upstairs in her Lauderhill town house when she heard her 7-year-old son yell that there was a man in the house.
Quote
''She asked him to leave several times and then he wouldn't leave,'' said her cousin Lindey Carroll. ``He walked toward her, and she shot him.''
Notice that she has an alert from her child, tries to get him to leave, and he's uncooperative, and naked on top of it.
Quote
Michelle Carroll was upstairs in her Lauderhill town house when she heard her 7-year-old son yell that there was a man in the house.
Quote
''She asked him to leave several times and then he wouldn't leave,'' said her cousin Lindey Carroll. ``He walked toward her, and she shot him.''
Notice that she has an alert from her child, tries to get him to leave, and he's uncooperative, and naked on top of it.
Yes, it is different. She had less immediate need to make a decision, and greater chance to remove her child, and she fired anyway.By the way, I didn't post the original story, which doesn't make it clear if the girl was in the room, or if the naked man/boy was alone when the father found him.
But you know what, neither of us will change the others mind, so we'll just have to disagree.
Post by: taurusowner on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Yeah, I'm gonna say the pipe is key-you can't beat people to death on the spot for being your daughter's boyfriend...
Perhaps not. But in those States still civillized one can beat a person unknown as needed when in one's home unbidden. And if said daughter is minor, adult parent determines the state of bidden-ness, not the daughter.
This isn't a case about the state of the boy's permission to be on the premises, though-I don't think there's any question the father had a right to eject the kid.
The issue is the means he chose-you can't kill people for being invited into your home by another resident.
Hitting someone with a pipe is a whole lot more serious than a spanking or an angry thrashing. I don't believe, for example, that anyone would think it just in this country to put a kid in a wheel chair for the rest of his life, or saddle his family with caring for someone with severe mental disabilities, because someone else's daughter chose to have him over for an illicit encounter.
Then said family should have taught their kid not to go have illicit sex with other people's daughters. They failed at teaching the lesson, and any ill result is too bad for them
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
As an added tidbit of information, I'll add that persons high on PCP have a tendency to remove clothing as a result of the drugs effects, so if I see a naked man in my home, that's further reason to suspect he isn't there for my benefit.
Meth tweakers do that, too.
Post by: Fjolnirsson on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
As an added tidbit of information, I'll add that persons high on PCP have a tendency to remove clothing as a result of the drugs effects, so if I see a naked man in my home, that's further reason to suspect he isn't there for my benefit.
Meth tweakers do that, too.
True. also not the most stable people, and frequently aggressive/dangerous.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Fjolnirsson on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
about as unstable and aggressive as a dad who finds his daughter flagrante delecto in his house
True.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: ilbob on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
As far as the law is concerned, he shouldn't have used a pipe, as there was no threat of harm to himself or his daughter.
He didn't know who the kid was, just some naked guy standing over his daughter.
That's attempted sexual assault in most places seems to me.
Says he "saw a stranger standing naked on the girl's bed".
Home intruder? Rapist? Who knows what.
I think a man with any sense of a brain would notice whether or not his daughter was in any way distressed by the act.
Let me state in in an unequivocal manner:
A metal pipe is a weapon. To strike anybody with such a weapon is a use of lethal force.
The use of lethal force outside of the boundaries of legitimate self-defense is a crime in all 50 states.
If indeed what occured was the lass invited this guy in, this 'father' should be in the same place where all violent criminals should go.
Prison.
Violent criminals belong in prison. Period.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
we do have that irresistable impulse defense.
So the best defense this guy has is that he was temporarily insane when he committed his crime (yes, this is a crime).
If he manages to persuade a 12-man jury, maybe he'll avoid prison.
I suspect that this'll hinge heavily on the daughter's testimony.
Post by: De Selby on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Then said family should have taught their kid not to go have illicit sex with other people's daughters. They failed at teaching the lesson, and any ill result is too bad for them
Does the boy's family have the right to punish the girl because she lured their boy for the dirty deed? Or are we operating under the presumption that women have no say in this matter?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
we do have that irresistable impulse defense.
So the best defense this guy has is that he was temporarily insane when he committed his crime (yes, this is a crime).
If he manages to persuade a 12-man jury, maybe he'll avoid prison.
I suspect that this'll hinge heavily on the daughter's testimony.
he only needs one juror the state needs all 12
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Logically, if a 17-year-old male having sex with a 17-year-old female can be charged with statutory rape, so can the female.
Hmmm.
As some of my friends would say, I see potential for lulz here.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
we do have that irresistable impulse defense.
So the best defense this guy has is that he was temporarily insane when he committed his crime (yes, this is a crime).
If he manages to persuade a 12-man jury, maybe he'll avoid prison.
I suspect that this'll hinge heavily on the daughter's testimony.
he only needs one juror the state needs all 12
As you yourself reminded me in previous threads, a hung jury usually simply means a mistrial the prosecutor will shrug and try again.
Hopefully the perp will plead out though.
P.S. After brief research, it appears the irresistible impulse defense does not apply in all 50 states. Some accept it, others don't.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
strangly enough most southern states. weirdest application i ever saw was a guy in orange follwed his ex around with a shotgun in his front seat was pretty candid about his intent should he catch her with new boyfriend. so candid he got a visit with the sheriff and told to go home. he did find her with b/f and blasted him on the down stroke wife threw him off jumped out/through window naked while he fired at her and missed. he never got charged with first degree murder and did less than 2 years in the end
That's... cute.
Now, the relevant question is:
Where has the 'boyfriend meets pipe' story occured and does that state have this defense?
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: De Selby on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
That's still a very serious felony offense, though. It's just that you do a few years instead of life in prison.
"Irresistable impulse" defenses are usually associated with an insanity defense, which for all practical purposes does not exist in the United States.
Post by: Antibubba on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
When I was his age, I made darn sure my g-friend's parents knew who I was, and did NOT disrobe in THEIR homes.
Yes, but back then cars were much bigger, so there was never a need to go into a bedroom.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Some of you should supply links to the news stories you're reading about this. From the certainty some of you are displaying, I sure hope you're not going solely off that skimpy little story linked in the OP.
Oh, yeah, I'd also like to see the story where it says he tried to kill the kid. One certainly couldn't get that from the OP. Especially since he was charged with aggravated battery, not attempted murder.
Hitting someone with a metal pipe over the head is lethal force-an aggravated battery is usually only different from an attempted murder based on what was in your head at the time, not on what you actually did.
No one disagrees that it was lethal force, there, Perry Mason. But you said he was beating him to death. You also said he was attempting to kill someone. And you simply have no business making such claims, when you don't know the facts.
If, as he claims, he thought the young man was just some naked intruder, he may have been perfectly justified in using a metal pipe. You say he had a right to "eject" him, as if that would necessarily be a safe and harmonious process. You also don't know whether the father was capable of "ejecting" the younger man without the use of a weapon. He may have been handicapped.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
We don't know what the father saw when he came into that room, except that he saw his daughter and some fellow being nekkid. He says he thought she was in some form of danger.
If the boy really was visiting her on a regular basis, I doubt she would show signs of fear or discomfort that would lead the father to such a conclusion. So, if your daughter is in a room with a boy her own age, they're both naked, and she's not screaming for help or obviously terrified shitless, is it a reasonable assumption to think 'Hey! She's being raped!'
Quote
The boy was taken to the hospital where doctors closed a head wound with staples.
He hit the young man in the head with a steel pipe.
Had a street thug hit someone in the head with a steel pipe, you'd be demanding he be imprisoned.
Whether or not he was deliberately trying to kill him would only matter as to the point of what to charge him with.
Regardless, a crime has been committed.
Throw the book at him.
Post by: De Selby on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Oh, yeah, I'd also like to see the story where it says he tried to kill the kid. One certainly couldn't get that from the OP. Especially since he was charged with aggravated battery, not attempted murder.
He used lethal force on the kid. Banging someone on the head with a metal pipe and causing a split scalp is the sort of thing any reasonable person knows can result in death.
I suppose there are folks who shoot others and then claim they were just trying to hurt them too, but the law doesn't see things that way-same thing goes for an assault with any other deadly weapon.
Quote
But you said he was beating him to death. You also said he was attempting to kill someone. And you simply have no business making such claims, when you don't know the facts.
