NationStates Jolt Archive

A perv was showing porn to little kids on a playground and holding their hands when a group of 15 guys decided to subdue him until police arrived.

According to a police report, Mr. Burke said about 15 men "jumped him and hit him repeatedly on the face with their fists." He suffered minor injuries and was treated at the scene.

Minor injuries from 15 guys beating him in the face? I think more people need to know how to throw a good punch. It could come in handy in situations like this.

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-magazine_22met.ART0.North.Edition1.3ea39f7.html

No kidding. I guess when 15 guys are trying to throw punches at the same guy at the same time, none of them really land. They should have gone at him ninja-style, one at a time. :p

No kidding. I guess when 15 guys are trying to throw punches at the same guy at the same time, none of them really land. They should have gone at him ninja-style, one at a time. :p

Or just held him down and taken turns stomping on him. Whatever works.

That doesnt sound like a mob beating...That doesnt sound like a mob beating at all!

So am I insane for thinking that showing a kid porn isn't quite worthy of a 15 man asswhooping?

So am I insane for thinking that showing a kid porn isn't quite worthy of a 15 man asswhooping?

apparently the 15 men didnt think so either.

Geeze ... I can throw a better punch and I'm just one guy who's a card carrying member of the ACLU!

maybe the 15 men didn’t pay attention to what the guy looked like and just punched anyone

Or maybe a cloud of dust formed allowing the ehem “victim” to escape like a Looney tunes character

So am I insane for thinking that showing a kid porn isn't quite worthy of a 15 man asswhooping?

Yes. But they should have made it maybe a 3 man asswhooping so that they could have actually hit him.

Really, 5 guys makes for the perfect beatdown. 4 guys to hold the limbs, one guy to stomp...

I hope those fifteen guys are charged with assault. Holding someone until police arrive is one thing; punching them in a vulgar display of mob justice is another. They should not be shielded from the law because of the nature of the criminal they were assaulting.

I hope those fifteen guys are charged with assault. Holding someone until police arrive is one thing; punching them in a vulgar display of mob justice is another. They should not be shielded from the law because of the nature of the criminal they were assaulting.

"Nature of the criminal"? He was showing kids porn!

Am I the only one who saw Chasing Amy?

"Nature of the criminal"? He was showing kids porn!

Am I the only one who saw Chasing Amy?

Yes, he was showing kids porn. He broke the law. However, the people who assaulted him also broke the law. Both should be punished.

Yes, he was showing kids porn. He broke the law.
I still say "Oh noes, nekkid ladies, not that!"
However, the people who assaulted him also broke the law. Both should be punished.
In your opinion. Personally, I don't see why either should be punished...

I hope those fifteen guys are charged with assault. Holding someone until police arrive is one thing; punching them in a vulgar display of mob justice is another. They should not be shielded from the law because of the nature of the criminal they were assaulting.

in my opinion, the right to put the smackdown on someone in self-defense to extend to defense of another.

so, y'know, i'd hit that ;)

Geeze ... I can throw a better punch and I'm just one guy who's a card carrying member of the ACLU!

Hell, I can throw a better punch and I'm a pacifist with no upper body strength.

Maybe the kids asked to see the porn. I mean they're seven! Seeing titties is all that is on their minds.

if the Second Amendment was practiced a little better, then it woulda been 15 men with guns and it woulda been a firing squad. End of story. They'd be heros.

Maybe the kids asked to see the porn. I mean they're seven! Seeing titties is all that is on their minds.

Hah, if some guy showed me porn when I was seven, I'd of kicked the 15 men who started beating on him. Pricks.

if the Second Amendment was practiced a little better, then it woulda been 15 men with guns and it woulda been a firing squad. End of story. They'd be heros.

Yes, we'll have a parade on Murderer's Appreciation Day.

Odds are these idiots would of missed porn guy, shot themselves and the kids up and left the town in mourning, and everyone would of forgotten about the perv.

What did they do? Close their eyes, turn their heads, and try to slappity-slap him?
They should be ashamed of themselves.

A dark night for the male ego.

So am I insane for thinking that showing a kid porn isn't quite worthy of a 15 man asswhooping?

Absolutely not. 4, 5 men tops. :)

I hope those fifteen guys are charged with assault. Holding someone until police arrive is one thing; punching them in a vulgar display of mob justice is another. They should not be shielded from the law because of the nature of the criminal they were assaulting.

Yeah, I agree. I find it ironic that it's a mortal sin to show kids naked pictures, while it's perfectly acceptable, even seen as commendable, to beat the shit out of someone in front of them.

Heh. The world is odd. :p

Or just held him down and taken turns stomping on him. Whatever works.

On first reading this, I thought you said hold him down & take turns on him (ie shagging him).

A perv was showing porn to little kids on a playground and holding their hands when a group of 15 guys decided to subdue him until police arrived.



Minor injuries from 15 guys beating him in the face? I think more people need to know how to throw a good punch. It could come in handy in situations like this.

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-magazine_22met.ART0.North.Edition1.3ea39f7.html
Sounds unlikely.
My guess is that he is not just a pedophile, he is also a liar. Probably either one angry mom or two children beat him. That didnt sound macho enough for him to claim victomhood so he embellished it.

I don't need 14 other guys to back me up - give me a piece of piano wire and a 2-second advantage. He's never show anything to anybody again. Then I put a piece of hard candy in his throat, dump half the bag of candy, retain other half still in bag nearby. So now officially he died of a freak accident - choked on candy.

most people seem to be assuming these guys were trying to give him a serious beat down before the police arrived... its sounds more like they just slapped him around a bit while detaining him for the cops... an understandable and relatively moderate response by the angry but still quite rational group who came upon an unpleasant situation and dealt with it as best they were able.

On first reading this, I thought you said hold him down & take turns on him (ie shagging him).

Whatever makes the fifteen guys happy. I don't care. I'm no homophobe.

I don't need 14 other guys to back me up - give me a piece of piano wire and a 2-second advantage. He's never show anything to anybody again. Then I put a piece of hard candy in his throat, dump half the bag of candy, retain other half still in bag nearby. So now officially he died of a freak accident - choked on candy.

Strangulation by ligature is easy to spot. Nobody would be fooled. Also piano wire can cut into the flesh which makes it more obvious. You fail at covering up murder.

Yes, he was showing kids porn. He broke the law. However, the people who assaulted him also broke the law. Both should be punished.

Is there a law against showing children pornography?

EDIT: apparently in the Colonies there is. However, whether a picture of a 'naked woman' qualifies as harmful is a different question.

Oak Cliff: He is beaten by residents, who hold him until officials arrive
so he was held untill police arrived.

Police reports indicate Mr. Burke briefly held the hand of one of the children.I wonder what would've happened if the parents were not paying attention.

According to a police report, Mr. Burke said about 15 men "jumped him and hit him repeatedly on the face with their fists." He suffered minor injuries and was treated at the scene. A detective is investigating, but no arrests for assault have been made. it doesn't say how many were punching him... perhaps he was hit three times... repeatedly means more than two... and since those people came to the aid of a screaming woman, the Good Samartian clause may be invoked.

"He said he was looking for a friend," Lt. Williams said. "We've not been able to verify that."yes... I'm sure he was... a very special friend...

Yes, he was showing kids porn. He broke the law. However, the people who assaulted him also broke the law. Both should be punished.

My god you are a retard, do you REALLY think that the guy showing the kid the porn was just going to leave it at that?

If I had been there I would of grabbed the nearest blunt object and smashed that guys skull in and told everyone involved to say it was in self-defense.

I doubt that anyone with a soul wouldn't of said anything against me.

My god you are a retard, do you REALLY think that the guy showing the kid the porn was just going to leave it at that?

If I had been there I would of grabbed the nearest blunt object and smashed that guys skull in and told everyone involved to say it was in self-defense.

I doubt that anyone with a soul wouldn't of said anything against me.

I have no idea if he'd have left it at that. However, that does not give people an excuse to break the law themselves. Mob justice is never justified.

I have no idea if he'd have left it at that. However, that does not give people an excuse to break the law themselves. Mob justice is never justified.

It wasn't mob justice you JACKASS, they were PROTECTING that kid from a pervert who was most likely going to MOLEST HIM!

It wasn't mob justice you JACKASS, they were PROTECTING that kid from a pervert who was most likely going to MOLEST HIM!

They could have protected the kid by holding the man in a non-violent manner, and not punching him. Instead, they chose to break the law, and should therefore be punished.

It wasn't mob justice you JACKASS, they were PROTECTING that kid from a pervert who was most likely going to MOLEST HIM!that was mob justice. the children were not physically hurt.

They could have protected the kid by holding the man in a non-violent manner, and not punching him. Instead, they chose to break the law, and should therefore be punished.due to the nature of the wounds (Minor and non life threatening) probably not. had he been killed then yes, had his injuries been alot worse, to the point of hospitalization, yes. what most likely happned is that 15 guys jumped him and restrained him and a couple of them hit him in the face... some porposely, some not.

My thoughts: Guy showed kids "porn" (though apparently it may actually have just been nude pics) - whatever was shown, his motives are VERY questionable (why would you randomly go up to kids and even show them simple nude pictures if you weren't some sort of kiddy-fancier?), and for that reason, if he's broken the law, I feel he should be punished.

However, not doing anything about the people who hit him could allow "mob rule" to take hold, where (a)guilty people end up getting worse punishments than they desver or/and (b)innocent people end up getting hurt. Thus, I feel taht the mob need to be punished, though not particularly heavily considering the circumstances (so as not to give the impression that the police are protecting perverts).

My thoughts: Guy showed kids "porn" (though apparently it may actually have just been nude pics) - whatever was shown, his motives are VERY questionable (why would you randomly go up to kids and even show them simple nude pictures if you weren't some sort of kiddy-fancier?), and for that reason, if he's broken the law, I feel he should be punished.

However, not doing anything about the people who hit him could allow "mob rule" to take hold, where (a)guilty people end up getting worse punishments than they desver or/and (b)innocent people end up getting hurt. Thus, I feel taht the mob need to be punished, though not particularly heavily considering the circumstances (so as not to give the impression that the police are protecting perverts).
and the police did/are investigate the mob. but they determined that no charges be pressed. we were not there, we don't know the whole situation nor do we know the extent of the minor injuries.

it sounds like the "punches" and "beating" the man took might be more due to the act of restraining him (since he would be struggling to get away) and not deliberate assult by the "mob"

if the Second Amendment was practiced a little better, then it woulda been 15 men with guns and it woulda been a firing squad. End of story. They'd be heros.
In what sense is gunning down a man on a playground heroic? And in front of a group of children who are apparently enjoying his company?

