Florida officer burns 3yr-old boy

a reply to: Bedlam

OK. I did my own research on this and you are right. Although LEO's aren't the highest. Check it:

Melzer tested several hypotheses and found that men in the following occupations have higher rates of violence at home than men in managerial occupations:
� Men in "female-dominated occupations" (i.e., clerical workers), 47% higher;
� Men in "physically violent occupations" (i.e. police, military, correctional) 43 percent higher.
� Men in "dangerous occupations" (i.e., working with explosives, mining, emergency workers), 23% higher.
Some of his findings seem like common sense. Men in stressful or dangerous or violent jobs bring that stress home and are more likely to engage in domestic abuse than the control group of white-collar managers. Melzer called that a "spillover effect." But other discoveries go against the expected. Men who have "self-selected" into a female-dominated world have higher rates of domestic violence than typical white-collar managers. Melzer theorized that society�s pressure and expectations about the role of men in the work world might mean that a man is ridiculed by society for his choice to do "women�s work" and thus brings that extra stress home.
Melzer noted it is not correct to assume that men in blue-collar occupations are more likely to be wife abusers than men in white-collar occupations. In fact, he said, the majority of men do not resort to physical violence at all.

www.workplaceviolence911.com...

So while you're focusing on LEO's what about that dude working as a bank teller? Secondly, it points to the stress of the job being the reason behind this increase. NOT your assumption that it's because of narcissism and control.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

This sick bastered needs to be sent to the north pole, nude covered in seals blood. Let a Polar Bear molest him. Even better send him to Bob May in Kodiak and have him tie him up to a tree, let the bugs chew on him and when he gets nice and welted a Kodiak Grizzly will come along and rip him limb from limb. Never mind, Bob would not want psycho blood getting into his bears.

a reply to: 8675309jenny

People are why I am leaving the profession. There are definitely people on ATS and Copblock that have contributed to my departure.

Overall, I have had too many bad experiences in person and on the internet to want to stay in the profession.

I have a family and it is not worth the physical and mental stress anymore.

I will not stay and I will not move up in rank.

I am leaving for the private sector. I will make more money, work normal hours, and not have to deal with such blanket hatred.

There is absolutely NOTHING that would make me stay in law enforcement.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

I just mentioned this in another thread, but have you noticed how the media is being injected with all these "feel good, fluffy good cop" stories to keep our attention focused elsewhere?

I've never been a police officer, but I've worked around them, and a lot of them are good guys. Every department/office has it's turds, but that's life. That's anywhere. It's not a good thing to be a cop right now, and I certainly applaud you for the time/effort you've put in to a pretty unforgiving job.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

We have cookies. Would cookies make you stay? They're pretty goooood.....

a reply to: Shamrock6

LOL!

Unfortunately those cookies are about 5 years too late.

I've done the job for a decade and I have had my fill.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

Understood man. I don't blame you one bit. I've thought more than once about going into the private side and making more doing less.

You can still have a cookie though

originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: theyknowwhoyouare

dude, there's no indication that he did it because he gets off on it...every indication is that he's as asshole, who burned the kid for being a kid, because "f**k that kid"

I'm afraid the fact that he chose to burn the child's gential area does indeed indicate he was getting off on it, in whatever way that may have been. Twisted, sexual who knows. But if it was just as you say, 'f*ck that kid' he could have chosen just his arms or leg...it is the nature of the injury that is leading people to this conclusion and I agree with them. Injuring a child specifically in their private areas would equate to sexual abuse in the law.

a reply to: daftpink

right, right...legally, it would most definitely qualify as sexual abuse, but there are other reasons than "he digs kids", for him to do it this way...

maybe he hates the kid, and wanted to make sure he couldn't reproduce, and make more annoying kids like him....or maybe he simply thought burning the kid's wiener would be easier to hide....kinda like abuse in nursing homes...anywhere but the face..

a reply to: Daedalus

True perhaps but he surely must have realised the injuries would be seen and wouldn't fade in a few hours. Or maybe not, the guy is clearly an idiot among other things I cannot post here or they would just be ###ed out! But you're right it could have been another sick motive.

