Half naked priest chases abuse victim

MagicSean

http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2012/08/police_woodburn_priest_chased.html

It was close to midnight Sunday when Woodburn resident James Curths saw the 12-year-old boy running down the street toward him.

a man rounded the corner wearing only underwear. He stood a short distance away, trying to wave the boy over

The man who chased after the boy that night, Woodburn police say, was the Rev. Angel Armando Perez, the parish priest

At this stage I would think abuse within the church would be very much reduced. At the very least I would expect offenders to be keeping a low profile.

I certainly wouldn't expect a priest to chase his victim down the street in his underwear. It's like something from South Park.

Mr Benevolent

He was more than half naked.

mathie

Confab wrote: »

He was more than half naked.

87% naked work better for you?

Father Damo

NUDIE FATHER JACK!

Is it not disturbing that people are making jokes about a young child seemingly getting molested? After Hours really worries me sometimes.

Table Top Joe

What the f***?......sad thing is if it was Ireland it happened in back in the day the couple probably would have given the child back to him

later12

The Priest appears to be blaming alcohol, something that rapists also tend to claim as a mitigating factor in their crimes.

I'm sorry, but it is not the normal reaction to alcoholic intoxication to go and commit sexual abuse on a 12 year old. Neither is it to rape. If you're doing that, there's something far more serious wrong with you. Not sure if that acceptance is at all conveyed in the Priest's reported remarks.

Defiler Of The Coffin

At least he wasn't bollock naked

up for anything

Sickening. :mad:

I can't believe though that there is any parent who allows a defencless child to sleep over or go away with anyone that they don't know inside out especially a bloody member of any clergy. It's taking naivety a step too far. :rolleyes:

mikemac1

up for anything wrote: »

I can't believe though that there is any parent who allows a defencless child to sleep over or go away with anyone that they don't know inside out especially a bloody member of any clergy. It's taking naivety a step too far. :rolleyes:

And yet most abuse is done by family members

Madam_X

later12 wrote: »

The Priest appears to be blaming alcohol, something that rapists also tend to claim as a mitigating factor in their crimes.

I'm sorry, but it is not the normal reaction to alcoholic intoxication to go and commit sexual abuse on a 12 year old. Neither is it to rape.

Cholesterol medication on the other hand though...

up for anything

mikemac1 wrote: »

And yet most abuse is done by family members

That's as may be but why on earth give an outsider an even chance!

Ash.J.Williams

mikemac1 wrote: »

And yet most abuse is done by family members

that old chestnut

mikemac1

A chesnut but is it incorrect?

ringadingding

It's a Shame he was running through the wrong estate, I know many estates the pervy cûnt wouldn't get bank out with his balls attached to his body

Diapason

mikemac1 wrote: »

A chesnut but is it incorrect?

Is it relevant?

So, most abuse is done by family members, I'm with you so far, but that doesn't mean I'd be happy to leave my 12 year-old kid with a priest or any other randomer for the weekend.

I assume you're not suggesting that because most abuse is done by family members, you're grand to let your kids spend a weekend with anyone who isn't a family member. Of course you're not saying that, because that would be stupid. So again, how is it relevant?

mikemac1

It's relevent when you think you know your family members inside out but do you realy?

anyone that they don't know inside out

later12

up for anything wrote: »

Sickening. :mad:

I can't believe though that there is any parent who allows a defencless child to sleep over or go away with anyone that they don't know inside out especially a bloody member of any clergy. It's taking naivety a step too far. :rolleyes:

Really? As mikemac said, research shows that most abusers are people that the family know inside out. Now fair enough, that may be the product of careful parents keeping their children safe from strangers, but it shows that 'knowing someone inside out' - or thinking you do - is not necessarily going to protect your child.

I really dislike this fear of strangers that we instil in children. Personally I like kids and i get on well with them, and I find it a little sad that it's usually not appropriate to interact with them if you're a man and an adult. i don't think that level of suspicion is good for society, at all.

Zulu

later12 wrote: »

... that it's usually not appropriate to interact with them if you're a man.

To the point if I saw a little girl crying and lost, I'd engage an adult woman prior to approaching the girl.

What a sad society we've created.

Show Time

The faster the world is rid of these witch doctors the better.

Sick fcuks the lot of them.

Diapason

later12 wrote: »

I really dislike this fear of strangers that we instil in children. Personally I like kids and i get on well with them, and I find it a little sad that it's usually not appropriate to interact with them if you're a man and an adult. i don't think that level of suspicion is good for society, at all.

I don't know if we're that paranoid (yet), but I'd argue that it's "usually not appropriate" to invite 12 year-olds for sleepovers.

Madam_X

Show Time wrote: »

The faster the world is rid of these witch doctors the better.

