Stabbing survivor resists reunification with mom
eartha...@yahoo.com
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/May-14-Sat-2005/news/26516654.html
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Stabbing survivor resists reunification with mom
Brittney Bergeron tells judge she prefers foster parents
By GLENN PUIT
Las Vegas Review-Journal
In this sketch of courtroom proceedings on Friday, Brittney Bergeron is
pictured holding a stuffed animal as she testifies that she does not
want to be returned to the custody of her mother, Tamara Schmidt.
Brittney testified in the courtroom of District Judge Gerald
Hardcastle, and her testimony was viewed by reporters on a video
screen.
With her back turned to her mother, Brittney Bergeron told a Family
Court judge Friday that she does not want to return to the custody of
her mom, Tamara Schmidt.
"If my mom couldn't take care of me before, she can't take care of me
now," Brittney said from her wheelchair in the courtroom of Judge
Gerald Hardcastle on Friday.
Clutching a large stuffed animal, the 13-year-old said she still loves
her mom, but wants to be adopted by her foster parents, Judy and
William Himel.
"I want to stay (with the Himels) and be adopted," Brittney said,
adding "I would like to stay at Judy's."
Tamara Schmidt wept openly at her daughter's testimony. It was
Brittney's first public remarks since she was paralyzed and her
half-sister, Kristyanna Cowan, 3, was killed in a January 2003
stabbing.
Authorities said Schmidt, whose name then was Tamara Bergeron, and her
boyfriend, Robert Schmidt, who since has become her husband, left
Brittney and Kristyanna alone for hours in a mobile home while carrying
out a bogus drug deal with Utah siblings Beau and Monique Maestas.
Authorities said the Maestases, upon being ripped off in the drug deal,
stormed the mobile home and stabbed the children.
Tamara Schmidt denies selling the Maestases bogus methamphetamine.
Authorities now are asking Hardcastle to sever Tamara Schmidt's
parental rights to her surviving child.
In court Friday, Brittney briefly talked about her relationship with
her dead sister.
"I call her Kissy," Brittney said. "I would feed her, make her
breakfast, help her get dressed, help her brush her teeth."
When asked what she used to do with Kristyanna, Brittney said: "We
would sing into a brush, listen to music, watch TV or play with toys."
Brittney didn't discuss the stabbings during her testimony, noting only
that she is undergoing both family therapy and counseling.
"I just don't like talking about things," she said.
At one point during the proceedings, when asked a question by Schmidt's
attorney, Stephen Caruso, Brittney broke down in tears.
"Can I take a break?" Brittney said, crying and grasping her stuffed
dog.
Brittney also said she is struggling to relate to her mother.
"It's not very good because we haven't gotten to talk about things,"
Brittney said.
Brittney went on to say she thought her mother often was "bribing me"
during visits.
"She was always bribing me, saying 'I bought this for you.' ... I know
she loves me and stuff," Brittney said.
"She was always saying, 'I love you, I want you to come home.' "
Afterward, Schmidt's attorney was highly critical of the decision by
Clark County deputy district attorneys to have Brittney testify. Caruso
said a child never is called to testify about their opinions in a
proceeding about termination of parental rights, adding that he
believes Brittney will be emotionally scarred by her testimony.
"The state picked a scab off an open wound," Caruso said.
"I think they've revictimized Brittney."
But Clark County Deputy District Attorney Brigid Duffy said Brittney
testified because she wanted to tell Hardcastle her wishes.
"Brittney wanted to testify," Duffy said. "She wanted to say
something."
Also in court Friday, Tamara Schmidt's counselor, Jackie Harris, said
that her client has met all her obligations in seeking reunification
with her daughter and is remorseful for leaving the children alone.
"This has been a very difficult situation to say the least," Harris
said.
"Her grief regarding the death of Kristyanna and the injuries to
Brittney has been extreme."
Harris said that, in her opinion, child welfare officials managing
Brittney's case have not demonstrated a consistent desire to reunite
Brittney with her mother even though that is supposed to be the goal.
Also testifying Friday was Brittney's foster mother, Judy Himel.
Himel said Brittney requires extensive medical care, including regular
care from a nurse. Brittney's food intake has to be monitored closely,
and use of a catheter is necessary every few hours, Himel said.
Himel said after a prior court visit in which Brittney indicated to the
judge that she wasn't ready to go home "yet," Brittney got home that
night and expressed regrets.
"I shouldn't have said 'yet,' " Himel testified Brittney told her.
Himel said Brittney eventually became hysterical over the issue.
"I heard screaming," Himel said.
" 'Everyone's on drugs,' " Himel said, quoting Brittney. " 'I have no
one to take care of me. I have no place to go.' "
" 'I need to talk to the judge,' " Himel said the child told her.
"The doctors had to sedate her," Himel said.
"She was screaming during the night."
Himel, who along with her husband has cared for and adopted other
medically fragile children, said she wants to adopt Brittney.
"We are working toward her being independent," Himel said.
Hardcastle said he will issue a ruling by June 1. Hardcastle could
terminate Tamara Schmidt's parental rights, deny the petition and order
Brittney back into her mother's custody, or leave Brittney in foster
care while mandating that authorities seek reunification between the
mother and daughter.
tiny dancer
<eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116108701.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
What a tragic story. I remember these girls, the incident. Why shouldn't
the child be able to tell the judge what *she* wants? This business about
being in the 'reunification' business is so screwed up. IMO natural parents
have their shot at it, if they screw up this badly, the kid shouldn't *have
to* go back to 'em. Total bullshit.
td
>
kyr...@fresnomail.com
tiny dancer wrote:
> <eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1116108701.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > Pictures at:
> >
>
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/May-14-Sat-2005/news/26516654.html
> >
> > Saturday, May 14, 2005
> > Stabbing survivor resists reunification with mom
> > Brittney Bergeron tells judge she prefers foster parents
> > By GLENN PUIT
> > Las Vegas Review-Journal
> >
> > In this sketch of courtroom proceedings on Friday, Brittney
Bergeron is
> > pictured holding a stuffed animal as she testifies that
she does not
Tinydancer, i have to agree with you. I have a clear thought about
these kind of stories; they often continue less happily.Often the child
is taken to the drug business, volontarily or not, an too often there
is also all kind of abuse attatched.I wish that the child's choise is
honoured more often.
eartha...@yahoo.com
father.
January 08, 2004
Custody battle continues over 10-year-old stabbing victim
By Erica D. Johnson
LAS VEGAS SUN
A Family Court judge on Wednesday put off deciding who would get
custody of the 10-year-old survivor of the stabbing attack that left
her little sister dead in Mesquite last year.
Family Court Judge Gerald Hardcastle said Brittney Bergeron would
remain in a Las Vegas-area foster home for at least more six months.
He said it would take additional court hearings to determine whether
the paralyzed girl should be placed in the custody of her mother, Tammy
Schmidt, or her father, Kevin Bergeron, who lives in California.
Kevin Bergeron failed two drug tests and recently refused to take a
third as ordered by Brittney's state social worker, state officials
said.
Robert Schmidt, Tammy Schmidt's husband, also has a history of drug use
and has several arrest warrants pending in California on charges that
include robbery and bouncing checks, officials said.
The girl is living in a state Division of Child and Family Services
foster home. Hardcastle said Brittney would remain there until a status
check, scheduled for July 15.
"In my opinion, at this point, both parents are unfit to have the
child," Hardcastle said.
