Man pleads no contest in slaying of his alleged molester

[Vampiel]

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/06/aaron.vargas.abuse.plea/index.html?hpt=C2



A California man pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter with the use of a gun Tuesday in the shooting death of a man who he claimed sexually abused him as a teen, a prosecutor said.

The plea comes less than a week before Aaron Vargas' first-degree murder trial was supposed to start for the slaying of Darrell McNeill, a neighbor from his childhood and a family friend whom Vargas claims began molesting him when he was 11 years old.

Under the terms of a plea deal, Vargas, now 32, faces anywhere from probation to 10 years in prison for shooting the former Boy Scout leader and local businessman last year in his home in the Northern California (http://topics.cnn.com/topics/California) community of Fort Bragg.
...............
"I cannot condone what Aaron has done, but I do understand it. I believe he took the wrong avenue by taking the law into his own hands. Like most of this community, I do not feel he deserves 50 years in prison. Unlike most of this community, I feel he should serve some time, but not much."

[memnoch]

assuming the accusations are true I would hope he only gets probation.

[Vampiel]

assuming the accusations are true I would hope he only gets probation.

Nothing was ever proven.... however :



Norman said she has received four reports of sexual abuse involving McNeill, which factored into the decision to strike a plea deal even though she could not prove they were true.

"When you have other victims coming forward, that does lend credibility to that scenario," she said. "These people have written me letters and said this has happened, and I have no way of showing this has happened, but it has been put out there."

[ninurta2008]

assuming the accusations are true I would hope he only gets probation.
If it's true, I do agree that he shouldn't get the full penalty. Though something doesn't sit right about killing the guy. I wouldn't even kill the person who did that to me. (then again, I didnt think about what I would do if I saw him again, I put him in my past).

[memnoch]

Nothing was ever proven.... however :

Which is why I said if the allegations are true...it is difficult to know


If it's true, I do agree that he shouldn't get the full penalty. Though something doesn't sit right about killing the guy. I wouldn't even kill the person who did that to me. (then again, I didnt think about what I would do if I saw him again, I put him in my past).

I honestly don't know what I would do in that situation, but I understand why someone would do this.

[ninurta2008]

I honestly don't know what I would do in that situation, but I understand why someone would do this.
I understand why too, I wanted so bad to seriously hurt the person who did that to me. Though I didn't, I just refused to let my emotions get the best of me. Though I really do think he shouldn't get the law handed to him, if anything his sentance if he gets one should be reduced.

I think the person if they did, should've been physically castrated, and not killed. Then again, that's only because I've started becoming anti-capital punishment.

[Twinkle]

Part of me wants him to get probation. The other part says that citizens cannot be vigilantes...and that even the most heinous acts must be dealt with according to Law...as flawed as it is.

[memnoch]

Part of me wants him to get probation. The other part says that citizens cannot be vigilantes...and that even the most heinous acts must be dealt with according to Law...as flawed as it is.

In theory I agree. More specifically I believe what this man did was wrong, with that said, I understand why he did it, and can empathize. Because of that he will face judicial consequences, the question most likely is what those should be, probation because while it is wrong, it is understandable, 10 years because murder is wrong period, or somewhere between

[Lunar Raven]

Taking a life is never excused in my opinion, but I can certainly understand why he did it. I think if he can prove that he isn't a psycho, and that he won't go out and kill again, he should get a second chance to be in society. I'm not necessarily saying immediately, with no punishment other than probation..but there's little point in putting him in prison for a decade if he won't go out and do the same thing to someone else. Prison won't help this person..clearly he has issues because of what was done to him.

[Twinkle]

With no proof that he was molested by the man he killed, he should get the ten years. There is nothing to understand or empathize with if we don't actually know that the man he killed molested him.

[Lunar Raven]

With no proof that he was molested by the man he killed, he should get the ten years. There is nothing to understand or empathize with if we don't actually know that the man he killed molested him.

Then why does a part of you want him to get probation?

Though I agree, without some sort of proof it's just a baseless claim.

[Twinkle]

Then why does a part of you want him to get probation?

Though I agree, without some sort of proof it's just a baseless claim.


Because as a human being I feel for him. In terms of Law and consequences, what I *feel* has little to do with anything if there is no *proof* that a) he was molested b) that the man he killed was the perpretrator of said molestation.

[memnoch]

With no proof that he was molested by the man he killed, he should get the ten years. There is nothing to understand or empathize with if we don't actually know that the man he killed molested him.

Up to a certain point I was saying IF it were true, that will go for all my posts, but it is a bit redundant to mention it every time.

[Twinkle]

I know...I was clarifying my stance and why I felt that way. :)

[memnoch]

I know...I was clarifying my stance and why I felt that way. :)

Ah, gotcha:thumbsup:

[Lunar Raven]

Because as a human being I feel for him. In terms of Law and consequences, what I *feel* has little to do with anything if there is no *proof* that a) he was molested b) that the man he killed was the perpretrator of said molestation.

Ah good point, I feel that way too.

[Laisrean]

If the man actually molested him then I don't think he deserves any punishment whatsoever. But things get tricky because there's just no way to prove he was really molested all those years ago. If it did happen, then okay I have no problem, but someone could lie and say anyone molested them 20 years ago and how could it be proven? People do lie, so you never know.

[Infinite Grey]

This is one of the reasons I support Rehabilitation systems over Punishment systems.

[Terra Mater]

Justifiable homicide in my opinion. As for proof, gods bless, even with proof convictions of pedophilic crimes are hard to get unless the defendent pleads out (which many do) or has a moron for a lawyer(which most of the rest do).

Yeah, yeah, my bias is showing, but legally a good lawyer could slant this as a justification defense and get the guy off with time served and psych treatment since justification defenses do not require you to prove what you believed was fact, only that your belief was reasonable. He believed he was harmed by the other person in a fundemental way and believed that others would be harmed in that same way and could no longer live with nothing being done to protect others from what he viewed as a monster.

I say that a smart DA should offer a plea that gives him the time served and the psych treatments rather than take this albatross to trial.

[C. Iulia Regilia]

Justifiable homicide in my opinion. As for proof, gods bless, even with proof convictions of pedophilic crimes are hard to get unless the defendent pleads out (which many do) or has a moron for a lawyer(which most of the rest do).

Yeah, yeah, my bias is showing, but legally a good lawyer could slant this as a justification defense and get the guy off with time served and psych treatment since justification defenses do not require you to prove what you believed was fact, only that your belief was reasonable. He believed he was harmed by the other person in a fundemental way and believed that others would be harmed in that same way and could no longer live with nothing being done to protect others from what he viewed as a monster.

I say that a smart DA should offer a plea that gives him the time served and the psych treatments rather than take this albatross to trial.

Well, if there is proof that the victim was a pedophile and had molested him, sure, that makes sense, though I think the man should get something for murder. I'd probably charge with manslaughter, not murder, but even then, taking a life is a serious thing. I'm not sure that justice would be served by having the man walk off after commiting a murder. Not sure exactly what the charge would be, but it would be the manslaughter with the lowest penalty possible.

Of course, I think that's true of any murder. You still killed someone, no matter how much of an a-hole he was, he was still human. Human life is not something to be taken lightly -- it's precious and should be protected.

[Lunar Raven]

I agree that murder is murder, and I'm against all kinds of it (minus self defense).. however, putting the guy in jail for 10 years..-IF- the abuse could be proven won't help anything. Jail does not rehabilitate or give treatment. If the guy was messed up now..and so emotionally scarred that he had to kill someone..then think of how he may be after 10 years of hard time. Punishment isn't always the best way to go.

[Terra Mater]

Well, if there is proof that the victim was a pedophile and had molested him, sure, that makes sense, though I think the man should get something for murder. I'd probably charge with manslaughter, not murder, but even then, taking a life is a serious thing. I'm not sure that justice would be served by having the man walk off after commiting a murder. Not sure exactly what the charge would be, but it would be the manslaughter with the lowest penalty possible.

Of course, I think that's true of any murder. You still killed someone, no matter how much of an a-hole he was, he was still human. Human life is not something to be taken lightly -- it's precious and should be protected.
Technically its not a murder, since he pled to voluntary manslaughter (big mistake) the courts have accepted that while he killed the man, he did not plan to do so. I still think his lawyer should have pushed for a justification defense.

Most kids who get molested do not report it until years after the fact, long after any evidence has gone. Molestation is not the same as rape, there is often little to no evidence to begin with. Boys are 5 times less likely than girls to report being molested, 10 times less likely if the predator is the same gender. So while you and some others need proof that he was molested to form your own opinion, the courts would not require such proof if a justification defense is being used.

A justification defense does not require proof of act, it only requires that the person had a belief, that it was a reasonable belief, and that belief guided his actions. Since Vargas is not the only one to have accused McNeill, and since some of the other accusers filed charges which the police failed to act on, it proves a reasonableness of his belief that he was molested. For those that did not read the article, there were 12 other adults and McNeill's own stepson who also claimed to have been victimized by this man.

If a person believes they were molested its just as damaging as if they actually were molested. It makes no difference whether they were or not, only what they believe. When they get treatment, the treatment is the same whether there was proof of the molestation or not. The courts recognize this, which is one reason why justification defenses exist. When you add the number of additional complaints, you merely inccrease your own ability to accept whether they were molested or not, it does nothing to change the opinion of the person that believes it happened to them.

The belief that he was molested is not enough to "justify" the murder. In addition, there needs to be a reasonable belief that an eminent harm was presented by McNeill that wouuld justify the use of deadly force. The post-traumatic stress disorder that he has and the harassment and the stalking and the risk of his child being abused would have been enough to provide the "proof" that in Vargas's mind, that eminent harm was presented by McNeill and that under the law, the level of harm would have justified the use of deadly force.

As for your assertion that all human life is precious, that's your opinion, not mine. I can think of several examples where, like Jigsaw John, I think people waste the lives they have and in extreme examples completely agree that they should have their lives taken from them if only to prevent them from wasting limited resources. Everything I have read about Darrell McNeill convinces me that he was such a man but as some like to point out, I do have a bias in this area. I was raped as a child and by the time I had gotten anyone to actually investigate my rapist, the evidence was long gone because back in 1977, rape kits were not routinely performed for every rape allegation especially those by minors against their own fathers.