# Father beats child molester to death



## matt397 (Jun 12, 2012)

Hell hath no fury like a father protecting his young. If it went down the way it's described I couldn't see myself reacting any differently. 

Grand Jury to get case of Texas man who beat alleged child molester to death


----------



## wlfers (Jun 12, 2012)

If someone is attacking a 4 year old girl, and your own daughter at that, you beat the motherfucker's head in until he's no threat- you don't check his pulse after each whack to make sure you haven't taken it too far.

I found the "execution" comment a bit interesting, how do we know that there was a point available to the father to stop? What if there was no in between, the last blow being the one that removed the threat but also cost the molester his life.

If these are the facts then I'm on the father's side 100%


----------



## Guitarman700 (Jun 12, 2012)

I'm largely a pacifist and I probably would've done the same, nor do I take much issue with this.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 12, 2012)

I'm torn. 
On one side the fact that there are few characters more reviled than the child-molester, on the other side I am not comfortable with people taking the law into their own hand and appoint themselves excecutioners. If we start allowing mob-rule it could set a dangerous precedent, you can't bring people back from the dead if you mobbed the wrong person to death.

I guess it is the same cunundrum as the death penalty.. Do we want to put lives into the hands of fallible people, especially a man as this guy..

Mind, I have no qualms about beating him up, I would probably have done so myself, but I don't think we should kill each other.


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 12, 2012)

Jakke said:


> I'm torn.
> On one side the fact that there are few characters more reviled than the child-molester, on the other side I am not comfortable with people taking the law into their own hand and appoint themselves excecutioners. If we start allowing mob-rule it could set a dangerous precedent, you can't bring people back from the dead if you mobbed the wrong person to death.
> 
> I guess it is the same cunundrum as the death penalty.. Do we want to put lives into the hands of fallible people, especially a man as this guy..
> ...



I doubt the father intended to kill the guy. People don't realize how easy it is to kill someone with a blow to the head. The father probably just reacted on an instinctual level to protect his daughter and hit the guy until he stopped being a threat.

That being said, were it me...I'd have intended to kill him. I don't care about punishment or justice, I care about protecting the safety of my family. When that safety is threatened, I fully intend to proceed with lethal force as that's the only sure way of removing the immediate threat. Luckily, defense of a third person with lethal force is justifiable in the US in all states (as far as I know, and I know it is in Texas for a fact) so this man probably won't go to jail.


----------



## broj15 (Jun 12, 2012)

This is an interesting case. I'm all for non violence, but if i was in the same situation I can't say I wouldn't have done the same. As far as the fathers guilt, well it hard to say. While I don't think it was right for him to kill another person I can only imagine the blind rage that must have over taken him upon seeing what he saw. Its possible that he may not have been aware of just how hard he was hitting the victim.


----------



## skeels (Jun 12, 2012)

Temporary sanity.


----------



## Blind Theory (Jun 12, 2012)

I find it entirely plausible that the father could have been so overcome with rage that he momentarily blacked out. I know that isn't something that has been suggested but I'm throwing it out there. I mean, just imagine, YOUR 4 year old daughter is being molested (or attempted to be molested) right in front of you by a man you supposedly know. Obviously there would be some trust built up as well since the dead man was allowed on the property to tend to the horses. It's a massive breach of trust and it just comes down to one thing: The dude tried to molest your daughter. If I was in that situation I guarantee I would not be able to control my actions due to anger. This father did what any father would do, I believe.


----------



## matt397 (Jun 12, 2012)

broj15 said:


> As far as the fathers guilt, well it hard to say. While I don't think it was right for him to kill another person I can only imagine the blind rage that must have over taken him upon seeing what he saw. Its possible that he may not have been aware of just how hard he was hitting the victim.



In a situation like that I think that part of the brain that dictates right from wrong and self control would turn off temporarily. If he beat him within an inch of his life then strung em up in a tree in his front yard then yeah I guess I could see on some level that that would be considered "wrong" (  ) but the guy saw what he saw and defended his young. I'd be quite disappointed if he ends up serving any kind of time for this.


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 12, 2012)

broj15 said:


> This is an interesting case. I'm all for non violence, but if i was in the same situation I can't day I wouldn't have done the same. As far ad the fathers guilt, well it hard to say. While I don't think it was right for him to kill another person I can only imagine the blind rage that must have over taken him upon seeing what he saw. Its possible that he may not have been aware of just how hard he was hitting the victim.



It take less than a single PSI (apparently only about .3-.5 PSI) to kill someone with a strike to the temple. That's ridiculously easy for anyone to do on accident and is the most likely cause of the assailant's demise based on the minimal information we have.

I agree there was likely a blind rage component, but stopping short of killing someone is not something that anyone but a trained fighter is really able to do.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jun 12, 2012)

How do they know theguy was really a child molester?


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 12, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> How do they know theguy was really a child molester?



The father walked in on the assailant in the act of violating his 4 year old daughter, so he was directly protecting her safety.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jun 12, 2012)

Yeah, I dont blame him but how do we know hes not lying? I think its important to note who the victim was


----------



## The Uncreator (Jun 12, 2012)

If what the father says is true, I believe the killing is "justified". He is protecting his family, his daughter, from quite possibly the worst thing imaginable. I don't have children but the thought of the situation makes me feel that no amount force is excessive force in something like that....

..If its true.


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 12, 2012)

Stealthdjentstic said:


> Yeah, I dont blame him but how do we know hes not lying? I think its important to note who the victim was



We don't know he wasn't lying, but that's not how the justice system works. Can we prove he wasn't lying? Probably not... but the girl was treated at a hospital, ergo she would have been examined and the doctor can verify that she was assaulted. Fluids and fibers will bear out that it was either the assailant (or in a case of terribly shitty coverup job on the part of the father) the father.

The justice system works on what can be proven, or at least what theory can be supported by available evidence that a jury must agree is the most likely scenario.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 12, 2012)

Probably didn't mean to kill dude, but if you fuck little kids you're kinda asking for *someone* to fuck you up.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 12, 2012)

Mordacain said:


> We don't know he wasn't lying, but that's not how the justice system works. Can we prove he wasn't lying? Probably not... but the girl was treated at a hospital, ergo she would have been examined and the doctor can verify that she was assaulted. Fluids and fibers will bear out that it was either the assailant (or in a case of terribly shitty coverup job on the part of the father) the father.
> 
> The justice system works on what can be proven, or at least what theory can be supported by available evidence that a jury must agree is the most likely scenario.



First thing I saw: "FoxNews.com"
Second thing I saw: "... allegedly caught..."



Hadn't previously considered that the guy might not be a pedo, but I'd like to think you're right and the doctors/investigators can be trusted.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 12, 2012)

I can tell you if I saw someone molesting ANY child I'd grab a crowbar and there'd be no stopping me. Child molestation is one of the most disgusting worst single person crimes in existence IMO. (In other words excluding acts of terrorism, etc.)

No one will ever touch my children or nieces/nephews or cousins and live to brag about it tomorrow. Is that too far maybe, but it is a horrid crime and molesters are repeat offenders 9/10.

Mind you for this particular case he got what he deserved if this was the truth and not blown out of proportion, but I still stand by my statement that if I had indisutable proof or even witnessed said act the above would happen.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jun 12, 2012)

How anyone can judge someone on how they act in that situation is beyond me. I'd go apeshit if I saw any child molested, let alone my own kid. I can't comprehend what it must be like to witness that, and protecting your child in such a situation is human nature.


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 12, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> First thing I saw: "FoxNews.com"
> Second thing I saw: "... allegedly caught..."
> 
> 
> ...



No worries, I didn't actually look at the link here as I saw it on reddit a couple of hours ago and it had a more detailed report.


----------



## Electric Wizard (Jun 12, 2012)

I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue that the father may not be completely innocent. Be it an accident or intentional, a human died at his hands and there is more information needed than what is presented for people to start picking sides.

I think it's awfully presumptive to go around saying that this guy "got what he deserved." The details from the autopsy as well as the examination of the daughter are not known.

tl/dr: what stealth said.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 12, 2012)

I think everyone would preface there hate for the dead guy on the assumption that it were true, but if it in fact wasn't then all hate would be retracted and redirected.


