Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bsjkki

Missionary sent home for "sextortion" crimes

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

All the bishop needs to tell the parents is "The Lord doesn't want him going on a mission at this time."

I would not be satisfied with that as a parent or prospective missionary.

10 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Of course, and it would be on the judge's desk as part of a presentencing report from investigators.  This guy is an apex predator, and will be all his life.

While I think this kid deserves what is about to fall on his head he is, absent being something like a psychopath, changeable. It is not a foregone conclusion that he will be a predator forever. People can and do change.

Share this post


Link to post
16 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Not terrorism. Terrorism requires a political goal. It is blackmail.

If the primary motivation for a rapist is not sex but exerting control and humiliation over his victims.  Even though many if not all do get pleasure and release in the act.  Is it coercion, pleasure in depravity, delight in brutality, and a whole lot of other kinds of perversions?  What if Gibson enjoyed inflicting some degree of terrorism on some of his victims?  Of course blackmail was involved because he wanted the pleasure of seeing intimate pictures and inflicting humiliation.

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

.......................................

While I think this kid deserves what is about to fall on his head he is, absent being something like a psychopath, changeable. It is not a foregone conclusion that he will be a predator forever. People can and do change.

What people do as kids is a prime indicator.  Kids who are cruel to animals, for example, often grow up to be cruel to fellow humans.  Psychologists take such a factor in youth to be a strong reason to nix hiring into law enforcement.  The risk is simply too great.  Can people change?  Yes, but the risk is still high.  The Roman Catholic Church foolishly made it a policy to help their errant priests get better.  A very Christian thing to do, but very damaging to countless young boys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, longview said:

If the primary motivation for a rapist is not sex but exerting control and humiliation over his victims.  Even though many if not all do get pleasure and release in the act.  Is it coercion, pleasure in depravity, delight in brutality, and a whole lot of other kinds of perversions?  What if Gibson enjoyed inflicting some degree of terrorism on some of his victims?  Of course blackmail was involved because he wanted the pleasure of seeing intimate pictures and inflicting humiliation.

Even if his goal was terror it is not terrorism. Terrorism has a meaning and it is practiced y those would use violence and intimidation to achieve political goals. We have plenty of words to describe this guy without misusing them. He is definitely lustful and predatory and cruel and a misogynist. He seeks power over victims and needs to feel control. If he did not regular porn would probably satisfy. He is possibly a sadist. I would guess at some king of inferiority complex. Some chance of being a sociopath or psychopath.

The big problem with using terrorism in this context is the spillover. By your definition school and work bullies are terrorists. An older sibling teasing or manipulating a younger could be terrorism and then the word becomes ubiquitous and a synonym for “cruel person”. Then someone starts calling in drone strikes on schoolyards to fight terrorism.

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

What people do as kids is a prime indicator.  Kids who are cruel to animals, for example, often grow up to be cruel to fellow humans.  Psychologists take such a factor in youth to be a strong reason to nix hiring into law enforcement.  The risk is simply too great.  Can people change?  Yes, but the risk is still high.  The Roman Catholic Church foolishly made it a policy to help their errant priests get better.  A very Christian thing to do, but very damaging to countless young boys.

It often is. I am not suggesting mitigating the sentence or everyone forgiving him. I can construct multiple plausible biographies of the kid that are logical as to why he did it. Some could make you pity him.

For example it is possible he grew up in abusive home with abusive father who tormented his wife and mother and his sisters with degradation that would shock anyone. He was finally out and was doing this sextortion scam because he, on some level, normalized the behavior and considered that a way to find a girl while patting himself on the back that he would never treat anyone as bad as his dad does. He started with feeble and awkward attempts to date and was rejected harshly due to being a creep. He tried using subtle coercion and found he could manipulate some girls. Then he wet further and this worked. In what he sees as justice he then attacks the entire gender in vengeance for his rejection and lumping him in with his father.

You can also create a scenario where he was raised very well and was a “good kid” but decided he was ugly and got tempted into online incel communities and grew to hate all women (and men women like) with his diet of hateful obsessive words from messed up kids.

He could be a sociopath or a psychopath or just fell into uncaring through his sins.

All that being said how empathetic his story is or is not does not change one fact as you pointed out. The kid is dangerous and has a disturbingly high probability of staying dangerous and should be treated as such.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The big problem with using terrorism in this context is the spillover. By your definition school and work bullies are terrorists.

Interesting.  I am inclined to agree with the political aspect.

The Columbine High School shooters appeared to be terroristic in their assault on fellow students.  Does anyone think they were motivated by politics in any degree or were they simply nihilistic and acting out their fantasies in bringing their violent video games to life?

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/4/2019 at 6:36 PM, The Nehor said:

Not terrorism. Terrorism requires a political goal. It is blackmail.

