Gee, I’m concerned for the victims. I hope they catch that guy and put him in jail. Oh they did, excellent. I see no reason to do away with laws and resort to mob justice, then.
Here is a transcript of the show
Why even compromise the O’Reilly indoctrination by interacting with the most casual, googling, intellectually curious?
You’re a “Real Texan at heart, if not if fact,” aren’t you? You believe in “Frontier Justice,” don’t you? Y You don’t have two brain cells to rub together, do you?
Thank you, sir, for taking this courageous stand against child molestation. It’s a true mark of bravery.
In this day and age, it’s hard to find upstanding citizens such as yourself - those few, proud Americans willing to take a stand against the mustachioed gale of the namblish hordes.
I don’t think i’ve ever seen such a degree of willful misunderstanding (if that’s what it is) as has been exhibited by the OP.
I remind the OP that you asked for responses to the following specific questions:
My answers: 1. yes, in at least some but probably not all cases 2. a) according to what has been posted here, it appears proper legal procedure is being followed; b) My approval or disapproval does not affect the current legal process c) I do not know enough about the legal system in Wisconson to judge whether the whole appeals process should be overturned or modified on the basis of this one case. 3. I don’t see the difference.
If you wanted a referendum on concern for the victims of child molestation, you should have asked for one. Just in case you are wondering, I feel great concern for the victims of molestation.
If what you wanted to do was bait other posters for some obscure reason, I question your choice of forum.
Okay, I just read the partial transcript LostGoals (thanks!) linked. It really isn’t the way the OP put it. For one thing, O’Reilly queried the guest on his show & that guest is the one who neglected to mention certain things that have been brought to light in this very thread.
However, the guest did mention that he and some other legislators are proposing legislation to make a 25-year minimum sentencing law for child molestation.
The latest posts from the OP are strawmen of the weakest caliber and I also question the choice of forum as he or she is essentially insulting those of us who are–horror of horrors!–advocating the rule of law.
According to court documents, Coronado sexually assaulted one girl up to 30 times when she was between the ages of 5 and 10, the second girl 15 or more times when she was between 6 and 10, and assaulting a third girl once.
Roberto Coronado pleaded no contest. He said in court of his victims, “They were innocent and beautiful children and I failed them in the most basic way.”
So he’s a repulsive snake. What exactly is the debate? Is anyone arguing that he shouldn’t be fired or should go free? It isn’t clear to me that UW would have the legal recourse to keep his vacation pay, which is essentially money he’s already earned. They are trying to fire him, but there’s a process in place for such things that take time – the firer (the dept.) has to go through channels within the university which are there to PROTECT the taxpayers from lawsuits emerging over firing people without just cause. Putting someone on unpaid leave while that happens is absolutely a sensible solution.
I don’t know what the debate is here.
There’s no debate here. The first post, along with certain subsequent posts, are merely rants. This thread should be in the Pit, IMHO.
cricetus…Since you and so many others nobly state as long as due process and the law is followed, the University of Wisconsin has done the right thing.
I would like to remind you all that the legal system in the US is not fixed in stone or granitized. Laws and their interpretation are fluid. There are certain common sense situations that occur…Rapists…child molesters…murderers should be allowed due process but O’Reilly’s article seemed to have awakened the university officials to rethink their laws and interpretation of same.
My educated guess is that most of you are backers of the ACLU and its goals of upholding the laws to the extreme.
Instead a debate, our posts seem to immedediatly discount Bill O’Reilly and anything he states. I asked you all how you felt about the Mediical school’s professors’ situation and the actions that the U of W took. If it is still unclear to you what the debate was about then I yield to those of you with hubris who are critical thinkers unlike the author of the OP.
Absent your sarcastic tone, that’s correct. That’s the way it works. The University of Wisconsin is not a dictatorship nor is it an independent absolute monarchy. That state-run institution is required to follow the law. They are doing so.
Correct. But it is not what you apparently want: mob justice. Just because it’s not mobocracy does not mean it’s bad.
That’s actually irrelevant to the issue here. There’s no interpretation going on: the accused was tried and, owing to his plea of no contest, sentenced to prison and is now serving that sentence. His employer, the state of Wisconsin, is legally pursuing action to dismiss him from state employment.
Are you now saying that rapists, child molestors, and murderers should be allowed due process? If so, good.
O’Reilly’s segment did not awaken the university officials–it brought to light to a wider audience that the university officials are seeking to dismiss the imprisoned professor. Other posts in this thread have provided you actual citations that not only is the university seeking to dismiss him legally but also that certain legislators have introduced or are introducing legislation to change certain aspects of the university’s dismissal procedures.
That’s not educated. It’s not a guess. It’s a logical fallacy.
[qutoe]Instead a debate, our posts seem to immedediatly discount Bill O’Reilly and anything he states.
[/quote]
No. Some of us, not you, are actually debating. Some of us, not including you, are actually answering the questions asked. Some of us, not including you, are actually discussing the issue as it relates to lawful dismissal.
And then you promptly attacked us for our answers.
'Tis you displaying hubris. Again, you seem to have put your posts in the wrong forum.
Would a mod who happens across post #53 fix the coding. Thanks.
By the way, MadSam, are you familiar with the concept of plea agreements? It’s possible the professor was charged with certain crimes but, owing to his agreement to plead no contest, was sentenced for lesser crimes than originally charged. This very well could have been owing to the state not having sufficient evidence to sway a jury that the professor was guilty of the more serious crimes. In other words, the state may have entered into a plea agreement to get the same result as expected from a trial: conviction on a lesser offense.
I was aware of that, and I’m glad he’s going to jail and losing his job. (Despite his appeal, I can’t see the university going ahead and saying, “Oh. You’re right… Here’s your back salary.”) I realize I put things badly.
CJ
He is a criminal and is in jail. UW is taking the appropriate steps it needs to take to fire him.
For lynch mobs, you need the Pit.
TYM: And for polls of how folks feel, I believe it’s IMHO.
He was found guilty of all the original charges. None were reduced or dropped.
Wisconsin Circuit Court Access. Look up Roberto B. Coronado, then click on the case State of Wisconsin v. Roberto B. Coronado.
I appreciate that reference you’ve provided, Walloon. I noticed that the (soon to be former) professor is required to complete sex offender treatment, and that he’s also been ordered to ten years probation for one offense.
Looks to me like the court system is dealing with the man as the law provide. Looks to me like the university is dealing with the man as the law and personnel procedures provide.