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 12, 2012)

Electric Wizard said:


> I'm going to play devil's advocate and argue that the father may not be completely innocent. Be it an accident or intentional, a human died at his hands and there is more information needed than what is presented for people to start picking sides.
> 
> I think it's awfully presumptive to go around saying that this guy "got what he deserved." The details from the autopsy as well as the examination of the daughter are not known.
> 
> tl/dr: what stealth said.



I don't think anyone is picking sides. Those who have stated that the assailant got he deserved have only done so with trepidation: ie if the facts line up with what information has been revealed to this point.

/Edit - Flint beeat me to it


----------



## morrowcosom (Jun 12, 2012)

It is pretty fucked up when civil rights groups interfere and attempt make this case seem more about if the dad intentionally beat the child molester to death rather than worrying about the child getting molested. 

The father is going to get off scott-free whether the jury believes he intentionally beat the molester to death or not, because they will be placing themselves in the father's shoes. Texas isn't exactly liberal hippy world. 

An overwhelming majority of the jury will love the fact that a child molester was killed.


----------



## thesnowdog (Jun 12, 2012)

brutalwizard said:


> I dont think i have the physical strength in any situation to be able to punch someone to death



I assure you that you do...


----------



## BornToLooze (Jun 12, 2012)

Honestly I think anybody that kills a child molester deserves a medal.


----------



## Electric Wizard (Jun 12, 2012)

flint757 said:


> Some stuff





Mordacain said:


> Some other stuff


Even if the guy is guilty of molesting this man's daughter, I still think that it is too presumptive to assume that lethal force was necessary to stop the assault. There's probably no way of knowing whether it was necessary, or if it was an accident. I just don't like this tacit approval of a human's death, even if that person is guilty of something heinous.


morrowcosom said:


> It is pretty fucked up when civil rights groups interfere and attempt make this case seem more about if the dad intentionally beat the child molester to death rather than worrying about the child getting molested.


I don't think it's fucked up at all. I think it is a legitimate question to wonder if the assailant required lethal force to be stopped. It isn't the place of the father to kill the man if it wasn't absolutely necessary to protect his daughter.


----------



## ROAR (Jun 12, 2012)

The taking of another's life is not right in any context. 
But fuck anyone who could ruin an innocent child's life.


----------



## matt397 (Jun 12, 2012)

Electric Wizard said:


> Even if the guy is guilty of molesting this man's daughter, I still think that it is too presumptive to assume that lethal force was necessary to stop the assault.



No, your right, he shouldn't have used lethal force. He should have crippled him an carved "I FUCK KIDS" into his forehead an then dragged him behind his car through town.


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 12, 2012)

Electric Wizard said:


> Even if the guy is guilty of molesting this man's daughter, I still think that it is too presumptive to assume that lethal force was necessary to stop the assault. There's probably no way of knowing whether it was necessary, or if it was an accident. I just don't like this tacit approval of a human's death, even if that person is guilty of something heinous.
> 
> I don't think it's fucked up at all. I think it is a legitimate question to wonder if the assailant required lethal force to be stopped. It isn't the place of the father to kill the man if it wasn't absolutely necessary to protect his daughter.



Apparently I must reiterate its ridiculously easy to kill someone with blows to the head. The whole notion of "lethal force" is ridiculous in this context. One solid hit to the temple or base of the skull is enough to kill someone. Most people are not aware of that fact and will continue to hit someone until they go down. An enraged father, protecting his child, will certainly not be thinking about the level of force he uses.

Regardless, most animals will kill predators that threaten their young (or attempt to). Humans are still animals and that's one of the base instincts that you just can't get around. Our laws reflect that fact - imminent danger can be met with lethal force because there is a high probability that when threatened people will do just that because its instinctual to do so.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 12, 2012)

I never said it was okay all I said was I would have done the same irrelevant to it being right or wrong.

Plus it isn't like it happened, he waited a week and then killed him. He caught him in the act and beat the shit out of him which accidentally or intentionally killed him. Things are not black and white for me I take things case by case, I do not condone vigilante justice most of the time and also think that sometimes there is a level of force that is okay and not. However, I do not feel this way about child molesters. They not only have done something gross and horrible, but have ruined this child's psyche for the rest of her life. Nothing but death is acceptable for such a crime IMO.

[EDIT]

Also, if this was happening to a child I think for a father that initially it is to free the child, but then it turns to rage and disgust. In other words him assaulting the guy had nothing to do with him trying to free the child and stop it from happening and instead was him doing what any parent would probably do.


----------



## ddtonfire (Jun 12, 2012)

One wonders how many more kids in the future this father may have protected through his actions.


----------



## Electric Wizard (Jun 12, 2012)

Flint and Mordacain - 
I think we're in agreement in many respects. I certainly can't say that I would have acted differently, and I realize that it isn't a stretch of the imagination that the father could have killed the assailant inadvertently and without undue force. My comments weren't necessarily directed just at you but to the comments in this thread in general (though I did quote you guys because you responded to me, not trying to put words in your mouths).

My main points have simply been
1)Objectively: We don't know what happened, and it's too early to pass judgement. The father may or may not be in the right, legally, even if his intentions were. Though I understand that some people voiced opinions on the matter with the proviso that the incident occurred as the article would suggest.

2)Subjectively: I just don't think it's right for anyone to be saying they're glad that this man died. Guilty or not, intentional or not by the father, I don't think it makes any difference. I personally don't think you can ever say that killing a person is a positive event. I find it silly to respond to inhumanity in kind. Even if the death was accidental, it's nothing to be happy about. Be happy that the daughter was protected, not that somebody died.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 12, 2012)

This case is going to a grand jury to decide, not guilt or innocence, but if he'll even be indicted. 

This case is in Texas.

This guy is going to walk, not even be arrested.

----

A friend of mine told the guy dating his sister that if he molested her kid (my friend's niece), my friend would kill him. The guy had already acted odd before.

He molested the daughter.

My friend killed him, efficiently and to the point.

He turned himself in.

My friend went to jail for one year, due to the premeditation.

He was treated like a king in prison. 

No one ever treated him badly when he 'fessed up on job applications to a felony conviction for murder of a child molester. It wasn't counted against him, as apparently every HR department had people who had kids and who were completely in agreement.

I haven't thought about him in years, but I've gotta say, I don't think this Texas guy is going to suffer socially for protecting his daughter.


----------



## pink freud (Jun 12, 2012)

Self Defense of a third party, he walks, and good for him.


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 12, 2012)

Electric Wizard said:


> 2)Subjectively: I just don't think it's right for anyone to be saying they're glad that this man died. Guilty or not, intentional or not by the father, I don't think it makes any difference. I personally don't think you can ever say that killing a person is a positive event. I find it silly to respond to inhumanity in kind. Even if the death was accidental, it's nothing to be happy about. Be happy that the daughter was protected, not that somebody died.



I can't say I agree. If the facts pan out as we've heard then I'm very glad that the assailant is dead. It keeps him from A) escalating his attack against the girl in question B) assaulting other children (possibly escalating to murder as is not uncommon with sexual predators) and C) reproducing. 

I don't ascribe to the notion that every human life lost is a tragedy. Those that bring ruin onto others do not deserve life and their death removes their capacity to continue to hurt others. Overall, the lot of everyone left alive improves. The world is crowded enough as is for me to weep over the loss of a single (or any other) pedophile.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 12, 2012)

Electric Wizard said:


> 2)Subjectively: I just don't think it's right for anyone to be saying they're glad that this man died. Guilty or not, intentional or not by the father, I don't think it makes any difference. I personally don't think you can ever say that killing a person is a positive event. I find it silly to respond to inhumanity in kind. Even if the death was accidental, it's nothing to be happy about. Be happy that the daughter was protected, not that somebody died.



Well even from a utilitarian theory if he is a legitimate child molester I assure you more positive comes of his death than him living. In other words he would cause more harm to others emotionally and physically that in my opinion is worse than his singular death which means if it was a tally his death may not cause any good, but if he in fact is a repeat or future child molester his death leads to less bad. In utilitarian terms that is in fact a good thing. I'm only using said theory because it is the only morality theory that bothers tallying things and helps make my point. I respect your view though because you seem to have a high value for life, but there are plenty of people who if were dead this world would be a better place and would have less suffering so I just don't agree form my own perspective that ALL life should be valued equally.

