Father who beat to death man he caught raping his five-year-old daughter will NOT face charges

[pintobean]

A Texas father who discovered a man raping his five-year-old daughter and beat him to death with his bare hands will not be charged with homicide under state law.

A Lavaca County grand jury decided not to press charges against the 23-year-old father in the June 9th death of Jesus Mora Flores, 47, who was killed inside a remote shack after he was caught molesting the young girl.

Under Texas state law, deadly force is authorized and indeed, justified in order to stop an aggravated sexual assault and coupled with the fact that the harrowing 911 calls made by the father back claims he even tried to save the pedophile's life led to the grand jury's decision.

Lavaca County sheriff's deputies said that the father, whose name has not been released to protect the little girl's identity, sent her and her brother to feed the family's chickens.

More:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408953/Texas-father-beat-Jesus-Flores-death-raping-5-year-old-daughter-NOT-face-murder-charges.html

[backwoodsbob]

1. awful situation but can't say I disagree

Just a tragedy all around

[exboyfil]

4. A tragedy for the family

especially the daughter and her father.

For the rapist - no sympathy.

[backwoodsbob]

6. definately

that poor family.
Cant say I blame the father especially when it's obvious he tried to save the man once he regained control

[pintobean]

8. That says a lot about his character.

I really feel for the guy. He didn't want to kill, he just wanted to stop him. Now, he has to live with taking a life. It was certainly justified, but it will probably weigh on him for the rest of his life.

[morningfog]

7. Welcome back!

"I wish I could quit you DU!"

[backwoodsbob]

11. thanks

wish I could quit DU

[Hestia]

2. Same thing happened here in Ark. and the father got 20 to life over the killing n/t

[Orrex]

23. Link?

[Hestia]

87. sorry - just saw your post - let me go hunt

[Orrex]

95. Thanks!

[trumad]

3. I'd do the same.

[MrScorpio]

5. I believe that justice was served. nt

[AnotherMcIntosh]

10. Good result, but the Texas authorities should not have taken this to a grand jury.

[dixiegrrrrl]

12. "should not have taken this to a grand jury."

I think it was a smart move to do the grand jury.
Such juries are there for purpose of deciding if a charge should be filed.
The grand jury verdict now gives the authorities support for no further prosectution
to those who would claim injustice for the killing of a Hispanic man.

[Jim Lane]

32. I agree with your pragmatic reasoning but the grand jury referral was also legally correct

Presumably Texas follows the general principle that revenge killing is not allowed. A person is authorized to use deadly force in self-defense or defense of others, but only to the extent that it's necessary to that purpose. For example, if a would-be killer or rapist is beaten unconscious, but then the rescuer continues to pummel him until he dies, the defense of justifiable use of deadly force would not be applicable to all the blows inflicted after the loss of consciousness.

It's not unreasonable to ask a grand jury to consider the facts and determine whether the father, although initially justified in his use of force, went beyond the extent of the authorization.

[msanthrope]

13. Why not? nt

[aikoaiko]

14. Additional stress and legal fees for an innocent man and traumatized family.

It doesn't sound like there was any doubt.

[pintobean]

15. I doubt that he needed a lawyer

The sheriff and prosecutor probably told him not to worry about it, that the grand jury was just procedural. The case probably took about 5 minutes at the grand jury.

[aikoaiko]

36. I don't know. He needed a lawyer as soon as he killed that predator.

Would you take the word of the Sheriff or DA about not needing a lawyer?

[Eleanors38]

81. ...put it that way.

[LisaL]

18. There is no legal cost for him associated with a Grand Jury.

And this is an old story. I have no clue why it's posted about again.

[aikoaiko]

33. Well, most people get a lawyer before going to grand jury. Wouldn't you?

Anyone who kills someone in self-defense needs to get to a lawyer on retainer pronto.

[AngryAmish]

44. Very few defendants go to the grand jury

As the saying goes the grand jury very rarely does not do what the prosecutor wants them to do. I bet the prosecutor went in there and said, it looks like this prick had it coming. Grand jury then votes no bill.

[aikoaiko]

46. I realize that but its crazy to not talk to a lawyer before GJ.

[pintobean]

57. The story is dated yesterday

and was updated this morning, but this isn't LBN. There are no time/date restrictions in GD.

[Lurks Often]

17. I believe under Texas law that by taking it to a Grand Jury and

having the Grand Jury decline to pursue charges will prevent the possibility of a civil suit being filed against the father if the rapist's heirs were stupid enough to find an even stupider lawyer to take the case.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

19. No.

[X_Digger]

38. Well sorta..

http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/tx-sec-83-001-civil-immunity/

TITLE 4. LIABILITY IN TORT

CHAPTER 83. USE OF DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON

Sec. 83.001. CIVIL IMMUNITY.

