Silk Road forums
Discussion => Off topic => Topic started by: Meister on June 13, 2012, 06:07 pm
-
http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/13926364/father-kills-daughters-abuser/
A father has killed a man he caught sexually assaulting his young daughter in Texas.
The incident happened at a social gathering at the family home on Saturday.
According to police the father caught the man in the act of molesting his daughter.
He attacked the man hitting him repeatedly in the head.
The four year old was taken to hospital for observations and was later released.
She is said to be 'ok', despite some obvious mental trauma.
The alleged child molester was pronounced dead at the scene.
Lavaca County Sheriff Micah Harmon said the said the father was "very remorseful" and didn't intend to kill him
"You have a right to defend your daughter," he told CNN. I'll submit it to the district attorney who then submits it to the grand jury, who will decide if they will indict him."
A preliminary autopsy found the man, who has not yet been identified, "died from blunt-force head and neck injuries."
-
It's just a shame this guy will go down for murder for a few years... no doubt fucking up his, his wife's and his daughter's lives.
Tbh if you catch someone molesting your daughter, I think it's fair fucking game that you kill them.
But oh well, they be the laws
-
He should have got an award. It's a perverse legal system that would even consider trying to prosecute someone for protecting their daughter.
And they call us degenerates. Cunts.
-
Note to self: If I ever catch anyone molesting my kids.. beat the shit out of them, call the fuzz. Wait til they're released from prison, then kill them.
Justice is served, and no need to serve a prison sentence.
-
What jury would convict this man of anything other than being a good father? If anything he should get a slap on the wrist maybe some community service/probation.
-
I agree, I hope someone with a lot of excess money hires this man a stellar defense team to get him off. Would be a shame to convict the guy for giving a child molester what he deserved.
-
There's no way a jury in Texas of all places is going to convict a man for standing up for his family. No way on earth. The district attorney will be under such huge political pressure he will drop the case.
-
There's no way a jury in Texas of all places is going to convict a man for standing up for his family. No way on earth. The district attorney will be under such huge political pressure he will drop the case.
If they don't I will lose quite a bit of faith in humanity and I don't have that much in reserve anyway.
-
There's no way a jury in Texas of all places is going to convict a man for standing up for his family. No way on earth. The district attorney will be under such huge political pressure he will drop the case.
If they don't I will lose quite a bit of faith in humanity and I don't have that much in reserve anyway.
I assume they have an equivalent of Manslaughter in the US i.e unlawful killing short of murder due to extreme provocation?
V.
-
One can hope.
-
There's no way a jury in Texas of all places is going to convict a man for standing up for his family. No way on earth. The district attorney will be under such huge political pressure he will drop the case.
If they don't I will lose quite a bit of faith in humanity and I don't have that much in reserve anyway.
I assume they have an equivalent of Manslaughter in the US i.e unlawful killing short of murder due to extreme provocation?
V.
Yes, that would be the maximum he could receive unless there's more to the story, the majority of murder convictions in the US that aren't premeditated are manslaughter.
I'm interested in knowing how they knew this guy to allow him in their home in the first place, not to apply blame since many you just don't know and would never guess, but still I wonder.
-
Yes, that would be the maximum he could receive unless there's more to the story, the majority of murder convictions in the US that aren't premeditated are manslaughter.
I'm interested in knowing how they knew this guy to allow him in their home in the first place, not to apply blame since many you just don't know and would never guess, but still I wonder.
Me too. If he wasn't allowed in then this case would be closed and thrown out by the Castle Doctrine alone. In Texas they really enforce that one.
-
A few months back I saw this story about a guy in South America I think, someone raped his daughter, who was just a toddler.
The dad hunted the guy down, cut his entire package off and shoved it in his mouth before killing him. The story came complete with a picture.
-
A few months back I saw this story about a guy in South America I think, someone raped his daughter, who was just a toddler.
The dad hunted the guy down, cut his entire package off and shoved it in his mouth before killing him. The story came complete with a picture.
Well I certainly wouldn't make a habit out of it but I don't think anyone's going to shed a tear for a dead baby rapist...!
V.
-
A few months back I saw this story about a guy in South America I think, someone raped his daughter, who was just a toddler.
The dad hunted the guy down, cut his entire package off and shoved it in his mouth before killing him. The story came complete with a picture.
Well I certainly wouldn't make a habit out of it but I don't think anyone's going to shed a tear for a dead baby rapist...!
V.
It's a shame we can't hunt them down and line them up in the order of the dirtiest bastard to the one who'd done the least. Stalin-style it by going from the ones who had done the least bolting them through their nut consecutively and that way the sickest ones would be pretty much having having fits because of the fear you put in them. You think about every shot fired is a nail in the coffin in their ears and each one is getting closer.
Would be a beautiful thing.
-
I know in prison guys like this get "syruped".
Basically one dude boils some water in the kettle in his cell, and another pours in a few kilo bags of sugar (which you can buy from the prison canteen sheet). When you've got the boiling syrup mixture, you wait until the dudes in the shower, then run in and throw it on his face. It literally sticks to his skin boiling it off and can't be washed off easily.
It's great because it leaves no evidence behind, but leaves a permanent painful reminder on the guy for life, in a place where he can't hide it.
-
I know in prison guys like this get "syruped".
Basically one dude boils some water in the kettle in his cell, and another pours in a few kilo bags of sugar (which you can buy from the prison canteen sheet). When you've got the boiling syrup mixture, you wait until the dudes in the shower, then run in and throw it on his face. It literally sticks to his skin boiling it off and can't be washed off easily.
It's great because it leaves no evidence behind, but leaves a permanent painful reminder on the guy for life, in a place where he can't hide it.
That's like a sweet striping lol.
-
Pedo's should be kept away for society.
However, this story is a news report. It's bound to be twisted. And the Father could for example have used pedo as an excuse to bash his brains in.Maybe the 'pedo' was being perfectly innocent? e.g. tickling the kids tummy..... this is like US death row cases... yeah hang them, but if you find them innocent afterwards, good luck to your society..
Mr liberal
-
Yup just read a few more reports. Apparently he was helping the rancher tend to horses and the dad walked in on him forcing himself on his daughter in the barn. He fought to get him off of her and bashed him on the head a few times. Then called the cops.
He was pronounced dead and the girl was taken to the hospital and treated for her injuries. The dad isn't even in custody and no charges were filed.
They technically could still press charges like they did in the Zimmerman case when they let him go but I doubt they will, due to the nature of this case.
There's still hope left in humanity after all.
-
However, this story is a news report. It's bound to be twisted. And the Father could for example have used pedo as an excuse to bash his brains in.Maybe the 'pedo' was being perfectly innocent? e.g. tickling the kids tummy..
Wow, that's exactly what I came here to post.
