Artimus Pyle is BANNED from playing in Bayonne, New Jersey!
ba_ba...@webtv.net
light
by Ronald Leir
Thursday May 08, 2008, 6:09 PM
The Arts Factory, a private entertainment venue in Bayonne, has
canceled an upcoming appearance by the former drummer for Lynyrd
Skynyrd after learning that the musician is a registered sex offender
in Florida.
Thomas Delmer "Artimus" Pyle, 59, played with the southern rock group
during the 1970s until a plane crash in 1977 killed band members
Ronnie Van Zant, Cassie Gaines and Steve Gaines.
Artimus Pyle survived and continued playing with bands and as a solo
act but landed in trouble when he was arrested in Jacksonville Beach,
Fla., in 1992 on charges of sexual battery against two girls, ages 4
and 8, according to published reports.
In a 1993 plea agreement, Pyle was sentenced to eight years' probation
and had to register as a sex offender, reports said.
Reports said that in November 2007 Pyle was arrested in St. John's
County, Florida, on charges that he failed to register in person as a
sexual offender.
Efforts to reach the St. John's County Sheriff's Office to learn
Pyle's current status were unsuccessful.
Artimus Pyle, who was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in
2006, was touring last year with the band Deep South.
The drummer was scheduled to play the Arts Factory on June 13 but,
after City Councilman Anthony Chiappone advised the management about
Artimus Pyle's background, the booking was scratched.
Chiappone said that after he learned about Pyle's situation from two
city residents -- the mother of a child who attends the Bayonne YMCA
day camp and city employee Ricky Pasquale -- he immediately contacted
Arts Factory co-owner Greg Bukshowany to urge him to cancel the show.
In a prepared statement, Bukshowany said: "We at the Arts Factory were
appalled in learning about the background of Artimus Pyle and, as a
result of receiving this information, we have immediately canceled his
performance."
Bukshowany said that Pyle was recommended by a Skynyrd Tribute Band
playing the Arts Factory.
http://www.nj.com/hudsoncountynow/index.ssf/2008/05/musical_performance_in_bayonne.html
bbb writes:
People who abuse children SUCK!!!
Sherry in Vermont
> Music show in Bayonne canceled after performer's sex crimes come to
> light
> by Ronald Leir
>
>
>
> Thursday May 08, 2008, 6:09 PM
> The Arts Factory, a private entertainment venue in Bayonne, has
> canceled an upcoming appearance by the former drummer for Lynyrd
> Skynyrd after learning that the musician is a registered sex offender
> in Florida.
>
> Thomas Delmer "Artimus" Pyle, 59, played with the southern rock group
> during the 1970s until a plane crash in 1977 killed band members
> Ronnie Van Zant, Cassie Gaines and Steve Gaines.
>
> Artimus Pyle survived and continued playing with bands and as a solo
> act but landed in trouble when he was arrested in Jacksonville Beach,
> Fla., in 1992 on charges of sexual battery against two girls, ages 4
> and 8, according to published reports.
>
> In a 1993 plea agreement, Pyle was sentenced to eight years' probation
> and had to register as a sex offender, reports said.
>
> Reports said that in November 2007 Pyle was arrested in St. John's
> County, Florida, on charges that he failed to register in person as a
> sexual offender.
<snip>
> http://www.nj.com/hudsoncountynow/index.ssf/2008/05/musical_performance_in_bayonne.html
bbb
>
> writes:
> People who abuse children SUCK!!!
You aren't kidding. I have an 8 yr old, and I'd rip someone apart if
they touched my kid - what's "sexual battery"? Doesn't sound good - and
an 8 yr old and 4 yr old? Castration's too good for these folks, IMO.
Personally I think they should let the parents of the kids have at the
abuser. THAT might keep others from abusing!
Sherry in Vermont
volkfolk
> On 2008-05-09 17:48:29 -0400, ba_ba_b0...@webtv.net said:
> Personally I think they should let the parents of the kids have at the
> abuser. THAT might keep others from abusing!
Amen. I totally agree. I would have killed anyone who ever messed with
Matt when he was little.
