Man tries to lure teen and gets mom's fist instead

[progressoid]

Iowa man tries to lure teen and gets mom's fist instead

(CBS/AP) DES MOINES, Iowa - A Des Moines man who allegedly tried to lure a young girl into an alley, wound up with stitches and a black eye after the girl's mother took matters into her own hands, according to authorities.

Polk County police sources say that Robert C. Harding tried to lure a 13-year-old girl into an alley near where she was playing with friends outside her home. Instead the smart-thinking teenager went to get her mom who confronted Harding, according to CBS affiliate KCCI.

Police say that when the girl's mother, Holly Pullen, confronted Harding he asked how old the girl was and whether he could marry her or would be interested in signing the girl away.

"I got down to the alley and I confronted him. I said, 'Why are you staring at the kids?' and he looks at me and says, 'I want to marry the red head.' I came unglued at that point. I was like 'Dude, she's only 13 and that's my daughter,'" Pullen told the station.

Police said Pullen punched Harding in the face. Then the girl's father and one of his friends chased Harding and fought with him, KCCI reported.

...



http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20091801-504083.html?tag=re1.channel

[LeftinOH]

1. Awesome. Hopefully that'll dampen his 'desires' somewhat. n/t

[WhiteTara]

2. I wonder if she will charged with assault

and battery?

[mistertrickster]

4. Yeah, no kidding. There's common sense and there's the law--and

never did the two meet . . .

[Modern_Matthew]

400. DELETE, PLEASE

[mistertrickster]

407. Two words: Leonard Pelteir

Three words: Bush v Gore

Four words: Corporations are people too.

[pipi_k]

6. Yeah, I wondered that too

She should be, I think.

[mistertrickster]

8. Oh, c'mon. If this were my child, I would have shot him. Dead.

Kids can't even play in the streets of their neighborhoods because of these perverts?

Not on my watch.

[newfie11]

30. me too!

[Zywiec]

40. Wow, summarily executed by mistertrickster

How very progressive of you...

:sarcasm:

[The Doctor.]

194. I probably would have dragged his ass to a PD.

Literally.

[pipi_k]

52. Wonderful

Just what we need. More cowboy types on our streets.


http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2010-05-14/news/os-murder-victim-mistaken-sex-offende20100513_1_baseball-bat-deputies-sexual-offender

[deaniac21]

69. Hmmmmm, the death penalty for being creepy but not actually

committing a crime.

[TK421]

180. yet

[The Doctor.]

195. Even better!

Just fucking preemptively kill anyone who might be a pervert!

Mmmm-MMM! I can just taste the fascism!

[TK421]

203. now I think you're catching on!

I....think

[The Doctor.]

283. Yep, there are definitely some pro-fascists here.

"Shoot 'em if they look like a threat" is pretty fascist thinking.

It's also entirely uncivilized. Didn't realize there were so many uncivilized people on DU.

[TK421]

288. You're right..the lady should have waited for the guy to put his hands on the kid

THEN she should have punched him. She needs to punish her daughter for not allowing the situation to go far enough. This is terrible parenting on her part, damn her to hell!



Come on baby....lets do the twist!:crazy:

[The Doctor.]

294. Wow, that's insane.

Why would you even suggest such a thing? That's just sick.

Whatever you and the rest need to justify preemptive strikes. Seriously, if people like you had their way, we'd be invading foreign nations that never attacked u... oh, wait.

Me, I'm on the side of civilization.

[TK421]

296. No, you're on the side of perverts and predators...buy you just keep calling it civilization

if it makes you feel better.

Oh, I just love your reference to preemptive strikes because of just how insane the comparison is..I guess that fits you like a glove, doesn't it?

[The Doctor.]

300. Wow, go off the deep end much?

Yep, just like always. That didn't take long.

Can you show just where and how I 'side with perverts and predators'? I suppose it helps for you to be deliberately ignorant of what's been said, but I'd like to see that case made.

That, and I'm amazed that you can be all for 'preemptively assaulting' this guy and then tell me that a comparison to 'preemptive strikes' is 'insane.

That's really something! Did you really just say that?

Let me ask; How is assaulting this guy before he does harm not a 'preemptive strike'?

Wow, when people want to justify violence, they really lose it.

[TK421]

301. keep on twistin', Doctor...you're putting on a better show than you realize

[The Doctor.]

306. You're the one desperately avoiding questions, not me.

Is it starting to dawn on you that perhaps you've failed the test of reason?

I asked you some questions, if you can't answer them, perhaps you should stop embarrassing yourself.

[mistertrickster]

406. Or from my point of view, I didn't realize there are so many criminal coddling

holier-than-thou liberals who want to force their version of a party-line down everyone else's throat.

Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me a fascist . . . anymore than your demand for pure party line thinking makes you a Soviet commissar.

[The Doctor.]

411. Yeah, fuck all those uppity 'liberal' principles.

I didn't call you a fascist, but if you're feeling it maybe it fits. You believe it's ok to execute people for saying something offensive.

That's truly fucked up. Saying so doesn't make me 'holier than thou', it makes me sane and civilized.

[sabrina 1]

415. Well that sure sounds like something I would expect

to hear from a Reagan supporter but not from a Democrat.

Do you think we ought to throw out that 'quaint', as Bush called it, document that lays out the rule of law for this country since all we need is our fists and guns, I mean who needs silly things like courts and trials, so 'Liberal' all those things are.

I hope you are never falsely accused of anything and then subjected to the street justice you support. You wouldn't have much to fall back on in terms of railing against being wrongfully attacked, without a trial or even formal charges.

Too many 'action movies' with righting actors like Chuck Norris and Arnold in them, two guys who have never actually, in RL, like Ronald Reagan, faced any danger. I guess even 'lefties' fantasize about being a Super Hero considering the culture we live in.

[mistertrickster]

418. I don't stand around girls skipping rope telling their moms I want to sex them.

So, don't worry about me, Sabrina.

And thanks for your concern.

[sabrina 1]

419. I'm not worried about you. I am worried about the

support for vigilante justice. It's possible that in this case the mother was right and I might have done the same thing if it was my daughter, in fact I can't say I wouldn't have. But generally speaking we are far better off not going back to the days of mob justice. Unlike this case, the accused is not always guilty. Being torn apart by an out-of-control mob and hung from the nearest tree is not something I would want to return to, that's all I'm saying.

[madokie]

90. I'm with you on this

[The Doctor.]

193. Wow. Judge, Jury, Executioner... after no harm had been done.

You know what would be hilarious? If some teenage girl thought it would be a hoot to accuse someone who did nothing to her just because she felt like it. Then we'd all have a big laugh after they were shot to death by an over-protective parent with anger management issues.

I know... teenagers don't ever engage in mischief.

Now someone go ahead and deliberately misconstrue my point. This shouldn't take long.

[coalition_unwilling]

219. See the Salem Witch Trials, ca. 1692 - n/t

[mistertrickster]

220. When the perv said he wanted to "sex her," that would be the evidence one needs

to take action.

[Dappleganger]

259. Seriously, I love how people on this forum just make up shit.

If one took just two minutes to read the article, it would be clear that the pervert was not denying what he was trying to do and continuing to try to get her daughter.

IMO, all the gloves come off at that point. No guns, just hands. You don't mess with my babies, ever.

[The Doctor.]

280. No one is 'making shit up' except those that are making all the assumptions.

I'm amazed that we can all go around beating the crap out of people from whom we perceive a threat regardless of whether they have caused any harm.

I've never realized DU was so completely uncivilized. Heck, it's feeling more like FR in this thread. It's very sad to me that DUers can miss some glaring clues that might put this event in greater context... one where perhaps the guy did not deserve a beating.

But no... just ignore those clues and ASSUME this guy acted with the intent to cause harm.

[uppityperson]

314. It is incredible

After this, am hiding this thread, about the 3rd time I've done this in 7 yrs. And getting off DU for a while. I am glad to see there are some people here who, while understanding the underlying emotion, STILL feel what mom did here was wrong.

So much name calling here, so many insults, such uncivilized emotional reactions, such inability to think beyond the emotions.

Maybe our country deserves the shit it's in with so many progressives being this way. Maybe it's just an internet forum where people can say anything they want and work out other frustrations on each other.

Thread, hide.

[Dappleganger]

425. No, you obviously just love pedophiles.

Please stay away from kids, period.

[The Doctor.]

347. That reminds me of a Monty Python sketch...

Where a linguist deliberately mistranslated Hungarian to English language guides.

Yeah, kill people that don't know how to articulate something. That's the ticket. I know you haven't invested much, if any, consideration into this issue, but I have a question for you...

When the guy knew he was dealing with the girl's parent, can you explain why he asked about when she could be signed away? Seriously... I'd like to have your personal explanation.

I'm sure it will resonate well with things like "They hate us for our freedoms". But that's too far of an intellectual stretch for you, isn't it?

[Dappleganger]

258. Oh fuck you...

seriously, that is too stupid.

[pipi_k]

315. I'm sorry...

you couldn't think of anything more intelligent to say.

"Fuck you" is the last bastion of Neanderthals.

Or sometimes it's the first.

whatever.

:+

[Dappleganger]

426. There's no intelligent excuse

for the garbage you're posting.

[Fleshdancer]

12. She probably will and she probably doesn't care. I know I wouldn't.

If that's the price you pay from protecting your child from a predator, then so be it.

[NutmegYankee]

281. No one is going to convict her.

I doubt the DA will bother. It's a lost cause.

[The Doctor.]

285. She wasn't "protecting" anyone.

There was no imminent threat. This was something the police should have dealt with.

[jberryhill]

13. Unlikely

There is enough of a likelihood she would prevail on a "defense of others" justification for the use of force.

[pipi_k]

20. Did he have a weapon?

Did he threaten to use it?

All that happened is that the mother got pissed off over something the guy said.


The only thing she "defended" someone against were words, and words are NOT justification for assault and battery.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Romulox]

28. LOL. You're allowed to defend against words, you know...

"and words are NOT justification for assault and battery."

Are you making a joke? If someone says, "I'm going to kill/rape/assault you." you have a right to believe them, so long as the threat is credible. That means you have a right to defend yourself or others who have been so threatened.

[The Doctor.]

295. Yet he made no such 'threat'. I'm amazed that DUers are so keen to make shit up.

There was no imminent threat, just the perception of one.

I'm also amazed at how many DUers are philosophically siding with the invasion of Iraq.

[Romulox]

310. Nobody is making up anything other than a novel interpretation of the law.

The poster to whom I was responding was speaking in absolutes, and was absolutely wrong.

"I'm also amazed at how many DUers are philosophically siding with the invasion of Iraq."

LOLOLOL. Just project whatever bullshit you want to rail against on others. For merely pointing out that the person to whom I was responding had misstated common law. Weak! :hi:

[The Doctor.]

318. When someone appears to support preemptive violence,

I remark on it.

No projection necessary.

You either are for such violence or against it. You're welcome to clear that up if you wish.

:hi:

[Romulox]

402. That's weak. I understand the concepts involved. That's not advocacy,

that's basic education.

[jberryhill]

49. No weapon is required for a "defense of others" justification

You seem to be hung up on the difference between some in-a-vacuum view of the "defense of others" doctrine on the one hand, and what it takes to get a conviction out of a jury on the other.

Go ahead and convince twelve people here on DU, and LMK how you think your case flies, Mr. Prosecutor.

[pipi_k]

53. What was that woman

"defending" anyone against?

Don't tell me words, OK?

The man didn't, from what the article says, attempt to threaten anyone.

You don't get to beat someone up just because he says something offensive to you.

And you don't get to beat someone up because he tried to entice someone in a public place.

That's why there are police and courts.

sigh...

[Maine-ah]

55. That "someone" was a damn child.

and I would have done the same as the mother did.

[pipi_k]

59. A teenager

isn't a "child" in the same sense as is a four year old.

[Maine-ah]

191. she was 13!

[Name removed]

198. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

225. What does this have to do with the facts in the OP? Clue: Not a damn thing.

[The Doctor.]

261. It doesn't. It has to do with the fact that the person I responded to

Seems to think every 13 year-old looks exactly 13 somehow. The fact that no one wants to take a guess here just shows me how ignorant people can really be.

It has to do with the fact that you and many others don't know all the facts but want to murder this guy.

It has to do with the fact that you, and many others, are perfectly happy to judge this guy in ignorance of those facts.

Until I know what the hell was going on, I'm not going to automatically assume this guy deserves to die or even have the shit beat out of him.

[Maine-ah]

227. Does that really matter?

ffs. How old do you think I am?



The girl wasn't out there "advertising" herself, she was outside playing. She is 13, and I don't give a hoot about what she may or may not look like.

[The Doctor.]

262. You said; "She was 13!"

As though this guy just HAD to know it.

Since you're so certain that everyone can determine how old a person is, go ahead and show me that you can too.

That's all.

[Maine-ah]

268. again, it doesn't matter how old she looked

an adult male leering at a 13 year old playing outside, wanting to marry her and "sex" her...

AND if she looked like an adult, then why didn't he just go and talk to her? My guess is because she doesn't look like an adult. My guess is because he's a pedophile.

As the mother of a young child, I would still have done the same as this Mom did.

[The Doctor.]

271. Wow, you don't even realize what you keep saying.

You say 'it doesn't matter how old she looked', and then keep making the assumption that he knew she was 13.

You have amazing telepathic abilities!

I asked a few questions that you'd actually have to know the answers to before you should haul of and beat the living crap out of someone. But, still in ignorance, you assume everything you want to assume in order to justify beating the hell out of this guy.

I'm glad to know just who around here can do away entirely with civilized behavior when they perceive something they don't like.

[Maine-ah]

277. he admitted to the mother what he wanted to do,

yet you still defend him....and you assume that she looked like an adult.

[The Doctor.]

279. Yep, here we go. Now I'm "defending" him.

:eyes:

Doesn't take long for people to start resorting to that, does it?

Dear, only one of us has made any assumptions. If you pick your civility back up, dust it off, and read back through this exchange, you'll find it was certainly not I.

You have three questions you have to know the answer to before you can convince a civilized person that it's ok to beat the shit out of someone who hasn't hurt you or your family.

Let's review;

a) How old did this '13 year old' look? b) Did the guy know it at first? c) Whether the guy was from a place where marrying young girls is legal (like Arkansas, or something).

If this girl looked to be of legal age, then calling him a pedophile is way off base.
The guy found out her age and then asked a very telling question. Do you remain ignorant of what he asked?
If he is from a place where what he wanted is accepted and legal, then he can't have intended harm.

Please, if you can't put aside the self-righteous rage and think this through, don't bother responding. I'll just be reposting the questions until you deal with them or go away.

[Maine-ah]

286. he knew she wasn't of age.

"He allegedly said he tried to lure the girl away so he could marry her and said he liked young girls."

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110811/NEWS/108110301/-1/LIFE04/Police-Man-sought-lure-Des-Moines-girl-into-alley

""When Pullen confronted him, Harding allegedly asked to marry her daughter and asked how old her daughter was. Pullen responded that she was only 13 and asked Harding to leave, but the man reportedly asked when the girl could be signed away."

Even when told she was 13 years old, he still wanted her.

[The Doctor.]

287. Right, that should be a clue. But to hell with thinking when you can be violent.

Again;

a) How old did this '13 year old' look? b) Did the guy know it at first? c) Whether the guy was from a place where marrying young girls is legal (like Arkansas, or something).

If this girl looked to be of legal age, then calling him a pedophile is way off base.
The guy found out her age and then asked a very telling question. Do you remain ignorant of what he asked?
If he is from a place where what he wanted is accepted and legal, then he can't have intended harm.

Please, if you can't put aside the self-righteous rage and think this through, don't bother responding. I'll just be reposting the questions until you deal with them or go away.

[Maine-ah]

297. go ahead and keep on posting the same questions.

here's the video with the police report.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110811/NEWS/108110301/-1/LIFE04/Police-Man-sought-lure-Des-Moines-girl-into-alley

he admitted to police that he knew she was thirteen and still wanted her. I don't give a damn about his broken english...his name is Robert Harding, and he's from Des Moines, a rather American name, wouldn't you say?. No where is it mentioned that he's from somewhere like the ME...his record " a criminal history including convictions for felony drug charges, weapons possession and domestic abuse"

He knew she was thirteen, and he still wanted her. He said he likes young girls.

[The Doctor.]

308. And keep avoiding them. Whatever you need to justify preemptive violence.

Sounds to me like this guy has a mental illness that should be treated.

