This is absurd. Just in case you didn't hear the news:
1. Father gets notified by child that someone was in their sister's room.
2. Father grabs gun and enters room to see a 17 year old with his daughter.
3. Daughter denies knowing who the boy was.
4. Father and boy gets into it
5. The boy "reached for something".
6. Father kills boy
7. Daughter admits that 'twas her boyfriend and she brought him in
8. Charges might not be filed.
"He was reaching for something"? Really?! I would want to kill any man who is in my daughter's room, but I also would have enough common sense to evaluate the scenario. If this guy gets off, we are truly moving towards the "wild wild west".
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Father shoots/kills daughter's boyfriend
Father shoots/kills daughter's boyfriendFollow
Almalieque wrote:
This is absurd. Just in case you didn't hear the news:
1. Father gets notified by child that someone was in their sister's room.
2. Father grabs gun and enters room to see a 17 year old with his daughter.
3. Daughter denies knowing who the boy was.
4. Father and boy gets into it
5. The boy "reached for something".
6. Father kills boy
7. Daughter admits that 'twas her boyfriend and she brought him in
8. Charges might not be filed.
"He was reaching for something"? Really?! I would want to kill any man who is in my daughter's room, but I also would have enough common sense to evaluate the scenario. If this guy gets off, we are truly moving towards the "wild wild west".
1. Father gets notified by child that someone was in their sister's room.
2. Father grabs gun and enters room to see a 17 year old with his daughter.
3. Daughter denies knowing who the boy was.
4. Father and boy gets into it
5. The boy "reached for something".
6. Father kills boy
7. Daughter admits that 'twas her boyfriend and she brought him in
8. Charges might not be filed.
"He was reaching for something"? Really?! I would want to kill any man who is in my daughter's room, but I also would have enough common sense to evaluate the scenario. If this guy gets off, we are truly moving towards the "wild wild west".
Huh? How is that an issue? Simple home invasion based on your bullet points.
I thought it was some weird set of circumstances that ended up with living a dream of a thousand fathers...
Also, I think the girl learned a valuable lesson.
Edited, Mar 15th 2014 8:52am by angrymnk
Your soul was made of fists.
Jar the Sam
Jar the Sam
angrymnk wrote:
Huh? How is that an issue? Simple home invasion based on your bullet points.
How is it "home invasion" if the guy was invited in?
Edited, Mar 15th 2014 3:17pm by Almalieque
Because the father didn't know the boyfriend was invited in. His daughter had just denied knowledge of who the guy was (and presumably why he was there). If someone is in your house with your child and your child is saying they don't know the guy, "home invasion" seems a pretty reasonable jump. Even if the boy was saying "You're Julie Smith, we have Biology together and we're dating", if Miss Smith is denying knowing the dude it sounds like some creepy stalker-invasion-sexual assault thing going down.
I'm not saying he should have shot, but the fact that he did shoot under the circumstance bothers me a lot less than other recent cases.
I'm not saying he should have shot, but the fact that he did shoot under the circumstance bothers me a lot less than other recent cases.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Jophiel wrote:
Because the father didn't know the boyfriend was invited in. His daughter had just denied knowledge of who the guy was (and presumably why he was there). If someone is in your house with your child and your child is saying they don't know the guy, "home invasion" seems a pretty reasonable jump. Even if the boy was saying "You're Julie Smith, we have Biology together and we're dating", if Miss Smith is denying knowing the dude it sounds like some creepy stalker-invasion-sexual assault thing going down.
I'm not saying he should have shot, but the fact that he did shoot under the circumstance bothers me a lot less than other recent cases.
I'm not saying he should have shot, but the fact that he did shoot under the circumstance bothers me a lot less than other recent cases.
I can see how it would be "home invasion" from that point of view. The only problem is that point of view violates the Prudent Man Rule. You can't just go around creating lies and acting upon them.
He wasn't just in the room, he was in the bed with the daughter.
Only thing noteworthy here is this paper even entertaining the idea that charges might be filed.