Maybe you can highlight the part where I said he was "beating him to death." What I did say was that hitting someone with a metal pipe is no joke-it is lethal force, and it can very easily kill or maim someone. You don't need the newspapers to tell you that, and it's one detail that is clear in the article: He did hit the kid in the head with a metal pipe, and the kid went to the hospital for it.
So whatever he was imagining inside his head, he actually used deadly force on the boy. He's lucky he didn't kill him, just like someone who "shoots to wound" or whatever one might call it is lucky if the person they use deadly force on does not die.
I have every business making that claim because the fact is not in dispute-the boy was hit over the head with a metal pipe, which is a clear instance of the use of deadly force in such a way that the result is simply accident-it's a good thing the boy didn't die, but certainly if he had that would be an obvious and foreseeable consequence of the act.
Quote
You also don't know whether the father was capable of "ejecting" the younger man without the use of a weapon. He may have been handicapped.
It would not have mattered-as evidenced by the fact that the cops, who did go there and get all the facts, actually charged him with a crime that is, in terms of deeds committed, identical to an attempted murder.
There is no right to use deadly force to eject people who are invited into your home by your teenage daughter, to be specific. Not only that, the law doesn't recognize or protect people who do such things.
Post by: K Frame on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
The article infers, however, that the man did not know the person he saw in his daughter's room (Note the word STRANGER).
If that is the case, the Father didn't know the kid in question, and if it is true he didn't know his daughter had a girlfriend, it's reasonable to assume that he was acting on the belief that he was protecting his daughter from someone who was, or was attempting to, assault her. It's an affirmative defense under law "I had to act because I believed that X was going to happen if I didn't."
Florida law allows the use of lethal force to protect another individual. Florida also has the castle doctrine; the man was under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to retreat from someone whom he viewed as an intruder in his home.
It would appear, though, that there's a lot more going on in this situation than what is being reported here.
Given the exceptionally spotty details, the lack of any other links that might shed more light on this, and the ungodly amount of speculation, assumption, and nonsequitor leaps of faith that I've seen so far from BOTH camps, I'm locking this thread.
If anything more surfaces, by all means, start a new thread.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Father who found teen in daughter's bedroom, struck him with pipe, won't be prosecuted
By KARI COBHAM
Staff Writer
The State Attorneys Office announced today it would not file charges against the Deltona father who struck a naked boy with a metal pipe in his teenage daughters bedroom.
Raul Colon, 45, told investigators that about 4:15 a.m. on Sept. 11 he heard strange noises in the house and armed himself with a metal pipe, according to a Volusia County sheriffs report.
When he saw the nude stranger standing on his daughters bed, he hit 15-year-old Lucas Contreres and chased him through house and outside before calling 9-1-1, the report states.
Colon did not know at the time that Contreres was his 15-year-old daughters boyfriend and that hed been sneaking into the home for more than a year, the report states.
State Attorney John Tanner said today that a father has the right to "defend his family and home against what he believes to be a burglar or intruder into that home," with reasonable force.
Colon could not be reached.
http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/breakingnews/teen092208.htm
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Colon could not be reached.
As an aside.....I gotta say....certain members of this board who went off on the guy and the posters who defended him were wrong wrong wrong.....
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Fjolnirsson on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: K Frame on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
The magik of murgid treds!
OK, the prosecutor has spoken. The STRANGER who was sneaking into Mr. Colon's house and apparently getting naked with Mr. Colon's daughter (well, to be honest, it does not say that the girl was naked...) WAS a legitimate target for a pipe upside the skull. To that I say good.
What's that tell us?
It tells us that Castle Doctrine is apparently alive and well in Florida and protects the homeowner from prosecution when he finds, and beats with a pipe, a naked stranger in his minor daughter's bedroom.
It tells us that a lethal force application is legal when the homeowner reasonably believes that he is protecting his home and family. That's right, killing someone can be perfectly legal! Imagine that.
The true travesty here is the fact that the police arrested the guy in the first place, and apparently didn't arrested Lord Godiva for trespassing.
Post by: K Frame on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
What, you think people should refrain from making judgments when they don't have facts? It's people like you that are ruining the internets!!
Oh, come now, Fistful.
This is the inTARDnet.
All the tards gather in the net, and do what tards generally do...
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
What, you think people should refrain from making judgments when they don't have facts? It's people like you that are ruining the internets!!
Oh, come now, Fistful.
This is the inTARDnet.
All the tards gather in the net, and do what tards generally do...
Pure solid gold there!
Post by: lupinus on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
"Officer, I came home and found my daughter in her room in a naked boy and feared she was being attacked"
What my missing?
Course, I prefer the world where beating the snot out of junior when you found him diddling your princess, alas that world seems gone.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Hawkmoon on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
The true travesty here is the fact that the police arrested the guy in the first place, and apparently didn't arrested Lord Godiva for trespassing.
Roger that. I wonder if they even mention the concept of "castle doctrine" in police academy?
Post by: roo_ster on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: De Selby on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
State Attorney John Tanner said today that a father has the right to "defend his family and home against what he believes to be a burglar or intruder into that home," with reasonable force.
That is the finding that gets him off, not "Hey, I can beat any naked dude I see just because I presume it's bad."
I stand by my statement:
Quote
There is no right to use deadly force to eject people who are invited into your home by your teenage daughter, to be specific. Not only that, the law doesn't recognize or protect people who do such things.
A finding that you reasonably believed the person to be a burglar or intruder is what gets you off on castle doctrine claims, not this fig leaf business of "I can just smack anyone I find in my house if I don't know what he's doing there."
Post by: lacoochee on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
"I can just smack anyone I find in my house if I don't know what he's doing there."
Um, in Florida that's exactly when you do get to smack them in the head. That's how the Castle Doctrine works here, if you are in my home, it doesn't matter if you are dressed in a nun's habit, I can use deadly force because the presumption is that you are here to harm me or my family.
Seriously, do you hand intruders in your home a questionaire as to their intentions at that moment? You give up a lot when you do not attack right off the bat, you start reacting to the intruder and you will end up dead. You have to make them react to you, you have to take the initiative immediately and change the game. They have had all the time in the world to psych themselves up for attacking you, you will be starting from dead cold when you walk into that room.
Post by: K Frame on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Actually, you're wrong.
Castle Doctrine, and possibly other, Florida laws give the father that right.
First, the daughter is a minor child, her ability to offer blanket 24x7 access to anyone whom she chooses is extremely limited, especially if her intent is to conceal the "guest's" presence and identity from her legal guardians and controllers of the domicile.
Second, the "invitation" was extended with the intention of it being, and remaining, a secret; the father apparently had no knowledge of it.
Third, the "invitation" was intended to be exercised at a time, in a place, and in a manner that reasonable people could conclude that a sexual assault was occurring.
All that adds up to this supposed invitation not existing as far as the law is concerned.
It's called an affirmative defense under law.
It's not really that difficult to figure out or understand.
Unless, of course, your only purpose in this conversation is to be troll by continuously arguing inanities, nonsequitors, and chimeras in the face of black and white law.
Now....
I'm not sure if anyone has quoted the applicable sections of Florida's Castle law...
So, let me do so, and get this out of the way.
"776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
Go back to the three part list I laid out above.
Post by: De Selby on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Actually, you're wrong.
Castle Doctrine, and possibly other, Florida laws give the father that right.
Castle Doctrine, and possibly other, Florida laws give the father that right.
No they do not, and no, this is not "inane trolling"-it is apparent from the statute and is cited in the latest article as the reason charges were dropped, ie, that he believed the naked boyfriend was actually a burglar or something similar.
You are missing the "and" in your citation of the statute-a) and b) all must apply for the affirmative defense to succeed.
Highlighted properly:
Quote
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
Note that a) requires "unlawfully and forcefully entering", or "removed or was attempting to remove another against the person's will"....
Which is why a finding that the father reasonably believed the person to be a burglar would clearly yield a defense, but believing the naked person to be a boyfriend there without his permission would not.
Your list is fine, but it presents factors that are the same as what I was listing-a reasonable belief that a forcible crime were occurring, like a burglarly or a sexual assault, is necessary to sustain the defense.
Simply saying "Hey, I didn't let the guy in!" or "I didn't know what he was doing at all" will not. You need to be able to show a reasonable belief that something more than an invitation by your teenage daughter was what led to the person's presence in your home.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: De Selby on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Just remember. Even though shootinstudent was utterly and completely wrong, he reserves the right to look down on the rest of us, and lecture haughtily that he was right all along.