Almost as smart as a mob beating the crap out of him as the kids watch.
Hah, if some guy showed me porn when I was seven, I'd of kicked the 15 men who started beating on him. Pricks.
And yet this savage beating that's likely to scar the kids emotionally for life was all for their protection. :rolleyes:
Sounds unlikely.
My guess is that he is not just a pedophile, he is also a liar. Probably either one angry mom or two children beat him. That didnt sound macho enough for him to claim victomhood so he embellished it.
I just think you're having your manhood threatened at the idea that one pedophile could come away so well after dealing with a mob. Need I remind you how important it becomes for a person to learn basic self-defense when you know ahead of time you're likely to be attacked by a mob?
My god you are a retard, do you REALLY think that the guy showing the kid the porn was just going to leave it at that?

I'm inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt, especially in light of the fact that he didn't do anything beyond that. Incidentally, this wouldn't be a particularly effective "lure" if people weren't intent on "protecting" children from information of this sort in the first place.

If I had been there I would of grabbed the nearest blunt object and smashed that guys skull in and told everyone involved to say it was in self-defense.

Good idea. Murder a man who's playing with a group of children. And because he showed them something they weren't supposed to see, right? You feel that they'll be better off after having been "scarred" by seeing nudity if you show them a man die?

I doubt that anyone with a soul wouldn't of said anything against me.
Well, I imagine the kids would, assuming you didn't have them frightened into submission. Maybe afraid you'd kill them the way you killed that man.
It wasn't mob justice you JACKASS, they were PROTECTING that kid from a pervert who was most likely going to MOLEST HIM!
If the "pervert" was trying to take the kid, or hurt the kid, that's one thing. They see him showing porn or "luring", the appropriate thing to do is approach him, confront him verbally, and try to get him away from the playground if you're really that concerned. You can't go with a "I'm protecting someone" defense if the person wasn't violent in the first place.

In what sense is gunning down a man on a playground heroic? And in front of a group of children who are apparently enjoying his company?

Oh, of course - they're "apparently enjoying" it. You have no basis for that, but hey - it makes you feel good to think that kids enjoy the company of a pedophile. Hell, they probably WANT to be molested too. Right?


And yet this savage beating that's likely to scar the kids emotionally for life was all for their protection. :rolleyes:

Oh please. A savage beating that results in "minor injuries."
On one hand, you assume they liked the "company" of a pedo, on the other, you assume watching him get a little beating scarred them for life.

I just think you're having your manhood threatened at the idea that one pedophile could come away so well after dealing with a mob.

Oh, hey, pedophile solidarity! Go you. Maybe the "threat" is actually from people (like you) who want to fuck kids, and not to our "manhoods." Ever think of that?

Oh, of course - they're "apparently enjoying" it. You have no basis for that, but hey - it makes you feel good to think that kids enjoy the company of a pedophile.

They were holding the guy's hand, right? Do you hold hands with people you don't enjoy the company of?

Hell, they probably WANT to be molested too. Right?

I could make a comment about all the times people on this board said they wish they'd been molested after hearing about one of those teachers fucking their students, but I think that's completely beside the point.

Oh please. A savage beating that results in "minor injuries."
On one hand, you assume they liked the "company" of a pedo, on the other, you assume watching him get a little beating scarred them for life.

So you think it's healthy for children to be exposed to that kind of violence?

Oh, hey, pedophile solidarity! Go you. Maybe the "threat" is actually from people (like you) who want to fuck kids, and not to our "manhoods." Ever think of that?
You feel threatened by me? You shouldn't be. I'm actually a pretty mellow guy. Those martial arts lessons really helped me work out my agression.

They were holding the guy's hand, right? Do you hold hands with people you don't enjoy the company of? you do realize that you are implying that holding hands is a child's way of consenting.

I could make a comment about all the times people on this board said they wish they'd been molested after hearing about one of those teachers fucking their students, but I think that's completely beside the point. the difference is age, most of those would be in their teens. these children were not.

So you think it's healthy for children to be exposed to that kind of violence? to me... better that kind of violence then the one that perv might have inflicted on a child when he's gotten one alone.

You feel threatened by me? You shouldn't be. I'm actually a pretty mellow guy. Those martial arts lessons really helped me work out my agression.yep... and I'm slow to anger too... don't let my array of sharp throwing knives and battle ready swords put you off.

you do realize that you are implying that holding hands is a child's way of consenting.

What? I said holding hands is a child's way of saying he/she is enjoying someone's company, no more no less. I'm not sure how you got your signals so badly mixed, but you really seem to have misread the post.

The point was, if they're holding the guy's hand, they probably like the guy, and then a bunch of people gang up on him and beat him up. Try to see this from the kids' prospective. I know it's hard for you.

the difference is age, most of those would be in their teens. these children were not.

I don't think we need to get involved in that discussion anyway. I said it was beside the point and I meant it, especially in light of the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever this guy intended to do anything beyond what he did.

to me... better that kind of violence then the one that perv might have inflicted on a child when he's gotten one alone.

Honestly, in what sense would he have been in danger of getting one of those kids alone if the fifteen people who beat him up had instead mentioned to the parents what they saw, suggested he take a hike, or kept him there by conversation while they waited for the cops to arive instead of beating him?

The violence was unneccisary, and they did it in front of those kids. Grown ups shouldn't act like that in front of kids. What ever happened to "use your words"?

yep... and I'm slow to anger too... don't let my array of sharp throwing knives and battle ready swords put you off.
Glad to hear it. I hope your studies have been as beneficial to you as they have for me.

What? I said holding hands is a child's way of saying he/she is enjoying someone's company, no more no less. I'm not sure how you got your signals so badly mixed, but you really seem to have misread the post. oh? sorry, I thought it was a comment on that the guy showing the pics held a child's hand. my mistake.

The point was, if they're holding the guy's hand, they probably like the guy, and then a bunch of people gang up on him and beat him up. Try to see this from the kids' prospective. I know it's hard for you. and as I said... the person showing the pics was holding the child's hand... so you want him to walk away with that child?

I don't think we need to get involved in that discussion anyway. I said it was beside the point and I meant it, especially in light of the fact that there's no evidence whatsoever this guy intended to do anything beyond what he did. and there was no evidence of a "Severe beating" either. the hits repeatedly to the face could've been while restraining him. the officers thought so too.

Honestly, in what sense would he have been in danger of getting one of those kids alone if the fifteen people who beat him up had instead mentioned to the parents what they saw, suggested he take a hike, or kept him there by conversation while they waited for the cops to arive instead of beating him? if you read the article, the parent watching the children screamed when she saw what the guy did. the persons came in response to the screaming. so it's actually the other way around. the adult watching the children knew what was going on. and the others didn't except that a women, with several children was probably screaming "Pervert" or something. taking that into account, the beatings could've been much worse.

The violence was unneccisary, and they did it in front of those kids. Grown ups shouldn't act like that in front of kids. What ever happened to "use your words"? sure... as the man was running away when he was stopped, I'm sure he really stopped when people yelled for him to stop. :rolleyes:

Glad to hear it. I hope your studies have been as beneficial to you as they have for me.I work in tech support... Patience is a requirement. :D

Okay... anyone who is prepared to believe this man is _not_ a predatory paedophile is officially an idiot.

I think the amount of times that an adult has shown pornography to children without wishing to sexually abuse them could be counted on zero hands.

No kidding. I guess when 15 guys are trying to throw punches at the same guy at the same time, none of them really land. They should have gone at him ninja-style, one at a time. :p

All their punches hit simultaneously and deflected off each other.

oh? sorry, I thought it was a comment on that the guy showing the pics held a child's hand. my mistake.

Appology accepted.

and as I said... the person showing the pics was holding the child's hand... so you want him to walk away with that child?

I see your reasoning now. The only reason to hold someone's hand is because you want to abduct them. That's why of course the article said he was dragging the kid with him as he fled the scene, right? Oh wait, it said no such thing.

and there was no evidence of a "Severe beating" either. the hits repeatedly to the face could've been while restraining him. the officers thought so too.

I'm sorry. Maybe I'm just weird in that when I see phrases like hit in the face repeatedly by fifteen people, I tend to think "severe beating".

if you read the article, the parent watching the children screamed when she saw what the guy did. the persons came in response to the screaming. so it's actually the other way around. the adult watching the children knew what was going on. and the others didn't except that a women, with several children was probably screaming "Pervert" or something. taking that into account, the beatings could've been much worse.

So now we have a mob of people who don't know what they guy they're beating up did? That is somehow better?

sure... as the man was running away when he was stopped, I'm sure he really stopped when people yelled for him to stop. :rolleyes:

You missed the point. The guy was threatened, so he ran. If there hadn't been a woman yelling "PEVERT" or worse, and fifteen people rushing to restrain him, I somehow doubt he'd have been so inclined to run. Let's face it, that entire situation could've been handled with a lot more tact, and a lot less violence.

I work in tech support... Patience is a requirement. :D
So is dealing with tech support people, in my experience.

Okay... anyone who is prepared to believe this man is _not_ a predatory paedophile is officially an idiot.

I think the amount of times that an adult has shown pornography to children without wishing to sexually abuse them could be counted on zero hands.

I object to your use of the term "predatory paedophile". First off, I absolutely dispise the british spelling, and secondly, since most child molesters aren't pedophiles, the term is only useful if your goal is to associate ordinary, law abiding individuals who happen to have an unusual attraction with criminals and rapists.

I have an idea. Let's start calling men who rape women "predatory heterosexuals".

I object to your use of the term "predatory paedophile". First off, I absolutely dispise the british spelling, and secondly, since most child molesters aren't pedophiles, the term is only useful if your goal is to associate ordinary, law abiding individuals who happen to have an unusual attraction with criminals and rapists.

I have an idea. Let's start calling men who rape women "predatory heterosexuals".

Okay... here's what I just heard you saying:

Apologist. Apologist. Apologist for paedophiles. Blah blah blah. Apologist.

Okay... here's what I just heard you saying:

That's strange. You didn't even "hear" my name right? You really should get your "ears" checked.

Incidentally, why call me an apologist for pedophiles when you can just call me a pedophile? I won't mind. After all, I am one.

That's strange. You didn't even "hear" my name right? You really should get your "ears" checked.

Incidentally, why call me an apologist for pedophiles when you can just call me a pedophile? I won't mind. After all, I am one.

Hmm...

Hmm...

Yes?

Yes?

Never mind. Just.. never mind.

I'm sorry. Maybe I'm just weird in that when I see phrases like hit in the face repeatedly by fifteen people, I tend to think "severe beating".



I'm sorry. Maybe I'm just weird in that when I see phrases like minor injuries, I tend to think phrases like "severe beating" are an excessive emotional appeal.

