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.

 

No Charges For Mob That Beat Alleged Child Rapist

page: 2
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 04:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Kevin_X1
 


You're correct, even more in a place like PA where it has been failed by the government.

A lot of people are making a big deal out of this one case because the girl lived but if only they knew that this kind of thing happens there on a daily basis but typically the children don't live and the people aren't found who did it.
Or the children live in a code of silence and do not come forth with these assaults.

This story isn't even the tip of the horrifying tragic things that happen in that city every day, and a lot of it happens but the people who are suppose to be protecting it.

I did some work in PA at a place called FRIENDS, and I was disgusted that the system was giving sexual offenders who were drug addicts the option of 4 months of inpatient treatment instead of lengthy jail sentence some of these guys I'd see come back many more times and their crimes and drug abuse getting much worse, they saw it as a joke.
I refused to take on any cases of the sex offenders as I feel it is disrespectful to those who are truly sick who can not get help and the government won't fun their hospital stay yet sex offenders got the first bed around that place, people paying their taxes and being good up standing citizens to pay for the sex offenders to get out of jail and a nice bed, tv, food, and entire list of medications that they conned the doctors into giving them.
Ugh, if people only truly knew what goes on maybe they could understand why these people did this.




posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Ahh yes. Guilty until proven innocent, that's what the Constitution says.

OH CRAP! IT SAYS "INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!"



As far as I'm concerned, most of you people have just waived your Constitutional rights by declaring them null and void for somebody else.

"Sought for questioning" means there's a chance that he might be involved or have some knowledge about the case. Don't any of you cheerleaders know what an "investigation" is?

Even if he turns out to have been guilty (and it looks like he will be,) that is NOT for an ill-informed ignorant mob to decide. There is a reason we have trials in this country. It's so that sick people like the lot of you don't get to pass judgment on people when you only have half the facts from a 1 page online article. Blood on his shorts... the man could've cut his own dong, for all you know...

If he's found guilty by an informed jury with ALL the facts, the man should either be killed or locked up for life. Until then, he is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW. And no, ATS, you are not a court of law.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 


To my defense, I said nobody should be touched until they are found guilty by a jury of their peers. Once that happens, let the hammer of justice fall.

Let it fall hard.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by WickettheRabbit
 


Indeed, and your defense is noted. There were some rational voices prior to my post, but good lord. The cheering for the mob rule just made me sick to my stomach.

 


I'm certainly not defending people who rape children. I'm certain right here and now that somebody will be ignorant and dumb enough to come back and accuse me of defending child molesters, because that's just the world we live in. I'm also certain that somebody will come back with a sob story about how awful child molesters are, without actually being intelligent enough to address the fact that this guy wasn't even so much as named a full-out suspect at the time the beating occurred, let alone actually convicted of anything.

As a matter of fact, I think that if somebody is convicted of rape they should never walk amongst society again. The key word there, however, is convicted, which differs vastly from the word accused.

Oh, and to address something else. No, a trial for an accused child rapist is not a waste of money. A trial is NEVER a waste of money. Even if you're okay with "sacrificing" a few innocents in the pursuit of justice, we must remember that for every wrongfully convicted man in prison there's a guilty man walking free.

[edit on 5-6-2009 by mattifikation]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
There seems to be an understanding amongst many in this thread that normal people are no longer able to distinguish proof from lies. Why do we all need somebody else to do the work for us?
To me, being a judge nowadays is mostly about having a clean record, and being knowledgeable about history, albeit the history of convictions under particular circumstances only.
WE are able to distinguish right and wrong STILL, ladies and gentlemen.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
That's why WE the people are the ones who sit on juries. The jury decides right and wrong. The judge is merely there to ensure the trial progresses smoothly and fairly.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by mattifikation
 



sounds like in the name of the child the jury had made a decision. I can see a defence lawyer kicking out a juror who had an obvious aversion to child abusers, cause it aint fair to the psycho. Who is it that allows which jurors stay and go in the united states?



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I cant imagine how anyone would condone this type of action. If he was guilty its a different story, now we are just assuming people are guilty. I dont look at rape the same as other people because girls have lied and said I raped them when I was a teenager. It completely changed my view on it. Girls will make up stories to get someone they are angry at in trouble. And lets not forget the old man who was beaten half to death in europe only to find out a week later he was innocent. Anyone beating someone like this should be the ones taken out and hung in a town square. Everyone deserves a trial, the mob showed their education level they acted like ignorant children.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   
This is all well and good.....until they catch the wrong person and castrate an innocent passer-by.

Mobs are composed of idiots, not the most discerning of people.

In this one instance however, I can't say I'm too upset.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by heyo
 


Do you know the first thing about how the justice system works here?

He hadn't even spoken with a cop yet, how on EARTH would a jury have spoken? He was not found guilty. He wasn't even tried yet. He wasn't even *charged* yet. And you think a jury had spoken? Clue into the case! Angry mobs are not juries. If you don't understand that, I think you'd be better off living in the middle ages.

Juries are chosen by collaboration between the defense, prosecutor, and the judge, not by whoever happens to grab their pitchfork first.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 07:07 PM
link   
The only down side is that group think, group / mod consciousness can lead pick to pick on the wrong person. If they're sure they had the right guy, that's great! Vigilante justice is a good thing if it is done right. Those who fear vigilante justice the most are in the government because they fear if people realize they can take care of themselves, they'll realize they can do without government.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 08:17 PM
link   
In my opinion if they were going outside of the rules as they did, they would have just hung him by his member until it came off.

However, I still believe innocent until proven guilty. As such, this fellow hadn't even been officially accused.
Do I understand the anger of the crowd? Most certainly.
However, it was wrong. We can't complain about others breaking the laws, and then cheer when someone else breaks the laws.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 10:15 PM
link   
attention attention

just on the news,,,.,

IT WAS THE WRONG GUY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!




now what????

[edit on 5-6-2009 by shortywarn]



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
sounds like in the name of the child the jury had made a decision. I can see a defence lawyer kicking out a juror who had an obvious aversion to child abusers, cause it aint fair to the psycho. Who is it that allows which jurors stay and go in the united states?

A jury?
You're suggesting this man was given a chance to have an advocate show the case against him was not proven, to a calm and rational group of his peers?

It's all too easy to inflame a mob upset by a dreadful injustice to take their anger out on the wrong person.

I just hope this guy really was guilty.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 10:26 PM
link   
I'm sorry, but I don't think this was right. What if this wasn't the right guy? These people should be charged for assault, it's not their business to be doing that. When it is proven that he's the right man, then the dad should have free rein on the bastard. I know if it were up to the dad, at least it would be for me if it were my daughter, this guy would never make it to prison!



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I heard the father today on the news discussing this. The father called the alleged perpetrator "a gentleman." The news caster was saying how honorable of him to refer to the man in that way, as the news caster would call him a piece of trash. I was thinking wow after what this father just went through with his daughter he still trusted the system to do what was just and right, to prove the guilt of the man before casting a stone.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Yeah the article says the man was called in for questions. He was not charged in the rape of the girl. So in my opinion, the mob action was unjustified but all mob actions are unjustified. Let the courts hand down their judgment on the guilty. If found guilty, a jury of his peers will send him away to a cage he so rightfully deserves.

See we have to hold ourselves to a higher standard or we are no different than the criminals we put away. We are a nation of law and order and sometimes the legal system is flawed and blind but that doesn't give us the right to take the law into our own hands to become judge and jury on anyone. If the man committed the crime, he is the scum on the bottom of my boot; but let the legal system deal with him.



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by mattifikation
reply to post by heyo
 


Do you know the first thing about how the justice system works here?

He hadn't even spoken with a cop yet, how on EARTH would a jury have spoken? He was not found guilty. He wasn't even tried yet. He wasn't even *charged* yet. And you think a jury had spoken? Clue into the case! Angry mobs are not juries. If you don't understand that, I think you'd be better off living in the middle ages.

Juries are chosen by collaboration between the defense, prosecutor, and the judge, not by whoever happens to grab their pitchfork first.


well a jury is a group of people. he got beat bya group of people. a government approved lynch mob is a jury then?
why get personal btw?
You get my point yet, mr obtuse?



posted on Jun, 5 2009 @ 11:28 PM
link   
Lol your guys' faith in the legal system is friggin' comical. Absolutely ridiculous the faith you have in it. I'm in canada btw, so the legal system is pretty much the same. Please refrain from pointing out semantical differences, as they're not what i'm talking about.
This week, an accused rapist was set free due to not having a speedy trial. Oh, he was charged with forced confinement as well amongst other things.

It is not by any means perfect; it eeks past the bare minimum of satisfactory.

Still smiling about the dark ages comment. very mature.



posted on Jun, 6 2009 @ 01:42 AM
link   
In Canada, do you folks have a concept called "innocent until proven guilty?" If you don't have that, the difference between our justice systems is as vast as can be. If you do have that, then you need to learn what it means before you come into a debate like this.

At any rate, if you can't tell the difference between an angry mob and an informed jury, then I have two things to say:

1. You are the one who is being obtuse.
2. Maturity is pointless in a conversation with you.

I'll try to explain one more time. A jury is a group of people who have been chosen in a fair and balanced environment by the prosecuting attorney, the defense attorney, and the judge. They are then given all of the information that is relevant to the case. According to the law, this is what all accused people are entitled. A jury acts out of knowledge, motivated by justice, and within the framework of the Constitution.

A mob, on the other hand, is a group of angry people who were chosen by no fair system. They came together without any sort of authorization or just cause and acted outside the legal system to let out their anger. And worst of all, a mob's only information is only whatever biased bit of garbage they heard on the idiot box during the 6 o'clock news. A mob acts out of ignorance, motivated by anger, and with no moral boundaries or qualifications whatsoever.

Your immediate dismissal of due process is laughable. Hopefully if you ever stand accused of a horrendous crime which you did not commit, the people who catch you understand the difference between a mob and a jury that you do not.

As for your local case, that's wholly irrelevant to this case. The police and prosecutor should have gotten off their butts and got back to work when they realized crunch time was coming. Blame the individual incompetence of the prosecutor, not the system as a whole.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join