[proxy_user]

You are wrong, I do not say that.

I am just giving you the line the defense would take, and analyzing the harm it would do to all. That is how the world works.

[MOgirl]

Your post:

Posted by proxy_user to MOgirl
On News/Activism 10/06/2007 12:22:52 PM PDT · 9 of 21

“The 14 year-old had a bicycle, a computer, a cell phone, and played video games. He would go out to eat at fast-food places with buddies his own age.

I am sure the first thing a defense lawyer would ask him was why he didn’t contact the police.

I am afraid his motives for doing what he did might not have been entirely creditable. Certainly, the defense would have gone for that angle.”

We all know that that the defense would have gone down that road. You can not back track on your words nor your view that this child had “ignoble motives”. But, you have the right to be who and what you are.

[StAnDeliver]

"What I do not get is that you have apparently decided that this child had any ability to make decisions for himself, after he was subjected to the most horrific torture. That is cold. May you never be judged as harshly as you judge this victim, a child."

"You are wrong, I do not say that."

"some things are better covered up...The 14 year-old had a bicycle, a computer, a cell phone, and played video games. He would go out to eat at fast-food places with buddies his own age...I am afraid his motives for doing what he did might not have been entirely creditable."