Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Sex Offender Sentenced in Attack on Nude Swimmer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Sex Offender Sentenced in Attack on Nude Swimmer

    Sad that someone can't swim nude without being attacked.

    Story

  • #2
    How sad. I'm surprised the two male companians didn't take this jerk out in the woods and perform a little 'justice' before reporting the incident. Hopefully this person will be able to get over this incident and be able to enjoy skinny dipping again in the lake.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by nudeM:
      How sad. I'm surprised the two male companians didn't take this jerk out in the woods and perform a little 'justice' before reporting the incident. Hopefully this person will be able to get over this incident and be able to enjoy skinny dipping again in the lake.
      Did you read the link to the actual article? The two friends of the victim have been charged too. It seems they went overboard and went from assisting their female friend to assaulting and attempting to kill the sex offender. They lost my support after reading this:

      Two Anderson men who had accompanied the woman to the lake, Joshua Donald Rasmussen, 25, and Brian Steve Cole, 28, are accused of beating Robinson and cutting his throat after he attacked her.

      Rasmussen and Cole, both of whom are accused of attempted murder, assault and other crimes, are tentatively due to have their preliminary hearings Thursday

      Comment


      • #4
        NudeTopher,

        Don't you think they would have done us all a service by dispatching this scum bag? The guy had it coming, and then some.

        Comment


        • #5
          While the two men may have gone a bit far, if I was on a jury, I would not convict them of any felony offense.

          Comment


          • #6
            No, taking the law into your own hands is anarchy. Living in this country we agree to the rule of law, however imperfectly it is sometimes enforced. We must work to make our system better, not give up on it.

            Comment


            • #7
              I don't think you can ever use to much force when saving someone from being attacked or the way it sounds, drowned. If it were not for her friends I am sure she would not be here today. I would be the first not guilty vote if I were on their jury!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Mountain Fox:
                NudeTopher,

                Don't you think they would have done us all a service by dispatching this scum bag? The guy had it coming, and then some.
                Actually, I don't!

                In a civilized, law-abiding society the courts met out justice. If you want an uncivilized society the police, judge, and jury would be one and the same. In a system where the individual mets out what you call justice it's called vigilantism. This isn't safe for society, the offender, or anyone else.

                Your attitude that beating the crap out of the offender is both useless and illegal. Violence only begets more violence.

                Do I agree that the offender should have been stopped by the offenders friends? YES! Do I think they should have gashed his throat trying to kill him? NO!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by nudepartime:
                  I don't think you can ever use to much force when saving someone from being attacked or the way it sounds, drowned. If it were not for her friends I am sure she would not be here today. I would be the first not guilty vote if I were on their jury!
                  For the good of a society based upon laws, I hope you are never on a jury. You have a verdict without even hearing all of the evidence.

                  IF it came out in court that they friends of the swimmer cut the offender's throat say 10 minutes after they subdued him would your vote be the same?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Posted August 03, 2007 04:57 AM quote:
                    Originally posted by nudeM:
                    How sad. I'm surprised the two male companians didn't take this jerk out in the woods and perform a little 'justice' before reporting the incident. Hopefully this person will be able to get over this incident and be able to enjoy skinny dipping again in the lake.


                    Did you read the link to the actual article? The two friends of the victim have been charged too. It seems they went overboard and went from assisting their female friend to assaulting and attempting to kill the sex offender. They lost my support after reading this:

                    Two Anderson men who had accompanied the woman to the lake, Joshua Donald Rasmussen, 25, and Brian Steve Cole, 28, are accused of beating Robinson and cutting his throat after he attacked her.

                    Rasmussen and Cole, both of whom are accused of attempted murder, assault and other crimes, are tentatively due to have their preliminary hearings Thursday

                    Stupidity may be a handicap and therefore an excuse. But, choosing ignorance should be painful!
                    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    No, sorry to say I did not read the link. I guess you could say they did go somewhat overboard. Yea, beating the "H" out of him would have sufficed, but trying to kill him took it to extremes. Trust me, I'm in no way trying to sound sympathetic to this a$$, but he didn't deserve to have his throat slit.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      NudeTopher;

                      I agree with you that we are a society of laws. However, I want to posit a different understanding.

                      Two males were at a lake for swimming with a female friend. She was sexually assaulted and would have likely been killed. They came to her rescue.

