Father Kills Pedophile Molesting his Daughter

[ana]

I think he did good. How can you abuse a child of 4 years? How this is possible! If a pedophile would do the same to my daughter maybe I would kill him. Because how can you abuse a child of 4 years and be free? You are a parasite if you do things like that.

If you have or somebody in the family has a young child, do not leave it in the care of a male acquaintance or kin for babysitting no matter how good you know them. Trust women only. I would be extremely wary during "guest visits" and family come together events and would not let my even child be touched by males appearing surprisingly kind, "fatherly", amiable toward the child and young or older males amazingly "good with children". These males can seemingly play well and seem very well understand children - especially if the child is 3-4 years young. I saw two teenagers 12 and 14 years of age during my career, who seemed super-good with children, turned out to be dangerous sexual-psychopaths, like the one killed in this case. They have always found the young to corrupt.

forge, that's ridiculous. Decent men do exist. Indecent women exist. How is a child supposed to learn to bond with men if he/she is shielded from interacting with any of them? The Law of Three, forge - do you remember it?

Pondering on how to resolve the consequences of abuse in the past - from the perspective of the Law of Three - I can only see one way out. There was even a podcast about it with the priest talking about transformation of torture victims. So i could figure only this:

In the torrents of fire, flood or violent earthquake mechanical humanity may have a chance to understand all Three Forces at the moment of becoming a martyr - extreme suffering - ,reaching the transformation-stage of the torture-victim. People were reported to change at that stage in the podcast. Without extreme suffering however I can see no change, no way out for this society. Remembering increasing entropy nowadays, i think this society strongly needs and attracts extreme suffering by cataclysm.

I'm only different from mechanical people of having studied the Laws of the Work to a degree and understanding some little, I am willing to follow to an extent.

Therefore:
As consequences of abuse in the past, strikingly similar to the events of the topic article without the killing - i'm willing to move toward the middle of the Pendulum by not swinging to the extreme.

Not carrying out fully what the Father did. Making our pedophile abuser*, - conceptually of course in the sphere of thought revolving about this topic -, (he being alive and well and not having been seen court yet regards his many numerous sexual abuses i know of), *so leaving him perfectly able to think (head unchanged) but rearranging his body, all tendons joints and bones to never be used again so that he lives on, and experiencing his changed physical state all the time for long long years.

I cannot accept the judges authority - Holy Reconciling Third force - yet. Where a

* plaintiff and defendant have their case resolved only through a judge.
* Flour and water become bread only when bonded by fire.

I can't make bread here yet.
Unable to reconcile, just as my signature shows.

Forge I really find it difficult to extract any substance from your post, Do you want to make an effort to read again Anart's point, think about it forgetting what the priest said, and use a direct, clear and concise communication to convey your response?

 

[cassandra]

Forge, I think you have to be very careful who you let your kids be with, but you can't just lock them up.
You have to teach them to be assertive, if they feel any way uncomfortable about anyone, even family members, or any situation, they should feel free to come back home, even if they should seem bad-mannered in doing so. Also they should report anything untoward and be vocal.
I make it clear to others that I am very close to my kids, will always back them up if they need my help, and they can talk to me about anything.

 

[ScioAgapeOmnis]

I agree that the law of 3 is important - it's the only way to avoid making bad decisions that do not reflect reality. I think it should be a given that we shouldn't leave our kids with anyone we don't know very well. For that reason I'd not trust baby sitters whom I don't know and are just doing it for money. But if you know someone, man or woman, who you know to be caring, loving, and genuine, then that should be the important factor, not their gender.

In the case of the article, I think killing the person is a bit overboard, but a good beating is probably warranted. And I agree, not in front of the child, although you could "start" the confrontation in front of the child - verbally, so the child sees that what this man did was not ok, that you are not ok with it, which would help them to keep that in mind if ever this situation occurs again. Then, after taking the other person away from the child, you could express your anger a bit more violently.

But then it would help to talk to your child about the experience and explain, if possible, what happened and why - catering the explanation to their level of development.

 

[ocean59]

I think he did good. How can you abuse a child of 4 years? How this is possible! If a pedophile would do the same to my daughter maybe I would kill him. Because how can you abuse a child of 4 years and be free? You are a parasite if you do things like that.

If you have or somebody in the family has a young child, do not leave it in the care of a male acquaintance or kin for babysitting no matter how good you know them. Trust women only. I would be extremely wary during "guest visits" and family come together events and would not let my even child be touched by males appearing surprisingly kind, "fatherly", amiable toward the child and young or older males amazingly "good with children". These males can seemingly play well and seem very well understand children - especially if the child is 3-4 years young. I saw two teenagers 12 and 14 years of age during my career, who seemed super-good with children, turned out to be dangerous sexual-psychopaths, like the one killed in this case. They have always found the young to corrupt.

forge, that's ridiculous. Decent men do exist. Indecent women exist. How is a child supposed to learn to bond with men if he/she is shielded from interacting with any of them? The Law of Three, forge - do you remember it?

Thank you for saying this anart. People trust me with their children regularly - and as a male I take pride in honoring those commitments and responsibilities with the proper level of reverence and respect that all children deserve. It is a great responsibility, and a trust I could never even dream of betraying. Certainly I'm not the only one out there.

 

[griffin]

Reading the news report, it seems the father struck the molester while trying to get the girl away from him. That's a different circumstance than those that have been conjectured about here. It falls under the man protecting his daughter, and no grand jury in the country will indict him for it.

 

[Cyre2067]

If someone was attacking someone I loved I'd do whatever was necessary to get them to stop, if the victim was a child, the more my rage would influence my actions. My first instinct would be to separate them and then scream at the kid to run and get help. What I would do after I can't really say without being in the situation.

I understand what he did and I think the pedo got exactly what he deserved.

 

[Soluna]

This makes me wonder how people define 'justice'. Is justice truly, us choosing to inflict punishment upon someone for their transgressions? Do we, even a victim, have the right to incarcerate (for life) or kill someone? Considering the conditions in prisons, the other occupants; or removing the possibility for them to learn from the rest of this life by killing them.

It's a dilemma I think of often. I was sexually abused by my father for a long time - and after disclosing he was 'protected' from prison by female members of my extended family, and my mother (who still stayed with, and slept with him - and now lives with him still with my younger sister). I do still see him (12 years on from disclosing) and know I do not feel 'justice' has happened in some ways. But who is it justice 'for'? Would it be a form of vengeance?


I can totally appreciate the initial reaction of a protective father in this situation, and it has been said that he is remorseful for killing the perpetrator as he didn't realise the injury would cause death.


However I think through learning, I feel karma is its own form of justice. Should these people not learn from their actions their lessons - they shall reap what they sow regardless, during this life or the next. I think imposing our own forms of 'justice' in an unlearned or unknowable state, is a form of selfishness.

Regardless - the father was within his own free-will to do whatever he liked to the abuser of his daughter. I think the 'systems of justice' in this world are just as shady as the people who 'make the rules and laws'. Whether they rule in favour of him or not, they follow laws not written by them - yet should they rule favourably, we would perhaps feel 'grateful' to 'them' for making that choice - seems stupid to me!

 

[Gertrudes]

I've thinking about this story the past few days. Of course, we will never know what the full circumstances were. The father was likely trapped in his own programs as are we all.

My first impulse on reading the story was, if I came upon a crime like that, yeah, I would want to take a ball bat to the guy. Like stomping a roach in the kitchen.

But, as Laura points out, this would further traumatize the child. Not only had she been brutally used but she will have witnessed someone violently killed as well. Plus she might loose her dad as well if he is sent to prison. Killing the perpetrator on the spot could be indulging ones own anger rather than helping the child in a moment of great need.

If one could hold ones anger and outrage, the first thing would be to comfort the child beginning the process of helping her heal. Try to keep her from blaming herself for what happened. She needs to be loved and accepted in this moment.

Then relate to the authorities what happened. Hopefully, this piece of filth would be put away for awhile where he couldn't harm another child. But you never know these days.

