Would you have pulled the trigger?

Not contradicting my previous post, but showing what can happen, even if you don't know the person.
This happened in 2004

Police: 6 People Beat Up Alleged Peeping Tom - News Story - WEWS Cleveland

Police: 6 People Beat Up Alleged Peeping Tom
Group Discover Man Watching Girl Sleep

UPDATED: 5:41 pm EDT August 18, 2004

Officials said Mario Russo, 44, was attacked after he was spotted outside a bedroom window wearing his pants around his ankles and watching a 5-year-old girl who was sleeping in a unit at the Bunker Ridge Apartments.

Russo was reportedly hiding in bushes.

Police said after he was discovered a group of six people, include the girl's mother, aunt and their boyfriends attacked him and brutally beat him for more than an hour.

Beating Suspects
The girl's mother, Stacy Umstott, 28; her aunt, Athena Lemieux, 20; Brandon Breedon, 21; Nicholas Phipps, 21; and Khald Arafat, 34; and a 15-year-old are in police custody. They face felonious assault and rape charges. Murder charges could be filed if Russo dies.

The girl's aunt admitted to sexually assaulting Russo with a tree branch, police said.

The incident was caught on tape.

Meanwhile, police said that citizens should not take matters into their own hands

"To take matters into their own hands like they did was just way, way beyond reason," North Royalton Detective Jay Drake said.
 
No to pulling trigger - yes to pistol whipping!

Legal age to recieve pistol whipping? - if your old enough to hide under the bathroom sink you are old enough to receive a good pistol whipping! Man up and take the beating and next time ask the father if you can date his daughter... At least Dads going to know your not some big p*ssy!
 
brpo: As other have said the same thing, let me comment on that....you can say "i wouldnt have shot him, i would have given him a black eye, a busted lip, crushed balls, etc....thats STILL assault and battery. The fact that it happens inside your home doesnt exempt you from the law.

I'm not saying it's an uncommon or wrong reaction to catching your 16 yr old with a 20 yr old guy, but it IS against the law. plain and simple.

Let me rationalize this another way....say i invite you into my home, and you and i get in an argument there...does the fact that you are in my house give me the right to beat you senseless? nope, not at all. It gives me the right to ask you to leave, which is what the father SHOULD have done in this situation. if he felt a crime occurred, he should have called the police. He does NOT have the right to take the law into his own hands. His lapse of judgement, justified or not, is going to earn him some jail time.

Oh, and 16 and 20 IS statutory rape in indiana. The only way it isnt is if both parties are between 16 and 18.
 
ibified said:
brpo: As other have said the same thing, let me comment on that....you can say "i wouldnt have shot him, i would have given him a black eye, a busted lip, crushed balls, etc....thats STILL assault and battery. The fact that it happens inside your home doesnt exempt you from the law.
Click to expand...

I fully understand what the law is.
Matter of fact, it's what I told a friend of my oldest son. It seems that the only time my oldest ever got into major trouble was when he was with this guy.

I Quote "if I ever catch you in my house again you will end up at the hospital and I will be in jail".

I am prepared for the legal consequences, which makes the threat that more legitimate.
 
Hold your horses guys. You may like to say you would pull the trigger but there are a lot of things you have to take into account. Was the guy in fear for his life or the well being of his daughter? I am guessing no. Given the news papers dress things up a bit but. If you are under the bathroom sink you are hiding to hide. NOT hiding to ambush. Really if you question my logic try to get under your bathroom sink.

Now if he was in the closet you could have a case of ambush. But that is still stating things too broadly. Also shooting someone while they are running away and not a threat to anyone will always get you in trouble badge or no badge. Just my two cents.
 
SECTION 45. IC 35-42-4-9 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2007]: Sec. 9. (a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of age, performs or submits to sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Class C felony. However, the offense is:
(1) a Class B felony if it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age; and
(2) a Class A felony if it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force, if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon, if it results in serious bodily injury, or if the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
(b) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of age,

performs or submits to any fondling or touching, of either the child or the older person, with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the older person, commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Class D felony. However, the offense is:
(1) a Class C felony if it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age; and
(2) a Class B felony if it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force, while armed with a deadly weapon, or if the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
(c) It is a defense that the accused person reasonably believed that the child was at least sixteen (16) years of age at the time of the conduct. However, this subsection does not apply to an offense described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
(d) It is a defense that the child is or has ever been married. However, this subsection does not apply to an offense described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
(e) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section if all the following apply:(1) The person is not more than four (4) years older than the victim.
(2) The relationship between the person and the victim was a dating relationship or an ongoing personal relationship. The term "ongoing personal relationship" does not include a family relationship.(3) The crime:
(A) was not committed by a person who is at least twenty-one (21) years of age;
(B) was not committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force;
(C) was not committed while armed with a deadly weapon;
(D) did not result in serious bodily injury;
(E) was not facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge; and
(F) was not committed by a person having a position of authority or substantial influence over the victim.
(4) The person has not committed another sex offense (as defined in IC 11-8-8-5.2) (including a delinquent act that would be a sex offense if committed by an adult) against any other person.


according to the law of indiana this is not rape.....
 
