Indiana Father Kills Sex Offender Who Broke Into Home

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Sonya610

 

Well then agree to disagree then, because what I am saying is that I think these kinds of violent sex offenders are so sick mentally that they don't perceive right and wrong in the same rational and sane way that we, the normal people, do. That's what makes them sick; they think it's 'okay'.

I am not making excuses for them. I have been quite clear as to how I feel they should be dealt with. Still, I think it's a misinterpretation to think they have a fully cognizant understanding of their actions, or even that it is sexual in nature.

they are cognizant, they know what they are doing because what they do is based on their 'sexual preference'.

just as gay people cannot be 'cured' of their gayness...

and as heterosexuals cannot be 'cured' of their sexual preference.

pedo's too have their sexual preference.

years ago homosexuality was regarded as deviant, evil and an abomination.

we now know it is inherent sexual preference.

now the pedo' are in the forefront, they are regarded the same...

deviant, evil and abomination.

are homosexuals 'sick'?

no, but people used to think so.

anyone see a pattern?

reply to post by fmcanarney


I didn't follow to the source and had limited info. My bad. I was defending a bad guy. Well, I hope this is the case. Sometimes the intel is bad and people get killed for no reason and nobody but me speaks up.

Originally posted by Mukantagara
Quoting from the article:
www.foxnews.com...

"Police did not anticipate any charges against McNally."
"In this situation, I don't think he was trying to kill him..."
"The death is under investigation and will be reviewed by a Marion County prosecutor."
"Nobody wins..."
"It's a lose-lose situation for everybody. He (rapist) has family also."

Now, I've been accused of being hypersensitive to the bias in the mainstream media. But I have seen this "poor filth bag" under tone in nearly every story where a man has killed a piece of trash like this. And the tone gets accusatory towards the defender of his home and family when he uses a gun.

We were talking about this at work and nearly all the men agreed, hang em' and hang em' high. A dead child-molesting monster won't ruin the lives of more children nor will he kill any more children. There are big winners here, the man, his wife, society at large and especially his daughter.

its not your imagination, it is a clear example of the MSM shaping public opinion with subtle, suggestive wording.

it is the ubiquitous, relentless and constant conditioning and programming of the public conscious that is the intent of all the MSM.

Originally posted by feydrautha
they are cognizant, they know what they are doing because what they do is based on their 'sexual preference'.

I agree, they know what they are doing. And at the same time there are plenty of people that DO have the desire to rape, or molest kids, or whatever, and they consciously do not act on those desires simply because they have a conscience and they feel it would be very wrong to do so (they have empathy).

However many others that do not have empathy, and do act on their desires may fully realize they are causing a massive amount of trauma for the victim, they just don't care.

Originally posted by avingard

Originally posted by earthman4
I think death is too strong a punishment for the crime. I don't think the homeowner should be charged but he should be ashamed. I bet the sex offender got caught taking a leak in an alley. Maybe he was lost. Maybe he was going to rape. His crime was trespassing. You can't deal a death penalty until they commit the crime. I know it seems wrong but it is just.

He was naked in the girls bedroom; there is absolutely no rationalizing a possible case, legal or moral, against the father. You should be ashamed for blaming this man rather than applauding him. A naked man in a 17 year old's bedroom is not lost, he was not taking a leak in the alley he intended to molest, rape, or worse.

Your position doesn't seem wrong, it is wrong.

I admit my wrongness, I was too quick to defend against mob behavior. I still reserve the right to assume the alleged rapist could have been set up and all the info is wrong. But I bet it is right and the bastard deserved to die. But, what if he didn't? Is my doubt truley unreasonable? I just can't judge if a human should die by a few words printed on a screen.

reply to post by sos37

Very good post. I have an aluminum baseball bat under my bed for any intruder. Anyone who breaks in will have to hope I cut them some slack. Maybe, but legally once they break in they are fair game.

Originally posted by feydrautha

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by mybigunit

 

Maybe if they'd whacked him once or twice and not "beaten the hell out of him" it'd be ok.

Having someone break into your house does not give you a legal, nor IMO a moral right to inflict injury or pain for your own emotional satisfaction, only to protect your posessions and safety. Once the guy was subdued they could/should have tied him up.

so, do you think the family of the dead guy should now sue for wrongful death?

in ohio, until very recently, if someone broke into your home, under law, your only option was to leave if you could.

thats changed, and rightly so, if someone invades your home now, shoot first and ask questions later.

if the criminal invades your home, knowing that they risk paying with their lives, then the decision is theirs.

not mine, because i will shoot. thats a given.

its not that i think my tv is worth more than their life, its that the theif must decide wether their own life is worth stealing my tv over.

because i will shoot them, and to avoid any civil lawsuit later, it will be a decidedly fatal shot.

But what about the scenario where a drunk niehbor walks in the wrong house? Does he deserve to die? We have to have some moral dignity to hold off on the immidiate dispensing of justice. we must have the whole story before we execute another person.

