Man kills another man when he walks in on him sexually abusing his 4-year old daughte

But the reason that a child being molested is bad can be applied to why a penny sweet being stolen is bad, if somebody considers it to be such. If you disagree with the application of your logic, you implicitly disagree with your logic.

How would you demonstrate this in court in the case of the teacher hugging scenario? The only reliable opposing party was the teacher.

You have just said everyone has the instinct to kill a suspected child molester, and the very nature of an instinct means it is an unthinking reaction; therefore, nobody can be indicted for simply acting on their instincts. They had no control over the way they interpreted and reacted to the situation, according to you, so how can you blame them for a biological incapability to express restraint?

Even going by your argument there is still a manifest concern: if a parent interpreted a teacher's hug as a form of groping, and killed/assaulted them for this, and it later transpired that the teacher was indeed groping the child, this parent would be released. In this case, the parent always assumes a hug is a form of molestation and kills/assaults the adult in the exchange for this reason. How can you possibly claim a parent who kills/assaults someone in response to them hugging their child is an amiable, safe citizen who is not a "significant potential threat" to society? Let's take it further: a man drops his pen and upon reaching down to get it, brushes a child's bum with his hand. The parent considers this to be a form of molestation and kills/assaults the man, and it later transpires the man intentionally dropped his pen with the express intention of feeling the child's bum, which means the parent is released. Do you consider a parent who kills/assaults somebody for brushing their hand against a child to be an amiable, safe citizen who is not a "significant potential threat" to society? Due to your absolutism, this parent has now been given free reign to kill/assault whoever may accidentally touch their child on the next occassion, notwithstanding the pending problem of establishing whether or not an instinctive reaction is always justified.

Why? It fits your criteria.

But it fits your criteria. I would say both parties who kill another human on the basis of a suspicion are potential threats to the public, as I do not believe uncontrollable rage is necessarily a valid excuse for killing somebody.

If child molestation and theft can both fit your criteria, why do you still consider one to be worse than another? It makes no sense to advocate the release of somebody who killed a suspected child molester who was later found to be guilty, but not somebody who killed a suspected thief who was later found to be guilty.

But it is still a line, which you seem to be unable to replicate.

A video still only gives me one perspective of the story, and doesn't let me know if the alleged abuser were under duress, had a mental condition, etc. or an understanding of the intention and/or motives.

I think you're just deliberately being difficult. You say we have to treat all crimes the same way. You say a hug is the same as rape. You act as if there are no laws currently recognising the difference between children and adults, or between sex and touching and theft.

And here you're just continuing to dodge the question.

It isn't axiomatic just because you say so. If you believe the law should align with your position, why are you unwilling to justify your proposal?

I've nothing to justify. The law, ass that it is, will do whatever the idiots in charge mandate and anyone else can go **** themselves with a chainsaw for all I care. What I'm saying is simply cause and effect - molest my child and I end your life.

Reading through this thread you really do seem to love child molesters. Do you have something to tell us, whyumadtho?

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/11/justice/texas-abuser-killed/index.html

If the account is true then I can't say I give a **** that his dead, actually that's a lie I kinda think it's a good thing that sick **** died. I can't see a Jury indicting him so hopefully he'll be released to help his traumatized daughter.