Only thing noteworthy here is this paper even entertaining the idea that charges might be filed.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
While a sad circumstance all around, I can understand the father's actions. His daughter denied knowing the guy, and the guy "reached for something". If there's some guy in bed with his daughter and she says she doesn't know him, he's going to think she didn't want him there. If the guy then reaches for something, the father is going to think that he's grabbing for whatever weapon the guy was just using to rape his daughter.
Edited, Mar 15th 2014 10:34am by Spoonless
Edited, Mar 15th 2014 10:34am by Spoonless
Almalieque wrote:
You can't just go around creating lies and acting upon them.
He didn't create a lie. He was told a lie and acted on what he thought was accurate information.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
I'm more angry at the daughter in this situation.
Your boyfriend is in bed with you and you tell your father "I don't know him?"
Sure, she knew she was breaking some rule, probably an established one, by having a guy in her room without her parent's permission, but lying to a trigger happy dad is the stupidest thing in the world.
Your boyfriend is in bed with you and you tell your father "I don't know him?"
Sure, she knew she was breaking some rule, probably an established one, by having a guy in her room without her parent's permission, but lying to a trigger happy dad is the stupidest thing in the world.
Catwho wrote:
but lying to a trigger happy dad is the stupidest thing in the world.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
lolgaxe wrote:
He wasn't just in the room, he was in the bed with the daughter.
Only thing noteworthy here is this paper even entertaining the idea that charges might be filed.
Only thing noteworthy here is this paper even entertaining the idea that charges might be filed.
That even proves the point. I would imagine a 16 year old girl getting raped in her bedroom at night, while the entire family is there, would be beyond distraught. That feeling is something that the father would know before entering the room given that the sibling heard sounds. He wouldn't have to ask her if she knows him.
Spoonless wrote:
While a sad circumstance all around, I can understand the father's actions. His daughter denied knowing the guy, and the guy "reached for something". If there's some guy in bed with his daughter and she says she doesn't know him, he's going to think she didn't want him there. If the guy then reaches for something, the father is going to think that he's grabbing for whatever weapon the guy was just using to rape his daughter.
Edited, Mar 15th 2014 10:34am by Spoonless
Edited, Mar 15th 2014 10:34am by Spoonless
Read above. There is no understanding of that man. Nothing presented supports the notion that this was a random guy raping his daughter as opposed to a child getting caught sneaking someone over. If this 17 year old was randomly raping 16 year girls in their bedroom at night while everyone is at home, he would have had his weapon from the start. He wouldn't get in a discussion with the guy first then go reach for a weapon.
It's blatantly obvious that the father just wanted to kill the boy for touching his daughter. A feeling that all fathers have, but shouldn't be ignorantly acted upon.
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
You can't just go around creating lies and acting upon them.
He didn't create a lie. He was told a lie and acted on what he thought was accurate information.
He was told a lie. He evaluated the lie. He concluded that 'twas a lie. He then LIED to himself and said 'twas true and acted upon the lie. In other words, he told himself that the daughter's lie was true. He then created a false scenario where he felt threatened.
Almalieque wrote:
He was told a lie. He evaluated the lie. He concluded that 'twas a lie. He then LIED to himself and said 'twas true and acted upon the lie. In other words, he told himself that the daughter's lie was true. He then created a false scenario where he felt threatened.
That's a whole lot of conjecture on your part.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Little girl lies and boyfriend dies. Stupid girl.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Man, that girl must be feeling like sticky Shit right about now.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
Man, that girl must be feeling like sticky Shit right about now.
Maybe he wasn't very good so she was going to dump him anyway?
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
It's ok because it happened in 'Merica and the man used a gun to murder the boy. I can't believe this is even news.
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.
Kuwoobie wrote:
It's ok because it happened in 'Merica and the man used a gun to murder the boy. I can't believe this is even news.
I can't believe it didn't happen in Florida.
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.
#18Almalieque,
Posted: Mar 15 2014 at 11:51 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Quite the contrary. It's a lot of conjecture for the father to have felt threatened and thought his daughter was being sexually assaulted in her own room with her family present. Given the facts that there was no weapon and the daughter's admittance, we know that there wasn't any malice.
