Jump to content


Recommended Posts


  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my observation that time and time again, people are much more concerned about protecting reputations/'power' holders than they are the actual people who need protection.

It is possible that Penn State's football activitiy will be suspended for at least 5 years. In both cases, everyone who knew yet refused to protect the victims should be held accountable and legally dealt with to the fullest extent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, boitumelo, the average person isn't as vigilant and as concerned as we like to think they are when it comes to indecent behavior; they tend to not want to get involved, or start any trouble, preferring to mind their own business and look the other way. In fact, whistle blowers are often held in contempt and viewed as "snitches. The people hushing up scandelous behavior in high profile cases, are reacting in a typical manner.

It's a standing joke about scout masters having a thing for young boys, and lesbian gym teachers, hanging around girls' showers. Nobody ever gives this lechery a second thought. A sad commentary on our society.

Seems like the family of Robert Champion should be able to sue FAMU, however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was a case of a child who told of having been touched by the father. The child could speak well and showed what was said to have been done very graphically, far too graphically for a child of that age to know.

The Department of Family and Children Services was notified. However, the agency could not give involved. Why?... Because the child was too young. The child had to be at least 3 and the child was only 2. The police department could not question the father. Why? ...Because the child was not old enough. What were the deeper reasons? .. Not only because the child was too young, but also because those allegations were too serious to get involved with coming from a child so young and such allegations could lead to lawsuits for these state agencies.

Why does a child have to be at least 3 for these agencies to have his or her back? So in the meantime, that child by law, was supposed to keep going to the father during visitation time. What does something like this mean for a child who is crying for help to adults that will not help because of a fear of lawsuits. Clearly, many are more concerned with covering themselves than the chldren.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waterstar, often laws trump common sense, because they are arbitrary. Laws are a necessity because people, including those entrusted to protect us, are too wicked to be trusted with the freedom to behave properly without rules.

Despite the individual failures, over all, the trade off is worth it at least in theory.

The problem we now have now is that no one is trusted to use judgement under any circumstances. No authority is smart enough to come up with a rule which works 100% of the time. But apparently few individuals are smart enough to operate without being told exactly what to do.

In your case, suppose the father was innocent and the 2 year old got the idea by watched some porn the father left open on my PC. Maybe some over zealous social worked arrested the father, based upon the toddler's story and subsequently discovered found the porn on his PC and locked the man up for incest and pedophilia.

Now in prison and labeled a pedophile the father gets shanked in prison and dies -- even though he was innocent. A story similar to this has happened, on more than one occasion.

We need rules, but could use more people with common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need rules, but could use more people with common sense.

Fi real.

In your case, suppose the father was innocent and the 2 year old got the idea by watched some porn the father left open on my PC. Maybe some over zealous social worked arrested the father, based upon the toddler's story and subsequently discovered found the porn on his PC and locked the man up for incest and pedophilia.

Troy, that I understand (though I don't know why the toddler would be left alone long enough to even have the chance to make this discovery). Anyway, as I've said, I understand what you are saying with this scenario, but my question is this. Why can't the father even be questioned? Why can't the toddler's account even be grounds for an investigation into the matter?

The father could easily let it be known that the child "discovered" porn on the PC. No, it's not something that might be as easy as "That's what happened? Oh okay, you folks have a good day and be more careful next time. We're driving off now." Still, to be investigated does not always mean to be arrested and branded.

I do understand that such a situation of someone being innocent has happened and definitely on more than one occasion, but I still think that the father should have been at least questioned.

In the case that I described, there were red flags and one was that the father became very defensive when he was questioned by the child's mother. There is a tape in which the father can be heard threatening to kill anyone connected with the case if he were go to jail over something that someone said he did to the child. Look, never once on the tape did the father show parental concern, something, anything pointing to "Why is my child saying this? Of course I'd never do anything to hurt my child, but it is important for me to find out why the child is saying this. Perhaps someone did touch the child or perhaps the child was somewhere and discovered some porn."

The above info is only a little big in terms of red flags. Still, where has that left the child in this case?

There are many children with incidents such as these. In some cases, the adults around these children won't even listen, so many children don't even have agency in their family members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not disagreeing with you Waterstar, I'm trying to help you understand how these things happen in the real world.

You realize that many Department of Family and Children Services have work loads that larger than most people can reasonably be expected to handle? These are very stressful jobs and not always performed by the people best suited for the role.

As far as why the father allowed the toddler to "discover" porn on the PC. Maybe the father did not want to get the keyboard sticky, and washed his before closing the window :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh my goodness. "Geezus, kill da visuals..." LOL

Yes, I realize that, but I also realize that what these adults have to handle on their jobs is a lot, but what these children who have no adults to put them first have to handle in their lives is even greater.

