Dad kills neighbor accused of molesting girl

[Lex]

Even Child molesters make economic calculation - as miss guided as those calculations are.

Please elaborate on how that works.  ???

[Lloyd Danforth]

Probably means they try to limit their risk of getting caught

[tracysaboe]

Exactly.

For the same reason violent crime goes down in places with strong gun rights.

Read More Gun's: Less Crime for a economic interpretation of criminality.

Tracy

[Lex]

Exactly.

For the same reason violent crime goes down in places with strong gun rights.

Read More Gun's: Less Crime for a economic interpretation of criminality.

Tracy

Yes, but killing someone for survival (to get their money, food, etc) is in some way more rational and I can understand how it can be explained by economics (it's less work to rob someone than to get an honest job for example). Molesting a little girl on the other hand does not seem to make economic sense, it is purely emotional. It seems that someone who would do such a thing is being purely reckless without considering the possible outcomes at all: the girl is going to tell her parents! You'd have to be pretty dumb not to consider that possibility ;-) I think that child molesters are completely irrational and do not follow any economic model.

[tracysaboe]

Most serial murderers are completely irrational by that definition of the word too.

Regardless, even they choose easier targets that have less chance of them getting killed over harder targets.

In places with strong gun rights, and and strong legal rights for the victums violent crime goes down. The criminal element -- that includes Child molesters, Rapists, Murderers, Assalt and batterers, violent thieves, etc. -- moves on to greener pastures.

Child Molesters to lesser extent maybe because children are typically less able to defend themselfs, but it's still true.

Even deranged lunitics, are rational in the Austrian economics sense. The act for the purpose of achieving a specific outcome. In the child molesters case, that outcome is to get his jolies by having sex with a 2 year old. If he thinks having sex with a particular 2 year old is going to prevent him from ever doing it again because the father might come and kill you. He'll choose to molest children in a legal climate that has different legal preferences.

Tracy

[felix.benner]

I think we agree that if that guy really molested the girl, he got everything he asked for. But: I somehow think you are so preoccupied with your (quite understandable) hate of child molesters that you don't ask the vital question: Was that guy really guilty? The story sadly doesn't give any information. It says, the child alledgedly told the mother "something very disturbing" and the mother told the father and he, obviously without questioning any further killed his neighbour.
But take a closer look: We are told that there was some hostility between them. The alledged molestation has been reported to be "the spark" that is there were already hostilities and it is for me not at all clear that the murder has not been committed because of these hostilities. The article reports that Edington could see James nude through a window, but that was obviously in James' own home. Did he not have a right to be nude in his own home? It was reported that he "shouted obsenities to children", but what kind? Was he drunk and shouted "Fuck that city and fuck all children"? Just expressing his hate, not really meaning obscenity? Finally, how do you molest a two year old? Was the girl not with her parents? Why not? You don't normally leave a two year old girl alone on the street.
I think shooting first and asking questions later is inappropriate, even if it's for the children. That James might really have been guilty, but from the article alone I don't find enough information to condemn either of them.

[KBCraig]

I recall a case from quite a few years back, where a molester had raped and killed a man's only son.

I got the details wrong: the son wasn't killed. He's now an advocate against sexual abuse:

http://www.jodyplauche.com/

His father pleaded "no contest", and received five years probation. "Sumbitch needed killin" is still valid in Baton Rouge.

http://spikedhumor.com/articles/38182/Father_Of_Kidnapped_Son_Gets_Revenge.html

[tracysaboe]

I think we agree that if that guy really molested the girl, he got everything he asked for. But: I somehow think you are so preoccupied with your (quite understandable) hate of child molesters that you don't ask the vital question: Was that guy really guilty? The story sadly doesn't give any information. It says, the child alledgedly told the mother "something very disturbing" and the mother told the father and he, obviously without questioning any further killed his neighbour.
But take a closer look: We are told that there was some hostility between them. The alledged molestation has been reported to be "the spark" that is there were already hostilities and it is for me not at all clear that the murder has not been committed because of these hostilities. The article reports that Edington could see James nude through a window, but that was obviously in James' own home. Did he not have a right to be nude in his own home? It was reported that he "shouted obsenities to children", but what kind? Was he drunk and shouted "Fuck that city and fuck all children"? Just expressing his hate, not really meaning obscenity? Finally, how do you molest a two year old? Was the girl not with her parents? Why not? You don't normally leave a two year old girl alone on the street.
I think shooting first and asking questions later is inappropriate, even if it's for the children. That James might really have been guilty, but from the article alone I don't find enough information to condemn either of them.

A Very good point
Tracy

[Dreepa]

FREE JONATHAN!

[RichDPhoto]

I personally don't think he had the right to kill the man that molested his daughter but maybe the fathers lawer will try and use jury nullification to get the father off without a conviction.

I personally don't think James had the right to molest the girl. What do you think?

Nobody has the right to molest anyone else, regardless of the age of either person.

Neither does anyone have the right to exact their own "justice" in the absence of a direct, imminent threat to their person.

The guy may have molested the man's daughter -- he may not have.  Where's the evidence?  Where's the proof?  What if this outraged father killed an innocent man?  It wouldn't be the first time someone was suspected of being a child rapist, and turned out to be innocent.  In the climate of fear and panic surrounding "stranger danger", any man who so much as smiles at a child can be mis-percieved as a potential molester.  It falls under the same philosophical category as "all pit-bulls are dogs, but not all dogs are pit-bulls".

Hence the concerted effort by the framers of the U.S. Constitution to provide and require due process, implementing the concepts of "innocent until PROVEN guilty" and "better that ten guilty men go free, than one innocent man be imprisoned".

There are other, less violent -- and less permanent -- means of keeping those you suspect are dangerous away from your children.

