GAM (The Kilted One) wrote: And Vigilante's arise from people that are too afraid to do the right thing (ie. protect their kids like a parent) and do the wrong thing (ie. damage property like a vandal).

Gam, this really offended me. I have children, and I do my best to keep them from harm. I let them ride their bikes to a friend's house, go to the corner store, even visit a playground. In any of these "normal" childhood events, they could be overpowered by an adult and abused.

Your implication that this child molester's victim was in some way the result of bad parenting really pissed me off. If this was an adult female that was raped you wouldn't say that it was her fault , would you?

Probation wouldn't be a problem if this man had harmed my daughter. I would personally make sure he sufficiently "paid his debt to society", and if that means "doing the wrong thing" I can accept that. It's not "an eye for an eye", it's justice.




.


John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

Vigilante justice is not justice at all. You don't have to think very long to figure out why that's true. Checks and balances, the only thing keeping you safe from your government, and for the same reasons, are needed within any jusytice system.

What you are talking about is revenge, not justice. They are two very different things.

PAX

John Wilken wrote:

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote: And Vigilante's arise from people that are too afraid to do the right thing (ie. protect their kids like a parent) and do the wrong thing (ie. damage property like a vandal).

Gam, this really offended me. I have children, and I do my best to keep them from harm. I let them ride their bikes to a friend's house, go to the corner store, even visit a playground. In any of these "normal" childhood events, they could be overpowered by an adult and abused.

Your implication that this child molester's victim was in some way the result of bad parenting really pissed me off. If this was an adult female that was raped you wouldn't say that it was her fault , would you?

Probation wouldn't be a problem if this man had harmed my daughter. I would personally make sure he sufficiently "paid his debt to society", and if that means "doing the wrong thing" I can accept that. It's not "an eye for an eye", it's justice.




.

John, I think you misunderstood me, or I wasn't quite clear.

What was meant was that striking out at someone that has done nothing wrong to YOU is wrong. You acting first is the absolute WRONG THING TO DO. If it's worth you losing some serious money or worse, your freedom, when you act first (and possibly in error), then go ahead... risk it.

I know of a case in Manitoba where a man was castrated and beaten to the point of severe brain damage because one of these "public service" sites screwed up an address and someone damned near got killed. The offender is now listed as a violent offender and has subsequently lost custody of his kids.

Think before you start wandering off on hypotheticals.






Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

John Wilken wrote:

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote: And Vigilante's arise from people that are too afraid to do the right thing (ie. protect their kids like a parent) and do the wrong thing (ie. damage property like a vandal).

Gam, this really offended me. I have children, and I do my best to keep them from harm. I let them ride their bikes to a friend's house, go to the corner store, even visit a playground. In any of these "normal" childhood events, they could be overpowered by an adult and abused.

Your implication that this child molester's victim was in some way the result of bad parenting really pissed me off. If this was an adult female that was raped you wouldn't say that it was her fault , would you?

Probation wouldn't be a problem if this man had harmed my daughter. I would personally make sure he sufficiently "paid his debt to society", and if that means "doing the wrong thing" I can accept that. It's not "an eye for an eye", it's justice.

.

John, I think you misunderstood me, or I wasn't quite clear.

What was meant was that striking out at someone that has done nothing wrong to YOU is wrong. You acting first is the absolute WRONG THING TO DO. If it's worth you losing some serious money or worse, your freedom, when you act first (and possibly in error), then go ahead... risk it.

I know of a case in Manitoba where a man was castrated and beaten to the point of severe brain damage because one of these "public service" sites screwed up an address and someone damned near got killed. The offender is now listed as a violent offender and has subsequently lost custody of his kids.

Think before you start wandering off on hypotheticals.

I didn't mean that I would go hunting down every sex offender because I didn't believe they had received appropriate punishment. I took offense to your implication that the parents of this child molester's victim were in some way responsible for the molestation. This isn't a hypothetical, this is your statement:

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote: And Vigilante's arise from people that are too afraid to do the right thing (ie. protect their kids like a parent)

Vigilante's are made from people who fail to protect their kids? I believe that it would be people who are overly concerned about thier kids that would risk the consequences, not the other way around.

I sincerely hope I'm misunderstaning your meaning on this, I usually respect your opinions.

.



John Wilken
2002 Cavalier
2.2 Vin code 4
Auto

John Wilken wrote:
I didn't mean that I would go hunting down every sex offender because I didn't believe they had received appropriate punishment. I took offense to your implication that the parents of this child molester's victim were in some way responsible for the molestation. This isn't a hypothetical, this is your statement:

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote: And Vigilante's arise from people that are too afraid to do the right thing (ie. protect their kids like a parent)

Vigilante's are made from people who fail to protect their kids? I believe that it would be people who are overly concerned about thier kids that would risk the consequences, not the other way around.

I sincerely hope I'm misunderstaning your meaning on this, I usually respect your opinions.

Ahh... here have it.

Either I didn't put it quite right, or you didn't read it the way I had meant it:

Vigilantes tend to strike out first before something happens because they are too afraid (or don't know enough) to teach their kids to protect themselves, and are too complacent to mind their kids like a parent should.

Before it gets misread: I'm not blaming kids or parent's for the acts of a person. Not one little bit.

I AM however saying that simple things like don't get into cars with strangers, stay with a group that's supervised by an adult, don't go to places where you're not familliar alone... Many times, that kind of instruction isn't followed.

However, this all also belies the fact that about 80-90% of the time, a victim of child abuse knows or is related to their abuser. I'm saying parents should be a bit more aware and act like responsible adults, that's all. Beating the snot out of someone that hasn't done anything to you or your kids isn't responsible. Neither is trashing their car, their home or anything of the like.






Transeat In Exemplum: Let this stand as the example.

Gary Coleman went to jail.

GAM (The Kilted One) wrote:

I AM however saying that simple things like don't get into cars with strangers, stay with a group that's supervised by an adult, don't go to places where you're not familliar alone... Many times, that kind of instruction isn't followed.

However, this all also belies the fact that about 80-90% of the time, a victim of child abuse knows or is related to their abuser. I'm saying parents should be a bit more aware and act like responsible adults, that's all. Beating the snot out of someone that hasn't done anything to you or your kids isn't responsible. Neither is trashing their car, their home or anything of the like.

I'm with Gam 1000000%. Check this out. This little girl was raped and murdered by a man whose brother also raped her and was already convicted. The really fukked up part? The mother had a relationship with both these men. It was her lack of diligence that, in my opinion, took yet another child from this world.

Jetseta Marrie Gage (August 25, 1994-March 24, 2005) was a Cedar Rapids, Iowa youth whose kidnapping, rape and murder prompted major changes in sentencing laws for those who commit child sex crimes in Iowa.

Roger Bentley, a convicted sex offender and friend of Gage's family, was arrested in connection with Jetseta's death. He was convicted of first-degree murder and first-degree kidnapping on January 31, 2006. On February 24, he was sentenced to two consecutive mandatory sentences of life in prison without parole.

Prosecutors alleged that Bentley took Gage from her home to a run-down trailer in rural Johnson County, Iowa, where he raped and killed her. An AMBER Alert was issued shortly after Jetseta was discovered missing, and Bentley was arrested a day after she was reported missing. Investigators found Jetseta's body inside a bathroom cabinet inside the trailer.

Bentley's trial was moved to Scott County on the defense's change of venue motion because of extensive pre-trial publicity; local media dubbed the case "Justice for Jetseta." During his trial, prosecutors linked DNA evidence found on Jetseta's body to Bentley, while the defense (which did not call any witnesses) claimed there was no eyewitnesses to the crime or direct evidence. It took just more than two hours for the jury to arrive at its guilty verdict.

Bentley’s brother, 34-year-old James Bentley, was indicted in November 2004 on felony sexual abuse charges after authorities alleged he sexually abused Jetseta between 2002 and 2004. James is currently awaiting trial, which is expected to begin at the Clarke County courthouse in Osceola in August