Keep avoiding the questions though, if it helps you stay comfortable with barbarism.

Never did I expect to see so many on DU who would assault or murder someone who could likely have meant no harm to anyone. You don't know that he did, and neither did the mother.

Thank you for telling me I am justified in beating the shit out of someone from whom I perceive a threat. :eyes:

Here are your questions;


a) How old did this '13 year old' look? b) Did the guy know it at first? c) Whether the guy was from a place where marrying young girls is legal (like Arkansas, or something).

If this girl looked to be of legal age, then calling him a pedophile is way off base.
The guy found out her age and then asked a very telling question. Do you remain ignorant of what he asked?
If he is from a place where what he wanted is accepted and legal, then he can't have intended harm.

Please, if you can't put aside the self-righteous rage and think this through, don't bother responding. I'll just be reposting the questions until you deal with them or go away.

[Maine-ah]

320. an adult male wanted to screw a 13 year old girl

and you think he likely meant no harm?

you don't know how this 13 year old girl looked, and neither do I. But he was told she was 13 and still wanted her...why do you keep this old argument, when he knew how old she was?

He probably had no idea she was 13...but again...he was told and he still wanted her.

He's from Des Moins. Stated in the article.

He said he liked young girls...calling him a pedophile is not off base, especially when informed she is 13 and still wanted her.

As a mother, I still would have punched him one and then called the police. You think I'm a barbarian (nice personal attack btw) I honestly don't care what you think of me.

If anyone here is feeling self-righteous, it's you and your "I'm holier than you" argument.

[The Doctor.]

330. It's really interesting watching how people fling themselves out of reason.

Neat how the best way you can think to deal with this is claim to be a victim.

I 'personally attacked' you? Really? It's really interesting to see how someone starts just making shit up when they don't like the way a discussion is going.

Let me help you with something else;

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).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

That word, "Prepubescent", is the line between a pedophile and a pervert. That's why I put those photos up. That's why I asked you questions you find too uncomfortable to answer. You want your visceral, uncivilized impulse to be justified and don't want to acknowledge in any way that this guy might not have been any real threat beyond expressing his desire. I'm not 'holier' than anyone, I just don't like the idea of abandoning civility because of a perceived threat. Especially when there is no chance of that threat being realized. Your attitude is exactly the attitude that had us invade a nation that never attacked us... but might have.

Here are your questions again;

a) How old did this '13 year old' look? b) Did the guy know it at first? c) Whether the guy was from a place where marrying young girls is legal (like Arkansas, or something).

If this girl looked to be of legal age, then calling him a pedophile is way off base.
The guy found out her age and then asked a very telling question. Do you remain ignorant of what he asked?
If he is from a place where what he wanted is accepted and legal, then he can't have intended harm.

Please, if you can't put aside the self-righteous rage and think this through, don't bother responding. I'll just be reposting the questions until you deal with them or go away.

[Ripley]

349. You are one sick mofo

Ignoring how this situation affected the girl and spending boatloads of posting time defending what "pedophilia" REALLY means.

Oh, along with your spamming of pics of women or girls trying to make it a story about "he didn't know her age" thing.

IGNORING how this affected the girl.

Why are You so investesd in this uh, defense of "guys don't know their age" thing? eh?

Maybe people are sick and tired of porn-saturated men who can't distinguish between fantasies online and reality and their ACTIONS like approaching kids on the street.

[The Doctor.]

356. Wow.

I don't know what happened to you, and I'm damn sure you'll never listen to someone you've decided is a 'pervert' without having employed one shred of reason on your part, but I know that you reach these conclusions without feeling the need to understand what has been said and in what context.

You've made that very, very obvious.

'Pedophilia' is a very specific disorder. Applying it to someone who is attracted to sexually mature people is little different than calling someone you simply don't like 'retarded'.

If you can't handle simple points of fact, and can't understand why they haven't been summarily deleted, then perhaps you need to do some real thinking.

It is obvious that you've been harmed somehow. So have I. Deeply... and in ways I don't think you'd like to deal with either. But I've made efforts to remain objective, however insufficient those efforts have been at times.

I invite you to do the same. Perhaps you need to as much as I, and perhaps we can help each-other.

[Pithlet]

365. Agreed with post 349. n/t

[FloridaJudy]

249. So some girls look older than their age.

I did. I was wearing a C-cup at age 12, and I remember how creeped out I was by the kind of attention that got me from certain older males. I went through Junior High wearing the heaviest jacket I could find.

Do I have to explain just how sick those pictures make me feel?

[The Doctor.]

265. If every picture of a teenage girl

has the potential to make you feel 'sick', I might recommend you stay away from things like the internet.

The poster made the suggestion that the guy should have known she was 13. I made the simple point that he may not have known by showing that poster that not every 13 year-old girl 'looks' 13.

I do appreciate your coming by to reinforce that point.

I'm sorry you had to deal with what you did. FWIW, I do think that guys over a certain age being attracted to very young looking girls, even if they're 18, may be 'natural' but it's not a good sign of maturity.

[alphafemale]

307. Yeah. But which one of them's the Pit Bull?

And btw? For your sad little pedophilia excusing guessing game? My guess is the over 18 is the one trying to look 12 or younger for the benefit of perverts. The other two are somewhere between 12-14.

[The Doctor.]

338. You're suggestion is not only sick,

It is in abject ignorance of the reason for the post.

Where is anyone on this thread 'excusing pedophilia'?

You really are desperate to find targets for some reason, aren't you?

Oh, and by the way; you're wrong on more than just one count.

[alphafemale]

396. But as you revealed on a lower post?

I was exactly right

[Ter]

309. The first one is definitely older than 13

The second one looks the youngest, although the third has the young face, so I'll say her.

[The Doctor.]

341. Hey, an honest dealer!

Glad someone around here is.

Since you gave it a go, you trigger the solution;

The first pic is of Kim Kardashian... when she was 15. So 'definitely older than 13' is technically correct, but I'd bet most would, without the thread context, guess that she was the oldest.

The second pic is a porn star; "Lupe Fuentes", at the age of 19. I'm guessing there's quite a market for that. I found her by searching 'porn' '19 year old'. As it turns out, the government charged some guy for possession of child porn because she was in it. She actually flew to the US to prove she was of legal age at the time of filming. Still... that's just too young looking to be a healthy fixation IMO.

The third is a cousin of mine, who is actually 13 in the picture. She's always had guys going after her, and her picture even comes up on the internet in discussions about adolescence.


I'm sure everyone who knew that they'd been stymied by the revelation that females develop at wildly different rates and ages will have something snide or pointed to say about the little test now that they know which is which. In the meanwhile, thanks for being earnest in the attempt to answer. You're the only one who can now be viewed as such.

[pipi_k]

247. Yeah, well

13 isn't the same as 7.


She's an adolescent.

[Maine-ah]

255. no it obviously isn't the same as a 7 year old.

but at 13, she is still a child. Do you remember what you were like at 13? I do...I was still riding bikes and playing with dolls and video games.

[alphafemale]

266. Looks like we've got another one from the

"If she's gotten a period she's fair game!" crowd.

I came close to kicking some man ass many a time when my daughter was a young teen. Especially the ones that didn't stop leering even after I would say something like "She's TWELVE!"

Kinda creepy that this one has so many ready pics of young girls.

[Maine-ah]

272. a saying I learned from teenage boys in high school

"old enough to bleed, old enough for me"

:puke:

[whathehell]

224. Relative to a 48 year old she is....You certainly do seem to have a "dog in this fight".

and your dog is LOSING...Fuck child molesters, and those who defend them!

[pipi_k]

248. Is that the best you can do?

"Fuck child molesters and those who defend them"

?

How absolutely brilliant.


The only "dog I have in this fight" dear, is the one that thinks people who practice vigilante "justice" are animals. No better than the people they're beating up.

I might also say that those who defend vigilante "justice" must also have a dog in the fight. Hey...someone pissed you off? Go punch the fucker, right?

The trouble with this is that it's apparently only OK if it's someone else getting the beating.

Nobody wanted to answer the question I asked below which asked if that guy were someone they loved, would it be OK for some incensed parent to come out and punch him in the face. Your dad. Your brother. Your son. Accused of doing something strange. Or even illegal.

It would be OK for people to go out and kick his ass?

I have a feeling it wouldn't be OK. And that's what makes me puke. It's always OK as long as it happens to someone else.

[whathehell]

256. No, actually, I and most others here have done much better in other posts

"Nobody wanted to answer the question I asked below which asked if that guy were someone they loved, would it be OK for some incensed parent to come out and punch him in the face. Your dad. Your brother. Your son. Accused of doing something strange. Or even illegal".

I'll answer the question, although I think you're being euphemistic at best and dishonest at worst in characterizing the question as "would it be OK for someone to come out and punch him the face", if it were someone we loved were accused of doing something strange. Or even illegal".

Strange...Sure...Trying to entice a pubescent child into an alley and then telling Mom he wanted to "marry" and "sex" her?...Yeah, that's "strange" all right....My answer

is that I'd have NO problem with such a mother punching this pedophile wannabe in the mouth...No, I would not...In fact, if he WERE someone

I loved, I would do everything I could to keep this sick person off the street and away from children before he got hurt even more badly.

I'm not like you...I don't grant "dispensation" for someone I care about to do despicable, frightening things..It's not "okay" if it's someone of "mine"...In fact, I'll

tell you a story...My cousin's teenage son PUNCHED my cousin's girlfriend in the mouth and he got sent to jail for a few night....A relative pulled the same BS when I

told her that, umm..It might discourage the kid from becoming violent against women...She said "Oh but he's my nephew"!....THAT is the kind of thinking that makes ME

puke...Special privileges for "our own".

[pipi_k]

260. Sorry...you didn't get it

Some person merely accuses your family member of doing something weird or illegal, and punches him and you not only take the word of this stranger, but advocate...no...cheer on...a physical beating?

No questions asked, right?


Person: "Hey...your dad stared at my daughter and said "_______" so I hit him in the face".


You: "Oh cool. I don't know you from Adam, but if you say he did it, then he probably did. Hit him some more".



Ummmm....yeah. OK.

:eyes:

[whathehell]

267. LOL...Sorry, dear, judging by lack of agreement you're getting here, it seems you don't "get it".

:rofl: :rofl::rofl:

[The Doctor.]

291. Pipi k most certainly 'gets it'.

I'm seeing only ignorance from those that want to justify their violent and uncivilized impulses.

There are some very bright clues about the situation that may lend greater context, wherein the guy really didn't deserve a beating.

As far as Pipi k is concerned, she's absolutely correct when she suggests that perhaps we shouldn't kill or assault people merely because we perceive that they might be a threat.

Shit, if we behaved like that, we might just start invading foreign nations that never attacked us.

[whathehell]

292. I don't know what Ignored said, but then again, I kind of "made" it that way, lol.

[The Doctor.]

298. Fascinating!

This poster makes claims about a poster not having 'support' for their position, but it is the direct result of deliberate ignorance by that poster of others!

Nice irony.

That's why I rarely use the 'ignore' feature, and when I do it tends not to be for very long. I just don't like to be ignorant and make a fool of myself.

[pipi_k]

305. Have you ever seen a mob rioting?

just because they're all burning cars and smashing windows, that doesn't mean they "get it" either.

Sometimes the mob gets together on the same page because it doesn't take a whole lot of actual thought.

[whathehell]

335. Are you actually equating DU members here who don't agree with you as a "mob rioting"?

Calm down, sweetie...You appear to be getting over excited.

[The Doctor.]

344. She has every right to by this point.

Now now Dear, just because you're on the 'pro-lynching' side of this discussion doesn't mean the 'anti-lynching' people are 'excited'.

You should probably just put the torch and pitchfork down, take a swig of moonshine, and drift off to a dreamland where you can kill or beat up anyone you suspect of things you don't like. Because here in civilization, sweetie, we let courts decide if someone is guilty of something... don't we?

[pipi_k]

350. I'm equating

mindless knee jerk reactions...defending the beating of someone who hadn't actually HARMED anyone at that point...with mob mentality.

I'm equating with mob mentality the disgraceful attitude that people who might have moderate to severe mental disorders (this guy doesn't sound normal) are fair game for being attacked even if they haven't actually HARMED anyone.

And I'm equating with mob mentality the rather brainless way some people decide it's perfectly OK to vilify and insult someone they don't agree with.

It's actually pretty telling that most of the people cheering on this beating also seem to be unable to discuss the whole thing without being obnoxious. Not all...there are a couple here and there who are being very decent about it, and I really appreciate them acting like adults.

[Pithlet]

377. He had threatened harm. Telling a child, or the parent of a child

you want to sex them up, is a threat. Your insistence that this makes mentally ill people fair game for attack is beyond ludicrous. People have a right to defend themselves. They don't have to let their children actually be assaulted before they take action. Once her mother showed up and he still pressed on? He was very clearly a threat. Whether or not he was mentally ill, her child's safety was most important. I would have likely done the same thing, because I would have figured someone who wasn't there enough to realize "Mom's here! I'd better go!" is trouble. Your posts in this thread are ridiculous, I'm sorry.

[pipi_k]

414. Saying he wanted to MARRY her and then

sex her isn't "threatening harm".

He was not charged with threatening harm.

He was charged with, and is being held for, trying to entice a minor under the age of 16 (as well as parole violation).


Those are not threats. They're enticements. If they were "threats", he would have been charged with making threats.

The mom never said she saw him as a threat. Not in the video I saw.


So. He wasn't charged with threatening. The mom never said she felt threatened.

the only ones saying there was a "threat" are the individuals cheering on the idiots who beat the guy up without even knowing if he had a weapon and without a second's thought as to whether chasing him away might send him elsewhere to do something WORSE.

[jberryhill]

60. "That's why there are police and courts"

I agree that there is a reason for police in courts.

No police arrested this woman, and she's not going to court.

See how that works?

There are also prosecutors, who have long experience on when they can and cannot get a conviction on a charge.

And those courts have juries.

What I am telling you is that the circumstances entitle her to present a defense of others justification. By "entitle her to present", that means that testimony on that justification will be admissible.

Then the jury gets a standard jury instruction on that defense. There is a subjective component to the defense itself, which provides enough room that you will not persuade me that 12 people would unanimously agree.

In a random sample of left-leaning folks here on DU, you aren't getting any takers, can you imagine a random jury?

[pipi_k]

63. Um, OK...so what it all boils down to

is that if the criminal (child enticer or molester) is viewed as being creepy enough, all rules of law are suspended.

That's nice to know, really.

It means that when cops arrest someone suspected of any particular crime, it's perfectly OK for them to make sure he "accidentally" falls down a flight of stairs. Twice. While handcuffed.


And the prosecutors know they'll never get a conviction, so....


I'm really hoping that once this case gets going, the girls end up recanting a lot of what they claim.

It doesn't matter what he's charged with as much as what he's convicted of.

For the sake of those girls and the guy, I do hope this turns out to be nothing more than a bit of teenaged drama blown out of proportion despite what the man said to the mom about wanting to marry her daughter. I would love to see him pronounced not guilty and see the mom's ass dragged into court for assault and battery.

[jberryhill]

65. No, the rules of law are not "suspended"

But the hard fact of criminal prosecution is that you have to get twelve people to agree to convict.

IMHO, that's a tall order here.

[The Doctor.]

206. Your point is very clear.

If 12 people can be convinced that the person deserved it, then you can get away with anything.

You're right, of course. I'm sure Nicole Brown Sullivan deserved exactly what she got... right?

[Aerows]

269. It's not a fact that rule of law was suspended

Regardless of how you attempt to justify this goons behavior, if you are a man in his late 40's hitting on a 13 year old and are then dumb enough to tell her mother you want to sex her up, you should pretty much expect there to be consequences for your stupidity.

I have absolutely no problem admitting that had it even been one of my nieces or a friend of one of theirs that I would have responded in exactly the same way.

People are protective of children, and they should be. Anyone that excuses this man's behavior and condemns the woman for losing her temper and knocking the shit out of him is the one with the problem. If you don't understand why a woman might just be protective of her 13 year old daughter when some 40+ year old man talks about wanting to sex her up, you need a reality check.

