Sex Attacker's Attacker Is Not Charged

I would have liked to hear that he was charged, cautioned and the charges dropped because of the circumstances. That would not encourage others to take revenge without involving the law, but would recognise his horror and fury at discovering this abuser in flagrante delicto.

I wonder if the 11 year old witnessed his father carrying out the beating. If so, I should think that was just extra trauma for him.

Although I would be very angry if I came across a young man abusing my grandchild, I would not beat him to a pulp, or castrate him.

I am curious to know if those Gnetters who say they would mete out such a punishment would do so in front of their grandchild. If not, would they be content for the grandchild to know about it afterwards?

If my dad had walked in on a similar scenario, I am absolutely sure he'd have stopped the abuse, and then focussed on his child, rather than the abuser.
My experience of parents who've discovered their child has been abused by a member of the family, their partner, or a family friend have all been devastated. Almost invariably, the first question is 'how can I help my child' it's not, who is going to punish this individual.

This is a completely different scenario in that the father caught the abuser right in the middle of him abusing his son. What a dreadful shock for the poor man. I don't suppose he had much time to analyse his finer feelings and thoughts. Grans who are sympathetic to his actions, as am I, are responding to this particular situation.

Whilst not approving of violence, this father came home to find his son being abused and reacted fairly normally. Let's not do the castration bit, we're better then that.

I once heard someone say that it is programmed into our DNA to protect our young, more so for a parent. I don't have children but feel I can empathise with the father here. He saw his child being hurt and violated, his instinct was to stop the abuse, we don't know whether the abuser fought back in which case the father could have felt if the attacker had overpowered him he could have continued to abuse the child. If the father were completely out of control he could have gone on to kill the abuser - he didn't, he stopped when the abuser was unconscious and no longer able to harm his child.

For all we know the father may have been spoken to by police officers.

Agus

Re using more than reasonable force, what parent is going to think reasonably or rationally under those circumstances?

Absolutely.

The way I read the OP is that she just asked for thoughts.

Perhaps read it wrongl

Possibly Holly will come forward to clarify

Yes Nonu, I did ask for other people's thoughts on this - very interesting reading so far.

Another factor that is relevant is that this chief of police will be an elected position and that could encourage the sort of response he made - eye on the ballot box.

penguinpaperback

What a dreadful shock for the poor man. I don't suppose he had much time to analyse his finer feelings and thoughts. Grans who are sympathetic to his actions, as am I, are responding to this particular situation.

That would be my take on it (BIB) - I don't think many people would be rational enough to think clearly about what they were doing. Maybe many of us would revert to animal instinct in situations where our young (or any youngster for that matter) is in extreme danger.

sunseeker

we don't know whether the abuser fought back

Good point - I hadn't considered that.

There is a saying that you would die to protect your loved one (partner/husband/wife) but kill to protect your child. Can't find where it comes from, but I have thought about it a number of times... and the difference between the two.
Incidentally, there is a thread on Mumsnet about it (not this particular incident) found whilst looking for origin of saying, they (collectively) seem WAY more... er... united and adamant in their view!

Nonu It is everything about a problem with condoning "vigilante" action.

The original issue is not about how you react to someone assaulting your child. That is understandable
I can understand the desire to assault the offender.

I do have a problem with any police officer ignoring a very serious assault whether the person doing the assault has claimed to be defending himself or a relative.

This father should have been arrested and charged with GBH and then let a judge and jury decide on the basis of the facts.

It is not right to condone any assault.

A scenario: A father comes home and sees his child being horribly assaulted by a 5' 10" fair haired youth who manages to run into the street. The father chases and stops a fair haired youth and in his understandable fury beats him so hard the youth loses consciousness and suffers a broken nose and jaw. The father look up and sees another youth running in the distance. He has beaten the wrong youth, that youth was your grandson.

How do you feel?

An instinctive reaction in the horror of the moment when you see your child being violated is different to a vigilante group going out seeking revenge having mulled over what they are going to do.