[EDIT]
Mordacain ninja'd me


----------



## broj15 (Jun 12, 2012)

Another point I forgot to mention: If the father wouldn't have killed the guy then he probably wouldv'e been gutted once he got to prison, especially in Texas. The way I see it (providing the guy actually was a child molester, since, as far as I know that the evidence the doctors found is still un known) he actually got off easy. The father killed him relatively quickly. If he would've went to prison he would have to endure intimidation, rape, and more than likely get shanked/ killed in the yard long before his sentence was served.


----------



## Electric Wizard (Jun 12, 2012)

lol, you guys keep ninja-posting each other, it's like you're psychic.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that every death is a tragedy, certainly not. I just don't think that anyone has the right to judge whether another person deserves to die. 

I disagree that the death makes anything better in this case. Stopping the man from doing any further harm to the daughter, making sure he never harms anyone in the future, making sure he is punished, etc are exactly what needs (or needed, I guess) to be done. The world is a better place because he won't molest anyone now, being dead isn't a necessary condition for that. Death ensures that he can't, but you can't just assume that it would've happened again, that's some Minority Report thoughcrime shit.


----------



## The Reverend (Jun 12, 2012)

Have any of you guys been to Gonzales County? It's about as stereotypical, small-town Texas as you can get. Even if this guy goes to court, he's walking. 

As for how I feel, like most others here, if the guy really was molesting a little girl, the world is quite literally a better place without him. I'm also interested in hearing more details about what happened. I strongly doubt that the rancher just misunderstood what was happening, but it'd set my conscience at ease just to know.


----------



## flint757 (Jun 13, 2012)

Well molesters if they make it through prison don't necessarily serve for a long enough time to keep others safe and most criminals don't get proper rehabilitation especially if you're mentally disturbed enough to think it is okay to do such a thing.

Penalties for Child Molesters | eHow.com

"A study conducted in New York concluded that the average person convicted of child molestation serves four months in jail and five years on probation. The average sentence for child molestation in Georgia is six years. In Rhode Island, one study conducted by Ross Cheit, a professor of public policy, concluded that between 1985 and 1993, 70 percent of individuals found guilty of child molestation served no prison time at all. Florida, on the other hand, has one of the most severe penalties, imposing a mandatory 25-year prison term for sex offenders. These studies demonstrate that the penalties for child molestation vary greatly from state to state."


----------



## Vinchester (Jun 13, 2012)

I'm all for criminals getting what's coming to them, but it's also possible that the father is paranoid and would interpret any male within 5 feet of his daughter as a molester. 

Nevertheless that's one more incentive to stay the hell away from someone else's kid especially if you are a stranger and haven't knock the door first.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 13, 2012)

For the consideration of those who might be arguing, in a philosophical way, that members of society shouldn't be glad of the death of a child molester:

Most parents, and most members of society, have been shaped by millions of years of evolution to protect human offspring. If a person proves to be a threat, the decision to act isn't something which has to be thought out... and most people, especially those who love children in a normal way, find that protection to be totally acceptable.

You can look at the likely results of the grand jury as proof of that.

You can also look prison hierarchies as more proof of this principle in action. Even among the lowest dregs of our societies, offenders against children are marked for death.

I understand the temptation to ignore biology and preservation of the species as valid points of view in this, but the reason you're meeting resistance on this is because you are attempting to argue for saving those who show themselves to be predators on the next generation. 

Philosophy won't move any majority of any normal society to not be glad that a predator is dead. 

Even my vegan friends (and I have a lot, strangely enough) who have kids have no problem with the idea of killing a child molester should one attempt to touch their children, and they're as liberal as they come. When I mentioned this case to them, every one of them was glad it happened in Texas, and that the dad will likely walk. 

----

Out of curiosity... does anyone who is arguing on that side have any children of their own, and live with and support them? I suspect not, but it would be interesting to be proven wrong.


----------



## Aftermath1 (Jun 13, 2012)

Good riddance.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 13, 2012)

thesnowdog said:


> I assure you that you do...



Truth. 

We supposedly only use 10% of our potential under normal conditions. That means you're a BEAST inside and apparently it takes a child molester to unleash it.

If nothing else, BrutalWizard, that statement was quite ironic considering your monicker (I know it probably has more to do with music than physical brutality ).

@Explorer - I agree. I was always of the mindset that societies reserve the right to "get rid of you" (be it exile, death sentence, etc) if you go against the grain of said society to a certain extent. And some "vigilante" activity is perfectly fine in my opinion if you're doing something to protect yourself or someone else (family or not) so long as you don't make a habit of going out and righting random wrongs like a pseudo-Batman or something.


----------



## Rustee (Jun 13, 2012)

Hopefully common sense prevails. I know that taking a life is unlawful, no matter what the circumstances are, but surely they need to exercise some sort of compassion here, his daughter was being abused for gods sake. If I had walked in on that, I would have done exactly the same thing and wouldn't have given the consequences a second thought. Anyone who abuses children does not deserve the right to a life in my opinion, I know the human rights brigade won't agree, but the guy got what he deserved.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jun 13, 2012)

Rustee said:


> Hopefully common sense prevails. I know that taking a life is unlawful, no matter what the circumstances are, but surely they need to exercise some sort of compassion here, his daughter was being abused for gods sake. If I had walked in on that, I would have done exactly the same thing and wouldn't have given the consequences a second thought. Anyone who abuses children does not deserve the right to a life in my opinion, I know the human rights brigade won't agree, but the guy got what he deserved.



Moreover, what would they have done had he been allowed to molest the child then was arrested and convicted? 

"Do as I say, not as I do!"


----------



## VBCheeseGrater (Jun 13, 2012)

Good,. No way someone can be asked to "take it easy" in this situation. Worst case scenario he'll plead insanity and be right about it.


----------



## Mordacain (Jun 13, 2012)

Rustee said:


> Hopefully common sense prevails. *I know that taking a life is unlawful, no matter what the circumstances are*, but surely they need to exercise some sort of compassion here, his daughter was being abused for gods sake. If I had walked in on that, I would have done exactly the same thing and wouldn't have given the consequences a second thought. Anyone who abuses children does not deserve the right to a life in my opinion, I know the human rights brigade won't agree, but the guy got what he deserved.



Rather than truncate your quote I just made bold what I wanted to respond to.

Just to clarify points of US law, its is not against the law to take another life. We have laws dictating how and when its legal to take another life, be it animal or human.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jun 17, 2012)

People tend to forget that pedophiles cannot help but be pedophiles. The molester was practically guaranteed to go after another kid. I'm all for having the law take care of things, but I gotta say....

If I saw somebody doing something like this to one of my nieces or nephews, I would kill them right where they stood. Death is the only positive outcome for people like that. Do you realize that if you send them to prison for it, they would be beaten or shanked to death anyways? Killing them then and there would probably make things easier for them tbvh.
That said, I do doubt their personal health and safety would be very high in my list of priorities. I'm super defensive of kids (having been a victim of physical and sexual abuse myself), and I would just lose my goddamn mind if I walked in on something like that. Rationality would go right out the window and the molester would probably be beaten to bloody, quivering mess of visceral goo...


----------



## Jakke (Jun 17, 2012)

^I agree, and if someone is a pedophile, they are not automatically a child molester. A pedophile cannot help being a pedophile, much like someone who is gay or straight had no say in the matter.
It's kind of like saying that all heterosexual men are rapists. Not condoning any acts, but I'm just putting it out there.


----------



## matt397 (Jun 17, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> People tend to forget that pedophiles cannot help but be pedophiles. The molester was practically guaranteed to go after another kid.



Yeah I don't know about that. I mean I've heard people say this plenty of times before but I've never agreed with that statement that they can't help themselves. I just don't see there condition or addiction any different then any other addiction. I'm a narcotics addict, in the past I've abused drugs heavily and have now been sober for 6 years now. Why is it that it's so commonly accepted that pedophilia is a disease and that they can't help it ?
I've never heard anyone say " I know he's a murder but he can't help it, he's just really addicted to killing people "
I think the sooner people start seeing that these sick fucks are in fact responsible for there actions the more harsher the sentencing will become. 
What baffles me is that, ok, you (not you specifically but society) say that it is a disease and that the urge to fuck kids will never leave them. Alright, believe that if you will but then why are we sentencing these people to short stints in prison, quite often for obvious reasons, in segregated populations ? Personally speaking I would have them serve a life sentence for every offence. In general population.