Mac

I think I understand what you are saying Mac, but I would put it more in terms of not letting one's anger become rage to the point of blinding oneself, rather then holding the anger. Showing anger and outrage would be very appropriate for this situation, as I see it. The child needs to know that what she went through is just plain wrong. If her father, or any carer, shows that through said anger and by taking further actions towards defending the child immediately, she will feel protected despite what she experienced, and will have her own feelings validated.
There is, of course, a fine line here, where killing the attacker will be crossing that line, imho. Sure, one less pedophile, but not only was it unnecessary for the child to have witnessed such extreme violence, but it puts the deffender in a very difficult position with the possibility of going to jail, leaving the child without a carer.

Although this is much more easily said then done in such an extremely testing situation, and I do sympathize with the father. I'm not a mother, but I can't even begin to imagine the way I'd react should I see my own child being abused. I can see all and any good work towards containing myself going right out of the window.....

 

[lake_george]

This makes me wonder how people define 'justice'. Is justice truly, us choosing to inflict punishment upon someone for their transgressions? Do we, even a victim, have the right to incarcerate (for life) or kill someone? Considering the conditions in prisons, the other occupants; or removing the possibility for them to learn from the rest of this life by killing them.

It's a dilemma I think of often. I was sexually abused by my father for a long time - and after disclosing he was 'protected' from prison by female members of my extended family, and my mother (who still stayed with, and slept with him - and now lives with him still with my younger sister). I do still see him (12 years on from disclosing) and know I do not feel 'justice' has happened in some ways. But who is it justice 'for'? Would it be a form of vengeance?

Soluna,

It sounds so very difficult to have gone through what you did, and to have the current situation in your family. I guess you know that it happens a lot!!, far too often, that the female partner of the abuser needs him too much - emotionally, financially, etc, - to report him, much less even just get away from him in order to protect her child.

Sometimes a female who sides with the abuser is too weak in character and dependent to do the right thing, or maybe she was abused as a child and thinks she has "adjusted" and it is really "no big deal".

And yes it is true that the court system more times than not will not be able to carry out what is truly just.

The 'perfect' solution would be for the abuser to truly realize the enormity of the crime, repent and reform. Is the abuser someone who was abused himself as a child? Is he capable of remorse? Or is he seriously without a conscience - Hasnamuss.

I agree with what it sounds like you are saying: Punishment for the sake of revenge, even to a hasnamuss, just makes for MORE evil. It seems that it is evil because it is still enjoyment or satisfaction due to someone else's suffering. Best would be to lock this person up so that they cannot hurt anyone else, or fix the situation so the person does not have the opportunity to hurt anyone else.

You mentioned that you still visit your father. I am not asking this for you to answer here on this forum, but has he ever apologized to you, or acknowledged that he violated a very important boundary with you? Maybe he does feel remorse but has not said anything, maybe you can sense that. Or if he and your mother haven't changed... that calls for a lot of inner work from you, a lot of processing. It is really something that you have the compassion to visit them - if they have not changed.

One worry I have is if he really has not changed, and could still be a danger to children. If your mother does not yet understand that she needs to protect children from him, then that is very not good. For example, if they babysit a grandchild, and she leaves the child with him while she runs errands... very not good.

 

[Soluna]

I agree with what it sounds like you are saying: Punishment for the sake of revenge, even to a hasnamuss, just makes for MORE evil. It seems that it is evil because it is still enjoyment or satisfaction due to someone else's suffering. Best would be to lock this person up so that they cannot hurt anyone else, or fix the situation so the person does not have the opportunity to hurt anyone else.

You mentioned that you still visit your father. I am not asking this for you to answer here on this forum, but has he ever apologized to you, or acknowledged that he violated a very important boundary with you? Maybe he does feel remorse but has not said anything, maybe you can sense that. Or if he and your mother haven't changed... that calls for a lot of inner work from you, a lot of processing. It is really something that you have the compassion to visit them - if they have not changed.

One worry I have is if he really has not changed, and could still be a danger to children. If your mother does not yet understand that she needs to protect children from him, then that is very not good. For example, if they babysit a grandchild, and she leaves the child with him while she runs errands... very not good.

I am pretty sure that was what I was trying to say, yes =) I don't feel more punishment, is a 'good' form of justice - and I don't think the systems used in this world are able to offer a satisfactory solution to the problem.

One interesting prison I have read about is in Norway : _http://edition.cnn.com/2012/05/24/world/europe/norway-prison-bastoy-nicest/index.html?hpt=hp_c1
In some ways I guess it is like 'supervised' criminals, who can go to work and still 'contribute' to society. I think the theory is interesting, at least.

