Gransnet forums

News & politics

Sex Attacker's Attacker Is Not Charged

(102 Posts)
HollyDaze Sun 20-Jul-14 14:33:15

'A Florida police chief says he has no problem with a dad who severely beat up a man he claims to have caught sexually assaulting his 11-year-old son.

Mike Chitwood said the father of the alleged victim did what any father would do, and would not face charges.

Daytona Beach police were called by the man on Friday - he reported he had come home to find his son being assaulted.

He could be heard telling the police operator he had left the attacker "nice and knocked out" and "in a puddle of blood" on the floor.

Officers arrived to find the alleged abuser, 18-year-old Raymond Frolander, unconscious.

Frolander was taken to the hospital and then arrested.

Chief Chitwood said Frolander admitted to sexually abusing the boy for the past three years.

And he said the father would not be charged, because he was protecting his son as a crime was being committed.

"I think the father did what any father wanted to do," he said.'

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/dad-beat-sons-sex-attacker-not-charged-174946004.html?vp=1#IR4d43T

(Advance warning: not a nice photo on the site.)

Any thoughts?

There's a fair few British people calling for Chief Chitwood to come to the UK!

Aka Sat 26-Jul-14 15:22:10

I suppose that's meant to be a Tam O'Shanter on their wee heids then tbhmm

HollyDaze Sat 26-Jul-14 15:02:36

In honour of the Commonwealth Games Aka

HollyDaze Sat 26-Jul-14 15:01:55

janeainsworth

Hollydaze the tongue-in-cheek emoticon was intended to indicate that I was employing the technique of reductio ad absurdum.

Using Latin to describe your intent, doesn't alter the fact that it doesn't tally with your comment.

Sometimes one is driven to it, Bags wink

That one was so subtle I nearly missed it (for about 2 seconds anyway) ....

Aka Sat 26-Jul-14 15:00:11

I've checked below and no 'tongue in cheek emoticon' but there are some strange wee aliens at the bottom of the list. What on earth??????

HollyDaze Sat 26-Jul-14 14:56:41

I'm inclined to agree with you Aka but it's the usual suspects so it's what I've come to expect.

janeainsworth Sat 26-Jul-14 14:49:43

Hollydaze the tongue-in-cheek emoticon was intended to indicate that I was employing the technique of reductio ad absurdum.

Aka Sat 26-Jul-14 14:44:30

Sounds like you're being 'ganged up' on HolyDaze and I didn't know we had a 'tongue in cheek emoticon' .... do we? confused

HollyDaze Sat 26-Jul-14 14:15:31

janeainsworth

Oh dear, Hollydaze. Didn't you notice the tongue-in-cheek emoticon?

How was it tongue-in-cheek?

HollyDaze Sat 26-Jul-14 14:13:32

Penstemmon

The implication doesn't belong to me but to those who have stated that the Chief of Police was wrong to have not pursued the father into the court system. Only a couple of posters gave an alternative (to give the father a caution (which may have happened for all we know)) then there were those who wanted the father arrested. That is a polar view to that of the Chief of Police so if that isn't seen as saying that the Chief of Police was wrong and, ergo, the poster feels that their choice of action would have been the correct one to have been taken, then I am mystified how else to view the point being made by those posters. It wasn't a case of 'the father should have been arrested in order not to have sent out the wrong message but I can understand why he let him go' - now that is a difference of opinion.

Penstemmon Fri 25-Jul-14 17:39:21

hollydaze you did imply that if someone disagreed with an opinion they thought they knew better than the other person. I was pointing out that it was just a different opinion.
I do think beating someone so that they lose consciousness is beyond a simple caution...no matter what the circumstance.

janeainsworth Fri 25-Jul-14 16:57:12

Oh dear, Hollydaze. Didn't you notice the tongue-in-cheek emoticon?

HollyDaze Fri 25-Jul-14 12:23:56

Eleothan

I dated a police officer for several years and during his course of duty, he did make the decision whether or not to book someone or give them a caution - police officers, from what I understand, do make those calls every day.

janeainsworth

Taking things to the extreme doesn't support your point of view.

Whether an offence or offender is suitable for a simple caution is an operational decision for the police and in some instances, the CPS, based on the specific circumstances of the individual case. Annex A provides an overview of factors to consider for whether a simple caution may be appropriate.

https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/oocd/adult-simple-caution-guidance-oocd.pdf the above quote is No. 8

janeainsworth Fri 25-Jul-14 10:14:19

Quite, Eloethan.
In fact why not get rid of criminal lawyers, judges, magistrates etc.
The country could save £billions shock

[tongue-in-cheek emoticon] in case of doubt!

Eloethan Fri 25-Jul-14 10:00:06

If we were to use a pragmatic approach to dealing with crime, each individual police officer could decide what, in their opinion, is the most sensible and realistic way to deal with something, regardless of what the law lays down. In fact there wouldn't be much point having written laws if they could just be overridden on the grounds of pragmatism.