                      While rescuing her, their adrenalin and testosterone were pumping full. They were also angry at this man's outrageous act. At that time, they may have used too much force. However, under the circumstances, it may have been understandable.

                      The rapist, who was already a sex offender, was given a sentence where he will only have to spend five years in prison. He could then be out again to do it again to someone else. This is not right.

                      If I were on the jury, I would not convict either.

                      As a father, if any of my daughters were to go swimming, nude or clothed, I would pay those two men to be there.

                      I am against vigilantism. If these two men hunted down the perpetrator and took out revenge, that would be wrong. However, they saw a man violating a friend and perhaps preparing to kill her. They intervened and got too emotional. I am glad they were gentlemen and helped her. If they went too far in the heat of the moment, it is not right but understandable.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Wow, good points all around in this thread.

                        Basically, do whatever/use whatever force needed to stop the attack. However, don't keep going after the attack has ended! I agree with nudeM when he said that beating the living crap out of him would be fine for his actions, but these guys did cross into the relm of murder by cutting his throat after the fact.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by NudeTopher (christopher):
                          In a civilized, law-abiding society the courts met out justice.
                          That may be true, but in the USA the courts and lawyers make no pretence of justice. They pretend to "enforce the law" and to "determine which lieyer presented the best case."

                          Blessings
                          Bob

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It is indeed true that in the US our legal system often produces a caricature rather than actual justice. Sometimes it's due to crazy quirks in the law, and sometimes it's due to the fact that there are only humans, with all their flaws, to work the process. Those with the money to hire the best lawyers greatly improve their chances.

                            On the other hand, I've served on several juries. Those experiences have encouraged me to believe that the average outcome in a trial is closer to justice than one would assume if they only know about the cases reported in the media. The last time I was the jury foreman for a complicated case, highly emotional case. All 12 people in that jury room worked hard to get past the emotion, to understand the law and the facts of the case, and to make a decision that was true to both. The defense attorney did try to confuse us and play on our emotions, but most juries are smart enough to see through that stuff.

                            The first jury I was on acquited a guilty man because the prosecuting attorney failed to ask the expert witness a key question that was essential to determining guilt or lack thereof. That's the way it's supposed to work, and the way a jury is sworn to decide: the defendant is innocent until the government proves otherwise. No one likes to see a guilty person get off, but how much worse when an innocent person is convicted?

                            So my view is that there are lots and lots of problems in our legal system (I like the British system much better), but I think on average it still works pretty good. It's the high profile cases (think O. J. Simpson) that skew the public's perception.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by luvnaturism:
                              The first jury I was on acquited a guilty man because the prosecuting attorney failed to ask the expert witness a key question that was essential to determining guilt or lack thereof. That's the way it's supposed to work, and the way a jury is sworn to decide: the defendant is innocent until the government proves otherwise. No one likes to see a guilty person get off, but how much worse when an innocent person is convicted?
                              They treat juries like mushrooms, keep them in the dark and pour s**t on their heads. IF the system had anything to do with justice they would empower the jury to ask the questions that its members needed to know to decide the case. They don't do that. They pretend that an uninformed and ignorant juror can make a wise decision. They waste huge sums of money, months of time, and the outcomes are often fictional.

                              The prosecutors are worse than the juries. Prosecutors are supposed to avoid prosecuting anyone unless they know he is guilty. However "know" to a lieyer doesn't mean the same thing as it does to you and me. In NYC they prosecuted two different men for the same murder in ajacent courtrooms, and didn't allow the juries in either to know that both trials were illegal because the prosecutor plainly wasn't convinced of the guilt of either. The judges, being lieyers, had no problem with the obvious miscarriage of justice. In some cities they prosecute "rape" cases knowing that the accuser is a serial false rape accuser. Justice has NOTHING at all to do with the American Injustice SYSTEM (AIS).

                              Ahother huge flaw in the system is that the blue gun thugs LIE all the time. They have proven before SCOTUS that lying is their everyday jobs and that they can't do their jobs without lying. SCOTUS affirmed that the public has no right to believe anything that a blue gun thug says, and should always assume that anything they say is a lie. When you get to court, the usual witnesses are known and affirmed liars in blue suits. Again, the AIS is a very long way from justice.

                              Letting off a guilty person because of some lieyer screwup is as bad as convicting someone because of lying witnesses. You may believe that it's "supposed to work" that way, but I see it as the antithisis of justice.

                              Blessings
                              Bob

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X