I think I was also just trying to air my thoughts on "what do people feel 'justice' really is?".

Definition: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/justice

1. The quality of being just; fairness.
2.a. The principle of moral rightness; equity.
b. Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
3.a. The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
b. Law The administration and procedure of law.
4. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason

Idiom:
do justice to
To treat adequately, fairly, or with full appreciation

2. (Philosophy) Ethics
a. the principle of fairness that like cases should be treated alike
b. a particular distribution of benefits and burdens fairly in accordance with a particular conception of what are to count as like cases
c. the principle that punishment should be proportionate to the offence
3. (Law) the administration of law according to prescribed and accepted principles
4. (Law) conformity to the law; legal validity

Of course everyone will have their own internal definition of the word - and the terms on which they will use it.

In terms of the article - the 'killing' by the father, seems to have been an accident. I hope the little girl can learn and understand that her father acted in order to protect her, out of his justified anger; but also that he had not 'intended' to kill the man (even if he perhaps had felt like doing so!). If her father is not 'punished' within the law system for inadvertently killing another (whether in self-defense or in defense of another), I hope that the little girl does not grow to assume that killing is an acceptable form of punishment. I don't know, I think she is young still to fully understand what has happened, but she will of course be very impressionable - I worry for her in the sense of what she is being told, who is doing the explaining, and 'what' is being explained.

I don't even know if a 'perfect solution' is even a correct concept - one could argue, that everything that happens and has happened, are themselves 'perfect solutions' because they are all lessons, in order to teach us something. They are 'necessary' for our learning - suffering, however distasteful - is a lesson in itself. I don't 'think' we can assume people are innocent or don't deserve their lives and their lessons. However we can learn to exercise our free will in the choices that we make - is it 'right' for us to 'choose' to intervene in others lessons? Or is our choice to intervene, a lesson in itself, for us or them? Is there a 'right' or 'wrong' answer? I find it incredibly confusing!!!


Regarding my own situation, I was very, very angry for a long time - and am still angry but less demonstrably so. I do recall a conversation with my father (although the circumstance in hindsight I find amusing. I had moved 'back' in with my family as the depression symptoms I was displaying had made me think I was 'missing' my family/siblings - however after a severe panic attack which my mother had called a 'fit' she told me she didn't want me in the house anymore, she wanted me to move out [possibly it made her feel guilty]. So [it was late in the evening] I had just walked out of the house with no shoes on and wandered around the streets for a while before my dad found me) - I 'think' he said something along the lines of 'sorry', and appeared remorseful - he was always the conciliator and 'peace maker' between my mother and I in those emotional argument situations - as he has always had that kind of father role, it has been extremely difficult for me to 'capture' how I feel about him. It is almost as if he is many different people to me.

With regards to future children around him : this has also been a subject I have thought carefully on, even if I haven't come to a comfortable solution myself. My sister will be 21 this year, and is fully aware of what happened as I have spoken to her in depth on the subject - I know she is aware of what happened, and it is therefore up to her in terms of what decisions she will/would make regarding any children she may have. Up until she was about 16-17, she was never allowed in the house alone with him (without my mother or brother present) and they were still 'aware' (according to my mother) of the situation and risks. I don't think it's as 'forefront' in their minds anymore, however I do think my mother would take precautions regarding allowing (or not allowing as the case may be) him to be alone with children.

However my brother has never been comfortable talking to me about the subject. He has never allowed me to elaborate about what happened, although I have tried to explain to him in broad terms what dad did - he didn't want to hear it or listen, so I didn't push the subject. But I don't know what, if anything, he has told his wife. I know she wants children - so regardless of my brothers wishes (whatever they may be), for my own conscience sake (in terms of risk to any children), I will definitely ask my sister-in-law what my brother has told her - and definitely inform her - should she become pregnant. So that she may have knowledge and be able to make her own decisions and choices with regards to their children. I would never want to 'put' any children at risk, and as much as I would love to protect every child and keep them from harms way and wrap them in cotton wool - I don't think it's my place to make parents choices for them. All I can do is try and give them the information that will enable them to take their own measures to protect their children.

