Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Cody Dawg · Aug 31, 2006, 04:19 AM

Story link & Photo

This man finds out that the perv neighbor sexually abused his 2-year old girl and decided to take the law into his own hands and he went over and stabbed and killed the man that did it.

Question is, do you think he's a hero or criminal?

Before you give an answer about how justice "needs to work," etc., think, REALLY THINK, about how you would act if you found out that someone had molested your child.

Personally, I might act the same way - and that's the truth. I'd probably do it with a gun, though. I'd go to jail for it, no problem, just to make sure that the person responsible never did it again.

Chuckit · Aug 31, 2006, 04:32 AM

I'd hand him over to the authorities. Really. But I'm not a parent and that is probably a good thing.

badidea · Aug 31, 2006, 04:34 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

... and decided to take the law into his own hands...

Criminal!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cody Dawg · Aug 31, 2006, 04:46 AM

Maybe he was insane? Temporarily insane? Paula Yates got off for killing all four of her children for being insane.

red rocket · Aug 31, 2006, 04:48 AM

Originally Posted by NY Post

His lawyer said his client simply lost it after being told his daughter had been sexually assaulted.

"The daughter gave the mother information which was alarming and disturbing. The mom relayed it to her husband. That was the spark," attorney Mickey Sherman said.

He would not say when the alleged molestation occurred.

MacNamara said police have no evidence that such an assault took place but were investigating.

"Mr. Edington had received information from a relative leading him to believe Mr. James had sexually assaulted his daughter," he said. "We have no information [that] any improper conduct occurred between Mr. James and Mr. Edington's daughter. We have no indication if it's true or not."

MacNamara said cops had not yet interviewed Edington's wife, Christina, and had no indication "of any sort of family problems."

But he added, "There is the potential that we now have a 2-year-old sexual-assault victim and we are continuing to investigate that."

Several detectives went to Edington's house yesterday and examined a window panel that they took from the scene. It wasn't immediately clear why.

Edington was released yesterday after posting a $1 million bond in Bridgeport Superior Court.

He hopped into a car loaded with luggage and rode off.

No one was at the family home yesterday, and his whereabouts were not clear.

Edington's wife could not be reached for comment.

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

This man finds out that the perv neighbor sexually abused his 2-year old girl and decided to take the law into his own hands and he went over and stabbed and killed the man that did it.

Question is, do you think he's a hero or criminal?

Before you give an answer about how justice "needs to work," etc., think, REALLY THINK, about how you would act if you found out that someone had molested your child.

Personally, I might act the same way - and that's the truth. I'd probably do it with a gun, though. I'd go to jail for it, no problem, just to make sure that the person responsible never did it again.

Actually, he didn't find out any such thing, he murdered the guy on hearsay.

GSixZero · Aug 31, 2006, 05:03 AM

Most crimes are cases of one not being able to control one's self. Rape (be it the desire to control someone else or sexual desire), DUI (the ability to not drink too much or the ability not to find another way home) or a lot of theft (controlling one's greed). We feel justified as a society punishing these criminals for their inability to control themselves, and I think this case is in line with everything else. Yes, people do awful things that make us enraged, frustrated or scared. Normal people deal with it nonviolently and responsibly. Criminals don't. They lose control of themselves and hurt people.

I'm not saying we should string this guy up. If he's guilty, I'm sure he'll spend a bunch of years in a hospital treating the temporary insanity that he'll plead to. Will he ever be cured? No, probably not. Does everyone have some breaking point? Probably. Should he be free because the guy he killed was an asshole? No.

OreoCookie · Aug 31, 2006, 05:07 AM

The neighbor (the father) is a criminal, no matter if the neighbor is innocent or not. He took justice into his own hands -- that's what the judicial branch is for.
Furthermore, there doesn't even seem to be any clear indication the neighbor actually has abused the child, nothing that comes close to probable cause. If the dead neighbor turns out to be innocent, then all this guy has achieved is killing an innocent man. An killing an innocent man in cold blood deserves no commendation.

Cody Dawg · Aug 31, 2006, 05:31 AM

Should he be free because the guy he killed was an asshole? No.

That's true, I agree.

