A US father who found his five-year-old daughter being raped, then beat the attacker to death will not be charged, prosecutors have said.
The 23-year-old man told police he found the girl being assaulted on Saturday 9 June by Jesus Mora Flores in a rural part of southern Texas.
A grand jury has declined to indict the man, finding that he was allowed to use deadly force to protect his daughter.

"clicky"


A sensible decision by the grand jury IMHO.

To find a man not guilty of manslaughter due to the obviously extreme provocation is one thing. But to not bring any charge at all? I'm not sure I can agree tbh.

I shall have to think on this one. Hmm...

I'm sure I've read that something like "temporary insanity" can protect you from proscecution in a case like this. The case I was actually thinking of was when a man came home to find his wife in bed with another man, and wasn't charged for killing them.

Most people would understand a man loosing his mind when confronted with that...

A sensible decision by the grand jury IMHO.

My thoughts exactly.
Nothing about this sits well with me.

To find a man not guilty of manslaughter due to the obviously extreme provocation is one thing. But to not bring any charge at all? I'm not sure I can agree tbh.

I shall have to think on this one. Hmm...

A grand jury has declined to indict the man, finding that he was allowed to use deadly force to protect his daughter.

A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. The A stand-your-ground law states that a person may use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of a threat, without an obligation to retreat first. In some cases, a person may use deadly force in public areas without a duty to retreat. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit.

In 2005 Texas passed House Bill 94[32] which created an exception for unlawful entry of place of residence to a 1973 statute, which required a person to retreat in the face of a criminal attack unless a "reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have retreated".[33]

In 2007 Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 378 which extends a person’s right to stand their ground beyond the home to vehicles and workplaces, allowing the reasonable use of deadly force when an intruder is:

Committing certain violent crimes, such as murder or sexual assault, or is attempting to commit such crimes;
Unlawfully trying to enter a protected place; or
Unlawfully trying to remove a person from a protected place.[13]
Senate Bill 378, made effective September 1, 2007, also "abolishes the duty to retreat if the defendant can show he: (1) had a right to be present at the location where deadly force was used; (2) did not provoke the person against whom deadly force was used; and (3) was not engaged in criminal activity at the time deadly force was used."[34]

Most people would understand a man loosing his mind when confronted with that...

"Would a minute have mattered? No, probably not, although his young son appeared to have a very accurate internal clock. Possibly even 2 minutes would be okay. Three minutes, even. You could go to five minutes, perhaps. But that was just it. If you could go for five minutes, then you'd go to ten, then half an hour, a couple of hours...and not see your son all evening. So that was that. Six o'clock, prompt. Every day. Read to young Sam. No excuses. He'd promised himself that. No excuses. No excuses at all. Once you had a good excuse, you opened the door to bad excuses."
--- Terry Pratchett, Thud!

Absolutely

Unfortunately, however, the father did kill someone and so should be tried in court. It's not that the father intended to kill or that the rapist somehow deserves justice - I don't think either of those is true. It's just that, to me at least, once you can kill a child rapist vith impunity, you'll end up being able to do it to a rapist, and then a mugger, then an aggressive youth on the street and then who knows who else.

if the grand jury found there was sufficient evidence for a trial, that the act was a crime under law, and that the court had jurisdiction, it would return the indictment to the complainant. The grand jury would then appoint the complaining party to exercise the authority of an attorney general, that is, one having a general power of attorney to represent the state in the case.

Texas has a grand Jury system before trial. They looked at the evidence and weighed against applicable statutes and found there was no case to be answered.

I understand that...

... and think that it's wrong.

We have the CPS that decides if a prosecution goes ahead. Or should everything go to trial?