Father who killed Daughter's attacker won't face charges

[LSN80]

47 year old Jesus Mora Flores was an invited guest to a house party in Shiner, Texas ten days ago. Because of his alledged rape attempt against the owner of the house's four-year old daughter, Flores wound up dead at the hands of her father. Following a short investigation, police decided not to charge the man. Yesterday, the District Attorney as well as a Grand Jury concurred, and the man will not face charges in the beating death of Flores.

http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2012/...d-daughters-attacker-spared-from-prosecution/

Both the father and daughter's names are being withheld to protect the identity of the daughter, which is common in cases of sexual abuse of minors. On Saturday, April 10th, 7 people gathered at the father and his family's home for a horse shoeing at their ranch where they keep horses and chickens. Of the 7 guests, Flores was the only relative unknown, and was considered an acquaintance to the father only. When the family and friends went to the barn for the horse shoeing, the 4 year old little girl stayed back in the home. So did Flores. Moments after headind out to the barn, the father heard his daughter scream. Upon arriving inside, he saw Flores alledgedly sexually assaulting his daughter, and began striking Flores in the head repeatedly. According to the autopsy report, Flores died of trauma to the head and neck consistent to the man's story. When the father saw Flores dying, he called 911 and he and members of his family tried to save the man's life, according to the transcript from the 911 call.

"I need an ambulance. This guy was raping my daughter and I beat him up. And I don't know ... I don't know what to do. The guy's dying on me!"

The four year old girl was taken to a nearby hospital, whereas Flores was pronounced dead at the scene. The little girl was "physically ok" due to a statement from Sheriff Micah Harmon. He added that she was "Ok, besides the obvious mental tramua." The sheriff then commented on the local authorities decision not to charge the man:

"You have a right to defend your daughter. He acted in defence of his third person. Once the investigation is completed we will submit it to the district attorney who then submits it to the grand jury, who will decide if they will indict him."

What is this Defense of Third Person that the Sheriff referenced? It's a Texas law that allows a person to use deadly force against another person who is in the commission of, or attempting to, commit assault of any kind, including sexual of course. According to the Texas penal code website, the law reads as follows:

"The actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the third person he seeks to protect."

In this case, it seems the man would be justified, no? One thing the law doesn't touch on is the state of mind of the person. In his statement to police, the father acknowledged that he flew into a "blind rage" when he saw Flores attempting to force himself upon his daughter. I imagine if it was me, and it was my daughter being a potential rape victim, I'd use as much force as possible as well to remove the man from my daughter and eliminate any chance of him fighting back. The law also doesn't specify that the third party's life has to be in danger, just that "unlawful force" has to be taking place. Said District Attorney Heather McMinn, who announced that the Grand Jury did not indict the father:

"The substantial amount of evidence showed that the witness statements and the father's statement and what the father had observed was in fact what had happened that day. The father called 911, and he and his family tried to save the life of alleged attacker Jesus Mora Flores despite what they had just witnessed."

Who of us, in that situation, wouldn't use physical force against a man we saw raping our child? The question for me becomes "How much is justified or necessary?" in a case like this, as one would have to use substantial force to kill someone with their bare hands. I always wonder, in these cases, where the line is between necessary force and force out of blind rage, because it truly seems to blur. The fact that the father tried to save Jesus Flores' life shows perhaps a realization that he went too far. But personally, I think the right decision was made not to charge the father here, as Im sure his primary motive, though he's not spoken, was to keep his daughter safe. If Jesus Flores, an invite to the man's home, could do this to his daughter so brazenly with 7 witnesses around, I shudder to think what he would have done with no witnesses, and what he may have done in the past.

Do you agree with the decision not to indict the father who killed Jesus Flores?

What would you have done if you were the father in this situation?

Does the Defense of Third Person Law give too much leeway to the protector to use deadly force in these situations?

Any other thoughts or discussion of this is more then welcome here.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

I agree with this wholeheartedly. He may have gotten a sympathy vote, but who wouldn't? If I had cought someone doing that to my daughter I would have literally beaten the offender to death.

 

[Mustang Sally]

On the one hand, I take pause when I think of law enforcement deciding when it's okay for one person to take someone who's alive and turn him into someone who's dead. On the other hand, the law is supposed to be fluid .....although it so often isn't......and here's a case where common sense was allowed to enter the equation.

It involved the man's daughter. While she's a minor, he's responsible for protecting her......which often means also protecting society from her. If a 4-year-old gets some matches and burns down someone's house, who's going to be financially responsible for it? If she finds a knife and stabs one of her playmates, who's going to have to answer for that? In both cases, it's her parents, isn't it?

But why? Dad didn't burn down the person's house or stab their child, did he? Why should he be responsible? Well, whether you think he should be or not, he is. Society will tell the father he should have had better control of his child so she couldn't have performed those bad acts.

Therefore, shouldn't it work the other way too? If she's in real danger (threat to life and limb.....and of course, rape) isn't he the one responsible for making sure these things don't happen to her? If it's another person causing these acts, doesn't he have the responsibility of making sure they don't happen........without having to worry about how badly the offender suffers?

