re: Arkansas father charged with murder after shooting 67-year-old man that had is daughter

quote:

---

I mean this is primed for jury nullification regardless, but it's an interesting scenario legally.

---

And that sums up much of what is wrong with our legal system in one statement.

That father is a god damn hero and deserves a medal for ridding the world of a pedophile that ALREADY raped his child.

The resident dumbass attorney shows up to show his arse "well, well, well, the father can't just ASSUME what the rapist intentions were, hardee hardee harrr."

With the lack of faith in the CJ system, understandable why some take matters into their own hands.

quote:

---

Aaron was arrested at the scene and initially charged with first-degree murder, later reduced to second-degree.

---

They already know they have a dog of a case.

Back in my day as an investigator, if there were substantial mitigating circumstances in a homicide, we would let the actor walk and let a grand jury decide his fate, with our intent being to arrest on a bench warrant if the GJ indicted, or to close the case if they no billed it (assuming the DA had no intention of bringing it back before a GJ a second time). In retrospect, our judgment in these instances was sound, because I don’t ever recall one we held off on arresting being indicted by a GJ; they were always no billed. I say all this to say, if I would have known the 67 year molested the 14 year old, I wouldn’t have arrested the dad, and I’m quite sure a rural GA GJ wouldn’t have indicted. You legal beagle types can bloviate with law all you want, that’s called knowing your community and the reality of situations. Closed case as a NK = needed killin’.

I haven't dug into it, but he wrecked a car that contained the pedo and his young teen daughter?

I agree that presumably that takes the prospect of imminent rape out of the picture, and who knows what he said/did that'll be evidence of his reasonable belief.

But that aside, I still think crafting a "my teen daughter was with a convicted pedophile rapist in a car driving off" narrative of imminent physical harm/felony isn't farfetched.

If someone I know is a child rapist is driving off with one of my kids, can I shoot them from distance to prevent the escape? I know this is iffier than that, but I think we're getting close.

quote:

---

I haven't dug into it, but he wrecked a car that contained the pedo and his young teen daughter?

---

That's what someone posted earlier. The dad was in pursuit and a wreck occurred and then a fight thereafter. I'll look for the post.

quote:

---

If someone I know is a child rapist is driving off with one of my kids, can I shoot them from distance to prevent the escape?

---

In Arkansas, per the statute posted last page, you'd probably have to argue this:

quote:

---

(a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is:

---

quote:

---

(1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving physical force or violence;

---

Now if you go back one subsection, it's just use of physical force LINK

quote:

---

(1) A person is justified in using physical force upon another person to defend himself or herself or a third person from what the person reasonably believes to be the use or imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and the person may use a degree of physical force that he or she reasonably believes to be necessary.

---

The chase part is potentially defensible.

I actually almost said earlier in this thread that he shouldn't have brought his gun and he wouldn't be in this mess.

quote:

---

He followed the car and the pedo wrecked trying to get away.

---

Ok so my summary is correct

quote:

---

As the facts have been described to me he caused a wreck on the road and then confronted the pedo.

---

quote:

---

I actually almost said earlier in this thread that he shouldn't have brought his gun and he wouldn't be in this mess.

---

I understand your point about the deadly/non-deadly distinction

But had he not brought his gun the breathing/non-breathing status of the rapist who was about to rape his daughter again would presumably remain unsettled

Not sure what your summary is since I’d rather have a habanero enema than read most of your posts, but that’s how the article reads. And using a little logic, of course.

quote:

---

But had he not brought his gun the breathing/non-breathing status of the rapist who was about to rape his daughter again would presumably remain unsettled

---

Now cmon fogger, there’s no evidence of danger and we cannot assume the perp meant her any harm. Ya know, it’s obvious to some.

quote:

---

But had he not brought his gun the breathing/non-breathing status of the rapist who was about to rape his daughter again would presumably remain unsettled

---

I don't think he could have beaten that guy to death.

Also, remember at the point he was the aggressor, or when it was clear the girl wasn't in danger, a lot of that justification goes away. It's hard for me to imagine a scenario where, post-wreck, the pedo is engaged in that behavior with the minor. That's why I was saying earlier it's hard, given the facts at hand, for the dad to articulate these concerns due to it being very difficult for him to witness the facts necessary to justify the belief, at least at certain points.

The initial car chase? Since it wasn't deadly force, he would likely slide on that one even without the direct evidence. But the situation was largely neutralized after the wreck. THAT is when it gets hairy for him.