A question of right or wrong

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Self defence would suggest there was a threat to the man, but he surely defended his child.
However, defence stopped when the man was no further threat, unless you consider the serious beating to be a warning, telling the sex attack never to return, maybe even telling the bastard never to try it against any other kids.
Personally, I'm happy to leave the father alone, on the grounds the beating should put the pervert off attacking other children.

And how exactly is that point determined?

It can be argued that to indeed neutralize the attacker where he no longer poses a threat, rendering him unconscious is the appropriate course to take.

In this case the point would be even more difficult to determine, since it is not about stopping him from attacking at that particular time, but about removing the future threat to his child.

But wouldn't the father have been able to use some sort of temporary insanity or "heat of passion" defense?

A need for such a defense would likely not be necessary per Florida's Castle Doctrine:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or
(b) The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or
(c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s.*943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.
(3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person’s dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence.
(5) As used in this section, the term:
(a) “Dwelling” means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night.
(b) “Residence” means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest.
(c) “Vehicle” means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property.
History.—s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

According to Florida statutes, the homeowner or lawful occupant of a dwelling makes the sole determination as to what constitutes a “reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.”

Clearly the sheriff's decision to not charge the father is in accordance with the laws of his state.

 

[Indofred]

But wouldn't the father have been able to use some sort of temporary insanity or "heat of passion" defense?

If all goes well, no defence will be required, as no bugger will ever arrest him for this perfectly understandable attack.
Whilst I think he was wrong to go so far, I also understand why he did it, and I can't condemn him because I might well do the same if some bugger tried that with my kid.

He should now be left alone in order to help his kid recover from that the rapist did.
An arrest would only upset the kid further; about the last thing the child needs at the moment.

 

[Indofred]

Clearly the sheriff's decision to not charge the father is in accordance with the laws of his state.

Law or no law, it's the right thing to do.

 

[whitehall]

"Knots on his head and a bloody lip" is translated by Reuters as "severely beaten" and the local Sheriff is on the defensive. Is this a sign of the mainstream media's new agenda of defending homosexual predator pedophiles?