That decision outraged Bell's family. Carrie Bell, David's mother, said in a written statement that the decision "shows that apparently vigilante rule is OK in Utah, or at least Salt Lake City, because this just wouldn't fly elsewhere."

Complicating the matter even further was the fact the children were already safely removed from Bell's house and back in their own home when the beatings occurred.

Kraft said it would have been more understandable if the parents had broken into Bell's house and attacked the two after finding their children. But the fact the children were gone and safe meant any action after that should have been handled by police.

"We had a terrible, terrible crime committed against two individuals," he said. "This could have been avoided entirely if someone had stopped to ask a question ... if somebody had just taken a breath here instead of jumping to conclusions based on a bias."

Two local legal experts agreed it is a tough situation.

Former federal Judge Paul Cassell, a professor at the University of Utah, said the law does not allow a person "to go back and inflict your own pound of flesh on someone."

The law generally frowns upon vigilante justice, he said, and when addressing assault, officials give greater weight to the degree of injury than to a defendant's mental state.

But Cassell also noted that for felony charges, criminal intent must be proved, which is harder to do if the defendant claims he or she was acting in the heat of the moment.

Former BYU law professor and legal expert Marguerite Driessen agreed that under the law, "One person does not have the right to beat the snot out of somebody else."

But there is a provision called legally adequate provocation that takes into account people who are thrown into blind rages or act without thinking, she said.

"The law recognizes human frailty, and they know some things can push you to the edge," she said.

A common place this statute is used is in homicide cases, she said. If a man comes home to find his wife in bed with another man and kills that man in a blind rage, sometimes he can get the charge reduced to manslaughter by arguing provocation, she said.

However, it's not considered self-defense or provocation if someone slaps your face with a glove and you respond by killing them, Driessen said.

Kraft does not believe the parents of the children were provoked.

"(Not filing felony charges) sends a message to the community that vigilante action without provocation will go unpunished," he said.

On the surface, without knowing all the facts, Driessen said it would seem there was no imminent sense of danger if the children had already been returned to their home.

"If the children were in the house crying, there would be no issue they could beat the snot out of whomever they thought was illegally holding them," she said.

But Driessen found it interesting that if the children were wandering around, why weren't they returned to their home right away after Bell found them? She said it's hard to jump to a conclusion when it doesn't seem like all the facts have been presented.

"Clearly you have a 'he said, she said' about what's going on," Driessen said.

If the prosecution feels they can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt, based on the evidence and witnesses they have, that the parents were not justified in their attack, then they would likely not file charges, she said.

---

E-mail: preavy@desnews.com