Yikes, what a fucked up situation.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34025056/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
QuoteDad accused of killing son over sex abuse claim
Dad reportedly irate upon hearing son had sexual contact with toddler
updated 9:01 p.m. ET Nov. 18, 2009
HIGHLAND PARK, Mich. - A 37-year-old father irate over hearing his 15-year-old son had sexual contact with a 3-year-old girl made the teen strip at gunpoint, marched him to a vacant lot and shot him to death despite pleas from the boy and his mother, a relative said.
Michigan authorities filed a first-degree murder charge Wednesday against Jamar Pinkney Sr. in the shooting death Monday of Jamar Pinkney Jr. in the Detroit enclave of Highland Park.
Defense attorney Corbett O'Meara said prosecutors should consider evidence of the father's state of mind over the sex abuse report.
Story continues below ↓advertisement | your ad here
"If something were to happen that would cause a reasonable person to lose control of himself, that is something the prosecution would have to take into account," O'Meara said outside Highland Park District Court.
Tensions were high in the courtroom Wednesday as the handcuffed suspect was led into the room for the arraignment, which lasted less than a minute.
"No, No, No," one female relative cried before a police officer escorted her out.
'Hard to deal with'
Judge Brigette Officer entered a not guilty plea for Pinkney, who's also charged with assault, and ordered him jailed without bond until a preliminary examination Dec. 1.
"This is something that's hard to deal with for all the parties concerned, including the police," police Chief Ted Caldwell said afterward. "Highland Park is a small city. These are people who have been members of the community for years."
Caldwell said the sexual misconduct allegation that led to the confrontation wasn't part of the police investigation.
The shooting happened Monday night in a vacant lot in the once-prosperous city of 16,000, where decay, abandonment, fires and demolition have eaten away at many of the sprawling homes. Highland Park recently exited years of state financial oversight.
Visitors built an impromptu memorial at the shooting site. Two votive candles sat amid 10 stuffed animals, including two white teddy bears with red hearts embroidered with, "I love you."
The boy's mother, Lazette Cherry, told the Detroit Free Press that her son told her he had improper sexual contact with the girl.
Click for related content
Read more news from across the U.S.
"I called and told his father. This isn't something you sweep under the rug," she said.
Cherry said the elder Pinkney arrived at the home with a gun, ordered his son to strip and marched him outside despite her protests.
"He got on his knees and begged, 'No, Daddy, no,' and he pulled the trigger," Cherry said.
Cherry did not immediately respond to a phone message Wednesday from The Associated Press seeking comment.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press.
Family of the year :)
Americans. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 07:40:11 AM
Americans. :rolleyes:
Why don't you just put that in your signature instead :D Then you wont have to type it all the time :p
V
I dunno. The boy molested a three-year-old girl. I don't know how I'd react if I heard that one of my boys did that, but I'd probably be arrested, too. <_<
Discipline was good for the boy.
Another fine exemple of why private citizens shouldn't be allowed to own guns. <_<
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 19, 2009, 08:29:26 AM
Another fine exemple of why private citizens shouldn't be allowed to own guns. <_<
:yes: :)
Quote from: Caliga on November 19, 2009, 08:31:12 AM
Quote from: Grallon on November 19, 2009, 08:29:26 AM
Another fine exemple of why private citizens shouldn't be allowed to own guns. <_<
:yes: :)
NRA member fail
-_-
Quote from: Grallon on November 19, 2009, 08:29:26 AM
Another fine exemple of why private citizens shouldn't be allowed to own guns. <_<
Yes, because we know from past experiences that the father wouldn't have killed his son with anything other than a gun. <_<
Kneejerk "push this button and this problem goes away like magic" political solutions amuse me. :)
Quote from: Caliga on November 19, 2009, 09:33:44 AM
Kneejerk "push this button and this problem goes away like magic" political solutions amuse me. :)
Almost as good as kneejerk "pull this trigger and this problem goes away like magic" thinking ... ;)
Quote from: Malthus on November 19, 2009, 09:51:55 AM
Almost as good as kneejerk "pull this trigger and this problem goes away like magic" thinking ... ;)
Death solves all problems. No man, no problem.
Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2009, 09:32:04 AM
Yes, because we know from past experiences that the father wouldn't have killed his son with anything other than a gun. <_<
And we all know it's so much more easier to butcher someone with a knife than just playing cop with a gun. :rolleyes:
G.
Quote from: Grallon on November 19, 2009, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2009, 09:32:04 AM
Yes, because we know from past experiences that the father wouldn't have killed his son with anything other than a gun. <_<
And we all know it's so much more easier to butcher someone with a knife than just playing cop with a gun. :rolleyes:
G.
Slashing someone's throat is pretty easy, and is also compatible with an execution-style murder, if that's what tickles your fancy.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 19, 2009, 08:29:08 AM
Discipline was good for the boy.
He definitely wouldn't do it again.
Quote from: Grallon on November 19, 2009, 10:06:04 AM
And we all know it's so much more easier to butcher someone with a knife than just playing cop with a gun. :rolleyes:
And we all know that the guy was not "just playing cop with a gun." :rolleyes:
Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2009, 10:32:45 AM
Quote from: Grallon on November 19, 2009, 10:06:04 AM
And we all know it's so much more easier to butcher someone with a knife than just playing cop with a gun. :rolleyes:
And we all know that the guy was not "just playing cop with a gun." :rolleyes:
Agreed. AFAIK, most police departments in US have rules against stripping and executing people.
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2009, 11:00:23 AM
Agreed. AFAIK, most police departments in US have rules against stripping and executing people.
Yeah, what was that about? Don't want to get blood on your clothes.
Quote from: Grallon on November 19, 2009, 10:06:04 AM
And we all know it's so much more easier to butcher someone with a knife than just playing cop with a gun. :rolleyes:
baseball bat or beating him to death.
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2009, 11:18:24 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2009, 11:00:23 AM
Agreed. AFAIK, most police departments in US have rules against stripping and executing people.
Yeah, what was that about? Don't want to get blood on your clothes.
Dad probably paid for those clothes, he didn't want them to be ruined.
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 19, 2009, 08:29:08 AM
Discipline was good for the boy.
He can make another one just like him. Dad brought him into this world so he should be able to take him out.
Quote from: Valmy on November 19, 2009, 12:14:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 19, 2009, 08:29:08 AM
Discipline was good for the boy.
He can make another one just like him. Dad brought him into this world so he should be able to take him out.
:yes:
It's just a 64th trimester abortion.
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2009, 10:14:07 AM
Quote from: Grallon on November 19, 2009, 10:06:04 AM
Quote from: grumbler on November 19, 2009, 09:32:04 AM
Yes, because we know from past experiences that the father wouldn't have killed his son with anything other than a gun. <_<
And we all know it's so much more easier to butcher someone with a knife than just playing cop with a gun. :rolleyes:
G.
Slashing someone's throat is pretty easy, and is also compatible with an execution-style murder, if that's what tickles your fancy.
I think being able to escape is much easier though.
Quote from: Valmy on November 19, 2009, 12:14:41 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on November 19, 2009, 08:29:08 AM
Discipline was good for the boy.
He can make another one just like him. Dad brought him into this world so he should be able to take him out.
:yes:
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2009, 11:18:24 AM
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2009, 11:00:23 AM
Agreed. AFAIK, most police departments in US have rules against stripping and executing people.
Yeah, what was that about? Don't want to get blood on your clothes.
Jamar Pinkney III needs to wear them when he gets older.
Quote from: Grallon on November 19, 2009, 08:29:26 AM
Another fine exemple of why private citizens shouldn't be allowed to own guns.
:yes: Otherwise, they might kill someone like you.
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 12:20:43 PM
I think being able to escape is much easier though.
Probably not for prissy weakling like you, though.
Quote from: Alcibiades on November 19, 2009, 01:43:12 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 12:20:43 PM
I think being able to escape is much easier though.
Probably not for prissy weakling like you, though.
That was quite uncalled for. When is the next time you get deployed? I will need to remember to pray for your death.
Quote from: Habbaku on November 19, 2009, 01:32:17 PM
:yes: Otherwise, they might kill someone like you.
