- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Arkansas father charged with murder after shooting 67-year-old man that had is daughter
Posted on 2/18/25 at 12:17 pm to dcbl
Posted on 2/18/25 at 12:17 pm to dcbl
A pardon is admitting he did something wrong. He did not… hold the pardon is the jury convicts. Also, I think this needs to play out in a court room. If found guilty, he needs to appeal. All the way if need be. Why? Because at what point is a father protecting a child and at what point is a child making their own decisions. At what point can a person ( male or female) groom a child to which a parent may act.
As a father I know what the consequences I’m prepared to face but on the outside I’m curious what the line is where the law says “ you can’t protect your children”.
As a father I know what the consequences I’m prepared to face but on the outside I’m curious what the line is where the law says “ you can’t protect your children”.
0
Posted on 2/18/25 at 12:30 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Did you mean illegal? Because it was.
No it wasnt, queer.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 12:32 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Boys never get groomed.
of course they do. thats SFP's hobby.
This post was edited on 2/18/25 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 2/18/25 at 12:36 pm to SlowFlowPro
Do you have a teenage daughter or any children for that matter? If not, then shut the frick up. And, if so, I pity them.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 1:12 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
You are a waste of oxygen.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 1:14 pm to David Fellows
quote:
of course they do. thats SFP's hobby.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 1:15 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The only stories I've seen her that the parents woke up and the team was missing, nothing indicating she was kidnapped or taken.
She's 14, you dumb piece of shite.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 1:16 pm to the808bass
quote:
This man was Chief of police in Indiana and resource officer, giving us a better idea of why the Lonoke county courts have been protecting him and going after my husband.” She said the Lonoke County Sheriff's Office's actions are proof that the sheriff "supports predators" and that he will prosecute those who are trying to protect their families.
Thin blue line
Posted on 2/18/25 at 1:17 pm to JColtF
What’s the problem Arkansas ! He did what most loving fathers would do.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 1:43 pm to VADawg
quote:
She's 14, you dumb piece of shite.
quote:
And again to clarify for the retards, this doesn't make it legal or good, as I've already said reality is terrible enough in this scenario. It's just about maintaining reality and not inventing fake scenarios to make it worse, well that's not necessary as reality is bad enough
Posted on 2/18/25 at 1:46 pm to David Fellows
quote:
SFP and that Roger homo guy will undoubtedly be here shortly to tell us why the father was wrong.
Ackshually….
Posted on 2/18/25 at 2:11 pm to SomewhereDownInTX
quote:
I can’t blame him or Gary Plauche for taking matters into their own hands.
Worked then, why not now?
"Judge Frank Saia ruled that sending Plauché to prison would not help anyone, and that there was virtually no risk of him committing another crime." - Wikipedia
Posted on 2/18/25 at 2:15 pm to JColtF
Not guilty
Posted on 2/18/25 at 2:17 pm to corneredbeast
I feel like we discussed this when it happened, and my question was:
- Obviously she can't consent
- I assume Arkansas permits using deadly force to stop grievous bodily harm, etc. to another
- I assume that if a woman were being forcibly raped and you shot the rapist, you may be able to avoid prosecution based on the above
- Does the law differentiate in self-defense between forcible and statutory rape?
SFP do you know the answers here?
- Obviously she can't consent
- I assume Arkansas permits using deadly force to stop grievous bodily harm, etc. to another
- I assume that if a woman were being forcibly raped and you shot the rapist, you may be able to avoid prosecution based on the above
- Does the law differentiate in self-defense between forcible and statutory rape?
SFP do you know the answers here?
Posted on 2/18/25 at 2:25 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"Self help" is typically considered vigilantism, and it seems the father engaged in self help that escalated. Since he was charged with murder, I presumed this escalation was disproportionate (ie, the dad had a weapon and the pedo did not).
You chastise everyone on this board for basing their opinions on assumptions then do the same yourself. Your contrarian personality is exhausting sometimes.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 2:49 pm to Trauma14
It’s why I took the guys advice on page 7 I think it was. SFP is either trolling or he actually believes the contrarian bs he spouts off all the time. In either case arguing with him won’t net a positive result.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 3:00 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
Arkansas Code of 1987 (2023)
Title 5 - CRIMINAL OFFENSES
(§§ 5-1-101 — 5-79-101)
Subtitle 1 - GENERAL PROVISIONS
(§§ 5-1-101 — 5-5-501)
Chapter 2 - PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
(§§ 5-2-201 — 5-2-622) Subchapter 6 - JUSTIFICATION
(§§ 5-2-601 — 5-2-622)
Section 5-2-607 - Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person
Universal Citation: AR Code § 5-2-607 (2023)
(a) A person is justified in using deadly physical force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
(1) Committing or about to commit a felony involving physical force or violence;
(2) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force; or
(3) Imminently endangering the person's life or imminently about to victimize the person from the continuation of a pattern of domestic abuse.
(b) A person is not required to retreat before using deadly physical force if the person:
(1) Is lawfully present at the location where deadly physical force is used;
(2) Has a reasonable belief that the person against whom the deadly physical force is used is imminently threatening to cause death or serious physical injury to the person or another person;
(3) Except as provided under § 5-2-606(b)(2)(B), is not the initial aggressor and has not provoked the person against whom the deadly physical force is used;
(4) Is not committing a felony offense of possession of a firearm by certain persons, § 5-73-103, with the firearm used to employ the deadly physical force, unless the person is in or at the person's dwelling or in the curtilage surrounding the person's dwelling;
(5) Is not engaged in criminal activity that gives rise to the need for the use of deadly physical force at the time the deadly physical force is used; and
(6) Is not engaged in any activity in furtherance of a criminal gang, organization, or enterprise as defined in § 5-74-103.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 3:03 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
SFP do you know the answers here?
It's highly specific to States and the fact pattern involved and I'm not a lawyer in Arkansas
My hypothesis/guess here is that, due to the way that he approached the pedophile, he cannot articulate the facts he actually witnessed necessary to establish these crimes regardless.
This post was edited on 2/18/25 at 3:08 pm
Posted on 2/18/25 at 3:04 pm to Trauma14
quote:
You chastise everyone on this board for basing their opinions on assumptions then do the same yourself.
No I clearly stated I was making an assumption. I chastise people for arguing things arre factual when the statements are only assumptions.
Posted on 2/18/25 at 3:07 pm to the808bass
I assume there have been cases involving the interpretation of statutory rape under statutes relating to force, violence, etc. that we could draw on here.
Of course, what matters is the reasonable belief element, so your daughter being in a car with a rapist gets close
But I suppose if dad had knowledge of a prior relationship with his daughter (presumably she'd been groomed into this?) perhaps that will work against him to some extent on that front.
I mean this is primed for jury nullification regardless, but it's an interesting scenario legally.
Of course, what matters is the reasonable belief element, so your daughter being in a car with a rapist gets close
But I suppose if dad had knowledge of a prior relationship with his daughter (presumably she'd been groomed into this?) perhaps that will work against him to some extent on that front.
I mean this is primed for jury nullification regardless, but it's an interesting scenario legally.
Page 9 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News