It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Parents accused of abducting suspected molester

page: 3
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by resistor
 


I have found that most people, even most cultures, approach justice as if it were a head of cabbage, they want to get at it before it spoils or something. It's sad really because many a miscarriage of justice has occurred out of haste.

It may be because people know that as time passes, people forget (just check out how many criminals are in public office - I bet it's more than most think!). I suppose it's natural to want to strike back while the wound you have suffered is still stinging.

I think however, for this thread at least, it's beside the point because of some form of admission given by the accused. Or have I misread the article?


[edit on 31-3-2008 by Maxmars]




posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by shadow watcher
My kid's word is all I need. If they describe who and what exactly happened, I will act on it accordingly. I would do my time in jail knowing that I did right by my family.


The scary thing is there are 'experts' out their who will push psychological mandates on your child. Calling them excessively paranoid or capable of fabricating fantastic lies.

So basically, we are told that we can't trust our own children. And who mandates this opinion? Who would benefit from that kind of censorship? The perpetrators that's who. No law from the law.



posted on Mar, 31 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by resistor
Just a couple of quick points: first of all, don’t forget that you can be falsely accused, therefore, you might want to require proof before summary execution by a lynch squad is allowed.



Authorities say they have reason to believe Espinosa is a child molester who has gone after at least five girls, including Flores' daughter.


Off with his head



Espinosa told investigators he has not molested anyone, saying the girls may have misconstrued his hugs as being sexual.





posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:12 AM
link   
I'm sorry if this offend anyone but I'm sorry if somebody did that to my daughter its not a church where ill take him. i understand that i would still get arrested and charged but he would be lucky if the guy still draws a breath



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by resistor
Just a couple of quick points: first of all, don’t forget that you can be falsely accused, therefore, you might want to require proof before summary execution by a lynch squad is allowed.


But we have our pitchforks and torches ready already? *sigh* Ok everyone I guess we have to wait for burden of proo...Get the FREAK! Burn him, torch his house! Nail him to a cross, and burn the cross!

Whoa wait back up Wukky,

Resistor is right, you do have to allow the justice department their fair share of the pie first. Then hire people in the prison to look the other way when prisoners tear this freak apart.

Did I say that? :shk:



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 02:04 PM
link   
When it all comes down to it, in your life YOU are the true and final judge of the right and wrong of your own actions, and no one can tell you different. They might put you in jail, or abuse you if they disagree with you, but no one can make decisions for you. . We all know justice is often in conflict with law, and sometimes we have to choose what is more important to us, justice or law. In a case a serious as my little girl being molested (or any of my female friends), i'll give law a chance, but when it fails i would definitely take justice into my own hands. Is a judges judgement better than mine or yours? i think not...its just more corporately biased.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Espinosa told investigators he has not molested anyone, saying the girls may have misconstrued his hugs as being sexual.




There are some many reasons why any argument defending the actions of the parents, not as understandable, but as right, fail human liberty and freedom, that I barely know where to start.

Perhaps, someone can explain the difference between these two examples.

1. A child tells their parent that a man touched them in a way they made them feel uncomfortable. It is clear to the parent that this is tantamount to sexual abuse. The parent tries to make the child realise how serious an accusation is and suggests that they tell the truth now, if they are lying. The child reaffirms the facts. The parent speaks to the accused and he denies it. The parent has become so enraged that they force the accused into their car and restrains them.

2. A child tells their parent that their brother broke a favourite ornament of the parent. The parent tries to make the child realise how serious an accusation is and suggests that they tell the truth now, if they are lying. The child reaffirms the facts. The parent speaks to their other child and he denies it. The parent has become so enraged that they send this child to their bedroom.

In both instances, why does the parent believe the child? Is it possible that in either case the child is lying or is mistaken? If it does turn out that the child, fearful of being told off for lying, decides not to recant when the possibility was offered, or if in all honesty they made a mistake, it is easy for the parent to apologise to either of the injured parties. However, if as some people have suggested in this thread, actual violence was done to the man accused in the first story, how does the parent make it up to them then?

Ultimately, anyone who is not given the right to defend themself in the eyes of the law because another member of the public is satisfied of their guilt, has been wronged. If you defend these actions, or suggest they should have been taken further, will you be happy when you are found guilty by a child's mistake or lie?

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Woland]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Woland
 


Woland I completely agree with all that you just said, but it's not comparable to this case.

I said earlier that if it was just this one girl's testimony, just this one girl abused, it wouldn't be enough. For the reasons you just talked about. Unless of course they witnessed the act itself, or something equally tangible.

But it wasn't just one girl. And there was clearly some solid evidence the parents had that isn't mentioned in the article (legal reasons). Check this out in case you missed it:


Authorities say they have reason to believe Espinosa is a child molester who has gone after at least five girls, including Flores' daughter.


[edit on 033030p://1u26 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 05:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Leaving aside the fact that there is no quote attached to 'authorities say', the parents acted on their child's comments, reportedly. Would you be just as defensive of the parents if they had abducted a child, not much older than theirs, because he had allegedly bullied their child?

If a person cannot respect the right of fair trial, how can they defend their own right to it?

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Woland]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 06:07 PM
link   
YAY!

Finally people are reacting properly to situations. No more of this reliant on the law crap, that's for the rich and the naive alike.

People who are wronged have few choices for satisfaction.
Legally, physically, or rely on the ability of others to bring you this satisfaction.

I like to resolve things myself. These people did just that.
And really all they did was take this guy to a church, how lame.
If your gonna go all the way...go all the way!

When wronged, make it right.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 06:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Woland
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Leaving aside the fact that there is no quote attached to 'authorities say', the parents acted on their child's comments, reportedly.


Wait, why are we leaving that out? The article doesn't. The authorites have evidence to believe he molested 5 girls. They can't say what the evidence is because it would compromise the "fair trial" you are talking about here..


Would you be just as defensive of the parents if they had abducted a child, not much older than theirs, because he had allegedly bullied their child?


Absolutely not. This is a whole different evil.

I view child molestation/rape as serious as I do murder.

I don't view bullying to be of the same caliber at all. If it was just bullying then I wouldn't have agreed to it. If he had hit the girls... I would still agree it to be okay for them to "take matters into their own hands".


If a person cannot respect the right of fair trial, how can they defend their own right to it?


Same way. Take matters into their own hands


[edit on 063030p://1u35 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by Woland Leaving aside the fact that there is no quote attached to 'authorities say', the parents acted on their child's comments, reportedly.


Wait, why are we leaving that out? The article doesn't. The authorites have evidence to believe he molested 5 girls. They can't say what the evidence is because it would compromise the "fair trial" you are talking about here..


You misunderstand. I'm referring to the lack of an actual quote. A journalist saying 'Authorities say' is not the same as "'We have reason to...' said Dpt etc." It is quite probable that the journalist is making a leap from more vague statements by authorities. However, I said leaving aside, because it's not worth getting side-tracked.



Would you be just as defensive of the parents if they had abducted a child, not much older than theirs, because he had allegedly bullied their child?


Absolutely not. This is a whole different evil.

I view child molestation/rape as serious as I do murder.

I don't view bullying to be of the same caliber at all. If it was just bullying then I wouldn't have agreed to it. If he had hit the girls... I would still agree it to be okay for them to "take matters into their own hands".


'Just bullying'? Children commit suicide over bullying. Psychologically, bullying and sexual abuse are both much more traumatic than physical violence, but you'd permit parents to "take matters..." based on what criteria? It's not the long term harm of bullying or sexual abuse, as 'just bullying' is fine. Why is it that we should permit this behaviour for physical violence and sexual abuse but not bullying?



If a person cannot respect the right of fair trial, how can they defend their own right to it?


Same way. Take matters into their own hands


So, if you refuse to give a child's ball back after they've kicked it in to your garden and they, knowing the trouble it will cause, say you tried to touch them to their parent, you'd defend that parent's right to come after you? If one child's word isn't sufficient, perhaps the child's friend was playing ball as well and they go along with the story. Two children wouldn't lie, would they?

