Saturday, September 13, 2008

I Don't Think I Can Agree With This Charge

If a father suddenly hears noises from his daughter's room in the morning finds a naked male standing on his daughter's bed, should he solicit information first or start swinging? And would you expect him to go into the bedroom unarmed?

DELTONA, Fla. — An angry Deltona father whacked his teenage daughter's boyfriend with a metal pipe after finding the boy naked in his daughter's room.

Authorities say the father, 45, didn't even know his daughter had a boyfriend or that the youngster had been sneaking into the home for more than a year.

When he heard noises coming from his daughter's bedroom Thursday morning and saw a stranger standing naked on the girl's bed, he swung a metal pipe. He then chased the teen out the front door and called police.

The boy was taken to the hospital where doctors closed a head wound with staples.

The father was charged with aggravated battery on a child and bonded out on $10,000.

I can't blame him. Hope he's found "not guilty" when he's tried.

36 comments:

Law and Order Teacher said...

Closed a wound on his head? That would have been the easy way out if I was in that guy's position. Dead, maybe.

Scott McCall said...

are you kidding me? he assaulted a teenage male? and i'm sure that the father could tell what was OBVIOUSLY going on based on the facial expressions....

it would be different if it was an older male clearly not that of the girls age, or if it was clear the teenage male was sexually assaulting the daughter.

and if the father didnt know for ONE FULL YEAR.....i think he's futher to blame for not staying involved in his daughters life. so what if she doesn't communicate with him....a dad should be able to tell if she's been having a relationship.....especially FOR ONE YEAR.

Darren said...

If I didn't know the previous two commenters, I'll bet I could still tell which was the teenager and which was not!

Robert Talbert said...

The fact that the docs could staple the kid's head back together ought to serve as some kind of evidence on the father's behalf that was exercising restraint. Had it been one of my daughters, I'm pretty certain that I would have been a bit more "thorough".

Anonymous said...

I'm with you, Darren! My first daughter is about to be born and I don't know if I'd have settled for chasing the boy away.

rightwingprof said...

He must be a deep sleeper. And this happened in Florida? Florida? What's going on down there?

DADvocate said...

I hope he's found "not guilty" too.

Of course, upon finding a stranger in one's house, one should always ask for proof of identity and age before attacking. I wouldn't have dreamed of sneaking into a girlfriend's house when I was a teenager.

Darren said...

Me, either. I always came right through the front door--completely under the radar. Parents loved me!

If they only knew....

Anonymous said...

If you guys think you have the edge---that boy better be glad 'Momma" wasn't the one that found him--"Bobbitt" mean anything to ya?

Ellen K said...

First of all, if it had happened in Texas, he would have been justified in shooting first and asking questions later, so I guess in that regard the kid is geographically lucky. On the other hand, if it had been my daughter involved, her Dad wouldn't have had a chance to knock him in the head because I would thrown him through the window. And my daughter would be in a nice convent school. But honestly, how was he to know the kid wasn't some rapist who had surreptitiously entered the home. There have been cases where that has happened. I can't imagine any DA would actually expect this case to go to trial. If it does, I hope the father gets a nasty lawyer and turns around and files a civil suit for statutory rape.

Donalbain said...

The assaulted teenager is described as a "youngster" which would mean that if he was able press rape charges, his daughter would no doubt end up being charged as well, since he raped the youngster just as much as he raped her.

Darren said...

I have no idea what you're saying. To whom are you referring when you say "he"?

Donalbain said...

Bad sentence structure! Will try again!

Dramatis Personae:
Man: Person who assaulted the teenager
TeenageBoy: Person who was sleeping with a girl..
TeenageGirl: Person who was sleeping with a boy

If MAN is able to sue TEENAGEBOY for statutory rape, then TEENAGEGIRL will be equally open to an identical lawsuit (since TEENAGEBOY has been described as a child). Thus MAN would be somewhat silly to start such legal proceedings.

rightwingprof said...

Where I come from, that would be grounds for justifiable homicide.

Darren said...

Donalbain, you are not correct. Statutory rape can only occur when one of the involved parties is a minor and the other has reached majority. If they're both minors, no statutory rape has occurred.

Interestingly enough, though, here is the law in California (the above story did not take place in California, though):

The age of consent, as well as the age of majority, is 18 in California. However, if the adult is within 3 yrs of the minor's age, only a misdemeanor has occurred. (I assume this is so the high school seniors can still have sex with the freshmen???) If the adult is more than 3 years older than the minor, though, then a felony has occurred.

Anyway, since we're given no indication on whether or not either sexual partner in the story above was a minor or an adult, we can make no determination on whether or not statutory rape has taken place.

Donalbain said...

Which is why I was careful to state that TEENAGEGIRL is open to the charge *if* TEENAGEBOY is. We are very specifically told that TEENAGEBOY is a child in the story.

Frankly, I hope that MAN is found guilty, since the facts seem very clear to me.

Matt Johnston said...

Well, the Dad is certainly guilty of battery (facts indicate that he did indeed strike the boy and that is all that is necessary). However, Florida law almost certainly permits a defense of home and family circumstance as a mitigating factor. I would almost certainly ask for a jury trial if the dad is charged and dare a prosecutor to take the case.

Then again, you have to wonder how "ignorant" dad is for not being aware of a teenage boy in your house regularly for a year.

That is the problem with most housing in Florida, most of it is one story with big windows, east to get in an out of.

MikeAT said...

“Donalbain said...
Bad sentence structure! Will try again!

Dramatis Personae:
Man: Person who assaulted the teenager
TeenageBoy: Person who was sleeping with a girl..
TeenageGirl: Person who was sleeping with a boy

If MAN is able to sue TEENAGEBOY for statutory rape, then TEENAGEGIRL will be equally open to an identical lawsuit (since TEENAGEBOY has been described as a child). Thus MAN would be somewhat silly to start such legal proceedings.”

Donalbain, bad legal structure, allow me to clarify.

The man will not sue. You sue when there is a civil action between people, i.e. contract law.

In this matter of the father the County District Attorney will first accept charges of some sort of assault. I don’t know the details of the laws of Florida but in Texas he would be looking at a 2nd Degree Felony, i.e. Aggravated Assault Deadly Weapon. And yes, striking someone above the neck with a blunt object is considered deadly force.

Next, the DA brings the case in front of a Grand Jury which decides to indict or not. Now this may shock some of you out there but sometimes newspapers, TV stations etc leave out minor details from a story. Hopefully the GA gets the full story and they make a decision.

Then we go to a full trial.

As far as the rape, assuming we don’t have as Darren alluded an “Affirmative Defense” (I.E. in Texas there if the two were within three years of age (e.g. she 14, he 16) that would stop prosecution) again we go to accepting charges, Grand Jury review/indictment and trial. In Texas, he's looking at a 1st Degree Felony with possible 20 to Life.

I don’t know the neighborhood in Florida but here in Houston/Harris County Texas members of a Grand Jury or Criminal Jury tend cut people slack when they walk into a house and find a perfect stranger in the place…especially when he’s buck naked by the man’s little girl.

We’ll see how the justice goes on in Florida. Personally if I was the defense attorney I would love to take this to trial in front of a jury of 12 parents of daughters…I think I would have a good chance with them.

Also, a staple in the scalp isn’t that big a deal. It’s what we use instead of stitches for large cuts now because they are quicker and easier to apply/remove. I know…I’ve had about 20 over the years.

Donalbain said...

The teenage boy is a child. Thus, if the girl was raped, then so was he. And it was not me who first spoke of civil suits, it was ellen k.

As for people saying that the assault is acceptable, that is truly, truly disgusting.

MikeAT said...

“The teenage boy is a child.”