I've never seen the law and a crime so misinterpreted in my life. It's almost breath-taking.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Says the person who loves guns.
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Huh? How is that an issue? Simple home invasion based on your bullet points.
How is it "home invasion" if the guy was invited in?
Edited, Mar 15th 2014 3:17pm by Almalieque
Who invited him? The girl? If so, she failed to mention that until after he was dead.
At 2 AM, home owner has every right to consider the worst.
Like I said, girl learned a valuable lesson.
Your soul was made of fists.
Jar the Sam
Jar the Sam
About the only way the father is going to jail is if his daughter testifies against him.
So no, he won't be going to jail. Tragic, but not murder based on what we "know".
So no, he won't be going to jail. Tragic, but not murder based on what we "know".
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin
angrymnk wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Huh? How is that an issue? Simple home invasion based on your bullet points.
How is it "home invasion" if the guy was invited in?
Edited, Mar 15th 2014 3:17pm by Almalieque
Who invited him? The girl? If so, she failed to mention that until after he was dead.
At 2 AM, home owner has every right to consider the worst.
Like I said, girl learned a valuable lesson.
You can consider the worst all you want. That doesn't give you the authority to act on it, especially when there isn't any evidence to support your claim. You know that blade runner guy? Yea... You can't just go busting in rooms killing people based on your worst beliefs when all of the evidence contradicts them.
Omegavegeta wrote:
About the only way the father is going to jail is if his daughter testifies against him.
So no, he won't be going to jail. Tragic, but not murder based on what we "know".
So no, he won't be going to jail. Tragic, but not murder based on what we "know".
You mean the girl who initiated and lied about the situation?
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Huh? How is that an issue? Simple home invasion based on your bullet points.
How is it "home invasion" if the guy was invited in?
Edited, Mar 15th 2014 3:17pm by Almalieque
Who invited him? The girl? If so, she failed to mention that until after he was dead.
At 2 AM, home owner has every right to consider the worst.
Like I said, girl learned a valuable lesson.
You can consider the worst all you want. That doesn't give you the authority to act on it, especially when there isn't any evidence to support your claim. You know that blade runner guy? Yea... You can't just go busting in rooms killing people based on your worst beliefs when all of the evidence contradicts them.
*shrug* When I am worried about my life or the life of the ones close to me, there is little precious time for jurisprudence.
They will figure it out afterwards. If I was wrong.. well, I did what I thought was right given the set of information at my disposal at the time.
I am sure more facts will surface and it may affect public opinion somewhat, but as it stands right now, you are simply wrong. I am not even sure why we are discussing it.
No, really. Why are we discussing it? I get a feeling that you have lost a puppy or something.
Edited, Mar 15th 2014 2:48pm by angrymnk
Your soul was made of fists.
Jar the Sam
Jar the Sam
angrymnk wrote:
. *shrug* When I am worried about my life or the life of the ones close to me, there is little precious time for jurisprudence.
They will figure it out afterwards. If I was wrong.. well, I did what I thought was right given the set of information at my disposal at the time.
I am sure more facts will surface and it may affect public opinion somewhat, but as it stands right now, you are simply wrong. I am not even sure why we are discussing it.
No, really. Why are we discussing it?
They will figure it out afterwards. If I was wrong.. well, I did what I thought was right given the set of information at my disposal at the time.
I am sure more facts will surface and it may affect public opinion somewhat, but as it stands right now, you are simply wrong. I am not even sure why we are discussing it.
No, really. Why are we discussing it?
He didn't, nor any prudent person in that situation, think that he was doing the right thing. This isn't 1940... Teenagers tend to have sex. Teenagers often sneak in/out of rooms. Teenagers often lie to their parents about their love life. There was absolutely no evidence of his daughter being raped.
I'm not claiming that he did or didn't violate any laws. I'm claiming that what he did was wrong. Just like the up skirt picture scandal. It was totally legal and legit.
Recent Visitors: 2803
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (2803)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Father shoots/kills daughter's boyfriend
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC