Protect your child, go to jail.

[69nites]

I said they were two seperate issues. They are two seperate crimes that will be tried seperately in the US courts. One may be related to the other, but so far as they pertain to the two defendants, they are seperate.

the circomstances will actually likely reduce the punishment for BOTH of them

I'd put money on the father getting a fine and possibly anger management classes.

the old man will probably plead guilty and get put on a list and undergo a psychological evaluation and treatment. Along with probation/supervision.

the reason they will both be getting off easy....the circumstances.

 

[hbarcat]

A few hypotheticals for the forum:

--What would society be like if nobody responded physically to any attack or assault but always called the police and let them handle it?

--What would society be like if everybody responded physically to any attack or assault and tried to exact revenge on the perpetrator before the police arrived?

--Since the reality lies somewhere between the two and any posible perpetrator of assault cannot be sure what the response will be, would we be better off keeping it this way and letting the courts settle things on a case by case basis, or would we be better off moving closer toward one of the first two scenarios?

 

[Marlat]

the circomstances will actually likely reduce the punishment for BOTH of them

I'd put money on the father getting a fine and possibly anger management classes.

the old man will probably plead guilty and get put on a list and undergo a psychological evaluation and treatment. Along with probation/supervision.

the reason they will both be getting off easy....the circumstances.

Yes, I understand that and agree. That's not the point of the original post you were commenting on. Let me summarise:

It is possible for someone to be outraged by the actions of the old man if they were criminal and also be outraged by the actions of the father if they were criminal. Just because one doesn't approve of the fathers actions doesn't mean that one approves of the old mans actions. Some people posting in this thread seem to think that it is impossible to be both outraged by potential molestation and outraged by potential vigilante justice. On the other hand, some people in this thread are capable of two concurrent thoughts.

 

[69nites]

A few hypotheticals for the forum:

--What would society be like if nobody responded physically to any attack or assault but always called the police and let them handle it?

--What would society be like if everybody responded physically to any attack or assault and tried to exact revenge on the perpetrator before the police arrived?

--Since the reality lies somewhere between the two and any posible perpetrator of assault cannot be sure what the response will be, would we be better off keeping it this way and letting the courts settle things on a case by case basis, or would we be better off moving closer toward one of the first two scenarios?

what percentage of fathers do you think would react differently than the one here?

I would guess less than 5%. It's pretty close IMO to everyone acting the same as here.

 

[69nites]

Yes, I understand that and agree. That's not the point of the original post you were commenting on. Let me summarise:

It is possible for someone to be outraged by the actions of the old man if they were criminal and also be outraged by the actions of the father if they were criminal. Just because one doesn't approve of the fathers actions doesn't mean that one approves of the old mans actions. Some people posting in this thread seem to think that it is impossible to be both outraged by potential molestation and outraged by potential vigilante justice. On the other hand, some people in this thread are capable of two concurrent thoughts.

ohh see I must have misunderstood you.

I also feel that what the father did was criminal and deserved legal repercussions.

Now on the subject of morality. I don't see much wrong with it.

 

[TheDarkReaver]

ohh see I must have misunderstood you.

I also feel that what the father did was criminal and deserved legal repercussions.

Now on the subject of morality. I don't see much wrong with it.

I think this is a good point, many people here are confusing what they would morally do with what is legally right.

 

[mjolnir]

I think this is a good point, many people here are confusing what they would morally do with what is legally right.

Bingo.

 

[Jeremy Crockett]

For Mark and Dark:

When I first clicked on this thread yesterday I thought "I wonder how long it will take for folks to start defending the old man."

I got my answer at post # 15

...It like sounds like it was inappropriate timing for sure... but could have been an old timer just trying to get a little kid to laugh.

Inappropriate is wearing plaid golf slacks to a funeral or farting at a High Tea. Who the hell sits on a toilet and touches little boys for laughs?

I'll say it again. Where is the outrage against the pervert? Can someone please educate me as to when it has ever been considered "OK" for a complete stranger to touch a kid taking a leak in the bathroom for a laugh?

 

[TheDarkReaver]

For Mark and Dark:

When I first clicked on this thread yesterday I thought "I wonder how long it will take for folks to start defending the old man."

I got my answer at post # 15



Inappropriate is wearing plaid golf slacks to a funeral or farting at a High Tea. Who the hell sits on a toilet and touches little boys for laughs?

I'll say it again. Where is the outrage against the pervert? Can someone please educate me as to when it has ever been considered "OK" for a complete stranger to touch a kid taking a leak in the bathroom for a laugh?

no it's not and if he did it for jollys then obviously it's wrong. but we can entertain the idea that he could be a senile old man who's sense of boundaries have eroded. no body is saying it's ok to do at all.

the important word in what you quoted was "could"

 

[Marlat]

For Mark and Dark:

When I first clicked on this thread yesterday I thought "I wonder how long it will take for folks to start defending the old man."

I got my answer at post # 15



Inappropriate is wearing plaid golf slacks to a funeral or farting at a High Tea. Who the hell sits on a toilet and touches little boys for laughs?