It's that welcoming atmosphere that makes us all who we are on armedpolitesociety.com.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Just remember. Even though shootinstudent was utterly and completely wrong, he reserves the right to look down on the rest of us, and lecture haughtily that he was right all along.
It's that welcoming atmosphere that makes us all who we are on armedpolitesociety.com.
Well, stop excusing the inexcusable with silly distortions of facts, and people will stop reacting to you that way.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Best case, he didn't have a clue, and just decided to attack the naked guy.
Fact of the matter is, in either situation, he is in the wrong-you can't attempt to kill someone for being with your daughter, just like you can't attempt to kill someone for being in your house when you have no idea or indication whether there is some violent felonious purpose.
I hope you do not ever use force without having any idea of what the person you're using force on is doing on your property-you will pay for it, just like this guy is now paying, and that is true in any jurisdiction in America. It's near universal here in our country that you need a pretty decent reason to attempt or complete a homicide without suffering criminal penalties.
Fact of the matter is, in either situation, he is in the wrong-you can't attempt to kill someone for being with your daughter, just like you can't attempt to kill someone for being in your house when you have no idea or indication whether there is some violent felonious purpose.
I hope you do not ever use force without having any idea of what the person you're using force on is doing on your property-you will pay for it, just like this guy is now paying, and that is true in any jurisdiction in America. It's near universal here in our country that you need a pretty decent reason to attempt or complete a homicide without suffering criminal penalties.
ss,
Embrace the fail, bro. What don't kill you just means you have to eat crow and move on.
Post by: Balog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Just remember. Even though shootinstudent was utterly and completely wrong, he reserves the right to look down on the rest of us, and lecture haughtily that he was right all along.
It's that welcoming atmosphere that makes us all who we are on armedpolitesociety.com.
I don't think "welcoming" is an appropriate term here. You have a long history of taking wildly inflammatory positions based on the most flimsy of logic. That's trolling in my book, and I think the fact that you haven't been beaten with the ban stick like you were a naked teen after Mike Irwin's (thankfully non-existant) vestal daughter is testimony to the mods extreme patience. Which I for one hope is running out.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
I think the fact that you haven't been beaten with the ban stick like you were a naked teen after Mike Irwin's (thankfully non-existant) vestal daughter is testimony to the mods extreme patience.
With all due respect to shootinstudent:
Post by: De Selby on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Just remember. Even though shootinstudent was utterly and completely wrong, he reserves the right to look down on the rest of us, and lecture haughtily that he was right all along.
It's that welcoming atmosphere that makes us all who we are on armedpolitesociety.com.
I don't think "welcoming" is an appropriate term here. You have a long history of taking wildly inflammatory positions based on the most flimsy of logic. That's trolling in my book, and I think the fact that you haven't been beaten with the ban stick like you were a naked teen after Mike Irwin's (thankfully non-existant) vestal daughter is testimony to the mods extreme patience. Which I for one hope is running out.
That was sort of the point there, chief.
Post by: Balog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Just remember. Even though shootinstudent was utterly and completely wrong, he reserves the right to look down on the rest of us, and lecture haughtily that he was right all along.
It's that welcoming atmosphere that makes us all who we are on armedpolitesociety.com.
I don't think "welcoming" is an appropriate term here. You have a long history of taking wildly inflammatory positions based on the most flimsy of logic. That's trolling in my book, and I think the fact that you haven't been beaten with the ban stick like you were a naked teen after Mike Irwin's (thankfully non-existant) vestal daughter is testimony to the mods extreme patience. Which I for one hope is running out.
That was sort of the point there, chief.
The point of your snarky comment to fistful was that you've been trolling without getting banned for a long time?
Post by: De Selby on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
The point of your snarky comment to fistful was that you've been trolling without getting banned for a long time?
No, but further explanation would take this thread even more off track, and wander further into the question of personalities which is something I try to avoid by incessantly posting arguments on the issue at hand, which, whether you agree with them or not, are something you can respond to without labelling all that you don't like trolling, or even having to consider whether or not you like my style.
Post by: K Frame on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
In this situation, both DO apply.
The boy entered the home without the father's knowledge or permission. As I noted, the minor daughter does not have the blanket right to extend an all hours invitation to anyone whom she wishes.
AND
The father was reasonable in his assumption that a naked man in his minor daughter's bedroom was a) trespassing in that he didn't have the father's permission to be there, and b) might be engaged in a sexual assault against his daughter.
No matter how you try to rationalize it, explain it away, or ignore the tenets of the law, both points of the Castle Doctrine law were fulfilled in this instance.
Post by: wmenorr67 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Nobody thinks, I hope, that the young man was some form of burglar, or actually engaged in a sexual assault against the young lady. The father's best defense is that he can say that he did not know what was going on, and it seems that the court is going to have to believe him, unless the prosecutor can provide some evidence to the contrary. Naturally, if (for example) they find out that the father knew the young man before (not currently in evidence), or that he had good reason to know the sex acts were consensual (imagine the young lady saying something Yes, Harry, I love you, DO ME, DO ME NOW!! ).
The problem for me with this thread is that a lot of posters seem to think it's a good idea to attack young men whom you find in your daughter's bedroom even if you know they're not out to rape her.
In my view, if you see a person having sex with your 17-year-old daughter, then the proper response is to close the door and get out, unless you have indication that the act is violent. Though the law may permit it it in your locality, it doesn't seem moral to me to use lethal force just because you think 'this looks suspicious' (and generally when two people are having sex, it's rather obvious if it is a rape).
If you actually know that the person is not a rapist and is just your daughter's classmate doing what young men in that age, and still go after the young man with a steel pipe, then that's just deranged.
Post by: lupinus on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
The problem for me with this thread is that a lot of posters seem to think it's a good idea to attack young men whom you find in your daughter's bedroom even if you know they're not out to rape her.
It isn't?You don't mind your child getting her fiddle diddled under your roof it's your buisness. Personally, it should be expected that if you get caught junior is going to have one hell of a headache when you are done with him. And if he's to stupid to realize that he's to stupid to be dating my daughter in the first place.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
You don't mind your child getting her fiddle diddled under your roof it's your buisness.
There's a wide gap between 'I don't mind' and 'attack the young man with a steel pipe'.
Post by: wmenorr67 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
You don't mind your child getting her fiddle diddled under your roof it's your buisness.
There's a wide gap between 'I don't mind' and 'attack the young man with a steel pipe'.
I will add again the kid is lucky he didn't come up with a different case of metal poisoning.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
You don't mind your child getting her fiddle diddled under your roof it's your buisness.
There's a wide gap between 'I don't mind' and 'attack the young man with a steel pipe'.
I will add again the kid is lucky he didn't come up with a different case of metal poisoning.
You suggest it's okay to kill someone for this even if you knew you were not acting in self-defense?
Post by: wmenorr67 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
You don't mind your child getting her fiddle diddled under your roof it's your buisness.
There's a wide gap between 'I don't mind' and 'attack the young man with a steel pipe'.
I will add again the kid is lucky he didn't come up with a different case of metal poisoning.
You suggest it's okay to kill someone for this even if you knew you were not acting in self-defense?
In my world, unknown naked person on my daughter's bed in the middle of the night. You better be a quick talker or else.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
You don't mind your child getting her fiddle diddled under your roof it's your buisness.
There's a wide gap between 'I don't mind' and 'attack the young man with a steel pipe'.
I will add again the kid is lucky he didn't come up with a different case of metal poisoning.
You suggest it's okay to kill someone for this even if you knew you were not acting in self-defense?
In my world, unknown naked person on my daughter's bed in the middle of the night. You better be a quick talker or else.
That's not what I asked.
If the person is obviously in a voluntary sex act with your daughter, or if you otherwise know they're not a rapist by a boyfriend, to attack them with deadly force is not an act of self-defense.
I do not know what occurred in the original case, though I suspect misdeed. But, as I said, I have an issue with the attitude of some people in this thread who seem to think that in this case lethal force was legitimate even outside the bounds of self-defense.
Post by: seeker_two on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
That's not what I asked.
If the person is obviously in a voluntary sex act with your daughter, or if you otherwise know they're not a rapist by a boyfriend, to attack them with deadly force is not an act of self-defense.
If the person is obviously in a voluntary sex act with your daughter, or if you otherwise know they're not a rapist by a boyfriend, to attack them with deadly force is not an act of self-defense.
