Re: A different article with different information

The headline is wrong. Instead of reading;

"Father Allegedly Kills Man Who Molested His Daughter, Texas Cops Say"

It should read;

"Father Kills Man Who Allegedly Molested His Daughter, Texas Cops Say"

After all, there is no doubt in any mind, Cops, "witnesses," even the perp as to the fact that the man died of injuries meted out by the Father.

To structure it otherwise presumes the molestation and questions the death. But heck, reporters are always objective, particularly when countering the overwhelming opinions of consensus culture.

Now the argument that, had the molestation happened, his reaction would be justified in the heat of the moment, presumes a single reactive act, rather than a continuous one.

Prosecutors have argued, ferinstance, that strangulation with bare hands may start as a crime of passion; but, as it takes quite a while, gives the alleged perpetrator many opportunities to cease prior to death.

So was this a single strong blow struck in protective reaction, or was this a prolonged beating done out of malice? The killers feelings suggest the latter.

"The father was reportedly "very remorseful" about the death and did not know the alleged abuser would die of his injuries."

You don't "beat" someone to "teach a lesson" by striking them just once. And again, multiple blows are directed at the person being beaten, not at the party being protected; as any opportunity to remove the girl and have her taken care of is being ignored during the beating.

And the justifications are self-contradictory. Why should folks be saying that the killing was justified if the "goal" was other than dying of his injuries?

Dante