Father hits naked boyfriend in daughters bedroom, now the DAD is facing charges?

[Balog]

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?

[De Selby]

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.

[K Frame]

Yes, both have to apply.

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.

[wmenorr67]

The little nudist is lucky he didn't get shot.

[The Annoyed Man]

if the young man didn't get brain damage he probably thinks so too

[MicroBalrog]

Really, it's not the Castle Doctrine legality that is of concern here.

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.

[lupinus]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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'.

[wmenorr67]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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?

[wmenorr67]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[seeker_two]

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.

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...

[MicroBalrog]

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.

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?

[wmenorr67]

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 .........

[wmenorr67]

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.

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?

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[MicroBalrog]

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 daughter son is under 17 and someone is having sex with her, it's legally considered rape...making the boygirl involved a rapist. "

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..."

[wmenorr67]

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 daughter son is under 17 and someone is having sex with her, it's legally considered rape...making the boygirl involved a rapist. "

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..."

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.

[MicroBalrog]

D) He says so. I don't trust him.
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.

[wmenorr67]

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?

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[wmenorr67]

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."

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[LadySmith]

MicroBalrog, you're coming across as being deliberately obtuse.

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.