The Godfather · Aug 31, 2006, 09:05 AM

Criminal. He should face his punishment, and hope he doesn't become Bubba's bride in jail.

Cody Dawg · Aug 31, 2006, 09:38 AM

I noticed that all of you claiming that he's a criminal who deserves to be severely punished have not said what you would do in the event that you found out that your own daughter, son, niece, nephew, or grandchild were similarly molested.

I'm not sure that I'd shoot the guy without him having confessed that he'd actually done it (it's doubtful) but I can imagine that IF he'd confessed to molesting my child that I MIGHT be incensed and/or angry and/or insane enough to mete out punishment to him myself.

TETENAL · Aug 31, 2006, 09:52 AM

If we'd all take justice into our own hand there wouldn't be justice but mayhem.

ThinkInsane · Aug 31, 2006, 09:58 AM

Although I definitely understand why he killed his neighbor, the rules are pretty clear about when you can get your kill on. His actions make him a criminal, regardless of the cause of those actions.

OreoCookie · 10:08 AM

I wouldn't take justice into my own hands, even if it was certain that the person is guilty.

In either case, even if I'd go crazy (just to make a hypothetical argument) and would want to kill that pedophile bastard, I would have to be sure that the guy is guilty. (Just take a look at the Ramsey case where people thought they had their man. Remember the threads where people said that `this guy doesn't deserve business class food', etc. and now it seems that he is innocent. Just a thought.) What good is vengeance if you get the wrong person? Same with rape by the way, what good does it do if someone is in prison if the perp is still out there?

Dr Reducto · Aug 31, 2006, 10:02 AM

With a judicial system not doing its job, we will only see more of this.

In Baltimore, people are getting fed up with the lack of police action with drug dealers hanging out on porches, etc, ruining neighborhoods (not to mention a whole host of other problems). If the judicial system isnt working, something wil inevitably come along and fix the problem

Cody Dawg · Aug 31, 2006, 10:04 AM

If the judicial system isnt working, something wil inevitably come along and fix the problem

Or someone.

Landos Mustache · Aug 31, 2006, 10:06 AM

I understand WHY he did it and I would have wanted to do that same.

The problem is people cannot take the law into their own hands no matter what. To make it worse he wasn't even sure that it happened and just murdered him on a rumor.

I think he should be charged with murder or others might think it is ok to do the same in similar situations.

badidea · Aug 31, 2006, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I noticed that all of you claiming that he's a criminal who deserves to be severely punished have not said what you would do in the event that you found out that your own daughter, son, niece, nephew, or grandchild were similarly molested.

I didn't answer this because I don't know what I would do!

As many already said, I understand why this guy did it but I have no idea if I would still be able to control myself! I hope so!

I don't think he should be charged with murder but with homicide!
He should see additional punishment for self-administered justice though!!

Cody Dawg · Aug 31, 2006, 11:32 AM

I want to hear what Spliffdaddy, MacNStein, and Doofy would do.

hyteckit · Aug 31, 2006, 11:38 AM

What would Jesus do? ^^^^^

Zeeb · Aug 31, 2006, 01:04 PM

The problem is if you kill the guy then you won't be a parent to your child who was just seriously abused. You won't be there to help that child through their misery and he/she might be in worse shape with you sitting in prison.

That being said if would be very hard for me not to take revenge on the person. I think its ok to hate the man, but not to kill him.

Kerrigan · Aug 31, 2006, 01:15 PM

If his daughter actually was molested, then he did the right thing. He didn't do the lawful thing, but he did the right thing. And God knows how incompetent the police can be when handling these kinds of investigations.

Dakar · Aug 31, 2006, 01:17 PM

That's a fairly large if.

RAILhead · Aug 31, 2006, 01:26 PM

I'd beat him to within an inch of his life, probably. At the very least, I'd break his knees and elbows.

Don't tread on me (or mine).

moodymonster · Aug 31, 2006, 01:29 PM

personally I think I'd want more proof before doing anything.

a second hand account of a two year old's recollection of something that may have happened wouldn't be enough.

RAILhead · Aug 31, 2006, 01:35 PM

Yes, of course. ^^^^

Cody Dawg · Aug 31, 2006, 01:52 PM

I think, after mulling it over, that I would hire a gang to take care of him...if I was positive, absolutely positive, that he'd done it.