----------



## matt397 (Jun 17, 2012)

Jakke said:


> A pedophile cannot help being a pedophile, much like someone who is gay or straight had no say in the matter.
> It's kind of like saying that all heterosexual men are rapists. Not condoning any acts, but I'm just putting it out there.



Bikes are like Oranges amirite ?


----------



## Jakke (Jun 17, 2012)

matt397 said:


> Bikes are like Oranges amirite ?



Pedophilia is a sexual orientation. Even though it is reviled by most people, it does not change the facts. Based on your strange logic in the earlier posts one could equally say that gay men are addicted to penises as you say pedophiles are addicted to children.

A pedophile doesn't *have* to molest children to be a pedophile, if they molest children they are child molesters. A pedophile is a person who are attracted to childish features, it is a sexual orientation. Sure, I would have to assume that most child molesters are pedophiles, but that does not make all pedophiles child molesters.

Pedophiles who recognize that there is a risk that their orientation hurts innocents has for example often sterilized themselves (well, healthcare professionals has done it for them), which has freed them from their sexual attraction to children.


TL;DR I find it repulsive to single out people based on the misfortune at their conception. I thought we had grown as a society. Don't get me wrong, throw a fucking child molestor from a waterfall into a pit of spikes for all I care, but the people I am talking about have done nothing more wrong than you and I. Going after pedophiles who are not molesters are enforcing thought crimes, and that has no place in civilized society, we are talking about parametres that they themselves has not done anything to influence.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jun 17, 2012)

I disagree the pedophilia is a sexual orientation, and so far the DSM IV (and looks like when V comes out here soon, that won't be changed) both back me on this one. It is a form of sexual deviancy, but sadly one for which there is no cure. (again, this is according to the DSM IV)

Pedophiles remain pedophiles for life. Some act, others don't. Sadly most do, and those are the ones that really need to just be shot and be done with it. It's like a rabid animal; put it down and out of it's misery before someone gets hurt....


----------



## Jakke (Jun 17, 2012)

ghstofperdition said:


> I disagree the pedophilia is a sexual orientation, and so far the DSM IV (and looks like when V comes out here soon, that won't be changed) both back me on this one. It is a form of sexual deviancy, but sadly one for which there is no cure. (again, this is according to the DSM IV)
> 
> Pedophiles remain pedophiles for life. Some act, others don't. Sadly most do, and those are the ones that really need to just be shot and be done with it. It's like a rabid animal; put it down and out of it's misery before someone gets hurt....



May I remind you that the DSM also regarded homosexuals as sexual deviants? 
May I also remind you that the American Psychological Association first only a couple of years ago decided that you cannot "cure" homosexuality?
We are protective of children, and with every right to do so, but these are often innocent people. Pedophilia is not a form of sociopathy (a disorder that makes one a criminal by default), they have not had a choice in the matter. Sure if someone assaults a child, they have made a choice and broken the law, persecute away, but you cannot associate all with what the real deviants do.

I would also like to see some statistics that you base your statement that "most pedophiles molest children". If it is only a statistic that you have made up, ponder this fact: A lot of bigotry against LGBT-people in the west is justified by the made-up fact that most of them molest children. 
I am also uncomfortable with your analogy of rabid animals, your sexual orientation is not universally accepted, and where it up to some people, I can promise you that they would want to "put you out of your misery". 
Most of all, what makes you the arbiter of what is acceptable to think and feel? As long as they don't act on their orientation no one is harmed, right?

I am in an uncomfortable position to defend a group of people that cannot express their sexuality in a legal way and that I don't belong in myself. But I believe in being fair, and singeling out and persecuting people for thought-crimes are not something I want to stand behind. Many countries do the same with LGBT-people, Iran hang homosexual people for no other crime than being born. The sentiments I have seen here are often roughly the same, apparently it would be okay to kill and/or percecute innocent people for what they are born as.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jun 17, 2012)

If a pedophile doesn't act on it, then what their thoughts are, are none of my concern. But if they start attacking kids, that's when I'd say it would be time to put them down.

You make some fair points, and science is still coming a long way, but I still refuse to accept pedophilia as a sexual orientation. I suppose I'm biased since I was molested by my dad as a kid, and therefore I have a bit of an axe to grind.

So far what I'm looking up seems to prove at least some of what you are saying, but again, it's a paraphilia, not an orientation:
Child Molestation Research & Prevention Institute


----------



## Jakke (Jun 17, 2012)

Yes, I think we agree then, and I am sorry for your experience, no one should have to go through that. I also appreciate that you are prepared to meet me at my level, despite your terrible childhood experience. I have previously debated with survivors of sexual abuse (about the molesting of children in the Quran for example), and it is rarely is a productive dialogue, so thanks.
A child molester are among the lowest creeps we have in our society, and no quarter shall be spared them, these are people who have made thought into action, and therefore have made a choice.

I believe though that the classification is one of morals, a paraphilia is either connected to an inanimate object, or to something we consider "wrong" as a society, for example voyerism or pedophilia. 
There are however no real science at work when it comes to these classifications, and is more of a moralising standpoint from our society, a collective outrage against molestation of children. But when we use a crime to classify a mental condition that does not guarantee that said crime gets committed, people fall between chairs.

I would advocate that we stop being afraid of this condition, and give these people support, so they don't have to stew in sexual frustration until they do something terrible. What that support would entail is tricky because this sort of sexual expression is illegal, but I could easily see support-groups for example. Of course the option of sterilization should be available for those who struggle very hard and desire it, it has worked very well so far.


----------



## Edika (Jun 17, 2012)

Since we have the word of the father on this, what if he was the one molesting his daughter the other guy caught him and the dad killed him to cover it up? Yeah I know to much police TV series!

Now if it is as the dad actually says it happened I don't think I could restrain my self from hitting this guy until I was sure he was dead and maybe keep punching him some more. I am a pacifist, I am liberal but child molestation is something I can't even tolerate to think about. I don't know if being a pedophile is something like a sexual deviancy or something they can't control but if it is so and they have even a shred of decency or ethics they should ask for help and be sterilized. It seems that the judicial in most countries isn't taking care of the problem as it should and sometimes these people escape because witnesses won't come forth due to shame or due to manipulation of evidence by their defense lawyers.

If they act upon these urges they stop being human beings in my eyes and are just rabid animals to be put down.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jun 17, 2012)

i remember reading a news source other than what was posted in the OP that there were multiple witnesses to this incident. The molester was part of a group workers on this guys (father) property and someone (other than father) corroborated that they heard a scream from the barn (where said act was taking place), and that afterward the little girl was rushed to the ER. This last part is important to me, mainly because the action indicates that harm was committed and that it is not simply one man's word over another. 

I know right now there is currently a debate going on above my post about pedophilia, and those who are pedophiles and the statistics of there action ect. however before we move too far off the mark here, lets remember one thing; this was rape. let's forget about the victim being a child and look at the actions allegedly committed here, the victim is subdued and forced to engage in non-consensual sex. these actions off the bat are wrong and immoral, now add to this to the already sick fact that a child (especially a 4 year old) has a lot less of a chance of being able to defend themselves against aggressors. at least an 80 pound woman (im using a female as an example as the victim was a girl) has a good chance off fighting off someone more than twice her size. 

i can't even begin to imagine the psychological issues (in addition to PTSD) that this little girl will probably have as a result. 

while this all may seem a little obvious, i find absurd that a handful of people seem to miss this fact and are debating whether or not lethal force was really necessary and the rights of sexual predators. 

and to the one person (i forget who, but i really dont care because the comment was laughable at best) who asserted they found it odd that he didn't first try to protect his child before he killed someone... have you ever heard of a parent in the animal kingdom first checking on its offspring before attempting to defend it? i'll inform everyone that 100% of the time the answer is no, fucking never, the mother (i say mother because most fathers in the animal world dont stick around) attacks the shit out off the aggressor and then proceeds to look after its young. Why? because removal of the threat is the best way to protect the young. 
same principle here (we are animals and have primal nature after all); father enters the barn, receives the biggest shot of adrenaline of his life, goes probably into a temporary blind rage (seeing red anyone?) grabs the offender and hits him multiple times. i say multiple because you aren't the most precise creature when you have insane levels of adrenaline in your system, but because of the added force your body is generating that you normally don't need (added to the fact that the father was probably in fit condition), i don't see the alleged molester lasting very long... especially if he didn't have time to defend himself. 

as stated earlier in the thread, self defense of a third party, he walks and rightly so.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 17, 2012)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> I know right now there is currently a debate going on above my post about pedophilia, and those who are pedophiles and the statistics of there action ect. however before we move too far off the mark here, *lets remember one thing; this was rape*. let's forget about the victim being a child and look at the actions allegedly committed here, the victim is subdued and forced to engage in non-consensual sex. these actions off the bat are wrong and immoral, now add to this to the already sick fact that a child (especially a 4 year old) has a lot less of a chance of being able to defend themselves against aggressors. at least an 80 pound woman (im using a female as an example as the victim was a girl) has a good chance off fighting off someone more than twice her size.