The age of consent for sex in Texas is 17 (not taking into account mental retardation and other physical conditions). If my daughter is under 17 and someone is having sex with her, it's legally considered rape...making the boy involved a rapist. Hence, he'd better be wearing a Kevlar condom...
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
That's not what I asked.
If the person is obviously in a voluntary sex act with your daughter, or if you otherwise know they're not a rapist by a boyfriend, to attack them with deadly force is not an act of self-defense.
If the person is obviously in a voluntary sex act with your daughter, or if you otherwise know they're not a rapist by a boyfriend, to attack them with deadly force is not an act of self-defense.
The age of consent for sex in Texas is 17 (not taking into account mental retardation and other physical conditions). If my daughter is under 17 and someone is having sex with her, it's legally considered rape...making the boy involved a rapist. Hence, he'd better be wearing a Kevlar condom...
Fine. But if the boy is of the same age, that also makes your daughter a rapist - females can be charged with rape, too.
How'd you feel if your daughter had sex with my son, and I went at her with a steel pipe?
Post by: wmenorr67 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
You don't mind your child getting her fiddle diddled under your roof it's your buisness.
There's a wide gap between 'I don't mind' and 'attack the young man with a steel pipe'.
I will add again the kid is lucky he didn't come up with a different case of metal poisoning.
You suggest it's okay to kill someone for this even if you knew you were not acting in self-defense?
In my world, unknown naked person on my daughter's bed in the middle of the night. You better be a quick talker or else.
That's not what I asked.
If the person is obviously in a voluntary sex act with your daughter, or if you otherwise know they're not a rapist by a boyfriend, to attack them with deadly force is not an act of self-defense.
I do not know what occurred in the original case, though I suspect misdeed. But, as I said, I have an issue with the attitude of some people in this thread who seem to think that in this case lethal force was legitimate even outside the bounds of self-defense.
The original report said the man didn't know who the kid was. You put any reasonable person in that situation it should be safe to assume you don't want to wait for a "threat" to .........
Post by: wmenorr67 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
That's not what I asked.
If the person is obviously in a voluntary sex act with your daughter, or if you otherwise know they're not a rapist by a boyfriend, to attack them with deadly force is not an act of self-defense.
If the person is obviously in a voluntary sex act with your daughter, or if you otherwise know they're not a rapist by a boyfriend, to attack them with deadly force is not an act of self-defense.
The age of consent for sex in Texas is 17 (not taking into account mental retardation and other physical conditions). If my daughter is under 17 and someone is having sex with her, it's legally considered rape...making the boy involved a rapist. Hence, he'd better be wearing a Kevlar condom...
If she was somewhere she wasn't supposed to be and you could justify her as a threat then that is her problem.
I would hope that my daughter was raised better than that and wouldn't be in that situation.
Fine. But if the boy is of the same age, that also makes your daughter a rapist - females can be charged with rape, too.
How'd you feel if your daughter had sex with my son, and I went at her with a steel pipe?
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
The original report said the man didn't know who the kid was. You put any reasonable person in that situation it should be safe to assume you don't want to wait for a "threat" to .........
If two people are having sex, it's not just 'we don't know what they're after', it's a good indication they're not involved in an act of violence, unless of course one of them is obviously in distress. Note, from the original article, the boy was standing on the bed, which seems to imply he was setting up to do something that requires the other person's consent. Further, the father said he didn't know the boy.
But again, my post didn't much refer to the original event, so much as to the general idea of attacking people's boyfriends with a steel pipe.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
If she was somewhere she wasn't supposed to be and you could justify her as a threat then that is her problem.
"The age of consent for sex in Texas is 17 (not taking into account mental retardation and other physical conditions). If my
Alternatively: "Judge, she was sitting on top of Harry, and I thought she was gonna strangle him, so I got my Mosin with the low-light scope and laser scopes attached and smacked her in the head with the stock a couple of times..."
Post by: wmenorr67 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
If she was somewhere she wasn't supposed to be and you could justify her as a threat then that is her problem.
"The age of consent for sex in Texas is 17 (not taking into account mental retardation and other physical conditions). If my
Alternatively: "Judge, she was sitting on top of Harry, and I thought she was gonna strangle him, so I got my Mosin with the low-light scope and laser scopes attached and smacked her in the head with the stock a couple of times..."
Quote
The original report said the man didn't know who the kid was. You put any reasonable person in that situation it should be safe to assume you don't want to wait for a "threat" to .........
If two people are having sex, it's not just 'we don't know what they're after', it's a good indication they're not involved in an act of violence, unless of course one of them is obviously in distress. Note, from the original article, the boy was standing on the bed, which seems to imply he was setting up to do something that requires the other person's consent. Further, the father said he didn't know the boy.
But again, my post didn't much refer to the original event, so much as to the general idea of attacking people's boyfriends with a steel pipe.
A) He didn't know that he was a boyfriend.
B) He didn't know that he was in the house and was invited.
C) Nothing else needs to be said.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
E) Again, my argument does not mainly pertain to the original case, of which we know little, but of the attitude presented by many posters in this thread (like Seeker_Two and lupinus) that seem to think that it's okay to beat people with metal bits even outside the context of a violent attacks.
Post by: wmenorr67 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
E) Again, my argument does not mainly pertain to the original case, of which we know little, but of the attitude presented by many posters in this thread (like Seeker_Two and lupinus) that seem to think that it's okay to beat people with metal bits even outside the context of a violent attacks.
So you are supposed to sit and wait in your own home for someone to become violent before attacking them?
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
E) Again, my argument does not mainly pertain to the original case, of which we know little, but of the attitude presented by many posters in this thread (like Seeker_Two and lupinus) that seem to think that it's okay to beat people with metal bits even outside the context of a violent attacks.
So you are supposed to sit and wait in your own home for someone to become violent before attacking them?
If there are reasonable grounds for doubt as to the possibility someone being a threat, I think you should be acquitted if you decided in the favor of lethal force.
Suppose, for example, that the two young people were playing chess rather than diddling, or having a British tea ceremony. It would surely not be okay to shoot the young man in THAT situation.
Post by: wmenorr67 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
E) Again, my argument does not mainly pertain to the original case, of which we know little, but of the attitude presented by many posters in this thread (like Seeker_Two and lupinus) that seem to think that it's okay to beat people with metal bits even outside the context of a violent attacks.
So you are supposed to sit and wait in your own home for someone to become violent before attacking them?
If there are reasonable grounds for doubt as to the possibility someone being a threat, I think you should be acquitted if you decided in the favor of lethal force.
Suppose, for example, that the two young people were playing chess rather than diddling, or having a British tea ceremony. It would surely not be okay to shoot the young man in THAT situation.
If, "If's and But's were candies and nuts we would all have a merry (BLEEP) Christmas."
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
If, "If's and But's were candies and nuts we would all have a merry (BLEEP) Christmas."
There's a parallel between the events which is obvious.
If a person is engaged in a non-violent, friendly activity [sex, chess] with another person, it's likely they didn't come here to attack them and do not pose a threat to life or limb.
Post by: LadySmith on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
The father in the OP has been cleared of wrongdoing. Whether you believe/trust him or not is irrelevant.
Your argument with other posters has narrowed down to just bickering in that you're not presenting supporting facts pertaining to the OP, just going round and round in an oblique attack on the sexual mores of others.
Please stop. It's giving me a headache.
Post by: wmenorr67 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
The father in the OP has been cleared of wrongdoing. Whether you believe/trust him or not is irrelevant.
I did not know he was cleared. I apologize, I missed fistful's post.
Regardless, as I stated previously, I believe he should have been cleared based on the facts of the case. Whether or not I believe or trust him is irrelevant, indeed, except to my moral judgment of the situation.
I explicitly stated that my opinion does not pertain very much to the OP. I apologize for derailing the thread, though I insist I was not discussing anybody's sexual mores, but rather what I perceived, perhaps wrongly and rashly, as the opinion of some posters that it would be correct to employ lethal force even outside the bounds of self-defense (e.g. in any situation where you spot someone with your offspring).
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: mtnbkr on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Chris
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
You guys aren't "sex positive" enough.
Chris
Chris
What does this have to do with your approach to sex?
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
In my view, if you see a person having sex with your 17-year-old daughter, then the proper response is to close the door and get out, unless you have indication that the act is violent. Though the law may permit it it in your locality, it doesn't seem moral to me to use lethal force just because you think 'this looks suspicious' (and generally when two people are having sex, it's rather obvious if it is a rape).
If you actually know that the person is not a rapist and is just your daughter's classmate doing what young men in that age, and still go after the young man with a steel pipe, then that's just deranged.
You don't have any kids, do you?
The last thing I need is my daughter getting knocked up, or an incurable STD while living under my roof. I will do my damndest to educate her. But I'm not going to stand by while some future baby daddy pokes her in my house! He will get run out, with force if necessary!
The same goes for evil spawn number one.....if I catch him with a young lady under my roof, I will pry them apart, tan his ass with a belt, tape his eyelids in the open position and make him watch several hours of movies about STD's and Pregnancy.
Children do not have reproductive rights.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
And sixteen-year-olds are not children. For them to have sex is legal where I live, as well as 40 of the 50 states. Your own home state appears to be Virginia, where the age is 15.
Regardless, again, the question is not where it is okay for 16-year-olds to have sex, but whether it is okay to use lethal force against them for this.
Post by: wmenorr67 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
...me having no children is relevant, how?
And sixteen-year-olds are not children. For them to have sex is legal where I live, as well as 40 of the 50 states.
And sixteen-year-olds are not children. For them to have sex is legal where I live, as well as 40 of the 50 states.
What he is saying is that a lot of people's attitudes about things seem to change once they move out of Mommy and Daddy's basement, get married and have children of their own.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
...me having no children is relevant, how?
And sixteen-year-olds are not children. For them to have sex is legal where I live, as well as 40 of the 50 states.
And sixteen-year-olds are not children. For them to have sex is legal where I live, as well as 40 of the 50 states.
What he is saying is that a lot of people's attitudes about things seem to change once they move out of Mommy and Daddy's basement, get married and have children of their own.
Which doesn't render their opinion better. Mind, my father's policy is roughly equivalent to mine - he had no problem with me bring young ladies under his roof when I was 17.
Post by: wmenorr67 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
...me having no children is relevant, how?
And sixteen-year-olds are not children. For them to have sex is legal where I live, as well as 40 of the 50 states.
And sixteen-year-olds are not children. For them to have sex is legal where I live, as well as 40 of the 50 states.
What he is saying is that a lot of people's attitudes about things seem to change once they move out of Mommy and Daddy's basement, get married and have children of their own.
Which doesn't render their opinion better. Mind, my father's policy is roughly equivalent to mine - he had no problem with me bring young ladies under his roof when I was 17.
But did he know you were doing it or did you hide it behind his back? That is a big difference.
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
...me having no children is relevant, how?
And sixteen-year-olds are not children. For them to have sex is legal where I live, as well as 40 of the 50 states.
And sixteen-year-olds are not children. For them to have sex is legal where I live, as well as 40 of the 50 states.
They sure are children. Legal or not, my two spawn are mine and I will do everything possible to raise them right. That includes trying to prevent her
from being pregnant at 16
or him
from being a loser baby-daddy without a future at 16.
Our society expects kids to grow up so fast. What ever happened to just letting them be kids?
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
...me having no children is relevant, how?
And sixteen-year-olds are not children. For them to have sex is legal where I live, as well as 40 of the 50 states.
And sixteen-year-olds are not children. For them to have sex is legal where I live, as well as 40 of the 50 states.
What he is saying is that a lot of people's attitudes about things seem to change once they move out of Mommy and Daddy's basement, get married and have children of their own.
Which doesn't render their opinion better. Mind, my father's policy is roughly equivalent to mine - he had no problem with me bring young ladies under his roof when I was 17.
But did he know you were doing it or did you hide it behind his back? That is a big difference.
Why would I need to hide behind his back?
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Which doesn't render their opinion better. Mind, my father's policy is roughly equivalent to mine - he had no problem with me bring young ladies under his roof when I was 17.
He might have rethought that policy if you had become a baby daddy at 17. Sure puts a damper on doing something with your life when you've got an extra mouth to feed right out of the starting blocks.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Legal or not, my two spawn are mine and I will do everything possible to raise them right.
Look. AGAIN. I am not intending to criticize people who think they need to avoid their teenage offspring having sex.
I am merely suggesting that lethal force is not the right way to do it.
And you know, there ARE ways of preventing pregnancy. My Dad was big on reminding me to use condoms.
Post by: Firethorn on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
I believe he should have been cleared based on the facts of the case.
And I believe that this is what happened. Since the details of the case were perhaps marginal, they went ahead and arrested pending investigation and consideration(possibly before a grand jury).
That he was secretly in the house, in my mind at least, is enough to trigger the first part - him being there illegally. It's not the daughter's residence. She KNEW the boy wouldn't be approved to be there, so she helped him sneak in. He KNEW he was sneaking in.
As for hitting the kid in the head of the pipe - we don't know if the daughter was presenting for some athletic position while the kid was standing on the bed, or if she was under the covers, asleep and he was getting ready to go to the bathroom or get dressed to sneak out, or if the article has a mistatement and the kid was actually standing by the bed, not on it.
I figure all those details came up during the investigation; most of which we have absolutely no information about.
Post by: HankB on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
)Given the circumstances, the father's actions were quite restrained, and in no way criminal.
It would appear prosecutors agree.
Post by: Firethorn on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Daughter was underage.
Depending on state, the fact that the boy was underage as well might actually make it not statutory rape.
For example, in North Dakota:
Quote
3. When criminality depends on the victim being a minor fifteen years of age or older,
the actor is guilty of an offense only if the actor is at least three years older than the
minor.
Florida:the actor is guilty of an offense only if the actor is at least three years older than the
minor.
Quote
(1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.
Nebraska:Quote
(1) A person commits sexual assault of a child in the second or third degree if he or she subjects another person fourteen years of age or younger to sexual contact and the actor is at least nineteen years of age or older.
We don't have the age of the daughter, so assuming she was at least 15, as long as he's under 18(and we know he was), it wouldn't be SR under the laws of North Dakota, Florida, and Nebraska*.
As far as I know, most state's SR laws have stuff like this. So, no, in general a couple of minors of the about the same age screwing aren't committing SR.
*I have been a resident of the above states, but I don't claim to be a lawyer, laws were pulled from state websites.
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Legal or not, my two spawn are mine and I will do everything possible to raise them right.
Look. AGAIN. I am not intending to criticize people who think they need to avoid their teenage offspring having sex.
I am merely suggesting that lethal force is not the right way to do it.
And you know, there ARE ways of preventing pregnancy. My Dad was big on reminding me to use condoms.
Yeah, that works.
There is only one form of birth control that works.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Yeah, that works.
Yeah, you know, a physical barrier between the two partners decreases the chances of pregnancy.
Quote
There is only one form of birth control that works.
You're... joking, right?
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Yeah, that works.
Yeah, you know, a physical barrier between the two partners decreases the chances of pregnancy.
Quote
There is only one form of birth control that works.
You're... joking, right?
Yes, I was joking. The only form of birth control that works is abstience. Obviously I intend to educate my children fully on thier options and the consequences of bad choices. But I'm not willing to tolerate allowing a teenage partner to visit them in my house without supervision. No, I'm not going to whack some kid with a steel pipe. But I'm going to remind him or her in a quick and unplesant fashion that they are not welcome in my casa.
Post by: wmenorr67 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
I will explain to him/her/it that the only 100% birth control is avoiding vaginal sex altogether. I will however be also cognizant of the fact that teenagers had been having sex since the dawn of man and will educate him/her about his/her options for STD prevention and birth control. If he or she will get a boyfriend or girlfriend, if that person is not a complete filthy gang-banger or some other person I disapprove of, they will be encouraged to bring them over, and will be allowed to have privacy in Junior's room, after Junior reaches a certain age.
Regardless, even if it is a person I disapprove of, I will not take to attacking him with lethal force. My disagreement with you is only as to that point, and that point alone. I respect your choice otherwise.
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
My view, and my policy on Junior, when he/she will be born has been stated in the past:
I will explain to him/her/it that the only 100% birth control is avoiding vaginal sex altogether. I will however be also cognizant of the fact that teenagers had been having sex since the dawn of man and will educate him/her about his/her options for STD prevention and birth control. If he or she will get a boyfriend or girlfriend, if that person is not a complete filthy gang-banger or some other person I disapprove of, they will be encouraged to bring them over, and will be allowed to have privacy in Junior's room, after Junior reaches a certain age.
