Man accused of attempted murder of priest acquited

YERU2

The man who admitted he attempted to murder the priest whom he accused of molesting him 10 years earlier was acquited.

Mind you, the priest was never convicted on any charges.

Because one law is violated, it's ok to break another law?

I accept at face value that the priest molested this guy, this still doesn't make the attempted murder ok.

I'm hoping the board will see this as a travisty of Justice, otherwise, lets look to see a lot of homemade justice against those who are merely accused of a crime.

Simon

I read this on CNN - seemed a bit 'dicey' to me. People could start using it to get off murder and discredit genuine abuse victims.

I think he should be tried for the crime (premeditated ... he took a gun) and any other crime proved separately.

Not to hijack this thread, but the above post is another example of the uneven administration of justice on this discussion board. (not that it is always intended, as Simon himself has admitted to not being around 24 hours a day or being a robot, he IS human, so therefore such examples should be pointed out so all can see why a select few get frustrated)

Yeru, you should NOT be using a duplicate account.

Simon specifically stated in a post LAST WEEK regarding duplicate accounts:

http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/forum/thread.aspx?id=41923&site=3

They are NOT allowed.
Some people still seem to be under the impression that creating another account to circumvent the posting limits is ok or accepted. It is not.
The limits are there for a reason as are the requests for people not to use duplicate accounts.
Thankyou

I suppose you are above the policy everyone else is supposed to adhere to?

Or is it just that certain individual's duplicate accounts get deactivated but it is ok for other people to blatantly use them? (even including the same name and profile pic?)

No reflection on you Yeru, I actually enjoy your posts, like debating with you, and as of late have felt sorry for you in regards to the unfortunate circumstances befalling you and your wife. I just feel strongly that if rules are to be made, they should be enforced evenly, otherwise favoritism is abundant.

Now, regarding the topic you originally intended, for once you and I are on the same page.

Because one law is violated, it's ok to break another law?
I accept at face value that the priest molested this guy, this still doesn't make the attempted murder ok.

If this is indeed the case, then I agree 100%. Violating one law does not make breaking a second one acceptable.

Edited by - Reborn2002 on 17 December 2002 13:22:44

YERU2

Na Na Da Boo Boo,

Mom likes me best!

Country Girl

I just have to say, this man was given all the same considerations as all other defendants. He was acquitted. This is the judicial system. He chose a jury trial, and he was acquitted. No one is or should be, above the law. However, on the other hand, lots of innocent defendants were put on Death Row. Our judicial system is not perfect, nor has it ever claimed to be. I have the belief that MOST Americans, given a duty to serve on a jury trial, really try their hardest to see that justice is done, and I believe that that pursuit of justice is something that all of us honestly want to see done. Because the guy did or did not kill the priest is not the point. The point is tht there was not enough damning evidence to put him behind bars. If the State had enough of a case, it is not my doubt he would have been found guilty of his crime. My belief is tht they erred on the side of caution, and that is good. Vigilante justice is *never* a solution, but if there is just not enough evidence, then they can't honestly put someone in jail. I think they did the right thing.

CG

Dia

It's very JW to see things in black and white.

I'm grateful for the cautious and forgiving ambivilance of mitigating justice for this crime.

When people are deeply and profoundly injured by someone who has power over them, we can forgive them some of their psychic and emotional collapse.

I trust this judge and jury will come to a good determination.

May this be a warning to other abusers. It's not all just about dry little courtroom battles. When you 'play' on that level, you could get hurt.

May this NOT be an invitation to other victims. You know, this is not the 'norm' and if you tried to do this, you would most likely only find yourself in deeper trouble.

Still, we can empathize with this guy. And let it be known that we do.

kelsey007

I agree that the legal wheels turned on this one- justice is not always just. I am sure that the sentiments of the jury in this case were swayed heavily by the media attention on the catholic pediphile problem.

YERU2

May this be a warning to other abusers. It's not all just about dry little courtroom battles. When you 'play' on that level, you could get hurt.
May this NOT be an invitation to other victims. You know, this is not the 'norm' and if you tried to do this, you would most likely only find yourself in deeper trouble.

Sorry, this establishes case law. Now that it's ok in this case, it should be ok in ALL cases. Lets all go get guns and shoot those who have offended us.

It's not the job of juries to empatize, it's the job of juries to decided cases based on the FACTS and the LAW.

Sooo, if this is the way case law is going, I need to go get a gun so I can take care of those who have in any way "hurt" me.

Xander

The judge can always throw the verdict out.

That everyone on the jury came to the conclusion there wasn't enough evidence...

Then the judge didn't throw the verdict out...

And the state's not appealing?

I'd say there just wasn't enough evidence. I mean, yeah, "Man was molested as boy" "Man bought gun" "Man arrested, charged with attempting to kill priest who molested him" would SEEM to indicate a specific chain of events.

I don't think juries make verdicts based on 3 lines of text, though. There was obviously more to the case than what YOU are using to base your judgement (RE: this is a miscarriage of justice) on.

IE, you are making assumtions of guilt based on the incomplete information you have.

Edited by - Xander on 17 December 2002 13:43:55

YERU2

Presumption of guilt? The guy admits he did it, I'm presuming nothing at all. His testimony was that he bought the gun, was carring it, called the priest over to his car, and shot him three times. Where's my presumption? The defense was that he suffered from a "temporary mental illness." Can't the same case be made for those who molest and kill little kids?

Secondly, the priest was not convicted of anything, or charged for that matter. We don't know if the priest is really guilty of anything.

This verdict, which the State can't really appeal, we have that whole double jeapardy thing ya know, makes it open season to kill people you perceive as having harmed you.

Man accused of attempted murder of priest acquited

Share this