How much of a child you are as a teenager is a relative term. At 17, I can enlist in the military (with parental permission) and fight and die for my county. At 18, I don’t’ need anyone’s permission. At 18, I can buy tobacco but not alcohol, but I can still die for my country. At 16 in many states I can drive a vehicle which makes me much more independent than before in my life. Suffice to say a 13 year old is more of a “child” than a 17 year old.

“Thus, if the girl was raped, then so was he.”

Donalbain, get a clue. If you’re walking down the street, someone grabs your wallet, you punch them as they as they are grabbing your wallet, did you assault that person? If a 35 year old woman is walking down the street, a man forces himself on her and she scratches and claws was he assaulted? That “logic” reminds me of the idiot judge (I believe from New York….you can believe it came from there) who threw out a rape charge against a man because she asked him to use a condom, he did and the judge, in his “infinite wisdom” ruled this was consent. Now, from the article we can’t determine what were the ages of the daughter and boyfriend but I speculate they are less than 18 years old because the media doesn’t list their names. The age of consent if FL is 18 but here are there are exceptions to permit persons under 24 to engage in sex assuming the minor is 16 or older (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#Florida …granted, not a great source but I’m not using some rag like the New York Times) I will assume for the purposes of this discussion they were both teenagers but if she was 15 or younger she cannot consent.

War story, a year ago I was dispatched to a call of a 11 year old who gave birth at Texas Children’s Hospital. The proud 21 year old daddy was there. Tell me, did the fact the new momma saying “No, this is true love…” change the facts? No it didn’t. He’s pending trial for Aggravated Sexual Assault and is looking at the rest of his life in Huntsville.

“And it was not me who first spoke of civil suits, it was Ellen k.”

May I quote you…
“If MAN is able to sue TEENAGEBOY for statutory rape, then TEENAGEGIRL will be equally open to an identical lawsuit (since TEENAGEBOY has been described as a child). Thus MAN would be somewhat silly to start such legal proceedings.”

Your right, Ellen K did say it before you. And you are still wrong. Civil suits are not a part of this issue. It’s criminal law. In criminal law, you don’t file suits; you press charges (see previous posting). Donalbain if you were wrong based on incorrect information on a posting or you own lack of knowledge, don’t get upset…you were wrong and it’s a minor correction, act like an adult.

“As for people saying that the assault is acceptable, that is truly, truly disgusting.”

Donalbain, scenario. You’re visiting Houston (where I am a cop) and someone starts slapping the hell out of you. I see it…should I assault the man slapping your around to stop him from beating you up? Take it from me they often don’t listen when I say “Stop M^&%$# F&^%*^! or your dead” or other such language, even as I’m augmenting my point of discussion with my Sig Sauer Model 229. Then after I strike him with my baton to get the turd in cuffs three witnesses come up and say “NO, NO, NO!!...it was Donalbain that started the fight!” Sometimes you have to take action quick. Now put yourself in the father’s role. A naked male is in his house without his permission. The assumption is he’s up to no good. And if he’s naked next to my little girl that is a safe assumption.

The boy had no business in the man’s house. If he was in house my like that (and no, I don’t have any children) a good chance he would need more than a “staples” to recover.

Bloke said...

No. It isnt relative. The charge against the father of the girl is "aggravated battery on a child".

Both parties to the sex were equally able to offer consent. Hence if one of them was raped, then so was the other. The only issue here is age of consent, not consent itself. We can be VERY certain that the girl consented to the sex since it had been going on for a long time in her own house. The only issue is who can offer "informed consent" under the law. The ONLY thing we know is that legally the teenager who was assaulted was a child.

As for your scenario in Huston, it is staggeringly stupid since nobody was "slapping the hell out of" anyone except for the father who assaulted his daughter's guest. The girl was NOT raped against her will. She was having consensual sex. Yes, she may have been below the age of consent, but so might the boy. And the BOY is the one who is described legally as a child, so on the information we have, it is just as likely that the GIRL is the one who is guilty of statutory rape.

