29
   

Victim of Child Abuse Beats Priest Who Abused Him

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 04:22 pm
@ehBeth,
chai2 wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

I guess he's gonna have to repay that 625k


Why?

Did he sign something saying he'd have to pay back the money
ehBeth wrote:
confidential settlement

all bets are off now
No; it depends on what he revealed
and what the stipulation of settlement says.





David
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  3  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 04:38 pm
@ehBeth,
ehBeth wrote:

I guess he's gonna have to repay that 625k


The priest ought to sue the church for failing to protect him from the devil.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 04:51 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
I would have rejected the Jesuits' settlement offer and continued pursuing the case in court when it was ripe. To accept the settlement, change my mind twenty years later, and beat the man to a pulp just because I feel like it, is just plain assault. I hope the jury will thwart Lynch's threadbare attempt to change the subject before it, and swiftly hand down his well-deserved jail sentence. Certainly, the whole thing doesn't make me want to cheer. On the contrary: it saddens me to see otherwise-civilized people in this thread applauding this regression into senseless violence.


AGREE
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 05:21 pm
@Phoenix32890,
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Quote:
Will Lynch is looking for justice in an unusual way. Charged with savagely beating the priest he says molested him as a child, he plans to try to use his trial to publicly shame the Rev. Jerold Lindner in court.
Law experts say he faces an uphill battle. However, priest abuse victims are cheering Lynch on and offering to donate to his defense fund.
"Somebody needs to be a face for this abuse and I'm prepared to put myself on the line," Lynch told The Associated Press in the first interview since his arrest last month. "There's nothing they can take from me that they haven't already taken."
Lynch is accused of luring Lindner to the lobby of a retirement home in May and beating him bloody in front of horrified witnesses. Lynch, 43, plans to plead not guilty at his arraignment on an assault charge Friday.
Lynch accuses the 65-year-old Jesuit priest of sexually abusing him and his younger brother in 1975 during weekend camping trips in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The boys, 7 and 4 at the time, were raped and forced to have oral sex with each other while Lindner watched, Lynch said.
Lindner has repeatedly denied abusing anyone and has never been criminally charged. He hung up Wednesday when the AP called him for comment.
In a deposition in the late 1990s, Lindner said he didn't recall Lynch or his brother, though the siblings received $625,000 in a 1998 confidential settlement with the Jesuits for alleged abuse by the priest.



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101112/ap_on_re_us/us_priest_attack

I am not usually one who admires vigilantism, but in this case, I feel like standing up and cheering. I think that the Catholic Church has gotten away with "murder" far too long.

What do you think? What would you have done if you were Will Lynch?
(I wonder what the younger brother has to say about the original alleged offense.)

At age 7, I remained unarmed; defenseless,
except that for sure, if THAT happened,
I 'd have sounded off damn loud when I got home.
I 'd have considered that a newsworthy event.
My mother 'd have called the police very swiftly indeed.
(woud not have waited for my father to get home)


The news account alleges anal sodomy.
That means police 'd assist in taking the complaining witness
to the hospital in quest of forensic evidence, which woud be found.
There 'd be no chance of more "camping trips" after the first offense.

If I were Lynch in the indicated circumstances,
I believe that I 'd defer to the police,
or if a criminal statute of limitations were in effect,
then I 'd take the responsibility for waiting too long.
(On the other hand, if I were willing to accept the moral
and legal consequences of my vengeance, then all bets r off.)


From the posted material, I know that some allegations
were asserted; I know not of their ultimate merit.

The first boy who sued Michael Jackson for sexual abuse
and collected $20,000,000 in settlement, said after Jackson died
that his allegations were false, his dad's (successful) idea to get a lot of money
and that Jackson did nothing untoward to him.
Jackson might have sodomized 1000 children, but not HIM.

Do we know about the state of Mr. Lynch 's mental health ?
I have no information on that.

Most people posting on this thread tacitly accept guilt in the priest,
based on the accusation. Shoud a defendant who denies guilt
have any presumption of innocence?