Sure, some people will disagree with law enforcement's decision not to go after him. ("Jeez, did you have to kill the guy? Couldn't you just give him a karate chop and get him off of her?")

Then, if law enforcement did decide to charge the guy, figuring the legal system would decide what becomes of him, what do you think a judge or jury would do? Would they judge him innocent? Hopefully, yes......but we never know what's going to happen in a courtroom, do we? Too often, there is far too much concern for the perpetrator of a crime and too little for the victim. So, here's an example of the law working as it should, with discretion and reason.

Had there been any question as to what truly happened in this incident, the law's response might have been different. Since it was clear as day the father was protecting the child whom he is legally and morally held responsible for protecting, it all went down as it should have.

 

[Davi323]

Do you agree with the decision not to indict the father who killed Jesus Flores?

Hell yes, I agree with the decision. Guy was protecting his daughter from an immediate threat.

What would you have done if you were the father in this situation?

By nature, I am not a violent man. The last fight I was in happened more than 25 years ago. However, if I had a 4 year old daughter, and I caught someone trying to rape her, I would assume that the rapist was trying to commit suicide by father, because that would be the last thing he ever attempted. There are only a few things that can get me that worked up to the point where I could conceivably take the life of a human being...but this sure as hell is one of them.

Does the Defense of Third Person Law give too much leeway to the protector to use deadly force in these situations?

Clearly, based on my responses to the first two questions, my answer to this one would be a resounding no. I have little issue with individuals who take a life specifically to protect third parties from imminent danger caused by that person. If protecting the innocent, especially if it's your own son or daughter, means removing a child rapist from the land of the living, so be it.

Fuck the rights of the child rapist. Human rights are for humans. You try to rape a 4 year old child, you are no longer worthy of being considered a human.

Putting aside my personal feelings, the Defense of Third Person Law also serves a practical purpose. There isn't a jury in the world that would convict a father for killing a guy raping his 4-year old daughter, so the time and money spent on the trial would be wasted. Why bother, when you know ahead of time he will be found innocent of whatever murder/manslaughter charge he is brought up on? What Prosecuting Attorney would even take that case? Who wants to be the attorney arguing that a man who sought only to protect his young child from being raped should be imprisoned? A lot of Prosecuting Attorneys have political ambitions, and prosecuting a case like this would be absolute political suicide. This law gives them a way to avoid having to have a case like this.

 

[H33LTurn]

I completely agree with the decision here and of course I would do the same thing. Its a man who tried to sexually assault a child, we lose nothing in this world by getting rid of him.

 

[pigpenwm]

I completely agree with the decision here and of course I would do the same thing. Its a man who tried to sexually assault a child, we lose nothing in this world by getting rid of him.

I agree 100% with that last sentence...serial rapists fuck up soooo many lives in this world, it's such an awful domino effect. The guy deserved to die, and in TEXAS of all places, the dude who killed him can feel safe knowing their legal system will share the same sentiments.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I think you'll have a difficult time finding someone who would truly disagree with the choice not to go after this man with criminal charges. After all, the man was protecting another person and the fact that this person happens to be his young daughter only makes his actions all the more understandable.

At the end of the day, there are times in which it's necessary to take the life of another person. I have Christian beliefs and I understand that life is something precious, but what exactly is someone supposed to do in this situation? There's a very, very good chance that the man raping his daughter would have killed her once he was finished, and had they not been interrupted. I know that there are people out there that don't believe in taking anyone's life under any circumstances. That's all well and good and, in my opinion, that can be an easy stance to take when there are others out there to defend those same people if such trouble comes their way. It's easy to be a pacifist when you have someone to do what you don't want to do.

To some degree, this reminds me of an episode of Law & Order in which a man is accused of recklessly causing the death of a young man he was trying to save. The young man who died had been taken hostage and held at knife point by a guy that basically snapped, an asshole that just decided he didn't care about anything and decided to take out his frustrations on the world. This guy killed several people in the woods that were part of a hunting party that included this young man and his father. The man who was to be later charged with reckless homicide happened to be on the side of the road in his vehicle when he saw the young teenager being dragged into a black SUV by this man. Unsure of what to do, he had to make a split second decision and followed them. He wasn't sure what he was going to do exactly, he just felt that something awful would happen if he didn't. Along the way, he tried to get the cops on his cell phone multiple times but kept losing a signal and was unable to really get his message out. Anyhow, he followed the SUV all the way into Manhattan with the SUV trying to lose him. He ultimately hits the SUV and sends it crashing into a resteraunt, injuring several patrons and killing the driver of the SUV. The good samaritan grew frightened and left the scene in his own vehicle. The young teen who'd been held hostage suffered a lacerated liver and would eventually die. The good samaritan's identity was discovered and he was put on trial for what happened. He was ultimately acquited of the charges. It's not exactly the same scenario as what happened in Texas, but it's an example of someone doing their best to try and help. He was put into a situation he certainly wasn't prepared for and probably never dreamed he'd ever be part of. He didn't have time to measure the probabilities of what MIGHT happen if he decided to help or to just mind his own business. It was the same, to some degree, with this father. He finds his child being savagely attacked and he did what he thought was right. He didn't do it with malice intent. He didn't do it try and be some sort of hero.

