06 July, 2012

California - Acquittal in Beating of Retired Priest - NYTimes.com

WOW! I guess 'two wrongs' DO make 'a right' in California. William Lynch admits to beating an old priest living in a nursing home to within an inch of his life because he claims that he molested him as a child - and the jury acquits him! 

Somehow, this is supposed to be seen as 'justice'?

California - Acquittal in Beating of Retired Priest - NYTimes.com

8 comments:

  1. Why do you imply this is not Just?
    Do you think the Priest should have been given a free ride?
    Looks to me like the decision was right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. M Dubois: It was vigilante justice. He had no right to go and physically assault the priest for something that was done to him 30+ years in the past. He had many other legal and appropriate avenues that he could have taken to seek redress - physical violence was not one of them.

      BTW, do you think that just because he was a priest that he deserved to be beaten? If it had been someone in your own family who abused someone in the past, would you think it proper if some victim came up and beat your family member to the point where they needed to be hospitalized? Is it just because the victim was a priest that you think he didn't deserve equal protection under the law?

      The decision is a travesty of justice. It's far from being 'right'.

      Fr. Tim

      Delete
    2. No, Fr Moyle, the fact he is a priest is beside the point. Yes, I do believe anyone who sexually abuses a child should have the crap beaten out of him, whether it was yesterday or 30 years ago.
      This priest got away with it for many years- but the child had the bruises from it all his life.
      Your comments would lead one to think you think because he was a priest he should have a free ride. That is the stupidity of a member of the clergy makes all the time- that they are above the law of natural justice. No more !

      Delete
    3. M Dubois:BTW, I watched Mr. Lynch be interviewed on CNN this afternoon. He said even he was surprised that the jury found him innocent since he freely admitted in open court that he did indeed beat up and bloodied the priest. Aside from you thinking that it's proper for a person to: drive 50 miles, use a false name, wear gloves (so as to inflict maximum injury) so that they can enter a nursing home and beat the crap out of an old man - as sick a mindset as polluted that predator priest's mind - you failed to mention that he had already successfully sued the priest and both he and his brother received $600,000 each.

      So don't give me any crap about moral turpitude when your own eyes are so severely blinded by your own sick values.

      Let me make it simple for you: Vigilante justice is not justice. It is a travesty of justice. It doesn't matter what the offense is, we don't have the right to seek our own private justice.

      Fr. Tim

      Delete
    4. You still willingly fail to see the difference ! You fail to see that Lynch freely admitted what he did , which was far different from what position the priest took.
      You are just another priest who thinks it is right when accused priests lie about what they did, when they have abused children.
      Thank God there is now an avenue where priests will know they will not get away with that horendous crime, without having a beating layed upon them. That jury was v ery wise.

      Delete
    5. M Dubois: What difference does your first point make? Squat!! A man, using a fraudulent name, enters a nursing home where he assaulted, bloodied, and beat a man in his late 70's. Period. End of issue.

      That is how it looks before the law, or at least that's the way it's supposed to be in a free and open society. Whether the man was a priest, poet, miner, or beggar makes not a whit of difference. I couldn't care less about the fact that he is a priest. As far as I'm concerned he is little more than a wolf in sheep's clothing - more a pervert than a priest.

      The issue is not the VICTIM of the assault. You do not attack the moral credibility of a rape victim. Why? Because she isn't the one on trial! Lynch admitted in court as to the facts of the assault. It was a case of jury nullification that will most likely put aside on appeal as it opens wide the door for victims to mete out their own punishments with their own fists and weapons.

      You are so blinded by your bias against priests... ALL priests... that you are willingly failing to see that justice demanded that Lynch be convicted. Hell, the judge could have accepted a sentence recommendation that would lead him to suspending the sentence if he wanted to say that raw justice had been served without need for penalty. But by acquitting Lynch because he beat up a pervert is no different than saying that the Brownshirts in the 1930's could beat up Jews or the KKK lynchings could be justified by saying that their victims didn't deserve the protection of the law.

      You Sir, are a tyrant and a menace to society if you want to dance the 'Fascist Fandango' and permit the strong to be permitted to violate the weak. It was a crime when the priest molested him. It was a crime when the tables were turned and their roles were reversed.

      AGAIN... Lynch did this AFTER successfully suing the Jesuits for the abuse by which he and his brother shared equally $1.2 million dollars. The money wasn't enough. He was not going to accept anything less than the blood of his now defenseless molester on his hands to sate his vengeance.

      And the jury found him innocent... failing to even agree on a misdemeanor charge of simple assault!

      And you think that's a good thing.

      You're nuts.

      Fr. Tim

      Delete
    6. And you are the strangest priest I ever heard of ! When your justice comes, will you welcome it?

      Delete
    7. I inadvertently deleted this comment from Anonymous. I've posted the entire text of the comment below. Fr. Tim
      ---------------------------------------

      Here are 4 interesting comments on that court case from the U.S. Fr. Tim.

      Were, Will Lynch Jurors Correct to Ignore Law?

      1. Joey Piscitelli: Works at Advocate Against Child Abuse.

      The jury did not ignore the law. The jury IS the law. Twelve jurors chosen at random, who all decided that Will Lynch did not commit the crimes he was accused of - is the law in action. Those jurors are also "the correction of the law".
      Those jurors are not Vigilantes, they are the voice of the people, chosen by the court to bring justice to the forefront.
      The people have spoken for justice, that is the reason we have jurys in court. Will Lynch was found not guilty, and the jury has done its job. Thank you jurors, for a job well done.

      2. Victoria Balfour:

      Lynch acts like a mensch, owns up to his mistakes and takes responsibility for punching the 65 year old Lindner. But Lindner, who has been sent away for treatment for pedophilia, and has raped at least 17 kids at last count, gets on the stand and lies about not molesting kids. Then he cowardly hides behind the fifth and refuses to answer any more questions.

      3. Ross80477:

      Jury nullification is not new. In fact there are new laws beginning to insert the theory into jury instructions. We can go back to the 1830's and find that politicians believed in the four boxes of liberty. They hadn't coined the first, but the adage is still the same. "The four boxes of liberty are the Soap Box, the Ballot Box, the Jury Box and the Cartridge Box, in that order." Often we forget that the power rests with the people and we are governed by our consent, not vice verse.

      4. Kerryberger:
      It is not our place as outside observers to say whether the jury's decision was right or wrong. They examined the evidence and made their determination. It is possible that the emotional testimony of the past abuse made the jurors overlook the beating perpetrated by Lynch. Clearly, the prosecution did not successfully prove its case.

      The comments above were taken from the website of http://www.opposingviews.com/i/religion/christianity/catholicism/were-william-lynch-jurors-correct-ignore-law#


      Ms. Legere

      Delete

Followers of this blog:

Blog Archive

Google Analytics