Pedo or not, it's still a human life. While the atrocity of his (alleged) actions can't be understated, I think killing him crosses a line. In the father's shoes, it's likely that I would have done the same thing in the moment: accidentally shot him in the face (a couple dozen times), but that doesn't mean it's the just (or legal) thing to do in the moment.
I do believe the father will get off with the help of public support with a minimal sentence, if any at all. As a judge, that's what I would do. A precedent needs to be set that states: although pedophilia is not OK, murder is not OK in this circumstance either. It's a hot topic because different people disagree when murder is OK, and the biggest deciding factor of this case is its location.
-
However, this story is a news report. It's bound to be twisted. And the Father could for example have used pedo as an excuse to bash his brains in.Maybe the 'pedo' was being perfectly innocent? e.g. tickling the kids tummy..
Wow, that's exactly what I came here to post.
Pedo or not, it's still a human life. While the atrocity of his (alleged) actions can't be understated, I think killing him crosses a line. In the father's shoes, it's likely that I would have done the same thing in the moment: accidentally shot him in the face (a couple dozen times), but that doesn't mean it's the just (or legal) thing to do in the moment.
I do believe the father will get off with the help of public support with a minimal sentence, if any at all. As a judge, that's what I would do. A precedent needs to be set that states: although pedophilia is not OK, murder is not OK in this circumstance either. It's a hot topic because different people disagree when murder is OK, and the biggest deciding factor of this case is its location.
Well as I said it's probably best not to make a habit out of it!
What we wouldn't want as you say is a situation where we allowed an accusation to be acted on without proof or else we'd be not much better than the criminals themselves* . There is such a thing as being innocent accused as well as an innocent victim.
In this case a man used force to prevent a crime in progress and in so doing accidentally ended a mans life. In a common law jurisdiction like the UK for instance his Mensus Rheus (latin for "guilty mind") would not be the same as for someone who deliberately intended to murder and so it would be unlikely the Prosecution would seek a conviction on these lines.
I don't know where the law stands in the US but certainly in several European countries including Britain the father would have had a duty of care towards his daughter so in fact it could be argued *failing" to act as he did would in itself be illegal - it's called a crime of omission where I hail from.
This isn't a case of vigilante justice so much as a man using excessive force to prevent a crime in progress - I agree that we can't have people going around shooting and hanging alleged ne'er do-wells right left and centre but in this case I don't think this man's got much to worry about legally.
V.
*Yes I know we're criminals but of a much better class!
-
However, this story is a news report. It's bound to be twisted. And the Father could for example have used pedo as an excuse to bash his brains in.Maybe the 'pedo' was being perfectly innocent? e.g. tickling the kids tummy..
Wow, that's exactly what I came here to post.
Pedo or not, it's still a human life. While the atrocity of his (alleged) actions can't be understated, I think killing him crosses a line. In the father's shoes, it's likely that I would have done the same thing in the moment: accidentally shot him in the face (a couple dozen times), but that doesn't mean it's the just (or legal) thing to do in the moment.
I do believe the father will get off with the help of public support with a minimal sentence, if any at all. As a judge, that's what I would do. A precedent needs to be set that states: although pedophilia is not OK, murder is not OK in this circumstance either. It's a hot topic because different people disagree when murder is OK, and the biggest deciding factor of this case is its location.
No offense but it's statements like "I think killing him crosses the line" that give me the firm belief that people like myself were put on this earth to do the shit that people like you can't.
-
However, this story is a news report. It's bound to be twisted. And the Father could for example have used pedo as an excuse to bash his brains in.Maybe the 'pedo' was being perfectly innocent? e.g. tickling the kids tummy..
Wow, that's exactly what I came here to post.
Pedo or not, it's still a human life. While the atrocity of his (alleged) actions can't be understated, I think killing him crosses a line. In the father's shoes, it's likely that I would have done the same thing in the moment: accidentally shot him in the face (a couple dozen times), but that doesn't mean it's the just (or legal) thing to do in the moment.
I do believe the father will get off with the help of public support with a minimal sentence, if any at all. As a judge, that's what I would do. A precedent needs to be set that states: although pedophilia is not OK, murder is not OK in this circumstance either. It's a hot topic because different people disagree when murder is OK, and the biggest deciding factor of this case is its location.
No offense but it's statements like "I think killing him crosses the line" that give me the firm belief that people like myself were put on this earth to do the shit that people like you can't.
Props to you Lim - provided they've had a fair trial and their guilt has been proven to the satisfaction of a jury, I would see it as a mercy killing compared to living life as a monster.
Part of the problem is that not everyone's clear on what constitutes a paedophile. I would say it's someone who's attracted to prepubescent children i.e <= 12 - the age of consent in the UK where you and I live is 16 so technically I would have broken the law if I'd gone on holiday to the US with my last girlfriend and done anything with her - naturally we need a bit of common sense.
Although it's not a legitimate sexual orientation paedophilia is one nonetheless. We've spent decades trying to offer therapy, chemical castration, imprisonment in clinics, aggressive courses of medication to reduce their sex drive but we keep coming back to the same issue which is that it's a fundamental part of their sexuality - the only humane solution in my humble opinion is to keep them out of temptations way by making sure they never get into contact with children again.
This may sound overly harsh but it's the only realistic solution to the problem as far as I can see. All comments are welcome of course!
V.
-
There's no way a jury in Texas of all places is going to convict a man for standing up for his family. No way on earth. The district attorney will be under such huge political pressure he will drop the case.
I would have to agree. There was a case a number of years ago, involving a "home defense" type case, only this one was really fucked-up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshihiro_Hattori
Yoshi Hattori's early life
Born in Nagoya, Japan to Masaichi and Mieko Hattori, Yoshihiro was 16 years old when he went to Baton Rouge as part of the AFS student exchange program; he had also received a scholarship from the Morita Foundation for his trip. He was the middle child between a brother and a sister, and was described as a gregarious teen who played on his high school rugby team and loved fishing.
Fatal incident
Two months into his stay in the United States, he received an invitation, along with Webb Haymaker, his homestay brother, to a Halloween party organized for Japanese exchange students on October 17, 1992. Hattori went dressed in a tuxedo in imitation of John Travolta from Saturday Night Fever. Upon their arrival in the quiet working class neighborhood where the party was held, the boys mistook the Peairses' residence for their intended destination due to the similarity of the address and the Halloween decorations on the outside of the house, and proceeded to step out of their car and walk to the front door. (Fujio 2004; Harper n.d.)
