Edmonton man gets 5 1/2 years for molesting daughter

[Praxius]

they don't talk about the details, it is a matter of taking one statement and adding it to another to come to a conclusion. But what could a news article really say? Can they really give those details Prax? Think about it. Think about the number of pervs out there who would add that article to their spank bank if it filled in all of the details.

So you just basically quoted or created a quote about something that you don't know about, but rather interpreted from limited information in a biased report..... exactly what I said I didn't need or want, because it proves nothing?

I'm not out to look for some perv details to go and pin up on my wall or something sick like that, and what others do on their own time isn't any of my business, but what I am interested in is how the courts of law functioned in this case.

Based on the supplied information I have read, you and I can not determine if he just pointed and touched (I doubt that as well) or if he did as you claimed as attempting to give her an orgasm, etc. Interpreting "Given Into" isn't all that black and white either as there are various levels of what that could mean.

I'm trying to stick to facts here and for my own personal interest in not only society, the victim, the laws and also the criminal in this case, but also to personally determine if 5 1/2 years is too much or not enough for this case and he should be put away for much much longer. I find interest in court cases......

Since I can not determine this, there is no position to be taking in this thread as to if the 5 1/2 is fair or should be much more, etc. Therefore there isn't much more to debate or talk about in this thread for me. He has been found guilty and he will be in jail for 5.5 years for what he has done, the judge made their decision and since there isn't anymore information provided, there isn't anything else available to debate.

Backing up a bit.... could the new release details like that? They have in the past in other cases and when the identities were protected, they sure didn't seem shy on laying out most of the details that occured in court, so long as they didn't compromise the protection of the victims identity.

unlawful sexual touching of a person under 14 covers a lot of different things which range from bad to worse.... just like vandalism (Kicking in a window to setting fire to an old folks' home) and I'm not about to assume to very worst just because everybody else has some emotional attachment to the situation.

But not only has my limited interest in this thread completely disapeared, but trying to get a few tid bits of information so that I could formulate a decent opinion on this case has not occured since my first post, so my position of neutral has not yet changed in anyway. He's guilty, he's gone to jail, case closed....

 

[lone wolf]

Prax: Owing to the fact the guy was found guilty and sentenced to time by our too-liberal and way too lenient Courts, it seems this <ahem> person did more than a PG-rated newspaper can describe in politically correct company.

Woof!

 

[Praxius]

Exactly. There is NO reason at all to be teaching a child that young anything to do with sexuality.

Ok, whoa there chief, #1 - I am not trying to find any justification/reason for any parent to be touching their children sexually at anytime at any age.

And #2 - When it comes to Teaching/Educating (ie: talking and explaining) sexuality or any other topic to your children is a totally different subject all together and you dictating what age is or is not appropreate isn't the be all end all answer. Some children will have questions, be that basic or complex, that may relate to sex that they themselves may not be fully aware of and just generally asked the question to know. If a child asks their parent where babies come from or what their thing looks different then the other genders' etc..... what are you going to tell them?

When they're older you'll tell them?
Tell them Storks fly them in at night like the tooth fairy?
Tell them that's a disgusting question and they should be ashamed of asking it so young?

What happens when they hear something from another student in school and then comes home and asks you what an Orgasm is? Are you going to go on some crusade to find the child who mentioned this word to your kid and then hunt their parents down and arrest them?

Let's face a fact here... some parents can and will tell their children about sex/sexuality at a young age in fact many parents don't have an issue with educating their children on adult matters, even if they are no where near encountering them yet. This doesn't mean they're going to go and man handle their kids and start molesting them like what many suspect occured in the above article..... nor does it mean they have any interest in doing so.

In the above case I was curious as to how far beyond this line of acceptable behavior this person went and how much jail time they should get. No information was provided for an accurate assesment, thefore I am still indifferent.

This case is, sadly, typical of the type of sentences that these parasites get. Wesley Snipes gets 3 years for evading his taxes and this piece of **** gets 5 1/2 years for MOLESTING his daughter?!?

Justice is just a fart in the wind here in Canada.:roll:

I'll agree with you on that.... and that's pretty well why I was curious on some of the details, just to see how much of a fart it was.

 

[Praxius]

Prax: Owing to the fact the guy was found guilty and sentenced to time by our too-liberal and way too lenient Courts, it seems this <ahem> person did more than a PG-rated newspaper can describe in politically correct company.

Woof!

I have seen much more descriptive and unbiased reports on much worse crimes then this one countless times in the past..... although as sick as this situation may seem, it's a friggin walk in the park compared to some of the things I have come across..... call it a desensitization on my behalf of just how screwed up this world is.