Originally posted by son of PC
reply to post by sos37

 

Very good post. I have an aluminum baseball bat under my bed for any intruder. Anyone who breaks in will have to hope I cut them some slack. Maybe, but legally once they break in they are fair game.

I would bash them once or twice and then call the ambulance and cops. I would not beat them to a bloody pulp. That is where my morals are.

Originally posted by Sonya610
I agree, they know what they are doing. And at the same time there are plenty of people that DO have the desire to rape, or molest kids, or whatever, and they consciously do not act on those desires simply because they have a conscience and they feel it would be very wrong to do so (they have empathy).

However many others that do not have empathy, and do act on their desires may fully realize they are causing a massive amount of trauma for the victim, they just don't care.

to use the homosexual analogy again:

years ago homosexual men and women would marry the opposite sex, have children and raise families because they would do just that. repress their true self.

they had their inherent sexual preference, yet did not act on it, due to societal pressures.

pedo's are no different, the problem is how to confront this?

homosexuality was unlawful, regarded as the actions of a sick, deranged person...

again, pedos are no different.

well, but with one important difference:

homosexuals have consenting partners...

pedo's do not.

well... at least not in this society, there is a culture i know of that does indeed accommodate pedos lawfully and in gods eyes, but thats another topic.

so, how does our society approach the pedo sexual preference?

do we create life-like androids for them?

Originally posted by son of PC
Very good post. I have an aluminum baseball bat under my bed for any intruder. Anyone who breaks in will have to hope I cut them some slack. Maybe, but legally once they break in they are fair game.

if you injure them, or cause a disability, they could sue you in civil court, anyone can sue for any reasons, anytime.

dead intruders arent as fussy about civil lawsuits, if you get my drift.

reply to post by earthman4


then get ready for a life changing civil lawsuit...

you might avoid criminal charges, but a civil court jury could easily rule against you.

roll the dice, if you like.

Originally posted by earthman4

But what about the scenario where a drunk niehbor walks in the wrong house? Does he deserve to die? We have to have some moral dignity to hold off on the immidiate dispensing of justice. we must have the whole story before we execute another person.

if he is acting in a threatening manner, where you believe your life or the life of your family is at risk, then yes, defend yourself.

if he's just a drunk dope, send the sot home...

accidents do happen, if the drunk wanders into a house where there is a frightened little old lady, and she shoots, then its no different than if the drunk stumbles into traffic and is killed by a car.

accidental death. tragic.

Originally posted by feydrautha
pedo's are no different, the problem is how to confront this?

Okay now I am a bit confused, this guy was a rapist. Yes the intended victim was 17 but that is legal in some states and that does not make this guy a pedo.

I don't know that rape is a "sexual preference" in as much as most rapists do have sexual relationships with willing partners, and they could always hire them if need be. Rape is not a sexual preference.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by Sonya610]

reply to post by Sonya610


he was in his 50's, she was a minor. that makes him a pedophile

pedo's do not engage in their preferred sexual activity without rape in one form or another... their partners do not consent.

if he was simply a rapist, a female of any age would do, but he liked 'em young.

Originally posted by feydrautha
pedo's do not engage in their preferred sexual activity without rape in one form or another... their partners do not consent.

17 year olds have the bodies of WOMEN. Sheesh how many guys secretly admired Britney Spears when she was 17? Did that make them all pedophiles? Of course not!

If they have an attraction to children with immature bodies, THAT is a sexual preference because they cannot be arroused by older individuals. But 17 year olds? I am quite sure this guy can and has been arroused by older, legal adults as well.

Originally posted by earthman4

Originally posted by feydrautha

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by mybigunit

 

But what about the scenario where a drunk niehbor walks in the wrong house? Does he deserve to die? We have to have some moral dignity to hold off on the immidiate dispensing of justice. we must have the whole story before we execute another person.

No he shouldnt be this guy obviously was going to Rape the mans daughter so i would have done the same and whooped that guy. Dont mess with my family.

[edit on 1-10-2008 by mrfire9]

reply to post by feydrautha


the age of consent in indiana is 16, so technically she isn`t a minor.

oh and its illegal to be gay in kansas (fact #75763894 of the day) and you can be sent to prison for it.....


woot fr the 21st century

Any intruder in my home will have to first deal with my Pitbull. That's the easy part for them. They will next have to face a bitter old man who clings to religion and sleeps with a pair of .45 caliber automatics.

reply to post by earthman4


Lol. that is like saying the bank robber didn't do anything yet. just cuz he was holding a gun to a tellers head. did not mean he was going to rob the bank. he didn't actually walk out with the money yet. Think about it man. Sometimes you got to read between the lines. I really hope for your safety. that you learn this. I think I would have did the same thing. I stand behind the father that killed him. if anyone is to blame its this P.O.S. system we have. If a bartender gives somebody to much to drink. and the driver gets behind the wheel. the bar tender is the one to blame and get charged. In this case the state was the bar tender.