By now we’ve all heard about the case in Texas where a father who witnessed his daughter being molested by an unidentified perpetrator attacked, and then killed him. We also know he has not been charged with any crime, yet. What you may not have known is that there is actually a civil rights group in Texas that is seriously questioning the actions of the father, and is somewhat perplexed and appalled that he has not been charged with a crime for killing the man whom he witnessed molesting his daughter.
Speaking with FoxNews.com in a Tuesday report, James Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project in Austin, said the father had every right to defend his daughter, but had summarily crossed the line. “Assuming it’s true that this guy was molesting the daughter, and we don’t know what exactly happened at this point, he would then have the right to defend [her], and hit him enough to have him stop. But you cannot summarily execute him, even though I can understand the anger he would have,” Harrington said.
Now, Harrington ought to know that Texas, of all places, is not where you want to fight to take away freedom and independence, and the right to defend yourself and your family. To even suggest that in Texas is fighting words. However, liberals don’t like the idea of anyone defending themselves. Their motto is: It’s better to die a victim than to live and know you are a killer. One might ask the logical question, why didn’t the father have a gun nearby? Good question!
Americans have a Constitutional right to defend themselves, their property and their family from harm. Sometimes that means taking a life. But it’s important to remember that the life being taken, in self-defense, has a free will of its own. That life did not need to cross paths with anyone in order to solicit malicious, mischievous, immoral and evil tidings. In other words – you reap what you sow. If it is a matter of either saving your family from harm, or bowing to the “civil rights” of the offender while they are in the act of committing harm, isn’t it logical that for most people, the “civil rights” of the offender would not even enter their mind until sometime afterwards, if at all? And then, after they got through defending themselves or their family, after the shock wore off and they had regained their faculties, wouldn’t they be more inclined to just say the hell with civil rights?
A man made a conscious decision to molest a child. Another man, the child’s father, made a conscious decision to defend his daughter. In the process the father killed the molester. Should the father have merely pushed the offender off his daughter and hope the offender would run away? Is that how it works in real life? Should the father, by law, have to give the offender a chance to redeem himself, to give himself up and await the arrival of the police to come and pick him up and take him to jail? Is that how it works in real life? Should the father have to, by law, allow the offender to defend himself?
Should the father, by law, be forced not to second guess what the offender might do next, should he be given a second chance to do something next? And why should the offender, by law, be granted the time to do something next? And what happens if that “something next” is to pull out a weapon, a gun or knife, perhaps, and use it on the father and on the daughter? There is your argument for allowing the offender to molest your daughter before your eyes while you stand aside and watch. She gets raped, but nobody gets killed. Isn’t that, to liberals, the lesser of the two evils?
Liberals are more than happy to have the offender finish his or her job, but dare anyone try to defend themselves, their families, neighbors or even perfect strangers from being harmed, and liberal so-called civil rights groups come down hardest on the defender rather than the offender. Liberal courts are no better. especially if the offender is a minority and the defender is white, or even white Hispanic. (That was a deliberate tie in to the Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman case.)
By all means, gather all the facts in this child molestation case. But for goodness sakes, show some common sense. Virtually no one who witnesses their child being molested by someone is going to call 911 first and then try to go and save their child. That doesn’t happen in the real world. But if we don’t stand up to phony civil rights groups and liberals who hate the idea of anyone practicing self-defense, that will happen, it will be real and will be a part of our real world. How does that grab you?
Related articles
- Texas civil rights group: Are we sure that dad who beat his daughter’s molester to death was engaged in self-defense? (hotair.com)
- A Killing in Texas: Was It Justifiable? (foxnews.com)
- Texas father catches man molesting four-year-old daughter, beats him to death! (thedaleygator.wordpress.com)
- Father Catches Man Molesting Daughter, Father Beats Man To Death (dreamindemon.com)
- Texas Dad Catches Molester With 4 Year-Old, Beats Him To Death (riehlworldview.com)
Filed under: culture, George Zimmerman, human rights, politics, Trayvon Martin Tagged: child molestation, Child sexual abuse, Civil and political rights, civil rights, FoxNews.com, James Harrington, Politics, Sexual abuse, Texas child molestation Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Image may be NSFW.Clik here to view.