Brittney was placed in state custody after a Jan. 22 attack in a
Mesquite trailer left paralyzed her from the waist down and killed her
3-year-old sister, Kristyanna Cowan.
Beau Maestas, 19, and his 17-year-old sister, Monique, are charged in
the attack.
Police say Beau Maestas told detectives that Tammy Schmidt and Robert
Schmidt, then her boyfriend, had orchestrated a bogus drug deal in
which they sold him table salt instead of methamphetamine. The couple
have denied that allegation.
Tammy and Robert Schmidt, who were married after the attack, had left
the children alone and were in the CasaBlanca hotel the night the
attack occurred.
District Attorney David Roger said Wednesday that authorities had not
yet decided whether the mother would face child neglect charges in
connection with the attack.
Tammy Schmidt attended Wednesday's hearing, flanked by Robert Schmidt
and her attorney, Steve Wolfson. She addressed the court briefly and
told Hardcastle that her main concern was the welfare of her daughter.
"I'm willing to do whatever it takes, to go to whatever measures, to be
a better person and a better mother," she said.
Kevin Bergeron did not attend the hearing. His attorney said he was
suffering with the flu.
Hardcastle said he met with Brittney on Wednesday morning before the
hearing and that the girl was "doing just fine." State officials would
not comment on the details of her medical recovery.
Despite her progress, "Brittney continues to express a desire to be
returned to her mother," attorney Steve Hiltz, who represents Brittney,
said.
But Hardcastle said both parents had a lot of work to do before the
court would consider giving either of them custody of the child.
Hiltz also questioned Robert Schmidt's character. The lawyer accused
Schmidt of offering his ex-wife $50,000 of the potential settlement in
a proposed suit against the CasaBlanca if she promised not to sue him
for back child support.
Schmidt's attorney denied the allegation.
While Tammy Schmidt has obtained employment and remained drug free, she
has "failed to accept her responsibility for her role" in the events
that led up to the stabbing, Hardcastle said.
Hardcastle warned Tammy Schmidt that her new husband could present an
obstacle in her gaining custody of her daughter.
During the hearing attorneys for both sides tried to portray the other
parent as unfit.
Kevin Bergeron's attorney, Radford Smith, said Tammy Schmidt had
essentially "kidnapped" the child when she brought Brittney and her
sister to Mesquite while in the middle of a messy divorce in
California.
A California court had granted Tammy Bergeron custody of the child in
March 2002.
Smith said Nevada's jurisdiction regarding Brittney's custody was only
an emergency one and that the child should be returned to California
authorities or placed in the custody of her father.
"It is now time to return jurisdiction to the state where the child
resided for the bulk of her life," Smith said.
nimue
> tinyd...@nowhere.com (tiny dancer) wrote in
> <Pgvhe.21521$0i3....@bignews3.bellsouth.net>:
>
>>
>> What a tragic story. I remember these girls, the incident. Why
>> shouldn't the child be able to tell the judge what *she* wants? This
>> business about being in the 'reunification' business is so screwed
>> up. IMO natural parents have their shot at it, if they screw up this
>> badly, the kid shouldn't *have to* go back to 'em. Total bullshit.
>
> is abusive in itself and the courts have their values screwed up to
> think parenthood somehow equals a right to own children like a piece
> of property even if you've broken or destroyed it in the past.
>
> Jacque1in
Well put, Jacque1in! I don't think it's ever been better said!
--
nimue
"Have fun storming the castle!"
OzzieAnnie
"tiny dancer" <tinyd...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Pgvhe.21521$0i3....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
If I had that girl's med needs and faced going to live with
caretakers like her mother, I'd be waking screaming in the night
too. Good G*d.
The natural parents who created this situation both ought to be sent
directly to jail for incompetent procreation. Start setting some
examples for wanton disregard for birth control and then keeping the
child. OA
Bo Raxo
"Jacque1in" <jacq...@private.com> wrote in message
news:9656C7C3C...@216.196.97.136...
> >shouldn't the child be able to tell the judge what *she* wants? This
> >business about being in the 'reunification' business is so screwed up.
> >IMO natural parents have their shot at it, if they screw up this badly,
> >the kid shouldn't *have to* go back to 'em. Total bullshit.
>
> abusive in itself and the courts have their values screwed up to think
> parenthood somehow equals a right to own children like a piece of property
> even if you've broken or destroyed it in the past.
>
Our society will never truly value it's children until and unless we realize
raising them isn't a right, it's a privilege.
Bo Raxo
Madame Ovary
"Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
news:XEwhe.697$X92...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
You, Mr. Raxo, are a blithering idiot.
I've decided to take an instant dislike to you. I figure it'll save me time
later.
--Maddie
MaryL
<eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116108701.1...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Pictures at:
> http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/May-14-Sat-2005/news/26516654.html
>
>
>
> Afterward, Schmidt's attorney was highly critical of the decision by
> Clark County deputy district attorneys to have Brittney testify. Caruso
> said a child never is called to testify about their opinions in a
> proceeding about termination of parental rights, adding that he
> believes Brittney will be emotionally scarred by her testimony.
>
> "The state picked a scab off an open wound," Caruso said.
>
> "I think they've revictimized Brittney."
>
>
What a self-serving statement. Children are often called as witnesses in
court, although I don't know if that is specifically true in questions of
adoption and guardianship. If not, they should be -- as long as the child
wants to testify (as was the case here).
If this story is accurate, I do hope parental right are cut off and Brittney
is able to start a new life with new parents.
MaryL
Bo Raxo
"Madame Ovary" <son...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:8Axhe.2237$w21...@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
And I'm supposed to believe you're really a new poster, and not some old
nutjob with a new name. As usual, you're not fooling anybody. I'm guessing
you're the moron formerly known as Nan.
Madame Ovary
JC on a pogo stick! You are so frickin' stupid you couldn't count your balls
twice and get the same answer.
--Maddie
Uncle Buck
<invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Our society will never truly value it's children until and unless we realize
>raising them isn't a right, it's a privilege.
Hmmnn... I really like this sentiment, though there are a bunch of
shadows dancing around its edges where scathing hoards of little "gray
areas" lay. But overall, I find myself in agreement. Did you make
this up or is it a quote? It sounds like a quote.
--
L8r,
Uncle Buck
Bo Raxo
"Uncle Buck" <Uncl...@SpamMeNot.com> wrote in message
news:u1md815h9seohnt8g...@4ax.com...
No, I made it up. But when I wrote it, I thought to myself, "An entry in
'The Quotable Bo'"
And yes, there are all kinds of grey areas of civil rights that dance around
this statement. But in the end you have to as a value come down on one side
or the other, and as for me, this is where I make the call.
Bo Raxo
tiny dancer
Strange side to come down on after already siding with those *single victim*
sex offenders who should be allowed one freebie with the girlfriends kid if
said girlfriend pisses you off, or if you happen to have been drinking or
smokin somethin that night.
td
>
> Bo Raxo
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bo Raxo
You are lying, and I would like an apology. You are grossly misrepresenting
something I have said, over and over, many times, and it's unbelievably
dishonest of you to do this.
I never said anyone gets a "freebie". I said all molesters should go to
prison. Some should go for longer than others. Some can be released at the
end of their sentence with probation and registry requirements. Some should
never be allowed to live on their own. That there are single-victim
offenders, and serial offenders, and it's stupid to waste tax dollars
treating them all as if they were an equal risk.
And I have never said that a parent who molests should ever get the kid
back. Never.
You should really be ashamed of yourself for trying to float this vile lie
about me.
