- Apr 16, 2010
- Reaction score
Bottom line is the father has the right to do what needs to be done to stop the sexual assault. That may very well be all that he was trying to do and it resulted in the assailant's death.
But no matter what the crime against his child was, the father doesn't have the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. We have a judicial system for that.
This is an interesting point, the worry is that to allow individuals to take the law into their own hands, to make situational exceptions, will somehow encourage vigilantism. The idea is that all individuals are entitled to due process in order to ensure that some sort of impartial justice is done. I am however skeptical in this case. I do not believe that a group of individuals, who had nothing to do with the situation, who were carefully selected in some cases by a lawyer, who are fed carefully metered out information and evidence based upon a judges interpretation of what ever laws regulate what information will be allowed, will be able to better mete out justice than a man who has discovered his four year old child being raped before his very eyes. I absolutely believe that due diligence should be exercised (in terms of investigation), and if the evidence supports the mans story then he should be considered a hero. I am fine with this, and wish more child rapists met with the same fate.