Hattori and Haymaker rang the front doorbell but, seemingly receiving no response, began to walk back to their car. Meanwhile, inside the house, their arrival had not gone unnoticed. Bonnie Peairs had peered out the side door and saw them. Mrs. Peairs, startled, retreated inside, locked the door, and said to her husband, "Rodney, get your gun." Hattori and Haymaker were walking to their car when the carport door was opened again, this time by Mr. Peairs. He was armed with a loaded and cocked .44 magnum revolver. He pointed it at Hattori, and yelled "Freeze." Simultaneously, Hattori, likely thinking he said "please," stepped back towards the house, saying "We're here for the party." Haymaker, seeing the weapon, shouted after Hattori, but Peairs fired his weapon at point blank range at Hattori, hitting him in the chest, and then ran back inside. (Kernodle 2002; Fujio 2004; Harper n.d.) Haymaker rushed to Hattori, badly wounded and lying where he fell, on his back. Haymaker ran to the home next door to the Peairses' house for help. Neither Mr. Peairs nor his wife came out of their house until the police arrived, about 40 minutes after the shooting. Mrs. Peairs shouted to a neighbor to "go away" when the neighbor called for help. One of the Peairses' children later told police that her mother asked, "Why did you shoot him?"
The shot had pierced the upper and lower lobes of Hattori's left lung, and exited through the area of the seventh rib; he died in the ambulance minutes later, from loss of blood.[1]
The criminal trial of Peairs
Initially, the local police quickly questioned and released Peairs, and declined to charge him with any crime. They felt that "Peairs had been within his rights in shooting the trespasser." [2] Only after the governor of Louisiana and the New Orleans Japan consul general protested, did Peairs get charged with manslaughter. Peairs's defense counsel's strategy consisted of a claim that Hattori had an "extremely unusual manner of moving", one which any reasonable person would find "scary", and emphasis on Peairs as an "average Joe," a man just like the jury members' neighbors, a man who "liked sugar in his grits".[3]
At the trial, Peairs testified about the moment just prior to the shooting: "It was a person, coming from behind the car, moving real fast. At that point, I pointed the gun and hollered, 'Freeze!' The person kept coming toward me, moving very erratically. At that time, I hollered for him to stop. He didn't; he kept moving forward. I remember him laughing. I was scared to death. This person was not gonna stop, he was gonna do harm to me." Peairs testified that he shot Yoshi once in the chest when the youth was about five feet away. "I had no choice," he said. "I want Yoshi's parents to understand that I'm sorry for everything."
District Attorney Doug Moreau concentrated on establishing that it had not been reasonable for Peairs, a 6-foot-2, well-armed man, to be so fearful of a polite, friendly, unarmed, 130-pound boy, who rang the doorbell, even if he walked toward him unexpectedly in the driveway, and that Peairs was not justified in using deadly force. Moreau stated, "It started with the ringing of the doorbell. No masks, no disguises. People ringing doorbells are not attempting to make unlawful entry. They didn't walk to the back yard, they didn't start peeking in the windows."
"You were safe and secure, weren't you?" Moreau asked Peairs during his appearance before the grand jury. "But you didn't call the police, did you?"
"No sir." Peairs said.
"Did you hear anyone trying to break in the front door?"
"No sir."
"Did you hear anyone trying to break in the carport door?"
"No sir."
"And you were standing right there at the door, weren't you - with a big gun?"
Peairs nodded.
"I know you're sorry you killed him. You are sorry, aren't you?"
"Yes sir."
"But you did kill him, didn't you?"
"Yes sir."
Peairs testified in a flat, toneless drawl, breaking into tears several times. A police detective testified that Peairs had said to him, "Boy, I messed up; I made a mistake."
The defense argued that Peairs was in large part reacting reasonably to his wife's panic. Peairs's wife testified for an hour describing the incident, during which she also broke into tears several times. "He was coming real fast, and it just clicked in my mind that he was going to hurt us. I slammed the door and locked it. I took two steps into the living room, where Rod could see me and I could see him. I told him to get the gun." Peairs did not hesitate or question her, but instead went to retrieve a handgun with a laser sight that was stored in a suitcase in the bedroom, which he said "was the easiest, most accessible gun to me."
"There was no thinking involved. I wish I could have thought. If I could have just thought," Mrs. Peairs said.[4]
The trial lasted seven days. After the jurors deliberated for three and a quarter hours, Peairs was acquitted.
The civil trial
In a later civil action (95 0144 (La.App. 1 Cir. 10/6/95), 662 So.2d 509), however, the court found Peairs liable to Hattori's parents for $650,000 in damages,[5] which they used to establish two charitable funds in their son's name; one to fund U.S. high school students wishing to visit Japan, and one to fund organizations that lobby for gun control.[6] The lawyers for Hattori's parents argued that the Peairses had behaved unreasonably: Bonnie Peairs had overreacted to the presence of the two teens outside her house; the Peairses had behaved unreasonably by not communicating with each other to convey what exactly the threat was; they had not taken the best path to safety—remaining inside the house and calling police; they had erred in taking offensive action rather than defensive action; and Rodney Peairs had used his firearm too quickly, without assessing the situation, using a warning shot, or shooting to wound. Furthermore, the much larger Peairs could likely very easily have subdued the short, slightly built teen. Contrary to Peairs's claim that Hattori was moving strangely and quickly towards him, forensic evidence demonstrates that Hattori was moving slowly, or not at all, and his arms were away from his body, indicating he was no threat.
Overall, a far greater show of force was used than was appropriate.[7] Out of the total compensation, only $100,000 has been paid by an insurance company.[8]
Guru
One of the many reasons I'm pleased to live in a country where Firearms are illegal..! :-D
V.
-
However, this story is a news report. It's bound to be twisted. And the Father could for example have used pedo as an excuse to bash his brains in.Maybe the 'pedo' was being perfectly innocent? e.g. tickling the kids tummy..
Wow, that's exactly what I came here to post.
Pedo or not, it's still a human life. While the atrocity of his (alleged) actions can't be understated, I think killing him crosses a line. In the father's shoes, it's likely that I would have done the same thing in the moment: accidentally shot him in the face (a couple dozen times), but that doesn't mean it's the just (or legal) thing to do in the moment.
I do believe the father will get off with the help of public support with a minimal sentence, if any at all. As a judge, that's what I would do. A precedent needs to be set that states: although pedophilia is not OK, murder is not OK in this circumstance either. It's a hot topic because different people disagree when murder is OK, and the biggest deciding factor of this case is its location.
I think it's important to bear in mind that the law in the US (and in Europe!) allows us some room for interpretation. Obviously soldiers and Police officers kill routinely as a part of their job.
As I mentioned also, this man's actions were only a result of him trying to prevent another person from breaking the law. Whether this was excessively so is for a Texan Jury to decide - frankly I think they'll thank him for saving the expense of having to switch on the electric chair!
V.
-
to keep them out of temptations way by making sure they never get into contact with children again.
Which doesn't have to be done by ending their life.
I don't know where the law stands in the US but certainly in several European countries including Britain the father would have had a duty of care towards his daughter so in fact it could be argued *failing" to act as he did would in itself be illegal - it's called a crime of omission where I hail from.
