Iâm trying to imagine him arguing this way on behalf of the rapist if it his child had been the victim instead.
iâm trying to imagine him arguing this way on behalf of a car thief no matter who the victim was.
Iâm just guessing but, eat the rich?
âPersky deemed that a longer sentence would have a âsevere impactâ on himâ
I thought. . . that was the point. . .
Persky deemed that a longer sentence would have a âsevere impactâ on him.
An excellent argument for wholesale sentencing reform and amnesty. Where is the Fourth Amendment when you need it?
The rapist needs to go to jail for at least 10 years and the dad needs to be punched repeatedly until the stupid leaves his body.
Maybe if you argued it to him as if the woman was worth something or explained her suffering as it affects another man, these people usually get very, very angry over violations of âproperty rightsâ.
In a better world, maybe the offenderâs father and mother and the victimâs father and mother could have a long talk, decently (as one can muster) and quietly. And in the end some people would have actually learned something.
In this world, maybe they can meet at Springer. Is Springer still a thing? I donât own a TV?
How does that work when the father explicitly supports rape?
Non violent? Isnât this the guy that dragged an unconscious woman into an ally and was literally chased off of her by two Swedish guys?
I at first though what he said must be a typoâthat he meant to say âa steep price to pay for 20 minutes of an actionâ --which is still very, very wrong, but doesnât have nearly the same sociopathic vibeâbut that doesnât fit any kind of normal speech pattern. He really seems to have equated rape with âgetting some actionâ. I guess the rotten fruit really didnât fall far from the diseased tree in this case.
Lots of sites are singling out â20 minutes of actionâ as if he meant it in the sense of âgetting some actionâ, but in context that is obviously not what he meant. I feel like, the overall post is obnoxious in quite a serious way, but spotlighting this one phrase is a kind of smirking playground reaction. Itâs jarring. Itâd be so easy to take the moral high ground, did someone lay a huge fart up there or something?
Does anyone think perhaps he means that two years of imprisonment is too harsh in his mind for a 20 min act, regardless of the act. That is âactionâ in his statement is not a synonym for sexâŚbut meant literally as âhis actionsâ.
to be clear, because lord knows I have to spell it out for BB postersâŚI am NOT condoning what the son did. I am not empathizing with the father. I am not excusing anything at all here. I am just asking if perhaps his meaning was not what we interpret.
And yet youâre here trying to get the moral high ground while surrounding yourself with roses of your own creation.
Keep on, smugbrave moral figure. Youâll win all the internet points one day.
As with the previous poster why should anyone care? Itâs horrible no matter the phrasing. Thereâs no context that makes it okay.
It depends if you believe the point of the criminal justice system is to rehabilitate people or if it is to punish them. Personally I donât see any value to society in a long incarceration for individuals who are extremely unlikely to reoffend. It will in no way change what happened or the effect it had on the woman he raped.
We seem to have an affluenza epidemic.
The people we should REALLY be feeling sorry for are all the poor murderers out there that got HUGE jail times for a measly 1/2 second of trigger-pulling action.
Well, does he âexplicitly supportâ it, or is he just a deluded man, who absolutely adores what a great human being his son is (you know, normally)
Iâm not making excuses or condoning either, Iâm just saying, if the media now wasnât all over this, maybe there would have been a chance for the father to humbly learn the errors of his ways and apopogize.
I dunno.