Maybe they'd castrate him.

Meanwhile, I have a feeling that if any of the men reading this thread had their two-year old baby girl molested or raped by some fat sick bastard that they'd probably become very violent...even if they deny those tendencies right now.

OreoCookie · Aug 31, 2006, 02:14 PM

That's a very disturbing sentiment, Cody.
Why not let the criminal justice system deal with him?

Chuckit · Aug 31, 2006, 02:19 PM

Yeah, seems better just to let a big black guy in prison make the molester his little lady.

Jawbone54 · Aug 31, 2006, 02:34 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Maybe he was insane? Temporarily insane? Paula Yates got off for killing all four of her children for being insane.

Only the child molestors or child murderers are allowed to make the insanity plea.

Jawbone54 · Aug 31, 2006, 02:41 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

That's a very disturbing sentiment, Cody.
Why not let the criminal justice system deal with him?

How short our memories have become...
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4319605

Personally, I have no idea how I would react. My first reaction would be to call the police, but after thinking about it for a while and realizing how the justice system is failing miserably when it comes to convicting child molestors accordingly, I'd probably at least be VERY tempted to beat the guy into unconciousness and then castrate him.

But what one SHOULD do is call the police, hope that the law deals justly with him, and forgive him for what he's done.

It's not always to do the "right" thing.

Jawbone54 · Aug 31, 2006, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Yeah, seems better just to let a big black guy in prison make the molester his little lady.

Why, Chuck...was that a racist comment? You sound like you belong on the new Survivor, fella.

[This post is not meant to be taken seriously. I understand the percentages]

The Godfather · Aug 31, 2006, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Yeah, seems better just to let a big black guy in prison make the molester his little lady.

Each convicted molester gets a prison boyfriend. Is this an urban myth? Shouldn't dealers, pimps, robbers, killers, creative accountants and inside traders worry as much when the soap drops?

Chuckit · Aug 31, 2006, 03:07 PM

Even a lot of hardened criminals don't approve of child molestation.

OreoCookie · Aug 31, 2006, 03:11 PM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

How short our memories have become...
http://www.wcax.com/Global/story.asp?S=4319605

Personally, I have no idea how I would react. My first reaction would be to call the police, but after thinking about it for a while and realizing how the justice system is failing miserably when it comes to convicting child molestors accordingly, I'd probably at least be VERY tempted to beat the guy into unconciousness and then castrate him.

But what one SHOULD do is call the police, hope that the law deals justly with him, and forgive him for what he's done.

It's not always to do the "right" thing.

It's got nothing to do with that story. The case we are talking about is to murder someone before the criminal justice system can deal with him.

I think Zeeb brought up a very good point: if you kill that guy, you will go to jail and let your child down by not being there for it. Also, most child molesters have a history of abuse in their childhood themselves, so making sure that the victim is well-cared for (from the perspective of society) is not just an act of benevolence, but the most effective way to prevent child abuse in the first place.

Cody Dawg · Aug 31, 2006, 03:41 PM

OreoCookie: I sent you a PM outlining why I have extremely harsh opinions of child molesters.

Sometimes the justice system does not mete out the appropriate amount of justice.

Children who are molested never, ever, recover, period. They can never forget. Meanwhile the pedophiles do their time and move on - and I've read how pedophiles can never recover from their pedophilia...they will always want to prey on children.

Chemical castration is the very least that should happen to them.

The Godfather · 04:33 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Even a lot of hardened criminals don't approve of child molestation.

Even if that was true, convicted molestors should worry for their life, but not for their rectum.

Anyway, I just want to point out that it is foolish to think that pedophiles have a harder time in prison. There's no evidence of that.

I agree that chemical castration should be added to the time in jail penalty. However, these people still have other limbs to inappropriately touch children with. They should carry GPS trackers (the newest Garmins are sensitive enough to work indoors).

OreoCookie · Aug 31, 2006, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Even a lot of hardened criminals don't approve of child molestation.

Honestly, I have some problems with that attitude. How come a drug dealer or a cold blooded killer suddenly thinks he's better than a child molester? They're just different kinds of a-holes.