Are you man enough to follow through with this? I'd love to see *your* gun. :lol:
G.
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 01:48:49 PM
That was quite uncalled for. When is the next time you get deployed? I will need to remember to pray for your death.
That's a pretty disgusting thing to say. I thought you were an atheist.
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2009, 01:55:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 01:48:49 PM
That was quite uncalled for. When is the next time you get deployed? I will need to remember to pray for your death.
That's a pretty disgusting thing to say. I thought you were an atheist.
Would being an atheist make it more or less disgusting?
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2009, 01:55:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 01:48:49 PM
That was quite uncalled for. When is the next time you get deployed? I will need to remember to pray for your death.
That's a pretty disgusting thing to say. I thought you were an atheist.
I know. Marty praying? Here I thought he was a man of principle.
He's on his period, he's just overreacting, its ok. I forgive you marty. :hug:
Edit: And I'm in college now...so it's gonna be a while. ;)
Quote from: Valmy on November 19, 2009, 02:01:00 PM
Quote from: DGuller on November 19, 2009, 01:55:27 PM
Quote from: Martinus on November 19, 2009, 01:48:49 PM
That was quite uncalled for. When is the next time you get deployed? I will need to remember to pray for your death.
That's a pretty disgusting thing to say. I thought you were an atheist.
I know. Marty praying? Here I thought he was a man of principle.
[Insert joke about Marty willingly getting on his knees several times a week here]
Quote from: Grallon on November 19, 2009, 01:54:00 PM
Quote from: Habbaku on November 19, 2009, 01:32:17 PM
:yes: Otherwise, they might kill someone like you.
Are you man enough to follow through with this? I'd love to see *your* gun. :lol:
G.
If not, I'm sure he can find someone in Detroit who is.
Quote from: Queequeg on November 19, 2009, 06:08:52 PM
[Insert joke about Marty willingly getting on his knees several times a week here]
I wanna take you there.
See? None of this would have happened if pops had taught his kid the 1/2 + 7 rule.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 19, 2009, 07:27:48 PM
See? None of this would have happened if pops had taught his kid the 1/2 + 7 rule.
That rule breaks down on the young end.
Quote from: Valmy on November 19, 2009, 02:01:00 PM
I know. Marty praying? Here I thought he was a man of principle.
What made you think that?
Quote from: Neil on November 19, 2009, 07:36:20 PM
That rule breaks down on the young end.
At what age? 8 I guess?
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2009, 07:41:07 PM
At what age? 8 I guess?
It means no dating before the age of 14.
Under 14, the lower bound just excludes you from dating people your own age or younger. :D
Quote from: garbon on November 19, 2009, 07:46:58 PM
Under 14, the lower bound just excludes you from dating people your own age or younger. :D
Right, and it excludes anyone older from dating *you*. :contract:
Which iis how it should be. :)
And Dad goes to trial. I've gotta' say, it's hard to fault him for what happened. I know it's wrong; I know he shouldn't have done it; but it's damn hard to fault him.
link (http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20091201/US.Father.Son.Slaying/)
QuoteHIGHLAND PARK, Mich. — A 15-year-old Michigan boy admitted having sex with a 3-year-old girl, so enraging his father that the man pulled a gun, marched the teen to an empty lot and shot him through the head, the father's defense attorney said Tuesday.
The lawyer for Jamar Pinkney Sr., 37, said he will pursue an insanity defense as a judge in the Detroit enclave of Highland Park ruled that Pinkney should stand trial on first-degree murder, assault and firearms charges in his son's Nov. 16 death.
Defense attorney Corbett O'Meara said Pinkney's son's confession would have driven anyone crazy.
"There is no rational response to the rape of a child," O'Meara said after the hearing. "He was immediately remorseful and didn't seek to hide. He turned himself in to the police."
Authorities haven't said if they believe the teen raped the girl and police have said the matter is not part of their investigation. Wayne County prosecutor's office spokeswoman Maria Miller declined to comment Tuesday on the nature of the sexual contact.
Pinkney's confrontation with his son came a day after the 3-year-old underwent an examination at Children's Hospital of Michigan. Results of the exam haven't been released, but the teen's mother said they indicated her son "had molested" the girl. The Associated Press is not naming the girl or detailing her relationship to the teen to avoid identifying a victim of sexual assault.
