Texas Justice, An Example To Us All

[johnnya24]

Did I just write that?

No Charge For Dad Who Killed Man Raping His 5 Year Old Daughter

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.

Thumbs Up. If this was here (or many other places I imagine), he would have been taken away in cuffs and tried for man slaughter/murder. Nice to see some common sense prevail. If it was my daughter I'd have went all Sin City on this guys head.

[Mithrandir]

Did I just write that?

No Charge For Dad Who Killed Man Raping His 5 Year Old Daughter



Thumbs Up. If this was here (or many other places I imagine), he would have been taken away in cuffs and tried for man slaughter/murder. Nice to see some common sense prevail. If it was my daughter I'd have went all Sin City on this guys head.

Hell yeah. Agree 100% with this ruling!

[B-Fly]

Yeah. I'm a little bit surprised this even went to a grand jury. I guess the DA's office just wanted some cover. Not pursuing criminal charges in this case is a reasonable and defensible exercise of prosecutor discretion.

[Lucky]

Not enough information here to make this call...and there may never be enough information since the only other witness over five years old is dead.

Here's what I mean...the use of deadly force is legally justified if necessary to defend one's self or another from life-threatening danger and, of course, rape. However, in both self defense cases and defense of another cases, there is a point past which deadly force is not legally justified. A person pulls a knife and tries to stab you or your wife, you can engage in the use of deadly force. But if the attacker runs away, you can't chase him down and kill him. Self defense and retribution are two different animals.

In this case, it wasn't clear what happened. If the blow which killed the rapist was delivered when the father was getting the guy off his daughter. then there is no question about the legality. But if he stopped the rape and rendered the guy defenseless, and then continued to beat the guy to death, then you have a homicide.

That is undoubtedly why the grand jury had to look at the case, and why there was any doubt with the prosecutor. Although they don't involve rapes and deaths, I try dozens of cases a year involving claims of self defense. Many of the defendants have legitimate defenses, but many don't because they have taken the self defense too far, becoming the aggressor. As I tell people time and again, self defense doesn't mean you get to hit someone back. I heard witness describe their concept of self defense as "once you get then down on the ground, you have to quit hitting them". Overly simplified, but fairly accurate.

So, if this guy just stopped the rape and the other guy was killed in the process, then I say great. If the guy stopped the rape and then beat the other guy to death out of vengeance, there's a much tougher issue. We have judges and juries to decide cases and hand out punishments.

I've seen a lot of Texas Justice, having lived there and now living next door. Too often it means taking the law into one's own hands. That's not justice, even in Texas.

[chancellor]

In this case, it wasn't clear what happened. If the blow which killed the rapist was delivered when the father was getting the guy off his daughter. then there is no question about the legality. But if he stopped the rape and rendered the guy defenseless, and then continued to beat the guy to death, then you have a homicide.

I think I'd replace "homicide" with "societal favor".

[DMT]

I think I'd replace "homicide" with "societal favor".

Agreed.

[B-Fly]

Not enough information here to make this call...and there may never be enough information since the only other witness over five years old is dead.

But it seems there was other evidence. The grand jury felt they had enough information. Assuming they had the information/testimony to support what's reported in the linked article:

A witness who saw Flores abducting the girl to a remote spot raised the alarm, said a statement by the district attorney.

The father ran towards his daughter's screams and as he found her being attacked, "inflicted several blows to the man's head and neck area", said investigators.

A recording of the father's 911 telephone call was played at the news conference in which he tells a dispatcher he beat up a man he found raping his daughter.

As police struggle to locate the family ranch, the father swears and tells the dispatcher: "Come on! This guy is going to die on me! I don't know what to do!"

Emergency crews who responded to the father's 911 call found Flores' trousers and underwear pulled down on his lifeless body.

A medical examination of the girl at hospital backed up the father's story that she had been sexually assaulted, said prosecutors.

[Lucky]

But it seems there was other evidence. The grand jury felt they had enough information. Assuming they had the information/testimony to support what's reported in the linked article:

The prosecutors said the father found her being attacked and inflicted several blows. That's certainly not a blow by blow account.

If he has just beaten this guy to death, fueled by uncontrollable rage, it is certainly possible that he would have called 911 and said what he did.

I'm surprised by what you said about the grand jury. No billing this guy doesn't mean they thought he wasn't guilty of a crime...it means they did not find enough evidence of a crime to indict. So saying the grand jury felt it had enough information misses the point. They either had enough information to believe the guy had not committed a crime, or they did not have enough information to believe he did commit a crime. That's how a grand jury works in Texas, not sure about elsewhere. The third possibility is that they had information to indict, but declined to do so because they thought the dead guy needed killing.

From everything which has been released to the media so far, there's not enough information to know whether a crime was committed, which was the point of my post. There's no way he could be convicted, absent a witness who said that after he had gotten the rapist off his daughter he continued to beat the guy. The fact that the dead guy's pants and underwear were around his ankles makes self defense sound implausible.

I'm not trying to crusade for the guy, just saying that people shouldn't take the law into their own hands. If the guy was beaten to death after there was no further immediate danger, that's a problem. It may be the feel good story of the week for some, but it is troubling from a legal standpoint.

[DMT]

The prosecutors said the father found her being attacked and inflicted several blows. That's certainly not a blow by blow account.

If he has just beaten this guy to death, fueled by uncontrollable rage, it is certainly possible that he would have called 911 and said what he did.

I'm surprised by what you said about the grand jury. No billing this guy doesn't mean they thought he wasn't guilty of a crime...it means they did not find enough evidence of a crime to indict. So saying the grand jury felt it had enough information misses the point. They either had enough information to believe the guy had not committed a crime, or they did not have enough information to believe he did commit a crime. That's how a grand jury works in Texas, not sure about elsewhere. The third possibility is that they had information to indict, but declined to do so because they thought the dead guy needed killing.

From everything which has been released to the media so far, there's not enough information to know whether a crime was committed, which was the point of my post. There's no way he could be convicted, absent a witness who said that after he had gotten the rapist off his daughter he continued to beat the guy. The fact that the dead guy's pants and underwear were around his ankles makes self defense sound implausible.

I'm not trying to crusade for the guy, just saying that people shouldn't take the law into their own hands. If the guy was beaten to death after there was no further immediate danger, that's a problem. It may be the feel good story of the week for some, but it is troubling from a legal standpoint.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it ok to shoot an intruder who has come into one's home? How is that intruder, who may be unarmed, more threatening than someone who is in the process of raping one's 5-year-old daughter? I'm sorry, but there isn't a legal argument you or anyone else could make that would convince me or millions of other people that this guy did not deserve to die right then and there. The killer saved society a lot of wasted resources trying to house or rehabilitate the POS. What's sad to me is that we as a society concoct legal arguments to possibly call the killer a murderer for his actions when we should be commending him for making sure that scum never has the opportunity to hurt another child.

[swampdragon]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it ok to shoot AND KILLL an intruder who has come into one's home.

I am willing to guess that Lucky's answer is NO - and he would be right

[Lucky]

So, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it ok to shoot an intruder who has come into one's home? How is that intruder, who may be unarmed, more threatening than someone who is in the process of raping one's 5-year-old daughter? I'm sorry, but there isn't a legal argument you or anyone else could make that would convince me or millions of other people that this guy did not deserve to die right then and there. The killer saved society a lot of wasted resources trying to house or rehabilitate the POS. What's sad to me is that we as a society concoct legal arguments to possibly call the killer a murderer for his actions when we should be commending him for making sure that scum never has the opportunity to hurt another child.

In many jurisdictions one can shoot a burglar in the course of committing a burglary. But if you shoot and wound him, you can't shoot him again as he crawling across your yard toward his getaway car. Once the burglary has been thwarted, the use of deadly force is no longer justified.

What you call a "legal argument" is just a statement of black letter law. If he had shot the guy in the head while he was raping his daughter, there would be no issue. The point is that if the father had stopped the rape and the guy was no longer an imminent threat, the father didn't have the right to execute him...even if he did save society a lot of wasted resources.

For ten years I taught classes in the use of deadly force. The limitations on self defense or defense of another (technically called justification) is not just a legal argument that our society has recently concocted...it is a legal concept which has been a part of our jurisprudence since our country began, and for long before that in England.

This is just another one of those cases where the emotional circumstances of a situation render many people unable to remember and apply our core legal concepts. That is why the judiciary is supposed to be impartial and neutral, applying the law evenly regardless of whether one or both of the parties are douche bags.

[heyelander]

I think when you call 911 and beg them to hurry up and get to the house before the guy dies, you've stopped short of execution.

[B-Fly]

I think when you call 911 and beg them to hurry up and get to the house before the guy dies, you've stopped short of execution.

Well, plenty of murderers have called 911 to establish the story they're trying to sell about the circumstances and their culpability. That's not the sense I have here, although Lucky is right that the fact the rapist still had his pants down is pretty strong evidence that he probably was no longer an immediate threat once the father caught and stopped the rape in progress. Still, I think this is reasonable discretion on the part of the prosecutors and the grand jury not to indict.

[johnnya24]

I think Lucky's dispassionate response to the legal side of things is something we should all be grateful about. The more emotional and passionate the incident, the more important that our police and judiciary act with and rigour and due process. If there is even a 0.1% chance this was staged, it should still be investigated. What I like about this incident is how they seem to have dealt with the case: no media circus, not arresting the father ... what is he going to do? jump the border to Mexico?, respect for the "real" victim (the child). The fact that it went to a grand jury suggests that they investigated things fully ... whether it should have went to grand jury I cannot comment on. But it seems they dealt with this situation pretty well.

[DMT]

I am willing to guess that Lucky's answer is NO - and he would be right

Wrong on both accounts, but thanks for playing.