Post by: gunsmith on September 23, 2006, 12:02:56 PM
Sept. 22, 2006, 10:38PM
Residents beat man accused of showing porn
Associated Press
DALLAS About a dozen residents of a Dallas neighborhood beat a man after reports that he had been showing pornographic pictures to children on a playground, police said.
Brandon Scott Burke, 20, showed up Wednesday at an Oak Cliff apartment complex and was alleged to have shown a magazine with pictures of naked women to some of the children playing there, police said.
When one of the mothers saw him and asked Burke what he was doing, he tried to run and the woman started screaming, said Elizabeth Williams, the mother of another child. According to a police report, Burke said about 15 men "jumped him and hit him repeatedly on the face with their fists." He suffered minor injuries, police said.
At least four children saw the nude pictures, police said. Burke was arrested on suspicion of harmful display to a minor.
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 23, 2006, 12:28:50 PM
Last year, some scumbag in my mother-in-law's neighborhood molested a six year-old girl in the middle of the day.
When the girl told her mother, the mother told a neighbor, and a bunch of guys from the neighborhood found the guy and beat him near to death.
When the cops showed up, all they said was, "thanks."
Post by: Nightfall on September 23, 2006, 12:34:40 PM
"Sweet, free porn!"
Seriously though, 15 men were just milling around a playground?
Post by: gunsmith on September 23, 2006, 12:40:24 PM
One quiet afternoon a skell mugged an old lady
in my NY neighborhood, 15 minutes later a crowd of
20/30 young men broke his arm and stomped him
real bad.
The rest of the afternoon was quiet too.
Post by: wingnutx on September 23, 2006, 12:58:40 PM
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 23, 2006, 02:24:10 PM
Post by: Guest on September 23, 2006, 02:50:04 PM
I think that, in a lot of ways, our extremely conservative population could get along very well in countries like Iran, they already have many of the same rules, and they could have stoned this young man with the complete blessing of the government. This sort of mob morality is exactly the sort of code they use in the backwards Islamic countries that we pretend to be superior to.
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 23, 2006, 03:12:51 PM
Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner
Yeah, cause the image/representation of a nude female on a page is so much worse than real violence and brutality viewed up close and personal.
Am I the only one with flashbacks of Fukasaki here?
Post by: Stand_watie on September 23, 2006, 06:34:14 PM
Quote from: Nightfall
Seriously though, 15 men were just milling around a playground?
At an Oak Cliff apartment complex? Yeah, there will always be 15 men milling around nearby. Think Cabrini Green with a southern, more conservative slant.Quote
Yeah, cause the image/representation of a nude female on a page is so much worse than real violence and brutality viewed up close and personal.
How about personal violation? Think a child being raped by an adult is better than "real violence and brutality (against a child molestor) viewed up close"? Or maybe you think he was simply an artist showing off his tasteful nudes?
Post by: gunsmith on September 23, 2006, 08:04:27 PM
You know who I met as a kid?
Son of Sam, one of the sickest pups out there.
How did I meet him?
He came up to a friend and I in Vancortland park and showed us some porn and attempted to lure us
into a car, I was about 9 at the time and he was bit younger then when he was caught too.
Grown men who go around exposing little kids to porn are definetly up to no good.
This has nothing to do with religious or conservative values, ...gee whiz...
"Yeah, cause the image/representation of a nude female on a page is so much worse than real violence and brutality viewed up close and personal."
it's not about the nudity, it's about protecting children. If I ever have kids and some skell stranger comes around showing porn , I will treat him like a potential son of sam serial killer because in my experience he very well may be...
Why can't kids be kids nowadays? why must they be forced to confront adult issues before they can even spell adult or issue?
Post by: Monkeyleg on September 23, 2006, 08:21:29 PM
There are some people who just need to be killed, and I'm tired of the argument over whether or not the death penalty will deter crime.
If it eliminates just one lifetime predator from society, it's worth it. (Think about that, Sarah Brady).
Post by: gunsmith on September 23, 2006, 08:43:08 PM
Perhaps there wouldn't be this "mob mentality" if we didn't have this insipid
mentality that wants to force perversity down the throats of little kids.