We will have to disagree, making threats to the life and safety of someone, by telling (or threatening them) someone they would send a rapist, or other criminals, to harm or kill them, it is terrorism. The goal of terrorism is to strike terror toward a community, or and individual. Well, it was when I served as a police officer, but maybe we are just backward here in the sunny South. Call it what you will, we would have looked him up, and chaged him with making “terrorist threats”, and introduced to a prison system when he could experience the terror he sought to inflict.  

Share this post


Link to post
31 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

We will have to disagree, making threats to the life and safety of someone, by telling (or threatening them) someone they would send a rapist, or other criminals, to harm or kill them, it is terrorism. The goal of terrorism is to strike terror toward a community, or and individual. Well, it was when I served as a police officer, but maybe we are just backward here in the sunny South. Call it what you will, we would have looked him up, and chaged him with making “terrorist threats”, and introduced to a prison system when he could experience the terror he sought to inflict.  

I still disagree. The purpose of terrorism is to bring about political change. Your definition makes stalkers terrorists.

A threat to bomb a school is a terroristic threat which, despite the similar sounding names, is not necessarily terrorism. A terroristic threat charge does not have to be a result of terrorism. Both are, of course, bad.

I admit to distaste at the idea that our prisons function to induce fear. I say that on an intellectual level. On a visceral level I  want many of those incarcerated to suffer.

Share this post


Link to post
13 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I still disagree. The purpose of terrorism is to bring about political change. Your definition makes stalkers terrorists.

A threat to bomb a school is a terroristic threat which, despite the similar sounding names, is not necessarily terrorism. A terroristic threat charge does not have to be a result of terrorism. Both are, of course, bad.

I admit to distaste at the idea that our prisons function to induce fear. I say that on an intellectual level. On a visceral level I  want many of those incarcerated to suffer.

First, it is not my definition, we only enforced the laws of our State and City, we did not write them. But stalkers are not, nor do not threaten to send rapists and murderers to the homes of children in such a manner. The law allows for many charges to be applied, one being terrorist threats, in such circumstances. This way the truly evil, can receive longer prison sentences. Indeed most (well most in the troubled times we live in) terrorists are trying to further a political means. But, sometimes twisted people kill Jews and Christians, or blow up their places of worship, just because they hate them. Here in the South, many places of worship have been bombed, only for hates sake..The bombers (twice in Atlanta’s largerst synagogue, and many Black Churches) were sometimes Klan, but others just haters, who  tried to hide from their crimes, they were not taking credit, nor calling for political change. They were just poor trailer trash, (well not all) who were fed a steady diet of hate all their lives, from their equally uneducated parents, and grandparents. So again, not my opinion, and I am wrong, their are a lot of innocent people in prison, or who have served much longer prison sentences due to a serious error. As to the stalker argument, threatening to send a bomb to someone’s home, or to the Judge who did not rule in his favor, they too can be chaged with terrorist threats, and if the bomb explodes, then an act of terror. But, enough about this from me, what do I know, I am just a retired police officer. It has been 11 years since I retired, maybe some lawmakers have rewritten some much needed laws.  

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/3/2019 at 1:21 AM, The Nehor said:

The church generally does not pursue disciplinary action in cases where there is an investigation or ongoing legal action until it is concluded.

I think it depends on the situation and the evidence. In the case of Michael Pratt (the Lone Peak Seminary principal), he was terminated immediately after being arrested and before being officially charged.

https://www.ksl.com/article/7115675/seminary-teacher-accused-of-sexually-assaulting-student

Share this post


Link to post

Termination and removal from callings is different than excommunication or disfellowship. The first is usually done in the case of any criminal investigation as far as I am aware; the second waits for that to be resolved.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Thinking said:

I think it depends on the situation and the evidence. In the case of Michael Pratt (the Lone Peak Seminary principal), he was terminated immediately after being arrested and before being officially charged.

https://www.ksl.com/article/7115675/seminary-teacher-accused-of-sexually-assaulting-student

Yeah, that is termination of employment which is normal and not a disciplinary council. It is normal when a member is charged with a serious crime to remove them from their calling as well, especially if it is a prominent one, even if the leadership believes they are innocent to protect the church and possibly the individual and the local members.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, Calm said:

Termination and removal from callings is different than excommunication or disfellowship.

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, that is termination of employment which is normal and not a disciplinary council.

I was putting termination of employment under the disciplinary umbrella, but I see the difference.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

I was putting termination of employment under the disciplinary umbrella, but I see the difference.

Yeah, firing someone has little potential to interfere with the legal case. The investigation for and the content of the disciplinary council does have the potential to interfere.

Share this post


Link to post
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...