No where near enough information has been presented to form an opinion. Did the perp deserve a beating? Yes. Was he intentionally beat to death after he was rendered no longer able to defend himself? Who knows.
He walks automatically IYO, without hearing any evidence? As a juror, it's your duty to listen to ALL the facts presented, then and only then, can one make an informed decision as to culpability/laws violated etc.If I was on the jury, he walks.
There is always a possibility they could present some evidence that the resident acted unreasonably. It would have to be strong evidence to overcome my preexisting inclination to let people like this perpetrator face whatever consequence for their action they end up encountering, though. I have personal reasons to harbor a hatred of sexual predators and those in their orbit, or those who are exhibiting precursor behaviors. That's just how it is.He walks automatically IYO, without hearing any evidence? As a juror, it's your duty to listen to ALL the facts presented, then and only then, can one make an informed decision as to culpability/laws violated etc.
He doesn't, nor shouldn't get an automatic pass anymore than an auto pass guilty as charged.
:yup:Maybe he died because the ambulance ride was too rough.
All I know is a decision based on having no investigation is beyond my ken.
I just realized this is not the same yahoo article I read yesterday. The one I read yesterday said that Vickery or whatever his name is was attacked by the peeping Tom.This one of those threads I hope no "outsiders" see. There are a legal penalty for conviction of peeping. Getting beat to death is not one of them, as much as some may feel he had it coming. It smacks of vigilantism.
None of us know what happened during the "confrontation" other than lethal force was used. Apparently the DA felt the response was excessive and unwarranted. What he should have done is subdued the individual until LE could respond, or ID him and be the good witness. Because he chose to take matters into his own hands, he now faces charges with a far more severe penalty than the perp would have faced. Emotion may have overruled reason.
Another biased potential juror. YHGTBSM,:yup:
I’m going with the ambulance ride, and for the record I’m glad the peeper is dead. Good, demons shouldn’t reproduced plus Karma and a bunch of other good reasons cause sometimes a man has to do what a man has to do.
Man goes free if I were on the jury.
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
Your what if is a few miles from the facts described in the article.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.
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!!!!!!!!!!!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.