Frank,
I'd argue with not a single point you're making. It's gone way beyond
the entire issue of the employee and owner and should have been left
there.<IMO>
Jack
--- frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 1/9/06, Gary Sibio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > If there were any extenuating circumstances, I would think he - the
> > perp -
>
> Don't call him a perp. What the hell is this, Law and Order or
> something? Are you a cop? As far as we know, he's not even been
> charged with anything. Since a trial date is upcoming for the uncle,
> I think we're pretty safe in saying the the police would have charged
> him by now were they going to.
>
> > would have mentioned them.
>
> Quite frankly, we know even less about the camera store employee's
> motivations to say whatever he said, than we do his involvement, so
> we
> don't know if he'd have mentioned any extenuating circumstances or
> not.
>
> > I don't believe we are talking
> > about taking pictures in the bathtub or a group of shirtless
> > 4-year-olds playing in a splash pool.
>
> You're right. It's less than those scenarios. Whoever did the
> photographing, apparently photographed fully clothed children. For
> reasons that I don't understand, it seems there are people out there
> who are aroused by looking at photos of young children in dance
> costumes. It may be sick, but how harmful is it?
>
>
> > The man has injured innocent children.
>
> How has he injured them? Again, it may be sick, but unless the
> children are identified and somehow harassed or harmed, where's the
> injury? I would agree that there's ~potential harm~ to them, but as
> far as we know, no one has been hurt yet. We obviously must protect
> our children, but we also need a bit of perspective here.
>
> > He must pay for his crime.
>
> If anyone does anything illegal, and is found guilty by due process
> in
> a court of law, of course he should pay for his crime.
>
> > His
> > rights ended when he admitted what he did.
>
> No sir!! With the greatest of respect,you are wrong. First of all,
> in this case, no one admitted to anything. Secondly, one's rights
> don't end when they confess. There are any number of very good
> reasons that one may confess to a crime they didn't commit. In fact,
> it's much more common than one would think. One could be acting
> under
> duress. One could be insane or otherwise not in their right mind.
> One could be simply seeking attention or notoriety. A person who
> confesses to a crime must have the same rights as anyone else. If we
> take away that person's rights, then who's next?
>
> cheers,
> frank (wimpy liberal guy)
>
>
> --
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
>
>
__________________________________________
Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about.
Just $16.99/mo. or less.
dsl.yahoo.com