Seems like a difficult situation any way you look at it.
No offense but it's statements like "I think killing him crosses the line" that give me the firm belief that people like myself were put on this earth to do the shit that people like you can't.
Conviction unfortunately has nothing to do with right and wrong. It's not a question of "can" or "can't" but rather will" or "won't". It clearly can be done; the finger has the required muscular ability to curl back an inch - but is it the best idea?
Humans are endowed with brains which give them an ability to make educated decisions on how to deal with a particular circumstances. To beat the living shit out of someone, requires not a brain, but only a backbone.
As I mentioned also, this man's actions were only a result of him trying to prevent another person from breaking the law.
In order to put out a match, do you need to use a gallon of water?
-
However, this story is a news report. It's bound to be twisted. And the Father could for example have used pedo as an excuse to bash his brains in.Maybe the 'pedo' was being perfectly innocent? e.g. tickling the kids tummy..
Wow, that's exactly what I came here to post.
Pedo or not, it's still a human life. While the atrocity of his (alleged) actions can't be understated, I think killing him crosses a line. In the father's shoes, it's likely that I would have done the same thing in the moment: accidentally shot him in the face (a couple dozen times), but that doesn't mean it's the just (or legal) thing to do in the moment.
I do believe the father will get off with the help of public support with a minimal sentence, if any at all. As a judge, that's what I would do. A precedent needs to be set that states: although pedophilia is not OK, murder is not OK in this circumstance either. It's a hot topic because different people disagree when murder is OK, and the biggest deciding factor of this case is its location.
No offense but it's statements like "I think killing him crosses the line" that give me the firm belief that people like myself were put on this earth to do the shit that people like you can't.
Props to you Lim - provided they've had a fair trial and their guilt has been proven to the satisfaction of a jury, I would see it as a mercy killing compared to living life as a monster.
Part of the problem is that not everyone's clear on what constitutes a paedophile. I would say it's someone who's attracted to prepubescent children i.e <= 12 - the age of consent in the UK where you and I live is 16 so technically I would have broken the law if I'd gone on holiday to the US with my last girlfriend and done anything with her - naturally we need a bit of common sense.
Although it's not a legitimate sexual orientation paedophilia is one nonetheless. We've spent decades trying to offer therapy, chemical castration, imprisonment in clinics, aggressive courses of medication to reduce their sex drive but we keep coming back to the same issue which is that it's a fundamental part of their sexuality - the only humane solution in my humble opinion is to keep them out of temptations way by making sure they never get into contact with children again.
This may sound overly harsh but it's the only realistic solution to the problem as far as I can see. All comments are welcome of course!
V.
I think the problem with pedophilia is that people deal with it as an illness rather than a sexual preference. You cannot cure say homosexality because homosexuality isn't an illness, it's a personal preference which you have chosen for whatever reasons you have. There is no hope of correcting a pedophile because you cannot make them want to have sex with a man or a woman when they will always want to have sex with a girl or a boy. How can you solve a problem like this other than death or complete isolation? You cannot.
-
to keep them out of temptations way by making sure they never get into contact with children again.
Which doesn't have to be done by ending their life.
I don't know where the law stands in the US but certainly in several European countries including Britain the father would have had a duty of care towards his daughter so in fact it could be argued *failing" to act as he did would in itself be illegal - it's called a crime of omission where I hail from.
Seems like a difficult situation any way you look at it.
No offense but it's statements like "I think killing him crosses the line" that give me the firm belief that people like myself were put on this earth to do the shit that people like you can't.
Conviction unfortunately has nothing to do with right and wrong. It's not a question of "can" or "can't" but rather will" or "won't". It clearly can be done; the finger has the required muscular ability to curl back an inch - but is it the best idea?
Humans are endowed with brains which give them an ability to make educated decisions on how to deal with a particular circumstances. To beat the living shit out of someone, requires not a brain, but only a backbone.
As I mentioned also, this man's actions were only a result of him trying to prevent another person from breaking the law.
In order to put out a match, do you need to use a gallon of water?
I really don't want to sound horificially Conservative about this. I personally wouldn't murder them but if my country decided it was going to execute them after a fair trial I wouldn't be protesting in the streets as the only other viable solution seems to imprison them for their rest of their lives which is very expensive and less humane.
You have to bear in mind that in some situations, INACTION can itself be a choice, and although the man's actions were excessive as you say to protect his daughter I think there's a legal basis for saying they were justifiable under the circumstances.
I suppose we can't be sure what we'd do unless we were confronted with that situation.
V.
-
The only thing evil needs to prevail and poison the worlds soul is for good men to stand idly by and do nothing to halt it.
-
However, this story is a news report. It's bound to be twisted. And the Father could for example have used pedo as an excuse to bash his brains in.Maybe the 'pedo' was being perfectly innocent? e.g. tickling the kids tummy..
Wow, that's exactly what I came here to post.
Pedo or not, it's still a human life. While the atrocity of his (alleged) actions can't be understated, I think killing him crosses a line. In the father's shoes, it's likely that I would have done the same thing in the moment: accidentally shot him in the face (a couple dozen times), but that doesn't mean it's the just (or legal) thing to do in the moment.
I do believe the father will get off with the help of public support with a minimal sentence, if any at all. As a judge, that's what I would do. A precedent needs to be set that states: although pedophilia is not OK, murder is not OK in this circumstance either. It's a hot topic because different people disagree when murder is OK, and the biggest deciding factor of this case is its location.
No offense but it's statements like "I think killing him crosses the line" that give me the firm belief that people like myself were put on this earth to do the shit that people like you can't.
Props to you Lim - provided they've had a fair trial and their guilt has been proven to the satisfaction of a jury, I would see it as a mercy killing compared to living life as a monster.
Part of the problem is that not everyone's clear on what constitutes a paedophile. I would say it's someone who's attracted to prepubescent children i.e <= 12 - the age of consent in the UK where you and I live is 16 so technically I would have broken the law if I'd gone on holiday to the US with my last girlfriend and done anything with her - naturally we need a bit of common sense.
Although it's not a legitimate sexual orientation paedophilia is one nonetheless. We've spent decades trying to offer therapy, chemical castration, imprisonment in clinics, aggressive courses of medication to reduce their sex drive but we keep coming back to the same issue which is that it's a fundamental part of their sexuality - the only humane solution in my humble opinion is to keep them out of temptations way by making sure they never get into contact with children again.
This may sound overly harsh but it's the only realistic solution to the problem as far as I can see. All comments are welcome of course!
V.
I think the problem with pedophilia is that people deal with it as an illness rather than a sexual preference. You cannot cure say homosexality because homosexuality isn't an illness, it's a personal preference which you have chosen for whatever reasons you have. There is no hope of correcting a pedophile because you cannot make them want to have sex with a man or a woman when they will always want to have sex with a girl or a boy. How can you solve a problem like this other than death or complete isolation? You cannot.