I see your reasoning now. The only reason to hold someone's hand is because you want to abduct them. That's why of course the article said he was dragging the kid with him as he fled the scene, right? Oh wait, it said no such thing. nope, the article did say that the children did claim to have held his hand. now I ask you this,

Why show sexually explicit pictures to minors (against the law) if he didn't have any ultierior motives?
who initiated the hand holding, him or the child[ren]?
who pulled away? Him or the child? if the child pulls away, that's not an indication of "the child liking him" as you posted earlier, Him? why? afraid of children, then why hang out at a park where there were children playing... and why show them pictures?

perhaps he would've dragged a child off if the parent wasn't paying attention. I would admit that we don't know, but to assume that showing sexually explicit pictures and holding hands with at least one child are not actions that would end up in a situation that would be nice for the child.

I'm sorry. Maybe I'm just weird in that when I see phrases like hit in the face repeatedly by fifteen people, I tend to think "severe beating". please show me where it said he was "hit in the face repeatedly by fifteen people"

about 15 men "jumped him and hit him repeatedly on the face with their fists."that could mean 15 men jumped him and he was hit repeatedly in the face. it doesn't mean that all fifteen took shots to his face. realistically speaking, the only way he could come away with...
minor injuries and was treated at the scene was if all fifteen men only slapped him once. the fact that he had no broken bones, nor serious contusions or lacerations, not even indications of a concussion, would indicate that not all fifteen men hit him. and repeatedly means three or more times. so he could've been hit 3 times... hardly a severe beating.

and since it did state fist... Fifteen fists to the head would not leave "Minor Inuries" that would be treated at the scene.

So now we have a mob of people who don't know what they guy they're beating up did? That is somehow better? nope, you have a mob of people responding to a woman's cry for help, stopping someone from getting away while the police are arriving. if those 15 people, heck if only TWO of em wanted to beat the shit outta him, he wouldn't have Minor Injuries.

You missed the point. The guy was threatened, so he ran. If there hadn't been a woman yelling "PEVERT" or worse, and fifteen people rushing to restrain him, I somehow doubt he'd have been so inclined to run. Let's face it, that entire situation could've been handled with a lot more tact, and a lot less violence. and you miss the point. the guy was also a threat to the kids. He was "hunting" and one of the mothers caught him in the act, so he ran! If I was innocently playing with the children, and some woman asked me what I was doing. If I HONESTLY thought that my actions were not harmful, I would explain myself, I would not run.

but this perv was showing inappropriate things to children, to what purpose, one can only speculate. He may not be exposing himself, but what he was doing was just as bad. when a parent called him on it, he RAN! you cannot deny that was he was doing was either innocent nor legal.

I object to your use of the term "predatory paedophile". First off, I absolutely dispise the british spelling, and secondly, since most child molesters aren't pedophiles, the term is only useful if your goal is to associate ordinary, law abiding individuals who happen to have an unusual attraction with criminals and rapists. can you prove that "most child molesters aren't pedophiles"? I will agree that there are Pedophiles out there that won't molest children, but I believe most child molesters are pedophiles.

and if the law abiding citizen has Child Pornography, and is showing them to a minor, then guess what... they are not Law Abiding. ;)

I have an idea. Let's start calling men who rape women "predatory heterosexuals".
um.. rapists are called 'Sexual Predators' already.

Never mind. Just.. never mind.
No. Please. Say what you were going to say.
I'm sorry. Maybe I'm just weird in that when I see phrases like minor injuries, I tend to think phrases like "severe beating" are an excessive emotional appeal.
Adults beating people up in front of kids. Is that the message you think we should be sending?

Adults beating people up in front of kids. Is that the message you think we should be sending?
"people willing to protect me while I am vulnerable." that is the message I liked to recieve as a child.

note that all those "beaters" were also interviewed by the police. thus they were willing to take responsiblity for their actions. another lesson I would like my child to learn.

"there are bad people out there and there are more that will protect my child" is one that I would love to see as a parent. as those mothers found out that day.

No. Please. Say what you were going to say.

Adults beating people up in front of kids. Is that the message you think we should be sending?

Depends on the beating, is it a side result of them trying to keep him from escaping while the police are coming or are they just beating him? Considering that an encounter with fifteen people resulted in only minor injuries I would say this sounds much more like a case of the former and therefore unavoidable.

nope, the article did say that the children did claim to have held his hand. now I ask you this,

Why show sexually explicit pictures to minors (against the law) if he didn't have any ultierior motives?

All right. We've got some options here. First off, it could be he was asked to provide such materials. Minors often have adults pick up alcohol, tobaco, and porn for them. Another possibility is he was asked a question, and used the picture as an illustration, in the same capacity that showing nude pictures is used in a classroom. It's also possible his sole modive was to see their reactions, not so he could pick one up to rape, but to satisfy for himself whether children have sexual interests. Curiosity can be a powerful modivator.

These are just three possibilities, and I'm sure you can figure out a few more on your own.

who initiated the hand holding, him or the child[ren]?
who pulled away? Him or the child? if the child pulls away, that's not an indication of "the child liking him" as you posted earlier, Him? why? afraid of children, then why hang out at a park where there were children playing... and why show them pictures?

You're reading a lot into that one gesture, aren't you? Need to have every detail straight in your mind before the presumption of innocence kicks in?

perhaps he would've dragged a child off if the parent wasn't paying attention. I would admit that we don't know, but to assume that showing sexually explicit pictures and holding hands with at least one child are not actions that would end up in a situation that would be nice for the child.