Bo Raxo
tiny dancer
What? What am I misrepresenting? By the way, you misrepresent me on dogs
all the time, and I don't call you a liar.
>
> I never said anyone gets a "freebie". I said all molesters should go to
> prison. Some should go for longer than others. Some can be released at
the
> end of their sentence with probation and registry requirements. Some
should
> never be allowed to live on their own. That there are single-victim
> offenders, and serial offenders, and it's stupid to waste tax dollars
> treating them all as if they were an equal risk.
Anybody who has sex with a child under the age of eleven is a risk to all
children IMHO. You said something to the effect of 'some poor guy might
just make a mistake one night' and I countered with the fact that pedophiles
seldom to never have only one victim, and even less than that, have only one
*occurance*. Then you posted some dopey stories about a cop who molested a
little girl for years, another one about a guy who also molested a child
over a period of years, resulting in the child finally killing herself, and
pawned those off as 'single victim offenders'.
>
> And I have never said that a parent who molests should ever get the kid
> back. Never.
Where did I say you said that?
>
> You should really be ashamed of yourself for trying to float this vile lie
> about me.
I am not trying to float any vile lie about you. Did you not say, on a
previous thread, that some guy who diddled his girlfriends kid *because* he
was drunk or drugged, should not be held as accountable as anyone else? The
whole point to this discussion IIRC, was about child molesters wearing
ankle bracelets, and that neighbors should be notified.
td
>
>
> Bo Raxo
>
>
>
Bo Raxo
>
> "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:mTyhe.756$X92...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "tiny dancer" <tinyd...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:nAyhe.10430$7A2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> > >
> > >
> > victim*
> > > sex offenders who should be allowed one freebie with the girlfriends
kid
> > if
> > > said girlfriend pisses you off, or if you happen to have been drinking
> or
> > > smokin somethin that night.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You are lying, and I would like an apology. You are grossly
> misrepresenting
> > something I have said, over and over, many times, and it's unbelievably
> > dishonest of you to do this.
>
>
> What? What am I misrepresenting? By the way, you misrepresent me on
dogs
> all the time, and I don't call you a liar.
>
You are saying that I claim a single-victim single-incident offender should
get a "freebie", which I take it to mean should not be incarcerated. That's
a gross misrepresentation. Which I explain in the very next paragraph.
>
> >
> > I never said anyone gets a "freebie". I said all molesters should go to
> > prison. Some should go for longer than others. Some can be released at
> the
> > end of their sentence with probation and registry requirements. Some
> should
> > never be allowed to live on their own. That there are single-victim
> > offenders, and serial offenders, and it's stupid to waste tax dollars
> > treating them all as if they were an equal risk.
>
>
> Anybody who has sex with a child under the age of eleven is a risk to all
> children IMHO. You said something to the effect of 'some poor guy might
> just make a mistake one night' and I countered with the fact that
pedophiles
> seldom to never have only one victim, and even less than that, have only
one
> *occurance*. Then you posted some dopey stories about a cop who molested
a
> little girl for years, another one about a guy who also molested a child
> over a period of years, resulting in the child finally killing herself,
and
> pawned those off as 'single victim offenders'.
>
I never said single victim offenders were all single incident offenders.
You said there are no single victinm offenders, I showed you were wrong.
>
> >
> > You should really be ashamed of yourself for trying to float this vile
lie
> > about me.
>
>
> I am not trying to float any vile lie about you. Did you not say, on a
> previous thread, that some guy who diddled his girlfriends kid *because*
he
> was drunk or drugged, should not be held as accountable as anyone else?
I said this kind of offender was different from serial offenders. Not given
a freebie. Even here again you are are vaguely implying I wouldn't have the
guy held accountable, when all I am saying is that perhaps the incarceration
should be shorter, and for some offenders it's enough to have them
registered with the police but perhaps not divulged to the public.
Bo Raxo
tiny dancer
Am I the only one who finds your examples to be disgusting to say the least?
You posted articles about children who were molested time after time over a
period of many, many years. IIRC, one of those articles, the LE involved, I
believe it was the British one, said the crimes were so disgusting they
couldn't even repeat 'em. And you use people like this to support your
*theory*? What makes you think these men only did anything to these
specific children? By your theory, you are in effect blaming the child.
Something therapists spend years trying to do just the opposite. Convince
the child 'it wasn't their fault'. That there was 'nothing about them, the
child, different from any other child.' Because children who have been
molested ALWAYS feel like it was their fault, that there was something about
*them* that made the molester do it to them. Your single victim offender
theory smacks that *blame* right back on the child. When in fact, the
molester would have chosen *any* child.
>
> >
> > >
> > > You should really be ashamed of yourself for trying to float this vile
> lie
> > > about me.
> >
> >
> > I am not trying to float any vile lie about you. Did you not say, on a
> > previous thread, that some guy who diddled his girlfriends kid *because*
> he
> > was drunk or drugged, should not be held as accountable as anyone else?
>
> I said this kind of offender was different from serial offenders. Not
given
> a freebie. Even here again you are are vaguely implying I wouldn't have
the
> guy held accountable, when all I am saying is that perhaps the
incarceration
> should be shorter, and for some offenders it's enough to have them
> registered with the police but perhaps not divulged to the public.
>
>
> Bo Raxo
Don't you see that most of the recent perpetrators of these types of crimes
have had just that happen to them in the past? They are three and four time
offenders. I've read and listened to so much on just these sorts of crimes.
And nearly everyone who studies these cases says that the behavior usually
escalates in it's crime. First they molest, then the molestation increases
in it's intensity and violence, and eventually they kill their victims so
they can't *tell*. Haven't you been reading the same crime stories as I
have been reading here? Aren't you getting tired of reading about little
children being violated? Having their entire lives either ruined or snuffed
out? I don't believe that no matter how drunk you were, how much you
smoked, how mad your girlfriend made you, I just don't believe that you
would have sex with her young child. Maybe that's just me, but I tend to
think that men who would do such a thing are *unusual*, *different*, and not
to be trusted again around children. If they've done it once, they aren't
inclined to not do it again. Men who have sex with children do so not
simply to have sex, but to also have power and control. Those into power
and control, don't usually decrease in that desire, they increase in it. I
think you are making the mistake many people make, in thinking 'it's all
about sex', when it's not. It's about having total and complete control and
power over somebody.
td
>
>
>
Phoenix
son...@yahoo.com says...
Looks like you hit the bull's eye, Bo.
bel
>
>
>
eartha...@yahoo.com
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/May-14-Sat-2005/news/26519063.html
Saturday, May 14, 2005
Las Vegas Review-Journal
JANE ANN MORRISON: Paraplegic girl's words raise hard questions about
mom's parental rights
Excerpt:
There's a strong likelihood that Hardcastle, who will issue his
decision June 1, will refuse to terminate Schmidt's parental rights
despite Brittney's compelling testimony, which journalists watched via
videotape.
The law tells judges that the goal is to reunite families, if possible.
Schmidt insists that she's changed, that she's no longer the meth
addict who left her children to fend for themselves.
One legal source knowledgeable with the case said Hardcastle has
signaled that he's inclined to reunite Brittney with her mother. The
judge almost seems irked that the district attorney's office is trying
to terminate Schmidt's rights. His attitude toward the prosecutors
appeared contemptuous. He seemed annoyed at the fact that Brittney was
called as a witness.