Well said Lim +1,
We cannot continue to believe this is an illness ; even if we don't understand it fully it's in these people's nature to harm children and nothing we've done has had much of a measurable effect on it short of constant monitoring and/or imprisonment which is extremely costly or of course making it a capital offence to harm a child in that way.
Of course paedophiles live in hopes that one day they'll be accepted and not be ostracised in the same way as homosexuals - all I can say is I wouldn't hold your breath!
V.
-
I wouldn't have killed him, too long for spend in pen for that. I'd have knocked him out with some brass knuckles, shoved a camera up his arse so he could see me kicking the SHIT out of him. But that's just me.
-
I wouldn't have killed him, too long for spend in pen for that. I'd have knocked him out with some brass knuckles, shoved a camera up his arse so he could see me kicking the SHIT out of him. But that's just me.
So in conclusion pedos aren't welcome here? :-D
V.
-
Of course paedophiles live in hopes that one day they'll be accepted and not be ostracised in the same way as homosexuals - all I can say is I wouldn't hold your breath!
V.
The difference being that being homosexual is passive, you can be homosexual and have it not affect another single person your whole life.
Being a pedo is active, by the nature of being a pedo you're going to affect a child in one way or another.
As I said before, child molesting is murder. You're murdering that child's youth and innocence.
-
Thats the great thing about Texas. You can kill the pieces of shit and the police dont charge you with murder. Also, they have very lenient gun laws :) God Bless the South
-
I'm afraid not :P. I'm sure you will agree V 8). The only thing that turns me on, on SR is seeing quality drugs that I can buy with a click ;)
-
Thats the great thing about Texas. You can kill the pieces of shit and the police dont charge you with murder. Also, they have very lenient gun laws :) God Bless the South
Like I said earlier, there's no way he's going to have to go to court for this guys 'murder', particularly in Texas. There would be a public outcry, enough to swing the future presidential election.
-
Exactly Vlad. The problem is that psychologists/doctors/society as a whole (i.e the gov etc) don't have the balls to say what is true because it causes to much controversy and people accuse you of being brutal when actually you are just being pragmatic.
-
people accuse you of being brutal when actually you are just being pragmatic.
I realize I'm not going to change your mind on the subject, but this is the type of thinking that allows genocide to happen. Nazis thought they were being very pragmatic too when burning the corpses of their captives in the concentration camps.
You cannot cure say homosexality because homosexuality isn't an illness, it's a personal preference which you have chosen for whatever reasons you have.
Homosexuality isn't a choice anymore than heterosexuality. Did you come out of the womb and chose to be straight? It's well established by the scientific community that homosexuality is not a choice. We're not in the 1980s anymore.
-
people accuse you of being brutal when actually you are just being pragmatic.
I realize I'm not going to change your mind on the subject, but this is the type of thinking that allows genocide to happen. Nazis thought they were being very pragmatic too when burning the corpses of their captives in the concentration camps.
You cannot cure say homosexality because homosexuality isn't an illness, it's a personal preference which you have chosen for whatever reasons you have.
Homosexuality isn't a choice anymore than heterosexuality. Did you come out of the womb and chose to be straight? It's well established by the scientific community that homosexuality is not a choice. We're not in the 1980s anymore.
1st point you made doesn't bother me in the slightest. I am ultra-liberal about 99% of things in life. Live and let live. This however I'm totally opposite, I'm not even bothered about hiding the fact I would be one of those people that if they found out someone like that moved into my area I would be the one to make them leave the same night. Don't give a fuck if that makes me a bad person.
2nd point. Sorry I phrased that incorrectly and I didn't mean it to sound that way. What I meant by choice was that at some point as we develop we start realising who we are attracted to be it girl or boy. I should have said you become aware, my apologise for the bad semantics.
-
There's no way a jury in Texas of all places is going to convict a man for standing up for his family. No way on earth. The district attorney will be under such huge political pressure he will drop the case.
I was about to say the same thing. Texas is one messed up country.
sdesu.
-
This story had been all over the radio yesterday while I was at work. Every single person that called the radio station about the story said that they would have done the same thing.
Personally, I don't have children. However, I most likely would have done the same thing. I can't imagine the horror/rage that would instantly come over you upon witnessing such a horrendous sight. Primal instincts would kick in and I, too, would have beat the shit out of such a scumbag.
-
This story had been all over the radio yesterday while I was at work. Every single person that called the radio station about the story said that they would have done the same thing.
Personally, I don't have children. However, I most likely would have done the same thing. I can't imagine the horror/rage that would instantly come over you upon witnessing such a horrendous sight. Primal instincts would kick in and I, too, would have beat the shit out of such a scumbag.
I think I'd have gone further to be honest, if it was my own child I'd have tortured him to punish him.
-
I hate the whole "It's still a human life" argument. Means fuck all. All they do is cause misery and destroy lives.
Contrary to what people think the world basically works on the basis of an eye-for-an-eye. If you destroy someones life in that way, there should be no coming back.
-
I hate the whole "It's still a human life" argument. Means fuck all. All they do is cause misery and destroy lives.
Contrary to what people think the world basically works on the basis of an eye-for-an-eye. If you destroy someones life in that way, there should be no coming back.
It seems to me that rehabilitation only makes sense in the context of people who are capable of reforming and someone with a preference for young children simply cannot change their sexuality so easily. When I first went to the Hidden Wiki I saw a guide on how to meet and have sex with children, suggesting five years old as a starting point ; it talked about ways to try and meet children. Fortunately they're easily preventable with a little judicious parenting and educating children not to speak to strangers but it left me to reflect on the kind of mind that would write such a guide as well as the kind of people who would put its teachings into practice.
There's a huge difference between mob justice of the kind I've read about on Housing Estates in the UK where people firebomb the homes of alleged sex offenders (and in one case a Pediatrician! - a few dyslexic people amongst the lynch mob it seems...) and executing someone as the result of due process in law after a fair trial.
Naturally we need some common sense when it comes to teenagers having relationships with adults and I wouldn't execute a 23 year old man for having sex with a willing 15 year old girl for instance but when it comes to pre-adolescent children, it's just a matter of preventing further harm to say we should leave open the option of the death penalty in my humble opinion.
Many thanks to everyone for a thought provoking discussion!
V.
-
Read this thread http://dkn255hz262ypmii.onion/index.php?topic=26540.15
-
If I could confirm they were 100% guilty then as far as I damn well wanted to lol. I'd have to be 100% certain though. I'm not saying I'd go out looking for these degenerates but if I knew one was in my area then FUCK IT do the world a favour...
-
If I could confirm they were 100% guilty then as far as I damn well wanted to lol. I'd have to be 100% certain though. I'm not saying I'd go out looking for these degenerates but if I knew one was in my area then FUCK IT do the world a favour...
If I walked into church and found the father having giggity time with a choir boy, he'd probably get a candle stick shoved up his urethra. Just saying. ;)
-
If I could confirm they were 100% guilty then as far as I damn well wanted to lol. I'd have to be 100% certain though. I'm not saying I'd go out looking for these degenerates but if I knew one was in my area then FUCK IT do the world a favour...
As you can see from some of the examples I quoted, far too many people are willing to go off half-cocked, and innocent people have been killed. This is the reason I am so anti-vigilante. It's just too damn easy to make a mistake and kill the wrong person.
Even as far as the legal system goes, we've had a fair number of wrongful convictions in this country: Truscott, Marshall, Milgaard, Morin, to name just a few. Truscott was convicted in the late 1950s of the rape and murder of Lynn Harper, a 12 year old classmate, on very dubious circumstantial evidence . He was originally sentenced to hang. About two years ago, he was fully exonerated. Marshall, Milgaard and Morin all spent decades in prison for murders they did not commit. In particular, Guy Paul Morin was targeted by police for the murder of his next-door neighbour's child, Christine Jessop, because he played the flute, and was considered 'weird'. The police investigators developed tunnel vision, concentrating only on evidence which would prove Morin's guilt, and completely ignoring any and all exculpatory evidence (of which there was no shortage.) It was DNA evidence which eventually exonerated him.
Guru
Yeah of course I agree with you there. Just to make it totally clear I would never go and do it unless I knew for certain and as I say I wouldn't go on some mad vigilante hunt or anything ridiculous like that. I mean that if a well known multiple offender moved onto my street or in the vicinity of my home PARTICULARLY IF I HAD CHILDREN I just would not allow it. There is no chance I would. Also for those that may raise the point "Lim, how is it your right to dictate where x person lives". Actually IT IS EVERYONE'S RIGHT to defend where they live against a threat even if the law says otherwise. You as a person don't have to tolerate anything that may cause you genuine harm, even if you have to attack it first. It just takes a pair of balls to be willing to put that into practice. I'm not just talking about sex offenders either, I'm talking about anyone who tries to harm you, steal from you or make you suffer in any way. And why the fuck should you? If you aren't infringing on another persons liberty then nobody has the right to take yours and you should do whatever it takes to defend your liberty and yourself by any means necessary. I get so tired of seeing societies attitude thinking that it's ok to be trod on or you are expected to take crap off someone.
That shit is for the weak and the weak of mind.
Oh and Guru nah man, don't be daft, was talking about someone else in a completely different thread. :)
-
Fuck me I just read that back. Lim got bloody militant!
-
Just brilliant ;)
-
that man was right on rightous for killin the bastard but i dunno how happy the ending will be..that lil girl is scarred for life and her daddy may well do prison time...it wont be hard time he will be a hero for killin a child molester in prison but his woman and his babies wont have their man...shit hurts my heart but at least they as a family had what justice they could get...where im from it would have been the woods and some shovels...and that would be all...im not a religious man but if there is a god that lil girls daddy will walk free. and i understand alot of ppl have been falsely accused but if that man caught that dead pervert with his finger or his junk in that baby girl..well the end result seems to me justified...just my opinion..and i dont shut ppl off but nothing any1 can say will change my mind
psycho-not
-
I wonder sometimes if there is something wrong with me, but the morality of murder means really little to me. It's not like I have the mindset of a serial killer, I just feel like the only thing preventing me from murder is the consequences from those actions. If someone does something to myself or my family that I feel justifies them being killed, then the consequences of the actions they chose is the likelihood that I will take the risk in carrying out their punishment. I would plan it to the best of my abilities to avoid the consequences of my actions, so I might wait months or a year just to ensure it doesn't come back to me, but I'd have my revenge nonetheless.
I'm a rather emotionless person, as I've been told many times before, and even fighting I've never had an all encompassing rage, someone is aggressive towards me and I'm rather quick to hit them before they hit me, it's not that I'm a hothead ever looking for a fight, but I also don't back down from those types either. I feel I could easily kill someone I felt deserved it, and depending on the severity of what they did it would range from quick and clean to downright morbid like gutting a man alive - I don't feel I'd have any hesitation or remorse, so I often wonder what's wrong with myself that I don't feel the same way as those around me.
I always have a pistol in my car and another in my nightstand. I've thankfully never had the need to use them for anything other than at the shooting range, but I feel comfortable enough with my moral compass to know when and when I shouldn't use them, but my moral compass also has plenty of gray areas that I wouldn't hesitate with and the majority of others would probably find ludicrous to kill someone over.
For example, if someone tried to jack my car, there is a possibility they would leave me alone and only take my car which my insurance would take care of - I understand that side of the argument. But at the same time I know I couldn't do that and I will always protect what's mine, and the little regard I have towards human life means I wouldn't lose much sleep over putting a round in a car jackers skull.
-
The only thing evil needs to prevail and poison the worlds soul is for good men to stand idly by and do nothing to halt it.
Just how far would you be prepared to go? And on what evidentiary basis?
For some reason I may never understand, Britons seem to be literally obsessed with paedophila, and more than willing to initiate witch-hunts based on mere accusations
Cases in point:
Man hounded out of second town
June 7, 2012
“A man accused of being a child abuser was run out of Castle Douglas on
Saturday.”
http://www.dgstandard.co.uk/galloway-news/news/2012/06/07/man-hounded-out-of-second-town-51311-31127557/
23 April 2012 Last updated at 20:25 GMT
Murder trial told accused had 'paedophile hit list'
Peter Bick Supermarket worker Peter Bick died from severe head trauma
A man accused of murdering a 57-year-old supermarket worker had a hit list of men he planned to kill in an attempt to rid the world of "paedophiles", a court has heard.
Christopher Hunnisett, 28, is accused of killing Peter Bick at his home in Bexhill, on 11 January.
Lewes Crown Court heard there was no evidence that Mr Bick, who died from severe head trauma, was a paedophile.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-17811391
Vigilante-style attack on suspected paedophile
Published on Wednesday 28 March 2012 09:32
A MAN carried out a vigilante-style attack on a suspected paedophile after tracking the man down to a secret address, Lincoln Crown Court was told yesterday (Tuesday).
Ian Stones, 25, of New York, discovered the man was at an address on the outskirts of Spalding, and after driving to the property forced his way inside.
http://www.bostonstandard.co.uk/news/crime/vigilante-style-attack-on-suspected-paedophile-1-3672196
Family living in fear after false sex offender posters
March 15, 2012
“Police are keeping guard outside a family home after posters were put up falsely claiming a sex offender lived at their address.”
http://www.echo-news.co.uk/news/9589708.Family_living_in_fear_after_false_sex_offender_posters/
Innocent man Terry Edwards in paedophile mix-up too scared to leave house
March 14, 2012
“An innocent dad-of-two is living in fear after being wrongly identified as a paedophile who shares his name.”