I will offer this little thing, that I remember:
in a case years ago, there was a fellow who raised sexually-based
allegations, indirectly bearing upon his case.
He got a good settlement. (He did not deserve it, for several different reasons, but he got it anyway.)
Long thereafter, based upon unrelated aberrant behavior,
we found out that he was delusional.
To look at him and listen to him, he seemed robustly in good health of body and of mind.
That came as a big surprize. Sometimes its hard to tell.





David
0 Replies
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 08:58 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
I think that Lynch justice is wrong, period. (Pun unintended, but inevitable.)

If I was Will Lynch, I would have rejected the Jesuits' settlement offer and continued pursuing the case in court when it was ripe. To accept the settlement, change my mind twenty years later, and beat the man to a pulp just because I feel like it, is just plain assault. I hope the jury will thwart Lynch's threadbare attempt to change the subject before it, and swiftly hand down his well-deserved jail sentence. Certainly, the whole thing doesn't make me want to cheer. On the contrary: it saddens me to see otherwise-civilized people in this thread applauding this regression into senseless violence.


Yes.
I very much agree with you, Thomas.

OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 09:09 pm
@msolga,
Quote:
I think that Lynch justice is wrong, period. (Pun unintended, but inevitable.)

If I was Will Lynch, I would have rejected the Jesuits' settlement offer and continued pursuing the case in court when it was ripe. To accept the settlement, change my mind twenty years later, and beat the man to a pulp just because I feel like it, is just plain assault. I hope the jury will thwart Lynch's threadbare attempt to change the subject before it, and swiftly hand down his well-deserved jail sentence. Certainly, the whole thing doesn't make me want to cheer. On the contrary: it saddens me to see otherwise-civilized people in this thread applauding this regression into senseless violence.
msolga wrote:
Yes.
I very much agree with you, Thomas.


How ofen is it that Olga, Thomas and David agree ???





David
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 09:12 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Not often. Probably a sign that The End must be Nigh.
Eva
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 09:18 pm
@Thomas,
You said exactly what I was thinking, but you said it better.

Make that Olga, Thomas, David and Eva.
(The world can end now.)
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 09:23 pm
It goes a long way to highlighting the lasting affects of the crime. Has anyone here wanted revenge all there life ? Clearly he has - for him nothing would make it right but being in a more powerful position then his attacker is certainly going to help. If you dont understand revenge then you dont understand justice....just some hairy nosed PC version of it.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 09:25 pm
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
There are documents of policies remaining from monasteries where monks are encouraged to take the little orphans to bed with them, the better to keep their health of a night time.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 09:28 pm
@dyslexia,
Quote:
all too often came face to face with persons who had done horrendous things
They must breed them tough where you are dys...there is no way I could do that...I wouldnt have the strength of personality to resist being physically violent to child molesters.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 09:29 pm
@chai2,
Quote:
If they put Lynch in prison, how would that be worse than the prison he's been in since he was as lad?
It will definitely be different, but it many ways it may be better and worse. I think Lynch deserves a hearty handshake and a pat on the back.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 09:32 pm
@Thomas,
Quote:
Probably a sign that The End must be Nigh.

No, Thomas, it's a spontaneous outbreak of enlightenment!
I will treasure this moment! Very Happy Wink
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 10:10 pm
IMO, pedophilia should be treated according to who was harming the child.
It is one thing for a stranger to sexually assault a child. It is quite another when the perp is known to the child, and is in a position of trust, for instance a relative, teacher, counselor, or clergy. I think that the damage done to the child is far more grave when he is assaulted by a person who is supposedly in a position of protecting a child.

I might have gone a bit overboard with my answer, but the cheering was my first, gut reaction. That young man has been scarred for life by the pedophile, and no amount of money will ameliorate the victim's psychic damage.

Right or wrong, I believe that beating the priest, and shaming him in public may serve as a catharsis, and help the victim to get past and have some closure on this issue. As a child, the victim felt helpless. The beating may have served to help the young man regain some control over his life.

Actually, I think that the victim should have rounded up all the other kids that he knew were victimized, called the media, and confronted the pedophile priest. In that way, he would have accomplished the same goal, and did not put himself in a position where he might be treated as a criminal.

I have looked on in disgust at the way that the Catholic Church has dealt with errant priests over the years.
dlowan
 
  2  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 10:15 pm
@Phoenix32890,
So...they should have beaten them up, perhaps?
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 10:16 pm
@Phoenix32890,
Quote:
It is one thing for a stranger to sexually assault a child.
Unfortunately strangers have a strong tendency of kidnapping and murdering the child.
Quote:
I think that the victim should have rounded up all the other kids that he knew were victimized, called the media,
Victims want it to stop, not be advertised.
Quote:
I have looked on in disgust at the way that the Catholic Church has dealt with errant priests over the years.
It goes back at least a thousand years that I know of...
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 10:24 pm
@dlowan,
No................I think that the victims confronting the priest verbally on the 7 o'clock news would be very cathartic. Maybe even Oprah. I would call all the media, from TV stations, newspapers, (even the supermarket rags) and internet sites.

That priest got out of serving prison time, for the most heinous of acts. He should be shamed in front of as many people who will listen to the victim's story.

The reason that this priest got away with what he did, was because of the church's way of keeping things quiet. If enough noise were made, perhaps some kids today will be spared the horror of being abused by a person that they trusted.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 12 Nov, 2010 10:26 pm
Quote:
Lynch, 43, plans to plead not guilty at his arraignment on an assault charge Friday.
Lynch accuses the 65-year-old Jesuit priest of sexually abusing him and his younger brother in 1975 during weekend camping trips in the Santa Cruz Mountains. The boys, 7 and 4 at the time, were raped and forced to have oral sex with each other while Lindner watched, Lynch said.


Is there a statute of limitations on a crime such as this?

Age 7 and 4. There is a chance that the boys memories are not accurate, but the fact that a fairly hefty settlement was reached leads one to wonder.

Why would church officials, the very ones who sit in confessionals to hear folks ask for forgiveness for, say, lying, cover up even greater sins that may have been committed by this or other priests/bishops/... ?

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  4  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2010 12:53 am
@Thomas,
Thomas wrote:

Not often. Probably a sign that The End must be Nigh.


Throw Finn into the mix and we all have 24 hours to set things right.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  5  
Reply Sat 13 Nov, 2010 01:30 am
It is highly unlikely that a stipulation of Lynch's settlement with the Church was that if he beat the tar out of the priest, he would have to reimburse it for the settlement amount.

It is not unlikely that the priest will sue Lynch and recover the amount of the prior settlement as a judgment in his own legal action.

Lynch sued the Catholic Church for his claimed damages and received over $600,000. This was to make him whole. Obviously it didn't, and yet he took the money, or after he took the money he demanded further payment...in blood.

If, at the end of a civil action, you feel that you have profited (i.e. you would sustain the same damages for a similar sum of recompense) the process has failed. If, after you have monetarily settled a civil action, you feel that you have not been full compensated, you and/or your lawyers made a big mistake. Tough, it was your choice.

Lynch was wronged, but that doesn't mean he has a free pass to continue collecting recompense as he sees fit.

I would be far more sympathetic to his case if he refused the settlement and then beat the tar out of the priest.

He should be tried and convicted of assault.

Vigilantism, righteous or otherwise, is illegal, and rightly so. I've no moral problem with someone, truly wronged, taking the law into their own hands, but they must appreciate that in so doing they will and should pay a legal price. Perhaps a judge will consider the circumstances in sentencing, but the jury should not consider them in determing whether or not he is guilty as charged.

Perhaps Lynch, in the solitude of his prison cell, will feel satisfaction. I'm not going to judge that feeling, but I question his calculus.

I suspect that Lynch is not going to accept his legal conviction and punishment (but, obviously, could be wrong), and if this is the case it won't be too surprising. He took the money, then he took the blood and still he would want to be free.

Victims are not made saints by their suffering.

Everyone, as a child, who is molested by an adult, doesn't follow Lynch's path.

Again, this is not to dismiss the suffering of Lynch. It never happened to me and so I have no first hand knowledge of what the damage might be, but I've been wronged in other ways over my life and I know the desire for revenge.

There is a moral equation and there is a legal equation. The two are not the same. If you wish to have the benefits of society you must submit to the legal equation. If you refuse to then you could easily be morally correct, but societally wrong, and you should not call upon society to recognize your moral legitimacy.

In short, you can't have your cake and eat it too.
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/23/2024 at 09:43:44