A defendant who uses force or deadly force that is justified under Chapter 9, Penal Code, is immune from civil liability for personal injury or death that results from the defendant’s use of force or deadly force, as applicable.

The grand jury returning a 'no true bill' (refusing to indict) would be used at a civil trial to get the suit dismissed.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

40. Interesting find.

[Yo_Mama]

47. Once you take this to the grand jury the man's basically free and clear

It happened. The system worked.

[oneshooter]

77. All deaths are refered to a Grand Jury in Texas.

By refusing to press charges against the young man they guarantee that he will never be sued by the family of the dead guy ( I refuse to call him a man).

[truebrit71]

16. Good. Common sense.

I would have done the same.

[sarisataka]

20. I wonder where

all those opposed to vigilante justice and summary execution of criminals are...

Good call by the GJ

[Donald Ian Rankin]

22. This doesn't sound like it was vigilanteism.

For what it's worth, if, after the fact, he'd made a calculated decision to kill his daughter's rapist, I'd be calling for him to be jailed for murder.

But losing control when confronted with an unexpected crime is not all the same thing - it should be treated much more leniently, and in this case it sounds like not prosecuting at all was the right decision.

[Orrex]

25. You have stated it exactly

Shame on anyone who can't distinguish between this case and "vigilante justice."

[Eleanors38]

80. I concur, and would award demerits to those who "refuse to distinguish."

[sarisataka]

26. I don't necessarily disagree

if the attacker was restrained, then killed a good case could be made for murder. I have seen many claim anyone who kills in stopping a violent crime should be considered murder.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. Self defence and defence of others are recognised defences.

I *do* think that it's important that anyone who calculatedly kills *after* a crime in order to punish the criminal should be prosecuted for murder, though.

[sarisataka]

31. I fully agree

[Paladin]

24. Why don't you and your Gun Enthusiast pals take a hike?

Be satisfied that suitable justice was meted out, and give it a rest.

[sarisataka]

28. Well since you brought it up...

would you believe it was suitable justice if the father had shot the attacker?

[Paladin]

34. I hope your gun safety skills are better than your ability to pose trick questions. (nt)

[sarisataka]

42. No trick...

a man is caught assaulting a child, a person shoots him (he is not restrained or fleeing) and he dies- is it justified?

[backwoodsbob]

30. no gun was used

WTF?

[Paladin]

63. That didn't stop our resident Gun Enthusiasts from turning out. (nt)

[NickB79]

51. Are YOU satisfied that justice was meted out?

Between the fact that no one mentioned guns in this thread except you, and the hostility of telling a DU'er to take a hike, it almost sounds like you're not exactly satisfied that the father WASN'T put in prison.

[derby378]

61. Exactly

Sometimes, it seems there's no pleasing some people...

[Paladin]

64. I addresed the justice matter on another post in this thread. (nt)

[Trajan]

39. well ... I, for one, am here ...

agreeing with the many that this is justified, and the correct call ....

I'm still against vigilantism and summary execution ....

This is nothing of the sort ...

[sarisataka]

45. I have seen it put forth that

using lethal force by a civilian against a violent criminal is being judge, jury and executioner. I agree this case is fully justified.

[irisblue]

54. sarisataka, you're pulling this too far

I don't know you or your history on DU. I do know beyond a shadow of a doubt most humans would do what the father did. Take this advice, drop it and move on, you gain no friends for your home group by your ..implications..here and now.

[sarisataka]

56. I have satisfied my inquiry

and I thank you for your kind words prudently remind moderation

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. Wander into the pro-gun control group someday and see who is a regular.

Then watch how they harangue the pro-2A faction with the very statements saris is referring to.

[Eleanors38]

82. Well, Iris, I don't know you, but would suggest...

you paruse some if the DU archives where you will pick up examples of what sarisataka contends.

What is his/hers "home group," and how does that relate to friendliness?

[Blue_Tires]

69. Well, there are still a few DUers who even now say

Trayvon Martin was a "violent criminal"... Those are the people I continue to have beef with...

[kcr]

41. Well, they're probably off opposing vigilante justice where it actually happened

As opposed to this case, which wasn't. So, wonder no more.