Lazette Cherry testified Tuesday that her son told her about his contact with the girl in a conversation that stretched long into the night. She said her son called his father about 3 a.m.
"Daddy, can you please forgive me in your heart, forgive what I did?" she quoted Jamar Pinkney Jr. as asking his father.
The mother said the elder Pinkney agreed to come to the house later to talk further. Cherry's sister, Yolanda Cherry, testified that Jamar Pinkney Sr. arrived about 10 a.m.
Yolanda Cherry said she and her sister talked about getting help for the teen, while Pinkney Sr. said he spoke with the 3-year-old's mother and she wanted to press charges.
"Jamar, is there something you want to tell me?" Yolanda Cherry quoted Pinkney Sr. as asking his son.
"He got on his knees in front of his dad and said, `I'm sorry,'" the aunt said.
"What did you do?" she quoted the father as asking.
"I humped (the girl)," the teen replied. "I need counseling."
Pinkney Sr. didn't immediately respond, Yolanda Cherry said, and she left to visit her mother's upstairs apartment. She later heard screaming and banging and rushed down to find Pinkney Sr. holding a handgun and beating his son.
Both sisters testified Pinkney Sr. ordered his son to undress and marched him outside. The teen's mother said Pinkney Sr. ordered the boy to kneel in the grass, ignoring his pleas for mercy.
"I said, `Jamar, stop. Don't do this. Think about what you're doing,'" Lazette Cherry testified.
She said Pinkney Sr. stood behind the boy and shot him in the head, then walked around still grasping the gun.
"He didn't want anybody to go back and help him," the mother said. After Pinkney Sr. left, she rushed to her son's side.
"He's bleeding, blood coming out of his mouth," she said. "Somebody said, `Get some covers, cover him up, keep him warm.' So that's what we did."
Really? It's hard to fault him for a cold blooded murder? Are you fucking crazy?
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 07:26:44 PM
Really? It's hard to fault him for a cold blooded murder? Are you fucking crazy?
It was cold blooded in the heat of the moment, though.
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?
I so want to use that line one day. :cry:
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 07:26:44 PM
Really? It's hard to fault him for a cold blooded murder? Are you fucking crazy?
:mellow:
No. The boy raped a 3-year-old girl. I didn't say that I agreed with what he did, but it's really hard for me to judge him for it. I don't know how I would react if one of my boys did something like that, but I can assure you that the police would likely be called, and I'd be arrested alongside my son.
Would I march him outside naked and shoot him in the head? No, not likely, but I do understand the emotion that led the father to do such a thing. Plus, we don't know who the three-year-old girl was. It could well have been the father's daughter, too.
Quote from: DGuller on December 01, 2009, 07:28:29 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 07:26:44 PM
Really? It's hard to fault him for a cold blooded murder? Are you fucking crazy?
It was cold blooded in the heat of the moment, though.
Not very heat of the moment, though.
Gotta agree with Marti on this one. Dad shot the kid to avoid the humiliation of the trial, sounds like to me. That's a pretty selfish and despicable reason to murder someone, if I have pegged it right.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 07:34:34 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 01, 2009, 07:26:44 PM
Really? It's hard to fault him for a cold blooded murder? Are you fucking crazy?
:mellow:
No. The boy raped a 3-year-old girl. I didn't say that I agreed with what he did, but it's really hard for me to judge him for it. I don't know how I would react if one of my boys did something like that, but I can assure you that the police would likely be called, and I'd be arrested alongside my son.
Would I march him outside naked and shoot him in the head? No, not likely, but I do understand the emotion that led the father to do such a thing. Plus, we don't know who the three-year-old girl was. It could well have been the father's daughter, too.
I daresay you don't know the nature of the "sexual contact" any more than the dad did.
The son's actions are pretty hard to stomach, but the dad's are even more over the line than the kid's (and so would yours be, if you followed dad's example). The son didn't kill anyone, and dad did.
If the kid had any self-respect, he would have killed himself. Fucked for life on a victimless crime? Just do yourself a favour.