Perhaps it is karma if he does get branded as a pedophile and put on the register. Thats what happens when you burn kid's genitals. But I'm sure the article said he is out on bail already...

a reply to: daftpink

If I punch a dude in the cajones, it doesn't mean that I derive any sort of pleasure from it. I means I hit him there. That's akin to saying well he punched him in the face because he thought the victim was better looking than he is, without any real evidence to support the statement.

Can it be defined as sexual abuse? Sure. Does that mean he got off on it? There's not enough in the article to say whether he did or not.

Not saying it's not possible, just saying it's not a slam dunk definite based off what little is reported so far.

a reply to: Shamrock6

Yeh I agree it could have been another motive as there isn't enough info in the articles but hurting a child in those areas is very different to hurting a fully grown man there. The motives are different, the pshycological factors are different. I'm not going to go into it all but i have worked with abused kids, some who had pain and injuries inflicted in those areas and it has felt like sexual abuse to them, whatever was in the predators mind, and affected their ability to form sexual relationships as young adults.

a reply to: daftpink

As have I. And I understand the point you're making. The victim feels that there is a sexual nature to it.

What you initially said was that this guy was getting off on it, which I don't see anything beyond your opinion to substantiate that.

Bottom line for me is his motive is irrelevant. He chose to abuse this child in this manner. Whether he derived any satisfaction from it is immaterial, because it's sexual in nature and hopefully will be branded as a child abuser and predator.

a reply to: StoutBroux

People don't hate law enforcement. And many LEO's have been guilty of abuse and immoral activity. I simply don't see food service workers mistreating innocent people because it rocks their boat. The fact of the matter is, there is abuse of power, abuse of others and the system they committed to uphold. Even a boy/girl scout doesn't need to be in uniform to uphold their oaths.

People don't hate law enforcement? Are you serious??? Go back and read the comments of any thread about police misconduct/brutality on this website and then tell us that. Plenty of people hate law enforcement, and will jump on any opportunity to make that known. In fact, it has been so bad in these forums that threats have been made against people for daring to defend LEO's in a debate, called all kinds of awful names and been the recipients of unbelievably nasty mockery and personal attacks; myself included. I know people in my every day life who openly state loudly and often how much they despise the police, and don't care who knows it. Do you live in a bubble or something?

You are right, many LEO's have been guilty of abuse and immoral activity. As have doctors, lawyers, priests, housewives, business owners, teachers, pilots, soldiers, politicians...people of every profession on the planet and yes, even food service workers. Abuse happens in every community, and it has absolutely nothing to do with what the abuser does for a living. In fact, that very mentality is one of the reasons a lot of abusers get away with doing it. Are you actually asserting that only people who wear uniforms are guilty of harming another person for their own sick, twisted satisfaction, and somehow are more guilty than people who don't? Because that is what it sounds like you're saying. That has got to be one of the most stunningly ridiculous statements I have ever read.

This degenerate burning an innocent child has no direct relevance to his profession, and the insinuation here (whether intentional or not) is that if he were not an LEO (he actually isn't a police officer, by the way), he would not have harmed that little boy. The truth is, monsters come in all shapes and sizes and occupy all kinds of employment. We all have a moral obligation to not harm other people. This thread was very obviously intended to focus on the the fact that the guy works in law enforcement, rather than the suffering of that little kid at the hands of another person, and that absolutely disgusts me. It was wrong, I'm not the only person who saw it, and the OP knows it was out of line, as evidenced by the backpedaling he/she has been doing in subsequent posts.