[DeschutesRiver]

74. He was already there, trying to lure a underage girl into an alley

for an illegal purpose (as he admitted when asked subsequently). There were no parents around when he did that, nor did he go up to the girl to ask to be taken to her mother to ask for her hand in marriage. It wasn't "just words", it was actions and words. I can put "lured into an alley" together with his statement to the mom that he either wanted to marry the kid or have her signed away to him to mean that his intention was to take the girl and use her for his own purposes. The mother, to her credit, did not fly off the handle and tackle the guy first - she asked him what his intentions towards her kid had been, instead of just taking her daughter's assessment of the situation, and I imagine she did that because she didn't want to do something based on a misunderstanding of a situation she hadn't witnessed herself. Takes some restraint right there to stop and make certain that action is even necessary, and she did that. So I am not even inclined to second guess her at this point.

She used the same weapon that he had available, ie fists, and neutralized the threat until the cops could be called, just as she did. This story could have had a different outcome, had she waited for even more certainty of his motives and his intention by letting him act upon it further. She had enough to reasonably conclude that both she and her daughter were in danger, because civilized people do not act as he did, nor escalate things as he did when confronted by admitting via his request to have her daughter turned over to him that his purpose in luring the child was to make her his own.

With all due respect, being civilized doesn't mean one has to put oneself in further danger to maintain the status of "civilized". There is even a concept called citizen's arrest that involves restricting the freedom of another individual in the proper circumstances where there are no police present. There are rules and variations for self preservation even by means of violence when people are threatened and there are no police on site. And so on - civilized society does not at all preclude taking action oneself, nor require that we always, every time, must wait for law enforcement. Never has been that way.

In this case, the cops were called, the courts will be involved. So this will roll through the system in a normal manner for this bad guy. And this child was not taken from her parents, as this man intended to do.

[pipi_k]

80. Sorry, but she DID fly off the handle and attack him first

physically.


He made not ONE move toward her for the intent of touching or harming her.

He used words.

She used her fists.

And he apparently was enough of a gentleman (if we use the word loosely) NOT to hit her back.

[DeschutesRiver]

83. All you and I have are the set of facts contained in this single article

and we take those facts, and run them through our own personal filter to reach a preliminary conclusion. There is nothing more at this point, so we are both going on this bare bones framework of facts alone.

I see the restraint used before she made her decision to use her fist. It is reasonable, though not conclusive, to guess that there likely was something that she assessed as a threat which made her response reasonable. Given her initial restraint, I am not inclined at this point to second guess her on the spot assessment of the dangers present. We weren't there, but she was, and had she truly been the type to over-react and "fly off the handle", or assault someone just for kicks, I doubt she would have taken the time she did to ask questions first. The very definition of "fly off the handle" doesn't typically include much forethought or deliberation or fact gathering first, as I understand it.

Until the facts are more developed, neither you nor I have the ability to make much more than a preliminary conclusion on what her exact situation was, and whether her reponse was appropriate. And certainly, while our own personal experiences may influence our take on these intital facts, they have zero to do with what happened to this particular woman, her daughter, or the particular incident they found themselves in.

Because we were not there, we both are simply guessing from reading lines, and between them, and really, that does not speak to the actual situation this woman found herself in.

[pipi_k]

84. No, actually...

I have the woman's words.

There is a link to a video somewhere in this thread in which SHE gives her account of what happened.

He was standing there watching the girls. They told the woman. She said he may have been making "come here" motions with his hands...she's not sure but that's the way it looked to her.

He was 100 feet away. She went over. She asked him why he was watching the girls.

He, in broken English, said he wanted to marry the redhead and "sex her".

That's when she "lost it" and punched him.


Those were all HER words.

Is she lying?

[DeschutesRiver]

94. Well, I'd say that helps her case considerably

The account I read of him stating his further intent at the police station appears to have been also said to the mother originally, so all he did at the station was just corroborate her account of what happened.

So there was a direct threat made of an intended sexual assault to her minor child. Perhaps your definition of "flying off the handle" includes a "lost it" reaction when a person reacts to such a threat when faced with it. Mine does not, as that is not an uncommon reaction, nor is it an unrealistic action now in view of he actually threatened. There is what you do when faced with an imminent threat in a fluid situation where the facts are still hot and unresolved, vs. what you do in a situation where the facts are cold and unchangeable because the event is over. Two different things entirely.

Words do have consequences, as well as meanings, and are used to determine intent and guide further actions.

[pipi_k]

100. I think there's a thin line

between saying "I would like to" and "I intend to".


He never threatened to commit sexual assault.

He said he would like to marry the girl and sex her.

It's offensive, but not deserving of a punch in the face just because it pissed the woman off.

That's the point where you do the right thing and let the police handle it.

[DeschutesRiver]

113. If not for the action of luring prior, I would concur with it merely being offensive words

But his words gave an explicit meaning to his actions of luring. And with that, for me the thin line disappears.

Just saying it, randomly - one thing. Actively trying to capture someone's kid against their will (because I'll go out on a limb here and assume he didn't ask the kid to marry him), and answering the mother who shows up by saying you want to marry and sex her girl says that you intended to do it because you were there actually executing your plan but just got caught in the process. I see no point in letting his words stand alone, as though he had not been in the process of making good on them.

There are times when the right thing is to wait for the cops. And there are times when the right thing is to engage in some self-help, and while I'd need more facts to know where this situation is on that scale, the law does allow for such things. In the right fact situation, it is simply not required that one calls the cops in order for one's actions to be considered the right thing, and that is so basic that it is sanctioned by law.

[pipi_k]

141. All that is known after the attempt

to lure the girls.

It wasn't known to that woman beforehand.

She, in fact, didn't even know who he was.

so she had no way of knowing what he had or hadn't done before or what he did or did not intend to actually do at that time.

And she didn't hit him based on prior knowledge. She hit him based on something he said that she personally found offensive.

Again, which I understand. Her anger, I mean.

But not the assault and battery.

[DeschutesRiver]

146. I went back to read the article in the OP

which said:

"Polk County police sources say that Robert C. Harding tried to lure a 13-year-old girl into an alley near where she was playing with friends outside her home. Instead the smart-thinking teenager went to get her mom who confronted Harding, according to CBS affiliate KCCI."

So according to this, the mother did know about the attempt, which was the reason she confronted him.

Is there a new story that now contradicts this fact?

[uppityperson]

148. Here's another article, talks about him motioning to and waving to her from an alley

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110811/NEWS/108110301/-1/LIFE04/Police-Man-sought-lure-Des-Moines-girl-into-alley

"According to police reports, the teen was playing in a friend's yard near her east-side home when Robert C. Harding waved at her from an alley and motioned for her to come to him."


This story reads like he motioned/waved to her from an alley and she went home and reported it like she should have. Mom went out to check it out, etc etc etc per article

[DeschutesRiver]

153. Hadn't seen that, and have read further down

from that other article, which states:

"When Pullen confronted him, Harding allegedly asked to marry her daughter and asked how old her daughter was. Pullen responded that she was only 13 and asked Harding to leave, but the man reportedly asked when the girl could be signed away."

[The Doctor.]

196. Ignorance is abundant in this thread.

So, let me ask you this; If you wound up in another country and had the shit beat out of you for trying to buy beef, would that be 'justified' to you?

Stop. I know you're making weird faces and already formulating a response about how 'ridiculous' I am.

Did anyone here stop to even wonder if marrying teenage girls is normal where this guy comes from?

I don't know either. Shit, I probably would not have been particularly nice to the guy either. It's possible that he had no ill intent. It's not merely possible, but it's more than likely that a bunch of DUers can't take a step back and think about the possibility of greater context here.

Meanwhile, I don't know if this guy is an asshole/pervert, or just someone who didn't know that nubiles were off-limits (in certain places) in the US.

And for the moment, neither do you.

[JoeyT]

211. Yes, it is.

Apparently self defense stretches way further than I ever could have imagined it did. I've had it all wrong about immediate/imminent danger all this time.

Now I know that if a guy threatens me over the phone and I hang up, drive to his house, and beat the hell out of him with a bat, I'm fully justified in the eyes of the law because I was defending myself. And knowing is half the battle!

[The Doctor.]

275. Yep, we can just shoot anyone we perceive to be a threat... apparently.

:eyes:

This has really been enlightening. Some 'progressives'.

[pipi_k]

332. Something I wonder now....

Will people who have ESP be able to use it as a defense?

As in...

"I could hear him thinking he wanted to kick my ass, so I kicked his first".


Wouldn't that be interesting...

;)

[pipi_k]

250. What I was referring to was

any prior record he may have to entice any other girl...not this one.

If there is such a prior, the mom didn't know about it because she didn't even know who he was, let alone whether he had a prior record.

[DeschutesRiver]

158. We will have to agree to disagree on this, as this portion of an article tells me all

I need to know. Pulling all these reports together and until something new comes along to contradict it, I do not have a problem with this mother's actions. I'm sure that we are both women of conviction, but we simply come at this with different life experiences that lead us in an opposite direction on this issue. Not that there is anything wrong with that at all, at least not in my book.

"According to police reports, the teen was playing in a friend's yard near her east-side home when Robert C. Harding waved at her from an alley and motioned for her to come to him.

The girl refused but Harding continued to wave, police said.

The 13-year-old went to tell her mother, Holly Pullen, but when they emerged from their house, Harding was gone, they told police.

Harding reportedly came back when Pullen went back inside, but she saw him waving at her daughter through a window.

When Pullen confronted him, Harding allegedly asked to marry her daughter and asked how old her daughter was. Pullen responded that she was only 13 and asked Harding to leave, but the man reportedly asked when the girl could be signed away.

Pullen punched Harding in the face and he ran away, police reported. The girl's father allegedly chased after him with a friend. When Harding stopped and turned on them, the three reportedly fought."

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110811/NEWS/108110301/-1/LIFE04/Police-Man-sought-lure-Des-Moines-girl-into-alley

[uppityperson]

159. She punched him for asking when she could be signed away?

He waved at the kid from an alley, motioned to her. Kid went home, told mom. Mom went to look, guy was gone. Mom went inside, guy shoved up waving at kid through window. Mom confronted guy, mom said kid is 13 and leave. Guy asked when she could be signed away. Mom punched him.

As this is justification? Mom could not walk back to house and call cops?

Did you read where the only reason cops came as someone reported a fight, and the guy was walking away?

[DeschutesRiver]

164. You mean the part where the guy walked away only after having been punched

and then chased by the guys? After coming around the house repeatedly trying to get the girl, instead of backing off after the first failed attempt? After refusing to leave even when asked? Because he really wanted to "sex" that girl bad, cause he just loves young girls?

Yes, I did read that.

[uppityperson]

172. You missed the marry first part, then have sex. Personally I'd be really pissed if he was simply

turned loose after being beaten. I'd rather he ended up in jail after the cops were called than beaten and set loose to do whatever on someone else.

[DeschutesRiver]

175. Actually, it was the luring without asking anything part that was most

troublesome for me. Like luring, then hiding when his victim ran and momma came out the first time, then coming back to lure again, that part.

If he'd wanted to just find a young girl to marry, he was free to follow her home and ask her parents. Seems like his choice was to work alone just with the girl, except she didn't want any part of it.

I don't believe most sexual predators stay in jail all that long, nor do they reform their ways. So he will be doing whatever on someone else soon enough. Probably not on this girl in the future, however.

[whathehell]

242. Oh well THAT makes it okay, then.."Married sex" with a THIRTEEN year old

although OBVIOUSLY not even legally possible, makes it much better..Duh.

[TK421]

278. lol! right? I just read that myself..incredible, just fucking incredible

I can't believe there are people out there with the sick,twisted brains who think up this shit!

[whathehell]

290. Right...I belive it's called "splitting hairs" and "bending over backwards".

Maybe they're practicing for a career as Defense Attorneys for Pedophiles.:eyes:

[whathehell]

229. Yeah, and not everyone has the presence of mind of someone sitting at a computer to do that

You go split hairs...Others are more concerned about their children.

[Pithlet]

398. Oh, you just want to marry her? That's why you're lurking here?

Oh, phew! Okay! For a minute I thought you wanted to abduct and rape her and I was going to defend her! What a relief! Okay, carry on, man! *pats him on the back*

Seriously. Are you for real?

[DeschutesRiver]

93. Also in article: Told cops that he lured her into the alley, so he could "marry her and sex her"

By the time police arrived at Fremont Street, the fight was over. Police questioned Harding who allegedly told them that he was trying to get the girl into the alley so he could "marry her and sex her."

Police also said he told them he knew the girl was a minor and that he liked "young girls."

I'm going to met your gentlemen definition of "loosely" and raise it to self confessed sexual predator.

Civilized people have never been required to wait unil they are decapitated, or fatally shot, or beaten to death, actually raped instead of threatened with it, and so on before they take action to prevent such things from happening to themselves or their loved ones.

Because it would be too late. And our laws have provisions to accomodate such things, understanding that there are consequences that cannot be undone or unwound.

P.S. In my own personal experiences, I also showed restraint. However, given the circumstances, had the sexual predator in question told me that he was going to do something horrid to me, I would have laid him out flat. The only part of the ultimate outcome that I could have guaranteed was that I would not have been the victim he intended me to be. Stating his intent would have been the first move, and I'd have had no need to wait for him to take his second step.

[The Doctor.]

205. Ever see "Chicago"?

One thing I noticed that many did not; the white handkerchief.

The Russian girl who was in jail for killing her husband. She was the only one with the white handkerchief.

[whathehell]

217. Maybe he should have just offered her a few camels...Jeebus..This guy is fucked UP. n/t

[Gormy Cuss]

160. He assaulted her daughter.

And yes, I mean assaulted. Assault doesn't require physical force, only the threat of harm.

Calling him a gentleman for not hitting back is an odd assumption based on the other details of the story.

[uppityperson]

161. He waved at her and motioned to her. That's assault? Huh. Damn those dames on parade floats

assaulting all those people watching!
Another article ....
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110811/NEWS/108110301/-1/LIFE04/Police-Man-sought-lure-Des-Moines-girl-into-alley

[Gormy Cuss]

169. Assault is a threat of harm, and "sexing" an underage child qualifies as harm.

Don't believe me, but you should believe jberryhill, esq.

[uppityperson]

173. Waving, then asking to marry her and have sex does not = "sexing an underage child".

No, jberryhill, esq is an anonymous internet forum user like you and me. I'm an astronaut. How about you?

[Gormy Cuss]

187. I'm a stripper in a furries bar

but I know the definition of simple assault and so does jberryhill based on posts here.

[The Doctor.]

202. No, you don't.

If you wave at me, I can punch your lights out?

Shit, you're a furry! You likely want to do something 'fuzzy' to me!

Your chain of reason also means I can beat the shit out of anyone who hits on me. I can take it as 'assault' because they don't know for sure whether I'm of legal age... so I can beat the crap out of them.

You and 'jberryhill' aren't fit to represent a turnip in a court of law.

[Gormy Cuss]

284. I never claimed to be an attorney, so yes, I'm not fit to represent someone in court.

I do have enough of a background to understand the definition of a simple assault however.

I also didn't claim that waving at someone was justification for punching out someone's lights but if local law decided against charges for the mother I'd assume they have good reason based on an investigation.

[Withywindle]

388. It doesn't equal "sexing" but it does equal a rape threat!

40+ man with 13yo child = that's rape. It's always rape. It's never not rape.

What do you call the luring into the alley part but the beginning of an attempted rape? The woman got angry because not only did this guy try to rape her daughter, he kept on about his desire to do so TO THE MOTHER'S FACE, which suggests that not only is a sicko, he's a shameless sicko with no normal sense of fear.

[Name removed]

201. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Aerows]

270. Threatening a woman's child

with rape or abduction to the woman's face, and you are taking your own life into your hands. That's just a fact. People are protective of their offspring. It is a biological urge in MANY people. You just don't do that and expect there to be no consequences.

[The Doctor.]

345. You are absolutely correct.

And if this fellow did exactly that, then I'd be 1000% on her side.

But he didn't. You should probably read the article.

[Name removed]

200. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whathehell]

213. "And you don't get to beat someone up because he tried to entice someone in a public place"

If you are an adult man and the "someone" is a thirteen year old

and the "public space" is an alley, you've got, at very least,

some explainin' to do.:eyes:

[whathehell]

214. Are you kidding?...

She was guarding her child from possible abduction

Maybe she didn't have to hit him, but he was an obvious predator.

He wanted to "marry" her?...Oh shit, maybe he should have just

offered to buy her for a couple of camels.

[mistertrickster]

103. My little brother was raped by one of these guys when he was about 7.

There's not always a policeman around when you want one.

[uppityperson]

108. Your poor brother. You do realize there was no child in immediate danger here, right?

That the kid had gone inside and the mom came out and "talked" with the guy then punched him when he explained himself. You did read that, right?

[mistertrickster]

111. BS. The guy had a criminal record and posed a clear and present danger from

speech and behavior.

The guy was lucky. Meanwhile, another girl's innocent childhood is taken away.

[uppityperson]

114. The child was inside. No imminent danger. I understand the mom's reaction but do not condone it

She had other choices. The girl was in no imminent danger. She was inside, away from this guy. Yes, he needs help, needs to be off the street and getting help or be taken care of in a legal manner.

I understand why the mom felt such a reaction, but she had other choices. In this case, no there was no child in "clear and present danger" that made the mom beating the man the only or best way to deal with it.

[pipi_k]

129. "Innocent childhood"????

Excuse me, but...

bwahahahahahahhahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Let me tell you something, hon...

13 year olds know things these days I didn't find out until I was 17 or 18.

My 10 year old granddaughter knows more than I did at her age.


And from what the mother said, he never actually SAID anything to the girls. She said he stood 100 feet away "just watching them".

So her "innocent childhood" is apparently still intact.

[Gormy Cuss]

162. If she wasn't affected by it, she never would have run into the house.

She was frightened by this guy's actions, just like her mother was. You may know sexually precocious children but not all of them are like that.

[pipi_k]

325. So a weird guy makes goo goo eyes

and some weird hand motions from 100 feet away and she's ready for therapy?


I don't suppose the other possibility could be that she, being 13, is intelligent enough to know that what he was doing wasn't "normal", and decided to tell her mom.

One doesn't have to be "affected" in any particular way by that.

And really...any 13 year old in America who hasn't been exposed to worse than that has been kept in a cave all his/her life. They only have to have friends and be allowed out in public...listen to music...see movies and TV...etc.

[whathehell]

215. Oh no....The middle aged perv who wants to "sex" her is more "innocent" than the 13 year old

right?.:crazy:

Wow...You're priorities are certainly screwed. You sound like a child molester or an apologist for one

[mistertrickster]

228. Indeed. This Political Correctness in which we value the rights of

criminals more than the rights of their victims is not only nonsensical, it makes so-called "liberals" look the fool in the eyes of the majority of voters.

This is exactly what the right-wing legitimately pillories us with every election cycle--coddling criminals and ignoring the horrible effects of criminality.

Sometimes, too much thinking is as bad as not enough.

"Thus is the native hue of resolution sicklied o'er with this pale cast of thought, and enterprises of great pitch and moment with this regard their currents turn awry and lose the name of action." --Hamlet

[whathehell]

231. Exactly....

It's not as if she beat him to a pulp, for fuck's sake..In fact,

Some might call the mother's actions regarding the perv "raising his consciousness in a manner he could understand".

Those pillorying the mother in this case may have "dogs in the fight"...Maybe a perv in the family?..Who knows.

[Pithlet]

392. I'm not so sure.

I have a sad but sneaking suspicion that if this were a thread about someone who got punched while getting caught, say, siphoning gas? It would be a much different thread.

[Aerows]

274. Absolutely right

Anyone with a shred of common sense would know that threatening a woman's child to the mother's face isn't going to end well. Justifying the "poor innocent man's" behavior is ludicrous, and as you said, smacks of defending either one's own proclivities or the proclivities of another.

[whathehell]

293. Thank you. n/t

[pipi_k]

126. I'm sorry about your brother and

you're right that there's hardly ever a policeman around when you want one.

However...that doesn't give people the right to take matters into their own hands.

[mistertrickster]

134. And that's where we disagree . . . nt

[pipi_k]

140. Obviously...

Well, life being the tragicomedy that it is, I have no doubt...though I don't wish it...that someday you will be faced with the effects of having attracted some really bad karma with that attitude.

I've seen it happen lots of times.

Good luck...

[TK421]

181. Did he, a grown man, need a weapon? If it were my kid, he would have gotten the same

what in Satans bloody butthole does having a weapon have anything to do with it?

your post baffles the shit out of me..please explain why, after making the statement he did how he would even need one in order to be perceived as a threat?

If someone walked up to you with your daughter and said "Hey, your daughter has a pretty little mouth on her...wonder what she could do with it"? How in the BLOODY-FUCK do you take something like that?

[mistertrickster]

223. Yours and mine seems to be the general consensus here,

with just a few holier-than-thou types telling us how wrong we are.

If there's nothing worth fighting for, there's nothing worth living for.

[TK421]

254. I just don't get it sometimes...it just amazes me

:crazy:

[Aerows]

276. I'm right on board with both of you

You don't mess with people's children.

[JoeyT]

210. That seems like an unlikely defense.

Even if the mother manages that defense, it's unlikely the father and friends will. You can't really claim you were defending someone when you chase someone down and kick their ass.

I'd have probably done the same, but I'd also expect to be charged for it.

[William769]

24. Under Iowas "castle doctrine"

If she is charged, which I doubt she will be. She will be protected.

[pipi_k]

27. This didn't happen in her own home.

She actually had to LEAVE her home to confront him in an alley.

A public place.

Not exactly one's "castle".

[William769]

29. Do some research

Most States cover public place under the "castle doctine" in protection of oneself or others.

[pipi_k]

31. I'm quite sure it doesn't involve.

public alleyways.

Why would anyone expect to be protected from offensive words in an alley?

It's not a person's home. It's not a person's car. Nor his place of employment.

It's nowhere he NEEDS to be under ordinary circumstances.


That man didn't direct fighting words against anybody. He apparently didn't threaten bodily harm or brandish a weapon. Calling the police would have been the best option, but that woman had to actually leave her home, go to the alley, and then punch the guy because she didn't like what he said.

I don't even know what this country is coming to anymore when people think that's OK.


PS...my child molester BIL also tried to lure a 10 year old neighbor girl into his home with promises of candy, around the same time he molested my child and a few other girls. Her parents didn't go to his home and act like animals. They called the police, who paid a visit to the creep.

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipi_k]

44. Rudeness never wins a debate, dear.

"Praising pedophiles"?

Really?

What this man did isn't even CLOSE to a grown man performing disgusting sexual abuse on a 7 year old child. My daughter, who is 39, has suffered for years because of what he did.

So don't even try to equate that with some weird guy in an alley making suggestive comments to a 13 year old who had the chance, and took it, of running away.

Don't EVEN go there.

[laundry_queen]

61. So because someone has suffered something worse

THIS instance is OK.

Got it.

[pipi_k]

64. Never said it was "OK"

It's never OK for things like this to happen to anyone, and I don't know why you think I even implied it.


but it's a pretty damned scary place we live in when people think it's alright to practice "justice" in this manner.

[uppityperson]

86. Wow. What a thing to claim. Where does "praise pedophiles"? SHAME on you

[whathehell]

226. Perhaps "Defend pedophiles" would be more accurate.

[pipi_k]

245. How unfortunate

that so many here can't understand the mechanism whereby it's possible to condemn vigilante justice without "defending" the suspect.

[whathehell]

252. How unfortunate

That people like you are so hyperbolic that they call one punch

by a frightened and justifiably angry mother "vigilante justice"

and say that they hope the MOTHER gets charged

and the pervert gets acquitted....Pathetic.

[pipi_k]

273. She doesn't get a pass

for being "frightened" when she walked right over and confronted the guy. Truly frightened people stay inside and call the police. So hyperbole works both ways.


When someone decides to take matters into his/her own hands rather than refer it to law enforcement, that's what it is. Vigilante justice. It doesn't matter whether it was one punch or a knife to the gut. And what if that woman had been holding a steak knife at the time her daughter told her about the guy? She goes walking over to the guy, confronts him, he pisses her off, and she stabs him.

Maybe he dies. Let's forget the guy for now. What sort of idiot would be OK with ending up behind bars for 20 years, depriving the daughter she cares so much about of a mom? She can't "protect" her daughter from prison, can she? And if the guy had had a weapon and killed her? She's dead. She can't "protect" her daughter anymore.

He wouldn't be the last pervert, that's for sure. But she's not around to protect her from the rest of them...some who might be even WORSE than this guy was.

Yes, I would like to see the mother charged with assault and battery just for being incredibly STUPID.

What sort of a country is this when we teach our children that it's OK to hit people when they piss us off, no matter what is said? She should have called the police and been done with it.


Anyway, please excuse me. I need to go out and beat up some people who do things I find morally reprehensible. You know...people who smoke...people who spank their kids...people who text and talk on cell phones while driving...people who drive drunk...that sort of thing.

Because, unlike this guy who didn't actually hurt or kill anyone, some people who do many of the things I listed above WILL end up killing someone someday.

Gotta go out and teach 'em all a lesson...

[whathehell]

289. Neither of them "get a pass", but I find her behavior far less reprehensible than his.

and I find it odd, and sadly telling, that you find being "stupid" more heinous than soliciting children.

"Anyway, please excuse me. I need to go out and beat up some people who do things I find morally reprehensible. You know...people who smoke...people who spank their kids...people who text and talk on cell phones while driving...people who drive drunk...that sort of thing".

Lame....Again. This is not just people who "do things I find morally reprehensible"...This is a threat to "do things"

that threaten kids, in the mother's case HER kid -- and please stop splitting hairs about how many feet he was from her, etc...It's psychologically

"threatening" for the child and the mother to have some pervert "beckoning" the kid and then suggesting "sexting" her.

If you want to continue being deliberately obtuse, go ahead,

but some of us are underwhelmed and a tad bored.

[pipi_k]

326. People who genuinely feel "threatened"

call the police.

Period.

You don't go over to someone and punch him and then claim you were "afraid of him". No. You take yourself and your kid into the house and call the police.

He didn't "threaten" anyone.

He may have beckoned. Which is up for debate since the mother can't say for sure what his hand motions meant.

He told the mother he was attracted to the redhead and wanted to marry her and sex her.

He WANTED to. Not that he was GOING to, whether she liked it or not. He apparently tried to bargain with the woman. That still doesn't sound like a "threat".

In the end, if you're so underwhelmed and bored, then there's a real simple solution. Don't keep replying to someone who "bores" you.

Self-control. It's not just a word in the dictionary.

[whathehell]

334. Yes, there's a simple solution for clearly failing to get agreement for your point, too.

Stop replying to someone who, along with the majority on this

thread, is REJECTING your message.

Is this a case of needing to "get the last word", dear?

[pipi_k]

343. I'm not the one complaining about being bored

and I'm not the one telling other people to "fuck off" or accusing them of all sorts of evil things just because I don't happen to agree with their opinions.

I won't put anyone on "ignore" just because I don't like his or her opinion. It takes someone being awfully rude to get me to do that. That is my only reason for "ignore". Gross rudeness. Otherwise, I'll gladly debate/discuss with anyone who cares to.

If all you can offer is mindless snark, then my suggestion is to ignore ME instead of persistently coming in with the last word while accusing me of wanting to have the last word. Have an adult discussion or not. It's up to you.

[whathehell]

233. "offensive words in an alley"?...Gawd..Literal minded much?...Give me a BREAK!....

They were THREATENING words, under the circumstances, from a grown man to a child.

[pipi_k]

327. He was trying to bargain with the woman.

That is NOT "threatening" no matter how you twist it.

Had he said something like he would stalk their house until he could marry and sex the girl, OK. Threat.


From the woman's own account, he did not say that.

[Pithlet]

401. He was trying to bargain with her to marry and have sex with her daughter

while lurking in their alleyway. Threat.

[Dappleganger]

263. Not true.

Here in FL, you can use castle doctrine while minding your own business in any public place. If someone threatens you, you have a right to protect yourself.

[pipi_k]

328. He. did. not. threaten. anybody.

He made a statement to the mother about wanting to marry and sex the girl, then asked about when she would be able to sign her over to him or some such thing.

That is NOT a threat.

Sounded more like he wanted to buy himself a wife, albeit a very young one.

Like I pointed out to someone else, if he had said he would stalk the family's home until he got what he wanted, then yes, I agree. Threat.

But he never said that.

He never got charged with "making threats". He was charged with trying to entice a child.

Big difference.

[Dappleganger]

424. Enticing a child is threatening.

Enticement to do what? What did he want to do to the girl, "sex her up."

If you don't believe that is threatening there is something very screwed up with your moral compass.

[Zywiec]

43. Protection of oneself or others? Really?

Instead the smart-thinking teenager went to get her mom who confronted Harding, according to CBS affiliate KCCI.

Why didn't she stay where she was and call the police?

She was in zero danger and didn't need to immediately protect anyone.

[jberryhill]

51. The other children remained outside

[pipi_k]

54. Outside?

Outside where?

Outside the girl's house?

Outside the alleyway?

If they were outside the alleyway, then they didn't exactly view that guy as being much of a threat, did they?

Yeah, they were so scared they stayed in the scary situation.

Please...

:eyes:

[jberryhill]

58. Have you noticed that nobody agrees with you?

In order to convict, one has to convince a jury.

Consider it empirical evidence.

[pipi_k]

62. Nobody?

Really?

I thought I saw a couple here and there.

Whatever.

I guess the Mob rules, huh?

Also, I'm sure the defense and prosecutors would make sure to choose people sympathetic to their own sides. I wouldn't be so quick to declare a total win for the defendant here. People are supposed to decide cases based on evidence, not their personal feelings.

The evidence here is that a woman physically assaulted someone who should have been reported to police, first and foremost. You don't get to go around beating up people who are sick in the head, as this guy clearly is.

[jberryhill]

66. The defendant doesn't need a "total win"

You know how this works, yes?

[Zywiec]

67. I'm with you

The law applies to everyone. Thanks!

:hi:

[Dappleganger]

264. She did report to police...

and while she waited, she protected her child.

I don't agree with any of the BS you're spewing.

[pipi_k]

346. She didn't protect a child who was already in the house

She left her house to confront a man who might have had a weapon.

She and her idiot husband and his buddy almost managed to chase the guy right into another neighborhood where he might have had access to a child NOT LUCKY ENOUGH to be near her home.

Yeah. That's real bright.

Doesn't take a whole lot of brains to chase him into someone else's territory.

And the way I understand it, the police weren't even called until her idiot husband and his friend were reported by a bystander who called in to say that three men were fighting.

You have information that refutes that? Something that says SHE is the one who called the cops? If she had, they would have told her to stay in her home. She chose not to do that.

[Pithlet]

399. Their child had just almost been lured into an ally.

And he was still there. It's real easy for you to read a story about and and judge what they did. It might not have been what you would have done. But either way, it's not vigilante justice. Especially if other children were present. Call the cops and then see what the story is is a perfectly reasonable response.

[pipi_k]

422. Call the cops

and then see what the story is???

Seriously?

No. You call the cops and wait on the porch or in the house till they show up.

And as I recall from previous posts, the only one who actually called the cops was someone who saw the father and his buddy trying to also beat the shit out of him.


So if someone sees a guy across the street holding a shotgun, he's supposed to protect his family by calling the cops and then crossing the street to see what's up???

Personally, I think that's a real stupid thing to do. But it's even MORE stupid to do it when you don't even KNOW if the guy has a weapon on him.

As for thinking they're not right because it's not something I would have done, it goes the other way too. Just because you would have done the same thing, that doesn't mean they were "right".

[uppityperson]

88. I do. There is a reason we have cops nad courts, not vigilante justice.

I understand why the mom did this, but also agree she could have been charged with assault. What if he'd had a weapon and here comes mom tearing down an alley after him?

[U4ikLefty]

152. I agree with them.

[jberryhill]

199. Well, when it gets to 12, that's a win

[varelse]

302. I agree with her

I also think it is unfair (and rather ridiculous) to equate advocacy of the rule of law with sympathy for the devil (pedophiles).

[TheWraith]

97. You're confusing "Castle Doctrine" (home) and "stand your ground" laws (public).

Castle doctrine laws say you have the right to defend yourself with force against an intruder in your home or property, who is not retreating or surrendering.

Stand-your-ground laws say that you are entitled to defend yourself in public using force, without first being required to try to retreat from the threat.

Realistically, I doubt that either set of laws strictly covers this situation, but still, the woman isn't likely to face any charges. Either the DA would refuse to charge, or the judge would find she was provoked (which IS sometimes considered legal justification for throwing the first punch), or the jury wouldn't convict.

[DeschutesRiver]

99. Agree with this assessment. nt

[BR_Parkway]

42. If so she should demand a jury trial - pretty certain 12 in the box would

agree with her about this one...