I do not think this is in dispute here.


----------



## texshred777 (Jun 17, 2012)

Rustee said:


> I know that taking a life is unlawful, no matter what the circumstances are, .


 
Not true. Lethal force is allowed in several circumstances(here in the US, circumstances varying state by state.)


----------



## texshred777 (Jun 17, 2012)

Let's also not forget, these kinds of acts don't stop with the first victim. The victim usually gets into drugs or hypersexual lifestyles-has kids and puts their kids around men who are also predators. Cycle continues. 

How many people and generations could have been destroyed by that one act-and if it is true-how many have already been destroyed? These types of people have sociopathic and/or psychiatric issues. It's never a one time thing.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 17, 2012)

I appreciate some wanting us to take care to not wrongfully brand pedophiles as aberrant.

To make it more acceptable to those who want us to not wrongfully stereotype those who are sexually attracted to children, let me make two observations:

A child cannot give informed consent, so no adult who engages in such activities with children can do so lawfully in the average country in which one finds an SS.org member. 

Combined with that, keep in mind that *it is extremely unlikely that a pedophile will be known to be a pedophile to the rest of the community unless outed by his or her own actions i.e. an attack on a child.*

There. *Hopefully I've quelled any fears that a pedophile will be strung up before they act out by raping an innocent child. I'm glad I could ease anyone's worries about a non-offending pedophile being attacked by just keeping those things in their mind, as opposed to acting out.*


----------



## BlindingLight7 (Jun 17, 2012)

The molester deserved to die.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 17, 2012)

Explorer said:


> A child cannot give informed consent, so no adult who engages in such activities with children can do so lawfully in the average country in which one finds an SS.org member.



This has never been in question, a child molester is a criminal.



Explorer said:


> Combined with that, keep in mind that *it is extremely unlikely that a pedophile will be known to be a pedophile to the rest of the community unless outed by his or her own actions i.e. an attack on a child.*



My points (which are the only ones I can comment on) were mainly regarding to the stigma, and how that stigma robs non-offenders of any sort of support structure. Sexual frustration can lead to things like these (see the catholic clergy), and as long people will not recognize people, who have no intention to commit criminal acts, as humans, that stigma, and therefore the frustration, will stay.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 17, 2012)

I'm sure I misunderstood, but this is what I took away from that:

Due to sexual frustration (inability to have sex with a child), pedophiles will act out and attack children. 

Pedophiles have an undeserved stigma. 

----

I'm clearly not following. One only gets marked as a potential predator if one starts moving in that direction. If a pedophile doesn't out himself or herself, then where is the stigma? 

Dude, when you make the case that pedophiles will eventually act out and attack innocent children, then you make the case that sexual orientation inevitably leads to someone sexually assaulting the target of their sexuality. I'm going to argue against the truth of that, pointing out all those who might not get any but don't go out and rape.

And that means that your definition of sexual orientation doesn't fit the definition used by the rest of society. *You're making the case that "rapist" is a sexual orientation.*


----------



## Jakke (Jun 17, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I'm sure I misunderstood, but this is what I took away from that:
> 
> Due to sexual frustration (inability to have sex with a child), pedophiles will act out and attack children.
> 
> ...



Yes, I think you misunderstood me (I could have been unclear as well). I had no "will" in my argumentation, saying that a pedophile "will" rape a child is the same as saying I (or any other straight Joe off the street) "will" rape a woman.

My case is since a pedophile cannot act out their sexual orientation (towards children) since it is illegal, I would want more support for them. To help them ease of the pressure so to say. This can easiest be accomplished by taking away the notion that a pedophile is a child-molester by default, as that creates a stigma. 
This notion can be battled by recognizing that pedophiles had no more saying in the matter about being pedophiles than someone gay or straight choose to be gay or straight. Thus bringing attention to that we are stigmatizing people who have done nothing to deserve that stigma other than being born and going through puberty.

However I disagree with one of your points. One does not only get marked as a potential predator if one starts moving in that direction. Have you ever worked in day-care as a man? I can tell you, it's bad, really bad. 
One basically gets profiled when one first steps inside the door, parents are really the worst. They work by the notion that if one is a man and take care of children (I did it as an extra job during the summer), you most probably are a pedophile. If a man such as me who have never shown the slightest interest in children gets suspected, how can you claim that someone who is innocent have nothing to fear?


----------



## metalstrike (Jun 17, 2012)

If the facts of this story are true, then I'm glad this case turned out this way with the piece of garbage molester taking a dirt nap. Whenever I hear of a child being molested/murdered (or any innocent person for that matter), it breaks my heart and makes me angry. I hate seeing cut and dry cases dragged out for months/years while the offender gets institutionalized/short prison time.

Some people deserve to die.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 18, 2012)

I just got together with some friends, and this topic came up. Here's an opinion from the Peanut Gallery:

"If someone wants to have sex without the object of one's sexual desire being able to give informed consent, that's a fetish, not an orientation. Anyone saying my being gay and attracted to consenting adults, and equating that to a fetish for animals or leather boots or little kids, is way off-base. What kind of people do you hang out with online, anyway?"

*laugh*

In spite of my being chastised for apparently being on borderline websites, that definitely seems to be a bright dividing line - the consent issue. As soon as a child, or a goat, or a horse, is brought into the picture, I'd say that one is definitely talking about a sexual fetish, being fixated on an object (and yes, that means the child is an object in this viewpoint) for sexual gratification.


----------



## tacotiklah (Jun 18, 2012)

There you go, Explorer made the point I was trying to say, but in an intelligent way. I have failed the interwebz because it took someone else to make my own point.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 18, 2012)

A fair point, and I see it's merits. 
However, the consensus is that a fetish is a product of the environment or upbringing, e.g. "imprinting", while pedophilia to a great degree seems to be genetic (there are certain traits that are more associated than other with pedophiles, a pedophile also has a different brain structure than someone who is attracted to adults of the corresponding sex). 
Pedophilia is considered a paraphilia because the classification itself is a strong demonstration from us as a society that we do not want our children (who are not completely developed yet and therefore are less likely to make an informed decision) to engage in sexual activites with adults. Not to mention that the biological imperative is that children are off-bounds.

If I see a very attractive woman when I am out walking, possibly my thought is "I would very much like to tap that". There is no consent involved for me to think that, just sexual interest. Is my interest in women a fetish then? I think your friend's reasoning is flawed.

"Borderline website"


----------



## bob123 (Jun 18, 2012)

*I'd have kept him alive a while....


Im not sure what you guys are defending pedophiles for..... Not an attraction to "young features", a pedophile is sexually attracted to "children". Theres no "um's" "maybe's" or "yeah's" about this. They are diseased. This is not a sexual orientation. This is a defamation of mind and character, and needs to be treated the same as dementia, pyschopaths, and sociopaths. 

Heres the ACTUAL definition of pedophilia :

"*As a medical diagnosis, *pedophilia*, or *paedophilia*, is defined as a psychiatric disorder in adults or late adolescents (persons age 16 or older) typically characterized by a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children (generally age 13 years or younger, though onset of puberty may vary). The prepubescent child must be at least five years younger than the adolescent before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia."



As you can see, the definition is quite different then some innocent thing you make it out to be.

*The CORRECT term you people want is phebophilia. This is fine, as its merely a preference. DO NOT confuse it with pedophilia. *


----------



## Jakke (Jun 18, 2012)

Bob, I am not going to insult you back, because that is not what I do. I would advice you to think instead of swiping something of wikipedia though. Is there anything in this condition that objectively makes it a disorder? Is a pedophile "bad" by virtue of their birth? If you want an honest discourse, drop your bias and condemning attitude.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 18, 2012)

OT, this lack of absolutes is why I absolutely hate social sciences!


----------



## bob123 (Jun 18, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Bob, I am not going to insult you back, because that is not what I do. I would advice you to think instead of swiping something of wikipedia though. Is there anything in this condition that objectively makes it a disorder? Is a pedophile "bad" by virtue of their birth? If you want an honest discourse, drop your bias and condemning attitude.



Yes. It is bad that a grown adult would want to sexual predate on children. 

They are diseased. Its like you want me to "Accept them as normal". They are sick sick people. If they have the self control to not act on their urges thats better then the alternative. 

Its like a sociopath that never acts out. He WANTS to cut your face off and eat it, but he wont. He can't help it. So lets just accept him as normal??? RIGHT?

Do you realize what you are saying/talking about? This goes beyond a "life style choice". This is not "oh well they can't help it, so we must accept it". This is depravity on its lowest form. 


The world isn't rainbows and butterflies. People have mental illnesses, and this is one of them. They need help, but if they act before they get it, they deserve death imo. 

edit: I didnt mean to "call you out" earlier, I changed my original post to give a generic speech. And YES, Im biased against people that have desires to MOLEST/RAPE young children. Guess Im a horrible person?


edit 2: I was quite serious about the cutting your face off and eating it part. 
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/0...off-wife-lips-and-eats-them/?intcmp=obnetwork


----------



## DjentDjentlalala (Jun 18, 2012)

witnessing your child being molested is a good excuse to beat the f°cker.death may be too much,but he should have thought before acting.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 18, 2012)

Just equating a pedophile to a sexual predator is biased, one is a product of nature, the other the choice to act on an instinct.

I think you are confusing someone who is pedophilic with a criminal, if someone molests a child they are criminals, and should be prosecuted as such. However, there is a difference between sexual attraction and the desire to rape, rape is an expression of power that only a small section of all people needs to exibit. I am attracted to women, yet I have no desire to rape them, a pedophile does not have to have a desire to rape children.

Okay, who are you to call people who often have done nothing to no one diseased? 

A comparison to sociopaths is flawed, a sociopath is someone who has a pathological disrespect for authorities, they are most often chronical criminals, so to say at least (and not the average homocidal whackjob). They have extremely hard to follow laws, no matter how great the support is from the surroundings.

By what moral standard do you judge them as "depraved" or "sick sick people"? Morals usually deal with actions, and if they do not act (we do not know the percentage of pedophiles in any population because of the stigma attached, but most psychologists believe it to be far greater than most people imagine), are they really morally different than you and I? The only moral that I can find that deals with thoughts is the religious morality, and that has it's own innate problems.
If you persist in branding thought-crimes as "immoral", can you really call out homophobes and other bigots for their bigottry?


No problem man, I have gotten worse things slung at me. This is an infected topic with a lot of emotion attached.


----------



## wespaul (Jun 18, 2012)

I'm a single father, and I've given this topic a lot of thought (not just since the story broke, but since I got custody). Knowing who I am, and how I react to things, I can't say I would act differently than the father in question here. In fact, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to stop beating the guy until well-after he is dead. While others are cheering for this action (I admit, the story does put a smile on my face), I've often wondered if I had done the same in a similar situation, how would that further affect my child? Being molested in a tragic thing, for sure, but if anything happens to the parent, the child now has to deal with having a missing father, for whatever period of time, if they go to prison. 

Having the father kill somebody and be sent to prison for it is just another extremely difficult thing the child has to deal with on top of it all. That's probably what hurts the most, thinking about this situation. After a traumatic experience, such as being molested, a child is sure to need tons of love, affection, attention, and nurturing, and a parent being behind bars won't make what happened any better.

That's why I hope, if I'm ever faced with a similar situation, that I'm able to be hold myself together, for the sake of my child. I really hope the father does no time over this.


----------



## TankJon666 (Jun 18, 2012)

As long as the guy was actually molesting or about to molest his child then he deserved everything he got.

This bit gets me.

James Harrington, director of the Texas Civil Rights Project, an Austin-based nonprofit group, questioned the fathers decision to summarily execute the alleged molester without due process.
But you cannot summarily execute him, even though I can understand the anger he would have.

What the fuck? I'm pretty sure this guy has never found his daughter getting molested otherwise he wouldn't be saying this at all. How dare he say he can understand the fathers level of anger but then say he shouldn't have done what he did.

Obviously though, on the flip side if he was killed for no reason then the guys a murderer.


----------



## ddtonfire (Jun 18, 2012)

DjentDjentlalala said:


> but he should have thought before acting.



The father or the rapist?


----------



## Jakke (Jun 18, 2012)

ddtonfire said:


> The father or the rapist?



I think the situation would have been most ideal if the rapist had thought long and hard about it.


----------



## GuitaristOfHell (Jun 18, 2012)

I would of beat that fucker dead too. Now will he be indited? Probably not, since most fathers would do the same and there is no denying that. If anything maybe involuntary man slaughter.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 18, 2012)

Jakke, the only reason someone would get caught or outed to the general public, or to the police, is because they acted out.

Psychiatrists would only report someone seeking treatment if someone were in danger... which doesn't cover those you keep claiming are the innocent victims of their "orientation." 

I'm calling BS on you continually talking about people being unable to seek treatment. You yourself talked about people seeking chemical castration for this (indicative of them being unable to control themselves in my opinion, which undermines another of your points).

If your point is that a particular individual will be reported to the authorities because it is likely they are a danger to others, and you want the community to just accept that danger... bullshit on that. *NO ONE* would be okay with rules which allow a person to report plans to hurt someone else with impunity, whether it be a predator, a husband who tells his shrink he has rope, a shovel and quicklime for dealing with his estranged wife, whatever.

----

*I'm going to return to my earlier point:*

*Those who keep wanting more tolerance of known pedophiles need to understand that they are known because they couldn't keep Johnny in the pulpit, but wanted him to preach in public. *

*No normal human being is okay with someone like this, someone who has outed themselves, in their community. The biological imperative is to kill that person. To argue against biology just won't work in these cases, and there isn't any sort of debate about it. *

(Also, I'm going to admit that, the same way all normal people are wary, and react in these situations, I'm feeling uncomfortable with how much you need the rest of us to be understanding towards these predators. You're not going to change any hearts on this issue, so I beg you, let's just agree to disagree on this issue, because you're coming across in a way which is making my antenna stand up.)


----------



## Explorer (Jun 18, 2012)

Regarding any parent going to jail over something like this, it's not likely. Getting a grand jury to indict on something like this is a hard sell, getting a jury to convict on something like this is nearly impossible, and no state governor in his or her right mind would offend all the parents in the constituency by not either commuting a sentence, or pardoning outright a parent who killed a predator in the heat of the moment.

Biological imperative. Protecting a child. No one in their right mind would argue against it.


----------



## matt397 (Jun 18, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Stuff.



I had to step away from this discussion yesterday because of how irate I had become. Listening to people like you try to convince others that pedophiles are people who are victims of there own genetics makes me sick to my stomach. Your persistence on this matter raises red flags for me. Just to point out a few important flaws in your bullshit excuse for grown men having the deisre to fuck kids  ;
In reference to your statement that " pedophiles aren't rapist because they don't want to rape kids." What is it they want to do with them ? Ride a bike ? Play hopscotch ? Neither, they have the desire to have some form of intercourse  with them, forcibly or not ( I have a hard time understanding the "or not" part ) 
In reference to calling someone who has done nothing diseased ? Please, there are plenty, 100's of 1000's of people out there with mental disorders like paranoid schizophrenia, psychopathy and such who may or may not have acted on there ailment but that ailment is still a disease or a disorder.
In reference to


> By what moral standard do you judge them as "depraved" or "sick sick people"? Morals usually deal with actions, and if they do not act (we do not know the percentage of pedophiles in any population because of the stigma attached, but most psychologists believe it to be far greater than most people imagine), are they really morally different than you and I?


 They are depraved because they have the desire to have intercourse with a child. The desire is there so therefore they are sick individuals.
In reference to


> If you persist in branding thought-crimes as "immoral", can you really call out homophobes and other bigots for their bigottry?


 _Can_ I ? Well obviously not because I am unaware. Though be sure if I did, or the individual who had opinions like that insinuated these thoughts I would most definately be sure to call them on it. 

If I had the desire to shove a gerbal up my ass while fucking a german shephard while listening to Attack Attack ! that would make me a sick individual, no one is going to argue that. To say just because someone has the desire to fuck little kids doesn't make them a threat or a bad person is, as you would put it, flawed logic, and, as I would put it, fucking stupid and disgusting and raises red flags for me as to what kind of thoughts are going through your head.

People like you are the reason why the child molester in this case would have, if not had the hero of a father taken matters into his own hands, ended up getting a short term prison sentence. People like you are the reason these sick fucks are let out after said short term prison sentences likely to re-offend. 
I am sick to death of leftist liberal "Everyone an everything is equal and were all just a bunch of happy fuckers" white wash hippies infecting the judicial system and infecting society. It's not all candy canes an lollipops, were not all equal, not by a long shot. Not everyone should have the same rights, not by a long shot. Pedophiles and anyone that falls under that definition are lesser people and a threat to our young and should be treated as such. Anyone convicted of that should be locked away until there is either no desire or no threat. 
So the next time you hear in the news about how yet another "likely to re-offend" child rapist is released into the community or commits another act of pedophilia I want you to come back to this thread and read some of the things you have said. Like how there just victims of there disease or whatever it is you said.

Regardless, I have no desire to further this issue with you, you obviously seem to think that just because someone wants to fuck a little kid that doesn't make them necesarilly a bad person and I obviously think that anyone with these thoughts or desires should swan dive into a fucking woodchipper and to me that puts us at a standstill because I will never, ever, waiver on this issue. 

The topic at hand is the case and the events leading up to and surrounding it. Not a moral debate on pedophilia. I would appreciate it if you would stay on topic. If you would like to make your own thread about how you think it's ok for people to want to fuck little kids but not necessarily act on those desires, then by all means, go ahead, I would love to see the reaction you get


----------



## Explorer (Jun 18, 2012)

Again, I have to note that if something is a thoughtcrime, then there is no way for others to know about it. Only by someone making moves to act out on it (no informed adult consent = rape, so we're talking about raping a child) can that frame of mind become known. 

And, in case you didn't know, there is no crime in thinking about it. 

I didn't read the whole earlier post which apparently equates bigotry (the Holocaust, the KKK lynching blacks) with the community outrage against someone committing rape on kids. 

I'm completely weirded out by how strongly this is being defended. Occasionally I post about how some lack insight into their actions, but this is about something so serious that I can't ignore it. I'm letting a cop friend of mine know about this topic, because this is too many red flags in case something might come up in the future.


----------



## Edika (Jun 18, 2012)

I would like to make a social commentary though, which is no way in defense of pedophiles, predators or whatever you want to call them. The consensus of beauty in the last decades have been famished, anorectic models that so no traits of woman hood. No hips, no breasts and faces that are "perfect". Perfect meaning very symmetrical with very soft features. Remind you of something? I am not saying that the representation of women in the fashion world as prepubescent girls is to blame for the urges of these individuals but it is not helping either. Aside from an innate sense of beauty, children also identify with the standards of beauty as presented by society.
However someone would make the case that since there are adult women like that why don't these people go after them (in a legal manner) and not have any problems. Maybe this is the distinction between pedophiles and sexual predators.


----------



## matt397 (Jun 18, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Again, I have to note that if something is a thoughtcrime, then there is no way for others to know about it. Only by someone making moves to act out on it (no informed adult consent = rape, so we're talking about raping a child) can that frame of mind become known.
> 
> And, in case you didn't know, there is no crime in thinking about it.
> 
> ...



I know there isn't a crime against thinking about.....although there should be. I'm stressing that people can insinuate what there thinking though, for instance going on for 3 solid pages defending the mind and rights of pedophiles...and that leaves those "thoughts" up for "discussion" and persecution. 
Basically, whats-his-nuts is trying to say that Immoral thoughts are not immoral because morality is an invention of society and that society wanting to decimate anyone with pedophilic thoughts is equal to that of the holocaust like you say and that, to me, is beyond fucked up ( as in I disagree heavily).


----------



## Explorer (Jun 18, 2012)

I'm not worried about the thoughtcrime aspect at this point.

I remember when Junior Burdynski disappeared, and when a detective friend of mine was on the scene at the house of a suspect, he told me that with all the cop cars, lights and so on, none of the neighbors were outside. That means, everyone knew why the cops were there.

If they saw a lot of warning signs and ignored them over time (and they did), then that led to the final situation.

And that's why I've now reacted to the red flags. One flag would be a philosophical point. A bunch makes me worry about a kid being at risk, and so I've let someone else know who would have the ability to discern if it's just anonymous chatter on the internet... or a situation which needs watching over time.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 18, 2012)

Excuse me, are you serious? Do you take from me not agreeing with you that I could be a pedophile? May I remind you that I am not anymous here, my Facebook is in the social networking thread, and I regularily interact with members from here on Facebook. Actually, you have proven my point, so that is at least a relief to know that while ECPAT pulls out the thumbscrews...


----------



## matt397 (Jun 18, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Excuse me, are you serious? Do you take from me not agreeing with you that I could be a pedophile? May I remind you that I am not anymous here, my Facebook is in the social networking thread, and I regularily interact with members from here on Facebook.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 18, 2012)

It's true, go look in the social networking thread for yourself.

*EDIT*Was the neg-rep really necessary? Explorer did after all say what he said.


----------



## highlordmugfug (Jun 18, 2012)

I think Explorer and Matt397 have overstepped their grounds at this point. Accusing him of being a pedophile for seeing a difference between people who think about things and people who act on them is a bit too far, imo.

EDIT: Especially, Explorer, if you reported him to some authority figure (as your post made it sound) because of his posts in this thread, none of which are condoning child molestation or sex with minors in ANY WAY.


----------



## matt397 (Jun 18, 2012)

highlordmugfug said:


> I think Explorer and Matt397 have overstepped their grounds at this point. Accusing him of being a pedophile for seeing a difference between people who think about things and people who act on them is a bit too far, imo.


It's not as cut and dry as a difference of opinion. You have someone defending pedophilia or pedophilic thoughts. As I stated I find that alarming and makes me wonder what kinds of things are going on in his head. I never once stated that I think he has pedophilic thoughts. Flawed logic, yes, white washed convoluted view of society, yes, do I question why he has so adamantly defended pedophiles and there rights, maybe. Though I never outright stated I think he is a pedophile and hey everyone look heres a kiddie diddler.

*Edit* Besides all that, I already stated earlier, this thread wasn't intended as a moral debate on pedophilia and if I knew myself or anyone else would've ended up in a heated debate about thought crimes and pedophiles rights I wouldn't have opened the thread. If the mods see fit to close the thread then close it.


> Matt397: The topic at hand is the case and the events leading up to and surrounding it. Not a moral debate on pedophilia. I would appreciate it if you would stay on topic.


----------



## Electric Wizard (Jun 18, 2012)

Explorer, I'm curious as to whether you'd like to elaborate on the action you've taken. Did you seriously report posters here to the police, and if so, who?

I'm having a hard time wrapping my mind around how this thread has developed...


----------



## Explorer (Jun 18, 2012)

I let someone know that I had concerns, yes.

Here's my viewpoint: If there is the possibility that a kid is at risk in the real world, I'd rather have someone look into it. That's my conscience, and overrides any kind of niceties in the virtual world.

If that someone, who has more experience in this kind of thing than I, sees red flags, then they might look deeper. They might decide that it's just someone making a free speech argument, and that I'm being just a little paranoid... and I'm okay with that. 

Many times, you hear of someone saying, oh, I thought that was odd... but you hear about it too late.

