Father executes teenage son for child sexual abuse

[Susie Hamilton]

http://www.freep.com/article/20091119/N ... r-with-son


Here ia an article with more info.

[RamboPreacher]

horrified at both of their activities - AND at some of the comments made by Christians here and on other forums I have read about this. prayer continues.

[Mike Vande]

But, that's just me.

The first statement is the most correct. You are, at best, rationalizing the man's actions and motivations with those you believe you would have in the same situation. There is no way for you, me, and/or anyone (including possibly the man himself) but God to know his motives. He may have been acting out of guilt, pride, anger, or intoxication. If the guy had ever done time, he might have been acting out of what I understand is a convict's usual attitude towards child molesters; the life expectancy of a child molester behind bars is short and unpleasant. He might even have been trying to save his kid from that kind of death.

There is just no way to know why he did it. And there is no part of what he did that I can characterize as "noble". What he did was, in effect, making himself into God and executing divine retribution. That's about as ignoble as it gets.

[Full Quiver]

I'm speechless still

[Susie Hamilton]

Did anyone read the link I posted? It really changes things.

[dolfan]

Mike, I've been very careful to say that my feelings and views are exactly that -- my own. I don't argue that anyone else ought to see this as I do, not at all.

The father here is a murderer. That's what he did, that's what he is. He'll never be an un-murderer. You can't put the toothpaste back into the tube.

His son was a child sexual abuser. That's what he did, that's what he was. For as long as he would've lived, he would never be an un-abuser.

The father protected his daughter from future abuse from that boy, who was his son. Whatever attitudes, remorse, whatever accounting the boy would've done on this we'll never know. What we do know is that the little girl is safe from him. If it was my daughter I believe I can safely say that whatever price I have to pay, whatever cost I have to exact at the expense of another, I would. If the boy had not been his son, I would say put his face on posters with the phrase "American Hero" underneath. I don't care about process or rights for child molesters. BUT, as it was, this was his son that he killed. As I view the father, personally--again, IMO--he is not that different from the character in Sophie's Choice, except here there was an element of retribution in the choice.

If we lived in a nation without government and we were largely governed by family and local custom, a much swifter and certain punishment in cases such as these would be expected and carried out. The imposition of bureaucracy and the surrender of our morals to it does not mean that acting against notions of "due process" is also immoral. In colonial America, a blasphemer could have his tongue burned out of his mouth with a hot iron. Due process? No. But, he could not foist his uttered blasphemies on anyone again. This son, whatever else he may ever have done or been, for good or bad, will never molest a child, and will never molest his sister. Stopping that conduct, exacting retribution for it, again IMO, has a noble quality to it, considering the price the father has paid by losing a son and losing his freedom and possibly his own life for the sake of his daughter's safety.

Two wrongs don't make a right, though. The father killed his son. It was not necessary to stop the danger. There was a potential we'll never know that the son could've been captured, seized of his conduct, redirected and helped, although I quite doubt it but my doubt is not the important factor.

So, where does that leave us? At a horrible, horrible state of things. Nobody wins here.

[Susie Hamilton]

According to the account that I posted there was no sexual abuse. The kid admitted laying on top of the girl fully clothed and knew it was wrong, period. There was no sign of sexual abuse with the medical exam.

[dolfan]

I thought the article said he had abused her. I don't read where it says he merely laid down beside her or on her. I read where it says he had inappropriate contact, clothed, with her. Now, could it be that something else than that happened? Yeah. But, that's now how momma is characterizing it. She's calling what the boy did "wrong". No matter that there was no "sign of abuse" on a medical exam. He could've done any number of awful things to her that wouldn't be indicated physically in any way. And, molesters commonly minimize what they do when they feel cornered, IF they don't get their jollies by telling it (and many do). Some do both in a twisted game when they're found out.

Consider this report by the father to his own grandparents about what his daughter told him:

http://www.freep.com/article/20091122/N ... ned-family