Sick fcuks the lot of them.

All priests abuse?

MagicSean

Diapason wrote: »

I don't know if we're that paranoid (yet), but I'd argue that it's "usually not appropriate" to invite 12 year-olds for sleepovers.

I remember a story from a while back, think it was on Joe Duffy or something, about a fella who picked up a kid who had fallen off his bike only to have the mother come running out of the house screaming at him to leave her kid alone.

later12

Diapason wrote: »

I don't know if we're that paranoid (yet), but I'd argue that it's "usually not appropriate" to invite 12 year-olds for sleepovers.

Nobody is saying it is; that's a straw man.

All we're saying is that there is a misdirected sense of danger heaped on "strangers", and especially adult men, to the point where as Zulu said, even helpful interaction is something to be avoided. I wouldn't dream of coming to the aid of a lost child unless I had a woman with me either.

I've made small talk with kids whn I was more naive about this, and quickly realised that it made their parents uncomfortable in a way that I've not seen apply to women. I do think we're too paranoid, and I think attitudes like the one you expressed originally are a major cause of that.

Father Damo

Zulu wrote: »

To the point if I saw a little girl crying and lost, I'd engage an adult woman prior to approaching the girl.

What a sad society we've created.

Would you? What if it was in the dead of night?

While I would certainly take a 360 look around to double confirm they werent simply neither by out of view I would not have any issue with helping the kid. So what if some screaming idiot woman runs out? Tell her to go fcuk herself or you will ring social services to report her kid wandering around alone. Should put her in her place.

The "are you telling me how to raise my child" brigade need a kick in the gee. Yes, I am telling you how, you fcuking idiot.

Diapason

later12 wrote: »

Nobody is saying it is; that's a straw man.

Ah, that old chestnut.

later12 wrote: »

All we're saying is that there is a misdirected sense of danger heaped on "strangers", and especially adult men, to the point where as Zulu said, even helpful interaction is something to be avoided. I wouldn't dream of coming to the aid of a lost child unless I had a woman with me either.

I've made small talk with kids whn I was more naive about this, and quickly realised that it made their parents uncomfortable in a way that I've not seen apply to women. I do think we're too paranoid, and I think attitudes like the one you expressed originally are a major cause of that.

Well I haven't experienced this attitude, but I've heard media reports about it. Much like I've heard media reports about abuse, but have no experience of it in my own life. I think the fear of helping a lost child is about as baseless as the fear of abuse, tbh. So yes, I totally agree that the fear of abuse is way out of proportion to the reality, but so is the fear of being branded a paedophile, and none of this excuses a lack of common sense.

While you complain about a straw man, I still think the parents in the original article showed questionable judgement in allowing their 12 year-old son to accompany a priest on an overnight trip to the mountains. Now, I accept that I don't know all the facts, maybe they were misled, maybe they thought it was an organised event of some sort, but if somebody I knew only slightly asked to take my son on a one-and-one overnight stay, I'd have to question their motives.

Cienciano

later12 wrote: »

Personally I like kids and i get on well with them, and I find it a little sad that it's usually not appropriate to interact with them if you're a man and an adult. i don't think that level of suspicion is good for society, at all.

Seriously? Wouldn't bother me in the slightest.

starbelgrade

Deleted User wrote: »

Is it not disturbing that people are making jokes about a young child seemingly getting molested? After Hours really worries me sometimes.

It would be disturbing if people were actually making jokes about a child being molested, but they weren't.

But don't let that get in the way of expressing your sense of moral outrage.

Zulu

Father Damo wrote: »

Would you?

I would, and I have done.

What if it was in the dead of night?

A little girl, lost in the dead of night? Really? It doesn't make any difference though, my reaction would still be the same: I'd look to see if anyone else was about.

So what if some screaming idiot woman runs out? Tell her to go fcuk herself...

True, I'm sure the hard-man, no bull**** approach might work at least 1 time out of a hundred, but I tend to go for the easier, less confrontational approach to life. Especially if there's a scared child in the vicinity.

later12

Diapason wrote: »

Ah, that old chestnut.

What do you mean that old chestnut? You responded by arguing against "inviting twelves year olds over for sleepovers", which is a straw man because it's an absurd proposition which nobody actually made.

While you complain about a straw man, I still think the parents in the original article showed questionable judgement in allowing their 12 year-old son to accompany a priest on an overnight trip to the mountains. Now, I accept that I don't know all the facts, maybe they were misled, maybe they thought it was an organised event of some sort, but if somebody I knew only slightly asked to take my son on a one-and-one overnight stay, I'd have to question their motives.

Another straw man. Are you running some sort of cottage industry in these things?