[Yo_Mama]

48. It wasn't vigilantism and it wasn't execution of the criminal

It was accidental death as a result of an enraged father's NECESSARY physical defense of his five year old daughter who was being raped. There is a difference, and is clearly shown by the 911 call and the father's behavior then.

[closeupready]

50. Yes, and also, if he'd used a gun, they'd be hanging him high.

But I guess it's okay if you use no weapons.

That said, I agree that declining to press charges is correct.

[RandiFan1290]

58. I'm right here

Problem?

[Blue_Tires]

74. I admire your sense of justice...

So I'm guessing you also wouldn't shed a tear if something 'unfortunate' were to George Zimmerman? You know, for the sake of consistency??

[sarisataka]

78. I'm not sure what he has to do

with this incident.
As was discussed in some threads, tracking and killing someone after the fact would generally be considered murder. I think that would apply to someone found not guilty of the crime they were accused of. That a jury comes up with a verdict we disagree with does not change the justification.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

21. If he caught him in the act and was surprised, I think that's probably reasonable.

If this were a calculated decision then - whether or not his victim were a child-rapist - he'd need to be jailed for murder.

But I think it's entirely reasonable not to prosecute people who lose control under that sort of provocation.

"He was a bad person who deserved it" must never, ever become an acceptable defence.

[liberal N proud]

27. Having something like that happen to one of your children would be extenuating circumstance

I say that as a father of two girls.

[appleannie1]

35. The father and daughter will have horrible memories of that day the rest of their lives. Both are

innocent victims IMO.

[kestrel91316]

37. I believe justice was served. He caught him in the act and had the right and the duty to

protect his daughter (and himself, once he pulled him off the girl).

[JRLeft]

43. It would have been worse for the rapist if I were the one who caught him.

[Wolf Frankula]

49. Good. The Function of the Law in this Case

should be to see that the father is not bothered. I would have done the same, and not felt remorse.

Wolf

[Vinnie From Indy]

52. They never would have found a jury to convict.

eom

[Rex]

53. What father wouldn't have beat the man to a pulp?

I think justice was served outside of court in this case...now the nightmare of living with what Flores has done to the poor kid and the hell the father will dream about probably every night for the rest of his life.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

55. I'd have done the same.

Or died trying.

[GreenStormCloud]

59. In 1984, a dad deliberately shot & killed man who abducted & sexually abused his 11-yr old son.

He got five years probation for pre-meditated murder.

[Logical]

67. I remember that case. I think it was too light a sentence. I think now days it....

would be a worse penalty.

You cannot let people do that in a civilized society.

[Eleanors38]

84. Can't go with that sentence. Compassion out of control

is just another passion out of control

He should have served time.

[alp227]

60. Daily Mail? F that, here's a better link

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/09/03/justice-served-in-texas/

[pintobean]

66. Your link wasn't available

when I posted.

So... F that.

[Warren DeMontague]

62. Good.

[Blue_Tires]

68. I hate to be "that guy", but

Is there any hard evidence to back up the father's version of events??

[pintobean]

71. If you hate it

don't do it. We hire LEOs to do a job. Do you have any hard evidence that says they didn't do their jobs?

[Blue_Tires]

73. I'm just saying

People have gotten away with laughably flimsy "justifiable" murder defenses for supposedly heinous crimes (or by getting someone else to commit murder)...Forgive me for not taking the dad's story at face value...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023280521#post2

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=141268

[Niceguy1]

79. the grand jury has spoken

We don't need the word of the father. Is there evidence that he isn't telling the truth.

[pintobean]

83. In both of those cases

arrests were made and charges were filed. Not so in this case.

[GreenStormCloud]

85. The raped 5-yr old's body would be very strong evidence.

DNA exchange would strongly establish what he did. At that age she would have bleed and her blood would be on his dick.

[Yo_Mama]

88. The 911 calls

And the injured kid.

[PD Turk]

70. Good

I would have done the same

[surrealAmerican]

72. I expected a few post to the effect of ...

... "I would do the same.", and I hope those people are just engaging in some sort of macho posturing, and don't really think they would. To beat another human being to death is a horrible thing. If you think you might do such a thing, regardless of the provocation, you need to seek out some sort of anger management program.

Protecting your children is important. Beating someone to death is not a necessary price to pay for their safety.

[ohnoyoudidnt]

75. This is not a normal situation.

I doubt this father has a reputation as a bad guy. If someone where to track their kid's molester down after the fact and murder them, then it would be different. I could resist violence in that case and let the law do it's thing, but to catch someone in the act doing something so horrible, reason can temporarily disappear. I don't ever want to be in a situation where I have to take someone's life, but that doesn't mean a situation couldn't happen where I do. If I was on a jury, I wouldn't convict the guy.

