-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Dad kills neighbor accused of molesting girl
Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Specop 007
Diamond Member
Ahhh. So your just being led around by your emotions and are unable to think critically. What a sad case you are.
Because, fact is BEFORE these facts were released alot of posters were bitching up one side and down the other about how we didnt have enough facts. But NOW, oh, well hell we have all the facts in the world dont we!!
The ignorance is stong in you. When something goes against your views you claim "Oh, we dont KNOW!" but when something agrees with your views you have to parade around.
Class A asshat. Well done.
waggy
No Lifer
no ignorance is claiming that the cops are hiding child molestation to send a message to people. Ignorance is continueing to say the guy did right when it has been proven wrong.
the police have said there is NO EVIDANCE supporting the cliam of child molestation. To continue to claim there is a possiblity is insane.
it amazes me someone can be so blind yet call others names. the man murdered a innocent man. The child was not molested.
but i do think there is something behind it. It really would not suprise me to find the mother set this up. knowing her husband was a little off. she just needed something to get him to do something that would allow her to divorce him with all money intact. while most likely i am wrong i am not bullheaded enough to argue the point.
hmm also "Meehan said James suffered nerve damage to his legs which made it difficult for him to climb stairs, meaning it would have been nearly impossible for him to crawl through a window more than 4 feet off the ground to get into the girl's room in the Edington home."
should be easy enough for them to prove in court.
this is a good lesson on not acting UNTIL you ahve all the information. the lawyer went off with little information and is now paying for it. right course of action would have been to let the police investigate. while i understand the guys reaction he really screwed up. now the poor kid is going to be without a father and a innocent man is dead.
There is an enormous difference between a breaking story on CNN, that only reports that there was a murder and a supposed child molestation, compared to a more recent story over a month later after a police investigation has been conducted.
If you can't see that, that's your own fault.
waggy
No Lifer
thats what amazes me.
i can understand wanting a child mollester dead. hell i would probably do it myself. though i wouldnt have taken the word of a 2 yr old as fact. i would want real proof.
but when there is NO evidance he did it and there is some saying it is not possible. there comes a time when you have to say ok. the guy should nto have killed him. he got the wrong guy or something.
SilthDraeth
Platinum Member
1) since that could mean a bunch of diffrent things its insane to try to guess what it could be.
In the detective's report, Edington's sister-in-law said the 2-year-old gestured toward her genitals and said, "Barry is this" and spoke of him "putting it" on her "belly and nose."
"He comes to me in the starry nights," the girl told her mother, according to the sister-in-law. When Christina Edington asked the toddler to elaborate, "she replied that he makes noises that sound like 'heehaw' and then it feels like rain on her," according to the report.
2) mom tells dad that 2 yr old said something. again remember she is 2 years old. True she is two. I know a two year old that could recite almost every star wars character, and hold entire conversations. Age isn't in question.
3) that is not in doubt. dad goes and kills on the words from a 2 year old. now think on that. kills a man from what a 2 year old said.
Not in question either. Opinion on whether or not what he did was wrong or right, is just that an OPINION.
4) He was walking around INSIDE HIS HOUSE naked. ok. thats wrong? well fck then you better arrest me, my wife etc for it. we have walked around the house naked a lot. why were they spying on him anyway? they should have been arrested for being a peeping tom.
Opinion again. I don't care whether or not you walk around your house naked. I would care however if I was your next door neighbor, and I looked out my window, and could easily see into your window, and you and your wife where walking around naked. Because that means that my 2 year old (I really have a two year old) could look out my window and see you and your wife walking around naked, and God knows what else. My two year old loves to look out windows. And acting on that same info, with knowing that he was waltzing around naked knowing a young child was there, as well as having the police called about it, puts him in the wrong. Peeping is purposely watching in order to see the nakedness, not noticing it and reporting it.
5) they can't release many detials since she is a minor. they did say there was NO EVIDANCE.
If you read the full link CNN They have released that they haven't actually the results "Fairfield police have not disclosed the results of their investigation."
6) key point. NO EVIDANCE. well besides the fact the lawyer went and killed the man in cold blood.
Actually the evidence is entirely based upon testimony, and as an above poster stated on the testimony of a specially trained doctor/psychologist. Which the results have not been released.
yes it is the same little girl. but i am willing to bed they did a phsycial exam and found nothing. They may have also talked to her more then the mother did.
A physical exam wouldn't show anything, if there was no real physical contact. If you touched you on the face, and you went to a doctor a week later, he wouldn't be able to tell that I touched you on the face. Irregardless of which body part I did it with.
sad story. A innocent guy is killed and a man is siting in jail depriving his daughter of him being around.