I don't think hard criminals have to right to take justice into their oh-so-clean hands.

Cody Dawg · Aug 31, 2006, 04:52 PM

I agree, actually, surprisingly.

I think it's wrong that the prisons are full of guards that "turn their backs" when prisoners want to victimize other prisoners. If they could put all of the child molesters together, and only child molesters, then they could molest each other and I could care less but that's about it.

But what happens in prisons and jails is that someone might go in, even for a day or two, and end up being raped and maybe contract HIV/AIDS or hepatitis simply because of a sicko in jail - and the guards are condoning and encouraging it. The guards that work in those places often are as bad - if not worse - than the prisoners in there. A lot of the guards should be on the other side of the bars. Some of these people are in jail overnight for some benign crime, say shoplifting or something similar, and end up gang-raped and/or with AIDS. And, believe it or not, some of these people are teenaged kids. That's especially the case here in Florida I've found - Florida seems to have no limit to the age of a youth when it comes to charging kids with crimes and those kids often end up in adult jail populations.

Anyway, there is no easy answer except that punishment for child molestation needs to be swift and severe and chemical castration should be involved. IF they ever get out they should be on some kind of house arrest for life.

Seriously, psychologists say that child molesters can never be cured. They're that way for life. If that's the case then I'm not sure that they should ever get out of prison, period. I honestly think that criminals convicted of sex crimes should all be locked up together.

itai195 · Aug 31, 2006, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

Meanwhile, I have a feeling that if any of the men reading this thread had their two-year old baby girl molested or raped by some fat sick bastard that they'd probably become very violent...even if they deny those tendencies right now.

No doubt that is a very natural, emotional reaction. But we live in a society with laws and vigilantism is totally inappropriate.

Spliffdaddy · Aug 31, 2006, 07:21 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I want to hear what Spliffdaddy, MacNStein, and Doofy would do.

You aren't gonna like my answer.

The guy should be tried for first degree (premeditated) murder.

Let a jury of 12 of his peers determine his guilt, or lack thereof.

BRussell · Aug 31, 2006, 08:33 PM

As the father of 2 little girls, I'd hope that I wouldn't do something so stupid, but damn if I wouldn't need someone to stop me.

But here's a related question: If you were on this guy's jury, and assuming the facts are as they seem here, would you find this father guilty? I'd find him not guilty in a heartbeat, I don't care what the law says.

Millennium · Aug 31, 2006, 08:34 PM

Why the duality? One can be both, and that seems to be what happened here.

I don't doubt his rage. In his situation, I'm not entirely sure I wouldn't do the same thing. But that doesn't mean it's the right way to deal with things. The sex-crime system rarely gives the guilty the punishment they truly deserve, but Salem taught us what happens when the people start working their own "justice."

itai195 · Aug 31, 2006, 09:43 PM

Given that people overwhelmingly seem to find the judicial system inadequate, I'm wondering if there is any proof or reason to think this or is it just memetic? I know there have been some high profile decisions the public perceives as mistakes, but by and large is there any reason for this pervasive distrust of our judicial system?

dcmacdaddy · Aug 31, 2006, 09:56 PM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

I want to hear what Spliffdaddy, MacNStein, and Doofy would do.

Originally Posted by hyteckit

What would Jesus do? ^^^^^

What kind of question is that? Jesus would do whatever Cody thinks he should do. You should know that.

dcmacdaddy · Aug 31, 2006, 10:06 PM

To be serious for a moment, like many other posters here I would be enraged beyond belief if I caught someone molesting my precious two-year-old niece. But I would hope I would be composed enough to not kill the person doing it and instead have the police there to arrest the guy doing the molesting.

Of course, if I did snap and go after the guy my niece would watch as her favorite uncle murdered someone right before her eyes. I would imagine that experience would be just as bad as being molested.

Millennium · Sep 1, 2006, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by itai195

Given that people overwhelmingly seem to find the judicial system inadequate, I'm wondering if there is any proof or reason to think this or is it just memetic? I know there have been some high profile decisions the public perceives as mistakes, but by and large is there any reason for this pervasive distrust of our judicial system?

If this was about my comment that the judicial system rarely gives sex-criminals the punishment they deserve, the problem here is twofold: the nature of the crimes, and the nature of the law.

