The Danger of Settlements

by Tech49 182 Replies latest jw friends

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    JW tries to reform "these" people which is a lot more than a lot of people do.

    How ? by forcibly shunning (Dfiing) as a penalty or by doing nothing by at all by virtue of the person not admitting to the crime and that has happened many times, only to have the perpetrator flee somewhere else where they once again go on to attack other children.

    Again the reason law authorities are aware of the possibility of the person re-offending is taken into consideration.

    Sorry Fisherman but once again your justifiably awarded the head up your ass label.

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver

    dubstepped and Finkerstein:

    You have proven one of the issues with these types of debates. You believe that anyone who doesn't agree with you are trying to protect pedophiles or have their heads up their butts. This is a complex issue that requires investigation from all sides. And it is not just you but a lot of people on this forum and just in general. They feel that if you are not vehemently arguing for harsher laws on child abuse cases then you are just protecting pedophiles. You have states that want to either extend or eliminate the statute of limitations on child sexual abuse. According to the proponents of those measures it is all upsides, but as experts have pointed out there are number of downsides too. Witnesses forget or die, evidence gets lost or contaminated, victims get confused just to name a few. Are those experts who oppose extending the statute of limitations are they trying to protect pedophiles? No, they are trying to preserve justice. I know that very few if anyone here would think that Watchtower is trying to do the same. But it is that just because someone doesn't agree with you on this doesn't mean they are trying to protect pedophiles, they are just looking at it from different angles than you.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman
    Yet those bastards know the kids are likely being raped and do nothing. dubstepped

    What kids are likely being raped? And who knows about it?

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman
    I hope the things you protect with glee are never visited upon your family. dubstepped

    What are you saying dubstepped? What am I protecting with glee?

    You have never met me and you do not know who I am. How then are you saying that I am protecting anybody? That is a blatant lie!

    You have said a lot of things on this thread. All I that have done in our discussion is to ask you questions about the things that you have said.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman
    I could go into experiences of kids that I grew up with that were molested with impunity in the organization.

    That is a law enforcement matter. Have you reported it?

  • Finkelstein
    Finkelstein

    I wonder if its because people who are avowed toward their own appealing self righteous that creates their own apathy toward others from a human sociological perspective ?

    Perhaps they are more prone to care less since they are accepted born sinners and they themselves are assuming their own redemption of their sins by their accepted faith. ???

    The best way for mankind to understand and control human behavior is through god and his spoken word the bible.

    Isn't that right Fisherman ?

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    Fin, this thread is about Court settlements.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman
    How ? by forcibly shunning (Dfiing) as a...

    Fin, I never said anything about wt methods being good or bad. Ibonly said that they try.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    JW defenders like Fisherman

    Dubstepped, facts are what they are, for example, when a Court decides that Wt has no duty to protect or warn its members, is the court a wt advocate?

    Richard Oliver posted a Court decision on another thread showing that a minister broke the law and caused damages to a child abuser when the minister disclosed the child abuser's communications to the police -was that court defending the wt?

    When US law protects confidential communications of a child abuser or another criminal, is the law defending the watchtower?

    Dubstepped, suppose a child abuser came to you, and for some reason he believed that you were a minister because you pretended to be one; he only believed that you were a minister, that's it, but you were nothing of the sort. And he confessed to you that he committed child abuse. You'd better get a lawyer and ask him what you are required to do legally because under US law that communication could be protected from disclosure. Lets say you felt a moral duty to go to the police without getting counsel from an attorney and you reported what you heard from him to competent authorities. Lets say they arrest the man or they don't find enough evidence to charge him with a crime and nothing happens to him or the case goes to trial and he is found either guilty or not guilty. Suppose he is found not guilty and he challenges you, you have a big problem if he takes you to Court. Suppose he is found guilty at the trial? He can still sue you for disclosing the protected conversation he had with you and you may find yourself looking at a verdict requiring you to pay damages to him -and you broke the law. And may have avoided the mess by asking a lawyer versus your morality which may be against the law.

    You are very adamant about your noble morality but if you break the law imposing your morality on others or encroach on the rights of others because they defend the watchtower or they practice gay sex or something that you feel is not moral, should you not be punished? Or should you be allowed to go around breaking laws because you feel it is a noble thing when you harm the watchtower, its advocates or its adherents? ( I am not accussing you of doing this) -It happens at the trial dubsttepped.

  • Richard Oliver
    Richard Oliver

    Fisherman:

    Just to be clear. In most states you cannot be held liable if you in good faith report it. Now not all states give this as a release from liability but the vast majority of states. But it does have to be in good faith. The privilege would prevent the information from being used in trial, and depending on the court and circumstances any information derived from that privilege conversation can also be inadmissible.

Share with others