Who knows what we would do under the circumstances? Let us hope none of us ever have to find out.

This is interesting from a British viewpoint; however it relates more to an intruder than someone actually harming your child:

www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/householders.html

Ee by gum Penstemmon tha ought t'be writing them thar dramas on telly.

I don't think the youth was running away, I think the father caught him in flagrante.

Rose I think Penstemmon was trying out a 'what if' scenario

rosequartz it is a SCENARIO. I was just wondering what all those who strongly support the right of victims to meet out the punishment without a trial would feel in that situation.

Aka how do you know I don't?

Penstemmon

rosequartz it is a SCENARIO. I was just wondering what all those who strongly support the right of victims to meet out the punishment without a trial would feel in that situation.

Your scenario doesn't quite fit the bill in this particular instance though and there is where the decision was made not to arrest the father - there was simply no element of doubt as to who the guilty party was.

Hollydaze There might have been no doubt as to who the assailant was, but that does not mean that the Police Chief was right to decide that he had used 'reasonable' force and that there was no case to answer.

Yes, Penstemmon's scenario was not exactly the same as the case we have been discussing, but I think she was asking how we would feel if our own grandson was beaten up by someone who thought they were justified in their actions at the time.

Just because someone thinks they are in the right, that doesn't make it right and appropriate.
Just because a Police Chief thinks they are in the right, that doesn't make it right and appropriate.

That way lies mob rule. Society decides what is right and appropriate, through the courts of law.

I expect with each different scenario we would all come to various different conclusions.

I did realise it was a SCENARIO, however it was rather a different scenario to the actual crime scene that the father came upon in this instance, which is what I thought we were pondering.

I posted the link because I thought it was interesting to see the advice from a British point of view on how much force one can reasonably use as to what would be considered disproportionate.
This is America, of course, where the CJS is different.

If, for instance, someone took it into their head to avenge an alleged crime on information received that would be wrong. It would be wrong to go and chase someone down the street as in Penstemmon's scenario and attack them; however I think it would be right to chase and to apprehend them if possible and restrain them with reasonable force and hope that someone would contact the authorities who could then take over. However, if that left the victim unattended then the victim would be your first concern and you would stay with them and call the authorities.

If, however, DIFFERENT SCENARIO, you found someone attacking your child or a member of your family in your home I think a lot more force could be used without it being dispropotionate.

However, as I said before, none of us know what our 'gut reaction' would be if we came upon a scene like this involving a member of our family, particularly a child.

janeainsworth

As sunseeker highlighted, we don't know if the attacker fought back and that could be what led to his severe injuries. We will have to trust that a Chief of Police knows better than we do.

I am fully aware of the meaning behind Penstemmon's scenario but it bears no relation to this incident; the father did not go out and beat up someone who looked like the attacker. This is what happens to conversation when people start talking about vigilantes - it introduces an element that was not there to begin with.

Just because someone thinks they are in the right, that doesn't make it right and appropriate.
Just because a Police Chief thinks they are in the right, that doesn't make it right and appropriate.

Just because someone on a forum thinks they know better, that doesn't mean they actually do.

Society decides what is right and appropriate, through the courts of law.

Governments decide what is right and appropriate (when was the last time you were asked for input on lawmaking?) and that Chief of Police is a representative and upholder of the law - he also has the right not to pursue a matter through the legal system (with all its expense and time) if the father posed no threat to society in general, it's called leaving it to the officer's discretion and that approach is hardly groundbreaking is it.

Hollydaze Just because someone on a forum thinks they know better, that doesn't mean they actually do.
Who has said they know better than anyone else?

Governments decide what is right and appropriate
No, they don't. They make laws, which are then interpreted by judges to decide what is right and appropriate in the case before them.

Who has said they know better than anyone else?

Anyone who has stated that the Chief of Police in question made the wrong decision.

No, they don't. They make laws, which are then interpreted by judges to decide what is right and appropriate in the case before them.

Which, if the judge has made a bad call, can be overturned on appeal. The judge can only begin with a law made by Parliament (in Britain).