Added:

Checking online there is only one other article online in regards to this matter from CANOE but it's basically word for word the same report as above with no other information.

But the only reason why I am raising questions in this topic is due to exactly how this article is worded, what was said, who was quoted saying what, etc.... I don't like putting faith in biased reports whenever possible and this one's certainly biased just by reading it.

either way, I've stated whatever position I'm on.... er.... which I guess is neither, so I'm off to move onto another thread.

 

[lone wolf]

The difference between your far more scorching stuff in the news and this is there is a child involved and decency dictates they don't identify the child.

Woof!

 

[Praxius]

Yes, but I'm not asking for the child to be identified.

 

[karrie]

Yes, but I'm not asking for the child to be identified.

But, people know who she is, and you're asking that distinct descriptions of a crime against her be published for her friends and neighbors to read. That's not exactly cool for a victim of that age, especially given that she'll be able to read that stuff at a later date, possibly before she can process it properly.

I have a hard time with the depth of description they go to in some cases, like the Nina Courtepatte case. I'm not going to go into the stuff they repeated, over and over and over again on the news because you can find it for yourself, but I felt it was torturous not only for her family but for the community. If she had survived what was done to her, I would have been ten times more outraged at the media making her relive it. It's bad enough her family had to.

 

[Praxius]

But, people know who she is, and you're asking that distinct descriptions of a crime against her be published for her friends and neighbors to read. That's not exactly cool for a victim of that age, especially given that she'll be able to read that stuff at a later date, possibly before she can process it properly.

I have a hard time with the depth of description they go to in some cases, like the Nina Courtepatte case. I'm not going to go into the stuff they repeated, over and over and over again on the news because you can find it for yourself, but I felt it was torturous not only for her family but for the community. If she had survived what was done to her, I would have been ten times more outraged at the media making her relive it. It's bad enough her family had to.

The people that already know who she is beyond the news/media reports, I am pretty sure already know these details via gossip and family speculations, etc.

The thing is, if youre not going to identify anybody in a crime due to age or severity/sensitivity of the case/crime, and you're not going to actually inform the public what the crime was actually about, besides claim "No Name McGee" was charged with "Generically Listed Crime which covers a plithora of things" and then the report takes quotes out of context, or what I see, the report taking quotes of quotes and mis-quoting to express a level of bias to make the guy out to be even more ignorantly evil then we can actually determine........

....... then why bother to post the new article on their site in the first place? Just to get us all pissed off and angry at the world about something we will never know about in any paticular detail?

That's about the same as me telling you all that I know this guy who grabs little fluffy bunnies from their dens in the middle of the night and slams them all against a big rock to watch their brains splatter all over the place and twich in his hands as he keeps slamming them down..... you know... just for his own sh*ts and giggles.

I never told you who it was, where it was located, how many fluffy bunnies were involved, or anything else for you to determine what actually occured...... but I bet you're pretty emotionally pissed if it was to be true.

If that's the case, then what's the point in trying to strike someone emotionally with a story or criminal case we can't relate to?

I mean I can relate to things that occured in my childhood and what happened to friends and family I have known over the years, but to me, this article doesn't strike me in any fashion emotionally..... and there's not even enough evidence or information provided for me to even look at it logically..... so what's the point?

 

[lone wolf]

Do you understand the premise of "need to know"?

Woof!

 

[Praxius]

Do you understand the premise of "need to know"?

Woof!

Once again, if it's on a need to know basis and we're not supposed to know, then why bother telling us in the first place? Why issue out quotes and comments from the case towards one part of the crime in question, but then leave out everything else except to just let us know there's one more screwed up arsehole out there in the world?

We are left to our own interpretations such as we have seen above in other posts and we are filling in gaps of what hasn't been said based on the limited information in this report. Therefore we don't know if this person can be rehabilitated or if he's just plain scum and should be off'd as soon as possible as some would like to see in here.

That's the problem I'm trying to point out. Without those details, we are left to pre-determine the guys a freak bag and chances are he'll do it again when he gets out of jail...... which is an unfair assesment.

 

[karrie]

I get what you're saying Prax. And in a way, it's what's expected of the media, to keep you charged up and reading. Saying 'a man committed a crime and was sentenced' just isn't sensational enough.

I still stand by my assumptions (not that I'd kill the guy or sentence him based on them), but I hear what you're saying.

 

[senorita]

When it involves a child, jerks like him should not get away even for thinking of doing such things !!!!!! :angryfire: