Victim of Child Abuse Beats Priest Who Abused Him

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

Oh wow. It is hard to say what I would do, without being in this situation, but how awful. If the justice system took care of this the right way, it never would happen.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

I tamely disagree. Given that the people in the pulpits are betwixt on sexuality and dealing with dogma, there is a bundle of bifurcating bushwah propelling in our direction(s).

Given that some unnamed percentage of priests fool around as, yes, priests, and their sermons hit notes in a given church... this must engender cynicism. These are the people who preach, after all. And as a group, they have a lot of power.

0 Replies

Not so tamely, I see it all as a centuries of want, feeding.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

It's unfortunate that this event draws attention to priests/catholic church when

Quote:

statistics overwhelming reveal that the vast majority of cases of child abuse/sexual abuse are by family/close relatives/neighbors/family fiends.

Not saying that priests/religious institutions are blameless, just that the focus needs to be on the primary perpetrators.

0 Replies

Well, me, I see the religious takes of many sorts feeding all this, pumping the once and future perps.

0 Replies

If the priest was 40 and the victim was 18 and bashed the priest as he attempted to rape him, then there would be no prosecution.
There are two assumptions here :

1) Any delay in the victim defending themself makes it a seperate crime

2) Old farts are sacred

The victim defended themselves as soon as they could muster the wherewithall. Children are sacred, not old farts.

0 Replies

Just can't help it. I agree with Farmerman.

The perp is running around free, while the victim has been driven mad. That in itself is a defense. Maybe Lynch thought the money would do the trick for him, and obviously it has not.

Also understand Joshkinser14, saying:
Oh wow. It is hard to say what I would do, without being in this situation, but how awful. If the justice system took care of this the right way, it never would've happened.

1 Reply

@Pemerson,

Pemerson wrote:

The perp is running around free, while the victim has been driven mad. That in itself is a defense.

It is only a defense if the beaten-up priest is indeed a perve who shouldn't be running around free. The time to prove that passed 20 years ago, when the future assaulter chose to accept a settlement that nobody claims involved a guilty plea by the priest. Given that there has never been any showing of actual guilt, Lynch doesn't, in fact, have a defense. There is nothing to this case but just plain assault---and Lynch committed it.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

I didnt know that the settlement wasnt until Lynch was in his 30's. However, that doesnt change things.

And yet, you seemed quite happy to play the underage card when you thought it would win the trick. It was only after Beth called you on your mistake that age magically lost its relevance.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Pemerson wrote:
The perp is running around free, while the victim has been driven mad. That in itself is a defense.

It is only a defense if the beaten-up priest is indeed a perve who shouldn't be running around free. The time to prove that passed 20 years ago, when the future assaulter chose to accept a settlement that nobody claims involved a guilty plea. Given that there has never been any showing of actual guilt, the assaulter doesn't, in fact have a defense. All there is is just plain assault.

Well, yeah, but paying somebody off is admitting guilt. I just think the victim changed his mind, decided the priest should be publicly exposed. I imagine he will be punished, having to sit through a trial of his victim. Maybe this trial, should there be one, will also be the priest's trial. The tables get turned, it happens now and then.

2 Replies

I find it very interesting to read the various complications this thread has generated.

0 Replies

@Pemerson,

Pemerson wrote:

Well, yeah, but paying somebody off is admitting guilt.

No it's not. The settlement only proves two things: First, Lindner wanted the lawsuit to go away fast, and was willing to pay for a quick settlement. There's nothing incriminating about wanting a lawsuit gone fast. Second, Lynch didn't believe in the merits of his own case enough to continue pursuing it, rather than accept the Lindner's offer to settle.

Under the rule of law, then, we have no evidence---none!---that the reverend Lindner had been guilty of anything. All we have is vigilantism and lynch justice, literally and figuratively.

1 Reply

@Pemerson,

Pemerson, A payoff is not an admission of guilt. In some cases that may be true, but without real evidence, it's anybody's guess.

1 Reply

Is there anyone here who genuinely believes the sexual assault did not happen ?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Pemerson, A payoff is not an admission of guilt. In some cases that may be true, but without real evidence, it's anybody's guess.

Maybe the evidence will be outed.

1 Reply

@Pemerson,

Pemerson wrote:

Maybe the evidence will be outed.

I don't see why it would. After all, Lindner is not on trial here. Lynch is.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

It goes as to motivation. Evidence can not be withheld from a criminal trial even if there is contractual secrecy or a previous finding under common law.

0 Replies

There are so many errors in the above posts re USA jurisprudence that's it's become impossible to comprehend the actual facts of this situation.

2 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

There are so many errors in the above posts re USA jurisprudence that's it's become impossible to comprehend the actual facts of this situation.

Who is the most guilty of a crime? A child abuser? Someone guilty of bribery? Or, the man who is guilty of losing his mind and beating the creep to a pulp? Could it be The Church?
When will this feckin stuff end? I can't seem to wrap my mind around the idea of a man who would rape a child.

1 Reply

@Pemerson,

Quote:

I can't seem to wrap my mind around the idea of a man who would rape a child.

Or beat up a defenseless old man.

2 Replies

Victim of Child Abuse Beats Priest Who Abused Him

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know