Man beats peeping Tom to death

[Psycho41]

I would understand and empathize if the father of an 11 year old girl walked in on the assault of his daughter and killed the assailant in a fit of rage. I would also hope a court would understand and empathize and accept a plea of justifiable defense of a third party or in absence of that, let him off easy. Temporary insanity or whatever. But I would not say he was justified if he intentionally killed the guy out of pure anger. A court would have to decide.

And I say that as a father of two daughters and a grandfather of three granddaughters. I can't even claim that I wouldn't kill the guy in that circumstance. But I could hardly object to being held accountable for it if I did. I should also point out that being a peeping Tom is a far cry from being a child rapist, so your argument is a "fallacy of extremes" and really has no bearing here.

You are right, we don't know all that happened in this case. That's why I caveated, "just based on the report." But apparently the criminal justice system thought he did something very wrong. Another article online says Vickery was covered in blood when police got there and that he is charged with manslaughter which carries a mandatory 9 1/2 year sentence in Fl. My question to you is would it be worth it to you to have to do 9 1/2 years, be a felon, lose all your guns and be a prohibited person for the rest of your life for the satisfaction of beating a peeping tom to death? Does that sound like a good deal?

I never stated I think a peeping Tom should be murdered - in fact I explicitly stated the opposite. Yes, a peeping tom is not analogous to sexual assault of a child, but there's nothing in the law that states that killing a person omitting a sexual assault is not a crime. So, if that can be excused, under what other circumstances can a person committing a crimes be murdered without consequences? I am absolutely not condoning that the man was murdered. But, who's to say what violation will "trip" a person to respond in a violent way. If he wantonly pummeled the man to death, he deserves to go to prison. But, there's also no argument that the peeping tom (though his illegal activity) set the events in motion that led to his death. So, I have no sympathy for him.

[AzQkr]

I recall the story of the child rapist being brought back to LA. As the cops were escorting him through the Baton Rouge airport the boys father shot him.

He walked and I would have voted not guilty had I been on the jury and I would vote the same for the case discussed here.

You're another one that, not being able to abide the necessary objectivity and decide only on the merits of the charges/law, should never be allowed on a jury. Jurors have to remain partial, vote on the evidence, not with subjective thinking.

YHGTBSM

[CWOUSCG]

You're another one that, not being able to abide the necessary objectivity and decide only on the merits of the charges/law, should never be allowed on a jury. Jurors have to remain partial, vote on the evidence, not with subjective thinking.

Evidence is a pervert was watching a private moment. The victim stopped a sexual predator. Potentially prevented dozens of rapes. Justice is served, not guilty.

[Mike1956]

Rape isn't a capital offense. Would you say the same if the father of an 11 year old girl walked in on the assault of his daughter and killed the assailant in a fit of rage? I'm not expressly disagreeing with you. But, I don't think it would be unreasonable for someone in such a violated state to take action against the perpetrator. It also states "a fight broke out". For all we know the peeping tom instigated the physical confrontation. The peeping tom didn't deserve to die for that crime, but how his death came about *may* have been reasonable. In any event, he instigated the events that led to his death. I have no opinion on guilt or innocence on the man involved. I would want to see the facts of the case: e.g. was the dead man beaten profusely, hit once or twice, did the man who killed him have any wounds, etc.

Your what if is a few miles from the facts described in the article.

[AzQkr]

Evidence is a pervert was watching a private moment. The victim stopped a sexual predator.

No, the arrested homeowner stopped a formerly convicted predator who was not in the process of actual sexual assault. One doesn't get to prognosticate on what MIGHT have happened and vote them guilty if they are to remain objective. Lacking objectivity, you should refrain from being on any jury.

Potentially prevented dozens of rapes.

One doesn't convict on potential, one convicts on evidence.

Justice is served, not guilty.

See above, justice would NOT be served with you automatically giving the homeowner a pass for crimes he may or may not have committed. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

[Mike1956]

Some of you are good with beating someone to death for peeking in a window?

[AzQkr]

Some of you are good with beating someone to death for peeking in a window?

Apparently so. Learn something new every day here. Sometimes not to the benefit of humanity

[Sister]

Some of you are good with beating someone to death for peeking in a window?

Only the naked, the absents of cloths takes it to another level. Anti-naked peekers

[CWOUSCG]

See above, justice would NOT be served with you automatically giving the homeowner a pass for crimes he may or may not have committed. PERIOD!!!!!!!!!!!

You opinion of what I should or should not do is of no value to me.

[OldVet]

A long term in a small cell with a big roomie named Bubba would be a more appropriate penalty. a beat down let him off too easily.

[mr.stuart]

The girlfriend changed her story twice. The man ran OUTSIDE to confront the alleged peeper.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...tia-story.html

[AzQkr]

You opinion of what I should or should not do is of no value to me.

But it is of value to society, the knowledge that a military man, a card carrying gun guy, would deny a mans right to a fair and unbiased jury. How others perceive your flagrant disregard for a fair and impartial jury based on the merits of the case should be important to everyone.

I wonder if your commanding officer would approve of your statements.

[Psycho41]

Some of you are good with beating someone to death for peeking in a window?

Not at all. The point I was trying to make was that his reaction could have been driven by rage induced by the violation he experienced. It would be no more "right" than the example of a child rapist. It's just easier for people to accept that as it is a much more egregious crime. Just because someone commits a heinous act against you does not give you the right nor exonerate any violence against them (short of self defense). There is nothing in the law that lists out certain crimes for which a person driven by rage can commit a justified homicide. I don't have any idea if that is what he is going to allege or not - I only made the comment as a hypothetical. As others have stated, any potential trial would need to be judged based on the facts of the case.

[AzQkr]

The girlfriend changed her story twice. The man ran OUTSIDE to confront the alleged peeper.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/local/b...tia-story.html

Hobi appeared at the police station with a lawyer to provide a follow-up statement at her own request. In the new version of events, she said she didn’t hit Akar with a shovel or touch him at all. She said Vickery told her to tell police she had used the shovel.

"Do you understand how hard it is to beat someone to death?” Lave said. "It is a brutal, difficult and violent way to kill somebody.”

Ruh roh, co-conspirators giving false statements, one of them recanting their original story voluntarily giving up the other conspirator within days. I suppose his defense might be he was "naked and afraid". LOL

I'm on the jury and hear this revelation of Vickery entering into a conspiracy to give false testimony, to change the facts? I'd be inclined to not believe anything else his defense atty conjures up to try to explain that away.

All those who've stated they'd give Vickery a pass, what about now? Still gonna give him a pass after the latest revelation from the girlfriend? Biased subjective opinions have a way of biting you in the butt.

[MYMOMSSON]

Hobi appeared at the police station with a lawyer to provide a follow-up statement at her own request. In the new version of events, she said she didn’t hit Akar with a shovel or touch him at all. She said Vickery told her to tell police she had used the shovel.

"Do you understand how hard it is to beat someone to death?” Lave said. "It is a brutal, difficult and violent way to kill somebody.”

Ruh roh, co-conspirators giving false statements, one of them recanting their original story voluntarily giving up the other conspirator within days. I suppose his defense might be he was "naked and afraid". LOL

I'm on the jury and hear this revelation of Vickery entering into a conspiracy to give false testimony, to change the facts? I'd be inclined to not believe anything else his defense atty conjures up to try to explain that away.

All those who've stated they'd give Vickery a pass, what about now? Still gonna give him a pass after the latest revelation from the girlfriend? Biased subjective opinions have a way of biting you in the butt.

No , I'm going to wait until as many "facts" as possible are revealed than make a disision.