Victim of Child Abuse Beats Priest Who Abused Him

@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

@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

@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.

1 Reply

@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

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.

2 Replies

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

@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

@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

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?

1 Reply

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

@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

Victim of Child Abuse Beats Priest Who Abused Him

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know