Do you think the mother of that child cares whether or not her boyfriend wears a badge? I sure wouldn't. The fact that my child was brutally tortured by someone I entrusted with his care would be foremost in my mind, not the manner in which that individual earns a living. And I would be appalled to know that someone used the pain and suffering of my child as a vehicle for that kind of nonsense. It's self-serving and despicable, and it cheapens what happened to that poor little boy. Period.

originally posted by: intrepid
So while you're focusing on LEO's what about that dude working as a bank teller?

Bank tellers don't get to shoot me and get away with it.

Secondly, it points to the stress of the job being the reason behind this increase. NOT your assumption that it's because of narcissism and control.

I still owe you guys some research time. I admit to failing here. It's a combo of two things, some serious family problems and an impending first-stage breakthrough on Operation ITOFTS that have left me unusually scatterbrained. But that's no excuse, I will dredge up the goodies in the next day or two.

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: intrepid
So while you're focusing on LEO's what about that dude working as a bank teller?

Bank tellers don't get to shoot me and get away with it.

What's that got to do with domestic violence? Your logic is all over the place. If YOU believe it, OK. I will listen to my signature.

originally posted by: intrepid
What's that got to do with domestic violence? Your logic is all over the place. If YOU believe it, OK. I will listen to my signature.

I'll get back with you when I see how this next batch of code comes out. Or, actually, NOT if it comes out the way I'd really like, because then I'll be tied up testing it out.

Alas, the universe rarely deals me a pat hand, though.

originally posted by: tigertatzen


This degenerate burning an innocent child has no direct relevance to his profession, and the insinuation here (whether intentional or not) is that if he were not an LEO (he actually isn't a police officer, by the way), he would not have harmed that little boy. The truth is, monsters come in all shapes and sizes and occupy all kinds of employment. We all have a moral obligation to not harm other people. This thread was very obviously intended to focus on the the fact that the guy works in law enforcement, rather than the suffering of that little kid at the hands of another person, and that absolutely disgusts me. It was wrong, I'm not the only person who saw it, and the OP knows it was out of line, as evidenced by the backpedaling he/she has been doing in subsequent posts.

Please read all my commens on pg5. That was not insinuated at all. What I stated was the profession unfortunately is attractive to people who get off on abusing others. That is definitely not saying LEO's are people who get off on abusing people.

Backpedalling? I went to work after making the thread and it was 4 pages long before I clicked on it again. If I had caught it within the 2hour window to edit, I actually would have immediately.

I'm sure you don't believe me though. Oh well...

a reply to: 8675309jenny

On Jan. 17, Hernando County deputies arrested Marrone after they say he confessed to burning his girlfriend's toddler with a hair dryer because the little boy wanted to play and Marrone wanted to sleep, according to WTSP.



When Ethan began complaining about his pain, saying only "pee pee owie," Sherron pulled down his diaper and saw that his genitals were swollen to the size of a softball. The boy also had burn marks on his thighs, buttocks, and chest

]Seems the LE profession really does attract some of the sickest psychos out there....

Your OP was blatantly highlighting a thinly disguised, open-ended, leading and inflammatory remark regarding the (imaginary) connection between the "LE profession" (I think it's safe to conjecture that by that you meant "law enforcement profession") and people who are "psychos", so don't even try to pretend otherwise. A five-year-old could see what you were doing. There is an obvious baited hook on the end of that line, and no amount of denying it will make it any less true.

I am not going to go back and copy/paste every single one of your numerous subsequent posts stating that you didn't mean anything by it, blah, blah blah... but they are there for everyone to see. Are you saying that you just accidentally threw in the comment there at the end that just coincidentally and magically happened to imply a correlation between your expert diagnosis of this individual as a "psycho" and the thinly stretched professional margin by which he can even be referred to as an actual LEO? Hogwash. You did it for attention, and you know you did. Did you expect that no one would notice? Or that we just wouldn't say anything about it?

