Originally posted by: Reflex
This link does not state that he decided to have a sex party with his friend and the girl. It states that this is a friend of the offender and he also took advantage of the girl. A bit of a difference there. Your stating as fact that he offered the girl up to his friend as some sort of playtoy, when in fact the friend was fully competant and is just as likely to have taken advantage of her himself(or even possibly encouraged what was going on). Read your own story, it also backs up much of what I have been saying.
LOL Not even close. You are inferring he was not invited over and invited himself. You are inferring he was never introduced to the girl but went in by himself. You infer that these two who both are sexual predators would not talk about their common interest.
Its sad to see how easily you are influenced by your own bias.
No followup? Even there I am not factually incorrect, you CHOSE to interpret that as a 'fender bender' when it could just as easily meant "multi-car pileup with traumatic head injuries" which is more along the lines of what I meant(and said later on in the thread).
Where did I say fender bender in this thread Reflex? Now you are in trouble. lol You are grasping at other threads hoping you can cover up your incredible screw-up by trying to shift the blame.
My contention at the time was that child sexual abuse is a bad thing, but it is not the worst thing a child can possibly go through in their life, and is more dependant on adult reaction to it and other factors in terms of its impact than a lot of people acknowledge.
That is NOT what you said. You were extremely specific citing specific examples comparing them to child molestation when none of them even come CLOSE to that level of damage to a child.
Then quote it all, not just the parts that are convenient for you. I shouldn't have to respond to my own posts because you took them out of context.
Nothing was taken out of context. Nothing was misquoted. Only now after you were caught AGAIN, you try and recharacterize your statement after the fact. You and mayor Nagin have a lot in common. He tried the same thing after making an outrageous statement. No one believed him either.
The only person who has said that is you. He is being released in 60 days into a treatment program as part of his conditions.
Is he out of jail? YES
Is he free to drive around town? YES
He is NOT under supervision Reflex. He is FREE. Its no different than parole and guys on parole have been known to re-offend. You are willing to subject children to that chance. I am not.
Developmentally Disabled and Mentally Challenged are the politically correct terms for what used to be known as Mentally Retarded. Ask anyone in the field, the terms are interchangable. If you want evidence in terms of medical documents, I am not a doctor and do not have direct access to people's personal medical records, however the AP reported it as fact and you can take it up with them if you disagree.
I take it up with you and your blind faith in an article without factual evidence. Then you take it a step further and claim he didn't know what he was doing which has NEVER been proven.
This is why I have qualified my entire argument on the "If it is true that he is Developmentally Disabled" argument. If he is not, I *agree* with you and the others, implying that I do not is false. If he is mentally retarded, however, then yes I think the judge was reasonable.
You did not always use "if" in front of those statements of yours.
Once again, easily proven.
The part where he is protecting society. Releasing the man in 8 years with no idea of what he did wrong and no protection against him repeating it would be irresponsible and negligent in the extreme.
No if there.
I see no reason to punish someone who is incapable of understanding their crime unduly, they need supervision and treatment, not punishments for crimes they do not understand.
Gee, no if there either. Shall I post more or are you going to admit you did NOT use the word "if" when talking about his mental capacity?
The prosecuter asked for 8 in light of the perpetrator's mental condition.
And the judge had the freedom to go higher. You know damn well that is true.
The judge agreed until he found out that there would be no treatment if this sentence were handed down.
Right there. If he allowed his personal objections to influence his judgment he broke the LAW. Are you going to deny this too?
Could he have given 20? Maybe, it depends on the state laws, judges don't create law or sentences, they can only sentence what a charge allows under law and are supposed to take the prosecution's requests into mind.
No maybe, he absolutely could have. Once again you show your lack of knowledge on the case.
Addressed above. The article you pointed to did not state that he ever did this, only that a friend of his also took advantage of this girl.
Right Reflex. His friend just happened to come over and just happened to rape this girl. And of course, these two had no idea they shared this common sick practice. You infer all day long with this guy's defense. How about inferring some guilt once in a while?
You have a particuliar pattern of attacking myself and others, and have been banned in the past for this behaviour.