Regardless, even if it is a person I disapprove of, I will not take to attacking him with lethal force. My disagreement with you is only as to that point, and that point alone. I respect your choice otherwise.
I will explain to him/her/it that the only 100% birth control is avoiding vaginal sex altogether. I will however be also cognizant of the fact that teenagers had been having sex since the dawn of man and will educate him/her about his/her options for STD prevention and birth control. If he or she will get a boyfriend or girlfriend, if that person is not a complete filthy gang-banger or some other person I disapprove of, they will be encouraged to bring them over, and will be allowed to have privacy in Junior's room, after Junior reaches a certain age.
Regardless, even if it is a person I disapprove of, I will not take to attacking him with lethal force. My disagreement with you is only as to that point, and that point alone. I respect your choice otherwise.
Quote
No, I'm not going to whack some kid with a steel pipe. But I'm going to remind him or her in a quick and unplesant fashion that they are not welcome in my casa.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Yeah, that works.
Yeah, you know, a physical barrier between the two partners decreases the chances of pregnancy.
Quote
There is only one form of birth control that works.
You're... joking, right?
I don't consider it wise to trust one's life and future to a thin film product manufactured at the lowest possible cost.
I am IN the medical industry. I read the journals that come in. It's almost a joke how little regulation of microscopic flaws there are for those as opposed to surgical films.
And sorry, but everytime I've seen the product of overly permissive parents, they've been one messed-up kid. And I used to teach in summers. I could see which were heading for trouble because their parents wanted to be their friend instead of an authority figure.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
I will explain to him/her/it that the only 100% birth control is avoiding vaginal sex altogether.
All.
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Yeah, that works.
Yeah, you know, a physical barrier between the two partners decreases the chances of pregnancy.
Quote
There is only one form of birth control that works.
You're... joking, right?
I don't consider it wise to trust one's life and future to a thin film product manufactured at the lowest possible cost.
I am IN the medical industry. I read the journals that come in. It's almost a joke how little regulation of microscopic flaws there are for those as opposed to surgical films.
Not to mention, an excited 16 year old is running the risk of not even using the thing properly....
Quote
I will explain to him/her/it that the only 100% birth control is avoiding vaginal sex altogether.
Tell that to my buddies 16 year old (well, she's 22 now). Being a good Mormon girl she didn't have vaginal sex....only oral with her BF. Yeah now she's got herpes. I remember being 16years old.....teenagers are morons, pumped full of hormones, lacking common sense, and sexually fertile. Thats a combination for disaster.
Post by: Ben on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
Note, from the original article, the boy was standing on the bed, which seems to imply he was setting up to do something that requires the other person's consent.
Or the other person's fear, if she was just told to not make a sound or she'd be killed.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
remember being 16years old..
So do I. I was not a moron then, and few people were. I knew some real morons, but then I knew some real morons when I was in the Army, too.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
And sorry, but everytime I've seen the product of overly permissive parents, they've been one messed-up kid. And I used to teach in summers. I could see which were heading for trouble because their parents wanted to be their friend instead of an authority figure.
My father was never 'overly permissive'. You've read my descriptions of him elsewhere on his forum.
Post by: Marnoot on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Tell that to my buddies 16 year old (well, she's 22 now). Being a good Mormon girl she didn't have vaginal sex....only oral with her BF. Yeah now she's got herpes. I remember being 16years old.....teenagers are morons, pumped full of hormones, lacking common sense, and sexually fertile. Thats a combination for disaster.
Not to get too off topic, but she wasn't being a good Mormon girl if she had oral sex with her BF. No sexual relations of any kind before or outside of marriage, period, is the moral standard to which we adhere.
Post by: roo_ster on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
...me having no children is relevant, how?
Think of having (and being properly responsible for) a kid as gaining a new sense.
Before you had the kid/sense, there is no real reference point to understand what those who had the kid/sense are speaking about. Similar to the description of color to a blind person. Telling them the wavelength and place in the EM spectrum does not convey the human perception of color.
Post by: Jamisjockey on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Tell that to my buddies 16 year old (well, she's 22 now). Being a good Mormon girl she didn't have vaginal sex....only oral with her BF. Yeah now she's got herpes. I remember being 16years old.....teenagers are morons, pumped full of hormones, lacking common sense, and sexually fertile. Thats a combination for disaster.
Not to get too off topic, but she wasn't being a good Mormon girl if she had oral sex with her BF. No sexual relations of any kind before or outside of marriage, period, is the moral standard to which we adhere.
Teenagers aren't the brightest creatures and I noticed after living in Utah that many of them interpret that how they see fit.
Post by: Marnoot on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Tell that to my buddies 16 year old (well, she's 22 now). Being a good Mormon girl she didn't have vaginal sex....only oral with her BF. Yeah now she's got herpes. I remember being 16years old.....teenagers are morons, pumped full of hormones, lacking common sense, and sexually fertile. Thats a combination for disaster.
Not to get too off topic, but she wasn't being a good Mormon girl if she had oral sex with her BF. No sexual relations of any kind before or outside of marriage, period, is the moral standard to which we adhere.
Teenagers aren't the brightest creatures and I noticed after living in Utah that many of them interpret that how they see fit.
All too true.
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
...me having no children is relevant, how?
Think of having (and being properly responsible for) a kid as gaining a new sense.
Before you had the kid/sense, there is no real reference point to understand what those who had the kid/sense are speaking about. Similar to the description of color to a blind person. Telling them the wavelength and place in the EM spectrum does not convey the human perception of color.
Well, since I'm not properly qualified to have an opinion on the issue, I'll simply say that that's how my father did it, and I turned out all right.
Post by: mtnbkr on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Well, since I'm not properly qualified to have an opinion on the issue, I'll simply say that that's how my father did it, and I turned out all right.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. I'm not leaving anything to chance.
Chris
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Well, since I'm not properly qualified to have an opinion on the issue, I'll simply say that that's how my father did it, and I turned out all right.
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. I'm not leaving anything to chance.
Your child-rearing practices are not the subject of my criticism in this thread. That's Mrs. mtnbkr's job.
Post by: Firethorn on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Regardless, even if it is a person I disapprove of, I will not take to attacking him with lethal force. My disagreement with you is only as to that point, and that point alone. I respect your choice otherwise.
That's assuming you find about the relationship sometime other than in the dark of night, preferably not in your teen's bedroom while naked. Educate your kid right and you shouldn't have to worry about that. Clothed in the living room in the afternoon is much preferable in the interest of preventing protective parent injuries.
Tell that to my buddies 16 year old (well, she's 22 now). Being a good Mormon girl she didn't have vaginal sex....only oral with her BF. Yeah now she's got herpes.
Well, he was talking about birth control, not STD prevention. That's a somewhat different topic, though related. Disease prevention should be comprehensive and include what are commonly called STDs - remember, most have transmission methods outside of sex, it's just that sex is a primary infection vector.
Post by: seeker_two on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Suppose, for example, that the two young people were playing chess rather than diddling, or having a British tea ceremony. It would surely not be okay to shoot the young man in THAT situation.
Yes it would....British teas are horrible....
Yeah, you know, a physical barrier between the two partners decreases the chances of pregnancy.
Agreed......and I will be that barrier....
Maybe it's just a case of European permissiveness vs. Southern family protectiveness, but I'm not as forgiving or mellow about my (future) children engaging in risky behaviors under my roof while I still draw breath. If that means I'm known around town as the scary dad (with excellent aim), then so be it. At least I'm being a father to my (future) children.
Tell you what, MB.....you raise your children your way & I'll raise mine my way & we'll see who becomes a grandpa first...
Post by: wmenorr67 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
scary dad (with excellent aim), then so be it. At least I'm being a father to my (future) children.
That is me.
I have told my daughter I was going to parade outside her bedroom window in uniform carrying my Mini-14.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Manedwolf on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
scary dad (with excellent aim), then so be it. At least I'm being a father to my (future) children.
That is me.
I have told my daughter I was going to parade outside her bedroom window in uniform carrying my Mini-14.
Well, at least with that gun, nobody could accuse you of threatening to use lethal force...safest place to be is where it's aimed after it heats up.
*kidding*
Post by: Balog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: 209 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
I hear a noise. It's in my daughter's room. She's underage. I walk in and there's a naked guy.
[The naked guy is lucky I only had a pipe].
Can't imagine why I had a pipe, but if that's all I had, I'd lunge and smack the guy.