If the title of the OP said "Florida Man Burns 3-yr-old Boy" and you hadn't tossed in the inflammatory little tidbit there at the end, you'd be a bit more believable. But to anyone who can read a simple sentence, you very blatantly were posting that drivel to stir things up. Keep fanning those flames...this is why blind stupidity is so rampant in society. People like yourself simply refuse to stop instigating it. And this is why people who abuse children tend to get away with it...the issue gets muddied with so much garbage that the poor victims fall through the cracks.

originally posted by: tigertatzen
a reply to: 8675309jenny

On Jan. 17, Hernando County deputies arrested Marrone after they say he confessed to burning his girlfriend's toddler with a hair dryer because the little boy wanted to play and Marrone wanted to sleep, according to WTSP.



When Ethan began complaining about his pain, saying only "pee pee owie," Sherron pulled down his diaper and saw that his genitals were swollen to the size of a softball. The boy also had burn marks on his thighs, buttocks, and chest

]Seems the LE profession really does attract some of the sickest psychos out there....

Your OP was blatantly highlighting a thinly disguised, open-ended, leading and inflammatory remark regarding the (imaginary) connection between the "LE profession" (I think it's safe to conjecture that by that you meant "law enforcement profession") and people who are "psychos", so don't even try to pretend otherwise. A five-year-old could see what you were doing. There is an obvious baited hook on the end of that line, and no amount of denying it will make it any less true.

I am not going to go back and copy/paste every single one of your numerous subsequent posts stating that you didn't mean anything by it, blah, blah blah... but they are there for everyone to see. Are you saying that you just accidentally threw in the comment there at the end that just coincidentally and magically happened to imply a correlation between your expert diagnosis of this individual as a "psycho" and the thinly stretched professional margin by which he can even be referred to as an actual LEO? Hogwash. You did it for attention, and you know you did. Did you expect that no one would notice? Or that we just wouldn't say anything about it?

If the title of the OP said "Florida Man Burns 3-yr-old Boy" and you hadn't tossed in the inflammatory little tidbit there at the end, you'd be a bit more believable. But to anyone who can read a simple sentence, you very blatantly were posting that drivel to stir things up. Keep fanning those flames...this is why blind stupidity is so rampant in society. People like yourself simply refuse to stop instigating it. And this is why people who abuse children tend to get away with it...the issue gets muddied with so much garbage that the poor victims fall through the cracks.

Do your pride yourself on being obnoxious? Yea, my comments ARE there for everyone to see and I left them like that so that everyone can understand the context, and not be confused by me deleting things I said.


Don't tell me what I MEANT. I know very clearly what I MEANT. You do not. You are reading words on a screen with an imaginary voice inside your head speaking the words and giving them tone and meaning which YOU decide.

Your OP was blatantly highlighting a thinly disguised, open-ended, leading and inflammatory remark regarding the (imaginary) connection between the "LE profession" (I think it's safe to conjecture that by that you meant "law enforcement profession") and people who are "psychos", so don't even try to pretend otherwise.

Yes "LE" means Law Enforcement. Welcome to the Posse Comitatus forum! "(imaginary) connection" ??? It's anything but imaginary dear. The job affords it's members much authority, and for that reason alone sociopaths will be more attracted to it. Lie to yourself all you want, but that's a FACT.

The key here is that being a corrections officer didn't make him into sociopath. Him being a sociopath is what made him want to be a corrections officer. It's a very important distinction, and that distinction is why I am sorry for the way the comment was made in the OP. Correlation does not equal causation.


I considered asking a mod to change the inflammatory statement in the OP out of courtesy, but I decided it was better to leave it as it was so people wouldn't be confused at 4pages of discussion, and rather I took the time to write a post directly apologizing to the LEO's in this thread for the poor choice of words. I was genuinely sorry for how my comment sounded, rather than concerned with covering my ass.

It was a poor choice of words. I acknowledge that, I acknowledged it previously already.
If that's not good enough for you and your high horse, well too bad.

And I really don't care for someone trying to tell me WHAT AND HOW I MEANT SOMETHING.




.