Scot
Octopus Ride
"Sherry in Vermont" <sher...@together.net> wrote in message
news:2008051011194416807-sherry13@togethernet...
According to Pyle, his girlfriend and the mother of his kids (the kids in
question), had another boyfriend and wanted to get even with him for
something as well as get rid of him. She accused him of touching his
children while bathing them and changing the diapers of his 3 year old
daughter. Pyle admitted touching them, as it is impossible to bathe a 3
year old or change her diapers if he doesn't touch her. He denied any
attempted or actual sexual touching. Rape or other sexual acts were never
alleged.
Three days after Pyle was arrested, her boyfriend moved into their large
home and she supposedly gave him Pyle's 4 cars, drum sets and other
valuables. After spending $500,000 in legal fees defending himself, Pyle
was told by prosecutors he could go to trial and have a he said / she said
in which the she is almost always believed and risk a life sentence, or he
could plead guilty to "attempted" sexual battery and get probation. He
chose probation. Apparently the prosecutors didn't think whatever offense
was alleged would be proven with a 100% certainty, so they reduced the
charge and let him walk the streets. Not something normally done with a
bestial child molestor these days.
Who knows, but it sounds like yet another one of those angry wife /
girlfriend things in which she uses the kids to destroy the husband /
boyfriend. Now he can't even earn a living.
OR
Sherry in Vermont
bbb
That sucks. I'm glad kids weren't abused if she's telling the truth...
but then again, just because she had boyfriend move in doesn't prove he
didn't abuse the kids. I just don't understand why someone would lie
about something as serious as this. Lots of people get away with all
kinds of abuse because they have stories that discredit the accuser.
Sherry in Vermont
Edwin Hurwitz
Sherry in Vermont <sher...@together.net> wrote:
>
> That sucks. I'm glad kids weren't abused if she's telling the truth...
> but then again, just because she had boyfriend move in doesn't prove he
> didn't abuse the kids. I just don't understand why someone would lie
> about something as serious as this. Lots of people get away with all
> kinds of abuse because they have stories that discredit the accuser.
>
> Sherry in Vermont
Isn't that the American way these days? If you are outraged and loud
enough, you get your way. Reason and facts no longer have any bearing on
just about anything here any more.
Edwin
--
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your
enemies.
-Moshe Dayan
Edwin Hurwitz
<dcd02326-5b97-4ac2...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
volkfolk <volk...@verizon.net> wrote:
What if the charges were unfounded?
We are supposed to be living under the rule of law here folks. I realize
that Bush et al are shredding the constitution as fast as they can, but
when mob rule and lynching comes back to replace a real legal system, we
are opening a door for all of us to be victims of it.
I am not defending anyone here, including Mr. Pyle, just pointing out
that our legal system defends us from our worst instincts. If you get to
murder someone that you perceived to have touched your son, where does
it end? Do I get to pummel someone to within an inch of his life because
he took my parking spot? Is it ok as long as I don't kill him or cause
permanent injury?
I think this is one of the reasons that we are in as much trouble as we
are now is that this mob mentality has led us astray after 9/11,
allowing Mr. Bush the opportunity to use a military response to a
criminal act. Revenge is a poor guide to making good decisions. Had we
used our heads, we would have pursued this as a criminal matter and had
the good will of the rest of the world (well, almost all of it) behind
us, including many Muslims. Instead, we decided to allow ourselves to be
whipped into a frenzy of revenge against Muslims which was manipulated
into support for a senseless war of choice that is being run for
completely other reasons.
Octopus Ride
Niether you nor I will ever know the truth about this situation, but these
days its the accuser that gets away with lies more often than does the
accused. There are tons of stories about women using their kids to get rid
of the man. All anyone has to do is say is "child abuse" and a life is
ruined forever.
The other day I believe you were posting about Mildred Loving. Her
boyfriend started "courting" her at age 11 and had her knocked up by the
time she turned 18. Today he would be imprisoned, even if he had waited
until she was 17 before he statutorily raped her. Yes, its rape. Today an
18 year old cannot engage in any sexual act with anyone under the age of 18
without it being considered rape. They are sexual offenders and put on
lists, name and face publicized, can't live here or live there, and no one
will hire them.
