Is It Wrong for Parents to Avenge Their Children?

FRISCO PARENTS CHARGED IN MURDER OF TEEN DAUGHTER’S PIMP.

Imagine if you caught a man molesting your five-year-old daughter. Or if you discovered that a man was pimping out your 17-year-old daughter. What would you do?

When a 23-year-old Texas father heard his little girl crying behind a barn, when he saw her being sexually violated by Jesus Mora Flores, he beat the deviant to death.

And when San Francisco parents Barry Gilton and Lupe Mercado were unable to rescue their teen daughter from her pimp, Calvin Sneed, by peaceable means, they shot and killed him.

Both the Texas dad and parents Gilton and Mercado were accused of taking the law into their own hands. But their cases have been handled quite differently by the legal system.

In the case of the Texas dad, a grand jury in Lacava County declined this week to indict him, deciding that he was justified in using deadly force to protect his five-year old.

However, in the case of San Francisco couple Gilton and Mercado, they have been charged with murder by the city’s District Attorney and are currently being held on $2 million bail each.

To my mind, the San Francisco parents are no more guilty, no less deserving of mercy, than the Texas dad.

For the parents took the lives of wicked men who preyed upon their beloved daughters. The difference is that the Texas dad acted in the heat of the moment, while the actions of the San Francisco parents were premeditated.

But while neither law enforcement, nor the legal system, can be faulted for Flores’ molestation of the Texas dad’s little girl, both law enforcement and the legal system are to blame for leaving the teen-age daughter of Gilton and Mercado in the clutches of her pimp.

Indeed, the San Francisco couple tried for months and months to get help from the authorities, but to absolutely no avail. As time passed, they could no longer sit idly by knowing their daughter was whoring herself on the streets for Sneed, a reputed member of the Nutty Blocks Crips gang.

So they killed him and freed their daughter.

San Francisco D.A. George Gascon said this week, “I fully understand the frustration the family felt.” But he really doesn’t. Otherwise, he wouldn’t be prosecuting the couple for what he describes as “vigilante murder.”

It will be interesting to see what happens when Gilton and Mercado eventually stand trial. If I was on the jury, I would vote to acquit.

Comments

  1. The two stories are completely different. The five year old was helpless and innocent. The 17 year old chose the path she was on and did not want to be rescued. The five year old was being harmed physically by an aggressor. The 17 year old was voluntarily doing what she did.
    I may sound really tough but when I say a child grows the way you train them, that’s a Biblical truth. Whether they had no time for her, (17 year old) perhaps she was attacked as a child, whatever happened, now she is at a decision making age. In the case of the five year old, the father reacted to an immediate situation that had to be stopped. In the case of the 17 year old, if it was them pulling their daughter into a car and the pimp pulled a gun and there was a fire fight, they would have been justified. Yet it wasn’t. The father shot him in the a.m. and searched for him in the p.m. and killed him. He is guilty.
    Oh as a father (and I do believe the D.A.) I can feel the anguish and the desire for revenge. Although I can understand the feeling, I can not accept the giving in to that feeling or if a married man is tempted by a woman it then becomes okay to go with her. Although we understand the attraction and the desire, we can not understand the adultery.
    Case closed.

    • I completely agree with you, Mr. Wilson. I understand wanting to rescue your daughter from a pimp, but by the age of seventeen, you’re making your own decisions. Lots of people are trafficked and forced into prostitution, but I highly doubt this particular teenager was one of them.

  2. A Proud Texan says:

    TEXAS LAW
    Sec. 9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON.
    (a) A person is justified in using deadly force against another:

    (1) if the actor would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.31; and

    (2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

    (A) to protect the actor against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful deadly force; or

    (B) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: