Posted on 04/22/2005 11:19:32 AM PDT by halieus
OCALA, Fla. — A convicted sex offender apparently committed suicide in despair over signs posted in his neighborhood calling him a child rapist.
Clovis Claxton (search), 38, was found dead by his father with one of the signs beside his body. It was less than a day after his release from a psychiatric hospital.
His mother blames Marion County (search) Commissioner Randy Harris (search) for her son's death. Harris proposed putting up flyers in the neighborhoods of sex offenders to alert neighbors.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I understand your point about the glee over this man's death. However, I hope you understand why some people are doing it. It's the same reason people cheered Uday and Qusay's deaths.
<< I think many of us think that "B" was not high enough. >>
...and I might agree with you. I certainly do agree that, in most murder cases for instance, the penalty exacted is not morally sufficient.
But what then? Our courts exacted the price they set. Is it our place to hound the person until he commmits a second crime -- self-murder? Or are they advocating (as some here actually seem to be doing) that THEY will exact this penalty, by themselves committing the crime of murder?
Dan
Not at all. Her comment was that child safety supercedes the right to privacy. That safety, from the presence of a particular (freed) person within a neighborhood (call it a square mile?) is not an "exigent circumstance", but a general background concept. Since that danger would exist at all times, then the right to privacy is superceded at all times. The right to be free of searches without a warrant is based upon the right to privacy. Ergo, the warrant requirement is always superceded when there is a background issue of child safety, even if the (potential!) danger is a mile away.
Here's a clue for you Junior, and for a price you can afford-free. We are not rejoicing over the death of this pervert, but for the innocent lives that may be spared by his death.
No, silly, that's just my point... I'm trying to preserve OURS!!!
There are some good signs around. NAMBLA got busted big time under international law. Old pharts were traveling to a suburb of Mexico City to screw little boys. The US and Mexican governments waited until every link was established. Then the police forces of both countries made arrests at the same time in both countries. It was like clockwork.
Now put the coffee down and make a move on those drug gangs, guys!
Finally, an example to be followed...
You said to never let them out of prison (no matter the circumstances, I added). That's "no chance".
I didn't say or think that you were gloating -- but some clearly are. Read the initial posts in this thread.
No, I would not want such as a neighbor, the thought frightens me. I watch my kids like a hawk, and am worse than the worst "old lady" caricature when it comes to their safety.
But I have to believe Christ genuinely, really changes people (1 Corinthians 6:9-11. Can I morally totally reject someone God has accepted? Are my standards higher than His?
And my original set of questions still stand.
Dan
TChris please do not concern yourself with the details, he's guilty. He should burn at the stake and everyone here agree's. If you don't agree then maybe a good ole' fashioned stake burning is in your future as well. Witches are evil.
When I was in college (age 27-- I went late), I had a job fixing TVs with a local TV store. I spent some time fixing a TV in a customer's home and struck up a conversation with her daughter, who looked to be about 19-22. I got her phone number and asked if she wanted to go out sometime, and she said "sure."
When I called her, after we had talked for awhile, she let me know that she was 15 years old. FIFTEEN.
I told her that I had no idea she was so young and to have a nice day.
Misguided help you are giving by defending a pervert's right to privacy. What about the victim's rights?
Then please answer my questions.
Dan
Christ can genuinely change people but I would do well to keep my children away from the genuinely changed.
If the crime was really bad, you won't hear about it on the MSM. They know that will make the criminal look bad.
I wouldn't disagree with you. Me taking a risk is one thing; me risking my kids -- whole 'nother thing.
I still hope someone has some serious answers to my questions, though.
Dan
"It was the absolute glee that some folks here take in this man's death. Yes, his death was probably a good thing. However, one shouldn't be overjoyed at it."
Do you really think that people are "overjoyed?" Do you think they're really full of "glee?" Think about the meaning of those words. Or do you think that people are simply expressing some satisfaction that at least with this guy, we won't have to read about a new victim and wonder why it was allowed to happen?
I undestand why you're asking them but they're pretty simplistic compared to the crime.
All people have desires that, if enacted upon, would be evil. I know of few people who have not gotten angry enough to commit murder. I know of few people who have not been sexually attracted to someone that it would be unacceptable for them to have sex with. However, people CAN control their urges. You're not a murderer until you commit murder, even if you desire to do so. The same is true with various types of sexual conduct.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.