|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday March 04, @03:25PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
what the hell is going on?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
what the hell is going on?
Open season on men. If you have a set of boobs, you've a license to kill, that's what's going on.
And they're doing it, too.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have updated the main post. In the blurb about the woman who shot the man in the groin, the man is actually accused of molesting her son, not her daughter as I had originally written.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
regardless of the gender of her kid, regardless of the fact we know the law is screwy at times, these are over-the-top insane. I see nothing wrong with imprisoning someone for emotional destress triggered assault, she'd probably be out in a few months, but pretending that since she's a mom, she can take the law into her own hands is sooo stupid.
And with the last one - what the hell? the age of the person doesn't matter if someone wants to prosecute?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see nothing wrong with imprisoning someone for emotional destress triggered assault, she'd probably be out in a few months, but pretending that since she's a mom, she can take the law into her own hands is sooo stupid.
My problem with that case is the fact that the grand jury decided her innocence without benefit of trial, and pretty much created law that it's OK for women to shoot men accused of sex crimes as long as they're doing so in a state of "emotional distress."
See, grand juries exist to determine if there is a *probability* that this person committed this crime. If there is, the grand jury indicts this individual, which simply means that the individual is going to face trial on the charges.
This woman flat-out admitted she did it. The grand jury's responsibility was NOT to determine whether she was guilty, not guilty, or not guilty by reason of insanity. Its sole purpose was to determine if a crime had been committed and if she should stand trial for that crime.
Apparently, the grand jury doesn't think a woman shooting a man in the groin is a crime.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If he is guilty then what is the position of the men's movement? I'd like to know exactly what he is accused of doing. Did he rape the boy? The courts should call it rape then.
I think if he is guilty then he should have been sentenced to a long and harsh sentence, but now I think whatever he did he has already been punished for in a way more horrible than the crime he is accused of. If found guilty he should be set free immediately - time served.
I think the mother, having used a deadly weapon in a premeditated act of pure hate, a gender specific hate crime in fact, should have gone to jail and lost her right to own a gun since a felony carries loss of voting rights and gun ownership rights with it. Of course when was the last time you heard of a woman who sexually mutilated a man being charged with a felony? When was the last time you heard of a woman who sexually mutilated a man out of pure hate or anger even going to jail for her hate crime at all? They always go free. There is no justice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the mother, having used a deadly weapon in a premeditated act of pure hate, a gender specific hate crime in fact, should have gone to jail and lost her right to own a gun since a felony carries loss of voting rights and gun ownership rights with it.
She should've at least gone to trial on the charges. The prosecutor was ready to make her face the music. The stupid grand jury let her go out of sympathy for her "emotional distress."
As for the position of the men's movement about the alleged molester: if he's guilty he should do the time. There's no excuse for hurting a kid like that. If he's not guilty, then I hope his false accusers and the woman who shot him burn in hell.
That one's really ticked me off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A social experiment: If I got a sex change (turned into a woman) and commited a crime against a man, would I get off easily?
Brought to you by the sham mirrors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A social experiment: If I got a sex change (turned into a woman) and commited a crime against a man, would I get off easily?
According to an interview Adam Corolla and Jimmy Kimmel did with an auto insurance agency on The Man Show, your insurance rates would drop. So, it's conceivable.
Btw, I have no idea if there was any reality to The Man Show interview. Kimmel's first question was: "What the hell kind of operation are you running here?" :)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>A social experiment: If I got a sex change >(turned into a woman) and commited a crime >against a man, would I get off easily?
The trasvestite in the other thread didn't have anyone seeming to demand blood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you, Mist.
What is so disturbing is the fact that the grand jury presumed she was under emotional distress without even a proponderance of the evidence against the man in question. Now, had a guilty verdict been rendered in HIS case, and there were some legal basis upon which to assume her distress was justifed, we would be talking about something very different. However, this situation creates a precedent in which an accusation, or more precisely a stated belief, that a man has done something awful is grounds for any and all violent behavior against him.
It must be emphasized that if this fellow is guilt, he should rot. No questions asked.
However, it frightens me to think that in such an environment, a woman could actually accuse me of something I never did, mutilate me, and avoid trial altogether on the strength of her accusation ALONE, absent a verdict of any kind against me. This is reprehensible.
Not very long ago a man shot and killed another man whom he believed had raped his daughter. He then admitted to it (on television, no less) and was promptly tried and convicted, sent to prison for murder, and there he sits. His ardent belief in the man's guilt did not excuse him, nor should it have, from his behavior. That principle is all that separates us from violent anarchy, really. I'm sure that NOW would praise this ruling, however. Naturally, if I shot a woman who I believed had molested my son, I'd be in jail. Period.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Assault under emotional distress is STILL A CRIME! They knew if she went to trial she would be charged with that or full blown assault with a dangerous weapon. Assault under emotional distress carries a sentence of 1-5 years. Does anyone think that's unreasonable for someone who goes around shooting people for their own reasons to possibly serve 2 years in prison? Probably less since she's poor and "really a nice person?"
