I’d like to see any that can *honestly *be described as such. But you can’t expect that from him, sadly.
Is it just liberals who don’t like child rapists? :dubious:
And the Devil was sitting around one day, then snapped his talons and said:
“I know what I should do! I’ll invent a profession that specializes in excruciatingly precise analysis as a means of defining a heinous action as being, technically, innocent! What a great idea!..”
Let’s just hope he has a “My God, what have I become?” moment, and soon.
I think that can be assumed as a given anywhere in Rome.
No, actually you posted a cite that said specifically
Perhaps I am being rash, but I assume you know the meaning of the word “any”. As in “not only is ElvisL1ves a liar, there isn’t any syphilitic crocodile he won’t fellate”.
Regards,
Shodan
Higher than you can count. So, let’s say 11.
Yes. More specifically, they serve as a useful proxy for what liberals in general believe. The board trends liberal; the liberals here proudly assert they’re la creme de la creme, so sure.
Well, every time an effort is made to reduce that ignorance, the liberals resist strongly, fighting back with vicious attacks and insinuations that the effort to clarify what the law is is in reality a cover for defense of pedophilia. So even if it is ignorance, blame for that ignorance is fairly imputed to the liberals.
Yes.
And you left off the part that qualified it as referring only to mandated-reporter laws.
You’re a sad, sick little person.
Interesting, but you both seem to have ignored the fact that Law moved priests around knowing they would reoffend. At some point that behavior crosses over from “protecting the Church” to assisting felons.
No, we didn’t ignore that fact:
What specific crime are you contending applied?
Wouldn’t criminal facilitation apply?
This is for New York, but I imaging other states have similar laws.
So you don’t know what “any” means? OK, then let me rephrase -
ElvisL1ves will only fellate syphlitic crocodiles.
Regards,
Shodan
To put it in terms you understand:
Shut up, you fucking troll.
Derision,
ElvisL1ves
That’s why we discussed Massachusetts law in particular.
Pages 21 and 22 (warning: PDF) might be of some help here.
It doesn’t explain why accessory before the fact doesn’t apply. MA Gen. Laws, Title I, Ch. 274, §2:
It’s my understanding that Law moved individual priests who had molested children several times. After the first offense (and surely after the second) his conduct was knowing, or at least reckless.
Knowing isn’t enough in Massachusetts, as the PDF report I linked to explained.
See Commonwealth v. Perry, 256 NE 2d 745 (Mass 1970):
Knowing isn’t all he did, now is it? :dubious:
Care to spend any time digging into those law books and finding a way to help out those that have been molested?
The problem is this line
It’s going to be very difficult to prove that the person moving the priests around believed he was rendering aid to someone who intended to commit a crime rather than that he was naive or relying on professional advice or simply believed the priest’s assurance that it would not happen again. Simply failing to put barriers in the way of someone committing a crime is not enough to constitute criminal facilitation.
The Massachusetts Attorney general spent considerable time, effort, and energy examining the criminal law of Massachusetts in effect at the relevant times. His office concluded, correctly, that there was no criminal law that could correctly be brought to bear against Bernard Law.
Your question suggests that there’s a criminal law somewhere, hidden in fine print in a little-used, obscure volume, and if only diligent effort were applied to find it, magically we could charge Bernard Law with a crime!
Earlier, Lobohan asked if this kind of mindset was limited to liberals, and if it arose from ignorance. I averred that liberals were the principal offenders and that, even if it was ignorance, that ignorance in turn arose from determined liberal effort.
And that’s just the kind of effort you’re exerting now.
Why ask me to “dig into law books?” Why don’t you invent a time machine, or lobby for the repeal of the Ex Post Facto clause? The principal barriers to convicting Law of a crime are:
(1) He did some bad shit
(2) That wasn’t a crime when he did it
(3) Or it was, but when it came to light the statute of limitations had expired
No amount of digging will change that. Now, on the other hand, if you get off your lazy ass and invent a time machine, we can nail the bastard. Or if you can get that pesky Ex Post Facto clause erased from the Constitution, we can nail the bastard.
Law actively reassigned priests, on multiple occasions. That isn’t just failing to stop them.