[Kat Kanning]

There are other, less violent -- and less permanent -- means of keeping those you suspect are dangerous away from your children.

What are your suggestions?

[RichDPhoto]

There are other, less violent -- and less permanent -- means of keeping those you suspect are dangerous away from your children.

What are your suggestions?

First, teach your children how to own themselves.  When they understand that their minds and their bodies belong exclusively to them, and that they alone determine what goes into and onto them, that they alone determine who gets to touch them and in what manner, they are more empowered to protect themselves against all manner of injustice, including that perpetrated by child rapists, schoolyard bullies, and jack booted thugs sent by the government.

Teach your children to be aware of their surroundings, to think about and identify potential threats, and steer clear of danger.  The best defense is almost always to not be there when the attack comes.  I highly recommend finding a good martial arts instructor to help them learn these skills.

As for pursuing justice after-the-fact -- vigilantism is always the wrong answer, because it depends too much on emotional reaction, and too little on rational response.  Murdering a murderer does not bring justice to the firstly murdered, nor does it bring relief or fulfillment to the perpetrator's killer -- all it does is create another murderer.

A court system like that envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, while far from perfect, at least requires rational thought and a preponderence of the evidence.  Said framers are likely turning over in their graves at the thought of what their vision of a just court system has been perverted into.

The death of this alleged child molester is hardly just restitution, if indeed he did commit the act.  This father's revenge has merely robbed his daughter of even more, since he'll likely face a lengthy jail term for his act.

What would be fitting restitution for a molested child?  I don't know. 

I do know that I, personally, find a great deal more satisfaction in having those who have wronged me see me living well in spite of what they did to me, than I would ever be able to take in doing to them what they did to me.

[Spencer]

A cautionary tale . . .

http://edition.cnn.com/2006/US/09/02/fatal.beating.ap/index.html

MARSHVILLE, North Carolina (AP) -- An angry mob fatally beat a man whom they mistakenly thought was involved in the disappearance of their friend, shortly before police arrested and charged another person in the crime, police said.

***

Ten men, ages 16 to 30, were charged with murder in the attack. They were being held without bond until an October 4 court date.

"This is the worst beating attack I've ever seen," Sheriff Eddie Cathey said.

Authorities said they don't believe Blakeney was connected to the disappearance and death of Patrick Antwone McClendon.

[Thespis]

Cops: No Molestation Before Dad Stabbed Neighbor

NEW HAVEN, Conn. (1010 WINS)  -- Fairfield police have concluded that a 2-year-old girl was not molested by a neighbor her outraged father is accused of stabbing to death, a police official told The Associated Press Thursday.

Jonathon Edington, a 29-year-old attorney from Fairfield, is charged with killing Barry James on Aug. 28 after his wife told him of the abuse allegation, police said. Edington pleaded not guilty to the charge last week.

``We're confident this 2-year-old was not molested,'' said Capt. Gary MacNamara. ``We are confident in our investigation that Mr. Edington did in fact kill Mr. James. We are as confident in our investigation that Mr. James did not molest the Edingtons' daughter.''

MacNamara would not provide further details, but he did confirm that investigators interviewed the girl.

MacNamara also would not comment on whether the girl's mother would be charged.

``We have yet to determine the exact reason for the complaint to be filed or whether or not it was intended to mislead,'' MacNamara said.

His comments came two days after Bridgeport State's Attorney Jonathan Benedict told The Associated Press that authorities were unable to corroborate the molestation claim.

A telephone message was left Thursday for Edington's attorney, Andrew Bowman, who has declined to comment on the case.

James' family has continued to deny the accusation.

``The family of Barry James is adamant that Barry James was not a child molester, would never have harmed that child,'' Richard Meehan, the family's attorney, said Tuesday. ``We fully anticipated and expected there would be nothing to corroborate this. I believe the complaint is untrue.''

James' family encouraged police to thoroughly search his house and found no evidence typically found with child molesters, such as child pornography, Meehan said. He said the family plans to file a wrongful death lawsuit against Edington and will depose Edington's wife.

``We're considering whether there are any other potential defendants in the case,'' Meehan said.

According to a police report describing the mother's account, the girl told her mother about the alleged molestation while the family was visiting relatives in Rhode Island.

The girl ``explained that she did not want to go home because of Barry,'' police said in the report. When her mother asked her to explain, the girl said ``that Barry puts it on her belly and her nose,'' the report said. When her mother asked her when James does this, she replied, ``He comes to me in the starry nights.''

After Edington's wife told him what their daughter said, Edington climbed through James' bedroom window and repeatedly stabbed him, police said.

James' 87-year-old mother, who is legally blind, lives with him and discovered the body. When officers went to Edington's home a short time later, they found him standing by his kitchen sink with blood on his hands and forearms, authorities said.

Officers said a large kitchen knife was found in James' bedroom.

Edington, a graduate of Syracuse University and Fordham University Law School, faces murder and burglary charges. He was freed on $1 million bond and was ordered to have no contact with James' relatives, who live in the house where James was killed.

[maxxoccupancy]

Exactly.

For the same reason violent crime goes down in places with strong gun rights.

Read More Gun's: Less Crime for a economic interpretation of criminality.

Tracy

John R Lott, Jr.'s book "More Guns, Less Crime" is a good read.  He shows empiracly that criminal activity is detered by increased likelihood of conviction, increased penalties (longer and/or tougher sentences), and increased liklihood that the potential victim will, in fact, be armed.  This has held up across the country, and has proven consistant in other western countries.

There are too many authoritarians out there who still believe the stereotypes, that increased social spending and increased government power will result in lower crime rates.  These assumptions have been repeatedly disproven.  Criminals go out and victimize innocent people because they have no respect for other human beings, and because they imagine that they won't get caught.

--Max