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2009, 07:41:30 PM
I daresay you don't know the nature of the "sexual contact" any more than the dad did.
The son's actions are pretty hard to stomach, but the dad's are even more over the line than the kid's (and so would yours be, if you followed dad's example). The son didn't kill anyone, and dad did.
The aunt testified that the boy told the father that he "humped" the girl, and somewhere in the article it mentioned actual intercourse. I'd say that qualifies as rape, and crosses this line of yours.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me; I simply said that it would be difficult for me to judge the father on this. What he did was awful, but I can at least understand why he did it. And again, we don't know the relationship of the girl to the family. She could well have been the 15-year-old boy's sister.
If the man who killed the boy had been the father of the girl - and not the boy - would it be more "acceptable"?
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 08:02:55 PM
If the kid had any self-respect, he would have killed himself. Fucked for life on a victimless crime? Just do yourself a favour.
Victimless? :huh:
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 08:07:17 PM
The aunt testified that the boy told the father that he "humped" the girl, and somewhere in the article it mentioned actual intercourse. I'd say that qualifies as rape, and crosses this line of yours.
No, it didn't mention "actual intercourse" and we don't know what the kid meant, because he is dead (with your seeming blessings).
QuoteI don't expect everyone to agree with me; I simply said that it would be difficult for me to judge the father on this. What he did was awful, but I can at least understand why he did it. And again, we don't know the relationship of the girl to the family. She could well have been the 15-year-old boy's sister.
It isn't that hard to judge the dad for cold-blooded murder. Not for those of us with any sense for the sanctity of life. The relationship of the girl to the kid isn't really relevant. Dad would be no more, nor less, liable to the murder charge if it was a cousin or a stranger. Dad doesn't get to kill people, period. Why do
you think the dad did it? Because he thought it would restore the "virginity" of the three-year-old?
QuoteIf the man who killed the boy had been the father of the girl - and not the boy - would it be more "acceptable"?
Understandable, yes. Acceptable, no.
This was an "honor killing" as far as I can tell.
Care to defend it further?
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 08:07:34 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 08:02:55 PM
If the kid had any self-respect, he would have killed himself. Fucked for life on a victimless crime? Just do yourself a favour.
Victimless? :huh:
Victimless.
Neil, are you suggesting that the 3-year old was able to give meaningful consent? :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2009, 08:16:32 PM
No, it didn't mention "actual intercourse" and we don't know what the kid meant, because he is dead (with your seeming blessings).
Not blessing, understanding. There is a difference.
QuoteIt isn't that hard to judge the dad for cold-blooded murder. Not for those of us with any sense for the sanctity of life. The relationship of the girl to the kid isn't really relevant. Dad would be no more, nor less, liable to the murder charge if it was a cousin or a stranger. Dad doesn't get to kill people, period. Why do you think the dad did it? Because he thought it would restore the "virginity" of the three-year-old?
Sorry, I wasn't clear. By saying the boy's sister, I meant possibly the man's daughter. I think the dad did it because he found the act foul, despicable, and heinous, much like I do. As you said, we don't know what the boy said to his father, but it was obviously something that set the father off into a murderous rage. Given the reaction, I would hazard that it wasn't something mild that was done to the girl.
QuoteUnderstandable, yes. Acceptable, no.
This was an "honor killing" as far as I can tell.
Care to defend it further?
grumbler, I do not think that it was okay that the father killed the son. However, I do understand what may have pushed him into it. I don't think it was an "honor killing", as you do. I think it was pure, blind rage at a heinous crime his son perpetrated. It is a horrible, disgusting thing what the boy did, and yes, to a degree, I believe that he deserved to die for it. Not in the fashion that it happened, but certainly I believe that it was horrible enough to warrant the death penalty. That Dad took it into his own hands... well, it's sad, but in my opinion, understandable.
Quote from: dps on December 01, 2009, 09:13:36 PM
Neil, are you suggesting that the 3-year old was able to give meaningful consent? :huh:
Not at all. I'm just suggesting that it was harmless.
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 09:18:50 PM
Not at all. I'm just suggesting that it was harmless.