But it does bother me, that so many parents 'don't know', and don't have that knowledge in order to take their own precautions. And even if they did - 'would' they?

 

[lake_george]

With regards to future children around him : this has also been a subject I have thought carefully on, even if I haven't come to a comfortable solution myself. My sister will be 21 this year, and is fully aware of what happened as I have spoken to her in depth on the subject - I know she is aware of what happened, and it is therefore up to her in terms of what decisions she will/would make regarding any children she may have. Up until she was about 16-17, she was never allowed in the house alone with him (without my mother or brother present) and they were still 'aware' (according to my mother) of the situation and risks. I don't think it's as 'forefront' in their minds anymore, however I do think my mother would take precautions regarding allowing (or not allowing as the case may be) him to be alone with children.

However my brother has never been comfortable talking to me about the subject. He has never allowed me to elaborate about what happened, although I have tried to explain to him in broad terms what dad did - he didn't want to hear it or listen, so I didn't push the subject. But I don't know what, if anything, he has told his wife. I know she wants children - so regardless of my brothers wishes (whatever they may be), for my own conscience sake (in terms of risk to any children), I will definitely ask my sister-in-law what my brother has told her - and definitely inform her - should she become pregnant. So that she may have knowledge and be able to make her own decisions and choices with regards to their children. I would never want to 'put' any children at risk, and as much as I would love to protect every child and keep them from harms way and wrap them in cotton wool - I don't think it's my place to make parents choices for them. All I can do is try and give them the information that will enable them to take their own measures to protect their children.

But it does bother me, that so many parents 'don't know', and don't have that knowledge in order to take their own precautions. And even if they did - 'would' they?

Hi Soluna,

It sounds like you have gone through a lot with your family - not easy at all!

You wrote that for a time your sister was not allowed in the house alone with your father... was this a rule set by the local child protective services? If so, it could well be that they still have in their records what happened and will be on the lookout for any babies born in the family so as to warn the parents about the situation. Of course the standards where you are could be slightly different.

It is quite loving and responsible of you to plan to inform parents of your future nieces and nephews of the situation.

The thing is that the way that CPS standards are in the U.S., if parents are told there is a danger and they do not protect their child from the danger, then they would very possibly be considered neglectful.

According to CPS, you are doing the right thing by telling your siblings and their partners. However, it goes further than that too - if you find out that your father is alone with a child, especially even after you have told the child's parents about the danger, then according to CPS, it becomes your responsibility to report it to CPS. I just feel like I need to let you know this.

 

[nicklebleu]

Is killing the perpetrator - apart from killing him accidently when trying to protect the child - that means with some intention, not a form of judgement? And are we not taught that we should not judge?

And does the act of killing someone not load karmic debt upon a person which will have to be balanced in another life?

Difficult questions, for which I have no answers ...

 

[anart]

Is killing the perpetrator - apart from killing him accidently when trying to protect the child - that means with some intention, not a form of judgement? And are we not taught that we should not judge?

That's a huge paramoralism you just wrote there, nicklebleu. Can you examine it and see why?

And does the act of killing someone not load karmic debt upon a person which will have to be balanced in another life?

I imagine it does, just like sexually molesting the child does - most things do.

 

[Lilou]

The grand jury has reached a decision in this case. They will not file any charges against the 23 y/o father who pummeled a man to death for attempting to molest his daughter. They said he was protecting his daughter from a rapist and both the father and the child have suffered enough.

I am not surprised, as this did happen in Texas. I agree with the grand jury - he should not face any charges.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/father-kills-molester-texas-no-charges_n_1610465.html?1340144123&icid=maing-grid7%7Ccompaq-laptop%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D171344

 

[SeekinTruth]

The grand jury has reached a decision in this case. They will not file any charges against the 23 y/o father who pummeled a man to death for attempting to molest his daughter. They said he was protecting his daughter from a rapist and both the father and the child have suffered enough.

I am not surprised, as this did happen in Texas. I agree with the grand jury - he should not face any charges.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/father-kills-molester-texas-no-charges_n_1610465.html?1340144123&icid=maing-grid7%7Ccompaq-laptop%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D171344

Good to see sanity prevailed in this case.