A grand jury has decided not to charge a Texas man (whose name is not being disclosed in order to protect his daughter’s identity) who beat a man to death after he caught him sexually assaulting his 5-year-old daughter (described in some news accounts as 4 years old). It’s questionable whether this falls under the purview of the state’s Defense of Person laws (which justify deadly force to protect somebody from attack), because a line was clearly crossed between stopping the attack and ending Jesus Mora Flores’s life; but in practical terms, there is zero probability that any jury — particularly not a Texan jury — would convict a man for beating to death a man he caught sexually assaulting his young daughter.
Still, though…
More
© 2012 by Bill Bickel unless otherwise noted.
The poll is just slightly misleading, because it encourages the reader to conflate “should we enforce laws” with “is this man guilty of a serious crime”. I firmly believe that this guy should have been on trial, because when there’s a killing there should be a trial. I also firmly believe that at most he would have gotten a slap on the wrist (and probably a lot of public sympathy backed up with monetary donations, which would more than cancel out any minor pain that slap might have caused).
Texas law expressly permits use of deadly force to prevent sexual assault.
This fellow beat his daughter’s attacker with his bare hands, and summoned medical assistance immediately thereafter. He wouldn’t have been convicted in any of the 50 states.
“kill a man after he was no longer a threat” I think there’s an assumption here that I have not seen in any of the reports I read.
The man died as a result of the beating he got while being removed from the girl. Most reports stated the father did not intend to kill him. If he received a fatal blow while being removed from the girl, he went from threat to no threat by that hit. Without more details (like you’d get at a trail) I can’t say that he was killed after he was no longer a threat.
Karl, logic tells me that in a severe beating — that is, something more prolonged that one single blow — there is a point at which continuing the sexual assault is no longer a serious possibility. Once the immediate danger has passed, you are no longer defending a person: you’re beating the crap out of somebody.
This isn’t to say I wouldn’t have stood there and applauded: but the “defense of person” ship has sailed, and now it’s a jury’s job to find some rationale to acquit him.
And hey, maybe the first blow was the fatal blow; but again, that’s why we have a justice system.
That’s why I said without more detail, I could not really tell. None of the repots I read went into specifics of how many times the man was hit or how he responded as he was being hit. I can imagine many senarios where this was completely justifed (and plenty where it was not), but my imagination is not a good basis for making a judgement.
Bill,
Having read the comments posted thus far, I think the phrasing of your vote question, “…who did, after all, kill a man after he was no longer a threat”, carries a considerable amount of bias. At what point is the perp no longer a threat? Lying on the floor senseless would be a good on-the-scene definition IMO, but anything else becomes a matter of judgement.
From the reports I’ve read, the father did employ a level of judgement. You – being several lengths removed – have no idea when the miscreant ceased to be a threat. I seriously doubt the father’s first punch defined that threat level – especially as the father has a 5 year old child to protect, and standing trial is a serious business that can ruin the lives of innocent people.
If you think that there’s zero probability that any jury would convict him – and I also think this, based on what I’ve read – then it seems like a waste of resources to have the trial.
True. And that’s something the prosecutor considers before pursuing the case (as happened when the DSK case was dropped) — but once the case goes to a grand jury, as this one did, it was not their job to take that into consideration.
Then what IS the grand jury’s job, exactly?
The grand jury’s job is to determine whether there’s sufficient evidence to warrant a trial — which in this case there was, because technically he might have been guilty. What happens after that point is not supposed to be their concern.
Had you been on the grand jury, you would have felt that there was a chance that he might be guilty, and would have felt that a trial was warranted.
The grand jury in question disagreed and felt that there wasn’t enough evidence to have a trial, which IS their job. They did their job correctly; you would have made a different choice, which is also fine, but you weren’t on that particular grand jury.
What we’re doing here is second-guessing the grand jury, which is fine. But it’s not fair to say that the grand jury didn’t do their job. All we’re saying is that, had we been on the grand jury, we would have done the job the same way or differently.
I don’t know all the facts, or the law in Texas, but for the reasons that Bill has already given, my strong suspicion is that the father did technically violate the law, and that if the grand jury and jury strictly followed the law, it would have resulted in a trial, and probably a conviction.
But if I was on the grand jury or jury for this case, I wouldn’t have strictly followed the law. Jury nullification can be misused, but that doesn’t mean it’s always wrong. To expect someone to use exactly the legally appropriate amount of force in this situation isn’t reasonable.
Whoops — I misread the question, and would have liked to change my vote.
What I intended to say is that this man ought to have been brought up before a grand jury, and the grand jury should have chosen not to bring an indictment.
Which is what happened. So I’m pretty pleased with this.
My only problem is that there isn’t enough info here. Were there other witnesses that say the man was assaulting the girl? Otherwise, there needs to be an investigation at least.
There seems to be plenty of evidence that he was molesting the girl. The only issue for me is: The first blow was legally justified; but was the last?
Texas law expressly permits use of deadly force to prevent a rape. So the answer is “yes”. Now, if he’d beat the guy up, stopped, and then started again until the guy was dead, THEN you would have a need for a trial. Which he would probably still win.
Come on. This is Texas.
Everybody knows that the first question a Texas Sheriff asks is “Did he need killing?”
“Should”… Such a tricky word.
Didn’t mean to submit that. That diatribe didn’t work out, please delete the above post.
I don’t think it’s correct to think of him as a rational person at that time. I’ve been damned quite enough by emotions I can’t control (bipolar disorder)… I don’t think he should stand trial for something out of his hands.
The question I occasionally wonder, when cases like this come up, is how reasonably can a civilian judge deadly force in the heat of the moment? You say there’s a line between defending yourself and just beating the crap out of a person- but I think that line can be crossed much faster than one expects, and before the person gives a clear signal that they are no longer a threat, say by falling to the ground. There was an article on Yahoo with a lot more detail – and the father did stop, turned around and called 911 while the guy was still alive. Considering the circumstances of rage and adrenalin that he must have been feeling… well, I don’t think I could have stopped myself before the guy was a bloody smear on the ground, so the father in this case was a better person than I.