It was passed in response to his behavior. However, other states did have similar laws on the books at the time, and Law may have reassigned some priests to those states.
I’m happy to respond to questions that don’t make me doubt the asker’s mental health. Basically that means that if you have to wipe the spittle off your screen after typing the question, then I don’t think I’ll respond. If you want to take a deep breath and try again, then go ahead. Maybe keep the accusations of baby-lynching to yourself this time?
Multiple states? That would make it Federal maybe? Different statute of limitations?
I must have asked about 15 times what specific law you think he’s broken, and you (still) refuse to answer, just saying there must be one somewhere.
Even assuming there’s laws like the Mass. one elsewhere, what makes you think his conduct was wanton or reckless? Those aren’t idle words in the law, they are elements of the crime that must be proven. You can’t simply ignore them, and say that, because a priest he moved continued to abuse, he is obviously guilty of child endangerment.
Law had no authority to assign a priest anywhere except Massachusetts – he was the bishop in charge of the archdiocese of Boston, which does not extend beyond Massachusetts.
What priests did you believe Law assigned outside Massachusetts, and to what states?
And what were the laws in those states that you contend were broken?
What federal law, if any, do you contend was broken?
What laws did he break, then? Specifically?
Actually, I answered you, repeatedly. Perhaps the spittle on your monitor hid my posts?
Here, I’ll tell you again: CHILD ENDANGERMENT LAWS! Did you get it that time?
As to whether or not his conduct broke those laws, let me tell you what I think: I think that is for the prosecutor and/or jury in those states to determine, not you.
Are we done?
Well, he asssigned Chambers to Missouri. Cite.
Your quoted posts are the cite. You obviously want him punished, so you’re fabricating the existence of laws he broke. Therefore: you want him punished by the law even if he didn’t break a law.
Yes, he did.
But when did he do that?
From your own cite:
So, yes, Law assigned a priest to a parish in Missouri . . . in 1981, when Law was not yet the Archbishop of Boston, but rather Bishop of the Diocese of Springfield–Cape Girardeau.
Is that what you meant?
Are you saying that this act was illegal?
So we’re all agreed on tar and feathers then?
So, as I’ve asked several times, what laws are they? Someone’s just linked to the law that Law inspired, so it shouldn’t be too hard for you to similarly link to the ones in force at the time that you think he broke.
So, please link me to where any such prosecutor or jury has done so. Else I’ll continue to assume that no such prosecutor or jury considers that he has broken the laws. As should you, what with presumption of innocence and all.
No, not really. What specific law or laws do you think he’s broken, and what evidence has lead you to conclude he did so?
Just repeating “won’t somebody think of the children”, almost literally, isn’t helping your cause here.
It’s clear you think there should be a law against what he did. I’m inclined to agree, and there’s been a subsequent law passed that he may well have broken, but that’s not relevant. I don’t think anyone believes that he acted properly. But that doesn’t mean he should be punished, if there’s no law or rule he broke.
And until someone cites a relevant law, and evidence that he broke it, I’m going to assume that he didn’t. This isn’t some new, minor case. It’s something that’s been a big deal for decades, so if he actually did, it shouldn’t be too hard to find what it is. And yet, nothing…
That’s not at all what I’m saying, and I think you comprehend English well enough to know that. I’ll give you a “I know you’re better than this” on this one, but you should know that eventually “I know you’re better than this” becomes “that’s about what I expected from you”.
For the slow crowd (that means you, Bricker): I think if Law broke a law then he should be aggressively prosecuted. And yes, that means examining what he did in close detail to see if a law was broken at any point. If he didn’t break a law, then the laws need to be re-written to make what he did a crime. (And for the **very **slow crowd (that means you Steophan), I know we can’t make laws retroactive.)
So you want me to google for you? Fine: Missouri child endangerment laws:
Now, did the worthless piece of shit actually break that law? I don’t fucking know. I’ll let the prosecutor make that decision.
Assume whatever the fuck you want, dude. But remember, if you assume that then you are literally exactly the same as the Nazis who killed all those jews!!!
Sorry, ignore that, I went full **Steophan **for a second there.
That he’s not been charged in over 30 years means that the prosecutor has already made that decision, you fucking idiot. You’re not leaving it to him, you’re claiming he’s wrong, and refusing to give any reason why…
Probably because that law says nothing about putting a child in a position where they may be sexually abused, but specifically refers to physical harm or health. Which looks like a shitty law, but one that the other shitty Law doesn’t appear to have broken.
Learn to read, fucktard.
OK, taking you at your word, have you in fact identified any criminal law from your close, detailed examination that Law violated?
That law was passed in 1990.
Law’s conduct occurred in 1981.
I thought you said you understood that the criminal law cannot be applied retroactively.
See, here’s the problem I have with your claim that you don’t want Law prosecuted unless he broke a law: you keep coming up with fatally flawed schemes, like suggesting that a law passed in 1990 can apply to conduct in 1981.
Your conduct suggests you’d be thrilled to see him prosecuted for that, and that you don’t much care the law wasn’t in effect at the time the act occurred.
Also: Missouri law (MRS 556.036) provides a five-year statute of limitations. Conduct from 1981 could not have been prosecuted after 1986.
Are you interested in complying with that restriction, or should Law be prosecuted in violation of it, also?
Doesn’t his post answer that to your satisfaction?
It really seems like your pathetic need to defend the Roman branch of Nambla you give money to every week, is clouding your perceptions.
C’mon, this is unfair characterization.
He has stated upthread that Law acted immorally. He is stating here only the immoral acts were either a) not against a specific law in the State where is was committed, or b) passed the statute of limitations.
As for a), the State of Massachusetts has corrected their error. What Law did would be illegal today but was NOT illegal then. It sucks that Law can never be prosecuted for his heinous acts, but it is logical and correct. What am I missing?
No.
Because when the issue is crystal clear, saying “I don’t know,” is simply a way of continuing to assert a false claim without taking responsibility for it.
Why doesn’t he know? Is there something mysterious about the fact that 1981 is before 1990? Or that Missouri’s statute of limitations exists?
Birthers, I’m sure, would use similar tactics. “I’m not saying for sure he was born in Kenya. I’m just saying we haven’t seen the long-form birth certificate, so I don’t know.”
I assume your reaction to that tactic, if used by a birther, would not be welcoming.