[jberryhill]

50. Correct

There is enough slop in "defense of others" that a jury instructed on that defense would probably acquit.

[0rganism]

104. would a grand jury agree to prosecute? doubtful.

Hell, I wouldn't want to be the DA prosecuting that case, or even on his/her staff.

[rucky]

136. I'd love to sit on the jury for that one.

[WhiteTara]

144. They wouldn't let you...you have a predetermined

outcome of the trial.

[uppityperson]

151. I'm waiting for "but that's not fair" complaint

Thank you for posting that.

[Brigid]

145. I double-dog dare the local prosecutor to try that.

I very much doubt that will happen.

[pipi_k]

3. Not that he didn't deserve it, but...

where does anybody get the right to punch someone else in the face?

It wasn't even self defense.


And what if the guy had had some kind of deadly weapon...

Stupid. Really stupid.

[mistertrickster]

7. I think defending your child from a perv is a justifiable case of self-defense

and the mom did nothing wrong.

The perv is lucky he didn't get killed.

[pipi_k]

56. Yeah, well, I think

pissing in the streets is a perfect acceptable way to deal with a full bladder and no public toilet.

But I don't run around doing it.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

222. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rbixby]

9. Don't mess with someone's kid

Sure, its all well and good to say she should have used restraint, but there are cases when its understandable not to. I know if I had kids and someone was doing something like that, I'd have a hard time holding back too.

[mistertrickster]

11. There's also the prophylactic effect of showing criminals that crime will not be tolerated. nt

[pipi_k]

57. Yeah, because...

being punched in the face is WAY more scary than, oh...

being executed.

And we all know how well Capital Punishment works to deter crime, right?

:eyes:

[mistertrickster]

105. Big difference between cap. punishment and a citizen's defense. nt

[pipi_k]

130. Really? What is that difference?

Why would the threat of being punched in the face deter any criminal from committing a crime?


And please...do not call this a "defense". This was not a "defense". Those girls were safe when the woman went over to confront that guy. Walking across a street to an alleyway 100 feet away to confront someone after the fact is not "defense".

It's stupid.

[mistertrickster]

133. Cap punishment takes years and is an "iffy" proposition. Very few executions are actually carried

out anymore.

Instant confrontation on the other hand neutralizes the threat immediately.

This mom, by getting up off her ass and walking that 100 yards, kept other kids in her neighborhood safe and immediately stopped the threat.

This is exactly what we need more of, citizen initiative and involvement.

[pipi_k]

135. She didn't neutralize shit

If he hadn't been caught, he would have moved on to some other area.

Nice going, mom...chase the guy away from your neighborhood straight into another one. :eyes:


No...you know what neutralizes someone like that? A phone call to the police with the guy's description.

Someone a little brighter than this guy was might have figured he was in big trouble and beat feet across town to molest some other kids. The smart thing to do is not let him know you're calling the cops so he's right there doing whatever he's doing when they show up.

[uppityperson]

150. Did you see this article? The cops came to a reported fight, picked him up as walking away

SHE didn't neutralize SHIT but he was walking away from getting beat on.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110811/NEWS/108110301/-1/LIFE04/Police-Man-sought-lure-Des-Moines-girl-into-alley
When Pullen confronted him, Harding allegedly asked to marry her daughter and asked how old her daughter was. Pullen responded that she was only 13 and asked Harding to leave, but the man reportedly asked when the girl could be signed away.

Pullen punched Harding in the face and he ran away, police reported. The girl's father allegedly chased after him with a friend. When Harding stopped and turned on them, the three reportedly fought.

The police were initially called to the scene because of the fight and officers saw the men walking their separate ways when they arrived. Officers stopped them to question them.

[pipi_k]

168. And here's the kicker...

It could all have been a huge misunderstanding based on cultural differences.

Oh, no doubt there's something wrong with the guy as well, but he spoke broken English...and then where you wrote that he asked when the daughter could be signed away....that's not something we usually hear from native born citizens.

so anyway, we have this guy who not only gets punched in the face by a woman, but attacked by a couple of guys as well.

One-on-one fights...whatever.

But the father and his buddy decide they're gonna go two-on-one with the guy who ran away from a woman. Oh yeah...what....

"men"

[uppityperson]

149. By this article, no, she didn't neutralize any threat. The POLICE did that

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110811/NEWS/108110301/-1/LIFE04/Police-Man-sought-lure-Des-Moines-girl-into-alley

When Pullen confronted him, Harding allegedly asked to marry her daughter and asked how old her daughter was. Pullen responded that she was only 13 and asked Harding to leave, but the man reportedly asked when the girl could be signed away.

Pullen punched Harding in the face and he ran away, police reported. The girl's father allegedly chased after him with a friend. When Harding stopped and turned on them, the three reportedly fought.

The police were initially called to the scene because of the fight and officers saw the men walking their separate ways

The police were called there because of the fight and stopped the guy as he was walking away after the fight. THIS is why we need more citizen involvement, to call the police when something like this happens rather than going vigilante on him and letting him walk away.

[Pithlet]

393. Yes, the police did that. Because they didn't let him get away.

They probably didn't want him coming back and victimizing the children again.

[Fleshdancer]

15. He didn't exactly make it easy for her to use restraint either.

I've never thought a victim "had it coming" before, but holy hell, he first tried to lure her daughter and then had the audacity to talk about her to the mom's face! How could anyone experience that and not snap?

[The Doctor.]

207. This sounds like a serious misunderstanding.

If you're in a foreign country and get the shit beat out of you for trying to buy beef, think back to this.

I'm not sure that's the story, but there's something missing here.

[MedicalAdmin]

323. How could anyone experience that and not snap?

Speaking as a former prison officer we have a word for people who snap: inmate.

[pipi_k]

17. I can tell you from experience

that it's not easy to hold back.

Back in the 80s I found out a BIL was molesting little girls...my young daughter included.

This wasn't just some staring or nasty talk, OK? It was actual sexual abuse.

When I confronted him, he had a lame ass excuse.

I wanted to beat the holy hell out of him. I thought my head would explode from the rage I had, and it took all the willpower I had to NOT do it.


So really, I don't need to be told by anyone how difficult it is to hold back.

Her actions were stupid and could have been dangerous.

[Joe Fields]

38. I am really sorry you had to endure such a monster.

Yet, this is a situation that I can understand and even condone what the mother and father did.

[pipi_k]

46. Thank you....actually...

I got over believing he was a monster long ago. At this point, he's just a very sick and twisted individual to me.

And the thing is...he has been punished...both legally, and by Life...far beyond anything I could have done to him had I chosen to act on my feelings.

Just found out the other day that one of his daughters from his first marriage won't even speak to him anymore after we all found out that he molested his older daughter he has with my sister.

And his oldest son...he became an Atheist, and that's why he and his father don't speak. Backstory is that my BIL and my sister are Fundy "Christians" who used their church/religion to do whatever they did with the kids. So the son really stuck it to his father, in a way.

[whathehell]

221. Damned right......Fuck the asshole who wanted to 'sex" a thirteen year old. n/t

[jberryhill]

16. It's called "defense of others"

A species of the self-defense justification in criminal law for the use of force is denominated "defense of others".

Force in defense of others is justified when:

1. There is an objectively reasonable belief that the target intended to inflict bodily harm on the other; and

2. The actor subjectively did belief that the target intended to inflict bodily harm.

It is objectively reasonable to believe that a person attempting to lure a child into an alley intends to harm that child. Additionally, his statement about wanting to "marry" an obviously underage child reinforces the perception that his intent was to do harm.

While there may be some question here about proportionality and whether the degree of force met the perceived threat at the time it was applied, one questions whether a jury could be found that would not find the use of force here justified.

[pipi_k]

19. I don't think that would apply

after the fact.


The girl went home to get her mom, who only had the word of her daughter that something like that had happened. She hadn't even witnessed it.

All she got was her daughter's side of it, which could have been dramatized a bit...not that 13 year old girls are prone to dramatizing things, of course :sarcasm:

In any case, the girl was not harmed at that time. The mother had no reason to go back there, and the article indicates that the reason the mother punched the guy was because of what he related TO HER. She got pissed at what he said.

And just to be sure, I checked with someone who spent nearly 20 years as a cop.


The guy didn't brandish a weapon. She got pissed because of something he SAID. She is absolutely guilty of assault and battery.

[fishbulb703]

22. I tend to agree, but w/o reading the police report who knows. Also, look up "fighting words".

[pipi_k]

25. From what the article says...

I don't think what that guy said would qualify as "fighting words".

For one thing, they didn't seem to have been said with an intent to incite violence, which is one criteria of something being "fighting words". It sounds like he may instead have been trying to placate a very angry woman. Far cry from "fighting words".


Just because that woman found his words offensive, that doesn't mean she gets a free pass on hitting him.

It's not like she reports that he made a fist and threatened her with the words, "I'm going to punch you".

[fishbulb703]

81. The senator who beat up the other, in the senate, with his walking stick comes to mind.

He was not charged. Incitement is not the strict definition of fighting words. Fighting words are words so insulting or vulgar that they constitute a breach of the peace, and that they are so offensive that a reasonable person would be allowed to take physical action against the person making the statements without being guilty of assault.

In the original sense, this meant a duel at dawn for insulting someones honor or lineage, or someone being able to deliver a beating without being charged with a crime Now it means if someone tells you they want to molest your underage daughter, you can smack the shit out of them. *shrug*

[jberryhill]

47. I guess you didn't read my last paragraph, eh?

That is one of the defenses that would absolutely be raised.

There is no requirement of a weapon, and there is no "first punch rule".

A jury could easily find the justification met.

Clearly the guy was remaining in the area, and represented what a jury may well agree was a continuing threat.

[pipi_k]

68. If he was a "continuing threat"

or a threat of any kind, then his "victims" sure didn't act like it.

In fact, the mother thought he was so LITTLE of a personal threat that she went over to confront him.

If a perpetrator doesn't leave, then it's up to his victims to leave, if they can. The girls clearly could. And did. And then the mother went over.

Threat?

that's about as stupid as approaching an animal one knows is rabid instead of calling animal control and then blaming the animal for biting.... If you want to "protect" yourself, you get into your house. You don't go over and fool with the damned thing.

[DirkGently]

73. You're right, pipi. Ignore the smoke blowing.

The threat, if any, had passed. Punching someone in the face is defensible when it looks like they're about to violently attack someone. Or they ARE violently attacking someone. There's no indication that was the case here.

Others here are deliberately talking circles around the fact that the alleged badness had passed. The guy's supposed expression of grotesque pedophilia was not any kind of imminent threat.

There's no interpretation of self-defense, anywhere, that would allow even an angry mother to confront someone, even a horrible, likely dangerous, unpleasant person who had supposedly tried to entice a child *a little while ago* and punch him in the face. Nor is there any reading of "self-defense" that would allow the family to chase him down the street and beat the snot out of him.

What the mother was legally entitled to do was stay in the house and call the cops, period.

Self defense, of any kind, is dependent on a reasonable reaction intended to PREVENT harm. Not to extract revenge or "teach a lesson." You can punch someone who's about to, or is now, punching you, or another innocent person. Not someone who's just p*ssed you off.

And "Fighting words" has nothing to do with someone expressing disgusting thoughts about children. It's someone standing two inches from your nose, screaming, "F you," etc. Kind of creepy that people who have heard that term assume it just means you can attack anyone whom you find sufficiently offensive.

Beating the hell out of a scary pedophile who may have tried to abduct a child is emotionally appealing, sure. Hard to get a prosecutor interested, probably. Tough to convict -- likely.

But the law isn't supposed to protect it.

I read your post about going through something like this personally and resisting an understandable urge to violence. Not many people would look at it this way, after such an experience. Not sure I could.

But you're right.

Nice going, pipi.

[pipi_k]

78. thank you...I stand by my position even more now after...

seeing the video of the mom telling the story.

Seems the guy was standing in the middle of the alley across the street just watching the girls. The mom said he could have been making "come here" motions with his hands but she's not sure.

She went over to confront the man, who said in broken English that he wanted to "marry the redhead and sex her".

She said that's when she "lost it" and punched him.

He was, by her account, about 100 feet away. When her daughter said he was staring at her, she should have called the police.

She is lucky he didn't have a gun or knife. People do the stupidest things sometimes.

Just like in the horror movies when the girl alone in the house takes a stinking little flashlight and goes looking around in the dark for the source of a suspicious noise is brainless...

It's not the smartest thing in the world to confront anyone who is acting weird, even out on the streets.

[Zywiec]

82. +1

[uppityperson]

91. Indeed. I understand why she did what she did and also understand why it was wrong

[pipi_k]

102. Yep...

I also understand why she did what she did, believe me.

I can't even count the numbers of times I seriously wanted to beat the shit out of someone who hurt/tried to hurt either of my kids...

[jberryhill]

132. I think there are phrases I'm using that you aren't picking up

There are, in legal proceedings, what are pure "legal" issues and what are "fact" issues.

When you read a phrase to the effect of "a jury could reasonably find", it means that a jury could find that, and it would not be reversed by the substituted judgment of an appeal court on what is, at bottom, an issue of fact.

The news story provides a dirty, tiny window on what was going on. I am not concluding that the person was, or was not, a "continuing threat". What I am telling you is that a jury could find that, and would not be reversed on it as a legal question.

[pipi_k]

138. Let's leave that particular rabbit warren

and get back to the fact that in a civilized country, people don't run around inflicting vigilante "justice" on others.

And it wasn't even "justice".

It was the reaction of a pissed off parent. Which I understand. I would be pissed off too.

He wasn't threatening her. He didn't exactly threaten the daughter...only said he wanted to marry and sex her. More weird than threatening.

People who run out to confront others over shit they don't like often end up very hurt...or worse.

People here saying he's lucky he only got punched...well, SHE is lucky she wasn't met with a bullet in her stupid forehead. And you know...she would have brought it on herself by thinking she's Wonder Woman or some other superhero.

[jberryhill]

142. I totally agree - I certainly wouldn't have done that

Nor would I advise anyone do anything like that.

My belief is that it would be a waste of time and expense on a prosecution, because (ahem) a jury could reasonably return a not guilty verdict.

I do not solve problems through violence, and do not suggest that others do.

[Joe Fields]

36. Fuck that...He's lucky he just got a few stitches.

What Iowa jury would convict a mother for this?

[Romulox]

39. Many times when we discuss a specialized field of knowledge, we don't know what we don't know

I won't take it upon myself to educate you, but suffice it to say that you don't even have a working understanding of the general outline of "self defense". I mention this not to insult you, but rather to invite you to use google to broaden your knowledge of the subject before moving forward down the wrong path. :hi:

[4_TN_TITANS]

45. I personally don't know a mother who wouldn't have done

the same or worse. My wife would have done much more than .

[LaurenG]

5. Marry her? Right... nt

[FloridaJudy]

216. Yeah. Like Elizabeth Smart.

Because "marrying" the kid makes all the difference. :sarcasm:

[Incitatus]

10. I love headlines like that.

:rofl:

[Beacool]

14. Good for the mother!!!

I would have done the same thing. Damn these sick bastards!!!!

x(

[hifiguy]

18. That will, as Molly Ivins observed,

put a hitch in that SOB's git-along.

[TBF]

21. Good for her - no jury will put her in jail. nt

[backscatter712]

23. If the mother's charged, no jury would ever convict.

Hell, if I ever encountered a guy like that, I'd make sure they never found the body.

[Romulox]

33. No DA in her right mind would bring charges. nt

[RebelOne]

41. According to the article,

he is the only person being charged.

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2011 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

Click here to donate

[RoadRage]

35. Hanging out in an Ally trying to talk to 13 year old girls?

The guy is lucky he only has a black eye. Serioiusly, I hope they lock him up & get him some help before he actually takes the next pretty young girl he sees standing around.

[William769]

37. Heres a video with the mother.

http://www.kcci.com/r/28832819/detail.html

[BuelahWitch]

72. He "wanted to marry her and sex her"

Now the daughter is afraid to leave the house. :-( Poor girl. Bastard had it coming and much more.

[EFerrari]

48. Go, Mom!

LOL

[Odin2005]

70. Wow, folks are bashing the mom for beating the shit out of a FUCKING PERV?

[pipi_k]

76. He's not JUST a "fucking perv"

He's someone with a serious mental illness, obviously.

Unless you think this sort of thing is perfectly normal or something.


So anyway, this perv has mental issues.

Just like lots of others who have mental issues who might do something scary or dangerous or inappropriate or even criminal.

