29
   

Victim of Child Abuse Beats Priest Who Abused Him

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 09:35 am
@Jigajig 5,
Jigajig 5 wrote:
Hmm if I was Will Lynch I think I might of killed the priest, IF! what happened was true.
Like by Robert Bardo killed Rebecca Schaeffer?
Do u know what HE believed?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 09:42 am
@Thomas,
I don't consider it grasping at straws. There is nothing clean-cut in the world. But, he disobeyed the law, knowing he would pay for it. He obviously has to believe the law could act differently. If that isn't civil disobedience, I don't know what is. But I have no new arguments. So, I will stand back to let the thread pursue its course.
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 09:56 am
@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.


The system allows him to put his fate in the hands of a jury. The burden is on the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a crime, punishable under the laws of the land. All it takes is one juror to fail to convict to result in a hung jury. The State then has to decide if they are going to retry him on the charges. In the meantime, the priest and his alleged past are all over the media (again, if the civil case was covered) and the jury of public opinion (who, us?) is all over this case, the Catholic Church at large, and (witness dys) child abuse in general. Welcome to America.
electronicmail
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 10:14 am
@JPB,
The jury has to be impartial. In some cases like euthanasia of the severely disabled of any age you can't even find enough jurors who will consider convicting so there's never a trial.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 10:22 am
Someone commented earlier that there were many errors about the law in this thread. There is a simple error in math, too. People have said more than once that the Lynch boys settled 20 years ago. Hello? The settlement was in 1998, about 12 years ago. Is that significant--well, i think so. That means that Lynch and his brother have had access to (regardless of how they actually handled the money) $50,000+ per annum. Split between the two of them, that's not too damned much. Maybe they've already run through the money. Maybe Mr. Lynch was dissatisfied with what look like a big lump of cash at the time.

All that's speculation of course. The fact is that he is alleged to have assaulted this joker in front of witnesses. If his attorney has a lick of sense, he'll go for a jury trial. Nevertheless, if the jury finds the witnesses credible, their duty is to convict. And then the judge's duty is to sentence. Were i the judge, it wouldn't be much moved by Lynch's claim about the molestation. We have governments with courts and law dogs and judges because we don't want vigilante justice, nor a surrender to the mob.

I think he deserves to serve at the least an average between the minimum and the maximum term of incarceration under the law.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 11:42 am
My argument was never about whether he should be convicted or not. He is very obviously guilty, as I see it from here in Texas.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 12:04 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Someone commented earlier that there were many errors about the law in this thread. There is a simple error in math, too. People have said more than once that the Lynch boys settled 20 years ago. Hello? The settlement was in 1998, about 12 years ago. Is that significant--well, i think so. That means that Lynch and his brother have had access to (regardless of how they actually handled the money) $50,000+ per annum. Split between the two of them, that's not too damned much. Maybe they've already run through the money. Maybe Mr. Lynch was dissatisfied with what look like a big lump of cash at the time.

All that's speculation of course. The fact is that he is alleged to have assaulted this joker in front of witnesses. If his attorney has a lick of sense, he'll go for a jury trial. Nevertheless, if the jury finds the witnesses credible, their duty is to convict. And then the judge's duty is to sentence. Were i the judge, it wouldn't be much moved by Lynch's claim about the molestation. We have governments with courts and law dogs and judges because we don't want vigilante justice, nor a surrender to the mob.

I think he deserves to serve at the least an average between the minimum and the maximum term of incarceration under the law.
I deem that to be a plausible analysis.





David
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 12:07 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
There is a simple error in math, too. People have said more than once that the Lynch boys settled 20 years ago. Hello? The settlement was in 1998, about 12 years ago.

Thanks for correcting my error. I read "late nineties" and remembered "early nineties".
0 Replies
 
Pemerson
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Nov, 2010 08:43 pm
Actually, the Catholic Church is guilty of obstruction of justice. Why didn't the church officials call the proper authorities? There are laws against men who sexually abuse young boys?
Arella Mae
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2011 11:27 am
If every person in this world took personal retribution for what someone has done to them, MANKIND would cease to exist. If we take the law into our own hands we then become worse than the object of our vengence.
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Jul, 2011 05:53 pm
@Pemerson,
Well, I could go on and on about that, from inside the view for quite a while and later outside. I knew good priests, or so I still insist, but they are all fuzzily suspect if not more so than slightly, because of the epic fail (my use of the phrase) of the celibacy requirement combined with the power component. Which is too bad for the good ones. Maybe those could be found among the alcoholics (only half kidding).

A good question from me to myself is if I think deprivation (of whatever sexual preference) somehow causes people to use apparent easy prey.

I don't know. Maybe sometimes, but on the other hand, maybe those aren't connected.. or if they are, are only part of the answer. I haven't studied pedophilia but I figure others have looked at the question.


0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
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
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 05/17/2022 at 07:46:03