Hardcastle is in a tough position. If he returns Brittney to her mom's
care over her objections and anything happens to harm the child,
Hardcastle becomes the villain. If Schmidt lapses and returns to drugs,
it is his fault. If Brittney's health suffers because her mom doesn't
care for her special medical needs, the blame falls on the judge.
snip
But it had to be a terrible thing for Brittney to sit a few feet from
her mother and describe how, when they lived in that trailer in
Mesquite, her mom left her alone to care for Kristyanna. Brittney was
just 10.
How did she care for her sister? "I would feed her, I would make her
breakfast," Brittney said. "If she fell, I would make sure she was all
right."
Now she wants to make sure that someone is making sure she is all
right. She needs her diet monitored. She needs help using a catheter
every four to six hours.
Bo Raxo
>
>
>
> Am I the only one who finds your examples to be disgusting to say the
least?
We are talking about child molesters. So when you start talking about the
cases, you're going to talk about some disgusting stuff. I guess you can
avoid that, and you specifically do, by just wailing about the poor chillun
and calling for a rope.
I try to discuss nuances between different offender types, so I, gasp, wade
in to some vile offenders. Sheesh.
> You posted articles about children who were molested time after time over
a
> period of many, many years. IIRC, one of those articles, the LE involved,
I
> believe it was the British one, said the crimes were so disgusting they
> couldn't even repeat 'em. And you use people like this to support your
> *theory*?
No, I don't. I post them to refute upir contention that there are no single
victim offenders. You again misrepresent a point I have made clearly,
multiple times.
>What makes you think these men only did anything to these
> specific children?
God damn I have answered this so many times, with so many examples, I'm blue
in the goddamn face. It's like arguing about the existance of God: you
continually claim that just because we don't have proof that every offender
is serial and will continue for life, that doesn't mean they all aren't.
What an utterly stupid, ridiculous, logic-free stance.
>By your theory, you are in effect blaming the child.
And now we get another slanderous lie. I have done *nothing* of the sort.
My theory says some offenders will not go out and *find* a child: they won't
abduct one, they won't groom someone else's kid, they won't hang around a
park or a school. They will though commit crimes against a child that is
right there in the home available to them.
Now you have two huge lies to apologize for, the "freebie" lie and the "Bo
blames the victim" lie.
> Your single victim offender
> theory smacks that *blame* right back on the child. When in fact, the
> molester would have chosen *any* child.
>
What, when I prove you wrong and you have nothing you just make shit up?
'Cause it's much easier to take your moral outrage stance if you ignore what
I say and just make shit up.
>
>
> Don't you see that most of the recent perpetrators of these types of
crimes
> have had just that happen to them in the past? They are three and four
time
> offenders.
I see those are the ones who make the news, yes. Particularly the national
spotlight.
Does that mean it's the most common kind of case? Puhleeze, even you are
not that blind.
> And nearly everyone who studies these cases says that the behavior usually
> escalates in it's crime. First they molest, then the molestation
increases
> in it's intensity and violence, and eventually they kill their victims so
> they can't *tell*.
They are talking about offenders who finally do something very violent,
usually kill the victim. It's like saying most serial killers tortured
animals when they were kids. Doesn't mean that most kids who torture
animals will become serial killers.
Sheesh!
Haven't you been reading the same crime stories as I
> have been reading here? Aren't you getting tired of reading about little
> children being violated? Having their entire lives either ruined or
snuffed
> out? I don't believe that no matter how drunk you were, how much you
> smoked, how mad your girlfriend made you, I just don't believe that you
> would have sex with her young child.
Of course not. But that's not my argument, that *anyone* might molest a
child. Again, you lie about my position. I said there are some offenders
who through a combination of depression, intoxication, and an easily
available victim do something that they would not do if you took out any one
of those items.
Sheesh!
Now run along and make up some more utter bullshit that I didn't say, so you
can pronounce it unreasonable.
Bo Raxo
tiny dancer
>
> "tiny dancer" <tinyd...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:JLzhe.10467$7A2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> >
> >
> >
> > Am I the only one who finds your examples to be disgusting to say the
> least?
>
> We are talking about child molesters. So when you start talking about the
> cases, you're going to talk about some disgusting stuff. I guess you can
> avoid that, and you specifically do, by just wailing about the poor
chillun
> and calling for a rope.
You used these specific cases as your examples, at least that was what I
assumed they were, of pedophiles who only have 'one' victim. In your
previous posts about 'single victim offenders' you stated they should be
treated *differently* by the justice system because they were only single
victim offenders. Did I misunderstand your whole point about this?
>
> I try to discuss nuances between different offender types, so I, gasp,
wade
> in to some vile offenders. Sheesh.
>
> > You posted articles about children who were molested time after time
over
> a
> > period of many, many years. IIRC, one of those articles, the LE
involved,
> I
> > believe it was the British one, said the crimes were so disgusting they
> > couldn't even repeat 'em. And you use people like this to support your
> > *theory*?
>
> No, I don't. I post them to refute upir contention that there are no
single
> victim offenders. You again misrepresent a point I have made clearly,
> multiple times.
Just because I'm not swearing at you and sheeshing back at you, doesn't mean
I'm not grasping my forehead in exasperation right back at you bo.
>
> >What makes you think these men only did anything to these
> > specific children?
>
> God damn I have answered this so many times, with so many examples, I'm
blue
> in the goddamn face. It's like arguing about the existance of God: you
> continually claim that just because we don't have proof that every
offender
> is serial and will continue for life, that doesn't mean they all aren't.
> What an utterly stupid, ridiculous, logic-free stance.
Why? When everyone from psychologists to DA's to LE disagree with your
opinion?
>
> >By your theory, you are in effect blaming the child.
>
> And now we get another slanderous lie.
What slanderous lie? What the fuck are you talking about? Am I not
entitled to my own opinion?
I have done *nothing* of the sort.
> My theory says some offenders will not go out and *find* a child: they
won't
> abduct one, they won't groom someone else's kid, they won't hang around a
> park or a school. They will though commit crimes against a child that is
> right there in the home available to them.
How do you know this? What have you studied to give you this theory?
>
> Now you have two huge lies to apologize for, the "freebie" lie and the "Bo
> blames the victim" lie.
>The way you refer to it, it's like you are saying
> "well, I'm pissed at the girlfriend, she's out with her friends for the
> night and I'm stuck here with the kids, so I think maybe I'll just diddle
> around with the eight year old instead". That'll teach her!
Nope. Never said that. I've said that a person (man or woman) is at a low
point in their life - maybe out of a job, maybe fat and unnatractive, but in
any event in a bad place. They are at home, alone with a child, and
drinking or drugging. It's a crime of opportunity. They aren't fantasizing
about, say, nine year old girls all the time - they are wasted, feeling like
trash, and burying themselves in pleasures of the flesh - drink, drugs,
masturbation. The kid is available. That is how most of these cases occur.
****Give them a short prison term and put them on a
law-enforcement-visible-only
registry******
Give them a short prison term???? Do you somehow think the crime against
the child is less because the kid was available??? And that's not blaming
the victim????
>You are
> causing me to think that MOST men would molest my child rather than only
> those so inclined to molest children by your stance on this issue.
I think just about every human is capable of far worse than we would
normally think, in the right circumstances. See the Zimbardo prison
experiment at Stanford for a start. I think the majority of molesters are
one-time.
BUT - I think the majority of molestations are done by serial offenders who
need to be locked up for life, chemically castrated, can't be changed. By
the time they're caught most of them have dozens of victims. Do you see
the difference?
Experts who study pedophiles are talking about, um, pedophiles. The serial
offender group.