Perhaps he would've raped one of them right there. Perhaps he would've walked away and volenteered at a retirement home. Point is we don't know what would've "perhaps" happened. All we do know is that he was beat up in front of a bunch of kids, and we've been given no indication that he was doing a damn thing to make the kids uncomfortable.

please show me where it said he was "hit in the face repeatedly by fifteen people"

See, you found the line.

that could mean 15 men jumped him and he was hit repeatedly in the face. it doesn't mean that all fifteen took shots to his face. realistically speaking, the only way he could come away with...
was if all fifteen men only slapped him once. the fact that he had no broken bones, nor serious contusions or lacerations, not even indications of a concussion, would indicate that not all fifteen men hit him. and repeatedly means three or more times. so he could've been hit 3 times... hardly a severe beating.

and since it did state fist... Fifteen fists to the head would not leave "Minor Inuries" that would be treated at the scene.

Believe whatever you're going to believe, I guess. If you can read that fifteen men jumped him and hit him repeatedly in the face with their fists as anything otehr than a beating at the hands of a mob, I doubt anything I'm going to say can convince you.

nope, you have a mob of people responding to a woman's cry for help, stopping someone from getting away while the police are arriving. if those 15 people, heck if only TWO of em wanted to beat the shit outta him, he wouldn't have Minor Injuries.

I'd really like to see how the article defines "minor injuries", because after a beating I took back in middle school, what at first glance looked like a bloody nose (I didn't even pass out) turned out to be most of the bones in my face shattered once the X-rays were in.

and you miss the point. the guy was also a threat to the kids.

Proof?

He was "hunting" and one of the mothers caught him in the act, so he ran!

Proof?

If I was innocently playing with the children, and some woman asked me what I was doing. If I HONESTLY thought that my actions were not harmful, I would explain myself, I would not run.

But this isn't a woman asking him about what he was doing. It was a woman screaming "pervert" and a mob charging after him. You're telling me you wouldn't run from that?

but this perv was showing inappropriate things to children, to what purpose, one can only speculate. He may not be exposing himself, but what he was doing was just as bad. when a parent called him on it, he RAN! you cannot deny that was he was doing was either innocent nor legal.
Do you want to explain to me why that's illegal in the first place? I mean we have entire state-run organizations dedicated to providing children with information, and yet this particular person providing information is a criminal.
can you prove that "most child molesters aren't pedophiles"?

You will never understand the glee that it brings me when someone asks that question.

I will agree that there are Pedophiles out there that won't molest children, but I believe most child molesters are pedophiles.

The ratio of pedophile child molesters to nonpedophile child molesters is about 10-90. This figure came from FBI sex offender expert Kennith Lanning. I'll see if I can't dig up a link from the last time this conversation went down.

Here's an article with those figures:
http://old.valleyadvocate.com/articles/pedophile.html

In case you aren't inclined to read it, here's the relavent quote:

"About 90 percent [of child molesters] are so-called "situational child molesters" who capitalize on opportunities to molest children but don't necessarily prefer sex with children ... The 10 percent of child molesters who make up the second category are the bona fide "pedophiles," those who genuinely favor sex with children."


and if the law abiding citizen has Child Pornography, and is showing them to a minor, then guess what... they are not Law Abiding. ;)

What's your point? The story didn't say he was showing the kids child pornography.

um.. rapists are called 'Sexual Predators' already.
Shall we go with "straight predators" then?

"people willing to protect me while I am vulnerable." that is the message I liked to recieve as a child.

Are you sure the kids saw it as people trying to protect them? It's equally possible they had no idea why the man was being beaten. I somehow doubt the mob cared how their actions looked to the children.

note that all those "beaters" were also interviewed by the police. thus they were willing to take responsiblity for their actions. another lesson I would like my child to learn.

They were willing to admit that their actions were wrong. Why won't you admit the same?

"there are bad people out there and there are more that will protect my child" is one that I would love to see as a parent. as those mothers found out that day.
I don't give a shit about the messages the parents get. It's not like they're still learning the difference between right and wrong. Praising an apparently random (fron the child's prospective) beating is sending mixed messages at best.
Depends on the beating, is it a side result of them trying to keep him from escaping while the police are coming or are they just beating him? Considering that an encounter with fifteen people resulted in only minor injuries I would say this sounds much more like a case of the former and therefore unavoidable.

There are a great many political and spiritual leaders who would take issue with the idea that there is such a think as unavoidable violence. Even more who would take issue with the idea that this represents an example of it.

All right. We've got some options here. First off, it could be he was asked to provide such materials. Minors often have adults pick up alcohol, tobaco, and porn for them. Another possibility is he was asked a question, and used the picture as an illustration, in the same capacity that showing nude pictures is used in a classroom. It's also possible his sole modive was to see their reactions, not so he could pick one up to rape, but to satisfy for himself whether children have sexual interests. Curiosity can be a powerful modivator.

These are just three possibilities, and I'm sure you can figure out a few more on your own. 1) 5 to 7 year olds would not ask a stranger for girlie mags.

he came up and pulled out some dirty pictures and showed them to the kids.so he went to the kids, pulled out the mags and showed it to them. blows your "they asked to see the mags"

2) those minors who would ask for things like Alcohol, tobacco and porn are usually in their teens.

3) Providing minors with those items is still illegal, the adult providing them still held responsible.