I think the issue is that we are all focussing on the idea that this is a "little girl". It obviously isnt. It is a teenage girl who has invited a boy back to her house for the purposes of having sex, and has done so for quite some time.

MikeAT said...

No. It isnt relative. The charge against the father of the girl is "aggravated battery on a child".

Specifics please…what is not relative to the charge of aggravated battery? And in case you haven’t caught the gist of my last post, I am questioning if the boy was committing sexual assault base on ages.

“Both parties to the sex were equally able to offer consent. Hence if one of them was raped, then so was the other. “

You don’t know that from the article. You're assuming that the girl was of age she could consent (not likely with an 18 year old consent law in FL and another point I will make later in this post) or they were close enough in age that there was an affirmative defense.

“The only issue here is age of consent, not consent itself. We can be VERY certain that the girl consented to the sex since it had been going on for a long time in her own house. The only issue is who can offer "informed consent" under the law. “

I refer you back to my previous post. If she was under 16 she should could not, in “the eyes of the law”, consent to sex. This is not something to do with maturity or nature but with the law. The state of Florida has set its standard.

“The ONLY thing we know is that legally the teenager who was assaulted was a child.”

Wrong. We can presume that the girl and boy were under the age of 18. I say that because unlike many sources of information, when an actor in a crime or other incident is under 18 or 16 (varies by paper, type of incident) the paper will not print their name. But the boy could be 17, the girl 14. That would make it very serious for the 17 year old.

“As for your scenario in Huston, it is staggeringly stupid since nobody was "slapping the hell out of" anyone except for the father who assaulted his daughter's guest. The girl was NOT raped against her will. She was having consensual sex. Yes, she may have been below the age of consent, but so might the boy. And the BOY is the one who is described legally as a child, so on the information we have, it is just as likely that the GIRL is the one who is guilty of statutory rape.”

One get a spell checker. It’s Houston, not “Huston”. Two, get a clue. I put that as an example of how people when put in a scenario with only a few of the facts may make hasty decisions. From the article we can safely assume both boy/girl were less than 18 and we know Dad walked in on a naked boy with his girl in his house. To say the least Dad is not going to react well.

“I think the issue is that we are all focussing on the idea that this is a "little girl". It obviously isnt. It is a teenage girl who has invited a boy back to her house for the purposes of having sex, and has done so for quite some time.”

Please check your English. It’s not “It obviously isnt”, but “she obviously isn’t”. Now In your eyes, she is somewhat mature. In the father’s eyes, that is his little girl. Now he may have some problems dealing with the fact his “little girl” is growing up and discovering sex (he’s not the first and won’t be the last dad who has) but he doesn’t grant this boy access to her at the man’s home. The boy goes into there, engages in sex with his daughter and is found out then getting his ass kicked is the least he should expect.

Bloke said...

The boy who was assaulted is under the age of 18. That is a matter of Florida law.

http://law.justia.com/florida/codes/TitleXLVI/ch0827.html

So, he is under the age of consent in Florida. So, he is just as much a victim in the matter of sex as the girl. However, it seems that neither has commited a crime. But, as always, the blame is laid on the boy, because as a society, we like to imagine our girls are pure and innocent and must have been made to do this horrible thing. But the facts do NOT support that reading of events. SHE invited him to her house, over a longish period of time. SHE wanted this sex just as much as he did.

This reminds me of the difference in attitudes to teachers who have sex with their students. When it is a man having sex with a female student, he is villified in the press, and the prevailing attitude is one of disgust. However, when a female teacher (particularly an attractive one) has sex with a boy, the attitude is one of "lucky dog! I wish I could have done that". Now, I am not saying that anyone here has that attitude, but it is the overall reaction of society.

If the roles were reversed and the father found a girl in his son's bedroom and assaulted the girl, nobody would applaud him for that. Would they?

And as for your example of someone making a decision hastily, of they make a hasty decision and end up assault someone as a result, they should be charged and put in jail.

MikeAT said...

Bloke
You’re grabbing the wrong end of the stick, again.

“The boy who was assaulted is under the age of 18. That is a matter of Florida law.”

No, his age is a matter of time. I have conceded he is probably a juvenile because he was not identified in the newspaper article.

“So, he is under the age of consent in Florida. So, he is just as much a victim in the matter of sex as the girl. However, it seems that neither has commited a crime.”

Let me try this again.

1. I believe the boy and girl are both under the age of 18. So do you.

2. As far as a crime is concerned, we cannot be sure. Again, I think it’s safe to assume both are under the age of 18. Now the laws in the states all have some type of affirmative defense because of closeness in age of both actors. Now the question we don’t have is how far away in age are the two. If they are 17/17, sexual assault is not an issue (Assuming one is not disabled and not able to make the decisions). But if he’s 17 and she’s 13 then we have a problem. We just don’t know that detail from the article and you are assuming both are in near age to each other.

“But, as always, the blame is laid on the boy, because as a society, we like to imagine our girls are pure and innocent and must have been made to do this horrible thing. But the facts do NOT support that reading of events. SHE invited him to her house, over a longish period of time. SHE wanted this sex just as much as he did.”

Agreed, we want to keep out little girls pure and innocent and they are not always so. And yes according to the article this was a long term affair (that would be “long period of time” not “longish period of time”). That is not in dispute. What is in question is can she (or he for the matter) consent under FL law. We don’t know.

“This reminds me of the difference in attitudes to teachers who have sex with their students. When it is a man having sex with a female student, he is villified in the press, and the prevailing attitude is one of disgust. However, when a female teacher (particularly an attractive one) has sex with a boy, the attitude is one of "lucky dog! I wish I could have done that". Now, I am not saying that anyone here has that attitude, but it is the overall reaction of society.”

No, the attitude is one of “Lucky Bastard!” Ok former teacher, enjoy your time as a registered sexual offender, loss of your career, time in jail/fines, etc. Hope he was worth it.

“If the roles were reversed and the father found a girl in his son's bedroom and assaulted the girl, nobody would applaud him for that. Would they?”

No they wouldn’t…but I take it he was bigger than her and we in Western Society don’t like it when men/boys beat up on women/girls. You may not like that fact, get over it.

“And as for your example of someone making a decision hastily, of they make a hasty decision and end up assault someone as a result, they should be charged and put in jail.”

Legal lesson. You arrest, charge, arraign with possible grand jury indictment, conduct trial and upon conviction, sentence and punish. It’s not that easy. But one of the checks on the system is the grand jury. A document you may have heard of is the Constitution of the United States. In Article 5 it states “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces…” You take (depending on the jurisdiction) 12-20 Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public’s and they look at all the evidence in an indictment and by preponderance of the evidence decides if a crime may have occurred. These members can decide not to indict because of things like “you was justified by provocation”. Now a DA can bring a charge back to a grand jury (there is no double jeopardy prohibition here). I don’t know how the people in Florida will handle this but I can say in Houston (Texas generally) we take the concept of “Man’s Home if His Castle” pretty seriously and we understand if someone violates that Castle, that can provoke things. I draw you attention to Mr. Joe Horn who late in 2007 shot two intruders in his neighbor’s house. The grand jury declined to indict.

Donalbain said...

OK.. one more time.

The boy is under the age of 18. Thus, under Florida law he is not able to give legal consent to have sex. That is a fact.

And as for women teachers, if you think that there isnt a different attitude to them abusing children than when male teachers do, then you are either lying or living in a fantasy world.

And generally speaking, children (as the teenage boy is) are smaller than adults (as the father is) and so assault is just as bad as if he had hit a girl.

Darren said...

It's not that we don't understand your argument, Donalbain, we just think you're a fool for making it!

(And I do *not* know what the age of consent is in Florida, but it's not 18 in every state--even though 18 is the age of majority in every state, if I'm not mistaken.)

Donalbain said...

The age of consent in Florida is 18.

Now, exactly what part of my argument do you think is foolish?

Do you think I am foolish for saying that the girl is just as guilty as the boy?

Do you think I am foolish for saying that the father should not have assaulted the boy?

Do you think I am foolish for saying that there is a double standard in society with regard to girls who have sex and boys who have sex?

Darren said...

The first two.

No one's saying the girl isn't "guilty" of having sex with the boy. But the boy was not a welcome guest of the "lord of the manor", and in some places in this country, that's putting yourself in jeopardy--and rightly so.

MikeAT said...

“OK… one more time.”

Oh, you got that right.

“The boy is under the age of 18. Thus, under Florida law he is not able to give legal consent to have sex. That is a fact.”

Not exactly. Here is the Florida Statue on consent


Title XLVI, Chapter 794
794.05 Unlawful sexual activity with certain minors.--
(1) A person 24 years of age or older who engages in sexual activity with a person 16 or 17 years of age commits a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. As used in this section, "sexual activity" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another; however, sexual activity does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose.
(2) The provisions of this section do not apply to a person 16 or 17 years of age who has had the disabilities of nonage removed under chapter 743.
(3) The victim's prior sexual conduct is not a relevant issue in a prosecution under this section.
(4) If an offense under this section directly results in the victim giving birth to a child, paternity of that child shall be established as described in chapter 742. If it is determined that the offender is the father of the child, the offender must pay child support pursuant to the child support guidelines described in chapter 61.


Let me translate for you Donalbain. A 16 or 17 year old can consent to sex with a 23 year old in the state of Florida. An 18-23 year old can have sex with a 16 or 17 year old legally.

“And as for women teachers, if you think that there isnt a different attitude to them abusing children than when male teachers do, then you are either lying or living in a fantasy world.”

I think I was agreeing with you. My exact quote:
‘No, the attitude is one of “Lucky Bastard!” Ok former teacher, enjoy your time as a registered sexual offender, loss of your career, time in jail/fines, etc. Hope he was worth it.’

In that I was quoting George Carlin’s New Rules for 2007

"New Rule:
Stop saying that teenage boys who have sex with their hot, blonde teachers are permanently damaged. I have a better description for these kids: ‘Lucky bastards.’”

Now the attitude may be different but the results are similar. Prison/probation/loss of job, etc. Former teacher, just one question….was the kid worth it?

“And generally speaking, children (as the teenage boy is) are smaller than adults (as the father is) and so assault is just as bad as if he had hit a girl.”

I don’t know…some of these high school kids I’m seeing on the street these days are something big. But size is irrelevant. A 100 lb boy strikes a 250 lb man the boy is assaulting the man.

Again, let me summarize what we know.

1. A 45 year old man walks into his house and see’s his daughter naked with a naked boy.

2. The father reacts badly and strikes the naked young man in the head, requiring staples to close the wound.

3. The father is charged with Aggravated Battery.

What we can surmise from the article:

1. Both girl and boy were under 18 (see multiple previous posts).

2. The fact the boy was having sex with the girl in the 45 year old man’s house was a surprise to dad.

Open Question:

Can both teenagers, under Florida law, consent to sex? We don’t know.

Again Donalbain, that is the question.

Darren said...

I don't think that's the question, Mike. The question is, is dad legally wrong for attacking the boy in his house?

MikeAT said...

“I don't think that's the question, Mike. The question is, is dad legally wrong for attacking the boy in his house?”

Then another question that ties into that. Did the boy do something that justified force on dad’s part? We don’t know the details on the incident. If the punk punched at dad then dad was justified at slapping/punching back. If the boy grabbed a weapon (knife, bat, etc) and was apparently intending on using it, then dad has reasonable fear for his life or serious bodily injury and can use “deadly force”, i.e. a strike against the head. We don’t know the details and as I was trying to get to Donalbain and Bloke these are facts an investigation/grand jury must determine before trail.