******** They aren't talking about the out of work douchebag who
sits at home, gets drunk all day, and eventually does something heinous to
his girlfriend's kid. That's the majority of the offenders, but not the
majority of offenses.*******
I don't believe this! The out of work douchbags are the majority of
offenders according to you? You do recall the girl in florida, the second
one, was killed by mom's old boyfriend, one of those 'out of work douchebags
who, according to you, should get the short prison term and not have to be
on the public registry.
I'll google up the numbers when I have more time.
Most men, and most women, are capable of terrible acts. Really, the psych
experiments show this. As does history. That's really true. We need to
seperate those from the ones who have a fetish for children and don't have
the brains or discipline or whatever to keep from acting on those sad
impulses.
Bo Raxo
Reply
tiny dancer Apr 29, 1:13 pm show options
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime
From: "tiny dancer" <tinydan...@nowhere.com> - Find messages by
this author
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 13:13:25 -0400
Local: Fri,Apr 29 2005 1:13 pm
Subject: Re: "My boyfriend's a sex offender...how can I make
things easy for him?"
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message |
Show original | Report Abuse
"Bo Raxo" <invasions_r...@thepentagon.re衫ovethis.com> wrote in
message
>
> > Your single victim offender
> > theory smacks that *blame* right back on the child. When in fact, the
> > molester would have chosen *any* child.
> >
>
> What, when I prove you wrong and you have nothing you just make shit up?
> 'Cause it's much easier to take your moral outrage stance if you ignore
what
> I say and just make shit up.
And you call me naive!
>
> >
> >
> > Don't you see that most of the recent perpetrators of these types of
> crimes
> > have had just that happen to them in the past? They are three and four
> time
> > offenders.
>
> I see those are the ones who make the news, yes. Particularly the
national
> spotlight.
>
> Does that mean it's the most common kind of case? Puhleeze, even you are
> not that blind.
No, the most common type case is the guy, like all the recent priests, the
mailman I posted about recently, some of the teachers, all the endless non
descript people who have done this over the whole course of their
lifetimes. And they never come to the attention of LE, or come to their
attention when the guy is in his 40's, 50's, 60's, etc. AMW did a profile
tonight on a guy who's 68 years old. You think he's a first time offender
at 68?
>
>
> > And nearly everyone who studies these cases says that the behavior
usually
> > escalates in it's crime. First they molest, then the molestation
> increases
> > in it's intensity and violence, and eventually they kill their victims
so
> > they can't *tell*.
>
> They are talking about offenders who finally do something very violent,
> usually kill the victim.
The parent, or person in the home doesn't have to kill 'em, he just
threatens 'em to keep quiet. Haven't you ever heard about cases where the
father does it to his kids, and then to his grandkids? Uncle does it to
many cousins in the family? These are all hush hush and seldom come to the
attention of LE until somebody finally talks.
It's like saying most serial killers tortured
> animals when they were kids. Doesn't mean that most kids who torture
> animals will become serial killers.
>
> Sheesh!
>
> Haven't you been reading the same crime stories as I
> > have been reading here? Aren't you getting tired of reading about
little
> > children being violated? Having their entire lives either ruined or
> snuffed
> > out? I don't believe that no matter how drunk you were, how much you
> > smoked, how mad your girlfriend made you, I just don't believe that you
> > would have sex with her young child.
>
> Of course not. But that's not my argument, that *anyone* might molest a
> child. Again, you lie about my position.
Most men, and most women, are capable of terrible acts. Really, the psych
experiments show this. As does history. That's really true. We need to
seperate those from the ones who have a fetish for children and don't have
the brains or discipline or whatever to keep from acting on those sad
impulses.
Nope. Never said that. I've said that a person (man or woman) is at a low
point in their life - maybe out of a job, maybe fat and unnatractive, but in
any event in a bad place. They are at home, alone with a child, and
drinking or drugging. It's a crime of opportunity. They aren't fantasizing
about, say, nine year old girls all the time - they are wasted, feeling like
trash, and burying themselves in pleasures of the flesh - drink, drugs,
masturbation. The kid is available. That is how most of these cases occur.
I said there are some offenders
> who through a combination of depression, intoxication, and an easily
> available victim do something that they would not do if you took out any
one
> of those items.
I'd like a cite for that, because I simply do not believe it.
Sheesh!
>
> Sheesh!
>
> Now run along and make up some more utter bullshit that I didn't say, so
you
> can pronounce it unreasonable.
>
>
> Bo Raxo
td
>
>
>
>
tiny dancer
<eartha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116131936.1...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
http://www.reviewjournal.com/lvrj_home/2005/May-14-Sat-2005/news/26519063.html
>
> Saturday, May 14, 2005
> Las Vegas Review-Journal
> JANE ANN MORRISON: Paraplegic girl's words raise hard questions about
> mom's parental rights
>
> Excerpt:
>
> There's a strong likelihood that Hardcastle, who will issue his
> decision June 1, will refuse to terminate Schmidt's parental rights
> despite Brittney's compelling testimony, which journalists watched via
> videotape.
>
> The law tells judges that the goal is to reunite families, if possible.
> Schmidt insists that she's changed, that she's no longer the meth
> addict who left her children to fend for themselves.
If he returns this child to her mother, well, it's simply too tragic to even
think about. She's finally found a place where people actually take care of
her for a change, and now she will lose that? My god what a fucked up
system we have.
td
Bo Raxo
>
> "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
> news:mbAhe.791$X92...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> >
>
>
Bo:
> ****Give them a short prison term and put them on a
> law-enforcement-visible-only
> registry******
>
>
Tiny:
> Give them a short prison term???? Do you somehow think the crime against
> the child is less because the kid was available??? And that's not blaming
> the victim????
No, it isn't. Not in any remote way. It's explaining that some pedophiles
are predators, and others are not.
>
>
> Experts who study pedophiles are talking about, um, pedophiles. The
serial
> offender group.
>
Except that most pedophiles don't *ever* offend, and most that do have one
victim, so yoru point is utterly false. As are your other claims about what
experts supposedly say. The hint is how you claim experts say this or that,
but NEVER, I mean NEVER provide a cite.
Bo Raxo
Bo Raxo
> >
> > "tiny dancer" <tinyd...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > news:5GAhe.21765$0i3....@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> > >
> > > "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in message
> > > news:mbAhe.791$X92...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Bo:
> >
> > > ****Give them a short prison term and put them on a
> > > law-enforcement-visible-only
> > > registry******
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Tiny:
> >
> > > Give them a short prison term???? Do you somehow think the crime
> against
> > > the child is less because the kid was available??? And that's not
> blaming
> > > the victim????
> >
> > No, it isn't. Not in any remote way. It's explaining that some
pedophiles
> > are predators, and others are not.
>
>
> most is 'regardless of how many victims someone molests, the effect on
each
> *victim* is the same.' It appears you are looking at it simply from the
> perps point of view, and disregarding the child.
No, I am looking at it from the point of view of liklihood to reoffend. You
are looking at it from a moral point of view.
>In fact it's even worse in
> some ways, for the child that is abused by the father/mom's
> boyfriend/uncle/someone close to the family, because the child loses all
> sense of safety.
And here is the perfect illustration. Morally, perhaps you are right.
But from a practical standpoint, it's also more traumatic to testify in
court against someone close to the family and put them away for 20 years.
Which is why some states, including mine, give shorter sentences to these
in-jouse, one-victim molesters.
There's the consensus of your experts.