As an aside, is it wanting Utopia to simply want a world in which more children have adults around them to care for them, to protect them? Is it asking for Utopia for children to actually come up with a much stronger sense of "community"? Visions of a better tomorrow are, at best, seen as impossible dreams.

Some want to "return to the good ol' days." People like Pat Buchanan speak about this stuff a lot. I missed the era in which "people wore pajamas and lived life slow", but from what I gather, those times weren't exactly the "good ol days" for some. I can't relate to the "let's return to the good ol' days" thing because I never lived through them, though I must say that my coming of age atmosphere wasn't anywhere of the present coming of age atmosphere and goodness only knows what the children of tomorrow will have to face.

I can, however, relate to the "I want a brighter tomorrow" thing. Maybe more of us would work toward a brighter tomorrow if it were not felt that this were just some useless Utopian vision that could never come into fruition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Waterstar it is asking for Utopia humans are flawed and even the most well intentioned make mistakes with their children. One issue is where do we draw the line when an innocent mistake needs to be punished. Any law will get the wrong from time to time and people can't be trusted to used their judgment -- especially when it comes to applying laws to Black folks.

That is not to say that things can't get MUCH better. I believe they can. Things will have to get much worse before the get better...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also believe that things will get much worse before they get better.

So what about the Paterno statue at Penn State? Do you guys think that it should be taken down?

This one guy was being interviewed on the news saying that taking the statue down wouldn't serve any purpose, that it wouldn't do anything. He talked a bit more along those lines and contradicted himself in the end by saying it would only end up causing more harm than good. (Hmm..)

Another person who was being interviewed about the potential removal of the statue was nearly in tears. "He was a hero", she said.

So what do you guys think? Do you think that the statue should be taken down? Why or why not?

I tend to think that it should be taken down if Paterno was more concerned about helping to protect the reputation of Penn State and Sandusky vs more concerned about helping to protect the young men.

Then again, questions of morality keep missing those such as catholics who are solid pro-lifers. Their speeches, even their bumper stickers are so focused on opposing abortion and anyone who supports even pro-choice. Don't get me wrong, I am not anti pro-life, yet if it is really about putting children first, why are there so many PPs (pedophile priests/priestly predators/predator priests) in the catholic church who keep being protected by the same catholic church that opposes abortion as a sin against God? Is not the molestation of children a sin against God? ESPECIALLY by those in such religious positions? ap_robert_van_handel_ll_120601_wg.jpg



June 1, 2012

The lurid confessions of a priest who sexually abused young boys in his parish choir and the seminary offer a glimpse into one of the minds behind the massive sex abuse scandal that has rocked the Catholic Church.

Former priest Robert Van Handel's 27-page sexual history, which he wrote for a psychologist between 1993 and 1994, details his history of abuse and fantasies of abusing boys age 8 to 11. The document was released as part of a settlement between the Franciscan order of priests and 25 abuse victims.

In the essay, Van Handel, now 65 and a registered sex offender in Santa Cruz County, describes wrestling, tickling, and fondling young boys whom he invited to attend one-on-one choir practices, admits to molesting high school boys at a seminary where he taught, and says he took pictures of young boys wearing few clothes or showering.

"It was clearly my choir and the fulfillment of my fondest dreams," he wrote. "Now I understand that it was also a constant supply of attractive little boys."

Read Robert Van Handel's Sexual History

He also described an encounter with another priest, while Van Handel was in seminary around high-school age, in which the priest molested him while he was in the infirmary.

"While I don't think it is of crucial importance in my life, it is curious that this is nearly the exact activity I would perform 10 to 15 years later," he wrote.

Van Handel's account of his own descent into pedophilia traces his shame and guilt growing up, learning about and trying not to think about sex, into young adulthood, where he bought porn magazines and became interested in naked children.

"I asked my best friend once if he saw anything 'special' in pictures of children. He said, 'no, not at all.' I began to realize that I was different. Sometimes I worried about this, but I thought that as long as it was just fantasy, there was no reason to panic," he wrote.

He progressed from reading about sex with boys to taking pictures of young boys and finally, when he took over directing a boys' choir, abusing boys.

"We used to wrestle, and I would tickle him, while paying special attention to touching his genitals," he wrote. "(He) never seemed to mind, and I wasn't about to stop on my own."

Van Handel describes trying to speak to a Franciscan counselor about his actions twice in the early 70's, but said he was too vague for the counselor to understand what he was saying.

In 1992, Van Handel pleaded guilty to one count of lewd and lascivious behavior with a minor and served four years in prison, and another four years on parole.

The release of Van Handel's confessions is rare, even among the thousands of church abuse cases that have made it to the court system in the past 10 years, according to attorney Jeffrey Anderson, who has handled more than 2,000 church abuse cases.

"This is unique," Anderson told the Associated Press. "It really is a glimpse into the mind of the molester."

Van Handel and his attorney, Robert "Skip" Howie, did not return calls from ABC News seeking comment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...