I say just shoot the ****er anywhere you like. Just make sure he's dead. You don't want two stories in court.
 
Way to go on the excellent clarification!

afterhours said:
SECTION 45. IC 35-42-4-9 IS AMENDED TO READ AS FOLLOWS [EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2007]: Sec. 9. (a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of age, performs or submits to sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Class C felony. However, the offense is:
(1) a Class B felony if it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age; and
(2) a Class A felony if it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force, if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon, if it results in serious bodily injury, or if the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
(b) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who, with a child at least fourteen (14) years of age but less than sixteen (16) years of age,

performs or submits to any fondling or touching, of either the child or the older person, with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the older person, commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Class D felony. However, the offense is:
(1) a Class C felony if it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age; and
(2) a Class B felony if it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force, while armed with a deadly weapon, or if the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
(c) It is a defense that the accused person reasonably believed that the child was at least sixteen (16) years of age at the time of the conduct. However, this subsection does not apply to an offense described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
(d) It is a defense that the child is or has ever been married. However, this subsection does not apply to an offense described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
(e) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section if all the following apply:(1) The person is not more than four (4) years older than the victim.
(2) The relationship between the person and the victim was a dating relationship or an ongoing personal relationship. The term "ongoing personal relationship" does not include a family relationship.(3) The crime:
(A) was not committed by a person who is at least twenty-one (21) years of age;
(B) was not committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force;
(C) was not committed while armed with a deadly weapon;
(D) did not result in serious bodily injury;
(E) was not facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge; and
(F) was not committed by a person having a position of authority or substantial influence over the victim.
(4) The person has not committed another sex offense (as defined in IC 11-8-8-5.2) (including a delinquent act that would be a sex offense if committed by an adult) against any other person.


according to the law of indiana this is not rape.....
Click to expand...
 
The girl should be feeling pretty bad. Her dad is in jail because she didn't tell the truth. After thinking about it. Maybe she is afraid of her dad for a reason.
 
Rollaj said:
I wouldn't be kickin his arse because he was an intruder.
I'd be kickin his arse because he's a 20 year old nailin my 16 year old daughter. :boxing:
I don't care if she invited him in or not. :madfire:
Click to expand...

Gotta agree here. 20 on a 16 is lecherous.
 
Projekt said:
You have to face the reality that your little innocent daughter isn't so innocent particularly under the influence of raging hormones at that age as well as sexual bombardment in the media. In American and elsewhere this is a media that happens to exploit the "illegal" sexuality of an underage teen female.

Furthermore, no amount of social conditioning can effectively prevent our natural biological drive to procreate which is, in effect, what caused the girl to invite the older boy into the house against the parents obvious teachings.

Just spittin' some reality at'cha!
Click to expand...

Get yourself a daughter and get back to us. When you're responsible for a female member of your own family you won't be so liberal with your views on her sexuality. That my friend is reality.
 
Being a father of a teenager myself, I dont think I even have to comment on how that situation would have played out...but no, I wouldnt have used a gun.???
 
Obvously needs to go to the shooting range... If it would have been my kiddo I would have emptied a clip. Glock .40 holds 13. Ill get you with one of them.
 
i love this....while in the process of "protecting your little girl" you punch a couple of .40 holes in his ass, or worse.

he then wins a lawsuit against you...takes all your money and your home...and he gets to live thier, banging "your little girl" while you play tag in the showers of the indiana mens prison.

good job, you get a big thumbs up.
 
Umm, No, and it's likely the father made a REALLY bad decision... Something he's clearly passed down to his daughter.

The story and actions are full of fail.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Gross
2
Replies
28
Views
1,589
BUTTER2BOY
BUTTER2BOY
ditchdr
What about you?
Replies
5
Views
522
Jailbait
Jailbait
shawnski
Jobless father kills family, self
2
Replies
28
Views
1,859
Mr Bogus
Mr Bogus
gurrera
The Affair
Replies
5
Views
811
IG.
IG.
Scar
200mph Toyota Prius ???
Replies
10
Views
1,342
Scar
Scar
Back
Top