Indiana Father Kills Sex Offender Who Broke Into Home

[-Cp]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,429503,00.html

INDIANAPOLIS — A convicted sex offender died Sunday during a struggle with a father who found the naked man in or near his 17-year-old daughter's bedroom, police said.

Police responding to a call from the city's northwest side about 3:20 a.m. found 64-year-old Robert McNally on the hallway floor with his arm around the neck of 52-year-old David T. Meyers, who was pronounced dead at the scene.

Police spokesman Sgt. Matthew Mount said Meyers had a heart condition and may have had a heart attack. An autopsy was planned.

Police said Meyers was naked except for a mask and latex gloves and had entered the home through a window near the girl's bedroom with rope, condoms and a knife. He was familiar with the home's layout because it belonged to a relative, police said.

The girl awoke and screamed when she saw the man in her room, police said. The father responded and struggled with the intruder while the girl's mother phoned 911.

Police did not anticipate any charges against McNally.

"If a person breaks into your home, you are justified in using deadly force in defending your family," said Mount. "In this situation, I don't think he was trying to kill him, he was trying to hold him down."

Meyers had served 10 years in prison for criminal confinement and sexual deviate conduct and was wanted in Boone County for failure to register as a sex offender. He was registered as a sex offender in Marion County.

Police said Meyers lived with his mother and had recently lost his job.

The death is under investigation and will be reviewed by a Marion County prosecutor.

"Nobody wins," McNally told The Indianapolis Star. "It's a lose-lose situation for everybody. He has family also."

He said his daughter went to church Sunday after the incident.


:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[actsnoblemartin]

good, let the basterd rot in hell.

the father should ge a medal :salute:

[Noir]

good on the man, he seems to have tried to simply ristrain the guy until police arrived, a smart move IMO, rather than runnin into to a room swinging a pipe as happened in a previous thread,

[emmett]

I'm curious what the Demmies think about this. I suppose they beleive the man should be locked up. Maybe they think he was not justified in using that much force. My opinion is thathe should not have been out on the street to begin with. 10 years is nowhere near enough time to give someone convicted of his former crime. The responsible parties here are the parole folks if you want to blame someone.

[emmett]

good on the man, he seems to have tried to simply ristrain the guy until police arrived, a smart move IMO, rather than runnin into to a room swinging a pipe as happened in a previous thread,

I think he would have been justified to do whatever he chose. Shooting him, beating his worthless ass with a pipe......whatever. We have to stop this beleiving someone else is responsible for someone making bad decisions. The man "chose" to break into the home, when he did that, he killed himself!

[theHawk]

This is why our country's laws need to be completely reformed. If someone is so dangerous that they need to be "registered sex offenders" then they should just be locked up. And we should have the death penalty for child molesters, a one strike you're out rule.

[actsnoblemartin]

This is why our country's laws need to be completely reformed. If someone is so dangerous that they need to be "registered sex offenders" then they should just be locked up. And we should have the death penalty for child molesters, a one strike you're out rule.

:clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

[Immanuel]

I'm curious what the Demmies think about this. I suppose they beleive the man should be locked up. Maybe they think he was not justified in using that much force. My opinion is thathe should not have been out on the street to begin with. 10 years is nowhere near enough time to give someone convicted of his former crime. The responsible parties here are the parole folks if you want to blame someone.


I think he would have been justified to do whatever he chose. Shooting him, beating his worthless ass with a pipe......whatever. We have to stop this beleiving someone else is responsible for someone making bad decisions. The man "chose" to break into the home, when he did that, he killed himself!

Anyone else see something funny about those two statements?

The parole folks are to blame... stop believing someone else is responsible. ;)

j/k Emmett is just seemed funny that in one post you blamed others and then in the next you said we have to stop that.

And yes, I know exactly what you mean. The lax standards of punishment contributed to this man's death. But, they are not to blame for what he attempted to do.

I think Mr. McNally did the right thing. I doesn't appear from the article that he attempted to kill David Myers, when personally I think he had the right to defend his family. Preferably without killing David Myers, but the fact that this "man" died is not Mr. McNally's fault.

Immie

[darin]

...And we should have the death penalty for child molesters, a one strike you're out rule.

...except in statutory conditions, IMO. Such as the case of the 17? y/o who got a hummer from a girl he was partying with/doing drugs with - where even the girl's parents disagreed with charging him. Make sense?

[Noir]

This is why our country's laws need to be completely reformed. If someone is so dangerous that they need to be "registered sex offenders" then they should just be locked up. And we should have the death penalty for child molesters, a one strike you're out rule.

Sorry to digress from the OP but if I may ask, what does the US law define as 'child'

[Sitarro]

Anyone else see something funny about those two statements?

The parole folks are to blame... stop believing someone else is responsible. ;)

j/k Emmett is just seemed funny that in one post you blamed others and then in the next you said we have to stop that.

And yes, I know exactly what you mean. The lax standards of punishment contributed to this man's death. But, they are not to blame for what he attempted to do.

I think Mr. McNally did the right thing. I doesn't appear from the article that he attempted to kill David Myers, when personally I think he had the right to defend his family. Preferably without killing David Myers, but the fact that this "man" died is not Mr. McNally's fault.

Immie

Although I respect the idea that the father wanted to kill this jerk with his bare hands, shooting his pathetic ass would have been the more prudent decision. By getting into a hand to hand with the low life, the hero father took the chance of being cut and infected with whatever shit this piece of garbage might have been carrying. If you encounter a naked adult male with gloves, a mask, rope, condoms and a knife,....... shoot first and ask questions later.:salute:

[Immanuel]

Although I respect the idea that the father wanted to kill this jerk with his bare hands, shooting his pathetic ass would have been the more prudent decision. By getting into a hand to hand with the low life, the hero father took the chance of being cut and infected with whatever shit this piece of garbage might have been carrying. If you encounter a naked adult male with gloves, a mask, rope, condoms and a knife,....... shoot first and ask questions later.:salute:

Well, I was one of those in the other thread (mentioned by Noir) who said I would have beaten him with a pipe so that he might wake up from a coma next week.

The preferrable action would be to subdue the man with as little risk to him or me as possible. A lead pipe (actually an aluminum baseball bat) upside the side of the head would have been more likely to come from me than trying to grapple with this unknown man. That was just plain stupid if you ask me.

Immie

[Trigg]

Sorry to digress from the OP but if I may ask, what does the US law define as 'child'

Usually under 18.

Although an 17-18 yr old can be tried as an adult if it is an especially serious crime.

I'm pretty sure Indiana law states that if someone invades your home you are completely within your rights to kill them, if you fear for your life or your families.

[Noir]

ok, was asking reference thehawks point, seems really extreme if the law considers anyne under 18 a child

[theHawk]

...except in statutory conditions, IMO. Such as the case of the 17? y/o who got a hummer from a girl he was partying with/doing drugs with - where even the girl's parents disagreed with charging him. Make sense?

Yes, of course there are some situations that don't warrant throwing the book at them. Like an 18 year old going with a 17 year old. Which is why I said many of our laws regarding this need to be changed. We have people doing hard time for petty crimes, meanwhile pedophiles get to roam the streets free.

[theHawk]

Sorry to digress from the OP but if I may ask, what does the US law define as 'child'

I am not aware of a Federal "US law" defining a child. The question is not how the government "defines" a "child". Most states have their own laws on the age of consent for sex. It varies from 16 to 18.

Here is an example of the laws from a list of summaries of US state laws on Age of Consent.


Louisiana
The age of consent in Louisiana is 17.

§80. Felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile A. Felony carnal knowledge of a juvenile is committed when: (1) A person who is nineteen years of age or older has sexual intercourse, with consent, with a person who is twelve years of age or older but less than seventeen years of age, when the victim is not the spouse of the offender; or...

§80.1. Misdemeanor carnal knowledge of a juvenile A. Misdemeanor carnal knowledge of a juvenile is committed when a person who is seventeen years of age or older but less than nineteen years of age has sexual intercourse, with consent, with a person who is fifteen years of age or older but less than seventeen years of age, when the victim is not the spouse of the offender, and when the difference between the age of the victim and age of the offender is greater than two years.


Maine
The age of consent in Maine is 16. Teenagers aged 14 and 15 may engage in sexual intercourse with partners who are less than 5 years older.

§254. Sexual abuse of minors 1. A person is guilty of sexual abuse of a minor if: A. The person engages in a sexual act with another person, not the actor's spouse, who is either 14 or 15 years of age and the actor is at least 5 years older than the other person.


Maryland
The age of consent in Maryland is 16. An exception is made when the actor is not at least four years older than the victim. However, if someone in a "position of authority" engages in a sexual act with a minor, he or she may be guilty of sexual offense in the fourth degree as specified by Maryland Code § 3-308.


Massachusetts
The age of consent in Massachusetts is 16, as specified by Chapter 265, Section 23 of the General Laws of Massachusetts, which states:

"Whoever unlawfully has sexual intercourse or unnatural sexual intercourse, and abuses a child under sixteen years of age shall... be punished..." MGL 265-23
However, Chapter 272, Section 4 sets another age of consent at 18 when the "victim" is "of chaste life" and the perpetrator induces them.

"Whoever induces any person under 18 years of age of chaste life to have unlawful sexual intercourse shall be punished." MGL 272-4

Michigan
The age of consent in Michigan is 16, unless one is an authority figure in which case the age of consent is 18.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_North_America#United_States

[Trinity]

Sorry to digress from the OP but if I may ask, what does the US law define as 'child'

anyone under the age of 18

[Trinity]

ok, was asking reference thehawks point, seems really extreme if the law considers anyne under 18 a child

here's where it gets complicated if it is classified as a sex crime and the persons involved are 16 year old female and 18 year old male, the 16 year old female is classified as a child the 18 year old gets jail time, probation, and basically a life of hell......however that same 16 year old female could go out and commit murder and be tried as an adult!

Anyone else see a problem with this?

[My Winter Storm]

I'm curious what the Demmies think about this. I suppose they beleive the man should be locked up. Maybe they think he was not justified in using that much force. My opinion is thathe should not have been out on the street to begin with. 10 years is nowhere near enough time to give someone convicted of his former crime. The responsible parties here are the parole folks if you want to blame someone.

The guy was right in what he did - in this situation, anyway. The man was clearly posing a threat to the young girl, and the man acted accordingly to protect her.