Yea, dangerous to rely on rabble rousing all the time... but in this case I'd say it's fairly cut and dry when A) dude's caught in the act and B) admits to doing it for 3 years. He could have ripped off the dudes head and shit down his neck and the jury would have let him off. And if there's one thing that's more important than justice to a DA, it's their win ratio!Juries don't have much sympathy for kidnappers and kiddy rapists. Working as intended.
Exactly. We have due process for a reason, not vigilantism.There is a rather large difference between catching a perpetrator in your house and lying in wait at an airport.
Yes. I would never convict someone that caught someone raping their kid if I was on their jury. It wouldn't matter what the guy did when he caught him. Ambushing him somewhere else is an entirely different story.There is a rather large difference between catching a perpetrator in your house and lying in wait at an airport.
It just makes sense. What kid is easier to get access to than your relatives?Article I read mentioned the guy was a family member, as well. So often it's someone you trust...
Honestly, same here.I would vote to convict lay-in-wait-at-airport guy. Wouldn't vote to convict catch-in-the-act guy.
You are allowed to use violence to defend somebody else, especially somebody who cannot defend themselves. He was protecting his son.Pretty sure the dad could just claim temporary mental instability as a defense if he had to.
Same here, but then if asked to set the punishment for lay-in-wait-at-airport guy, I'd give the minimum sentence I could under the law.I would vote to convict lay-in-wait-at-airport guy. Wouldn't vote to convict catch-in-the-act guy.