If any of you feel that my doing so was out of line with the site agreement, be sure to report me to the mods. I'd rather be banned for life from this site than to take the risk that there was smoke, fire, and I didn't at least let someone know there might be a problem.

In fact, I'll self-report myself right now.


----------



## Necris (Jun 18, 2012)

Jakke said:


> ^I agree, and if someone is a pedophile, they are not automatically a child molester. A pedophile cannot help being a pedophile, much like someone who is gay or straight had no say in the matter.
> It's kind of like saying that all heterosexual men are rapists. Not condoning any acts, but I'm just putting it out there.



I am utterly opposed to this idea that since pedophilia is apparently genetic pedophiles are a class of people persecuted for their sexuality by the law. The People who take this stance are essentially pedophile apologists who make it that much easier for people to equate homosexuality directly with pedophilia.


----------



## eaeolian (Jun 18, 2012)

I think everyone needs to calm it down a bit, K? Matt and Explorer, you guys both overstepped, and you know it. Back off.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jun 18, 2012)

I cant believe the 50 something year old guy posting on a board full of kids reported someone else for pedophilia


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Jun 18, 2012)

Let me try to sum up what I've just read...

Jakke draws a line between being a pedophile and being a child molester. Not a popular opinion, I don't imagine, but he at least provides a clear distinction between the two: One is attracted to children but doesn't act on it, the other is attracted to children and does.

He also thinks that this can cause problems for pedophiles because the (admittedly justified) societal stigma against pedophilia might stop a pedophile from seeking out the help he or she needs in order to prevent acting on their urges and becoming child molesters.

This apparently makes Jakke a pedophile? People are so confusing. Either people are reading too much into what he was saying, or I wasn't reading into it enough.


----------



## thesnowdog (Jun 18, 2012)

Explorer said:


> I'm letting a cop friend of mine know about this topic, because this is too many red flags in case something might come up in the future.



Nice song and dance routine...  If you were seriously concerned you wouldn't be announcing that here.

Appalling!


----------



## tacotiklah (Jun 18, 2012)

This thread....


Wow.


Guys, P&CE has always been a place where various opposing viewpoints are presented, because it makes you think. We can't be right all the time, no matter how much we may think we are. Jakke brought up some VERY valid points, ones that even the links that I posted, WHICH WERE PROVIDED BY PLACES THAT KEEPS TABS ON MOLESTERS, agreed with a lot of what he said. 
I still disagree with it being an orientation, but that's okay. Jakke and I can agree to disagree and still be friends. It happens.

As for him being a pedo, I doubt it. I have had regular contact with him on his facebook profile for quite a while now and he's never once shown a red flag, so the reporting threats are really too much. As I've said, I've been a victim of this shit and I can tell you firsthand what the damage causes. It will follow me the rest of my life, right into the fucking grave. But even then, somewhere deep down despite my absolute hatred for pieces of shit like that, I pity them. Being born as a pedo is pretty much being born with a death sentence. You really can't stop liking kids, and you are basically doomed to being shunned (rightfully so) and condemned by everyone else. I'm trying to put myself into those shoes right now, and I can see where it would be a really fucked up life. If I ended up like that, I'd probably just eat a bullet and hope I get reincarnated into something better.

Also from my link one of the points that was stated by Jakke were proven; not all pedophiles are molesters and not all molesters are pedophiles.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Jun 19, 2012)

Word, that was my understanding of things too


----------



## Blind Theory (Jun 19, 2012)

Tim makes an excellent point. 

Jakke did not come into this thread and say, "Hey guys, I think child molestation should be legal because it is a sexual preference, plus, I think it is fun." His logic can be applied to multiple things and it would make more sense. For example, take a murderer and someone who thinks about murdering someone. You cannot punish someone for thinking about murdering someone in specific because he hasn't done anything. You can, however, punish someone who has murdered someone because..well, it's murder. I could apply this to many, many subjects. The only difference here is that pedophilia is a touchy subject.


----------



## Jakke (Jun 19, 2012)

Hey, thanks guys (and Jessica), it means a lot to me. I woke up in my bed this morning, so ECPAT has at least not abducted me yet.


After doing a substantial amount of research earlier today (when other people sleep), I do concede that you cannot consider pedophilia a sexual orientation (what more can I say, you seems to be in the right on this issue Jessica) 

So therefore I propose a situation closer to what psychopaths face. 
They have a condition that handicaps them in society (not so much psychopaths, but we do rely on empathy in our society to some degree), and there is social pressure to keep their condition under wraps, which is problematic. Both conditions are something the sufferer (?) is born with, so one can not objectively quantify them as wrong, if so we go into religious realms with original sin, that you are a bad person by virtue of your birth. That is not a line of reasoning I am comfortable with endorsing.

This pressure has the unwanted side-effect that we do not know how prevailent pedophilia is, the ones we know about are those that get caught raping kids and those that seek some sort of help (there is also not a definitive "cure").

What seems to be a problem is to differentiate between sexual attraction and rape. Rape is not a display of sexuality as much as it is a display of power and dominance (rape is used to spread terror in a population during wars for example), so they should be kept separate. 
If someone is a pedophile they are still probably not a person who are inclined to rape someone, just as any person probably is not inclined to rape someone they are attracted to. Equating a pedophile to a child molester is like rounding up all straight men you can find on the basis that close to 100% of all instances of rape against women are committed by straight men. It does not recognize that it is only a small subset of that big mass of people that engage in illegal activities.

I think it is easy to adopt the attitude of "shoot 'em all and let god sort out the rest", but that is not something I will ever agree on. We cannot determine human value based on birth, I thought we had gotten that out of our system after the 1900's. 
There are criminals in this group, they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law (and you could easily add a couple of years to that, these are suffering children we are talking about), but we cannot collectively brand a group of people as criminals! 
If we do the sweeping generalization that these people are flawed, that they are disgusting criminals, they are sub-humans, how can we expect to get a good turn-out of them seeking help to manage their problems? Since when has putting a collective burden of shame on largely innocent people solved anything?


----------



## Necris (Jun 19, 2012)

Sexual attraction implies a desire on some level for sexual intercourse or a desire to perform sexual acts with the person of interest. Having sexual intercourse with any person who is unable to give valid consent (in this case a child) is legally defined as rape. It is valid to see a person who is sexually attracted to children as a potential child rapist.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jun 19, 2012)

Jakke said:


> Since when has putting a collective burden of shame on largely innocent people solved anything?



well there's another scenario not being considered. if they aren't molesting children and have no criminal record of personally harming anyone... what if they are watching child porn? it still ruins lives, but more people can join in the harm passively as observers. its fairly widespread.. hell facebook is loaded with pages dedicated to this shit


----------



## Jakke (Jun 19, 2012)

Fair point, and a very interesting one too. My perspective (which is the only one I can give) is that they in that case do something that they know is illegal, and they know that it enables abuse of children


My morality is based on the notion of benefit/harm (secular morality), if someone watches porn that is the product of sadistic abuse of children it's of course terribly wrong, and I do believe everyone on this board would agree with that (I *know* that everyone here would agree with that).


----------



## Necris (Jun 19, 2012)

Ibanezsam4 said:


> well there's another scenario not being considered. if they aren't molesting children and have no criminal record of personally harming anyone... what if they are watching child porn? it still ruins lives, but more people can join in the harm passively as observers. its fairly widespread.. hell facebook is loaded with pages dedicated to this shit


I just want to point out that if you know of pages such as this you are morally obligated to report them.


----------



## Ibanezsam4 (Jun 19, 2012)

Necris said:


> I just want to point out that if you know of pages such as this you are morally obligated to report them.



no worries dude, if i see something sketchy i report it. for clarity's sake i read an article several months back where the author(s) tried to see how easily they could find child porn networks on social networking. and for the record they did report what they found to the authorities before publishing.


----------



## Ultraussie (Jun 19, 2012)

I would probally do the same if I was the dad, 4 years old, thats just waaaaaaayyyyy to young for anything like that.


----------



## ddtonfire (Jun 20, 2012)

Ultraussie said:


> I would probally do the same if I was the dad, 4 years old, thats just waaaaaaayyyyy to young for anything like that.



There is no age that is appropriate or deserving of that.


----------

