Father beats the hell out of man who molested his son

[Borgholio]

http://ktla.com/2014/07/18/daytona-beac ... on-police/

No charges were filed Friday against a Daytona Beach father who beat a man unconscious after allegedly catching him in the act of sexually assaulting his 11-year-old son.

The boy’s father told officers that he came home to find a neighbor, Raymond Frolander, in the act of molesting his son when he attacked him, according to the Daytona Beach Police Department arrest report.

“I just walked in on a grown man molesting …,” the 35-year-old father told a 911 dispatcher, according to the The Daytona Beach News Journal. “And I got him in a bloody puddle for you officer. Send an ambulance. He is going to need one,” the father told the dispatcher.
Police said Raymond Frolander, 18, was beaten unconscious after a father walked in on his sexually assaulting his young son. (Credit: Daytona Beach Police)

Police said Raymond Frolander, 18, was beaten unconscious after a father walked in on his sexually assaulting his young son. (Credit: Daytona Beach Police)

When officers arrived, they found Frolander “laying motionless on the living room floor with several knots on his face and bleeding from his mouth,” according to the police report.

He was transported to Halifax Medical Center for treatment, police said.

The boy told officers that before the attack he had been playing video games with some friends. When his friends left, he was left alone with Frolander who initiated sexual contact.

According to the boy, the sexual abuse had been going on since he was 8 years old, according to the report.

During questioning, police said Frolander admitted to having a sexual relationship with the victim saying “I’m guilty,” according to the police report.

Frolander, 18, was booked on sexual battery on a victim under 12 and was being held without bail, according to Volusia County Branch Jail records.

“Dad was acting like a dad. I don’t see anything we should charge the dad with,” Daytona Beach police Chief Mike Chitwood told The News Journal. “You have an 18-year-old who has clearly picked his target, groomed his target and had sex with the victim multiple times.

Damn...he's going to be feeling that for awhile.

[Broomstick]

Hmmm... I don't normally condone violence but there are exceptions. I'd say a parent certainly has a right to defend his child using physical force if necessary. He didn't kill the guy, he incapacitated him, which was clearly done in the context of stopping a sexual assault. The police have looked into the matter and decided not to charge him.

OK, I'm with the dad on this one.

[Lagmonster]

We had a story on this board a short while back about a man in Texas who walked in on another man molesting his young daughter, who was crying, and the father beat the man to death with his bare hands. This ended better, but the former was still firmly in the realm of "no jury would convict".

[Broomstick]

While in practice something different may apply, and details differ from one jurisdiction to another, in theory you're allowed to use violence in defense of yourself or another only to the extent necessary to end the threat. Anything beyond that and you risk legal charges from assault to murder.

In this instance, because the father did stop when the molester was unconscious rather than continuing to beat on him it seems to me that he was in control and able to limit his actions to just what was needed to subdue the bad guy. Granted, a jury might not convict a man who killed in such circumstances, but continuing to beat the man until he was dead would, in my opinion, be on shakier legal and moral grounds than stopping short of that.

[Eternal_Freedom]

I'm impressed with the guy's restraint. I don't think I would have stopped.

[Lord Revan]

I'm impressed with the guy's restraint. I don't think I would have stopped.

I wonder how many of us could have truly restrain ourselves in that situation.

I don't have kids at this moment, but the mere thought of someone harming my potential children angers me enough that if that happend in real life I'm not sure I could stop myself until the molestor was something clearly dead. The right thing to do, probably not, understandble yes after all your reactions towards those that harm your offspring tend to be on the more extreme side of things, even if a more restrained responce would be better.

[Grumman]

While in practice something different may apply, and details differ from one jurisdiction to another, in theory you're allowed to use violence in defense of yourself or another only to the extent necessary to end the threat. Anything beyond that and you risk legal charges from assault to murder.

In this instance, because the father did stop when the molester was unconscious rather than continuing to beat on him it seems to me that he was in control and able to limit his actions to just what was needed to subdue the bad guy. Granted, a jury might not convict a man who killed in such circumstances, but continuing to beat the man until he was dead would, in my opinion, be on shakier legal and moral grounds than stopping short of that.

Even if he had, I would not fault him for it. This is basically an Outside Context Problem, and it is an unreasonable standard to hold someone to, to expect them to use a proportionate response to the kind of provocation which cannot adequately be considered beforehand.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Yeah. I think the real story hear isn't that he wasn't charged, but that he actually stopped. I mean, hell, would any of us convict him if he had killed the guy? I wouldn't have. But I wouldn't have stopped attacking him either.

[Raw Shark]

I'd like to imagine that I would stop, but I've never been in that position. No conviction if I'm on the jury.

[LadyTevar]

I simply hope that the son can get treatment to help him realize this wasn't his fault. I also hope the father can help his son through this trauma.

[Welf]

Even if he had, I would not fault him for it. This is basically an Outside Context Problem, and it is an unreasonable standard to hold someone to, to expect them to use a proportionate response to the kind of provocation which cannot adequately be considered beforehand.

No, it's not a unreasonable standard. Consider this: it also means that your priority is beating someone to death than rather calm your child after the danger has been removed. And in this case the person was a 18 year old "man". If his father showed up and saw a man beating his child into a bloody pulp, would it be unreasonable for him to kill him?
I also noted that the article talks about a "man", not a teenager. A subtle change that prevents us from feeling any empathy for the offender. It's also never spelled out, but apparently he started abusing the child when he himself was 15. I wonder what twisted him so much that he destroyed another child's life.
It's a terrible story all in all, with only the father doing the right thing.

[Broomstick]

Please do not say that the victim's life has been "destroyed". It hasn't. Yes, he's been molested and there will no doubt be after effects but this notion that rape/assault "destroys" a person is part of what makes such acts so traumatic for the victim. We shouldn't minimize the trauma, but neither should we magnify it.

Many, many, many people have been sexually abused as children or teens and yet gone on to rich, rewarding, happy lives. Please, victims of such abuse need to hear that their lives are not over and that it doesn't have to define them as a person. A quick google can show you the profiles of dozens of well-known, highly successful (however you care to define that) people, both men and women, who were abused as children but didn't let it stop them from living their lives.

[slebetman]

It depends also on the manner of death. People have been known to die by a single blow. If someone spends 10-20 seconds beating up the perpetrator to ensure the threat ceases then that's OK with me. If someone spends 5 minutes beating someone up just to "get it out of his system" then I think that's wrong. To me, death in and of itself should not be the determining factor of weather self-defense crossed the line.

[Iroscato]

I see no problems here. Dad was just giving the nonce a taster of what's in store for him should he be sent to prison.

[Phillip Hone]

In my town, there was a man who heard from a third party source that his neighbor molested his daughter. He killed his neighbor, who later turned out to most likely be innocent. The father got sentenced to 12 years in prison.

Props to this guy cuz he caught the person in the act, but the anecdote above is what I'm not an enthusiastic supporter of vigilante justice even in horrific cases that seem to call for it.

[Borgholio]

In my town, there was a man who heard from a third party source that his neighbor molested his daughter.

Yeah see there's the problem right there. Even if that third party source was accurate and truthful, the daughter is NOT in immediate danger of another molestation and that's when you call the cops and let them do their job. Physically going after the guy only makes sense in a case like this when the act of rape or molestation is actually in progress.

[Grumman]

No, it's not a unreasonable standard. Consider this: it also means that your priority is beating someone to death than rather calm your child after the danger has been removed. And in this case the person was a 18 year old "man". If his father showed up and saw a man beating his child into a bloody pulp, would it be unreasonable for him to kill him?

Yes, it would be unreasonable. There is no "This isn't what it looks like!" for an adult molesting an eleven year old, but neither the fact that his son is losing nor the fact that he's a relative is evidence that his son was not the aggressor.

I also noted that the article talks about a "man", not a teenager. A subtle change that prevents us from feeling any empathy for the offender.

It doesn't seem to have stopped you.