[Yo_Mama]

89. Your opinion seems almost insanely unrealistic

If you think a father finding his five year old girl under a grown man can intervene physically with mental calm, then you are a strange human being.

If you think a father finding a strange man in the act of raping his five year old daughter has any reason not to believe that the man has the incentive to really hurt him, you are really nuts. Remember, this guy was alone when he found this happening. If he didn't attack immediately with sufficient force to put the perp down he was in deep trouble, and his daughter was in even deeper trouble.

The moment the father found this guy in the act, he had to go in with sufficient force to end the other guy's ability to hurt. In the emotional circumstances, expecting the man to be all cool, calm and professional about it would be entirely unrealistic. The only rational thing to do was to jump the perp with extreme force.

This was really an accidental death. But there is in all self-defense law also a category often called "excusable manslaughter", in which death is not intentional but as a byproduct of a legal defense of oneself or another and it is not punished. All the elements of to establish that are present here, including the 911 calls in which he appears to be trying to save the guys life. After the danger passed, it establishes that the intent was to defend, not execute.

It would be entirely different if the guy had wandered out there with four buddies, who could have jumped and restrained the man. That did not happen.

[pintobean]

91. Excellent response.

Sometimes I just find some comments too stupid to respond to. I'm glad that you didn't share my attitude in this case.

[surrealAmerican]

92. You misunderstood my post.

I was not criticizing the reaction of the man in the news story; he's doing that himself. He clearly never planned to beat a man to death, but rather lost control in an extreme situation.

My criticism is of the other posters who are actually planning on acting in a similar manner.

There are also a lot of reactions somewhere between "cool, calm and professional", and "keep beating someone after they are no longer a threat". A person could very reasonably aim for a forceful, yet non-lethal response, even if, in the heat of the moment, they might not be in very good control of themselves.

[Yo_Mama]

93. You can kill someone with one punch

I'm glad you are not criticizing this man, who was placed in an impossible situation and clearly suffers for it.

I still think you are being unrealistic in assuming that this was a prolonged beatdown.

The problem is that if you are a lone person having to deal with something like this that you have to move in very aggressively and really knock the guy down before you can know that the situation is under control and can attend to your daughter. It is not possible for the average civilian to do this safely. Perhaps someone very well trained could do it. However police seem to have the training and often don't seem to be able to use force safely.

Don't forget that the guy also had to worry about his daughter, who it is reasonable to suppose had suffered significant physical damage.

To be very blunt, if you have to take the chance of killing the guy to end the danger to yourself and your daughter, that's the only ethical thing to do. And if you are worrying more about not hurting the perp too much than about ending the threat to your daughter and yourself, you are an idiot, ethically and pragmatically.

I would certainly hope that any DUer would move in to defend a child and use the necessary force in such a situation, even if that did imply a good chance of causing long-term physical damage or killing the perp. In such a situation, the criminal is the one who is responsible for that damage or that death, not the person trying to defend a child.

So I agree with the posters who are saying that they would do the same thing. I don't see how anyone could do otherwise, ethically. Death was not intended here - defense was intended.

I don't think anyone, including you, has the right to be ethically censorious towards a person who is placed in this situation through no fault of his or her own.

I am sorry that the perpetrator died on the father's account, but I do not think any trace of blame can fairly be attached to the father.

If it were me, I'd have moved in and tried to slug the perp in the back of his neck just as hard as I could. I'd be trying to really, really hurt the guy, because I am not an MMA fighter and the life of child could well depend on my getting the upper hand ASAP.

I wouldn't have the option not to try to really hurt the guy. The average male probably wouldn't either. Your surreal assumption that this guy had the option to do differently is just unrealistic.

[surrealAmerican]

94. Once again: I am not criticizing this man's actions.

He was in no way planning to kill the man. I'm also not saying his first concern should have been not hurt this man. Obviously, the child's safety is always the first concern.

The man and his daughter now have even more of a trauma to deal with because the perpetrator died, and that is unfortunate for both of them, but it was unavoidable here.

I might have misunderstood how long this beat down was, and you might have too. The story didn't really say.

[Ruby the Liberal]

76. Good.

Normally I am not down with the "he deserved killin'" defense, but in this case, I'll make an exception and file it under "oops".

[Fawke Em]

86. I doubt a jury would convict him.

I covered a similar situation when I was a reporter.

The police chief told me that charging the father would be a waste of taxpayer dollars.

[Raine]

90. Good! nt