On television and in the movies, there are always convenient little plot twists that always seem to pop up just when they're needed. That doesn't happen in real life. In real life, heroes don't have scripts to go by and the actions that take place weren't printed out by some writer living in the Hollywood hills. Real life is messy, it's unpredictable and it doesn't always turn out in ways that leaves everyone feeling warm and fuzzy inside. The good guys don't always wear white hats, nor do they ride off into the sunset after saving the day. This man did what he had to do and I can't fault him for it. Part of me is sorry that the man is dead, I'd feel that way about anybody really, but I'd rather it be him that than little girl or someone else's little girl later on down the line.

 

[This Is My Name Thank You]

Do you agree with the decision not to indict the father who killed Jesus Flores?
Yes. Texas is a true Southern State and if you know anything about Southern states they have much leaner laws than Northern states. If this was to happen back north where I am from (Massachusetts) the father would have been arrested on the spot and put on trial for murder and maybe pushed down to manslaughter charges.

In the South the laws are much better at allowing us non-law-enforcement to take charge of a crime and resort to murder/severe punishment by our own hands. The south takes deep roots into kinship, protect their homes and allowing more lee-way for attacks on intruders. Although, each states may have different variations of the law in their own way; for the most part murder/protection of kinship is taking very seriously in the south.


What would you have done if you were the father in this situation?

Yes, I would have done exactly what this father did. Turned into complete rage/black out mood and beat that fucker down. As far as saying if I would or would not have killed him; is unknown. As of know my blood is boiling just reading the article. If someone was raping/hurting your daughter/son who was 4 years old what would you do? I wouldn't care if the law would not justify my actions or not, because if I was to see this happening the law would be taking into my own hands. I am very protective of my love ones, so if you were to mess with something I created, then the anger inside me will be 100x’s as deadly since now it is my flesh and blood.

If you just stood there and watched this man attack your son or daughter whilst waiting for the police you deserved to be shot. Right. Between. The. Eyes.

Does the Defense of Third Person Law give too much leeway to the protector to use deadly force in these situations?

No, again it is a Southern state and they are all about the protection of their kin. I can say at least the guy tried to call 911 for the rapist in attempt to save his life. It failed but he broke the law in his own right by being a sick son-of-a-bitch. To me, whether you accept it or not, the guy had it coming to him. In a way, it is not murder; more as self defense for a person who could not defend themselves. That to me is what the law was and is implying. He got what deserved for being mentally sick in the head and now he paid for his sins by having his life stricken from him.

 

[JWGunslinger]

Do you agree with the decision not to indict the father who killed Jesus Flores?
Definitely, I would have responded to the situation the exact same way. If he were to be indicted for protecting his daughter from a rapist in his own home it would be an extremely fucked ruling. On top of that he obviously showed that his intention was not to kill him when he called 911, but to stop this guy and keep him from further abusing his daughter.

What would you have done if you were the father in this situation?
I probably would have done what the father did in this situation only I doubt I would have shown the compassion he did in trying to save his life. And I don't say that to sound like I'm some tough guy meathead who would relish killing someone in this situation, but I also don't believe I would have the capacity to feel any sort of remorse after hurting a man who could do such an unspeakable thing. If you are going to try to rape a little girl or anyone you are committing one of the worst crimes a human can make and you are going to pay for what you have done. I would have done what I needed to do to make sure the guy wasn't going to get back up and hurt anyone else and then call the cops, if he's got a broken rib or a gun shot wound he earned that when he tried to rape another human being.

Does the Defense of Third Person Law give too much leeway to the protector to use deadly force in these situations?
I believe that it gives a little too much leeway but at the same time if it were altered I could see it going from too much to too little. The thing is that if people know about this law then they are going to be thinking twice about causing problems in Texas and I think that leeway is going to hopefully prevent a few crimes/altercations from happening. But really neither way is fool proof and there are going to be problems no matter what you do, every situation is unique so it's hard to have a definite solution when it comes to this law. In most cases I say that the laws that give people a little more freedom/leeway are going to work out better because I damn sure don't want it the other way if I try to save someone's life and get thanked by the state with a charge of manslaughter or what have you. For now I'll say it works and I'm fine with it, in the end what matters is that people have good judgement and hopefully that's enough.

 

[Natural Selection]

Do you agree with the decision not to indict the father who killed Jesus Flores?

Absolutely. The father was completely within his rights.

What would you have done if you were the father in this situation?

I would have killed the motherfucker too. No attempt to save Jesus would have been made. I invite you into my home and you try to rape my daughter? Well now your dead.

Does the Defense of Third Person Law give too much leeway to the protector to use deadly force in these situations?

No, some people deserve to die.