Victim of Child Abuse Beats Priest Who Abused Him

@Thomas,

Quote:

But if Lynch pleads "not guilty", he's saying he didn't commit the assault at all.

No he isn't. He's saying that there isn't enough evidence to prove him guilty of a crime. He's hoping that the jurors will say that his actions were justified. He's obviously guilty of beating the priest. His claim is that it wasn't a crime.

1 Reply

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Quote:
But if Lynch pleads "not guilty", he's saying he didn't commit the assault at all.

No he isn't. He's saying that there isn't enough evidence to prove him guilty of a crime. He's hoping that the jurors will say that his actions were justified. He's obviously guilty of beating the priest. His claim is that it wasn't a crime.

Thanks.

So, can Lynch reasonably hope that the jury will accept as a justification a 35-year-ago molestation, which it doesn't know even happened, and which Lynch accepted a settlement for 20 years ago? What justification would he be invoking? Certainly, 35 years is a little slow for self-defense.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

The Constitution allows for a trial before a jury of one's peers. His hope or, probably more likely, his attorney's recommendation is to plead not guilty and put the case before a jury.

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Lindner wanted the lawsuit to go away fast, and was willing to pay for a quick settlement.

I'd be surprised if Linder paid for anything. Doesn't the church settle these cases on behalf of the priest?

Maybe Lindner didn't pay for anything. But that only makes the settlement even weaker evidence for Lindner's actual guilt.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Ionus wrote:

Diminished mental capacity ??

I don't think so. This might have worked if Lynch ran into Lindner by chance, got overwhelmed by emotions, and lost it. But that's not what happened here. On the facts reported in the article, Lynch's beating of Lindner was pre-meditated:

The AP wrote:

Lynch is accused of luring Lindner to the lobby of a retirement home in May and beating him bloody in front of horrified witnesses.

On re-reading the AP article, I did find a possible motive for Lynch's PR campaign. He's raising money for his own defense fund---and it's working.

The AP wrote:

In the meantime, [Lynch's laywer] Harris said he has received hundreds of inquiries from clergy sex abuse victims who want to contribute to a legal defense fund, and he is working on setting up a fund and establishing a website for Lynch's case.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Regardless of what the law has decided, or will decide, the man is obviously very guilty in Lynch's mind. This, coupled with the fact the law's actions were not going to provide appropriate punishment, caused his act of civil disobedience. There is a consequence to civil disobedience. He is obviously willing to pay it. I find it hard to condemn his action.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Civil disobedience? Really?

Civil disobedience is "the refusal to obey a law out of a belief that the law is morally wrong. " (American Heritage dictionary--but other dictionaries have similar definitions.) What laws is Lynch claiming to be morally wrong?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

To him (I am supposing) the laws are morally wrong if they do not punish this man, instead of hiding him from jusice. He does not have to be a law scholar to make the decision. His actions are in keeping with the spirit of true civil disobedience. He does not need a dictionary to guide his actions.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Regardless of what the law has decided, or will decide, the man is obviously very guilty in Lynch's mind. This, coupled with the fact the law's actions were not going to provide appropriate punishment, caused his act of civil disobedience. There is a consequence to civil disobedience. He is obviously willing to pay it. I find it hard to condemn his action.

Go down that road and we have complete chaos.

Abortion doctors being gun down in the streets or in front of their churches or Federal buildings with children in day care being removed by bombing or gun men going into a number is Jewish centers and opening fire and on and on. All the men who did those deeds possess that kind of thinking.

This man is not different then any of the above nuts except no one happen to had been kill and he need punish to the same degree for attacking this priest as anyone else would be for attacking a defenseless old person.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

To him (I am supposing) the laws are morally wrong if they do not punish this man, instead of hiding him from jusice.

Then why did Lynch accept the settlement back in the nineties?

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

He does not need a dictionary to guide his actions.

He may not. That wasn't the reason I quoted the dictionary definition. The reason is that I think you are twisting the term civil disobedience, and that you may need a dictionary to be made aware of it.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

I don't agree. He disagrees with the law's actions, or lack thereof, and acts on his own, fully prepared to accept the consequences. If it were less than premeditated, I would then recant my position.

2 Replies

@edgarblythe,

I don't agree with you. You take the money from a settlement you got to keep mouth shut. If you want to air your feelings in public you don't go the settlement route you take it to court.

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

I don't agree. He disagrees with the law's actions, or lack thereof, and acts on his own,

The consequence of the law's actions was that the Catholic Church offered to settle the case. Lynch accepted the law's actions by accepting the offer. If Lynch civilly-disobeyed anti-assault laws because he considered them immoral as applied, why did he accept the Church's settlement? And why isn't he saying today that the law is immoral? Why is he pleading innocent to the charge of breaking it?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

I agree. My wife was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. All those years we've been paying a psychiatrist for "depression" treatments. I feel like shooting the psychiatrist but I don't think it's legal.

Can't sue the bastard either. I don't think so at least, seems like misdiagnoses happen all the time.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Possibly has put himself in the hands of a lawyer and is back to playing by the rules (however ridiculous, as applied to his case).

1 Reply

Hmm if I was Will Lynch I think I might of killed the priest, IF! what happened was true.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

So, can Lynch reasonably hope that the jury will accept as a justification a 35-year-ago molestation,
which it doesn't know even happened, and which Lynch accepted a settlement for 20 years ago?
What justification would he be invoking?

Certainly, 35 years is a little slow for self-defense.

Deftly put, Thomas; u silver Silver tongued orator.

David

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

edgarblythe wrote:

Possibly has put himself in the hands of a lawyer and is back to playing by the rules (however ridiculous, as applied to his case).

You're grasping at straws, and it isn't working. Even if we take your speculation as true and Lynch put himself into the hands of a lawyer back then: Whose choice was that?

1 Reply

@Jigajig 5,

Yeah me too but I would have killed him when I saw him in the arbitration proceedings or whenever I saw him not sought him out so many years later. Something smells here.

0 Replies

Victim of Child Abuse Beats Priest Who Abused Him

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know