> > >
> > >
> > > Experts who study pedophiles are talking about, um, pedophiles. The
> > serial
> > > offender group.
>
>
> And you know this *how*?
>
>
> pedophile:
>
> An adult who is sexually attracted to a child or children
>
>
> n : an adult who is sexually attracted to children [syn: paedophile]
>
> Main Entry: pe搞o搆hil搏a
> Pronunciation: "pE-d&-'fi-lE-&
> Function: noun
> Etymology: New Latin
> : sexual perversion in which children are the preferred sexual object
>
>
> > >
> >
> > Except that most pedophiles don't *ever* offend, and most that do have
one
> > victim, so yoru point is utterly false. As are your other claims about
> what
> > experts supposedly say. The hint is how you claim experts say this or
> that,
> > but NEVER, I mean NEVER provide a cite.
> >
> >
> > Bo Raxo
>
> http://www.csom.org/pubs/recidsexof.html
>
> Section of much longer article:
> Child Molesters
>
Ah, once again you pull the SAME bullshit trick. You start talking about X
(in this case, pedophiles). Then I respond. Then you compeltely shift to Y
(in this case molestors, which is a small subset of pedophiles), and go off
on a tangent. That makes it impossible - fucking completely impossible - to
discuss this with you, because of the complete illogic.
It's as if we were talking about teens who torture animals, and you suddenly
shifted to talking about serial killers, as if things about serial killers
applied to all teens who torture animals. "But Bo, those guys kills
people!" when what we were talking about was completely different.
> Studies of the recidivism of child molesters reveal specific patterns of
> reoffending across victim types and offender characteristics. A study
> involving mentally disordered sex offenders compared same-sex and
> opposite-sex child molesters and incest offenders. Results of this
five-year
> follow-up study found that same-sex child molesters had the highest rate
of
> previous sex offenses (53 percent), as well as the highest reconviction
rate
> for sex crimes (30 percent).
So that would mean half of them had more than one known victim, and half
didn't. One third were caught again, and two thirds didn't.
Sounds like support for there being a significant number of single victim
offenders.
Now your bullshit response will be "But Bo, those guys all molested
thousands of kids each, they just didn't get caught!"
You'll say this even though the study YOU cite does not support any such
conclusion. I know you will do this because I've seen you do exactly this
half a dozen times already.
>In comparison, 43 percent of opposite-sex child
> molesters had prior sex offenses and a reconviction rate for sex crimes of
> 25 percent, and incest offenders had prior convictions at a rate of 11
> percent and a reconviction rate of 6 percent (Sturgeon and Taylor, 1980).
Yet more support for my contention that some offenders are not predators in
that they will molest a child in the home, but won't go out in search of
victims to groom or abduct.
>
>
> Several studies have involved follow-up of extra-familial child molesters.
> One such study (Barbaree and Marshall, 1988) included both official and
> unofficial measures of recidivism (reconviction, new charge, or unofficial
> record). Using both types of measures, researchers found that 43 percent
of
> these offenders (convicted of sex offenses involving victims under the age
> of 16 years) sexually reoffended within a four-year follow-up period.
Those
> who had a subsequent sex offense differed from those who did not by their
> use of force in the offense, the number of previous sexual assault
victims,
> and their score on a sexual index that included a phallometric assessment
> (also referred to as plethysmography: a device used to measure sexual
> arousal (erectile response) to both appropriate (age appropriate and
> consenting) and deviant sexual stimulus material). In contrast to other
> studies of child molesters, this study found no difference in recidivism
> between opposite-sex and same-sex offenders.
Translation: things like use of force and number of previous victims are
good indicators as to WHETHER the offender will commit another sex offense.
As in, some will reoffend, some won't, and there are some reliable
predictors. So some need to be locked up for a long time, perhaps life, and
some don't.
More support for my position. You apparently don't read or don't understand
the studies you cite. Gee, I bet you think the people who perform these
studies are, as you say, "obsessed with the offender", and aren't thinking
about the poor chillun!
Well, if you are studying child molesters, then, uh, yeah, you're going to
look like you're really, really focused on the offender. Sheesh!
Bo Raxo
tiny dancer
I am looking at it from the point of view of protecting those who are UNABLE
to protect themselves. If somebody mugs you on the street, somebody in your
family beats you up, you are an adult. You can carry yourself into the
police station and report it. If you are a child, in an abusive family, or
simply a child too small to even verbalize what's happened to you, those
remedies aren't available to you. *Children* do need more protection
because they can't protect themselves.
Damn it Bo, I've listened to so many adult survivors talk about wearing
their clothes to bed to try and protect themselves. Wearing extra sets of
clothes to bed, in their ineffective means to try and make it harder for the
person in their home to sexually molest them. What kind of *views* do you
think I should have? When most of those who have been raped in their
homes, repeat the same strategies they'd used for safety? Even though those
*strageties* didn't work, can't you put yourself in their place and
*imagine* what it's like to have no ability to protect oneself?
>
> >In fact it's even worse in
> > some ways, for the child that is abused by the father/mom's
> > boyfriend/uncle/someone close to the family, because the child loses all
> > sense of safety.
>
> And here is the perfect illustration. Morally, perhaps you are right.
>
> But from a practical standpoint, it's also more traumatic to testify in
> court against someone close to the family and put them away for 20 years.
Where does this theory come from? Lawmakers, or actual victims? Because
the *victims* I've heard have the opposite to say. The abuser got a light
sentence, came home and beat the shit out of 'em for *telling* to begin
with, and the abuse became worse. The "that'll teach you to talk/tell"
syndrome.
I put *pedophile* into my search thingie and these are what came up. I
didn't put in child molesters, I put in pedophile, recitivism rates,
re-offender, etc. Honestly bo, I am not trying to aggravate you or decieve
you. Granted, I'm certainly not the worlds best researcher, but I tried to
search it out. Every search I did, began with the word *pedophile*.
You can *sheesh* me till the cows come home, but you can't dispute what
*real victims* say. All your *research* doesn't take into account what
really happens in real life. I tried to give you what you say I don't give
you. Maybe a better way for you to *research* might be to ask some *real
people* what *really happens*.
td
Bo Raxo
>
>
>
> I put *pedophile* into my search thingie and these are what came up. I
> didn't put in child molesters, I put in pedophile, recitivism rates,
> re-offender, etc. Honestly bo, I am not trying to aggravate you or
decieve
> you. Granted, I'm certainly not the worlds best researcher, but I tried
to
> search it out. Every search I did, began with the word *pedophile*.
>
Okay, I'll use the same example again in a hope you will get a clue.
If I put in "animal torture" in my search engine, and I get an article about
serial killers, that doesn't mean the article discusses things applicable to
most people who torture animals.
Jeez, if you can't grasp the difference between "pedophile: sexually
attracted to children" and "child rapist: actually molests children" then
you're completely lost.
> You can *sheesh* me till the cows come home, but you can't dispute what
> *real victims* say. All your *research* doesn't take into account what
> really happens in real life.
Um, the research I cited, and the research *you* cited that supported my
position, was all surveys of *real* perps and *Real* victims. It IS what
happens in real life.
The only difference is, it aggregates many cases, while you cite individual
ones. Now which would be more accurate, many cases or one?
Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh!
Bo Raxo
tiny dancer
Go read on a few incest groups if you want the real skinny.
td
>
>
>
>
>
Carmen
On 14-May-2005, "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com>
wrote:
> > You, Mr. Raxo, are a blithering idiot.
> >
> > I've decided to take an instant dislike to you. I figure it'll
> > save me time later.