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2012/march/16/im_not_a_paedophile.aspx
Mother and schoolboy admit killing man wrongly suspected of being paedophile
March 1, 2012
“Williamina Stewart, 37, and Paul Noble, 17, attacked Gordon Morrice after he asked to play on the mother-of-three’s trampoline with two young children.”
http://local.stv.tv/aberdeen/news/299492-mother-and-son-admit-killing-aberdeen-man/
Weird? Yes. Inappropriate behaviour? I'd say so. Worthy of the death sentence? No way in hell.
Josie Appleton
Are tree surgeons really a threat to children?
For all the Lib-Cons’ attempts to rein in Britain’s crazy vetting regime, still millions of adults are being treated as potential paedophiles.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/12131/
Crime checks for a million community volunteers as vetting spirals out of control, say critics
February 16, 2012
“Nearly a million people who volunteered to help in schools or at sport and charity events last year were subjected to official checks on their backgrounds, figures show.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2101817/Crime-checks-million-community-volunteers-vetting-spirals-control-say-critics.html
Innocent Oldbury residents driven out over anti-paedophile storm
November 18, 2011
“Innocent residents living in the housing block where a boy was found in Oldbury have been driven out of their home for fear of being beaten to a pulp by anti-paedophile protestors.”
http://www.halesowennews.co.uk/news/9373133.Innocent_Oldbury_residents_driven_out_over_anti_paedophile_storm/
I've read of people's houses being attacked by mobs and firebombed, because someone on a housing estate said he recognized one of the residents from the nonce wing when he was doing time for a minor offence. One man who was wrongly labeled as a sex offender, was attacked and harassed for almost 10 years until he got his name cleared in court.During those intervening years, he was repeatedly attacked and beaten, his car was vandalized, his tyres slashed.
Guru
Well said Guru - it's people like this who worry me more than child molesters at time as they don't require the same standards of proof as a court of law would.
Having said this I would say there's a huge difference between taking the law into your own hands and blowing someone's head off and executing them at the end of a fair trial where the Prosecution must prove a person's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
As you say unfortunately accusations have been awarded the same weight as proof in some cases and as such we mustn't allow ourselves to get carried away. Of course your average member of the public would shit himself if he knew about the level of CP here on the darknet but without someone to lynch I daresay they're harmless enough.
V.
-
Meister I wouldn't worry, I pretty much have the same standpoint on this as you. I also get pretty militant on the subject of self defense and defending your property. See my post above.
-
Whilst I wouldn't call it a happy ending exactly (I mean, we have a dead man and a child who's been molested), I can't say I have any strong feelings against the man's death... other than a slight niggling feeling at the back of my mind that a dead man can't tell his side of the story.
-
To be sexually attracted to anything other than another sexually mature, intelligent human being close in age is morally wrong in my eyes. How anyone can think otherwise is just confusing. I may be being too sensitive in this matter, but hey...that's just me. :-\ Even an 80 year old man dating a 30-something year old woman is disgusting to me so whatever.
-
Not sure if its a happy ending as the victim now has murder on his consciense. Even bad people who murder do have a metal struggle with it. Its sad that the legal system let the man down.
We have to be careful though because false accusations ARE made and we have to be 100% certain.
Thankfully most kids these days are more aware of sexual abuse. They know what is wrong and its easy for parents to explain that nobody can touch them in certain ways.
Also - its not strangers doing most abuse its people you know.
Keep an ever watchful eye on your children but bear in mind most guys would NEVER think of hurting a kid and our sexual leaning are to adults!
As for rehabilitating a pedophile - could you rehabilitate someone who is heterosexual?
You are what you are sexually. It will not change. If someone has children as part of a sexual preference then we can only rehabilitate by decimating them. Then the danger is gone. The dead do not abuse children.
-
Yeah to be honest I find that hard to get my head around but yano, if you are a consenting adult and want to bang Grandma's minge then by all means carry on lol. What consenting adults do in their own private time is completely up to them, people have all sorts of weird kinks and you should absolutely be free to express those. The difference is that these kinks, save in the case of the rapist, are not predatory because people choose to engage in them. That's another thing I find so abhorrent when pedophiles claim they love children because it's a complete contradiction to pray on someone you love.
And lol fuck having that nonce's death on your conscience! They should feel proud for doing the right thing.
-
You are what you are sexually. It will not change. If someone has children as part of a sexual preference then we can only rehabilitate by decimating them. Then the danger is gone. The dead do not abuse children.
+1
Let's do it the Spartan way! >:D
-
You are what you are sexually. It will not change. If someone has children as part of a sexual preference then we can only rehabilitate by decimating them. Then the danger is gone. The dead do not abuse children.
+1
Let's do it the Spartan way! >:D
Actually that's not entirely true. I am straight but I would definitely go Bumder for Gary....
-
You are what you are sexually. It will not change. If someone has children as part of a sexual preference then we can only rehabilitate by decimating them. Then the danger is gone. The dead do not abuse children.
+1
Let's do it the Spartan way! >:D
Actually that's not entirely true. I am straight but I would definitely go Bumder for Gary....
You can't ignore my girth. O0
-
You are what you are sexually. It will not change. If someone has children as part of a sexual preference then we can only rehabilitate by decimating them. Then the danger is gone. The dead do not abuse children.
+1
Let's do it the Spartan way! >:D
Actually that's not entirely true. I am straight but I would definitely go Bumder for Gary....
You can't ignore my girth. O0
Ignore it? You can't see past it! :o
-
You are what you are sexually. It will not change. If someone has children as part of a sexual preference then we can only rehabilitate by decimating them. Then the danger is gone. The dead do not abuse children.
+1
Let's do it the Spartan way! >:D
Actually that's not entirely true. I am straight but I would definitely go Bumder for Gary....
You can't ignore my girth. O0
Ignore it? You can't see past it! :o
But at least I know to keep it down when there are children nearby because I'm not a sick fuck. >:(
-
There's a video on youtube showing this dude in the 80s shooting his son's molester at an airport, right in the head. I think he got 5 years parole. I wouldn't worry too much about our guy in this article
-
There's a video on youtube showing this dude in the 80s shooting his son's molester at an airport, right in the head. I think he got 5 years parole. I wouldn't worry too much about our guy in this article
What do you know, the justice system was actually just for once. :P
-
There's a video on youtube showing this dude in the 80s shooting his son's molester at an airport, right in the head. I think he got 5 years parole. I wouldn't worry too much about our guy in this article
What do you know, the justice system was actually just for once. :P
That's called revenge, not Justice! :)
V.
