Latest Breaking News

Douglas Carpenter

(20,226 posts)

37. I would wonder about that too. Is it a good thing that someone can assault someone on the basis of a

Fri Jul 6, 2012, 03:27 AM

Jul 2012

an accusation of events that allegedlytook place 38 years ago? Do we completely abandon the principle of the assumption of innocence if it involves an accusation of something as terrible as what this priest was accused of doing? In this particular case the priest was accused of brutally raping a seven year old and then forcing him to perform oral sex on his four year old brother. That is pretty terrible - if true. But we don't know if this accusation of what was said to have happened in 1974 is true or not. Is it now a good thing if someone assaults someone over say an accusation of murder or any other serious charge that took place a number of decades earlier when no one except the accuser and the accused actually knows what actually happened?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

80 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

William Lynch Found Not Guilty in Beating of Priest He Said Sexually Abused Him [View all] hue Jul 2012 OP

"Two wrongs don't make a right," she said in her closing arguments on Monday. bluestateguy Jul 2012 #1

It is barbaric, I know... awoke_in_2003 Jul 2012 #36

What about three or more wrongs? Because Lynch was just the last in line of a whole lot of wrongs IndyJones Jul 2012 #66

I am betting Jerry Lindner never expected that siligut Jul 2012 #2

Clearly, there are times when violence is the answer. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #3

I don't believe violence is the answer for any rational person DearAbby Jul 2012 #5

Never? What about WW II? AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #12

Sometimes it is snooper2 Jul 2012 #25

And to add even more humiliation... -..__... Jul 2012 #30

You remeber your words if Romeny gets elected and the middle class Katashi_itto Jul 2012 #80

More appropriately, there are times when our jury system mzmolly Jul 2012 #17

True. Every once in a while. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #20

Violence? So he got in some open hand slaps, compared to what! xtraxritical Jul 2012 #24

What specific outcome which could not be achieved in any other way except through violence... LanternWaste Jul 2012 #69

Satisfaction to the victim from a sense of justice delivered to the perpetrator. A vicarious sense AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #70

It still was wrong. Archae Jul 2012 #4

I am thinking it felt real good to Lynch though. nt siligut Jul 2012 #7

It was not a planned assault. mzmolly Jul 2012 #18

Yeah that's the ticket, leave it to the felons to beat the crap out of him. MichiganVote Jul 2012 #23

There are a few people who I would beat to a pulp if I knew I could get away with it Kolesar Jul 2012 #6

It's possible to read this story and feel justice has and has not been done here. Brickbat Jul 2012 #8

I feel for the victim of child abuse. But you can't let people take the law into their own hands Bucky Jul 2012 #9

Then maybe there should be some justice b4 they have to. n/t jtuck004 Jul 2012 #13

Fact is, if that priest's superiors had done the right things decades ago, that wouldn't have IndyJones Jul 2012 #65

Yup. n/t jtuck004 Jul 2012 #71

you can't let people take the law into their own hands? Sure you can. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #15

Well said. Add to your list the lose of legitimacy of the Supreme Court when kiranon Jul 2012 #40

Not to mention police officers who are liars and violent thugs KansDem Jul 2012 #58

The jury system is the perfect mzmolly Jul 2012 #19

No, bucky. tru Jul 2012 #26

I don't think the point is that justice was served. antigone382 Jul 2012 #38

Like how the RCC took justice into their own hands by covering up and moving predators from parish IndyJones Jul 2012 #67

I don't like violence at all BUT in this case TBF Jul 2012 #10

No one can pay for the permanent violation of a child. hue Jul 2012 #11

Good for you Lynch. n/t jtuck004 Jul 2012 #14

I don't believe this... Archae Jul 2012 #16

Lynch and his brother both have "memories" mzmolly Jul 2012 #21

The article says that the defendant denied molesting the two brothers Art_from_Ark Jul 2012 #29

Yes, the defendant (victim in the assault case) denied it. That's often the case. The prosecution mzmolly Jul 2012 #41

I meant to say the priest denied it. He was not the defendant in this particular suit. Art_from_Ark Jul 2012 #48

If the prosectuion had denied it, I imagine mzmolly Jul 2012 #52

article also says Lynch got nearly $700,000 in settlement for this in 1997 wordpix Jul 2012 #57

Archae tru Jul 2012 #27

That's what I'm thinking Art_from_Ark Jul 2012 #28

I would wonder about that too. Is it a good thing that someone can assault someone on the basis of a Douglas Carpenter Jul 2012 #37

There is a sick and long history of abuse associated with the priest. FedUpWithIt All Jul 2012 #33

It sure sounds like "Father Jerry" was really a jerk. To put it mildly. Archae Jul 2012 #34

you are so incredibly off base that it barely merits a response.. frylock Jul 2012 #43

It's not a question of "Is it as bad." Archae Jul 2012 #44

It was determined that it was NOT vigilantism FedUpWithIt All Jul 2012 #55

I never claimed he should have the right to beat anyone up. FedUpWithIt All Jul 2012 #54

If he goes to jail... sendero Jul 2012 #59

You're right christx30 Jul 2012 #68

I'm glad he isn't going to jail Marrah_G Jul 2012 #22

Did anyone shed a tear when Father Geoghan was murdered in prison? Manifestor_of_Light Jul 2012 #31

This ruling and the viewpoints of some here that it was ok to assualt the guy cause me concern. cstanleytech Jul 2012 #32

My point exactly. Archae Jul 2012 #35

Actually, the waterboarding at Gitmo was conducted by the government. AnotherMcIntosh Jul 2012 #39

I don't know that anyone supports the assault, from a legal standpoint. mzmolly Jul 2012 #42

Scroll up then as there are plenty to pick from, take the one where cstanleytech Jul 2012 #45

I took some of the commentary mzmolly Jul 2012 #46

If an assailant can avoid jail time melissaf Jul 2012 #47

I don't think it's that simple. mzmolly Jul 2012 #51

No argument if it happened it was horrible but the point is people are being hypocrites. cstanleytech Jul 2012 #49

I think there is an distiction to be made mzmolly Jul 2012 #50

If it was a case of self defense I would agree but it wasnt self defense cstanleytech Jul 2012 #53

It was the only form of justice mzmolly Jul 2012 #60

Sorry but I dont buy that sugar coating of it being "justice" in any shape or form and cstanleytech Jul 2012 #61

What should have happened to the man who mzmolly Jul 2012 #62

The statute of limitations already covers that unless of course if you meant cstanleytech Jul 2012 #64

No it's not moot at this point. mzmolly Jul 2012 #72

Its moot as far as the law is concerned, if you want to abolish the statute of limitations cstanleytech Jul 2012 #73

The "law" ultimately found the mzmolly Jul 2012 #75

No, I am trying to get it through your head that just because you believe it is justice does not cstanleytech Jul 2012 #76

Oh don't worry about me. mzmolly Jul 2012 #77

Actually thats not the law that spoke but rather the jury cstanleytech Jul 2012 #78

The jury is part of our legal mzmolly Jul 2012 #79

Not vigilatism. PTSD response. Very large difference between the two. FedUpWithIt All Jul 2012 #56

Well mzmolly Jul 2012 #63

Ahem alcibiades_mystery Jul 2012 #74