> >
> > --Maddie
>
>
> And I'm supposed to believe you're really a new poster, and not some
> old nutjob with a new name. As usual, you're not fooling anybody.
> I'm
> guessing you're the moron formerly known as Nan.
Being the curious sort, I went Googling and header scanning. The
"Nan" you refer to, nanleecro@hotmail dot com, is not the same person.
This is a Ms. G. Sonntag.
You have a brand new admirer. <G>
Take care,
Carmen
--
Just because something's toxic doesn't mean it's not tasty.
Bo Raxo
"Carmen" <carm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lSNhe.22283$0i3...@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Hello,
> On 14-May-2005, "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > You, Mr. Raxo, are a blithering idiot.
> > >
> > > I've decided to take an instant dislike to you. I figure it'll
> > > save me time later.
> > >
> > > --Maddie
> >
> >
> > And I'm supposed to believe you're really a new poster, and not some
> > old nutjob with a new name. As usual, you're not fooling anybody.
> > I'm
> > guessing you're the moron formerly known as Nan.
>
> Being the curious sort, I went Googling and header scanning. The
> "Nan" you refer to, nanleecro@hotmail dot com, is not the same person.
> This is a Ms. G. Sonntag.
> You have a brand new admirer. <G>
>
And it couldn't be the same person with a new nym and a new address from a
free service? No, you're not actually that naive, you can't be.
Bo Raxo
Carmen
On 15-May-2005, "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com>
wrote:
Not by a long shot. <G> Separate and distinct posting histories,
different ISPs and different time zones all combine to point to two
different posters. ;-) Shoot, someone could stick anything they want
to in as an email address and name. Over the years I've gained a
moderate level of skills at reading headers and ferreting out
doppelganger trolls.
Take care,
Carmen
--
Just because something's toxic doesn't mean it's not tasty.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is
stupid.
Phoenix
carm...@gmail.com says...
> Hello,
> On 14-May-2005, "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > You, Mr. Raxo, are a blithering idiot.
> > >
> > > I've decided to take an instant dislike to you. I figure it'll
> > > save me time later.
> > >
> > > --Maddie
> >
> >
> > And I'm supposed to believe you're really a new poster, and not some
> > old nutjob with a new name. As usual, you're not fooling anybody.
> > I'm
> > guessing you're the moron formerly known as Nan.
>
> Being the curious sort, I went Googling and header scanning. The
> "Nan" you refer to, nanleecro@hotmail dot com, is not the same person.
> This is a Ms. G. Sonntag.
"Nan" has splattered her/himself all over the Usenet using a variety of
nyms.
> You have a brand new admirer. <G>
Bo will never have a shortage of those "hateyou!hateyou!hateyou!...now
ravish me!" types. From all sexual persuations, in fact. One could call
it a gift.
bel
>
> Take care,
> Carmen
>
>
Bo Raxo
"Phoenix" <avian...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1cf17e39b...@news-server.carolina.rr.com...
> In article <lSNhe.22283$0i3...@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
> carm...@gmail.com says...
> > Hello,
> > On 14-May-2005, "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > > You, Mr. Raxo, are a blithering idiot.
> > > >
> > > > I've decided to take an instant dislike to you. I figure it'll
> > > > save me time later.
> > > >
> > > > --Maddie
> > >
> > >
> > > And I'm supposed to believe you're really a new poster, and not some
> > > old nutjob with a new name. As usual, you're not fooling anybody.
> > > I'm
> > > guessing you're the moron formerly known as Nan.
> >
> > Being the curious sort, I went Googling and header scanning. The
> > "Nan" you refer to, nanleecro@hotmail dot com, is not the same person.
> > This is a Ms. G. Sonntag.
>
> "Nan" has splattered her/himself all over the Usenet using a variety of
> nyms.
>
Exactly.
>
> > You have a brand new admirer. <G>
>
> Bo will never have a shortage of those "hateyou!hateyou!hateyou!...now
> ravish me!" types. From all sexual persuations, in fact. One could call
> it a gift.
>
One could, but I'd rather say it was a curse.
;]
Messalina
> realize
> raising them isn't a right, it's a privilege.
> Bo Raxo
You, Mr. Raxo, are a blithering idiot.
I've decided to take an instant dislike to you. I figure it'll save me
time
later.
What could you possibly find that is objectionable in Bo's above
statement?
Mez
Bo Raxo
"Messalina" <messa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1116267314.0...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Anybody who has sex with a child under the age of eleven is a risk to
> all
> children IMHO. You said something to the effect of 'some poor guy
> might
> just make a mistake one night' and I countered with the fact that
> pedophiles
> seldom to never have only one victim, and even less than that, have
> only one
> *occurance*. Then you posted some dopey stories about a cop who
> molested a
> little girl for years, another one about a guy who also molested a
> child
> over a period of years, resulting in the child finally killing herself,
> and
> pawned those off as 'single victim offenders'.
>
>
> Actually, a large percentage of the molestations that occur within the
> family are the result of a combination of problems and not pedophilia.
> The usual scenario is that the father is out of work and is forced to
> stay home with the kids while the mother works. He becomes depressed,
> he drinks. Then the molestation occurs.
>
> Mez
>
Exactly. And to clarify, since Tiny has lied her ass off misrepresenting my
position on this, I think anyone who has sex with a child should go to
prison. Just some longer than others. Some need to be on a registry that
their neighbors can access, others need to be on a registry that only the
police can access.
I do not think, as Tiny has lied, that anyone should get a "freebie" (her
term). Even worse, when someone asks about this, after I've repeatedly
corrected her, she'll just say, "Oh gee, I guess I should let Bo explain
himself..." as if I already haven't.
Can you tell this pisses me off mightily?
Anyway, thanks for the voice of reason. Here's a hint folks: when Mez and I
agree, it can't be something all that controversial. And there is a chance
of snowfall in Hades...
tiny dancer
Quit calling me a liar. You said you thought if it was the mothers
boyfriend, a "short prison sentence" might be in order", did you not? A
"short prison sentence" for the rape of a child I dubbed a 'freebie',
because that's exactly what it sounds like to me. Your views on the Haidl
gang were much more severe than that, and that girl was a sexually active
teenager, not a seven or nine year old child.
You have taken many *liberties* with my wording of things to do with dogs,
so don't go calling me a liar. So it pisses you off, well *this* pisses me
off too. When I was seven or nine years old, I'd have felt even worse
thinking what happened to me "wasn't as bad as if he had done it to a
stranger." That some strange kid, they'd lock him up for a long long time,
but because it was just me, living in the house there, well I just deserve a
'short prison sentence'.
td
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Bo Raxo
>
>
>
> Quit calling me a liar. You said you thought if it was the mothers
> boyfriend, a "short prison sentence" might be in order", did you not?
Again you lie. I said that a single-victim offender who committed a crime
of opportunity should get a SHORTER - not "short" - SHORTER - prison
sentence than a predatory serial offender.
The "mom's boyfriend" was an example, it was not the circumstance that is
the basis of the shorter prison sentence than the multiple-victim offender.
Quit fucking lying.
>A
> "short prison sentence" for the rape of a child I dubbed a 'freebie',
> because that's exactly what it sounds like to me.
A "freebie" means you get one for FREE. Going to PRISON is not getting one
for FREE. You can say that black means white to you all day, but black
means black in the English language. It certainly did to Nimue, who read
you lie and thought it "freebie" meant "doesn't go to prison". You need to
stop lying
>Your views on the Haidl
> gang were much more severe than that, and that girl was a sexually active
> teenager, not a seven or nine year old child.
I said they should go to prison. I said all offenders should go to prison.
I don't recall saying how long I thought Haidl and his band of morons should
be put away for. Remember that in their case it wasn't pedophile action
anyway, it was (in my opinion) a drugging. There were aggravated
circumstances like the videotape. Again you completely misrepresent my
position, leaving out details, twisting others. A drugging, rape, and
videotape of a teenager is not a pedophile case, it is not a simple
molestation, it is not a parallel.
>
> You have taken many *liberties* with my wording of things to do with dogs,
> so don't go calling me a liar.
If I have misrepresented your views anywhere, any time, post an example.
Until you do, you're just a liar making up yet more slander.
>So it pisses you off, well *this* pisses me
> off too. When I was seven or nine years old, I'd have felt even worse
> thinking what happened to me "wasn't as bad as if he had done it to a
> stranger." That some strange kid, they'd lock him up for a long long
time,
> but because it was just me, living in the house there, well I just deserve
a
> 'short prison sentence'.
>
And you still misrepresent my views. Did I say the CRUCIAL difference was
that it was someone you knew? Or did I say the crucial difference was ONE
VICTIM versus MULTIPLE VICTIMS?
Keep lying, as if that's a way to win an argument.
Bo Raxo
fl...@starband.net
<snipped>
> Of course not. But that's not my argument, that *anyone* might molest
> a child. Again, you lie about my position. I said there are some
> offenders who through a combination of depression, intoxication, and
> an easily available victim do something that they would not do if you
> took out any one of those items.
Most people who can be depressed and drunk and around a child and NOT
molest the child; anyone who does molest a child has something wrong with
'em. No matter the other circumstances. Depression isn't an excuse.
Being drunk isn't an excuse. They're pedophiles.
And I want those people, whether they've had one victim or many at the time
they're caught, not to get another chance. Ever.
flick 100785
Bo Raxo
<fl...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9658EE35BD77C...@63.223.5.248...
> "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in
> news:mbAhe.791$X92...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> <snipped>
>
> > Of course not. But that's not my argument, that *anyone* might molest
> > a child. Again, you lie about my position. I said there are some
> > offenders who through a combination of depression, intoxication, and
> > an easily available victim do something that they would not do if you
> > took out any one of those items.
>
> Most people who can be depressed and drunk and around a child and NOT
> molest the child; anyone who does molest a child has something wrong with
> 'em. No matter the other circumstances. Depression isn't an excuse.
> Being drunk isn't an excuse. They're pedophiles.
>
> And I want those people, whether they've had one victim or many at the
time
> they're caught, not to get another chance. Ever.
>
You're entitled to your opinion. But the studies say you will convict fewer
of them, because the kids will be less likely to be willing to testify.
So maybe the best way to achieve your goal *isn't* a lifetime sentence.
Think about it.
Bo Raxo
fl...@starband.net
>
> <fl...@starband.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9658EE35BD77C...@63.223.5.248...
>> Most people who can be depressed and drunk and around a child and NOT
>> molest the child; anyone who does molest a child has something wrong
>> with 'em. No matter the other circumstances. Depression isn't an
>> excuse. Being drunk isn't an excuse. They're pedophiles.
>>
>> And I want those people, whether they've had one victim or many at
>> the
> time
>> they're caught, not to get another chance. Ever.
>>
>
> You're entitled to your opinion. But the studies say you will convict
> fewer of them, because the kids will be less likely to be willing to
> testify.
>
> So maybe the best way to achieve your goal *isn't* a lifetime
> sentence. Think about it.
They don't have to be locked up for life. But they've got to get locked
up for a number of years, and have to register as sex offenders.
One of the things I'm having a problem with, Bo, is that unless I've
misunderstood, you are equating *one victim* with a pedo who isn't a
repeat offender - who just did it once.
I'd say the pedo is not a repeat offender if he only molested once. If
he had one victim that he molested for years, he's a repeater and needs
to be locked up for a long, long time, and registered when released.
Because to me, that situation isn't one of being drunk and depressed and
did something stupid *once.*
IOW, one victim does not necessarily equal one occurrence. More than
one occurrence means repeat offender to me, whether it was one victim or
many.
flick 100785
Bo Raxo
<fl...@starband.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9658F163EAE53...@63.223.5.248...
> "Bo Raxo" <invasio...@thepentagon.removethis.com> wrote in
> news:nseie.2275$Lc1...@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net:
>
> >
> > <fl...@starband.net> wrote in message
> > news:Xns9658EE35BD77C...@63.223.5.248...
>
> >> Most people who can be depressed and drunk and around a child and NOT
> >> molest the child; anyone who does molest a child has something wrong
> >> with 'em. No matter the other circumstances. Depression isn't an
> >> excuse. Being drunk isn't an excuse. They're pedophiles.
> >>
> >> And I want those people, whether they've had one victim or many at
> >> the
> > time
> >> they're caught, not to get another chance. Ever.
> >>
> >
> > You're entitled to your opinion. But the studies say you will convict
> > fewer of them, because the kids will be less likely to be willing to
> > testify.
> >
> > So maybe the best way to achieve your goal *isn't* a lifetime
> > sentence. Think about it.
>
> They don't have to be locked up for life. But they've got to get locked
> up for a number of years, and have to register as sex offenders.
I agree with you there.
>
> One of the things I'm having a problem with, Bo, is that unless I've
> misunderstood, you are equating *one victim* with a pedo who isn't a
> repeat offender - who just did it once.
Nom you are confused. I'm saying there are different kinds of offenders.
There are those who have just done it once. Obviously that's one victim.
There are those who have one victim, many incidents.
There are those that have many victims.
Each requires different sentences, treatment, registry restrictions, etc.
The first kind, for example, it might make sense to have registered but in a
registry only available to law enforcement. So that if some child gets hurt
they have the data for leads.
But not available to the public.
The second kind, perhaps is also in a law enforcement only registry, but is
also on probation for life and prohibited from jobs where he or she might
come in contact with children, along with perhaps other restrictions.
The third kind, needs life imprisonment.
>
> I'd say the pedo is not a repeat offender if he only molested once. If
> he had one victim that he molested for years, he's a repeater and needs
> to be locked up for a long, long time, and registered when released.
> Because to me, that situation isn't one of being drunk and depressed and
> did something stupid *once.*
But life isn't that black and white. What if he molested a single victim,
several times, over a period of say a few months?
There's a sliding scale of heinousness, and sentences need to reflect that.
Bo Raxo
fl...@starband.net
<snipped>
>> I'd say the pedo is not a repeat offender if he only molested once.
>> If he had one victim that he molested for years, he's a repeater and
>> needs to be locked up for a long, long time, and registered when
>> released. Because to me, that situation isn't one of being drunk and
>> depressed and did something stupid *once.*
>
> But life isn't that black and white. What if he molested a single
> victim, several times, over a period of say a few months?
To me, that's a repeat offender. To me, that is a case of the perp
*wanting* to do it again, and doing it again. Not making a stupid
mistake one time and never repeating.
This isn't a great analogy, but anyway. There are people who drive
drunk ONCE, get caught. It'd be fine with me if those people are
sentenced and perhaps even get a chance to erase that record if they
don't re-offend in some period of time. But if they do it 2-3 times,
they oughtta do time behind bars. Clearly, they make a CHOICE to re-
offend.
Somebody who provably has molested a child more than once is a repeat
offender. Period.
flick 100785