-
There's no way a jury in Texas of all places is going to convict a man for standing up for his family. No way on earth. The district attorney will be under such huge political pressure he will drop the case.
If they don't I will lose quite a bit of faith in humanity and I don't have that much in reserve anyway.
I assume they have an equivalent of Manslaughter in the US i.e unlawful killing short of murder due to extreme provocation?
V.
It would be under "self defense"
If this man receives anything other than a reward and maybe a cookie, I will lose faith in humanity
-
There's a video on youtube showing this dude in the 80s shooting his son's molester at an airport, right in the head. I think he got 5 years parole. I wouldn't worry too much about our guy in this article
What do you know, the justice system was actually just for once. :P
That's called revenge, not Justice! :)
V.
Well me and Gandhi don't exactly see 'eye to eye' about things if you get what I mean. ;)
-
There's a video on youtube showing this dude in the 80s shooting his son's molester at an airport, right in the head. I think he got 5 years parole. I wouldn't worry too much about our guy in this article
What do you know, the justice system was actually just for once. :P
That's called revenge, not Justice! :)
V.
Well me and Gandhi don't exactly see 'eye to eye' about things if you get what I mean. ;)
If we'd been in charge of the Raj I'm sure things would have gone very differently! :-D
V.
-
There's a video on youtube showing this dude in the 80s shooting his son's molester at an airport, right in the head. I think he got 5 years parole. I wouldn't worry too much about our guy in this article
What do you know, the justice system was actually just for once. :P
Taking the law into your own hands is NEVER the answer. What if the shooter was wrong?
The United States population is high enough as is, sucks for you if you're one of the estimated 311,591,917 citizens to be shot. ;D
-
Is it messed up that when I read the title I thought it a joke and assumed you meant the other kind of happy ending? :P
If you have kids yes.. sadly your humor changes as well...
-
There's a video on youtube showing this dude in the 80s shooting his son's molester at an airport, right in the head. I think he got 5 years parole. I wouldn't worry too much about our guy in this article
What do you know, the justice system was actually just for once. :P
That's called revenge, not Justice! :)
V.
Nah that's just taking the power back. Kudos to the guy.
And how is castration more of a solution than isolation or death lol?
-
castration is cheaper then isolation or execution, and allows someone a chance of rehabilitation. what if that person has never harmed a child and wants to volunteer to "fix" himself so that he never has the urge to?
Sorry I don't agree.
-
castration is cheaper then isolation or execution, and allows someone a chance of rehabilitation. what if that person has never harmed a child and wants to volunteer to "fix" himself so that he never has the urge to?
Sorry I don't agree.
I'm afraid I agree with Lim, it's never been shown to reduce sexual offences of this kind.
V.
-
castration is cheaper then isolation or execution, and allows someone a chance of rehabilitation. what if that person has never harmed a child and wants to volunteer to "fix" himself so that he never has the urge to?
Sorry I don't agree.
im sure you would if you were the person in this unfortunate position, and dont say well your not because your a better person because i dont think some of these people have a choice in the matter
LOL fuck me I have said I wont change my mind and yet you persist in trying to ram your view down my throat. Just how arrogant are you to think I have to agree with you.
Read the following very carefully - I AM NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY MIND. EVER. I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE LIBERAL VIEW ON THIS SUBJECT. I WILL NOT RECONSIDER MY POSITION ON THIS MATTER. YOU ARE FREE TO HAVE YOUR OWN OPINION ON THIS AND I WOULDN'T TRY TO DENY YOU THAT HOWEVER DON'T TRY AND CHANGE MINE. YOU WONT SO IT IS A FUTILE USE OF YOUR TIME AND A WASTE OF THE ENERGY IT TAKES YOU TO THINK OF AN ARGUMENT AGAINST MY VIEW POINT AND THEN TYPE IT OUT. QUIT WHILE YOU ARE AHEAD PLEASE.
Also I don't even consider that a valid argument because I don't give an inch on the subject. I don't care if it's shit for that person, life is brutal so you need to get used to that fact.
-
castration is cheaper then isolation or execution, and allows someone a chance of rehabilitation. what if that person has never harmed a child and wants to volunteer to "fix" himself so that he never has the urge to?
Sorry I don't agree.
im sure you would if you were the person in this unfortunate position, and dont say well your not because your a better person because i dont think some of these people have a choice in the matter
LOL fuck me I have said I wont change my mind and yet you persist in trying to ram your view down my throat. Just how arrogant are you to think I have to agree with you.
Read the following very carefully - I AM NOT GOING TO CHANGE MY MIND. EVER. I DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE LIBERAL VIEW ON THIS SUBJECT. I WILL NOT RECONSIDER MY POSITION ON THIS MATTER. YOU ARE FREE TO HAVE YOUR OWN OPINION ON THIS AND I WOULDN'T TRY TO DENY YOU THAT HOWEVER DON'T TRY AND CHANGE MINE. YOU WONT SO IT IS A FUTILE USE OF YOUR TIME AND A WASTE OF THE ENERGY IT TAKES YOU TO THINK OF AN ARGUMENT AGAINST MY VIEW POINT AND THEN TYPE IT OUT. QUIT WHILE YOU ARE AHEAD PLEASE.
Also I don't even consider that a valid argument because I don't give an inch on the subject. I don't care if it's shit for that person, life is brutal so you need to get used to that fact.
^^^^^^^^
Very well said.
-
* That "he makes noises that sound like 'heehaw' and then it feels like rain on her."
I think R Kelly needs to be investigated in that case.
-
castration is cheaper then isolation or execution, and allows someone a chance of rehabilitation. what if that person has never harmed a child and wants to volunteer to "fix" himself so that he never has the urge to?
Sorry I don't agree.
im sure you would if you were the person in this unfortunate position, and dont say well your not because your a better person because i dont think some of these people have a choice in the matter
I'm more than happy to concede that these men and women are victims of their own perverse sexualities but then what choice do we have except to make sure they don't harm children? A penal colony or capital punishment seem like the only viable ways to make sure a child isn't harmed again if they're convicted of so doing to me.
Still I'm sure we can agree to disagree!
V.
-
The guy the OP was talking about was let off! he won't be facing any charges. was in todays news. just thought you might like to know
-
Yep, grand jury let him off. Also, just to clarify the story, the person sexual assaulting the girl was a legal Mexican worker hired as a ranch hand who followed the girl into the barn, not a family friend or anything of the sort. I liked the photo they had along with the story of the 2 Texas marshals in their oversized cowboy hats lol.
-
Yep, grand jury let him off. Also, just to clarify the story, the person sexual assaulting the girl was a legal Mexican worker hired as a ranch hand who followed the girl into the barn, not a family friend or anything of the sort. I liked the photo they had along with the story of the 2 Texas marshals in their oversized cowboy hats lol.
Result!