Then again, I was in support of the 'murderer' in A Time to Kill, so I guess I should stop complaining.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a woman could actually accuse me of something I never did, mutilate me, and avoid trial altogether on the strength of her accusation ALONE
Nazgul hit the nail square on the head here. During the reign of the Nazis in Germany, the government could take and murder Jews, but I don't know if any gentile-citizen could. In this country, or Ohio so far, we now have a precedent for women being able to shoot men with complete impunity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"I think if he is guilty then he should have been sentenced to a long and harsh sentence, but now I think whatever he did he has already been punished for in a way more horrible than the crime he is accused of. If found guilty he should be set free immediately - time served."
WRONG. If he is guilty, he should be locked away. He should not be set free to molest more children. The rehabilitation rate for child molesters is abysmal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is he going to molest them with?
The point of the sentence is punishment for a crime. But he has already been punished before even going to trial.
I don't side with child molesters or sex offenders of any kind, which this woman now is in my opinion. But he has paid a harsh sentence for the alleged crime. Shall he serve twice for the same crime?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"What is he going to molest them with?"
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/ 2002/feb/26/022605796.html
Here's a pleasant little story about a man who used a pulley to choke a little boy for his own sexual enjoyment. He's also suspected of cooking and eating boys. There are lots of ways to molest people without actually penetrating them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, just as there are lots of ways to punish someone for that crime without declaring open season on anyone suspected of such a crime. The question of his guilt is the court's responsibility, if we are to maintain the rule of law. Squirming out of that basic issue with horror stories about "other guys" who did "other things" to "other children" is a disingenuous deflection of the question at hand, and you know it well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't say she should go free for shooting this man; I just said, if he is guilty, he should not himself go free, just because he has been shot. Because, even without a penis, a child molester can still molest children; and the rate of rehabilitation for child molesters is extremely low.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note: The article didn't say he was rendered impotent from the attack - groin does not equal sex organs.
Anyway, wiccid, I want to know, if this guy is found guilty he will very doubtfully get life imprisonment - he'll be getting out one day. He'll have been shot without any reprimand given to his shooter. He'll doubtfully be re-habilitated. Everyone in his neighborhood will know what he did 30 years ago or so. [I 'know' one person was convicted of child molestation, got a year in prison - 6 months for good behavior. Was an immensley stupid case though, so the guy in the article might get longer] What a great life to walk back into.
What kind of punishment should he get?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That's true enough. I tend to agree that whatever happened to this fellow is an entirely separate issue from his own trial.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Remeber, though, he has not yet been convicted of anything, and thus he is innocent until he is proven guilty, supposedly. The argument is that this woman, without any proof of his guilt, and with "malice and forethought", shot a man who has yet to be proven guilty through the groin, and was not prosecuted. Everyone on the jury followed the typical hypocritical thought process dominating today's society, and assumed the man is guilty of molesting her child, therefore justifying the mutilation.
If the man is proven guilty in court of the charges against him, he will probably get what's coming to him. Unfortunately the genital-mutilating woman (I can say that because it is PROVEN) will get away scot free. These jurors are a prime example of the old maxim: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." I think a whole mile was paved in this instance.
Finally, a request: please, please, please, PLEASE stop stating "first and foremost, I don't approve of child abusers in any way", or any variation of that phrase. It's bad enough that us men have to state that at the opening of every argument concerning sensitive issues like this one or it's considered otherwise, but practicing it at a mens' rights website of all places is only encouraging the stereotype to persist. I can understand if it's habitual, but please try to make an effort to break the habit. This is only a request.
"Stereotypes are devices that save a biased person the trouble of learning."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Tuesday March 05, @07:41PM EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
Well excuse me but if HE can't molest anyone now because he has no penis then how could the woman be guilty of molestation for shooting him in the groin when she didn't have a penis to being with?
You men seem to make up answers to suit yourselves regardless of how stupid they make you look.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
>Well excuse me but if HE can't molest anyone now >because he has no penis then how could the woman >be guilty of molestation for shooting him in the
>groin when she didn't have a penis to being with?
>You men seem to make up answers to suit >yourselves regardless of how stupid they make you >look.
You're one to talk.
1. A man made that statement, not all men.
2. He added sex offender, a title he didn't specify one needed a penis to apply for.
Now, would you want to attempt making a valid opinion on the discussion instead of digging around for a comment you don't like?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well excuse me but if HE can't molest anyone now because he has no penis then how could the woman be guilty of molestation for shooting him in the groin when she didn't have a penis to being with?
You men seem to make up answers to suit yourselves regardless of how stupid they make you look.
Whereas pheminist trolls such as yourself need only open your metaphorical mouth to look stupid. Your logic here is so deficient it staggers the mind. I've seen so many of the posts here, I am convinced you revel in your own stupidity.
How sad for you.
---- Burn, Baby, Burn ----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the interesting concepts that we have in our society is the idea of revenge. Revenge is a frequent motive for many movies and television shows. We as a nation feel it is our right to get revenge, legally or otherwise. (I should note here that in the book/movie "A time to Kill" the motivation was revenge but it was more along the lines of racism since it was a primise in the book that the man was going to basically get away with the rape of his daughter.)
The view of revenge and violence has changed though. Men who use violence are now seen as power mongers who are just trying to maintain their patriarchal power. Women who use violence are still seen as victims. Women who use violence are seen as the exeption as so they must have had an extereme reason to do so.
The basic problem here is that our society has justified and medicalized violence and crime by women but crimialized violence and crime by men. Women are given treatment by the justice system men are given punishment.
Tony H
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