There's a local case about a 19 year old who got a BJ from his 16 year old
girlfriend, who he took to her prom. Once he gets out of prison in ten
years, he will be a registered sex offender, which most people assume to
mean rapist or child molestor. He won't be able to work, show his face in
public, ever be around children, or live where he might like.
Everyone is against child abuse. But the pendulum has swung too far in
recent years. The mere mention of it causes people to say things like
"castration's too good for these folks". Unfortunately, some registered
sex offenders today have been falsely convicted and many more fall into the
Mr. Mildred Loving category.
I'll never know, but I'm inclined to believe Pyle on this one.
OR
wyeknot
> Today an
> 18 year old cannot engage in any sexual act with anyone under the age of 18
> without it being considered rape. They are sexual offenders and put on
> lists, name and face publicized, can't live here or live there, and no one
> will hire them.
Where did you get this information?
Stutory rape laws vary by state, and most don't sound anything like
what you cite:
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-R-0376.htm
Matt
Sherry in Vermont
Do you have kids? Because there is mama bear mentality when it comes to
harming my children that is literally instinctive, and truly not
something one can understand until you do have children.
Pummeling someone over a parking spot is so many leagues away from
ripping someone apart for molesting your CHILD - apples and kangaroos,
here.
If war was based truly on what was done to us, we'd have invaded Saudi
Arabia, not Iraq.
I am all for being certain the crime was truly committed before
arresting the guy, though I am aware that's not how our government
works.
Sherry in Vermont
Sherry in Vermont
bbb
writes:
People
Perhaps... but 8 and 4 is a long way from 16 or even 14. I don't think
folks should be charged with sex abuse for consensual sex, especially
if the kid is 14-15+. Some of them come on to older guys really hard!
Pun intended.
My sister's husband is 6 years older than she is - she fell for him
when she was 12 and he 18. He was not interested. But when she was 14
and built like the proverbial brick shithouse, it was another story.
She wanted him BAD. He was afraid of my mother (with good reason <g>)
until my sister was almost 16, when she informed mom she was dropping
out of school to go live with him. Mom informed him that he'd be in
jail right quick if her daughter quit school, so she - previously a
lazy C and B student, suddenly started getting As and Bs and graduated
half a year early. And THEN she went to live with Doug. It hasn't been
all roses, and they had a few years where they went separate ways, but
they've been married 16 years now and still going strong.
Sherry in Vermont
Jperdue4
<dav...@bendbroadband.com> wrote:
>According to Pyle, his girlfriend and the mother of his kids (the kids in
>question), had another boyfriend and wanted to get even with him for
>something as well as get rid of him. She accused him of touching his
>children while bathing them and changing the diapers of his 3 year old
>daughter. Pyle admitted touching them, as it is impossible to bathe a 3
>year old or change her diapers if he doesn't touch her. He denied any
>attempted or actual sexual touching. Rape or other sexual acts were never
>alleged.
>
>Three days after Pyle was arrested, her boyfriend moved into their large
>home and she supposedly gave him Pyle's 4 cars, drum sets and other
>valuables. After spending $500,000 in legal fees defending himself, Pyle
>was told by prosecutors he could go to trial and have a he said / she said
>in which the she is almost always believed and risk a life sentence, or he
>could plead guilty to "attempted" sexual battery and get probation. He
>chose probation. Apparently the prosecutors didn't think whatever offense
>was alleged would be proven with a 100% certainty, so they reduced the
>charge and let him walk the streets. Not something normally done with a
>bestial child molestor these days.
>
>Who knows, but it sounds like yet another one of those angry wife /
>girlfriend things in which she uses the kids to destroy the husband /
>boyfriend. Now he can't even earn a living.
>
>OR
>
>
Thank you, i was hoping someone else would post this.