4) Curiosity is fine, as long as he pays the penalty for that curiosity, that penalty is to get stopped by a mob and arrested.

now do you HONESTLY think that any ONE of your supposed, hypothetical, reasons is even remotely plausable?

You're reading a lot into that one gesture, aren't you? Need to have every detail straight in your mind before the presumption of innocence kicks in? yes. I would presume him innocent if you remove any one of those three factors. however, it's not to me that his guilt or innocence be proven, but to the Judge.


Perhaps he would've raped one of them right there. Perhaps he would've walked away and volenteered at a retirement home. Point is we don't know what would've "perhaps" happened. All we do know is that he was beat up in front of a bunch of kids, and we've been given no indication that he was doing a damn thing to make the kids uncomfortable. no, we know he showed porn at those kids. when called on it, he tried to run away, was stopped and arrested. the beating is also speculative since EVIDENCE doesn't support the severe beating you argue.

See, you found the line. no, I didn't, you still have to show where it said he was "hit in the face repeatedly by fifteen people"

I just showed where someone said he was jumped by 15 people.

Believe whatever you're going to believe, I guess. If you can read that fifteen men jumped him and hit him repeatedly in the face with their fists as anything otehr than a beating at the hands of a mob, I doubt anything I'm going to say can convince you. and if you read that it was a beating by 15 people while all other evidence doesn't support that, I say I'm closer to reality then you are.


I'd really like to see how the article defines "minor injuries", because after a beating I took back in middle school, what at first glance looked like a bloody nose (I didn't even pass out) turned out to be most of the bones in my face shattered once the X-rays were in. ah, but you went to get the x-rays.

a bleeding nose can indicate a broken nose, so paramedics would've been called in this case, or the person sent to the Hosptal. but since he was "Treated on site" means he didn't even have a bleeding nose.


Proof? showing inappropriate material, a stranger with no ties to the APARTMENT COMPLEX... ah sorry, to you he actually has to harm the child and only do Physical harm. :rolleyes:


Proof? It's in his actions. There is no way you can prove his innocence from the laws he broke.

But this isn't a woman asking him about what he was doing. It was a woman screaming "pervert" and a mob charging after him. You're telling me you wouldn't run from that? proof?
Ms. Williams said the other mother saw Mr. Burke and asked what he was doing. I didn't read no screaming of Pervert... if the children asked to see the mags, he could've told her right then and there... if it was to satify some curiosity... he could've told her right then and there... so far you supposed options are blowing away like smoke...

Do you want to explain to me why that's illegal in the first place? I mean we have entire state-run organizations dedicated to providing children with information, and yet this particular person providing information is a criminal. you're kidding... right? I'll go hunt down those laws for you.

The ratio of pedophile child molesters to nonpedophile child molesters is about 10-90. This figure came from FBI sex offender expert Kennith Lanning. I'll see if I can't dig up a link from the last time this conversation went down.

Here's an article with those figures:
http://old.valleyadvocate.com/articles/pedophile.html

In case you aren't inclined to read it, here's the relavent quote:
unfortunately, where I am I cannot do the proper research, but let me check back when I am at a different computer.

What's your point? The story didn't say he was showing the kids child pornography. Elizabeth Williams' 7-year-old daughter was one of them.

"At first he sat there for a while," said Ms. Williams, whose daughter was being watched by another child's mother. "From what [my daughter] told me ... he came up and pulled out some dirty pictures and showed them to the kids. He pulled them out of his backpack."

At least four children – a 9-year-old girl, a 7-year-old girl and two 7-year-old boys – saw pictures of a nude woman in the magazine, police said. Police reports indicate Mr. Burke briefly held the hand of one of the children.now if it was an Art Magazine, or a Photographer's mag, or any innocent mag... I'm sure he would've shown it to the mother who questioned him.

Shall we go with "straight predators" then?sure.


Are you sure the kids saw it as people trying to protect them? It's equally possible they had no idea why the man was being beaten. I somehow doubt the mob cared how their actions looked to the children. yep.
it's up to the parents to explain what happened, not anyone elses. if it was everyone's job, then you would see sticker "Decency laws" out there.

They were willing to admit that their actions were wrong. Why won't you admit the same? did they admit they were wrong? I said they were taking responsibility for their actions.

I don't give a shit about the messages the parents get. It's not like they're still learning the difference between right and wrong. Praising an apparently random (fron the child's prospective) beating is sending mixed messages at best. and it's also the parent's responsiblity to look after their children's welfare, I'll bet you those worth the name parents, explained what happend to their kids.

I grew up in Oak Cliff, and knowing that area as I do, the dude is lucky all he got was "minor injuries". The concept that the kids would be "scarred" by the 15 guys kicking the pedo's ass is laughable to me, as I had easily been through 1/2 a dozen fights by the time I was through elementary school. While there are nice parts of Oak Cliff, you would be hard pressed to not know at least one gang member if you are from the area. Of all the areas around Dallas the moron could have chosen to try this sort of thing, he picked one of the worst. Residents in the area showed an amazing amount of restraint, IMO.

Or just held him down and taken turns stomping on him. Whatever works.

lol, sounds workable to me. :D

Okay... anyone who is prepared to believe this man is _not_ a predatory paedophile is officially an idiot.

I think the amount of times that an adult has shown pornography to children without wishing to sexually abuse them could be counted on zero hands.