HollyDaze Thu 24-Jul-14 22:44:36

This is called debate!

I don't believe I said otherwise Penstemon

If someone disagrees with another person's actions - what would you call it? If they believe that the Chief of Police made an incorrect decision, how would you define that?

Who's getting cross? Not me I can assure you.

The police often make the call whether or not to charge someone or let them off with a caution - that is, most likely, what happened in this particular case and he would have based that on years and years of experience with law-breakers.

Maybe they don't clog up their courts and prisons with people who shouldn't really be in them in quite the same way that we do - maybe they take a more pragmatic approach than us.

Penstemmon Thu 24-Jul-14 22:11:33

hollydaze If I understand you correctly you believe that if someone disagrees with someone/thing that person believes they 'know better'.

You disagreed with me, do I need to get cross because you think you know better than me??

I just thought we had different opinions!

My opinion is that the police chief should remain neutral and follow the law.

Your opinion is that the police chief does not have to.

This is called debate!

HollyDaze Wed 23-Jul-14 15:17:01

janeainsworth

Hollydaze I'm joining GrannyTwice with a large glass of wine

Knock yourself out

janeainsworth Wed 23-Jul-14 11:59:00

Sometimes one is driven to it, Bags wink

thatbags Wed 23-Jul-14 11:47:14

Yardarms and all that, y'know.

thatbags Wed 23-Jul-14 11:46:46

What, already, jane?! Yikes! wink

janeainsworth Wed 23-Jul-14 11:37:12

Spot on, jingl
Hollydaze I'm joining GrannyTwice with a large glass of wine.

jinglbellsfrocks Wed 23-Jul-14 09:05:37

I think, in this country, the father would have been charged, gone to court, and given a suspended sentence. We Brita have such sensible ways of doing things.

Of course, the usual outrage on behalf of the father would have appeared in the red tops.

GrannyTwice Wed 23-Jul-14 08:57:51

< pulls up deck chair and applies sun cream>

HollyDaze Wed 23-Jul-14 08:15:42

janeainsworth

No, they did not say they 'knew better', they were just expressing an opinion.

I think some posters have been quite vocal on disagreeing with the Chief of Police - what is that if not implying they know better over what should, or should not, have happened in that scenario?

I suggest you google 'Separation of powers in the United Kingdom'

I have done as you suggested and, unless I am misunderstanding it, I don't see why you have referred me to it. Perhaps you would explain the following:

'Lord Mustill summarised the prevailing modern viewpoint in the 1995 judgment, R. v Home Secretary ex parte Fire Brigades Union:[1][10]
It is a feature of the peculiarly UK conception of the separation of powers that Parliament, the executive and the courts each have their distinct and largely exclusive domain. Parliament has a legally unchallengeable right to make whatever laws it thinks right. The executive carries on the administration of the country in accordance with the powers conferred on it by law. The courts interpret the laws and see that they are obeyed.'

'The UK Parliament creates law through the authority of the Queen in parliament, securing the support of at least the House of Commons, and usually the House of Lords as well. The power to create primary legislation has also been devolved to Scottish and Welsh parliaments and to government ministers and local authorities to create secondary legislation.'

'The executive comprises all official and public authorities (including local authorities) that govern the UK, from initiating and implementing legislation to the running of local and national services, such as rubbish collections and the police.'

'The judicial function determines the outcome of disputes and performs minor legislative and administrative functions. It oversees both public and private law through civil and criminal courts and a variety of tribunals.'

'The courts have also exercised a quasi-legislative power through precedent '

'Parliament and government both play a part in forming the laws of the United Kingdom. They are separate institutions that work closely together, so it's easy to mix-up exactly what each one is responsible for.

Government

The government runs the country. It has responsibility for developing and implementing policy and for drafting laws. It is also known as the Executive.

Parliament

Parliament is the highest legislative authority in the UK. It has responsibility for checking the work of government and examining, debating and approving new laws. It is also known as the Legislature.'

www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/parliament-government/

'How (most) laws are made

Most new laws passed by Parliament result from proposals made by the government.
Proposals aim to shape society or address particular problems.
Normally, they are created over a period of time.'

www.parliament.uk/education/about-your-parliament/how-laws-are-made/

Penstemmon Tue 22-Jul-14 22:22:24

I gave the scenario because there were posts that implied support for individuals and law enforcement to turn a blind eye to assaults that were deemed to be justified because they were certain that they had the perpetrator of the original assault regardless of the law of the land.

I was aware that the scenario was different to the particular case. However I was trying to illustrate that if society endorses this kind 'retribution', no matter how understandable it is, it could lead to the type of scenario I described.

As none of us are personally connected to the case I am not sure why we cannot debate the issue as a moral / philosophical one rather than getting rather Old Testament about it and threatening eye for an eye / castration etc!