Ive heard him on a couple of live interviews, including on the howard
stern show. I completely believe artimus in this deal. Its not just
him saying it, there were/are more than a few people that know what
happened and said he was innocent.
jonp
Chris
"Jperdue4" <Jper...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:jofc24l5ch8phro0p...@4ax.com...
I know a direct Descendant of Ben Franklin, on the native american side , a
former LAPD special investigator who after his brother turned up dead in
Mariposa,Ca went up to look into the death which had been ruled a suicide.
He discovered the Sherrif's dept had been complicit in smuggling drugs in
to the Mt. Bullion Airport and laundering Money thru the Yosemite Bank. He
had made a home in Mariposa with his three young daughters whom I met and
played with at him home. One day my friend was charged with molesting his
daughters. One had in fact had an infection and he had obtained some
ointment at a local public health clinic. It happened that he also had an
older son who'd been arrested on drug charges.the two had been estranged and
the embittered son was offered leniency if he would support the corrupt
sherrifs dept.'s false accusation of child molestation trumped up to
discredit his testimony against them. They somehow managed to create link
based on nothing more than he'd brought his daughter in with a some
infection " down there". I sat in the court in mariposa, the oldest still
operating court house in California as incredible lies were told about this
decent,kind and totally vulnerable Native American man and he was sent to
prison. Though now released he now has this 100% false conviction to dog
him all because he followed his nose to the truth.
Bzl.
Why is it that sexual law violators have to wear this virtual scarlet
letter for the rest of their lives, but convicted murderers don't? All
these witchhunters follow the every movement of sex violators. These
people often *never* "repay their debt to society".
But, if you were a mass murderer (who didn't murder because of sex),
no one follows you around, no one makes you be part of a registry. You
can move to another town and not have to worry about everyone knowing
your past crimes
Hopefully just posting this doesn't get me listed on some sort of
pervo-defender list.
volkfolk
> In article
> <dcd02326-5b97-4ac2-9832-5bb184204...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
>
> volkfolk <volkfo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > On May 10, 11:19 am, Sherry in Vermont <sherr...@together.net> wrote:
> > > On 2008-05-09 17:48:29 -0400, ba_ba_b0...@webtv.net said:
>
> > > Personally I think they should let the parents of the kids have at the
> > > abuser. THAT might keep others from abusing!
>
> > Amen. I totally agree. I would have killed anyone who ever messed with
> > Matt when he was little.
>
> > Scot
>
> What if the charges were unfounded?
I'm not commenting on Pyle's guilt or innocence. I'm commenting on
what I would have done to someone if I had found out that they had
molested my child
> We are supposed to be living under the rule of law here folks. I realize
> that Bush et al are shredding the constitution as fast as they can, but
> when mob rule and lynching comes back to replace a real legal system, we
> are opening a door for all of us to be victims of it.
See my above comments.
> I am not defending anyone here, including Mr. Pyle, just pointing out
> that our legal system defends us from our worst instincts. If you get to
> murder someone that you perceived to have touched your son, where does
> it end? Do I get to pummel someone to within an inch of his life because
> he took my parking spot? Is it ok as long as I don't kill him or cause
> permanent injury?
A complete non sequiter IMO
> I think this is one of the reasons that we are in as much trouble as we
> are now is that this mob mentality has led us astray after 9/11,
> allowing Mr. Bush the opportunity to use a military response to a
> criminal act. Revenge is a poor guide to making good decisions. Had we
> used our heads, we would have pursued this as a criminal matter and had
> the good will of the rest of the world (well, almost all of it) behind
> us, including many Muslims. Instead, we decided to allow ourselves to be
> whipped into a frenzy of revenge against Muslims which was manipulated
> into support for a senseless war of choice that is being run for
> completely other reasons.
I believe invading Afghanistan was a completely correct and justified
response to what was done on 9/11. Where we went astray was invading
Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks
Scot
Octopus Ride
"Bzl." <bzl...@blazebroadband.com> wrote in message
news:r1vc24teksg6q1mav...@4ax.com...
There's a certain hystreia about this, like the Red Scare or early Drug War
or War on Terrists.
The listing and registering and publicizing and all the laws about where
they can live seem un-American to me. If these people are dangerous and
deserve further punishment, keep them in prison for life, don't let them
out. This idea that once they get out they deserve public scorn, efforts to
prevent them from getting employment, people marching around their apartment
with signs, having to register everywhere they go, it strikes me as
medieval.
If the crimes are serious enough and if the idea is that these people can't
change, then sentence them to a prison term that keeps society safe. Why
are they being released if they are so dangerous as to warrant constant
surveillance? And why are we turning over punishment to angry neighbors and
employers and internet vigilantes?
OR
Edwin Hurwitz
<ada8976f-f886-42a3...@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,
volkfolk <volk...@verizon.net> wrote:
No, it's not. If you get to go kill someone for something at which you
take offense, that would mean that I get to beat someone up for doing
something at which I take offense. Or does it? My point is that
punishment is the jurisdiction of the justice system, not individuals.
No matter how pissed off you may be at what you think someone did, it
doesn't make it right for you to take the law into your own hands, even
if they did do it.
Personal outrage doesn't trump the rule of law.
>
> > I think this is one of the reasons that we are in as much trouble as we
> > are now is that this mob mentality has led us astray after 9/11,
> > allowing Mr. Bush the opportunity to use a military response to a
> > criminal act. Revenge is a poor guide to making good decisions. Had we
> > used our heads, we would have pursued this as a criminal matter and had
> > the good will of the rest of the world (well, almost all of it) behind
> > us, including many Muslims. Instead, we decided to allow ourselves to be
> > whipped into a frenzy of revenge against Muslims which was manipulated
> > into support for a senseless war of choice that is being run for
> > completely other reasons.
>
> I believe invading Afghanistan was a completely correct and justified
> response to what was done on 9/11. Where we went astray was invading
> Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks
I disagree. What happened on 9/11 was a criminal act, not an act of war.
Afghanistan actually offered to turn over Bin Laden to a third country
such as Pakistan, and we turned them down. Now, I hate the Taliban as
much as anyone and I had written letters to the Bush Administration that
summer urging them to act against the Taliban for their treatment of
women and for their destruction of Buddhist artifacts that seemed to be
a historical treasure. I was happy to see them go, but I knew that
invading them wasn't serving justice, just appeasing a sense of revenge
that could be manipulated by the Bush administration. It was clear from
day one that they wanted a war, any war.
History has proved me correct. We never got Bin Laden and the war is
still going on in Afghanistan, and is in fact going worse than it was
when we invaded Iraq. If invading Afghanistan was the correct thing, why
have we not got anything we wanted out of it? Except maybe a pipeline
agreement.
Brad Greer
wrote:
>History has proved me correct. We never got Bin Laden and the war is
>still going on in Afghanistan, and is in fact going worse than it was
>when we invaded Iraq. If invading Afghanistan was the correct thing, why
>have we not got anything we wanted out of it? Except maybe a pipeline
>agreement.
>
It's really hard to say whether we could have gotten Bin Laden and the
results we wanted in Afghanistan. Bush and Co. took their eye off the
ball (catch Bin Laden) and decided to attack Iraq instead. That we
never caught Bin Laden has nothing to do with whether the war with
Afghanistan was the right thing to do or not, it has everything to do
with attacking Iraq being the wrong thing to do.
Brad Greer
<1...@456.com> wrote:
>On 2008-05-12 22:16:34 +0900, Brad Greer <jjh1...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 12:33:15 -0600, Edwin Hurwitz <ed...@indra.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> History has proved me correct. We never got Bin Laden and the war is
>>> still going on in Afghanistan, and is in fact going worse than it was
>>> when we invaded Iraq. If invading Afghanistan was the correct thing, why
>>> have we not got anything we wanted out of it? Except maybe a pipeline
>>> agreement.
>>>
>> It's really hard to say whether we could have gotten Bin Laden and the
>> results we wanted in Afghanistan. Bush and Co. took their eye off the
>> ball (catch Bin Laden) and decided to attack Iraq instead.
>
>some will say that the Bush neocons had already decided to attack Iraq
>upon or even before taking office.