Nobody's defending sending your kids away on 1-on-1 overnight trips with an adult they barely know. I'm not sure why you're assuming that the parents of this child and the Priest were not friends, can you explain why that is?

Diapason

later12 wrote: »

What do you mean that old chestnut? You responded by arguing against "inviting twelves year olds over for sleepovers", which is a straw man because it's an absurd proposition which nobody actually made.

Because "that old chestnut" (in reference to abuse by family members) was a phrase used upthread, and I thought using it again might add a touch of levity. Apparently I was mistaken. :eek:

The priest in this case invited the 12 year-old for a night away, that would seem to be a matter of fact. I attempted to make the point that, despite any stats about family members being more likely to abuse, and despite any overblown societal paranoia, a priest inviting a 12 year-old child out to the mountains for the night is potentially suspect. I would question the motivation of such a person no matter how well I knew them. I cheerfully accept that a huge proportion of the time there will not be a problem.

The point was made that society is now so paranoid that adult males can't interact in any way with kids without their behaviour seeming suspicious. I attempted to illustrate that in this case we're dealing with something quite different. I do not think it's paranoia to question the motives of somebody who invites a 12 year-old away for a night. It's hardly a straw man when we're talking about something that has happened in this very case.

I also think the level of fear of being branded a paedophile is far in excess of the level of risk, in much the same way that the fear of paedophiles is far in excess of the level of risk. I think it's absurd to complain about the society we've made for ourselves based on concerns about paedophilia, while also stating that you wouldn't come to a child in need because of concerns about accusations of paedophilia. (By "you" here I don't mean you, later12, I mean it in the general sense.)

later12 wrote: »

Nobody's defending sending your kids away on 1-on-1 overnight trips with an adult they barely know. I'm not sure why you're assuming that the parents of this child and the Priest were not friends, can you explain why that is?

You're right, I shouldn't have assumed that they didn't know the priest that well. I didn't get the impression from the article that he was anything other than the local priest as far as the family were concerned, but since there's nothing even remotely explicit on this point, I shouldn't make this assumption.

Now, how many straw men do you need, because I've a cottage full of them?
^^^
(levity attempt 2.)

Ash.J.Williams

mikemac1 wrote: »

A chesnut but is it incorrect?

The church had historically forced abusive families to stay together, and still does to a lesser extent. So I would say the church has had a "part" in family abuse also.

CrazyRabbit

Madam_X wrote: »

All priests abuse?

In a sense. Pervert priests abuse the body. The rest abuse the mind by filling it with superstitious nonsense.

Zulu

Not all priests preach. Your flippant point is flawed, but not only for that incorrect assumption.

joseph brand

later12 wrote: »

Really? As mikemac said, research shows that most abusers are people that the family know inside out. Now fair enough, that may be the product of careful parents keeping their children safe from strangers, but it shows that 'knowing someone inside out' - or thinking you do - is not necessarily going to protect your child.

I really dislike this fear of strangers that we instil in children. Personally I like kids and i get on well with them, and I find it a little sad that it's usually not appropriate to interact with them if you're a man and an adult. i don't think that level of suspicion is good for society, at all.

Bill Burr is terrified of kids.

Knight who says Meh

mikemac1 wrote: »

And yet most abuse is done by family members

And The Leader of The Family Members Organisation who wield lots of power and even control the majority of schools is involved in the cover up....
Oh wait......

Sonics2k

I like how some people here are so willing to pretend it's perfectly fine for a Priest to have a sleepover with a 12 year old child, but if it was any other grown man they'd be saying very different things.

Wasn't Michael Jackson accused of the same, and yet millions of people were willing call him a paedo?

This Priest invites a 12 year old to a sleepover, get's drunk and then chases the child around, and we're supposed to pretend it's all okay because he happens to be a Priest.

How daft.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Father Damo wrote: »

NUDIE FATHER JACK!

Nudie Fathe Damo...?

Zulu

Sonics2k wrote: »

I like how some people here are so willing to pretend it's perfectly fine for a Priest to have a sleepover with a 12 year old child,...

I like how some people here are so willing to pretend it's perfectly fine to make-up wild, inaccurate, disingenuous, straw-man positions for other posters. :rolleyes:

later12

Sonics2k wrote: »

This Priest invites a 12 year old to a sleepover, get's drunk and then chases the child around, and we're supposed to pretend it's all okay because he happens to be a Priest.

Nobody said that.

You're assuming, as another poster seemed to earlier, that the only relationship between the parents and the priest was entirely vocational. I don't see any reason for believing that to be the case, you're assuming they weren't friends.

You're also choosing to frame it as a 'sleepover' when a kid staying over at a friend of the family's house before embarking on a trip wouldn't automatically strike me as odd.