Another point that ties into this (and again, Donalbain and Bloke don’t want to get) is that a grand jury will look at all the facts and may say “I don’t care what the law reads, this punk wasn’t right and daddy should have kicked his ass…” or words to that effect.

MikeAT said...

PS: I think dad was justified in kicking the kid’s ass…doing that in the girl’s room was asking for it bad!

Donalbain said...

And there it is. The end of the conversation. You think that it is OK for an adult to assault a child. No more needs to be said on the matter.

Darren said...

Sometimes, yes, it's justifiable. Same with "assaulting" an adult--sometimes it's justifiable in the eyes of the law.

MikeAT said...

“Donalbain said...
And there it is. The end of the conversation. You think that it is OK for an adult to assault a child. No more needs to be said on the matter.”

Yes, you provoke a man it’s understandable (and in the eyes of John and Jane Public legally justifiable) that a man to strike a boy. And walking in on a boy naked with the man’s daughter…I can’t think of anything that will provoke a man/father more than that. To the fathers of daughters out there, can you think of anything more inciting?

And Donalbain, I think I said this in multiple postings on this.

1. “I don’t know the neighborhood in Florida but here in Houston/Harris County Texas members of a Grand Jury or Criminal Jury tend cut people slack when they walk into a house and find a perfect stranger in the place…especially when he’s buck naked by the man’s little girl.

We’ll see how the justice goes on in Florida. Personally if I was the defense attorney I would love to take this to trial in front of a jury of 12 parents of daughters…I think I would have a good chance with them.”

2. “ ‘As for people saying that the assault is acceptable, that is truly, truly disgusting.’

Donalbain, scenario. You’re visiting Houston (where I am a cop) and someone starts slapping the hell out of you. I see it…should I assault the man slapping your around to stop him from beating you up? Take it from me they often don’t listen when I say “Stop M^&%$# F&^%*^! or your dead” or other such language, even as I’m augmenting my point of discussion with my Sig Sauer Model 229. Then after I strike him with my baton to get the turd in cuffs three witnesses come up and say “NO, NO, NO!!...it was Donalbain that started the fight!” Sometimes you have to take action quick. Now put yourself in the father’s role. A naked male is in his house without his permission. The assumption is he’s up to no good. And if he’s naked next to my little girl that is a safe assumption.

The boy had no business in the man’s house. If he was in house my like that (and no, I don’t have any children) a good chance he would need more than a “staple” to recover.”

3. “Legal lesson. You arrest, charge, arraign with possible grand jury indictment, conduct trial and upon conviction, sentence and punish. It’s not that easy. But one of the checks on the system is the grand jury. A document you may have heard of is the Constitution of the United States. In Article 5 it states “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces…” You take (depending on the jurisdiction) 12-20 Mr. and Mrs. John Q Public’s and they look at all the evidence in an indictment and by preponderance of the evidence decides if a crime may have occurred. These members can decide not to indict because of things like “you was justified by provocation”. Now a DA can bring a charge back to a grand jury (there is no double jeopardy prohibition here). I don’t know how the people in Florida will handle this but I can say in Houston (Texas generally) we take the concept of “Man’s Home is His Castle” pretty seriously and we understand if someone violates that Castle, that can provoke things. I draw you attention to Mr. Joe Horn who late in 2007 shot two intruders in his neighbor’s house. The grand jury declined to indict.”

4. “Another point that ties into this (and again, Donalbain and Bloke don’t want to get) is that a grand jury will look at all the facts and may say “I don’t care what the law reads, this punk wasn’t right and daddy should have kicked his ass…” or words to that effect.”

Do you get my point yet Donalbain?

Darren said...

No, he doesn't. And even if he does, he'll argue it anyway because that's what they do under the bridge.