Actually, I was kidding (thought the whole fruitbasket thing would give it away).
What's with you and castration? You seem to have a fetish for robbing men of their manhood. :bugeye:
Man Sodominzed Stepson
- Thread starter Orleander
- Start date
Actually, I was kidding (thought the whole fruitbasket thing would give it away).
What's with you and castration? You seem to have a fetish for robbing men of their manhood. :bugeye:
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
So if you were the judge presiding over the trial of the 18 year old you would sentence him to gang rape? Would he also serve jail time or would you release him after that?
And if you were a jury member in the step-father's trial you would vote not guilty?
If I was the judge in the 18 year old's trial (and not restricted by legal booyah), I would consider him a danger to children and give him the option of life in an institution or physical plus chemical castration with lifelong probation.
In my ideal institution, since we are fantasising, he would be able to get an education and work.
For the father, I would recommend community service; mostly so he would have the opportunity to get over what had happened to his daughter.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
which means you took out their ovaries.I used to spay cats with my vet.
No I made little slits in their testicles and snipped out their little balls.
Ah I just looked it up, we always used "spaying" as the term, I guess neutering would be more appropriate.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
And if he turns out to have been sexually abused as a child - which is fairly likely - would this affect how you would treat this just reached the age of majority adult.
Which would essentially set precedent for revenge. What other crimes do you think we should be allowed to take revenge for. And given the fact that this was not immediate revenge, but premeditated revenge, do you have any concerns about the message you are sending about when citizens can bypass the law and act as judge and jury.
In other words this was not a situation where the man caught the guy doing it and flipped out and beat the living hell out of the guy or even sodomized him on the spot. But later, with some good chance that the guy would go to prison where he would stand a good chance of being raped, he decides to meet out his justice anyway.
What other crimes do you think it is OK for us to take care of on our own?
Nope, regardless of his history I am interested in the children he will have access to. If he was abused, then its even more imperative that no more children are.
Absolutely, I would do the same for all fathers who witnessed their underage children being sodomised.
As long as the boy was in prison, it was fine, he is now on the loose and a danger to the daughter or other children, again.
Several, but mostly any that are inadequate in addressing the danger to children.
If the father beat the son immediately with a bat, that could get some sympathy with a jury, but waiting several days and then assaulting him shows pre-meditation, and it's just as criminal as what the son did.
I actually think the fact he only did it when he knew the son was free shows that he respects the law, but not when it endangers his child.
He has no respect for the law, obviously. He didn't think the law could inflict an adequate punishment, an eye for an eye. It doesn't work like that here.
That was too light. I would have killed him very, very slowly.
I'm guessing you would have a different reaction to witnessing a family member sodomised, especially an underage one.
I can only speak for myself.
Nope, it sure doesn't. <insert stuff about premeptive wars and secret prisons and racially motivated convictions and sentencing>
Does anyone else think he should have just fucking killed him? A dead guy can't rape anyone.
Unlike you people, my belief in the rule of law is not provisional. It's not based on my personal feelings of outrage.
Sure.
S.A.M. said:
I'd at least give the justice system a chance before I cracked.
A rational person?
A decent person?
A person who is not a complete moron?
What I don't understand, though, is why nobody bothered to request or issue a no-contact (restraining, protection) order.
I find it ironic that you and others would acquit the man from a juror's perspective. After all, the one thing that is unacceptable to this man is, apparently, a trial by jury.
Anyway, there is one chuckle to be had, at least: anal rape = heterosexual justice.
So, on the upside, it's worth noting that none of 'em are gay.
Its not anal rape = heterosexual justice.
Its "the law let you out but don't try this again while you're out, and just to underline it, this is what it feels like to have something forced up your arse when you cannot defend yourself against it"
Where is the boy currently living? At home with the same guy and his daughter?
Also is his daughter also his wife's daughter? If not, he may have also done this out of anger towards his wife for releasing the boy.
(Insert title here)
Okay. You realize, though, you're not helping your case. The argument that "I'm unhappy with the way the law works, therefore I'm going to shove various objects up your ass" doesn't amount to much more than ignorant vigilanteism.
I mean, think about it: you're seeking a reason to justify a sexual assault. I would applaud the irony, except that I think it's sick.
I've been wondering about that, too.
Well, at least he didn't throw anybody off a bridge, eh?
As a general comment, it's worth recalling the number of people who decry liberal philosophies for "giving criminals too many rights". Would this be one of those cases? After all, this man decided that the right to a jury trial was too much privilege for his stepson, and yet justice will bring this man before a jury. Those who would, from a juror's perspective, acquit a vigilante should also remember that their judgment, in this suspect's mind, is apparently not valid to begin with. Ironic, and nearly paradoxical, eh?
But what now? Should the law just forego a jury trial? Maybe import to Texas some NYPD officers and have them beat the man and ram a toilet plunger up his ass? After all, if it's good enough for a sodomite rapist, it's good enough for a sodomite rapist. Right? Right?
Oh, right. We're supposed to find a reason to excuse this sodomite rapist.
Seriously, I don't know whether to make a Texas joke here, or build a Mitt Romney "at least they're not gay" punchline.
S.A.M. said:
Okay. You realize, though, you're not helping your case. The argument that "I'm unhappy with the way the law works, therefore I'm going to shove various objects up your ass" doesn't amount to much more than ignorant vigilanteism.
I mean, think about it: you're seeking a reason to justify a sexual assault. I would applaud the irony, except that I think it's sick.
I've been wondering about that, too.
Well, at least he didn't throw anybody off a bridge, eh?
• • •
As a general comment, it's worth recalling the number of people who decry liberal philosophies for "giving criminals too many rights". Would this be one of those cases? After all, this man decided that the right to a jury trial was too much privilege for his stepson, and yet justice will bring this man before a jury. Those who would, from a juror's perspective, acquit a vigilante should also remember that their judgment, in this suspect's mind, is apparently not valid to begin with. Ironic, and nearly paradoxical, eh?
But what now? Should the law just forego a jury trial? Maybe import to Texas some NYPD officers and have them beat the man and ram a toilet plunger up his ass? After all, if it's good enough for a sodomite rapist, it's good enough for a sodomite rapist. Right? Right?
Oh, right. We're supposed to find a reason to excuse this sodomite rapist.
Seriously, I don't know whether to make a Texas joke here, or build a Mitt Romney "at least they're not gay" punchline.