To be fair, the article doesn't say it was pornography. It says "dirty pictures" and "nude woman." Now, I've seen people who think a woman in a bathing suit is "dirty pictures". And a picture of a nude woman is not necessarily pornographic.

However, the real question then is why he was carrying these pictures, and why he felt the need to whip them out and show them to a group of young children. There might be an explanation other than exploiting them, but I can't think of one.

Its possible he was showing them a normal magazine with pictures of cars or motorbikes etc and they're was a half naked women in there.

1) 5 to 7 year olds would not ask a stranger for girlie mags.

The ages mentioned in the article were 7 and 9, not 5 and 7.

so he went to the kids, pulled out the mags and showed it to them. blows your "they asked to see the mags"

Apparently you're unaware that people can have multiple interactions with the same person. To make this simple for you, there exists the possibility that they asked him, he left to get them, then returned and showed them. Why are hypotheticals so dificult for you?

2) those minors who would ask for things like Alcohol, tobacco and porn are usually in their teens.

So? You don't have to be 13 to ask for such things. It might not happen often, but that doesn't make it impossible.

3) Providing minors with those items is still illegal, the adult providing them still held responsible.

I'm afraid I must've missed the part in the law that says mobs get to meet out punishment without a trial. If he was guilty of something illegal, it's the courts that decide his punishment. Legitamizing the actions of a mob is a step toward anarchy. Is that what you want?

4) Curiosity is fine, as long as he pays the penalty for that curiosity, that penalty is to get stopped by a mob and arrested.

And the penalty for forming a mob and beating a guy up? I believe the charge would be assault. I guess I'm fine with the mob doing it's thing as long as it pays the penalty for it's illegal actions.

now do you HONESTLY think that any ONE of your supposed, hypothetical, reasons is even remotely plausable?

Yes. They all make more sense than your supposition that he was going to kidnap and rape the kids dispite the fact that people were watching the children, and he wasn't fast enough to outrun people on his own, much less carrying a child with him.

yes. I would presume him innocent if you remove any one of those three factors. however, it's not to me that his guilt or innocence be proven, but to the Judge.

You've called the mob's actions legitimate. That is you making the decision about his guilt or innocence.

no, we know he showed porn at those kids. when called on it, he tried to run away, was stopped and arrested. the beating is also speculative since EVIDENCE doesn't support the severe beating you argue.

The evidence does support a beating. The man was injuried, and was struck in the face by people's fists. How you can call the beating speculative is beyond me.

no, I didn't, you still have to show where it said he was "hit in the face repeatedly by fifteen people"

I just showed where someone said he was jumped by 15 people.

and if you read that it was a beating by 15 people while all other evidence doesn't support that, I say I'm closer to reality then you are.

What color is the sky where you live?

ah, but you went to get the x-rays.

a bleeding nose can indicate a broken nose, so paramedics would've been called in this case, or the person sent to the Hosptal. but since he was "Treated on site" means he didn't even have a bleeding nose.

I presume you've got extensive training in police procedures and EMT training to back up your assertions? You know for a fact that a bloody nose always means a person is sent to the hospitol by the police, rather than having them stick a tissue in it until the bleeding stops? I call bullshit.

showing inappropriate material, a stranger with no ties to the APARTMENT COMPLEX... ah sorry, to you he actually has to harm the child and only do Physical harm. :rolleyes:

Where are you getting the false impression I only care about physical harm? It's the emotional and developmental harm the mob did to the children by beating this guy up in front of them that has been one of my primary arguements condemning them.

It's in his actions. There is no way you can prove his innocence from the laws he broke.

His actions don't prove he was "hunting" as you claim they do.

proof?
I didn't read no screaming of Pervert...

My mistake. The article wasn't clear on what she was screaming. That was speculation from this discussion.

if the children asked to see the mags, he could've told her right then and there... if it was to satify some curiosity... he could've told her right then and there... so far you supposed options are blowing away like smoke...

You asked for options that could've been true without him having intent to kidnap and rape them. You didn't ask for things that would've met with parental approval. Why can't you follow your own conversation?

you're kidding... right? I'll go hunt down those laws for you.

I'm still waiting on that.

Incidentally, it's the justification for those laws that is of interest. After all, it doesn't matter if something is illegal if that law can't be justified.

unfortunately, where I am I cannot do the proper research, but let me check back when I am at a different computer.

I really hope you've done so, since you'll find the facts support my statements.

now if it was an Art Magazine, or a Photographer's mag, or any innocent mag... I'm sure he would've shown it to the mother who questioned him.

You're assuming he had reason to believe the parents would approve of that?

sure.

Congradulations. Now every straight person get's equivocated with rapists.

yep.
it's up to the parents to explain what happened, not anyone elses. if it was everyone's job, then you would see sticker "Decency laws" out there.

So, again, you go balistic when kids see nudity, but feel it's a positive thing for them to see violence? You represent everything that's wrong with the world today.

did they admit they were wrong? I said they were taking responsibility for their actions.

If they haven't admited they were wrong to form a mob and beat a guy up, in what sense have they taken responsibility for their actions?

and it's also the parent's responsiblity to look after their children's welfare, I'll bet you those worth the name parents, explained what happend to their kids.

How wonderfully self-justifying, since you get to dismiss any of the parents who didn't bother as unworthy. I'll make you a counter-wager. I'll bet you a majority of the parents involved fit into the "unworthy" category, and praised the men delivering the beating without explaining to their children why it happened.