Presumption of innocence, in my opinion is just as bad as a presumption of guild. Now the law says one thing, and in many cases acts the other. I believe in formulating my own judgment based on all evidence submitted and reviewed. Which again has nothing to do with the guy killing the neighbor. All we know for sure is the lawyer killed his neighbor. What is in question is "did the girl really say what they claim she said"?
We know the wife told the husband the story. We know his sister in law is collaborating the story.
We know the lawyer reacted to what his wife told him. And there for he killed based off of what his wife said, and not what his daughter said. Hearing the information from his wife, over the phone, while home alone, is a damned good case for temporary insanity. He didn't wait a day, he immediately reacted, and the report of him being monotone while calling 911 displays a pretty common emotion of people who have just been subjected to something of that magnitude. First the story, and then his actions. SHOCK. I am 100% sure that premeditation is out of the question on the man's behalf.
how you guys can still justify what he did is beyond me.
I am not justifying it. I am simply stating that you can not go off the information you get from news links on CNN. I posted a CNN link that provides more information than your link, and I found that link inside of your link. I believe your statements are being made out of ignorance. You are entitled to your opinion to disagree or agree with what he did. Whether or not his and his wife, and sisters testimonies prove to be false or not, his actions where based on those.
If it is found that the dead neighbor really had molested the girl, then we know the girl and his wife where not lieing. If it is found that he really hadn't, then the wife and the little girl made a tragic mistake.
Try to logic through, and justify a man's reaction and actions, and whether they where right or wrong is not only ignorant, but pointless. Emotions, are not entirely predictable, and paternal instinct is one of the strongest emotions any animal exhibits. Which is why the courts make allowances based on the emotional state of the purporter.
[/quote]
SilthDraeth
Platinum Member
It depends. Try breaking in my house, and stealing something. Try raping my wife, or molesting my kids. Then I will let you know my opinion on vigilantism.
Guess what bucko? Not vigilantism. Depending on what state you live in, you are within your legal right to shoot an unarmed trespasser onto your property. In almost all states, if they present a threat to your life, you're legally justified in using deadly force.
Depending on the situation with rape/molestation, lethal force is legally acceptable.
Number1
Diamond Member
Specop wrote:
"For all YOU know little girl said "He broke in the house and raped me multiple times" and the DA just decided not to press charges so that he COULD press charges against the lawyer to send a message to would be vigilantes."
Dumbest thing I read in this thread so far.
Lets sum it up just for you.
Viligante justice is wrong. People a lot smarter then you have been thinking about this for a long time. They wrote laws AGAINST it.
Anny questions?
"For all YOU know little girl said "He broke in the house and raped me multiple times" and the DA just decided not to press charges so that he COULD press charges against the lawyer to send a message to would be vigilantes."
Dumbest thing I read in this thread so far.
Lets sum it up just for you.
Viligante justice is wrong. People a lot smarter then you have been thinking about this for a long time. They wrote laws AGAINST it.
Anny questions?
SilthDraeth
Platinum Member
It depends. Try breaking in my house, and stealing something. Try raping my wife, or molesting my kids. Then I will let you know my opinion on vigilantism.[/quote]
Guess what bucko? Not vigilantism. Depending on what state you live in, you are within your legal right to shoot an unarmed trespasser onto your property. In almost all states, if they present a threat to your life, you're legally justified in using deadly force.
Depending on the situation with rape/molestation, lethal force is legally acceptable.[/quote]
True. I didn't state when exactly I would let my opinion be known. Perhaps if it is a break in, and I am home then it would be dealt with on the spot. If I am not home, and the purporter is caught, then the courts can deal with it. An example of non-vigilantism.
Rape, molestation, murder of a family member, if I catch it, it ends on the spot. Again, not vigilantism. If the guy gets arrested, because it happened when I wasn't around and the cops got to him first, it will just make my job a little more difficult, but rest assured it will be dealt with appropriately. I would, without thought spend 30 years in prison putting them in the ground, then live with the knowledge that they can be out in 5-20 and destroy another innocent life. But that is me.
SilthDraeth
Platinum Member
I am quite sure I understand the meaning of the word. Since no time of reference was provided to account for the time of the incident, and the time of my action, you are assuming I meant immediate action on all examples.
SilthDraeth
Platinum Member
Bigj, and Waggy, I do appologize, as some of my statements regarding the release of the investigation where made off of the older link, instead of the newer link.
Bigj, you do pose good arguments. My statements are my observations and opinions concurred from what I read, and what I believe to be right and wrong. You are right, that the original statement originated from the child. My statement that "whether or not his actions are perceived as wrong or right" is an opinion that the beholder must make. We are all looking at the case as reported by the news, utilizing incomplete information, which is understandable due to the nature of the accusations, etc. Plus we are operating on hind sight, and formulating opinions on what we believe to be right and wrong regarding an impersonal situation.