That's how we treat the mentally ill in this country?

Beat the shit out of them?

I've heard from guys who do this sort of thing. Most of them don't WANT to do it. Most of them are horribly ashamed. And most...or all of them...can't control it.

But let's all just run around beating the shit out of people who do awful things.

[FloridaJudy]

218. The rights of the mentally ill end where my child's safety starts.

Yeah, Mom probably should have called the police. But how many parents here could have resisted punching the lights out of some creep who *admitted* he'd tried to lure her child into an alley to have sex?

I'm a pacifist, but that guy would be walking funny for weeks, if he could walk at all! I don't care if he's mentally ill: my child's safety comes first.

[pipi_k]

243. You know, if you don't want to hear a pervert's perverted words...

you don't go across the street to hear them.

It's not like the guy rang the doorbell and made his indecent proposal right on the front porch, FGS.


Had he done that, then yeah...I'd say what the hell. He got what he deserved.


But not when the attacker has to walk 100 feet to confront someone she doesn't even know might have a weapon.

Just for doing that, she's a fucking idiot, and had she been harmed in any way, she would have brought it on herself.

People should leave the John Wayne mentality at their own front doors.

[uppityperson]

92. No. We are saying she had other choices and chose to assault someone after the danger

was past. We also are saying we understand the reason why the mom did this. Understand but don't condone.

[Name removed]

238. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Doctor.]

204. As the story comes in, we'll know for sure whether he was a 'FUCKING PERV'.

In the meanwhile, I'm most disturbed about the number on DU who, with very little actual information, immediately assumed that he was intent on raping a girl he knew to be underage, that he was aware that there are age prohibitions in the US, and that he deserved to be fucking killed even though he actually did no harm.

Me, I likely would have fucked with him pretty badly. Killed him? Shit... we have some fucked up members around here.

At the very least, I like to think I would have tried to figure out what the hell was wrong with him before passing a death sentence.

[MedicalAdmin]

333. I agree completely.

The mother lost it and did something stupid. If he had been truly dangerous and armed he could have shot her ass and the went on for the child. That was beyond valley on the dumbasses.

I used to work riot squad at a maximum security prison and the John Wayne wannabes who talk a good game are the first ones to run away, pee their pants, or cry when the shot hits the fan. It's nothing but posturing. People who are truly tough don't have to brag about it. Those if you who are talking about killing another person are seriously messed up. Get help before you make a life altering mistake.

[WildEyedLiberal]

237. Only at DU

Where no criminal act isn't apologized for and no act of self-defense isn't vilified. :eyes:

[The Doctor.]

303. Yep, 'only at DU' will people make shit up to justify violent behavior.

What criminal act? What self-defense?

This contention is between those on the side of civilization and those on the side of beating the shit out of someone because they might be a threat.

I thought that all was worked out after we preemptively invaded a country that might have been a threat.

[pipi_k]

71. So anyway...

For anyone who thinks what this woman did was OK, let me just say I hope you never have a close friend or relative who does something morally reprehensible and ends up getting punched in the face or shot dead, as one person said he would do.

I'm not sticking up for this man. I'm pointing out how hypocritical people can be if it's someone they know personally who might get physically attacked.

It would be interesting to know how many here would sit and cheer on a mom who punched their son or father or husband in the face, claiming he tried to entice a child. You would all take her absolute word for it, right? You wouldn't question a thing.

I call bullshit on that. Someone punching or shooting your brother or dad or son would NOT be OK no matter what the guy did.

Or, maybe it would be...who knows? If your dad or brother or son tried to entice a kid and someone punched him or splattered his brains all over the sidewalk with a gun, that would be OK?

yeah.

right.

[Red Mountain]

87. Careful with the straw man

All situations are different.

Details matter.

Personally, I think you can be a good citizen and still take the law into your own hands under extraordinary circumstances.

While it is preferable for the citizenry to defer to the system we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the system has issues of its own.

That said, nobody should escape liability or avoid responsibility for their actions (or lack thereof).

[pipi_k]

96. Not sure why it would be

a "straw man", but whatever.

yeah, situations differ.

What I want to know is how people would feel if they were the family member of this guy, or someone like him.

Someone accused by a child of having done something and then punched in the face by the mother of said child because she didn't like what the guy said.

I want ALL of it to be the same except for the person being accused of the crime.

And I'm betting that nearly all of those who think it's peachy that this woman punched the guy would have a completely different reaction if it were someone they loved being accused of watching teenaged girls and wanting to "marry and sex" one of them. Then being punched in the face because the mom didn't like what he said.

I really can't imagine anyone thinking that would be dandy if it were their own being punched.

[uppityperson]

98. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

[WildEyedLiberal]

241. I actually hope that if I do have a close friend or relative who does something morally rephrensible

that they DO get punched in the face. If someone tries to solicit a minor for sex, being punched in the face seems like a pretty acceptable consequence of that action. And I think it's a little disingenuous for you to absolutely equate being punched in the face with being shot to death. There's just an eensy little difference.

[pipi_k]

257. I don't believe it

I'm not talking about after the person has been legally charged and convicted.


I'm talking about being punched in the face by a private citizen who merely claims the person did something.


And...you would be willing to believe your family member did something odious based on the accusation of some person on the street?

No questions asked?

Sorry...I don't buy it.

[Yavapai]

75. This poor misunderstood man,

just needs to have a vasectomy (with a chainsaw)

[mistertrickster]

120. +1

[Liberal_in_LA]

79. No sympathy for the perp

[babydollhead]

85. men were oogling my daughter since she was eleven

She got very tall very fast and people thought she was much older. One day she was coming home from swimming. She had her bikini on and her towel wrapped around her waist,very low. I said, "Do you want men to look at you and want you have ex with you?" "Ewww no" she replied. I had to tell her, "then cover yourself up."

[whathehell]

234. Men who "ogle" eleven year olds have pedophile instincts..Unfortunately, you put the onus on her.

Unfortunate, but not surprising...Sounds like your name might be

particularly fitting.:eyes:

[madokie]

89. Too cool

[Shandris]

95. Good God, it sounds like Teabagger convention in here...

...with all the 'bad-assery' talk of 'how that fuckin perv would be in deep shit if it was MY children RAWWRRRRR!'. I'm reminded of Teabaggers going on about how they'll go gun down a streetload of liberals as soon as 'the revolution' starts. There's a sense of being in a vacuum in this thread, what with all the air breathed in for the chest-puffing.

Clearly this guy is mentally ill (and not just because he finds underaged girls attractive). He knows she's underaged, yet seems not to 'get' that this would be offensive, or dangerous to himself, or even criminal. He didn't run when questioned; he answered the mother honestly. Who does that?! What SANE criminal wouldn't have just turned around, not saying a word, and simply walked away? There would have been literally NOTHING ANYONE could have done legally had he done so. But instead, he goes on about a mentally-deranged intent to 'marry' her and then 'sex her up'. Then says the EXACT SAME THING to the POLICE! This man deserves mental help, not being punched in the face. He wasn't 'threatening', he was standing there like some slack-jawed yokel. This is the equivalent of blowing away a mentally-disturbed and creepy-looking, but ultimately harmless, beggar with a 12-guage because he stank and then dared approach you to ask for some change.

Anyone espousing violence on this particular thread should be ashamed of themselves.

[Jamastiene]

166. Begging for change on the streets

and molesting children are two completely different things. One, it is possible to say no. The other fucks some kid's life up in a way that it will take years for them to recover. There is a big difference between sparing for change and molesting a kid.

[Shandris]

186. I'm curious as to how he's going to molest a girl who has...

...gone inside her house, while in full view of EVERY OTHER PERSON PLAYING ON THE STREET, and the girl's mother even BEFORE she 'confronted' him. Is he the Invisible PenisMan AND Stretch Armstrong combined?

Barring the presence of superpowers, which I think that we can pretty much agree to, there's simply no way the girl was in danger. Go in house, call police. End of story, end of 'threat', etc.

THAT'S why the analogy with a beggar is dead on. He's in full view of everyone, especially once the girl points him out. This is where you call the police, not go out to be Supermom. If anything caused the potential for a 'threat', it was her going out to TRY to start a confrontation in the first place instead of doing the sensible thing.

[pipi_k]

240. Excuse me, but

he was 100 feet away in the alleyway so he didn't "molest" her.

He stared at her.


So there's also a huge difference between MOLESTING a child and staring at an adolescent girl from 100 feet away.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mistertrickster]

106. The fact that so many "liberals" are concerned about this perv's "rights" speaks volumes

about why we LOSE elections big time.

What do you think Harry Truman would say about this?

Who's side would he be on?

And he's about as liberal democratic as you can get . . .

[uppityperson]

107. You mean that people have rights even if they are mentally ill? Yes, it does speak volumes

The fact so many "liberals" think someone should not have the same rights because they make you go "eww" also speaks volumes.

[mistertrickster]

109. Was Hitler mentally ill, do you think? Probably, yes. Still deserved to die though.

People have the right to defend themselves. This is a value in every culture, except for the holier-than-thou Lib culture, apparently.

[uppityperson]

110. Godwin's Law! Who was in imminent danger here?

Kid was inside, mom wasn't in danger. Could have called the cops.

Yes, we Liberals believe that people, even nasty ones, have rights.

[mistertrickster]

112. As long as the perv was there, he posed a clear and present danger.

Once he made his intentions known, he was a threat to every child in the area . . . as the judge determined when they said he could have NO CONTACT with anyone under 18.

[uppityperson]

116. Was there time to call the police, to have them respond?

[mistertrickster]

117. No. This mom saw a threat and she neutralized it. Good for her. She's a hero. nt

[uppityperson]

121. You believe in vigilantism in cases like this rather than calling cops and watching him

You are a liberal, I am "holier-than-thou". Gotcha.

Been watching your posts for a while, thank you for continuing to post this sort of stuff. It makes me realize I am right in watching you.

According to this news article, looks like there was time to call cops before beating on the guy. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110811/NEWS/108110301/-1/LIFE04/Police-Man-sought-lure-Des-Moines-girl-into-alley

[mistertrickster]

127. Good God, get a life. I'm totally not worth "watching." nt

[Obamanaut]

404. You are being watched! I had to actually laugh out loud at that. Mercy! nt

[mistertrickster]

128. Actually, I believe in both. Confronting him and calling the cops. nt

[mistertrickster]

115. The Hitler reference was in terms of the mental illness argument.

Godwin points out that sometimes references to Hitler ARE appropriate.

[uppityperson]

118. Even if someone "deserved to die", they have legal rights.

Did the guy in the OP "deserve to die"? Does he have legal rights?

[mistertrickster]

119. Yup, if he can get to the courts before I get to him, he has all the legal rights he wants. nt

[uppityperson]

122. Oh my, you are quite the tough guy, aren't you. Swoon

:eyes:

You remind me of an ex-boyfriend who told me I'd better not get raped because he'd end up in jail for hunting down and killing the guy.

I understand the sentiment but in no way condone it, esp in cases like this where there was time to call the cops to handle it.

[mistertrickster]

125. Not that tough, but when I see evil, I believe in confronting it. nt

[pipi_k]

131. Well hot damn!!!!!

I always thought Batman was a fictional character!!!

Can I have your autograph?

:7

[Shandris]

143. Holy shit, 'evil'?!?

The guy is STANDING THERE, makes no attempt to DO anything, no attempt to hide what he's thinking from the mother (possibly even getting the words that he meant wrong because of his broken English), and you think this guy should be compared to Adolf Hitler? And that that is what Godwin meant when he indicated that 'sometimes its acceptable'?!

This just in: New Progressive Stance: Shooting people is okay if they're Looking While Creepy. It's a subcategory of the same division of crimes like 'Driving while black'. Look in the direction of a child, be 'creepy' to someone (And I'll take another moment to say how much I fucking hate that word, since its SO GODDAMN SUBJECTIVE), and expect to be executed.

By liberals.

Only in fucking America. /disgust

[pipi_k]

154. Another disturbing thought...

Mentally ill people are "evil".

This guy absolutely HAS to have some serious issues. "Normal" men don't do what he did...don't say what he said.

So that makes him mentally ill...and, in the minds of some, evil...deserving of beatings, shooting, and whatever else the self-appointed judges, juries, and executioners among us care to dish out to him.

I expect this sort of thing from Teabaggers and their ilk. Not people who call themselves "Democrats".

[mistertrickster]

230. Yet, oddly, both the police and the judge believe the man by his

actions and his prior convictions to be a threat to the well-being of children.

So . . . he wasn't just standing there, was he.

Anybody who tells me that they want to "sex" my child is going to have hell to pay, and I don't care where they're standing.

Thank goodness, most of the posters here are reasonable enough to agree with that position, despite the PC duo trying to ram the party line down our throats.

[Pithlet]

374. No. Apparently you're supposed to just stand aside

because women are free game. After all, who knows how old we are? This is one of the all time most disgusting threads on DU I've seen in while.

[William769]

123. ...

[pipi_k]

137. And the fact that so many "Liberals"

are so unconcerned with the rights of the accused also speaks volumes.

In fact, he hadn't even been formally charged with anything when that woman punched him.

[Odin2005]

147. Exactly. This shit is why we get labeled "soft on crime"

[uppityperson]

157. You must be SERIES!!! How DARE a librul let a creepy person have any rights!!!1111

Just because he was creepy he MUST have been an EVIL CRIMINAL and DESERVED EVERYTHING he got!

Which was almost driven away except the cops showed up with a report of a fight. Notice no report of a creepy person, a possible pedophile, just a reported fight. http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20110811/NEWS/108110301/-1/LIFE04/Police-Man-sought-lure-Des-Moines-girl-into-alley

"soft on crime" for letting people have rights. :eyes:

[JoeyT]

212. No, believing that minorities have rights is why we get labeled soft on crime.

The opposite attitude is why every fascist program can sail through as long as they manage to slap a "For The Kids!!!!!" sticker on it.

No one said the guy shouldn't go to jail. Not one person. What everyone said was vigilante justice when there's no threat whatsoever anymore isn't acceptable. Self defense requires the person actually be a threat to you, not "Walk way the hell over there to the dude when no one is near him and confront him, then punch him.".

If someone breaks into your house, you can't go next door and borrow a gun then come back and shoot the guy.

[Jamastiene]

163. Well said.

I could not agree more. So what? The woman fought him back? If more rapists and child molesters had to hear from the public directly about what MOST of us think of what they do, they may think twice about doing such horrible crap to their victims. They also may have less victims for fear of having to hear from the general public.

I don't have kids, but if I did, I would absolutely do whatever I had to do to defend my kid. Kids are innocent and should NOT have to become victims to those who would harm them in such irreparable ways. It's horrible what abuse does to children.

If some people are so concerned about child molesters' "rights" they should take up a damn collection and buy some more islands for them to go live on for the rest of their lives. That's definitely not cruel and unusual punishment (most people dream of living on an island anyhow) and would protect the rest of society from their vicious crimes.

[uppityperson]

171. I'd rather see him go to court, go to jail, get some sort of monitoring rather than

beaten and turned loose.

Yes, I am concerned about rights of others. Even creeps. Even people who have not been convicted much less charged with a crime. I am also concerned about your rights, and the rights of people who have been accused of crimes wrongly.

So many here seem to want there to be a beating based on only an accusation. that is really odd. Accuse someone and WHAM!!

Yup, that will stop so many actual criminals. Like knowing they could go to jail does.

[Gormy Cuss]

167. Harry Truman would have said the rule of law should prevail and even pervs have rights

and the sonofabitch deserved to be clocked.

[NYC Liberal]

192. Should cops be able to do the same?

I assume you don't complain if a cop roughs up someone they're going to arrest and maybe punches them a few times.

After all, why should they be concerned about a perv's "rights," right?

[treestar]

197. Guilty until proven innocent

Everyone in this country has those "rights." Didn't we just go through this with the "terrorists?" You label someone a "perv" and suddenly the bill of rights does not apply.

Don't know if this story was true, but the mother needed to call the cops.

[MrScorpio]

124. Way to go, Mom! nt

[saras]

139. Spoiler alert

If she were sixteen it would be legal for her to go with him...

...assuming she wanted to, of course. So if he thought she was sixteen and not thirteen, then nothing he did or was planning - according to the article we have available - was even illegal. When he found out she was thirteen, he was obliged to back off.