I can easily articulate why I did it. That should be the end of the whole drama.
If there are other issues involved, I'd be saying I was not aware of them prior to the incident. I'd win in court. Hopefully!
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
An expectant father was in the waiting room for the blessed event, when the nurse came in and congratulated him on his new baby boy.
The father jumped into the air, whooping and shouting, and gave the nurse a cigar.
The nurse asked him if he would have done the same were it a girl instead of a boy.
The father replied, "No, probably not."
The nurse asked, "Why not?"
"Because, when he becomes a teenager, I only have to worry about just one penis. Were it a girl, I'd have to worry about all of them!"
(With apologies to Mtnbkr, et al...)
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
"Before you take my little girl on a date tonight, I want to remind you: I have a shotgun and a shovel, and I know how to use both..."
i like hi son whatever you do to my daughter on your date i am gonna do to you when you bring her home. keep that in mind and have a fun time. give him a lil wink and send em on their way
Post by: Big Hairy Bee on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
'cepting my own of course.
Post by: freedom lover on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
I am IN the medical industry. I read the journals that come in. It's almost a joke how little regulation of microscopic flaws there are for those as opposed to surgical films.
That's interesting. When I was in Jr. High health class someone who worked for a Crisis Pregnancy Center came in and told my class that the AIDS virus was smaller than the pores in latex and could get through.
My Bio teacher, on the other hand, said that he doubted that was true. I think he may have been right because I heard about a country in SE Asia where the rate of infection has gone down since the government started promoting condom use.
I just started chem, so I don't know how closely bonded the atoms of latex are.
I would like to hear your informed opinion on the subject of condom affectiveness.
Post by: Manedwolf on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
They're just not as tightly controlled as medical implants or other such things. They're a product, made on machines, in factories. Probably irradiated for sterility, of course, but they are not made like surgical mesh or film is, in cleanrooms with technicians monitoring every step and continually checking every batch with everything including laser scanning. It's why surgical mesh costs $100 for a tiny piece and a condom is $1.
Yes, some have very tiny perforations at times. Or they can break. They're far from perfect. They're better than nothing, but IMO, people should not be messing around unless they are both A) CERTIFIED clean with recent tests, and B) the woman is on the pill or using a secondary method as well, such as a sponge, with the condom.
I consider condoms to be...kind of like Russian roulette with a gun with 500 barrels. Yeah, the chances of a flaw are low. But if there is one, you won't know till it's too late, and someone gets something or becomes a parent.
Post by: Firethorn on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
That's interesting. When I was in Jr. High health class someone who worked for a Crisis Pregnancy Center came in and told my class that the AIDS virus was smaller than the pores in latex and could get through.
An overall false statement, I think. Viruses are larger than water molecules, after all, and the things are waterproof.
Even if it was true, it's enough to contain the liquid the viruses are suspended in, and viruses aren't separately mobile.
Quote
Yes, some have very tiny perforations at times. Or they can break.
This is why many/most have spermicidal lube as a backup. Sometimes the lube is also supposed to deactivate viruses/bacteria of common STDs.
That said, multiple methods add up quickly. 95% effective condoms + 99% effective pill = 99.95% effective, used properly.
Post by: The Annoyed Man on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
i might put a sign in the yard add subject to removal and confiscation
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Chase his ass out of the house and down the street, swing a pipe at him, scare the daylights out of him, whatever. But shoot him? Are you nuts? How will that improve the situation any? If nothing else, it'll lead to a lifetime of psychiatrist bills for your daughter. She'll never be normal again after one of her first real sexual experiences ends with her sweetie's brains splattered all over herself and her bed.
Consensual sex at age 16 isn't something that deserves a lethal response. Unless there's an actual reason to believe that he's attacking your daughter, lethal force is just plain stupid.
Post by: Balog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Balog, there's an old joke that goes something like this:
An expectant father was in the waiting room for the blessed event, when the nurse came in and congratulated him on his new baby boy.
The father jumped into the air, whooping and shouting, and gave the nurse a cigar.
The nurse asked him if he would have done the same were it a girl instead of a boy.
The father replied, "No, probably not."
The nurse asked, "Why not?"
"Because, when he becomes a teenager, I only have to worry about just one penis. Were it a girl, I'd have to worry about all of them!"
(With apologies to Mtnbkr, et al...)
An expectant father was in the waiting room for the blessed event, when the nurse came in and congratulated him on his new baby boy.
The father jumped into the air, whooping and shouting, and gave the nurse a cigar.
The nurse asked him if he would have done the same were it a girl instead of a boy.
The father replied, "No, probably not."
The nurse asked, "Why not?"
"Because, when he becomes a teenager, I only have to worry about just one penis. Were it a girl, I'd have to worry about all of them!"
(With apologies to Mtnbkr, et al...)
Yeah, I've heard it.
If that attitude is carried over into real life, you end up with guys you've never heard of in your daughters bed. I'm sure thinking your 16 y/o daughter is just as sweet and innocent as she was at 8 is a comforting fantasy, but it's stupid. Teens are horny; note I said teens, not just male teens.Threatening the random boy your girl drags home won't do anything; trying to make your daughter mature and responsible might. And "I'm going to freak out and horribly embarrass you by acting like a caricature of overprotective Dad" is not a good way to do that.
Post by: Firethorn on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
I think Micro makes an excellent point. There are plenty of things you can and should do to a naked boy you find in your daughter's bedroom, but trying to kill him isn't one of them. It may be legal for you to use lethal force, but that doesn't change the fact that it's darned stupid.
I don't think the guy was trying to kill him. While WE consider a pipe strike to the head lethal force, many people wouldn't, not in the same way as they would a gun.
Quote
Chase his ass out of the house and down the street, swing a pipe at him, scare the daylights out of him, whatever. But shoot him? Are you nuts? How will that improve the situation any? If nothing else, it'll lead to a lifetime of psychiatrist bills for your daughter. She'll never be normal again after one of her first real sexual experiences ends with her sweetie's brains splattered all over herself and her bed.
Going by the article, this girl's first real sexual experience was over a year before the incident...
Still, having her first 'boyfriend''s brains blown out of his head would be traumatic. This is why we should be understanding parents and stress about how daddy/mommy gets with unknown intruders to the home, especially at night. That you expect to know any friends, especially of the boy/girl variety.
Quote
Consensual sex at age 16 isn't something that deserves a lethal response. Unless there's an actual reason to believe that he's attacking your daughter, lethal force is just plain stupid.
Naked on the bed when you didn't know he was there, or even recognize him, is getting into 'good shoot' territory. The pipe to the head could have been prevented if the daughter had simply introduced the boyfriend to her father. Then, when the father bursts into the room, he at least recognizes him as the boyfriend. Result - yelling, escort out(preferably with clothes), intense talks with daughter and boyfriend. Not headsplitting blows or gunshots.
update: I agree with Balog's statement. That's what I mean by being an 'understanding' parent. You want to remain somebody your kids can go to - whatever their problem.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
I think Micro makes an excellent point. There are plenty of things you can and should do to a naked boy you find in your daughter's bedroom, but trying to kill him isn't one of them. It may be legal for you to use lethal force, but that doesn't change the fact that it's darned stupid.
Chase his ass out of the house and down the street, swing a pipe at him, scare the daylights out of him, whatever. But shoot him? Are you nuts? How will that improve the situation any? If nothing else, it'll lead to a lifetime of psychiatrist bills for your daughter. She'll never be normal again after one of her first real sexual experiences ends with her sweetie's brains splattered all over herself and her bed.
Consensual sex at age 16 isn't something that deserves a lethal response. Unless there's an actual reason to believe that he's attacking your daughter, lethal force is just plain stupid.
Chase his ass out of the house and down the street, swing a pipe at him, scare the daylights out of him, whatever. But shoot him? Are you nuts? How will that improve the situation any? If nothing else, it'll lead to a lifetime of psychiatrist bills for your daughter. She'll never be normal again after one of her first real sexual experiences ends with her sweetie's brains splattered all over herself and her bed.
Consensual sex at age 16 isn't something that deserves a lethal response. Unless there's an actual reason to believe that he's attacking your daughter, lethal force is just plain stupid.
I don't think anyone here really thinks that way. Microbalrog is attacking a straw man.