Children that age can die from sexual intercourse with an adult due to internal hemorrhaging. Even if they survive, there is usually extensive physical damage. Their bodies are not meant to accommodate an adult penis. I know you're probably joking, but I felt it was important to point this out. That little girl, no matter how "aware" she may or may not be, is not going to come out of this unscathed.
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 08:20:30 PMVictimless.
I hadn't expected you to come out in favour of raping babies.
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2009, 08:23:56 AM
I dunno. The boy molested a three-year-old girl. I don't know how I'd react if I heard that one of my boys did that, but I'd probably be arrested, too. <_<
Nonsense I worked with a few boys who raped three year olds and their parents were never prosecuted for it.
Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2009, 10:03:40 PM
Quote from: merithyn on November 19, 2009, 08:23:56 AM
I dunno. The boy molested a three-year-old girl. I don't know how I'd react if I heard that one of my boys did that, but I'd probably be arrested, too. <_<
Nonsense I worked with a few boys who raped three year olds and their parents were never prosecuted for it.
What were you guys working on?
Quote from: Jacob on December 01, 2009, 09:52:02 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 08:20:30 PMVictimless.
I hadn't expected you to come out in favour of raping babies.
Not so much in favour of. Rather neutral, really.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 09:37:40 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 09:18:50 PM
Not at all. I'm just suggesting that it was harmless.
Children that age can die from sexual intercourse with an adult due to internal hemorrhaging. Even if they survive, there is usually extensive physical damage. Their bodies are not meant to accommodate an adult penis. I know you're probably joking, but I felt it was important to point this out. That little girl, no matter how "aware" she may or may not be, is not going to come out of this unscathed.
We're not necessarily talking about sexual intercourse here.
Quote from: DGuller on December 01, 2009, 10:08:06 PM
What were you guys working on?
Translating the New Testament into Klingon.
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 10:10:50 PM
We're not necessarily talking about sexual intercourse here.
I'm just going to ... let this go now. :mellow:
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 10:17:25 PM
Quote from: Neil on December 01, 2009, 10:10:50 PM
We're not necessarily talking about sexual intercourse here.
I'm just going to ... let this go now. :mellow:
If you like.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 09:16:39 PM
grumbler, I do not think that it was okay that the father killed the son. However, I do understand what may have pushed him into it. I don't think it was an "honor killing", as you do. I think it was pure, blind rage at a heinous crime his son perpetrated.
I don't think so. If it was a random stranger he'd probably let the police handle it. Killing his son had to have been heavily motivated by his own shame.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2009, 10:32:25 PM
I don't think so. If it was a random stranger he'd probably let the police handle it. Killing his son had to have been heavily motivated by his own shame.
Though I have no proof, I don't think the girl was a random stranger. I find it unlikely that the girl's parents would discuss what happened with the boy's parents before filing charges if it's a random stranger. Most likely, the girl is well-known to the family.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 10:17:25 PM
I'm just going to ... let this go now. :mellow:
It's Neil.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 10:34:34 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2009, 10:32:25 PM
I don't think so. If it was a random stranger he'd probably let the police handle it. Killing his son had to have been heavily motivated by his own shame.
Though I have no proof, I don't think the girl was a random stranger. I find it unlikely that the girl's parents would discuss what happened with the boy's parents before filing charges if it's a random stranger. Most likely, the girl is well-known to the family.
I meant if his son was the stranger and he found out about that.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 01, 2009, 10:39:51 PM
I meant if his son was the stranger and he found out about that.
Sounds like some bad soap opera.
Quote from: Habbaku on December 01, 2009, 10:36:27 PM
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 10:17:25 PM
I'm just going to ... let this go now. :mellow:
It's Neil.
Neil has a hard time getting worked up about all that sex hysteria.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 09:16:39 PM
Not blessing, understanding. There is a difference.
Argument by assertion is not an argument.
QuoteSorry, I wasn't clear. By saying the boy's sister, I meant possibly the man's daughter. I think the dad did it because he found the act foul, despicable, and heinous, much like I do. As you said, we don't know what the boy said to his father, but it was obviously something that set the father off into a murderous rage. Given the reaction, I would hazard that it wasn't something mild that was done to the girl.