The problem is, nearly all of us agree that he is, really, personally, a creep that probably deserves this and worse (and we would not be surprised at all if later news reveals him to be a sex offender)

- BUT -

historically, this exact same perception of creepiness sufficient to justify summary judgment has been applied to many people who we wouldn't regard as creepy, but exercising their human rights. I'd hate to live in a world where everyone creeped out by what they thought was gay had the right to shoot it.

This is why we usually agree to the rule of law. I trust the law to throw the book at this guy if he's anywhere as bad as everyone seems to think he is - especially if he has a record. It's too bad that that likely won't result in anything useful happening, but that's a different issue.

I think either the girl or her mother would have been justified in shooting him if they were physically attacked.

But to shoot someone for saying something that's creepy but quite possibly legal is murder. And if I didn't think that, well, I'd have left a trail of dead a mile wide through middle school, as would many of us. I don't think anyone would have survived.

All told, I'm glad nothing serious happened to either the girl or her mother, and that he is in custody. Our system isn't particularly nice to sex offenders unless they're spectacularly wealthy, so I'm not worried about him being coddled.

[NNN0LHI]

155. Doggone thread killer

Good post.

:thumbsup:

Don

[DeschutesRiver]

156. However, when the mother replied that she was 13, he did not back off.

but kept going from what I've read so far.

And there wasn't a gun involved, at least not in the facts I've read.

[Pithlet]

397. Exactly. This is the part where those crying "vigilante" are wrong.

Predators who don't back off and get punched aren't victims of vigilante crime.

[pipi_k]

421. Vigilante...

vigilante

vig·i·lan·te
noun \ˌvi-jə-ˈlan-tē\
Definition of VIGILANTE
: a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice


See that last sentence?

"Self-appointed doer of justice"

If people want to claim that woman was "protecting her child", then that's exactly what she was. A self-appointed doer of justice.

A vigilante.

[MrsMatt]

165. with all due respect

are those of you defending this shitbag parents?

I ask because I am, and I have a just-turned 14 year old daughter, and I am in total sympathy with the mother. Just because the girl was a teen, she's still a freaking minor and has to be PROTECTED.

I'd have kicked his ass from here to Sunday for what has been alleged to have happened. That is, if she hadn't done it verbally herself, because I've raised her to stand up for herself.

He's a fucking pedophile, and I'm sorry, but anyone who has sympathy for him is an enabler.

[pipi_k]

174. And he's a pedophile because....

he's normal.

Right?

No. He's a pedophile because he has serious issues. Serious mental issues. Issues he didn't ask for and probably doesn't want.

It's entirely possible to understand that someone is not "all there" mentally without sympathizing with the person or being an apologist.

I agree...kids need to be protected.

But you know what else?

They also need to have decent role models. And that includes parents who don't model behavior that says to the kid that violence is the answer when someone says something you don't like.

That girl was out of danger when the mother punched the guy. She didn't need to punch him. And when the mother punched him, she said, by her actions, that it's OK to hit people who piss you off.

There's more to "protecting" kids than meets the eye. Sometimes kids need to be protected from parents who teach them the absolute wrong ways to handle anger.

[uppityperson]

177. That girl was out of danger when the mother punched the guy. She didn't need to punch him. And when

That girl was out of danger when the mother punched the guy. She didn't need to punch him. And when the mother punched him, she said, by her actions, that it's OK to hit people who piss you off.

Exactly. There are too many here that think teaching this to your child is ok. Fight for your child, yes. Of course. Protect them as they need it. But "it's OK to hit people who piss you off" is not an ok lesson.

I'm off here, done with this. Off to deal with real people in the real world. Good luck.

[MrsMatt]

182. unless you are a parent

I doubt that you can understand the fierce protective urges that come with the job.

I'm not an "OK to hit people" who piss me off - I'm actually a very non-violent person. But, when it comes to my children, I find that I can be physically protective. Instinct will overcome reason, I'm afraid it the threat seems severe enough.

It's like the Secret Service protecting the President - investigate all threats, and act on the credible ones.

[uppityperson]

189. I am a parent, which I why I say I can understand why she did this. I just don't condone it eom

[MrsMatt]

178. I'll grant you this

he's a pedophile because he's sick.

However, his words and actions indicated a sincere threat, and intent to cause harm. Sick people are just as capable of committing crimes as the healthy. I am not unsympathetic to mental illness; there is plenty in my family tree (bipolar, depression, to name those that I am aware of). However, I am totally without any empathy for anything that has the taint of pedophilia - it's just damned wrong.

His words and actions, to me, indicated that he didn't care what the girl wanted. He wanted to "marry and sex her" - it was all about his desires and wants. He viewed the girl as a commodity - what else did he mean by wanting to know when the parents could sell her?

It boils down to INTENT. He intended to cause harm, and admitted to intending to cause harm. The parents acted on that threat - I can't blame them, as I'd have done the same, given the same circumstances.

If you are not a parent, you absolutely cannot understand. Nephews, nieces, cousins, etc. are NOT the same as children. speaking as a cousin, aunt AND mother.

[pipi_k]

183. I'm not exactly a fan of pedophiles, either.

As far as his words and actions indicating a sincere threat, like someone else pointed out, the man didn't try to hide his intent from the mother and he also did not try to hide his intent from the police who arrested him.

Someone who doesn't try to hide something usually doesn't know it's wrong.

He spoke broken English. And he asked the mother when the girl could be signed over or some such thing.

That indicates some sort of cultural difference, although it's hard to tell...but it's a possibility to consider.


I am a parent. An aunt. A great-aunt. A grandmother.

I realize how important it is to protect children from predators.

[MrsMatt]

185. perhpas my point of view

is colored by the fact that my child is a peer of the child in the story.

A man his age, knew that his actions were wrong (at least in some way) - why else did he stand in the alley and try to lure her there? If he didn't know it was wrong, why didn't he approach her openly, going directly to her and stating his intentions?

The subterfuge alone indicates that he knew that it wasn't accepted practice.

Sorry, but he doesn't get a pass.

on edit - typo!

[pipi_k]

236. actually, the "luring" thing could be up for debate

As the mother of the girl admitted that he "seemed to be making motions" with his hands that she "took to mean come here".

Not sure how she saw this unless she happened to be looking out the window at that time, which she apparently wasn't since the girl had to go into the house to tell her mother he was staring at her and her friends.

Once the mother got out to confront him, perhaps he did motion for HER to "come here" meaning that he wanted to speak with her about how many cows it would take to purchase her daughter or whatever else bargain he wanted to make for the girl. In that context, I don't see anything wrong with it. He would have been motioning for an adult to approach him, not a child.

So really, that whole deal is rather sketchy.


I'm not defending his actions, really. I would like for all the facts to be set straight so a man who may not have done anything more than stare at some adolescent girls (and make a strange proposal to a mom for one of them) isn't wrongly convicted. And my reason for this is to make sure that actual cases of child molestation aren't laughed off or cast into the wastebasket of fantasy. Back in the 80s here in Mass there was an infamous case involving some day care owners. Fells Acres. By the time prosecutors were done, these poor people had been accused of things so disturbing it's incredible they were convicted at all.

Well, at the same time my family was going through a child molestation thing with my daughter and a family member.

I watched very carefully before making accusations. But you know, this whole Fells Acres thing made a mockery of my daughter's case, as family members wondered if she and a couple of other little girls involved might also be inventing things. I had faith they weren't, and nearly 20 years later I was vindicated when someone who had never heard of the case accused this guy of doing the same things to her.

Anyway. From what that mom said, she wasn't even really sure he was making luring motions with her hands but assumed he was... I'll be interested in how this case progresses, for sure...

[The Doctor.]

311. That's not 'pedophilia', and there's no indication he 'intended to cause harm'.

Being attracted to sexually mature persons, however perverse, is not 'pedophilia'.

Also, he seemed to find it perfectly acceptable to want to marry her. That is not what you'd expect from someone who 'intended harm'.

What I find most disturbing is how many DUers would preemptively assault or kill someone merely because they were afraid of a possible threat. It is that kind of mentality that led us into Iraq. It's very frightening to find that attitude here on DU.

[octothorpe]

340. A thirteen year old is sexually mature?

What do you think would have happened has he successfully lured her into the alley?

[Lyric]

170. This is one of those rare times when the letter of the law and the spirit of the law part ways.

My guess is that although Mama broke the letter of the law, a jury will understand that she was a frightened, upset mother whose little girl had just been propositioned by a sexual predator. She lashed out in defense of what she perceived as a threat to her child. Maybe her perception was wrong *at that moment*, but I highly doubt that a jury's going to hold her responsible for that, considering the circumstances.

[LisaL]

176. She isn't charged with anything, so there is not going to be a jury.

[Lyric]

179. Oh? I thought someone said he was pressing charges.

I guess she has nothing to worry about then.

[LisaL]

188. Pressing charges? He is the one being charged.

[backscatter712]

316. Exactly. The mother did not commit a crime.

She was alerted to the presence of a sexual predator trying to lure her daughter, and lurking about other kids, and took action to stop a crime from being committed.

[mistertrickster]

232. Exactly . . . the guy has a list of priors. This sleaze got exactly what

he deserved.

The police will not press charges. The court will not convict.

[MrSlayer]

184. Good. He's lucky he was able to walk away.

In my neighborhood this asshole would just disappear.

[Ilsa]

190. This guy wasn't taking "No" for an answer! She would verbally confront him, and he continued

to express his desire to "Have" her daughter. I think letting him know what he was up against was the best way to cause him to lose his immediate desire for her daughter.

[flvegan]

208. If true, I LOVE it.

Dumbass gets his ass whipped by mom, with good cause, then he gets fucked up by dad and buds. Good. And if/when convicted...ohhhhh, yes please do enjoy what prison holds for you.

[Prometheus Bound]

209. There's some value to the parents giving the man a light beating like that.

It may have saved his life if it stops him from doing it again.

One day he might do it to a child whose parents can't handle that sort of thing rationally.

[whathehell]

235. Exactly....n/t

[Fleshdancer]

239. It also reinforces tbe idea to the kid that...

What happened wasn't her fault and that she has a mother that will protect her from predators. May this help the girl feel safe in her own neighborhood after encountering this guy.

[WildEyedLiberal]

244. Exactly... unlike some on this thread posting pictures of 'hot' teenagers

Implying that if she had the temerity to dress cute and/or already have a developed body, she should just deal with being solicited by disgusting perverts :eyes:

When you're so "progressive" that you bend around backwards to defend wannabe pedos and imply that children in ANY way bring pedo attention on themselves, you've gone off the rails.

[uppityperson]

313. It also reinforces the idea to the kids that you don't call the cops but go after someone offensive

yourself. Maybe she'll learn to simply beat up guys that wolf whistle at her, or make rude suggestions, as she will most likely encounter in her life. Yup, beating up people works so well and will make them never commit an offense again. Unlike having the cops pick him up and send him to jail.

[WildEyedLiberal]

246. Funny how much pro-police sentiment there is on this DU thread

DU can't stand the police - unless a citizen actually dares to take action to defend him/herself or others. Then citizens are just supposed to meekly call the police and sit and hope they decide to show up in time. Funny how that works.

[pipi_k]

253. Hey cool....

Since people hate the police so much here, I really hope nobody is going to actually CALL them if there's an intruder or someone burglarizes their home.

See an accident on the side of the road? Don't call the police! Go over and scrape the victims up off the pavement yourselves.

Oh, and maybe if one is real lucky, there will be the added fun of having to pick up someone's decapitated head rolling around in the road. Or actual brains lying on the tree belt.

All this and more is what the police do. This isn't going in to the office every day and playing around with papers and then going home to forget about it all till the next day.

Cops live this shit. They see stuff regular people can't even imagine. And while they're out there protecting everyone...even the people who hate them...they have to deal with idiots who are threatening to fuck their wives and kill their kids.

Oh, and you want to know why it sometimes takes so long for the police to get to your house? Because some asshole has dialed 911 and the police show up to find that the person has lost his keys or there's a cat up in a tree. Or someone tried to buy cocaine and got ripped off when it turned out to be baking soda.

Anyway, yeah. The police suck.

:sarcasm:

[NutmegYankee]

282. Indeed.

This is why this country has Juries - no group of citizens is going to convict a mother and father of defending their child from a predator.

[guitar man]

251. Good

Fucking with kids and got his ass beat. He's lucky it wasn't my wife that got hold of him, he'd look a hell of a lot worse than that :grr:

[pipi_k]

299. So...on the topic of protecting our children

by punching people in the face...

I have another question. From whom is it appropriate to protect our children?

Can't be just child molesters, right?


What about people who text while driving? Let's say you have your kid in the car and some idiot broadsides you, injuring your child. Because s/he is texting.

What's appropriate here? Call the cops to the scene of the accident...or jump out and hit the texting fool in the face?

Because you're "scared and angry".

And really...being physically injured...maybe even crippled the rest of one's life...has to be worse than being stared at from a weird guy 100 feet away in an alley.

Non-smokers...if someone smokes in the presence of you and your child and you ask him to stop or go away and he doesn't and you don't feel like you should have to move, what do you do? Hit him? Tobacco smoke can hurt a kid's lungs, you know! Gotta protect the kid! Asthma is just as debilitating to a kid as being stared at by a weird guy from across the street.


There are other examples I could list...and my point is that people who claim it's OK to protect their children from XYZ by beating up someone else wouldn't even consider doing the same to someone who endangers their child to a similar...or worse...degree.

And if they would, that's scary because it means there are way more than just Teabagger types out there advocating for citizen "justice".

[The Doctor.]

312. Careful!

That there is 'logic' and 'reason' here in an angry mob thread.

Careful you don't get strung up now.

[pipi_k]

321. somehow the words

"Logic", "reason", and "angry mob" don't go together, do they...

;)

[TwilightGardener]

304. Sometimes the wrong thing to do is the right thing to do. I can certainly

understand parents punching a man silly who was leering at and stalking their daughter. Legal? No. Justified? Yeah, he got what was coming to him.

[MoonRiver]

317. Good. Seems a lot of these pedophiles are being thwarted by citizens.

A few days ago a man rescued a 6 year old who had been abducted by a freak. :applause:

[pipi_k]

324. You know there's a difference, right?

The man who "rescued" the kid from an abductor really did rescue him, apparently. That child was in immediate danger from someone who had control of him at that point.

This is not the same as "rescuing" a 13 year old girl from some creepy guy making goo-goo eyes and "come here" motions from 100 feet away as she played with two other girls outside her own home.


And if the cops hadn't been called because the father and his buddy decided to fight with the guy, the only thing those idiots would have succeeded at was chasing the guy off into another neighborhood to do the same damned thing.

By not calling the police in the first place and letting them handle it, they probably came close to chasing a guy away who might have gone across town and actually abducted a young girl.


Smart. Yeah...that takes some real brains, right there.


In fact, so "smart" I'd be willing to bet they were Teabaggers. Most of them are idiot enough to actually do something like that.

Screw someone else!!! I'm gonna protect my own!!! Yee haw!!!

bleh

[Pithlet]

370. You know, I've never been big on vigilante justice.

That's putting it mildly. I'm a staunch believer in justice. And I think you and others are way off base on this one. She was defending her daughter, for crapes sake. It's not as if she went and sought him out after the fact. It happened right there, at the scene.

[pipi_k]

379. She was not defending her daughter

Number one, because nothing happened besides the guy staring and MAYBE (the mother's words) making some kind of "come here motions" with his hands.

She walked over to confront the man AFTER he had done what he did.

She asked him what he was doing. He told her of his interest.

He didn't come to her house. Nobody was in peril at that point where the girl was inside the house. Situation OVER. Call the cops and report the guy. With any luck they'll show up while he's still there.

Which is a whole lot better than going out to confront him and ending up chasing him away to do whatever he wants to do on another street or in another part of town.

Does it actually take a rocket scientist to figure that one out? That if they end up chasing the guy away he may go someplace else and actually succeed in abducting a child?

Does it take a genius to stop and consider the possibility that the guy might have a weapon he could use in a confrontation?

Lots of stupid there that day. Lots.

[Pithlet]

381. He told her. Exactly. What does that tell you?

It tells me he isn't some innocent man who didn't realize she wasn't a child. It let her know what his intentions were. And he wasn't smart enough, or he didn't care enough, to get the hell out of there when she showed up. He was a threat.

[pipi_k]

409. If he was such a "threat"

then he would have been charged as such.

He was only arrested on charges of trying to lure a child.

Not for "threatening" behavior.

I can't find the video now where the mom talks about the whole thing, but the first time I saw it, I did not hear her state that she viewed him as a "threat".

And after he stated what he wanted, she still never said she saw him as a "threat". She just got very pissed off. Not scared.


If it turns out that he wasn't smart enough to get out, then what's even more sad about people cheering on the punch is that it's now OK to beat up on the mentally disabled.

I used to work in Human Services with the mentally disabled. One guy used to say really inappropriate things all the time. He really was a very sweet guy, but he didn't know what the boundaries were, and we had to keep telling him he couldn't say the things he did. He always was very apologetic and promised to watch what he said, but...

I always feared for him out in public, hoping that some asshole didn't punch him in the face for what he said.

[Pithlet]

412. Oh, "only" trying to lure a child.

That *Is* threatening behavior. It's certainly threatening to a parent! You are so way off base you are in outer space.

[pipi_k]

416. yeah, "only"...

as in that was the one thing he was charged with besides parole violation.

Not "only" as in "merely".

As far as it being threatening to a parent, the woman never said she felt threatened.

At first she probably was curious about why he was across the street. I would be. But if my kid said he was making hand motions I would get a clue as to what he was up to and CALL THE COPS. Apparently she was too stupid to figure it out at that point.


Then when he told her what he wanted, she said she "lost it" and punched him. I don't know about where you come from, but when someone in my neck of the woods says he "lost it", that usually means his temper.

She didn't hit him because he was a "threat". She hit him because he pissed her off.

[Shandris]

319. "A sexual predator!" "The predator!" "That creepy predator!"

"He wouldn't stop going on to the mother, even when she said no!" "He was trying to molest her from 100 feet away and clearly there was imminent danger that a...punch removed!"

Notice that one line in the middle of all that tripe? There's been variants of it throughout the thread. "He wouldn't stop talking to the mother about how he wanted to marry and SEX her!!" Why is it that only one of those two words stands out? A lot of people keep adamantly referring to how he wanted to 'sex her', but not one word is made in passing of how he wanted to 'marry' her. Okay, that makes sense and I can even understand that. UNTIL others ALSO point out that he 'wouldn't take no for an answer!'. Sounds like bargaining to me. Negotiation. You ever dealt with a used-car dealer? They don't take no for an answer, but you don't have to beat the shit out of them to leave the situation, either.

I noticed (for the first time admittedly) that at the end of the post, it mentions that the father and one of his friends joined in, chasing the guy down and fighting with him. When did he show up, I wonder? It makes no mention that he went over to confront the man either. Just that after the mother punched him, two MORE adults chased him down. So NOW you're expecting me to believe that this ONE GUY, standing 100 feet away from a GROUP of kids AND THREE ADULTS, constituted an immediate threat?

The mere thought is laughable at this point. Stretch Armstrong, The Invisible Man, and The Flash, all rolled into one, that damn predator!

[TwilightGardener]

322. This has to be one of the more fucked-up posts I've read in a while.

Congrats, I guess.

[The Doctor.]

329. Absolutely is. Except for how accurate it is.

Yep, beat the fuck out of someone for voicing a desire.

Same exact excuse homophobes use to beat and kill gay people.

[octothorpe]

352. You're bordering on saying that trying have sex with a 13yr old is the same as being gay....

[The Doctor.]

354. No, 'octothorpe',

I'm saying that people use 'perversion' rather than any actual assault or harm as a justification for violence. This thread is a perfect example.

Gay people get beat up all the time because they expressed interest in someone, but didn't touch or harm them in any way.

Are you saying that expressing interest is deserving of retribution?

It's a simple question. Please try to answer it because I'll repost it until you answer or leave.

[pipi_k]

331. Well, there's one really encouraging thing anyway....

My curiosity got the better of me, so I sprayed myself with Lysol, put on my rubber gloves and gas mask, and ventured over to The Site That Shall Not Be Named.


All those cute little Freepers over there. So sweet. They're all expressing the same exact thoughts as some of what's right here at DU.

Sometimes there are subjects that really can unite people across party lines.


I don't know whether to laugh or cry....

[mistertrickster]

336. That's not logical.

Some of the Freepers love their children. Some of them are vegetarians. Most of them drive cars.

Does that mean if we love our children, are vegetarians or drive cars, we are Freepers?

It's the formal fallacy of the undistributed middle:

All dogs have hair.
I have hair.
I am a dog.

[pipi_k]

339. I didn't say anything about vegetarians, cars, or dogs with hair

I said that this particular topic is being discussed "over there" and most/all of the responses sound exactly the same as a lot of them here.

This is one topic which seems to have united the Left and Right into one big Kumbaya Lynch-fest.

Really...you don't have to take my word for it. Go over and look for yourself.

[mistertrickster]

405. Did you go to college? The subject is irrelevant. The FORM of your argument

is fallacious.

Your argument says this--

DUers believe that punching out the pervert is good.

Freepers believe that punching out the pervert is good.

Therefore, DUers are Freepers.


Dogs have hair.

I have hair.

Therefore, I am a dog.


The FORM of the argument is exactly the same. That's why it's called a formal fallacy.

On edit: just because two people or two groups share a common characteristic doesn't mean that one person = another person or one group = another group.

Obama believes that gov't can solve big problems.

Socialists believe that gov't can solve big problems.

So, Obama = socialist. NOT.

[pipi_k]

410. You're trying to invent

a case that I never made.

I never said, nor did I ever INTEND to say that DUers ARE Freepers.


I said that this is one instance where some DUers and most Freepers have found some common ground.

A uniting issue.

Now, that may mean in your mind that one "equals" the other, but that is NOT what I meant.

No more than someone's belief in Gay Rights...in agreement with gays all over the world... MAKES someone gay.

And no more than someone's belief in the rights of people to worship as they wish MAKES someone a person of religion.


And, lastly...I find your attempt to make me look stupid by questioning my level of education to be childish and desperate. If you can't stick to the issue at hand without questioning someone's level of education, then you have lost the argument.

[lost-in-nj]

337. It's ok for bears and other animals to protect their young

and attack ... because that's what they do....

but when a human parent tries to protect their young it's wrong???

Isn't taking care of our young what we are supposed to do? take care of them and teach them right and wrong?

and please don't tell me because she was thirteen she should have "known better"....

if it said she was 12 would that have made a difference? yeah the "teen" in her age makes her worldly?
We don't know what she looks like do we?
and she probably doesn't look like a Kardashian.....

I'll bet if it were some one you knew or loved you would be singing a different tune.

I would have done the same thing to protect my children....
you don't mess with my kids...


lost

[The Doctor.]

348. Yes, you're right of course... we should all be more like animals.

When not knowing why something is happening, and regardless of whether there is a real threat, we should just attack anything that we perceive as a threat.

You're totally spot-on. I think I'll be quoting you from now on whenever the issue of what to do with strangers and possible threats come up. We should all be more like...

Da BEARS!

[Ripley]

342. Why does a progressive/liberal board allow so much misogyny?

Oh yeah, fund drive.

A lot of pretty sick shit posted in this thread that has not been deleted. Like posting pictures of young women and asking if they looked "old enough to fuck" when discussing a predator case. A case that has left the 13 year old girl in question so upset she won't leave her house.

But instead let's worry about the poor dudes who don't know if she's 18 or not.

Clue, sick fuckers: If you ain't sure about her age, DON'T FUCKING APPROACH HER FOR YUR SEXING.

Otherwise, yes, YOU are a pedophile.

And that goes for all yall who doth protest so much (male and female) in this thread.

On edit: Regardless of a female's age: DON'T FUCKING APPROACH HER FOR YUR SEXING unless she is obviously willing.

Girls and Women ARE NOT sexually available to You just because we exist.

Fuck Your Entitlement.

[The Doctor.]

351. No, what's sick is your post.

To so deliberately ignore context and reason, to so deliberately ignore intention and meaning, to so deliberately vilify without justification is, well...

Ignorant

I especially like this;

Like posting pictures of young women and asking if they looked "old enough to fuck"

You have very serious comprehension issues. I would recommend that you, and those like you, actually try reading a given exchange in the interest of understanding context, but I know very well that outrage is far more important to you than consideration or understanding.

I'll give you a chance though. Prove me wrong about you. Prove you are a thinking creature and not a visceral one. Show us this 'misogyny' where ANYONE in this thread suggested that girls should be 'sexually available' for anyone.

But like I said; your outrage is far more important than comprehension.

And when you respond, you'll likely prove it.

Please... prove me wrong. That would make you very special.

[Ripley]

355. A 13 year old girl now sits home afraid to leave her house

Context? Why did you post those pics of females? What do those have do do with a kid playing outside her home being lured into an ally by a perv admitting he wanted to rape her?

You have tried hard to change the story of the OP into a "men can't tell if females are of age" story. Your enthusiastic spamming of those pictures tells all of us what you consider to be important: Defending the perp's viewpoint.

Your outrage at my outrage is typical of "the help."

[The Doctor.]

357. I'm 'the help'? Just a servant to you?

And you ask me questions, the answers to which are available through perusal, but you 'deign' not to try.

You've made up your mind, and like your bed you may sleep on it.

I'm off the rest of the weekend and not required to attend to you.

Have someone else turn your pillow if you can't ease your head.

[Ripley]

359. The Help

was referring to those who keep message boards "active."

[The Doctor.]

362. So, you're suggesting I'm... what?

Seriously... what the hell are you talking about?

I'm DU's "help" to keep issues like this active? Seriously... :wtf:

[Ripley]

358. And just so you know the REALITY of things

http://www.rainn.org/statistics

15 of 16 rapists will never spend a day in jail.

[The Doctor.]

360. How very, very revealing.

I suppose that because I do not believe someone who has expressed a desire to 'sex' a girl whose level of physical maturity is in question should be executed or assaulted I must not only possess a penis, but am also guilty of rape myself.

Do you believe that I have raped anyone? It is a serious question because I would like to ascertain what you have so far merely insinuated.

So, what do you think I am, what do you think I've done, and exactly why do you think so? Let's get explicit.

[Ripley]

364. There you go again.

"a girl whose level of physical maturity is in question"

What in the fucking hell does that have to do with the OP?

Where did I say that anyone should be executed or assaulted.

[The Doctor.]

367. Ronald Reagan?!? Is that you?!?!?

Yes, her level of physical maturity is in question. Unless you can tell us how old she appeared to be.

Meanwhile, DUers with your exact attitude have suggested that he deserved to be assaulted or killed. Are you among them?

(Another question for you to run like hell from. You're a typical male that loves violence but can't justify it.)

[Pithlet]

373. Why can't you get it? For one thing, her physical maturity doesn't matter.

If my husband socked some asshole who wouldn't leave me alone, he'd be well within his rights, too. And my physical maturity is definitely not in question. Your posts... Just gross.

[The Doctor.]

376. Ohferchristssake... put up some quotes. Do it.

Put up quotes and tell me what you THINK they mean. You are completely clueless, but I'm willing to help you understand.

You and those like you don't care about context. Too much context makes outrage too difficult. If you can't understand what I've said, then ask me and I'll be happy to explain it to you.

After the nastiness and incivility I've seen in this thread, and I'm ashamed to say from so many women, I wouldn't be surprised if you just kept on with the nastiness.

Explain clearly what you want me to 'get', or put up my own words and ask me what I meant.

I'm all about clarity... which is a total "....." in a mob-mentality thread.

[Pithlet]

378. Clueless is someone who thinks

that a man who continues to press the issue when the MOTHER shows up, is harmless.

[The Doctor.]

382. Right. So no quotes, no questions, just assumptions and nastiness.

You fail entirely at dialogue, and it's entirely on purpose.

I deal in reason. You're another one who can just stay the hell away from me. I have no truck with the deliberately uncivilized and violent.

Good bye.

[Pithlet]

383. Right. Reason.

Reason that says that a mother that goes out and catches a man luring her child into an ally, and doesn't even run away when she catches him, is just some poor misunderstood man who didn't know how hold she was. Stellar reasoning skills, there.

[Ripley]

386. Well, doncha know

that this man here at DU and that man in the alley are poor innocent victims. Victims of girls who might look older than they are. It's the girls fault!

[Pithlet]

387. Right. Hey DU! If you go outside and find a creep luring your child from the front lawn

You can't do fuck all about it! Because he might just be misunderstood... Even when he doesn't leave when he sees you, and actually tells you what he was trying to do... Nope. Not a danger at all! You're the crazy vigilante criminal! :crazy:

[Ripley]

389. Sick, huh?

Oh wait, is that the word they use as "cool" nowadays? Dayum I'm old.

[Pithlet]

390. I just don't get the "he wasn't a threat"

On what planet is someone who threatened your kid and doesn't leave not a threat? Craziest thread in a long time.

[LisaL]

403. And he actually wanted to MARRY her. So it's all good.

[seabeyond]

408. i have a niece, big breasted eleven yr old. and yes, she looked like a big breasted ELEVEN

yr old, playing in the sprinklers with my two boys 9 and 7. she actually had the audacity to think she was still a kid and allowed to play in the sprinklers with her cousins. and old clunker truck drove up and slowed down, watching her. i was watching out of my window. they pulled in neighbors driveway to come back down the street really slow, leering at her. about that time i am out the door and in the yard and they take off.

just another story of what we women have experienced or watched our daughter, nieces or other girls experience.

[The Doctor.]

353. I have some questions for you. JUST for you.

At the age of 15 I was well-developed and very pretty.

There were two 20 year-olds, that, on separate occasions, hit on me very, very hard. It was a long ago summer. They didn't know how old I was at the time.

Were they perverts who should have had the shit beaten out of them?
Should they have gone to jail?
Did they do anything wrong?

[Ripley]

361. .

[The Doctor.]

363. And another one goes off the deep end.

:wtf:

Seriously... take a deep breath and start paying attention to the actual words people use instead of what you want them to mean.

Like I said; I don't know what messed you up, but you're way out of bounds if that means what I think it does.

[The Doctor.]

366. Or... you could try... answering the questions.

I know... they're too uncomfortable for you. They might reveal a level of hypocrisy you don't want to believe you possess.

But do try.

Please?

Or are you some sort of sexist that only believes punishment should work only against women? (or men... I really don't get the 'sexist' thing anyway)

[The Doctor.]

368. Why? Why did you edit that?

I still have it in my browser. Shall I retrieve it?

Or maybe you could explain.

I promise to listen.

[The Doctor.]

371. Don't worry. I flushed it.

I had to actually go and look up the word.

It has two distinct meanings, apparently.

Hey, we learn something daily, right?


I'm serious Ripley. If you need it, I'm all ears. PM me if you want. You wouldn't be the first, and like the rest, no one ever knows.

I'm not the bad guy. I may not be 'nice', but I'm very, very good as far as people go. I'll delete this if you ask me to.

[Ripley]

375. You have some serious problems.

Trying to insinuate I said something bad, so bad you had to look it up.

Here's exactly what I posted: "You don't fool me." in subject line.

The word I used in the message body was your sig gif. I deleted it because I didn't want to get so personal. But now you are trying to uh what? frame me?

[The Doctor.]

380. Wow.

So 'simulist' was in my sig? Anyone can see that it is not. How the hell could you say and do this?

This is what I get for being civil? No frame up, no response, just stay the fuck away from me.


Period.

[Ripley]

394. Take a stand

DU

[Pithlet]

395. If they were on your front lawn

and your mother came out and told them to leave and they wouldn't, and they'd rather stay and sex you up? Yes.

[seabeyond]

369. thank you ripley. nt

[The Doctor.]

372. Really?!?!

After how hard I've tried to believe that you aren't some kind of misandrist, you jump in and support one of the most unfounded and nasty posts in the thread.

Really?

Do you realize how off-base those accusations are?

How the hell can I believe you aren't a total misandrist now?

[leftstreet]

384. ibtl

[Pithlet]

385. Well, you would think, anyway. n/t

[krispos42]

391. *snort*

good for her!

[Name removed]

413. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[steve2470]

417. Mom calls local police....

Mom states suspect is a pedophile preying on her daughter.
Police talk to suspect and memorize his face.
Suspect, if he has any brains at all, leaves community forever.
Problem is solved without any violence. Daughter is safe in this community forever. Mom is happy that her daughter is safe.

[pipi_k]

420. I like your plan but want to change

the "police talk to suspect and memorize his face" and "suspect...leaves community forever" to...


police come, question suspect, find he's violating parole and arrest him on the spot.


Everybody is happy. Except for the suspect.

:)

[steve2470]

423. I like your plan better than mine !

:)