More Of The Same (RC Church Cover-Up)

[Sean]

Man acquitted of assaulting abuse priest

A US jury has acquitted a man who beat up a priest he says molested him more than three decades ago.
WILLIAM Lynch acknowledged punching Jerold Lindner several times in 2010 at a retirement home, but he pleaded not guilty.
He said the abuse had left him with tormented memories that led to alcohol abuse and depression.
Lynch said he hoped to use the case to publicly shame Lindner and to highlight abuse in the Catholic Church.
Lynch, who faced up to four years in jail, said the verdict surprised him.
"I honestly thought I was going to jail," he said.
He said he had regrets about resorting to violence.
"I was wrong for what I did," he said. "I wanted to bring attention to the cause."
Jurors acquitted him of felony assault and elder abuse. Lindner was 65 at the time of the beating. The jury deadlocked 8-4 on a lesser charge of misdemeanour assault.
Prosecutors must decide whether to drop the misdemeanour charge.
"This is a major victory," said Paul Mones, one of Lynch's two lawyers. He said it was remarkable because Lynch told the jury he punched the priest several times.
Prosecutors called Lynch a vigilante and implored the jury not to be swayed by his dramatic testimony.
Jurors told the San Francisco Chronicle newspaper that none wanted to convict Lynch after hearing his testimony about the alleged abuse. The jurors asked to remain anonymous.
Lynch had refused to discuss a plea bargain with prosecutors, even when he was promised he could avoid prison.
Santa Clara County prosecutor Vicki Gemetti conceded that Lynch was molested, but she insisted that even the most unsavoury of victims - drug dealers, wife beaters, child molesters - deserved equal protection under the law.
In a deposition in the late 1990s, Lindner said he did not recall Lynch, who received $625,000 in a 1998 confidential settlement with the Jesuits after alleging the abuse.

Story

Good on him!

[Sue U]

Good on him!

No, it's not. First, even though Lynch was assaulted, he does not have the right to inflict bodily harm in return more than 30 years later; we do not live in an eye-for-an-eye society, and he was not in any immediate danger of any kind. Moreover, he had already received compensation for the abuse he had suffered; that should have ended the matter as to his personal claims. There was simply no legitimate justification for resorting to physical violence. If we permit people to assault one another simply because they have been wronged, then civilization as we know it is at an end.

[Sean]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one Sue. If there is a hell there is a special place in it reserved for this priest and his ilk. He deserves everything he gets!

Secondly, I'm willing to bet that Lynch got a lot more pleasure from those few punches than he got from the money. I think I would do exactly the same thing in his position. That is why I cannot fault his actions.

[Sue U]

If there is a hell there is a special place in it reserved for this priest and his ilk. He deserves everything he gets!

That may be, but it is not your place (nor Lynch's) to give it to him. You cannot have a functioning society based on revenge. The old saw that we are "a government of laws, not of men" was never more apt.

Secondly, I'm willing to bet that Lynch got a lot more pleasure from those few punches than he got from the money. I think I would do exactly the same thing in his position. That is why I cannot fault his actions.

The "pleasure" of exacting revenge is precisely what a civilized society seeks to avoid by settling civil claims for money damages. We have institutions and social structures to deal with wrongful acts and victim compensation so that we do not descend to the law of the jungle. While it is understandable to sympathize with Lynch, even he recognized that his assault was not justified. We do not give people a free pass for barbarism simply because they were once victims.

[dales]

This has been BIG new around these parts.

http://www.mercurynews.com/lynch/ci_210 ... rynews.com

In a triumph for victims of clergy sex abuse nationwide, a Santa Clara County jury on Thursday acquitted a San Francisco man of felony assault and elder abuse for beating up the cleric he says brutally raped him as a child decades ago.

Reflecting the powerful emotions that Will Lynch provoked throughout the nationally watched, three-week proceeding, the jury also failed to convict him of the lesser charges, even though Lynch admitted on the stand that he pummeled the Rev. Jerold Lindner two years ago at a Jesuit retirement center in Los Gatos. The panel acquitted him of misdemeanor elder abuse. On the charge of misdemeanor assault, four jurors refused to agree that Lynch was guilty, leading to a mistrial on that count.

The verdict thrilled Lynch's many supporters, who faithfully packed the San Jose courtroom during the three-week trial and picketed outside bearing signs that read, "Jail Father Jerry," "Sacred Heart Jesuit Center: Pedophile Playground" and "Help Free Willy."

And it seemed to bring Lynch a strong measure of redemption at the conclusion of his high-risk legal strategy. Lynch had set out to bring Lindner to the judgment he never received because a short legal statute of limitations prevented the priest's prosecution. In the end, Lindner's actions became as much the focus of the trial as Lynch's attack.

"I was wrong for doing what I did -- in doing that I perpetuated the cycle of violence," Lynch said outside the
courtroom. "But if there is anything I want people (who have been molested) to take away from this -- it is you can come forward, you can seek justice and you can find justice in many forms."<snip>

[dgs49]

Reading through several websites' commentaries on this guy (Lindner), he seems to have been a monster, but to attack him like this after accepting a cash settlement is NFG.

I wonder if a judgment N.O.V. was an option? Clearly the guy was guilty of the charges.

[Andrew D]

You can't have a JNOV of conviction after a jury acquittal.

[Sean]

If there is a hell there is a special place in it reserved for this priest and his ilk. He deserves everything he gets!

That may be, but it is not your place (nor Lynch's) to give it to him. You cannot have a functioning society based on revenge. The old saw that we are "a government of laws, not of men" was never more apt.

Secondly, I'm willing to bet that Lynch got a lot more pleasure from those few punches than he got from the money. I think I would do exactly the same thing in his position. That is why I cannot fault his actions.

The "pleasure" of exacting revenge is precisely what a civilized society seeks to avoid by settling civil claims for money damages. We have institutions and social structures to deal with wrongful acts and victim compensation so that we do not descend to the law of the jungle. While it is understandable to sympathize with Lynch, even he recognized that his assault was not justified. We do not give people a free pass for barbarism simply because they were once victims.

Like I said Sue, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't believe that there is a person here who can 100% guarantee that they wouldn't have acted the same way in the same circumstances. I'm sure that there are plenty who like to think that they would definitely take the moral high ground but I don't believe for a second that they can guarantee it.

Everybody has their tipping point. Some just haven't found it yet.

[Gob]

I'd like to think there are some here who, like me, in the same circumstance, would have beaten the holy shit out of the guy.

[Sue U]

Like I said Sue, we will have to agree to disagree on this one. I don't believe that there is a person here who can 100% guarantee that they wouldn't have acted the same way in the same circumstances. I'm sure that there are plenty who like to think that they would definitely take the moral high ground but I don't believe for a second that they can guarantee it.

Everybody has their tipping point. Some just haven't found it yet.

I'd like to think there are some here who, like me, in the same circumstance, would have beaten the holy shit out of the guy.

See, this is why we can't have nice things.

[rubato]

When I get right down to the pointy end of this kind of thing ... I agree with both.

1.
If someone did something horrible to my sweetie I really might hunt his ass down and kill him. But ..

2.
When I was hauled into the dock for doing so I think I would tell the jury they have to convict me for it and send me to pokey. The bargain we make when entering into civil society is that we give up the right of private vengeance in exchange for justice. If we don't make that deal then we have nothing.

yrs,
rubato

[RayThom]

"... The bargain we make when entering into civil society is that we give up the right of private vengeance in exchange for justice. If we don't make that deal then we have nothing."

This reminds me of the "New Yorker" magazine cartoon that has a lawyer counseling his client, (and in the voice of 'Captain' in "Cool Hand Luke") "You have a very good case, Mr. Smith. Now, how much justice can you afford?" Proving guilt or innocence -- the essence of justice -- often lies in the size of the defendant's bank account and/or face time for the defense. How many truly innocent "schlubs" contribute to prison overcrowding, yet the truly guilty guy in the Armani suit goes home for dinner with the wife and kids?

Yep, for the sake of civility this is the bargain we make with "the system" in the hope that justice will be served. Yet too often it isn't. I understand Gob's posit, "I'd like to think there are some here who, like me, in the same circumstance, would have beaten the holy shit out of the guy." Under certain, or extreme, circumstances I feel that some degree of "payback" is not only necessary but a fair conclusion to a miscarriage of justice.

I saith, vengeance is mine; I will repay.

[dgs49]

Regardless of their joint history, what kind of a person would attack and beat an old man whom he knows will not fight back or try to defend himself?

Pretty pathetic.

[Scooter]

Does punching an old man who can't defend himself come anywhere close to raping a child who can't defend himself? I don't condone vigilantism in any form, but as revenge goes, this was pretty mild in comparison to the act that gave rise to it.

[dgs49]

There are times when I can accept vigilante justice. In some cases of vandalism, for example.

But this ain't vigilante justice. This is some pathetic asshole getting his rocks off by beating up an old man who he knows WILL NOT FIGHT BACK.

I know of no ethical or moral tradition (if you exclude Islam, which may be neither) that would condone this sort of revenge, particularly after the passage of so much time. His conduct is indefensible, regardless of what was done to him. At some point you have to move on.

[Scooter]

Nothing condones it, that's why it's called revenge and not justice. But once again your priorities demonstrate where your sympathies lie, when you show more outrage at a few punches thrown at a grown man than at the RAPE of a BOY.

[Andrew D]

Lindner, who was a teacher at my Jesuit high school is a long-time serial sexual predator. And the Jesuits repeatedly let him go back to teaching.

[dales]

Here's where the child rapist now lives:



The old bugger should be spending time in CSP Corcoran!

[Gob]

US Roman Catholic Monsignor William Lynn has been sentenced to three to six years in jail for covering up a sex abuse complaint against a priest.

Lynn supervised hundreds of priests in his role as secretary for clergy at the Archdiocese of Philadelphia.

Last month he became the most senior clergyman convicted in connection to the US Roman Catholic Church scandal.

Judge M Teresa Sarmina said Lynn enabled "monsters in clerical garb... to destroy the souls of children".

"You knew full well what was right, Monsignor Lynn, but you chose wrong," the judge said.

[RayThom]

Hanc ígitur oblatiónem servitútis nostræ, sed et cunctæ famíliæ tuæ, quæsumus Dómine, ut placátus accípias, diésque nostros in tua pace dispónas, atque ab ætérna damnatióne nos éripi, et in electórum tuórum júbeas grege numerári. (Jungit manus.) Per Christum Dóminum nostrum. Amen.

Quam oblatiónem tu, Deus, in ómnibus, quæsumus.

da propítius pacem in diébus nostris: ut ope misericórdiæ tuæ adjúti, et a peccáto simus semper líberi, et ab omni perturbatióne secúri.