I don't understand how you could excuse the father's "murderous rage" like this, as though it were acceptable. Honor killings are despicable no matter the provocation.
Quotegrumbler, I do not think that it was okay that the father killed the son. However, I do understand what may have pushed him into it
.
I am astonished. Bewildered. At a loss. I never thought a member of what I thought my community coud harbor such thoughts. :(
QuoteI don't think it was an "honor killing", as you do. I think it was pure, blind rage at a heinous crime his son perpetrated. It is a horrible, disgusting thing what the boy did, and yes, to a degree, I believe that he deserved to die for it. Not in the fashion that it happened, but certainly I believe that it was horrible enough to warrant the death penalty. That Dad took it into his own hands... well, it's sad, but in my opinion, understandable.
It does not matter. I thought I understood that the "burn them at the stake" mentality died with the witch trials, and I was wrong.
Thanks for being honest, even if the was costly to my image of "Americans."
No matter how you look at it, the delicious irony is that most likely, this dad's going to "avoid the shame" of his son's trial and go away for a long, long time to be completely surrounded by people far worse than his son. :)
I think all of the people here are being too hasty in denouncing the father as a cold-blooded murder. The man should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Quote from: DGuller on December 01, 2009, 11:58:07 PM
I think all of the people here are being too hasty in denouncing the father as a cold-blooded murder. The man should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Well, he is pleading insanity so I think it's safe to assume he did shoot the kid.
Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2009, 08:07:17 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 01, 2009, 07:41:30 PM
I daresay you don't know the nature of the "sexual contact" any more than the dad did.
The son's actions are pretty hard to stomach, but the dad's are even more over the line than the kid's (and so would yours be, if you followed dad's example). The son didn't kill anyone, and dad did.
The aunt testified that the boy told the father that he "humped" the girl, and somewhere in the article it mentioned actual intercourse. I'd say that qualifies as rape, and crosses this line of yours.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me; I simply said that it would be difficult for me to judge the father on this. What he did was awful, but I can at least understand why he did it. And again, we don't know the relationship of the girl to the family. She could well have been the 15-year-old boy's sister.
If the man who killed the boy had been the father of the girl - and not the boy - would it be more "acceptable"?
"Humped," to my mind, suggests
frottage more than sexual intercourse. Though of course I have no privileged knowledge of this case.
And as far as the righteousness of this killing, I can "understand" the urge to kill virtually anyone at anytime. Somebody cuts on line at 7-11: waste them. But the real issue is the legitimacy of the killing. Killing a home invader or someone in the act of raping your child may be more legitimate than not; elaborately and brutally executing a minor for a perceived crime is not legitimate in my eyes.
I don't think frottage is appropriate because they said the girl had signs of being molested.
Quote from: Jaron on December 02, 2009, 12:23:49 AM
I don't think frottage is appropriate because they said the girl had signs of being molested.
Well, "signs" is somewhat vague and so is "molestation," at least when it comes to vigilante-father capital cases. But I don't deny that a serious sexual assault may have occurred.
Quote from: Jaron on December 02, 2009, 12:23:49 AM
I don't think frottage is appropriate because they said the girl had signs of being molested.
Rape is forced penetration. Molestation is forced sexual contact, and does not have to involve penetration.
Child molestation, as at least sometimes defined, does not require any physical contact.
Quote from: ulmont on December 02, 2009, 12:49:41 AM
Child molestation, as at least sometimes defined, does not require any physical contact.
How do you mean? What kind of molestation doesn't require physical contact? Dirty talk?
Quote from: Jaron on December 02, 2009, 12:53:09 AM
How do you mean? What kind of molestation doesn't require physical contact? Dirty talk?
# sexual molestation – a term defining offenses in which an adult engages in non-penetrative activity with a minor for the purpose of sexual gratification; for example, exposing a minor to pornography or to the sexual acts of others
I think what Ulmont's talking about is how some codes, including Michigan's, include deliberate touching of the clothes over the genitals for a sexual purpose. From Michigan Code § 750.520a:
"(q) "Sexual contact" includes the intentional touching of the victim's or actor's intimate parts or the intentional touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the victim's or actor's intimate parts, if that intentional touching can reasonably be construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, done for a sexual purpose, or in a sexual manner for:
- (i) Revenge.