The main fact that I was trying to nail home is this:
A majority, though not all the posters are stating that "the father reacted completely on the statement of a 2 year old" When in fact he reacted on a call from his, as you stated "distraught and emotional wife"
Another group, or even some of the same posters are making posts to the effect that: (when they believed he had killed a molester, then vigilante justice was all good) and then stating (he killed an innocent man, vigilante justice is bad) Maybe it isn't the same people. But to quote waggy:
"i agree. but you need to be 100% sure they did it. you need proof. the word of a 2 yr old is not proof.
this was not a case of a guy killing a child mollestor. this is cold blooded murder."
That statement alone implies that his idea of vigilante justice is based on whether or not the "molester" was guilty of molesting or not. To him, since it was proven that the guy hadn't molested, then it turned into cold blooded murder. I can't figure out what his opinion would of been had the guy been guilt of molestation.
I have an opinion on vigilante justice, and under what circumstances I would carry it out. Emotion would certainly play a roll, but depending on the time frame, so would calculation. And my final action would be based on what I, and let me repeat that, what I believed to be the truth of events.
And I agree with you Bigj, that if calling the cops on a guy didn't stop him from parading around naked, then my next stop would be to install a privacy fence, or security blinds on any windows that faced the neighbors house. The example was only mentioned to show that this couple already had certain impressions of this neighbor.
Bigj, you do pose good arguments. My statements are my observations and opinions concurred from what I read, and what I believe to be right and wrong. You are right, that the original statement originated from the child. My statement that "whether or not his actions are perceived as wrong or right" is an opinion that the beholder must make. We are all looking at the case as reported by the news, utilizing incomplete information, which is understandable due to the nature of the accusations, etc. Plus we are operating on hind sight, and formulating opinions on what we believe to be right and wrong regarding an impersonal situation.
The main fact that I was trying to nail home is this:
A majority, though not all the posters are stating that "the father reacted completely on the statement of a 2 year old" When in fact he reacted on a call from his, as you stated "distraught and emotional wife"
Another group, or even some of the same posters are making posts to the effect that: (when they believed he had killed a molester, then vigilante justice was all good) and then stating (he killed an innocent man, vigilante justice is bad) Maybe it isn't the same people. But to quote waggy:
"i agree. but you need to be 100% sure they did it. you need proof. the word of a 2 yr old is not proof.
this was not a case of a guy killing a child mollestor. this is cold blooded murder."
That statement alone implies that his idea of vigilante justice is based on whether or not the "molester" was guilty of molesting or not. To him, since it was proven that the guy hadn't molested, then it turned into cold blooded murder. I can't figure out what his opinion would of been had the guy been guilt of molestation.
I have an opinion on vigilante justice, and under what circumstances I would carry it out. Emotion would certainly play a roll, but depending on the time frame, so would calculation. And my final action would be based on what I, and let me repeat that, what I believed to be the truth of events.
And I agree with you Bigj, that if calling the cops on a guy didn't stop him from parading around naked, then my next stop would be to install a privacy fence, or security blinds on any windows that faced the neighbors house. The example was only mentioned to show that this couple already had certain impressions of this neighbor.
SilthDraeth
Platinum Member
Waggy, you don't just teach a 2 year old to not look out the window of your house. Looking out my window is not "peaking" into another's windows. There are steps to take, like putting up a privacy fence, or security blinds.
But to assume that I should teach my kids that looking out windows is bad is just stupid. On that same note, I can only control my immediate environment. I can make sure they don't watch adult TV, but without teaching them to never look out the windows, I can't control what they look at once there face is to the glass, other than doing things I have already mentioned.
But to assume that I should teach my kids that looking out windows is bad is just stupid. On that same note, I can only control my immediate environment. I can make sure they don't watch adult TV, but without teaching them to never look out the windows, I can't control what they look at once there face is to the glass, other than doing things I have already mentioned.
waggy
No Lifer
Vigilante Justis is wrong. BUT i do understand it. If the guy would have waited and ha proof i would nto be calling for him to sit the rest of his life in jail. just a few years..
While it is wrong i understand the reason. I do not understand taking the word of a 2yr old child as gthe sole reason for killing. IF the police came back and said yeap he did it. they investigate and he gets off on a BS reason (sadly it does happen). then yes i would be all for blowing the fckers head off. hypocrisy? perhaps.
as for the neighbor walking around naked inside there is a saying "a good fence makes a good neighbor" there is a reason for it heh.
The guy wasn't a bad person because he walked around his own house naked. He was an asshole because he constantly did it with the blinds pulled up/open even after his neighbors and the police asked him not to do it.
More than likely, he did in fact violate his area's indecent exposure law.
SilthDraeth
Platinum Member
an opinion is still made. Whether its a bad impression or a good impression, or you remain neutral about it, is up to you. In this case the lawyer and his wife got a bad impression and called the cops.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