I'm not suggesting these children lied, are mistaken or that the accused is innocent or guilty; accusations must be dealt with in a disinterested and fair manner else a society will begin to tear itself apart through retribution.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 07:25 PM
link   
If a child describes an act that they should not such details of, then that is proof enough. If there was physical evidence, that is enough proof. There are proofs that are acceptable to me. I will not apologize for my way of thinking. The law is nice when it works, but from my pov, the law often fails miserably.

If I get ripped off, I will let the law have him.
If my home is invaded, I MAY kill him. There are circumstances to consider.
If someone harms my family, they will not be safe from my anger.

In between, there are many grey areas.



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 08:01 PM
link   
First I am not saying that the guy is guilty or innocent that is not for me to decide unless I have all of the facts. Also I am not saying the girls are lying.

But this sort of reminds me of the Salem witch trials of the past. Remember the girls there kept accusing people of wrong doing as well. Do you really think they were telling the truth? Or does it only matter when it is something that you agree with emotionally? Let’s ask some questions here before we hang someone for no reason.

Do these girls know each other?
Are they friends?
There is a thread on ATS now about the kids getting together to kill their teacher 3rd grade. Because the teacher scolded one of them for standing on a chair the day before. Kids are known to lie, sometimes about serious issues. They may not understand just how bad that lie may be.

Could it be that these girls might be angry with the guy for some reason?

I really don’t think we have near enough information from this article to just say the guy is guilty. The police often suspect people for crimes and they are wrong, this is why there is an investigation.

If the system fails and the facts are in saying he is guilty, I will turn my back and say I did not see anything. But there might be a chance he somehow might be innocent.



Yet here we are a place where many people get together and speak about rights being taken and how this is wrong or evil. Yet we are willing to bypass looking for facts and kill, harm, or remove rights without the knowledge we need. Kind of hard to deny ignorance when we are not willing to listen to or wait for the facts.

The law might not always get it right but it is there for a reason. Some laws flat out suck, but in this case of unlawfully detaining and kidnapping are wrong and should be as it could easily be anyone of us in his shoes. If it was you and you were innocent you would want the law on your side.

Raist



posted on Apr, 1 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Raist
 


Its so scary when you learn that collusion and deceit are not beyond even children. It's so true that people have been victimized horribly by weak accusations, or even worse, children unwittingly coached onto saying what their own psyche believe people want them to say. I know that it is hardly ever accepted as true, but I have heard of at least one father who's child essentially testified that she had been abused, and years later the young woman recanted. It was determined (or it was agreed) that the social workers and psychologists did not maliciously 'create' the false testimony, but simply were not effective enough at determining that the testimony of the child was unsound. Unfortunately for the father, the vindication was far too late in coming.

This is all to say that we have to have faith that the system can identify these situations before the falsely accused (or wrongly accused) gets lynched.

Of course, had it been my child, I would, without a doubt, be sitting in a cell awaiting trial because I am not going to behave very 'clinically' in such a case - I will likely cause significant pain (or worse) to someone whom I believe hurt my child.



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by forestlady
 


Thank-you very much, forestlady, star!

Our family & myself are recovering after something un-real such as a
predator abducting and murdering my cousin, Bridget.

What i'm concerned about, is the accused molester mentioned in this
thread, becoming REALLY angry about being abducted... and once he gets
the chance, he'll take out his wrath on his NEXT child victim!

Like Bridget.

It doesn't take much for these sick pedophiles to 'snap'; and become sex-
torture murderers; like Bridget suffered.

Maybe me & other Marines should move to where he's located...
and do what we do- DEFEND!



posted on Apr, 2 2008 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by NewWorldOver
 


Well said, NewWorldOver- star!

I am reading every post to this thread, as i have a VERY personal interest
in this disturbing subject of child predation.

The "experts" who dictate psychological mandates are tearing families
apart with their insane psycho-babbel.

Don't forget who ELSE benefits from this baloney---

The psychopharmaceutical industry! They're in bed with congress as much
as the industrial military complex, oil, insurance industry, and all the other
'pay-as-you legislate' friends of corporatocracy!

Gotta go flush my meds now...



new topics




 
1
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join