- (ii) To inflict humiliation.
- (iii) Out of anger."
Wouldn't that be physical contact ?
Quote from: Jaron on December 02, 2009, 01:13:09 AM
Wouldn't that be physical contact ?
Yeah, but maybe he thought I was talking strictly about bodily contact.
On a totally unrelated note, I love how MI's online repositories of statutes are the easiest to use I've yet encountered. :)
In a slightly related case, we've had an episode of massive brouhaha over here in the last few days.
A 3 y.o. girl was taken to hospital by her mother's boyfriend, and died due to her injuries. Suspecting child abuse, the doctors called the police and the guy was arrested. Right afterwards the media started quoting medical and judicial reports claiming that the girl had been physically abused and raped, and the guy was basically media-sentenced even before being questioned, with "This is the face and look of a child killer" headlines in serious press and everything. A day afterwards, when the autopsy is performed, it reveals that the girl's death was accidental and due to falling from an attraction in a playground, and that there was no abuse or rape whatsoever. The guy is sueing everybody and the dog, and apparently has a severe psychological trauma as well.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 02, 2009, 01:08:19 AM
I think what Ulmont's talking about is how some codes, including Michigan's, include deliberate touching of the clothes over the genitals for a sexual purpose.
No, more like what garbon had. Check out OCGA § 16-6-4(a):
Quote from: OCGA § 16-6-4(a§ 16-6-4. Child molestation; aggravated child molestation
(a) A person commits the offense of child molestation when such person:
(1) Does any immoral or indecent act to or in the presence of or with any child under the age of 16 years with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person; or
(2) By means of an electronic device, transmits images of a person engaging in, inducing, or otherwise participating in any immoral or indecent act to a child under the age of 16 years with the intent to arouse or satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the person.
So flashing a child or showing them pornography would qualify. For aggravated child molestation, 16-6-4(c), there has to be physical injury or sodomy, but the baseline offense does not require any touching at all.
Quote from: The Larch on December 02, 2009, 09:37:58 AM
In a slightly related case, we've had an episode of massive brouhaha over here in the last few days.
A 3 y.o. girl was taken to hospital by her mother's boyfriend, and died due to her injuries. Suspecting child abuse, the doctors called the police and the guy was arrested. Right afterwards the media started quoting medical and judicial reports claiming that the girl had been physically abused and raped, and the guy was basically media-sentenced even before being questioned, with "This is the face and look of a child killer" headlines in serious press and everything. A day afterwards, when the autopsy is performed, it reveals that the girl's death was accidental and due to falling from an attraction in a playground, and that there was no abuse or rape whatsoever. The guy is sueing everybody and the dog, and apparently has a severe psychological trauma as well.
Well, I hope he sues them into bankruptcy. I hate media feeding frenzy in such cases. We had a similar case a couple of years ago, with a tabloid printing a guy's face on the front page and calling him a child molester.
Quote from: The Larch on December 02, 2009, 09:37:58 AM
In a slightly related case, we've had an episode of massive brouhaha over here in the last few days.
A 3 y.o. girl was taken to hospital by her mother's boyfriend, and died due to her injuries. Suspecting child abuse, the doctors called the police and the guy was arrested. Right afterwards the media started quoting medical and judicial reports claiming that the girl had been physically abused and raped, and the guy was basically media-sentenced even before being questioned, with "This is the face and look of a child killer" headlines in serious press and everything. A day afterwards, when the autopsy is performed, it reveals that the girl's death was accidental and due to falling from an attraction in a playground, and that there was no abuse or rape whatsoever. The guy is sueing everybody and the dog, and apparently has a severe psychological trauma as well.
As well he should. Paranoia of this sort is disgusting. Hopefully, every media company in the world goes bankrupt, and journalists are locked in camps where they can be reeducated.
Quote from: Neil on December 02, 2009, 08:25:00 PM
As well he should. Paranoia of this sort is disgusting. Hopefully, every media company in the world goes bankrupt, and journalists are locked in camps where they can be reeducated.
Don't you have to be educated first to be reeducated?