First off, few sex crimes are committed with any witnesses around. Although it's possible to obtain hard evidence, it's also very easy for a victim to inadvertently destroy that evidence before it can be collected. Some ways to do this are well-known or common-sense: for example, few would willingly have sexual contact with others before going in to get tested. Others are less commonly known: even something as simple as drinking water can destroy important evidence. Still others are well-known, but extremely difficult to follow through on: showering destroys a lot of evidence, but after being raped it's very difficult not to shower: the temptation to clean up is simply that strong.

Why is all of this a problem? It's a problem because it makes it very easy to establish reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is a good standard, and needs to be adhered to, but it makes crimes like these almost impossible to prosecute most of the time. That's just the nature of the crime.

But my real problem has nothing to do with that. I can accept the need for presumption of innocence, and I can accept the need for the reasonable-doubt standard. These are good things, despite the fact that they can be easily abused in this particular case. But the sentencing laws for sex crimes are unreasonably soft: even when there's a conviction, the judge often cannot hand down an appropriate sentence. Many jurisdictions have a maximum penalty for forcible rape of only ten years, and sometimes even less. Many rapists can get out of prison in as little as one year: hardly appropriate when you consider the trauma they inflict on their victims.

This is why I don't trust the judicial system on things like this. The general process is probably as good as one can hope for, but the laws surrounding this particular set of crimes are not appropriate.

OreoCookie · Sep 1, 2006, 08:01 AM

That's a good list.
In this particular case, I would even say (unless there is unequivocal physical evidence such as traces of semen on the little girl's dress or underwear) it's almost impossible to determine whether something has happened or not.

If the girl was older, then you also have the same problem any abuse victim has: they don't want to drag this out in public and relive their abuse in a court. So many of the cases aren't even prosecuted, because the police never learns about this. (I personally know four rape victims and none of them went to the police. I know it's not representative for all the abuse victims out there, but I'm sure you get my point.) Also, if you wait to go to the police, there might be no or little physical evidence left.

As Millenium said, this is partly due to the way most legal systems in this world work: rather let a criminal walk than putting an innocent person behind bars. It sounds rather cynical, but it's a consequence of a proven legal system.

I would just like to add one thought to this discussion: I think the option to put perpetrators in closed psychiatric institutions isn't used or mentioned. Somehow people tend to think it's less tough and more like a vacation. They have several advantages that regular prisons don't have: (i) you could lock up pedophiles and such until their deviant behavior has been treated properly (keep in mind that a large share of these guys have a history of abuse themselves). (ii) If there is no chance of recovery, they will stay locked up indefinitely. (iii) Lesser offenders with chances of rehabilitation (e. g. voyeurs who like to watch children) can be treated and released after some time. If you don't treat this dangerous behavioral disorder, IMHO society is just asking for trouble. With treatment, the likelihood that they will become repeat offenders is reduced.

As with anything, the most effective way to fight child abuse is to speak up and to not close your eyes when it happens. You should go to the proper authorities first and use what you have at your disposal. Too often, relatives, school teachers and the parents of friends know about abuse, but don't say anything.

Rumor · Sep 1, 2006, 11:20 AM

First, he couldn't be tried for murder since it was a crime of passion and not pre-meditated (I think that is the requirement for murder).

Second, I don't know what the daughter said but it seems to be along the lines of describing certain things about thier neighbor that a 2 yo shouldn't know. Which means, it's quite possibly true.

Third, given if it was my daughter and true without a doubt, I don't think I would kill the guy. Though after I was finished with him, he would wish he was dead.

Chuckit · Sep 1, 2006, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Rumor

First, he couldn't be tried for murder since it was a crime of passion and not pre-meditated (I think that is the requirement for murder).

Murder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rumor · Sep 1, 2006, 11:37 AM

Wouldn't this be more appropriate?

* Voluntary manslaughter

This arises in cases where the defendant may have an intent to cause death or serious injury, but the potential liability for murder is mitigated by the application of a defense. For example, the defendant may be provoked into a loss of control by unexpectedly finding a spouse in the arms of a lover or witnessing an attack against his or her child, or the defendant may have diminished capacity.