Wrong again. I have NEVER been banned. Your gross overstatements and false accusations continue.
As for my fitness to be a mod, feel free to leave and find another board if you have issues with the administration here, this is not a democracy, its a privately owned forum.
Yes it is. Where people share ideas....and people like you share their hypocrisy.
Like I said, take the methodology up with the AP. Its thier article but it reported his state as fact. The judge also felt that way if you read his actual ruling rather than the O'Reilly version. You say 'the court' decided he is competant, but the judge IS the court and decided otherwise.
Its not my fault you didn't do the research and relied on your personal bias to reach your conclusions.
The FACTS are the court case NEVER said he was mentally challenged or didn't know what he was doing. That is pure speculation which you tried to reinforce in favorable unreliable sources.
Seeing as how I have not met the man, I can only go by what is reported about him, and what the judge had to say about him.
If you are only going on what is being reported, why are you ducking the court ruling where his mental capacity was NOT a factor?
This is new information to me, although you haven't provided a link to an article about it. However it just moves the question up the chain: Who was responsible for them and how did they allow this kind of negligence to persist for so long? Generally there are case workers for the children of the mentally disabled, or even live in caretakers, someone should have noticed during a four year span, and someone chose to do nothing.
Yes Reflex. Don't blame the child rapist, blame the parents. I really do worry about you. Take it as a personal attack again if you wish. You seem to enjoy inferring attacks where they don't exist and ignoring those that actually do exist.
Now, your new article is very interesting. First off, lets correct the link since it was just a highly edited version of a Boston.com article. Lets see the new information provided:
Derek Kimball, 33, of Hinesburg, whom authorities describe as a friend of Hulett's, was arrested in October and is charged with sexual assault on a victim less than 10 years of age, and lewd and lascivious conduct with a child. He was later released on $25,000 bond and a series of conditions, including that he not contact the victim or any girls under the age of 16.
He could face up to life in prison if convicted. Kimball's case is not being handled by Cashman but by Judge Michael Kupersmith.
I see nothing there about being 'invited to abuse' the girl by Hulett, only that he also took advantage of her(who he did likely meet through the Hulett).
So you are willing to infer his mental capacity but when two child molesters get together and molest the same girl you think it was never discussed between the two. How pathetic is that.
Cashman sentenced Hulett on Jan. 4 to 60 days to 10 years, along with two other suspended sentences. At the sentencing hearing, the judge said state Corrections Department officials had told him that Hulett would not receive sex-offender treatment while in prison because he was deemed a low risk to re-offend.
The judge said he worried that without treatment, Hulett would emerge from prison more likely to commit new crimes. He imposed a long list of stringent conditions on when and how Hulett could be released, including that he get sex-offender treatment, setting the stage for potentially a life sentence.
He was still released Reflex. Free to roam around. You are willing to take the chance he will re-offend when he is out. I prefer jail where there is a ZERO percent chance he will harm more children.
And here is what I have been saying all along about the judge. Informed that he would recieve NO treatment he adjusted the punishment to ensure that Hulett got the treatment he required in the only way available to him.
Its against the law Reflex. How many times must I repeat myself? A judge's personal opinions of the criminal system cannot influence his sentencing which it did.
Why are you so willing to give a pass on breaking the law?
Ah, so the Republicans in Vermont feel as I do, that this is being mis-represented and blown out of proportion by the media. Is Michael Kainen also a child-rapist apologist?
YES. Any other questions? Of course if you had actually read my statements you would have seen I've slammed conservatives and republicans who have tried to defend this guy or those who label all liberals as soft on child rape.
And funny how he just like you didn't back up his statement.
That comment came two days after Human Services Secretary Michael Smith said the Corrections Department would shift gears and offer Hulett sex offender treatment while in prison.
That prompted prosecutors on Friday to file court papers asking Cashman to reconsider the sentence.
This can only be a good thing.
Thank you for the link, very informative and nice to know I'm not the only one who thinks that only part of the story is being reported.
Since you didn't even know half the story but continued to pretend you did, that's quite a statement.