I'll say it again. Where is the outrage against the pervert? Can someone please educate me as to when it has ever been considered "OK" for a complete stranger to touch a kid taking a leak in the bathroom for a laugh?

Okay (moral) and illegal are two different things and apply equally to both the issues in this situation. You seem to already have judged this person a pervert. Strange that you feel comfortable making such a judgement in the absence of any real evidence but that anyone suggesting that the father may also be guilty of a crime is somehow sitting in a "ivory tower". Perhaps you should consider to whom your outrage should be directed in this thread. It seems to me it is widely misplaced.

 

[Jeremy Crockett]

no it's not and if he did it for jollys then obviously it's wrong. but we can entertain the idea that he could be a senile old man who's sense of boundaries have eroded.

Again, I'm perfectly comfortable stating that a 71 year old who holds down regular employment still has an idea as to what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior.

 

[TheDarkReaver]

Again, I'm perfectly comfortable stating that a 71 year old who holds down regular employment still has an idea as to what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior.

but you can't be sure without a proper evaluation. but just saying there's an element of doubt doesn't mean that we are dismissing the possibility of child molestation completley and it doesn't mean that he has become a victim.

a certain level of objectivity needs to be maintained until a conivtion is brought about, otherwise there is just a trial by media, and the media is not always right. lives have been ruined by people assuming what is true after what they read in the papers.

 

[jomahu]

I'll say it again. Where is the outrage against the pervert? Can someone please educate me as to when it has ever been considered "OK" for a complete stranger to touch a kid taking a leak in the bathroom for a laugh?

when it's a little girl and not a little boy.

 

[Relic]

Sooo...we all know 100%, beyond the shadow of a doubt, in no uncertain terms that this guy's sole intent was to cop a feel by reaching from under the inside a stall?
There's no way on earth he was screwing around trying to startle the kid, etc etc - this was 1000% an attempt at perverse molestation therefore dad's justified and the cops should have let him walk away?
We all know this for sure, right?

My point is that both were charged, both will have their day in court. Dad will likely walk away with little punishment, "old guy" will be looked into a bit more deeply and charged accordingly. This is the way it's supposed to work. It 'aint perfect but laws are laws, not rough guidelines.

But yeah, I'd probably do the same and hope to god that I'd have some of you as jurors on my day in court..

 

[69nites]

Sooo...we all know 100%, beyond the shadow of a doubt, in no uncertain terms that this guy's sole intent was to cop a feel by reaching from under the inside a stall?
There's no way on earth he was screwing around trying to startle the kid, etc etc - this was 1000% an attempt at perverse molestation therefore dad's justified and the cops should have let him walk away?
We all know this for sure, right?

My point is that both were charged, both will have their day in court. Dad will likely walk away with little punishment, "old guy" will be looked into a bit more deeply and charged accordingly. This is the way it's supposed to work. It 'aint perfect but laws are laws, not rough guidelines.

But yeah, I'd probably do the same and hope to god that I'd have some of you as jurors on my day in court..

it doesn't matter what his intent was....

the only thing that will have a real effect on is what kind of treatment he gets after his evaluation.

everyone should keep in mind that with the charges both of these guys have been charged with there won't be real jail time.

 

[Marlat]

Again, I'm perfectly comfortable stating that a 71 year old who holds down regular employment still has an idea as to what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior.

You may have also missed that he is a 71 year old janitor who doesn't speak or understand english. Again, its possible (not saying that its defintely the case) that what he did was merely stupid and inappropriate and not intended to be perverted or sexual in any way. You can assume all you like. I'd rather wait until those who get to hear all the facts make that judgement. As I said earlier, unless you ahve some kind of psychic insight, my "ivory tower" is no higher than yours at this moment. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone....so they say.

 

[69nites]

You may have also missed that he is a 71 year old janitor who doesn't speak or understand english. Again, its possible (not saying that its defintely the case) that what he did was merely stupid and inappropriate and not intended to be perverted or sexual in any way. You can assume all you like. I'd rather wait until those who get to hear all the facts make that judgement. As I said earlier, unless you ahve some kind of psychic insight, my "ivory tower" is no higher than yours at this moment. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone....so they say.

whether or not it was intended as a perverted act it still falls under indecent assault and battery.

 

[Relic]

it doesn't matter what his intent was....

I don't disagree - my point is that the dad, for reasons he felt justified, broke the law. He'll get his day in court and be charged accordingly as will "old guy".

 

[Marlat]

whether or not it was intended as a perverted act it still falls under indecent assault and battery.

Got a source?

 

[69nites]

Got a source?

touching a kid with his pants undone is an indecent act and unwanted touching is battery.

that's just common knowledge. I suppose you could open a dictionary to see.

just like if you take off all your clothes because you're hot not meaning anything but to get cool you'll still get an indecent exposure ticket.

sexual battery on a minor is what he would get if they felt they had evidence that his act was of a sexual nature

unfortunately I just went through something with a family member fairly similar to this.