Post by: Balog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
I don't think anyone here really thinks that way. Microbalrog is attacking a straw man.
unless you have some sort of psychic scapegoat mind reading powers, it's a bit odd to say "Well, they may have repeatedly said it, with no smilies or other indication they're joking, but they don't really mean it."
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Balog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Ah, but I DO have psychic scapegoat mind reading powers. How do you think I always win all the arguments around here, anyway?
Dark magick? Unholy covenant?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
I think Micro makes an excellent point. There are plenty of things you can and should do to a naked boy you find in your daughter's bedroom, but trying to kill him isn't one of them. It may be legal for you to use lethal force, but that doesn't change the fact that it's darned stupid.
I don't think the guy was trying to kill him. While WE consider a pipe strike to the head lethal force, many people wouldn't, not in the same way as they would a gun.
Quote
Chase his ass out of the house and down the street, swing a pipe at him, scare the daylights out of him, whatever. But shoot him? Are you nuts? How will that improve the situation any? If nothing else, it'll lead to a lifetime of psychiatrist bills for your daughter. She'll never be normal again after one of her first real sexual experiences ends with her sweetie's brains splattered all over herself and her bed.
Going by the article, this girl's first real sexual experience was over a year before the incident...
Still, having her first 'boyfriend''s brains blown out of his head would be traumatic. This is why we should be understanding parents and stress about how daddy/mommy gets with unknown intruders to the home, especially at night. That you expect to know any friends, especially of the boy/girl variety.
Quote
Consensual sex at age 16 isn't something that deserves a lethal response. Unless there's an actual reason to believe that he's attacking your daughter, lethal force is just plain stupid.
Naked on the bed when you didn't know he was there, or even recognize him, is getting into 'good shoot' territory. The pipe to the head could have been prevented if the daughter had simply introduced the boyfriend to her father. Then, when the father bursts into the room, he at least recognizes him as the boyfriend. Result - yelling, escort out(preferably with clothes), intense talks with daughter and boyfriend. Not headsplitting blows or gunshots.
update: I agree with Balog's statement. That's what I mean by being an 'understanding' parent. You want to remain somebody your kids can go to - whatever their problem.
If there's a boy naked in your teenage daughter's room, there are long odds that it's an attack of some sort. It is far, far, far more likely that he's naked there because your daughter wants him that way.
The "he's in my house and he's naked so I'm gonna waste him" attitude is wrong. It may be legal to use lethal force in such a circumstance, but it seems like unjustified murder to me. The boy would end up dead for no reason other than that the irrational father couldn't cope with his daughter becoming a normal adult woman.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Quote
My remarks were in response to the folks in this thread who seem to take an attitude of "ZOMG if anyone is in my daughter's room without my permission I'm going for slide lock!!!" That attitude amuses me. In a situation like that, with a teenage daughter and boyfriend getting cuddly vs a trigger happy Rambo parent threatening to kill people, who's behaving more maturely?
If there's a boy naked in your teenage daughter's room, there are long odds that it isn't an attack of any sort. It is far, far, far more likely that he's naked there because your daughter wants him that way.
The "he's in my house and he's naked so I'm gonna waste him" attitude is wrong. It may be legal to use lethal force in such a circumstance, but it seems like unjustified murder to me. The boy would end up dead for no reason other than that the irrational father couldn't cope with his daughter becoming a normal adult woman.
If there's a boy naked in your teenage daughter's room, there are long odds that it isn't an attack of any sort. It is far, far, far more likely that he's naked there because your daughter wants him that way.
The "he's in my house and he's naked so I'm gonna waste him" attitude is wrong. It may be legal to use lethal force in such a circumstance, but it seems like unjustified murder to me. The boy would end up dead for no reason other than that the irrational father couldn't cope with his daughter becoming a normal adult woman.
Ok, I'm game. Who really said the "slide lock" bit?
The fact is, the father in this story happened upon an ininvited guest, hovering over his daughter buck-assed naked. He had no idea that his little princess was engaged in subterfuge, and the law understood that fact by acquitting him. Honestly, it could've been his wife, it could've been his son, there was a stranger in his home and he wasn't the Tooth Fairy putting quarters under pillows. We just had an incident in Madison where somebody was found naked and uninvited in somebody's home. The dude went belligerent, then totally bonkers on the family member who found him there, but luckily the incident resulted in no injuries. Like it or not, Castle Doctrine protects the homeowner when situations like the original scenario happen, whether he's defending himself and his family from weirdos who get their jollies by sexually molesting folks, or whether they intend to finish the job with the typical murder. The law recognizes that, and allows a "reasonable man" defense. There's any number of sexual predators who've entered homes with bad intentions, one can simply Google it. That's exactly what happened here, it was reasonable to conclude that the homeowner didn't know anything about the princess, her consort, and their goings-on, and to prevent what he would have thought was an impending rape, he rung the little bastard's bell a good one.
Now, who said here "slide lock?" Really, I'll wait.
As folks who've been around know, I'm one of the first on this forum to eschew deadly force when not warranted. I have a very vivid memory of a severely mentally handicapped neighbor kid who broke into my Florida home very late one evening, scared, tired, and on the verge of one of his frequent grand mal seizures. I recognized him and got him calmed down, then contacted his parents. It took me all of a split second to identify the intruder and bring the 870 MkI down to low ready. He was an intruder, but not a target.
I would, however, draw down on an uninvited person in my home if they were hovering naked over my wife, daughter, or son. They had better come up with a quick explanation, be it an ongoing affair, he likes the kid's purty mouth, or whatever. Then he would be escorted to the front porch, sans clothing, to await the police. My wife wants to have an affair, she can do it somewhere else, and then she can scream "rape", like the UPS driver scenario last year.
In the meantime, this particular scenario played out exactly as it should have, voyeuristic protests notwithstanding. There was an unknown naked person in the home hovering over princess, the father had no clue who he was, and he prevented what was reasonable to assume was a rape or worse in progress. The law acquitted him, as it should have. Princess will now think twice before inviting Mr. Happy over to spend the night in Daddy's house, or Daddy will tell the little tart that she's out the door come 18 years of age. The End.
I now return you to the previous straw man arguments and general weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Post by: Balog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Fjolnirsson
So sorry, but I would've shot him right there.
If I find someone in my house whom I don't know, he's naked, and he's in my daughter's room with her, he will leave with holes in his body, end of story.
lacoochee
Personally, I would have shot,
seeker_two
he'd better be wearing a Kevlar condom...
G98, I understand what you're saying, but we're not talking about the OP anymore. Thread drift; it's a way of life here at APS. Other than SS several pages ago no one is saying the Dad in the OP did wrong.
What some of us are objecting to is the several posters who have taken the "Any naked guy in my house gets shot" position. We're responding to their statements, not the OP.
Post by: Perd Hapley on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
But seriously, one must learn to use context to evaluate meaning. And the context of this thread is a naked, unknown intruder standing on the bed of an underage girl. If anybody sounded just slightly too Rambo with the I'd-shoot-him commentary, just chalk that up to the usual internet commando syndrome, not some weird blood-lust toward those who would deflower our daughters, nor unhealthy attitudes toward sex.
Post by: seeker_two on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
...and, if the act is "consentual", then there will be consequences for my child too...but I'm obliged to protect my child from harm....I have no obligation for the other person...
Post by: MicroBalrog on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Post by: Firethorn on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
The "he's in my house and he's naked so I'm gonna waste him" attitude is wrong. It may be legal to use lethal force in such a circumstance, but it seems like unjustified murder to me. The boy would end up dead for no reason other than that the irrational father couldn't cope with his daughter becoming a normal adult woman.
The way I look at it, both the daughter and boyfriend were partially to blame.
1. The Boyfriend knew he wasn't supposed to be there, and that the father didn't know he was there
2. The Daughter knew he wasn't supposed to be there, and that the father didn't know he was there
3. The Daughter never introduced her boyfriend to her father.
The odds that it's sexual assault goes way up if the parents don't recognize the guy. People have snuck into houses for the purpose of rape before. The very recognition of the boyfriend would have probably resulted in a long enough delay to prevent getting a pipe to the head.
Post by: Gewehr98 on March 03, 2005, 10:18:52 PM
Princess? Yup, were there a court case, you can guarantee she'd be one of the defendants.
As it stands, it was a legitimate thwacking upside the head, bottom line. He's lucky he lived to talk about it.
Now, as for dangerous thread drift, I'm putting this one to bed before hyperbole and a bazillion other "what-ifs" take over.