If perhaps people who get caught molesting children did serious time, then people wouldn't
have to take matters into their own hands.
If the cops had caught this guy first , what would have happened? probably not much.
I am glad he got some frontier justice, some folks just want to force kids into being nice little
subjects for their own sexual hang ups... they were probably treated horribly themselves as kids...
But while I feel sorry for the kid they once were I will not sit by while they treat a little kid as their sexual plaything...
Comparing this crowd to Iran or any place like that shows a deliberate misunderstanding
of things of this nature.
They execute gays over there, they execute their own sisters for getting raped, they hide behind kids and shoot at soldiers. Those are not now nor have they ever been conservative values.
I guess I can now say raping children is a liberal value?
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 23, 2006, 09:36:37 PM
Quote from: gunsmith
I lived in both Yonkers and the Bronx as a kid.
You know who I met as a kid?
Son of Sam, one of the sickest pups out there.
How did I meet him?
He came up to a friend and I in Vancortland park and showed us some porn and attempted to lure us
into a car, I was about 9 at the time and he was bit younger then when he was caught too.
Grown men who go around exposing little kids to porn are definetly up to no good.
This has nothing to do with religious or conservative values, ...gee whiz...
"Yeah, cause the image/representation of a nude female on a page is so much worse than real violence and brutality viewed up close and personal."
it's not about the nudity, it's about protecting children. If I ever have kids and some skell stranger comes around showing porn , I will treat him like a potential son of sam serial killer because in my experience he very well may be...
Why can't kids be kids nowadays? why must they be forced to confront adult issues before they can even spell adult or issue?
Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I have a big problem with strangers showing porn to kids in a park. I know that predators use pornography as a way to overcome a child's natural repulsion and inhibition to being exploited sexually. I respect what these men in Texas did.You know who I met as a kid?
Son of Sam, one of the sickest pups out there.
How did I meet him?
He came up to a friend and I in Vancortland park and showed us some porn and attempted to lure us
into a car, I was about 9 at the time and he was bit younger then when he was caught too.
Grown men who go around exposing little kids to porn are definetly up to no good.
This has nothing to do with religious or conservative values, ...gee whiz...
"Yeah, cause the image/representation of a nude female on a page is so much worse than real violence and brutality viewed up close and personal."
it's not about the nudity, it's about protecting children. If I ever have kids and some skell stranger comes around showing porn , I will treat him like a potential son of sam serial killer because in my experience he very well may be...
Why can't kids be kids nowadays? why must they be forced to confront adult issues before they can even spell adult or issue?
It just struck me as ironic. The parents were no doubt trying to protect their children from images that could rob them of their innocence. Yet in so doing, they showed their children something much worse. At the very least they should have chased the pervert out of the park, and out of sight of the children there, before beating the daylights out of the perv.
Ugliness is ugliness, be it pornography or violence. Those children received two doses of ugliness that day, not just one. That's a shame.
Post by: Sylvilagus Aquaticus on September 23, 2006, 09:49:25 PM
That in and of itself is not what surprises me. What does surprise me is that 1). he lived to be arrested and 2). he appears relatively unscathed in his mug shot.
It's simply an example of good community policing in action by the residents. How he avoided being found a week from now in a landfill is the mystery.
Regards,
Rabbit.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 23, 2006, 10:03:23 PM
Quote from: Headless Thompson Gunner
The parents were no doubt trying to protect their children from images that could rob them of their innocence. Yet in so doing, they showed their children something much worse. At the very least they should have chased the pervert out of the park, and out of sight of the children there, before beating the daylights out of the perv.
Ugliness is ugliness, be it pornography or violence. Those children received TWO doses of ugliness that day.
Hogwash. Sexual harrasment OF CHILDREN is much worse than giving the perv some minor injuries? That makes no sense. The kids saw some pornography, then they saw the sicko get man-handled by a crowd that was looking out for them. Ugliness is ugliness, be it pornography or violence. Those children received TWO doses of ugliness that day.
I don't know precisely what these guys did, and I'd prefer a simple arrest and harsh sentence. But they apparently caught and detained the guy. They also showed the kids that adults should protect children and that the man was in the wrong. The next time they're approached by a pervert (God forbid) they'll be less likely to believe the "This is our little secret" line. If it got a little out-of-hand, well - it ain't no perfect world. It's too bad HTG wasn't there to direct them to be more discreet - you expect a little too much from an ad hoc neighborhood watch confronted with the unexpected.
Showing sexual images to a kid and showing him violence are not the same thing. These kids probably saw more violence than they should have at their age, but violence is simply a reality they will have to face sooner or later, and learn to meet with even greater force. Sex, on the other hand, is and should be private, while violence just doesn't have that element. We teach our kids, hands-on, how to shoot or how to take down an attacker, but we don't sit by the bed and coach them through their first sexual encounter. At least I hope you all don't.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 23, 2006, 10:10:07 PM
This guy violated some children's minds, and the neighbors came together to arrest the jerk. Guess they must have voted for Aminijad or whatever his name may be. Oh, no, they hit him a few times, what a bunch of Talibanis!
Post by: Headless Thompson Gunner on September 23, 2006, 11:12:06 PM
Quote from: fistful
Showing sexual images to a kid and showing him violence are not the same thing. These kids probably saw more violence than they should have at their age, but violence is simply a reality they will have to face sooner or later, and learn to meet with even greater force. Sex, on the other hand, is and should be private, while violence just doesn't have that element. We teach our kids, hands-on, how to shoot or how to take down an attacker, but we don't sit by the bed and coach them through their first sexual encounter. At least I hope you all don't.
We DO walk our kids through sex. At least I hope we all do. No, we may not be there in the room with little (actually not so little at this point) Timmy and Sally when they go at it for the first time. But our lessons, teachings, and advice damn well better be there in that bed with them.Trying to prevent your son from seeing naked girlie pics is a senseless exercise. If he has half a brain (or any friends with half a brain) then I guarantee he's already managed to see some. If your little chillen is a daughter, then it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that there isn't much harm in him or her seeing a page or two out of Playboy magazine.
Now, the fact that a grown man is in a playground passing around pornography is a serious problem, an indicator that he's up to no good. YES, protect your children and your neighbors' children from him. But be an adult about it. Be responsible and set a proper example for your children.
Yes, we do teach our kids how to defend theselves, and how to kill if necesary. We teach them HOW to use violence. But we also teach them WHEN to use violence. Violence is only appropriate to prevent an immediate threat, and even then only if there are no other convenient alternatives. The sight of a naked woman on a page simply isn't an immediate threat. It doesn't merit a bloody response.
Run the guy off. Make sure he KNOWS, deep down, that he isn't welcome. Rough him up if you truly think that that is the only way to pretect your children from him in the long run. But for God's sake, be responsible enough to do it away from the view of the children. They don't need to have their faces rubbed into the harsh realities of the world. Let them be children, innocently playing in the playground.
Protect them, using violence and force if necessary, but let them remain happily oblivous to the uglieness that might have ensnared them that day.
Post by: LAK on September 24, 2006, 01:33:29 AM
I also agree with corporal punishment; a good public thrashing administered by the State is appropriate here - and then a short stay in a real prison turning big rocks into little rocks.
The root problem here is a culture problem - moral problem.
--------------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 24, 2006, 05:27:34 AM
Quote
Perhaps. What is that?
Fukasaki was a Japanese filmmaker who did not at all believe that being exposed to media violence harms kids. Suffce to say he believed his film - Battle Royale - should be open to chidlren to view.At any rate: Violence is not necessarily inherently bad nor ugly. It's (like sex) morally neutral. Getting to see your loved ones act in this way to protect you is not the ugliest thing that could happen to a child. Many things that children are exposed to on a daily basis are worse.
I do, however, agree with the Headless Thompson Gunner.
Post by: lupinus on September 24, 2006, 06:17:48 AM
Oh and wait, let me say it for the smartasses who disagree getting ready to say it....
"It's for the children!"
There its been said figure out something better to come back with then a mocking quote of it being for the children.
Post by: Lee on September 24, 2006, 06:31:05 AM
Post by: MicroBalrog on September 24, 2006, 07:13:06 AM
Quote
"It's for the children!"
There should be a corollary to Goodwin's Law involving children.
Post by: grislyatoms on September 24, 2006, 07:28:22 AM
I got into my Dad's Playboy and Penthouse magazines constantly when I was a kid. There was nowhere he could hide them that I couldn't find them. I seem to have turned out okay.
Pervs out there doing what this guy did need a swift kick in the family heirlooms, which is exactly what he got.
Betcha a dollar to a dime he won't show his face around that playground again.
Post by: Lee on September 24, 2006, 08:06:26 AM
We lived next to a hilly little cut-through street that was basically impassable when it snowed. All the kids in the neighborhood sledded on it. Everyone in the neighborhood knew not to use the street when it snowed -hint 20 little kids flying down the hill on sleds. On this particular weekend we were all out there sledding when a yuong guy pulled up to the bottom of the hill and stopped. Then he floored it and attempted to come up the hill. Kids were scrambling frantically to get out of this way, as his car fish-tailed up the hill. I didn't even see my father come out of the house, until he reached through the guy's open window and pulled him halfway through it. He then drove his fist into the guy's nose. Blood went everywhere. He asked the kid if was going to try that again. I believe he said no. It was my first real exposure to violence...and it was good. My dad's Playboys were good as well. As I recall that never happened again...nor was there any police involvement. Good Lord, how did we survive back then without Dr. Phil, Oprah, and Juvenile court system.
Post by: grislyatoms on September 24, 2006, 09:00:30 AM
I watched my Grandad "rough up" a kid who had shot me in the back with a pellet gun. When Grandad was done, he hauled the kid off to the kid's folk's place and told the kid's Grandfather what had happened. Kid's Grandfather told my Grandad "I'll take care of it". No police, no retaliation, nothing.
I was never in my life more proud of my Grandad.
Grandad didn't really hurt the kid, just pushed him around a little and twisted his arm behind his back to haul him off to his folks.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 24, 2006, 09:03:39 AM
Post by: HankB on September 25, 2006, 03:47:46 AM
Post by: txgho1911 on September 25, 2006, 02:32:36 PM
Another point of this story I think this reads more like an apartment complex playground. Like the one in the middle of 6-8 buildings. The men involved in the behavioural correction may have been the day workers who get hired near the hardware store. Work nights in the greasy spoon. Draw unimployment for months at a time.
Maybe a new standard of mutilation would stand a better example to those who would do children harm. Seems there are lots of adults who have some experiences of one level or another who did not grow up to this favor forward. Those who impersonate humans should be given an honest chance to think about the actions first. I could see a blind mute having a hard time attracting kids with photos or other lures.
Post by: Guest on September 25, 2006, 04:33:36 PM
Quote from: HankB
Sad thing is, in some places the cops & politicians would spend more time tracking down and prosecuting the members of the "mob" who administered the attitude adjustment to the perv, than they would prosecuting the perv in the first place.
Assault and Battery > showing nudie pictures to kids. Maybe its a fine line, but actual violence trumps social crime.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 25, 2006, 05:25:13 PM
Quote from: c_yeager
Assault and Battery > showing nudie pictures to kids. Maybe its a fine line, but actual violence trumps social crime.
Please explain. What do you mean by social crime?Considering the circumstances, would the actions of these men really fit the definition of assault and battery? If not self-defense, can they not claim defense of others?
Post by: crt360 on September 25, 2006, 07:11:01 PM
Quote from: fistful
Considering the circumstances, would the actions of these men really fit the definition of assault and battery? If not self-defense, can they not claim defense of others?
Yes. No. It doesn't mean he wasn't a dumbass asking for a beating, but I'm not familiar with the statute that excuses the actions of the beaters.Being Oak Cliff, I suspect the kids had previous exposure to violence and probably sexual material. I wonder how many of the 15 were hanging around smoking crack before they gave whitey an ass-whoopin'? I'm surprised that anyone called the cops and that they showed up.
For more on Oak Cliff, check this out: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Oak+Cliff
Post by: gunsmith on September 25, 2006, 08:35:10 PM
plain old simple commen sense.
mike jackson wannabe shows up showing LITTLE KIDS
naked pics and got a well deserved bruise or two from the local
youths and young men.
if you really are questioning the actions of the
"neighborhood watch" then you are are no doubt victims of some kind of childhood
sexual abuse, and rather then put the blame
where it belongs (probably your parents) you sexualize children
and identify with the abuser. I am sad that your parents hurt you when you
were young, but if If you try infecting the next generation don't be surprised
if someone sneaks up behind you with a with a suppressed .45acp and apply
a little first aid to your desperately chronic lead deffiency.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 26, 2006, 03:06:51 AM
Post by: HankB on September 26, 2006, 03:24:48 AM
Quote from: c_yeager
Assault and Battery > showing nudie pictures to kids. Maybe its a fine line, but actual violence trumps social crime.
We differ here, it's NOT such a fine line: attitude adjustment <<< adult perv approaching little kids with porn in hand.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 26, 2006, 04:16:05 AM
Post by: Guest on September 26, 2006, 08:29:15 AM
Quote from: fistful
Quote from: c_yeager
Assault and Battery > showing nudie pictures to kids. Maybe its a fine line, but actual violence trumps social crime.
Please explain. What do you mean by social crime?Now, seeing their father beat a young man senseless in front of them on the other hand...
The self defense argument is laughable on it's face. The guy was running away and had to be restrained in order to be beaten.
Quote
We differ here, it's NOT such a fine line: attitude adjustment <<< adult perv approaching little kids with porn in hand.
Lovely, so who gets to decide what attidues need adjusting and how? The mob? Wanna go back to lynchings too?
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 26, 2006, 08:41:46 AM
Even if you think that showing pornography to children is not actually damaging, it should certainly be considered criminal for strangers to do so without the consent of parents. Other than that, it is rather odd to claim that looking at pornography doesn't hurt children, but seeing a few punches to the face is damaging.
Post by: Guest on September 26, 2006, 08:49:09 AM
Quote from: fistful
Your reading comprehension is laughable. No one has claimed the men acted in self-defense.
Really?Quote from: fistul
Considering the circumstances, would the actions of these men really fit the definition of assault and battery? If not self-defense, can they not claim defense of others?
You might want to work on reading your own posts. Maybe the best advice you could give is that people disregard your statements with the same dedication that you do yourself.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 26, 2006, 08:49:34 AM
Quote
When one of the mothers saw him and asked Burke what he was doing, he tried to run and the woman started screaming, said Elizabeth Williams, the mother of another child. According to a police report, Burke said about 15 men "jumped him and hit him repeatedly on the face with their fists." He suffered minor injuries, police said.
So, did these men know what the man had done, or were they just trying to help the screaming woman? Do we have any more info?
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 26, 2006, 08:51:44 AM
Post by: Guest on September 26, 2006, 08:53:05 AM
Quote from: fistful
OK, c_yeager, I just read it. Still don't see what you're referring to.
Amazing.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 26, 2006, 12:07:24 PM
So we can argue hermeneutics, but are you going to answer why seeing a bad guy receive minor injuries is harmful to children, while seeing pornography is not?
Post by: Guest on September 26, 2006, 05:29:04 PM
Quote from: fistful
When I wrote, "if not self-defense," I thought it would be clear that I meant "As they cannot claim self-defense...".
So we can argue hermeneutics, but are you going to answer why seeing a bad guy receive minor injuries is harmful to children, while seeing pornography is not?
naked stranger in two dimensionsSo we can argue hermeneutics, but are you going to answer why seeing a bad guy receive minor injuries is harmful to children, while seeing pornography is not?
vs.
your father beating someone in real life right in front of you.
Obviously it's subjective, but it is still pretty clear to me which action has more direct impact on a child.
Post by: roo_ster on September 26, 2006, 05:42:06 PM
Just maybe, the kids who witnessed the thumping will walk awy believing that there are some thing beyond the pale.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 26, 2006, 06:11:29 PM
Also, sex and the use of force are both things that are quite appropriate in the right context. Outside that context, they can be very destructive. One quarell I have with c_yeager's thinking on this, is that he ignores the context of both things in the story. Whatever one thinks of porn, this was the wrong context for any sexual messages of any kind - young children, an adult stranger of questionable motives. Whether the beating administered, which doesn't appear to have been that severe, was perfectly legal or was precisely the right thing to do, it was in a far more appropriate context - stopping a potential childing molester.
Post by: Guest on September 26, 2006, 07:25:18 PM
Quote
Whether the beating administered, which doesn't appear to have been that severe, was perfectly legal or was precisely the right thing to do, it was in a far more appropriate context - stopping a potential childing molester.
The problem is that your concept of the context here is deeply flawed. The perp has no criminal record and his crime certainly wasnt enough to make him a child molestor. Furthermore, the beating certainly didnt stop him, a woman yelling was sufficient for that. They could just as easily have simply restrained him from getting away if that was what they wanted.For the record, Ms. Williams who was one of the only people who witnessed what Burke was doing and alerted people in the first place also thinks the beating was innapropriate, despite the fact that it was her daughter that was being "potentially molested" by Burke.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/092206dnmetmagazine.28c0630.html
Quote
Ms. Williams said she appreciates her neighbors' help, but no one should have beaten Mr. Burke.
"I wish they would just hold him," Ms. Williams said. "I'm glad someone was there to stop him, but I'd rather police handle the justice."
"I wish they would just hold him," Ms. Williams said. "I'm glad someone was there to stop him, but I'd rather police handle the justice."
Post by: Strings on September 26, 2006, 09:35:57 PM
>If the cops had caught this guy first , what would have happened? probably not much.<
By experience (a BACA case), roughly three months. A lot would depend on how many counts they nailed the guy with...
Post by: gunsmith on September 26, 2006, 09:45:02 PM
When I was about 10 a large adult male hit me (with a chain) and dragged
me down the block because I sat on his car.
(in NYC people sit on cars,usually no biggie).
The neighborhood teens beat the crap out of him.
I learned that some of my neighbors will not
sit idly by while some 200 lb skell
beats the crap out of 70 lb child.
I think it's better for a kid to watch a child harmer get swift retribution
then it is to see an unfortunate crack ho pose for crack ho mag.
Post by: HForrest on September 26, 2006, 11:57:48 PM
Quote
Sad thing is, in some places the cops & politicians would spend more time tracking down and prosecuting the members of the "mob" who administered the attitude adjustment to the perv, than they would prosecuting the perv in the first place.
Yes, because Assault is a serious crime.
Post by: HankB on September 27, 2006, 03:30:01 AM
Quote
Furthermore, the beating certainly didnt stop him, a woman yelling was sufficient for that.
You forgot the qualifying words: this time. While there are no guarantees, the relatively mild beating the perp received certainly seems as if it would provide more negative reinforcement than a woman yelling. Quote
Yes, because Assault is a serious crime.
Fortunately, defense of a child is not. At least, not yet.
Post by: HForrest on September 27, 2006, 09:58:22 AM
Quote from: fistful
Fortunately, defense of a child is not. At least, not yet.
How can an angry mob beating this guy up be classified as "Defending a child"? If you're a police officer, you can't just beat the crap out of someone to your heart's content- same thing for normal people. If they would have simply restrained him, it would have been one thing. They continued assaulting him.
Post by: Perd Hapley on September 27, 2006, 10:16:01 AM
It was the suspect who claimed to be hit in the face repeatedly by 15 people. Judging by the mug-shot, that seems exagerrated. The perp was detained, and by people who had nothing to gain by doing so. God bless them.
If the perv was slapped around some in the process, that is to be expected. Maybe it ain't perfect, but this was an unorganized group of amateurs. Given that, they did a good job, and a few knuckle-sandwiches are a hill just made for internet idealists to die on. There's not always a bright line between hitting someone and restraining them. And maybe they hit him a wee bit more than they had to. He's a big boy, he'll get over it. Can't say the same for a kid who gets targeted by slimy people like him.
Post by: Zed on September 28, 2006, 04:34:50 PM
Quote
About a dozen residents of a Dallas neighborhood beat a man after reports that he had been showing pornographic pictures to children on a playground, police said.
slimeball deserved worse if you ask me.