Some would include me. While I'm nowhere near the "9/11 was an inside
plot" crowd I do think BushCo. saw 9/11 as an opportunity to get
popular support to invade Iraq. And then the implosion happened.
>> That we
>> never caught Bin Laden has nothing to do with whether the war with
>> Afghanistan was the right thing to do or not, it has everything to do
>> with attacking Iraq being the wrong thing to do.
>
>that's true.
Edwin Hurwitz
Brad Greer <jjh1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, you are right of course. You can never tell what if. However, it
seems pretty clear that pre-9/11 the neocons were looking for an excuse
to invade Iraq. I don't think they really wanted to get Bin Laden that
badly.
Edwin
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care.
It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
Brad Greer
wrote:
>In article <u1gg24piraqm2ukjh...@4ax.com>,
> Brad Greer <jjh1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 May 2008 12:33:15 -0600, Edwin Hurwitz <ed...@indra.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >History has proved me correct. We never got Bin Laden and the war is
>> >still going on in Afghanistan, and is in fact going worse than it was
>> >when we invaded Iraq. If invading Afghanistan was the correct thing, why
>> >have we not got anything we wanted out of it? Except maybe a pipeline
>> >agreement.
>> >
>> It's really hard to say whether we could have gotten Bin Laden and the
>> results we wanted in Afghanistan. Bush and Co. took their eye off the
>> ball (catch Bin Laden) and decided to attack Iraq instead. That we
>> never caught Bin Laden has nothing to do with whether the war with
>> Afghanistan was the right thing to do or not, it has everything to do
>> with attacking Iraq being the wrong thing to do.
>
>Well, you are right of course. You can never tell what if. However, it
>seems pretty clear that pre-9/11 the neocons were looking for an excuse
>to invade Iraq. I don't think they really wanted to get Bin Laden that
>badly.
>
I totally agree, but I don't have a problem with the US going after
Bin Laden (I wish they had done it sincerely rather than the
half-assed effort our government put forth).
Edwin Hurwitz
Brad Greer <jjh1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
I had no problem with going after Bin Laden, it was the right thing to
do. It's just that when you develop your foreign policy with the help of
weapons manufacturers, you tend to look first to the military to solve
your problems. If the problem isn't a military one, but a criminal one,
you will run into problems solving your problem. Right tool for the job
and all that.
Edwin
In a weapons producing nation under Jesus
In the fabled crucible of the free world
Camera crews search for clues amid the detritus
And entertainment shapes the land
The way the hammer shapes the hand
Gleaming faces in the checkout counter at the Church of Fame
The lucky winners cheer Casino Nation
All those not on TV only have themselves to blame
And don't quite seem to understand
The way the hammer shapes the hand
Out beyond the ethernet the spectrum spreads
DC to daylight, the cowboy mogul rides
Never worry where the gold for all this glory's gonna come from
Get along dogies, it's coming out of your hides
The intentional cultivation of a criminal class
The future lit by brightly burning bridges
Justice fully clothed to hide the heart of glass
That shatters in a thousand Ruby Ridges
And everywhere the good prepare for perpetual war
And let their weapons shape the plan
The way the hammer shapes the hand
Lyrics by Jackson Browne
Brad Greer
wrote:
Sort of like treating the medical problem of drug addiction by making
anyone using drugs a criminal. The tactics used to "pursue" Bin Laden
sucked, they could have gotten him if it was the real priority.
Edwin Hurwitz
band beyond description <1...@456.com> wrote:
> On 2008-05-14 01:32:58 +0900, Edwin Hurwitz <ed...@indra.com> said:
>
> > It's just that when you develop your foreign policy with the help of
> > weapons manufacturers, you tend to look first to the military to solve
> > your problems.
>
> to fend off your criticism, Bush went to the private sector to engage
> civilian contractor militias! and that's where Blackwater and the like
> come in, sullying our U.S. national reputation even further (like
> that's even possible).
Right you are!
Edwin
Edwin Hurwitz
Brad Greer <jjh1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Are we seeing a pattern here?
Edwin